City's best Formation.

[Munzie]

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?

I look at this from a different angle. I firmly believe that, on occasions, our wingers don't provide enough cover for our central pairing when we're on the back foot.

N'Guessan and Dyer fade in and out of games too regularly. Not only does this hinder our chances going forward but asks a lot from Oakley, Wellans, and our back four when defending. Dany seemed to give up against Newcastle and Dyer drifts way too far inside this season. When our passage of play breaks down, both don't always provide the necessary back-up which can leave others with more work to do.

Wingers have a very difficult role to play. Some appear to make it easier than it looks. Currently, ours are very sporadic.

[marbelladave]

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.

Can't help thinking that those two "wonderstrikes" were scored from areas that a competent defensive midfielder would have closed down. There is too much space in front of our back 4 which is why I think a holding player would work well. Would have the benefit of getting Oakley and Wellens further forward as well.

I think our squad stacks up pretty well against Utd, Newcastle still way ahead though..

Debating ways that we might do better, particularly against stronger opposition is hardly overeacting.

Armchair punditry, without a doubt, overreacting and picking holes, no.

[marbelladave]

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.

Just the point I was making! Attacking and wide players being drawn into the center because we were clearly losing out there. This is why we need 3 'proper' midfield players, not 2 plus a winger and a bit of striker. Nolan Smith and Barton were always going to be a handfull so credit to Oakley and Wellens for doing so well first half!

[MPH]

DJ campbel - left back.. in the changing room...

[Joe.]

I don't particularly like changing the standard 4-4-2 we've been accustomed to for so long. And with the players we currently have it still makes sense for me.

Weale

Neilson --- Brown --- Hobbs --- Berner

N'Guessan --- Wellens --- Oakley --- Adams

Howard --- Fryatt

For me, that's our best team on current form. Any other position leaves you exposed or weaker in some areas in my opinion, and I just don't feel comfortable with it.

[marbelladave]

I look at this from a different angle. I firmly believe that, on occasions, our wingers don't provide enough cover for our central pairing when we're on the back foot.

N'Guessan and Dyer fade in and out of games too regularly. Not only does this hinder our chances going forward but asks a lot from Oakley, Wellans, and our back four when defending. Dany seemed to give up against Newcastle and Dyer drifts way too far inside this season. When our passage of play breaks down, both don't always provide the necessary back-up which can leave others with more work to do.

Wingers have a very difficult role to play. Some appear to make it easier than it looks. Currently, ours are very sporadic.

More or less agree. We have wingers rather than wide midfielders (if you see my distinction) so no, they are not much help in midfield though the do, generally do a decent job covering their fullback.

Combine this with the fact that neither our preferred strikers drop deep and link up play and you see how isolated this leaves Oakley and Wellens. I think they have done pretty well so far but I really think we are asking too much of them.

[marbelladave]

I don't particularly like changing the standard 4-4-2 we've been accustomed to for so long. And with the players we currently have it still makes sense for me.

Weale

Neilson --- Brown --- Hobbs --- Berner

N'Guessan --- Wellens --- Oakley --- Adams

Howard --- Fryatt

For me, that's our best team on current form. Any other position leaves you exposed or weaker in some areas in my opinion, and I just don't feel comfortable with it.

I think this is Pearsons view as well, so I do not expect to see any big changes soon. Would like to see a striker, Fryatt probably dropped to the bench and King start in a holding role, ay least against tougher opposition.

[Joe.]

I think this is Pearsons view as well, so I do not expect to see any big changes soon. Would like to see a striker, Fryatt probably dropped to the bench and King start in a holding role, ay least against tougher opposition.

Really? 4-5-1 with Howard on his own up front? Surely we we'd score even less from that?

[davieG]

Really? 4-5-1 with Howard on his own up front? Surely we we'd score even less from that?

I guess it depends on whether you think we'd start to get more goals from Howard & Fryatt by staying as we are because the way we're playing I can't see Wellens or Oakley getting many or whether with just Howard up front we'd get more goals from a 5 man midfield.

Add this to the fact that none of the back four look like they're going to score.

[Joe.]

I guess it depends on whether you think we'd start to get more goals from Howard & Fryatt by staying as we are because the way we're playing I can't see Wellens or Oakley getting many or whether with just Howard up front we'd get more goals from a 5 man midfield.

