Carey 6 Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 My guess is Jamo Carey / Skuse Wilson Fonts McAlister - If fit Skuse / Marv Albert Kilkenny Campbell ryce Maynard Stead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Had a chat about this earlier today, actually. My team: James Ribeiro Wilson Fontaine McAllister Adomah Elliott Kilkenny Woolford Maynard Stead Keith's team, IMO: James Carey Wilson Fontaine McAllister Elliott Skuse Kilkenny Adomah Maynard Stead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcbcfc Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Keith's team, IMO: James Carey Wilson Fontaine McAllister Elliott Skuse Kilkenny Adomah Maynard Stead Thats right although its harsh on JCR who had a decent game against WBA My team would be James Ribs, Wilson, Stewart, McAllistair Cisse, Killkenny, Marv Adomah, Maynard, Stead Subs - Fonts, Skuse, JCR, Pittman, Bollasie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamC Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 james carey fontaine nyatanga mccalister adomah elliott skuse campbell-ryce stead maynard You could well be right, though if Kilkenny is 100% fit surely Millen will want to start with his biggest summer signing? Wilson and Pitman are the other two with the best chance of starting, as Woolford is unlikely to do so. If McAllister was injured on Saturday then Nyatanga will start at LB instead and so Wilson will get in. Pitman's best chance would appear to be if Stead isn't 100% fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 james carey fontaine nyatanga mccalister adomah elliott skuse campbell-ryce stead maynard Close I think but maybe we'll see Kilkenny in the middle. I wouldn't be surprised to see Bolasie instead of JCR either. I hope it's not some bastard stepchild of 433. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zider_drinker Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 For me I would line up something like this: James Ribs (or Skuse) Fontaine Wilson McAllister Cisse (or Elliott) sitting DM Adomah on the Right JCR (or Woolford) on the Left Killkenny (or Possibly Pitman?) sitting behind in AM Maynard Stead Possibly not the best formation but just thought maybe something a little different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Redman Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 James Carey Wilson Fontaine McAllister Adomah Elliott Kilkenny JCR Maynard Stead Id go for that aswell. Got a sneaky suspicion Millen will opt for Nyatanga in the middle though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jfkerton Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 For me it has to be Jamo Hunt Fontaine Stewart Macca/Nyatanga Adomah Killkenny Elliot Woolford Maynard Stead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC Jordan Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 I'd be most pleased with James Ribeiro Wilson Fontaine Nyatanga Albert Elliott Kilkenny Bolasie Stead Maynard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evocare Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 -------------------Jamo------------------ --------Carey----Fonts-----Tanga-------- Adomah-----Marv-----Skuuuse---Bolasie ---------------------Killer----------------- ------------Stead-----Maynard---------- I think we will switch to a 352 if Macca still injured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Red Jordi Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Not to bothered as long as millen plays them in the right positions ... mainly not playing our strikers on the left! I'd go for: James Ribs Wilson nyatanga fontaine Albert kilkenny Elliott woolford Pitman maynard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Ribs will be no where near the first team, same with Johnson Cisse Hunt and Clarkson, If they were they would of been at Ashton Gate Saturday instead of playing with the youngsters at frome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex#40 Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 My team: (4-4-2) James Edwards McAllister Wilson Fontaine Adomah Woolford/JCR Elliott Kilkenny Pitman Maynard What I think the team will be: (4-3-3) James Carey McAllister Nyatanga Fontaine Elliott Skuse JCR Adomah Maynard Stead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 I'd go with the team that started against West Brom. I thought Campbell-Ryce was impressive but Kilkenny much less so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 I'd go with the team that started against West Brom. I thought Campbell-Ryce was impressive but Kilkenny much less so. to be fair he'd just come back from injury and didn't really have time to make an impression, Same can be said about Balsie and Taylor as well, The goal we concided was a set peice but again I put that down to mainly the 3 changes we made before the corner, You should never change a team (defenders mainly) at a corner kick as half the time you will concide but it was only a friendly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 to be fair he'd just come back from injury and didn't really have time to make an impression, Same can be said about Balsie and Taylor as well, The goal we concided was a set peice but again I put that down to mainly the 3 changes we made before the corner, You should never change a team (defenders mainly) at a corner kick as half the time