Jump to content
IGNORED

Formation

Fuber

By Fuber
in Football Chat

Recommended Posts

Fuber

Fuber

Posted
Posted

Gotta be 4-4-2. Simple as that, much more solid second half going foward, more natural width.

All I will say in terms of players is the following.

El-Abd:....... WHY? He didnt deserve the booing in my opnion as the bloke was trying, but with Waggo pushing up supporting Burns, not forgetting that first half.

Bryan: Lacking confidence and focus, not helped by being plonked into a more central role, which I dont think suits hik tbh.

Jet: simply, WTF was wrong with him today, I know he blows hot and cold but.... Christ.

Honorable mentions to Pack, Burns, and my MoM Our boy Flint, him and Cunningham, best players on the pitch, not helped by you ur helpless Pharoah, and the Bystander Derrick (Which is becoming a theme of late, long may it not continue)

Still. 4-4-2. Surely from now on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taylor10

Taylor10

Posted
Posted

For the last time, it's been 442 for weeks, same again tonight. El-Abd was right back, Wagstaff RM. Just 3 CMs and no LM.

Right so he has been playing Osbourne right midfield before he got injured then? Cotterill himself has said it's 3-5-2.

We occasionally look like we go 4-4-2 when defending but we set up as 3-5-2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
redsquirrel

redsquirrel

Posted
Posted

Pack has to play every game

 

i fail to see why hes had stick on here,might have played one loose ball tonight,other than that i thought his passing was intelligent and pretty spot on accurate.

 

credit to cunningham too,he got kicked off the park tonight,poor sods legs must be black and blue.not once did he retalliate,

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Harry

Harry

Posted
Posted

I was going to start a thread about the formation, but will join this one.

 

I would like to know the following (please answer this genuinely, everyone) ;

What formation did we start the game with tonight??

 

I've seen a few comments tonight about the formation, with a number of posters who's opinion I respect saying we played 3-5-2.

I like to think that I am relatively 'educated' and I could swear we were not playing 3 at the back tonight, but having seen other's opinions, I'm actually questioning myself??

 

It looked to me as though it was a complete muddle.  Flint and Williams were definitely playing as 2 CB's.  El Abd looked like he was at RB.

However, it didn't look as though Cunningham was LB, he was more of a LWB.

Waggy was then a RW.  Gillett & Marv were CM's.  Bryan seemed to be a slightly more advanced CM.  JET was somewhere.  And Balders up front.

 

It was a very unusual formation.  El Abd, to me, was definitely playing at RB.  How else can we explain him being 10 yards inside the opposition half, 1 yard from the touchline, when Moussa broke forward to walk down the wing, come inside and score the first.  If El Abd was playing as a 3rd CB, then he was woefully out of position all game!! He was definitely RB.

 

So, how do we break this down.  El Abd is NOT a Right Back.  Joe Bryan is NOT a Centre Mid.

 

The first half was awful because these 2 were playing in unfamiliar positions, and Abd got done time and time again by Moussa down the wing (see - he must've been playing full back!).  Bryan offered less than nothing in his unfamiliar role - I think any relatively fit County League player could have done a better job (and I'm not joking, I honestly do!)

 

Cotterill then comes out and gives it some bullcrap about not knowing his best team!!  You've had 2 months now pal.  You've signed a CB with 300 Championship games and shunted him out to RB.  He has ZERO pace!  He can't player there - it's quite simple.

The midfield has been chopped and changed every game, and SC has commented how he thinks it's a weak area, so he goes and plays a young lad who's a left winger, converted from a left back and plonks him in there with no clue what he's doing.  He signed Wade Elliot - clearly doesn't rate him after 45 minutes v Brentford, so decides to play a bloke who's never played there.  Maybe you should've actually watched Wade play before signing him Steve?!

