OB1
Well-Known Member
JoeMercer'sWay said:Didsbury Dave said:JoeMercer'sWay said:not convinced, I think it could be Chelsea with Negredo in for Silva from that lineup. I think if you look at Southampton and their possession and physical presence they'll rip us apart with 4-2-2-2 because there's not enough cover, I think he'll go to Garcia but leave us 2 strikers and Nasri with the pace that Fern or Yaya can break with and hopefully stuff them on the counter like Villa did.
It's a game to soak it up, show we can defend and play possum and kill on the counter. Southampton are good enough to pick us off if we go too open, it's one of those "be sensible" ones I think.
The only way we could do what you've suggested would be to play Aguero in one of the wide midfield slots, if I remember correctly at Chelsea e played 4231 with Ageuro lone front man and Silva, Ya Ya and Nasri in the advanced midfield role.
I'm pretty convinced he won't do that, and he'll go 4222 again. In fact I reckon i could predict the team now. Same as last night but Clichy for Kolorov and Negredo for Dzeko.
Put Silva in for Navas and Nasty for Di Michelis and that has to be our strongest side for every game except the hardest ones. I don't think Pellegrini will see this as one of those.
He has of course the option to put an extra man in if it isn't working. It's a tough call, I'm not sure what I'd do. I think on balance the return of Vinny and the way we have been playing I'd also go 4222.
I don't see it as that necessary to be "wide", and I see a diamond with Nasri at the tip working well, suiting our players and keeping it tight when they have the ball, so they can't get through in central areas. In counter attacks at breakneck speed players are much more willing to make the run wide to keep the move going, so I don't see a problem with width unless you want to play a possession game, which I find would leave us too open as has been the case when we've tried it against anyone who's had a go.
So, is your diamond a very narrow one, are you looking at a 4-1-3-2 or a 4-1-2-1-2?