Pellegrino Two Strikers is no the answer

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/15550236.Pellegrino__Two_strikers_is_not_the_answer/?ref=rss

What he says seems reasonable

He's stating the obvious really. We couldn't play 2 up top in the prem, we'd get battered in the middle. Alternatively we'd have to use a diamond and have no width. Both are a recipe for disaster. I up top with at least one, ideally 2, supporting as well as giving width works for the top sides and imo is the only logical way to go.

Totally agree with him.

The only teams who get away with two strikers in the PL are:

a.) Those who are happy to sacrifice possession and play very direct i.e Burnley

b.) Those who have good enough players to dominate with fewer players in the middle of the pitch i. e Man City and sometimes Spurs who play very narrow anyway.

Saints don't fit either of these criteria.

and Leicester

I agree with him. Our main problem has been lack of creativity from the three behind and them not linking correctly and contributing with goals.

We do miss Pelle as an option to hit when under pressure to take the pressure off, at least Long helps in that regard with running the channels and winning stuff in the air, things that Gabbiadini doesn't really offer so well.

I concur. Our midfield would get squashed of we played two out and out strikers.

well that sets alarm bells ringing for me, shows a disturbing lack of flexibility in his thought processes.

for me you dont have one formation in a game you have at the very least an defensive structure and an attacking structure and the key moments in the game are generally how you transition from one aspect of the game to another. to simply say in most games in the EPL 2 strikers leaves you vulnerable losing control of the game is short sighted and a failure to adequately prepare a team for the game ahead.

GK

CB CB CB

WB DM DM WB

AM

ST ST

you teach that formation correctly on the training field, make sure they are fit enough to do there roles for 100 mins then this formation provides a much greater and more fluid approach to the game then having a lone striker and hoping people will make it into the box to assist.

this relies on 2 modern day wing backs capable of getting up and down the field when necessary, a combination of quick, dominating and tactically aware center backs, 2 all action, high intensity defensive midfielders, a cleaver #10 willing to sit back when needed and 1 highly mobile forward that is capably of defending without always giving away fouls in front of our box.

Yes each game is different, players available is different but he, in that article largely dismissed a pretty obvious solution to our recent goal scoring woes and i for one have not been too impressed with what we have seen on the pitch under him so far and have seen very little change to the reasons that Puel was sacked just a few short months ago.

well that sets alarm bells ringing for me, shows a disturbing lack of flexibility in his thought processes.

 

for me you dont have one formation in a game you have at the very least an defensive structure and an attacking structure and the key moments in the game are generally how you transition from one aspect of the game to another. to simply say in most games in the EPL 2 strikers leaves you vulnerable losing control of the game is short sighted and a failure to adequately prepare a team for the game ahead.

 

GK

 

CB CB CB

 

WB DM DM WB

 

AM

 

ST ST

 

you teach that formation correctly on the training field, make sure they are fit enough to do there roles for 100 mins then this formation provides a much greater and more fluid approach to the game then having a lone striker and hoping people will make it into the box to assist.

 

this relies on 2 modern day wing backs capable of getting up and down the field when necessary, a combination of quick, dominating and tactically aware center backs, 2 all action, high intensity defensive midfielders, a cleaver #10 willing to sit back when needed and 1 highly mobile forward that is capably of defending without always giving away fouls in front of our box.

 

Yes each game is different, players available is different but he, in that article largely dismissed a pretty obvious solution to our recent goal scoring woes and i for one have not been too impressed with what we have seen on the pitch under him so far and have seen very little change to the reasons that Puel was sacked just a few short months ago.

I'm quite happy to stick with the tactical opinion of the bloke who got the job at a top premier league club to be honest

Everyones opinion is valid of course

On a side bar how is Claude Puel and Frank de Boer performing in the EPL lately?

I would like to see Gabbiadini in place of redmond

Both not worthy of the jobs in the first place and were wrong appointments.

Once appointed, they were fired prematurely.

