Antonio Conte - officially NOT the coach of THFC

[Bedfordspurs]

A lot said about the formation here and elsewhere.

I disagree that a midfield three would have changed much. Give an early lead to this Arsenal team. Our current 11 with some real underperforming players as first choice. There's no way for me that a 3-5-2/5/3/2 fixes that.

People claim that it's obvious and that Conte should see that. Arsenal play against midfield three opponents rather regularly and do really well. Unless the entire team functions well there's no one formation that fixes things, particularly when going behind early.

3-5-2 comes with it's own issues. We've seen less of them because we've played it a lot less. But that doesn't make them any less real.

The teams you mention don’t have players of our calibre in attack though
And it’s all about how you play that 3-5-2 for example
Conte is not gonna go to a back 4 so he needs to think of some solutions

 

[Raziel]

It’s a very tough job. All the expectation but you aren’t on a level playing field. It’s like Levy, as many fans do, expects too much of managers.

The problem also isn’t that we don’t spend money on transfer fees. We do. Our problem is the wage structure. Levy, like any good businessman, seems to want to keep wages to a certain percentage of turnover. That’s great but we won’t get top players without paying top wages. Didnt City get Haaland for less than we paid for Richarlison?

No, and this is where fan/media flimflam is exposed

- You heard that from commentators/media that City paid £51M for Haaland
- And your brain probably went, fudging hell, see if we were smarter, got in earlier, if ENIC would just pay a little more in wages, we could compete
- Back to the belief of how many times have we been "beaten" to a player by £5M? fudging ENIC

Except that is all a big fudging lie

Haaland cost £51M rising to £85M with add-ons, Agent fee £42M. Dad fee (yes, fudging Dad fee) £25M, Wages £34M (again, some media is reporting a "base" wage of £17.8M, so first year cost -> £152M - £186M
By year 2, they would highly likely have spent £220M on him and he has a release clause for £128M (that he will probably exercise to go Madrid)
City got absolutely rinsed on the deal, that's why no one else even were in the conversation

Does anyone really think we would pay an under 23, unproven PL player >$350K/week ("base wage")? the game is absolutely broken

 

[Lemonade Money]

Didnt City get Haaland for less than we paid for Richarlison?

Come on, you're not that dumb.

 

[billyiddo]

Had that same terrible thought today.

Am hoping we lose in a close game, having put in a decent display.

More chance of United catching them the way City are dropping points lately

 

[Finney Is Back]

A lot said about the formation here and elsewhere.

I disagree that a midfield three would have changed much. Give an early lead to this Arsenal team. Our current 11 with some real underperforming players as first choice. There's no way for me that a 3-5-2/5/3/2 fixes that.

People claim that it's obvious and that Conte should see that. Arsenal play against midfield three opponents rather regularly and do really well. Unless the entire team functions well there's no one formation that fixes things, particularly when going behind early.

3-5-2 comes with it's own issues. We've seen less of them because we've played it a lot less. But that doesn't make them any less real.

It is the first '3' that is the problem. Means we have a 'spare' man in the part of the pitch that does us the least amount of good. Whether we play 3-5-2 or 3-4-3 we're still likely to get outnumbered in the key part of the pitch while we've got a player spare at the back who is a hindrance to us when we have possession.

 

[Finney Is Back]

The teams you mention don’t have players of our calibre in attack though
And it’s all about how you play that 3-5-2 for example
Conte is not gonna go to a back 4 so he needs to think of some solutions

In which case we very quickly need a new CB to play in the centre who is incredibly good on the ball, one who can play a big part in our build up and launch attacks with incisive passes through the lines. We probably also need another CB who can play on the left who is also very good on the ball but has the pace, physicality and one on one defending ability out wide so that we don't have to have our LWB completely pinned back all game. I've advocated signing Ndicka as I think he could be a decent LCB for us who would also work well as a partner for Romero in a back 4 (and I think it is likely that our manager after Conte will play a back 4).

 

[braineclipse]

It is the first '3' that is the problem. Means we have a 'spare' man in the part of the pitch that does us the least amount of good. Whether we play 3-5-2 or 3-4-3 we're still likely to get outnumbered in the key part of the pitch while we've got a player spare at the back who is a hindrance to us when we have possession.

Depends entirely on how we play the system. In possession wide centre backs moving wider into traditional full back positions. Wing backs pushing up into more traditional winger positions.

Very similar to a back four with a midfielder dropping back to allow full backs to push on in a back four system.

We struggled to play through their press, but that's not because of the formation.

