For us..4-3-3ish vs the back 3?

[IAmNick]

I voted neither for what it's worth. I'd probably do some kind of 4-1-3-2, maybe:

Tanner/McCrorie - Vyner - Dickie - Pring

                           James/Williams

               TGH -  Knight  - Twine/Sykes

                        Conway - Wells

Edited February 3 by IAmNick

[mozo]

Just now, Davefevs said:

I agree….i didn’t like the way Nige played the “front three”, posted many times about it.  But I always countered it with trying to understand what the cause and effect of changing it.

There are some (and I don’t blame them) for thinking that just putting blobs on a whiteboard pitch is all it takes to win a match.

However, the numbers clearly show we were creating more chances then than we are now.  Not huge differences, but still gone back a bit.

My expectations of Nige (had he not been sacked) with the returning injured players was to consolidate top half and be in the mix.  So to be 14th and worsening (at this point) is bloody disappointing.

It's a fair assumption to make that Nige would have got us back top half with his 3l433 and the players currently available, BUT it's still speculation. 

It would still have Bell and Weimann, and they didn't seem to be having good seasons. Would McCrorie at right back made a big difference? That was the big assumption when Tanner was struggling, and you'd think so having seen him doing well at RWB.

I think both you and I felt our front man was too isolated this season, and whilst Knight was helping that link, we were still struggling to create chances.

[Henry]

Ironically, this time last year, our form started to change when we went 433 and ditched the wing backs.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, Henry said:

Ironically, this time last year, our form started to change when we went 433 and ditched the wing backs.

Indeed, was Swansea at home in the Cup 2nd half.

Further, NP said it was the most important change or decision of the season back in May.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/nigel-pearson-bristol-city-evolution-8412180

[mozo]

6 minutes ago, petehinton said:

Sykes on the right, no hesitation, probably Bell on the left atm. I wouldn’t be at all shocked to see Sykes shifted to the left to facilitate the new lad on the right, though. They’ll want him to play as much as possible. 

 

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I think that is why I’m trying to stay calm.  I really hope the current set-up is temporary….or….becomes effective with a couple of different players.  I’m not holding my breath because I’m not seeing the foundation of it.  But I’ll wait.

I personally think that Sykes being fit will see us change formation. 

If Manning had put McCrorie at right back in a 4, he then has Cornick playing in a wide role. Cornick is an okay player but he's not as mobile as a typical Manning forward. 

I also think fixtures have dictated that Manning felt we were better with a defensive 5, and let's face it, it have really helped in those tough FA Cup games to nullify the threat (did not help at all last night, obvs!)

With Sykes, Twine and maybe that new lad, I wonder if we will see a back four again for Middlesbrough, but probably not for the cup replay.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Sykes-Twine-Dire

         Conway

Sykes-Knight-Twine

          Conway

[22A]

There were time v Leeds when it appeared (to me) City were playing 5 strung across the pen area,-3 no too forward of them and -2 waiting for the long pass to them. 

[mozo]

2 minutes ago, Henry said:

Ironically, this time last year, our form started to change when we went 433 and ditched the wing backs.

And just so we get everything in context, Nige chose the wing backs and form regressed. OTIB was full on criticising the formation, and eventually Nige changed it, and form improved. So this has all happened before.

[Henry]

Just now, mozo said:

And just so we get everything in context, Nige chose the wing backs and form regressed. OTIB was full on criticising the formation, and eventually Nige changed it, and form improved. So this has all happened before.

He was quoted as saying he stuck with 3 CBs until he had the right players to be defensively sound. I think we have been defensively fine this season playing a 4. I just don’t see why we’ve gone with a 3 when we have 2 fit CBs and having to play Sam Bell at RWB.

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 minutes ago, mozo said:

And just so we get everything in context, Nige chose the wing backs and form regressed. OTIB was full on criticising the formation, and eventually Nige changed it, and form improved. So this has all happened before.

Some of the performances with the back 3 weren't too bad though...Sheffield United, Watford at home we absolutely deserved more. Stoke at home individual errors more than any brilliance or major tactical flaws cost us.

