City's best Formation.

[Simi]

So far, for me, the problem has been on the flanks.

Not a huge problem, however it did become more apparent as the game against Newcastle went on. N'Guessen has not done a great deal for me since he's been here. For the most part it looks like he's running on hot coals and his deliveries into the box haven't exactly been consistent. I wouldn't mind Gradel coming in there for a couple of games or even Adams, but keeping variation out there would work for me as N'Guessen seems to get found out very quickly by defenders.

Pearson still seems a little bit unsure as to who his prefferred left winger is. Dyer seems to have fallen out of favour at the moment, which is understandable based on how he has played when he's featured this season. I thought on Monday we were crying out for Dyer to run at their wing back but he was clearly told to play down the middle. That was so ineffective it was painful to watch his aimless runs. Nine times out of ten he was running straight to the goalkeeper and we ended up going backwards and ultimately lost possession.

Gallagher looks like an inteligent player, but do we really need to go back to playing strikers on the wing?

I'm lost as to the perfect midfield at the moment, but I trust Pearson will get it right.

[Heart-Shaped Fox]

Althoguh I am a fan of Lloyd Dyer he is a player who either really good or absolute shite. He was certainly the latter against Newcastle probably because of being told to play down the middle we dont know.

I think it has got to the point where Dyer should probably start, and if things arent happening bring Adams on or vice versa. Gallagher clearly isnt a winger and I am still unsure to why he was playing ahead of two good wingers.

[Ultra]

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.

Someone who saw the second half in the Newcastle and blunts games perhaps?

The midfield has been an serious issue for a long time. Oakley struggled at times in the centre last season and particularly during the relegation campaign. I think he's more effective as part of a midfield trio, especially as there are times when, against strong opposition, he can fade from matches.

Now that McGivern has joined us Pearson has the option of moving Berner to central midfield or recalling King. I'd be more tempted by the latter as it would increase our firepower. How many times have we seen Wellens or Oakley make the forward runs that Guthrie and other Newcastle players were doing on Monday?

Newcastle's striker shortage meant that once they took the lead, they'd concentrate on holding it rather than chasing a second or third. Thus comparisons with what they did to Reading are invalid.

What should concern us all was how easily they were able to defend that lead, even with a makeshift defence. The lack of creativity we showed during the last 30 minutes suggests that the problems that plagued us in several previous Championship campaigns (especially at home) have not entirely disappeared.

[marbelladave]

Ultra

Pretty much as I see things.

Midfield can be bolstered by playing a more defensive player, King or Berner, behind Oakley and Wellens to help them out numerically and let them get forward more. The other option is to ask them both to pay a slightly more conservative role with a 'playmaker' ahead of them. I'm thinking Adams or Gallagher here. As long as he, the 'playmaker' does his bit defensively, by closing down the opposition in deep positions then they are still helping out the midfield.

Fryatt remains our best goalscorer but I would like to see him flanked by pace, Waghorn and N'Guessan would be interesting. N'Guessan is good with ball played up to him and Waghorn is quick enough to frighten any defender. Could really create some mayhem and get Fryatt the chances he needs.

The Howard / Fryatt combo is not getting the job done, try something different!

[dandannieldanok]

Baffled as to why anyone would want to break the Oakley and Wellens partnership to bring in King or Berner. Each to their own and all that, but why would anyone want to completely stifle our creativity?

[TrickyTrev]

Ultra

Pretty much as I see things.

Midfield can be bolstered by playing a more defensive player, King or Berner, behind Oakley and Wellens to help them out numerically and let them get forward more. The other option is to ask them both to pay a slightly more conservative role with a 'playmaker' ahead of them. I'm thinking Adams or Gallagher here. As long as he, the 'playmaker' does his bit defensively, by closing down the opposition in deep positions then they are still helping out the midfield.

Fryatt remains our best goalscorer but I would like to see him flanked by pace, Waghorn and N'Guessan would be interesting. N'Guessan is good with ball played up to him and Waghorn is quick enough to frighten any defender. Could really create some mayhem and get Fryatt the chances he needs.

The Howard / Fryatt combo is not getting the job done, try something different!

This.

