Happy now

[W-S-M Seagull]

27 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

Yes, they played a 3 at the back against us.

They used it several times last season among all competitions.

Man City did not play 3 at the back last season. 

They set up in a 4.

That transitioned to a 3 on the attack as Stones moved into midfield in the inverted full back role. 

Every flat 4 changes when a team is on the attack as a full back will push forward. That doesn't make it a 3 at the back formation. The fundamentals are different.

It may look like Man City play with a 3 at the back because they have so much time on the ball. However in defence its very much a flat back 4. A 3 at the back turns into a 5 at the back in defence. 

A flat 4 remains a 4 in defence. 

I think you're maybe confused by the fact City often played centre backs at full back. 

Man Citys formation is very fluid. You'll often see someone like Rodri filling in at cb for example. But the basic structure in defence is a back 4. 

Below against us you can see Ake playing left back, Dias and Akanji at Cb and Lewis at rb. It's not a back 3. It's a back 4 than transitions to a back 3 and even sometimes a back 2 with City on attack. 

 

Edited February 11 by W-S-M Seagull

[Natchfever]

20 hours ago, BS3_RED said:

I've never seen so many people moan as I have since manning took charge.  Some of the flack he has took is a joke. New to this standard and club it would always take a bit of time.  We have put good performances in the cup and if we can replicate that in the league we will do well.  Watford away was outstanding and today was also pretty spot on from the small part i watched ( I was working today)

I really think that people are giving him the flack for decisions that are beyond his control (NP sacking).

We are safe this season, so just sit back, shut the fck up and lets see what happens in August.

 

 

EDIT

 

Oh and if you want to slag me off for daring to see things different, go ahead. I could not give a shit. 

If watching City really pisses you off that much, you can always go and watch the sags. You wont be missed. 

 

 

 

Why dont you stfu.

Absolute moron or troll, I dont care what one.

No need to post such shit but well done yoy got the attention you craved.

Soppy ***

[transfer reader]

21 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Man City did not play 3 at the back last season. 

They set up in a 4.

That transitioned to a 3 on the attack as Stones moved into midfield in the inverted full back role. 

Every flat 4 changes when a team is on the attack as a full back will push forward. That doesn't make it a 3 at the back formation. The fundamentals are different.

It may look like Man City play with a 3 at the back because they have so much time on the ball. However in defence its very much a flat back 4. A 3 at the back turns into a 5 at the back in defence. 

A flat 4 remains a 4 in defence. 

I think you're maybe confused by the fact City often played centre backs at full back. 

Man Citys formation is very fluid. You'll often see someone like Rodri filling in at cb for example. But the basic structure in defence is a back 4. 

Below against us you can see Ake playing left back, Dias and Akanji at Cb and Lewis at rb. It's not a back 3. It's a back 4 than transitions to a back 3 and even sometimes a back 2 with City on attack. 

 

They had Ake, Dias and Akanji as a back 3 with Phillips and Lewis as a pair ahead of them. As your own screenshot shows

At times Lewis would drop in to a full back position. But as explained above, a CM dropping into a back line under pressure doesn't turn a back 4 into a back 5. It's someone dropping deeper when pressure is applied, sometimes that's a consistent instruction, other times it's a necessity.

21 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

 

 

21 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

 

 

Edited February 11 by transfer reader

[Davefevs]

4 hours ago, Jose said:

I agree although I think we did as soon as we made the change. And I think our business in January has confirmed that. 

I quite liked our window.  We tried to do business, we got some players in.  It wasn’t a “go for it” window, but I’m glad it wasn’t, because I don’t think we could've spent any amount to guarantee anything anyway. If that makes sense.

1 hour ago, transfer reader said:

I'm not arguing for or against any formation.

My entire point is that personal preferences and likes/dislikes towards formations has absolutely zero bearing on whether they will or won't be effective.

Formations are at times largely performative. They'll give an indication of out of possession shape, but often times a team lining up with a back 4 will have a midfielder drop in to the back line when they're really under pressure.

So that's a back 5, no? 

No. 

