Can we save 3-5-2?

[mancunianfox]

Hmm. Defensively we were fairly solid though, as opposed to letting Marc Nygaard score a belter from 30 yards.

We're splitting hairs though - either way, we were ****ing abysmal.

You're right about that.

[Simi]

It all depends what type of manger plays the 3-5-2. Megson bought in the formation, he instilled it into the players the way he wanted it playing. Which was very negative, I feel Taggart and Burrows haven't got it in them to change it around and maybe take a gamble.

The critical thing with 3-5-2 is to actually use the wing backs to your advantage when goung forward. So far, our effort at that has been very, very poor in all honesty.

I think quite a few people have realized Stearman is simply not a good wing back, the sooner the people in power realize this the better. Chambers is by far a better wing back than Stearman. Having not seen Kaebi play I cannot comment, but that discussion is a totally separate one.

I don't see a problem carrying on with 3-5-2 under the new gaffer. 'Cos we simply don't have good enough wingers to play in the wide roles, without having players out of position.

[potter3]

In most good systems, there tends to be roughly 5 attack and 5 defense (not counting the 'keeper) eg. 4-4-2: Four defenders plus a holding midfielder are the defenders, other CM, wingers and striker make up the 5 attackers. In a 3-5-2 there should really be 3 attcak and 2 defense in the midfield 5, but it's harder because the wingbacks are meant to do both. If the wingbacks don't get forward that much (like ours) then you need the 3 CM's to be quite attacking, but ours aren't, which means we play too defensive and often resort to longballs.

We need a new manager to come in, with his own ideas, assess the playerd we've got and try to strengthen the team in January. Burrows and Taggart are just trying to use Megson system, but they seem afraid to change and we've ended up playing a 6-3-1 basically.

Fulop (of course)

Kisnorbo (he`s alway`s been alright but now he`s dynamite)

Bruno

Macca

Chambers

Weso

Clem

Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuume

Sheehan

Fryatt

John (till we sign another striker)

If we continue to play a 3-5-2 then is the team we should play, unless there are injuries, we were playing 7 defenders and 3 striker before Saturday.

Fulop

Stearman N'Gotty Kisnorbo Sheehan

Newton Weso Clemence Hayes

Campbell John

I know dropping Fryatt and Hume wouldn't be popular but they aren't suited to the way I would like to see Leicester play atm.

Yeah that's basically the team we hould play if we switch to 4-4-2, though Chambers in for Stearman, and Hume in for Newton, he can and has played there.

I don't see a problem carrying on with 3-5-2 under the new gaffer. 'Cos we simply don't have good enough wingers to play in the wide roles, without having players out of position.

That really reminded me of Thracian

[Dames]

I'd love for us to go back to a 4-4-2.

Fulop

Chambers

N'Gotty

Kisnorbo

Mattock

Hume

Clemence

Wesolowski

Hayes

John

Fryatt

I dropped Sheehan because from open play Mattock is probably better than Sheehan and much faster.

For this to work i'd have Hayes and Hume in advanced positions where they could really hurt teams and have Chambers and Mattock coming in behind them to support.

I'd then have John playing the target man role (He aint the best target man in the world but he's better than Cort) and have Fryatt playing off him because he thrives in the secondary striker role as we seen against Preston, This allows him to get in decent positions without having to worry about his lack of pace.

[James.]

I'd love for us to go back to a 4-4-2.

Fulop

Chambers

N'Gotty

Kisnorbo

Mattock

Hume

Clemence

Wesolowski

Hayes

John

Fryatt

I dropped Sheehan because from open play Mattock is probably better than Sheehan and much faster.

For this to work i'd have Hayes and Hume in advanced positions where they could really hurt teams and have Chambers and Mattock coming in behind them to support.

I'd then have John playing the target man role (He aint the best target man in the world but he's better than Cort) and have Fryatt playing off him because he thrives in the secondary striker role as we seen against Preston, This allows him to get in decent positions without having to worry about his lack of pace.

