Dispelling the Naismaith to Midfield calls

[Sir Geoff]

There have been lots of mentions in threads and recent podcasts calling for Naismith to be played in midfield due to our lack of passing ability in that area. Whilst I understand the reasoning behind these calls, from a team perspective it makes no real sense.

Naismith, to my knowledge, has never played in midfield. He started his career as a winger and we signed him from Luton as a defender.

Regarding the lack of passing ability in midfield, I would guess that Naismith was the first name on NP's team sheet as a defender for this reason. It ensured that we had someone in the back 6 that was comfortable taking possession of the ball and either retaining it or picking out a good forward pass.

Yes, but Naismith has a rick in him, I hear people say. My reply would be, "Name me a Championship defender that doesn't have a rick in him." (ask QPR fans about Rob Dickie).

So who to leave out if Naismith is played at the back (back 4) ? Sorry Zak, but Naismith overall ability defending and extra quality on the ball means you will have to bide your time.

For those calling for Naismith to play midfield, I guess at the expense of Matty James, I would ask who is now going to be the disruptor and ball winner in midfield. Matty James has a great engine, gets through a ton of work not only winning the ball back but playing passes to ensure we retain possession. TGH imo is not a ball winner in the same sense. Knight can do it but  he should be part of the forward press so you don't want him too deep. This is not a role that Naismith can play and suddenly slot in to. 

For anyone that has played midfield, at any level, you will know that it is quite a specialist position and not one that can be easily adopted. If Naismith were to be played there I can almost guarantee that the game will pass him by and he will be nowhere near as effective as he would be taking the ball from the back and creating from there. 

Had Naismith started at the back (No way you could have brought him on when the game was going against us 60-70 mins as the two Centre halves knew their jobs and were attuned to the game) on Saturday in place of Zak then (midfield selections aside) I think we win that game, comfortably.

 

 

 

 

[petehinton]

I also find it baffling when people say he can’t play CB, or CB isn’t his best position, when he won Luton’s player of the season 6 weeks before we sign him playing there. 

[Kibs]

Naismith has played centre midfield , I remember him playing there, very successfully so too. 

Played CM alongside James in a run of games last season.

We beat Birmingham 4-2, drew 1-1 against Blackburn, then beat WBA in the cup, won 3-0, he was outstanding.
 

Also played the following game at Preston where we won 2-1 but he went off injured. 

Edited November 15, 2023 by Kibs

[jay mizel]

Personally would like to see us revert to 3-5-2, just to get him in the team (and Conway playing in a two).

[2015]

This team needs Naismith in the side one way or the other. He's one of the only players capable of passing the ball between the lines and potentially opening up a defence. 

I think Dickie has the ability to step out of defence. Vyner is the perfect foil for Dickie and Atkinson when he's back fit. 

Naismith good cover CB when needed, but ideally i'd have him in Midfield right now.

[Henry]

He has played almost 40 games as DM/CM/AM/SS. He’s played midfield, and done well, for City. I think the myth is when people say he can’t play a certain position.

[hinsleburg]

He'd be my 1st/2nd choice CB personally in a 2 or a 3

I'm still not sold on Vyner, I think he made massive improvements last year however I don't think he's as good as Naismith, Dickie or indeed Atkinson. (pre-injury as wary don't know how he's going to come back). 

If we are going with a back 4 I'd have Dickie and Naismith as first choice as think they'd compliment each other really well. I also don't think Naismith is as defensively bad as gets made out on here sometimes, think that Sunderland game has left a real lasting memory!

Dickie last 6 weeks (after being out the team a bit...) seems to have found some confidence, form and is continuing to look a really shrewd bit of business. Good Championship player at a very good price with room to develop still.

[cidercity1987]

Sadly for Naismith he isn't one of our best two centre defenders. Dickie and Vyner as a Partnership have looked absolutely rock solid going back all the way through the season and it would be mad to break that up.

Someone will correct me if I am wrong but

Vyner and Dickie 3 goals conceded in 5 games together

Naismith and Dickie 7 goals conceded in 4 games together

Vyner and Naismith 3 goals conceded in 4 games together

Maybe not enough games to know for sure and distorted by the freak Stoke game but Naismith was implicated in a few of those goals

 

Edited November 15, 2023 by cidercity1987

[GrahamC]

5 minutes ago, cidercity1987 said:

Sadly for Naismith he isn't one of our best two centre defenders. Dickie and Vyner as a Partnership have looked absolutely rock solid going back all the way through the season and it would be mad to break that up.

