... I need some positive reassurance!
Can someone please give me ANY positive for option A below OVER B or C. I don’t even care about it being empirical based on team or individual performances! Theoretically based on all players, playing to their optimum in each selection...when is A better!?
A)
.................Schmeichel
Ricardo.....Evans.....Magure.....Chilwell
................Mendy Ndidi
........Ghezzal Maddison Gray
.....................Vardy
B)
..................Schmeichel
Ricardo.....Evans....Maguire.....Chilwell
..................Mendy Ndidi
Albrighton/Ghezzal..................Gray
.................Maddison
.....................Vardy
C)
..................Schmeichel
.......CB 1........CB2.........CB3
Ricardo........Mendy..Ndidi......Chilwell
..........Gray/Ghezzal..Maddison
.....................Vardy
Please help...
posted on 21/9/18
I think people are focusing too much on the wrong areas, personnel-wise. Puel is sticking to his ideals of two defensive midfielders and tricky wingers, but it’s not working. We look better when we have a general next to Ndidi (Iborra) and someone who’s not a luxury on one of the wings (Albrighton). There’s nothing wrong with the formation of 4-2-3-1, it just needs to be operated better and with more flexibility to manage different parts of matches instead of believing that we can control them from start to finish.
posted on 21/9/18
I can't unless you drop Ghezzal from option C and have Allbrighton in.
I also wonder if Oki/ Iborra/ Silva would work instead of Ghezzal in option B
posted on 21/9/18
I get what you are saying DM, but what part of what you haven’t referenced, in addition to his focus on more attacking full backs, would mean the other two formations weren’t more likely to be effective.
This is my ponderings - what is it specifically, that Puel is so adamant is/will be better in 4231 than the other formations? The only benefit I see for it, would be if we had two players like Ghezzal and Gray who were a) both playing to a high level B) and a high level specifically within this more narrow 3 behind Vardy....this isn’t the case
?
And I still keep coming back to the question - not only do I not see these other benefits being doable in the other two formations, I think they are more likely to be more successful.
What am I missing?
posted on 21/9/18
I also think the others formations, offer more natural competition for places as well
posted on 21/9/18
*have referenced - not ‘haven’t referenced’
posted on 21/9/18
I dont know about Puel sticking to his two defensive midfielders ideals but tomorrow we play HUDDERSFIELD at HOME, now i know there are no gimmie's in this lge but we are still playing HUDDERSFIELD at HOME, therefore we should go 3 at the back, Evans, Harry, Fuchs. Silva in the middle with Wilf, he moves the ball quicker and normally looks forward. Ricardo and Chilwell wing backs. Madders in a free role, Ian and Vardy up top.
We paly 6 at the back when we don’t have the ball, and 3 when we do, we break quickly with forward looking players use Ricardo and Chilwell for width and some good decision’s in the last third.
4-0 to us.
Oh then I woke up with a great big Puel face looking straight at me……