I would happily go along with that. Although I'd probably play Sheehan instead of Mattock, at least for now.

[Koke]

Am I the only who currently rates DJ higher than Fryatt? If there was a game tomorrow I would pick DJ easily.

[potter3]

Am I the only who currently rates DJ higher than Fryatt? If there was a game tomorrow I would pick DJ easily.

I dunno, Fryatt seems better technically but DJ is faster

[Koke]

I dunno, Fryatt seems better technically but DJ is faster

Fryatt is one slow fecker and the lad is only 21. I can't imagine him running at 31. DJ is more likely to cause mayhem in the oppositions half.

[davieG]

Am I the only who currently rates DJ higher than Fryatt? If there was a game tomorrow I would pick DJ easily.

Well he's scoring record is better than Fryatt's this season.

[James.]

Am I the only who currently rates DJ higher than Fryatt? If there was a game tomorrow I would pick DJ easily.

For me it's a tough one. I'd go with Fryatt as I really want to give him a good run as a second striker alongside John. I think the team could really benefit with those two up front and a decent service from a four-man midfield.

Campbell, at least in my experience, is anonymous for large periods. He will probably score more than Fryatt over a season but I want more of a general contribution that will compliment John.

[Koke]

Well he's scoring record is better than Fryatt's this season.

And most of the games he has come off the bench. I still got high hopes for the lad, really.

[Simi]

Am I the only who currently rates DJ higher than Fryatt? If there was a game tomorrow I would pick DJ easily.

God I hope you're not.

I've always had DJ in front of Fryatt. I cannot see why people are picking Fryatt in there first elevens, mind you, playing in the whole lately has done him no favours I don't think. He's a very poor player with his back to goal.

[TheBlinding]

I think DJ would be a better partner for John because he'd run the channels and look to get in behind. John is a bit lazy and plays through the straight through the middle. Fryatt's gone 8 without a goal and hasn't even looked like scoring.

[Dames]

I think DJ would be a better partner for John because he'd run the channels and look to get in behind. John is a bit lazy and plays through the straight through the middle. Fryatt's gone 8 without a goal and hasn't even looked like scoring.

Playing Midfield for at least 3/5 of them games.

Thing about DJ is he goes missing alot whilst Fryatt playing in the second role actually gets involved and finds himself in all sorts of positions, This makes up for his lack of pace but he is rarely deployed there.

[Thracian]

Am I the only who currently rates DJ higher than Fryatt? If there was a game tomorrow I would pick DJ easily.

No. Campbell is ahead on goals and if I had to mark one or the other I'm bloody sure I wouldn't want to try and catch Campbell.

[l444ry]

Until City start defending properly from the front, and stop paying lip service to it, no system will work at it's optimum with this bunch of players. People seem to suppose that changing from one system to another will cure everything. Martin O'Neill may have used 3-5-2 effectively at Leicester but the whole shooting match was dependent on defending every inch of the park, not the last 30 yards as seems to be the obsession with the last half a dozen managers.

[Thracian]

I'd love for us to go back to a 4-4-2.

Fulop

Chambers

N'Gotty

Kisnorbo

Mattock

Hume

Clemence

Wesolowski

Hayes

John

Fryatt

I dropped Sheehan because from open play Mattock is probably better than Sheehan and much faster.

For this to work i'd have Hayes and Hume in advanced positions where they could really hurt teams and have Chambers and Mattock coming in behind them to support.

I'd then have John playing the target man role (He aint the best target man in the world but he's better than Cort) and have Fryatt playing off him because he thrives in the secondary striker role as we seen against Preston, This allows him to get in decent positions without having to worry about his lack of pace.

Mattock this season: No goals no assists that I can remember.

Sheehan this season: 2 goals 4 assists, 2 assists for disallowed goals, various near misses from shots/assists.

