God, I hate formations

[Antman]

2 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

It looks ( and sounds ) like we will be going to a 3 for the most part and to show my working out ..

Sykes has to play, big goal threat and been a regularly good performer.
Pring & McCrorie pick themselves.
Balance means a left & right CB and as Dickie has been like the Bemmy Beckenbauer he plays central.
Williams has been brilliant lately & I feel Knight is better deeper.
Twine, teachers fav
TC , Obvs.

so , my theory, which means nothing.

this is harsh on Tanner, who has been improving for me.

I thought McCrorie could also play DM? but strangely we have a few choices there ATM. he doesn't work for me as a wing back, in fact i thought we looked more vunerable to their wingers against Watford. there were huge gaps appearing and the MF players didn't go wide to pick up the men.

the change on saturday worried me, we had that air of noone knowing what they were meant to be doing for ages.

not worried about Mehmeti, he doesn't cut it for me. takes the wrong option most everytime.

i want Sykes back though

[cidercity1987]

I posted bemoaning the 4-2-3-1 formation when Knight was at the tip of the midfield as we weren't creating anything. Twine is perfect in that position so anything other than that formation is a big headscratcher 

 

 

[38MC]

Odd but my fav formation does include 3cb’s, wing backs, and the right forward players. 

With the right personnel it’s both solid and bums off the seat. 

it does crest solidity in that you know commit as you may there can and should be 3cbs at worst or even 2 specialist cbs and one cdm. 
 

I also think it suits our players. Cam Pring for instance is a frigging Ox. He needs to have licence to roam up and down the wing and be physical and involved. I see that in McRorie too. And I see some of our defenders - Zak for instance - as pretty useless past the half way line but effective behind it. 
 

I think Twine is a good player to help bed the formation. But I don’t see him as the solution. He’s not worth the cost. He needs more in the arsenal to justify the outlay. He’s not ‘worth £10m for his corners’ or what we SAF said in jest when Liverpool bought Charlie Adam 

[1960maaan]

2 minutes ago, Antman said:

this is harsh on Tanner, who has been improving for me.

I thought McCrorie could also play DM? but strangely we have a few choices there ATM. he doesn't work for me as a wing back, in fact i thought we looked more vunerable to their wingers against Watford. there were huge gaps appearing and the MF players didn't go wide to pick up the men.

the change on saturday worried me, we had that air of noone knowing what they were meant to be doing for ages.

not worried about Mehmeti, he doesn't cut it for me. takes the wrong option most everytime.

i want Sykes back though

If we play a 4 then Tanner is fine, but I prefer a real RCB and he's no WB . I thought , although a little rusty at times , RM showed some real promise. 2nd game in 6 months  remember. 
Not saying I love a back 3, but from what Manning has said he does , that's why I did that system.
I'm not saying anything about Mehmeti as even I thought I sounded like I was getting at him. If he's involed though I'd like to see him more central.
Sykes would start for me every time.

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 minutes ago, Dullmoan Tone said:

I’m not sure many teams have got out of the Championship playing 5 at the back - obviously Wolves did, but they had an embarrassment of quality at the time.

Sheffield United they're another.

Brentford were not averse to switching between a 4-3-3 and a 3-5-2..they still do as well, depending on standard of opposition, home or away, injury list etc..players such as Hickey and Henry are probably a good tactical fit for this.

Edited January 21 by Mr Popodopolous

[Davefevs]

10 minutes ago, Lrrr said:

I don’t think anything necessitated the change, I said since he’s come in that I think he wants to play the back 3 with the box as his preferred shape 

So why not play it before?

[Lrrr]

Just now, Davefevs said:

So why not play it before?

Available players, if Knight-Lebel not deemed to be ready yet then he’s needed Tanner at RB, Bell probably not trusted for 90 at wing back, so until he’s had McCrorie allowing Tanner to tuck in he’s stuck with a back 4

[Davefevs]

Just now, Lrrr said:

Available players, if Knight-Lebel not deemed to be ready yet then he’s needed Tanner at RB, Bell probably not trusted for 90 at wing back, so until he’s had McCrorie allowing Tanner to tuck in he’s stuck with a back 4

He had Sykes to play RWB if he wanted?

[And Its Smith]

15 minutes ago, Dullmoan Tone said:

I’m not sure many teams have got out of the Championship playing 5 at the back - obviously Wolves did, but they had an embarrassment of quality at the time.

Not sure how many have managed it versus how many have tried. 

[Lrrr]

12 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

He had Sykes to play RWB if he wanted?

Perhaps he doesn't see him there. Perhaps often back 4's are easier to coach principles into, out of possession style is definitely easier as we saw how we would drop into a 442, easiest OOP system to use.

[southside]

Good, good, good, good Formations

 

[Merrick's Marvels]

58 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

What was interesting to me was Manning said pre match that Twine was best utilised centrally then played him largely on the left of a front three.

Just due to time constraints is my guess. Desperate to get him into the team, even if not in his optimum position.

