The mancityfans.net football forum

for those who complain about this tactic have a read..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1255794/Ashley-Young-Luka-Modric-Adam-Johnson--Premier-League-bosses-going-crazy-inside-wingers.html

It was a very interesting read but I still think that there a more advantages to the old fashioned type winger who takes the ball wide and crosses.
Many of the arguments for inside out wingers can be used against it or for normal wingers.
The angles are different for both not just for the inside out winger.
An inswinging cross is not neccessarilty better than an outswinging cross,
Cutting inside may create space outside for an overlapping fullback but advantage can also be gained by stretching the defence out wide too.
Some gains and some losses.

Like with all things, John. However, since wingers cutting in aren't that common in the Prem, it may give a slight advantage for a while, because players/managers won't already know how to deal with it immediately.

IMHO, the best solution is to have a winger that is reasonably strong with both feet, this way it will be him who decides depending on the situation what to do, if to go down the line and cross or cut inside and try a through ball, or shoot, etc. This will of course leave the full back confused and he will have to wait and see what the winger does, providing that moment of freedom that can result in an assist or a goal, or a set piece gained in a dangerous position.

A few are saying it slows the game down but I like it myself.

Like everything John there are pros and cons. for that i suppose it is horses for courses.. if the oppo has a very good one footed FB then the advantage of playing him on his weaker foot could be all the difference.. as A.Gray says
"the winger can get on his strong foot at the crucial time while the full back is then on his weaker side.

Overmars makes a good point about receiving the ball on his stronger foot and the extra split second he gained from that.

However in practice i suppose the ideal is having the oppo not knowing what you are going to do, so a left winger always played on the right is going to be quickly understood and countered. The best situation is for both wingers to be familiar with switching over at crucial times, that way if our right back or left back was having reasonable success then by switching the wingers you can really start to pile the pressure on the oppo FB who is struggling a bit.

For me the modern game is all about creativity and keeping the oppo unsure of where the danger is going to come from.. that for me is why when he is on song Steven Ireland is unplayable, because he is a one man unpredictability machine.

In ref to Mancini, he is using the wingers on both sides quite regularly, this for me can only be good as it then remains a comfortable option during games as the players know how to play it.. i imagine given plenty of practice and familiarity that the wingers can read better what type of cross to go for ( inswinging or outswinging ) depending who is in the centre or running in.
Inswingers from deep have a Rory Delap type feel to them and can be very difficult to deal with

brite blu sky wrote:Like everything John there are pros and cons. for that i suppose it is horses for courses.. if the oppo has a very good one footed FB then the advantage of playing him on his weaker foot could be all the difference.. as A.Gray says
"the winger can get on his strong foot at the crucial time while the full back is then on his weaker side.

Overmars makes a good point about receiving the ball on his stronger foot and the extra split second he gained from that.

However in practice i suppose the ideal is having the oppo not knowing what you are going to do, so a left winger always played on the right is going to be quickly understood and countered. The best situation is for both wingers to be familiar with switching over at crucial times, that way if our right back or left back was having reasonable success then by switching the wingers you can really start to pile the pressure on the oppo FB who is struggling a bit.

For me the modern game is all about creativity and keeping the oppo unsure of where the danger is going to come from.. that for me is why when he is on song Steven Ireland is unplayable, because he is a one man unpredictability machine.

In ref to Mancini, he is using the wingers on both sides quite regularly, this for me can only be good as it then remains a comfortable option during games as the players know how to play it.. i imagine given plenty of practice and familiarity that the wingers can read better what type of cross to go for ( inswinging or outswinging ) depending who is in the centre or running in.
Inswingers from deep have a Rory Delap type feel to them and can be very difficult to deal with

That's the main thing here. The game is played on such pace these days compared to yesteryear that any split second you'll gain from something unpredictable is going to work for you.

Also as Keown explained there, it's much more complicated than some people make it out to be here. It forces fullback to play closer to winger and therefore leaves space behind the fullback for striker or another midfielder to run to.

