City's best Formation.

[Radovan's Caravan]

Systems are a peculiar obsession of the English. They keep bad coaches in good jobs. A team formation is a theoretical abstraction that ignores the individual and collective dynamics of the space/time/mind game. The only place where a system has any meaning is in the table top parody of the real thing where there is no plan 'B' for the participants.

'No battle plan survives (first) contact with the enemy.'

Helmuth Karl Bernhard Graf von Moltke

[marbelladave]

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.

No doom and gloom here! I have said several times in this thread that I am pleased with our start, and even more pleased with the overall strength of our squad.

It is this very strength that makes me believe we can do better than we have so far. It would not have taken that much more from us to have taken the points at Ipswich and held Newcastle to a draw. I am simply looking to see if there are ways we can lift our performance and do just that.

[dandannieldanok]

No doom and gloom here! I have said several times in this thread that I am pleased with our start, and even more pleased with the overall strength of our squad.

It is this very strength that makes me believe we can do better than we have so far. It would not have taken that much more from us to have taken the points at Ipswich and held Newcastle to a draw. I am simply looking to see if there are ways we can lift our performance and do just that.

Not necessarily you but there are plenty of others that really are taking one defeat too seriously.

Maybe there is more to come but there needs to be more trust in Pearson, he'll change formation if he thinks we can better our performances and results. This is a discussion forum and fair play for bringing it up and giving your opinion, I just personally think some of the reactions and ideas are far too premature and unnecessary.

[marbelladave]

Not necessarily you but there are plenty of others that really are taking one defeat too seriously.

Maybe there is more to come but there needs to be more trust in Pearson, he'll change formation if he thinks we can better our performances and results. This is a discussion forum and fair play for bringing it up and giving your opinion, I just personally think some of the reactions and ideas are far too premature and unnecessary.

I hope you are right about Pearson, still got a bit to prove at this level but he is doing pretty well so far.

I suggest we revisit these topics in a month or two...

BTW Anyone coming up to Wembley for the Croatia game?

[OLD norfox]

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-------------

Hi !!!

Like that one !!! 12 players , maybe DJ on the bench as well

[marbelladave]

Hi !!!

Like that one !!! 12 players , maybe DJ on the bench as well

Go back to the beginning and read a bit more. You'll get it !....

[Tommy G]

I hope you are right about Pearson, still got a bit to prove at this level but he is doing pretty well so far.

I suggest we revisit these topics in a month or two...

BTW Anyone coming up to Wembley for the Croatia game?

No, Slovenia though on sat

[Thracian]

So far we've scored just four goals in five league games or less than a goal a game and that won't win us anything unless it's changed.

The Howard/Fryatt partership left us short the year we were relegated so there's part of the problem. We've also sacrificed Kingy's 11 goals from central midfield and are probably in danger of losing some of Dyer's goals as well - to be replaced by what?

To me our team is a compromise. It may be cemented with increasing amounts of experience but it's also looking predictable, one-paced in the back two thirds plus the attacking penalty area and lacking in invention.

The one saving grace is the passing. In spells we've shown we can pass with the best in this division but not with anything approaching sufficient end product.

How to change is the problem. Are we stronger in defence or attack? Is King the goalscorer a better central midfield player

that Oakley the captain or Wellens the all rounder? Is Gradel a better 90-minute player than N'Guessan or is Dyer a more dangerous finisher than Adams?

As for our strikers who provides the speed we so desperately need?

I've tried to pick a team I'd like from the squad we have and cannot really find one.

But a front four of Gradel, N'Guessan, Howard, Dyer/Adams might make a start when it comes to scoring the goals we need. I might play Oakley, King and Wellens behind them and have Brown, Hobbs and Tunchev at the back rather than having traditional full-backs who don't seem especially effective.

It isn't perfect but it places the emphasis on attack rather than defence. We'd have as many potential scorers in the team as possible and I don't see us being under desperate pressure defensively with King able to defend when required.

The trend today is towards fluid formations anyway and that's pretty fluid. It also utilises most of our effective players. Unfortunately I can't see it happening though. We've been cautious for years and even in our darkest days have built our team on a rock-solid defence.

Trouble is 0-0 draws and 1-0 defeats don't win things.

[Jimmy]

So far we've scored just four goals in five league games or less than a goal a game and that won't win us anything unless it's changed.

