What do we need

[Mattster]

I also can't see that the players we've signed are disconnected from the system we're playing. We've only signed two attacking midfielders this summer, and both appear to be players who naturally come off the line rather than holding width. That is also true of Anthony and Edwards. All seem to me on paper equally suited to "wide inside forward" roles as to "winger" roles, and I'm not sure the role is that different to the way Parker set the team up in a 4-3-3 last season. Indeed the only out and out wide player currently in the squad is Koleosho, and he appears out of favour. Walker and Tuanzebe appear to have been signed with this system in mind.

We've signed two wingers this summer. Calling them attacking midfielders is just trying to obscure that. That they like to cut inside is just what modern wingers do, that doesn't make them a 10.

A simple look at the heat map for Anthony last season shows he is more of an out and out winger than Koleosho (in the sense of sticking to the flanks) and the difference in what is being asked of the 10s/attacking midfielders/inside forwards (whatever you want to call them) from what was required of the wingers last season (when, notably, no one referred to them as attacking midfielders or inside forwards).

Screenshot_20250819_123710_Sofascore.jpg (171.68 KiB) Viewed 1488 times

[claretspice]

We've signed two wingers this summer. Calling them attacking midfielders is just trying to obscure that. That they like to cut inside is just what modern wingers do, that doesn't make them a 10.

A simple look at the heat map for Anthony last season shows he is more of an out and out winger than Koleosho (in the sense of sticking to the flanks) and the difference in what is being asked of the 10s/attacking midfielders/inside forwards (whatever you want to call them) from what was required of the wingers last season (when, notably, no one referred to them as attacking midfielders or inside forwards).

Screenshot_20250819_123710_Sofascore.jpg

Anthony played from the flank, but coming off the flank last season - and that was increasingly the case as he did his best work. Larsen was the same for us two years ago. Edwards did his best work for Sporting in the 3-4-3 set up. I haven't seen much of Tchoana but what i've read doesn't lead me to believe he's unsuited to the 3-4-3 role. I'm not sure there's any reason why any of them are not suited to playing a slightly (and I mean slightly) narrower role (Luton for example used Chong and Townsend in this system) and I respectfully think you're overstating the point.

[CoolClaret]

Like Charlie, your issue seems to be more with me than the points I'm making. I'm not playing a game, I'm answering the topic. I genuinely didn't think questioning whether the recruitment and the system are joined up would be so controversial - the thread is asking what we need which suggests there's holes and the answers seem pretty consistent in thinking that.

Hannibal played maybe 3 PL games as a 10. The only start there was against us when really he was more of an 8 with Bruno Fernandes playing as a 10. I agree with you that Flemming would be best as a 10 in this system, he came on as a striker though against Spurs - whether he is a PL level 10 is questionable, we didn't even use him there in the Championship. Ramsey's senior football has mostly been on the wing, but his youth career was at 10. Same thing though, fitness and PL level are questions. Edwards is a winger though he was used as a 10 there by Amorim, but playing wider than Hannibal did against Spurs with Pedro Goncalves playing narrower (so the opposite way round we played Anthony and Hannibal).

But let's be generous and say there's 3 who could play as a 10 naturally, are they PL level? Possibly, but surely we strengthen there rather than sign two more wingers? Or one of each if it was felt we needed another winger to replace Sarmiento and we're going to swap formations regularly*

*which I don't think we will, the U21s are playing the same 5-2-2-1 despite it not fitting the players we have particularly well. Seems a top to bottom decision to align the system but I could be wrong.

Ok, I'll take the point in face value then -

Hannibal definitely played as a 10 against us for United when Ramsey also did for us. I recall both players having a great game, now are they PL calibre creative 10s - that's a different question.

I'd hope that we aren't married to the system anyway, I think Anthony is the only player that I far prefer hugging the touchline vs doing his work in the middle of the pitch (as you mentioned in another comment), that's why I, and others, think he could probably play as a wing back with three at the back.

As it stands, I feel we need additions to really make this three at the back system work, where as we could almost plug and play with any varient of 4-2-3-1.

Let's see how it plays out, though I must say if Tchaouna isn't like a nailed on starter every week and we play 3 atb, I'd wonder why he has been signed for such a fee.

