Puellegrino

[Kingsbridge Saint]

Well, our new guy has been here long enough to impose his style, and in response to Watford we get a change of personnel but no change of system, or philosophy.

 

For my liking I would prefer two up front, but like Puel he stubbornly persists with just the one. I could live with that if he played Gabbi as an advanced midfielder supporting Austin or Long - Gabbi is a top class player, Italian international - he might as well leave the way he is being mis-used.

 

Then there is the pace of play - so often when we have the opportunity to break quickly we play possession first recycling the ball backwards and slowing things down.

I thought Puel was sacked so we could move to a more attacking style?

 

I have seen no evidence of any improvement in the way we play and it just looks like the same unimaginative possession based game straight out of the UEFA Coaching Manual.

 

We have had an easy start to this season, sit mid-table, which is OK, but still look largely impotent.

 

Is he capable of getting us playing entertaining winning football?

 

Worried, but still patient is where I am at.

[Saint Garrett]

2 up front is rare,

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Shance]

Problem with playing 2 up front these days is that nobody else does it and a lot of teams use wing backs to assist the midfield, so our midfield would be totally overrun and we'd get dicked. Could work against some teams though but imo it would see us soundly beaten in midfield, which is the most important battle on the pitch.

[benjii]

Problem with playing 2 up front these days is that nobody else does it and a lot of teams use wing backs to assist the midfield, so our midfield would be totally overrun and we'd get dicked. Could work against some teams though but imo it would see us soundly beaten in midfield, which is the most important battle on the pitch.

 

It's fine if you want the rest of the team to sit deep and then you just look to counter quickly with direct balls. But, as you say, you are going to surrender the lion's share of possession.

 

Leicester did it and, through some weird miracle, won the league. The next team following that sort of blueprint with any sort of mediocre modicum of "success" is probably West Brom and I'm ****ed if I want to watch Pulis-ball over our current style.

 

So, basically, as you say, no-one apart from the likes of Man City really plays an attacking style with two strikers.

 

We could try and we might score a few more but we'd probably get stuffed more as well.

[captainchris]

Problem with playing 2 up front these days is that nobody else does it and a lot of teams use wing backs to assist the midfield, so our midfield would be totally overrun and we'd get dicked. Could work against some teams though but imo it would see us soundly beaten in midfield, which is the most important battle on the pitch.

 

This, however we do need our midfield to actually make runs very advanced and that doesn't happen...

[LuckyNumber7]

I'd like to see us play 352/532 with Cedric and Bertrand as wing backs, and Gabbi up front with either Austin or Long. That formation to me is the one that is best suited to the players we have, would allow us two strikers on the pitch, a solid midfield, and three good central defenders. MP does seem rather stubborn with the formation though.

[danjosaint]

If were sticking to yesterday's formation id rather have Gabbi up top and long instead of Redmond, he is a cra* player with cra* attitude. Need to play long there until boufal finds some form

[Alain Perrin]

I don't agree with 442 - it's yesterday's formation. I do agree with playing Gabi up front and Long in place of Tadic or Redmond. Long gives you a "run till I am dead, ankle biting" attitude that scares other teams and makes space for others.

 

Redmond rightly won plaudits last year but needs a rest and to regain his confidence - he lo Is a shadow of early last season

[Sidney Fudpucker the 3rd]

If were sticking to yesterday's formation id rather have Gabbi up top and long instead of Redmond, he is a cra* player with cra* attitude. Need to play long there until boufal finds some form

 

Been saying Long should start ahead of Redmond since last season. Long's work rate is superb. Redmond dips in and out of games and has no end product. How he's one of the first names on the team sheet is beyond me.

[mrfahaji]

If were sticking to yesterday's formation id rather have Gabbi up top and long instead of Redmond, he is a cra* player with cra* attitude. Need to play long there until boufal finds some form

 

Fine idea, but how is Boufal going to find some form if he doesn't play?

[DuncanRG]

Were Adkins, Pochettino and Koeman stubborn in persisting with a lone striker?