Likewise the reverse can be done with a back 3/5. It just takes one CB to step up a bit and the WBs to drop. Vyner can do that as he has some CDM experience. Alternatively Dickie has been looking comfortable bringing the ball out and could be the one who steps up.

But it wouldn't make the formation a back 4 unless he shifted to primarily playing in that space with and without the ball.

 

I agree, it’s about how you transition in and out of shape in reaction to things like, your possession, opposition possession, just won it back, just lost it, etc.

Formations help us mere mortals get a generalisation of positions on the pitch, but little more, especially in the last 15-20 years.  I used to say they are positions the players take at goal-kicks…but in recent years the high full-back for an angled goal kick tosses that concept in the bin too!

In recent games (Cov and yesterday) we’ve seen an opposition CM/DM (argh hate those terms) drop into a back four to allow their CBs to split, get their full-backs high and play around a press.

The game is too fluid to fixate imho.

I quite like Manning’s response to James Piercy at PNE when we conceded after switching to a back three.  He basically said we hadn’t switched.  It’s hard for us fans to think beyond “he’s just trying to be a smart arse “, but he probably (definitely?) sees the game very different to us.

[W-S-M Seagull]

3 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

They had Ake, Dias and Akanji as a back 3 with Phillips and Lewis as a pair ahead of them. As your own screenshot shows

At times Lewis would drop in to a full back position. But as explained above, a CM dropping into a back line under pressure doesn't turn a back 4 into a back 5. It's someone dropping deeper when pressure is applied, sometimes that's a consistent instruction, other times it's a necessity.

They had Ake, Dias and Akanji as a back 3 with Phillips and Lewis as a pair ahead of them. As your own screenshot shows

At times Lewis would drop in to a full back position. But as explained above, a CM dropping into a back line under pressure doesn't turn a back 4 into a back 5. It's someone dropping deeper when pressure is applied, sometimes that's a consistent instruction, other times it's a necessity.

Huh? You can clearly see Lewis at rb. 

I think you're struggling to understand how formations transition in defence and on attack. 

Man Citys basic set up for the vast majority of last season was a back 4. Thats a fact.

Yes it changes on the attack but it always reverts to a back 4 and not a back 5 in defence. 

Edited February 11 by W-S-M Seagull

[cidercity1987]

5 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

They had Ake, Dias and Akanji as a back 3 with Phillips and Lewis as a pair ahead of them. As your own screenshot shows

At times Lewis would drop in to a full back position. But as explained above, a CM dropping into a back line under pressure doesn't turn a back 4 into a back 5. It's someone dropping deeper when pressure is applied, sometimes that's a consistent instruction, other times it's a necessity.

 

 

Sorry but you are mixing up Ake and Lewis there as its Ake further forward in the pic

Man City 100% played a back four against us with Lewis sometimes pushing into central midfield 

Edited February 11 by cidercity1987

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I quite liked our window.  We tried to do business, we got some players in.  It wasn’t a “go for it” window, but I’m glad it wasn’t, because I don’t think we could've spent any amount to guarantee anything anyway. If that makes sense.

I agree, it’s about how you transition in and out of shape in reaction to things like, your possession, opposition possession, just won it back, just lost it, etc.

Formations help us mere mortals get a generalisation of positions on the pitch, but little more, especially in the last 15-20 years.  I used to say they are positions the players take at goal-kicks…but in recent years the high full-back for an angled goal kick tosses that concept in the bin too!

In recent games (Cov and yesterday) we’ve seen an opposition CM/DM (argh hate those terms) drop into a back four to allow their CBs to split, get their full-backs high and play around a press.

The game is too fluid to fixate imho.

I quite like Manning’s response to James Piercy at PNE when we conceded after switching to a back three.  He basically said we hadn’t switched.  It’s hard for us fans to think beyond “he’s just trying to be a smart arse “, but he probably (definitely?) sees the game very different to us.

Agree to an extent but that player in-game transition and switch only works with certain players. IMO.

ie Tanner at full back switching to wingback. Doubtful. McCrorie and Pring,.perhaps.

Naismith dropping yeah. Maybe even King on occasion, the rest? Doubtful.