[RVclaret]

Mattster the system is fairly fluid, off the ball it’s a flat midfield 4 with the two ‘10s’ in a typical wide position, on the ball one plays a bit narrower and one might stay a bit wider. I think the profile of winger / inside forward / 10 is fairly fine. Tchaouna has played all across the front and so has Larsen. Personally think Larsen will do well there attacking space from the right. Hannibal played there for his pressing and duel winning (won 72% v Spurs). He also played in ‘10 type areas’ last season for the most part. Claretspice said Koleosho is perhaps the one who is a traditional winger, though at the Euros he starred playing as a what you are labeling as a 10 (inside left in a 3-4-3). I also think the system can be hybrid between a 5 and 4 within a game, for instance Tchaouna tucks back into a 5 in a deep block, with Walker coming inside, yet he’s the furthest player forward on the right in attack, with Walker shifting to RB, etc..

[Mattster]

Mattster the system is fairly fluid, off the ball it’s a flat midfield 4 with the two ‘10s’ in a typical wide position, on the ball one plays a bit narrower and one might stay a bit wider. I think the profile of winger / inside forward / 10 is fairly fine. Tchaouna has played all across the front and so has Larsen. Personally think Larsen will do well there attacking space from the right. Hannibal played there for his pressing and duel winning (won 72% v Spurs). He also played in ‘10 type areas’ last season for the most part. Claretspice said Koleosho is perhaps the one who is a traditional winger, though at the Euros he starred playing as a what you are labeling as a 10 (inside left in a 3-4-3). I also think the system can be hybrid between a 5 and 4 within a game, for instance Tchaouna tucks back into a 5 in a deep block, with Walker coming inside, yet he’s the furthest player forward on the right in attack, with Walker shifting to RB, etc..

You spent all last season saying we don't play a 10. Now it suits you're saying Hannibal played in "10 type areas".

Dress it up however you want with Tchouana and Larsen, they're wingers. Wingers who have played some games, almost exclusively as subs, in other forward positions.

And it looks like we're shipping Koleosho out now too. Awesome.

Anyway, the point I was making was that if we wanted to play this back 3(/5) then we're still short at least a couple of players (which is what you've posted earlier on in this very thread) and that by signing more wingers it doesn't seem particularly joined up thinking between manager and recruitment. Simply because it's me that's said it that's got some posters' backs up, despite not being a particularly controversial take.

The fact we're now shipping Koleosho out on loan would back that up - spending money to stand still. It's not even a criticism of Parker, if he wants to play this formation why have the recruitment team spent time, effort and money signing players that don't really fit into it whilst ignoring the very obvious roles in that formation that need filling?

[123EasyasBFC]

Anthony
Edwards
Tchauona
Bruun Larsen

Are 4 great wide options if we play 4-3-3 but if we are playing the 5-2-3 or 5-2-2-1 whatever you want then they aren’t the right players for the two options behind the number 9.

I would say Flemming and Broja are most suited to those positions.

[RVclaret]

You spent all last season saying we don't play a 10. Now it suits you're saying Hannibal played in "10 type areas".

Dress it up however you want with Tchouana and Larsen, they're wingers. Wingers who have played some games, almost exclusively as subs, in other forward positions.

And it looks like we're shipping Koleosho out now too. Awesome.

Anyway, the point I was making was that if we wanted to play this back 3(/5) then we're still short at least a couple of players (which is what you've posted earlier on in this very thread) and that by signing more wingers it doesn't seem particularly joined up thinking between manager and recruitment. Simply because it's me that's said it that's got some posters' backs up, despite not being a particularly controversial take.

The fact we're now shipping Koleosho out on loan would back that up - spending money to stand still. It's not even a criticism of Parker, if he wants to play this formation why have the recruitment team spent time, effort and money signing players that don't really fit into it whilst ignoring the very obvious roles in that formation that need filling?

Hm no I only said he didn’t play as a central 10. ‘10 type areas’ being left / right half spaces between the lines (eek I can feel a few being raged by my modern football language there), so not dissimilar to where he would have been picking up the ball v Spurs.

