City's best Formation.

[dogadug]

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.

What do you think of my suggestion?

[Jimmy]

if we're going 3-5-2 I'd rather see this

Weale

Hobbs Brown Tunchev

N'Guessan/Gradel Oakley Wellens Adams Dyer/McGivern

Fryatt Howard

[davieG]

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????

With 2 left backs, an inexperienced centre back and King not being a natural defensive midfielder we would get cut to threads.

[Messi]

Weale

Morrison Hobbs Brown McGivern/Berner

N'Guessan Oakley Wellens Dyer/Gradel

Howard Fryatt/Waghorn/Gallagher

Simple

[Munzie]

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.

Our centre-mid pairing are doing a good job in the main. I don't think they do get outnumbered. The dangerous counter-attacks we have come up against to date tend to be wide play (for instance where Dyer has drifted inside or one of our full-backs has been caught short going forward).

Starting with anything other than 4-4-2 seems a bit drastic. If we do find ourselves short on numbers defensively during a game, a change is playing style or the introduction of a suitable sub should suffice.

I tend to favour an attacking minded 4-4-2 at home with a quick-breaking normal formation at away games.

I also feel that Nigel Pearson is a manager that does his homework before every game and makes small adjustments to our line-up or team roles. That is something we lacked with predecessors.

[marbelladave]

What do you think of my suggestion?

Not a lot , sorry. Defense is all over the place. Undermanned, out of position, back to the drawing board. <_<

[marbelladave]

Our centre-mid pairing are doing a good job in the main. I don't think they do get outnumbered. The dangerous counter-attacks we have come up against to date tend to be wide play (for instance where Dyer has drifted inside or one of our full-backs has been caught short going forward).

Starting with anything other than 4-4-2 seems a bit drastic. If we do find ourselves short on numbers defensively during a game, a change is playing style or the introduction of a suitable sub should suffice.

I tend to favour an attacking minded 4-4-2 at home with a quick-breaking normal formation at away games.

I also feel that Nigel Pearson is a manager that does his homework before every game and makes small adjustments to our line-up or team roles. That is something we lacked with predecessors.

Fair enough, but I do see it differently to you. In the second halves of both the Sheffield and the Newcastle game we were dominated in midfield, losing points from good positions.

I think this is pivotal to how well we do this season so feel that a move away from 4-4-2 is the only answer. I know that you and some others disagree but I see a move to 4-5-1 as inevitable.

More possession will allow for better quality on our final ball, something that has also been an issue so far this season.

Can't see the downside myself.

[Zingari]

Ladies and gentlemen. we will be playing Four-Four-fooking Two

(mike bassett)

[Criggers]

Fair enough, but I do see it differently to you. In the second halves of both the Sheffield and the Newcastle game we were dominated in midfield, losing points from good positions.

I think this is pivotal to how well we do this season so feel that a move away from 4-4-2 is the only answer. I know that you and some others disagree but I see a move to 4-5-1 as inevitable.

More possession will allow for better quality on our final ball, something that has also been an issue so far this season.

Can't see the downside myself.

See my formation please

And please please please give Bruno a chance in the holding role! He's wasted at left back

[dandannieldanok]

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?

What are you talking about? We've lost one cup game with half a team out and one league game away to probably the best team in the league. There is nothing wrong with the current formation at all, why can't people just accept that we're going to lose games at times, it's ridiculous. Playing a diamond formation would be awful, it would spell the end of Dyer and N'Guessan and extradite Gradel even more, and we haven't got Bosingwa and Ashley Cole to bomb up from full-back. We are not at all being overwhelmed in central midfield, Wellens and Oakley are forming the best central midfield partnership we've seen at this club for at least 5/6 years and that's no exaggeration.

EDIT: Also anyone advocating a 3-5-2/5-3-2 obviously didn't watch us under Megson.

[Munzie]

Fair enough, but I do see it differently to you. In the second halves of both the Sheffield and the Newcastle game we were dominated in midfield, losing points from good positions.

I think this is pivotal to how well we do this season so feel that a move away from 4-4-2 is the only answer. I know that you and some others disagree but I see a move to 4-5-1 as inevitable.

More possession will allow for better quality on our final ball, something that has also been an issue so far this season.

Can't see the downside myself.

I'm all for experimentation. I remember debating during the run in to last season's campaign that we had been sussed by other teams both in formation and playing style.

It's very difficult, especially at this level, and with the expectations placed on the team, to try new things. If we find ourselves 3 or 4 nil up (or down) with 20 minutes to go, why not try something new.

On the long drive back from St James's Park, I was pretty pissed off with our second half display. Having 3+ hours to discuss this issue, we concluded that the opposition and their surroundings were enough to deal with a decent Leicester side. Small tweaks to our playing style are required as opposed to sweeping changes.

