id like change of formation, but if he persists ive gone for brady and king... not seen a lot from king yet, its more based on not picking mclean, and resting stewart..
Stewart has a lot of quality despite being flat recently so i hope they keep faith with him, the lad is a footballer, the same applies to Brady, we need these skilled players to start even if they blow hot and cold, if they are hot towards the end of the season then we will make the play-offs.
You can hardly say that considering the amount of time he was out, and the amount of pitch time he's had since he's been back. Granted he was awful against a League Two side but so were the rest of the team, it doesn't make them unworthy. I've been calling for a 4-4-2 as you all know, but with Stewart needing a rest we could always give 4-3-1-2 a go: Usual back 5 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------(or even a 4-2-2-2) Evans McKenna Olofinjana ------------------------------------------------------------- Evans McKenna Koren -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Brady Koren Fryatt McLean---------------------------------------------------------------------------Fryatt McLean I know the idea lacks width but it would certainly surprise the opposition, deviating completely from the usual. The question is, would our players suffer just as much for such a drastic switch?
In answer to your question yes, it takes month to learn new tactics and implement them fully, we have already done it once this season with some success, twice is a bit lucky. Personally i would go for Stewart and Brady, as they are only two out and out wingers, with Mclean being a striker and King showing nothing for me so far. But Stewart does need a break...... so god knows.
I'd change to a 4-4-2 and Koren would be one of the wingers, but if we must persist with this negative system I'd go with McLean and Brady I think. There isn't a lot to choose between any of the wingers. I like the hustle and bustle that McLean offers and Brady is obviously very skillful. Chances are whoever plays there won't get into many useful positions, and will probably just pass the ball about in front of the defence all game, like everyone else.
Can i ask how it is a negative system with basically every European team using a very similar tactic, or a tactic built in this mould? Every tactical pundit out there admits the 4-2-3-1 is the modern tactic that teams should be built around, the 4-4-2 has gone and i am glad City have decided to leave it behind. Also do you not remember the 4-4-2 being utter rubbish under NP? Or am i the only one who remembers this....
I'm one of the few who can still see merit in a straightforward 4-4-2, two strikers and the rest takes care of itself, naive maybe but if the rest are following 4-2-3-1 tactics then maybe it will work out in the long run, i have faith in Nicky whatever tactics, Matty by himself maybe isn't the way forward
I don't think any system is just 'attacking' or 'defensive' based on the numbers used to describe it. At the end of the day every team's set up is different and the way we label it with numbers as 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 is just a quick way of describing it. I don't think 4-2-3-1 is any more modern than any other system nor do I think it's one that all teams should be built around; it's just a 4-5-1 explained in more detail and that system has been around for years. A lot of teams are using it in recent years but I don't think it's such a good thing as seems to be the general impression; putting it simply it's more men further back than in a conventional 4-4-2. I'm sure you'll agree that the 'best' system for any team depends on the players available. I can completely understand why we play the formation we do, on paper it seems to suit our players best by giving the likes of Koren a free role and best utilising the skills of McKenna. I described our system as negative not because of the 4-2-3-1 formation but because of the way we play it, with so few players getting beyond the ball and attacking at such a slow speed, politely allowing every opposing defender and midfielder to get behind the ball before we start our attacks.
barmbys 1st game was november 19th..our goalscoring problems started from boxing day, so the system sort of worked for about a month....and has been dramatically failing for 2.5 months, so im not quite sure what points to it being a great system for us... as keeps getting pointed out, theres nothing wrong with the system if we had the players to do it properly, or they where given better instructions, the striker needs support from the wingers in the box, and one of the 2 holding midfielders still has to get forward, to stop the constant situation of us only having 2 people at the most in the box at any one time.. plus 2 of our best performances this season with positive results came with 4-4-2 koren playing next to evans, pusic and brady ( i think) on the wing, a win against cardiff, then a draw away at brighton who at the time where very strong at home and we completely out played them.
You need one of the holding mids to bomb forward like DJ says, Evans has the capabilities if selected, it's down to the coaching team to tell him what's required
I agree the way we play within this system, is indeed why we are failing, the 4-5-1 is a completely different set up from the 4-2-3-1 and it involves more men behind the ball and letting the other team come onto you, where as a 4-2-3-1 system is about dominating a match, and creating more space, and getting more men forward. Which we do not, that is not a failure of the system, but a failure of the individuals within that system. So surely the coaching staff need to have a word with them, rather than changing the whole system..... The 4-4-2 didn't work for us, my memory of them matches is a blur, Brighton away i am assuming you are on about, i didn't feel was an out and out 4-4-2 personally as i felt we got more bodies behind the ball than that, however if you are right your right i just don't remember. Two games doesn't prove anything, the 4-4-2 is to simplistic and teams will pick us off in the middle. I get why you want to change due to lack of goals, but not lack of chances. Also one other thing with the 4-4-2, do we have two strikers who can score? We really do not...... Fryatt will get goals if he gets into the box, and Mclean, Simpson, Cullen [insert anyone applicable here] aren't good enough as strikers, so surely this system suits us even less?
In answer to your first paragraph, I don't think any formation has to be played with any certain set of tactics. I think you can play 4-4-2 and be defensive just as you can play 4-5-1 and be attacking. The formation itself, asd I said earlier, is just a load of numbers which roughly describe where the players are on the pitch. I prefer a front two personally, perhaps only because I've seen City play better with two up front than one which never seems to have worked for us. I didn't see the Brighton game unfortunately but I thought we were playing very good stuff under Pearson towards the end just as we were playing good stuff under Barmby at the beginning (and in a way, we still are now). 4-4-2 was working well enough; NP was nominated for Manager of the Month just before leaving such was our form. I think Fryatt and McLean whilst not the ideal partnership would do a job and it would mean that Fryatt doesn't have to do so much donkey work as he does now. Lately the guy runs and runs all game but can't achieve anything because of the lack of support. I'm not saying I definitely think 4-4-2 is best for us, but I think we have to consider changing something. 4-4-2 would be worth a try but just generally getting more men forward would help too.
I'd go for Brady and King, but I think Nick will go for Brady and Mclean. Whatever we all think about the formation, I don't think Nick has any intention of changing it.
I don't think there is any need to change the formation. If we cannot get a proven lone striker, tho, I would like to see Nick take a few more risks and go 442 earlier and REALLY go for a win in games. Time is fast approaching when draws simply are not good enough.
I've gone for Stewart and Brady but as wingers and why not have Fryatt and King up front and dropping one of Evans or Koren? We've got to try something else to score a goal in order to win matches unless we're going to rely on wonder strikes, own goals and penalties for the rest of the season.
The most threat we've carried this season was when Brady & MClean played through the middle together (admittedly not for long). If Brady recovers in time for Saturday, I'd go for that.
