Bruno is a much better number 10 than Mctominay. It's not even close.
The real difference yesterday was that we played with two 6's rather than not having Bruno.
Mainoo plus either Casemiro/Amrabat has to be the way forward now until the summer. Bruno in the 10.
Yeah I think people forget that Bruno can seem a liability when we don't have adequate support behind him.
In the advanced role yesterday McTominay offered very little, far less than Bruno does.
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah I think people forget that Bruno can seem a liability when we don't have adequate support behind him.
In the advanced role yesterday McTominay offered very little, far less than Bruno does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I got very frustrated yesterday listening and reading the nonsense that we need to sell Bruno now. Mctominay was awful most of the game. Touch like Jimmy Saville.
We all know at Westham he's going to drop Mainoo though and carry on with Mctominay as the 6. I don't think this manager is getting it at all. Bruno's suspension made it easy for him yesterday but this coming weekend he has to leave somebody out and I guarantee he takes the easy option and leaves out the young lad.
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah I think people forget that Bruno can seem a liability when we don't have adequate support behind him.
In the advanced role yesterday McTominay offered very little, far less than Bruno does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I got very frustrated yesterday listening and reading the nonsense that we need to sell Bruno now. Mctominay was awful most of the game. Touch like Jimmy Saville.
We all know at Westham he's going to drop Mainoo though and carry on with Mctominay as the 6. I don't think this manager is getting it at all. Bruno's suspension made it easy for him yesterday but this coming weekend he has to leave somebody out and I guarantee he takes the easy option and leaves out the young lad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sadly I think you are right there.
Hopefully ETH has learned but he seems stubborn in his ways.
I dunno, I think EtH sees the qualities in Mainoo, I mean he has promoted him into the first team and started him in some big games already. But he also seems to understand that he needs to be bedded in slowly, he said Amrabat was started over him in Istanbul because of his experinence and the atmosphere so he clearly is trying to not mess it up with him.
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 19 minutes ago
Yeah I think people forget that Bruno can seem a liability when we don't have adequate support behind him.
In the advanced role yesterday McTominay offered very little, far less than Bruno does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He was just as bad as a normal Bruno game. Lets not forget Mctominay created one of those big chances SE always talks about for Hojlund while playing absolute trash for most of the game.
It's hard for people to understand but maybe we just need players who will try to maintain possession just a little bit more. Mctominay is incapable of it? Bruno has forgotten what ball possession is all about. Captain and vice captain together, completely incapable of passing to an open man with any regularity
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 10 minutes ago
I dunno, I think EtH sees the qualities in Mainoo, I mean he has promoted him into the first team and started him in some big games already. But he also seems to understand that he needs to be bedded in slowly, he said Amrabat was started over him in Istanbul because of his experinence and the atmosphere so he clearly is trying to not mess it up with him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's literally started him in 3 of the most atmospheric grounds in the league and in no home games so far though.
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 47 minutes ago
I think a Bruno, Erikson, mount even would have helped us yesterday
….
Eriksen isn’t good enough to start any more. No idea why anyone thinks Mount would have been an asset. There has been no evidence of this yet.
We could have lost the game by quite a few with Bruno or it could have gone the other way. Evidence of recent times points to us losing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are better than McT in the basics is my point.
Erikson hasn't the legs, but this is compounded by having a MCT or Bruno with 1 of casa/Amrabat/Mainoo. Basically 1 of the latter 3 has to work much much harder and our MF gets sliced.
Get 2 of Amrabat/Mainoo/casa playing and there is less leg work, less ground to cover for the guy in front. They can even have a free role as they have cover.
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah I think people forget that Bruno can seem a liability when we don't have adequate support behind him.
In the advanced role yesterday McTominay offered very little, far less than Bruno does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I got very frustrated yesterday listening and reading the nonsense that we need to sell Bruno now. Mctominay was awful most of the game. Touch like Jimmy Saville.
We all know at Westham he's going to drop Mainoo though and carry on with Mctominay as the 6. I don't think this manager is getting it at all. Bruno's suspension made it easy for him yesterday but this coming weekend he has to leave somebody out and I guarantee he takes the easy option and leaves out the young lad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sadly I think you are right there.