The Howard/Fryatt partership left us short the year we were relegated so there's part of the problem. We've also sacrificed Kingy's 11 goals from central midfield and are probably in danger of losing some of Dyer's goals as well - to be replaced by what?

To me our team is a compromise. It may be cemented with increasing amounts of experience but it's also looking predictable, one-paced in the back two thirds plus the attacking penalty area and lacking in invention.

The one saving grace is the passing. In spells we've shown we can pass with the best in this division but not with anything approaching sufficient end product.

How to change is the problem. Are we stronger in defence or attack? Is King the goalscorer a better central midfield player

that Oakley the captain or Wellens the all rounder? Is Gradel a better 90-minute player than N'Guessan or is Dyer a more dangerous finisher than Adams?

As for our strikers who provides the speed we so desperately need?

I've tried to pick a team I'd like from the squad we have and cannot really find one.

But a front four of Gradel, N'Guessan, Howard, Dyer/Adams might make a start when it comes to scoring the goals we need. I might play Oakley, King and Wellens behind them and have Brown, Hobbs and Tunchev at the back rather than having traditional full-backs who don't seem especially effective.

It isn't perfect but it places the emphasis on attack rather than defence. We'd have as many potential scorers in the team as possible and I don't see us being under desperate pressure defensively with King able to defend when required.

The trend today is towards fluid formations anyway and that's pretty fluid. It also utilises most of our effective players. Unfortunately I can't see it happening though. We've been cautious for years and even in our darkest days have built our team on a rock-solid defence.

Trouble is 0-0 draws and 1-0 defeats don't win things.

sorry but how many times did they actually play together that season, it was mostly Howard/Hume or Howard/Hayles

[marbelladave]

So far we've scored just four goals in five league games or less than a goal a game and that won't win us anything unless it's changed.

The Howard/Fryatt partership left us short the year we were relegated so there's part of the problem. We've also sacrificed Kingy's 11 goals from central midfield and are probably in danger of losing some of Dyer's goals as well - to be replaced by what?

To me our team is a compromise. It may be cemented with increasing amounts of experience but it's also looking predictable, one-paced in the back two thirds plus the attacking penalty area and lacking in invention.

The one saving grace is the passing. In spells we've shown we can pass with the best in this division but not with anything approaching sufficient end product.

How to change is the problem. Are we stronger in defence or attack? Is King the goalscorer a better central midfield player

that Oakley the captain or Wellens the all rounder? Is Gradel a better 90-minute player than N'Guessan or is Dyer a more dangerous finisher than Adams?

As for our strikers who provides the speed we so desperately need?

I've tried to pick a team I'd like from the squad we have and cannot really find one.

But a front four of Gradel, N'Guessan, Howard, Dyer/Adams might make a start when it comes to scoring the goals we need. I might play Oakley, King and Wellens behind them and have Brown, Hobbs and Tunchev at the back rather than having traditional full-backs who don't seem especially effective.

It isn't perfect but it places the emphasis on attack rather than defence. We'd have as many potential scorers in the team as possible and I don't see us being under desperate pressure defensively with King able to defend when required.

The trend today is towards fluid formations anyway and that's pretty fluid. It also utilises most of our effective players. Unfortunately I can't see it happening though. We've been cautious for years and even in our darkest days have built our team on a rock-solid defence.

Trouble is 0-0 draws and 1-0 defeats don't win things.

The difficulty in selecting a balanced side, particularly if we switch away from 4-4-2, is exactly what this thread is about. I am more conservative in that I would not like to break up our solid (if uninspired) back 4. I would like to get King back in the side for his goals and his defensive ability, but not at the expense of Oakley or Wellens. Hence 3 in midfield!

If we want pace up front our quickest players are Waghorn and N'Guessan, who could work as a front 2 with Gallagher or Adams in the hole. Alternatively the same 2 players could take up wider positions either side of Fryatt or Howard. I would love to see any of these options tried but as this means that the Howard/Fryatt partnership is broken up, I am not exactly holding my breath.

That we are not scoring enough goals is self evident and for me that is because we are not creating enough clear chances. Sure Fryatt missed a decent chance against Newcastle, but it was hardly 'a sitter' and the conditions were awful. Apart from that I can not remember him being played in at all!

