Luck ? Change of attitude ? Who cares ?

[Cowshed]

10 minutes ago, spudski said:

 

Yep... exactly how I saw it.

Depends on whether defending or offensive...as to who drops back or who pushes forward.

As a 'static'...it was easier to show as a 3313. But in theory moves constantly depending on actions required during a game.

I'm being theoretical and hypothetical. With Conway and Scott developing and kicking on there is something there. Energy and intensity.

Formations to myself are intent. The intent would be to put that intensity on the pitch.

The theoretical and hypothetical would be do they keep the ball well? And what happens when they lose it?  City are not high possession and a player like Massengo can be wayward getting into a defensive shape.

Remedy? 4-3-3. Having a back four and a holding player CDM covers the pitch easier, cuts down on defensive variables so providing cover for the intensity.

[Robbored]

7 hours ago, spudski said:

It's a funny ol' game...with a fit Semenyo, most likely Conway and Wells wouldn't have had the opportunities to shine. They've both excelled. Playing together a lot last season and in training has really developed an understanding of one another.

It'll be interesting to see what happens when Semenyo is fully fit.

Personally I really like the idea of an agile high pressing front 3. 

3 from Wells, Conway, Weimann and Semenyo fills me with confidence.

It even crossed my mind as to whether there is a system that could fit certain players, that when on their game could cause a real threat...

________________Bents________________

___Kalas______Naismith____Atkinson__

_______________Williams_______________

____Scott___________________HNM_____

______________Weimann_______________

____Semenyo_____________Wells_______

_______________Conway_______________

There's a lot of energy in that selection...both offensively and defensively. 

With a fully fit squad that would be close to my starting 11 and let’s hope that Nige at some stage has full player availability. 

Sykes has impressed so far and he’ll definitely feature in Nige’s plans after his suspension. The question is - where does he fit in?………….

 

[spudski]

7 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

I'm being theoretical and hypothetical. With Conway and Scott developing and kicking on there is something there. Energy and intensity.

Formations to myself are intent. The intent would be to put that intensity on the pitch.

The theoretical and hypothetical would be do they keep the ball well? And what happens when they lose it?  City are not high possession and a player like Massengo can be wayward getting into a defensive shape.

Remedy? 4-3-3. Having a back four and a holding player CDM covers the pitch easier, cuts down on defensive variables so providing cover for the intensity.

Yes I agree...formations are intent rather than completely structured. It should be flexible. 

With the players coming through...the possession could go up...it has recently...and we could definitely press with speed, urgency and intent similar to what we did on Sunday.

Wells, Conway and Semenyo would have that high energy up front.

Just in behind...Weimann, Scott and Massengo again have that energy to back up the front line.

Williams gives the defensive reassurance.

Kalas, Naismith and Atkinson all offer defensive authority, but also the ability to be fluid, move, eye for a pass and even break the line if needed.

I see a lot of positives with those players.

[spudski]

2 minutes ago, Robbored said:

With a fully fit squad that would be close to my starting 11 and let’s hope that Nige at some stage has full player availability. 

Sykes has impressed so far and he’ll definitely feature in Nige’s plans after his suspension. The question is - where does he fit in?………….

 

Players have to be flexible. Just like Scott has been.

[Robbored]

1 minute ago, spudski said:

Players have to be flexible. Just like Scott has been.

Scott is a special talent with PL clubs monitoring him. We’ve not seen enough of Sykes yet to make a reasoned comparison on his versatility.

Tough dilemma for Nige to have when Sykes becomes available again.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Interesting stuff by both @spudski and @Cowshed .

Are we saying no orthodox or more standard full backs or wing backs then- no scope for Tanner, Wilson, DaSilva or Pring in this set-up?

Appreciate the flexibility aspect too...that shape has a lot of it but would we not be a bit top-heavy in central areas?

Edited August 22, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[spudski]

10 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Scott is a special talent with PL clubs monitoring him. We’ve not seen enough of Sykes yet to make a reasoned comparison on his versatility.

Tough dilemma for Nige to have when Sykes becomes available again.

You can still be flexible at Championship level Robbo. 

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Interesting stuff by both @spudski and @Cowshed .

Are we saying no orthodox or more standard full backs or wing backs then- no scope for Tanner, Wilson, DaSilva or Pring in this set-up?

Appreciate the flexibility aspect too...that shape has a lot of it but would we not be a bit top-heavy in central areas?