Hopefully ETH has learned but he seems stubborn in his ways.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steadfast not stubborn
Process
After the terrible performance at St James Park EtH maybe felt he needed to take him out the starting lineup. We then beat Chelsea with both our CMs contributing well. Like I said, he's likely to ease him into the team rather than play him ever game.
Fair enough 1982
He could have brought him in for the Bayern game after the Bournemouth sh*tshow though.
Genuine question: is it accurate to say that both Mainoo and Amrabat were being deployed as a second DM? Or was it more the case that we were on the back foot most of the time so our midfielders were also pinned quite deep, meanwhile Mainoo has been kind of typecast as a DM mainly because he's more comfortable on the ball than any of the experienced specialists we have.
On a basic level, we need to get a better balance between defence and attack, and I suspect that comes down more to fine tuning the relative positions of all players than a binary choice between double pivot and single DM. In reality, all three midfielders are going to be shifting and interchanging, dropping into different zones to fill gaps, etc.
comment by Kobra (U19849)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 47 minutes ago
I think a Bruno, Erikson, mount even would have helped us yesterday
….
Eriksen isn’t good enough to start any more. No idea why anyone thinks Mount would have been an asset. There has been no evidence of this yet.
We could have lost the game by quite a few with Bruno or it could have gone the other way. Evidence of recent times points to us losing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are better than McT in the basics is my point.
Erikson hasn't the legs, but this is compounded by having a MCT or Bruno with 1 of casa/Amrabat/Mainoo. Basically 1 of the latter 3 has to work much much harder and our MF gets sliced.
Get 2 of Amrabat/Mainoo/casa playing and there is less leg work, less ground to cover for the guy in front. They can even have a free role as they have cover.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would make you more solid but no more attacking, and you seem to have issues at both ends of the pitch. For me your biggest issue is that the team lacks legs and the FBs are not good enough as modern "step into midfield" full backs.
Just seen that TRS, who understands tactics better than me, has made a similar point on a different thread: man-marking in midfield means the positions of nominal 6s and 8s are actually strongly influenced by where the players they are marking go.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 3 minutes ago
Genuine question: is it accurate to say that both Mainoo and Amrabat were being deployed as a second DM? Or was it more the case that we were on the back foot most of the time so our midfielders were also pinned quite deep, meanwhile Mainoo has been kind of typecast as a DM mainly because he's more comfortable on the ball than any of the experienced specialists we have.
On a basic level, we need to get a better balance between defence and attack, and I suspect that comes down more to fine tuning the relative positions of all players than a binary choice between double pivot and single DM. In reality, all three midfielders are going to be shifting and interchanging, dropping into different zones to fill gaps, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We aren’t playing with a dedicated defensive midfielder. Mainoo isn’t one either, he’s a player that likes to get involved in both halves of the pitch in midfield, from what I’ve seen and read.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 17 seconds ago
Just seen that TRS, who understands tactics better than me, has made a similar point on a different thread: man-marking in midfield means the positions of nominal 6s and 8s are actually strongly influenced by where the players they are marking go.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I saw that, and he put it better than I did in the OP in terms of the team needing to be more compact. All midfielders being comfortable on the ball would help too of course.
I stated the two No6s because to people like me (not fully up to speed with tactics) it at least makes it look like there's no wide open spaces in the middle of the park. When we did show some quality on the ball though we did create chances just through some sharp passing. We need to see more of it.
I think yesterday was an improvement just down to the fact that Ten Hag abandoned the usual half-hearted press and got us playing in a more compact deeper defensive block however there were still quite a few occasions when the space did easily open up so it wasn't perfect by any means but hopefully this signals a permanent change going forward.
What I'd like to see now against the lesser sides at least is maintaining that compact shape but higher up the pitch because it will help us control games, get more men forward more easily and sustain attacks better.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 39 minutes ago
Just seen that TRS, who understands tactics better than me, has made a similar point on a different thread: man-marking in midfield means the positions of nominal 6s and 8s are actually strongly influenced by where the players they are marking go.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been moaning about the man to man midfield tactics for a few months now but interestingly, this was put to ETH in a press conference a week or two ago and he flat out rejected that we go man for man in midfield and that this has never been our plan. I don't know what to make of that comment as it seems entirely at odds with what it looks like we're doing (even last season as well).
