I am hopeful that RL or MN will do ok and even improve form last season and enable a top 4 finish and a FA or league cup challenge. The evel is so high when it comes to the league or the top CL teams I have no doubt this will be exploited and undermine winning these competitions. But i think i need to remember pre takeover when there was more to worry about than a dodgy full back!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Right back options
- Thread starter Bubbagump
- Start date
He is not much good to us now.Going to keep an interested eye on Couto’s development this season. Seems to have settled down and has the manager’s confidence now, has worked on the defensive side of his game, and will be hoping to go to the World Cup.
Obviously Pep had issues or no faith in them but this time last year we had Couto, Kabore , Walker, Callum Doyle and Cancelo and by January we had none of them and were relying on Lewis , Nunes, and Stones and Akanji, the latter two who were carrying injuries.
Gabriel
Well-Known Member
At the present, no, you’re quite right. However, I still think there is a very good player there; I also think Doyle has potential.He is not much good to us now.
Obviously Pep had issues or no faith in them but this time last year we had Couto, Kabore , Walker, Callum Doyle and Cancelo and by January we had none of them and were relying on Lewis , Nunes, and Stones and Akanji, the latter two who were carrying injuries.
If natural midfielders are not good enough to play midfield in our team, I’m unconvinced that they should then be handed the keys to the right-back slot.
eyalluvitt
Well-Known Member
San Fran? home of the rabid Trump derangement syndrome infected leftie freaks. Thank goodness the decent majority voted him in or we would have ended up under the jackboot of the Starmer stazi Esq, democrats, IrA Joe and Cackling CamalaThis thread is arguing with Dax, a rabid Trump supporter who actively celebrates the suffering of others and has been a wind-up merchant on the politics threads for years.
Of course now he’s too much of a coward to defend his own Chosen One on those threads now that the nation has gone pear-shaped and the creep of the fascism he and his ilk enabled has become more palpable.
What a fucking shock that on the topic of football he’s exactly as thoughtful as he is about America.
AgreedYeah, I think either Nunes or Khus always have to play, just to have that speed/athleticism.
FogBlueInSanFran
Well-Known Member
We speak English here, pigeon, not whatever this post is. Apologies.San Fran? home of the rabid Trump derangement syndrome infected leftie freaks. Thank goodness the decent majority voted him in or we would have ended up under the jackboot of the Starmer stazi Esq, democrats, IrA Joe and Cackling Camala
So Stones' slip against Spurs & Stones giving the ball away in the 88th minute against Brighton don't get a mention then?
Distraction. We're talking about right backs.
The Nunes issue vs Brighton is that he sticks his arm up in the air.
If Rico Lewis covered back promptly the ball never reaches the Spurs winger. If Walker was there we wouldn't have conceded that goal.
I don't have any axe to grind with either of them, I want them to do well and will never go "Edghill" on them at a game on principle. I was there as a kid when that happened and it was really sad to see, cruel.
Discussion on a forum for analysing our problems though, is not personal abuse. It's just stating bald facts.
Dribble
Well-Known Member
That's the issue. Rico wasn't playing as a traditional right back, he was inverted. By it's very definition he's out of position & ahead of the defence. This is why me & an increasing amount of fans & those in the media are questioning Guardiola's thought process with persevering with a system that's been sussed out & that failed us so spectacularly last season.Right back and that was my point. He isn’t good enough to play there for us in any system we play. Not two seasons ago, not last season, not this season.
As I said in another recent comment, when Rico inverts, the right CB covers RB, the left CB stays central & the LB covers the left. The No 6 is supposed to drop into defence on defensive transition to make the four.
It isn't Rico's job to cover RB until he's recovered his defensive position. He can't possibly be in two positions at once, hence the opposition working this out & hitting rapid counters into the vacated channels.
When Stones slipped, it was Rico retreating from midfield who was the furthest back. Dias & our No 6 were supposed to be covering CB, but they were nowhere to be seen.
Again, I fail to see how any of this is Rico's fault. Imo, it's clearly the fault of the inverted system we're labouriously persevering with, even though it keeps punishing us. Tbh mate, it's Pep you need to be looking at, as the team are merely following his complex inverted FB orders.
