Formation Conundrum

[Portland Bill]

The funny thing is, the best club side in the World don't play with a Centre forward!

There thoughts are, why have a player standing up there on his own being marked by two Centre halfs.

It's all about movement and finding space at the right time.

I thought we played some of our best stuff for years when Noble played in the "hole". Central defenders in this country aren't comfertable unless they have someone to mark,I really can't see a problem with someone like Albert drifting into the "hole" at times. His full back would pass him on but the centre halfs would be so unsure and taken out of there comfort zone.

[Mr Popodopolous]

You quiet clearly dont understand the formation 4-5-1.No offence. It doesn't mean you can't play with two strikers. It just means, one sits slightly deeper.

A 4-5-1 could quiet easily be made into 4-1-2-1-1-1

For example...

-----------------James--------------------

Spence-----Wilson-----Fontaine----Mcgivern

----------------Kilkenny------------------

------Cisse--------------Elliot-----------

----Albert floating across both wings-----

---------------------Pitman/Stead---------

-----------Maynard------------------------

No debate there- amazing the number of people who automatically equate 4-5-1 with defensive or dull football.

[Mr Popodopolous]

The funny thing is, the best club side in the World don't play with a Centre forward!

There thoughts are, why have a player standing up there on his own being marked by two Centre halfs.

It's all about movement and finding space at the right time.

I thought we played some of our best stuff for years when Noble played in the "hole". Central defenders in this country aren't comfertable unless they have someone to mark,I really can't see a problem with someone like Albert drifting into the "hole" at times. His full back would pass him on but the centre halfs would be so unsure and taken out of there comfort zone.

You're not wrong there, Noble, movement etc. As for your first point, read a report of their first game, vs Villareal on Monday evening- 3-4-3 diamond pretty much- 9 mids, 1 defender and no strikers- went like this...

2 Defensive mids and one centre back

4 central mids

Pedro Messi Sanchez

None of them strikers!

[Robbored]

You're not wrong there, Noble, movement etc. As for your first point, read a report of their first game, vs Villareal on Monday evening- 3-4-3 diamond pretty much- 9 mids, 1 defender and no strikers- went like this...

2 Defensive mids and one centre back

4 central mids

Pedro Messi Sanchez

None of them strikers!

Many top clubs don't have a centre forward in the British sense. Its old fashioned and as has been said many time on here the coaching in the UK is years behind the Spanish, Dutch and Italians.

[Monkeh]

Many top clubs don't have a centre forward in the British sense. Its old fashioned and as has been said many time on here the coaching in the UK is years behind the Spanish, Dutch and Italians.

English football is stuck in the 60's and 70's

[The Batman]

i vote for the Mike Bassett Christmas pudding formation.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Many top clubs don't have a centre forward in the British sense. Its old fashioned and as has been said many time on here the coaching in the UK is years behind the Spanish, Dutch and Italians.

Nothing I disagree with in that- though I still maintain Barca broke new ground by fielding no traditional forwards and one defender!

[Talk Of The Town]

City played 4-4-2 against Ipswich and Cardiff and conceded 6 goals.

City's Achilles heel has been the defence for a long time now. That's why with the current squad City need 5 across the middle imo. That's either 3-5-2 or 4-5-1. The extra midfielder gives extra protection and allows room for some width and creativity.

One up front away from home has proved to be solid enough. 4 points from the last two away games shows that. But.....at AG it's not always creative enough to break down opposition teams who like to sit back. That said 3 at the back has its flaws as well and relies heavily on wing backs. All various formations have pro's and con's and much depends on what resources a manager has.

If we look at the probable back four for the Brighton game we will have a very young line up. Spence, Wilson, Nyatanga and McGivern. They are all capable defenders but inexperienced. Only Nyatanga has played a full season of Championship football before. That's why they need some experienced players just in front of them Kilkenny and Skuse fit the bill and Cisse has played there before although seems to be out of favour at the moment.

I have to agree with you Robbered. I think its important we play 5 in midfield as a 4-4-2 formation is becoming outdated in modern football.

People suggesting diamond formations must be bonkers, its far to open and when most opposition put 5 in midfield you get totally outrun in the middle of the park. You end up with players chasing shadows. Swansea came down to the gate with 5 in midfield and played us off the park, we couldnt get near them. I say stick with 4-5-1, which becomes a 4-3-3 when we attack,with wingers bombing on to support forwards.

