Welcome To The Jungle Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 As no new players seem to be on the way, I believe the way we defend has to change. Play 4-4-2 and have 2 banks of 4 behind the ball. Proven way of defending when you lack ball winners. Or we need to close down more and offer no time to attackers. It seems that we don't close down as a team which ruins shape but offers nothing defensivly as we are all out of position. I believe a team pressing game would suit our ability to score, especially at AG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuber Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 Couldnt agree more, the number of times if we closed down adequately we couldve won or got to the second ball are numerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redrobbin Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 Here here we always seem to give the opposition far too much time on the ball at Ashton gate. Why they don't press the play more.?? Is it a "don't lose your shape" issue? Or " don't let them get in behind us" , thing? Instead we give them time to travel, time to look up, time to pick their passes. We are crying out for one or two ball winners in midfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
just like watching brazil Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 also maybe give gherkin a chance in goal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 also maybe give gherkin a chance in goal This is a joke? How many has Heaton been at fault for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brislingwood Red Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 Cisse still available? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickolas Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 Cisse still available? Still living in bristol so probably. I'd go get him if we could, he was far and away our best player the end of last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolcitysweden Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 We need players with basic understanding of the game although paid £100,000 a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red_Mat Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 Why not try 3-5-2? It would need a lot of work in training, but at the moment it might suit those players who are available to us and give us extra solidity? Carey-Fontaine-Nyatanga the back three - this gives Fontaine a freer role, less pressure to mark people, which is where he's been slipping up, and he can use his pace to cover Carey and Nyatanga. Wingbacks: Foster and Woolford. This would allow both to get forward and not curb their attacking instincts too much. Morris and Skuse in the sitting roles in front of the defence. And give Adomah a free role to play just behind the front two, allowing him to drift out wide or anywhere between the opposition's two banks of four. Up front: Stead, because of his ability to work the channels and find space, and Baldock because we need someone in the middle, and Taylor needs a rest. Play on the counter with these last three breaking quickly, supported by the wingbacks. Just a suggestion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 Why not try 3-5-2? It would need a lot of work in training, but at the moment it might suit those players who are available to us and give us extra solidity? Carey-Fontaine-Nyatanga the back three - this gives Fontaine a freer role, less pressure to mark people, which is where he's been slipping up, and he can use his pace to cover Carey and Nyatanga. Wingbacks: Foster and Woolford. This would allow both to get forward and not curb their attacking instincts too much. Morris and Skuse in the sitting roles in front of the defence. And give Adomah a free role to play just behind the front two, allowing him to drift out wide or anywhere between the opposition's two banks of four. Up front: Stead, because of his ability to work the channels and find space, and Baldock because we need someone in the middle, and Taylor needs a rest. Play on the counter with these last three breaking quickly, supported by the wingbacks. Just a suggestion... I have always liked that formation. But I think you would kill Adomah's effectiveness. He needs space that the wing gives him to utilise the skill and pace he has, stuffing him in central with a license to pull out wide, takes away so much of his game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbred Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 also maybe give gherkin a chance in goal Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pezo Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 Why not try 3-5-2? It would need a lot of work in training, but at the moment it might suit those players who are available to us and give us extra solidity? Carey-Fontaine-Nyatanga the back three - this gives Fontaine a freer role, less pressure to mark people, which is where he's been slipping up, and he can use his pace to cover Carey and Nyatanga. Wingbacks: Foster and Woolford. This would allow both to get forward and not curb their attacking instincts too much. Morris and Skuse in the sitting roles in front of the defence. And give Adomah a free role to play just behind the front two, allowing him to drift out wide or anywhere between the opposition's two banks of four. Up front: Stead, because of his ability to work the channels and find space, and Baldock because we need someone in the middle, and Taylor needs a rest. Play on the counter with these last three breaking quickly, supported by the wingbacks. Just a suggestion... I like the idea and it looks good on paper but I have yet to see it work against formations that are regularly used in this country. I can remember man u playing 3 at the back against Fulham (I think) a couple of years ago and they were a mess, I would hazard that if a team as dominant as man u can't make it work then we would also find it difficult, doesn't mean we shouldn't try it but once we try it we will have to stick with it and try and make it work and could cost us 10 games to get it right (after 3 games everyone would be up in arms saying its not working and we need to change it back). It would be a high risk strategy and one I wouldn't recommend to Del. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 I've not been able to watch City play this season yet...work commitments. But i get the impression from what people have been posting is that our midfield is constantly over run? Defending starts further up the pitch...and as far back as as i can remember...regardless of what manager we've had...City always seem to sit far too back and let teams come at them. Often sitting on the edge of the 18 yard box. When we've done well on occasion, we've hunted the opposition down from further upfield...constantly pressing and forcing the opposition into mistakes. It's not rocket science to see, that if the ball is up their end...the oppostion are less likely to score. I prefer this style of football...a pressing game...with fast skillful players...holding players and playmakers. The day of the oldfashioned big back 2 CB's is soooo British... Get the ball down...and play football. Isn't it Barcelona who started to sign holding CM players (like Cisse) and use them as CB's. Players who break up play and play an inteligent pass and keep posession. The 'Traditional' British CB wins a header or hoofs it anywhere.... The best football teams now keep possesion as much as possible and control where the ball is...not leaving it to chance. It can be done...even in this league. I watched Swansea v Reading yesterday and all i could think was 'that could be us'...if we thought outside the box a bit more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidebet Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 We need a new defence... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red_Mat Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 I have always liked that formation. But I think you would kill Adomah's effectiveness. He needs space that the wing gives him to utilise the skill and pace he has, stuffing him in central with a license to pull out wide, takes away so much of his game. Yeah, I agree about Albert. He was the only one in that formation I wasn't sure about. I almost left him out completely and put in Anderson or Pitman, but I don't think either is fully match fit, in form or in favour with the manager... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Welcome To The Jungle Posted October 7, 2012 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 I like the idea and it looks good on paper but I have yet to see it work against formations that are regularly used in this country. I can remember man u playing 3 at the back against Fulham (I think) a couple of years ago and they were a mess, I would hazard that if a team as dominant as man u can't make it work then we would also find it difficult, doesn't mean we shouldn't try it but once we try it we will have to stick with it and try and make it work and could cost us 10 games to get it right (after 3 games everyone would be up in arms saying its not working and we need to change it back). It would be a high risk strategy and one I wouldn't recommend to Del. When Millen only lost once in 8 games in his spell before copout we played 3 5 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pezo Posted October 7, 2012 Report Share Posted October 7, 2012 When Millen only lost once in 8 games in his spell before copout we played 3 5 2 We tried playing that tactic all season that season and was one of he reasons Johnson got the sack! It worked out well for Millen after we spent most of the year trying to get it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Always Believesham Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Last year away at Cardiff, we fell apart but seemed to stabilise when we went 3-5-2 I like 3-5-2 but think it would completely eliminate Albert The other option is 5-4-1 for the 3 Centre backs what the OP is saying (I think) is, to make our lack of a ball winner look less obvious, we need another body in the middle at the back. Johnson playing 3-5-2 always looked lopsided, it felt like 3-5-2 on the right and 4-4-2 on the left, IMO that's why it didn't work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Horsman Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Cisse still available? Big, big miss in my opinion!! We have no naturally defensive midfielder in the squad and a weak, out of form back 4, being regularly and sorely exposed. 2 right footed fullbacks alongside 2 left footed centrebacks creates inbalance and confidence is obviously lacking. Cisse's beef would provide some significant additional defensive cover, in my humble opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davros Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 As no new players seem to be on the way, I believe the way we defend has to change. Play 4-4-2 and have 2 banks of 4 behind the ball. Proven way of defending when you lack ball winners. Or we need to close down more and offer no time to attackers. It seems that we don't close down as a team which ruins shape but offers nothing defensivly as we are all out of position. I believe a team pressing game would suit our ability to score, especially at AG. I always think that the 3 - 5 - 2 formation works well when you have poor defensive options because lets face it 90% of the time its ends up as 5-3-2 with the midfield getting bypassed aint nice to look at but its a short term fix until we get someone in a loan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 I prefer Diamonds... 3-1-3-1-2 3 Defenders. 1 player just in front ( someone to mop up, and break up play and disperse passes... a sweeper in old terms...but more technical now. Cisse was ideal at this). 3 Central Midfield players, a mixture of playmakers, grafter and holding. 1 Roaming free player... Albert...to switch wings...or play centrally...constantly roaming and causing a problem to mark. We don't need two wingers. 2 Forwards playing off the shoulder of each other, or one dropping deep to receive allowing Albert space. Plenty of movement and rotation...pressing high...defending high. That's how i would play football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glynriley Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 I prefer Diamonds... 3-1-3-1-2 3 Defenders. 1 player just in front ( someone to mop up, and break up play and disperse passes... a sweeper in old terms...but more technical now. Cisse was ideal at this). 3 Central Midfield players, a mixture of playmakers, grafter and holding. 1 Roaming free player... Albert...to switch wings...or play centrally...constantly roaming and causing a problem to mark. We don't need two wingers. 