Dribble
Well-Known Member
Mate, Pep said Walker wasn't capable of playing the inverted FB role, even though Kyle publicly disagreed. You're conflating two different disciplines. Rico starts as a RB, forms a double No 6 pivot & when we're attacking he becomes a No 8 & even a No 10.Distraction. We're talking about right backs.
The Nunes issue vs Brighton is that he sticks his arm up in the air.
If Rico Lewis covered back promptly the ball never reaches the Spurs winger. If Walker was there we wouldn't have conceded that goal.
I don't have any axe to grind with either of them, I want them to do well and will never go "Edghill" on them at a game on principle. I was there as a kid when that happened and it was really sad to see, cruel.
Discussion on a forum for analysing our problems though, is not personal abuse. It's just stating bald facts.
I absolutely hate the inverted system now. It's been totally sussed out, yet Pep keeps persevering with it.
As I said in my last comment to another poster, when Rico inverts, the right CB covers RB, the left CB stays central & the LB covers the left. The No 6 is supposed to drop into defence on defensive transitions to make the four.
It isn't Rico's job to cover RB until he's recovered his defensive position. He can't possibly be in two positions at once, hence the opposition working this out & hitting rapid counters into the vacated channels.
I stopped looking at our FB's & wingers last year when it became blatantly obvious the opposition had figured out how to counter our inverted system. Well obvious to everyone apart from Pep it seems.
We need to stop blaming the wingers for not beating 3 men each when left isolated, & to stop blaming Rico for not being at RB, when his unique position requires him to attack centrally.
It's our inverted RB system at fault, not the player tasked with operating there mate.
That is why I think that Khus makes the best central defensive partner for Rico.Mate, Pep said Walker wasn't capable of playing the inverted FB role, even though Kyle publicly disagreed. You're conflating two different disciplines. Rico starts as a RB, forms a double No 6 pivot & when we're attacking he becomes a No 8 & even a No 10.
I absolutely hate the inverted system now. It's been totally sussed out, yet Pep keeps persevering with it.
As I said in my last comment to another poster, when Rico inverts, the right CB covers RB, the left CB stays central & the LB covers the left. The No 6 is supposed to drop into defence on defensive transitions to make the four.
It isn't Rico's job to cover RB until he's recovered his defensive position. He can't possibly be in two positions at once, hence the opposition working this out & hitting rapid counters into the vacated channels.
I stopped looking at our FB's & wingers last year when it became blatantly obvious the opposition had figured out how to counter our inverted system. Well obvious to everyone apart from Pep it seems.
We need to stop blaming the wingers for not beating 3 men each when left isolated, & to stop blaming Rico for not being at RB, when his unique position requires him to attack centrally.
It's our inverted RB system at fault, not the player tasked with operating there mate.
The opposition have only 'worked it out' when we do not play it properly as you generally highlight.
Dribble
Well-Known Member
Tbh, Khusanov's pace would be a massive help, but more importantly I think the inverted system just needs ditching. At that point we can fairly judge weather Rico is a shit RB (as many believe) or not (as I think).That is why I think that Khus makes the best central defensive partner for Rico.
The opposition have only 'worked it out' when we do not play it properly as you generally highlight.
Protein Junkie
Well-Known Member
I have a radical theory here.
If we all, to every man,woman or child actually backed Nunes and Rico irrespective of mistakes ??
After all, isn’t that what “supporters do ?
If we all, to every man,woman or child actually backed Nunes and Rico irrespective of mistakes ??
After all, isn’t that what “supporters do ?
Dribble
Well-Known Member
Personally, I back them both. It's the system they're being tasked to play in that I have an issue with mate.I have a radical theory here.
If we all, to every man,woman or child actually backed Nunes and Rico irrespective of mistakes ??
After all, isn’t that what “supporters do ?
I don't think it does.Tbh, Khusanov's pace would be a massive help, but more importantly I think the inverted system just needs ditching. At that point we can fairly judge weather Rico is a shit RB (as many believe) or not (as I think).
The problem has been that we have been playing it with little pace in the back line and with a lack of physical presence in the centre. We cannot have full-backs playing attacking midfield and expecting them to defend in the transition. The centre-back needs to cover the switch and the CDM needs to cut the passing lane. We have also been losing the ball a little more than usual.