I've not seen TRS's post in a different thread but I find the fascination people have around whether we've got a single sitter or two CM's playing more square to each other really quite odd. All the main formations work absolutely fine; 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1, 4-4-2, 3-4-3 etc... But they all work from a defensive standpoint on the same basis; that the distances between players is small and the team is compact and works as a unit. All formations are also vulnerable in the moments after the ball has been lost also, because players are usually starting to move out of their defensive positions and into more adventurous ones. The quicker you lose the ball, the more compounding the issue (which is why ball retention is key, because if you string passes together as a team, you're going to be a bit closer to each other, meaning when you do lose the ball, you're actually reasonably well equipped to win it back as a team due to the distances in possession being a little closer to the idea distances out of possession).
Our issue is that we lose the ball very quickly through the usual suspects, and that the distance between our CF and our CB's is often quite large, meaning that not only is our press more likely to be beaten, but that, once it is in fact been beaten, there's too much space to try and defend across the middle of the pitch.
comment by The Red Side™ (U11275)
posted 49 minutes ago
I think yesterday was an improvement just down to the fact that Ten Hag abandoned the usual half-hearted press and got us playing in a more compact deeper defensive block however there were still quite a few occasions when the space did easily open up so it wasn't perfect by any means but hopefully this signals a permanent change going forward.
What I'd like to see now against the lesser sides at least is maintaining that compact shape but higher up the pitch because it will help us control games, get more men forward more easily and sustain attacks better.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would require qualities and discipline that these players don’t have.
If he goes back to Amrabat Mctominay in CM at the weekend then I honestly think he needs removing from the job asap rather than being allowed to see out the season.
Even Stevie Wonder can see that Mainoo, even at his age, is far more suited to that role than Mctominay is.
Scott just doesn't have the qualities on the ball and intelligence to play that role. His only real use is in attack and I'd much rather have Bruno supporting our attack quite frankly.
We all know what's coming though. Mainoo will miss out.
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 23 seconds ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 39 minutes ago
Just seen that TRS, who understands tactics better than me, has made a similar point on a different thread: man-marking in midfield means the positions of nominal 6s and 8s are actually strongly influenced by where the players they are marking go.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been moaning about the man to man midfield tactics for a few months now but interestingly, this was put to ETH in a press conference a week or two ago and he flat out rejected that we go man for man in midfield and that this has never been our plan. I don't know what to make of that comment as it seems entirely at odds with what it looks like we're doing (even last season as well).
I've not seen TRS's post in a different thread but I find the fascination people have around whether we've got a single sitter or two CM's playing more square to each other really quite odd. All the main formations work absolutely fine; 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1, 4-4-2, 3-4-3 etc... But they all work from a defensive standpoint on the same basis; that the distances between players is small and the team is compact and works as a unit. All formations are also vulnerable in the moments after the ball has been lost also, because players are usually starting to move out of their defensive positions and into more adventurous ones. The quicker you lose the ball, the more compounding the issue (which is why ball retention is key, because if you string passes together as a team, you're going to be a bit closer to each other, meaning when you do lose the ball, you're actually reasonably well equipped to win it back as a team due to the distances in possession being a little closer to the idea distances out of possession).
Our issue is that we lose the ball very quickly through the usual suspects, and that the distance between our CF and our CB's is often quite large, meaning that not only is our press more likely to be beaten, but that, once it is in fact been beaten, there's too much space to try and defend across the middle of the pitch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"....that the distances between players is small and the team is compact and works as a unit...."
"The quicker you lose the ball, the more compounding the issue (which is why ball retention is key, because if you string passes together as a team, you're going to be a bit closer to each other, meaning when you do lose the ball, you're actually reasonably well equipped to win it back as a team due to the distances in possession being a little closer to the idea distances out of possession)."
"...the distance between our CF and our CB's is often quite large, meaning that not only is our press more likely to be beaten..."
I love this. Poor passing/possession players and a system built for defenders we have no hope executing a high line with any consistency.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpWKnMnku0M
Sign in if you want to comment
Mainoo & the midfield
Page 2 of 2
posted on 18/12/23
Bruno is a much better number 10 than Mctominay. It's not even close.
The real difference yesterday was that we played with two 6's rather than not having Bruno.
Mainoo plus either Casemiro/Amrabat has to be the way forward now until the summer. Bruno in the 10.
posted on 18/12/23
Yeah I think people forget that Bruno can seem a liability when we don't have adequate support behind him.
