miketh2nd Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 For most of the Leeds came bar the first ten minutes and before we swapped to 4-4-2 we used 4-5-1 not 4-3-3 to which was generally ineffective except the first 10 minutes where I saw the best passing I've seen at AG all season, thought it was going to be a good game how wrong was I! I think the two key factors bar bias towards liking either formation in your own opinion is the personnel City currently have. The only player player we can play in the hole is Clarkson or Woolford (if Rose is on the left if ever fit again?) in a 4-5-1 . Then 4-4-2 could depend on how quickly Maynard is fit enough to start a game. Clarkson did not play well enough however there were flickers of Clarkson linking up play with the midfield and Keogh. The most successful near the end of the game where he pushes himself past a leeds player and has a one two and then isn't quite quick enough to get the ball before Kasper could get it. I'm guessing Millen is trying to play Clarkson in the same mold as Leciester's Andy king and Swansea's Pratley. As much as I don't think Clarkson is anywhere near as good as these two players I think it could be worth a try against teams not so high in the table. Than again we don't really have time to mess around with Formations this stage of the season..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 Rose tracks back quite well, we need him on the left IMO if and when he gets fit again. Then again, that leaves the problem of Woolford, creator off the striker/striker perhaps? Can't help but feel that an extra man in midfield will reduce the chances of being overrun in that dept, but then again we tried that Saturday to no great effect so it's a tricky one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redcherryberry Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 Rose tracks back quite well, we need him on the left IMO if and when he gets fit again. Then again, that leaves the problem of Woolford, creator off the striker/striker perhaps? Can't help but feel that an extra man in midfield will reduce the chances of being overrun in that dept, but then again we tried that Saturday to no great effect so it's a tricky one. Rose left back Woolford left wing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 Rose left back Woolford left wing? I like that idea, would also quite possibly give us a greater attacking outlet from that area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 Surely you play to your strengths and find your opponants weaknesses, then form a team around the tactics that will exploit the opposition. The formation of the team depends on who you are playing against. It can't be set in stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiale Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 http://www.footballuser.com/Formations/2011/02/67211_Bristol_City.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redcherryberry Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 I like that idea, would also quite possibly give us a greater attacking outlet from that area. I would stick at him LB, cant do any worse than Mcca. He's played their many a time for Spurs reserves and Academy so it's not new to him. Only 21 so still developing and could possibly grow in to the role if given a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miketh2nd Posted February 14, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 Rose left back Woolford left wing? Is a shame Rose is injured as this does seem like worth trying but seeing as Rose is injured still quite like to see a LB on loan even if a youngster purely for compeition more than Williams who knows why we signed him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miketh2nd Posted February 14, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 http://www.footballu...ristol_City.jpg If no new players are brought in the loan window this the team but still would only start Maynard if he's more match fit then Keogh. Didn't think Elliot played that well against but then for some reason he was playing quite high up the pitch in the 4-5-1 formation! Just play to his strengths box to box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 http://www.footballu...ristol_City.jpg Rather like the look of that. Would have Rose in at LB as suggested by another poster and perhaps Riberio right back to offer greater attacking threat full back but until either are fit that formation would be well worth a go I reckon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miketh2nd Posted February 14, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 Surely you play to your strengths and find your opponants weaknesses, then form a team around the tactics that will exploit the opposition. The formation of the team depends on who you are playing against. It can't be set in stone. A very valid point and as you said on another thread about not changing a winning team it was only Preston who had beat. although Leeds were more threatening in the final third . most of the game they did spend soaking the pressure from our midfield but did very well at the away team countering. For their second we were in a good attacking position only for a misplaced pass for them to put us on the back foot and score. Although I believe if you on a good enough form you can keep a familiar formation and then have teams changing there formations to try and combat your formation. For example swansea Leceister and QPR do this well but tend to agree that when you are a lower side team as us we should be changing our formation depending on what team we are facing but not let it effect our own style of playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith_Lemon Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 4-1-2-1-2 would do us best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miketh2nd Posted February 14, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 4-1-2-1-2 would do us best. I like that formation but who that mean behind the front two and also would we still play both wingers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chappers Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 He got it horribly wrong on saturday, and was far too slow to change things, even when it was obvious that our formation was not working. Saturday has passed, Millen is still manager, so let's hope he has learned from that game, and can organise and motivate us for damage limitation at Sven Goran Eriksons Leicester, nicking a point or 3 at Watford, and beating Scunny the following Saturday. No point wasting vast amounts of money paying off another manager, and hiring a new one, who will still have the same injury-hit and unbalanced squad to work with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamC Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 Rather like the look of that. Would have Rose in at LB as suggested by another poster and perhaps Riberio right back to offer greater attacking threat full back but until either are fit that formation would be well worth a go I reckon. Blimey, when are they likely to both be fit for the same game then? 2015? Rose has already been out for 6 weeks for some unspecified reason and Ribeiro's track record is play one, miss six............