[marshy]

Achilles heel has been the defence for a long time now. That's why with the current squad City need 5 across the middle imo. That's either 3-5-2 or 4-5-1. The extra midfielder gives extra protection and allows room for some width and creativity.

One up front away from home has proved to be solid enough. 4 points from the last two away games shows that. But.....at AG it's not always creative enough to break down opposition teams who like to sit back. That said 3 at the back has its flaws as well and relies heavily on wing backs. All various formations have pro's and con's and much depends on what resources a manager has.

If we look at the probable back four for the Brighton game we will have a very young line up. Spence, Wilson, Nyatanga and McGivern. They are all capable defenders but inexperienced. Only Nyatanga has played a full season of Championship football before. That's why they need some experienced players just in front of them Kilkenny and Skuse fit the bill and Cisse has played there before although seems to be out of favour at the moment.

I have to agree with you Robbered. I think its important we play 5 in midfield as a 4-4-2 formation is becoming outdated in modern football.

People suggesting diamond formations must be bonkers, its far to open and when most opposition put 5 in midfield you get totally outrun in the middle of the park. You end up with players chasing shadows. Swansea came down to the gate with 5 in midfield and played us off the park, we couldnt get near them. I say stick with 4-5-1, which becomes a 4-3-3 when we attack,with wingers bombing on to support forwards.

[Robbored]

Completely disagree with your opinion of the diamond formation. It gives four in the central midfield area and is anything but open. Should be sufficient bodies in there to combat those teams who play 4-5-1 with three in CM. In the final analysis it's ten against ten outfield players whatever system you employ and you have to match the opposition in terms of effort and enthusiasm. One thing is certain if we continue to employ Maynard up front on his own then we are going to really piss off Stead, Pitman, and Clarkson and risk losing all four next year rather than just Maynard. Now that really would be 'bonkers'.

[funky monkey]

....................................james...........................................

.........spence..............Wilson..............mcgivern...............

.....................elliott.....................killkenny.........................

Adomah....................reid............................JCR...............

....................pittman..........................................................

........................................maynard.....................................

or

...............................james.........................................

.................spence....wilson......mcgivern...................

....adomah............elliott............killkenny........jcr.......

............stead...........maynard.....pittman...................

[spudski]

[marshy]

I'm not a great fan of the diamond. I'll always remember City losing 1-6 at AG to Wolves when it was used and that's partly why I have a poor opinion of it.

Its too open and relies far too much on the players having to remember where they are supposed to be at any given time (not easy in the hurly burly of a Championship game) and when the opposition clock what formation your playing its easy for them to counter. That's why you don't see it very often these days.

5 across midfield every time imo.

[Talk Of The Town]

....................................james...........................................

.........spence..............Wilson..............mcgivern...............

.....................elliott.....................killkenny.........................

Adomah....................reid............................JCR...............

....................pittman..........................................................

........................................maynard.....................................

or

...............................james.........................................

.................spence....wilson......mcgivern...................

....adomah............elliott............killkenny........jcr.......

............stead...........maynard.....pittman...................

Adomah and JCR as wing backs, are you sure?

[Nibor]

Unfortunately when the current City squad was assembled it wasn't put together with a view to employing that system and leaves some of our better players out of the starting line-up or out of position.

The problem we have is that the City squad was assembled without any system in mind.

I've always thought the best way to build a squad was to pick two systems, one more open and one tougher to break down, and trade players in and out to fit. Make sure your squad is practised in both and switch between them as fixtures demand. We last did this in the season we got to the playoff final, switching between 442 and 4411 with Noble in the hole.

Since then, under both GJ and KM, we seem to have treated the system we play as an afterthought tacked onto a bunch of players we ended up with. We've changed it very reactively, after every bad result, and been through half a dozen different shapes to no real avail. To me, this is arse about face. For the fourth season running we're trying to figure out which system best fits the squad and coming to the conclusion that frankly, none do very well.

Building from the back seems to me to work best. I would suggest we want a settled back four, and should rule out back threes, wing backs and all that shit. We don't have the players for wing backs and back threes seem to confuse people.

Accepting a back four, what you do in front of that at the moment is difficult because you have to choose between leaving out a striker (which is our strongest squad area) or playing with two in central midfield which everyone has had a downer on for a while for some reason.

Myself, I'd go with two in central midfield, because I think Kilkenny and either Skuse or Elliott can be a good enough partnership IF (and this is the gamble) we can make the front four understand what movement is.

