Could Berge Play as a 10?

[A Storm of Blades]

Absolutely, the midfield, the way the whole team is set up, the measures we've taken to be more solid, has enabled us to stay in games without being outclassed and punished (too severly - as in heavy defeats) for having player for player less quality than the opposition. The management is not perfect but I do feel they've made sure the team has had a decent chance of a result in every game so far.

We've lost some key players and I think a number of players in the squad have probably peaked. Recruitment have been difficult, and ridiculously expensive. It's been necessary to look for younger players, but they're not proven and it's not ideal to throw them in at the same time. So we're trying to get by with some players that know our style and a gradual introduction of the new ones.

We won the two promotions with a lot of players at their peak age, and at Championship level they were very good players. Coupled with a playing style that really suited them we used our momentum and rhythm from League One, but our individual players were also very good. We dominated games and had the quality to beat most of them. There was a vulnerability in our formation, but League One and Championship lacked the quality to take advantage. Duffy was also key to making it work, often switching from ACM to RCM during games.

Compared to teams in the Premiership it's a different story. Our players are not as good as most other teams. Last season though we had momentum, rhythm and confidence. We made a formation tweak that we felt was necessary and it was hugely successful. The players knew each other and their individual roles well and we knew there were stuff that we were good at. Things that other teams underestimated and failed to prepare for, failed to deal with. That changed towards the end of the season.

So before this season, we had no momentum, other teams have realised there's effective measures to deal with our unusual style and we had a mix of players that are not going to improve and some new/young ones that are trying to learn our style. Unfortunately, our individual players are still not as good as most other teams.

I think a lot of Blades fans have been overestimating our players as individuals because of the success we've had. I still think we have a chance of staying up, but it'll be tough and being defensively solid is going to be key - as it was last season. Wilder said he sacrificed the number 10 to "stay alive in games". David McGoldrick recently said it would be suicidal to play a number 10 behind two strikers.


Looking at Fulham's goal this weekend this (image below) was how we were set up. I don't mean to analyse this particular goal, but use it to illustrate the difference between the current formation and what it would look like with a midfielder sacrificed for a number 10.

Our wing backs have been pinned pack by wide players, which prevents them helping out in midfield. This happens all the time now and we are effectively turning into a 5-3-2, i.e. 3 men across midfield. At this time we're in control, our midfield is behind the ball, the man on the ball is closed down and we have cover behind him, and inside.


View attachment 95345

It's very hard to create a goal from this situation, meaning the management has done a good job in making sure we've set up solidly. From a defending's perspective, it's what we can ask them for. Don't be naive, don't set the team up in a way that's going to routinely put them in struggling situations. Let it at least take some brilliance, or/and a real mix up, or more than one individual mistake, to score against us.

In a 3-4-1-2 you allow the number 10 to be a bit more relaxed when it comes to getting behind the ball when the opposition go forward. I think we'd have more situations looking like below:


View attachment 95347

In this edited version there's effectively a two man midfield trying to protect the same defence. The man on the ball can run freely at Basham. If Norwood does manage to push across, Lundstram will be left with two opposition midfielders, with a third looking to get forward as well. Routinely we'd struggle to cover enough space in midfield and leave the defence exposed. It would take less brilliance, often just one mix up/mistake to see them get openings.

Again, I don't think it's something that's realistic for us to try at this level. We're not good enough.

Thanks for the detailed reply. I’ll try to be succinct in my response. The switch in formation as we went up, by removing the 10, in my view had diminishing returns on a first 11 that was already proven to be solid, yet disproportionately reduced our attacking threat. We weren’t Norwich, with a clearly weak defence which they failed to address, we were already defensively strong.

By removing the 10, we severed the links of our system between midfield and attack, which is why we looked so poor whenever Didsy didn’t play. He fulfilled the 10 role, making us tick but in doing so it sacrificed one of the front 2. In addition, we lost a dimension to unlock defences centrally, that ‘Duffy’ 40 yard from goal driving run or clever pass, is almost non existent now. Everything we try to create is wide. This has had a huge impact on our overloads in wide areas, as teams can pack the flanks without having to worry about leaving themselves short to cover a CAM.

Paradoxically, I also think we aren’t as good deploying the full court press, because we’ve removed a layer from our defensive shape. Taking the Fulham goal image, our flat 3 has been pushed right back almost to our 18 yard line, almost penning us in. When I said a lack of a 10 means teams can step onto us without having to worry what’s behind them, this is precisely what I meant. If a CAM is playing the ball carrier doesn’t get us far unopposed and at least one of Fulham’s central 3 has to hold, lest a CAM is free to counterattack unmarked.