But as said, there are no right or wrong way here. It's all about overall system the team uses, the individual strenghts and weaknesses teams have. We have lot of players with pace and people who can pass the ball around so I can see it working for us once the players get use to it. Players like Tevez will flourish on that system because of the extra space it creates. However, as stated it might make us less dynamic on occasion with players cutting in and wingers have to (learn) to be familiar with playing on opposite wing.

Despite the critism directed at it, I believe our weaknesses under Mancini have been elsewhere.

Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:

brite blu sky wrote:Like everything John there are pros and cons. for that i suppose it is horses for courses.. if the oppo has a very good one footed FB then the advantage of playing him on his weaker foot could be all the difference.. as A.Gray says
"the winger can get on his strong foot at the crucial time while the full back is then on his weaker side.

Overmars makes a good point about receiving the ball on his stronger foot and the extra split second he gained from that.

However in practice i suppose the ideal is having the oppo not knowing what you are going to do, so a left winger always played on the right is going to be quickly understood and countered. The best situation is for both wingers to be familiar with switching over at crucial times, that way if our right back or left back was having reasonable success then by switching the wingers you can really start to pile the pressure on the oppo FB who is struggling a bit.

For me the modern game is all about creativity and keeping the oppo unsure of where the danger is going to come from.. that for me is why when he is on song Steven Ireland is unplayable, because he is a one man unpredictability machine.

In ref to Mancini, he is using the wingers on both sides quite regularly, this for me can only be good as it then remains a comfortable option during games as the players know how to play it.. i imagine given plenty of practice and familiarity that the wingers can read better what type of cross to go for ( inswinging or outswinging ) depending who is in the centre or running in.
Inswingers from deep have a Rory Delap type feel to them and can be very difficult to deal with

That's the main thing here. The game is played on such pace these days compared to yesteryear that any split second you'll gain from something unpredictable is going to work for you.

Also as Keown explained there, it's much more complicated than some people make it out to be here. It forces fullback to play closer to winger and therefore leaves space behind the fullback for striker or another midfielder to run to.

But as said, there are no right or wrong way here. It's all about overall system the team uses, the individual strenghts and weaknesses teams have. We have lot of players with pace and people who can pass the ball around so I can see it working for us once the players get use to it. Players like Tevez will flourish on that system because of the extra space it creates. However, as stated it might make us less dynamic on occasion with players cutting in and wingers have to (learn) to be familiar with playing on opposite wing.

Despite the critism directed at it, I believe our weaknesses under Mancini have been elsewhere.

yep to all that..

as you say tevez would take good advantage of the space created if the oppo FB was in two minds where the danger was coming from.. the winger who had swapped, or the FB running outside on his best foot. The oppo having to think of two things at once again gives that extra split second, so with Carlito ferriting around in holes there is also a very real danger of splitting the oppo formation with an unpredictable ball to him.

If we can ever get Stevie in there with Tevez working.. fucl me.. we will seriously scare some teams defences

Just one point on that Antti, How can a winger cutting in create exrtra space?...By cutting in, the winger draws the full back with him into the middle, thus leaving the space outside him and decreasing the space in the middle.

john68 wrote:Just one point on that Antti, How can a winger cutting in create exrtra space?...By cutting in, the winger draws the full back with him into the middle, thus leaving the space outside him and decreasing the space in the middle.

I think so it would leave space for the LB or RB to run into.
In theory I suppose.

Rag_hater wrote:

john68 wrote:Just one point on that Antti, How can a winger cutting in create exrtra space?...By cutting in, the winger draws the full back with him into the middle, thus leaving the space outside him and decreasing the space in the middle.

I think so it would leave space for the LB or RB to run into.
In theory I suppose.

...and then the full back could cross the ball from wide...which could have been originally done by a traditional winger doing it in the 1st place. He would also be crossing into a more crowded area with the extra defender.