 

[DeanoAustin]

No, and this is where fan/media flimflam is exposed

- You heard that from commentators/media that City paid £51M for Haaland
- And your brain probably went, fudging hell, see if we were smarter, got in earlier, if ENIC would just pay a little more in wages, we could compete
- Back to the belief of how many times have we been "beaten" to a player by £5M? fudging ENIC

Except that is all a big fudging lie

Haaland cost £51M rising to £85M with add-ons, Agent fee £42M. Dad fee (yes, fudging Dad fee) £25M, Wages £34M (again, some media is reporting a "base" wage of £17.8M, so first year cost -> £152M - £186M
By year 2, they would highly likely have spent £220M on him and he has a release clause for £128M (that he will probably exercise to go Madrid)
City got absolutely rinsed on the deal, that's why no one else even were in the conversation

Does anyone really think we would pay an under 23, unproven PL player >$350K/week ("base wage")? the game is absolutely broken

Okay, fair point on Haaland. But the general point I stand by. Our wages to revenue ratio was the lowest in the league up to a couple of years ago. It may still be, I haven’t seen recent numbers. To an outsider like me, it looks like Levy is taking that as a key metric and keeping it below a certain percentage at all costs.

He gets accused of not spending. He actually spends his fair share on transfer fees and has done since the stadium opened. However, it looks like he’s reluctant to push the boat out on wages and that’s going to be key in getting top players. After all, if you’re going to tempt them, you do it with money that goes into their pocket. His approach makes sense from a business perspective because if he starts paying higher wages, there is a knock on effect with the rest of the squad. However, it’s a major obstacle for us getting top players.

Come on, you're not that dumb.

You obviously don’t read many of my posts…

 

[DubSpur]

It is the first '3' that is the problem. Means we have a 'spare' man in the part of the pitch that does us the least amount of good. Whether we play 3-5-2 or 3-4-3 we're still likely to get outnumbered in the key part of the pitch while we've got a player spare at the back who is a hindrance to us when we have possession.

Was having 3 at the back a hinderance to us when Poch used to get Dier to drop in between Verts and Toby, allowing the FBs to bomb forward?
Different system to start but it ended up with the same situation you are now giving out about.
Or what about any formation with a back 4 that results in the FBs not getting forward as often? Are they short 2 in other areas of the pitch because they have 4 at the back?

 

[Raziel]

Okay, fair point on Haaland. But the general point I stand by. Our wages to revenue ratio was the lowest in the league up to a couple of years ago. It may still be, I haven’t seen recent numbers. To an outsider like me, it looks like Levy is taking that as a key metric and keeping it below a certain percentage at all costs.

He gets accused of not spending. He actually spends his fair share on transfer fees and has done since the stadium opened. However, it looks like he’s reluctant to push the boat out on wages and that’s going to be key in getting top players. After all, if you’re going to tempt them, you do it with money that goes into their pocket. His approach makes sense from a business perspective because if he starts paying higher wages, there is a knock on effect with the rest of the squad. However, it’s a major obstacle for us getting top players.

You obviously don’t read many of my posts…

I'd agree wages matter, we have always had room there.

I'd say right now if we could dump Ndombele, Lo Celso, Reguilon, Winks, Rodon, Tanganga, Sanchez off the books we would be able to pay some pretty big wages (as only one of those is actually a regular squad member)

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Depends entirely on how we play the system. In possession wide centre backs moving wider into traditional full back positions. Wing backs pushing up into more traditional winger positions.

Very similar to a back four with a midfielder dropping back to allow full backs to push on in a back four system.

We struggled to play through their press, but that's not because of the formation.

the system you describe is how we played last season in the 3-4-3
But we had players who were confident and comfortably recycling the ball
Right now we have players who would rather kick the ball away
It’s a very different dynamic

 

[Bedfordspurs]

In which case we very quickly need a new CB to play in the centre who is incredibly good on the ball, one who can play a big part in our build up and launch attacks with incisive passes through the lines. We probably also need another CB who can play on the left who is also very good on the ball but has the pace, physicality and one on one defending ability out wide so that we don't have to have our LWB completely pinned back all game. I've advocated signing Ndicka as I think he could be a decent LCB for us who would also work well as a partner for Romero in a back 4 (and I think it is likely that our manager after Conte will play a back 4).

Romero was regularly out furthest forward player on Sunday
We do need better Cbs who are more comfortable with the ball

 

[Finney Is Back]

Depends entirely on how we play the system. In possession wide centre backs moving wider into traditional full back positions. Wing backs pushing up into more traditional winger positions.

Very similar to a back four with a midfielder dropping back to allow full backs to push on in a back four system.

We struggled to play through their press, but that's not because of the formation.

