Mainoo & the midfield

Just seen that TRS, who understands tactics better than me, has made a similar point on a different thread: man-marking in midfield means the positions of nominal 6s and 8s are actually strongly influenced by where the players they are marking go.

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 3 minutes ago
Genuine question: is it accurate to say that both Mainoo and Amrabat were being deployed as a second DM? Or was it more the case that we were on the back foot most of the time so our midfielders were also pinned quite deep, meanwhile Mainoo has been kind of typecast as a DM mainly because he's more comfortable on the ball than any of the experienced specialists we have.

On a basic level, we need to get a better balance between defence and attack, and I suspect that comes down more to fine tuning the relative positions of all players than a binary choice between double pivot and single DM. In reality, all three midfielders are going to be shifting and interchanging, dropping into different zones to fill gaps, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We aren’t playing with a dedicated defensive midfielder. Mainoo isn’t one either, he’s a player that likes to get involved in both halves of the pitch in midfield, from what I’ve seen and read.

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 17 seconds ago
Just seen that TRS, who understands tactics better than me, has made a similar point on a different thread: man-marking in midfield means the positions of nominal 6s and 8s are actually strongly influenced by where the players they are marking go.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I saw that, and he put it better than I did in the OP in terms of the team needing to be more compact. All midfielders being comfortable on the ball would help too of course.

I stated the two No6s because to people like me (not fully up to speed with tactics) it at least makes it look like there's no wide open spaces in the middle of the park. When we did show some quality on the ball though we did create chances just through some sharp passing. We need to see more of it.

I think yesterday was an improvement just down to the fact that Ten Hag abandoned the usual half-hearted press and got us playing in a more compact deeper defensive block however there were still quite a few occasions when the space did easily open up so it wasn't perfect by any means but hopefully this signals a permanent change going forward.

What I'd like to see now against the lesser sides at least is maintaining that compact shape but higher up the pitch because it will help us control games, get more men forward more easily and sustain attacks better.

TRS

comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 39 minutes ago
Just seen that TRS, who understands tactics better than me, has made a similar point on a different thread: man-marking in midfield means the positions of nominal 6s and 8s are actually strongly influenced by where the players they are marking go.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I've been moaning about the man to man midfield tactics for a few months now but interestingly, this was put to ETH in a press conference a week or two ago and he flat out rejected that we go man for man in midfield and that this has never been our plan. I don't know what to make of that comment as it seems entirely at odds with what it looks like we're doing (even last season as well).

I've not seen TRS's post in a different thread but I find the fascination people have around whether we've got a single sitter or two CM's playing more square to each other really quite odd. All the main formations work absolutely fine; 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1, 4-4-2, 3-4-3 etc... But they all work from a defensive standpoint on the same basis; that the distances between players is small and the team is compact and works as a unit. All formations are also vulnerable in the moments after the ball has been lost also, because players are usually starting to move out of their defensive positions and into more adventurous ones. The quicker you lose the ball, the more compounding the issue (which is why ball retention is key, because if you string passes together as a team, you're going to be a bit closer to each other, meaning when you do lose the ball, you're actually reasonably well equipped to win it back as a team due to the distances in possession being a little closer to the idea distances out of possession).

Our issue is that we lose the ball very quickly through the usual suspects, and that the distance between our CF and our CB's is often quite large, meaning that not only is our press more likely to be beaten, but that, once it is in fact been beaten, there's too much space to try and defend across the middle of the pitch.

comment by The Red Side™ (U11275)
posted 49 minutes ago
I think yesterday was an improvement just down to the fact that Ten Hag abandoned the usual half-hearted press and got us playing in a more compact deeper defensive block however there were still quite a few occasions when the space did easily open up so it wasn't perfect by any means but hopefully this signals a permanent change going forward.

What I'd like to see now against the lesser sides at least is maintaining that compact shape but higher up the pitch because it will help us control games, get more men forward more easily and sustain attacks better.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would require qualities and discipline that these players don’t have.

If he goes back to Amrabat Mctominay in CM at the weekend then I honestly think he needs removing from the job asap rather than being allowed to see out the season.

Even Stevie Wonder can see that Mainoo, even at his age, is far more suited to that role than Mctominay is.
Scott just doesn't have the qualities on the ball and intelligence to play that role. His only real use is in attack and I'd much rather have Bruno supporting our attack quite frankly.

We all know what's coming though. Mainoo will miss out.

comment by BerbaKing11 (U6256)
posted 23 seconds ago
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 39 minutes ago
Just seen that TRS, who understands tactics better than me, has made a similar point on a different thread: man-marking in midfield means the positions of nominal 6s and 8s are actually strongly influenced by where the players they are marking go.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I've been moaning about the man to man midfield tactics for a few months now but interestingly, this was put to ETH in a press conference a week or two ago and he flat out rejected that we go man for man in midfield and that this has never been our plan. I don't know what to make of that comment as it seems entirely at odds with what it looks like we're doing (even last season as well).

I've not seen TRS's post in a different thread but I find the fascination people have around whether we've got a single sitter or two CM's playing more square to each other really quite odd. All the main formations work absolutely fine; 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1, 4-4-2, 3-4-3 etc... But they all work from a defensive standpoint on the same basis; that the distances between players is small and the team is compact and works as a unit. All formations are also vulnerable in the moments after the ball has been lost also, because players are usually starting to move out of their defensive positions and into more adventurous ones. The quicker you lose the ball, the more compounding the issue (which is why ball retention is key, because if you string passes together as a team, you're going to be a bit closer to each other, meaning when you do lose the ball, you're actually reasonably well equipped to win it back as a team due to the distances in possession being a little closer to the idea distances out of possession).

Our issue is that we lose the ball very quickly through the usual suspects, and that the distance between our CF and our CB's is often quite large, meaning that not only is our press more likely to be beaten, but that, once it is in fact been beaten, there's too much space to try and defend across the middle of the pitch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"....that the distances between players is small and the team is compact and works as a unit...."

"The quicker you lose the ball, the more compounding the issue (which is why ball retention is key, because if you string passes together as a team, you're going to be a bit closer to each other, meaning when you do lose the ball, you're actually reasonably well equipped to win it back as a team due to the distances in possession being a little closer to the idea distances out of possession)."

"...the distance between our CF and our CB's is often quite large, meaning that not only is our press more likely to be beaten..."

I love this. Poor passing/possession players and a system built for defenders we have no hope executing a high line with any consistency.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpWKnMnku0M