Esteban Cambiasso

[smiggy6773]

I think we have changed our style and, from what Pearson has said, I imagine Cambiasso has influenced that change. Unfortunately it doesn't play to our strengths and isn't likely to given that Cambiasso doesn't do enough things well in his role - good a player as he might have been at his best.

 

Yes, he can pass the ball quickly and deftly. But he's not much help defending set pieces, he doesn't track the runners naturally, he's not in a physical sense and he's lost his edge in terms of pace and energy.

 

We're now playing much more narrowly and nullifying the things which allowed us to have any chance of consistently scoring more goals than the opposition - something glaringly illustrated by our failure to score in over 400 minutes.

 

Our downturn since Cambiasso's arrival seems now to be denting morale as well, perhaps because he's getting so much money for what has fast become a negative return results wise. 

 

Last season's team will be a proud and close one. They won't be happy to see a different approach and different influences costing them their win bonuses or denting their confidence. 

 

Pearson's always referring to the need to "attend to detail" and trying to portray himself as having a studious approach to management but there's nothing studious about changing an approach that works into one that doesn't or about playing so narrow - and making midfield so crowded - that people receiving passes are short of space and the chance of the pass even being delivered successfully is so greatly diminished.

 

It was there to be seen against West Brom - how rarely we had the opportunity to pass to a player in space.

That wasn't down to West Brom's brilliant defenders.

It was down to a lack of width, pace and mobility.

 

The more width, pace and skill in a side the more often the opposition has to deal with a threat and the greater the resources they have to deploy in doing that.

 

We don't pick a team to pose a serious threat anymore - just to contain the opposition and hope to pinch something even at home.

That's the change since Cambiasso's arrival because it certainly wasn't apparent in our early games for all that we came under considerable and well anticipated pressure.

 

I'm not saying or implying that Cambiasso's no good. But accommodating him has cost us considerably more than it's given us, turning a team of winners into a team of losers.  

 

We've stopped playing to our strengths. 

 

Do fans seriously believe our Championship-winning team have suddenly become bad players in the last six weeks or so?

 

The evidence for what I say is everywhere.

 

Ulloa and Vardy have become impotent because there are no fast breakaways, no good crosses and no balls through or behind the defence.

 

Our accomplished midfielders are looking ordinary because we've no wide players to give them "players-in-space" passing options and what's left to them is so risky and so inconsequential even when the pass does find its target.         

 

Our lack of width and pace means opposing defences are never stretched and that, in turn, means they need fewer people to defend against us and can therefore deploy more bodies to the supporting of attacks.

 

I can't explain it any more simply. Changing back won't make us world beaters at Premiership level but it might mean us scoring some goals and winning some more points before the January window gives us chance to genuinely strengthen our team.

 

We're not equipped to beg games more than occasionally. It's not that our defence is woefully bad. They just can't absorb constant pressure without conceding one or two. We have to offer a threat.

Couldn't agree more!! I like Cambiasso, uality signing, but looks a yard off the pace in my opinion, Maybe its the pace of the Premiership compared to the Italian league??

We need the width, which is something we did not have against WBA!

[Captain...]

Said the exact same thing re McArthur he would have been the perfect type of midfielder to slot into our system bringing bags of energy over someone who's legs have gone

 

McArthur is a decent player, but he has hardly pulled up trees at Palace, started 6 of 11, mainly due to suspensions and Palace are down there with us.

 

Cambiasso has been a bit of a disappointment, but then he has also been instrumental in our 2 victories this season.

[ScouseFox]

why is he unable to play in a two? always wondered what makes someone "unable to play in a two".  wasn't king always unable to play in a two? until we played him in a two and he was great for our opening stint and now in a three he looks like a retard? has cambiasso even played "in a two" for us? 

 

so many bloody questions 

[Captain...]

Couldn't agree more!! I like Cambiasso, uality signing, but looks a yard off the pace in my opinion, Maybe its the pace of the Premiership compared to the Italian league??

We need the width, which is something we did not have against WBA!

