Wingers

[angelman]

Just been thinking and like others, wondering about where the width is going to come from. Could the wing backs (ie Shaw/Clyne) do the job, in a sort of 5-3-2 role?

[Smirking_Saint]

That is where the width comes from, did you not see the other thread on this ?

 

(That wasnt a dig)

[angelman]

No...best get the glasses on then...!

[angelman]

Had a quick look and can only see transfer threads. Which thread was it on?

[Smirking_Saint]

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?46438-The-4-2-3-1-system-IDIOTS-guide-(idiots-please-read-this)#.UiX3NWS9Kc0

 

I posted a lot on it here but there was another thread that linked an article, basically your right about the full backs

[Window Cleaner]

We haven't got any so no need to discuss them here then. We play 4-2-3-1 with the full backs getting forward when they can, Fox doesn't do that so when he deputises for Shaw we're bound to be short on that side. On Saturday we tried to push Morgan out there, god knows why but as we had no JRod it was about the only choice. Mauricio has to get the selection right which means he has to drop Lambert and no doubt JWP and replace them with Gaston and JRod, once that's done the problem of width won't exist any more.

[richard]

Damn, I was hoping to read another thread about people whinging.

[Matthew Le God]

Just been thinking and like others, wondering about where the width is going to come from. Could the wing backs (ie Shaw/Clyne) do the job, in a sort of 5-3-2 role?

 

Pochettino doesn't use wingers, the width comes from very attacking full backs like Shaw and Clyne in the 4-2-3-1 system.

[hypochondriac]

Pochettino doesn't use wingers, the width comes from very attacking full backs like Shaw and Clyne in the 4-2-3-1 system.

 

Not really in evidence against Norwich.

[Matthew Le God]

Not really in evidence against Norwich.

 

Very selective in what I said Mr Hypochondriac, Shaw and Clyne didn't play vs Norwich.

[hypochondriac]

Very selective in what I said Mr Hypochondriac, Shaw and Clyne didn't play vs Norwich.

 

Exactly.

[benjii]

It depends what you mean by "winger", as to whether or not we use wingers.

 

If you mean someone whose preference is to boot it up the line past the full-back like a glorious streak of greased lightning - a la Neil Heaney or David Lee - then, no, we don't use them really (slightly better examples being Robben, Moses and, of course, Neil McCann).

 

If you mean a player who adopts wide starting positions when we are in possession then, yes, we do use them. The wide two in the three will often start in very wide positions when we are building attacks. They are playing on the wing, it's just that the phases of our play normally involve more passes to enable the full-backs to push on before we attempt to get "round the back" in wide areas, rather than the "winger" simply getting their head down and legging it to the line. As part of those passing phases the wide players will naturally move around to look for space to receive the ball and link up the play. This is not really much of a change from how we employed "wingers" under Adkins when we went through League One and Champ. We played a more traditional 4-4-2 but the wide players were typically the likes of Lallana, Guly, Chaplow, who are not "wingers" in the "take him on" style (only Chamberlain really had that ability and he wasn't around at all in the Champ). We would often rely on Richardson/Butterfield or Fox/Harding supplying the ball into the box after those players created space. The difference now is that simply pinging it to the far post for Lambert to head in or knock down is a less reliable play (although it has its place) as the defending is much better. If that premise is accepted then you need to get a few more players with guile in central positions so that there are other options.

[Turkish]

Very selective in what I said Mr Hypochondriac, Shaw and Clyne didn't play vs Norwich.

 

so if they're out what happens?

[Cascadia Saint]

so if they're out what happens?

 

We have less width and we aren't as effective on the wings, which matters more if we don't score the goals that we really have no excuse not to be scoring.

[hypochondriac]

We have less width and we aren't as effective on the wings, which matters more if we don't score the goals that we really have no excuse not to be scoring.

 

Except that if we have no threat on the wings we are very slow and predictable and we find it a lot more difficult to score.

[Turkish]

Except that if we have no threat on the wings we are very slow and predictable and we find it a lot more difficult to score.

 

as no goals in open play testifies.

[Smirking_Saint]

so if they're out what happens?

 

We play like we played against Norwich, like Hypo said we are slow and compact. I wouldnt say predictable as such and with the players we have we still should be good enough IMO but our attack certainly loses a dimension.

 

My real concern is the lack of goals for the last 6 months or so(ish)

[hypochondriac]

We play like we played against Norwich, like Hypo said we are slow and compact. I wouldnt say predictable as such and with the players we have we still should be good enough IMO but our attack certainly loses a dimension.

 

My real concern is the lack of goals for the last 6 months or so(ish)

 

Except that the available evidence suggests not. Basically we are left hoping that Clyne and Shaw stay fit at least until January if we want to have a successful season that is better than mediocrity. Big ask IMO.

[Cascadia Saint]

Except that if we have no threat on the wings we are very slow and predictable and we find it a lot more difficult to score.

