If Odegaard and Havertz works, then why can't Mount and Bruno?

Walters_19_MuFc

Full Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2013
Messages
32,420
Location
Birmingham
I look at Arsenal and the way they play with Havertz and Odegaard. Both of them push high up the pitch and play in the half spaces, almost like inside forwards.

I look at Bruno and Mount, and although Odegaard is arguably the most technically gifted out of the four midfielders, they all have similar roles, which is pretty much as I explained above.

Now, I know football not as simple as throwing players in and it all of a sudden just working, but my question would be, what would ten Hag need to do in order for Mount and Bruno to work like we see with Havertz and Odegaard?
 
Walters_19_MuFc said:
I look at Arsenal and the way they play with Havertz and Odegaard. Both of them push high up the pitch and play in the half spaces, almost like inside forwards.

I look at Bruno and Mount, and although Odegaard is arguably the most technically gifted out of the four midfielders, they all have similar roles, which is pretty much as I explained above.

Now, I know football not as simple as throwing players in and it all of a sudden just working, but my question would be, what would ten Hag need to do in order for Mount and Bruno to work like we see with Havertz and Odegaard?
Click to expand...
Rice.
 
Walters_19_MuFc said:
I look at Arsenal and the way they play with Havertz and Odegaard. Both of them push high up the pitch and play in the half spaces, almost like inside forwards.

I look at Bruno and Mount, and although Odegaard is arguably the most technically gifted out of the four midfielders, they all have similar roles, which is pretty much as I explained above.

Now, I know football not as simple as throwing players in and it all of a sudden just working, but my question would be, what would ten Hag need to do in order for Mount and Bruno to work like we see with Havertz and Odegaard?
Click to expand...
Odegaard is more midfielder than Bruno and Mount. He's naturally tidier on ball, has more patience in possession, much stronger ball carrier than Bruno.
 
IMO Mount can do that no problem, it's just he's been deployed too high. Bruno on the other hand, as good as he is around the box, is just not suited to this role imo. And the funny thing is he's the one playing deeper than the other 'midfielder' (Mount / McTominay).

I also think Arsenal play with two #8s while our players are doing more of #10 roles. Plus, Arsenal wingers are good ball carriers.
 
Since when has “Havertz” worked in that Arsenal set up? I thought he’s mostly been sitting on the bench. Unless we’re referring to a sample of….1, which was their UCL match last night?

But yeah, Pep plays a midfield 3 of Rodri, KDB & Bernardo. Of course hard work is a requirement but it can work as long as the entire system works in unity. Our press is way too disjointed and so is our team/tactics, partly due to too many injuries.
 
Because Bruno is allergic to possession. And Mount seemingly just runs around a lot.
 
Walters_19_MuFc said:
I look at Arsenal and the way they play with Havertz and Odegaard. Both of them push high up the pitch and play in the half spaces, almost like inside forwards.

I look at Bruno and Mount, and although Odegaard is arguably the most technically gifted out of the four midfielders, they all have similar roles, which is pretty much as I explained above.

Now, I know football not as simple as throwing players in and it all of a sudden just working, but my question would be, what would ten Hag need to do in order for Mount and Bruno to work like we see with Havertz and Odegaard?
Click to expand...

We simply don't make the same movements that they do. Arsenal, like City, are almost automaton. Every time it goes to the wing they've got three players rotating and trying to create the ball in the half-space between the opposition CB and FB. They just have better tactical structure in the phases of play. When we have the ball on the wing, it's Antony and Dalot/AWB. No one else, absolutely no fecking body else arrives to make up that three and give us penetration and rotation.
 
The answer to this is more complicated and nuanced than people would like it to be.

In reality, its because both Arsenal and Man City play very differently to us. The role of their inverting full backs and the way their centre backs step out of defence creates a crowded central midfield area. It leaves them vulnerable to attacks down the flanks. However, they keep the ball so well, and use the tactical foul so effectively, that they're rarely caught out.

