City's best Formation.

[Guest]

442 is certainly City's best option at the moment. At home, also it is imperative that we play with 2 forwards to start on the front foot as it allows greater freedom around the pitch to attack, especially against the less impressive opposition.

It is true that we can seem to be outnumbered sometimes in midfield but it should be remembered that this is due to the opposition either forfeiting a forward and playing with a three man central midfield which generally weakens attacking options (dependant on players and thus quality of opposition), or during the match they move a forward back into the hole and use him as a fifth midfielder. Either way, this leaves City with less of the ball but a stronger in a stronger position within their own 18 yard box. The killer when playing five men in midfield is to ensure that you have one or two runners coming from deep supporting the front man. High aimless balls are generally a waste of time as the flick ons just run to the keeper and so a mobile forward with strength to hold on to the ball and some guile to feed onrushing midfielders is essential.

When defending a five man midfield City have a couple of options -1 would be to drop a forward deeper as a fifth midfielder ourselves to even up the battle in the centre of the pitch. To my mind, this isn't feasible with Fryatt or Howard - possibly Gallacher or Waghorn could play out wide as a midfielder but then N'Guessan/Gradel aren't capable of playing inside - maybe Dyer could play as a left side central midfielder poentially opening up this option. The downside, however, is that we leave one man up front and meaning we would then need that same strengh and guile up front - Howard has the strength but not the guile and Fryatt up front alone? Forget it! Equally, our midfield is strong at playing the ball around neatly but I'm not convinced that our clear first choice pairing of Oakley/Wellens would produce enough daring forward runs to compliment Dyer's involvement up the pitch. We'd end up playing negatively. This Dyer inside and Waghorn/Gallagher on the left with maybe Howard up front would be our best bet but it's certainly only really an option once we have put ourselves into a good position in a game and are trying to keep hold of something by tightening up the midfield - if we started like this we would end up playing defensively all game as Howard would not be able to produce enough up front.

For this reason, 4-4-2 is our only realistic option with our current playing staff. I'd personally like to see an extra central midfielder brought in either on loan or permanantly at Xmas - somebody just to bolster it - not be a defensive midfielder or an attacking midfielder for those whose management consierations come fromt FM or ChampMan - just somebody who can put in a tackle, knock it around and run end to end for 90 minutes - so nobody we can afford then!

[jimmer]

I would like to see something like this

Weale

-Neilson-----Hobbs----Brown-----McGivern-

-Berner-

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

-Adams-

-Howard---------Gallager/Fryatt

-

Ball played fast on the ground through the middle

Saw it here first

[l444ry]

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.

Agree with you about Newcastle's closing down. By unpressured, I also mean "unforced" long balls to Howard's head are wasted if they are mopped up with ease and if he has no real support. Fryatt and Waghorn were virtually anonymous when it came to winning any second ball where it mattered.

[TrickyTrev]

I thought we were crying out for an extra man in midfield against Newcastle, to allow Oakley and Wellens to get forward and prevent us becoming over run, the only problem is that our strikers are not naturally suited to leading the line on their own.

The usual solutions to such a problem are either a a 3-5-2 with wing backs or a diamond in the midfield, both formations giving extra attacking responsibility to our full/wing backs. I think that Berner is probably up to the job, but Nielson has shown me nothing to suggest that he is. We really should have got an attacking right back for this very reason.

I see no good solutions if we wish to go on playing Howard and Fryatt as a twosome. I would really like us to play a formation similar to that played by Milan over the past few years, it relies on playing through the middle of midfield and requires intelligent strikers to move around the top of the pitch to stretch the play. I think we have the players to do this both in the middle and up top. It would, however, require us abandoning the admittedly safer option of using Howard as a conventional target man.

................Weale

Nielson...Hobbs...Tunchev...Berner

.....Oakley..King...Wellens.

...............Gallagher.....

....Fryatt...............Waghorn/N'Guessen

[Joe.]

There are two Richie Wellens these days?

[Jimmy]

I thought we were crying out for an extra man in midfield against Newcastle, to allow Oakley and Wellens to get forward and prevent us becoming over run, the only problem is that our strikers are not naturally suited to leading the line on their own.