In addition, because a flat midfield retreat so deep, if we do turnover the ball, there is never anything on, except to typically knock the ball up and over for an outnumbered front 2 to chase.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Thanks for the detailed reply. I’ll try to be succinct in my response. The switch in formation as we went up, by removing the 10, in my view had diminishing returns on a first 11 that was already proven to be solid, yet disproportionately reduced our attacking threat. We weren’t Norwich, with a clearly weak defence which they failed to address, we were already defensively strong.

By removing the 10, we severed the links of our system between midfield and attack, which is why we looked so poor whenever Didsy didn’t play. He fulfilled the 10 role, making us tick but in doing so it sacrificed one of the front 2. In addition, we lost a dimension to unlock defences centrally, that ‘Duffy’ 40 yard from goal driving run or clever pass, is almost non existent now. Everything we try to create is wide. This has had a huge impact on our overloads in wide areas, as teams can pack the flanks without having to worry about leaving themselves short to cover a CAM.

Paradoxically, I also think we aren’t as good deploying the full court press, because we’ve removed a layer from our defensive shape. Taking the Fulham goal image, our flat 3 has been pushed right back almost to our 18 yard line, almost penning us in. When I said a lack of a 10 means teams can step onto us without having to worry what’s behind them, this is precisely what I meant. If a CAM is playing the ball carrier doesn’t get us far unopposed and at least one of Fulham’s central 3 has to hold, lest a CAM is free to counterattack unmarked.

In addition, because a flat midfield retreat so deep, if we do turnover the ball, there is never anything on, except to typically knock the ball up and over for an outnumbered front 2 to chase.

We don't need to discuss if there could be attacking benefits, everybody will agree.

In terms of opposition teams holding back players to worry about us keeping players forward, this could work if we had big, strong, fast defenders who were superb at defending individually and positionally. We don't. We have defenders who can just about cope if they are well protected and mentally set to 'defend', like when we are leading or playing a good team away. If we're stretched, or we have defenders isolated with top class players our defenders are likely to struggle.

Regarding Berge as a number 10, I think he'd have to adapt his game a lot. He's used to having a bit more space (hence looking shocked in his first few games for us at RCM) and is not exceptional when it comes to vision/unlocking defences.

I think replacing McGoldrick with a quicker and more direct and creative no 10, i.e. someone like Brooks is what we should be looking for at the moment. For the next couple of games I think it would be interesting to see if Burke could offer powerful running from deep from that position.


Finally, a selection of players who (in their prime) probably could have made your system (maybe most systems to be fair) work at PL level:


- - - - - Henderson - - - - - - -
Maguire Jagielka O'Connell - -
Walker - - Coutts Berge - - Stevens
- - - - - - Duffy - - - - - - - - - -
- - Deane Calvert-Lewin - - - -

 

[nezimão]

he could be our marouane fellaini.

 

[LoughboroBlade]

Absolutely, the midfield, the way the whole team is set up, the measures we've taken to be more solid, has enabled us to stay in games without being outclassed and punished (too severly - as in heavy defeats) for having player for player less quality than the opposition. The management is not perfect but I do feel they've made sure the team has had a decent chance of a result in every game so far.

We've lost some key players and I think a number of players in the squad have probably peaked. Recruitment have been difficult, and ridiculously expensive. It's been necessary to look for younger players, but they're not proven and it's not ideal to throw them in at the same time. So we're trying to get by with some players that know our style and a gradual introduction of the new ones.

We won the two promotions with a lot of players at their peak age, and at Championship level they were very good players. Coupled with a playing style that really suited them we used our momentum and rhythm from League One, but our individual players were also very good. We dominated games and had the quality to beat most of them. There was a vulnerability in our formation, but League One and Championship lacked the quality to take advantage. Duffy was also key to making it work, often switching from ACM to RCM during games.

Compared to teams in the Premiership it's a different story. Our players are not as good as most other teams. Last season though we had momentum, rhythm and confidence. We made a formation tweak that we felt was necessary and it was hugely successful. The players knew each other and their individual roles well and we knew there were stuff that we were good at. Things that other teams underestimated and failed to prepare for, failed to deal with. That changed towards the end of the season.

So before this season, we had no momentum, other teams have realised there's effective measures to deal with our unusual style and we had a mix of players that are not going to improve and some new/young ones that are trying to learn our style. Unfortunately, our individual players are still not as good as most other teams.

I think a lot of Blades fans have been overestimating our players as individuals because of the success we've had. I still think we have a chance of staying up, but it'll be tough and being defensively solid is going to be key - as it was last season. Wilder said he sacrificed the number 10 to "stay alive in games". David McGoldrick recently said it would be suicidal to play a number 10 behind two strikers.


Looking at Fulham's goal this weekend this (image below) was how we were set up. I don't mean to analyse this particular goal, but use it to illustrate the difference between the current formation and what it would look like with a midfielder sacrificed for a number 10.