Ten Hag seemed to be trying to move in this direction early on this season but the team either couldn't or wouldn't adapt. In that first game against Wolves we tried to squeeze up the pitch and had Shaw inverting. However, Wolves beat our high press constantly and Nunes exposed our lack of mobility in midfield and ability to keep the ball.

The way that Pep and Lego Pep play is dependent on keeping the ball and shutting down counters quickly and effectively. If you can do that you can force more attacking players onto the pitch. Which is what both do. On paper City play 3 at the back but that's partly because one of their centre backs effectively plays as a defensive midfielder and their forward line is so wide, and occupies so much space that it creates problems for opponents.

We just can't seem to get it right. Ten Hag IS pushing the midfielders forward into similar areas that the City and Arsenal players occupy. But even though we are forcing a high number of turnovers, statistically, we aren't capitalising enough to scare opponents. Invariably we have good 20 minute spells, run out of gas and then lose control. End up retreating deep and hoofing it because the system breaks down. Plus, due to the bad form of our wingers, Ten Hag has committed to using the full backs to create width and they're inverting much less. This means its much harder to hold the ball in midfield and gaps open up routinely in our midfield shape.

We're kind of a halfway house between pre-Van Dijk Liverpool and pre-last season Arsenal. We are playing in a way that generates a high number of chances but is defensively unsound. The coach needs to decide which path he's going to take. If we're going to go more in the Liverpool direction, we need more pace and power in midfield and more commitment to using the fullbacks as attacking outlets. If we're going to go back to a more Ajax like way, then we need to get the timing of our press right and our wide forwards need to become vastly more productive and able to win 1v1 duels without overlapping full backs.
 
Different types of players, different teams, different styles.

I'm sure that Bruno would work well alongside Ødegaard regardless of who the manager is though.
 
Wait how does Odegaard Havertz work? Havertz has been horrible till now, a couple of goals doesn't change that.
 
Zlatans Knee said:
Because Bruno is allergic to possession. And Mount seemingly just runs around a lot.
Click to expand...

I wish Mount was running around a lot. He is mostly been injured and unable to run. I already see a stupid post in here that claims Mount isnt a good player and the standard boring qualification as a 'nothing player'. Mount has mostly been injured but i think he can still turn good. Mount isnt a bad player.
 
hasanejaz88 said:
Wait how does Odegaard Havertz work? Havertz has been horrible till now, a couple of goals doesn't change that.
Click to expand...
Not only that, we’ve also had almost 0 opportunity to try Bruno and Mount on any sort of a consistent basis bar a couple of games at the start of the season
 
Arsenal play Jorginho and Rice against the big teams if I'm not mistaken. The one DM with two 8' can work sometimes. We even sort of got away with Eriksen and Bruno a lot last year but over a season you will come up against teams that will run you over in midfield. Arsenal are being clever by deploying 2 DM's when the need them. Plus those 2 DM's are much better than we can put out. McTominay and Amrabat isnt the same. Case + Mainoo might be a nice duo though for big teams. Mainoo + Bruno + Mount might be good against lesser teams but its a big ask of an 18 year old to hold the midfield on his own. Casemiro is the wrong sort of DM to be a single pivot. More Kante than Rice.
 
Walters_19_MuFc said:
I look at Arsenal and the way they play with Havertz and Odegaard. Both of them push high up the pitch and play in the half spaces, almost like inside forwards.

I look at Bruno and Mount, and although Odegaard is arguably the most technically gifted out of the four midfielders, they all have similar roles, which is pretty much as I explained above.

Now, I know football not as simple as throwing players in and it all of a sudden just working, but my question would be, what would ten Hag need to do in order for Mount and Bruno to work like we see with Havertz and Odegaard?
Click to expand...
A big if at the moment. Use Man City's 2 #8s probably a better example at this point.
 
Hoof the ball said:
We simply don't make the same movements that they do. Arsenal, like City, are almost automaton. Every time it goes to the wing they've got three players rotating and trying to create the ball in the half-space between the opposition CB and FB. They just have better tactical structure in the phases of play. When we have the ball on the wing, it's Antony and Dalot/AWB. No one else, absolutely no fecking body else arrives to make up that three and give us penetration and rotation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, although I can agree with you, funnily enough, last night McTominay looked to exploit spaces right wide and between their CB/FB, just shame it is him, not someone better.