The usual solutions to such a problem are either a a 3-5-2 with wing backs or a diamond in the midfield, both formations giving extra attacking responsibility to our full/wing backs. I think that Berner is probably up to the job, but Nielson has shown me nothing to suggest that he is. We really should have got an attacking right back for this very reason.

I see no good solutions if we wish to go on playing Howard and Fryatt as a twosome. I would really like us to play a formation similar to that played by Milan over the past few years, it relies on playing through the middle of midfield and requires intelligent strikers to move around the top of the pitch to stretch the play. I think we have the players to do this both in the middle and up top. It would, however, require us abandoning the admittedly safer option of using Howard as a conventional target man.

................Weale

Nielson...Hobbs...Tunchev...Berner

.....Oakley..King...Wellens.

...............Wellens.....

....Fryatt...................Waghorn

Wellens been cloned has he?

[jimmer]

There are two Richie Wellens these days?

Wellens been cloned has he?

[TrickyTrev]

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

I can't remember the last time a a side won a big trophy playing a conventional 'two wingers, big man/little man up front' 4-4-2. People's obsession with it is bizarre to me.

[Guest]

I would really like us to play a formation similar to that played by Milan over the past few years, it relies on playing through the middle of midfield and requires intelligent strikers to move around the top of the pitch to stretch the play. I think we have the players to do this both in the middle and up top.

[Guest]

I would really like us to play a formation similar to that played by Milan over the past few years, it relies on playing through the middle of midfield and requires intelligent strikers to move around the top of the pitch to stretch the play. I think we have the players to do this both in the middle and up top.

[Jimmy]

Gallagher is a pretty clever player, Fryatt's pretty intuitive as well

[Salieri]

Fryatt's pretty intuitive as well

Unfortunately not in the closing stages of the first half at St. James Park on Monday.

[Jimmy]

Unfortunately not in the closing stages of the first half at St. James Park on Monday.

Personally I wouldn't expect a striker that's scored a lot of goals recently (32 last season 3 already this) to pass in that situation, he needs to be more composed maybe, but I'd say around 99.99% of strikers shoot in that position

[Heart-Shaped Fox]

Personally I wouldn't expect a striker that's scored a lot of goals recently (32 last season 3 already this) to pass in that situation, he needs to be more composed maybe, but I'd say around 99.99% of strikers shoot in that position

And most of the 99.99% of good strikers hit the target at least.

[Fez of Mahrez]

This thread worries me a tiny, tiny bit in that these sort of things only usually appear when people think we should be doing far better than we are. Our results so far have been pretty good. Nothing like this pitched up at any point last year, and the Championship is hardly some sort of elaborate chess game in comparison to League One. I remember the last time we were in the Championship, people always had some big plan that was better than what the manager was doing. It's easy to be like that when things aren't going well. I wouldn't be surprised if one or two people on this forum could actually have kept us up last season by doing things slightly differently, it was that bad.

I was as guilty as anyone for them (I remember a particular thread I started called simply Midfield, cos at the time we barely had one), but it was because we didn't have a properly-functioning football team. I defy anyone who has seen the majority of our games this season to say we don't have a properly-functioning team at the moment. It's clear that Pearson isn't yet quite sure what is his best combination out wide, but he never really nailed that last season either. Perhaps that's more design than accident and he wants to mix it up and keep it fresh there. We've definitely got a very solid looking back line, light years better than anything we've had before, even the supposedly-amazing back four we had last time we were in the Championship. We're not conceding any terrible goals at all really, not yet anyway. Wellens and Oakley look as composed and confident as any midfield pairing I've seen since Izzet and McKinlay. We could obviously do with a few more goals but I honestly believe they'll come once we settle a bit more. I remember a particularly terrible game at Wolves one year when we had Tiatto and Williams in midfield and in the second half they got turned around continually and we were on the back foot all game. That hasn't happened at all yet this season. We look in control and that's a very good building block that the goals will eventually come from. The Championship quality perhaps isn't there in wide areas and that is costing us going forward if people want the play-offs.

I understand it stimulates a bit of debate though and that's my two penneth.

[Pete_foxes]

I can't remember the last time a a side won a big trophy playing a conventional 'two wingers, big man/little man up front' 4-4-2. People's obsession with it is bizarre to me.