Add this to the fact that none of the back four look like they're going to score.

Maybe, but we'd still be without a proven goalscorer in the team at all that way. I just really don't like playing one up front, unless you're playing against a team with a strong midfield you need to dominate. Whilst it would free up Oakley and Wellens to get forward more, only one of them is a real goal threat (Oakley).

[davieG]

Maybe, but we'd still be without a proven goalscorer in the team at all that way. I just really don't like playing one up front, unless you're playing against a team with a strong midfield you need to dominate. Whilst it would free up Oakley and Wellens to get forward more, only one of them is a real goal threat (Oakley).

I wasn't advocating it particularly just joining in the debate - we do have a problem on the goal scoring front and it's not just down to Fryatt. None of the defence or CM look like they're ever going to score and the wingers seem to be no where near either.

Hopefully NP is aware and has some corrective action planned, probably in how we approach and play the game rather than fundamentally changing the shape of the team.

[MPH]

I wasn't advocating it particularly just joining in the debate - we do have a problem on the goal scoring front and it's not just down to Fryatt. None of the defence or CM look like they're ever going to score and the wingers seem to be no where near either.

Hopefully NP is aware and has some corrective action planned, probably in how we approach and play the game rather than fundamentally changing the shape of the team.

im actually impressed with how N'Guessan has managed to cement his place in the side. He's looked our most dangerous winger. and consistently so too.. I do agree with the inclusion of Adams ahead of Dyer, on recent form too - give Dyer a few weeks out of the limelight, let him regroup within himself and im sure he will be back.

[marbelladave]

I wasn't advocating it particularly just joining in the debate - we do have a problem on the goal scoring front and it's not just down to Fryatt. None of the defence or CM look like they're ever going to score and the wingers seem to be no where near either.

Hopefully NP is aware and has some corrective action planned, probably in how we approach and play the game rather than fundamentally changing the shape of the team.

I did not suggest dropping Fryatt because he has done anything wrong, with a difficult pre-season I think he has done ok. I don't even blame him for the Newcastle miss, conditions were appalling at that time.

It is just that he is not the player to lead the line on his own, play Howard to hold the ball up or Waghorn to play off the last man. Fryatt might be more use later as the game opens up.

I said earlier that attitude was the key, if we can get our midfield to get forward looking to score then I think the chances will come!

[davieG]

I did not suggest dropping Fryatt because he has done anything wrong, with a difficult pre-season I think he has done ok. I don't even blame him for the Newcastle miss, conditions were appalling at that time.

It is just that he is not the player to lead the line on his own, play Howard to hold the ball up or Waghorn to play off the last man. Fryatt might be more use later as the game opens up.

I said earlier that attitude was the key, if we can get our midfield to get forward looking to score then I think the chances will come!

I didn't think you were but the fact is we're defensively ok but not scoring enough so for whatever reason so any changes need to improve the one without distracting from the other.

[marbelladave]

im actually impressed with how N'Guessan has managed to cement his place in the side. He's looked our most dangerous winger. and consistently so too.. I do agree with the inclusion of Adams ahead of Dyer, on recent form too - give Dyer a few weeks out of the limelight, let him regroup within himself and im sure he will be back.

Did you see how, when Howard was out, N'Guessan was used as the target man albeit on the right side. He was pretty good at it with a decent first touch and more likely to do something decisive with the ball than Howard has managed this season.

Danny N'Guessan, centre forward with 3 of Adams, Gallagher, Waghorn, Dyer or Gradel in support. mmmmmm---like it

[marbelladave]

I didn't think you were but the fact is we're defensively ok but not scoring enough so for whatever reason so any changes need to improve the one without distracting from the other.

Agreed.

Our strikers are not really good enough to consistently score from the kind of half chances we are currently giving them. Since Rooney and Torres are employed elsewhere we have to work at giving the strikers we do have better opportunities. More control and possession in midfield might just do that!

[Criggers]

Did you see how, when Howard was out, N'Guessan was used as the target man albeit on the right side. He was pretty good at it with a decent first touch and more likely to do something decisive with the ball than Howard has managed this season.

Danny N'Guessan, centre forward with 3 of Adams, Gallagher, Waghorn, Dyer or Gradel in support. mmmmmm---like it

Well whoever to go up front, just not DJ i imagine. This Kermit blokes supposed to be good at bringing in players and he must have got a contract with the intention to play him at some point.