Manning's quote when it was suggested Twine hadn't hit the heights at Hull:

"quite often he was out wide but for me I think his qualities are more inside so that's a big part for me, getting him into areas so our back players can play forwards with real purpose into players like him".

So that's where I'd expect him to be playing once he's had time to bed in.

As to formations.

Back 4 for me, necessitating some tough selection choices there but that's what he's paid for.

Twine plays behind Conway. Then 4 midfielders. The 2 wide players depend on who we're playing and how we want to play - go for it with attacking wingers pushed high and wide in more of a 433, or steady eddie's deeper and narrower in a 441, or a lopsided mix of both. 

For me - tin hat! - McCrorie, Dickie, Atkinson, Pring - Knight, James, Sykes, New attacking wide player this window??? - Twine, Conway.

Final observation, with tin hat still on, I've no idea what Jason Knight is.

 

[chinapig]

37 minutes ago, Dullmoan Tone said:

I’m not sure many teams have got out of the Championship playing 5 at the back - obviously Wolves did, but they had an embarrassment of quality at the time.

Nuno's Wolves team actually set up in a 3-4-3 shape.

[1960maaan]

2 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Just due to time constraints is my guess. Desperate to get him into the team, even if not in his optimum position.

Manning's quote when it was suggested Twine hadn't hit the heights at Hull:

"quite often he was out wide but for me I think his qualities are more inside so that's a big part for me, getting him into areas so our back players can play forwards with real purpose into players like him".

So that's where I'd expect him to be playing once he's had time to bed in.

As to formations.

Back 4 for me, necessitating some tough selection choices there but that's what he's paid for.

Twine plays behind Conway. Then 4 midfielders. The 2 wide players depend on who we're playing and how we want to play - go for it with attacking wingers pushed high and wide in more of a 433, or steady eddie's deeper and narrower in a 441, or a lopsided mix of both. 

For me - tin hat! - McCrorie, Dickie, Atkinson, Pring - Knight, James, Sykes, New attacking wide player this window??? - Twine, Conway.

Final observation, with tin hat still on, I've no idea what Jason Knight is.

 

I would be worried about pace in the CB position, thought that's a solid pairing.

I really hope we sign a left footed AMF this window for genuine balance.

As for Knight, IMHO the most promising I've seen him was in a MF 2 with TGH at Cardiff. I really thught that would become our starting pair.

[chinapig]

Manning is obviously a deep thinker about the game but that can lead to over thinking things. A characteristic of modern coaches at times I think.

I tend to agree that the change of formation doesn't make us stronger in any part of the pitch.

So why do it, especially if you are going to complain that you haven't had enough coaching time?

[Merrick's Marvels]

30 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

I would be worried about pace in the CB position, thought that's a solid pairing.

I really hope we sign a left footed AMF this window for genuine balance.

As for Knight, IMHO the most promising I've seen him was in a MF 2 with TGH at Cardiff. I really thught that would become our starting pair.

Atkinson quick enough for me.

Agree about left sided attacker.

Certainly some potential selection posers ahead - Tanner, Vyner, Roberts, Naismith, TGH, Williams, Wells, Mehmeti, Bell not starting for me.

Some depth there, if only we could steer clear of injuries for 5 minutes.

[italian dave]

2 hours ago, 2015 said:

5 at the back never works for us. We look better with a 4.

It worked last Tuesday!

Edited January 21 by italian dave

[Rocking Red Cyril]

I enjoyed the Watford performance. I felt the whole team showed a lot of work rate and endeavour to play attacking football against a decent Watford team. I feel LM is still finding his feet and with a new man in Twine and our injury list starting to return for duty . It gives LM a nice problem on team selection. I think it is going to be interesting yo see how it develops. I do feel managers and players need to be able to change formations and tactics mid game often getting the players brave and competent enough to make these decisions mid game. That's your really good sides in my book. 

Looking forward to the rest of the season and always hopeful for upcoming cup game.

[Red Skin]

1 hour ago, 1960maaan said:

 

This is kinda what I thought will go with.   Twine and Syke effectively inside forwards in old money.   I don't see playing Twine inside left as playing him 'wide'.  (Were Hull playing him left in a 442?) 

Both Twine and Sykes can finish.   McCrorie and Pring pushing up outside them as wide players.   Both Dickie and Atkinson comfortable taking the ball out of defence into midfield to present more problems to the opposition.  A really attacking team when we have the ball, and strong defensively when we don't. 

I can understand LM changing the set up for the second game against West Ham just to present different problems.  Given it went so well, I can understand him keeping with it, and maybe it was to present Watford with different problems too after playing them so recently.  I'm fairly sure LM will be flexible and change things in the way he feels can hurt the opposition most. 

I've enjoyed watching Anis come in from the cold, but he's probably been presented with plenty of clips about how his final ball is lacking so it can't be a complete surprise to find himself benched in preference to Twine.  Imagine the meltdown on here to 'waste' good money on Twine and then start Anis ahead of him?

Edited January 21 by Red Skin

[eardun]

18 minutes ago, italian dave said:

It worked last Tuesday!