I think there’s a few assumptions being made, you have decided after 1 game against a tough opponent away, and in a pre season game against a tough opponent, that this is it. He did an interview post Lazio with the Burnley Express where he commented specifically on being flexible on systems (when asked about back 5 v 4), game dependant.

Frank played a 5 v PSG, with barely a flair player in the team, then a 4 against us days later, I personally like that in a manager vs what Postecoglou would have done. I expect Parker to remain pragmatic, he coached a pretty effective 4-4-2 off the ball last season, and that remains an option with the personnel. I suppose time will tell?

[RVclaret]

Anthony
Edwards
Tchauona
Bruun Larsen

Are 4 great wide options if we play 4-3-3 but if we are playing the 5-2-3 or 5-2-2-1 whatever you want then they aren’t the right players for the two options behind the number 9.

I would say Flemming and Broja are most suited to those positions.

Anthony has looked good there so far.

Edwards starred there for Amorim at Sporting.

Tchaouna haven’t seen enough of yet.

Bruun Larsen would suit it really well imo, he isn’t a typical winger, can’t beat a man, but finds space and finishes better than probably all our other attackers.

[KRBFC]

Hannibal played several games as a 10 for Man United, VK deployed Ramsey there, Flemming is also considered a 10, and Amorim played Edwards there for Sporting.

I'm pretty certain we won't be married to 3 at the back, but who knows? Just support the gaffer instead of this little game you've got going on so you can try and say ..."I told you so" if we struggle this year, after you're predictions were wildly off the boil last season!

I like Hannibal he provides energy and is neat on the ball, the problem is can we really play him as a 10 when the side lacks cutting edge and goals? I think his best qualities would be better deeper, legs, tenacious, loves a tackle and neat on the ball. Not sure he has that cute little pass or the goal scoring touch to play 10.

[Mattster]

Hm no I only said he didn’t play as a central 10. ‘10 type areas’ being left / right half spaces between the lines (eek I can feel a few being raged by my modern football language there), so not dissimilar to where he would have been picking up the ball v Spurs.

I think there’s a few assumptions being made, you have decided after 1 game against a tough opponent away, and in a pre season game against a tough opponent, that this is it. He did an interview post Lazio with the Burnley Express where he commented specifically on being flexible on systems (when asked about back 5 v 4), game dependant.

Frank played a 5 v PSG, with barely a flair player in the team, then a 4 against us days later, I personally like that in a manager vs what Postecoglou would have done. I expect Parker to remain pragmatic, he coached a pretty effective 4-4-2 off the ball last season, and that remains an option with the personnel. I suppose time will tell?

With Hannibal/Brownhill last season you were very clear stating repeatedly we don't play a 10, we play two 8s. An 8 is not a 10 or an inside forward any more than a right back making a run down the wing is a winger.

Frank has a different level of player available to him than we do, with a very significant skill gap between us and them they could afford being a bit flexible formation wise because they know they're going to control the game. We don't have that over any opponent in this league.

If we're going to flip between 5-2-2-1 and 4-3-3 on a game by game basis we'll get cut open defensively regularly because the marking, positioning, tracking runners etc is a massive difference for all the defence and the central midfield in those two systems. It won't be second nature for any of the players, opposition players will end up being left wide open.

[Silkyskills1]

Mattster the system is fairly fluid, off the ball it’s a flat midfield 4 with the two ‘10s’ in a typical wide position, on the ball one plays a bit narrower and one might stay a bit wider. I think the profile of winger / inside forward / 10 is fairly fine. Tchaouna has played all across the front and so has Larsen. Personally think Larsen will do well there attacking space from the right. Hannibal played there for his pressing and duel winning (won 72% v Spurs). He also played in ‘10 type areas’ last season for the most part. Claretspice said Koleosho is perhaps the one who is a traditional winger, though at the Euros he starred playing as a what you are labeling as a 10 (inside left in a 3-4-3). I also think the system can be hybrid between a 5 and 4 within a game, for instance Tchaouna tucks back into a 5 in a deep block, with Walker coming inside, yet he’s the furthest player forward on the right in attack, with Walker shifting to RB, etc..