I wouldnt want a 3-5 or 5-3. But Howard/Fryatt aren't working well enough to me (this may change of course, i have faith). But against certain opposition, - like away at reading on Sky please - I wanna see 1 up, with oakley and wellends running it. Then you can put 1 holding player in (why is everyone saying King? I thought holding midfielders have to tackle??) and 2 wingers, or 2 wingers and a more free roamer (Gallagher for me please). Then you can adapt 4-5-1 or 4-4-2 or whatever on the fly. Heck Oakleys done enough mopping up himself, so he could drop back to hold. 5 midfielders interchangeable midfielders is fantastic because of the options available and the ability to both stop other teams midfields and also break quickly. We have so much talent in midfield now that with the forwards struggling, try it out.

[foxaholic]

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.

Like winning at Villa lets face it if newcastle with all their troubles are the best team in the league its a very poor league althouigh we went up when in adminisration

[potter3]

Weale

Neilson Hobbs Brown McGivern

Berner

Oakley Wellens

Fryatt Howard Gallagher

Obviously it depends on McGivern being good enough for LB, allowing Berner to play the holding role as it's a fairly attacking line up, and hopefully Fryatt and Gallagher (or Waghorn) will be able to drift wide if needed, to give us the width.

[James.]

I see no real reason to change anything right now, the team Joe. put up earlier looks ideal. It's a good debate though and marbelladave always gives food for thought. I just think it's a little too early to be changing the formation - personnel maybe, but not the formation.

[dogadug]

Weale

Neilson Hobbs Brown McGivern

Berner

Oakley Wellens

Fryatt Howard Gallagher

Obviously it depends on McGivern being good enough for LB, allowing Berner to play the holding role as it's a fairly attacking line up, and hopefully Fryatt and Gallagher (or Waghorn) will be able to drift wide if needed, to give us the width.

Good formation

[marbelladave]

Weale

Neilson Hobbs Brown McGivern

Berner

Oakley Wellens

Fryatt Howard Gallagher

Obviously it depends on McGivern being good enough for LB, allowing Berner to play the holding role as it's a fairly attacking line up, and hopefully Fryatt and Gallagher (or Waghorn) will be able to drift wide if needed, to give us the width.

Obviously very narrow in attack and leaves our full backs exposed in defense. still.......

I would still worry about giving the strikers enough quality ball. Three strikers are no use to anyone without the ball and I can not see that team controlling things wall enough to get good ball up to them.

[l444ry]

Whatever system is used, systems don’t win you games. Players win you games. A system can help you not to lose a game, but players will help you win a game.

If you take the Newcastle match, the choice of the system did not beat us that night, the passing beat us. Just the ability to pass the ball properly beat us. In the second half we had numerous unforced errors in our passing, and that means we gave the ball away while there was no pressure. Those bad passes probably lost us 5-10 minutes of possession and that’s what cost us the game.

There is so much talk about systems. But as I see it: no matter what happens, when defending, they all defend 4-4-2, 4-4-3 or 4-5-1. There are variations when you have the ball, but they all defend that way. There is no one system that will let you win every game. .

So again, systems can stop you from conceding goals but good players score you goals.

[Pete_foxes]

I am a huge supporter of 4-4-2 and shall remain that way till my dying day!! therefore 4-4-2!!!

[jimmer]

Whatever system is used, systems don’t win you games. Players win you games. A system can help you not to lose a game, but players will help you win a game.

If you take the Newcastle match, the choice of the system did not beat us that night, the passing beat us. Just the ability to pass the ball properly beat us. In the second half we had numerous unforced errors in our passing, and that means we gave the ball away while there was no pressure. Those bad passes probably lost us 5-10 minutes of possession and that’s what cost us the game.

There is so much talk about systems. But as I see it: no matter what happens, when defending, they all defend 4-4-2, 4-4-3 or 4-5-1. There are variations when you have the ball, but they all defend that way. There is no one system that will let you win every game. .

So again, systems can stop you from conceding goals but good players score you goals.

Agree with the poor passing in the second half, but I wouldn't say there was no pressure. I thought Newcastle really upped their game second half and closed us down well. But even still there were far to many stray balls.