you will concide but it was only a friendly That's fair enough. I don't doubt that Kilkenny is much better than we saw on Saturday. Nevertheless, unless his fitness and sharpness improves dramatically in the week it would still make sense to me to start JCR as I thought he had a stronger game. Until the substitutions I thought City played pretty well, but it wasn't the most testing of friendlies. If they can retain and pass the ball that well in league games they'll do OK, but I doubt they'll get the time to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tony Montana Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 My team would be: James Ribeiro Cisse Fontaine Mcallister Adomah Kilkenny Skuse JCR Pitman Maynard Millens team: James Carey Fontaine Nyatanga Mcallister Adomah Elliot Skuse Kilkenny Stead Maynard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carey 6 Posted August 1, 2011 Author Share Posted August 1, 2011 5 subs is definitely not enough, i can't see keef not having a keeper on the bench so i can see this being our bench Carey Nyatanga (If McAlister is fit, if not then this will probably be stewart) Woolford / Bolasie Elliott / Skuse Pitman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 I understand that for teams further down the pyramid it may be difficult to name 7 subs, but it would have been ideal for us considering Keith's plans with the development squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 I'd go with the team that started against West Brom. I thought Campbell-Ryce was impressive but Kilkenny much less so. He didn't stand out for individual performance but he made himself available and helped us lower our long-ball count significantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 He didn't stand out for individual performance but he made himself available and helped us lower our long-ball count significantly. Kilkenny? I thought our passing got much worse when he came on. He did make himself available, but often ended up receiving it under pressure and either giving it straight back or wasting possession. I'm willing to accept that this may have been down down to a lack of fitness, but JCR was able to dribble his way out of trouble before using the ball more effectively than Kilkenny. League games may be a different matter and West Brom did allow our players a lot of time on the ball but I was very impressed with the passing by the midfield which started the game. The only problem was they seemed slow to spot forward runs off the ball. Numerous times there was a player breaking from midfield and the player on the ball didn't spot the pass until it was too late. If they can keep making the runs and start to make the passes they'll be an exciting team to watch this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tony Montana Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Have you seen Cissé play centre half? He is worse than Hunt when played in defence. Decent in midfield, though the stories about fitness and how lethargic he has been this pre-season make me think he has a crap attitude. My team would be a straight 4-4-2. James Carey Wilson Fontaine McAllister (Nyatanga if not fit) Adomah Elliot Kilkenny (Skuse if not fit) Woolford/JCR Stead Maynard SUBS; Carey Pitman Nyatanga/Stewart Skuse/Kilkenny Reid (anyone else think 5 subs ain't enough!!) Cisse looked decent at CB up until the last game he played there, where i think he scored an own goal? But that was one bad game, i think he looked good up until then, but i agree he is a better Midfielder but just doesnt fit in if Skuse continues to play like he did vs West brom! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funky monkey Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 easy for me james fonts loan signing/nyatanga wilson marv cisse bolaise kilkenny albert pitman/possibly stead still undecided maynard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest City Bounce Around Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 James Carey Wilson Fontaine Macca Albert Marv Kilkenny JCR Maynard Stead BANG! Thoroughly looking forward to it. It's been too long Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chivs Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Close I think but maybe we'll see Kilkenny in the middle. I wouldn't be surprised to see Bolasie instead of JCR either. I hope it's not some bastard stepchild of 433. I agree this is close (and personally I'd like to see Kilkenny for Elliot but doubt Millen will try this). However, I'm confused by how many people have said Stead/Maynard when they have hardly played together pre-season. Is Millen playing a canny game and keeping the oppo scouts guessing? I think that playing your first choice team outweighs any shenanigans... Therefore, don't you think the team that started against WBA will start against Ipswich assuming Macca is fit?? i.e it will be a bastard stepchild of 433. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcbcfc Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 We have to play 433 because the defence is so bad. It allows 1 player to sit and encourages the others to roam, playing stead on the left is far from ideal but until we can bring in players to strengthen the back line a 433 is the way to go imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 We have to play 433 because the defence is so bad. It allows 1 player to sit and encourages the others to roam, playing stead on the left is far from ideal but until we can bring in players to strengthen the back line a 433 is the way to go imo If that were true, which it isn't because it's perfectly possible to have central midfielders protect the back four in a 442 or any other number of formations too, but if it were - you don't play 433 with a striker on the left or right wing. You play it with a line leader in the middle (Stead) and two wingers who can cut in and score (Adomah and JCR or Bolasie). It leaves no sensible position for two of our best players in Maynard and Pitman. Even with the proper selection 433 is really a horrific formation for a squad like ours that has three excellent strikers and four wingers as well as no quality at full back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Cyril Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 I'd go with the team that started against West Brom. I thought Campbell-Ryce was impressive but Kilkenny much less so. Bang on and I am sure they will. The 5 man midfield seems to work well, with a simple flexibility to move to 3 up front in a flash. Seems weird to have Pitman on the left, but he joins the attack when it comes from the right. And where do people get the idea Marvin is our defensive midfielder? We will start this season where we left off the last, with Marvin often the most forward playing midfielder - again on saturday, you would be forgiven at times for thinking he was Maynard's new strike partner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BCForeverC Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Ribs will be no where near the first team, same with Johnson Cisse Hunt and Clarkson, If they were they would of been at Ashton Gate Saturday instead of playing with the youngsters at frome I think the main reason he was left out was to gain a full 90 minutes. he dearly needed a full game and was unlikely to get that against WBA with Carey and Edwards needing to have some game time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 If that were true, which it isn't because it's perfectly possible to have central midfielders protect the back four in a 442 or any other number of formations too, but if it were - you don't play 433 with a striker on the left or right wing. You play it with a line leader in the middle (Stead) and two wingers who can cut in and score (Adomah and JCR or Bolasie). It leaves no sensible position for two of our best players in Maynard and Pitman. Even with the proper selection 433 is really a horrific formation for a squad like ours that has three excellent strikers and four wingers as well as no quality at full back. I agree with your sentiment, but we've played 433 with 2 strikers and Adomah/Sproule/McIndoe for a while now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KP8 Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Millen said he has 6-7 penciled in i think thats: Jamo, L Carey, Fonts, Albert, Marv, Maynard (macca if fit) then i would have wilson, Kilkenny, JCR & Stead playing 442! trouble is will he drop skuse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 I agree with your sentiment, but we've played 433 with 2 strikers and Adomah/Sproule/McIndoe for a while now. No, we've played the bastard stepchild of 433 which is the point. It's very ineffective for us because both GJ and KM when they've tried it have tried to squeeze two strikers into it which is daft. You end up with no fluidity to your attacking play as nobody understands where their team mates are likely to be. Is he wide, has he tucked in, is he going back or front post? It's a mess and we need to avoid it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 No, we've played the bastard stepchild of 433 which is the point. It's very ineffective for us because both GJ and KM when they've tried it have tried to squeeze two strikers into it which is daft. You end up with no fluidity to your attacking play as nobody understands where their team mates are likely to be. Is he wide, has he tucked in, is he going back or front post? It's a mess and we need to avoid it. Bit pedantic, it is a 4-3-3 in definition. It could work if well drilled, in the same way we played very effectively with 1 wide player at the end of the play-off final season for a few games, albeit in midfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 And where do people get the idea Marvin is our defensive midfielder? We will start this season where we left off the last, with Marvin often the most forward playing midfielder - again on saturday, you would be forgiven at times for thinking he was Maynard's new strike partner This is because people think "he can't pass so he must be defensive". You're right, he is a very aggressive attacking midfielder who plays ahead of the ball more often than not and breaks up play in the opposition half. He gets into the box more than the other three central midfielders we had last season combined. He doesn't sit in front of the defence, he doesn't really mark and he's not one for covering spaces, he goes all out for the ball and wins it quite a bit. That's why it was never the disaster some people claimed it was when we paired him with Skuse, it just meant that when he won the ball we needed to get it wide fast as he wasn't going to