West Brom on Boxing Day had too much in the endz but first half we were not so bad..Matt Phillips hit his own bar just after they scored and Palmer made 2 key interventions, 2nd half yes it got away from us.

Still we made the correct decision in the end.

Edited February 3 by Mr Popodopolous

[mozo]

1 minute ago, Henry said:

He was quoted as saying he stuck with 3 CBs until he had the right players to be defensively sound. I think we have been defensively fine this season playing a 4. I just don’t see why we’ve gone with a 3 when we have 2 fit CBs and having to play Sam Bell at RWB.

Well, we've played McCrorie at RWB for most of the games which makes a lot more sense. I don't personally have an issue with Bell replacing him for 20/30 minutes 

[Davefevs]

10 minutes ago, mozo said:

It's a fair assumption to make that Nige would have got us back top half with his 3l433 and the players currently available, BUT it's still speculation. 

It would still have Bell and Weimann, and they didn't seem to be having good seasons. Would McCrorie at right back made a big difference? That was the big assumption when Tanner was struggling, and you'd think so having seen him doing well at RWB.

I think both you and I felt our front man was too isolated this season, and whilst Knight was helping that link, we were still struggling to create chances.

Whether I phrased it right I’m not sure, but when I wrote:

”My expectations of Nige (had he not been sacked) with the returning injured players was to consolidate top half and be in the mix.

I really meant expectations as in what I would measure his success or failure on, not meaning that’s the guarantee of what will happen.

So if Nige had us where LM has, I’d be criticising too.

We will never know though, but I think I’m pretty fair in setting my expectations / measures.

Hope that makes sense.

[mozo]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Some of the performances with the back 3 weren't too bad though...Sheffield United, Watford at home we absolutely deserved more. Stoke at home individual errors more than any brilliance or major tactical flaws cost us.

West Brom on Boxing Day had too much in the endz but first half we were not so bad..Matt Phillips hit his own bar just after they scored and Palmer made 2 key interventions, 2nd half yes it got away from us.

Still we made the correct decision in the end.

I think both Nige and Manning have been doing what they can with a difficult squad

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, mozo said:

I think both Nige and Manning have been doing what they can with a difficult squad

An improving squad in some ways,  big eye on the budget in others.

[mozo]

Just now, Davefevs said:

Whether I phrased it right I’m not sure, but when I wrote:

”My expectations of Nige (had he not been sacked) with the returning injured players was to consolidate top half and be in the mix.

I really meant expectations as in what I would measure his success or failure on, not meaning that’s the guarantee of what will happen.

So if Nige had us where LM has, I’d be criticising too.

We will never know though, but I think I’m pretty fair in setting my expectations / measures.

Hope that makes sense.

Got you. Yes, definitely makes sense mate 

I think as the season has wore on I've had more sympathy for both managers for having to work with a limited squad.

[Rocking Red Cyril]

20 minutes ago, mozo said:

It's a fair assumption to make that Nige would have got us back top half with his 3l433 and the players currently available, BUT it's still speculation. 

It would still have Bell and Weimann, and they didn't seem to be having good seasons. Would McCrorie at right back made a big difference? That was the big assumption when Tanner was struggling, and you'd think so having seen him doing well at RWB.

I think both you and I felt our front man was too isolated this season, and whilst Knight was helping that link, we were still struggling to create chances.

I really like McCorie in front of Tanner. But would McCorie full back be worth a look. Who goes in front of McCorie ?

 

[mozo]

2 minutes ago, Rocking Red Cyril said:

I really like McCorie in front of Tanner. But would McCorie full back be worth a look. Who goes in front of McCorie ?

 

Sykes when he's fit, but in recent weeks that wasn't an option, so it would have been Bell or Cornick.

By the way, I voted for 'other' because I just love a good old fashioned 4-4-2 

[Mr Popodopolous]

McCrorie/Tanner-Sykes

Right side.

Pring-Twine/Dire/Bell/Mehmeti

Left side

That is if we go 4-3-3 or similar.

Edited February 3 by Mr Popodopolous

[sh1t_ref_again]

21 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Whether I phrased it right I’m not sure, but when I wrote:

”My expectations of Nige (had he not been sacked) with the returning injured players was to consolidate top half and be in the mix.

