JET will tear you apart Posted December 11, 2013 Report Share Posted December 11, 2013 Which formation do you prefer? I would chose 4-1-2-1-2 because I though we looked more attacking and free flowing Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i hate you butler Posted December 11, 2013 Report Share Posted December 11, 2013 69 for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IdliketoRogerMoore Posted December 11, 2013 Report Share Posted December 11, 2013 Which formation do you prefer? I would chose 4-1-2-1-2 because I though we looked more attacking and free flowing Thoughts?against better teams (no disrespect to tamworth) I think we would get picked off, but having said that baldock can't play up top on his Todd so **** knows! Steve best earn his monies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCAGFC Posted December 11, 2013 Report Share Posted December 11, 2013 Better teams would easily play around a 4-1-2-1-2. Would have to be a 4-3-1-2 to be able to cope with the opposition wide midfielders/full backs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miketh2nd Posted December 11, 2013 Report Share Posted December 11, 2013 I think we ll a 4-4-2 formation and will see either one of jet/baldock partnering Taylor upfront . With a midfield of wagstaff gillet Elliot Bryan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo88 Posted December 11, 2013 Report Share Posted December 11, 2013 Can anyone remember "total football" from the 1970s? This was a system pioneered by Ajax whereby any outfield player could move into any position during a match and his place would be taken by another player. It required players to be comfortable in multiple positions and made the concept of rigid formations such as 4 4 2 redundant. Great system if you've got the right players but unfortunately City aren't quite there yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Posted December 11, 2013 Report Share Posted December 11, 2013 I'd would try a 3-5-2. Two up front is needed in all home games, attacking teams is a must at the gate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welcome To The Jungle Posted December 11, 2013 Report Share Posted December 11, 2013 3-4-1-2 3 centre haves with the central one given a licence to break from the line to close down 2 wing backs and 2 sitting midfielders JET Taylor Baldock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin1988 Posted December 12, 2013 Report Share Posted December 12, 2013 3-4-1-2 3 centre haves with the central one given a licence to break from the line to close down 2 wing backs and 2 sitting midfielders JET Taylor Baldock Is this for real? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superjack Posted December 12, 2013 Report Share Posted December 12, 2013 In recent years we have had various players that were neither midfield or out and out strikers (Noble, Bridges, JET etc) and Marvin's best role IMO (and one that he excelled at upon his arrival) is sat in front of the back four breaking up the opposition attacks and protecting the defence. We also in recent years have been blessed with other defensive midfielders, such as Cisse, who were proficient in this role. From what I have seen of him, Gillet is one. This is why the diamond formation works and should IMO have been implemented on numerous occasions in the recent past. Whether we will get 'ripped apart' by better teams than Tamworth remains to be seen. IMO this is less likely to happen than with a conventional 4-4-2 due to the defensive midfielder's 'advanced sweeper' role in front of the back four. I have to say that Cotterill could not have impressed me more in his first game, not only with his interviews and apparent 'passion', but also with the above formation and his explanation of it. Cracking start in this supporters eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welcome To The Jungle Posted December 12, 2013 Report Share Posted December 12, 2013 Is this for real? Explain what is wrong with that? It gives us plenty in defence, uses our midfield and attacking strengths, and as we have no out and out wingers the wing backs provide width Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted December 12, 2013 Report Share Posted December 12, 2013 Can anyone remember "total football" from the 1970s? This was a system pioneered by Ajax whereby any outfield player could move into any position during a match and his place would be taken by another player. It required players to be comfortable in multiple positions and made the concept of rigid formations such as 4 4 2 redundant. Great system if you've got the right players but unfortunately City aren't quite there yet. I have to say, one of the few things I agreed with our departed Head Coach about is that, apart from kick-off, formations are largely meaningless. Players have to know what there expected to do, but everything's fluid and where they find themselves on the pitch bears little resemblance to any paper "system". That said, I prefer two front men and JET in what is effectively an advanced midfield role. As we saw on Sunday, not only has he learned how to jump but he now helps out in defence (and is pretty handy at it!