 

FFS I could go on, but I can't be arsed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chappers

Chappers

Posted
Posted

Basic stuff, Cunningham and Wagstaffe trying to do 2 jobs, so opposition attack out flanks, draw out El Abd or Williams and huge gaps appear. As for Bryan Central midfield, obviously not going to work, how to destroy the confidence of a decent young player. JET was a tad below par to put it mildly, and not seen anything in Barnett yet to suggest he's worth a start. And what more does Burns have to do to merit a start? Raw, but pace (badly lacking in our team) and commitment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Youngish

Youngish

Posted
Posted

Basic stuff, Cunningham and Wagstaffe trying to do 2 jobs, so opposition attack out flanks, draw out El Abd or Williams and huge gaps appear. As for Bryan Central midfield, obviously not going to work, how to destroy the confidence of a decent young player. JET was a tad below par to put it mildly, and not seen anything in Barnett yet to suggest he's worth a start. And what more does Burns have to do to merit a start? Raw, but pace (badly lacking in our team) and commitment.

Part of the reason Burns has looked so good is because he's quick and he's only played against tired defenders. Start him and he'll be far less effective, although Wagstaff looked very hurt at the end so Burns may be forced to start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Taylor10

Taylor10

Posted
Posted

I was going to start a thread about the formation, but will join this one.

I would like to know the following (please answer this genuinely, everyone) ;

What formation did we start the game with tonight??

I've seen a few comments tonight about the formation, with a number of posters who's opinion I respect saying we played 3-5-2.

I like to think that I am relatively 'educated' and I could swear we were not playing 3 at the back tonight, but having seen other's opinions, I'm actually questioning myself??

It looked to me as though it was a complete muddle. Flint and Williams were definitely playing as 2 CB's. El Abd looked like he was at RB.

However, it didn't look as though Cunningham was LB, he was more of a LWB.

Waggy was then a RW. Gillett & Marv were CM's. Bryan seemed to be a slightly more advanced CM. JET was somewhere. And Balders up front.

It was a very unusual formation. El Abd, to me, was definitely playing at RB. How else can we explain him being 10 yards inside the opposition half, 1 yard from the touchline, when Moussa broke forward to walk down the wing, come inside and score the first. If El Abd was playing as a 3rd CB, then he was woefully out of position all game!! He was definitely RB.

So, how do we break this down. El Abd is NOT a Right Back. Joe Bryan is NOT a Centre Mid.

The first half was awful because these 2 were playing in unfamiliar positions, and Abd got done time and time again by Moussa down the wing (see - he must've been playing full back!). Bryan offered less than nothing in his unfamiliar role - I think any relatively fit County League player could have done a better job (and I'm not joking, I honestly do!)

Cotterill then comes out and gives it some bullcrap about not knowing his best team!! You've had 2 months now pal. You've signed a CB with 300 Championship games and shunted him out to RB. He has ZERO pace! He can't player there - it's quite simple.

The midfield has been chopped and changed every game, and SC has commented how he thinks it's a weak area, so he goes and plays a young lad who's a left winger, converted from a left back and plonks him in there with no clue what he's doing. He signed Wade Elliot - clearly doesn't rate him after 45 minutes v Brentford, so decides to play a bloke who's never played there. Maybe you should've actually watched Wade play before signing him Steve?!

FFS I could go on, but I can't be arsed.

I agree Harry. I really just don't know where to start.

As for the formation? I thought 3-5-2 at times, 4-4-2 others. On reflection though I honestly don't know, like you say El-Abd was far too wide to play as a right of a 3, yet Cunningham too high up for a left back?

All very confusing and I just wonder if SC was trying to be clever and get two banks of 4 behind the ball when defending? Coventry were not that great but there movement was on another level compared to ours. Perhaps another reason why we looked like 3-5-2 one minute, 4-4-2 the next?

Whether he plays him at RB or on the right of a 3 I find it absolutely astonishing that SC can't see how awfully exposed El-Abd is in either position. Pure stubbornness? Or just clueless? That to me is a huge concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dandare 1966

dandare 1966

Posted
Posted

Playing against the wind we were bad but with the wind they never had a shot if we started playing the other way mite have been different out come . not sure any of the new players are any better than we already had . Are some of the players as fit as they should be jet doesn't look like he is and a lot of them can't seem to play 2 games in a row

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chappers

Chappers

Posted
Posted

Not got the hang of quotes on this phone! You may be right, but we are so pedestrian we have to try something, and he has shown he can cause problems for opposing defences. Part of the problem at City, we always find reasons not to play our youngsters rather than giving them opportunities to impress. Maybe play him central midfield, like poor Joe Bryan tonight!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bearded_red

bearded_red

Posted
Posted

I thought it was 352, but the right side was such a bodge job it is difficult to be sure.

