Sky Sports video here.
Fredrik Stoor story here. Frederik’s agent says we’re leading the way, which is nice.
I’ve finished “Inverting the Pyramid”, which was every bit as good as I’d hoped it would be. To an extent it’s a story of who played where and when, across the history of the game, and perhaps I learned less than I’d have expected to, but it’s great to be able to read an intelligent, thought provoking football book, so I recommend it.
Particularly interesting, I think, are Wilson’s thoughts on having two men up front. He seems quite convinced that the smart teams aren’t doing this, even now, and I can see the reasoning. He points to teams like France in ‘98 (with the much maligned Gui’varch as a lone striker), and even Brazil in ‘82, where the forward was seen as the weakest link. Which was true, but also slightly misses an important point, in that the forward’s entire role was about holding the ball up so that the teams’ talented midfielders could pour through and make things happen. (France had Zidane and Djorkaeff, with Deschamps, Petit and Karembeu behind them… in 2000 they moved from this 4-3-2-1 to a 4-2-3-1; Brazil had Zico, Socrates and Eder). He says that the modern centre-forward, a Drogba, an Adebayor, these players are fast, strong, and do score goals, but aren’t the sort of players who need a strike partner. Their point is that they can do a lot of work themselves, which frees up numbers in midfield. If you have five midfielders you can have more of them attacking in the vital midfield area, or more of them defending. Either way, sacrificing a striker is not a difficult decision for a lot of modern teams. And that striker doesn’t have to be as good as Drogba.
The more I think about it the more I agree. Fulham have some salivation inducing attacking midfielders: Bullard, Davies and Gera are very good, Clint Dempsey and Danny Murphy possibly a notch below, but still very nice squad players. To get the most out of these players you really need to offer them defensive protection. Yes we got away with it last year, belting home with four attacking midfielders as the season wound down, but I really don’t think that sort of thing would work over the course of the season. No, Wilson argues persuasively for not one but two holding midfielders. With one, the opposing playmaker (for most teams use one in some form) can drift wider and pull the holding player out of position. With two there’s a double shield that allows your best players (in our case the attacking midfielders) to do what they do best. I can see Murphy used a bit deeper this year, and Andreasen (who a lot of people seem to rate) and Andranik completing that defensive shield squadron (two at a time).
All of which requires a lone striker. In an ideal world this player is of that West African giant type, but it’s not vital that he is. We can get by with someone hard-working, functional, and unselfish, as long as the three players behind are given license to attack. A lot of fans can’t get past the idea of having two up, but Wilson, who knows his stuff, argues that this is not the way football is going.
Against this, he points out that such a formation can lack width. He points out Argentina in the 2006 World Cup, a beautiful but flawed team that was vulnerable to massed defenses because it could not stretch the game on the flank. Argentina have used a narrow 4-2-3-1, Wilson says. It could be a problem for us as well.
In which case a 4-1-4-1 becomes the viable alternative. You have more width, but that lone forward player might be a bit more isolated, particularly if he’s not an all singing all dancing superstar. Which brings us back to the 4-2-3-1.
I’m very excited by the prospects of seeing Gera, Bullard and Davies marauding, but perhaps I’m less scared about our striking options than I was. Yes we could do with someone else up top, and I worry a little about our midfield depth, but things are shaping up, and one or two more really good signings could make this team quite hard to beat.
We shall see, eh?