In League matches this season Mattock has played six times in which we've won 0, drawn 3 and lost 3 GF 1 GA 5 Pts 3

In League matches this season Sheehan has played 11 times in which we've won 3, drawn 6 and lost 2 GF 13 GA 9 Pts 15

Considering the above I honestly have absolutely no idea why Mattock would even nearly get the nod and even more so when you consider that Sheehan has played in five of our six wins this season, compared to Mattock's two.

And considering that in all games our total goal difference is positive with Sheehan and negative with Mattock (20 for and 15 against compared with 5 for and 7 against for Mattock from 14 games and 8 games respectively.)

Put simply we concede virtually a goal a game with both defenders but score far more goals and win far more games with Sheehan.

When Mattock has played we've failed to score 4 times in six League games.

When Sheehan has played we've failed to score only 4 times in 11.

Mattock, I am quite sure, will turn out to be an excellent defender and I am quite sure both can develop virtually in tandem at our club. But the above does show what Sheehan is up against in terms of some people's perception.

[Fat Ron]

Mattock this season: No goals no assists that I can remember.

Sheehan this season: 2 goals 4 assists, 2 assists for disallowed goals, various near misses from shots/assists.

In League matches this season Mattock has played six times in which we've won 0, drawn 3 and lost 3 GF 1 GA 5 Pts 3

In League matches this season Sheehan has played 11 times in which we've won 3, drawn 6 and lost 2 GF 13 GA 9 Pts 15

Considering the above I honestly have absolutely no idea why Mattock would even nearly get the nod and even more so when you consider that Sheehan has played in five of our six wins this season, compared to Mattock's two.

And considering that in all games our total goal difference is positive with Sheehan and negative with Mattock (20 for and 15 against compared with 5 for and 7 for Mattock from 14 games and 8 games respectively.)

Put simply we concede virtually a goal a game with both defenders but score far more goals and win far more games with Sheehan.

When Mattock has played we've failed to score 4 times in six League games.

When Sheehan has played we've failed to score only 4 times in 11.

Mattock, I am quite sure, will turn out to be an excellent defender and I am quite sure both can develop virtually in tandem at our club. But the above does show what Sheehan is up against in terms of some people's perception.

Thracian.... Is it true you take a note book and pen to the games to make these notes??

You are the True King of Stats..

[eaststandtom]

Getting a bit of a battering at the moment for being negative. I still think with better passing in the middle of the park, better distribution from the centre-backs and better movement off the ball throughout the team, this formation still suits us more than 4-4-2. A lot to ask but we'd still need all of that with 4-4-2 to be making an impact on this division anyway. Have we got the wingers to use 4-4-2? We've got Hayes who is probably deserving of a start at the moment but not a lot on the right hand side in terms of people who our club are actually willing to admit exist.

Still not making the most of our strongest personnel for 3-5-2 though really... we need an attacking midfielder in the centre of that midfield five (not three) i.e. Hume or King. I don't think Fryatt's the answer by a long chalk. Chambers ahead of Stearman, anyone should be able to see that. I put my hands up to Mattock looking a bit raw at the moment and Sheehan is probably a better option despite his numerous failings.

I think the problem with this formation is that if it doesn't quite work, it looks a total mess. Recently we've actually been playing a sort of weird 5-2-2-1 formation with Fryatt and Campbell playing in old-style wide forward positions and aside from the first half at Colchester where it threatened to solve our problems, it's in fact looked a bit bizarre.

has to be this way.

we didnt create anything with 4-4-2 anyway but now we have more solid defence

keep it with 2-3 adjustments elsewhere to encourage more attacking play

someone to create in the midfield and a good right sided wing back are imperative

[Thracian]

Thracian.... Is it true you take a note book and pen to the games to make these notes??

You are the True King of Stats..

Yes I do take notes.

And as a manager/coach I or my helpers gathered all sorts of statistics about how players performed on the field - shots on/off target, successful/unsuccesssful passes and whether they were attacking or defensive passes etc.

Take passing for instance. So many midfielders look constantly involved and don't seem to do a lot wrong. But when you analyse their passing you find they avoid responsibility and pass it to someone else. They don't try to play killer passes but pass the ball sideways or let someone else take all the risks.

