Problems and solutions part two - box midfields


AC Mack

Striker
These seem to have come back into fashion in the last season or two, and seem to date back to the Brazilian box or 'Joga Bonito' of some of the great Brazilian sides of the past. Modern iterations include Guardiola with his inverted full back and wing backs, or even a 'libero' (sorry if you dislike the jargon) or a more traditional 4-2-2-2 box that Ralf Rangnick tried to implement at Man United. The idea, presumably, is to dominate the central areas of the pitch in the build up phase or 'attacking transition'. I'm going to try and share some thoughts on how we could achieve this, and possibly how we are already attempting to do so.

The easiest way of doing it is by essentially playing some form of 4-4-2 or 4-2-4. It can also be achieved by playing Mowbray's preferred 4-2-3-1 with the number 10 joining the striker up top.

Patterson

Huggins O'Nien Ballard Cirkin

Neil Ekwah

Aouchiche...........Clarke

Rusyn Mayenda
This is similar to a side I mooted yesterday, however this time Aouchiche is in. There's an obvious case for playing Roberts, and with two out and out strikers it might allow him a bit more joy with his end product, but in this shape try to imagine the two full backs acting like traditional wing backs when we have the ball, and Aouchiche and Clarke playing slightly narrower. It gives us a box of four in the middle to control the game, gives us natural width on either flank and allows us to play with two up top, which has obvious benefits both attacking and transitioning into defence with our aggressive press.

If we're to go a little bit more complex then we start looking at full backs inverting. I say more complex, but it means we can more or less keep our current defensive shape. I'm trying to decide who our best player is who can play naturally at full back but tuck inside to become a centre half when we have the ball. Hume? O'Nien? Seelt? To be honest it's probably Alese when fit, but there's not much point including him at the moment. They need to be good in the air as they're essentially moving to centre back. You then need someone who can be deployed in the other full back role but who will invert into midfield. This person needs to be more composed on the ball. Cirkin? O'Nien? Something like this:

Patterson

O'Nien Ballard Seelt Hume

Neil Ekwah

Roberts Jobe Clarke

Rusyn
Which transitions into:

Patterson

O'Nien Ballard Seelt

Hume Ekwah

Neil Jobe

Roberts Rusyn Clarke
I don't think that's far off what we're attempting to do now. In attack it means Neil and Jobe join the front three to try and cover all five vertical attacking channels of the pitch.

Finally, you have the option of moving one of the two centre backs into midfield and asking the two full backs to tuck in as auxiliary centre backs.

Patterson

Hume O'Nien Ballard Cirkin

Neil Ekwah

Roberts Jobe Clarke

Rusyn
In attacking transition becomes:

Patterson

Hume Ballard Cirkin

O'Nien Ekwah

Neil Jobe

Roberts Rusyn Clarke
The same attacking shape is formed as the previous shape with the front five occupying the five channels.

These are just ideas and the personnel is well up for debate, but I'm trying to think of the best way to get these kind of shapes out of the players we have.

And no, before somebody says it, football is no longer a simple game ;)
 
Which transitions into:

Patterson

O'Nien Ballard Seelt

Hume Ekwah

Neil Jobe

Roberts Rusyn Clarke
I don't think that's far off what we're attempting to do now. In attack it means Neil and Jobe join the front three to try and cover all five vertical attacking channels of the pitch.
It's exactly what we've been doing all season, and it isn't working.
 
As mentioned above though, one of those shapes is what we're doing anyway.

what is your view on Mowbray? do you believe him to be a technically savvy gaffer or less flexible in his approach than would be good for us? do you think our squad dictates the style and formation he uses, or is he misisng a trick?
 
what is your view on Mowbray? do you believe him to be a technically savvy gaffer or less flexible in his approach than would be good for us? do you think our squad dictates the style and formation he uses, or is he misisng a trick?

I think he's more flexible than people give him credit for, probably including me at times. Changes tend to be quite subtle, such as a change of role for one or two players, people getting into different positions during different phases of play. People think a 'Plan B' should be something completely different but it's rare to see this.

That said, it's unlikely he'll make clear changes to the shape from the beginning, and can be quite reactive during games when we're chasing. He's not a natural modern day coach but has had to adapt.
 
I think he's more flexible than people give him credit for, probably including me at times. Changes tend to be quite subtle, such as a change of role for one or two players, people getting into different positions during different phases of play. People think a 'Plan B' should be something completely different but it's rare to see this.

That said, it's unlikely he'll make clear changes to the shape from the beginning, and can be quite reactive during games when we're chasing. He's not a natural modern day coach but has had to adapt.

Interesting. He has at times surprised me, he is more astute than I thought he would be and going on past reputation from other clubs, I think at times he is unsure of the capability of some of his own squad and avoids pushing them, no idea if this is down to the lads we have signed not being his preferred type of player, and I think that he struggles with lads if the channel of communication is stilted, but overall he is a decent gaffer.

You get the feeling now that he is runing out of time if he does not liven things up, I think our signing four or five "prospects" up top has hampered him tbh.
 

Back
Top