Yep.... With the right personnel I agree. However (IMO) we have no RWB, CCB or LCB who are good enough for us to be effective enough in this system. I would love us to play the way you describe in your second paragraph, I really wanted us to sign Kalvin Phillips last summer as he would've been absolutely ideal as the central man in that set up, being great defensively but also very good on the ball and an excellent passer.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Was having 3 at the back a hinderance to us when Poch used to get Dier to drop in between Verts and Toby, allowing the FBs to bomb forward?
Different system to start but it ended up with the same situation you are now giving out about.
Or what about any formation with a back 4 that results in the FBs not getting forward as often? Are they short 2 in other areas of the pitch because they have 4 at the back?

The big difference in that system was that both Alderwiereld and Toby were excellent on the ball and also excellent defending one on one out wide as they had both previously played games as full backs. Toby and Jan gave our two full backs real protection and were also a big part of us being able to launch attacks due to their top class vision, passing range and execution. I also thought it was notable that we went up a notch when we got Wanyama, who was a much better footballer than Dier.

Re: teams that play 4 at the back and don't get their full backs forward much, typically they would be defensive teams who are playing with a line of 4 and then another line of 4 or even 5 in front of them, playing deep, protecting the central spaces and having a couple of CBs who are good at dealing with crosses.

Remember now that most of the better teams have three in attack. With four at the back, the full backs take care of the wide forward on each side and the 2 centre backs take care of the central striker between them. In our system (or perhaps just with our personnel) we're pretty much reliant on our wing backs taking care of the wide forwards, while our 3 CBs have only one forward to take care of, thus sacrificing the midfield. As I said in my last post, getting a better LCB and having a player like Kalvin Phillps instead of Dier at the centre of the back three would probably allow us to flourish in this sort of formation (though we'd also need to buy a RWB).

 

[DubSpur]

The big difference in that system was that both Alderwiereld and Toby were excellent on the ball and also excellent defending one on one out wide as they had both previously played games as full backs. Toby and Jan gave our two full backs real protection and were also a big part of us being able to launch attacks due to their top class vision, passing range and execution. I also thought it was notable that we went up a notch when we got Wanyama, who was a much better footballer than Dier.

Ok, so now it's the players that are the issue and not the formation?

 

[braineclipse]

Yep.... With the right personnel I agree. However (IMO) we have no RWB, CCB or LCB who are good enough for us to be effective enough in this system. I would love us to play the way you describe in your second paragraph, I really wanted us to sign Kalvin Phillips last summer as he would've been absolutely ideal as the central man in that set up, being great defensively but also very good on the ball and an excellent passer.

Imo most of our first choice players are adequate or better in this regard. But it breaks down too easily. Son and Lloris more of an issue than Doherty, Dier and Lenglet/Davies. But a need for improvement either way.

I don't think a change of formation makes us more press resistant as a team with the same players starting. Need for upgrades no matter what.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Ok, so now it's the players that are the issue and not the formation?

Not having good enough players for that formation yes. You can make any formation work with the right players. IMO we are 3 players short of having the team to play with 3 CBs and wingbacks. but perhaps only one player short of having the players to revert to a back 4.

 

[DubSpur]

Not having good enough players for that formation yes. You can make any formation work with the right players. IMO we are 3 players short of having the team to play with 3 CBs and wingbacks. but perhaps only one player short of having the players to revert to a back 4.

Dier was fine in the back 3 under Poch but now isn't good enough. Lloris and Son are the main reasons for our regression, they cause endless problems. The CBs and WBs, while not brilliant are far from the reason that this and any other formation with Lloris and Son in it will have major issues.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Imo most of our first choice players are adequate or better in this regard. But it breaks down too easily. Son and Lloris more of an issue than Doherty, Dier and Lenglet/Davies. But a need for improvement either way.

I don't think a change of formation makes us more press resistant as a team with the same players starting. Need for upgrades no matter what.

Lloris, I agree. Son I think we already have his potential first team replacement in Richarlison. Doherty, Dier and Davies are midtable PL players IMO. Lenglet I can't judge quite yet. I think he has decent quality on the ball but I'm not convinced that he has the pace, physicality or ability to defend one on one out wide that I think we need to play with 3 at back really well.

 

[Finney Is Back]

Dier was fine in the back 3 under Poch but now isn't good enough. Lloris and Son are the main reasons for our regression, they cause endless problems. The CBs and WBs, while not brilliant are far from the reason that this and any other formation with Lloris and Son in it will have major issues.

We've had three full time managers since Pochettino mate (and even Poch tried to upgrade him with Wanyama). Dier was fine under Pochettino with Toby, Jan and Dembele around him, maybe he'd be fine again with players as good as those around him? I'd rather also try to also bring in a player as good as those to play instead of Dier as well, he is a limited player, if we were open to selling him do you think it would be the likes of Liverpool, Emirates Marketing Project, Chelsea, Arsenal and Man Utd trying to buy him?