General Discussion on CMNT

[PegCityCam]

Not looking great😔

 

[costarg]

1 hour ago, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

As good a place to ask this question as any -

What are we looking at formation-wise going forward?

 

We have played 2 up front a fair bit this year and were rewarded with some key wins but it also struggled away and against a better team.   The problem with moving beyond it being David is not the best lone striker but you don't want to take him out and Larin is not playing for his club.

I really like 3 at the back when teams can play it well; I think our players have been together enough and we have the pieces to use it.  It also should cover the weaknesses of our starting two CBs. The concern being it reduces the use of wingers, one of our deepest areas, unless you really open up the centre of midfield.  We also did not employ it the best against Uruguay.

 

I would like to go 3-5-1-1 with Davies behind David.  It would still have a stout midfield that Davies could help out and extra guys to help support across the defence.  If you want to attack with Tajon at RWB, it shifts pretty easy to 4 at the back. Whether Davies and David can play those roles are the big questions.  Also do we have enough central midfielders to fill those spaces and it does makes us small across the pitch. 

The other way would be 4-5-1/4-3-3 with David behind Larin.  But you do shackle Davies and Tajon a little with that and the concerns about the back 4 remain. 

Thoughts.

You probably already know my stance, as I've been posting and spreading here on several different threads, but here goes anyway.......

4-5-1 is my answer when playing stronger opponents at the WC.  A million times out of a million.

A back 3 handicaps Davies and Tajon, weakening our attacking threat.  It forces them to play more defensively.

Having two strikers or even 1-1 is pointless in my opinion, cause the two strikers won't get the ball when playing vs stronger midfields (Belgium and Croatia).  We need to increase numbers behind the ball, a back 4 a mid 5 does that.

Davies and Tajon on the wings also reduces the need and usefulness of having two strikers.  Larin isn't playing and isn't that sharp, even when he is, Tajon and Davies are way more threatening going to goal.  David isn't an out and out 9, but he can get the job done, and once again, we don't really need an out and out 9 when you have Tajon and Davies attacking the box from every angle with shots and speed.  Then you have the Stache and Kone (or hopefully Arfield) who can also spray shots from distance in support of the attack.

Anyway you look at it, 4-5-1 gives us the best chance to compete at this level.  We ain't in the Caribbean anymore.  I understand we want to surprise and cause waves, but we need to respect our opponents.  Uruguay barely had to find 3rd gear with some of their B-C team on the field to take care of us.  Two strikers for Canada is ridiculously arrogant, especially when one of them is rusty and not playing regularly.

[VinceA]

Similar to Atiba even if he plays no ball until November he's on the plane.

 

But first and foremost all I want is for him to be happy, healthy and comfortable.

[dyslexic nam]

26 minutes ago, VinceA said:

Similar to Atiba even if he plays no ball until November he's on the plane.

 

But first and foremost all I want is for him to be happy, healthy and comfortable.

Not as a player - at least IMO.  I am as loyal as the next guy, and like everyone here I really do care about these guys, including their well-being.  But we can’t burn 2 roster spots on guys if we are certain they are not going to play.   If Oso and/or Atiba haven’t played a single competitive game in the build up to Qatar, and are full-on injured when the roster has to be dropped, it would be crazy to name them both to the squad solely for sentimental reasons.  

Do they really gain anything by being on a WC roster and then never playing a minute or even being named to the bench?  And if there is some small benefit to that (above and beyond knowing that they were major factors in achieving this monumental accomplishment) does it outweigh the need to maximize our squad and try and show the world that we can compete at this level?   No disrespect whatsoever to those two friggin heroes of Canadian footy, but I just don’t think we can afford to do it.  If we go with 24 effective players we are one or two injuries (in training or game 1) away from trying to cobble together a formation that works with the bodies we have left.   

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

51 minutes ago, costarg said:

4-5-1 is my answer when playing stronger opponents at the WC.  A million times out of a million.

It is my secondish choice as I said but if you actually play 4-5-1  (not 4-3-3), you are still limiting our wide midfielders (some of our best players), maybe more than 3-5-?, (wait for that) and putting our best striker in a position that is not his best or wasting him needing to clog the midfield - one of the prime benefits of the formation. 

3 at the back is supposed to be quick and fluid so if one wingback attacks the other holds and the wide centre back moves out.  (Miller has thrived in a back three in that role but gives up a lot in a CB pairing.) Also an extra man in midfield, again needs to be mobile, can slide out to cover wide. Actually a ton of freedom as wingback if you know and trust your teammates. 