 

To be honest I think it is the way we play as much as anything, we are chasing the game constantly and looking to work the opposition into the ground, but having the opposite effect, Cambiasso has a quality at odds with our work rate ethic, he screens the back four in a controlled way, but he forgets he isn't playing alongside his Inter team mates, so when the rest of the midfield go chasing the ball and leaving gaps everywhere taking up clever positions and playing percentage football becomes redundant.

[Captain...]

why is he unable to play in a two? always wondered what makes someone "unable to play in a two".  wasn't king always unable to play in a two? until we played him in a two and he was great for our opening stint and now in a three he looks like a retard? has cambiasso even played "in a two" for us? 

 

so many bloody questions 

 

As a 2 in a 4231 I think he would be ideal, either alongside James or Hammond.

 

Then we can select 4 attack minded players for the 31.

[Fox92]

Needs to play in games against teams who actually play football. He's always going be ineffective when the balls constantly in the air, in which, we need to get back to playing football too. The goals at Southampton, for example, came from two ridiculously hopeful and poor long balls.

 

But Smiggy is right too. Premier League is about pace and power compared to other leagues, such as Italy. Look at Pirlo as an example. 

[ScouseFox]

As a 2 in a 4231 I think he would be ideal, either alongside James or Hammond.

 

Then we can select 4 attack minded players for the 31.

 

yeah that's the formation for him i'd say but that involves either dropping ulloa or vardy or having vardy out wide which is basically as useful as playing with 10 men. we've had the same problem all season long, cambiasso, drinkwater, vardy, mahrez and ulloa ideally all need to play for us to win games (imo they are our best 4/5 players ignoring the defence) and they quite simply don't fit into any formation together all playing in their best systems and positions. nigel needs to admit defeat, drop one of them to the bench and use the other 3 (and the rest of the team) to their maximum and we'll win games. 

 

3 or 4 of those 5 playing in their best positions and our best formation would be better than shoehorning all 5 into positions where they're either exposed or nullified, no? tbf anything would be better than dropping mahrez (and ulloa for wba) and still not playing our best system. i've given up trying to work out what's going on and expect us to continue to set up boringly and lose and not score. that way it'll be such a pleasant surprise every time we cross the halfway line in a match  

[Dickov22]

why is he unable to play in a two? always wondered what makes someone "unable to play in a two". wasn't king always unable to play in a two? until we played him in a two and he was great for our opening stint and now in a three he looks like a retard? has cambiasso even played "in a two" for us?

so many bloody questions

Because he's way too slow! He always looks off the pace to me unless he has the ball at his feet in space.

[ScouseFox]

Because he's way too slow! He always looks off the pace to me unless he has the ball at his feet in space.

 

yes i see the theory in it but wasn't king always too slow, not enough of a presence and definitely not playable in a 4-4-2? then we played him in a 4-4-2 and he was arguably our best player for 3 premier league games in a row? just saying don't knock it til you've tried it, although the fact we continue to play 4 central midfielders says to me we'll never try it because nigel is too scared. 

 

i wouldn't be so confident of playing him in a middle two, but like i say the same was said of king, the same was probably said of drinkwater when he joined, the same was always said of our whole midfield for years, yet just like magic we played a 442 last season and it was our best season in living memory. just seems a bit of a crap get out cliche considering nobody has ever seen him play in a two. 

[Vicki Vixen]

Have we changed our style to 'accomodate' Cambiasso?

I remember when Nigel appeared to change how we were playing to try to fit Harry Kane into the side, with pretty drastic consequences.

Is trying to field Cambiasso a part of our problem, or not?

Discuss....

Pearson set out this season to play with a defensive midfielder in front of a back 4. Hammond was filling the role initially, now Cambiasso. So I disagree that the formation is to accommodate Cambiasso. Whether we like it or not, this is the set up that NP believes will get us results and we need to give the players time to adapt to it.

[shade]

I think we have changed our style and, from what Pearson has said, I imagine Cambiasso has influenced that change. Unfortunately it doesn't play to our strengths and isn't likely to given that Cambiasso doesn't do enough things well in his role - good a player as he might have been at his best.