[Dusic]

Only two types of PL sides play with 2 strikers:

 

- Teams like Burnley or Leicester who happily concede possession and play direct

 

- Teams like City or Spurs who can afford to have one less midfielder and still control the match because they are so good.

 

Its pretty obvious we are in neither category.

 

One/two up front is not a guide to whether or not you play attacking football.

 

Our area to improve is the setup of the three behind the striker and their attacking intent and the positions they take up.

[tajjuk]

I'd like to see us play 352/532 with Cedric and Bertrand as wing backs, and Gabbi up front with either Austin or Long. That formation to me is the one that is best suited to the players we have, would allow us two strikers on the pitch, a solid midfield, and three good central defenders. MP does seem rather stubborn with the formation though.

 

I have a feeling this may happen once VVD is up and running.

 

Basically all our best players are defenders or defensive mids really - Hoedt, VVD, Romeu, Lemina, Cedric, Bertrand, with Stephens and Yoshida also being very solid and consistent so when we have 6 centre-backs on the books a wing-back system with 3 centre-backs makes sense.

 

As does two up top when we have 3 strikers that don't seem to do well playing on their own AND our attacking mids are completely misfiring.

 

Only two types of PL sides play with 2 strikers:

 

- Teams like Burnley or Leicester who happily concede possession and play direct

 

- Teams like City or Spurs who can afford to have one less midfielder and still control the match because they are so good.

 

Its pretty obvious we are in neither category.

 

One/two up front is not a guide to whether or not you play attacking football.

 

Our area to improve is the setup of the three behind the striker and their attacking intent and the positions they take up.

 

Considering the quality of our defender, full backs and defensive mids I think we can easily accommodate it. The likes of Hoedt, Stephens and VVD are all very comfortable on the ball, bring it out of defence and have a good range of passing so a back 3 of Hoedt, VVD, Stephens/Yoshida would give licence to one of them to push out of defence into midfield more, allowing Lemina and Romeu to push up further and give us enough in the middle to accommodate two strikers.

 

I expect to see him try it again once VVD is up to full speed and Austin is fit.

Edited 17 September, 2017 by tajjuk

[Lets B Avenue]

His successor at Alaves has done a "Frank de Boer".

 

http://www.goal.com/en/news/alaves-sack-zubeldia-woeful-start-laliga/1uatvayqpox0q1b71dpk8xu2uf

[baggytrousers]

Well, our new guy has been here long enough to impose his style, and in response to Watford we get a change of personnel but no change of system, or philosophy.

 

For my liking I would prefer two up front, but like Puel he stubbornly persists with just the one. I could live with that if he played Gabbi as an advanced midfielder supporting Austin or Long - Gabbi is a top class player, Italian international - he might as well leave the way he is being mis-used.

 

Then there is the pace of play - so often when we have the opportunity to break quickly we play possession first recycling the ball backwards and slowing things down.

I thought Puel was sacked so we could move to a more attacking style?

 

I have seen no evidence of any improvement in the way we play and it just looks like the same unimaginative possession based game straight out of the UEFA Coaching Manual.

 

We have had an easy start to this season, sit mid-table, which is OK, but still look largely impotent.

 

Is he capable of getting us playing entertaining winning football?

 

Worried, but still patient is where I am at.

 

 

If you pop over to the Koeman thread you'll discover that it's way too early in the season to judge a manager ...... apparently.

[Lukee]

Very difficult to argue that a manager can completely change the style of football when the attacking personnel is exactly the same as last season. You also have to admit the pressing has been much higher than it was, and the midfield certainly feels stronger. The difference between a Lemina-Romeu midfield and a Davis-Romeu midfield is evident. 1 up top is the way to go. Absolutely no evidence that 2 up top would work in our team, especially after the game at Wolves.

 

There is definite change from last season and we need to get rid of this ridiculous Puel hangover.

[shurlock]

Pellegrino has a stronger squad and a less congested fixture list than Puel, meaning he has more to work with and a better chance of imposing his style. Of course that assumes in the first place that he has a style and its distinctive from Puel’s.

Edited 18 September, 2017 by shurlock