Good morning all, hope you are well.
I know it seems like an eternity until Spurs host West Ham in about 10 days time but would just like to hear your thoughts on wether we should persist with the new formation we played against Arsenal or go back to our tried and trusted 4-2-3-1?
The 3-4-2-1 formation looked very good at Arsenal but was it a case of that we had Alli, Lamela and Sissoko out and that forced Poch's hand in to play this way?
Here are what i believe are the pros and cons to playing 3-4-2-1 with the squad we have -
PROS
Walker and Rose can play further forward with less defensive responsibility. They are purposely made for this position - Pace, strength and stamina. Because their starting point is further up the pitch it means that they should be less tired when approaching the attacking third. I do believe that as it stands they make so many lung busting runs and this affects their concentration at the critical moment. This formation will also benefit Trippier who is better going forward than he is defending. Sissoko could probably play as a wing back too.
Alderweireld, Dier and Vertonghen are all very comfortable on the ball and can carry the ball forward out of defence, adding an extra number in midfield allowing Dembele to push forward more to break the lines.
Playing this formation allows the two attackers supporting Kane less defensive responsibility and can play more centrally.
If our usual back three is Dier, Alderweireld and Vertonghen, we know Wimmer looks comfortable in a three, Davies plays as a LCB for Wales, We have CCV and Walker could probably play there too.
The formation allows us to play 2 strikers - Kane and Janssen / Son. We could then eventually bring in a pacy CF to partner Kane long term.
NEGATIVES
By playing an extra CB we are playing with one less attacker. Instead of 3 attackers supporting Kane it will now be two, so Alli, Eriksen, Lamela, Sissoko and Son are vying for two spots.
Who covers Rose if injured or rested? - Trippier and maybe Sissoko can cover Walker so we are reasonably strong there but down the left we are seriously lacking - Davies isnt really a wingback, maybe N'Koudou but would he have the defensive nous to play this role?
If as expected Dier regularly starts at CB and we have Wanyama and Dembele at CM, who covers those two when injured or rested? We only have the inexperienced Winks or we will have to move Alli or Eriksen back there. Not ideal.
In conclusion when everyone is fit this system suits Spurs to the ground and i believe will make us more direct with more attackers playing centrally. We have decent cover for some positions but particularly at LWB and CM we have no cover at all.
Is the 3-4-2-1 merely a plan B or C or is it more than that, a formation that suits our players and style better?
3-4-2-1 or 4-2-3-1 ?
posted on 9/11/16
We essentially played with three at the back for a lot of last season too when you dissect it.
Dier in midfield?
Walker and Rose defenders?
Not always
posted on 9/11/16
4231 is fine... as long as we've got Dembele fit and firing. When he carries the ball forward like he did on Sunday it draws people to him which in turn frees up Lamela, Alli, Eriksen...
... the only problem is that we don't have either a Dembele replica or a deep-lying playmaker to play there if Dembele is out/out of form. Clear oversight in the summer window IMO.
posted on 9/11/16
comment by Edbo (U17933)
posted 6 hours, 6 minutes ago
I'm surprised at how comfortable Wanyama is on the ball, I didn't expect that from him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've watched a few of your games and I agree. He's actually a better passer than Morgan.
posted on 9/11/16
I think 4-2-3-1 is our bread and butter we should stick with that as that's what the players are used to.
The 5-3-2 (or in our case it is a 5-3-1-1) is good to use I like to see us surprise the opposition with it but it is very much a formation for when we are concerned about the opposition. The first thought is to negate them rather than to outplay them.
I don't think we are that flexible in truth as the formations are pretty much the same roles for each player. With the middle centre back sticking instead of being dropped into by the dcm and the centre backs splitting wider. It really isn't much of a change.
Would love to see us play a 4-3-3 against the likes of Sunderland and Burnley at home. To give us something different.
Interesting to note within the next 5 years the default formation is expected to be 5 at the back.
posted on 10/11/16
Interesting points LLM but i wouldn't say our formation is 5-3-2 it was more attacking than that.
You're basically implying that Walker and Rose aren't allowed to get forward and from what i saw its more of a 3-4-2-1.
You constantly speak about 5 at the back but under Pochetinno and the way he wants our attacking players to push up high and press then it will NEVER be 5 at the back.
posted on 10/11/16
Also i believe we have been flexible with our formations this season. I know last season Dier dropped back in between Toby and Jan when our fullbacks pushed forward so it was similar to the system we played at the NLD but it was still a distinct 3-4-2-1. We have also played the usual 4-2-3-1 and 4-1-4-1 with a false number 9.
I also dont think Pochetinno's first thought is to negate the opposition its the complete opposite its to outplay them and have more possession.
Regarding your last point i dont know how there can be a timescale of five years for us to be playing 5 at the back, Conte has changed Chelsea's formation in the last couple of months, Poch changed ours in his first season to 4-2-3-1.
I have seen our recent U19 games and theres no sign of 5 at the back its 4-2-3-1
Against Leverkusen we had Tanganga and Walkes with Eyoma and KWP at fullback.
posted on 10/11/16
Wanyama, to be fair, did have a disciplinary nightmare at Southampton. Been fantastic for us though, on the whole he has fouled intelligently.
I quite like 5 at the back as it gets more out of the wing backs, and I am not convinced of us as an attacking unit so going wide is our best way to create.
posted on 10/11/16
Wanyama has a really soft, happy face.
He kind of reminds me of Mr Staypuft, aka Marshmallow Man from Ghostbusters. The face belies the monster beneath
posted on 10/11/16
Wayama was always more comfortable on the ball than Morgan, genuinely think because he's 'big and black' people stereotype. He's also more comfortable with the ball under pressure than Dier. The difference between Wanyama and the better DMs is his passing, he doesn't have the range and he plays sideways a bit too often. Him and Dembele in big games is a handful for the opposition
posted on 10/11/16
Analog
Waynama & Dembele is a beast partnership