I've read and re-read your post and I have to admit that 90% of it I don't understand. Please don't take that as a criticism its just an observation. I picked up on your stats for Hannibal on Saturday which sound quite good but I was at the game and in much more layman's terms I thought he was poor. Anyway, experience of watching us play since 1958 doesn't obviously count for anything now it seems. That's fair enough, it won't change for me but I'm left wondering are there any other supporters of my generation who genuinely see football in a much simpler way than the poster portrays.

[Steve-Harpers-perm]

It’s certainly become an over complicated game from some on the sidelines. Hopefully a new ‘pivot’ role can be identified and implemented this season to go along with trying to out score the opposition!

[RVclaret]

With Hannibal/Brownhill last season you were very clear stating repeatedly we don't play a 10, we play two 8s. An 8 is not a 10 or an inside forward any more than a right back making a run down the wing is a winger.

Frank has a different level of player available to him than we do, with a very significant skill gap between us and them they could afford being a bit flexible formation wise because they know they're going to control the game. We don't have that over any opponent in this league.

If we're going to flip between 5-2-2-1 and 4-3-3 on a game by game basis we'll get cut open defensively regularly because the marking, positioning, tracking runners etc is a massive difference for all the defence and the central midfield in those two systems. It won't be second nature for any of the players, opposition players will end up being left wide open.

Sure, but an 8 / advanced 8 that we later played can still operate in ‘10 type areas’. I also added the other system which was 4-4-2 with Brownhill usually alongside Flemming.

Take the point on flipping between systems game by game, though I still don’t think it’s as rigid as ‘this or that’ based on pre-defined formations (as described earlier re. hybrid 4/5 etc).

[CoolClaret]

I like Hannibal he provides energy and is neat on the ball, the problem is can we really play him as a 10 when the side lacks cutting edge and goals? I think his best qualities would be better deeper, legs, tenacious, loves a tackle and neat on the ball. Not sure he has that cute little pass or the goal scoring touch to play 10.

If we do we need creativity from other areas on the pitch - I agree with you, he's not a traditional '10' at all.

I'd also like to see him play a bit deeper as a combative midfielder - and as you say with his skills could be one to take the ball out of defense.

An option if we do play with three at the back, so we don't lose the man in midfield is to play three in the middle and two up top... could work.

Hopefully we get a couple of more signings in this week.

[Conroy92]

You spent all last season saying we don't play a 10. Now it suits you're saying Hannibal played in "10 type areas".

It's probably best not to bring up what you were posting last season. But I find this ironic because I think your the one trying to get all of this to suit your overall point. Which is a gripe with either the owners or Parker, before the window has closed, after one result.

[Conroy92]

And before I'm asked.

As other people have said.
The window is still open and Parker already stated he wanted additions.
The formation will be fluid and change depending on opposition.
There has been one game. No one knows what the final picture is going to look like yet so how anyone can claim to know it's not 'joining up' is beyond me.

[Paddy1882]

Got to play 3 in midfield somehow or we will just get run all over. 4-3-3 with the ball 4-5-1 without the ball would be my preference personally. Use our two loan spots for two quality loans as I don’t think the money for permanents is there, one CB and one CM and play something like below. That in my opinion would help us at least be competitive.

Dubravka
Walker New. Esteve. Hartman
Cullen Lesley
New
Edwards/loum Anthony/JBL
Broja

[Mattster]

It's probably best not to bring up what you were posting last season. But I find this ironic because I think your the one trying to get all of this to suit your overall point. Which is a gripe with either the owners or Parker, before the window has closed, after one result.

Another more interested on who is posting rather than what is posted, colour me shocked.

[LincsWoldsClaret]

We just need goals or we’re doomed - get another striker

[jojomk1]

We just need goals or we’re doomed - get another striker

Has Broja played a game yet ?

Plus yet to see Basher and Obafemi strut their stuff

[Ampth7]

I think we can all agree that any further signings need to focus on raising standards and not merely squad fillers.

Centre back, centre mid and a quality acquisition for the final third please, with centre mid and a forward player being the priorities for me.

[ClaretPete001]

We already have a big squad. Is there a black hole near Gawthorpe, which sucks players in never to be seen again

[Conroy92]

Another more interested on who is posting rather than what is posted, colour me shocked.