 

This is our biggest issue.

We have Rob Atkinson to return as well.

If we can keep those 3 fit we are well served at CB, plus as his been pointed out, despite ongoing noise on here about our goalkeeper we are the second best side defensively in the division.

We have options in midfield but at the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, since Scott has left we are short of creativity.

Up front we look decent on paper but no one has yet looked like being a consistent scorer, Bell started the season with a flurry but has tailed off.

Is Naismith a better option than James? Knight is nailed on to start but how we find a combination there that creates more opportunities yet still keeps us defensively solid is key.

[The Original OTIB]

The trouble is, his pass success % is not as great as some seem to think it is (not even top 10 for us last season). He's prone to howlers because he likes to dwell on the ball too much and weigh up "options", unnecessarily much of the time. To play the Manning way, will likely involve building quickly from the back, meaning confident, capable passers of the ball, not ditherers (harsh, but you get the point). I think Naismith can be coached to speed up delivery and thereby his pass completion %. Same for the others, to some extent. In a midfield role, he can take more risks, but does he have the speed and energy for this new type of football that we are promised?  Would probably have been a very good sweeper in Italy in years gone by.

[Stockwood gate]

I like Naismith he seems the only midfielder/player we have that can make decent passes for our strikers to move onto rather than Crab football sideways then back 

[2015]

3 minutes ago, The Original OTIB said:

The trouble is, his pass success % is not as great as some seem to think it is (not even top 10 for us last season). He's prone to howlers because he likes to dwell on the ball too much and weigh up "options", unnecessarily much of the time. To play the Manning way, will likely involve building quickly from the back, meaning confident, capable passers of the ball, not ditherers (harsh, but you get the point). I think Naismith can be coached to speed up delivery and thereby his pass completion %. Same for the others, to some extent. In a midfield role, he can take more risks, but does he have the speed and energy for this new type of football that we are promised?  Would probably have been a very good sweeper in Italy in years gone by.

At least he tried to make a forward pass though instead of just constantly looking for the easy ball. We have too many players who just opt for the safe option too much.

[NcnsBcfc]

5 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

This is our biggest issue.

We have Rob Atkinson to return as well.

If we can keep those 3 fit we are well served at CB, plus as his been pointed out, despite ongoing noise on here about our goalkeeper we are the second best side defensively in the division.

We have options in midfield but at the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, since Scott has left we are short of creativity.

Up front we look decent on paper but no one has yet looked like being a consistent scorer, Bell started the season with a flurry but has tailed off.

Is Naismith a better option than James? Knight is nailed on to start but how we find a combination there that creates more opportunities yet still keeps us defensively solid is key.

Interesting one with Naismith.

His pass into Cornick for the 4th against Plymouth showed the type of creativity we are missing. I think a midfield 3 of Knight, James and Naismith is probably our best 3 at the moment.

[frenchred]

1 hour ago, Sir Geoff said:

There have been lots of mentions in threads and recent podcasts calling for Naismith to be played in midfield due to our lack of passing ability in that area. Whilst I understand the reasoning behind these calls, from a team perspective it makes no real sense.

Naismith, to my knowledge, has never played in midfield. He started his career as a winger and we signed him from Luton as a defender.

Regarding the lack of passing ability in midfield, I would guess that Naismith was the first name on NP's team sheet as a defender for this reason. It ensured that we had someone in the back 6 that was comfortable taking possession of the ball and either retaining it or picking out a good forward pass.

Yes, but Naismith has a rick in him, I hear people say. My reply would be, "Name me a Championship defender that doesn't have a rick in him." (ask QPR fans about Rob Dickie).

So who to leave out if Naismith is played at the back (back 4) ? Sorry Zak, but Naismith overall ability defending and extra quality on the ball means you will have to bide your time.

For those calling for Naismith to play midfield, I guess at the expense of Matty James, I would ask who is now going to be the disruptor and ball winner in midfield. Matty James has a great engine, gets through a ton of work not only winning the ball back but playing passes to ensure we retain possession. TGH imo is not a ball winner in the same sense. Knight can do it but  he should be part of the forward press so you don't want him too deep. This is not a role that Naismith can play and suddenly slot in to. 

For anyone that has played midfield, at any level, you will know that it is quite a specialist position and not one that can be easily adopted. If Naismith were to be played there I can almost guarantee that the game will pass him by and he will be nowhere near as effective as he would be taking the ball from the back and creating from there. 