[marbelladave]

sorry but how many times did they actually play together that season, it was mostly Howard/Hume or Howard/Hayles

So, it would appear that it is Howard's presence that limits our scoring opportunities!

But as many contributors consider him to be our best forward player, this can not possibly be the case, can it?

[Dr The Singh]

So far we've scored just four goals in five league games or less than a goal a game and that won't win us anything unless it's changed.

The Howard/Fryatt partership left us short the year we were relegated so there's part of the problem. We've also sacrificed Kingy's 11 goals from central midfield and are probably in danger of losing some of Dyer's goals as well - to be replaced by what?

To me our team is a compromise. It may be cemented with increasing amounts of experience but it's also looking predictable, one-paced in the back two thirds plus the attacking penalty area and lacking in invention.

The one saving grace is the passing. In spells we've shown we can pass with the best in this division but not with anything approaching sufficient end product.

How to change is the problem. Are we stronger in defence or attack? Is King the goalscorer a better central midfield player

that Oakley the captain or Wellens the all rounder? Is Gradel a better 90-minute player than N'Guessan or is Dyer a more dangerous finisher than Adams?

As for our strikers who provides the speed we so desperately need?

I've tried to pick a team I'd like from the squad we have and cannot really find one.

But a front four of Gradel, N'Guessan, Howard, Dyer/Adams might make a start when it comes to scoring the goals we need. I might play Oakley, King and Wellens behind them and have Brown, Hobbs and Tunchev at the back rather than having traditional full-backs who don't seem especially effective.

It isn't perfect but it places the emphasis on attack rather than defence. We'd have as many potential scorers in the team as possible and I don't see us being under desperate pressure defensively with King able to defend when required.

The trend today is towards fluid formations anyway and that's pretty fluid. It also utilises most of our effective players. Unfortunately I can't see it happening though. We've been cautious for years and even in our darkest days have built our team on a rock-solid defence.

Trouble is 0-0 draws and 1-0 defeats don't win things.

I agree with alot you've said, although i doubt Kingy would get 11 goals at this level but he is a option, and hence he has come off the bench, but he hasn't quite adapted to this level yet, so displacing Oakley will be difficult for him!!

Although we lack a real burst of pace upfront with Howard and Fryatt, baring the Newcastle game with have created a few chances, unfortunately Fryatt hasn't been clinical enough!!

I'm surprised Gradel hasn't been used from the bench, what he offers that nguessan doesn't is trickery and the ability to unlock and backfoot the defence!!

For me the best formation is 442, but on many occassions we seem to be very narrow, I would like our wingers to play as wingers!!

[Jimmy]

So, it would appear that it is Howard's presence that limits our scoring opportunities!

But as many contributors consider him to be our best forward player, this can not possibly be the case, can it?

no our tactics, or lack there of, were the main reason we couldn't score, our midfield created almost nothing that season. Anybody with a football brain can tell how important Howard was last season and is this season.

I swear the mentality of the current Leicester fan would have seen Emile Heskey being booed for not scoring as people no longer seem to be able to understand all the other thing Heskey did (he practically single handedly extended the career of TC) and Howard does contribute (How many would Fryatt of bagged last season without Howard doing all the donkey work and winning the flick ons).

[davieG]

no our tactics, or lack there of, were the main reason we couldn't score, our midfield created almost nothing that season

In spite of the ability and passing It's not creating a lot this season either

[Jimmy]

In spite of the ability and passing It's not creating a lot this season either

yes but there was also a lack of ability then, this 1 needs fine tuning

[The Doctor]

the weakness of the team is the lack of goals.

the defence is as solid as it was when we went down. however the attack is about the same. in order to get more goals we need to play to our strengths, which to a certain point we do, however with howards ability in the air and the fact that fryatt is hardly a midget with a rubbish jump either we need to start getting the balls in the box more in a way that provides the heading ability to effectivley challenge the keeper, these balls would most likely come from the wingers.

this means that we need to either drop the route one method and play through teams and the out onto the wings or, keep route one but get at least one of the center mids pushing on allowing howard to head the ball back to them then get into a dangerous position in time for the chance created rather than as current where by the time he gets into the box fryatt has either scored, missed or the keeper has blocked the shot and the lack of support has made it simple for the oppositon to play the ball out and start a counter attack.