You conviently ignored the post below why I disagreed with your comments and why imo it all points to an agenda. I've even seen the negativity of 'we must have run out of cash' on the transfer thread. I'm not sure where your gripe is and who with but it's clear you have one.

[Peacock-Barrel]

We've got loads of players who we're not going to be able to shift as they've not had minutes, and plenty who deserve a crack, or don't deserve benching.

If we could find a young RWB, like a better Assignon, that would be worthwhile given Tuanzebe's record. And another young CDM to push Cullen and Les might make sense.

But otherwise I wouldn't sign a CB when we've Humphreys, Tuanzebe and Beyer (possibly) to come back. Unless we can find an Esteve mk2. I think Ekdal will come good, back 3/5 needs to settle.

And I don't think we're signing another striker when we only ever play with one, and their role (under the last 2 managers) is to create chances for others. I don't think a £50M striker scores in our system.

Another winger/10 takes minutes off Edwards, JBL, Tchaouna, Ramsey who are all fit and needing minutes in 1 maybe 2 slots.

[fidelcastro]

Has Broja played a game yet ?

Plus yet to see Basher and Obafemi strut their stuff

That's a wind-up, right?

[dougcollins]

If we're going to flip between 5-2-2-1 and 4-3-3 on a game by game basis we'll get cut open defensively regularly because the marking, positioning, tracking runners etc is a massive difference for all the defence and the central midfield in those two systems. It won't be second nature for any of the players, opposition players will end up being left wide open.

That's exactly what I think.

[Mattster]

You conviently ignored the post below why I disagreed with your comments and why imo it all points to an agenda. I've even seen the negativity of 'we must have run out of cash' on the transfer thread. I'm not sure where your gripe is and who with but it's clear you have one.

Ah, well you didn't quote me in that one so you can see how I missed it, almost like you wanted me to. But since that was also about how it "all points to [my apparent] agenda" the same point still applies - you're more focused on the poster than the post.

Having now read it I do really enjoy the bit where you criticise me for making assumptions about the future, whilst making your own assumptions about the future.

RE: "joined up thinking", I'm making that point from the window so far. I've not said it will never change or won't be sorted by the end of the window. Simply that, there doesn't appear to have been much joined up thinking so far. The fact that we're now looking at loaning out Koleosho (a player who takes up no space in the 25 man squad and has shown himself capable at PL level) straight after signing 2 more wingers (who each take up a space in the 25 man squad) for a combined ~£20m whilst not having signed any natural PL level 10s backs that up that point. Now if we switch back to last season's 4-3-3 for the majority of games it's less the case but I've explained why I don't think that's going to be the case.

If it is not acceptable to pass any comment on what has come before in case that may change in the future then we'd barely be able to post about anything. Got to say your disagreement with the points I'm making all point to your agenda against me

[claretonthecoast1882]

It’s certainly become an over complicated game from some on the sidelines. Hopefully a new ‘pivot’ role can be identified and implemented this season to go along with trying to out score the opposition!

Single or double pivot

Maybe play Walker as a 2 and Hartman as a 3, then we could have a false 9 with some 6s and 8s along with inverted wingers.

[jojomk1]

Single or double pivot

Maybe play Walker as a 2 and Hartman as a 3, then we could have a false 9 with some 6s and 8s along with inverted wingers.

We've enough false No 9's at the club now

[jojomk1]

Notts Forest agree terms for Douglas Luiz adding to recent signing of McAtee
Would hope we were considering loan/buy of Ryan Yates who will be struggling for game time there now, but would offer more strength and pace to our central midfield

[aggi]

I'm disappointed no-one has suggested that we play Walker in midfield, surely that's due.

I like Hannibal he provides energy and is neat on the ball, the problem is can we really play him as a 10 when the side lacks cutting edge and goals? I think his best qualities would be better deeper, legs, tenacious, loves a tackle and neat on the ball. Not sure he has that cute little pass or the goal scoring touch to play 10.

I don't mind Hannibal but it is hard to see what his best role is. He doesn't look like he'll get a great number of goals/assists playing further forward but Parker doesn't seem to trust him playing deep (and I'm not sure whether he's disciplined enough and good enough at ensuring we keep the ball to play it).

