He'sRaldo
Full Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2019
- Messages
- 3,203
As we all know, formations dictate the ease of the players' jobs.
For instance, playing a 3 at the back formation helps defenders look better, and also makes wingbacks look more secure defensively than they might be with 2 at the back. Playing a formation with 2 strikers makes the lives of both strikers easier than if they had to operate as the lone man. And more pertinent to the topic of this thread, playing a midfield with 3 players generally makes the midfielders jobs easier than playing with 2.
We all know that for the last 5+ years our managers' preferred formation has been a 4-2-3-1, with Ole's being especially top heavy when Bruno goes forward. We also know that our midfielders are all maligned in one way or the other. Fred, Scott, Pogba, Donny, and Matic all have flaws in a midfield 2 that are constantly highlighted, and Ole has eventually settled on the infamous "McFred" midfield to give the best balance.
Looking at the qualities of our midfielders, I'm a fan. They all bring different things to the table, but unfortunately none are all-rounders. I reckon all of them fit very well into specific roles in a midfield 3, but none fit seamlessly into a 2, and their flaws tend to be highlighted more.
My question is, given that our formation is very top heavy and midfield light, how much does that affect our perception of our midfielders especially when comparing with other top midfielders who typically play in a midfield 3 (and often with a false 9 to boot). Are our midfield options really as bad as popular opinion may seem? And crucially, can we challenge with the midfield we have, or is signing a new all-round midfielder imperative?
For instance, playing a 3 at the back formation helps defenders look better, and also makes wingbacks look more secure defensively than they might be with 2 at the back. Playing a formation with 2 strikers makes the lives of both strikers easier than if they had to operate as the lone man. And more pertinent to the topic of this thread, playing a midfield with 3 players generally makes the midfielders jobs easier than playing with 2.
We all know that for the last 5+ years our managers' preferred formation has been a 4-2-3-1, with Ole's being especially top heavy when Bruno goes forward. We also know that our midfielders are all maligned in one way or the other. Fred, Scott, Pogba, Donny, and Matic all have flaws in a midfield 2 that are constantly highlighted, and Ole has eventually settled on the infamous "McFred" midfield to give the best balance.
Looking at the qualities of our midfielders, I'm a fan. They all bring different things to the table, but unfortunately none are all-rounders. I reckon all of them fit very well into specific roles in a midfield 3, but none fit seamlessly into a 2, and their flaws tend to be highlighted more.
My question is, given that our formation is very top heavy and midfield light, how much does that affect our perception of our midfielders especially when comparing with other top midfielders who typically play in a midfield 3 (and often with a false 9 to boot). Are our midfield options really as bad as popular opinion may seem? And crucially, can we challenge with the midfield we have, or is signing a new all-round midfielder imperative?