We need to realise that the strength of our side does not lie in Steve Howard, but in our talented central midfield players. We are going to create far more chances if we give ourself the best opportunity to play through them. Playing a third midfield player is not just a defensive option, it also makes it easier to create angles and triangles for Wellens and Oakley because they can both move forward without fear of leaving the defense exposed.

If we do play we a playmaker such as Gallagher or Adams, it would be important for one of front players to offer plenty of width and pace, which is where N'Guessen could be useful. We don't have the full backs to provide the width as they do in a traditional diamond, so the responsibility would fall upon the strikers. This is exactly what I meant when I said we should adopt the formation played by Milan in the last few years. They dealt with the aging of their full backs by playing predominantly through the centre and requiring the front players to stretch the play. Given what we have at the club, I think it is our first best solution.

[TrickyTrev]

Baffled as to why anyone would want to break the Oakley and Wellens partnership to bring in King or Berner. Each to their own and all that, but why would anyone want to completely stifle our creativity?

I don't think anyone wants them out of the side or even out of the centre of the pitch. They just wish to free them from the constraint of defensive responsibility.

[dandannieldanok]

I don't think anyone wants them out of the side or even out of the centre of the pitch. They just wish to free them from the constraint of defensive responsibility.

And how do you do that? Put in another defensive midfielder? Fine, but that means you've got to remove a striker or a defender, changing the shape and tactics of the team which Pearson has worked for over a year to instill. And all because of what, we lost one game to the best team in the league.

I absolutely guarantee if we changed formation and went on to lose our next game you lot would be tearing into Pearson.

Why can't people accept defeat?

[Tommy G]

Someone who saw the second half in the Newcastle and blunts games perhaps?

The midfield has been an serious issue for a long time. Oakley struggled at times in the centre last season and particularly during the relegation campaign. I think he's more effective as part of a midfield trio, especially as there are times when, against strong opposition, he can fade from matches.

Now that McGivern has joined us Pearson has the option of moving Berner to central midfield or recalling King. I'd be more tempted by the latter as it would increase our firepower. How many times have we seen Wellens or Oakley make the forward runs that Guthrie and other Newcastle players were doing on Monday?

Newcastle's striker shortage meant that once they took the lead, they'd concentrate on holding it rather than chasing a second or third. Thus comparisons with what they did to Reading are invalid.

What should concern us all was how easily they were able to defend that lead, even with a makeshift defence. The lack of creativity we showed during the last 30 minutes suggests that the problems that plagued us in several previous Championship campaigns (especially at home) have not entirely disappeared.

Berner as a holding player??

Deluded

[marbelladave]

Berner as a holding player??

Deluded

Nicely crafted argument!

In general terms I am fairly pleased with the way we have started the season, in fact in some ways I am impressed.

We have played well enough to have been the superior team for long periods in all the games I have seen this season but we have failed to cash in (Ipswich) and we have allowed the opposition back into it and given up points (Utd, Newcastle)

It is this promise that makes me believe that we can do better than we have so far and if we have to slay some sacred cows (playing 4-4-2, The Howard / Fryatt partnership) to do so then that is fine by me.

We have the squad we have and I think it can be pretty competitive in this league, we need to ring a few changes and work out what's best. We might end up back with Howard / Fryatt and 4-4-2 but with all the players we have available it would be strange not to try a few things out.

[Tommy G]

Nicely crafted argument!

In general terms I am fairly pleased with the way we have started the season, in fact in some ways I am impressed.

We have played well enough to have been the superior team for long periods in all the games I have seen this season but we have failed to cash in (Ipswich) and we have allowed the opposition back into it and given up points (Utd, Newcastle)

It is this promise that makes me believe that we can do better than we have so far and if we have to slay some sacred cows (playing 4-4-2, The Howard / Fryatt partnership) to do so then that is fine by me.

We have the squad we have and I think it can be pretty competitive in this league, we need to ring a few changes and work out what's best. We might end up back with Howard / Fryatt and 4-4-2 but with all the players we have available it would be strange not to try a few things out.

So what would your starting XI be then, boss?