I was surprised Manning changed formation v West Ham but I can only assume he wanted to try something different given the consecutive performances v Birmingham, Millwall and Preston and no goals scored. But given it went well as you say, it wasn’t really a surprise that he went with it again v Watford. 

 

10 minutes ago, Rocking Red Cyril said:

I enjoyed the Watford performance. I felt the whole team showed a lot of work rate and endeavour to play attacking football against a decent Watford team. I feel LM is still finding his feet and with a new man in Twine and our injury list starting to return for duty . It gives LM a nice problem on team selection. I think it is going to be interesting yo see how it develops. I do feel managers and players need to be able to change formations and tactics mid game often getting the players brave and competent enough to make these decisions mid game. That's your really good sides in my book. 

Looking forward to the rest of the season and always hopeful for upcoming cup game.

Entirely agree. Suspect we’ll see different formations if fit players allow.

[Rocking Red Cyril]

Just now, eardun said:

I was surprised Manning changed formation v West Ham but I can only assume he wanted to try something different given the consecutive performances v Birmingham, Millwall and Preston and no goals scored. But given it went well as you say, it wasn’t really a surprise that he went with it again v Watford. 

 

Entirely agree. Suspect we’ll see different formations if fit players allow.

Yes it's going to be a see what works best. Then you get the option to change players and formations Game by game. Which is a bit LJ and just does not let the team get a common playing style. 

I have no doubt we will see games where it works and games we wonder why we bother 

Oh I do love following the City

[W-S-M Seagull]

We were always going to go to a 3 at the back under Manning. I posted my thoughts about this when he joined. 

I'm not a fan of it. Ashton Gate likes wingers getting down the line. That gets us off of our seats. It's just not quite the same with a wing back doing it. 

If I was a manager, I'd want to harness the home crowd and try to play in a way that gets fans off their seats. 

We've been down the 3 at the back route before. It didn't work and yet here we are trying it again. 

[2015]

41 minutes ago, Rocking Red Cyril said:

I enjoyed the Watford performance. I felt the whole team showed a lot of work rate and endeavour to play attacking football against a decent Watford team. I feel LM is still finding his feet and with a new man in Twine and our injury list starting to return for duty . It gives LM a nice problem on team selection. I think it is going to be interesting yo see how it develops. I do feel managers and players need to be able to change formations and tactics mid game often getting the players brave and competent enough to make these decisions mid game. That's your really good sides in my book. 

Looking forward to the rest of the season and always hopeful for upcoming cup game.

You enjoyed it, fine.

What I saw was a disjointed first half where many passes went astray and some players looking uncomfortable on the ball. We tried attacking too much through the middle which doesn't work for us. We are far more of a threat using width (We miss Sykes massively). Watford looked more comfortable and had far more space than what our players had.

If we are to go 352 to me that will be defensive and will restrict the opportunities in using Sykes' pace out wide when he is back and where does Mehmeti/Bell fit into this formation? They don't really imo.

We look better with a 4 and that is why NP changed it at this point last season too.

[W-S-M Seagull]

If you're a Bristol City player, what do you make of this? 

I remember there being comments after we moved away from 3 at the back before. The comments were along the lines of the players felt happy to be playing a more familiar system (433) and that the shackles were off. 

Now we're back to it. 

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, Lrrr said:

Perhaps he doesn't see him there. Perhaps often back 4's are easier to coach principles into, out of possession style is definitely easier as we saw how we would drop into a 442, easiest OOP system to use.

But he sees Sam Bell there?

2 hours ago, chinapig said:

Nuno's Wolves team actually set up in a 3-4-3 shape.

Who also had the pick of Mendes’s talents.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Wolves iirc switched a bit between yeah 3-4-3 was the predominant shape.

Then followed by periodic shifts to 3-5-2 or even 3-5-1-1 but always a  basic framework of 3 centrebacks and wingbacks as a starting point.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Not sure it works for us though, fully fit Naismith and Atkinson could change things but time will tell.

[Back of the Dolman]

43 minutes ago, 2015 said:

You enjoyed it, fine.

What I saw was a disjointed first half where many passes went astray and some players looking uncomfortable on the ball. We tried attacking too much through the middle which doesn't work for us. We are far more of a threat using width (We miss Sykes massively). Watford looked more comfortable and had far more space than what our players had.

If we are to go 352 to me that will be defensive and will restrict the opportunities in using Sykes' pace out wide when he is back and where does Mehmeti/Bell fit into this formation? They don't really imo.

We look better with a 4 and that is why NP changed it at this point last season too.

I’m afraid I don’t see any formation that makes me think Mehmeti should be in it.

For a wide man he’s not particularly quick, provides little quality and although he does try to get back defensively he is often trying to tackle from the wrong side of the man and is easily brushed off.

[Lrrr]

40 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

But he sees Sam Bell there?

Well it will be interesting to see when McCroie is capable of repeated 90 mins, for now someone has to come on there for 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Bell at WB is a good point by Dave, he is never a Wingback and he plays on the left, definitely not the right mostly or WB.

A theoretical shape including Tanner in a back 3 and Bell at WB isn't what we need.