- Oct 17, 2006
- 10,703
- 25,278
Exactly! That was the team I proposed before the match! We more than likely would have still got beaten, but at least I would not have the likes of Keane and Huddlstone upsetting my ulcer!
What Would You have Changed?
- Thread starter the watson
- Start date
AllSeeingEye
YP Lee's Spiritual Guide
- Apr 20, 2005
- 3,085
- 434
I would have gone with:
..............Gomes................
Corluka Dawson Bassong BAE
...Bentley Jenas Wilson Bale...
.......Keane......................
................Crouch...........
I would have played long ball towards the end of each half rather than from the get go.
I would have given Palacios and Hudd some passing exercises in the week.
I wouldn't have risked King against a side with that sort of pace - it's too much for him, and a risk for the whole season - besides, Dawson looked hungry the other day and deserved a shot.
Kranjcar might have been another option to try out in a diamond if things werent working on the wings.
I might have put Pav on a little earlier too, but the damage had been done by then.
Had it been 1-0 at half time it could have been v different.
The second goal killed us off, it was such a blow to the confidence of the team and a big boost to Fab and co that we never recovered esp given the timing of the goals too.
Second half was pure shite with no creation at all really, we must do way better than this.
..............Gomes................
Corluka Dawson Bassong BAE
...Bentley Jenas Wilson Bale...
.......Keane......................
................Crouch...........
I would have played long ball towards the end of each half rather than from the get go.
I would have given Palacios and Hudd some passing exercises in the week.
I wouldn't have risked King against a side with that sort of pace - it's too much for him, and a risk for the whole season - besides, Dawson looked hungry the other day and deserved a shot.
Kranjcar might have been another option to try out in a diamond if things werent working on the wings.
I might have put Pav on a little earlier too, but the damage had been done by then.
Had it been 1-0 at half time it could have been v different.
The second goal killed us off, it was such a blow to the confidence of the team and a big boost to Fab and co that we never recovered esp given the timing of the goals too.
Second half was pure shite with no creation at all really, we must do way better than this.
mil1lion
This is the place to be
- May 7, 2004
- 42,523
- 78,131
Sorry but i really dont see how 4-5-1 would have been the answer. We still would have drawn a blank in front of goal, and you dont keep clean sheets at The Emirates unless you're as good as Chelsea at closing a game out. Why change the system against Chelsea and Arsenal? Seriously. Why change anything for a harder game when we already had a system that was working? We have Modric out, so Kranjcar or Bale can replace him ont he left. We had Lennon out so Bentley or Naughton can replace him on the right. We had Defoe out, so Keane or Crouch (whichever way you look at it) replace him up front. Its not like we had to change the system because of the injuries. So why go with an unfamiliar system against the tougher teams?
Experimenting against Chelsea and Arsenal was suicide.
Experimenting against Chelsea and Arsenal was suicide.
- Oct 17, 2006
- 10,703
- 25,278
Fair comment. As long as we didnt play Keane or Huddlestone. In that case Crouch and Pav up front.
michaelden
Knight of the Fat Fanny
- Aug 13, 2004
- 26,452
- 21,811
----------------Gomes-------------------
Hutton---Corluka-----Bassong----BAE-----
---Bentley--Palacios---King----Krancjar--
-------------Crouch--Pav---------------
And rely on crosses to the front to for attacks and the rest to defend. Play for a goal from a set piece.
Hutton---Corluka-----Bassong----BAE-----
---Bentley--Palacios---King----Krancjar--
-------------Crouch--Pav---------------
And rely on crosses to the front to for attacks and the rest to defend. Play for a goal from a set piece.
sasa_moto
Member
- Aug 9, 2008
- 265
- 17
Well, it's the matter of opinion, really. 442 with Luka, WP, JJ and Lennon, we have creativity, vision and fluidity (Luka), industry (WP and JJ), pace (Lennon), i.e. balanced midfield. When you put players in who are not adequate replacements (Niko for Luka, Bentley for Lennon), especially against strong opposition, that's what I call suicide.
With all players available, it's no brainer, 442 all the time. When we are without top players, we should be able to switch to system which could bring best result. It was not mistake to go 451 against Arsenal, mistakes were made in team selection.
mil1lion
This is the place to be
- May 7, 2004
- 42,523
- 78,131
Who could have played the lone striker role in a 4-5-1? Crouch? And who would he knock balls on for? The problem with the formation was having Keane on the left. Bentley has little pace as it is on the right. And neither Corluka or Ekotto are attacking fullbacks. So we literally had no pace out wide whatsoever. We're not Birmingham, so why play like it? I cant believe we can be so negative going 4-5-1 when we actually had players available to play the 4-4-2 system that got us sitting in the top 4.
But 4-5-1 doesn't have to be negative, we might have had players available to play 4-4-2 but without Moderic, Defoe & Lennon would thay have been good enough to have won us the game? Personally I think not,
I would definitely have gone with a 4-5-1 and played Wilson and JJ in front of King and Bass with orders certainly for the first hour to sit and protect. I would have played Niko in front of them 2 with the licence to get forward and support Crouch. Niko also should have played because without Modric he's our must accomplished player when in possesion and he would have helped us keep the ball.