I never said anything about it being big man/little man

[marbelladave]

Offline for a while indulging in a very nice home made vegetable biryani (with a chicken curry and dall)

So a few points.

Systems are simply a way of describing how you get your players to play, so the currently trendy 4-2-3-1 system is simply 4-4-2 with aggressive wide men and a second striker that drops short to link up play.

You work out how to get the best from you players, the 'system' is simply a short hand way of saying how you do it.

Clearly we need to get the best from our players, so is there any point in playing Howard and Fryatt as twin strikers if you can't get decent ball up to them? Playing two wide men is great but who is going to get the ball to them if we are overrun in midfield?

I return to my original points, 1) we are easily overrun in midfield and 2) we do not create enough good chances for our twin strikers.

Both issues can be addressed by changing the way we play. A more flexible system with 2 or 3 pacy, attacking players supporting a lone striker is my suggestion. This strengthens our midfield which I hope will allow us to get better quality ball into our front player(s) and make it more difficult for the opposition to dominate.

That is one idea, there are others. The one thing I do not accept is that our current 4-4-2 style will get the job done at this level!

[marbelladave]

This thread worries me a tiny, tiny bit in that these sort of things only usually appear when people think we should be doing far better than we are. Our results so far have been pretty good. Nothing like this pitched up at any point last year, and the Championship is hardly some sort of elaborate chess game in comparison to League One. I remember the last time we were in the Championship, people always had some big plan that was better than what the manager was doing. It's easy to be like that when things aren't going well. I wouldn't be surprised if one or two people on this forum could actually have kept us up last season by doing things slightly differently, it was that bad.

I was as guilty as anyone for them (I remember a particular thread I started called simply Midfield, cos at the time we barely had one), but it was because we didn't have a properly-functioning football team. I defy anyone who has seen the majority of our games this season to say we don't have a properly-functioning team at the moment. It's clear that Pearson isn't yet quite sure what is his best combination out wide, but he never really nailed that last season either. Perhaps that's more design than accident and he wants to mix it up and keep it fresh there. We've definitely got a very solid looking back line, light years better than anything we've had before, even the supposedly-amazing back four we had last time we were in the Championship. We're not conceding any terrible goals at all really, not yet anyway. Wellens and Oakley look as composed and confident as any midfield pairing I've seen since Izzet and McKinlay. We could obviously do with a few more goals but I honestly believe they'll come once we settle a bit more. I remember a particularly terrible game at Wolves one year when we had Tiatto and Williams in midfield and in the second half they got turned around continually and we were on the back foot all game. That hasn't happened at all yet this season. We look in control and that's a very good building block that the goals will eventually come from. The Championship quality perhaps isn't there in wide areas and that is costing us going forward if people want the play-offs.

I understand it stimulates a bit of debate though and that's my two penneth.

Sorry fez, but this is nonsense.

Our problems in midfield have been apparent for the best part of a year (since Brighton away Nov 2008) and have been addressed by Pearson. who brought in Davies and then Cleverly to allow Oakley to play narrow right, effectively giving us 3 central midfield players!

When Cleverly had to return to Utd with his injury, we reverted to 4-4-2 and struggled somewhat towards the end of the season. Fortunately we were well ahead and no one made a serious challenge so we won the league.

This season the same problem has appeared even though the Oakley/Wellens combination is clearly very strong, it can not do it all without support. This failing has already cost us 3 points and will cost us more unless we address it.

[Fez of Mahrez]

Sorry fez, but this is nonsense.

Our problems in midfield have been apparent for the best part of a year (since Brighton away Nov 2008) and have been addressed by Pearson. who brought in Davies and then Cleverly to allow Oakley to play narrow right, effectively giving us 3 central midfield players!

When Cleverly had to return to Utd with his injury, we reverted to 4-4-2 and struggled somewhat towards the end of the season. Fortunately we were well ahead and no one made a serious challenge so we won the league.

This season the same problem has appeared even though the Oakley/Wellens combination is clearly very strong, it can not do it all without support. This failing has already cost us 3 points and will cost us more unless we address it.

It's not nonsense at all. Cleverley injured himself in the Colchester game. We lost the following week at Peterborough (more down to missing Howard and King than anything to do with the right wing) and then went unbeaten (won four, drew two) for the last six games of the season to make sure of the title. The blip, if you can call it that, happened when Cleverley was here.