I don't think there is such a thing anymore...as to 'standard or orthodox '.

Players are far more flexible and adaptable these days. 

They can play in different formations, in their area of the park so to speak.

Obviously each player has their own strong attribute and weaker attribute.

For example...when was the last time we actually had an orthodox standard Left back? 

Positions are far more adaptable and fluent.

Defenders in the main, are no longer just defenders. They have to be offensive minded as well.

Able to pass and read a game. Move accordingly.

Players don't tend to defend in the ' traditional' sense anymore. It's not about tackling. It's about using your shape, shielding, blocking, intercepting, forcing the opposition into mistakes to gain possession.

The way the modern footballer now plays, is far removed from the traditional formations and how rigid they used to be. Everything is more flexible.

 

[Robbored]

4 minutes ago, spudski said:

You can still be flexible at Championship level Robbo. 

Players don't tend to defend in the ' traditional' sense anymore. It's not about tackling. It's about using your shape, shielding, blocking, intercepting, forcing the opposition into mistakes to gain possession.

The way the modern footballer now plays, is far removed from the traditional formations and how rigid they used to be. Everything is more flexible.

Discussing versatility and having watched Dasliva in the left back area many times  I’ve often wondered if he could play in the midfield where his stature is not such a disadvantage. He can get stuck in and tackle, has quick feet and can pick a pass - the abilities that midfielders have.

Having said that City aren’t blessed with an abundance of left backs……..

[The Bard]

45 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

I'm being theoretical and hypothetical. With Conway and Scott developing and kicking on there is something there. Energy and intensity.

Formations to myself are intent. The intent would be to put that intensity on the pitch.

The theoretical and hypothetical would be do they keep the ball well? And what happens when they lose it?  City are not high possession and a player like Massengo can be wayward getting into a defensive shape.

Remedy? 4-3-3. Having a back four and a holding player CDM covers the pitch easier, cuts down on defensive variables so providing cover for the intensity.

I disagree about morphing to a 4 for several reasons.

1. Our 1st choice wing backs aren't as good at fb.  You could argue Tanner and Pring are more like traditional fbs.

2. Our CBs are good at carrying the ball forward. A key advantage of a 3 that I think we utilise well. It helped create the goal yesterday. You lose this with a 2 as they are restricted.

3. We would need a bona fide CDM. We can speculate on whether Naismith can do that job but he's clearly organising well atm. 

4. Effect on Weimann as the 10. I think a change would negatively effect him. He'd be moved out wide more rather than having the freedom to read where gaps are. Also  his ability to plug defensive gaps by spotting when a teammate is caught out of position is priceless. His role is the major strength of the team.

 

[spudski]

2 minutes ago, Robbored said:

Discussing versatility and having watched Dasliva in the left back area many times  I’ve often wondered if he could play in the midfield where his stature is not such a disadvantage. He can get stuck in and tackle, has quick feet and can pick a pass - the abilities that midfielders have.

Having said that City aren’t blessed with an abundance of left backs……..

DaSilva is definitely not a traditional LB.

His attributes are offensive. Gets forward from a deeper Left position.

Bryan was the same. 

I've said the same before. 

He is a left sided player that can play deep or further up and everything in between. But that's what you want these days from your 'defenders'.

[Mr Popodopolous]

18 minutes ago, spudski said:

I don't think there is such a thing anymore...as to 'standard or orthodox '.

Players are far more flexible and adaptable these days. 

They can play in different formations, in their area of the park so to speak.

Obviously each player has their own strong attribute and weaker attribute.

For example...when was the last time we actually had an orthodox standard Left back? 

Positions are far more adaptable and fluent.

Defenders in the main, are no longer just defenders. They have to be offensive minded as well.

Able to pass and read a game. Move accordingly.

Players don't tend to defend in the ' traditional' sense anymore. It's not about tackling. It's about using your shape, shielding, blocking, intercepting, forcing the opposition into mistakes to gain possession.

The way the modern footballer now plays, is far removed from the traditional formations and how rigid they used to be. Everything is more flexible.

 

I understand the point and blocking, shielding, intercepting as you say- I've had a bit of a leaning towards interceptions over tackles in recent years but would this not unbalance the side somewhat?

It's absolutely radical for sure and I am someon3 with a bit of a bias towards 4-3-3...pressing and possession. Never would I have considered ditching all of Tanner, Wilson, DaSilva, Pring however.

