Olé Posted December 29, 2012 Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 ...are going to get McInnes the sack. Cunningham to CB and 5-3-2 from 4-4-2 at 1-0 up, for a team that can't defend either way. Seriously???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i hate you butler Posted December 29, 2012 Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 what the hell is foster doing playing left mid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC96 Posted December 29, 2012 Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 what the hell is foster doing playing left mid? i think he played well, don't know why people are so harsh on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hortonred Posted December 29, 2012 Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 You would have hoped and expected Mcinnes to know his best line up and formation by now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JammyOne Posted December 29, 2012 Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 ....................................................................Heaton .........................Bates.......................McManus .....................................................................Cunningham ....................Skuse ............................................Danns Adomah.........................Anderson........................Foster .......Baldock...................................Stead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Tansley Posted December 29, 2012 Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 Foster was playing left midfield long before the goal. He took a throw in just before from the left which caused confusion. Del has clearly wanted to play 3 at the back over the last few weeks and it worked again today. Foster was excellent but Bryan was better on the left, Adomah did brilliantly on his side and Skuse ran the show all day long. Do that against 11 and we might just have a route out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 29, 2012 Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 It's like Del plays Champ Manager and thinks 'ooh I'll try that on Saturday' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crusader Posted December 29, 2012 Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 If its a change to stop the other team playing or to gain a greater advantage, the change can be made at any point during the game, first 5 min or later Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonBristolian Posted December 29, 2012 Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 If its a change to stop the other team playing or to gain a greater advantage, the change can be made at any point during the game, first 5 min or later Yeah - to me it depends if it's a plan or something he's tried in training (which it looked like today) or a panic move. Maybe it was a deliberate attempt to confuse the opposition and mess up their game plan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eco Posted December 29, 2012 Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 He said Posh have beaten teams who've been playing 442 hence he decided not to go with that formation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pickle Rick Posted December 29, 2012 Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 ...are going to get McInnes the sack. Cunningham to CB and 5-3-2 from 4-4-2 at 1-0 up, for a team that can't defend either way. Seriously???? It wasn't 5-3-2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bemmyredjeff Posted December 29, 2012 Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 Foster was playing left midfield long before the goal. He took a throw in just before from the left which caused confusion. Del has clearly wanted to play 3 at the back over the last few weeks and it worked again today. Foster was excellent but Bryan was better on the left, Adomah did brilliantly on his side and Skuse ran the show all day long. Do that against 11 and we might just have a route out. Uummm, I don't think so ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfkerton Posted December 29, 2012 Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 pretty sure it was 4-3-1-2 at times with anderson in the hole and having freedom. looked good from the eastend anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tall King Blox Posted December 29, 2012 Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 It's like Del plays Champ Manager and thinks 'ooh I'll try that on Saturday' Ooooh, to close to the cloth, posh hve turned over three pretty good teams on the last three outs....we beat them, ok ten men but 4-2....ide call that better than footy manager ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tall King Blox Posted December 29, 2012 Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 what the hell is foster doing playing left mid? i changed seats today,.....we won......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redtucks Posted December 30, 2012 Report Share Posted December 30, 2012 ...are going to get McInnes the sack. Cunningham to CB and 5-3-2 from 4-4-2 at 1-0 up, for a team that can't defend either way. Seriously???? It wasn't 5-3-2 pretty sure it was 4-3-1-2 at times with anderson in the hole and having freedom. looked good from the eastend anyway. I love these sort of threads, where the changes in formation are questioned but nobody actually agrees what the formation was! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
formerly known as ivan Posted December 30, 2012 Report Share Posted December 30, 2012 Missed yesterday as I has to go to a wedding but heard a lot about the formation. Looking at the line up it seemed straight forward 442: Foster, Bates, McManus, Cunningham Albert, Skuse, dann, Anderson Baldock, Stead I'm guessing this wasn't the case then. Can anyone confirm what the formation actually was? I was just happy to see Fontaine dropped! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Tansley Posted December 30, 2012 Report Share Posted December 30, 2012 Missed yesterday as I has to go to a wedding but heard a lot about the formation. Looking at the line up it seemed straight forward 442: Foster, Bates, McManus, Cunningham Albert, Skuse, dann, Anderson Baldock, Stead I'm guessing this wasn't the case then. Can anyone confirm what the formation actually was? I was just happy to see Fontaine dropped! It was 3-4-1-2 Bates and Cunningham played either side of Macmanus and both bombed forward when possible, Foster played left wing back with Albert on the right, Danns and Skuse played deep in midfield with Anderson in a free role behind Stead and Baldock. Worked well too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chivs Posted December 30, 2012 Report Share Posted December 30, 2012 Missed yesterday as I has to go to a wedding but heard a lot about the formation. Looking at the line up it seemed straight forward 442: Foster, Bates, McManus, Cunningham Albert, Skuse, dann, Anderson Baldock, Stead I'm guessing this wasn't the case then. Can anyone confirm what the formation actually was? I was just happy to see Fontaine dropped! You'd think that formation having been told that personnel. But it wasn't like that at all. We played with three at the back Bates--McManus--Cunningham. Foster player wingback in front of Cunningham. Albert did the same in front of Bates. Skuse and Danns generally held the middle. Where Anderson played I could not say. And I think that was generally the plan. He was (I think!) given a free role and popped up all over the place. Stead and Baldock played up front (of course) with Stead slightly off the front line. That's my call on it anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sephjnr Posted December 30, 2012 Report Share Posted December 30, 2012 Tbf iirc that's where Foster started out playing originally on either wing for Aberdeen, he is the very definition of a utility player He's certainly been a tool at times. But he's improving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bard Posted December 30, 2012 Report Share Posted December 30, 2012 It was 3-4-1-2 Bates and Cunningham played either side of Macmanus and both bombed forward when possible, Foster played left wing back with Albert on the right, Danns and Skuse played deep in midfield with Anderson in a free role behind Stead and Baldock. Worked well too. Correct Jordan. Anderson was in 'the hole' and did brilliantly facing the opponents goal. One worry I would have about him in that position against better sides is that he can't really play with his back to goal - he's too weak. He lost possession receiving the ball several times with his back to goal when a stronger play would have shielded it and laid it off. I'd Love to see Albert try playing there though - he's stronger and better at keeping the ball under pressure. Also Davies and Kilkenny could play there too - plenty of options. Given that Stead and Baldock were picked against Watford, maybe he was going to play that role in that game? I missed the first few minutes, but I'm told we started the game with Foster at Right back, but quickly changed. Everyone seemed to think we were 4 4 2 pre game. Perhaps Del pulled a fast one on them - we certainly started well and caught them on the hop. As I said in a thread on formations, playing with 3 centre halves, wing backs and 2 central midfielders gives us as much defensive solidity as we will get with our squad, but it allows us to tinker with how we attack the opposition and who we use. At Ipswich it was 2 wide players with Stead through the middle. I wonder what he'll do for the Millwall game - they're a 4 4 2 side with decent wide players. Can see use setting up more like we did at Ipswich. Can't see Albert staying at wing back though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yardy Posted December 30, 2012 Report Share Posted December 30, 2012 It was 3-4-1-2 Bates and Cunningham played either side of Macmanus and both bombed forward when possible, Foster played left wing back with Albert on the right, Danns and Skuse played deep in midfield with Anderson in a free role behind Stead and Baldock. Worked well too. Spot on! Although you could quite easily call this formation 5-2-1-2 when defending,3 centre backs with 2 wing backs either side,2 centre mids,and Anderson given a free role behind the front 2. I liked this formation and can see us using it alot in the coming weeks but i was mainly impressed with how hungry we was and how fast we closed the opposition down (most times anyway) If we show this much hunger in the 2nd half of the season we will have a good chance of staying up! CTID Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foghornred Posted December 30, 2012 Report Share Posted December 30, 2012 what the hell is foster doing playing left mid? Sort of left wing back really but do you know that Foster has played more minutes in 2012 than any other Bristol City player ? This seems weird because when he was replaced by Bryant there was a marked improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Tansley Posted December 30, 2012 Report Share Posted December 30, 2012 Correct Jordan. Anderson was in 'the hole' and did brilliantly facing the opponents goal. One worry I would have about him in that position against better sides is that he can't really play with his back to goal - he's too weak. Love to see Albert try it though - he's stronger and better at keeping the ball under pressure. Also Davies and Kilkenny could play there too - plenty of options. I missed the first few minutes, but we seemed to start the game with Foster at Right back, but quickly changed. Everyone seemed to think we were 4 4 2 pre game. Perhaps Del pulled a fast one on them - we certainly started well and caught them on the hop. I advocated playing Davies in that sort of role in a recent thread about playing with 3 at the back. I would say though, that with either Stead or Taylor as one of the strikers it doesn't matter so much that Anderson cannot play with his back to goal, ideally you wan him running onto a ball from one of our target men rather than holding it up himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pickle Rick Posted December 30, 2012 Report Share Posted December 30, 2012 It was 3-4-1-2 Bates and Cunningham played either side of Macmanus and both bombed forward when possible, Foster played left wing back with Albert on the right, Danns and Skuse played deep in midfield with Anderson in a free role behind Stead and Baldock. Worked well too. Exactly this. You could see the shape of the squad when they had goal kicks quite clearly. Heaton Bates McManus Cunningham Adomah Skuse Danns Foster Anderson Baldock Stead The team played in triangles quite a lot which is good to see.They also supported eachothers runs. Bates and Cunningham had freedom and were covered well by the four in front of them, mainly Skuse and Danns. Anderson was in a free role and pulling defenders away from Stead and Baldock. Anderson also linked up superbly with Adomah on many occasions. Even if it was 11 v 11 I believe this system would still be effective, we just wouldn't of had so much freedom of possession at the back. This system also seems to work well as the opposition would be forced to mark zonally rather than to the man unless they want their shape destroyed, giving players like Adomah and co more time and freedom. Good move by Del. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.