Either way football isn't like FIFA. I play with players who are fantastic at #10 behind the striker but complete dog**** if they play on the outside.

I agree I think we have the guys to play the system you suggest: Soares started life as a winger before moving to defense. Bertrand is often very good overlapping with Redmond.

The bigger issue is that the formation you suggest requires a capable #10 (e.g. Sigurdsson, Alli, de Bruyne/Silva) which we just do not have, not to the quality of what would be required...

When Gabbiadini joined us I was reading that one of his former managers said he's best position was on the left not as a out and out striker - Therefore I dont see it as such a risk to play him wide instead of Redmond - with Charlie up front then we at least have two people on the pitch that can score goals without upsetting the structure of the team

Both not worthy of the jobs in the first place and were wrong appointments.

I'd be intrigued to know what you think has changed on the pitch for Saints since March last season... seems fairly obvious to me that the club's system is independent of the manager and at this stage there's not much if anything different. Seeing the same problems too, albeit without the fixture pile-up to increase the impact.

A front 3 of

Boufal -- Long -- Gabbi

Would really offer us pace and directness and if you were to give them a free role to roam and interchange, I really think it would work and cause problems. Obviously you would need to be a bit more cautious in the middle and at the back, so behind them you could either play

RB--CB--CB--LB

-------DM-------

-----CM--CM---

Or

---CB--CB--CB---

WB--CM--CM--WB

Whilst I don't really rate Long, he offers us something that Austin doesn't. He'll chase down everything and put the opposition under pressure. If we can get goals in around him, and not rely on him to score them, he can be very effective for us.

I don't understand the reluctance to play or at least try Gabi on the right (to cut in on his left) - He's played there before and lets be honest, he can't be any worse than Redmond or Tadic at the moment.

I'm trying desperately to believe in Redmond but he needs dropping.

Gabbi in his place and Charlie up front, if fit. At least that feels like a side that might just score a goal. Failing that drop Redmond for Long or Boufal or frankly anyone. Maybe Redmond coming on as an impact sub might help build his confidence. He probably suits that role better than Boufal who seems to cause chaos with our side when he comes on.

well that sets alarm bells ringing for me, shows a disturbing lack of flexibility in his thought processes.

 

for me you dont have one formation in a game you have at the very least an defensive structure and an attacking structure and the key moments in the game are generally how you transition from one aspect of the game to another. to simply say in most games in the EPL 2 strikers leaves you vulnerable losing control of the game is short sighted and a failure to adequately prepare a team for the game ahead.

 

GK

 

CB CB CB

 

WB DM DM WB

 

AM

 

ST ST

 

you teach that formation correctly on the training field, make sure they are fit enough to do there roles for 100 mins then this formation provides a much greater and more fluid approach to the game then having a lone striker and hoping people will make it into the box to assist.

 

this relies on 2 modern day wing backs capable of getting up and down the field when necessary, a combination of quick, dominating and tactically aware center backs, 2 all action, high intensity defensive midfielders, a cleaver #10 willing to sit back when needed and 1 highly mobile forward that is capably of defending without always giving away fouls in front of our box.

 

Yes each game is different, players available is different but he, in that article largely dismissed a pretty obvious solution to our recent goal scoring woes and i for one have not been too impressed with what we have seen on the pitch under him so far and have seen very little change to the reasons that Puel was sacked just a few short months ago.

You do know he stated this was for 90% of games, that means in 3 or 4 games he will start with something different. Shows he is flexible. Maybe tomorrow is one of the 10%.

I'd be intrigued to know what you think has changed on the pitch for Saints since March last season... seems fairly obvious to me that the club's system is independent of the manager and at this stage there's not much if anything different. Seeing the same problems too, albeit without the fixture pile-up to increase the impact.

Not a lot other than available players (either injury or through transfers). March was very recent. I don't expect a huge amount to change in the first couple of months.