You say this "failing" has already cost us 3 points but at what cost do you change things? It isn't necessarily going to solve what I think is a very small problem anyway and would it make us slightly more attacking at the expense of our defence?

To say we have had problems in midfield for the best part of a year is ludicrous when we did so well last season. Whether you've forgotten just how ineffectual our team was for practically the entirety of our last stay in the Championship, I'm not sure. The fact that you mention Oakley and Wellens are strong shows that we've got more about us now than you seem to give us credit for.

The one game you would expect to lose this season is Newcastle away, and I thought we gave it a damn good go. In another world, we could have had three or four stuck past us like Reading did.

Just reading your other post as well, I'm baffled at how anyone can say we've been overrun in midfield this season.

[maddog]

It's not nonsense at all. Cleverley injured himself in the Colchester game. We lost the following week at Peterborough (more down to missing Howard and King than anything to do with the right wing) and then went unbeaten (won four, drew two) for the last six games of the season to make sure of the title. The blip, if you can call it that, happened when Cleverley was here.

You say this "failing" has already cost us 3 points but at what cost do you change things? It isn't necessarily going to solve what I think is a very small problem anyway and would it make us slightly more attacking at the expense of our defence?

To say we have had problems in midfield for the best part of a year is ludicrous when we did so well last season. Whether you've forgotten just how ineffectual our team was for practically the entirety of our last stay in the Championship, I'm not sure. The fact that you mention Oakley and Wellens are strong shows that we've got more about us now than you seem to give us credit for.

The one game you would expect to lose this season is Newcastle away, and I thought we gave it a damn good go. In another world, we could have had three or four stuck past us like Reading did.

Just reading your other post as well, I'm baffled at how anyone can say we've been overrun in midfield this season.

Or defence is solid and midfield is fine as long as Oakley picks up his so far very poor performances for me.

It's the fact our strikers can't score that will fook us up.

Howard won't bag loads of goals because he won't get the chances because he's supposed to create them for Fryatt and midfield, Fryatt continues to miss chances that cost us dear.

NP isn't going to drop Fryatt IMO he him, so if Fryatt doesn't pick up his finishing then we can have the greatest midfield in the world to set him up with lethal passes, but if he misses it means nothing.

I hope Yann is on the bench next game and also hope Dj gets a squad number to gives us a couple more options.

I don't think Howards been particulary special either this season, we continued to play well when he limped off at Sheffield and then beat Barnsley with him out so theres no reason that we can't play Gallagher/Fryatt or throw Yann, Waghorn or Dj in with Howard on the bench if we need him.

What i'm getting at is i would like NP to really mix up both strikers so he can find the best combination, rather than just Howard and Fryatt time after time.

Otherwise he may be missing a trick.

[Heart-Shaped Fox]

Or defence is solid and midfield is fine as long as Oakley picks up his so far very poor performances for me.

It's the fact our strikers can't score that will fook us up.

Howard won't bag loads of goals because he won't get the chances because he's supposed to create them for Fryatt and midfield, Fryatt continues to miss chances that cost us dear.

NP isn't going to drop Fryatt IMO he him, so if Fryatt doesn't pick up his finishing then we can have the greatest midfield in the world to set him up with lethal passes, but if he misses it means nothing.

I hope Yann is on the bench next game and also hope Dj gets a squad number to gives us a couple more options.

I don't think Howards been particulary special either this season, we continued to play well when he limped off at Sheffield and then beat Barnsley with him out so theres no reason that we can't play Gallagher/Fryatt or throw Yann, Waghorn or Dj in with Howard on the bench if we need him.

What i'm getting at is i would like NP to really mix up both strikers so he can find the best combination, rather than just Howard and Fryatt time after time.

Otherwise he may be missing a trick.

I disagree with you on the Oakley point. I think he has arguably been our best player so far along with Wellens. He was my MOM vs. Newcastle too.

However, I agree with the points about strikers. We dont look like scoring enough at the moment. We should ahev scored in the 1st half vs Sheff U, beaten Ipswich and scored in the 1st half at Newcastle. I would not give DJ a number just yet, but would like to see Kermorgant get very much involved.

[Joe.]