With all personnel firing on all cylinders (easier said than done) we are capable of competing, and competing well, at this level. Having a plan 'B' or even 'C' is always a good thing. I believe 4-4-2 will always be the preferred choice for Leicester. It's how well we tweak it that will determine it's effectiveness and bring future success.

[Father Ted]

I'd go with a simple 4-4-2 like this:

Weale

Neilson - Hobbs - Brown - Berner

N'guessan - Wellens - Oakley - Adams

Fryatt - Howard

[marbelladave]

What are you talking about? We've lost one cup game with half a team out and one league game away to probably the best team in the league. There is nothing wrong with the current formation at all, why can't people just accept that we're going to lose games at times, it's ridiculous. Playing a diamond formation would be awful, it would spell the end of Dyer and N'Guessan and extradite Gradel even more, and we haven't got Bosingwa and Ashley Cole to bomb up from full-back. We are not at all being overwhelmed in central midfield, Wellens and Oakley are forming the best central midfield partnership we've seen at this club for at least 5/6 years and that's no exaggeration.

EDIT: Also anyone advocating a 3-5-2/5-3-2 obviously didn't watch us under Megson.

Exactly the point I was making (politely) about the diamond formation.

So what happened at Sheffield and Newcastle when we lost the (midfield) plot in the second half along with 3 points?

But maybe they did under MON.

[Mark]

Weale

Morrison - Hobbs - Tunchev - McGivern

Adams - Oakley - Wellens - Maxi

Waghorn - Gallacher

Needs freshening up from what I see, desperately need more firepower.

[Criggers]

What are you talking about? We've lost one cup game with half a team out and one league game away to probably the best team in the league. There is nothing wrong with the current formation at all, why can't people just accept that we're going to lose games at times, it's ridiculous. Playing a diamond formation would be awful, it would spell the end of Dyer and N'Guessan and extradite Gradel even more, and we haven't got Bosingwa and Ashley Cole to bomb up from full-back. We are not at all being overwhelmed in central midfield, Wellens and Oakley are forming the best central midfield partnership we've seen at this club for at least 5/6 years and that's no exaggeration.

I was only suggesting 4-5-1 for an alternative. Like Newcastle away that was a game where we were clearly over run in the second half. At the same time as saying "why can't people just accept that we're going to lose games at times" you could say "why aren't we prepared to try different options to win games?"

Yes we will lose games from time to time because there are better teams in this division. But why can't we try things to counter that? Just as teams did to us last year in league 1 when we were favourites in nigh on 100% of matches.

edit: 4-5-1 and such is about versatility, its where players like gallagher, nguessan, adams or whoever can fill their boots, stuff the midfield without possession, get the midfielders forward when you win it. In the mean time howard can be his usual self and strafe around the half way line

[dandannieldanok]

Exactly the point I was making (politely) about the diamond formation.

So what happened at Sheffield and Newcastle when we lost the (midfield) plot in the second half along with 3 points?

But maybe they did under MON.

We didn't lose the plot, we just got slightly outplayed by good teams, exactly like we did to Swansea and Barnsley in the second half.

You need specialist wing-backs to play 3-5-2/5-3-2, we haven't got them.

I was only suggesting 4-5-1 for an alternative. Like Newcastle away that was a game where we were clearly over run in the second half. At the same time as saying "why can't people just accept that we're going to lose games at times" you could say "why aren't we prepared to try different options to win games?"

Yes we will lose games from time to time because there are better teams in this division. But why can't we try things to counter that? Just as teams did to us last year in league 1 when we were favourites in nigh on 100% of matches.

So 4-5-1 is an option to win the game? You seem to be thinking Pearson and the players weren't trying to win? He threw on 3 subs to try and change things but it won't always work.

People need to get over the fact we lost.

[marbelladave]

I'm all for experimentation. I remember debating during the run in to last season's campaign that we had been sussed by other teams both in formation and playing style.

It's very difficult, especially at this level, and with the expectations placed on the team, to try new things. If we find ourselves 3 or 4 nil up (or down) with 20 minutes to go, why not try something new.

On the long drive back from St James's Park, I was pretty pissed off with our second half display. Having 3+ hours to discuss this issue, we concluded that the opposition and their surroundings were enough to deal with a decent Leicester side. Small tweaks to our playing style are required as opposed to sweeping changes.

With all personnel firing on all cylinders (easier said than done) we are capable of competing, and competing well, at this level. Having a plan 'B' or even 'C' is always a good thing. I believe 4-4-2 will always be the preferred choice for Leicester. It's how well we tweak it that will determine it's effectiveness and bring future success.

Perfectly reasonable view and you do have the advantage of having seen the game live as opposed to my view on Sky, in the pub without commentary (thank God) and Newcastle are a pretty formidable outfit, even without strikers!