 

I still think with the attacking options through our midfield and our front 4 we can and should beat a lot of teams playing through the middle, and especially especially on the break. Our attacking players are too good not to be creating more clear chances.

[hypochondriac]

I still think with the attacking options through our midfield and our front 4 we can and should beat a lot of teams playing through the middle, and especially especially on the break. Our attacking players are too good not to be creating more clear chances.

 

Why do you think this has not been the case then?

[Batman]

Why do you think this has not been the case then?

 

we did create a fair few chances so far?

 

many of which were good chances

 

I would suggest spurs are way too good not to create good chances. even though they have not scored from open play

[Cascadia Saint]

Why do you think this has not been the case then?

 

Because they haven't been playing up to the standard I believe they can. Whether that's form, tactics, chemistry or laziness, who the **** knows.

[hypochondriac]

we did create a fair few chances so far?

 

many of which were good chances

 

I would suggest spurs are way too good not to create good chances. even though they have not scored from open play

 

I don't think we have created much. Hardly anything against Norwich, not a whole lot against West Brom either although we were the better team. Sunderland we had a ton of the ball but how much did we make the keeper work?

[Batman]

I don't think we have created much. Hardly anything against Norwich, not a whole lot against West Brom either although we were the better team. Sunderland we had a ton of the ball but how much did we make the keeper work?

 

same with spurs I guess

[hypochondriac]

same with spurs I guess

 

No idea. I haven't watched every Spurs game, though I suspect not all of their new signings have played yet and had an impact.

[Batman]

No idea. I haven't watched every Spurs game, though I suspect not all of their new signings have played yet and had an impact.

 

I have watched their first 3 games, as well as ours

[suspect everyone]

Agreed, our width comes from our fullbacks and it works well.

 

However we'll need to keep both Shaw and Clyne fit all season, as their deputies (Fox and Chambers) don't have the attributes to perform the same role.

 

Clyne has a good fitness record but Shaw has recently become quite injury prone. Appreciate this sometimes happens with young players, but it is a little concerning.

 

Where does the width come from when they're injured? I dont see anyone in the squad who can provide it. Are we meant to resign ourselves to poor performances the moment either of these two are out of the squad?

 

Confident Pochetinno will come up with something, but performances so far have been a little inflexible.

[hypochondriac]

I have watched their first 3 games, as well as ours

 

So presumably you will have noticed that not all of their new signings have played yet and had an impact.

[Batman]

So presumably you will have noticed that not all of their new signings have played yet and had an impact.

 

they have all played, apart from erikson and that defender

Lamela looks good

[hypochondriac]

they have all played, apart from erikson and that defender

Lamela looks good

 

So not all of them then. Unlike saints.

[hypochondriac]

Agreed, our width comes from our fullbacks and it works well.

 

However we'll need to keep both Shaw and Clyne fit all season, as their deputies (Fox and Chambers) don't have the attributes to perform the same role.

 

Clyne has a good fitness record but Shaw has recently become quite injury prone. Appreciate this sometimes happens with young players, but it is a little concerning.

 

Where does the width come from when they're injured? I dont see anyone in the squad who can provide it. Are we meant to resign ourselves to poor performances the moment either of these two are out of the squad?

 

Confident Pochetinno will come up with something, but performances so far have been a little inflexible.

 

Yes exactly this. Excellent post.

[Batman]

So not all of them then. Unlike saints.

 

uf we had 6 new signings, I suspect not all of ours would have played

erikson was unable to play as he was signed too late

 

so that meant, what..5 played?

 

either way, they have not scored from open play and created less than us probably

[hypochondriac]

uf we had 6 new signings, I suspect not all of ours would have played

erikson was unable to play as he was signed too late

 

so that meant, what..5 played?

 

either way, they have not scored from open play and created less than us probably

 

I'm not sure are you? Lamela has played against Arsenal so far so clearly a much more difficult game than Norwich Swansea or Sunderland. The point is that Tottenham have a greater squad depth than us and are able to adapt to play a different way. Our goal drought is from last season as well as this one and I think most would agree that without Shaw and Clyne we really need to come up with something different so we can get a result without them. Not sure why you are obsessed with comparing us to Spurs.

[Batman]

I'm not sure are you? Lamela has played against Arsenal so far so clearly a much more difficult game than Norwich Swansea or Sunderland. The point is that Tottenham have a greater squad depth than us and are able to adapt to play a different way. Our goal drought is from last season as well as this one and I think most would agree that without Shaw and Clyne we really need to come up with something different so we can get a result without them. Not sure why you are obsessed with comparing us to Spurs.

spurs were dragged to 5th by bale, mostly. is it a coincidence that they have not scored from open play since. throw in a few games end of last season where he scored the winner (against us, newcastle).