thread anything through or split the defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Bit pedantic, it is a 4-3-3 in definition. It could work if well drilled, in the same way we played very effectively with 1 wide player at the end of the play-off final season for a few games, albeit in midfield. It depends whether you look on the clipboard or on the pitch, it definitely wasn't anything like 433 on the pitch. It cannot and does not work with the wrong players in the wrong positions. We didn't play any playoff final season games with one just one wide player either? We played 442 and 4411 exclusively that season. We had McIndoe left side and Sproule or Carle (and a couple of times Skuse) down the right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcbcfc Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 If that were true, which it isn't because it's perfectly possible to have central midfielders protect the back four in a 442 or any other number of formations too, but if it were - you don't play 433 with a striker on the left or right wing. You play it with a line leader in the middle (Stead) and two wingers who can cut in and score (Adomah and JCR or Bolasie). It leaves no sensible position for two of our best players in Maynard and Pitman. Even with the proper selection 433 is really a horrific formation for a squad like ours that has three excellent strikers and four wingers as well as no quality at full back. If we want to play a "creative" midfielder then you can't play 442. Everyone has been crying out for this but we aren't good enough to play without the backline protection. I agree you can have 2 sitting in there in a 442 we did under Wilson with Tommy and Burnell (the difference then was that tommy could pass a ball further than 5 yars something Marv, Cisse and Skuse have yet to master). You don't need a big center forward in a 433 unless you lump the ball aimlessly forward, something which the inclusion of a ball playing central midfielder should help to stop. I'm not Millen's biggest fan but until we can strenghten the back line he is right to play with as much protection for the back four as he can. Which means ideally Cisse but KM will pick Skuse to sit, Marv to be the legs in abox to box role and Killkenny or JCR as the playmaker. Make it difficult for teams to create room/chances before they reach the back four. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 It depends whether you look on the clipboard or on the pitch, it definitely wasn't anything like 433 on the pitch. It cannot and does not work with the wrong players in the wrong positions. We didn't play any playoff final season games with one just one wide player either? We played 442 and 4411 exclusively that season. We had McIndoe left side and Sproule or Carle (and a couple of times Skuse) down the right. Agreed. The end of that season we played a 4-3-1-2 with McIndoe wide left and Carle playing fairly centrally and Orr on the overlap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 If we want to play a "creative" midfielder then you can't play 442. Everyone has been crying out for this but we aren't good enough to play without the backline protection. I agree you can have 2 sitting in there in a 442 we did under Wilson with Tommy and Burnell (the difference then was that tommy could pass a ball further than 5 yars something Marv, Cisse and Skuse have yet to master). You don't need a big center forward in a 433 unless you lump the ball aimlessly forward, something which the inclusion of a ball playing central midfielder should help to stop. I'm not Millen's biggest fan but until we can strenghten the back line he is right to play with as much protection for the back four as he can. Which means ideally Cisse but KM will pick Skuse to sit, Marv to be the legs in abox to box role and Killkenny or JCR as the playmaker. Make it difficult for teams to create room/chances before they reach the back four. We certainly can play a creative midfielder in a 442, it's got nothing to do with the backline and much more to do with who that midfielder is. It can't be LJ since he is incapable of defending but if it's someone who can get back and mark a bit too it's perfectly possible particularly if paired with Skuse or Cisse. You don't need two sitters at all and Elliott never was one. If you want to play 433 successfully you have to have a line leading striker who can hold it up and bring people in because 433 is about breaking quickly (aimless lumping is when you play the ball into the long grass on the wings not pass it to someone). I can't think of a single side who play 433 successfully without a line leader, even Barca were using Villa or Bojan to do this. 433 for us would be a really shit decision particularly if we play two strikers for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 The end of that season we played a 4-3-1-2 with McIndoe wide left and Carle playing fairly centrally and Orr on the overlap. No, we didn't. Carle played wide in every game he started, much to the irritation of a number of us who wanted to see him given a go in the middle. He drifted in occasionally (no more or less than McIndoe) but he was on instruction to play wide right. McIndoe played left. We either had one up (Adebola, Showumni or Byfield) with Noble in behind or two up with Byfield and Trundle or Adebola and Byfield. We