conradno1 Posted 20 October 2010 Posted 20 October 2010 Dyer on the left, Moussa on the right, good balance on the wings. yeh id like to play them together would be lethal but id say loyd on the right and young frank on the left as he looked really good on the left last night and think loyd looked brill on the right at the begining of the season you could say u want loyd on the left because he is left footed but to me loyd isnt either footed hes crap at crossing crap at passing ,but flair incredable
Alexikokopops Posted 20 October 2010 Posted 20 October 2010 What was his end product like?? We've had too many wingers in the past with pace but very few could deliver consistently, be nice if that could change. I think if a winger was pacey and could deliver consistently, he wouldn't be playing for Leicester City in the Championship.
Finnegan Posted 21 October 2010 Posted 21 October 2010 Pretty sure we're not going to see Moussa in the middle that much. He certainly isn't going to be put alongside King, there'd be no defensive quality to that midfield unless you pull King back and I think it's widely agreed that that's a waste.
Ric Flair Posted 21 October 2010 Posted 21 October 2010 I'm also pretty sure Oakley won't lose his place that easily, he's our captain and so far has put in 2 sterling performances under Sven. He was up for it out in Thailand too, don't rule the old dog out just yet.
marbelladave Posted 21 October 2010 Posted 21 October 2010 It seems generally agreed that the performance the other night was one of the best seen from a City side in quite a while. Did no one actually notice that for the vast bulk of that game we played 4-5-1.... Waghorn up top, supported by Gallagher and Moussa on the flanks and King through the middle, Oakley and Wellens deeper, doing the holding roles. So 4-2-3-1 if you prefer... And you all want to go back to 4-4-fooking-2... :doh:
harpendenfox Posted 21 October 2010 Posted 21 October 2010 I suspect that under Sven, we will set up differently according to the merits of the opposition. Nige had 'his' system (which was usually good enough), Sousa had 'his' system (which sadly didn't happen for us). Sven would appear to have the confidence, and clearly has the experience, to try different things. And I love the man's calm aura of confidence. It's infectious
marbelladave Posted 21 October 2010 Posted 21 October 2010 I suspect that under Sven, we will set up differently according to the merits of the opposition. Nige had 'his' system (which was usually good enough), Sousa had 'his' system (which sadly didn't happen for us). Sven would appear to have the confidence, and clearly has the experience, to try different things. And I love the man's calm aura of confidence. It's infectious Not sure about this... I think it is generally a good thing to have a settled style and shape, the set up against Leeds had all the flexibllity you would need, depending on circumstances you can commit one, two or three of you more advanced midfield players forward or not depending on circumstance. Again the two holding midfielders (Oakley and Wellens on Tuesday) can adopt a primarily defensive posture or as they did on the night get forward and support the more attacking players, plenty of flexibility without changing the system. Still these are very early days under Sven, be interesting to see how saturday goes before getting too carried away...
Swalker Posted 21 October 2010 Posted 21 October 2010 It seems generally agreed that the performance the other night was one of the best seen from a City side in quite a while. Did no one actually notice that for the vast bulk of that game we played 4-5-1.... Waghorn up top, supported by Gallagher and Moussa on the flanks and King through the middle, Oakley and Wellens deeper, doing the holding roles. So 4-2-3-1 if you prefer... And you all want to go back to 4-4-fooking-2... :doh: I'd agree with that formation and team slection. 4-5-1 when defending. 4-2-3-1 when attacking. I'd rather have Mousa than dyer though because he doesn't get pushed off the ball as easily and offers better cover for the defence.
STUHILL Posted 21 October 2010 Posted 21 October 2010 Not sure about this... I think it is generally a good thing to have a settled style and shape, the set up against Leeds had all the flexibllity you would need, depending on circumstances you can commit one, two or three of you more advanced midfield players forward or not depending on circumstance. Again the two holding midfielders (Oakley and Wellens on Tuesday) can adopt a primarily defensive posture or as they did on the night get forward and support the more attacking players, plenty of flexibility without changing the system. Still these are very early days under Sven, be interesting to see how saturday goes before getting too carried away... I remember reading that Sven changes the system to adapt to the opposition. I think it's good to have a team that can change formations with ease but I also agree that having a settled one has its benefits too. I think we will see this 4-5-1 as well as a 4-4-2 most often.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.