David, being our in form striker, is not the ideal hold-up, pivot man that 4-5-1 were build around.  Remember the wingers have defensive responsiblies, so that man has to often hold the ball for a second or two, as they get into the attack. David needs to be face goal, not back to it, most of the time. 

If you put him in the 5 behind Larin (who though better is not the greatest lone striker either,) he does pass well out of there but he also need to have defensive responsiblities to gain the benefit of having 5 in midfield.  I think you lose more than you gain. 

I also think the great or good 4-5-1s have someone with a long range range shot threat (Lampard at Chelsea) to keep a team honest, if you ever do enjoy some possesion.  No one jumps out at me from our side.  

Appreciate the response. Who would be the personel in the centre and up front in a 4-5-1?

Edited September 29, 2022 by WestHamCanadianinOxford

[jhoops__]

Looks like we’re shaping up into a 3-4-3.  Front 3 of AD, JD, TB is optimal for us imo. 

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

59 minutes ago, jhoops__ said:

Looks like we’re shaping up into a 3-4-3.  Front 3 of AD, JD, TB is optimal for us imo. 

I would  expect more results like Uruguay or worse, honestly.  Maybe Tajon finishes better but he has yet to play this year.  A midfield 2 against Croatia's 3 of Brozovic, Modric, and Kovacic feels a bit suicidal.  We would essentially be going toe-to-toe with Belgium.  Sounds like fun but not sure the result goes our way.  Maybe against Morocco?

Edited September 29, 2022 by WestHamCanadianinOxford

[EJsens1]

5 hours ago, PegCityCam said:

Not looking great😔

 

This is getting pretty worrisome. I know the Piette lovers will disagree, but after how slow he looked against a good but not stacked midfield in Uruguay, it’s only going to be harder against Belgium and Croatia, we need Osorio back (+Atiba). The way I read this, it’s not some sort of “let’s not take any risks here” statement. It was more, “he still has lingering symptoms” which is very concerning.

Hopefully we hear something imminent on Atiba as the team was supposed to head over to the Turkey post camp.

[nfitz]

22 hours ago, SpecialK said:

hutch will be there. A keeper ? All three keepers are fine ? 

I'm sure Atiba will be there - I'm not convinced he's healthy or match-fit enough to be part of the squad.

Do we really need to take 3 keepers? Though I say that assuming that if one gets seriously injured, we could send another - and I don't know what the rules are for this tournament.

[Unnamed Trialist]

5 minutes ago, nfitz said:

I'm sure Atiba will be there - I'm not convinced he's healthy or match-fit enough to be part of the squad.

Do we really need to take 3 keepers? Though I say that assuming that if one gets seriously injured, we could send another - and I don't know what the rules are for this tournament.

3 keepers is an obligation.

[Free kick]

1 hour ago, EJsens1 said:

This is getting pretty worrisome. I know the Piette lovers will disagree, but after how slow he looked against a good but not stacked midfield in Uruguay, it’s only going to be harder against Belgium and Croatia, we need Osorio back (+Atiba). The way I read this, it’s not some sort of “let’s not take any risks here” statement. It was more, “he still has lingering symptoms” which is very concerning.

Hopefully we hear something imminent on Atiba as the team was supposed to head over to the Turkey post camp.

Osorio and Piette are two different MF players who fulfill two different roles.  If Osorio (21) starts, it will have to be Larin (or one of the two fwds) who sits because we know #11 and #19 will definitely play.  The players who can replace Piette (if Herdman decides to do so) are MAK or Atiba.  

 

 

The only other possible change from the lineup above is Adekube versus Laryea.   It will be one or the other but not likely both.   The chart above from the Mexico game shows #22 Laryea on the backline but it could easily have been written to placed him further up as the system could change to a 3-5-2 or 3-5-1-1 or 3-4-3 (3-4-2-1).   Adekube & Laryea are key players to making the formation flexible and changeable because they can move up to MF or back to HB

Edited September 30, 2022 by Free kick

[VinceA]

I think we need to run three midfielders but Herdman has seemed to move on from those kind of formations.

[Joe MacCarthy]

 

[jonovision]

7 minutes ago, VinceA said:

I think we need to run three midfielders but Herdman has seemed to move on from those kind of formations.

When was the last match that we played with 3 CMs?

[SpecialK]

45 minutes ago, nfitz said:

I'm sure Atiba will be there - I'm not convinced he's healthy or match-fit enough to be part of the squad.

Do we really need to take 3 keepers? Though I say that assuming that if one gets seriously injured, we could send another - and I don't know what the rules are for this tournament.

I’m pretty sure it’s a fifa World Cup requirement. Someone please confirm 

[Free kick]

1 hour ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

3 keepers is an obligation.