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JET will tear you apart Posted December 12, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2013 I have to say, one of the few things I agreed with our departed Head Coach about is that, apart from kick-off, formations are largely meaningless. Players have to know what there expected to do, but everything's fluid and where they find themselves on the pitch bears little resemblance to any paper "system". That said, I prefer two front men and JET in what is effectively an advanced midfield role. As we saw on Sunday, not only has he learned how to jump but he now helps out in defence (and is pretty handy at it!) Because he use to be a defender Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted December 12, 2013 Report Share Posted December 12, 2013 It will be interesting to see what Cotterill does now he has Gillett and maybe Reid, McLaughlin etc back available for selection. Gillett had a good game against Orient so might feature, or does he stick with the winning team, set up to counteract Rotherham or just play our own game and not worry so much about the opposition? Obviously Osbourne is suspended so the defence might not change much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted December 12, 2013 Report Share Posted December 12, 2013 Marvin's best role IMO (and one that he excelled at upon his arrival) is sat in front of the back four breaking up the opposition attacks and protecting the defence. No it wasn't. I've posted about this before and Cotterill mentioned it after the game on Sunday. Marvin is (was?) a classic box to box midfielder in the mould of Steven Gerrard, who likes to be everywhere that the action is. He did break up attacks, yes, but not from a rigid position in front of the defence. The deep-lying player was Lee Johnson. I'm not going to pretend that he broke up attacks in front of the defence (though he did make interceptions if not crunching tackles) but he occupied that space whilst Marvin roamed about. Similarly, O'Driscoll said recently that Cole Skuse "let Marvin be Marvin". He does not naturally sit in that position and to play his natural game he needs someone else, such as Gillet to perform that role. Whether Cotterill restores him to his natural role or constrains him to his new position remains to be seen, but it certainly isn't how he always played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted December 12, 2013 Report Share Posted December 12, 2013 Because he use to be a defender But you'd never have known that at the start of the season. His newfound ability to spring into the air is heartening too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djb6162 Posted December 12, 2013 Report Share Posted December 12, 2013 Which formation do you prefer? I would chose 4-1-2-1-2 because I though we looked more attacking and free flowing Thoughts? Christmas tree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo88 Posted December 12, 2013 Report Share Posted December 12, 2013 Christmas treeWho would be the fairy on the top? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunc Posted December 12, 2013 Report Share Posted December 12, 2013 I liked the look of our 4-3-1-2 against Tamworth. Thought Marv had an excellent game but he was being asked to screen a wide distance and better opposition could expose this. I'd personally play another more defense minded player in the diamond e.g. Pack, with Reid and JET pushing on.That doesn't give us much width though, hence why Welcome to the Jungle's 3-4-1-2 shout isn't that bad. It's basically a 3-5-2 with wing backs and JET in the hole.Either of those are good by me... nice to see a bit of attacking intent! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin1988 Posted December 12, 2013 Report Share Posted December 12, 2013 Explain what is wrong with that? It gives us plenty in defence, uses our midfield and attacking strengths, and as we have no out and out wingers the wing backs provide width It doesn't give us extra cover in the midfield (since JET could end up anywhere) to make up for the woeful lack of width we'll have defensively if we get caught on the break, unless you want your centre-backs to start pulling wide & getting horribly stretched at the back. To use this effectively would require a huge amount of discipline which we just don't have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turbored Posted December 12, 2013 Report Share Posted December 12, 2013 Got to be 4-1-3-2 for that way you get cover for the defence and two up top Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Colby-Tit Posted December 12, 2013 Report Share Posted December 12, 2013 The Tamworth diamond set up for me. Gives JET the feedom he needs, and allows two up front to be played. Also works very well for me on FIFA 14, so clearly needs to implemented in real life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted December 12, 2013 Report Share Posted December 12, 2013 The Tamworth diamond set up for me. Gives JET the feedom he needs, and allows two up front to be played. Also works very well for me on FIFA 14, so clearly needs to implemented in real life. A Tamworth Diamond works wonders.... One for the older Otibers there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo88 Posted December 12, 2013 Report Share Posted December 12, 2013 A Tamworth Diamond works wonders.... One for the older Otibers there...How on earth can you make a post that refers (even obliquely) to KEG beer? You should be ashamed of yourself. Real football fans = real ale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted December 12, 2013 Report Share Posted December 12, 2013 How on earth can you make a post that refers (even obliquely) to KEG beer? You should be ashamed of yourself. Real football fans = real ale. You're not wrong there, Pongo. The 70s were the dark ages for beer in England - DoubleDiamond, Courage "Best", Worthington E, and *shudder* Toby Bitter. Oh and bloody Kestrel lager too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welcome To The Jungle Posted December 12, 2013 Report Share Posted December 12, 2013 It doesn't give us extra cover in the midfield (since JET could end up anywhere) to make up for the woeful lack of width we'll have defensively if we get caught on the break, unless you want your centre-backs to start pulling wide & getting horribly stretched at the back. To use this effectively would require a huge amount of discipline which we just don't have. Discipline is easier to teach than to make bad players good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.