12 hours ago, Upb78 said:

If Lavia is ever fully fit the ideal setup would be Caicedo-Lavia-Enzo, the only game they played together was pretty good. Besides, there's a reason why Enzo is so important performs so well in a team whose coach always plays with this kind of setup (i am talking about the Argentina national squad of course).

For my money, Caicedo/Lavia/Enzo as a midfield 3 is giving us the same problems we saw with Jorginho/Kovacic/Kante.

All fine players individually, but as a collective they don't provide enough defensive screening for the back 4, or offer enough in attack (there is no goal-scoring threat from midfield). Also all quite diminutive players (not even one 6 footer here), so making us prone to getting bullied by a tall physical team, and vulnerable aerially at set pieces.

19 hours ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

Firefighting in the middle of the park? Caicedo has covered his arse for the past year and a half. 

Hard worker? If you could take 10 seconds of your day to watch the following and provide comment that would be great: https://x.com/godween007/status/1886910420989919591/video/1

Yep - now watched. Not good defending or effort there... good job it didnt lead to a conceded goal - he clearly knew what he was doing. Of course, always incidents to pick out things that he can do better - nowhere near perfect. The general sentiment remains however, generally a good player,generally works hard, generally can pass well etc etc

2 hours ago, The Boehly Babes said:

I don’t think Enzo is anywhere close to as poor as some on here make out, the issue I think is the pricetag (It didn’t come out of any of our pockets and we’re PSR compliant STILL, always baffles me that with football fans) and the fact we’re all expecting some Fabregas re-gen which he just isn’t.

Actually off recent performances he’s becoming quite effective for us, granted his finishing is pony, but with Caiceido doing the dirty work Enzo’s link up is noticeably improved.

Completely agree if Enzo cost us only 30m nobody will complain about him. But it also mean we can use that 100m to sign another midfielder. 

 

16 minutes ago, Bob stark said:

Completely agree if Enzo cost us only 30m nobody will complain about him. But it also mean we can use that 100m to sign another midfielder. 

 

 

If he cost us 30M then Gallagher would still be at the club and Enzo would be sat on the bench.

2 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

If he cost us 30M then Gallagher would still be at the club and Enzo would be sat on the bench.

This is also true

 

1 hour ago, Sexyfootball said:

For my money, Caicedo/Lavia/Enzo as a midfield 3 is giving us the same problems we saw with Jorginho/Kovacic/Kante.

All fine players individually, but as a collective they don't provide enough defensive screening for the back 4, or offer enough in attack (there is no goal-scoring threat from midfield). Also all quite diminutive players (not even one 6 footer here), so making us prone to getting bullied by a tall physical team, and vulnerable aerially at set pieces.

Depends entirely on the set up to be honest. That midfield 3 would be fine at Pool under Slot for example. 

3 minutes ago, Remodez said:

Depends entirely on the set up to be honest. That midfield 3 would be fine at Pool under Slot for example. 

Slot like to keep at least one of his winger (salah) or sometimes two winger high defensively which mean the three midfielder need to cover big ground. Not our midfielders strong suit. 

 

9 minutes ago, Bob stark said:

Slot like to keep at least one of his winger (salah) or sometimes two winger high defensively which mean the three midfielder need to cover big ground. Not our midfielders strong suit. 

 

I don't believe covering big ground is the problem, it's doing it effectively and actually being good defensively that's more the issue. Enzo already set the record for most ground covered by any Chelsea player back in December so it's not like he can't do it. 

Also Pool's full backs operate differently defensively to ours so if they know they have freedom to cover big gaps without worrying about their left back playing striker then it make things a lot easier. 

3 hours ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

So who are you dropping? Caicedo is either being wasted at RB or Palmer is being dropped in the 10. Its not happening. 

I am dropping Sancho or Madueke

3 hours ago, dkw said:

Any formation that takes our best midfielder Caicedo away from his position is a complete waste of time, no matter how well it helps Enzo play.

I never said Caicedo should play as RB, i clearly stated that Caicedo-Lavia-Enzo would be a great midfield.

1 hour ago, Sexyfootball said:

For my money, Caicedo/Lavia/Enzo as a midfield 3 is giving us the same problems we saw with Jorginho/Kovacic/Kante.

All fine players individually, but as a collective they don't provide enough defensive screening for the back 4, or offer enough in attack (there is no goal-scoring threat from midfield). Also all quite diminutive players (not even one 6 footer here), so making us prone to getting bullied by a tall physical team, and vulnerable aerially at set pieces.