Had Naismith started at the back (No way you could have brought him on when the game was going against us 60-70 mins as the two Centre halves knew their jobs and were attuned to the game) on Saturday in place of Zak then (midfield selections aside) I think we win that game, comfortably.

 

 

 

 

If everyone is fit Naismith doesn't get in back 4, in fact he struggles to get in if we play 3 Cb's when all fit

[The Original OTIB]

1 minute ago, 2015 said:

At least he tried to make a forward pass though instead of just constantly looking for the easy ball. We have too many players who just opt for the safe option too much.

Agreed, to some extent, depends on your attitude to risk and reward and where it takes place on the pitch. The valid point remains that quick thinking will be key to adaptation for this squad. Less ponderous and pensive.

[2015]

2 minutes ago, The Original OTIB said:

Agreed, to some extent, depends on your attitude to risk and reward and where it takes place on the pitch. The valid point remains that quick thinking will be key to adaptation for this squad. Less ponderous and pensive.

I want to see City players play with some risk. We have had too many 'safe' players at the club for too long imo. It's why we don't score many goals.

Ipswich played us off the park 1st half the other week as they have a team full of players who take risks, passing from the back, with pace and all with attacking intent. Naismith is one of the only players we have got capable of doing this.

[The Original OTIB]

16 minutes ago, 2015 said:

I want to see City players play with some risk. We have had too many 'safe' players at the club for too long imo. It's why we don't score many goals.

Ipswich played us off the park 1st half the other week as they have a team full of players who take risks, passing from the back, with pace and all with attacking intent. Naismith is one of the only players we have got capable of doing this.

Indeed, capable, sans dithering.

[Finley_Smith10]

22 minutes ago, frenchred said:

If everyone is fit Naismith doesn't get in back 4, in fact he struggles to get in if we play 3 Cb's when all fit

I think you gotta put him in if we’re playing a back 3. He can create something out of nothing from one pass which we lack at times. Plus takes most the corners/free kicks when he’s on the pitch. 

[Merrick's Marvels]

1 hour ago, petehinton said:

I also find it baffling when people say he can’t play CB, or CB isn’t his best position, when he won Luton’s player of the season 6 weeks before we sign him playing there. 

How was he asked to play at Luton? 

Bet it wasn't the way we're trying to use him.  

[Davefevs]

Good player.  Passes the ball quickly through the lines.

Imho a better defender than given credit for, primarily because of of few mistakes when he first got here.  I think it’s worth noting that in that period Vyner was making mistakes too, but his have largely been forgotten now.

I don’t mind where he plays per se, but I think we are better with him in it.

[GrahamC]

2 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

How was he asked to play at Luton? 

Bet it wasn't the way we're trying to use him.  

According to Transfermarkt as the central CB of a 3, in a 3-5-2.

So absolutely nothing like how we have used him since we switched to a back four in January.

[Merrick's Marvels]

29 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

According to Transfermarkt as the central CB of a 3, in a 3-5-2.

So absolutely nothing like how we have used him since we switched to a back four in January.

Yes but also, was he required to force passes out of defence into statuesque midfielders or be some kind of deep lying playmaker because no-one else in the team could make a pass that actually hurts the opposition. 

Edited November 15, 2023 by Merrick's Marvels

[bearded_red]

He has to play for me, it may be overly simplistic, but I just think we are always a better team with in it.

Personally I’d have him at centre half, which would mean a harsh decision to drop either of Vyner or Dickie. If his way into the team is in midfield I’m not bothered though, he just has to be in the team as far as I’m concerned.

Really don’t wish to criticise as he’s only been here five minutes, but I really did find it mad that Naismith didn’t get on at QPR. A game so lacking in any sort of quality was crying out for his ability, confidence and ambition on the ball.

[grifty]

I think with our current defensive record and performance ms by Dickie it would be mad to either drop him or Vyner to fit Naismith in. Joint second best defence, let’s leave that as it is as let it continue.

Where have we been lacking? Movement in the midfield, Naismith might not improve this, but triangles between him, James, Knight and the centre backs will open up space. I would hope this would also ‘release’ Knight a bit more from any defensive duties and give us an extra body in attack.

I do feel that the change in formation in order to prevent conceding goals is not affecting us in the attacking third. Our players always seem outnumbered or isolated. 
 

Another thing I’d like to see is when we are defending corners or free kicks, leave Sam Bell up top. For well over a season any clearer ball has come back into the box completely unchallenged. Bell isn’t going to be one of the main defensive headers of the ball. Let’s use his pace and presence to at least give the opposition something to think about.