[dougcollins]

I'm disappointed no-one has suggested that we play Walker in midfield, surely that's due.

Where's ABC when you need him?

[ollieclarets8]

I'm disappointed no-one has suggested that we play Walker in midfield, surely that's due.

Give it time. Give it time.

[Conroy92]

Mattster, we got pretty lucky yesterday to get a result with no joined up thinking eh...

[alwaysaclaret]

Although a very good all round performance yesterday, it became very apparent we need a right winger, Larsen contributed, but just not pacy enough to beat he's man, in comparison Anthony has tricks in he's locker and can beat a man when he sees the chance and links with others, had we have the same on the right yesterday scoreline would have been bigger imo, but great performance all round, can't really fault the input of every one of them. Also a CM still, and another striker, I've not been one to bang on about Tella since he left us, but would be great, think he'd really fit in with this group.

[Ric_C]

JBL doesn't look fully match fit to me yet. I think if you use the cricket analogy of "add a couple of wickets to the score", then if we lost a couple of players in key positions, where would we be light? The answer for me would be centre midfield, striker and Centre back. Although to caveat this, with the way we are setting up, a wide right player / wing back could be a key addition.

[Mattster]

Mattster, we got pretty lucky yesterday to get a result with no joined up thinking eh...

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realise that a single result changes everything. My bad.

I guess yesterday's result means we haven't spent 10s of millions on wingers only to loan one out for nothing whilst subsidising his wages?

Yesterday's performance and result was great. Doesn't change that, IMO, there are big holes in the squad for parts of this system and that we have spent big sums of money on areas of the squad we already had enough quality whilst ignoring those holes.

And again, why posting about me? I'm not the only person who said there are gaps in the squad. I wasn't the first, or last in this thread to say that. I enjoy that I'm rent free in your head, but maybe you should try focusing on posting about the team rather than me? This forum isn't called UpTheMattster, after all.

[boyyanno]

Thanks. You got there in the end, well done.

1) OK. I disagree that all that is missing, even in the magical world where all our players are fit, is a RWB. We also don't have a central CB for a back 3 and lack quality across two 10 roles. Also any system which requires Laurent to be anything more than a squad player is missing a centre midfielder. I also disagree that we'll change the system gameweek to gameweek, as much out of hope as anything else - the difference between a back 3(/5) and a back 4 in terms of demands on both defenders and midfielders is huge. Asking our players to alternate match to match is a recipe for disaster IMO.
2) Wow, OK if you really think we needed another 2 wingers on top of the 5 or 6 we already had when at least some of the season is going to be played with a system that doesn't have wingers in it then there's not much I can say to that other than I really disagree. On Anthony, he was decent, he obviously wasn't natural in the role and it doesn't really play to his strengths IMO, but for a winger playing as a 10 he did well as could be expected.
3) You've not really answered this one, talking about the squad as a whole (which I'd agree with) rather than how it lines up with the 5-2-2-1 system. But 2 out of 3 ain't bad, as they say.

Then it devolves into another go at me specifically (and simultaneously criticising me for making assumptions about what we'll do in the future whilst making assumptions about what we'll do in the future which is quite amusing). But at least that came after engaging with the points this time so that's nice.

Pretty much everything you've written here turned out to be wrong again.

You're actually our lucky penny, I'll know we're doomed the day you start predicting good stuff.

[boyyanno]

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realise that a single result changes everything. My bad.

I guess yesterday's result means we haven't spent 10s of millions on wingers only to loan one out for nothing whilst subsidising his wages?

Yesterday's performance and result was great. Doesn't change that, IMO, there are big holes in the squad for parts of this system and that we have spent big sums of money on areas of the squad we already had enough quality whilst ignoring those holes.

And again, why posting about me? I'm not the only person who said there are gaps in the squad. I wasn't the first, or last in this thread to say that. I enjoy that I'm rent free in your head, but maybe you should try focusing on posting about the team rather than me? This forum isn't called UpTheMattster, after all.

Thank god Parker loaned out some of the weaker players, imagine if Anthony hadn't been playing yesterday to score and assist.

[Mattster]

Pretty much everything you've written here turned out to be wrong again.

You're actually our lucky penny, I'll know we're doomed the day you start predicting good stuff.