I would have played Bentley and Bale wide with the instructions to get at the FB's with the insurance of having both JJ and Wilson sitting. With this 1 FB can also get forward to support. In this way we can get an attacking block of 5 and with JJ and Wilson backing up the play and always have a defensive block of at least 5 and usually at least 8 by pulling your wide players in.
IMHO we set ourselves up to get beat, I was shocked to see Hudd start and although not shocked extremely disa ppointed to see Keane start.
shelfboy
Member
- Feb 16, 2006
- 31
- 0
I think instead of the 5 man Midfield you get rid off JJ and have Keane or Pav up top with Crouch. We had no width or pace in the midfield something that was obviously going to be our downfall from when they announced the team.
But Arsenal's main strength is the central midfield area, we had to try and do something to not be dominated in there.
With Mod, JD and Lenny we give them some extra problems and we are less likely to be dominated in central midfield. Without them the problems we can pose are severly damaged therefore I think you have to set up to make it as difficult for them as possible.
You always have the option to go 4-4-2 should we find ourselves chasing.
sasa_moto
Member
- Aug 9, 2008
- 265
- 17
I repeat my formation for Arsenal (from midfield on): WP and JJ holding, Bale left, Kranjcar behind Crouch, and Bentley on the right. So, with Bale there's pace on the left, with Niko further up the pitch there would be possibility of connection between him and Crouch (as in Bolton game), and with Bentley there are crosses (it was assumption before his shocking display).
Without Luka, 442 was barely working recently, even against lesser opposition. With Lennon, WP, JJ available, Niko can play LM against anyone outside top 4 in 442, with unpredictable success, but without Lennon AND Luka, automatic 442 still remain questionable.
sasa_moto
Member
- Aug 9, 2008
- 265
- 17
I agree 100 pct.
I actually forgot that I had posted yesterday in this thread.
I have noticed now that you and Bulletspur would have gone the same way.
There is nothing wrong with having flexibility, especially when the opposition and your own circumstances dictate. After all every game of football and the challenges faced in them are unique.
We aren't Barca or the best team in the world, therefore at times we really need to take the opposition and their strengths into account and if need be adapt.
MattyP
Advises to have a beer & sleep with prostitutes
- May 14, 2007
- 14,041
- 2,980
"It's not rocket science," shrugs Redknapp. "I just got players in the right slots playing in the right positions."
That's a Redknapp quote from the end of last season.
The thing that I would have changed is to be consistent with the above, not asking Robbie Keane to play some sort of makeshift left winger/striker position. Not moving Bentley to the left and JJ to the right when we went two down.
Play players in their correct positions. It's not rocket science, as someone once said.
That's a Redknapp quote from the end of last season.
The thing that I would have changed is to be consistent with the above, not asking Robbie Keane to play some sort of makeshift left winger/striker position. Not moving Bentley to the left and JJ to the right when we went two down.
Play players in their correct positions. It's not rocket science, as someone once said.
chrissivad
Staff
- May 20, 2005
- 51,646
- 58,072
- Staff
- #56
Corluka has not had a great season so far, and also caught out of positions on a few occasions. Having Hutton down the right with Bentley infront of him would at least give you an attacking option down the right.
Corluka does try and get forward when he can but doesn't always have the pace to do it. Someone overlapping Bentley might have given him a bit more time on the ball. Instead they knew they could push up on him as he wasn't going to beat them for pace and Corluka wasn't going to ether.
Wouldn't have played Hudd, and would have played Kranjcar
Green Valley
Banned
- Apr 21, 2009
- 1,094
- 5
lilywhitecurtis
Cocknose
- May 2, 2005
- 2,597
- 1,005
I felt we could have done with a player like Taarabt on the bench, at 2-0 we were crying out for someone to grab hold of the ball and at least try and do something.
kaz Hirai
Well-Known Member
- Nov 5, 2008
- 17,692
- 25,340
Yet most people voted him motm against Arsenal.
ahh i was hoping no one would bother responding to him, obvious anti JJ trolling
Bus-Conductor
SC Supporter
- Oct 19, 2004
- 39,837
- 50,713
Completely agree and said so in the pre match thread.
The only way you could have accommodated Huddlestone was by dropping Keane playing the 451 but with Hudd in the forward central role and Kranjcar wide right and Bale wide left. But even then, like you, I think Kranjcar down the middle is a better option as he is far more likely to hold and carry the ball and his close vision/passing is as good if not better than Huddlestone, who is only really effective when he has time, space and his target is 40 yards away and is useless when the opposition have the ball.
As you go on to point out in a later post, 451 does not have to be overtly negative (although that's the way Redknapp always set up his pompey 451).
With the personnel we have it could offer attacking threat (ie Kranjcar, Bale, Bentley with Pav or Crouch up front) it could have offered insurance (Jenas & Palacios) with the fluidity of Bale and Bentley helping to prevent arse tearing us up on the flanks.
It would have given our play a bit more texture instead of the two banks of players that became isolated from each other in the actual game.
But it needs to be coached and honed on the training field. Instead we got the lack lustre fudge that was Huddlestone doing his impression of an elephant wading through toffee and Keane's paper tiger on the left.
predictable tactics with predictable outcome.
