PA PhotosCharles N'Zogbia: It's time to select the Frenchman in Villa's starting XI

Team formations are fashionable in football; once upon a time, 4-4-2 was everywhere. Now it's considered old fashioned, too one-dimensional and not nearly sophisticated enough for cultured, modern football. You'd struggle to find many top-class European club sides, or leading teams at international level, who deploy a traditional 4-4-2, by which I mean a right and a left winger either side of two central midfielders, and two out and out strikers.

That formation still exists, in reality, but in various hybrid spin-offs. The 4-5-1 can be a subtle take on it, with one striker dropping slightly deeper to play 'between the lines' - that is, not taking up such a strict role as a forward, but playing in the zone between the midfield and the front two, which can then, in turn, disrupt the opposition defence by confusing the centre-backs. What do they do about this player, follow him and get pulled out of position, or stay put and allow him a certain amount of freedom in a dangerous area?


- Time to show Norwich have grown up
- Lambert cools tensions with Norwich
- Lambert not spoken to Norwich chief

The formation of today, it seems, is a tweak on the 4-4-2, with the midfield four organised into a diamond shape. It keeps one central midfielder deep, and pushed one further forward, and has the other two playing wide but tucked in slightly narrower. If football is all about triangles - and in keeping possession, players forming triangles and passing around that shape usually works well - then the midfield diamond has plenty of them. It's a midfield four, with a modern structure.

It's certainly popular right now: Sir Alex Ferguson was talking about this in the build-up to Manchester United's Champions League tie against Braga. United have traditionally played with wingers; fast attacking play, putting the opposition under pressure right from the start of games. This season, they've been incorporating a diamond formation. Which perhaps allows for a more defined style of game, but does it make them any more dangerous, and does it suit the players in their squad?

This sentiment can apply to Villa. From the get-go this season, Paul Lambert was sharing his thoughts on the way the team would shape up. He didn't plan, he said, to play with wingers as such. He preferred his four midfielders to play closer together. It suggested a more continental style - neat possession, keep ball, good shape. It sounded promising. In the manager's blueprint, the onus would be on the full-backs to provide the width.

But is it working? Are Villa looking dangerous? Second question is easy to answer - no, not at all. And the first? I certainly can't say yes. I'm more tempted to say no. The truth is somewhere in the middle. It has worked in patches. Perhaps the best Villa display I've seen this season was in the 1-1 draw at Newcastle. Villa didn't win the game, but they should have done. The midfield diamond that day was El Ahmadi at the base, with Barry Bannan to his left, Brett Holman to his right, and Stephen Ireland the furthest forward.

El Ahmadi and Bannan barely gave the ball and the midfield looked composed in control. Villa did dictate the tempo. Chances were still fairly scarce, however. More often than not since that game, Villa haven't looked anywhere near threatening enough, except for the afternoon Swansea were swept aside.

Is it the formation, or is it the players? Since the Newcastle game, Bannan has been replaced by Fabian Delph, and Ireland injured until last weekend's return at Fulham. Delph has more steel to his game than Bannan, but is not as sure on the ball, which is key to a fully-functioning diamond. And in Ireland's absence, Lambert compensated not by bringing in a like-minded midfielder, but by reverting to two strikers, which in turn has lead to the Bent or Benteke saga, further complicated by the return to fitness of Agbonlahor. I wonder if Lambert's initial plan has drifted off course slightly.

The whole thing feels in need of a freshen up, if not a shake up, for three points are crucial in the current situation, and hosting Norwich the best opportunity in weeks to get them. What would I do in Lambert's shoes? I'll tell you...

BRING BACK BANNAN
I'm not totally sure why he's been left out of the starting line-up so often in recent weeks in the first place - it may just be that the Scotsman is not fully trusted by his manager. Just as he couldn't quite convince previous boss Alex McLeish, either. Bannan will never be a force physically, but in a re-structured midfield that doesn't just use two central midfielders alongside one another, sharing the workload, there should always be a place for a pure footballer like him. If you place a premium on ball retention, Bannan must start. Hammer home the reminder that not EVERY pass needs to be a spectacular touchdown bomb, and he'll be fine. If the killer pass is on, he'll hit it.

GO THREE IN MIDFIELD
The three being El Ahmadi, Holman, Bannan. Villa's midfield is not, I believe, as strong as it should be, but with this three forming a midfield triangle, they can impose themselves on the game. I'd use El Ahmadi in the deeper role; he's neat on the ball, and more than happy to receive, pass, move, repeatedly. Bannan, as I've already covered, plays just ahead and to the left, and Holman the opposite side. I like Holman, and I don't think he should be used as a winger - he has a brilliant work ethic, a touch of craft to his game, and a great shot on him. I also think he's more productive in an attacking central midfield role than Ireland, who continues to promise more than he delivers. Sorry, Stephen. Take a rest.

WIDE STRIKERS
So, in front of our midfield three, Villa should go with a front three - a centre-forward flanked and supported by two wide strikers. Not wingers, but attacking players comfortable in a wider role but capable of offering a goal threat and a bit of support play. These are not the roles for Darren Bent or Christian Benteke - those two would slug it out for the starting centre-forward role (all things considered, I'd start Bent and use Benteke as the change).

Wide on the right, it's a toss up between the Premier League experience of Agbonlahor and the exciting rawness of Andreas Weimann, another youngster who has perhaps unjustly lost his place of late. I'd play safe and start with Agbonlahor this time, but Weimann would be breathing down his neck. And on the left? I'd choose to...

START N'ZOGBIA
Yes, he divides opinion, as always. But his recent appearances, as a substitute or not, suggest his desire his there, and I tend to think Villa never will see the best from him if they never actually give him 90 minutes more often. And, given the team's situation, Villa cannot afford to keep undoubted talent on the bench - this man has the ability to spark something. Plus, in the system I've suggested, his defensive duties would be at an absolute minimum, with three midfield players behind him. N'Zogbia would be free to run at players and disrupt Norwich's defence. It's got to be worth the gamble, hasn't it?

• Recommend0
• Tweet0
• Email