Which bits specifically were wrong?

Thank god Parker loaned out some of the weaker players, imagine if Anthony hadn't been playing yesterday to score and assist.

So you're saying if Koleosho wasn't loaned out then Anthony couldn't have played yesterday?

[boyyanno]

Which bits specifically were wrong?



So you're saying if Koleosho wasn't loaned out then Anthony couldn't have played yesterday?

You predicted that the system wouldn't change across games and gameweeks- it did.
You said if it did it wouldn't be successful- it was.
You said we were multiple key positions short and evidenced Laurent starting (he didnt). We were just a RWB short to replace JBL.
You made out Anthony was being shoe horned into a strange position that doesn't suit him- he hasn't.

And on Koleosho- he wouldn't have featured in that team yesterday, I'm just glad Parker knows who his stronger players are even if some fans don't.

[DCWat]

A right wing back would be my top priority.

I think we are fine at centre half, once Humphries is back in.

New, Walker, Esteve, Humphries, Hartman looks like a pretty good back five to me, with plenty options for cover.

After that it would be an extra defensive midfielder and potentially, depending on the likes of Ramsey and Tchaouna, an attacking midfielder.

Playing one up top, I’m not convinced that a striker is needed, right now.

[Conroy92]

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realise that a single result changes everything. My bad.

I guess yesterday's result means we haven't spent 10s of millions on wingers only to loan one out for nothing whilst subsidising his wages?

Yesterday's performance and result was great. Doesn't change that, IMO, there are big holes in the squad for parts of this system and that we have spent big sums of money on areas of the squad we already had enough quality whilst ignoring those holes.

And again, why posting about me? I'm not the only person who said there are gaps in the squad. I wasn't the first, or last in this thread to say that. I enjoy that I'm rent free in your head, but maybe you should try focusing on posting about the team rather than me? This forum isn't called UpTheMattster, after all.

You've just checkmated yourself in one go.
Because your quite right.
A single result dosnt mean anything.
Which is what everyone said to your initial post.

Thanks.

[billyhamilton82]

Yesterday's performance and result was great. Doesn't change that, IMO, there are big holes in the squad for parts of this system and that we have spent big sums of money on areas of the squad we already had enough quality whilst ignoring those holes.

The transfer window we have had is probably the best ever in my memory.

We are probably a couple of players short, in key areas, admittedly, but you can't ignore the good work that has created the foundation we currently have.

Hopefully, by the end of the window we fill those gaps with some extra quality and without doubt we will be the most prepared we have been for a PL season for a long time.

[boyyanno]

A right wing back would be my top priority.

I think we are fine at centre half, once Humphries is back in.

New, Walker, Esteve, Humphries, Hartman looks like a pretty good back five to me, with plenty options for cover.

After that it would be an extra defensive midfielder and potentially, depending on the likes of Ramsey and Tchaouna, an attacking midfielder.

Playing one up top, I’m not convinced that a striker is needed, right now.

Agree with that, a dynamic RWB to replace the job JBL did yesterday and Sonne did in match week 1 and we'll have done everything in our power in my opinion.

People do also have to realise that the team can be improved anywhere if we have unlimited resources but we don't, I'm happy with a lot of the buisness we've done.

[Mattster]

You predicted that the system wouldn't change across games and gameweeks- it did.
You said if it did it wouldn't be successful- it was.
You said we were multiple key positions short and evidenced Laurent starting (he didnt). We were just a RWB short to replace JBL.
You made out Anthony was being shoe horned into a strange position that doesn't suit him- he hasn't.

And on Koleosho- he wouldn't have featured in that team yesterday, I'm just glad Parker knows who his stronger players are even if some fans don't.

It was one game. It still was a variation of a back 5 and even then there were a couple of times in the first half where they broke on us with JBL upfield so Walker went out to the right there was a huge hole which Ekdal should have automatically plugged but didn't, he held central. Better teams exploit that.

When Esteve and Ugochukwu went off we had Laurent and Worrall playing. I'd say that shows a need for a midfielder and a CB to be signed, as well as the RWB.

