Squad balance and squad complementarity

[Peace. 4,352]

Excellent post. One thing you didn't highlight enough (imo) is the lack of diversity we have now that Didier left us. Last year we won against Barca for several reasons, but one of them is the lack of tactical diversity at Barca. They can only play one way and that is their 'tiki-taka' (or something). We managed (succesfully) to counter that and we end up winning the cup. In the whole run to CL victory we showed our tactical diversity. Our approach against Napoli was very different from the one against Barca. Didier gave us the options to change our playing style. Lukaku, Sturridge and Torres won't give us that kind of diversity because they are either not good enough or the playing style doesn't suite them (i.e Lukaku is in a way similar to Drogba, but isn't good enough to carry us like Didier did).

Furthermore, just an excellent and complete post. I still miss a playmaker in central midfield. I know pre-season doesn't say a lot, but everytime PSG pressed our double pivot the forward 4 became isolated. I believe that wasn't just an incident in preseason, we will struggle with that fact coming season. Opponents will notice that our double pivot is weak and they can beat us by pressing far up the pitch.

Last thing, Ramires can play as right winger as well (imo). He gives (more) defensive security and his runs will be less of a risk as a right winger.

Thanks you.

Yep. We don't have enough diversity in attack. That is a thing i deplore, and this is why I want us to buy another striker. We don't possess this player who play back to goal, who can hold the ball until our team position itself in an attacking position. We don't have a forward with a good header, able to score from an half-good cross. We neither have a striker who has a big presence in the box. At the moment, our strikers are good when the ball is on the ground, when you feed them with through balls, when you play on their speed. We are one-dimensional ; we aren't allowed a tactical flexibility. Thus, I can easely see us, for instance, facing big troubles against the Wigans of the world, i.e. teams which will park the bus against us. Indeed, against such teams, we won't have the physical presence inside the box who will cause havoc, to who we will be able to send a cross when we couldn't unlock the defense thanks to through balls.

Yep. I also fear our back four and front three/four will be to many times isolated from each other. And what is the cause of a team being split in two ? A midfield not good enough to link the two parts. As you said, our double pivot is rather weak. And we don't possess the attacking midfielders or wingers good enough in defensive duties to come and help them. As a consequence, this midfield-two will be outnumbered and thus will struggle to make the link they are supposed to make between defense and attack.

This is why I want us to revert back to 4-3-3. This way, we will be able to play a genuine playmaker (or at least someone with real abilities to build the game) deep in central midfield, without exposing the backfour since this playmaker will be accompanied by two defensive midfielders : one who sits ahead of the back four, the other one who comes and goes between attack and defense (i.e. box-to-box). We will have a defensive stability granted by the two defensive midfielders, and we will have a midfield able to link the defense and attack thanks to the "deeplying-playmaker".

Because let's not kid ourselves. At the moment, in the 4-2-3-1, the only trustful defender we have is Mikel. The other players aren't really good in defense. Anyway, a classic 4-3-3 with a defensive midfielder, a box-to-box and a playmaker is the best way - in my honest opinion - to minimize the damages, to have decent balance between attack and defense in midfield, and an efficient link between the back four and our forwards.

[Melanicus 5,208]

I will post my opinion about 4-2-3-1 tommorow, because I'm tired right now.

On the other side, great article Peace, more posters like you.

[Blue Armour 4,289]

Thanks you.

Yep. We don't have enough diversity in attack. That is a thing i deplore, and this is why I want us to buy another striker. We don't possess this player who play back to goal, who can hold the ball until our team position itself in an attacking position. We don't have a forward with a good header, able to score from an half-good cross. We neither have a striker who has a big presence in the box. At the moment, our strikers are good when the ball is on the ground, when you feed them with through balls, when you play on their speed. We are one-dimensional ; we aren't allowed a tactical flexibility. Thus, I can easely see us, for instance, facing big troubles against the Wigans of the world, i.e. teams which will park the bus against us. Indeed, against such teams, we won't have the physical presence inside the box who will cause havoc, to who we will be able to send a cross when we couldn't unlock the defense thanks to through balls.

Yep. I also fear our back four and front three/four will be to many times isolated from each other. And what is the cause of a team being split in two ? A midfield not good enough to link the two parts. As you said, our double pivot is rather weak. And we don't possess the attacking midfielders or wingers good enough in defensive duties to come and help them. As a consequence, this midfield-two will be outnumbered and thus will struggle to make the link they are supposed to make between defense and attack.

This is why I want us to revert back to 4-3-3. This way, we will be able to play a genuine playmaker (or at least someone with real abilities to build the game) deep in central midfield, without exposing the backfour since this playmaker will be accompanied by two defensive midfielders : one who sits ahead of the back four, the other one who comes and goes between attack and defense (i.e. box-to-box). We will have a defensive stability granted by the two defensive midfielders, and we will have a midfield able to link the defense and attack thanks to the "deeplying-playmaker".