2 Forwards playing off the shoulder of each other, or one dropping deep to receive allowing Albert space. Plenty of movement and rotation...pressing high...defending high. That's how i would play football. Go on then Spud , put some names into this system of yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Heaton Wilson Fontaine Cunningham Cisse ( go get him Del ) Skuse Morris Pearson Albert Baldock Davies All if fit and playing to their best. Subs Gerkin Carey or another loan signing please (Defender) Woolford Taylor Wilson Kilkenny All hypothetical of course...as it depends on what team you're playing against...but you get the drift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glynriley Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Heaton Wilson Fontaine Cunningham Cisse ( go get him Del ) Skuse Morris Pearson Albert Baldock Davies All if fit and playing to their best. Subs Gerkin Carey or another loan signing please (Defender) Woolford Taylor Wilson Kilkenny All hypothetical of course...as it depends on what team you're playing against...but you get the drift. Yep , that's kind of how I imagined it would look. Obviously we don't have Cisse as part of our squad to play , could exchange Skuse and bring Elliott in I suppose. Just Fonataine as CH with Wilson and Cunningham either side at the back , interesting. I'm not going to lie , IMO that side would get ripped to shreds and I'll be amazed if most people on here don't agree with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the frampton balti Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 ATTACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 Yep , that's kind of how I imagined it would look. Obviously we don't have Cisse as part of our squad to play , could exchange Skuse and bring Elliott in I suppose. Just Fonataine as CH with Wilson and Cunningham either side at the back , interesting. I'm not going to lie , IMO that side would get ripped to shreds and I'll be amazed if most people on here don't agree with me. It would get ripped to shreds if we have the same mindset and sit deep all the time. The point of this system is to defend high and push. Banks of players, who rotate. Players would have to be adaptable. Under pressure, Wilson and Cunningham would cover the flanks and two of the defending midfielders would drop deeper centrally. Effectivelt giving a defence of 5 with Cisse and playmaker in front. Albert also covering any flank that was being attacked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 From watching saturday's game, it strikes me that one of the easiest defensive tactics we can utilize is to learn how to pass the ball 10 yards to one of our players! How many times on saturday did we give the ball away and enable Leicester to break quickly? It wouldn't be so bad if we were giving the ball away on the edge of their penalty area, but we were doing this in our half of the pitch so they could attack the heart of defence easily. Also, I do think we back off far to much. Leicester were content to let us pass the ball about on the edge of our area ( probably because they had worked out that with the fragile confidence at the heart of our defence it would only be a matter of time before one of our passes would come their way!) but closed us down quickly if we tried to move forward. When Leicester had the ball we seemed to back off so they could easily build pressure inside our half. Finally, we seemed sluggish throughout the game and played with little or no urgency. Leicester are a side full of confidence, as they should be given their league position, and it showed as they were sharp all over the pitch, were moving well off the ball and all their players looked like they wanted the ball. We were a yard slower all over the pitch, too many players didn't look like they wanted the ball and our passing was ponderous ( everyone frightened of making a mistake?) so that we got nowhere fast. McInness has obviously got them trying to play the ball out of defence, rather than hitting a long ball, which is good. However, building from the back should be a means to an end but on Saturday all too often it looked like it was an end in itself. From a decent start to the season, where the main problem was making the centre of defence secure, we've been unlucky in that injuries have affected the balance and momentum of the team. On Saturday we had a completely reshuffled defence that looked anything but confident. Pearson has personal problems that cannot help his frame of mind and personal confidence and Skuse is just back from injury, so was not firing on all cylinders. We were up against a confident, table topping team so even at our best we would have struggled. They exposed the weaknesses we already knew about, so let's hope that McInness can come up with solutions over the next couple of weeks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glynriley Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 It would get ripped to shreds if we have the same mindset and sit deep all the time. The point of this system is to defend high and push. Banks of players, who rotate. Players would have to be adaptable. Under pressure, Wilson and Cunningham would cover the flanks and two of the defending midfielders would drop deeper centrally. Effectivelt giving a defence of 5 with Cisse and playmaker in front. Albert also covering any flank that was being attacked. So we'd end up with 2 of Pearson / Skuse / Morris acting as makeshift centre halves ? Easy enough to say all the above , but you're assuming that players at this level have the intelligence to adapt different formations for different phases of play. Keep it simple , round pegs in round holes etc....... It comes as no surprise that you've not seen us play this season. Our best results have been acheived with a straight forward 4-4-2 and everyone knowing where they should be on the pitch and what their roles are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 It struck me last season how little movement there was off the ball fom City...is that still continuing? Often forwards would just stand with their back to goal not moving. How often do forwards and midfielders come to collect the ball or make a diagonal run to create space for others? It would annoy me, because the defence would often just lump the ball forward, because there was no movement and they had no option left under pressue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudski Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 So we'd end up with 2 of Pearson / Skuse / Morris acting as makeshift centre halves ? Easy enough to say all the above , but you're assuming that players at this level have the intelligence to adapt different formations for different phases of play. Keep it simple , round pegs in round holes etc....... It comes as no surprise that you've not seen us play this season. Our best results have been acheived with a straight forward 4-4-2 and everyone knowing where they should be on the pitch and what their roles are. Fair point...but it's not rocket science. Lots of teams abroad play this way. 442 is as old as i can remember.... surely we need to move on? Swansea and Reading achieved it by adapting a different approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.