Hard to say you have the same problems when you haven't been able to try this setup for more than 45min because of Lavia's constant physical issues. 

3 hours ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

Can we stop pretending like the Argentina squad was successful because of Enzo as well, i've never heard such nonsense. 

I am not saying that Argentina was (or is) successfull because of Enzo, i said that their midfield with Enzo has been a very successful setup.

Just now, Upb78 said:

Hard to say you have the same problems when you haven't been able to try this setup for more than 45min because of Lavia's constant physical issues. 

Who of those 3 is a proven midfield goal scorer in his career to date ?

We've already seen that opposition can get through our midfield with ease, whichever pivot is selected, so I think it's fair to say also that none of them have the characteristics of elite defensive midfielders.

And at 178, 178, 181 they aren't going to offer the same degree of physicality as, say, Gravenberch 190 and Szoboszlai 186, to use the Liverpool example. 

All good players, but not ideal as a combination, and even worse when you have an inexperienced manager insisting on a bizarre tactical set up.

21 minutes ago, Upb78 said:

I am dropping Sancho or Madueke

So who plays in the 10? 

5 minutes ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

So who plays in the 10? 

I think he's advocating 4-3-3, so no 10 ?

The "Lampard" role (most advanced of the trio) would surely have to be Fernandez, and that in itself heavily underlines a potential problem LOL. 

Interesting debate, but not one we will see put to the test other than the odd game here or there.

Lavia is made of glass and his hamstrings of Swiss cheese.

Now we could talk the merits of Santos, Enzo and Caicedo, provided Santos is not sold to balance the books in the summer.

6 hours ago, Sexyfootball said:

I think he's advocating 4-3-3, so no 10 ?

The "Lampard" role (most advanced of the trio) would surely have to be Fernandez, and that in itself heavily underlines a potential problem LOL. 

Enzo as a “10” is laughable and reminds me that the summer Poch took over, Enzo actually said in the press he sees himself as 10 and wanted to play that role. I think Poch tried him in that role a couple of times and binned it.

15 hours ago, Ukraine Bolt said:

So who plays in the 10? 

Nobody, i would use a 4-3-3 formation:

 

Gusto/James    Adarabioyo    Colwill    Cucurella

              Caicedo      Lavia       Enzo

  Palmer            Guiu/Jackson              Neto

 

9 minutes ago, Upb78 said:

Nobody, i would use a 4-3-3 formation:

 

Gusto/James    Adarabioyo    Colwill    Cucurella

              Caicedo      Lavia       Enzo

  Palmer            Guiu/Jackson              Neto

 

How do you press? 

4-3-3 is a formation I like and like a lot better than the 4-2-3-1 that we are based on.

We would really struggle playing a 4-3-3 for a few reasons. It would mean James and Cucu being wing backs. James has shown that his body struggles in that role and Cucu’s upturn in form happened when he stopped playing wing back. 

We would also need all 3 forwards to score regularly and only Palmer seems capable enough to do that. That’s even before we think about Estevao who’s only position in that formation is Palmer’s understudy on the right of the 3. ie very few minutes.

There’s absolutely no chance we are seeing a formation change anytime soon.

 

This days unless you play with back 5, I don't think it is important to talk about formation. Some team play 4231/433 but eventually most of the time they just end up in 442 shape anyway. 

Liverpool probably years ago pressed in 433 shape but last season I saw them press in 442.

 

 

Edited February 8, 20251 yr by Bob stark

21 hours ago, Sexyfootball said:

And at 178, 178, 181 they aren't going to offer the same degree of physicality as, say, Gravenberch 190 and Szoboszlai 186, to use the Liverpool example. 

Going by that rationale perhaps we should play Robert Sanchez in midfield.

41 minutes ago, Gordon Bennett said:

Going by that rationale perhaps we should play Robert Sanchez in midfield.

Nah. I'll save him for the "Crouch" option up front

19 hours ago, ducavis said:

Enzo as a “10” is laughable and reminds me that the summer Poch took over, Enzo actually said in the press he sees himself as 10 and wanted to play that role. I think Poch tried him in that role a couple of times and binned it.

Hope that Tchouameni/Enzo swap offer is still on the table. 

The fact that Enzo is our captain just epitomises how broken things are. Bang average footballer and f**king awful in terms of any capacity to be a captain.  

Palmer and Caciedo aside (and maybe James if you can ignore injuries) there isn't really any player in the squad you'd be that arsed if they left in the summer but I'd still have Enzo very near the top of players I'd happily see leave if it wasn't for the massive financial hit we'd need to take.