If we want to play two #8 in half-spaces, I think that they will find more spaces in between the lines with Garnacho and Antony starting as they are more like wingers/wide players and can pin opposition’s full backs wide rather than Rashford, who is more of a wide/inside forward type.

Probably the same reason why our attacking moves without Rashford last night at moments looked better than probably ever this season. Also we finished a game with both of our advanced midfielders scoring goals from those half-space areas.

Generally, I think there are still some players in our team that lack the quality and personality to play that kind of system.
 
Odegaard is one of the best players in the world, he would lift any team or player around him. He is a complete player. Wish he was ours.
 
I think it helps that Arsenal have a really strong core of Saliba, Gabriel and Rice supporting them. All three are physically gifted and dominant in duels. That kind of insurance is vital. Even if you manage to bypass Havertz and Odegaard, those three are all capable of defending in isolation.
 
firstly it hasn't really worked much has it? Although they are probably more suited to it

Odegaard is obviously more technically suited to playing that role and will succeed in it

The jury is still out on the other three being suited to that role, in my opinion. Bruno doesn't look it it all.
 
Tarrou said:
firstly it hasn't really worked much has it? Although they are probably more suited to it

Odegaard is obviously more technically suited to playing that role and will succeed in it

The jury is still out on the other three being suited to that role, in my opinion. Bruno doesn't look it it all.
Click to expand...
Far far away at the moment, so relax.
 
It's nothing to do with the holding midfielder or players around. Odegaard and Bruno are the main differences. The difference between Bruno and Odegaard are night and day.

Mount and a good holding midfielder can work provided we try to find our own Odegaard. Problem is there aren't many Odegaards available in world football.
 
It could yet work - fans are too quick to claim failure

That it didn't work in a period with so many injuries (including Mount himself) is not conclusive
 
I don't think Havertz-Rice-Ødegaard has worked just yet. Arsenal smashed Lens 6 nil, but it's still early days. Havertz has been useless, and Ødegaard has been poor for his standards. Rice is the only one who has performed at a high level, so don't use Arsenal as the barometer for success.

But to answer your question, Arsenal have Rice and inverted fullbacks who can assist in the build-up phase. United do not. Casemiro looks like he's one foot in the Saudi league and none of your fullbacks can do what Zinchenko does for Arsenal. Zinchenko plays more like a midfielder than Havertz does. Besides, I don't think comparing yourselves to Arsenal is wise. Ten Hag says he wants transitional football, whereas Arsenal's midfield is primarily possession-based. United should take inspiration from Newcastle or Klopp's midfield trio of Winjaldum, Fabinho and Henderson. That to me is the pinnacle of transitional football.
 
Stadjer said:
I wish Mount was running around a lot. He is mostly been injured and unable to run. I already see a stupid post in here that claims Mount isnt a good player and the standard boring qualification as a 'nothing player'. Mount has mostly been injured but i think he can still turn good. Mount isnt a bad player.
Click to expand...
What are Mount's qualities? Hardly 'stupid' to say isn't a good player. He was ok a few years back and has gradually gotten worse. He's done the square root of feck all when he's played this season. Same as in his last year at Chelsea.
 
Havertz isn't the best fit for Arsenal. There are many players who could have made it at the team eg a youngster whom they can groom. The transfer went through because of greed and potential earning. Maybe even the manager gets a small cut.

Havertz is like a half striker half midfielder. He's unlikely to do major things for Arsenal given his meek nature.

Mount excels in shooting, passing and running around which are all the aspects that Bruno, Mctominay is good at. Unfortunately, all three are also bad at dribbling (close ball control) and dictating play. Another bad purchase.

So both are bad purchases.
 