In the advanced role yesterday McTominay offered very little, far less than Bruno does.
posted on 18/12/23
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah I think people forget that Bruno can seem a liability when we don't have adequate support behind him.
In the advanced role yesterday McTominay offered very little, far less than Bruno does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I got very frustrated yesterday listening and reading the nonsense that we need to sell Bruno now. Mctominay was awful most of the game. Touch like Jimmy Saville.
We all know at Westham he's going to drop Mainoo though and carry on with Mctominay as the 6. I don't think this manager is getting it at all. Bruno's suspension made it easy for him yesterday but this coming weekend he has to leave somebody out and I guarantee he takes the easy option and leaves out the young lad.
posted on 18/12/23
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah I think people forget that Bruno can seem a liability when we don't have adequate support behind him.
In the advanced role yesterday McTominay offered very little, far less than Bruno does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I got very frustrated yesterday listening and reading the nonsense that we need to sell Bruno now. Mctominay was awful most of the game. Touch like Jimmy Saville.
We all know at Westham he's going to drop Mainoo though and carry on with Mctominay as the 6. I don't think this manager is getting it at all. Bruno's suspension made it easy for him yesterday but this coming weekend he has to leave somebody out and I guarantee he takes the easy option and leaves out the young lad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sadly I think you are right there.
Hopefully ETH has learned but he seems stubborn in his ways.
posted on 18/12/23
I dunno, I think EtH sees the qualities in Mainoo, I mean he has promoted him into the first team and started him in some big games already. But he also seems to understand that he needs to be bedded in slowly, he said Amrabat was started over him in Istanbul because of his experinence and the atmosphere so he clearly is trying to not mess it up with him.
posted on 18/12/23
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 19 minutes ago
Yeah I think people forget that Bruno can seem a liability when we don't have adequate support behind him.
In the advanced role yesterday McTominay offered very little, far less than Bruno does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He was just as bad as a normal Bruno game. Lets not forget Mctominay created one of those big chances SE always talks about for Hojlund while playing absolute trash for most of the game.
It's hard for people to understand but maybe we just need players who will try to maintain possession just a little bit more. Mctominay is incapable of it? Bruno has forgotten what ball possession is all about. Captain and vice captain together, completely incapable of passing to an open man with any regularity
posted on 18/12/23
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 10 minutes ago
I dunno, I think EtH sees the qualities in Mainoo, I mean he has promoted him into the first team and started him in some big games already. But he also seems to understand that he needs to be bedded in slowly, he said Amrabat was started over him in Istanbul because of his experinence and the atmosphere so he clearly is trying to not mess it up with him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He's literally started him in 3 of the most atmospheric grounds in the league and in no home games so far though.
posted on 18/12/23
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 47 minutes ago
I think a Bruno, Erikson, mount even would have helped us yesterday
….
Eriksen isn’t good enough to start any more. No idea why anyone thinks Mount would have been an asset. There has been no evidence of this yet.
We could have lost the game by quite a few with Bruno or it could have gone the other way. Evidence of recent times points to us losing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are better than McT in the basics is my point.
Erikson hasn't the legs, but this is compounded by having a MCT or Bruno with 1 of casa/Amrabat/Mainoo. Basically 1 of the latter 3 has to work much much harder and our MF gets sliced.
Get 2 of Amrabat/Mainoo/casa playing and there is less leg work, less ground to cover for the guy in front. They can even have a free role as they have cover.
posted on 18/12/23
comment by The Process (U20671)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by Glazers Out (SE85) (U21241)
posted 28 seconds ago
comment by manutd1982 (U6633)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah I think people forget that Bruno can seem a liability when we don't have adequate support behind him.
In the advanced role yesterday McTominay offered very little, far less than Bruno does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I got very frustrated yesterday listening and reading the nonsense that we need to sell Bruno now. Mctominay was awful most of the game. Touch like Jimmy Saville.
We all know at Westham he's going to drop Mainoo though and carry on with Mctominay as the 6. I don't think this manager is getting it at all. Bruno's suspension made it easy for him yesterday but this coming weekend he has to leave somebody out and I guarantee he takes the easy option and leaves out the young lad.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sadly I think you are right there.
