City's best Formation.

[marbelladave]

Having seen 4 of our games (3 Live, I Sky) this season I think it is clear that we are finding it a bit of a struggle in some areas.

With this in mind I have devised what I think is the best way for us to line up. It satisfies most forum members requirements, strong in midfield, 2 wide men and twin strikers. Although I have shown some selection options (we all have our favourites) this is primarily about our shape and the way that we set ourselves up to play, rather than the individual players.

---------------------Weale-----------------------------

Neilson--Brown/Tunchev--Hobbs--Berner/McGivern

----------------------King------------------------------

--------------Oakley------Wellens---------------------

---- N'Guessan-----------------------Dyer/Adams----

--------------Howard----Fryatt/Waghorn-------------

[Jimmy]

Having seen 4 of our games (3 Live, I Sky) this season I think it is clear that we are finding it a bit of a struggle in some areas.

With this in mind I have devised what I think is the best way for us to line up. It satisfies most forum members requirements, strong in midfield, 2 wide men and twin strikers. Although I have shown some selection options (we all have our favourites) this is primarily about our shape and the way that we set ourselves up to play, rather than the individual players.

---------------------Weale-----------------------------

Neilson--Brown/Tunchev--Hobbs--Berner/McGivern

----------------------King------------------------------

--------------Oakley------Wellens---------------------

---- N'Guessan-----------------------Dyer/Adams----

--------------Howard----Fryatt/Waghorn-------------

that system contains 12 players (not including the either ors)

[James.]

Erm, Dave, not sure how to tell you this but...

[breadandcheese]

Erm, Dave, not sure how to tell you this but...

I like it. It has that extra which other teams just don't have.

[Guest]

I like it. It has that extra which other teams just don't have.

'We've only got 12 men, we've only got 12 men, TWELVE MEN!'

[marbelladave]

that system contains 12 players (not including the either ors)

Congratulations, quicker than I expected!-- (I thought my inclusion of options might catch someone)

However there is a point to this.

We all think we need to improve to be really competitive in this year and this team includes all the elements that our forumers seem to think we require, ie strong midfield, 2 wingers, 2 up top.

By accommodating everyone's wishes (and ending up with 12 men) it gives us a way of looking at the issue from the other end. We all know what we would like but what can we do without? That is the real question!

[morris1234]

to be fair to him, that would be citys best formation, given the extra man n' all!

[MC Prussian]

Classic 4-4-2 or a daring Diamond Attacking 4-1-2-1-2.

I love Football Manager.

[marbelladave]

Classic 4-4-2 or a daring Diamond Attacking 4-1-2-1-2.

I love Football Manager.

4-4-2 is the source of our current ills, we are too easily overwhelmed in central midfield.

Nothing wrong with a diamond if your fullbacks can provide the width, Can they?

Of course you could be really radical and play your front 2 wide and go without a center forward. Where's Rob Rensenbrink and Johnny Rep when you need them!

[King Cal]

Having seen 4 of our games (3 Live, I Sky) this season I think it is clear that we are finding it a bit of a struggle in some areas.

With this in mind I have devised what I think is the best way for us to line up. It satisfies most forum members requirements, strong in midfield, 2 wide men and twin strikers. Although I have shown some selection options (we all have our favourites) this is primarily about our shape and the way that we set ourselves up to play, rather than the individual players.

---------------------Weale-----------------------------

Neilson--Brown/Tunchev--Hobbs--Berner/McGivern

----------------------King------------------------------

--------------Oakley------Wellens---------------------

---- N'Guessan-----------------------Dyer/Adams----

--------------Howard----Fryatt/Waghorn-------------

aha ha

[Jimmy]

4-4-2 is the source of our current ills, we are too easily overwhelmed in central midfield.

Nothing wrong with a diamond if your fullbacks can provide the width, Can they?