Statistical assessment will soon discover how accurate and effective players are and in so many ways.

Stats can lie over a game or two but they paint a very good picture over time.

[Lovejoy]

Yes I do take notes.

And as a manager/coach I or my helpers gathered all sorts of statistics about how players performed on the field - shots on/off target, successful/unsuccesssful passes and whether they were attacking or defensive passes etc.

Take passing for instance. So many midfielders look constantly involved and don't seem to do a lot wrong. But when you analyse their passing you find they avoid responsibility and pass it to someone else. They don't try to play killer passes but pass the ball sideways or let someone else take all the risks.

Statistical assessment will soon discover how accurate and effective players are and in so many ways.

Stats can lie over a game or two but they paint a very good picture over time.

[Ric Flair]

Mattock this season: No goals no assists that I can remember.

Sheehan this season: 2 goals 4 assists, 2 assists for disallowed goals, various near misses from shots/assists.

In League matches this season Mattock has played six times in which we've won 0, drawn 3 and lost 3 GF 1 GA 5 Pts 3

In League matches this season Sheehan has played 11 times in which we've won 3, drawn 6 and lost 2 GF 13 GA 9 Pts 15

Considering the above I honestly have absolutely no idea why Mattock would even nearly get the nod and even more so when you consider that Sheehan has played in five of our six wins this season, compared to Mattock's two.

And considering that in all games our total goal difference is positive with Sheehan and negative with Mattock (20 for and 15 against compared with 5 for and 7 against for Mattock from 14 games and 8 games respectively.)

Put simply we concede virtually a goal a game with both defenders but score far more goals and win far more games with Sheehan.

When Mattock has played we've failed to score 4 times in six League games.

When Sheehan has played we've failed to score only 4 times in 11.

Mattock, I am quite sure, will turn out to be an excellent defender and I am quite sure both can develop virtually in tandem at our club. But the above does show what Sheehan is up against in terms of some people's perception.

Sheehan's contribution to the goals we've scored this season cannot be mistaken, but the fact they've pretty much all come from set pieces tells another story. I am all for us being strong from set pieces and we missed his deliveries on Saturday, but it riles me that we are a busted flush other than from set pieces. Stop us from getting corners and free-kicks in dangerous areas and there's a good chance that we won't score all game, which means the opposition have a great chance of pinching all 3 points if our defence isn't on it's toes for 90 minutes.

Mattock has nowhere near as good a delivery from dead ball situations as Sheehan, I doubt he ever will do. Infact, Clemence is the only player who runs Sheehan close in the entire squad. Would we have scored those goals that Sheehan has set up if he wasn't taking those set pieces and say Clemence was? It's hard to say, Sheehan's a superb set piece taker. But without dampening his achievements, that's all he has over Mattock. Goals win matches and the stats this season prove that without Sheehan's assists and goals, we'd be about bottom of the league.

But the bigger picture is that we need a team that can score goals from open play if we are serious about winning matches on a regular basis. A good set piece taker is essential as well. I have grave reservations about Sheehan's defending ability and also his ability from open play when getting forward. I might be speaking out of turn, but i'm not overly impressed with Sheehan's crossing ability. Which is ridiculous given how good he is at free kicks and corners, but he doesn't seem to get as good accuracy and delivery as he does from a corner or free kick.

I'd personally go back to 4-4-2 and have both Sheehan and Mattock playing right now. They got destroyed against Charlton together, but as we have no out and out left winger other than Hayes that's fit right now and the fact that wing-backs isn't working i'd give them another chance. Sheehan for his set pieces, Mattock for his defending and ability to take players on, on the overlap.

[Fez of Mahrez]

I'd actually play Sheehan at left-back and Mattock on the left wing. I might be alone in that but I think Mattock needs the same reduced responsibility that he had when he broke into the team on the left wing under Worthington and Sheehan has proven he is no left winger with his performances against Charlton and Plymouth (truly appalling). He did play well there at home to Watford I admit before anyone mentions it but that seems to have been a one-off team performance.