[formerly known as ivan]

1 hour ago, petehinton said:

I also find it baffling when people say he can’t play CB, or CB isn’t his best position, when he won Luton’s player of the season 6 weeks before we sign him playing there. 

Think he played on the left of a back three, completely different to CB.

He has all the attributes to be a very good DM. Good engine, can pass, cross and tackle. Would much prefer him there than James.

[The turtle]

If it's choice between those two.... ideally you put him in midfield.

It's pointless having at the back, if you lack it in midfield. And by having him in midfield may just reduce need for a hero pass.

The midfield is all energy, effort, running.. but no Magic eye.

And i mean where is our team short?

Midfield, midfield, midfield... We have good players, but who dictates? Who feeds the forward line? Who has the magic eye?

The defence is just fine. And while it's ideal to build from the back, they need creative players in pockets to pass to

[Curr Avon]

What about playing Naismith as the 1, in this formation?

https://jobsinfootball.com/blog/tactics/4-1-3-2-formation/

The 4-1-3-2 Formation: Its Uses, Benefits, and Weaknesses
11 Jun, 2022

In our ongoing series explaining some of the best soccer formations used in the modern game, we've tackled a wide range of systems. Some are currently being used by the world's best teams (the 4-3-3 formation, for instance), while others are a little less common or tied to a different footballing era.

The shape we're focusing on in this article falls into the second category. The 4-1-3-2 system isn't particularly common, and there aren't too many prominent examples of modern teams using it effectively. That being said, it has numerous benefits, and it can pose serious problems when an opposition team isn't sure how to defend against it.

In this article, we'll present you with a comprehensive guide to the fundamentals of the 4-1-3-2 formation, the strengths and weaknesses of this system, and some examples of clubs and managers that have been known to use it. Later on, we'll also explore the best ways to exploit and defend against this formation. But first, let's start with the basics.

 

How to play the 4-1-3-2 formation
Typically used by teams looking to dominate the final third of the pitch, 4-1-3-2 is generally seen as a very attacking formation. In a sense, it's a variation of the 4-4-2 shape, with the composition of the midfield tweaked a little bit.

4-1-3-2 starts with a back four of two center-backs, a right-back, and a left-back. It uses just one central defensive midfielder to shield this defensive line (sometimes referred to as a single pivot). The protection given by this central midfield player is super important, because the full-backs in this system will often be encouraged to get forward, leaving the middle of the defensive line a little exposed.

In front of the defensive mid pivot in a 4-1-3-2 are five relatively attack-minded players who concentrate largely on working the ball into advanced areas of the pitch. This emphasis on offensive play means 4-1-3-2 can be super effective when it comes to creating chances and exploiting opposition defenses. Let's drill into those 5 roles in a little more detail.

The 3 attacking midfielders in a 4-1-3-2 structure will often be relatively narrow, their focus on linking up with each other and feeding the two strikers in front of them. In the center of this 3, there will usually be a primary playmaker, with the left and right attacking midfielders on either side of them tasked with supporting them and engaging in more box-to-box play.

Finally, the two strikers at the head of this shape will be able to press opposition defenders aggressively and win the ball high up the pitch. Having two forwards will reduce the chance of isolation, particularly given that they're supported by 3 attacking midfielders. This plethora of offensive options means the 4-1-3-2 formation can run opponents ragged and create wave after wave of attack. But what other advantages does this formation have?

What are the strengths of the 4-1-3-2 formation?
Out of all the formations we've regularly seen used on the world stage, this is one of the systems most clearly crafted with attacking intentions in mind. Essentially, it's an attack-minded variation of 4-4-2 which ensures attacking power while also narrowing the midfield in order to reduce the risk of getting overrun in the center.

Out of possession, the 3 more attacking central midfielders can drop back to form a compact shape in the middle of the park. And even in these moments, it's possible for the front 2 to stay high, press opposition defenders, and provide an attacking outlet.

In possession, the space left out wide by the narrow midfield can be filled by full-backs, who are often relied upon to provide attacking width and play balls in behind the opposition defense. Meanwhile, the defensive support offered by the single central midfield pivot gives freedom to the 5 players ahead. While this CDM sits deep, cuts out attacks, and passes the ball forwards, the attacking midfielders and strikers can get high up the pitch and create dangerous chances.

