Tonight's Football

[Prufrock]

Ha! My issue isn't a back five but a front two. If Xabi wants to come here and play 343 I can live with it.

Could get a tune out of Wes too.

[GhostoftheBok]

Ha! My issue isn't a back five but a front two. If Xabi wants to come here and play 343 I can live with it.

Could get a tune out of Wes too.

Alonso's 3-4-3 would be far less of an issue for our forwards. Charles would get the support he needs. Collins and CMG would suit the hybrid #10 roles.

Just have to hope Lookman doesn't show up.

[GhostoftheBok]

Anyone who watches that final and still claims sides that play 3-at-the-back can't press needs to have a word with themselves.

[Prufrock]

Ha! My issue isn't a back five but a front two. If Xabi wants to come here and play 343 I can live with it.

Could get a tune out of Wes too.

Alonso's 3-4-3 would be far less of an issue for our forwards. Charles would get the support he needs. Collins and CMG would suit the hybrid #10 roles.

Just have to hope Lookman doesn't show up.

What's Granit Xhaka but a balkan, better disciplined George Thomason...?

[Prufrock]

Anyone who watches that final and still claims sides that play 3-at-the-back can't press needs to have a word with themselves.

See above, the problem is the 2, not the 5.

[GhostoftheBok]

What's Granit Xhaka but a balkan, better disciplined George Thomason...?

It's essentially what Evatt's system should look like with a #10 in it, rather than two #8s, and it's why I felt we should be moving that way (or have the option to) in the summer.

The pressing shape of the 3 forwards doesn't change much based on the numbers you choose to assign.

[GhostoftheBok]

See above, the problem is the 2, not the 5.

Depends on the opposition.

Your press needs to adapt to the opposition. Ours did in the first half of the season. In the second half, with the injuries, it got patchy.

Last season we used Lee a lot in the press as a hybrid #10. This season that has often fallen to Thommo, but it's not been as fluid.

[Prufrock]

What's Granit Xhaka but a balkan, better disciplined George Thomason...?

It's essentially what Evatt's system should look like with a #10 in it, rather than two #8s, and it's why I felt we should be moving that way (or have the option to) in the summer.

The pressing shape of the 3 forwards doesn't change much based on the numbers you choose to assign.

Don't necessarily disagree, as you've mentioned, formations are starting points. City are often 442 off the ball. Very modern. (And 325 on it, how super very modern).

The issue has largely been the two isolated. How do you stop the full back being the easy out? If there's three of you (a front three, or a 2 and a 10) it's workable. If there's a front two AND the wing backs have a good starting position AND there's legs in all of them AND the midfield come with and have the brains then you have half a chance. That's a lot to expect a league one team to do consistently. You're also then really reliant on 4 quality strikers, two quality wing backs (or with a tweak, a quality 10). Plus cover over a season. It's a big ask.

All for a bit more notional solidity in a 5. Not worth the trade offs for me.

The way we set up is reliant on too many bits all working together and anyone failing is borderline catastrophic. I mentioned around the Barnsley game, we have no middle ground. If the wing backs are slightly off it it all falls apart and we're truly horrible. If we can't control it we just can't get out. Playing with two wide lads (one of who is arguably the best attacking player in the division) allows you to be a threat even in games where you aren't playing particularly well.

[GhostoftheBok]

Don't necessarily disagree, as you've mentioned, formations are starting points. City are often 442 off the ball. Very modern. (And 325 on it, how super very modern).

The issue has largely been the two isolated. How do you stop the full back being the easy out? If there's three of you (a front three, or a 2 and a 10) it's workable. If there's a front two AND the wing backs have a good starting position AND there's legs in all of them AND the midfield come with and have the brains then you have half a chance. That's a lot to expect a league one team to do consistently. You're also then really reliant on 4 quality strikers, two quality wing backs (or with a tweak, a quality 10). Plus cover over a season. It's a big ask.

All for a bit more notional solidity in a 5. Not worth the trade offs for me.

The way we set up is reliant on too many bits all working together and anyone failing is borderline catastrophic. I mentioned around the Barnsley game, we have no middle ground. If the wing backs are slightly off it it all falls apart and we're truly horrible. If we can't control it we just can't get out. Playing with two wide lads (one of who is arguably the best attacking player in the division) allows you to be a threat even in games where you aren't playing particularly well.

This strikes me as demonstrably wrong.

We've won a lot of games this season where people have complained about the performance. Marc Iles, rather ungenerously, complained we'd not played well for a full game all season - rather an amazing opinion given we've seen 7-0s and 5-0s.

If we have regularly underperformed and yet still won over 50% of our games then the "we can only win when we're really on it" is clearly not true.

[Prufrock]

That's not the point I'm making. I don't mean in whole games, that we're either 10/10 or awful. I mean for decent chunks of time within games. Where it falls apart and we are horrible.

Often it's on 60 mins plus when the strikers are swapped and the wing backs shagged. Occasionally it's been from the outset where a team has got out number, but I don't personally doing think that's happens too often, tbf.

There are games when we've been superb throughout, Exeter jumps out. These are ideal.

There are games when we're good for a long time, but then horrible, but we've done enough. These are fine.

There are games when we're good for a long time, but then horrible, and it bites us. These are bad.

And there are games when we are bad throughout. These are horrible.

(In fairness there have also been games when we've started badly and improved, Barnsley away, say).

To an extent, that's true of any team, especially at this level. My point is that I think the formation leads to too many games getting moved one down that list. Too many where we haven't been able to have control for long enough to win where having those difference making wide players, and a system that more naturally suits what we're trying to do, would have gleaned more points.

[Worthy4England]

Yeah - that's part of the problem for me. There are still poor overall 2-0 wins in this system. 2 pretty unequal teams, 2 great team moves to score 2 great goals, but fannying about for 70 minutes of the game, isn't a great watch. I haven't seen enough good in the system to make me go "that's what I want to watch every week." Bit like Italian football in the 80's - had it's successes, but fcuk me was it generally boring.

[Worthy4England]

Clearly we have it wrong. Pep's trying to emulate Ian.

[BWFC_Insane]

Clearly we have it wrong. Pep's trying to emulate Ian.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

There has definitely been a bit of deja vu today.

And Pep's answer was to go for width....

[GhostoftheBok]

Clearly we have it wrong. Pep's trying to emulate Ian.

Get Diego Simeone in.

[Worthy4England]

Looking at my unreads (unreds?) And people out and about, they've already managed to reach "insufferable bastards" level...

[BWFC_Insane]

Clearly we have it wrong. Pep's trying to emulate Ian.

Get Diego Simeone in.

I’d be over the moon!

[BWFC_Insane]

Guardiola takes the blame.

https://x.com/cityreport_/status/179442 ... o4TppbHkNQ

[Worthy4England]

Guardiola takes the blame.

https://x.com/cityreport_/status/179442 ... TppbHkNQ's on you

It's not the system. Correct.

It's having some sorta fcking answer, when that sneaky other team (there's often one of them, just in case anyone missed it) and that's on you Mr Manager.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Still, if he sticks at it, he might be half-decent.