Tactical duels vs a possession based 4-3-3...but with traditional yet modern possession  based full backs and modern yet inverted wingers.  They could probably win a few duels, think we might lose that tactical one.

[chinapig]

3 minutes ago, spudski said:

DaSilva is definitely not a traditional LB.

His attributes are offensive. Gets forward from a deeper Left position.

Bryan was the same. 

I've said the same before. 

He is a left sided player that can play deep or further up and everything in between. But that's what you want these days from your 'defenders'.

Agreed, the term full back is almost becoming redundant. At the elite level there are many players labelled full backs who are something else altogether, and by no means all the same. Take Alexander-Arnold, Cancelo and James, no two the same and none of them orthodox.

As to Jay, I actually think he is best when he comes inside and links with the midfield in which case suggesting he should start in midfield is unnecessary.

[spudski]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I understand the point and blocking, shielding, intercepting as you say- I've had a bit of a leaning towards interceptions over tackles in recent years but would this not unbalance the side somewhat?

It's absolutely radical for sure and I am someon3 with a bit of a bias towards 4-3-3...pressing and possession. Never would I have considered ditching all of Tanner, Wilson, DaSilva, Pring however.

Tactical duels vs a possession based 4-3-3...but with traditional yet modern possession  based full backs and modern yet inverted wingers.  They could probably win a few duels, think we might lose that tactical one.

It's a conundrum every manager has. And you have to be flexible as to ' formations'...which change every game. You have to adapt during each game...and change accordingly. And you can use players with strengths needed at any given time. So at some point in a game as an example, you might need Prings more defensive attributes over DaSilvas. And visversa.

It's all about being adaptable and using players strengths when needed.

3 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Agreed, the term full back is almost becoming redundant. At the elite level there are many players labelled full backs who are something else altogether, and by no means all the same. Take Alexander-Arnold, Cancelo and James, no two the same and none of them orthodox.

As to Jay, I actually think he is best when he comes inside and links with the midfield in which case suggesting he should start in midfield is unnecessary.

Totally agree. And yes Jay links well. Good to see him getting his confidence back when going high up the pitch again.

[Red Cloud]

Taking the lead and not sitting deep defending for the rest of the match is a big plus for me, we actually try to score more! love it

[Davefevs]

1 hour ago, spudski said:

You can still be flexible at Championship level Robbo. 

I don't think there is such a thing anymore...as to 'standard or orthodox '.

Players are far more flexible and adaptable these days. 

They can play in different formations, in their area of the park so to speak.

Obviously each player has their own strong attribute and weaker attribute.

For example...when was the last time we actually had an orthodox standard Left back? 

Positions are far more adaptable and fluent.

Defenders in the main, are no longer just defenders. They have to be offensive minded as well.

Able to pass and read a game. Move accordingly.

Players don't tend to defend in the ' traditional' sense anymore. It's not about tackling. It's about using your shape, shielding, blocking, intercepting, forcing the opposition into mistakes to gain possession.

The way the modern footballer now plays, is far removed from the traditional formations and how rigid they used to be. Everything is more flexible.

 

It’s why I get a bit frustrated by the “FIFA brigade” when they say things like “we need a CAM or a CDM”, or “Massengo and Scott in centre midfield will get ripped apart, neither can defend” or stuff like that.

We need to move away from our rigid thinking about positions / formations and look at how each player plays his role in the team system.

We’ve proved in the last two games that formation doesn’t define success or failure.

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

Agreed, the term full back is almost becoming redundant. At the elite level there are many players labelled full backs who are something else altogether, and by no means all the same. Take Alexander-Arnold, Cancelo and James, no two the same and none of them orthodox.

As to Jay, I actually think he is best when he comes inside and links with the midfield in which case suggesting he should start in midfield is unnecessary.

I agree, probably said it countless times that Jay wants the pitch in-front of him and as you say inside of him too.  I don’t think he’s got enough pace to go on the outside all the time, but his close control coming inside often against his opponents wrong side is a real asset.

[downendcity]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

It’s why I get a bit frustrated by the “FIFA brigade” when they say things like “we need a CAM or a CDM”, or “Massengo and Scott in centre midfield will get ripped apart, neither can defend” or stuff like that.

We need to move away from our rigid thinking about positions / formations and look at how each player plays his role in the team system.

We’ve proved in the last two games that formation doesn’t define success or failure.

I agree, probably said it countless times that Jay wants the pitch in-front of him and as you say inside of him too.  I don’t think he’s got enough pace to go on the outside all the time, but his close control coming inside often against his opponents wrong side is a real asset.