Of course you could be really radical and play your front 2 wide and go without a center forward. Where's Rob Rensenbrink and Johnny Rep when you need them!

so your solution is to go what, 1 upfront? being either the immobile Steve Howard or Matty Fryatt, how would that work? you can argue it'd be 4-3-3 all you like but in reality, especially given Pearson's cautious mentality, it would be 4-5-1

[marbelladave]

so your solution is to go what, 1 upfront? being either the immobile Steve Howard or Matty Fryatt, how would that work? you can argue it'd be 4-3-3 all you like but in reality, especially given Pearson's cautious mentality, it would be 4-5-1

Personally I think Howard could do the job providing we play the ball through midfield. Then when the ball is played up to Howard, preferably to feet, our midfield are already up in support.

On the other hand you could play Fryatt or Waghorn with the 'out' ball played to the wide men.

The point of the 12 man team is to cover all the bases and then work out what we can best do without. My view is that if we can dominate midfield then quality ball to 1 striker (with support) will be more productive than mediocre balls to 2 strikers. In addition we are less likely to get overwhelmed in midfield in the second half, as has happened a couple of times recently.

[Jimmy]

but we wouldn't dominate midfield, if we were to play 1 up it would be Howard, which would result in HOOF ball

[marbelladave]

but we wouldn't dominate midfield, if we were to play 1 up it would be Howard, which would result in HOOF ball

Howard is better with the ball played to his feet, so why can we not use our passing game to do just that. Then the ball up to Howard is quite short with players in support.

Just because we have played HOOFball in the past does not mean we have to do so now.

Furthermore our midfield has dominated play for periods in all our games so far, but we become less effective as the game develops and the opposition adapt. Having an extra man would reduce the workload and help stop us being over run late on. (Sheffield, Newcastle)

[Nod.E]

Sorry, Dave. It's just that I dis-agree with everything that you're saying. Not to be a cock or anything, like.

Two central midfielders and 2 wingers? Isn't that just the 4 in midfield in a 4-4-2, the midfield that you reckon is our downfall?

Also, Howard's better with the ball at his feet?

Sorry, but... no.

[Criggers]

Oops did a reply instead of edit

[Heart-Shaped Fox]

Straiht forward 4-4-2. We cant accomodate evreyone in some others.

[Criggers]

This is more something id like to see tried rather than what actually works. Want to see the midfield contesting more.

The wide 2 up top are pretty interchangeable. I love the idea of berner in a holding role, but i have no idea how good McGivern is gonna be. I'm hopeful the Kermorgant will be good enough to go up top at some point too. Then again, Villa make it work with Agbonlahor. maybe we can use DJ

-----------------------------------------------------------------Weale

-------------------------------------Neilson---------Tunchev---------Hobbs---------McGivern

-----------------------------------------------------------------Berner

---------------------------------------------------Oakley----------------Wellens

-------------------------------Adams/Nguessan-----------------------------------Gallagher

-----------------------------------------------------------------Howard

OR

-----------------------------------------------------------------Weale

--------------------------------------Neilson---------Tunchev---------Hobbs---------Berner

---------------------------------------------------Oakley------------------Wellens

---------------------------------Waghorn/Nguessan---------Gallagher-------------Adams

----------------------------------------------------------------(Free Role)

-----------------------------------------------------------------Howard

[marbelladave]

Sorry, Dave. It's just that I dis-agree with everything that you're saying. Not to be a cock or anything, like.

Two central midfielders and 2 wingers? Isn't that just the 4 in midfield in a 4-4-2, the midfield that you reckon is our downfall?

Also, Howard's better with the ball at his feet?

Sorry, but... no.

Huh!

I thought I clearly stated that with 1 up I would be playing some variation on 4-5-1. sorry if that was not so.

Howard is excellent at dropping off his defender and holding up the ball played to his feet, OK he is unlikely to do anything spectacular with it but he will lay it off neatly if he has players in support. To me this is far preferable to the aimless flicks that we get when the ball is in the air.

Just use him as the point for our passing game. He already does this to to some degree so just work the ball through midfield, a short ball into Howard who lays it off to one of the midfield/wide men coming forward, hopefully at pace.

[marbelladave]

Criggers

Both decent options though I am not so keen on Gallagher out wide after the Newcastle game.

Formations are clearly not the be all and end all, it is very important that the players embrace the system and make it work for them.

For example There is no point in playing a lone front man if no one gets into support. It requires an attacking mentality from our midfield for any variation on 4-5-1 to work.

