Apologies for the late review. All the authors had their life say “LOL TIME MANAGEMENT?!” and none of us had the time to write something up (sadface). In all honesty I was hoping I didn’t have to say this but the game panned out similarly (read: exactly like) as it did at Carrow Road. We didn’t keep our width and got punished for it…hard. We knew before the game that Schalke have players who are capable of utilizing space in the middle of the park so we sacrificed our right wing in order to have more players in the centre of the field. Why the right wing? The answer is twofold:
- Jenkinson prefers sticking back unlike our leftbacks
- We had our first choice LW (Podolski) fit while our first choice RW was out injured
Enter Ramsey. If you guys recall we had a similar tactic versus Southhampton when Ramsey was played at RW so we have superiority in the middle. This broke down their parked bus quite well as the defenders didn’t know who to pick out: Cazorla or Ramsey. However it only worked because Gibbs did his job of stretching the defence on the left side allowing Podolski to cut in, essentially giving 2 targets for Ramsey and Cazorla. As pointed out in the Norwich Review piece: Santos is not Gibbs. Now this does not mean Santos is a bad player it merely means that we cannot utilize the Podolski-Santos duo on that left wing. Why? Simple: if you already have Nutella you don’t need more Nutella. You need bread. Look at our first choice Right wing: Sagna – Walcott. It works because the players’ styles complement each other (Walcott is the Nutella and Sagna is the bread).
I hope I made myself clear that I don’t want to see Santos playing behind Podolski. It’s torture that only Jigsaw would want me to watch. Instead I’d like to add some bread to our Nutella so here are possible left wing options we could try when Gibbs is unavailable:
- Bread/LB: Meade; Nutella/LW: Podolski – Promote Meade from our Reserves. If you watch our U21 games you know how he like to play wide when going forwards (which he does a lot) and if he cuts in he only does so near the line which would create space for Podolski to utilise as Meade drags the defender wide. Some might even say Miquel could play LB, but that wouldn’t quite work out as he is a natural CB and because of this he doesn’t venture forward enough to create space for Podolski. However there is a risk that Meade can’t handle the pressure psychologically and we would be back at square one.
- Bread/LB: Vermaelen; Nutella/LW: Podolski – The positive of this scenario is that none of the players play for the reserves. Another positive is that we can play Mertesacker, Koscielny, and Vermaelen at the same time (sure both Koscielny and Vermaelen had made some mistakes nowadays but wouldn’t it be an awesome backline with Koscielny and Vermaelen on a good day?). The negative of this pairing is that we play Vermaelen out of position and he would be automatically targeted by the opposition.
- Bread/LB: Santos; Nutella/LW:Giroud – You are probably thinking “Giroud on LW? You’ve lost it Threkie!” to which I would reply: “I’m not crazy! My mother had me tested!” (Big Bang Theory anyone?). Giroud actually played LW in our Pre-season game versus Köln (when we were experimenting with Podolski at CF) and I gotta admit he did better than I expected in that position going wide and stretching the defence. Giroud’s LW playing style naturally lends itself to a LB who likes to cut in and take a shot which is Santos!
- Bread/LB: Vermaelen or Meade; Nutella/LW: Santos – I guess you all saw this coming. Santos at LW since he is a defensive liability (to keep it politically correct) when paired with a LW that likes to cut in as well.
So the lesson from this game was: Never mix Nutella with Nutella…and that we don’t have a backup LB that is compatible with our first choice LW.