Yes, he can pass the ball quickly and deftly. But he's not much help defending set pieces, he doesn't track the runners naturally, he's not in a physical sense and he's lost his edge in terms of pace and energy.

We're now playing much more narrowly and nullifying the things which allowed us to have any chance of consistently scoring more goals than the opposition - something glaringly illustrated by our failure to score in over 400 minutes.

Our downturn since Cambiasso's arrival seems now to be denting morale as well, perhaps because he's getting so much money for what has fast become a negative return results wise.

Last season's team will be a proud and close one. They won't be happy to see a different approach and different influences costing them their win bonuses or denting their confidence.

Pearson's always referring to the need to "attend to detail" and trying to portray himself as having a studious approach to management but there's nothing studious about changing an approach that works into one that doesn't or about playing so narrow - and making midfield so crowded - that people receiving passes are short of space and the chance of the pass even being delivered successfully is so greatly diminished.

It was there to be seen against West Brom - how rarely we had the opportunity to pass to a player in space.

That wasn't down to West Brom's brilliant defenders.

It was down to a lack of width, pace and mobility.

The more width, pace and skill in a side the more often the opposition has to deal with a threat and the greater the resources they have to deploy in doing that.

We don't pick a team to pose a serious threat anymore - just to contain the opposition and hope to pinch something even at home.

That's the change since Cambiasso's arrival because it certainly wasn't apparent in our early games for all that we came under considerable and well anticipated pressure.

I'm not saying or implying that Cambiasso's no good. But accommodating him has cost us considerably more than it's given us, turning a team of winners into a team of losers.

We've stopped playing to our strengths.

Do fans seriously believe our Championship-winning team have suddenly become bad players in the last six weeks or so?

The evidence for what I say is everywhere.

Ulloa and Vardy have become impotent because there are no fast breakaways, no good crosses and no balls through or behind the defence.

Our accomplished midfielders are looking ordinary because we've no wide players to give them "players-in-space" passing options and what's left to them is so risky and so inconsequential even when the pass does find its target.

Our lack of width and pace means opposing defences are never stretched and that, in turn, means they need fewer people to defend against us and can therefore deploy more bodies to the supporting of attacks.

I can't explain it any more simply. Changing back won't make us world beaters at Premiership level but it might mean us scoring some goals and winning some more points before the January window gives us chance to genuinely strengthen our team.

We're not equipped to beg games more than occasionally. It's not that our defence is woefully bad. They just can't absorb constant pressure without conceding one or two. We have to offer a threat.

someone send this to nigel, or someone who can put it in his face!

[Kitchandro]

No I don't think it's an issue. You could argue it's an issue that we're trying to accommodate both Cambiasso and James in the same team, but I don't particularly agree with that either, since that gives Drinkwater the freedom to create, if he's at the tip of the 3.

 

However, trying to accommodate Cambiasso, James, Drinkwater and King in the same team is an issue.

[Kitchandro]

Couldn't have put it better myself, I also think people are being blinkered by the fact he is Esteban Cambiasso if he was just a random guy we snapped up from league 1 he would be getting hammered

 

Thrac is totally right in his assessment of how we've changed style and how it has been to our detriment. But he's wrong in saying it's because of Cambiasso.

 

Cambiasso is a natural replacement for James. I'm not saying he should necessarily be in ahead of James, that's a different issue, but he does play the role that James did for us last season.

 

On the other hand, against Man Utd we played a midfield 3 (Hammond, Cambiasso and Drinkwater). Obviously Hammond should be replaced by James long term if we were to pursue with that system but we certainly weren't hindered in an attacking sense that day.

 

Either way, neither of those systems are necessarily detrimental to our game. The make-up of the front 3 in that second system is just as crucial to it working and we're better off looking at that part of it if we're going to assess it's effectiveness in the matches since Man Utd.

 

In recent games, we've played a diamond, with four central midfielders. This has undoubtedly not worked at all. But that's because of the number of central midfielders in there, not because any of the individuals can't fit into our previously positive, exciting team.