Yes.  I dont think I ever saw a WC squad with anything other than 3 keepers

[EJsens1]

1 hour ago, Free kick said:

Osorio and Piette are two different MF players who fulfill two different roles.  If Osorio (21) starts, it will have to be Larin (or one of the two fwds) who sits because we know #11 and #19 will definitely play.  The players who can replace Piette (if Herdman decides to do so) are MAK or Atiba.  

 

 

The only other possible change from the lineup above is Adekube versus Laryea.   It will be one or the other but not likely both.   The chart above from the Mexico game shows #22 Laryea on the backline but it could easily have been written to placed him further up as the system could change to a 3-5-2 or 3-5-1-1 or 3-4-3 (3-4-2-1).   Adekube & Laryea are key players to making the formation flexible and changeable because they can move up to MF or back to HB

I’ve seen enough of Kone between the national team and Montreal that i’d put him in there over Piette. I don’t get it with Piette. I had it explained to me a week ago about his career year and his experience to give him a chance. Again, he brought nothing to the table against Uruguay. He was so slow and just isn’t quick enough in his decision making. I’ve seen enough of him over time with the CMNT to form this opinion. I think he should be on the team and depending on the moment, maybe late in the game get on the pitch.  But to have him feature in our starting 11 in six weeks would be a disastrous decision against the likes of De Bruyne and Modric. I’d rather role the dice with Kaye and his god awful season. This is about winning World Cup games, not being sentimental about loyal players. I’m not saying you want Piette in there, but there’s some that do thinking it’s not a bad choice. Yes, yes it would be.

[SthMelbRed]

Every team will name 3 keepers and 23 outfield players. They will be assigned shirt numbers from 1-26. These are all part of the World Cup requirements.

[jonovision]

45 minutes ago, SthMelbRed said:

Every team will name 3 keepers and 23 outfield players. They will be assigned shirt numbers from 1-26. These are all part of the World Cup requirements.

I didn't know this part, though it seems obvious. Fun new game, or at least more fun than reading and posting in the Arfield thread: assign the numbers 1 thru 26 to our guys. 

[SthMelbRed]

36 minutes ago, jonovision said:

I didn't know this part, though it seems obvious. Fun new game, or at least more fun than reading and posting in the Arfield thread: assign the numbers 1 thru 26 to our guys. 

This came to light in 2014, I think, when Argentina decided that it was going to retire Maradona's #10 shirt, and go up to 24 with the squad selected for the World Cup. FIFA told them to fuck off and their 3rd-choice 'keeper was given the #10 shirt.

[The Ref]

1 hour ago, jonovision said:

I didn't know this part, though it seems obvious. Fun new game, or at least more fun than reading and posting in the Arfield thread: assign the numbers 1 thru 26 to our guys. 

At least one of the 3 goalkeepers must wear the number 1.  It needs not to be the starting keeper.

 

[SthMelbRed]

1 hour ago, jonovision said:

I didn't know this part, though it seems obvious. Fun new game, or at least more fun than reading and posting in the Arfield thread: assign the numbers 1 thru 26 to our guys. 

1 - Crepeau
2 - Johnston
3 - Adekugbe
4 - Miller
5 - Vitoria
6 - Piette
7 - Eustaquio
8 - Osorio
9 - Larin
10 - Hoilett
11 - Buchanan
12 - Ugbo
13 - Hutchinson
14 - MAK
15 - Cavallini
16 - Kone
17 - Kennedy
18 - Borjan
19 - Davies
20 - David
21 - Millar
22 - Laryea
23 - St Clair
24 - Corbeanu
25 - Cornelius
26 - Henry

[Unnamed Trialist]

4 hours ago, SthMelbRed said:

This came to light in 2014, I think, when Argentina decided that it was going to retire Maradona's #10 shirt, and go up to 24 with the squad selected for the World Cup. FIFA told them to fuck off and their 3rd-choice 'keeper was given the #10 shirt.

You're supposed to end by saying you bought that #10 Argentina 3rd keeper shirt and wear it to pub crawls.

[RS]

9 hours ago, SthMelbRed said:

This came to light in 2014, I think, when Argentina decided that it was going to retire Maradona's #10 shirt, and go up to 24 with the squad selected for the World Cup. FIFA told them to fuck off and their 3rd-choice 'keeper was given the #10 shirt.

Not sure if you're joking or not (I've not had enough sleep), but Messi wore #10 in 2014, as he did in 2010, 2018 and (presumably) 2022.

[RS]

My brain can't do humour this early on a Friday.