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 Blimey, when are they likely to both be fit for the same game then? 2015? Rose has already been out for 6 weeks for some unspecified reason and Ribeiro's track record is play one, miss six............. It's a tad optimistic granted, but I do feel that formation would add a new dimension to our play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith_Lemon Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 I like that formation but who that mean behind the front two and also would we still play both wingers? Keogh to play behind Maynard and Pitman, get the ball to him, to open passes for Maynard and Pitman. The wingers to cross the balls to the strikers and Keogh. And to pull back in order for the defense to find and open pass on the counter attack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcfc kiers Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 3-5-2 would be our best formation IMO when everyone fit this is what i would play; ----------------James--------------- --Ribeiro----Caulker----Fontaine -------Cisse------------Elliott-------- Adomah------------------Rose ---------------Woolford------------ ---------Maynard----Stead-------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CITYRED Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 http://www.footballuser.com/Formations/2011/02/67211_Bristol_City.jpg Like it with Maynard in that hole, he is the best creator we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiale Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 I like that formation but who that mean behind the front two and also would we still play both wingers? Adomah and Woolford would go wider to offer us outlets when we have possession and tuck in more when we lose possession to pack midfield. Elliott to play from box to box, Cisse tucking into a back three when we have possession allowing the left/right backs a chance to get forward, when we lose possession a flat 4 with Cisse playing as a DM to protect the CB's from midfield runs/attacks. I would only play Pitman upfront, have Maynard in a totally free role, he has the best ball control and creativity in the team, if the ball is falling to anyone in the opponents box or 1-40 yards out I would want it to be him. 4-5-1 I think is out best option, we have not had a great defence in years (hence why we played 5 at the back under GJ for so long) and most teams try to dominate midfield as if you have possession your not conceding. As long as you have outlets (and Adomah, Woolford, Maynard, Pitman should provide them) you can turn 4-5-1 into a very attacking formation to a very defensive one without to much hassle. Anyway - regardless, I would like us to choose a formation and stick with it, we need to get the basics right, we need players to know where to find each other, and consistency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 Adomah and Woolford would go wider to offer us outlets when we have possession and tuck in more when we lose possession to pack midfield. Elliott to play from box to box, Cisse tucking into a back three when we have possession allowing the left/right backs a chance to get forward, when we lose possession a flat 4 with Cisse playing as a DM to protect the CB's from midfield runs/attacks. I would only play Pitman upfront, have Maynard in a totally free role, he has the best ball control and creativity in the team, if the ball is falling to anyone in the opponents box or 1-40 yards out I would want it to be him. 4-5-1 I think is out best option, we have not had a great defence in years (hence why we played 5 at the back under GJ for so long) and most teams try to dominate midfield as if you have possession your not conceding. As long as you have outlets (and Adomah, Woolford, Maynard, Pitman should provide them) you can turn 4-5-1 into a very attacking formation to a very defensive one without to much hassle. Anyway - regardless, I would like us to choose a formation and stick with it, we need to get the basics right, we need players to know where to find each other, and consistency. I'd certainly go along with all of that. Perhaps as one or two have suggested, Rose as opposed to Mcallister and Riberio in for one of Fontaine or Carey to offer more attacking threat still, this time from the flanks but yeah that is one I like the look of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talk Of The Town Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 Adomah and Woolford would go wider to offer us outlets when we have possession and tuck in more when we lose possession to pack midfield. Elliott to play from box to box, Cisse tucking into a back three when we have possession allowing the left/right backs a chance to get forward, when we lose possession a flat 4 with Cisse playing as a DM to protect the CB's from midfield runs/attacks. I would only play Pitman upfront, have Maynard in a totally free role, he has the best ball control and creativity in the team, if the ball is falling to anyone in the opponents box or 1-40 yards out I would want it to be him. 4-5-1 I think is out best option, we have not had a great defence in years (hence why we played 5 at the back under GJ for so long) and most teams try to dominate midfield as if you have possession your not conceding. As long as you have outlets (and Adomah, Woolford, Maynard, Pitman should provide them) you can turn 4-5-1 into a very attacking formation to a very defensive one without to much hassle. Anyway - regardless, I would like us to choose a formation and stick with it, we need to get the basics right, we need players to know where to find each other, and consistency. well said. A 4-5-1 formation becomes a 4-3-3 when you attack. The wingers bomb on to support the forward and the other 3 midfielders sit in. 4-5-1 is our best option Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foghornred Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 I would always go for 4-4-2 because we are set up for that formation. We have full backs not wing backs and right and left wingers not roaming midfielders. Another simple thing to do is to play the players in their correct positions. It's not rocket science ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davros Posted February 15, 2011 Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 http://www.footballu...ristol_City.jpg agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miketh2nd Posted February 15, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 15, 2011 Adomah and Woolford would go wider to offer us outlets when we have possession and tuck in more when we lose possession to pack midfield. Elliott to play from box to box, Cisse tucking into a back three when we have possession allowing the left/right backs a chance to get forward, when we lose possession a flat 4 with Cisse playing as a DM to protect the CB's from midfield runs/attacks. I would only play Pitman upfront, have Maynard in a totally free role, he has the best ball control and creativity in the team, if the ball is falling to anyone in the opponents box or 1-40 yards out I would want it to be him. 4-5-1 I think is out best option, we have not had a great defence in years (hence why we played 5 at the back under GJ for so long) and most teams try to dominate midfield as if you have possession your not conceding. As long as you have outlets (and Adomah, Woolford, Maynard, Pitman should provide them) you can turn 4-5-1 into a very attacking formation to a very defensive one without to much hassle. Anyway - regardless, I would like us to choose a formation and stick with it, we need to get the basics right, we need players to know where to find each other, and consistency. Agree with most of this though Cisse can be a suspect defending in defence much rather him in midfield but then if it helps Ribs provide chances with Adomah maybe worth it. I'd personally want Maynard upfront as much as Pitman is a poacher much rather Maynard to be the guy furthest forward although could him being man marked less if coming from a little deeper. Although ideally would want Pitman providing a partnership up top in a 4-4-2 think both pitman and Maynard would be wasted in the hole in front of the midfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foghornred Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 agree NO WIDTH ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 NO WIDTH ! If ever fit again, Riberio and Rose from full back could do the job... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.