Match Report v Man City

Topfarrier said:
If 3-4-3 is the same as 5-4-1 why didn't we play 3-4-3?......its not the same is it Derek?....lol and i'm the soft one....:D
Click to expand...

Because against a better side your wingbacks get pushed back into a back five and can't get forward and your wide front players get pushed back into midfield leaving the front man isolated. This happened in the first half against Chelsea when we beat them 3-0 and we sat deep and picked them off with pace. We tried to do this against City but they put so much pressure on the man playing the ball out and the man receiving the ball that we couldn't keep hold of the ball.. because City are quite good at keeping you under pressure.
 
Topfarrier said:
No....as has been explained...Saturday's formation bore no relation to the one used against Chelsea ....none.
It's amazing what some people will cling to in the wake of such a shocking humiliation....it wasn't particularly a good defensive performance imo....neither will it restore our defenders confidence...unless you think that they might take solace from the fact that if we stick 10 men in our penalty area for 90 mins we are difficult to score against....any league 2 team would be able to do it reasonably well ......i can't think how that helps us going forward into our upcoming fixtures tbh......as for this 'we were in it up until the final whistle' rubbish....words fail me ....we were no more 'in it' than a boxer cowering in a corner for 10 rounds with his gloves over head hoping not to get too badly hurt.
In fact i cant see any positive from that cowardly performance other than the fact we got nothing out of it.
Click to expand...
Hilarious. "Shocking humiliation", "cowardly". I'd take a few days rest if it really upset you that much.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Because against a better side your wingbacks get pushed back into a back five and can't get forward and your wide front players get pushed back into midfield leaving the front man isolated. This happened in the first half against Chelsea when we beat them 3-0 and we sat deep and picked them off with pace. We tried to do this against City but they put so much pressure on the man playing the ball out and the man receiving the ball that we couldn't keep hold of the ball.. because City are quite good at keeping you under pressure.
Click to expand...
We all know what wingbacks are supposed to do Derek but thats very different from a flack back 5.......3-4-3 has attacking intent......5-4-1 doesn't.
 
Topfarrier said:
We all know what wingbacks are supposed to do Derek but thats very different from a flack back 5.......3-4-3 has attacking intent......5-4-1 doesn't.
Click to expand...

It's the same thing if your wing backs can't get forward due to the quality of the opposition. They got forward once or twice on Saturday but weren't able to impose themselves on the game as an attacking force.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drd
SlowDownDerek said:
It's the same thing if your wing backs can't get forward due to the quality of the opposition. They got forward once or twice on Saturday but weren't able to impose themselves on the game as an attacking force.
Click to expand...
I'd fancy us to use a back 3 with wing back against Huddersfield, and if so I'd fancy Smith and Clyne to be far more effective and attack minded!
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Because against a better side your wingbacks get pushed back into a back five and can't get forward and your wide front players get pushed back into midfield leaving the front man isolated. This happened in the first half against Chelsea when we beat them 3-0 and we sat deep and picked them off with pace. We tried to do this against City but they put so much pressure on the man playing the ball out and the man receiving the ball that we couldn't keep hold of the ball.. because City are quite good at keeping you under pressure.
Click to expand...

At the Chelsea away 3-0... Fraser was the right wing back with Ibe in front of him. Fraser bombed forward all match roared on by Eddie...he was immense. Ibe did no defending at all it won’t come as a shock to remember.

I can understand people saying they liked the way we played against City in the circumstances if that’s their opinion. Keeping on referencing two Chelsea games with completely different formations, tactics and approaches is odd.

The closest we have come to our approach v City has been the 0-0 with Leicester when Franno was sent off and the second half of the 1-1 with United when Surman was sent off.

In both the Chelsea games we sat tight and sprung at pace with five players. Clearly against City there was strict instruction not to do this. Yes City won the ball back but there were never five players breaking all game. Two at the most and normally one. This has nothing to do with City...we control how many players are allowed to bomb forwards when we have the ball.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Because against a better side your wingbacks get pushed back into a back five and can't get forward and your wide front players get pushed back into midfield leaving the front man isolated. This happened in the first half against Chelsea when we beat them 3-0 and we sat deep and picked them off with pace. We tried to do this against City but they put so much pressure on the man playing the ball out and the man receiving the ball that we couldn't keep hold of the ball.. because City are quite good at keeping you under pressure.
Click to expand...
The average position maps I’ve seen for the game would tend to indicate the formation was 3-4-2-1. Brooks and Fraser played slightly behind King, while Clyne and Daniels played level with the midfield.

