The new formation and potential problems. (1 Viewer)

[woody11462]

Just catching up on Match of the Day and noticed Everton went with the same formation we've been playing. They dominated Spurs first half, missed some very good chances to kill the game off (sound familiar?) and Spurs changed it second half and it was a different game that Spurs should've won.

This got me thinking do we need a completely different formation/game plan for the second half of games as twice it appears we have been sussed out after having the better of the game in the first 45. Not a case of reacting to the oppositions changes but starting with a different set up at the start of the half so a team doesn't have the chnace to regroup.

 

---

[stupot07]

We need a plan b. We didn't have one last season and it cost us dearly. We now play a different formation / system and teams are sussing us out at half time and we gave again not got a plan b. Mowbray also stated this in his interview.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[chiefdave]

You always need a plan B. Other teams will be watching us so if our formation can be negated tactically they will do it.

 

[Great_Expectations]

I agree. I partly get the impression by bringing K Thomas on TM was attempting to introduce a plan b, using a target man. Granted it's a half way house, as we need a genuine plan b in terms of tactics/formation, but at least TM recognises that.

Plus in all fairness, based on yesterday's bench there wasn't too much he could change.

 

[Winny the Bish]

The 3-5-2/3-4-3 is designed to maximise possession with 3 in midfield as well as having bodies in defence, building from the back. By the very nature of it being rather defensive, you have to give up on certain attacking principles that are tried and tested in English football, namely getting an overload on the wings as well as having runners from a variety of angles.

It's the type of formation where you either look to break down an opposition with relentless pressure and intricate play through the lines, or hope your front men are good enough to get it done with little help. Currently, City are not good enough to do either of those. We need a right-wing back who is disgustingly attacking, another ball-playing centre back to bring it out of defense and play through the phases and another striker (or two) at minimum.

Everyone also has to be tactically smart, which is always going to struggle with so many youngsters, so breakdowns in communication and alertness may happen.

By having only conceded once in the first two league games of the season, that part is working. We just need to work out the attack, which isn't a surprise considering it is a hugely new system.

 

[rupert_bear]

Don't care what system you have, you need forwards, a target, someone who you can play the ball up to, can hold on to it and play players in, yesterday we had nobody who could do that, we looked pretty pretty from the back to midfield then nothing and after half time Shrewsbury altered their game and if I was a fan of theirs I'd be disappointed with a draw to be honest.

 

[Winny the Bish]

Don't care what system you have, you need forwards, a target, someone who you can play the ball up to, can hold on to it and play players in, yesterday we had nobody who could do that, we looked pretty pretty from the back to midfield then nothing and after half time Shrewsbury altered their game and if I was a fan of theirs I'd be disappointed with a draw to be honest.

Wigan and Barnsley both went up last season with strikers under 6ft leading the line. You don't need a target man in football anymore, just good playmaking and finishing. Like when we were top of the league last year with Arma as the lone frontman.

 

[Old Warwickshire lad]

All Shrewsbury did Sat was mark out back 3 when the keeper got the ball and we were f*****
Only outlet was kick to Rose. And we all saw how well that worked.