Hopefully ETH has learned but he seems stubborn in his ways.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steadfast not stubborn
posted on 18/12/23
Process
After the terrible performance at St James Park EtH maybe felt he needed to take him out the starting lineup. We then beat Chelsea with both our CMs contributing well. Like I said, he's likely to ease him into the team rather than play him ever game.
posted on 18/12/23
Fair enough 1982
He could have brought him in for the Bayern game after the Bournemouth sh*tshow though.
posted on 18/12/23
Genuine question: is it accurate to say that both Mainoo and Amrabat were being deployed as a second DM? Or was it more the case that we were on the back foot most of the time so our midfielders were also pinned quite deep, meanwhile Mainoo has been kind of typecast as a DM mainly because he's more comfortable on the ball than any of the experienced specialists we have.
On a basic level, we need to get a better balance between defence and attack, and I suspect that comes down more to fine tuning the relative positions of all players than a binary choice between double pivot and single DM. In reality, all three midfielders are going to be shifting and interchanging, dropping into different zones to fill gaps, etc.
posted on 18/12/23
comment by Kobra (U19849)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 47 minutes ago
I think a Bruno, Erikson, mount even would have helped us yesterday
….
Eriksen isn’t good enough to start any more. No idea why anyone thinks Mount would have been an asset. There has been no evidence of this yet.
We could have lost the game by quite a few with Bruno or it could have gone the other way. Evidence of recent times points to us losing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are better than McT in the basics is my point.
Erikson hasn't the legs, but this is compounded by having a MCT or Bruno with 1 of casa/Amrabat/Mainoo. Basically 1 of the latter 3 has to work much much harder and our MF gets sliced.
Get 2 of Amrabat/Mainoo/casa playing and there is less leg work, less ground to cover for the guy in front. They can even have a free role as they have cover.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would make you more solid but no more attacking, and you seem to have issues at both ends of the pitch. For me your biggest issue is that the team lacks legs and the FBs are not good enough as modern "step into midfield" full backs.
posted on 18/12/23
Just seen that TRS, who understands tactics better than me, has made a similar point on a different thread: man-marking in midfield means the positions of nominal 6s and 8s are actually strongly influenced by where the players they are marking go.
posted on 18/12/23
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 3 minutes ago
Genuine question: is it accurate to say that both Mainoo and Amrabat were being deployed as a second DM? Or was it more the case that we were on the back foot most of the time so our midfielders were also pinned quite deep, meanwhile Mainoo has been kind of typecast as a DM mainly because he's more comfortable on the ball than any of the experienced specialists we have.
On a basic level, we need to get a better balance between defence and attack, and I suspect that comes down more to fine tuning the relative positions of all players than a binary choice between double pivot and single DM. In reality, all three midfielders are going to be shifting and interchanging, dropping into different zones to fill gaps, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We aren’t playing with a dedicated defensive midfielder. Mainoo isn’t one either, he’s a player that likes to get involved in both halves of the pitch in midfield, from what I’ve seen and read.
posted on 18/12/23
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 17 seconds ago
Just seen that TRS, who understands tactics better than me, has made a similar point on a different thread: man-marking in midfield means the positions of nominal 6s and 8s are actually strongly influenced by where the players they are marking go.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I saw that, and he put it better than I did in the OP in terms of the team needing to be more compact. All midfielders being comfortable on the ball would help too of course.
I stated the two No6s because to people like me (not fully up to speed with tactics) it at least makes it look like there's no wide open spaces in the middle of the park. When we did show some quality on the ball though we did create chances just through some sharp passing. We need to see more of it.
posted on 18/12/23
I think yesterday was an improvement just down to the fact that Ten Hag abandoned the usual half-hearted press and got us playing in a more compact deeper defensive block however there were still quite a few occasions when the space did easily open up so it wasn't perfect by any means but hopefully this signals a permanent change going forward.
What I'd like to see now against the lesser sides at least is maintaining that compact shape but higher up the pitch because it will help us control games, get more men forward more easily and sustain attacks better.
posted on 18/12/23
TRS
posted on 18/12/23
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 39 minutes ago
Just seen that TRS, who understands tactics better than me, has made a similar point on a different thread: man-marking in midfield means the positions of nominal 6s and 8s are actually strongly influenced by where the players they are marking go.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been moaning about the man to man midfield tactics for a few months now but interestingly, this was put to ETH in a press conference a week or two ago and he flat out rejected that we go man for man in midfield and that this has never been our plan. I don't know what to make of that comment as it seems entirely at odds with what it looks like we're doing (even last season as well).
