Posted June 15, 2023 05:37
· last edited June 15, 2023 05:39
I don't think much can be read into possession anymore. The game has moved on since peak tiki taka. It's very easy, potentially easier, to have high levels of possession when playing a back 5 as you can comfortably pass back and forth along the backline and many teams don't even bother pressing until you venture some distance into their half.
I think you might be underrating our midfielders and forwards by suggesting we are as dependent on Cacace for attack as you are. Maybe it is because we are playing a back 5 and as a result find it harder to dominate in the final third that we become so dependent on impetus from wingbacks.
I agree with your CB selection if we are to play 3 of them but I'd rather see a pairing of Boxall and Smith. A proper test to see if Smith still has the legs or whether we can put him out to pasture earlier than expected coochiee
Friar Tuck
JasperNix
For me a win will be seeing us not playing 3 centre backs. It worked for Ricky in 2009/10 as it fit his strengths up top and at the back but we’ve moved on from them yet the shape has more or less stayed. We just end up carrying a player.
We have very mobile wing backs that can play in a 4-3-3 or variant thereof because we have two 6’s that are smart enough to know when to press and when to sit to cover the runs of Libby and Callan.
So that would be a win for me..
Yeah you play 3 centre backs if you have 3 great centre backs (which we did in Nelson, Reid and a young Tommy Smith).
But your formation should always get your best players on the pitch, which for us is now the midfield.
In no world should you be sacrificing one of Bell, Stamenic, Garbett, Thomas or Singh for Pijnaker, Tuiloma, Boxall or god forbid, Tim Payne.
Counter agrument is we only currently have one consistently top class CB in Boxall. The unflustered rock presence. Smith is way past his best it seems, Pijnaker is still making mistakes in a weak Irish league, and Tuiloma is having a mixed time of it in the MLS. Charlotte picked 3 CBs in their most recent game and he sat on the bench. So who starts alongside M Boxall in a back 4?
Also in the last 12-18 mths the AWs have managed to get near parity in the possession stakes even when playing away from home. Whether it be a back 3/5 or a back 4. This isn't the U20s. Exception being that game in Barcelona against Peru, when a few of the team seemed to freeze in such an intimidating atmosphere, and the 1st half was wave after wave of Peruvian attacks. Also from memory we got bossed by the Socceroos once Wood went off at Eden Park.
I think that's going to be a bigger issue against Sweden, than whether Bazeley goes 2 or 3 CBs. Without Wood the lack of a class big man up front, with quality holding play when the AWs need to go long. As long as 3 of Bell, Stamenic, Lewis & Garbett start I think we have enough quality to play out of tight spaces when the Swedes press. But when you just have to go long can Mata or Waine do what Wood does? Not a job for Greive. And whoever does start up front can't just be left all alone & isolated.
If it is 3 CBs, I'd like to see Boxall in the middle with Pijnaker & Surman either side. It's just a friendly after all, 3 years out from the WC. Start Surman in front of 30,000 Swedes wearing Viking horns and see how he goes. He's the future, and young players learn so much playing these sort of games. Stamenic would have learnt a shark load from his 45 mins against the Peruvians before getting hauled at HT. He'd hardly played for FCK prior that, but since then has been in plenty of big UCL & Superliga games.
Lastly as always which shape, allows Cacace the best opportunity to bomb forward. Maybe it is a back 4 with Bell and/or Stamenic dropping back as cover. But sans Wood, Singh & Thomas - it's almost impossible to see the AWs scoring without Libby being heavily involved.
Previous versions
1 version
Unknown editoredited June 15, 2023 05:39
I don't think much can be read into possession anymore. The game has moved on since peak tiki taka. It's very easy, potentially easier, to have high levels of possession when playing a back 5 as you can comfortably pass back and forth along the backline and many teams don't even bother pressing until you venture some distance into their half.
I think you might be underrating our midfielders and forwards by suggesting we are as dependent on Cacace for attack as you are. Maybe it is because we are playing a back 5 and as a result find it harder to dominate in the final third that we become so dependent on impetus from wingbacks.
I agree with your CB selection if we are to play 3 of them but I'd rather see a pairing of Boxall and Smicoochiee
Friar Tuck
JasperNix
For me a win will be seeing us not playing 3 centre backs. It worked for Ricky in 2009/10 as it fit his strengths up top and at the back but we’ve moved on from them yet the shape has more or less stayed. We just end up carrying a player.
We have very mobile wing backs that can play in a 4-3-3 or variant thereof because we have two 6’s that are smart enough to know when to press and when to sit to cover the runs of Libby and Callan.
So that would be a win for me..
Yeah you play 3 centre backs if you have 3 great centre backs (which we did in Nelson, Reid and a young Tommy Smith).
But your formation should always get your best players on the pitch, which for us is now the midfield.
In no world should you be sacrificing one of Bell, Stamenic, Garbett, Thomas or Singh for Pijnaker, Tuiloma, Boxall or god forbid, Tim Payne.
Counter agrument is we only currently have one consistently top class CB in Boxall. The unflustered rock presence. Smith is way past his best it seems, Pijnaker is still making mistakes in a weak Irish league, and Tuiloma is having a mixed time of it in the MLS. Charlotte picked 3 CBs in their most recent game and he sat on the bench. So who starts alongside M Boxall in a back 4?
Also in the last 12-18 mths the AWs have managed to get near parity in the possession stakes even when playing away from home. Whether it be a back 3/5 or a back 4. This isn't the U20s. Exception being that game in Barcelona against Peru, when a few of the team seemed to freeze in such an intimidating atmosphere, and the 1st half was wave after wave of Peruvian attacks. Also from memory we got bossed by the Socceroos once Wood went off at Eden Park.
I think that's going to be a bigger issue against Sweden, than whether Bazeley goes 2 or 3 CBs. Without Wood the lack of a class big man up front, with quality holding play when the AWs need to go long. As long as 3 of Bell, Stamenic, Lewis & Garbett start I think we have enough quality to play out of tight spaces when the Swedes press. But when you just have to go long can Mata or Waine do what Wood does? Not a job for Greive. And whoever does start up front can't just be left all alone & isolated.
If it is 3 CBs, I'd like to see Boxall in the middle with Pijnaker & Surman either side. It's just a friendly after all, 3 years out from the WC. Start Surman in front of 30,000 Swedes wearing Viking horns and see how he goes. He's the future, and young players learn so much playing these sort of games. Stamenic would have learnt a shark load from his 45 mins against the Peruvians before getting hauled at HT. He'd hardly played for FCK prior that, but since then has been in plenty of big UCL & Superliga games.
Lastly as always which shape, allows Cacace the best opportunity to bomb forward. Maybe it is a back 4 with Bell and/or Stamenic dropping back as cover. But sans Wood, Singh & Thomas - it's almost impossible to see the AWs scoring without Libby being heavily involved.