I'm old enough to remember the total football played by the Dutch under Michel's in the 70s and adopted by Cruyff and later Pep at Barca.

IIRC the philosophy was that there were not set positions within a formation, but that players were interchangeable and able to play multiple roles, as it were 

 

[Son of Fred]

10 hours ago, spudski said:

________________Bents________________

___Kalas______Naismith____Atkinson__

_______________Williams_______________

____Scott___________________HNM_____

______________Weimann_______________

____Semenyo_____________Wells_______

_______________Conway_______________

Liking this very much...

Wouldn't fancy defending against that front four!

[chinapig]

22 minutes ago, downendcity said:

I'm old enough to remember the total football played by the Dutch under Michel's in the 70s and adopted by Cruyff and later Pep at Barca.

IIRC the philosophy was that there were not set positions within a formation, but that players were interchangeable and able to play multiple roles, as it were 

 

Indeed, though it predates that even with the Austria team of the 30s and Hungary in the 50s for example.

[Cowshed]

2 hours ago, The Bard said:

I disagree about morphing to a 4 for several reasons.

1. Our 1st choice wing backs aren't as good at fb.  You could argue Tanner and Pring are more like traditional fbs.

2. Our CBs are good at carrying the ball forward. A key advantage of a 3 that I think we utilise well. It helped create the goal yesterday. You lose this with a 2 as they are restricted.

3. We would need a bona fide CDM. We can speculate on whether Naismith can do that job but he's clearly organising well atm. 

4. Effect on Weimann as the 10. I think a change would negatively effect him. He'd be moved out wide more rather than having the freedom to read where gaps are. Also  his ability to plug defensive gaps by spotting when a teammate is caught out of position is priceless. His role is the major strength of the team.

 

 

 1. The post and formation I was responding to doesn’t have wing backs.  

2. I would disagree about good. The players have limitations. Carrying the ball forward inviting pressure and creating 2v1 is not something that springs to mind with Citys options. Hence adding a fourth player increases passing options and security v the idea posted. This might increase the fluidity of City passing forward into midfield - City have a tendancy to get stuck in u passing patterns from 3 cb's.

3. Not exactly. A player to distribute would be the key skill in the 4-3-3. The formation I was referring to was very dynamic and it would need a more defensively minded mobile player in front of its three cb's. 

4. Effect on Weimann as the 10. One formation had no ten and a sort of ten . The ideas were to increase the collective intensity. A high pressing intense style would require players of high defensive tactical intensity and squad rotation. The squad has personell that can pl;ay higher and in press in units. 

This was the musing about agile high pressing front three and intensity. There are skills within the squad to go out on the front foot versus the counter atttack that has been seen.

 

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

Indeed, though it predates that even with the Austria team of the 30s and Hungary in the 50s for example.

I'm not that old - quite!

[INCRED]

3 hours ago, The Bard said:

I disagree about morphing to a 4 for several reasons.

1. Our 1st choice wing backs aren't as good at fb.  You could argue Tanner and Pring are more like traditional fbs.

2. Our CBs are good at carrying the ball forward. A key advantage of a 3 that I think we utilise well. It helped create the goal yesterday. You lose this with a 2 as they are restricted.

3. We would need a bona fide CDM. We can speculate on whether Naismith can do that job but he's clearly organising well atm. 

4. Effect on Weimann as the 10. I think a change would negatively effect him. He'd be moved out wide more rather than having the freedom to read where gaps are. Also  his ability to plug defensive gaps by spotting when a teammate is caught out of position is priceless. His role is the major strength of the team.

 

I think the high energy press especially the front three suits us perfectly and it’s obviously something we are working on or maybe stumbled on?

Martin can’t play that role but the others can and when you consider that most championship defenders struggle technically to play around a press it makes sense to try and win the ball high up the pitch and capitalise on those opportunities 

LJ for his failings initially set us up like this and had success but tried to convert us to a possession based team and that’s where the wheels fell off 

Leicester did it really well under NP and they relied on quick mobile players pressing the opposition high and then add in the pacy annoying presence of Vardy and you have a pretty good strategy and identity 

I think we tried playing like this in the first few games but the high temperatures meant we couldn’t sustain it for long periods 

Now the weather is s bit cooler and we can press for longer periods then it should mean we are far more competitive and can overwhelm teams like I think we did versus Luton & Cardiff