If we use 451/433, let's do it away from home. Both systems are simple to understand, effective and used by the majority of clubs in Europe, despite every FIFA/FM player wanting to try something exotic.

Then, in January and the summer, recruit (more importantly, SELL) to fit the systems we've picked with a strategy based on arriving at a squad of about 24 senior pros and two players per position.

This sort of rebuilding takes time and until we lose a dozen or so in the summer out of contract it's difficult to do admittedly.

[Jordan Tansley]

You quiet clearly dont understand the formation 4-5-1.No offence. It doesn't mean you can't play with two strikers. It just means, one sits slightly deeper.

A 4-5-1 could quiet easily be made into 4-1-2-1-1-1

For example...

-----------------James--------------------

Spence-----Wilson-----Fontaine----Mcgivern

----------------Kilkenny------------------

------Cisse--------------Elliot-----------

----Albert floating across both wings-----

---------------------Pitman/Stead---------

-----------Maynard------------------------

No natural balance in the formation whatsoever, Spud.

If you're going to bring in a deeper striker then you sacrifice a central midfielder, not the width.

What I would give to have David Noble back.

[funky monkey]

Adomah and JCR as wing backs, are you sure?

There not wing backs this formation is about attack. there are 3 defenders at the back and defend they shall.

[Greedo]

I'd go for similar to how Barcalona play,

In a kind of 4-3-3

              James

     Spence       Fontaine

Skuse                    McAllister

               Cissé

        Elliot        Killkeny

     Adomah         Pitman

             Maynard

BENCH: Gerken, Nyatanga, Campbell-Ryce, Woolford, Stead

[Jordan Tansley]

The problem we have is that the City squad was assembled without any system in mind.

I've always thought the best way to build a squad was to pick two systems, one more open and one tougher to break down, and trade players in and out to fit. Make sure your squad is practised in both and switch between them as fixtures demand. We last did this in the season we got to the playoff final, switching between 442 and 4411 with Noble in the hole.

Since then, under both GJ and KM, we seem to have treated the system we play as an afterthought tacked onto a bunch of players we ended up with. We've changed it very reactively, after every bad result, and been through half a dozen different shapes to no real avail. To me, this is arse about face. For the fourth season running we're trying to figure out which system best fits the squad and coming to the conclusion that frankly, none do very well.

Building from the back seems to me to work best. I would suggest we want a settled back four, and should rule out back threes, wing backs and all that shit. We don't have the players for wing backs and back threes seem to confuse people.

Accepting a back four, what you do in front of that at the moment is difficult because you have to choose between leaving out a striker (which is our strongest squad area) or playing with two in central midfield which everyone has had a downer on for a while for some reason.

Myself, I'd go with two in central midfield, because I think Kilkenny and either Skuse or Elliott can be a good enough partnership IF (and this is the gamble) we can make the front four understand what movement is.

If we use 451/433, let's do it away from home. Both systems are simple to understand, effective and used by the majority of clubs in Europe, despite every FIFA/FM player wanting to try something exotic.

Then, in January and the summer, recruit (more importantly, SELL) to fit the systems we've picked with a strategy based on arriving at a squad of about 24 senior pros and two players per position.

This sort of rebuilding takes time and until we lose a dozen or so in the summer out of contract it's difficult to do admittedly.

A bloody good post from top to bottom. Completely agree.

We did seem to buy players with 352 in mind for GJ's last season but he quickly bottled it after one bad result despite it looking like it would work through pre season.

[miketh2nd]

4-5-1 in away matches is fine with me, but at home we want to be entertained and watch more attacking football ala 4-4-2!

Trouble is our midfield not our defence imo. We can't seem to string more than two or three passes together without losing possession.

Bringing on Cisse for Elliot or Skuse might help........

I think Cisee did have a good reason why we got better last season but Kilkenny does what Cisse does get the ball form defence and play simple balls so unless Kilkenny played further up the field I don't see this working, I still think Skuse is a good player but gone a bit stale and Millen doesn't be able to get the best of him.

Like others have said teams have realized just put two on Adomah and if JCR isn't playing well then that's our main midfield threat gone. So unless our midfield improves I'd be quite tempted to stick Adomah upfront. Having said that Adomah and stead linked up quite well at times last season setting each other up so once stead is starting again should take the pressure off Adomah a bit being the only threat. But can't help think Maynard's 20 goals was alongside Haynes fast striker and yes we had Hartely but Haynes opened space for Maynard.