Having 2 or 3 players prepared to support the striker is essential, they need to get forward with pace and purpose and this is an attitude thing more than anything else. Get that right ant it is very effective indeed.

[Munzie]

I'm happy with us staying 4-4-2 providing both fullbacks continue to do their job whilst providing support to our wingers when going forward.

Oakley and Wellans are solid in the middle albeit a little deep on some occasions.

Our wingers need to remain wingers. If we are to persist with N'Guessan, he needs to be more tactically aware of his surroundings. Dyer needs to stay on the wing and use his pace that we know he has. This 'free role' he's been playing recently has limited our attacking options, caused congestion in the middle of the pitch, and left us exposed to counter-attacks far too often.

Howard is happy to be our target man but does require better service from the team. Fryatt needs to be less selfish.

In relation to the first team, I would use Andy King as and when we need to sit back when protecting a decent lead. I would also like to see, now and again, Howard/Gallagher playing slightly deeper whilst feeding two other strikers (almost 4-3-1-2). I half expected that sort of set-up against Newcastle upon seeing the starting line-up.

The good news is that we now have a reasonable squad that are capable of changing formation/tactics as and when required. I just want to see more of our personnel and game-play used to good effect.

[FoxesFan123]

I don't see the reason in changing anything really, we're doing well this season, aren't we? This would never happen, and I probably would never want it to, but just a suggestion:

-----------------Weale

---------Tunch Brown Hobbs

Adams--------------------------Dyer

---------Oakley King Wellens

------------Howard Fryatt

We have 3 good centre backs, and 3 good centre mids. Its the areas were there is real competition. So why not play to our strengths. Wingers I'm not really sure of, maybe McGivern/Berner/Nguessan/Gradel suit these roles better. I've gone for Adams as he's full of energy and could track back (a la Savage?), and Dyer because I remeber him (aswell as Gradel) doing a good defensive job against Leeds last season.

Its a Martin O'Neil-esqe formation. It'll probably never happen, and if our season carries on like it is, it probably shouldn't. Just a suggestion to put out there!

[Guest]

I don't see the reason in changing anything really, we're doing well this season, aren't we? This would never happen, and I probably would never want it to, but just a suggestion:

-----------------Weale

---------Tunch Brown Hobbs

Adams--------------------------Dyer

---------Oakley King Wellens

------------Howard Fryatt

We have 3 good centre backs, and 3 good centre mids. Its the areas were there is real competition. So why not play to our strengths. Wingers I'm not really sure of, maybe McGivern/Berner/Nguessan/Gradel suit these roles better. I've gone for Adams as he's full of energy and could track back (a la Savage?), and Dyer because I remeber him (aswell as Gradel) doing a good defensive job against Leeds last season.

Its a Martin O'Neil-esqe formation. It'll probably never happen, and if our season carries on like it is, it probably shouldn't. Just a suggestion to put out there!

I was going to post that formation, maybe using Berner on the left, if needs be. Some see three at the back at negative, but I see it as being more versatile as yes, it can be defensive, but it also becomes very attacking very quickly, especially if you can get the right wing-backs.

[dogadug]

I reckon this could work;

---------Weale

Berner--Hobbs--Mcgivern

--------- King------------

-----Oakley Wellens

Adams --------- N'Guessan

-----Fryatt Howard

This would allow Oakley and Wellens to be more attackive, with King as a defensive midfielder

Thoughts????

[marbelladave]

Munzie

The problem with 4-4-2 remains that as the game develops Oakley and Wellens find themselves outnumbered and are pushed back. We lose control of midfield and control off the game. All this discussion about formations is simply a way to work out the best way to stop this happening. We need an extra man in there, whether that is a defensive player behind them or a playmaker in front is open to debate. With 3 in midfield you sacrifice a winger or a striker, difficult call.

Or you go 3 at the back.

I wondered how long it would take for someone to suggest this option. We certainly have the central defenders for this set up, but it lives and dies by the quality of the wing backs and I am not sure we have anyone capable of playing this particular role.

Berner maybe, he is a decent all round footballer who would probably do well in the role but there is no one that I like the look of to do a job on the left.