Jump to content

Recommended Posts

We all know if Pardew's still here in August, he'll be on the bench while we watch Tiote & Colback together, Sissoko shoehorned on the right still and a new left sided player if we're lucky. (Or Gouffran)

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's a good little player but for me he's only viable in a 433 playing as the deepest player in midfield covering the fullbacks and the space in front of the defence.

 

Disagree, IMO he's better with a proper DM where his job is to keep the ball moving. A bit like Lucas and Allen at Liverpool.

 

He's too weak physically for any other role for me like. Also distributing the ball is a big part of the role I mentioned originally

 

In an ideal world I agree with you, in a world where we dominate possession. But with the way we play and under our coward of a manager we can't play him as the deepest midfielder unfortunately.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how when the rest of the team are doing shite, he never manages to drop to their level.

 

He's an absolute class act this lad, would be gutted if he left.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's a good little player but for me he's only viable in a 433 playing as the deepest player in midfield covering the fullbacks and the space in front of the defence.

 

Disagree, IMO he's better with a proper DM where his job is to keep the ball moving. A bit like Lucas and Allen at Liverpool.

 

You can't have 2 out of the 3 midfielders having no goal threat or creativity whatsoever. It just doesn't work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's a good little player but for me he's only viable in a 433 playing as the deepest player in midfield covering the fullbacks and the space in front of the defence.

 

Disagree, IMO he's better with a proper DM where his job is to keep the ball moving. A bit like Lucas and Allen at Liverpool.

 

You can't have 2 out of the 3 midfielders having no goal threat or creativity whatsoever. It just doesn't work.

 

Course you can, if you have an attacking midfielder and 3 forwards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anita and Tiote is overkill on the defensive side actually, no reason he couldn't play alongside a deeplying playmaker and we'd not be overexposed imo. I also think Anita could develop more of a cutting edge and work better forward with some work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no need for Tiote. Anita & Sissoko in the centre, with a proper Cabaye replacement would be immense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's a good little player but for me he's only viable in a 433 playing as the deepest player in midfield covering the fullbacks and the space in front of the defence.

 

Disagree, IMO he's better with a proper DM where his job is to keep the ball moving. A bit like Lucas and Allen at Liverpool.

 

You can't have 2 out of the 3 midfielders having no goal threat or creativity whatsoever. It just doesn't work.

 

Course you can, if you have an attacking midfielder and 3 forwards.

 

3 forwards, man. As if.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Midfielders are there to make an impact going backwards and forwards as far as I'm concerned. I can't live with two players in there who go missing in the final third. Anita's perfectly capable of utilising his movement as a deep lying CM, anyway, he just needs two relatively capable midfielders - in an attacking sense - to negate his weaknesses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Midfielders are there to make an impact going backwards and forwards as far as I'm concerned. I can't live with two players in there who go missing in the final third. Anita's perfectly capable of utilising his movement as a deep lying CM, anyway, he just needs two relatively capable midfielders - in an attacking sense - to negate his weaknesses.

 

:thup:

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's a good little player but for me he's only viable in a 433 playing as the deepest player in midfield covering the fullbacks and the space in front of the defence.

 

Disagree, IMO he's better with a proper DM where his job is to keep the ball moving. A bit like Lucas and Allen at Liverpool.

 

You can't have 2 out of the 3 midfielders having no goal threat or creativity whatsoever. It just doesn't work.

 

Course you can, if you have an attacking midfielder and 3 forwards.

 

Agree with this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure what your point is - is your point that Anita cannot play alongside a DM or that, under Pardew, we would not play enough attacking players to make this viable?  Because they are two completely different points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think completely absolving two starting midfielders of creative/scoring duty is feasible for any club who don't have 3 world class attacking players in front of them. It certainly isn't viable at Newcastle United.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is viable if you were playing 4-4-2 and had two wingers and intelligent strikers.  It could work if you were playing 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3.  It can work - you just have to get the proper personnel in to do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get your point in theory Ronaldo, but we have the personnel we have. If we're talking about addressing our weaknesses then we should just get the attacking players we need to be more dangerous. It's not really about Anita at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When has it ever worked in a 4-4-2?

 

It depends if you are genuinely proposing that the two central midfielders don't create anything at all - which is highly unlikely.  I think we are getting into comparing slightly odd variations of formations, but in any 4-4-2 formation with two defensive central midfielders you would have a set up with wingers and it is likely that one of the strikers would drop back into midfield.

 

But as an example, I think Sacchi's Milan team used a 4-4-2 formation without particularly creative central midfielders.  Atletico Madrid play a variant of 4-4-2/4-2-3-1 with two defensive midfielders.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Arsenal with Vieira and Petit.  That's one PL example.  I am sure there are others if I was to think about it.

 

I still haven't quite worked out the point of this argument though.  Having 4 attacking players can be enough (ie two wingers and two strikers).  As I have said, it is likely that one of your strikers would play a more withdrawn role and play a more 'Beardsley-esque' role which would effectively create a 4-2-3-1 at times.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...