Johnson can play on both sides but SWP and Petrov cant.

This is why i aint a fan at the moment. When Bobby Manc insists this happens I get fuckin well annoyed when the switch looks permenant rather than a quick tactical ploy to outwit the opposition.

I also worry that Bellers wanting to always play on the left coming inside means Johnson & Petrov will always be shifted across.

john68 wrote:

Rag_hater wrote:

john68 wrote:Just one point on that Antti, How can a winger cutting in create exrtra space?...By cutting in, the winger draws the full back with him into the middle, thus leaving the space outside him and decreasing the space in the middle.

I think so it would leave space for the LB or RB to run into.
In theory I suppose.

...and then the full back could cross the ball from wide...which could have been originally done by a traditional winger doing it in the 1st place. He would also be crossing into a more crowded area with the extra defender.

I think the idea would be that the winger has distracted the opposing RB so leaving more space for the attack and a more accurate delivery.

I think it is a useful strategy to use during odd phases of a game when a winger was seen to be unable to get past his full back. But to use it as a basic tactic throughout the game will only see defenders organising to oppose it as thety do most other tactics.
Useful for changing things about...but then switching wingers was always an option that has been used for years...and it is not a new concept.

john68 wrote:...and then the full back could cross the ball from wide...which could have been originally done by a traditional winger doing it in the 1st place. He would also be crossing into a more crowded area with the extra defender.

But the winger would have had to beat the full back otherwise the defender would at the very least deflect the ball, this way the overlapping full back has the way clear to cross because the opposition FB will be marking the winger.

But, as I said, the best option is to have a winger decently skilled with both feet so that he can decide on the moment what to do without being limited on going by the line or cutting inside.

john68 wrote:

Rag_hater wrote:

john68 wrote:Just one point on that Antti, How can a winger cutting in create exrtra space?...By cutting in, the winger draws the full back with him into the middle, thus leaving the space outside him and decreasing the space in the middle.

I think so it would leave space for the LB or RB to run into.
In theory I suppose.

...and then the full back could cross the ball from wide...which could have been originally done by a traditional winger doing it in the 1st place. He would also be crossing into a more crowded area with the extra defender.

It's not just about the fullbacks. A lot of it is about the forwards and what type of ball they want. Adebayor likes to run the channels, so a winger can cut inside and create space for him to run into. If you have wingers who like to cross from the by-line then you also want forwards who attack the ball and fight for it. Passing inside gives more options for getting it to your feet.

It's interesting that there seems to be a strong Arsenal connection with the better responses in the article.

john68 wrote:Just one point on that Antti, How can a winger cutting in create exrtra space?...By cutting in, the winger draws the full back with him into the middle, thus leaving the space outside him and decreasing the space in the middle.

simple, because it's fullbacks duty to cover the winger he will have to play closer to him in order to follow him if he cuts inside. Being closer to his winger means that he's covering less space and leaves room for strikers to roam in.

This all depends on the winger though. Players like Duff and Young can do this to good effect.

Players like SWP can't.

I like the idea but it just doesn't work with some of the players we have.

Sometimes the Manager plays a Winger on his opposite side because he doesn't want him to whack high balls in to the box - he wants him to cut inside and pass it. I've seen it in alot of Continental Football, too.

If the Player can cross with either foot then it's a good tactic because the Defender doesn't know what the Winger is going to do when he has the ball on the flank.

halnone wrote:I like the idea but it just doesn't work with some of the players we have.

I think that's the key point. Whilst even "two-footed" players will have a preference, the inability of many players to use their weaker foot effectively is puzzling.

I used to work with a bloke who was older than me (yes it is possible). His old man was on both City and Utd's books in the late thirties. Apparantly, in those days you daren't tell the manager/coach you had a weak foot. If you did, a football boot was put on your weaker foot, a plimsol on your strongest, then you would train day after day with a leather case ball soaked water for that long you needed a bulldozer to shift it. Your weak foot wasn't weak for long.