Pronewbie
Peep
1 tackle as per PL stats. Lowest number of touches in the first xi, and just 6 more passes than Eriksen who's played half as much.Is this true?
1 tackle as per PL stats. Lowest number of touches in the first xi, and just 6 more passes than Eriksen who's played half as much.Is this true?
Bruno is one of the best attacking mids in the league. He’s scored 44 in 124 games and assisted 32. Only De Bryune has created more goal scoring chances. Moving him after two games and him just being made captain is silly.The answer might be to play Bruno as a true number 8 (that's his number after all). Have Bruno be the box to box and sit along side Casemiro for defense and passing. He obviously would have to change his thinking and be much less risk averse. He played as the last midfielder a few times last season and did a good job spreading the ball. Some more reasons this could work:
- Bruno is not a great AM and never will be. Sometimes his passing is pretty bad (e.g. his poor attempts at switching almost every match and his crosses missing by at least 10 yards too often) and he can't blow by the opposition when pressed (e.g. Maddison against us)
- Play Mount as the AM. He might be more effective than Bruno. Mount would keep possession better and he is certainly better at dribbling.
- This would add mobility to our defense because Bruno can cover a lot of ground.
- Bruno would provide a commanding presence in the middle of the pitch which we are lacking.
I don't know if Bruno would accept this change. However, I really think Bruno could be a much better 8 than he ever will be as an AM.
Bruno as a deeplying 8 would never truly work. He is way to reckless and not press resistant enough for that role. On top of that you are taking him further away from where he is fantastic. Bruno is at his best as a creator higher up the pitch. Asking Bruno to be more composed and do less risky passing is essentially ruining what makes him the great player he can be.The answer might be to play Bruno as a true number 8 (that's his number after all). Have Bruno be the box to box and sit along side Casemiro for defense and passing. He obviously would have to change his thinking and be much less risk averse. He played as the last midfielder a few times last season and did a good job spreading the ball. Some more reasons this could work:
- Bruno is not a great AM and never will be. Sometimes his passing is pretty bad (e.g. his poor attempts at switching almost every match and his crosses missing by at least 10 yards too often) and he can't blow by the opposition when pressed (e.g. Maddison against us)
- Play Mount as the AM. He might be more effective than Bruno. Mount would keep possession better and he is certainly better at dribbling.
- This would add mobility to our defense because Bruno can cover a lot of ground.
- Bruno would provide a commanding presence in the middle of the pitch which we are lacking.
I don't know if Bruno would accept this change. However, I really think Bruno could be a much better 8 than he ever will be as an AM.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I don’t need to i made the statement, you’re the one which brought the captaincy into it. And I also gave the reason why I think he’s captain before.Come up with a logical reason why he would make him captain. You've not really provided any, could have easily picked Rashford, the darling of Manchester, or Varane even for the experience.
26 and 19 of those goals and assists were from the first season and a half here. Here are more sobering numbers.Bruno is one of the best attacking mids in the league. He’s scored 44 in 124 games and assisted 32. Only De Bryune has created more goal scoring chances. Moving him after two games and him just being made captain is silly.
Agree. Now that his goals and assists have dried, he's basically a liability. I'm genuinely worried for the season, its clear as day this midfield trio won't work, the only resort is bringing in Mctominay. FFS its like 1 step forward and 2 backwards with this club.26 and 19 of those goals and assists were from the first season and a half here. Here are more sobering numbers.
18 goals and 14 assists in 73 PL games the last two seasons (De Bruyne had 22 and 24, respectively, in 62 matches)
1 goal in 11 EL matches last season
0 goals in 7 CL matches in 21/22.
He is not one of the best AMs in the league anymore. Sorry.
Interesting to see Arsenal's approach in the last two games.
They're playing a midfield three that is on face value similar to ours. One DM (Rice) behind two AMs (Odegaard & Havertz). But they're also playing another actual midfielder (Partey) as their nominal RB, letting him invert into midfield alongside Rice rather than making a typical fullback do it.
Makes me wonder:
A) If they're only doing that because they don't love their RB options?
B) If we could do anything similar?
C) If Arteta is getting any of the sort of criticism ETH would definitely get for what I think some posters on here would describe as "building an unbalanced midfield and needing to play another midfielder at RB to fix it".
Ye, but that should show to the team and coaching staff that the system ain't working atm. He shouldn't be that alone.These types of stats are the worst. Hes isolated a lot of the time it's going to happen
Could well be, but in this case I'm specifically just wondering about the midfielder-inverting-from-fullback idea.Rice and Odeggard are better players than Casemiro and Bruno. Cas, I think this legs are gone, so easy to dribble past. Bruno can barely keep the ball, let alone influence a game.
The other thing is, Saka and martinelli are infinitely better than our wide players, so the system emplyed by Arteta, although similar to ours, works for Arsenal because they simply have better players than us.
I think we need to give the coaching staff and the players some patience to get into it.Ye, but that should show to the team and coaching staff that the system ain't working atm. He shouldn't be that alone.
They also have Odegaard and Havertz who keep the ball very well and Rice who’s very athletic and also keeps the ball well. Our midfielders treat the ball like a ticking time bomb.arsenal have literally beaten palace away with the exact kinda midfield set up we have. 1 holder and two 10s. The main difference between us and them is they have been compact through out
arsenal have literally beaten palace away with the exact kinda midfield set up we have. 1 holder and two 10s. The main difference between us and them is they have been compact through out
Yeah we're basically playing identical systems. Their pressing structure is also quite similar now - we seem to have stopped the thing where the winger + striker combine to make the front two pressing and it's Bruno (Odegaard) and Nketiah (Rashford) instead.They also have Odegaard and Havertz who keep the ball very well and Rice who’s very athletic and also keeps the ball well. Our midfielders treat the ball like a ticking time bomb.