[Thracian]

Sheehan's contribution to the goals we've scored this season cannot be mistaken, but the fact they've pretty much all come from set pieces tells another story. I am all for us being strong from set pieces and we missed his deliveries on Saturday, but it riles me that we are a busted flush other than from set pieces. Stop us from getting corners and free-kicks in dangerous areas and there's a good chance that we won't score all game, which means the opposition have a great chance of pinching all 3 points if our defence isn't on it's toes for 90 minutes.

Mattock has nowhere near as good a delivery from dead ball situations as Sheehan, I doubt he ever will do. Infact, Clemence is the only player who runs Sheehan close in the entire squad. Would we have scored those goals that Sheehan has set up if he wasn't taking those set pieces and say Clemence was? It's hard to say, Sheehan's a superb set piece taker. But without dampening his achievements, that's all he has over Mattock. Goals win matches and the stats this season prove that without Sheehan's assists and goals, we'd be about bottom of the league.

But the bigger picture is that we need a team that can score goals from open play if we are serious about winning matches on a regular basis. A good set piece taker is essential as well. I have grave reservations about Sheehan's defending ability and also his ability from open play when getting forward. I might be speaking out of turn, but i'm not overly impressed with Sheehan's crossing ability. Which is ridiculous given how good he is at free kicks and corners, but he doesn't seem to get as good accuracy and delivery as he does from a corner or free kick.

I'd personally go back to 4-4-2 and have both Sheehan and Mattock playing right now. They got destroyed against Charlton together, but as we have no out and out left winger other than Hayes that's fit right now and the fact that wing-backs isn't working i'd give them another chance. Sheehan for his set pieces, Mattock for his defending and ability to take players on, on the overlap.

Obviously I'd argue that Sheehan is more threatening from open play than he's given credit for but that's as maybe.

However, as an aside to what you say I would have thought his undisputed prowess as a dead ball striker would have given more strength to the argument about us committing more resources to attack.

I say that because I cannot believe how few free-kicks/corners we've been winning lately.

No doubt part of that is because the opposition know perfectly well that the fewer free kicks Leicester have the less chance Shehan will have to work any magic. They've done their homework.

But from Leicester's point of view they should be charging forward because if they don't score from open play there's a more than usually decent chance from any set-piece they win.

We really are nieve at times.

[Ric Flair]

I'd actually play Sheehan at left-back and Mattock on the left wing. I might be alone in that but I think Mattock needs the same reduced responsibility that he had when he broke into the team on the left wing under Worthington and Sheehan has proven he is no left winger with his performances against Charlton and Plymouth (truly appalling). He did play well there at home to Watford I admit before anyone mentions it but that seems to have been a one-off team performance.

Definitely, I might be a little ambigious here, but right now I think a combination of Mattock and Sheehan down the left hand side with Mattock further forward but making sure Sheehan's helped out defensively is our best option in that area. Hayes won't feature much here at all and other than those 3 there is absolutely nothing. I don't think Sheehan or Mattock are going to tear it up as a wing-back either due to the way our team plays from the back 3, hoof, hoof, hoof.

Obviously I'd argue that Sheehan is more threatening from open play than he's given credit for but that's as maybe.

However, as an aside to what you say I would have thought his undisputed prowess as a dead ball striker would have given more strength to the argument about us committing more resources to attack.

I say that because I cannot believe how few free-kicks/corners we've been winning lately.

No doubt part of that is because the opposition know perfectly well that the fewer free kicks Leicester have the less chance Shehan will have to work any magic. They've done their homework.

But from Leicester's point of view they should be charging forward because if they don't score from open play there's a more than usually decent chance from any set-piece they win.

We really are nieve at times.

As i've said. Teams know that if they stop us from getting many set pieces then chances are they've got a great chance of beating us or at least stopping us from remotely scoring.