[Robbored]

Unfortunately when the current City squad was assembled it wasn't put together with a view to employing that system and leaves some of our better players out of the starting line-up or out of position.

Good point but its a 'chicken and egg' scenario.

Does a manager bring in players to fit in to a system or do you adapt the players you have to fit a system? Bear in mind that managers always inherit players from their predecessor and you have the answer. What you then do is gradually sign players that you know can play the system you want.

When re-building a team managers prefer to start from the back and then think about the spine. If you have a solid back four and 'keeper the less you are likely to concede goals. George Graham did exactly that at Arsenal 25 odd years ago and from that foundation grew a very decent side. '1-0 to the Arsenal' was a common phrase back then.

Tbh Millen has had to use 5 across the midfield because of the dodgy defence and the last three results show that it works but leaves good players like Stead and Pitman either on the bench or playing out of position.

[SJC]

[Mr Popodopolous]

[spudski]

The funny thing is we don't actually play with two effective out and out wingers at the moment.

Albert has had two men marking him most games, and will probably have this all season as teams know he is our danger player.

Because of this he has been less effective this year so far.

On the left Woolford has been below par, and JCR just keeps running inside and around in circles. Then they stick Pitman on the left doing basically nothing.

By having 3 strong midfielders and Albert floating, it would create problems for the opposition as they would constantly have to change who is covering Albert.

Our formations are too rigid at the moment. Midfield needs to move as a unit. If we are attacking on the right with Albert then the whole midfield moves across slightly, creating room for our left back to move up field and become the width on the left, and visversa when attacking down the left, leaving the RB to move up. It's all about rotation and movement. All the top teams do it. As it is, we have very little movement.

[Nibor]

Our formations are too rigid at the moment. Midfield needs to move as a unit. If we are attacking on the right with Albert then the whole midfield moves across slightly, creating room for our left back to move up field and become the width on the left, and visversa when attacking down the left, leaving the RB to move up. It's all about rotation and movement. All the top teams do it. As it is, we have very little movement.

Keith Millen pulling some weird formation the players don't understand out of his ass will make the movement problem worse not better. You can't fix it just by drawing a few arrows, the players have to feel confident and develop an intuitive understanding of where there'll be space, who'll cover them and where their teammates will look to go. They won't develop that if they're asked to play something they're not used to.

[Robbored]

It's all about rotation and movement. All the top teams do it. As it is, we have very little movement.

A lot of that rigidity stems from lack of confidence. City haven't played with a sense of freedom for ages and that stems back to strict team orders instilled by previous managers which stiffled natural talent like Noble and Trundle. Elliot and Skuse played under those restrictions and they still haven't shaken off the shackles. Neither express themselves fully. Skuse in particular is great when attacking the opposition box but we don't see him do it.

It would be interesting for Millen to say to the the lads '' Its 3-5-2 today. Go out and express yourselves'' to see what would happen.

[spudski]

Keith Millen pulling some weird formation the players don't understand out of his ass will make the movement problem worse not better. You can't fix it just by drawing a few arrows, the players have to feel confident and develop an intuitive understanding of where there'll be space, who'll cover them and where their teammates will look to go. They won't develop that if they're asked to play something they're not used to.

With respect...it's not a weird formation. It is a simple formation and something every Professional footballer will be aware of. In fact it's so simple that when i took my FA coaching badge we were practicing this formation in practical theory with the kids. At the top level Rinaldo did it with Man Utd.

Our players have the knowledge and ability, but it is very apparant that they are not playing with a freedom and with fear.

If anyone thinks playing Albert purely on the right this season will be as effective as last season, then i think they are going to be very disappointed. You have to adapt when teams find your strengths.

Edit...i posted this as Robbo posted his. We appear to think the same re freedom and confidence.

[The Bard]

The problem we have is that the City squad was assembled without any system in mind.

I've always thought the best way to build a squad was to pick two systems, one more open and one tougher to break down, and trade players in and out to fit. Make sure your squad is practised in both and switch between them as fixtures demand. We last did this in the season we got to the playoff final, switching between 442 and 4411 with Noble in the hole.

Since then, under both GJ and KM, we seem to have treated the system we play as an afterthought tacked onto a bunch of players we ended up with. We've changed it very reactively, after every bad result, and been through half a dozen different shapes to no real avail. To me, this is arse about face. For the fourth season running we're trying to figure out which system best fits the squad and coming to the conclusion that frankly, none do very well.