 

[cjslcfc]

Cambiasso's an interesting case.

 

Personally I don't think we have changed our style to accommodate him. Rather than being the cause of the change I think he is just part of Pearson's mindset shift towards thinking that packing the midfield to win the midfield battle is the best way to go about playing in the Premier League. It hasn't worked so far and I don't think it suits us at all.

 

There is also a lot of talk of him not being able to play in a two. There's no concrete evidence to suggest otherwise. You could say he might not have the pace and his failure to track runs at times does worry me but this is as much of a problem in a 3 as it is in a 2. So I don't think Pearson is playing the midfield this way because of him, more that Cambiasso is one of our better midfielders so plays when we play this way.

 

Does he fit? Well, given a lot of the team seem woefully out of form it's hard to pin that down to the fact that he plays. He was actually one of the better players vs. Southampton and retains possession far better than any of our other midfielders have recently. He also looks to find the ball and find the space in front of the defenders to try and get us moving.

 

It's clear the problem lies in the way we set up. The only person who really knows if it is to accommodate Esteban is Pearson himself.

[Dan]

Cambiasso is definitely our most talented midfielder and his past speaks for itself - but with every single passing game I'm more and more thinking that he doesn't fit our style of play.

he has been our best midfielder, looks composed on the ball and rarely loses it. Don't think the system has changed to play him. He played against Stoke and United in a 4-3-3 and did well. I think the system has changed to stop us conceding goals and make us tight at the back and hard to beat. Obviously we have lost our creative edge and the system offers little counter attack threats.

 

But we aren't tight at the back and are losing nearly every game.

[MrSpaM]

He's been our best player for weeks now, pinning our poor streak on Cambiasso is ridiculous

[Fox92]

I don't think Col is pinning our form on Cambiasso, or using him as any sort of scapegoat, he's only asking a simple question which is fair. 

[foxinsocks]

I have had a lot of pleasure watching cambiasso - he is class - his touch is in a league above the prem!

At the same time, NP is choosing not to play Mahrez (is he on the naughty step?) so we have no creativity - I would drop king and play Mahrez - especially at home but also to give us the quick break option when away . Further, with Mahrez and vardy on the pitch we have to be prepared to "feed" them. The central midfielders should be looking for them and to play early balls to them. I can understand us approaching an away game at Southampton with some trepidation - but I think we need to play with more verve at home.

These issues are not down to accommodating cambiasso - it is a long season we will need cambiasso, drinky, james and king in CM - but we don't need all four at once - we have seen that this doesn't create chances - I hope this lesson has been learnt now.

[lcfcsnow]

I get the feeling he's influencing the tactics we play more than we think.

[kingfox]

Cambiasso has been decent for us, nothing exceptional yet bar the odd sublime pass that nobody else could pull off for us.

 

This line sums it up for me.

[Dan]

Thrac is totally right in his assessment of how we've changed style and how it has been to our detriment. But he's wrong in saying it's because of Cambiasso.

 

Cambiasso is a natural replacement for James. I'm not saying he should necessarily be in ahead of James, that's a different issue, but he does play the role that James did for us last season.

 

On the other hand, against Man Utd we played a midfield 3 (Hammond, Cambiasso and Drinkwater). Obviously Hammond should be replaced by James long term if we were to pursue with that system but we certainly weren't hindered in an attacking sense that day.

 

Either way, neither of those systems are necessarily detrimental to our game. The make-up of the front 3 in that second system is just as crucial to it working and we're better off looking at that part of it if we're going to assess it's effectiveness in the matches since Man Utd.

 

In recent games, we've played a diamond, with four central midfielders. This has undoubtedly not worked at all. But that's because of the number of central midfielders in there, not because any of the individuals can't fit into our previously positive, exciting team.