[dogadug]

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

I did not mean to put in 2 left backs, I meant to put in Neilsson instead of Mcgivern on the right. Hobbs has looked great at centre back, decent ditribution, and no major mistakes, so I reckon he could play as a lone centre back, although we could use Brown or Tunch in this role. And i've always thought that when King has been on, he's been great in his Defensive duties, chasing back and winning the ball, so I reckon this could work.

[marbelladave]

So what would your starting XI be then, boss?

I don't have one!

I would like to see 3 in midfield, to see if we can hold on to games better when we get on top. Clearly this gives us a dilemma when looking at striker options as not all the bases can be covered. (see the opening posts of this thread)

I have suggested playing Fryatt down the middle with Waghorn and N'Guessan on either side, prepared to go wide or come inside to support Fryatt as necessary. It is by no means the only option though, we all have ideas of what we think will work and I would like to see a few of them tried out.

[l444ry]

And how do you do that? Put in another defensive midfielder? Fine, but that means you've got to remove a striker or a defender, changing the shape and tactics of the team which Pearson has worked for over a year to instill. And all because of what, we lost one game to the best team in the league.

I absolutely guarantee if we changed formation and went on to lose our next game you lot would be tearing into Pearson.

Why can't people accept defeat?

You're banging your head against a wall here, mate!!! One narrow defeat and it's like doomsday. If we won every game 6-0 there would be some numbskull moaning that it should be 7-0. Mindblowingly unbelievable.

[marbelladave]

You're banging your head against a wall here, mate!!! One narrow defeat and it's like doomsday. If we won every game 6-0 there would be some numbskull moaning that it should be 7-0. Mindblowingly unbelievable.

I can see you're easily pleased. Must be a pleasure to live with...

[Tommy G]

I don't have one!

I would like to see 3 in midfield, to see if we can hold on to games better when we get on top. Clearly this gives us a dilemma when looking at striker options as not all the bases can be covered. (see the opening posts of this thread)

I have suggested playing Fryatt down the middle with Waghorn and N'Guessan on either side, prepared to go wide or come inside to support Fryatt as necessary. It is by no means the only option though, we all have ideas of what we think will work and I would like to see a few of them tried out.

So drop Howard completely? No target man. Howard was one of our best players behind Wellens against the Toon

[marbelladave]

So drop Howard completely? No target man. Howard was one of our best players behind Wellens against the Toon

Yep!

I am of the opinion that although Howard battles hard and is often at the center of the action, he creates very little. Furthermore playing without a target man discourages the the long ball and forces us to play it on the floor.

[Joe.]

Yep!

I am of the opinion that although Howard battles hard and is often at the center of the action, he creates very little. Furthermore playing without a target man discourages the the long ball and forces us to play it on the floor.

Ouch.

Leicester without Howard last season were not the same team.

[dandannieldanok]

You're banging your head against a wall here, mate!!! One narrow defeat and it's like doomsday. If we won every game 6-0 there would be some numbskull moaning that it should be 7-0. Mindblowingly unbelievable.

Quite ridiculous isn't it.

Yep!

I am of the opinion that although Howard battles hard and is often at the center of the action, he creates very little. Furthermore playing without a target man discourages the the long ball and forces us to play it on the floor.

I'm sorry but this is stupid, I try to respect other people's opinions but without Howard we are a poorer team and look nowhere near as big a threat. I'm not saying this happily or anything, I'd love us to be able to play without having to use a big target man but we can't.

[l444ry]

Yep!

I am of the opinion that although Howard battles hard and is often at the center of the action, he creates very little. Furthermore playing without a target man discourages the the long ball and forces us to play it on the floor.

Nigel Pearson obviously prefers a target-man like Howard in his side. He also clear that he prefers his 4-4-2 with at least one natural wide player. This has served him well in his thus far successful managerial stint. He obviously knows his players better than anyone on Foxestalk, including you. He signed most of them to fit into this preferred style. A style that mixes short and long balls.

You are suggesting he abandon his principles and and not be his own man. That is utterly ridiculous!!!

[marbelladave]

Quite ridiculous isn't it.

I'm sorry but this is stupid, I try to respect other people's opinions but without Howard we are a poorer team and look nowhere near as big a threat. I'm not saying this happily or anything, I'd love us to be able to play without having to use a big target man but we can't.