Building from the back seems to me to work best. I would suggest we want a settled back four, and should rule out back threes, wing backs and all that shit. We don't have the players for wing backs and back threes seem to confuse people.

Accepting a back four, what you do in front of that at the moment is difficult because you have to choose between leaving out a striker (which is our strongest squad area) or playing with two in central midfield which everyone has had a downer on for a while for some reason.

Myself, I'd go with two in central midfield, because I think Kilkenny and either Skuse or Elliott can be a good enough partnership IF (and this is the gamble) we can make the front four understand what movement is.

If we use 451/433, let's do it away from home. Both systems are simple to understand, effective and used by the majority of clubs in Europe, despite every FIFA/FM player wanting to try something exotic.

Then, in January and the summer, recruit (more importantly, SELL) to fit the systems we've picked with a strategy based on arriving at a squad of about 24 senior pros and two players per position.

This sort of rebuilding takes time and until we lose a dozen or so in the summer out of contract it's difficult to do admittedly.

Good post. Describes our problems well. You could call it a compatibility problem. Our players don't seem to suit playing with each other with one or two exceptions.

I've always looked at 4 4 2 as havng 5 key partnerships. Centre halves, right side, left side, central midfield and centre forward. Of these, I only think we tick the box on the right and maybe at centre half - Wilson and Nyatanga have been surprisingly impressive. We will have a new left back for a couple of months - I'm looking forward to seeing if he is able to affect the game in the opposition half. If he is, then either JCR or Woolford will really benefit. I still curse Millen for not seeing that Danny Rose was potentially a top level full back - imagine how better we'd have been with him playing full back behind JCR. If McGivern is this kind of player, then 4 4 2 becomes much more workable. In the middle, we all know that Skuse and Marv simply doesn't work. We saw last season that CIsse and Marv did - Cisse's defensive qualities and positional discipline mean that Marv can go wandering. Kilkenny however has genuine passing ability and helps us play. Any combination of Marv, Cisse and Kilkenny could work. I can't see that Skuse is compatible with any of the others - he's a better right back. Up top, the conventional wisdom is that Maynard and Stead should be an ideal combo. However, we've not yet seen the evidence. Stead and Pitman were effective and Pitman and Maynard looked okay. Taylor looks like a decent signing and Clarkson might still surprise everyone. I'd go for this:-

James

Spence Wilson Nyatanga McGivern

Adomah Elliott Cisse JCR

Maynard Pitman

Subs Gerkin, Skuse, Woolford, Stead, Clarkson

To me, that looks a side that would finish top 10.

[spudski]

And if you think it's odd, this is what Strachan had to say about it in 2005

Gordon Strachan The Guardian, Monday 24 January 2005 23.02 GMT Article history

Chelsea have had lots of attention for their 4-3-3 system and the way their wide players give teams problems but Manchester United showed that they can do the same thing. Cristiano Ronaldo and Wayne Rooney caused Aston Villa a lot of trouble by roaming all over the place and running at people.

Villa put up a good show and there were a lot of good individual performances but they never knew where Ronaldo and Rooney were going to turn up - just as teams do not have a clue where Chelsea's Arjen Robben and Damien Duff are going to pop up - and that made life hard for their defenders.

With every other team that play 4-5-1 you know 90% of the time where their wide men are going to be. That was the case with Gareth Barry and Nol Solano in Villa's set-up, so United's full-backs could quite easily find those two, get tight and leave their centre-halves two on one against Juan Pablo Angel. But Rooney and Ronaldo move about and step infield a lot.

When they came inside it caused Villa real problems because no one was sure how to deal with it. Quite often Ronaldo stepped in, picked up the ball and dribbled at defenders.

Jlloyd Samuel didn't go searching for him, probably because as a full-back he felt uncomfortable going behind his midfield and because most clubs don't like their back four to break up. He also will have known that, if he followed Ronaldo, Louis Saha could run down the side of Liam Ridgewell. It might look as if Mathieu Berson could have looked for Ronaldo but that would have left Villa two against three in the middle of the park and United would have passed round them there.

[Pederho ll]

What we want is a midfield balance solidity, pace and creativity, so we should have a look at the 4-5-1with: Adomah, Elliot, Kilkenny, Cisse, Bolaise, up top, Stead!