When I say doubtful of course it can be done but unless certain players with certain characteristics it is entering square pegs round holes territory and vice versa IMO.

[cidercity1987]

4 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

In theory if we get a point v Southampton then beat QPR perhaps we can attack the final 13 with some freedom.

A point v Southampton who haven't lost since mid September would be more than useful.

Sykes and Twine hopefully back, Bell and Mehmeti proved a useful Plan B at Nottingham Forest.

Could we even see Atkinson and Naismith in and competing.

A combination of points and places makes it feel rather unlikely though.

It would be very nice to get a statement win against a parachute top three club  for once v Southampton if we are looking to be a top half club. Most of the clubs above us have managed it last season (Leicester 0-1 Hull for example) but we hardly ever do 

[Northern Red]

I know we can ignore users, but I'd love a feature where we can mute phrases. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

16 minutes ago, cidercity1987 said:

It would be very nice to get a statement win against a parachute top three club  for once v Southampton if we are looking to be a top half club. Most of the clubs above us have managed it last season (Leicester 0-1 Hull for example) but we hardly ever do 

A side who haven't lost in any competition since mid September.

Will have a look at top 3 since the rest since Southampton and their slow start.

Think having had a quick check it is 6 games between the big 3 excluding vs each other since Mid September.

Chances are so slim.

6 in 64 across 3 sides. 4 to Leeds, 2 to Leicester.

Edited February 11 by Mr Popodopolous

[ExiledAjax]

19 minutes ago, Northern Red said:

I know we can ignore users, but I'd love a feature where we can mute phrases. 

Top 6 squad

[REDOXO]

28 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Top 6 squad

Yes brilliant idea. 
 

I see your Top Six Squad and raise you a League 1 at Best

 

 

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

7 hours ago, BS3_RED said:

Like I've said previously, I would not have sacked NP when they did ( plenty of times over the last couple of seasons I might have done).

I think those in charge have a completely different view of our squad than we do. However I would not say Luton or Ipswich have better teams or squads than us this season and last season and a few of the other teams that made the play offs were at best the same level of ability as us. 

This is a bit of incoherent are you saying we should be promoted because Luton got up?  Ipswich have gambled and are falling away my bet is they end up in the playoffs if they're lucky in May. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

7 minutes ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

This is a bit of incoherent are you saying we should be promoted because Luton got up?  Ipswich have gambled and are falling away my bet is they end up in the playoffs if they're lucky in May. 

I think Ipswich have enough points and should make the playoffs at least. Whether they win them a totally different issue. Since mid December though they are running aground..

Gambled Idk, Ashton seems on a tighter leash there if you mean financially.

Edited February 11 by Mr Popodopolous

[transfer reader]

4 minutes ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

This is a bit of incoherent are you saying we should be promoted because Luton got up?  Ipswich have gambled and are falling away my bet is they end up in the playoffs if they're lucky in May. 

I dont think Ipswich will be lucky to make the playoffs.

They're already 11 clear of the next team below them and 3 teams making up the 11+ point gap will be unlikely.

However they could be lucky to win the playoffs, but that will remain to be seen until they take place.

[BS3_RED]

15 minutes ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

This is a bit of incoherent are you saying we should be promoted because Luton got up?  Ipswich have gambled and are falling away my bet is they end up in the playoffs if they're lucky in May. 

I've never said we should be promoted.

I've clearly said that we are not good enough to be top 6 but from the boards perspective they see teams like luton, Ipswich, Millwall last season etc doing well and think that we should be there as well. 

Edited February 11 by BS3_RED

[BS3_RED]

1 hour ago, Natchfever said:

Why dont you stfu.

Absolute moron or troll, I dont care what one.

No need to post such shit but well done yoy got the attention you craved.

Soppy ***

Do one you absolute melt

Edited February 11 by BS3_RED

[Northern Red]

45 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Top 6 squad

I was thinking "3 at the back" or variations of it, but that one is up there too.

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

5 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I think Ipswich have enough points and should make the playoffs at least. Whether they win them a totally different issue. Since mid December though they are running aground..

Gambled Idk, Ashton seems on a tighter leash there if you mean financially.