 

anyway, im sure we will be fine

 

as for obsessed. I have posted about 5 posts on the issues. hardly 'obsessed'

[S-Clarke]

I'm not sure are you? Lamela has played against Arsenal so far so clearly a much more difficult game than Norwich Swansea or Sunderland. The point is that Tottenham have a greater squad depth than us and are able to adapt to play a different way. Our goal drought is from last season as well as this one and I think most would agree that without Shaw and Clyne we really need to come up with something different so we can get a result without them. Not sure why you are obsessed with comparing us to Spurs.

 

Why are you even going to the effort to debate this? It's pointless.

 

3 games, we've only played 3 games. I've seen many a player have a great start, and then become ****, I've also seen players have slow starts and then become stars. 3 games isn't enough time to judge it either way, and to be honest trying to make our our new additions have been rubbish is pretty silly really.

[hypochondriac]

Why are you even going to the effort to debate this? It's pointless.

 

3 games, we've only played 3 games. I've seen many a player have a great start, and then become ****, I've also seen players have slow starts and then become stars. 3 games isn't enough time to judge it either way, and to be honest trying to make our our new additions have been rubbish is pretty silly really.

 

Pretty pathetic comment from yourself. I haven't said that at all and in fact yesterday I said this:

 

So looks like nothing today then. I'm a little disappointed that we are weaker on the right now than when the window opened and we have very little pace. We have clearly strengthened well in other areas though like cb which appears to be a great buy. I do think if we fail to strengthen on the right it will haunt us.

 

So have never said the new signings are rubbish you are just making things up.

[Georgie]

I'm hoping there won't be too many games where both Clyne and Shaw are missing. Saturday was concerning, it's obvious we are going to struggle to create chances when these two are out. Hopefully once Chambers becomes more confident he can push up more, but for me Clyne has to start against West Ham.

I'm assuming Targett isn't anywhere near ready to be back up for Shaw yet?

[aintforever]

Was the lack of Clyne and Shaw the problem, or the lack of pace up front. IMO the 4-2-3-1 system works best if you have some natural wide players or runners in the 3 behind the striker.

 

I think if there is no pace in the front four we will have problems regardless of how fast our full backs are.

[hypochondriac]

Was the lack of Clyne and Shaw the problem, or the lack of pace up front. IMO the 4-2-3-1 system works best if you have some natural wide players or runners in the 3 behind the striker.

 

I think if there is no pace in the front four we will have problems regardless of how fast our full backs are.

 

Well if that is the case then we are really stuffed.

[Georgie]

Was the lack of Clyne and Shaw the problem, or the lack of pace up front. IMO the 4-2-3-1 system works best if you have some natural wide players or runners in the 3 behind the striker.

 

I think if there is no pace in the front four we will have problems regardless of how fast our full backs are.

 

I reckon it would have been better if Shaw or Clyne played, but I guess we will never know. We created many chances against Sunderland with Shaw then Clyne playing, it was just a case of not being able to finish them off. But then I guess Jay Rod was playing so that could of been the difference.

[verlaine1979]

Surely we don't really need to debate whether it is better for players to have pace than not? I'm trying, but can't really think of a great club side in the last 20 years or so where the main element of their attacking threat hasn't been the ability of one or more of their key forwards to run with the ball at speed.

 

I've seen a few people say over the past few days that it isn't about the pace of the players, but the pace at which you move the ball. Unfortunately that isn't true - pretty much the entire Barcelona outfield are very good at quick passing and creating space, but when they don't have Messi running at the defence with the ball, committing opponents and creating opportunities for the overload, they can actually be quite dull and ineffective going forward.

[hypochondriac]

Surely we don't really need to debate whether it is better for players to have pace than not? I'm trying, but can't really think of a great club side in the last 20 years or so where the main element of their attacking threat hasn't been the ability of one or more of their key forwards to run with the ball at speed.

 

I've seen a few people say over the past few days that it isn't about the pace of the players, but the pace at which you move the ball. Unfortunately that isn't true - pretty much the entire Barcelona outfield are very good at quick passing and creating space, but when they don't have Messi running at the defence with the ball, committing opponents and creating opportunities for the overload, they can actually be quite dull and ineffective going forward.

 

Exactly. Good to see there are quite a few people who think this.

[Smirking_Saint]

Except that the available evidence suggests not. Basically we are left hoping that Clyne and Shaw stay fit at least until January if we want to have a successful season that is better than mediocrity. Big ask IMO.

 

I said should be Hypo, the talent they have they certainly should be. But agreed, we have not seen it yet, I fear the dropping of a certain cult hero would help

[Smirking_Saint]

they have all played, apart from erikson and that defender

Lamela looks good

 

Did he ? I know he is a good player but he certainly didnt look worth 30m on his brief cameo against Arsenal

[Professor]

Jesus said the team doesn't play in fixed positions but from positions. I take that to mean that any player can move out to the wing and interchange. Lovren in the Norwich penalty area seemed a good example if playing from a position.

[Pugwash]

I get the impression that MP isn't too worried about width and would rather persevere with trying to play through the middle. It's almost as if he wants to carry on playing that way regardless, in the belief that the players will get better at it and start to create more openings.