I really meant expectations as in what I would measure his success or failure on, not meaning that’s the guarantee of what will happen.

So if Nige had us where LM has, I’d be criticising too.

We will never know though, but I think I’m pretty fair in setting my expectations / measures.

Hope that makes

To a degree it's not surprising that Nige would have had us higher than where we are now, it would be the same players playing a system they have been coached for a long period.

We know LM is trying to change style and was always going to be difficult and maybe a gamble mid season, particularly as many believe we do not have the players to implement it. 

The decision was obviously made early that Nige was not the future, hence given no money and Nest egg. Maybe the sacking was forced a bit by Nige bringing things to the fore, but even had he not been sacked he would have been gone in the summer.

Bringing in LM has at least given plenty of time to implement and develop the change in styles believed necessary for success. It has likely ruined this season, but equally the change could have worked and got us close to the play offs.

Whilst frustrated with results I am pleased we are planning and building, which has more chance of making next season successful than had it happened with only a pre season 

[Son of Fred]

2 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

What do we think then.

1-2-3-4

[1960maaan]

 

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Sykes-Twine-Dire

         Conway

Sykes-Knight-Twine

          Conway

Repeating myself, but Knight doesn't look the same player playing 8/10 or whatever, to when he first came in.
I really hope that we switch when Twine & Sykes are fit and he drops back again.

I would try TGH on the left side of MF. I think you would see a more consistent impact than Mehmeti and his shooting would be an added threat. Maybe down the line Dire gets in, but we need a good look first.

 

1 hour ago, mozo said:

And just so we get everything in context, Nige chose the wing backs and form regressed. OTIB was full on criticising the formation, and eventually Nige changed it, and form improved. So this has all happened before.

When Pearson came in he stated his preference for a back 4 , and 2 up top but that took time too. He played a 3/5 as it was what he thought suited the players he had available.
Manning was the complete opposite , likes a 3/5 but started with a 4 because of circumstances.

There is no right or wrong shape, just ones that suit your players or circumstances better . 
It looked like things were changing for the better , even with a huge injury list. The change in Manager / coach seems to have set us back a little.  

9 minutes ago, Son of Fred said:

1-2-3-4

Insert an Ramones open line 

 

[Davefevs]

37 minutes ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

To a degree it's not surprising that Nige would have had us higher than where we are now, it would be the same players playing a system they have been coached for a long period.

We know LM is trying to change style and was always going to be difficult and maybe a gamble mid season, particularly as many believe we do not have the players to implement it. 

The decision was obviously made early that Nige was not the future, hence given no money and Nest egg. Maybe the sacking was forced a bit by Nige bringing things to the fore, but even had he not been sacked he would have been gone in the summer.

Bringing in LM has at least given plenty of time to implement and develop the change in styles believed necessary for success. It has likely ruined this season, but equally the change could have worked and got us close to the play offs.

Whilst frustrated with results I am pleased we are planning and building, which has more chance of making next season successful than had it happened with only a pre season 

I don’t disagree with any of what you’ve written above, but I do care about being told / sold one thing and getting another.

Grow up Fevs, we all know we’ve been fibbed to!

I’m patient enough to see whether a bit of regression currently turns into trending uplift.  And I’d expect to know that before the season is over.  I don’t see the foundations of that, but nor am I naive to think that I know best and might be missing something / lots of things, or that sometimes it just clicks from nowhere.

Questions from me at this point are:

Could he have made progress in a more seamless way?

Could he have waited to implement the changes til the summer?

Could he have just made what he have already, better?

At the moment we are in a period where we making a big assumption it’s because he doesn’t have the players to change mid-season.  That is an unproven hypothesis at the mo’.

But, hoping we see that progress we all want as City fans, and we can go back to talking about the good stuff going on.

[Back of the Dolman]

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

So Sykes is suddenly out?

One of our more productive players is suddenly benched. Competition is good no doubt but.. 

(Sure he is injured atm but when all fit).

When fit Sykes is one of the first names on the team sheet for me.