I've not seen TRS's post in a different thread but I find the fascination people have around whether we've got a single sitter or two CM's playing more square to each other really quite odd. All the main formations work absolutely fine; 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1, 4-4-2, 3-4-3 etc... But they all work from a defensive standpoint on the same basis; that the distances between players is small and the team is compact and works as a unit. All formations are also vulnerable in the moments after the ball has been lost also, because players are usually starting to move out of their defensive positions and into more adventurous ones. The quicker you lose the ball, the more compounding the issue (which is why ball retention is key, because if you string passes together as a team, you're going to be a bit closer to each other, meaning when you do lose the ball, you're actually reasonably well equipped to win it back as a team due to the distances in possession being a little closer to the idea distances out of possession).
Our issue is that we lose the ball very quickly through the usual suspects, and that the distance between our CF and our CB's is often quite large, meaning that not only is our press more likely to be beaten, but that, once it is in fact been beaten, there's too much space to try and defend across the middle of the pitch.
posted on 18/12/23
comment by The Red Side™ (U11275)
posted 49 minutes ago
I think yesterday was an improvement just down to the fact that Ten Hag abandoned the usual half-hearted press and got us playing in a more compact deeper defensive block however there were still quite a few occasions when the space did easily open up so it wasn't perfect by any means but hopefully this signals a permanent change going forward.
What I'd like to see now against the lesser sides at least is maintaining that compact shape but higher up the pitch because it will help us control games, get more men forward more easily and sustain attacks better.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would require qualities and discipline that these players don’t have.
posted on 18/12/23
If he goes back to Amrabat Mctominay in CM at the weekend then I honestly think he needs removing from the job asap rather than being allowed to see out the season.
Even Stevie Wonder can see that Mainoo, even at his age, is far more suited to that role than Mctominay is.
Scott just doesn't have the qualities on the ball and intelligence to play that role. His only real use is in attack and I'd much rather have Bruno supporting our attack quite frankly.
We all know what's coming though. Mainoo will miss out.
posted on 18/12/23
comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 23 seconds ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 39 minutes ago
Just seen that TRS, who understands tactics better than me, has made a similar point on a different thread: man-marking in midfield means the positions of nominal 6s and 8s are actually strongly influenced by where the players they are marking go.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been moaning about the man to man midfield tactics for a few months now but interestingly, this was put to ETH in a press conference a week or two ago and he flat out rejected that we go man for man in midfield and that this has never been our plan. I don't know what to make of that comment as it seems entirely at odds with what it looks like we're doing (even last season as well).
I've not seen TRS's post in a different thread but I find the fascination people have around whether we've got a single sitter or two CM's playing more square to each other really quite odd. All the main formations work absolutely fine; 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1, 4-4-2, 3-4-3 etc... But they all work from a defensive standpoint on the same basis; that the distances between players is small and the team is compact and works as a unit. All formations are also vulnerable in the moments after the ball has been lost also, because players are usually starting to move out of their defensive positions and into more adventurous ones. The quicker you lose the ball, the more compounding the issue (which is why ball retention is key, because if you string passes together as a team, you're going to be a bit closer to each other, meaning when you do lose the ball, you're actually reasonably well equipped to win it back as a team due to the distances in possession being a little closer to the idea distances out of possession).
Our issue is that we lose the ball very quickly through the usual suspects, and that the distance between our CF and our CB's is often quite large, meaning that not only is our press more likely to be beaten, but that, once it is in fact been beaten, there's too much space to try and defend across the middle of the pitch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"....that the distances between players is small and the team is compact and works as a unit...."
"The quicker you lose the ball, the more compounding the issue (which is why ball retention is key, because if you string passes together as a team, you're going to be a bit closer to each other, meaning when you do lose the ball, you're actually reasonably well equipped to win it back as a team due to the distances in possession being a little closer to the idea distances out of possession)."
"...the distance between our CF and our CB's is often quite large, meaning that not only is our press more likely to be beaten..."
I love this. Poor passing/possession players and a system built for defenders we have no hope executing a high line with any consistency.
posted on 19/12/23
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpWKnMnku0M
Page 2 of 2