However I was in Sheffield and saw us lose a winning position by failing to keep control of midfield and since I did not rate United that highly, I was and remain concerned that this could be an issue for us.

I am not fundamentally opposed to 4-4-2, but with 2 men up and 2 wide this asks Oakley and Wellens to do an awfull lot of work. It is any wonder they run out of steam around the hour mark?

[Vlad The Impaler]

I'd play 4-4-2

Weale

Neilson Tunchev Hobbs Berner/McGivern

N'Guessan Oakley Wellens Adams

Fryatt Howard

Dyer isn't half as good as what people make him out to be, yes he's fast but he posesses no threat to a good RB/RM as he is too direct.

Adams has got more skill, agression and hunger, while still being reasonably fast aswell, I think it's kinda harsh to keep leaving him and Maxi out as much as he is.

I remember seeing Fryatt playing behind the striker against Cardiff at home 2 seasons ago, he did this for a few games as well, thought he looked good.

A three man midfield with 3 up top might suit us nicely aswell. Wellens is always banging on about how good it was at Donny.

Weale

Neilson Tunchev Hobbs Berner/McGivern

Oakley Wellens Adams

Fryatt Howard

That looks quite good aswell, yes we may lack width but Oakley and Adams can push out at times, it's not as if we've been flooding the box with crosses this season either, so don't think it would effect us too much, if anything it may improve us

I dunno, just a thought

[marbelladave]

Ladies and gentlemen. we will be playing Four-Four-fooking Two

(mike bassett)

And look how that turned out! :D

[RowlattsFox]

I would stick to 4-4-2 but then have the options on the bench and be willing to change if things aren't going well.

At times our midfield is too offensive looking, our wingers are not natural at tracking back, Wellens and Oakley try hard defensively but again are not natural doing that. I hoped we would sign another central midfielder in the window, someone who is strong in the middle and protect the back 4 a bit more when we are under pressure.

I think 4-4-2 is fine for now though.

[Guest]

EDIT: Also anyone advocating a 3-5-2/5-3-2 obviously didn't watch us under Megson.

You obviously didn't watch us under O'Neill.....

[marbelladave]

We didn't lose the plot, we just got slightly outplayed by good teams, exactly like we did to Swansea and Barnsley in the second half.

You need specialist wing-backs to play 3-5-2/5-3-2, we haven't got them.

So 4-5-1 is an option to win the game? You seem to be thinking Pearson and the players weren't trying to win? He threw on 3 subs to try and change things but it won't always work.

People need to get over the fact we lost.

You say slightly outplayed, I say pretty much destroyed and lucky to hang on to any points.

Perhaps another glass half full/empty debate

Agree about our lack of anyone who look like they can play wingback. Just pointing out the under MON and with the right players it did work, That is all.

We seem to have just the one way of playing. Good enough to beat Swansea and Barnsley, but Newcastle, no, not even with three subs.

[Vlad The Impaler]

You say slightly outplayed, I say pretty much destroyed and lucky to hang on to any points.

Perhaps another glass half full/empty debate

Agree about our lack of anyone who look like they can play wingback. Just pointing out the under MON and with the right players it did work, That is all.

We seem to have just the one way of playing. Good enough to beat Swansea and Barnsley, but Newcastle, no, not even with three subs.

We could of easily won though

[dandannieldanok]

You say slightly outplayed, I say pretty much destroyed and lucky to hang on to any points.

Perhaps another glass half full/empty debate

Agree about our lack of anyone who look like they can play wingback. Just pointing out the under MON and with the right players it did work, That is all.

We seem to have just the one way of playing. Good enough to beat Swansea and Barnsley, but Newcastle, no, not even with three subs.

Hardly destroyed, look at the goals against us, two wonderstrikes.

Newcastle and Sheff Utd have better squads than us, constructed with more money from the premier league, we've competed so very well with them with a squad that has had to make a step up yet still people try and pick holes and overreact to one defeat.

[davieG]

Perfectly reasonable view and you do have the advantage of having seen the game live as opposed to my view on Sky, in the pub without commentary (thank God) and Newcastle are a pretty formidable outfit, even without strikers!

However I was in Sheffield and saw us lose a winning position by failing to keep control of midfield and since I did not rate United that highly, I was and remain concerned that this could be an issue for us.

I am not fundamentally opposed to 4-4-2, but with 2 men up and 2 wide this asks Oakley and Wellens to do an awfull lot of work. It is any wonder they run out of steam around the hour mark?

In reality Dave at Newcastle, again from my TV seat we played more with 3 CMs and 1 winger than we did 442 with both Gallagher & Dyer taking up a more central than wing position.

I think the problem there was that once they'd scored Nolan dropped back to give them 3 CMs in Nolan, Smith and Barton and even Guthrie was popping up there more often than not, I think the sum of these players was better than our 3.