DrPoolittle
Well-Known Member
Gelling has a groin strain
Recruitment has been shocking (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter CCFC54321
- Start date
skybluecam
Well-Known Member
eh? That image clearly shows Allen was playing closer to O’Hare than he was Sheaf.
It’s semantics because people will always describe a back “4” despite Bidwell and MVE actually playing as high as/higher than Sheaf.
I stand by 4123/4141 being a more accurate description, purely because Allen was not at all playing in line with Sheaf, and was playing in line with O’Hare most of the time.
mmttww
Well-Known Member
Dunno about this. You might be right, they might be. Might never know if it was a formation switch - like when we went to flat 3 with Matty James - that sorted it, or if it was players adjusting (gelling) that made the difference. In the end, if it clicks, it won't matter.
BlueSkiesForever
Well-Known Member
Well, whether it’s traditional wingers or not, we’re certainly playing better with more wingery-style players than without wingery-style players.
Most importantly we’ve got rid of this weird and boring horseshoe-shape formation we had when we were attacking with wingbacks, just didn’t work, no overlap or space to run inside. Whether it’s 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 or 4-1-4-1 or 4-3-7-9-2-8-1, as long as that first number isn’t a 5 I think we’ll play well.
Most importantly we’ve got rid of this weird and boring horseshoe-shape formation we had when we were attacking with wingbacks, just didn’t work, no overlap or space to run inside. Whether it’s 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 or 4-1-4-1 or 4-3-7-9-2-8-1, as long as that first number isn’t a 5 I think we’ll play well.
When we have the ball obviously the formation is very different because it's so fluid and dynamic when you're attacking. It's like a 2-1-4-3 or something with the ball, yet that's obviously not how you'd describe any formation. That's why the average position map is skewed.
The only time you really see the players lined up in formation is without the ball, and that's clearly in 4231.
Like you say, it's semantics really though.
Our full backs are more attacking in a back four than they were as wingbacks. Bidwell has been flawless since coming back into the team. Never should have been dropped in the first place, there’s a reason he’s always been a regular for teams challenging at the top end of the table
Bidwell has been excellent since he came back in but it may have been being dropped that has given him more attacking ambition.
Da Silva was brought in because Bidwell was too defensive last season and offered little going forward.
The current version of Bidwell offers a much better balance and we look stronger for it.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Bidwell was often one of our 3 most advanced players last season as a wing back, it's not a new thing
Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
Cally Fedora
Well-Known Member
Systems. Largely irrelevant. Bidwell is in better form than DaSilva. Collins than Wilson. Kitching has settled. Allen and O’Hare back to fitness. Hence improvement.
The issue last season wasn't not getting forward enough, it was that he didn't do enough in the advanced positions. His first move was often to check back.
This season he's making twice as many crosses, key passes, progressive carries, shot creating actions per game.
He rarely got a cross in last season …. The amount of crosses he now gets in is materially higher than last season .
Systems being irrelevant is a very old fashioned view.
The days of managers throwing on their best eleven and just encouraging to play with freedom are long gone.
Its one of the reasons that Robins loves Allen. Evidently his ability to take on board the tactical and positional information given is higher than most in the squad.
DannyThomas_1981
Well-Known Member
Thoughts on recruitment:
We lost 3 of the best players I have seen in a City shirt in Vik, Hamer and Doyle over the summer.
Replacing that level of quality is incredibly difficult.
But improvements to our first team since last year = MVE, Kitching, Saka and O'Hare returning to fitness.
To now advance beyond last year and the loss of the big 3 we need to add to that and I see the following:
-A top class number 8 in the January window replacing Hamer
-Simms and Wright showing consistent improvement and gaining confidence
-The rumoured Prem wingers to add into the 4-3-3 system
Could be a very interesting season with the above - although honestly I'd be ok with a top 10 this season, targeting next season for a big run at the top 4. We're not far away with a couple of additions to the jigsaw.
We lost 3 of the best players I have seen in a City shirt in Vik, Hamer and Doyle over the summer.
Replacing that level of quality is incredibly difficult.
But improvements to our first team since last year = MVE, Kitching, Saka and O'Hare returning to fitness.
To now advance beyond last year and the loss of the big 3 we need to add to that and I see the following:
-A top class number 8 in the January window replacing Hamer
-Simms and Wright showing consistent improvement and gaining confidence
-The rumoured Prem wingers to add into the 4-3-3 system
Could be a very interesting season with the above - although honestly I'd be ok with a top 10 this season, targeting next season for a big run at the top 4. We're not far away with a couple of additions to the jigsaw.
Saddlebrains
Well-Known Member
Seems to have worked a treat Viveash insisting the players were in for training during the last break instead of gallavanting about with 10 days off like the previous 2
skybluecam
Well-Known Member
Most of Birmingham’s good attacking play was down the left through Dembele or Stansfield which would’ve pushed Milan back more.
Cally Fedora
Well-Known Member
Why do the teams with the best players win more often?
Terry_dactyl
Well-Known Member
I was impressed with that Stansfield looked decent.
Because they also have the best managers, coaches, facilities, tactics, etc ….
They wouldn’t win if they just turned up on the day without any prep and gave it a go …..
It is true that the best players can adapt to most systems etc but the days of Keegan, Harry Redknapp etc just giving them a motivational speech etc are long gone in my opinion.
skybluecam
Well-Known Member
Ridiculous comment.
Cally Fedora
Well-Known Member
You need a system. But by and large other factors play a larger part. Form, momentum, confidence. Loads of debate as to whether we’re playing 4511, 4412 etc etc. Back four or five is about the extent that matters.
One of the daftest things I have read for a while.
Cally Fedora
Well-Known Member
Don’t believe the hype. It’s a simple game.
Clubs may as well sack all of their analysts then.
ccfc1234
Well-Known Member
While people can over hype situstions both positive and negative. It's hard to argue that the back 4 have played well as a unit and that Wright and Sakamoto have done far better in a 433. Wright up top, back to goal, looked lost.
I am more shocked given the type of players we signed that the change of formation seemed forced (due to results) rather than planned.
Cally Fedora
Well-Known Member
100%. The sizes and variations of back room staff is ridiculous.
tommy hutch legend
Well-Known Member
With a system
Cally Fedora
Well-Known Member
Of course you have to have a system. My point is it’s out of control. Pivots, false nines, presses etc etc. It’s just good, intelligent technical play dressed up in endless nonsense.
You couldn’t be more wrong
Cally Fedora
Well-Known Member
In your opinion. The game is now analysed in minute detail which means pundits etc have to find things to say. These myths creep in. But 99% of it is just what you might call good play. Pass, find space, receive and repeat. Two of the most successful sides ever had systems simply built on that. Liverpool late 70’s early 80’s. Barcelona of a few years back.
Boosh?
Greggs
Well-Known Member
Because they usually have the best managers
Someone should tell Pep Guardiola to sack his analysts and not plan for their opponents, he might be a successful manager then
Cally Fedora
Well-Known Member
So it’s down to his analysts then? Not that wherever he’s been he’s had the licence to hoover up talent without having to consider affordability?