Because let's not kid ourselves. At the moment, in the 4-2-3-1, the only trustful defender we have is Mikel. The other players aren't really good in defense. Anyway, a classic 4-3-3 with a defensive midfielder, a box-to-box and a playmaker is the best way - in my honest opinion - to minimize the damages, to have decent balance between attack and defense in midfield, and an efficient link between the back four and our forwards.

I too agree with the fact that we should try to revert back to 4-3-3. There are bound to be a lot of people against it after the recent fiasco, but how do you expect that formation to work when Ramires is playing RW, and our other winger is so disinterested?

[Deanocfc 22]

I think Oscar should be seen as more of a central midfielder than an attacking one.

Everything i've seen of him so far tells me he is built for playing alongside a more conservative partner in the middle of the park ( lampard or mikel). He drops deep to collect the ball and uses his poise and intellihence to dictate the play. He 's thinking two passes ahead all the time...let him develop the game while unleashing the flashier Hazard/Marin types to wreak havoc in the final third. To my mind we couldn't have made a better, more appropriate signing.

He goes a long way in addressing the balance issues the OP expresses. With him in the side there's space for the legs of Ramires, the guile of Mata and the flair of Hazard. I sincerely think we've hit the bullseye with this guy.

Exactly what I think. People are moaning about our midfield but Oscar is the man/boy to fill this gap. I casn't believe I'm saying it but Ballack linked the middle third to the attacking third really well. Like you say, Oscar seems to like to receive the ball deep and then play one-two's, through balls or switch the play. I think Oscar will link up really well with Mata/Hazard through the centre.

[wj818 25]

You Sir!! seem to have read my mind, fantastic article, very detailed and a complete one too.

However, we seem to slightly vary when it comes to our striker (just Torres). Basically I have more faith in him than you, i guess. And I know it is more of a blind faith since he hasn't shown us anything in terms of goals, (maybe 12 assists counts for his attitude and that he is a team player ). But beside that its mainly because I've been following Torres since he was in Atletico Madrid and its a dream come true to see him in a Chelsea shirt, I admit. Maybe that's why I'm biased and I keep overlooking our lack of depth in that section, or maybe not, since I am a firm believer of "Form is temporary, class is permanent" ideology and I have seen him giving 'world class' performances season after season (minus the last season). This is my sole reason not wanting another big name strikers like Cavani (BTW i highly rate him) who will not only demotivate Torres but also would want a straight place in the starting 11, not to mention the millions needed for the transfer, rather I would go for Hulk (ironically I don't highly rate him) or someone like him, who can be a back up for Torres.

Having said that, I wanted to point out that we haven't fully used his potential, specially when it comes to capitalizing on his clever movements off the ball, by passing the ball early so that he can use his pace and dribbling skills to have a go at the defense before they organize themselves. Evidence of this can be clearly seen while he was in Liverpool and is the main reason why Torres and Gerrard's partnership was so devastating and feared. IMO,the cause lies in our midfielders simply not having the capability like Gerrard does. This delay in releasing the ball from our midfielders has not only hindered in linking with our attackers and slowing down our play but has failed to exploit Torres's asset also.

Hence, this is why, I'm more worried about our midfielders, and i wanted to discuss it. As you mentioned above, though looking at the number of our midfielders, it looks like we are alright. But if you look closer at each one of them, they lack one attribute or the other. If only we could tie two players and make them one . The lack of a complete defensive midfielder or a deep lying midfielder is clearly seen when we play 4-2-3-1 but can be omitted if we choose 4-3-3.

Now here, it gets tricky, do we revert back to 4-3-3 to balance our midfielders while sacrificing an attacker? Or do we choose to play 4-2-3-1 and hope someone or two would step-up? Taking from the likes of players we have bought and from the recent games, it looks like RDM wants the latter one, badly, since its more attacking minded. Another reason and I wonder about it is, why we haven't invested in or even rumored with any midfilders, beside Oscar. Personally I agree with you in going back to 4-3-3. It is the perfect formation for now as it would balance our midfielders and it would bring back Ramires into the right midfield, his best position yet. And unless and until our midfielders step up (My wild cards are Oscar and Mikel/Essien ) or we buy midfielders that can play in 4-2-3-1, I don't think we have any choice.

One formation that did pop in my mind is 4-3-2-1, Carlo's Christmas tree, and I do think it can work for now (or maybe as an alternate). It would not only bring Ramires to the left and with balance our midfield, but would also let hazard in a more central role who wants to be there and we wouldn't have to sacrifice Mata and place him in the wings. The only problem I see in this formation is, its kinda narrow, and would be hard to fit in Marin, another would be finding a place for Oscar.

P.S: I do understand the lack of proper strikers, and how important strikers are (BTW You forgot to mention Van Persie for Arsenal last season), So I wouldn't mind us buying one more striker. Anyway, Would love to hear your opinion on 4-3-2-1, or any other formation.

[manco 38]

Agree with every word.