Why would Ighalo be sold?? He's potentially going to be our best striker next season and Quique sounds like a fan already.
http://www.football-italia.net/69385/doumbia-wants-cska-return Roma in talks with CSKA and he wants to re-join them.
As exciting as it would be signing Doumbia it would literally make no sense. Why the **** would we sign another striker when we already have enough trouble fitting in the 3 class one's we have now.
Just a guess. His stock is high and we are being linked with many players in the two up top wide positions. I see him more as a central striker but that's where deeney plays and again, we have strong links to gestedes. Also, iggy scored lots of goals for Granada till they hit the top division, then they dried up. He also has just two years of his contract left so unless he re-signs, now could be the best time to sell. Pure guesswork.
You are puzzling Godfather. Quite how you've managed to avoid the fact that we have played 4-2-3-1 in every single minute of our friendlies so far & that Flores himself has confirmed we will go into the season with that formation is some feat, I'll give it to you.
Quique did say that Ighalo plays off Deeney, swaps positions with Deeney and sometimes plays alongside Deeney, so you're both right really.
If it does happen, it obviously happened for a reason so I wouldn't worry tactically where everyone will fit in. Though I definitely agree Vydra is most effective up front with a partner, we should give him/Quique a chance to see whether it works well next season rather than based on his WBA days
I don't see why Doumbia wouldn't fit in. The two players either side of Abdi/Ighalo don't seem to be intended to be 'wingers'. More like deep strikers making runs wide of Deeney. I've seen Doumbia praised for his pace and movement, and I think he is perfect for that role.
A formation is based on your defensive shape, otherwise it could be anything; you could say that the FBs get alongside the wingers. In our defensive shape, we set up in a 4-2-3-1, it's not 4-4-2.
Quite. More to the point, there is a long season ahead. Injuries, suspensions, rotation. Nando is already injured (presumably a bad one since they sent him home) which leaves us with 3 recognised senior forwards, and all of them have started in our most recent friendlies.
Its a fluid shape that suits strikers and AMs of different types. It seems peeps getting too hung up on traditional fomrations. Im not tactical expert but it seems to be the modern game is a lot more flexible and fluid and its about player ability and interplay with each other rather than strictly adhering to a position.
Please remind me of exactly when we've not had two of our illustrious four on the pitch at the same time? ... which is my whole point while yours is just meaningless numbers.
Meaningless numbers being... the formation. Ighalo & Vydra have been playing, yes, but not up front in a 442. Just because they are strikers and are on the pitch doesn't mean they are playing up front...
Answered that above. Whilst Ighalo might at times pop up alongside Deeney, or swap with him, it's a 4-2-3-1, & therefore we don't play two up, as Godfather claimed, & we & don't need five strikers, as Godfather claimed, that's the debate.
If we were to name 25 (assuming we can cobble together 8 home grown players) then 5 strikers and 3 goalies leaves 17 for defenders and midfielders, so GF is right, you should have a minimum of 5 strikers.
Even if we did, then we still need a maximum of one more alongside Deeney, Vydra & Ighalo. We'll see I guess, I'll happily concede if I turn out to be wrong.
It depends, are you classing Forestieri as a striker? I'm counting Deeney, Ighalo & Vydra, i.e players that could lead the line in our default formation. I think we need possibly one more that could lead the line as long as they can also drop into one of the three behind, but even if we don't, I think we're fine, & judging by our mooted signings, QSF agrees - we're definitely looking at No10s/ wingers now. Look at Chelsea, the best team in the country, who play the same system, as a yardstick.
Not necessarily, the way I think about the formation is how the lines up at their GK's goal kick. A 4-2-3-1 can defend as a 4-4-1-1 with the two wingers dropping back to help out with attacking fullbacks. Hope if that does happen, our wingers (Doumbia/Vydra and Berghuis hopefully) would be willing to help out and defend
The more players we are linked with the more I think we will start at everton with just Gomes and deeney from last years team.
How you set up from an opponent's GK is the defensive shape, no? However, that can be misleading if a player pushes ahead out of position to stop the ball being played short. It certainly looks as if we won't be playing with a flat four across midfield, but three "second strikers" as QSF referred to them as.
I'm going off what we're playing in pre-season so far & what I've heard from QSF. I think we'll switch to 442 at times, especially when we need a goal, but 4-2-3-1 will very much be our primary system imo, judging by the shape work in training, QSF's words I've read/ heard & the matches we've played.
Because I think particularly abdi, Vydra/iggy and Cathcart deserve to start the season and show the new boss what they can do.
On the WO site Flores has confirmed we will play both 4231 and 442 next season. Answers a few questions!
They have the whole of pre-season to show him what they can do, that's the whole point. Well that and fitness. I don't see why players from last season should get preference though, if they're not better than a player we've signed then why should they play? It's a clean slate, if they don't show Flores they're good enough to start in the Premier League then they don't deserve to play surely? For what it's worth I think Cathcart and Abdi will play whoever we sign and I'm pretty sure Ighalo will be needed if we are looking for a goal.