This is why purely analysing a formation by itself is useless. Arsenal played a 3-4-2-1 against us last week. Comparing the two would be ridiculous. By playing so deep, our actual formation was 3-4-2-1-0-0-0-0-0!
 
Neil Dawson said:
At the Chelsea away 3-0... Fraser was the right wing back with Ibe in front of him. Fraser bombed forward all match roared on by Eddie...he was immense. Ibe did no defending at all it won’t come as a shock to remember.

I can understand people saying they liked the way we played against City in the circumstances if that’s their opinion. Keeping on referencing two Chelsea games with completely different formations, tactics and approaches is odd.

The closest we have come to our approach v City has been the 0-0 with Leicester when Franno was sent off and the second half of the 1-1 with United when Surman was sent off.

In both the Chelsea games we sat tight and sprung at pace with five players. Clearly against City there was strict instruction not to do this. Yes City won the ball back but there were never five players breaking all game. Two at the most and normally one. This has nothing to do with City...we control how many players are allowed to bomb forwards when we have the ball.
Click to expand...

Every time we've played 3-4-3 against top sides we've spent the majority of the game with a back five including the Chelsea game I've mentioned. This time it was the same but nothing stuck up front because every ball out was rushed due to their incessant closing down of all our players - they were brilliant at this and so far ahead of Chelsea that we couldn't get our wing backs forward.

Ibe came on against City, the game you've said we didn't try to attack - he did the same amount of defending he ever does. We sprang at pace with three players at Chelsea too btw. If you think our lack of pacy attacks was nothing to do with City you're mad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DJ
Neil Dawson said:
At the Chelsea away 3-0... Fraser was the right wing back with Ibe in front of him. Fraser bombed forward all match roared on by Eddie...he was immense. Ibe did no defending at all it won’t come as a shock to remember.

I can understand people saying they liked the way we played against City in the circumstances if that’s their opinion. Keeping on referencing two Chelsea games with completely different formations, tactics and approaches is odd.

The closest we have come to our approach v City has been the 0-0 with Leicester when Franno was sent off and the second half of the 1-1 with United when Surman was sent off.

In both the Chelsea games we sat tight and sprung at pace with five players. Clearly against City there was strict instruction not to do this. Yes City won the ball back but there were never five players breaking all game. Two at the most and normally one. This has nothing to do with City...we control how many players are allowed to bomb forwards when we have the ball.
Click to expand...
Agree with all of this....in that Chelsea 3-0 game we also had a front 3 who really pressed their back 3 ....often doubling up on Cahill.....which is how 2 of our goals came about.
 
Late to the review party. It was certainly optimistic seeing two inexperienced CBs with obvious instructions drilled into them, with Ake's cool head, looking assured against Man City of all teams. I thought Ake was man of the match as he gave in his usual 7/10 performance but gets bonus points for his obvious marshalling of the two boys beside him.

I am starting to see more and more what Wilson brings to the team, and in a game like saturday he is the biggest miss of our laundry list of injured players. King is King, but he is not Wilson. Pace, power and hold up play. Plus that ability to draw a foul rather than lose possession. Something that we desperately lacked.

It's bittersweet in a way, I would have taken a 1-0 loss before the game (given that prior to we have conceded 23 in 7 games against City) but the nature of the 1-0 loss leaves a bit of a taste in the mouth.
 
Neil Dawson said:
At the Chelsea away 3-0... Fraser was the right wing back with Ibe in front of him. Fraser bombed forward all match roared on by Eddie...he was immense. Ibe did no defending at all it won’t come as a shock to remember.

I can understand people saying they liked the way we played against City in the circumstances if that’s their opinion. Keeping on referencing two Chelsea games with completely different formations, tactics and approaches is odd.

The closest we have come to our approach v City has been the 0-0 with Leicester when Franno was sent off and the second half of the 1-1 with United when Surman was sent off.

In both the Chelsea games we sat tight and sprung at pace with five players. Clearly against City there was strict instruction not to do this. Yes City won the ball back but there were never five players breaking all game. Two at the most and normally one. This has nothing to do with City...we control how many players are allowed to bomb forwards when we have the ball.
Click to expand...
Don't be daft. The tactics, formation, had everything to do with City!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;