We've got a central midfield partnership that most clubs in the division would be envious of, so that's certainly nto a weak area of the side. Wellens and Oakley have both performed relatively consistently well over the course of this season, with Oakley also being a forerunner in our promotion side last year.

It's the wings that are the real problem with us. I felt that we tried to use this outlet far too often on Monday night when it clearly wasn't working. We had N'Guessan clearly struggling against Enrique, and Gallagher simply couldn't get into the game at all. N'Guessan, whilst I actually quite like him so far, is very hit and miss. Gallagher's not a natural winger, and Adams can't seem to find a way into the side. Gradel's also nowhere near consistent enough to be a stand-out player in this league, with the same applying to Dyer.

Having poor wingers effectively cuts off a major supply to Howard, which in turn affects Fryatt. If we don't get these positions sorted properly (which I think we can still with our current squad) we'll continue to struggle for goals. It's not been right for us for a long time, even since Pearson's been here. At the moment I'd stick with N'Guessan without a doubt, as he seems to be the only one willing and able enough to take on and beat his man. Adams seems to have sorted himself out in the last month too, and probably deserves his shot too.

[marbelladave]

As usual a variety of views depending on how different people see the game.

Oakley and Wellens grab control of the game early (every game bar Swansea) and we invariably look the better side first half, but, the control breaks down second half and we end up on the defensive. Whether this is down to the quality of the opposition, early season fitness issues or a natural consequence of the game getting 'stretched' is not certain but what is certain is that it is happening and happening on a regular basis.

For me this is complicated by the fact that our midfield are playing pretty well as individuals, but the 'unit' tends to fall about a bit second half. I think the best way to address this is with an extra player in that area, simple as.

Which brings us on to the strikers. They are decent players but clearly not the sharpest or most creative, even in the Championship. Yes it would have been nice to splash a few million on a 'proven' goalscorer but we all know how wrong that can go (Ade, DJ, anyone?).

No the way forward is to provide more and clearer chances to our front men which we do by maintaining midfield control and making the time to play them in more often and more decisively and I believe we can do this with the players we have available.

Joe

In the first half hour of the Newcastle game I thought N'Guessan did pretty well but with Gallagher barely involved and everything going down our right Newcastle worked to close this down, which they did. After that we saw nothing from any of our wide men, particularly as second half they were drawn in to the midfield battle and we had no width at all.

Fez

Your point about the last 6 games of last season is well taken, but in general terms I can remember us all being pretty jittery about our form during the run in. Fortunately it did not matter that much in the end as we were way to strong for the rest of that division.

Pearson was clearly worried about the midfield as he brought in both Davies and Cleverly to strengthen that area and even played Berner there on occasions. I think the issue remains and needs addressing now rather than later.

[smudgerfox]

It's surely beyond doubt that we've made an encouraging start to the season and have shown every sign of being able to compete at this level - something that was missing in the last couple of years prior to relegation. There are new players settling in and some making a step up and how they come through that will determine how close to the play offs we get. Against a "depleted" Newcastle side that still contained many players of Premiership pedigree we could, arguably should, have won, although by the end we looked ragged, disjointed and a bit poor.

The key issues seem to me to be - the defence looks solid - four goals conceded in six games doesn't indicate an overrun midfield or a struggling back four, especially as two of those goals came from outside the box.

What runs through all the games I've seen are a few things that used to bother me last season (despite the fact we kept on winning).

1) Failure to turn quality, advanced possession into real goal chances - count the number of times in the first half on Monday we passed the ball to the edge of their box only for a sloppy pass usually struck in the complete absence of any conviction, to concede possession once more

Count the times the wingers and full backs got into ideal crossing positions only to unleash a vague, hit-and-hope ball in the general direction of the box rather than aimed at the forehaed of a determinedly advancing striker..

Count the times we force a defender into a pressured clearance which bounces invitingly to the edge of the area only to be picked up by an opponent unhindered by any City player to clear the danger with ease..

2) Failure to turn real goal chances into goals. On Monday Fryatt created our only clear goal chance and missed it. Newcastle didn't really create a single out and out chance but still scored...Fryatt and Howard seem to require a high number of chances to get a goal which didn't matter much in League One because the defending is so poor the chances do come...in the Championship that chance you get while it's 0-0 might be the only one you do get....