Our wing backs have been pinned pack by wide players, which prevents them helping out in midfield. This happens all the time now and we are effectively turning into a 5-3-2, i.e. 3 men across midfield. At this time we're in control, our midfield is behind the ball, the man on the ball is closed down and we have cover behind him, and inside.


View attachment 95345

It's very hard to create a goal from this situation, meaning the management has done a good job in making sure we've set up solidly. From a defending's perspective, it's what we can ask them for. Don't be naive, don't set the team up in a way that's going to routinely put them in struggling situations. Let it at least take some brilliance, or/and a real mix up, or more than one individual mistake, to score against us.

In a 3-4-1-2 you allow the number 10 to be a bit more relaxed when it comes to getting behind the ball when the opposition go forward. I think we'd have more situations looking like below:


View attachment 95347

In this edited version there's effectively a two man midfield trying to protect the same defence. The man on the ball can run freely at Basham. If Norwood does manage to push across, Lundstram will be left with two opposition midfielders, with a third looking to get forward as well. Routinely we'd struggle to cover enough space in midfield and leave the defence exposed. It would take less brilliance, often just one mix up/mistake to see them get openings.

Again, I don't think it's something that's realistic for us to try at this level. We're not good enough.

This should be pinned to all BringbacktheDuffyrole threads. It’s not a crazy suggestion to bring it back in the future if we have the players to cope with the sort of additional space that would inevitably be created. But we simply don’t right now. We did in the Championship. We do not in the PL.

There are other tweaks we might consider within the current formation, but one that makes the defence more exposed at a time when confidence isn’t high and we’re missing a key defender for the foreseeable seems bonkers frankly.

 

[A Storm of Blades]

We don't need to discuss if there could be attacking benefits, everybody will agree.

In terms of opposition teams holding back players to worry about us keeping players forward, this could work if we had big, strong, fast defenders who were superb at defending individually and positionally. We don't. We have defenders who can just about cope if they are well protected and mentally set to 'defend', like when we are leading or playing a good team away. If we're stretched, or we have defenders isolated with top class players our defenders are likely to struggle.

Regarding Berge as a number 10, I think he'd have to adapt his game a lot. He's used to having a bit more space (hence looking shocked in his first few games for us at RCM) and is not exceptional when it comes to vision/unlocking defences.

I think replacing McGoldrick with a quicker and more direct and creative no 10, i.e. someone like Brooks is what we should be looking for at the moment. For the next couple of games I think it would be interesting to see if Burke could offer powerful running from deep from that position.


Finally, a selection of players who (in their prime) probably could have made your system (maybe most systems to be fair) work at PL level:


- - - - - Henderson - - - - - - -
Maguire Jagielka O'Connell - -
Walker - - Coutts Berge - - Stevens
- - - - - - Duffy - - - - - - - - - -
- - Deane Calvert-Lewin - - - -

Haha now that’s a unit! . Thanks for a great debate, I think you argue your points well. Until Wilder tries it, I guess we’ll never know whether a 10 in the Premier League with these players would work. I think it would for the reasons I’ve cited. I think we can all agree though that there isn’t much scope to get worse!

 

[A Storm of Blades]

This should be pinned to all BringbacktheDuffyrole threads. It’s not a crazy suggestion to bring it back in the future if we have the players to cope with the sort of additional space that would inevitably be created. But we simply don’t right now. We did in the Championship. We do not in the PL.

There are other tweaks we might consider within the current formation, but one that makes the defence more exposed at a time when confidence isn’t high and we’re missing a key defender for the foreseeable seems bonkers frankly.

I don’t think it does make our defence more exposed, respectfully. As I argue above, there’s much more to a strong defence than simply how many numbers we put in and around defence. Midfields we are facing are only having to break one line to have a direct charge straight at our defence, or pushing the 3 back so far we struggle to get out. Traore vs Wolves as a good example. The 10 adds another layer to get passed, even if only optically for the opposition. The role also means our front 2 don’t have to drop as deep to collect the ball, making it harder for opposition defences to squeeze up and close down spaces.

 

[IOM Blade]

I'd play him behind a lone striker at Anfield for shits and giggles. Plus Ampadu for his extra physical presence, as they ran all over Norwood at Anfield last season and Brewster due to the returning striker always scoring thing.

-------------------Ramsdale
----------Basham----Egan---Stevens
Baldock-------------------------------Lowe
--------------------Ampadu
-----------Lundstram-----Osborn
----------------------Berge
--------------------Brewster

 

[guancheblade]

He did look rather dangerous in those pockets of space in the first half

One thing is getting in the pockets, its another to do something meaningful with the ball once you're there. That's why he's not a 10 for me

 

[A Storm of Blades]

One thing is getting in the pockets, its another to do something meaningful with the ball once you're there. That's why he's not a 10 for me

Really? I think his final ball is good enough

 

[guancheblade]

It wa

Really? I think his final ball is good enough

It wasn't yesterday, or any other game this season. The only one that did he was offside for