[Rocking Red Cyril]

3 hours ago, mozo said:

Sykes when he's fit, but in recent weeks that wasn't an option, so it would have been Bell or Cornick.

By the way, I voted for 'other' because I just love a good old fashioned 4-4-2 

But surely neither Sykes, bell or Cornick would give the cover McCorie does for Tanner. So does it improve the right side. Mind might be worth a try 

[FNQ]

Four at the back for me with RM playing in his favoured position of right back.. As Dave Fevs has said many a time this would provide for an additional upfield player. Jamo, Williams and TGH / Knight in the middle, Tommy, Twine and Dire / Sykes up top.

[JP Hampton]

5 hours ago, mozo said:

I think some people are being revisionist with their memory of the Nige 4-3-3.

We weren't creating many scoring opportunities, and there was a clamour on here for us to play two up top.

Bell had a spell early this season, but it didn't last long, from which point the left side was an issue, as it is now.

The right hand side looked good when Sykes was playing, not so good with Weimann, plus Tanner was really struggling. 

We had something like 16 shots on target in Pearson's final 5 games.

Whether Nige would have got more out of the improved injury situation we will never know, but none of our squad looks outstanding right now. 

The players that were better under Nige (and therefore the 433), were Vyner, James and Knight.

I'm not sure we can make much of a judgement based on that.

 

[EDIT: I just realised that I argued on another thread that selecting a 5 game form period is pointless, and yet I've done it myself above to make a point. So I'm a hypocrite ]

 

Didn’tNP also use Bell on the left and get more out of him there. 
 

probably a 4,3,3 or a 4,3,1,2 maybe?

[W-S-M Seagull]

6 hours ago, petehinton said:

Given we’ve made a ‘real coup’ in signing the lad from Belgium on loan, who is a raw out and out winger, would suggest we are reverting back to a 433 of sorts. 

Not really I don't think. 

Manning seems very fixated on this 3421 and this new lad can fit into that formation. 

I just feel very disillusioned. I never liked the 3/5 at the back before but I understood it because we were shite defensively so needed that extra body. 

We then moved away from it and things improved. Now we are back to it and with how stubborn Manning is I don't think we'll see us move away from it. We'll then recruit for it in the summer because obviously that is the solution and then if that doesn't work, then what? That's my concern. 

[W-S-M Seagull]

For me the best formation for us is a 4231. 

That gives some flexibility in attack. You can have the attacking midfielder play as an attacking midfielder between the lines and they can push forward and support Tommy. 

You then have the wingers who can either play out wide or like Salah etc does they can come inside. Whilst Liam Manning comes across as someone that likes control and doesn't like unpredictability, unpredictability is what we need. Being structured is too predictable. 

In the 4231 you can then have the full backs and one of the midfielders joining the attack. 

Leeds totally exposed us playing with wing backs. Soon as Pring went forward their winger was unmarked.

We need to play with wingers with our full backs supporting those wingers. 

[Son of Fred]

7 hours ago, Rocking Red Cyril said:

But surely neither Sykes, bell or Cornick would give the cover McCorie does for Tanner. So does it improve the right side. Mind might be worth a try 

We need to provide the opposition with more to think about & for us to do more in the final third- simply we aren't scoring enough goals.

Sykes & Twine are a must.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just a few random musings.

3-4-2-1

Vs

4-3-3

Combination of possession and security.

You have up to 6 in the central areas vs 6.

Striker vs 2 CBs. Depends then if you have a carrier or a stopper. If the former you can leave them a bit isolated 2 v 1, if a mobile carrying centre back one goes, can track the striker and the 4th can help to overload in midfield further.

2 vs 3 in CM. You can overload a bit.

If one wide man in the '2' has to tuck in to help, you can double up on the wingback and pin them back.

3-5-2

Vs

4-3-3

2 CBs vs 2 strikers

3 CM vs 3 CM

Winger/wide player and Fullback vs Wingback. You can pin them back.

On the other hand you have a spare man at CB...stopper or mobile carrier.

Someone like Naismith can step up to make a 4 v 3 in the middle or indeed pull wider to assist the so wingback pinned back on the left, or even Tanner/McCrorie on the right.