3) Over-reliance on Howard as the "out-ball" - although he won a lot of headers in the first half - it's not quality possession, especially when someone like Smith does such an effective job of "spoiling" passes and crosses aimed at Howard. Howard getting his head first to the first ball is not the problem - it's where it goes after that. Too often the chance of retaining possession is no better than 50 per cent.

4) The pace of Dyer got him through last season but his technical ability always did look slightly flawed. He can still terrorise the full back with speed but more skilful and experienced defenders can cope with it better. When you need a piercing cross, a killer pass or just simply good decision-making which keeps possession, LD is not always your man. N'Guessan, also making a step up, also seemed to have the pace to get past his man, but not the composure, killer instinct and possibly the ability to fully capitalise.

I thought Wellens post match comments were spot on - we're defending well, competing in midfield, but not using the advanced possession at all well.

[marbelladave]

It's surely beyond doubt that we've made an encouraging start to the season and have shown every sign of being able to compete at this level - something that was missing in the last couple of years prior to relegation. There are new players settling in and some making a step up and how they come through that will determine how close to the play offs we get. Against a "depleted" Newcastle side that still contained many players of Premiership pedigree we could, arguably should, have won, although by the end we looked ragged, disjointed and a bit poor.

The key issues seem to me to be - the defence looks solid - four goals conceded in six games doesn't indicate an overrun midfield or a struggling back four, especially as two of those goals came from outside the box.

What runs through all the games I've seen are a few things that used to bother me last season (despite the fact we kept on winning).

1) Failure to turn quality, advanced possession into real goal chances - count the number of times in the first half on Monday we passed the ball to the edge of their box only for a sloppy pass usually struck in the complete absence of any conviction, to concede possession once more

Count the times the wingers and full backs got into ideal crossing positions only to unleash a vague, hit-and-hope ball in the general direction of the box rather than aimed at the forehaed of a determinedly advancing striker..

Count the times we force a defender into a pressured clearance which bounces invitingly to the edge of the area only to be picked up by an opponent unhindered by any City player to clear the danger with ease..

2) Failure to turn real goal chances into goals. On Monday Fryatt created our only clear goal chance and missed it. Newcastle didn't really create a single out and out chance but still scored...Fryatt and Howard seem to require a high number of chances to get a goal which didn't matter much in League One because the defending is so poor the chances do come...in the Championship that chance you get while it's 0-0 might be the only one you do get....

3) Over-reliance on Howard as the "out-ball" - although he won a lot of headers in the first half - it's not quality possession, especially when someone like Smith does such an effective job of "spoiling" passes and crosses aimed at Howard. Howard getting his head first to the first ball is not the problem - it's where it goes after that. Too often the chance of retaining possession is no better than 50 per cent.

4) The pace of Dyer got him through last season but his technical ability always did look slightly flawed. He can still terrorise the full back with speed but more skilful and experienced defenders can cope with it better. When you need a piercing cross, a killer pass or just simply good decision-making which keeps possession, LD is not always your man. N'Guessan, also making a step up, also seemed to have the pace to get past his man, but not the composure, killer instinct and possibly the ability to fully capitalise.

I thought Wellens post match comments were spot on - we're defending well, competing in midfield, but not using the advanced possession at all well.

1) Agreed. We lack composure around the box and end up playing poor balls into the strikers. We need to take more time to pressure our opponents and work an opening and this is why I think an extra man in midfield would help.

2) and 3) Howard and Fryatt are a very 'known' quantity, to us and to the opposition, maybe that makes them easier to counter. I think Fryatt has been OK so far, given the few decent opportunities we have created for him, a more clinical finisher would have done better but they all play in the Prem and we don't. As you said Howard remains the target man in most of our attacks so always appears to be very involved, but for all his effort and battling skills he does not create very much.

4) Old fashioned wingers who get to the by-line and cross to the center forward are very rare this days, the style of modern football does not really encourage this and our wide men are no different. These days the winger is expected to play a varied game, often cutting inside to provide a direct goal threat and provide early crosses, often from 20 or 30 yards out. This suits the modern 4-3-3 style where the wide men are expected to provide the width one minute and come inside to support the striker next. Again this is why I feel playing players with pace either side of a central striker is really worth trying.