Last season (and already to a degree this season) we play pretty much the same way when Howard is in the team and when he is not. We still hit the front man early and without a big man this is largely a waste of time. Even when Howard plays he creates little, his battling and involvement may look impressive but what does it actually achieve?

I am simply putting forward the proposition that if we play the ball more through midfield, as with Wellen's influence we are beginning to do, we can play without Howard and keep the ball on the ground. I would love to see our quicker forward players attacking their back 4 around the 18yd line rather than running at them from the half way line as is often the case.

[marbelladave]

Nigel Pearson obviously prefers a target-man like Howard in his side. He also clear that he prefers his 4-4-2 with at least one natural wide player. This has served him well in his thus far successful managerial stint. He obviously knows his players better than anyone on Foxestalk, including you. He signed most of them to fit into this preferred style. A style that mixes short and long balls.

You are suggesting he abandon his principles and and not be his own man. That is utterly ridiculous!!!

We all know Pearsons style and no one would deny that he has done well as a manager both for us and elsewhere. Personally I think that he runs the team well and his management of players, fans and media is excellent.

Having great respect for the man does not forbid you from discussing tactics and suggesting ways things could be done differently. Our club is not (yet) controlled by New Labour, other opinions are allowed.

I would love to sit down and chat with him, but he is a professional football manager who has more important things to do with his time than to talk tactics with a rank amateur, I accept this.

Somebody famous once said, 'never let your principles stop you from doing the right thing'.

[dandannieldanok]

Last season (and already to a degree this season) we play pretty much the same way when Howard is in the team and when he is not. We still hit the front man early and without a big man this is largely a waste of time. Even when Howard plays he creates little, his battling and involvement may look impressive but what does it actually achieve?

I am simply putting forward the proposition that if we play the ball more through midfield, as with Wellen's influence we are beginning to do, we can play without Howard and keep the ball on the ground. I would love to see our quicker forward players attacking their back 4 around the 18yd line rather than running at them from the half way line as is often the case.

I don't disagree with you that we don't change our play with or without Howard but I do urge you to look at the assists before questioning what Howard achieves.

We'd all love for the team to play fluid football and although Wellens has influenced more passing the team still generally looks to play direct football and to hit the front man. It's not that pretty but it got us out of this league under Micky Adams, it got us out of League One with Pearson and despite the despair of some, we've made a good start this season with it. Why change something that doesn't need fixing?

[marbelladave]

I don't disagree with you that we don't change our play with or without Howard but I do urge you to look at the assists before questioning what Howard achieves.

We'd all love for the team to play fluid football and although Wellens has influenced more passing the team still generally looks to play direct football and to hit the front man. It's not that pretty but it got us out of this league under Micky Adams, it got us out of League One with Pearson and despite the despair of some, we've made a good start this season with it. Why change something that doesn't need fixing?

Fair points, but I could point out the with all our attacking moves going through Howard (particularly last season), he is bound to get some assists. Your justifications of this style of play do not really hold up either, Adams had a different team and the club was in a very different position than it is now and Pearsons success in was in league 1, and it was our overall strength that got us promoted, not our style of play.

I am a great believer in the "if it ain't broke don't fix it' mentality but a little maintenance on an attack that has only scored 4 goals in 5 games might not go amiss.

[dandannieldanok]

Fair points, but I could point out the with all our attacking moves going through Howard (particularly last season), he is bound to get some assists. Your justifications of this style of play do not really hold up either, Adams had a different team and the club was in a very different position than it is now and Pearsons success in was in league 1, and it was our overall strength that got us promoted, not our style of play.

I am a great believer in the "if it ain't broke don't fix it' mentality but a little maintenance on an attack that has only scored 4 goals in 5 games might not go amiss.

Doesn't matter if its all played through one man as long as they get the job done, which Howard did, We won the league. Yes it's a new situation but despite the gloom and doom this has been a decent start to the season. People's expectations are far to high imo.

"A little maintenance" yet you suggest a change of formation and style of play? You either make a quite big change or stick to what you know best. Given the fact that we've only just come up from league one and the fact we've been terrible in this league for years, I'm quite happy to be sitting in the top of the table even if it is early days.