It’s really about the back line. If you’re going to push two midfielders high to form five across the front, your ball progressors are mainly defenders (plus the DM). You need defenders who are all excellent on the ball, comfortable carrying it forward and making passes into feet. Arsenal’s starting back four has three really top notch ball players in Saliba, White, and Zinchenko. Gabriel is the weakest link but he is decent. And the main backups Tomiyasu, Kiwior, and Timber are all excellent with their feet as well so it doesn’t break down once you need to rotate (which is what used to happen to Arsenal when the likes of Rob Holding, Cedric, Bellerin, and Tierney were in the mix).
 
Odegaard is more of a midfielder in terms of control, possession focus while Bruno is more chance creation focus.

Their wingers are far better defensively and actual wingers, while ours are much closer to forwards than wingers.

They also didn't play Odegaard and Havertz together in big games. It's jorginho next to rice, with just Odegaard in that 3. Havertz hasn't been very good and they've quickly realized it's not that balanced with him in there.

As far as DM goes, Rice covers a lot more ground than our DMs. Casemiro is quality at his best, last season he was class. But every player has their differences and needs different set ups to work together and get their best. Casemiro needs someone next to him to help share the load of covering for our attackers who have shit work rate, also due to his age and not being as mobile.

Finally, coaching system. Our system doesn't enable that 4-3-3 as well, clearly. We haven't found that balance. I'm sure Pep and Arteta could get that system better than what we've seen so far. That's not to say Ten Hag can't also be a top coach, but he hasn't shown he can implement that balance to be a dominant team even while chopping and changing players around like that.
 
Because Odegaard is better than Bruno, Havertz is better than Mount, Rice is better than Casemiro/Amrabat, their GK and defense are better than ours and their attack is better than ours. Oh, and they also have a better manager.
 
#07 said:
The answer to this is more complicated and nuanced than people would like it to be.

In reality, its because both Arsenal and Man City play very differently to us. The role of their inverting full backs and the way their centre backs step out of defence creates a crowded central midfield area. It leaves them vulnerable to attacks down the flanks. However, they keep the ball so well, and use the tactical foul so effectively, that they're rarely caught out.

Ten Hag seemed to be trying to move in this direction early on this season but the team either couldn't or wouldn't adapt. In that first game against Wolves we tried to squeeze up the pitch and had Shaw inverting. However, Wolves beat our high press constantly and Nunes exposed our lack of mobility in midfield and ability to keep the ball.

The way that Pep and Lego Pep play is dependent on keeping the ball and shutting down counters quickly and effectively. If you can do that you can force more attacking players onto the pitch. Which is what both do. On paper City play 3 at the back but that's partly because one of their centre backs effectively plays as a defensive midfielder and their forward line is so wide, and occupies so much space that it creates problems for opponents.

We just can't seem to get it right. Ten Hag IS pushing the midfielders forward into similar areas that the City and Arsenal players occupy. But even though we are forcing a high number of turnovers, statistically, we aren't capitalising enough to scare opponents. Invariably we have good 20 minute spells, run out of gas and then lose control. End up retreating deep and hoofing it because the system breaks down. Plus, due to the bad form of our wingers, Ten Hag has committed to using the full backs to create width and they're inverting much less. This means its much harder to hold the ball in midfield and gaps open up routinely in our midfield shape.

We're kind of a halfway house between pre-Van Dijk Liverpool and pre-last season Arsenal. We are playing in a way that generates a high number of chances but is defensively unsound. The coach needs to decide which path he's going to take. If we're going to go more in the Liverpool direction, we need more pace and power in midfield and more commitment to using the fullbacks as attacking outlets. If we're going to go back to a more Ajax like way, then we need to get the timing of our press right and our wide forwards need to become vastly more productive and able to win 1v1 duels without overlapping full backs.
Click to expand...
Good post.
 
Stadjer said:
I wish Mount was running around a lot. He is mostly been injured and unable to run. I already see a stupid post in here that claims Mount isnt a good player and the standard boring qualification as a 'nothing player'. Mount has mostly been injured but i think he can still turn good. Mount isnt a bad player.
Click to expand...
I think you need to check out his stats for the matches that he has played in. Or alternatively, just watch the games again. 8 appearances, 0 goals, 0 assists, 0 big chances created. So far we have zero evidence that he will be a good player for us. I hope that changes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.