What I meant by 'not worthy of the job' is about the capability/ceiling of the respective managers. Pellegrino is I believe capable of bringing us to a next level. Tactically, transfers (whatever his involvement is), his coaching and his man management (VVD a case in point).

I think Puel was fine, just that he ran out of ideas and creativity in many ways. The team we see now I believe was the best that Puel could coach to. The League Cup aside, we were very lucky to win 8th. There were six points I believe between us and 14th/15th place.

This team is the team that Pellegrino has inherited, but I don't believe it's at the ceiling. I think he's capable of bringing a lot more out the boys than before.

Not a lot other than available players (either injury or through transfers). March was very recent. I don't expect a huge amount to change in the first couple of months.

 

What I meant by 'not worthy of the job' is about the capability/ceiling of the respective managers. Pellegrino is I believe capable of bringing us to a next level. Tactically, transfers (whatever his involvement is), his coaching and his man management (VVD a case in point).

 

I think Puel was fine, just that he ran out of ideas and creativity in many ways. The team we see now I believe was the best that Puel could coach to. The League Cup aside, we were very lucky to win 8th. There were six points I believe between us and 14th/15th place.

 

This team is the team that Pellegrino has inherited, but I don't believe it's at the ceiling. I think he's capable of bringing a lot more out the boys than before.

Wow that's some faith in Pellegrino, none of that was tactically evident against West Ham, Wolves or Watford and in fact the opposite but I hope you are right.

He can play one striker, who, because of those behind, will struggle to get more than double figures. Then behind him three players out of the six or so candidates that have all proved totally inept when it comes to scoring regularly. All I can say is good luck with that and I just hope we achieve enough clean sheets coupled with the odd goal to get us enough points to stay up. I fear another manager stuck with a pet system without the three midfield players that can score their share of goals. When he gets desperate he throws on two strikers with fifteen minutes left to try and rescue points, too little too late.

His comment about the top teams playing one striker makes little sense as it ignores the fact that all those teams have plenty of players other than strikers that regularly score whilst we have none. Nothing shown so far this season gives reason for optimism.

Wing backs are the new thing. Wingers are becoming null and void. So it is easy to keep the same number of midfielders in the middle and play 2 up top. Wing backs are the future of football.

Wing backs are the new thing.

Hey Disco Stu, have you heard of the hot new bands on the scene? They're called Babylon Zoo.

Looking forward to watching a new episode of Friends on Channel 4 tonight with a delicious bottle of Hooch. It's new.

Well then, as derry has said repeatedly we're ****ed cause most of the bodies that we have that would arrive in the box are **** in front of goal. Add to that that we play in a predictable fashion and too slowly and in too pedestrian a fashion and ... well, we've been there before. They probably need to arrive in the box in the same fashion that they do in Man City games - lots of clever interplay to cut teams open and then the defence isn't set and organised and waiting for a cross right onto their head, or we need a front line that is a lot faster so they can get up to the opposition box quickly in time to support the player making the incisive pass which requires Gerrard's hollywood balls or Scholes' well-read quick balls or well, something we haven't got or .... Let's wait and see if a style of play that is effective for the league and the opposition will arrive before we find we're skirting the relegation zone in February and everyone's getting very nervous.

I would like to see some flexibility/adaptability from our managers (and players) and think that if we're going to play the way MP says we need to pretty much get rid of our midfield; certainly the attacking ones.

When Gabbiadini joined us I was reading that one of his former managers said he's best position was on the left not as a out and out striker - Therefore I dont see it as such a risk to play him wide instead of Redmond - with Charlie up front then we at least have two people on the pitch that can score goals without upsetting the structure of the team

I agree.

Really like that Pellegrino has said this and made himself accountable. He has addressed the issue and explained what he sees is best for the team- something I have a lot of faith that he knows a lot better than we do as fans. As a team we need to start finding goals from other places in the team, and it seems like we are this season. Lots of chances are falling to midfielders and defenders and they'll stick them in soon enough. I know a lot are worried about the front 3, but all that is needed is a Gabbiadini-esque run of form and it'll all be peachy again- preferably from Tadic.