 

 

The formation against Man Utd was along the same lines as our current one but there was a striking difference - Nugent instead of King. King being the focal point of our attacking creativity never has and never will work. It wastes what he's good at. Nugent's not ideal but he was very good in that Man Utd game and having a more natural attacker in that position helped no end. If you put in Nugent, Mahrez or Powell for King and rotate King with DD/MJ (and Hammond with Cambiasso based on the latter's legs) I actually think we'd have a bit more luck.

 

Liverpool played this formation last year and the difference is in my opinion, obviously taking out the quality of player (given the fact they had a truly world class forward) look at the style of their players compared to ours. I would liken what we're playing at the minute to them playing a midfield four of Lucas, Gerrard, Allen and Shelvey (for arguments sake) with Allen being in the number ten role.

 

They were deadly because they had players like Sterling and Coutinho in their four.

 

I must say I think Man Utd got their tactics laughably wrong against us. We did superbly but they absolutely handed it to us with some of their defending.

[Manwell Pablo]

The formation against Man Utd was along the same lines as our current one but there was a striking difference - Nugent instead of King. King being the focal point of our attacking creativity never has and never will work. It wastes what he's good at. Nugent's not ideal but he was very good in that Man Utd game and having a more natural attacker in that position helped no end. If you put in Nugent, Mahrez or Powell for King and rotate King with DD/MJ (and Hammond with Cambiasso based on the latter's legs) I actually think we'd have a bit more luck.

 

I must say I think Man Utd got their tactics laughably wrong against us. We did superbly but they absolutely handed it to us with some of their defending.

 

Nugent works better because he's actually a striker and therefore knows how to run a channel when needed, giving us some much needed width. 

 

I agree I think a lot is being made of "fantastic attacking performances" against Everton Arsenal Stoke and United, the harsh reality is, while we played well, I think  a lot of fortune went our way in all of those games and we weren't out and out the best team in any of them bar possibly United and even then we had more luck in that game than in any other. Arsenal were the masters of their own demise and we royally picked Stoke's pocket. 

[kingfox]

I actually believe to some extent, that he could of well changed things as Col said, to accommodate Cambiasso.

 

We have only played well once this season when playing a diamond midfield, and that was against United. As I've said many times over recent weeks, we played well that day because United didn't play with out & out wingers, we managed to get on top of Blind & Herrera & frustrate them.

 

Since then every team we have played against have played with wingers, and whether we have played a diamond four or gone 4-3-3 both formations don't work. Purely because all of those sides identified both our flanks as a weakness, because we didn't have any wingers to support our full-backs, leaving a lot of space out wide for the opposition to cause us problems. Bolasie exploited our weakness, Montero exploited our weakness & Mane exploited our weakness. 

 

You either stick with a diamond four, and have us playing with no wingers & Cambiasso remaining in a holding role. Or we simply go back to basics, play with wingers and drop Cambiasso to the bench, because I really don't think he has the energy to play in a central midfield two.

[Dan]

Nugent works better because he's actually a striker and therefore knows how to run a channel when needed, giving us some much needed width. 

 

I agree I think a lot is being made of "fantastic attacking performances" against Everton Arsenal Stoke and United, the harsh reality is, while we played well, I think  a lot of fortune went our way in all of those games and we weren't out and out the best team in any of them bar possibly United and even then we had more luck in that game than in any other. Arsenal were the masters of their own demise and we royally picked Stoke's pocket. 

 

We were just incredibly potent though we've without a doubt gone backwards. We're creating absolutely nothing now. Ulloa's had one shot in his last six games which I think about says it all. Then again I'd question his positioning at times. I think he tries every bit as hard as Vardy but just hadn't really got the mobility to be as effective in doing so.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

King's best position is at the head of a diamond but he hasn't delivered. If NP wants to persist with Cambiasso, Drinkwater and James, why not have Mahrez at the top of the diamond, in a free role if you like, where he can be creative for Ulloa and Vardy. He's not a Dyer-esque winger, who merely relies on pace to unsettle players (with very limited end product it has to be said), Mahrez has bags of skill as well. Or play Mahrez and Knocky out wide with Ulloa on his own. It's proving tough for NP to find the right blend but I don't think the players have helped themselves at times.