What are the weaknesses of the 4-1-3-2 formation?
We've already mentioned the narrow nature of this formation, and while this can provide some advantages, it's also a potential area of weakness for any team that plays 4-1-3-2. If a midfield 3 becomes too narrow, it can be difficult to create moves via the wings, particularly if your central midfielders find themselves dropping into a diamond shape, or if you don't have fast, skillful attacking full-backs able to provide width.

This potential for exposure in wide positions means that teams who play with this formation can be vulnerable to fast counter-attacks. With only one defensive-minded central midfielder in action, it's possible for a defense to become overrun when faced with a swift, effective counter-attacking side.

Compared with 4-4-2, the 4-1-3-2 shape reduces the risk of surrendering possession to the opposition midfield, because with attacking central midfielders instead of wingers, there are more players in the middle of the pitch. Ultimately, though, it's still a midfield 4 in operation here; when coming up against a midfield 5, the risk of the opponents dominating possession is still very much present.

Which clubs and managers have used this formation?
We've mentioned how this isn't the most commonly used formation in world soccer, but there are a couple of interesting recent examples of how this shape can work brilliantly...

Croatia, Slaven Bilic
The Croatian coach, whose CV includes stints at Besiktas, West Ham United, and West Bromwich Albion, managed his national team between 2006 and 2012. During this time, one of the side's most memorable achievements was beating Steve McClaren's England team 3-2 at Wembley to top their Euro 2008 qualifying group and prevent England from making it to the tournament.

Croatia's triumph at Wembley came down partly to their employment of an innovative 4-1-3-2 system. This formation helped Bilic's team get the best out of a group of skillful players that included Luka Modric, Ivan Rakitic, Nico Kranjcar, and Ivica Olic. The use of 3 attacking midfield players allowed talents such as Modric and Rakitic to link up in a fluid playmaking system that gave great support to the team's two forwards, Olic and Eduardo.

Manchester City, Roberto Mancini
A few other well-respected managers have used this system at the highest level. Italian manager Roberto Mancini utilized the benefits of the 4-1-3-2 shape at various points during the 2011-12 season, in which he led Manchester City to their first ever Premier League title. This formation allowed him to squeeze in an abundance of attacking talents including Yaya Toure, David Silva, Samir Nasri, Edin Dzeko, and Sergio Aguero.

Sporting Benfica, Jorge Jesus
Portuguese coach Jorge Jesus has implemented a 4-1-3-2 system at various different clubs. The most successful example was at Lisbon heavyweights Benfica, where he managed between 2009 and 2015. During this spell, the 4-1-3-2 formation helped him win an array of domestic trophies.

How should you play against a 4-1-3-2 system?
Due to the lack of regularity with which you see this formation in action, it can be hard to know exactly what will work against it. There are a few different paths that can be taken.

One of the best ways to play against a 4-1-3-2 shape is to heavily overload the flanks and take advantage of the gaps left out wide by this formation. Getting attacking players down the flanks can lead to 1 v 1 situations against those in the right-back and left-back positions. If these areas are relatively weak for your opposition, utilizing the wings is one of the best tactics available to you.

Another area of the pitch to focus on is center defensive midfield. Pushing two midfielders or forwards into the hole where the deep central midfielder is sitting can leave them outnumbered and isolated. This will often cause the playmaker in a 4-1-3-2 to drop back in order to help their teammate, which stops this supposedly attacking midfielder from doing their offensive job.

Employing these strategies can expose the weaknesses of the 4-1-3-2 shape and give you a good chance of beating it. Even when the strengths of a given system appear to outweigh its weaknesses, there are always things that can be done to negate your opposition's threat and give them something to think about. If you're keen to find out more about the fundamentals of soccer tactics and positional play, you should check out our guide to the best books about football coaching and tactics.

 

[transfer reader]

1 hour ago, Henry said:

He has played almost 40 games as DM/CM/AM/SS. He’s played midfield, and done well, for City. I think the myth is when people say he can’t play a certain position.

I think we should give him a couple of games at right back and one in goal, just so he can tick them all off

[GrahamC]

19 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Yes but also, was he required to force passes out of defence into statuesque midfielders or be some kind of deep lying playmaker because no-one else in the team can make a pass that actually hurts the opposition. 

Good point but my perception would be that Luton were often quite direct, so maybe a mix of passes?

No disputing the point that he probably had more options to find, though at the risk of repeating myself in 22/23 we also had Scott who was prepared to take on the playmaker role.

Knight is a good player but he’s not that type.

[Henry]

2 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

I think we should give him a couple of games at right back and one in goal, just so he can tick them all off

Well, his distribution would be better than O’Leary and Tanner!