Anyway, hearing this from the manager is brilliant and shows his resolve. We're 5 games into the season and look markedly improved from last term.

Based on the reactions here, my 10 striker plan is starting to look like a bag of man-juice.

Disappointing statement from Pellegrino. Same obsession with 'controlling the game' - ie UEFA Coaching Manual templated slow possession based recycling football - that's what got Puel sacked. He is on borrowed time for me. Not scoring goals and playing tedious slow paced football - but controlling the game. Gee. Bring back the Eighties, all is forgiven.

A front 3 of

 

Boufal -- Long -- Gabbi

 

Would really offer us pace and directness and if you were to give them a free role to roam and interchange, I really think it would work and cause problems. Obviously you would need to be a bit more cautious in the middle and at the back, so behind them you could either play

 

RB--CB--CB--LB

-------DM-------

-----CM--CM---

 

Or

 

---CB--CB--CB---

WB--CM--CM--WB

 

Whilst I don't really rate Long, he offers us something that Austin doesn't. He'll chase down everything and put the opposition under pressure. If we can get goals in around him, and not rely on him to score them, he can be very effective for us.

 

I don't understand the reluctance to play or at least try Gabi on the right (to cut in on his left) - He's played there before and lets be honest, he can't be any worse than Redmond or Tadic at the moment.

Wtf does this mean?

When Gabbiadini joined us I was reading that one of his former managers said he's best position was on the left not as a out and out striker - Therefore I dont see it as such a risk to play him wide instead of Redmond - with Charlie up front then we at least have two people on the pitch that can score goals without upsetting the structure of the team

On the right surely? He has hardly ever played on the left, but often played on the right at Sampdoria. Being a left footed forward it wouldn't make much sense for him to play on the left anyway, he wouldn't be able to cut in and shoot like he would on the right.

Don't think the plan is to have him as an out and out striker anyway, but for him to sometimes drop deeper dragging the centre backs out of position and have the wide forwards make the diagonal run ahead of him into the open space, much like Bonatini and Diogo Jota are doing at Wolves: https://www.theguardian.com/football/who-scored-blog/2017/sep/20/wolves-favourites-championship-jota-nuno-neves

But our wide forwards are crap so...

Wing backs are the new thing. Wingers are becoming null and void. So it is easy to keep the same number of midfielders in the middle and play 2 up top. Wing backs are the future of football.

Who, at the top level, is successfully playing wing backs (so 3 at the back) with 2 up front? Chelsea are successful but they play one up front, with 2 in behind. Arsenal's version is similar. That blend works as the two behind the front man have so much more freedom and can become a 2 or 3 up front. I'd love to see us with a well drilled 3 cb's, wing backs, Lemina and romeu, and then 2 ahead plus 1 up top. With vvd back in the fold I wouldn't be surprised to see it using that system.

Worrying if that's what he thinks, pretty close minded. I'd agree with him if I we had some support players that could actually score a goal but it looks like we don't.

Charlie should be the spearhead with Gabbi in a free role just behind. Maybe 3 CBs and put 5 in the mid if you want your numbers in the middle but we desperately need more firepower up front.

If MP sticks with this it looks like the goal drought will continue, we'll be in trouble and he'll be gone by Xmas.

Austin is slow, poor technically and unfit, why should he be the "spearhead" exactly?

Austin is slow, poor technically and unfit, why should he be the "spearhead" exactly?

Regardless of his faults he does actual score goals he was still top scorer last season despite being out for half a season. Long might be pacey and super fit but couldn't score in a brothel and Gabbi (who would still be my preferred option) seems to have trouble being on the same wave length as his team mates. None of our strikers (hell the whole forward line) are pulling up any trees recently so you can pretty much come up with an argument to start any on them until one of them actually gets a run of form going to make themselves un-droppable.