Aye the fundamental idea is sound. The question is whether we in particular have the personnel to make it work.arsenal have literally beaten palace away with the exact kinda midfield set up we have. 1 holder and two 10s. The main difference between us and them is they have been compact through out. Talk of having better players is ludicrous
Today I saw Rice dribbled with ease by Eze for exmple. The reason it ended up in naught was Partey and two others were in close proximity. When Casemiro for example got beat first Nunes vs Wolves, then Maddison vs Tottenham, NO United players were in close proximity. The difference there in being compactness. Not ball retention nor athleticism. Even down to 10 men at no point did Arsenal allow the compactness of their shape to dissipate, yet at one point Palace had 80% of the ball for a sustained period.They also have Odegaard and Havertz who keep the ball very well and Rice who’s very athletic and also keeps the ball well. Our midfielders treat the ball like a ticking time bomb.
They bring that argument up because they are plain missing the point. Arsenal were compact. From Rasmdale to Nketiah (depth) From Partey to Tomiyasu/Martinelli (width) A thing that has nothing to do with ball retention nor athleticism. just team shape. Without the ball you had to play around them. For us last two games it has been piss easy to play through us thanks to the acres of spaces we keep leaving between playersAye the fundamental idea is sound. The question is whether we in particular have the personnel to make it work.
As I noted above, they actually fit another midfield player into the team by using Partey as the nominal inverting RB. Do we have players (of whatever natural position) as suited to that role? Some would also argue that the types of midfielders they have populating the system are very different, with someone like Odegaard being better at retaining possession.
........
Yeah I’ll concede that they’re a much better drilled unit then us. Their players never seen isolated in either defence or attack. I’m just sceptical about whether Ten Hag can get our players to keep our shape so well. Unfortunately, I don’t think we have the athleticism I’m defence to compensate.Today I saw Rice dribbled with ease by Eze for exmple. The reason it ended up in naught was Partey and two others were in close proximity. When Casemiro for example got beat first Nunes vs Wolves, then Maddison vs Tottenham, NO United players were in close proximity. The difference there in being compactness. Not ball retention nor athleticism. Even down to 10 men at no point did Arsenal allow the compactness of their shape to dissipate, yet at one point Palace had 80% of the ball for a sustained period.
Our shape the last two games has had no compactness at all. Be it in nor out of possession. Its both why we struggled in the buildup vs wolves and utterly struggled to contain Spurs in second half whenever we lost the ball
I'm certain we don't. That is why compactness is paramount in terms of the drilled tactics of shape. Not our ability to keep ball or athletic prowess. If we don't improve our ability to be compact we will keep being easy to pick off and play against and will keep finding it hard to impose ourselves. The compactness of Arsenal's shape multiplies the sum of their ability to keep ball and be athletic, whilst minimizing weaknesses. I'm convinced it will have the same effect on us if we can harness it.Yeah I’ll concede that they’re a much better drilled unit then us. Their players never seen isolated in either defence or attack. I’m just sceptical about whether Ten Hag can get our players to keep our shape so well. Unfortunately, I don’t think we have the athleticism I’m defence to compensate.
I believe Mainoo will be out for a couple more weeks unfortunately.Well Mount is out now until after the Int break. I’d consider putting Mainoo in with Case and trying to play Sancho into some sort of form
We 200% need to buy a young energetic DMF, Rice destroyed Palace last night and just shows why that type of player is commanding huge fees now, so important in modern football
Now is it? Ludicrous to say that Rice, Odegaard and Havertz are better than what we have? I'd take that midfield over ours in a heartbeat.arsenal have literally beaten palace away with the exact kinda midfield set up we have. 1 holder and two 10s. The main difference between us and them is they have been compact through out. Talk of having better players is ludicrous
The difference isn’t huge whichever side of the fence you’re on, though.Now is it? Ludicrous to say that Rice, Odegaard and Havertz are better than what we have? I'd take that midfield over ours in a heartbeat.
Which wouldnt matter since our tactics for the last two games would equally expose them. Thats why its ludicrous. Too many are conflating the set up with the players. Anyone who imagines Rice for example would havd faired any better having Nunes run at him without cover. Or being double teamed and tripple teamed by Maddison, Richarlison and Bissouma with no help with in 20 yards in any direction isn't serious.Now is it? Ludicrous to say that Rice, Odegaard and Havertz are better than what we have? I'd take that midfield over ours in a heartbeat.
It's not, but Casemiro either being a slow starter or maybe even start declining has made it an evident difference in favor to their midfield, with the others being Odegaard=Bruno and Mount vs Havertz too early to call.The difference isn’t huge whichever side of the fence you’re on, though.
I don't think it's only about the tactics, Casemiro, Bruno and Mount have been equally appalling in their own conduct, and should bare responsibility. Casemiro probably has the biggest excuse after being left to deal with lots of work, but he has been subpar and there's not hiding from it.Which wouldnt matter since our tactics for the last two games would equally expose them. Thats why its ludicrous. Too many are conflating the set up with the players
Another difference-maker is that Odegaard is more comfortable with possession-based ball recycling than Bruno is. Making Bruno not an ideal player in this 2x#10 system. He’s more suited as a lone #10 chance creator. I’d probably say the same goes for Havertz vs Mount but to a lesser degree.It's not, but Casemiro either being a slow starter or maybe even start declining has made it an evident difference in favor to their midfield, with the others being Odegaard=Bruno and Mount vs Havertz too early to call.