Koleosho could have featured off the bench yesterday on either flank. Even if you don't think so (again), it was one game. I don't think JBL had a particularly good game and he is one winger we paid money for only to loan out Koleosho whilst subsidising his wages. I don't think that's good recruitment. You do? Cool. We disagree.

[boyyanno]

It was one game. It still was a variation of a back 5 and even then there were a couple of times in the first half where they broke on us with JBL upfield so Walker went out to the right there was a huge hole which Ekdal should have automatically plugged but didn't, he held central. Better teams exploit that.

When Esteve and Ugochukwu went off we had Laurent and Worrall playing. I'd say that shows a need for a midfielder and a CB to be signed, as well as the RWB.

Koleosho could have featured off the bench yesterday on either flank. Even if you don't think so (again), it was one game. I don't think JBL had a particularly good game and he is one winger we paid money for only to loan out Koleosho whilst subsidising his wages. I don't think that's good recruitment. You do? Cool. We disagree.

You just can't admit you were wrong, now it's a variation on the system (which is what was predicted by everyone bar you).

You think we were going to replace last year's first teamers from the squad completely? You're bonkers, Laurent is going to get game time as a squad player, that's fine we aren't Man City, we can't replace every player- it's crazy thinking. Esteve came off injured, same scenario with Worral filling in, we also have Humphries and Tuanzabe.

Koleosho isn't disciplined enough to play in this team. He couldn't have done the hybrid role JBL did (later became more of a traditional wing back for Sonne), he's certainly never showed he has the end quality that Anthony showed yesterday and across his career.

But yes- it is one game- it's strange how you see that now after a win but you didn't want to see it last week after a loss?

[Conroy92]

It was one game. It still was a variation of a back 5 and even then there were a couple of times in the first half where they broke on us with JBL upfield so Walker went out to the right there was a huge hole which Ekdal should have automatically plugged but didn't, he held central. Better teams exploit that.

When Esteve and Ugochukwu went off we had Laurent and Worrall playing. I'd say that shows a need for a midfielder and a CB to be signed, as well as the RWB.

Koleosho could have featured off the bench yesterday on either flank. Even if you don't think so (again), it was one game. I don't think JBL had a particularly good game and he is one winger we paid money for only to loan out Koleosho whilst subsidising his wages. I don't think that's good recruitment. You do? Cool. We disagree.

Again, applying the one game logic.
So it's ok for you to criticise after one game (spurs) but not ok to be positive after one game (Sunderland).

[Mattster]

Again, applying the one game logic.
So it's ok for you to criticise after one game (spurs) but not ok to be positive after one game (Sunderland).

Again, I wasn't criticising the performance at Spurs (which I felt was decent). I was criticising the recruitment and how it lined up with the system used at Spurs. A similar system was used vs Sunderland and guess what? I still don't think the recruitment is joined up with that system.

[KateR]

I think SP will play mostly 5 at the back, especially against the better sides that want possession and attacking intent, and we’ll be more defensive looking to break. But, against side lower down and that are set up for low possession and counter attacking intent, it be a more traditional back 4. We have several new players still to start, bed in and be 100% fit for 90+ minutes. I believe he clearly knows how he wants to play basically two different systems, which he’ll tweak according to the opposition, and I like this strategy. Yet the players will need to be very well versed in the system and fit enough, different players will suit different opposition, so I do expect there be a core group with a few positions interchangeable.

I expect he’s looking for players to bring in that can improve the system, such as Erikson, and it’ll be a free or a loan. Personally, I don’t see the need for another CB as a priority, it’s more in the goal scoring & creativity areas that need to be improved. Yet, having said that Edwards & Flemming have really played, as obviously neither has Broja. I think with the number of new players brought in there’s a need for patience in the short term, of course we should have brought players in that were fit and ready to play, but we didn’t. I’ve no problem with Ekdal for example, definitely wish he was somewhat faster! However, he isn’t but he reads the game well, and he needs to be the one that doesn’t go forward much.

But regardless a good win yesterday, plus you could see a distinct difference between the two halves with the same players, I’m going to put that down to SP! First win, and in two games, already way ahead of VK’s season, it’s a long way to go and we’ll be definitely facing much better opposition, just look at this stretch of games, it will tell us a lot more than Spurs did, well IMO it will.