Firstly, if you watch the interview, he didn't actually rule out ever playing 2 strikers. He just explained that it's not as simple as thinking 2 strikers will inevitably score more than 1.

Secondly, if you look at the history of football formations, I think the general trend has been to continually increase the number of midfielders.

The following articles on the evolution of formations is very interesting IMHO. 1-2-7 anyone?...

https://www.football-bible.com/soccer-info/old-football-formations.html

https://www.football-bible.com/soccer-info/football-formations.html

Really like that Pellegrino has said this and made himself accountable. He has addressed the issue and explained what he sees is best for the team- something I have a lot of faith that he knows a lot better than we do as fans. As a team we need to start finding goals from other places in the team, and it seems like we are this season. Lots of chances are falling to midfielders and defenders and they'll stick them in soon enough. I know a lot are worried about the front 3, but all that is needed is a Gabbiadini-esque run of form and it'll all be peachy again- preferably from Tadic.

 

Anyway, hearing this from the manager is brilliant and shows his resolve. We're 5 games into the season and look markedly improved from last term.

The goalscoring record of most of our players is crap. The shots on target record of most of our players is crap. Davis has already got his one for the season. That limits us to another 10-15 goals all round if either Austin and Gabbiadini get injured or if their current form of 'not a lot' continues.

Firstly, if you watch the interview, he didn't actually rule out ever playing 2 strikers. He just explained that it's not as simple as thinking 2 strikers will inevitably score more than 1.

 

Secondly, if you look at the history of football formations, I think the general trend has been to continually increase the number of midfielders.

 

The following articles on the evolution of formations is very interesting IMHO. 1-2-7 anyone?...

 

https://www.football-bible.com/soccer-info/old-football-formations.html

 

https://www.football-bible.com/soccer-info/football-formations.html

Most intelligent managers (which I'd like to think is quite a lot of them in that they do understand the game) want control of the game and the current 'best' way is numbers in midfield which was not a trend when 'give it to the tricky winger' was all the rage and which got torn up a bit when Wimbledon went route 1 and succeeded against far better teams and players because of their work and strength. Pochettino made the sensible comment that it was not where people start but where they play and end up that's the important thing: if you do things well in groups you can outnumber the opposition. If you do well in your 1:1 battles against your opposite number you cause the other team problems. This is not science or revolutionary thinking: it's an observation of what happens in a game and has always happened. If everyone just played in the rigid fashion defined by a structure every team would play like Puel's and it would probably just be a case of 'give it to Ronaldo and let him score cause he's good'.

All this Austin scores goals seems to be partly based on a season with QPR 3 years ago. I wouldn't go easy on Tadic because he was good a few years ago. Austin scored what, 6 last year? Yeah injured a lot as he always will be, but he's never been banging them in at such a rate you couldn't leave him out despite his other faults. He's unfit, slow and a poor technical footballer. If you're getting 20+ goals then ok, but he's not going to. Seen him miss so many chances for us, would really rather we moved on.

Austin scored 9 last season which is more than any other player managed. Austin has plenty of faults as a player but despite half season out still managed to find the net more than anyone else. Austin isn't a top player either so what does that say about the rest of our front line?

Austin scored 9 last season which is more than any other player managed. Austin has plenty of faults as a player but despite half season out still managed to find the net more than anyone else. Austin isn't a top player either so what does that say about the rest of our front line?

snf our new star striker has been dropped for the prolific Shane Long

Don't care what formation he wants to run, he needs to get our best scorers out there.I'm all for getting more players attacking but they need to be the right ones. The only guys on this team who have showed this season, last season, and back farther that they can score consistently are Austin and Gabbi. Whatever formation we use needs to accommodate them, or else we will continue to score 0 goals.

Who, at the top level, is successfully playing wing backs (so 3 at the back) with 2 up front? Chelsea are successful but they play one up front, with 2 in behind. Arsenal's version is similar. That blend works as the two behind the front man have so much more freedom and can become a 2 or 3 up front. I'd love to see us with a well drilled 3 cb's, wing backs, Lemina and romeu, and then 2 ahead plus 1 up top. With vvd back in the fold I wouldn't be surprised to see it using that system.

