A 3-5-2 would work better with:-
-------------------Gulacsi
----------Hobbs---Chester---Ayala
Rosenoir---Koren---Evans---Cairney---Brady
----------Fryatt---Simpson/Stewart
Ayala bid
- Thread starter John. Walkington.
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
A 3-5-2 would work better with:-
-------------------Gulacsi
----------Hobbs---Chester---Ayala
Rosenoir---Koren---Evans---Cairney---Brady
----------Fryatt---Simpson/Stewart
can people please stop suggesting 3 at the back, its ridiculous and is never going to happen, not to mention its a terrible formation for us.
I am not a fan of 5 or three at the back either, just offering a means of keeping three CB on the pitch. My prefered team (one I want on Friday)
Gulsaci
Dudgeon
Chester
Ayala (or Hobbs)
Rosenior
Brady
McKenna
Evans (or Cairney)
Koren
Adebola
Fryatt
Subs
Basso, Hobbs, Cairney, Devitt, Simpson (depending on fitness)
Gulsaci
Dudgeon
Chester
Ayala (or Hobbs)
Rosenior
Brady
McKenna
Evans (or Cairney)
Koren
Adebola
Fryatt
Subs
Basso, Hobbs, Cairney, Devitt, Simpson (depending on fitness)
I'll admit I've always liked 3-5-2 for starters. I don't think it's a terrible formation for us though. If we had 3 quality centre halves, we've most definitely got the wing backs to play the formation and we've got bags of quality central midfielders. It would allow us to play 2 up front too.
I can't see it happening and it would be a shame to leave out Brady for example, but on occasion, it would work well.
in theory its good, but in england people are trained to play 2 at the back, in a 352 two of the centre backs are pretty much left and right backs at times, none of our defenders our fast enough, adding that to the fact we didnt have enough width as it was last season and i dont think it would help. id prefer a 433 formation with brady and stewart playing high with fryatt if we were going to try something continental, would allow koren to do whatever he likes.
if dawson was to play 352 would be disastrous aswell
AGREED. Been saying this for ages. City now have the players to play 3 - 5 - 2 or 3 - 2 - 3 - 2.
Not many teams play more than 2 strikers and most only one now. So with either formation would be fine.
Its the final 3 -2 that gets the pot boiling.
and another convert ? maybe. yes that would work and they all heve the legs to get about the pitch covering and closing down when city dont have the ball. As well as breaking up the field quickly.
NP may not use it or like it but to say its bad for us is ridiculous. City do have the players to work it well.
We don't. People are suggesting that we have the players as everyone's convinced that ayalas joining but I'd prefer not to count my chickens before they hatch. Also if we got an injury we'd be buggered as we barely have enough centre halves to go around with two of them, never mind 3...
I'll suggest whatever I want thank you.
I think its potentially a fantastic formation for us.
If you have 3 exceptional CB's, 2 speedy attacking wingbacks who can defend & attack, a CM who can sit with 2 offensive CM's in front of him plus 2 good strikers then it can work.
I think City have these players (on the assumption Ayala signs).
And what if one of those 3 got injured? Ayala would only come in so we have a spare CB not to allow us to play 3 at the same time
its a formation to play with. macclesfield game is ideal. you have to be bold sometimes and do away from the dated 4-4-2. of course you can only play it if all 3 are fit and ready. having a flexible squad is key. we do have that. we can play that way and many others. am sure if needs be then NP would give it a go.
how about the macclesfield game ?
how about the macclesfield game ?
This formation lark is doing my head in now.
A formation is simply a means of including your 11 best players in the team. There are no 'good' or 'bad' formations, it just depends on the players.