[davieG]

the weakness of the team is the lack of goals.

the defence is as solid as it was when we went down. however the attack is about the same. in order to get more goals we need to play to our strengths, which to a certain point we do, however with howards ability in the air and the fact that fryatt is hardly a midget with a rubbish jump either we need to start getting the balls in the box more in a way that provides the heading ability to effectivley challenge the keeper, these balls would most likely come from the wingers.

this means that we need to either drop the route one method and play through teams and the out onto the wings or, keep route one but get at least one of the center mids pushing on allowing howard to head the ball back to them then get into a dangerous position in time for the chance created rather than as current where by the time he gets into the box fryatt has either scored, missed or the keeper has blocked the shot and the lack of support has made it simple for the oppositon to play the ball out and start a counter attack.

Or perhaps we're defending as an 11 man unit but not attacking as one. Maybe the defence needs to push up further so the fullbacks are nearer to the wingmen and the CM are nearer to and at least one is alongside the strikers.

The big problem with that is that our 4 defenders on the whole are not particularly speedy and would get caught more often. that said if the balance was more goals than we conceded and resulted in more wins than draws it may be worth the risk.

After all 1 win & 1 loss is better than 2 draws - you haven't got the 'unbeaten' bragging rights but you've got 3 points instead of 2.

[marbelladave]

no our tactics, or lack there of, were the main reason we couldn't score, our midfield created almost nothing that season. Anybody with a football brain can tell how important Howard was last season and is this season.

I swear the mentality of the current Leicester fan would have seen Emile Heskey being booed for not scoring as people no longer seem to be able to understand all the other thing Heskey did (he practically single handedly extended the career of TC) and Howard does contribute (How many would Fryatt of bagged last season without Howard doing all the donkey work and winning the flick ons).

First of all I am not and do not boo my own club! Neither do you know me well enough to question my mentality. Have a word with yourself!

We are all pretty much agreed that we are not creating enough chances or scoring enough goals, we are just debating why that is and what can be done about it. I personally think that it would be worthwhile trying to play without Howard, passing through a three man midfield an trying to feed balls into our pacier strikers from the edge of the box, instead of our current tactic of regularly hitting Howard with the early ball and relying on flick-ons.

Just an opinion, OK!

BTW I am very aware of what Howard brings to the team both good and bad.

[davieG]

As I posted in the Striker partnership thread:

Nobodies not 'getting behind the team' and it's not 'knee-jerk reactions'.

Some people get their 'football manager' kicks from computer games others like to talk about their team - it's just pub talk. You don't think the fans at Arsenal, Man U, Chelsea etc have these conversations?

In the words of Brian Little it's part & parcel of being a fan, it's not new, it's not related just to success or failure. If it annoys you that much don't open the thread - simple, everyone's happy.

[Gaffer]

Christmas Tree/Pudding Formation

[OLD norfox]

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.

Its interesting to read so many different opinions about this subject and there are a lot of knowledge . But I find only one

member mention full-backs. Its alright to use two wide-men and one of them threatening into the middle of the field but the space they create must be used by the fullback. Maybe its a lot to ask for with Berner or Powell ????

The one that impressed by last season was Max Gradel. He didn't need help from the fullback to beat the defence. But his delivery wasn't the best.

[Koke]

I'd like to see Paul Gallagher up front.

[Heart-Shaped Fox]

Although we havent scored shed loads so far, I think it is still a bit early to say there needs to be changes up front, eyc. If after the end of the month we still havent scored many I would then agree that something needs to be done, especially when we have games in September I think we should not lose.

I think we will go unbeaten in September with NP getting manager of the month.

[edd]

Although we havent scored shed loads so far, I think it is still a bit early to say there needs to be changes up front, eyc. If after the end of the month we still havent scored many I would then agree that something needs to be done, especially when we have games in September I think we should not lose.

I think we will go unbeaten in September with NP getting manager of the month.

weale

brown hobbs tunchev berner

nguessan wellens oakley gardel

fryatt howard

gradel must player in my eyes the best attcking player has something special about him.

[jimmer]

weale

brown hobbs tunchev berner

nguessan wellens oakley gardel

fryatt howard

gradel must player in my eyes the best attcking player has something special about him.

Have we signed someone new?

Not sure on Brown as a full back either he is clearly a center back or nothing player!

Besides that I dont agree with anything