It will happen. It's the natural next step.

There's no point in playing 2 up front if you're going to be starved of the ball because you're short in midfield. However, to keep the same system and the same players , will produce the same results. Therefore, the manager needs to put a system in place that gets Gabbi or Austin on the pitch, with long. But Long as a striker, not a wide player.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pellegrino Is absolutely clueless. He has to be sacked sooner better than latter. While he said two strikers is not the answer, he now put every striker into the pitch. His plan A with Redmond Long and Tadic is absolutely rubbish. And his plan B Throwing every striker into the pitch shows his cluelessness.

We have great players but Pellegrino just doesn't know how to use them. SACK HIM

Pellegrino Is absolutely clueless. He has to be sacked sooner better than latter. While he said two strikers is not the answer, he now put every striker into the pitch. His plan A with Redmond Long and Tadic is absolutely rubbish. And his plan B Throwing every striker into the pitch shows his cluelessness.

 

We have great players but Pellegrino just doesn't know how to use them. SACK HIM

We do?

The problem with saying we can't play with 2 strikers is that it seems Long is being classified as a striker. I think he's more effective wide as part of a front 3. That way we can easily play Gabbiadini through the middle, with Long and one other (Tadic or Boufal) either side of him. I'm not sure if Pellegrino is ruling out such a line-up because he classifies Long as a striker and he won't play with 2 strikers. Which would be strangely arbitrary.

Our players in a 1 striker system makes it way to easy on the defenders. We get no pressure. What Mope envisions about midfielders crashing into the box never happens, and we are left with one poor guy standing around with 2 defenders, getting no service. Then their defenders push forward, because they have nothing else to do, and start pressuring our midfield making the whole scenario worse. We need to play 2 or 3 upfront, basically forcing our squad to be in forward positions. At least this will pressure the defense (like you saw late in the Stoke game), and allow us to stop relying on guys like Redmond and Tadic to attack.

Look at the figures. Dont just trust your instant. Long, Redmond and tadic together can never score a dozen. Give long a few games, he can score one. But does it enough? Cedric and Bofaul did produce a few good crosses. But just Long there. He is not strong or tall enough to head it. It was very painful to watch knowing the true strikers are on the bench. Look at the statistics. Only Austin and Gabb can score. Please go.

We'll never get away from the basic football fan's mentality of no goals so add another striker.

 

We'd get overrun, especially if it's Austin. Our problem is that the 2 wide players around our strikers are all playing really badly, and that Davis just isn't attacking enough to be the most advanced midfielder.

 

We either needs to get some form from Redmond, Tadic, Boufal or move them on. And we need an upgrade for Davis, someone who'll chip in with regular goals, if we're to get anywhere.

 

Right now I'd feel happier watching McQueen or another youngster get games as Redmond is doing absolutely fck all.

We're not going to get overrun by replacing Redmond on the wing with Long, and having Gabbiadini up front. Quite the opposite I'd suggest... Long puts more work in and tracks back more than Redmond.

We're not going to get overrun by replacing Redmond on the wing with Long, and having Gabbiadini up front. Quite the opposite I'd suggest... Long puts more work in and tracks back more than Redmond.

But that's not what many people are calling for. They're not calling for Long or Gabbi to be played on the wing or in a deeper position but to go up top and play alongside the other striker.

Yet we finished with 3 chasing the game !

But that's not what many people are calling for. They're not calling for Long or Gabbi to be played on the wing or in a deeper position but to go up top and play alongside the other striker.

I've been calling for Long to play instead of Redmond for weeks. His work rate is probably the best in the team. He's a far better option than Redmond.

It's complete ****** to say you can't play with two up front. Maybe Pelligrino should give Sir Alex a call to let him know where he went wrong all those years.