didn't see Adebola and Trundle or Trundle and Noble on the field together hardly either which were both combinations that should have been quite good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 No, we didn't. Carle played wide in every game he started, much to the irritation of a number of us who wanted to see him given a go in the middle. He drifted in occasionally (no more or less than McIndoe) but he was on instruction to play wide right. McIndoe played left. We either had one up (Adebola, Showumni or Byfield) with Noble in behind or two up with Byfield and Trundle or Adebola and Byfield. We didn't see Adebola and Trundle or Trundle and Noble on the field together hardly either which were both combinations that should have been quite good. I hope our wires may be crossed, I'm talking from the Sheffield United game onwards, 5 games, where we would have named an unchanged team including Noble, Carle & Trundle bar injuries for the PoF. Otherwise we'll have to agree to disagree, I was impressed with Carle's creative role in the centre in those last few games and Orr bombed forward as was his way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evocare Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 If that were true, which it isn't because it's perfectly possible to have central midfielders protect the back four in a 442 or any other number of formations too, but if it were - you don't play 433 with a striker on the left or right wing. You play it with a line leader in the middle (Stead) and two wingers who can cut in and score (Adomah and JCR or Bolasie). It leaves no sensible position for two of our best players in Maynard and Pitman. Even with the proper selection 433 is really a horrific formation for a squad like ours that has three excellent strikers and four wingers as well as no quality at full back. Thats true. I always think you should pick your best 11 players, then your formation after. Which is why I suggested a 352, just load up at front and outscore them if possible. Not point playing players out of position unless its just temporary cover. And does it not solve our defender problem, just swop one for a midfielder? Too simple maybe, easy for me to say sat at home, my balls are not on the line if it goes wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Thats true. I always think you should pick your best 11 players, then your formation after. Which is why I suggested a 352, just load up at front and outscore them if possible. Not point playing players out of position unless its just temporary cover. And does it not solve our defender problem, just swop one for a midfielder? Too simple maybe, easy for me to say sat at home, my balls are not on the line if it goes wrong! The problem I see with 352 is we don't have anybody capable of playing wingback - we have wingers in abundance but can they really defend? Honestly, I think our best chance at the moment is 442, 2 strikers, 2 wide players, a passer and a sitter in midfield and the best back four the loan market can provide! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcbcfc Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 We certainly can play a creative midfielder in a 442, it's got nothing to do with the backline and much more to do with who that midfielder is. It can't be LJ since he is incapable of defending but if it's someone who can get back and mark a bit too it's perfectly possible particularly if paired with Skuse or Cisse. You don't need two sitters at all and Elliott never was one. If you want to play 433 successfully you have to have a line leading striker who can hold it up and bring people in because 433 is about breaking quickly (aimless lumping is when you play the ball into the long grass on the wings not pass it to someone). I can't think of a single side who play 433 successfully without a line leader, even Barca were using Villa or Bojan to do this. 433 for us would be a really shit decision particularly if we play two strikers for it. Manchester United, with Hernadez. Man City with Tevez up Top he kept 'line leaders' like Dzeko and Adebayor out of the side. Everton with Saha or Beckford hardly a Kevin Davies. To use barca as an example when did you see barca hit a ball long expecting Villa to hold it up? They pass the ball around everyone until someone gets space to have a go at goal. They moved on their only big center forward 2 years ago. Swansea played a 433 for the majority of last season (with striker scott sinclair playing wide) they have an obvious advantage over us in the fact they have a decent defence. I guess it doesn't matter what either of us say we won't agree. I my opinion we'll never out score teams so our only chance to win games is to protect the back four and try and keep clean sheets and I think that with the fragile state of the back four now a 433 is the only way to go Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Frome Red Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 James Skuse Wilson Fonts Nyatanga Adomah Kilkenny Elliot JCR Stead Maynard Subs Carey GK Carey Woolford Pitman Taylor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollywhyte Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 ------------------James---------------------- Carey------Wilson------Fontaine------Nyatanga Adomah-----------Kilkenny-------------Bolasie ------Stead/Pitman-----------JCR------------- ----------------Maynard--------------------- One out of Pitman or Stead, who can support Maynard, whilst the other drops into a midfield role to support Kilkenny. Subs: Gerken Elliott Skuse Woolford Pitman/Stead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 We certainly can play a creative midfielder in a 442, it's got nothing to do with the backline and much more to do with who that midfielder is. It can't be LJ since he is incapable of defending but if it's someone who can get back and mark a bit too it's perfectly possible particularly if paired with Skuse or Cisse. You don't need two sitters at all and Elliott never was one. Elliot's the problem there for me. As already mentioned, he's not a 'sitting' type of midfielder. He's an all-action sort, like Gerrard but without the passing or goalscoring (though he got a few last year as I recall). He can't be partnered in a 2 man midfield with a creative attacking player for the same reason Gerrard can't be partnered with Lampard. Another player needs to come in and sit behind. I liked Cisse because he is better at sitting in front of the back 4 and can pass better than Elliot. He seems to be out of favour completely now though. Skuse can do the same job and contrary to some people's belief is actually an excellent passer of the ball (he set Maynard through 1-on-1 on Saturday but the supposed £5m man failed to finish.) To play a 2 man midfield we'd need to pair one of those with a more attacking player, such as Kilkenny or JCR. Elliot can't do it. We do have the players to play 4-3-3 I think, but probably not with our "best" 11. However, a midfield of Skuse, Elliot and JCR/Kilkenny and a forward line of Adomah, Stead and Bolasie could probably work. Trying to fit more than one out-and-out striker into it is what's caused Chelsea problems in recent years. The other problem with playing anything but 4-4-2 at City is that our fullbacks are probably the least mobile part of the team. 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1, 4-5-1 and similar variants all really need athletic, attacking full backs and for all their good points (of which there are undoubtedly some) nobody could really accuse Carey and McAllister of being pacy and athletic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Manchester United, with Hernadez. Man City with Tevez up Top he kept 'line leaders' like Dzeko and Adebayor out of the side. Everton with Saha or Beckford hardly a Kevin Davies. To use barca as an example when did you see barca hit a ball long expecting Villa to hold it up? They pass the ball around everyone until someone gets space to have a go at goal. They moved on their only big center forward 2 years ago. Swansea played a 433 for the majority of last season (with striker scott sinclair playing wide) they have an obvious advantage over us in the fact they have a decent defence. I guess it doesn't matter what either of us say we won't agree. I my opinion we'll never out score teams so our only chance to win games is to protect the back four and try and keep clean sheets and I think that with the fragile state of the back four now a 433 is the only way to go You're right we won't agree, I think your examples of teams playing 433 above are sketchy (Man U paired Hernandez and Rooney mainly, Balotelli? The others are capable line leaders). 433 exposes the defense far more than 442. Particularly the full backs, which are undoubtedly our weakest link. It would be a complete disaster because we'd concede lots and score fewer. Elliot's the problem there for me. As already mentioned, he's not a 'sitting' type of midfielder. He's an all-action sort, like Gerrard but without the passing or goalscoring (though he got a few last year as I recall). He can't be partnered in a 2 man midfield with a creative attacking player for the same reason Gerrard can't be partnered with Lampard. Another player needs to come in and sit behind. Elliott can do the sitting role but it is definitely not his natural game and I'd lean towards pairing Kilkenny with Cisse or Skuse in a 442 for that reason. However if Kilkenny is the kind of playmaker that prefers deep positions behind the ball to getting forward then it would work. I liked Cisse because he is better at sitting in front of the back 4 and can pass better than Elliot. He seems to be out of favour completely now though. Skuse can do the same job and contrary to some people's belief is actually an excellent passer of the ball (he set Maynard through 1-on-1 on Saturday but the supposed £5m man failed to finish.) To play a 2 man midfield we'd need to pair one of those with a more attacking player, such as Kilkenny or JCR. Elliot can't do it. JCR should never be anywhere near the middle, he's uniformly shit when he's there. Kilkenny is billed as a creative player but that isn't the same thing as attacking. We do have the players to play 4-3-3 I think, but probably not with our "best" 11. However, a midfield of Skuse, Elliot and JCR/Kilkenny and a forward line of Adomah, Stead and Bolasie could probably work. Trying to fit more than one out-and-out striker into it is what's caused Chelsea problems in recent years. It might work a little but we leave out two of our best players and expose our shitty fullbacks. Which is why I don't understand anybody advocating it as protecting the defence, unless they're advocating 451 instead. There are more attacking roles in 433, in a 442 the wide roles have a much larger defensive duty. The other problem with playing anything but 4-4-2 at City is that our fullbacks are probably the least mobile part of the team. 