• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Yves Bissouma

monkeybarry said:
Indeed. Which is not something I've said. I've said evolution not revolution is the best approach for the whole season - because it's not Football Manager.
Click to expand...
Just because you drop a player doesn't mean they'll never start again. It's about using the competition for places to motivate players to up their game. Your replies make it seem like Grays and other posters are asking for Conte to sell the whole team off or something from the mere suggestion that we haven't actually been playing THAT great except in a few games where the matches opened up for us (which is maybe 2-3 games so far). We drew to West Ham who are playing really poorly, and we were not that good in that match. As Bishop said, it's an extremely dangerous attitude to think you're doing well when in actuality, you're some ways off of it. Our standards should be high for this team and manager, we have a really good squad that should get 2nd or 3rd this season.

To summarize, no one is saying we're having a bad season or that we need to sell Son or anything. We're asking for tweaks for when things aren't going our way, but if you're comfortable with seeing Sporting as the alpha club in our group instead of us, I think the expectations should be a little bit higher (on the flipside, people saying that we're doing really well in the league because we haven't lost is like me saying we're doing really poorly in the CL because we're not in first place in our group... there haven't been enough matches played yet to make meaningful conclusions yet AND they're also overly simplified assessments).
 
Did anyone see much in the last 20 minutes to think we could/should start with a 3-main midfield axis of Bentancur, Hojbjerg and Bissouma at our next game at the Emirates?
 
glorygloryeze said:
Did anyone see much in the last 20 minutes to think we could/should start with a 3-main midfield axis of Bentancur, Hojbjerg and Bissouma at our next game at the Emirates?
Click to expand...
I think it looked much more balanced and gave Son and Kane more room. At the Emirates we will have lots of space in behind, if we have 3 midfielders if gives us more of a chance of winning the ball back and breaking. If we play 2 it will be the Chelsea game all over again.
 
glorygloryeze said:
Did anyone see much in the last 20 minutes to think we could/should start with a 3-main midfield axis of Bentancur, Hojbjerg and Bissouma at our next game at the Emirates?
Click to expand...
Yes and no
Don’t forget Leiscter we’re chasing the game and are horrendous currently
They also had NO outballs to keep possession
But… I’d like it against arsenal as they aren’t good when turned around
It could work if we play attacking wing backs
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Yes and no
Don’t forget Leiscter we’re chasing the game and are horrendous currently
They also had NO outballs to keep possession
But… I’d like it against arsenal as they aren’t good when turned around
It could work if we play attacking wing backs
Click to expand...

I was just thinking about your last point; having a front 3 could push them back, plus give our strikers more people to interact with, but at the possible expense of being a man short in CM.
Then i thought actually stiffening up CM area with a strong would negate them but only fully work if we had wingbacks who were both fast and able to contribute very well going forwards...

Hmm..if only Spence was in favour as going forwards Peresic would be great but he'd be murdered defensively on that big pitch imo.

Perhaps a wonky might come into effect somewhat...
 
glorygloryeze said:
Did anyone see much in the last 20 minutes to think we could/should start with a 3-main midfield axis of Bentancur, Hojbjerg and Bissouma at our next game at the Emirates?
Click to expand...

It looked really good to me but it's way too short a time to make any definitive conclusion. Leicester were also all over the place by that point. I'll have to rely on Antonio to use his far superior football knowledge to decide if it's a good idea to change it up.
 
glorygloryeze said:
I was just thinking about your last point; having a front 3 could push them back, plus give our strikers more people to interact with, but at the possible expense of being a man short in CM.
Then i thought actually stiffening up CM area with a strong would negate them but only fully work if we had wingbacks who were both fast and able to contribute very well going forwards...

Hmm..if only Spence was in favour as going forwards Peresic would be great but he'd be murdered defensively on that big pitch imo.

Perhaps a wonky might come into effect somewhat...
Click to expand...

we do play a bit of a wonky with more attacking prowess down the left instead of the right. might not be intended, but effectively still a wonky right?
 
Lilbaz said:
Problem with that is you have 3 defensive minded midfielders infront of 3 cbs.
Click to expand...
All 3 can be defensive but all 3 are capable of scoring and playing a forward pass.
None are tricky dribbling #10s, but all can join an attack without getting a nosebleed.
So I still think it could work if we give them strict instructions to not just sit back, and to ensure at least one of them is pushing forwards / playing forwards.
 
El Guepardo said:
If we go 3 in the middle, where does Kulusevski go?
Click to expand...
You're right, we'd be sacrificing Kulu playing in his ideal position.
The optimal position for Kulu in that formation IMO would be behind the two strikers as an AM. This gives us the flexibility to switch between our usual formation of 3-4-3 and 3-5-2 on the fly, but I think you and most others are referring to playing with 1 DM + 2 CMs vs. 1 AM + 2 CMs. IMO, one of the CBs in a back-3 should be acting as a DM/CM at times anyway so for me, it's too negative.

Playing him as RWB could be viable but I'd much rather see our actual RWB options there.
 
Last edited:
papaspur said:
You're right, we'd be sacrificing Kulu playing in his ideal position.
The optimal position for Kulu in that formation IMO would be behind the two strikers as an AM. This gives us the flexibility to switch between our usual formation of 3-4-3 and 3-5-2 on the fly, but I think you and most others are referring to playing with 1 DM + 2 CMs vs. 1 AM + 2 CMs. IMO, one of the CBs in a back-3 should be acting as a DM/CM at times anyway so for me, it's too negative.

Playing him as RWB could be viable but I'd much rather seen our actual RWB options there.
Click to expand...

See I did think about him being RWB but then I remember last weekend when we used Perisic there. I thought it would work but we had least possession and Leicester enjoyed possession down that wing from what I remember.
I thought it would work with Perisic as we had a back 3 and 2 usually more defensively minded midfielders but it just didn’t. Even against a team as poor as Leicester.
 
i think conte can rotate the strikers a bit more in a 3-5-2
in the front, son + kane is great and i think kulu + richy might work too
kulu can drop to midfield too as AM whilst rotating bentancur, hojberg and bissouma
 
El Guepardo said:
See I did think about him being RWB but then I remember last weekend when we used Perisic there. I thought it would work but we had least possession and Leicester enjoyed possession down that wing from what I remember.
I thought it would work with Perisic as we had a back 3 and 2 usually more defensively minded midfielders but it just didn’t. Even against a team as poor as Leicester.
Click to expand...
It could be a one-off, maybe things just weren't clicking there that day but I do agree that it wasn't a comfortable performance by him on the right side. With Kulu at RWB, I think it would be expected that he would come inside as an inverted wingback from time to time due to his left-footedness, although of course he has no problem hugging the touch line either. It would end up being a bit wonky like @metalgear said, but that's up to whatever Conte is screaming at the players at any particular moment.

More headaches for Conte, long may it continue.
 
Imo there's no such thing as a better or worse formation in general unless one goes to the extreme examples.

Different formations are rarely more attacking or defensive in themselves. Depends on the system of play and players. Some exceptions here like 4-6-0 being rather defensive and a 4-4-2 diamond being rather attacking.

All depends on the manager and squad what works best. I think we have a manager and squad that's well suited to the 3-4-3. Not perfectly suited obviously, but rather well. Better than almost all options at the very least.

I think we see the flaws with 3-4-3 and this squad because we see it almost every game. Play something else for a couple of months and other issues will become clear with other formations.

We have looked good at times when Conte changes things, when he sees the situation being such that this particular time is a better fit for a different formation. That's not really a reason to play that formation more or the time. When circumstances see different a 3-5-2 would look different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back