First of all, I was around, didn't watch MOTD, and know very well both of those players and they aren't the same type of players, yet you interchangably indicated they would be a better fit as wide players in Silva's 4-2-3-1. Just because Kuyt played RB occassionally, because Van Gal even played him at left back, at striker, doesn't make him a similar player. Milner is a wide player, loves crossing the ball, can play RB and RW. Kuyt loved to cut inside, loved to occupy space as a right forward, but was not a winger, did not have great pace. Kuyt might work in Silva's 4-2-3-1 as Silva LOVES to get his right and left backs forward, thus we wants wide players that are comfortable cutting inside and scoring goals, leaving the wide areas in the attacking zone to his backs. That doesn't play to Milner's strengths at all IMO. It plays to Walcott, who is more of an inside forward than a wing.
Just keep in mind, there's a generic 4-2-3-1, and then there's the 4-2-3-1 that Silva wants to play and that leads me to my #1 issue with your posts. You may understand tactics, but you clearly do not understand Silva's tactics. Again, you indicate we don't have the players to play his system because we can't dominate possession. I don't believe he gives a flip about possession. Maybe at times, but this is the manager that was so obsessive about counter attacking and playing defense with Olympiakos for example, the press would make jokes about how Silva would probably instruct his team to kick it back to the other team in order to set up his defense. You say that Walcott isn't the wide player we need in Silva's 4-2-3-1 (or his 4-3-3), without realizing that Silva doesn't want him playing as a winger.
So that's my problem with your entire analysis. You critque - and others do, too - Silva's tactics without understanding them.
I also take umbrage with saying someone is good in a certain formation, when formations can have very different tactics. You cannot say that Bernard would be good in a 4-3-3, but wouldn't be good in a 4-2-3-1. You can say he may or may not be good in certain tactics of course. But REALLY, what matters is whether or not he's good for Silva's formations and tactics, when under Silva, they are just about the same thing. Heck, Silva clearly thinks he's a good fit in his tactics or he wouldn't have been keen for Brands to go get him. So who knows the player and whether or not he'd fit his tactics better, you or Marco Silva? I mean, they are HIS tactics, not yours. Sooo....I'm going to go with Marco.
Crim, your like a dog chasing its tail.
Where are you going with Kuyt and Milner?
This is got nothing to do with the difference in their qualities.
It got to with the one quality they both had in abundance, playing as wingers, back in the day - a quality that encapsulates intensity, grit, determination, never say die attitude, that harrasses, hounds, and hunts down anything that dares to go down their wing. It wasn't just about what they did when the team had the ball. These types of players are a dying breed and Walcott is as far away from them as you could find. If he had just a little bit less talent and speed he never would have made it at the elite level, because of what he doesn't do. I was formerly of the opinion that only Arsenal would accommodate a player like that. It pains me greatly to say this - it says a lot about where Everton are at.
If you actually appreciate players like Kuyt and Mliner for what they were, then as I was pointing to before, go back and watch Walcott during Lacazette's goal consider whether they would have let him received the ball in that much space.
So my point was, and its irrelevant what you say here about Silva's version of a 4-2-3-1, you can't have two wingers in that formation that are going to play a free role, ie not do their bit defensively. You can have one (Rico) - as long as you balance it with the type of player described on the other wing. You get this yeah. Its got to do with being at least one of two helping the 2CMs cover the width of the pitch and length of space btwn the 10 and CB.
Tactics - the reference to do with dominating possession has got to with defence. If you hold onto the ball Walcott doesn't have to do as much work up and down the wing. The simple logic that most of the opposition players are defending and therefore in front of you. It allows you to set up differently in defence, with Walcott's role being different and more to his nature - ie joining a higher press rather than busting his bollocks back down the other end. The defending line is higher, the space compressed, rather than him having to run acres doing a thing he generally chooses not to. That's why it changes the dynamic IF you had more possession.
You talk about Silva being obsessed with counter attacking. And his type of counter attacking. And in principle, I'm a big fan of it. But to pull it off successfully in the PL is going to be monumental.
Its counter attack without reducing as much risk.
Lets take an example of where it has worked. DCL deep on the right takes the ball, loses it, gets it back and gets it to Sig.
Sig is alone, in space, with 5 arsenal players converging on him.
He send a nice ranged ball to Walcott high, in a bit of space on the left, who knocks it down to Rico.
Rico starts the swagger with two men to beat and fires a shot before more converge.
Great football.
The question is, do we have the players (or will we get the players) that have a very high level of skill and composure to draw players in, in dangerous positions, keep the ball, and play passes to players with intelligent positioning and combinations, to get in behind the majority of the opposition players.
It becomes more dangerous the higher you play this - you have less outs if it goes wrong/more space to cover.
It becomes more complexed the higher you play this.
'So that's my problem with your entire analysis. You critque - and others do, too - Silva's tactics without understanding them.'
Silva's approach is that he's trying to transplant this. And I don't believe you can. Certainly not with the current side, and its highly questionable that you can do it with any.
Start with a simpler Leicester model and grow and build from there OR start with a three man centre midfield, consolidate by playing good football and tweak from there.
Some of the defensive play has been utter rubbish. And trying to transplant the complexities that come with balancing attack and defense in Silva's model, on top of this is just {inappropriate language}.
Key to man management and building belief and confidence is providing a basis for them to actually act, believe and have confidence in - a sustained 'by in'.
That can be easy done during the honeymoon period. Not so easy when your getting demoralised by Chelsea, the doubts creep in about themselves as well as what they're doing. It could easily a house of cards - because of what he is trying to achieve.
He's not just missing players with key skills for his model, he's missing players with key personality. Some of the players in this side need to be able to look to other players (who are playing out on the pitch regularly), not just him.
Added to this, is that many of the PL managers will have a field day with his tactics as is.
So this is my critique of his tactics - please enlighten me.