Caveat: if we go more direct in attack, as is proposed and indicated by the appointment of Lijnders, we run the risk of a greater number of transitions. That could be problematic. BUT, going more direct does mean that our defenders are less likely to be upfield.
There are so many permutations, but key is the return to full fitness of the squad and time to develop.
Protein Junkie
Well-Known Member
Please don’t think it was aimed at you.Personally, I back them both. It's the system they're being tasked to play in that I have an issue with mate.
You have a valid point too. My thought is a culmination as a result of many posts from others not you.
Dribble
Well-Known Member
Whilst I disagree somewhat & believe our inverted woes are more down to the system rather than the personnel, do you think pace all round will cure our transition issues, even with the gaping holes in our defence?I don't think it does.
The problem has been that we have been playing it with little pace in the back line and with a lack of physical presence in the centre. We cannot have full-backs playing attacking midfield and expecting them to defend in the transition. The centre-back needs to cover the switch and the CDM needs to cut the passing lane. We have also been losing the ball a little more than usual.
Caveat: if we go more direct in attack, as is proposed and indicated by the appointment of Lijnders, we run the risk of a greater number of transitions. That could be problematic. BUT, going more direct does mean that our defenders are less likely to be upfield.
There are so many permutations, but key is the return to full fitness of the squad and time to develop.
Also, if as you say we don't possess the personnel to make the inverted FB system works, why're we still using it, & why doesn't Pep use a formation & tactics that suits the players at his disposal?
We haven't possessed the personnel. We do now.Whilst I disagree somewhat & believe our inverted woes are more down to the system rather than the personnel, do you think pace all round will cure our transition issues, even with the gaping holes in our defence?
Also, if as you say we don't possess the personnel to make the inverted FB system works, why're we still using it, & why doesn't Pep use a formation & tactics that suits the players at his disposal?
We forget that much of the judgement on these players and system was made during a period decimated by injuries.
Combinations - Lewis and Khus, Nunes and Stones - pace and versatility. Physicality in central midfield. Aggressive pressing up front.
All of those things have been missing somewhat.
The game does move on though and teams develop counters to new tactics. I don't think we need to throw anything away, but we may be more flexible in our approach, and choose when to adopt a flat four or go inverted, or three/five at the back. I read that Thomas Frank, last season, used seven different formations, more than any other manager in the league.
He is going to get slaughtered in the mid terms. But that aside what has Dax being a Trump supporter got to do with this thread? Absolutely ridiculous linkage.San Fran? home of the rabid Trump derangement syndrome infected leftie freaks. Thank goodness the decent majority voted him in or we would have ended up under the jackboot of the Starmer stazi Esq, democrats, IrA Joe and Cackling Camala
Mate, Pep said Walker wasn't capable of playing the inverted FB role, even though Kyle publicly disagreed. You're conflating two different disciplines. Rico starts as a RB, forms a double No 6 pivot & when we're attacking he becomes a No 8 & even a No 10.
I absolutely hate the inverted system now. It's been totally sussed out, yet Pep keeps persevering with it.
As I said in my last comment to another poster, when Rico inverts, the right CB covers RB, the left CB stays central & the LB covers the left. The No 6 is supposed to drop into defence on defensive transitions to make the four.
It isn't Rico's job to cover RB until he's recovered his defensive position. He can't possibly be in two positions at once, hence the opposition working this out & hitting rapid counters into the vacated channels.
I stopped looking at our FB's & wingers last year when it became blatantly obvious the opposition had figured out how to counter our inverted system. Well obvious to everyone apart from Pep it seems.
We need to stop blaming the wingers for not beating 3 men each when left isolated, & to stop blaming Rico for not being at RB, when his unique position requires him to attack centrally.
It's our inverted RB system at fault, not the player tasked with operating there mate.
Thank you. I appreciate the point and I do understand the inverted role makes it challenging to cover a lot of ground. However, in both the examples I mentioned, the phase of play meant each player was in the conventional right back position.
I'm not going to split hairs arguing over to what extent it's the system and to what extent it's the players. To me, it's a combination of both. I'm losing patience with Pep's persistence with a system that has a gaping weakness too.