Now, using 4-4-2 as a starting point we could potentially have a lineup of:
Basso
Rosenior Chester Hobbs Dudgeon
Koren Evans Cairney Brady
Fryatt Simpson
The players who might feel they have been hard done by in not making that line up are:
Gulacsi
McKenna
McLean
Adebola
Obviously Gulacsi isn't affected by formations as he is a keeper. If you really wanted to squeeze any of the other 3 into that team, a change of formation might be necessary. But changing to a 3-5-2 means you either don't have wingers or don't have full backs. That means either Rosenior and Dudgeon don't play, or Koren and Brady don't play. That's arguably 4 of our best players. This is why 3-5-2 would not be a good idea for us at this moment in time.
The only possible change in formation I would condone is 4-3-3 for example:
Keeper
Rosenior Chester Hobbs Dudgeon
McKenna
Evans Cairney
Stewart Brady
Striker
This formation would not favour Fryatt though, he likes to have someone supporting him. It might work with one of the other strikers but I would only consider this if Fryatt was unavailable or out of form. Until then it's 4-4-2 all the way.
A formation is simply a means of including your 11 best players in the team. There are no 'good' or 'bad' formations, it just depends on the players.
Now, using 4-4-2 as a starting point we could potentially have a lineup of:
Basso
Rosenior Chester Hobbs Dudgeon
Koren Evans Cairney Brady
Fryatt Simpson
The players who might feel they have been hard done by in not making that line up are:
Gulacsi
McKenna
McLean
Adebola
Obviously Gulacsi isn't affected by formations as he is a keeper. If you really wanted to squeeze any of the other 3 into that team, a change of formation might be necessary. But changing to a 3-5-2 means you either don't have wingers or don't have full backs. That means either Rosenior and Dudgeon don't play, or Koren and Brady don't play. That's arguably 4 of our best players. This is why 3-5-2 would not be a good idea for us at this moment in time.
The only possible change in formation I would condone is 4-3-3 for example:
Keeper
Rosenior Chester Hobbs Dudgeon
McKenna
Evans Cairney
Stewart Brady
Striker
This formation would not favour Fryatt though, he likes to have someone supporting him. It might work with one of the other strikers but I would only consider this if Fryatt was unavailable or out of form. Until then it's 4-4-2 all the way.
You pick your formation based on the players you have in your squad. Now because we have two very good full backs, two very good centre halves, two very good wingers, about 4 central midfielders to choose from and 4 strikers to choose from, you'd have to say a 4-4-2 suits us best. I very much doubt we'll divert from a 4-4-2 this season.
if we played 352, what would we do if we had injuries? 3 centre backs and not a spare, the right and left backs need to be fast and EXTREMELY hard working, rosenoir and dudgeon maybe, but mcshane and dawson would be terrible there. If we had injuries we would have to switch back formations again, which would have a bad impact on our play, you train to a formation all week, suddenly changing it would result in a couple of weeks adjustment.
we would lose bradys obvious ability as an out and out winger and the same with cam when he comes back, a midfield 3 may suit us, mckenna and evans with cairney/koren could be good. and then two up front.
I dont think 352 is a terrible formation, but we dont have the squad for it atm. we'd have to leave out some of arguably our best players and be risking it completely on having players not getting injured. If we planned it going into the season it would have been possible, but weve signed players for a 442
we would lose bradys obvious ability as an out and out winger and the same with cam when he comes back, a midfield 3 may suit us, mckenna and evans with cairney/koren could be good. and then two up front.
I dont think 352 is a terrible formation, but we dont have the squad for it atm. we'd have to leave out some of arguably our best players and be risking it completely on having players not getting injured. If we planned it going into the season it would have been possible, but weve signed players for a 442
not keen on 3 at the back , as three they can only really control the width of the Pen Area - I fear it would cause the 2 wide players to end up more as RB and LB rather than wing backs.
im more in favour of a 4-2-3-1 formation (Fryatt in the middle of the "3" and Adebola up front )
im more in favour of a 4-2-3-1 formation (Fryatt in the middle of the "3" and Adebola up front )
Daniel Ayala would be a brilliant signing for us and great cover for McShane.. Leicester are looking to make a bid for Damien Plessis.