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1, 4-5-1 and similar variants all really need athletic, attacking full backs and for all their good points (of which there are undoubtedly some) nobody could really accuse Carey and McAllister of being pacy and athletic. Absolutely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Bristol Red Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 433 james ribeiro wilson fonts macca/tanga skuse kilkenny elliott albert ............................................. maynard pitman 352 james wilson fonts tanga skuse albert kilkenny elliott jcr pitman/stead maynard 442 james ribeiro wilson fonts macca/tanga albert kilkenny elliott woolford pitman/stead maynard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Elliott can do the sitting role but it is definitely not his natural game and I'd lean towards pairing Kilkenny with Cisse or Skuse in a 442 for that reason. However if Kilkenny is the kind of playmaker that prefers deep positions behind the ball to getting forward then it would work. He did look to be in the brief glimpse we saw of him against West Brom. I'm anticipating him being a sort of improved Lee Johnson, who will sit deep and distribute the ball whilst Elliot marauds freely, both destroying and attacking. JCR should never be anywhere near the middle, he's uniformly shit when he's there. Kilkenny is billed as a creative player but that isn't the same thing as attacking. JCR looked decent in the centre against West Brom, but that was against a team who were sitting back and giving him time on the ball. Nevertheless, he passed it tidily, moved to create space and used his dribbling ability to get out of trouble. If we come up against a team who would allow him to do that (and we might not at all in competitive fixtures) he could be worth a go. Not in a 2 man midfield, though. It might work a little but we leave out two of our best players and expose our shitty fullbacks. Which is why I don't understand anybody advocating it as protecting the defence, unless they're advocating 451 instead. There are more attacking roles in 433, in a 442 the wide roles have a much larger defensive duty. Formations tend to be fluid and interchangeable during games. I consider 433 and 451 to be much the same thing when done properly. If the team is defending and has left 3 men up front and just 3 in midfield, it's probably doing something wrong somewhere. Nevertheless, your point holds true that more reliance is placed on the full backs, probably the weakest area of City's team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Formations tend to be fluid and interchangeable during games. I consider 433 and 451 to be much the same thing when done properly. If the team is defending and has left 3 men up front and just 3 in midfield, it's probably doing something wrong somewhere. Nevertheless, your point holds true that more reliance is placed on the full backs, probably the weakest area of City's team. Formations are only really fluid and interchangeable at the top where players can cope with it, ours can't and don't. Players learn their role in a formation and stick to it, that does mean moving around but only within the role they've learned - they don't swap over a la Barca or ManU. Yes you'd expect the wide players to defend in a 433 but it's about where you start from. They will be very advanced, inside the box a lot of the time (more like inside forwards than wingers) so on a break they'll be out of the game until play has been held up somehow, as will one of the fullbacks who's overlapping and sometimes two of the three central midfielders trying to arrive late to the box. Not the case so much in 442 where the wide player on the opposite flank is more of a midfielder and will tuck in and the fullback overlaps less. You end up with five or six men behind the ball when they break as opposed to four. 433 works with exceptional full backs and goalscoring wingers, we have one goalscoring winger and one poor specialist fullback at the moment. I really do hope this isn't the plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ollywhyte Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 ------------------James---------------------- CareySpence------Wilson------Fontaine------Nyatanga Adomah-----------Kilkenny-------------Bolasie ------Stead/Pitman-----------JCR------------- ----------------Maynard--------------------- One out of Pitman or Stead, who can support Maynard, whilst the other drops into a midfield role to support Kilkenny. Subs: Gerken Elliott Skuse Woolford Pitman/Stead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Redman Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 Thats far far too attacking. We'd get completely utterly overrun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hartleysbeard Posted August 2, 2011 Share Posted August 2, 2011 For me it's going to be: GK - James RB - Spence/Ribeiro CB - Carey/Wilson CB - Fontaine LB - McAllister CM - Kilkenny CM - Elliott/Skuse RW - Adomah LW - Woolford ST - Pitman ST - Maynard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.