 

I would say with complete certainty that Williams was playing as a left sided centre half in a back 3 and that Cunningham was playing as a wing back, but on the right side it was guess work. As I say though, my take was that EL-Abd was supposed to be playing on the right side of a back 3 and Wagstaff was right wing back.

 

Surely, surely, SURELY!, Cotterill can't have seen El-Abd's lack of pace be exposed numerous times in the last few games when playing on the outside of a 3 and then taken the decision tonight to pick him as a right back?! Surely..

 

I mean if it was a 442 then surely we should be playing our perfectly decent enough fullback in Moloney at right back rather than a centre half that can't run?

 

Having said all that though, after witnessing Joe Bryan being asked to play as a central midfielder while Reid, W. Elliott (cracking signing!) and Pack were sat on the bench, I guess no decision can be ruled out on the grounds of it being too stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SaltfordRed

SaltfordRed

Posted
Posted

I really don't think the 3-5-2 is working for us. El-Abd cannot play on the right of a 3, and seems to spend most of his time out wide where he gets done.

But you can talk about shape all you want, look at how we actually have defended over the last few weeks. There is no pressing of the ball, we aren't compact, and quite frankly it looks amateur.

Our main problem going forward IMO is lack of movement and tempo. If anyone watched JET tonight, you would have seen how appalling his movement was. The amount of times Cunningham got the ball wide left and looked up to see no option, then had to turn and play backwards. Because of our lack of tempo, the other side is able to be organised and get men behind the ball. It's all well and good having lots of possession, but if there's no penetration it's pointless.

Joe Bryan shouldn't have played CM. We all know that, but our 3 in midfield we literally none existent in the first half. No movement, no options, and they weren't compact in defence. Coventry ran rings around us.

I think we should go to a 4-2-3-1 ala Chelsea of Monday night. We need to move the ball quicker going forward, and be more organised in defense- aswell as actually pressing the ball.

GK- Moore

LB- Greg Cunningham

2 CB's- Got a choice of 4 when Osbourne is fit. I'd like to see El Abd in his preferred position.

RB- Either play Moloney, or ask Wagstaff to play here

LM- Here's where we're lacking options. It has to be Joe Bryan.

2 CDM's- Choice of Pack, Gillet or Marv

CAM- Either JET or Bobby Reid

RM- Wagstaff of Burns

ST- Baldock or Barnett

Link to comment
Share on other sites
UREDS_91

UREDS_91

Posted
Posted

I don't know if its his own pride stopping him but PLAY A BLOODY 4-4-2 FOR CHRIST'S SAKE! 

 

GK: Moore

LB: Cunningham/Williams

CB: Flint (Osbourne When Fit)

CB: El Abd (will play better as part of a back 4, not having player running down the wing at him)

RB: Maloney (or Waggy if Maloney is out of favour)

LM: Cunningham (from what ~I saw yesterday could definately do a job on the wing / Bryan (playing in correct position

CM: Marvin Elliot

CM: Marlon Pack

RM: Burns (take a bloody chance)

ST: JET (or Barnett)

ST: Baldock

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RedM

RedM

Posted
Posted

I agree with Harry and others that positioning was baffling. We seemed to be playing with one wingback, Cunningham, and a RB and winger ( El-Abd and Wagstaff) on the other side. I think tough that Wagstaff was meant to be the wingback and El-abd a centre right. Lopsided at best. I don't see why Maloney is so out of favour, so players like El-abd can play so badly out of position it seems.

Cunningham was obviously instructed to stay wide and get forward, but for large chunks of the game it looked like most of his team mates didn't get the same instruction. At times he was in acres of space waving his arms or the ball. When he did get the ball and go forward with it he was causing them problems.

I'm not sure if Cotterill was actually serious with all the stuff about not knowing his best midfield is he? Can't be surely? I thought it was just a Mourinho type smokescreen to deflect attention way from a bad night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
djb6162

djb6162

Posted
Posted

Part of the reason Burns has looked so good is because he's quick and he's only played against tired defenders. Start him and he'll be far less effective, although Wagstaff looked very hurt at the end so Burns may be forced to start.

i disagree with you and

you clearly haven't watched Wes progress through the ranks 

he does what he does to defenders first minute as well as last minute

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...