They've had a fair few expensive loans in, not sure it's going to pay off for them.  If they don't fall away completely which they currently look like doing then they will be facing either Southampton or Leeds in the playoffs which should be too much for them.

[Natchfever]

3 minutes ago, BS3_RED said:

Do one you melt

Never melted you *****.

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

If they don't fall away completely which they currently look like doing then they will be facing either Southampton or Leeds in the playoffs which should be too much for them.

I bloody hope so…fingers crossed!

[BS3_RED]

Just now, Natchfever said:

Never melted you *****.

Someone needs to take a chill pill and calm down. You'll give yourself a stroke if your not careful 

[Lorenzos Only Goal]

7 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I bloody hope so…fingers crossed!

 

15 minutes ago, transfer reader said:

I dont think Ipswich will be lucky to make the playoffs.

They're already 11 clear of the next team below them and 3 teams making up the 11+ point gap will be unlikely.

However they could be lucky to win the playoffs, but that will remain to be seen until they take place.

I'll tell you where I'm coming from around Ipswich even we've taken 3 points out of their lead over the last 10 games.  The likes of Sunderland and Coventry are taking way more out them 10 points ain't that much if you're dropping 4 points to your rivals every six games.  At this rate I recon they will finish 6th with a way smaller gap than many expected December time.

Edited February 11 by Lorenzos Only Goal

[Davefevs]

4 minutes ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

 

I'll tell you where I'm coming from around Ipswich even we've taken 3 points out of their lead over the last 10 games.  The likes of Sunderland and Coventry are taking way more out them 10 points ain't that much if you're dropping 4 points to your rivals every six games.  At this rate I recon they will finish 6th with a way smaller gap than many expected December time.

Got to say, this is ridiculous.

Plymouth (15th) could be on 39 if they were to win their game in hand.

Some Hull fans booing Rosenior yesterday (0-1 Swansea)!

Edited February 11 by Davefevs

[Mr Popodopolous]

33 minutes ago, Lorenzos Only Goal said:

They've had a fair few expensive loans in, not sure it's going to pay off for them.  If they don't fall away completely which they currently look like doing then they will be facing either Southampton or Leeds in the playoffs which should be too much for them.

Agree they will likely lose in the playoffs, top 2 is unlikely but I do think their start will see them at worst scrape over the line into the playoffs.

[ExiledAjax]

I think common sense always suggested that Ipswich wouldn't be able to keep pace with Leicester and Leeds, and that Southampton would come good in the end. 46 games lends itself to sorting the wheat from the chaff and we're seeing teams regress to their natural position.

Interesting though that it looks like Ipswich have the easiest run in of the top 8 when measured by how many points the teams they still have to play have accrued so far. Southampton look like they've got a very hard time of it. 

I think the smart money would be on Leicester and Leeds for autos at this point. Although it's absolutely possible that Leeds v Southampton on the final day is a straight shoot out for 2nd place.

Edited February 11 by ExiledAjax

[Davefevs]

Nice!!!

+++++

As it stands we have 9/15 against bottom half and 6/15 against top half left.

[cidercity1987]

5 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Nice!!!

+++++

As it stands we have 9/15 against bottom half and 6/15 against top half left.

If ever a graphic summed us up

Do well against our peers and the truly bad teams , hit a wall against parachute quality and cannot put away defensive lower mid table teams

It's the latter costing us a play off push

[ExiledAjax]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Nice!!!

+++++

As it stands we have 9/15 against bottom half and 6/15 against top half left.

Or broadly - 5 against the top 6 kind of teams (Sunderland and up), 5 against the bottom 5, and 5 against our peers in mid-table.

So what's a fair prediction? W5 D5 L5 for 21 more points? 1.4ppg. Seems a fair estimate.

62. 10-12th place. Let's go.

[Davefevs]

9 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Or broadly - 5 against the top 6 kind of teams (Sunderland and up), 5 against the bottom 5, and 5 against our peers in mid-table.

So what's a fair prediction? W5 D5 L5 for 21 more points? 1.4ppg. Seems a fair estimate.

62. 10-12th place. Let's go.

Yeah, that a much better way of looking at it