The mancityfans.net football forum

After reading a few threads on here lead me to believe that quite a lot of posters on here feel the same as myself that we are full of attacking options but we are too negative.What do you think and reasons why?

I will forgive Mancini's line up with DM against the Yids as training time was not on his side, but I wont fucking forgive him if he plays like this too often.

Against Scouse 1 he better put out an attacking team.

I don't think it's necessarily that we were negative, but because of the lack of presence any of the front three were able to offer us on Saturday, the midfield were either playing the ball knowing it'd be lost again, or not bothering at all by passing amongst themselves. Watching Silva trying to hold off Dawson was pitiful, and for all Tevez's tenacity he doesn't have the size to play as the lone frontman either.

For all the discussion of gelling and options, I don't believe we'll look any better in an attacking sense until we have a focal point. Chelsea are the best side in the country and look at how integral Drogba is to them. Their whole game is based around feeding him in some way or another- be it direct balls, down the channel and into the box, or to his feet to lay it off to Lampard, Malouda or whoever's rushing forward from midfield. Because our forwards were so small, they could never have done what he does effectively and so all those options become impossible and we rely on Arsenal-esque intricacy to score goals.

The core tactical set up was fine and the midfield, under the circumstances of being away at a top four side were OK. Tevez, Silva and SWP as front three is not in any way fine under the circumstances. Adebayor might not be the answer to ALL our problems but gelling or not, our play would've looked a lot more potent and fluent if he was in the side.

I think it's a little too early to say. Was listening to The Game podcast tonight from the Times, and Marcotti was talking about how when Mancini gets his side together, he really can have them playing an attacking style. The problem is, such an attacking style is based on a good knowledge of the other players, and moving together, and things like that.

If he plays 3 defensive mids at home though...

I dunno i'm torn on this...

First of all i don't believe that TYY is a "defensive mid" so the bollox about us playing 3 defensive mids is complete garbage imho.

Regardless, here's the thing...he can play some negative shit all he wants if someone up front takes the chances they are given, and scores. With the style we played against Spurs you have to bang one of the four chances yr going to get in the match into the back of the net if you want any hope of 3 pts. And he clearly wasn't playing a team that would take that risk by keeping Ade out of the starting side, as well as AJ.

if SWP or Tevez or Yaya made a play with the chances they had then we'd be hailing 3 hard-earned pts with a side that was setup perfectly for the 1-0 win.

Mancini's margin for error by playing so negatively last season was very thin. He knows he has to strike a balance. I'm confident he will in the next couple months, but he's nowhere near to a style or formation i'd like to see yet. And why should i expect him to be? He's had maybe 3 practices with his full squad. I can cool my jets for a month or so and let the man do his job, safe in the knowledge that we have a stockpile of ammunition prollee better than 99% of teams in world football with which to play some attacking football.

Just as a counterpoint tho, as others have railed on about, i've yet to see this glamorous attacking footy which Mancini allegedly played at Inter or the "English version of Barca" that Socs or Antti sold us when they were hoisting Mancini flags as the foundation of their anti-Licker crusade last fall.

Just...fuclin...sayin.

cheers

If we don't concede we won't lose. If we don't concede until the team gels we will be very well placed.

dazby wrote:If we don't concede we won't lose. If we don't concede until the team gels we will be very well placed.

And that's the crux of it.
You don't succeed over the course of a season by constantly trying to outscore your opponents - it's confidence sapping to keep having to pick yourself up from having conceded a goal and there's a danger that the midfielders/forwards will find their heads going down.

Get a nice tight ship going and, once established, use that to springboard the attacking policy. How long that takes will be how long it takes - how long the more impatient among us will tolerate it is another question.

I'm happy to patient on this one and see what Bobby's plans are in terms of formation and shape once he has a fully fit squad. However, we were totally ineffective in the opposition third on Saturday and he has to look at that. Two things for me, We can't play Yaya, Nige and Barry in the same team, though I agree with Doom that Yaya is more than just a defensive midfielder. They get in each others way and are just too similar in terms of where their natural instincts tell them to position themselves. Also, Tevez is not a lone striker. He gets drawn in to midfield and we lack a spearhead. At times on Saturday, when we were in posession in midfield, SWP was our most advanced player, it just didn't work.

One of the thing that pleases me most about our squad is that we have really strengthened in the full back positions and look to have an attacking threat down both flanks. We will not bring them in to play often enough if we can't hold the ball up in the opposition third.

I hope that when Milner signs we will shape up differently and that he will play with one of Ade and Balo up top, home and away. I'd like us to play with a similar shape home and away. I don't think changing formation regularly helps cohesion and I think we should be looking to win every game with the squad we have.

I'll reserve judgement until I see exactly what Bobby's plans are and how he wants us to shape up but I'l not be happy if the tactics employed on Saturday are used regularly, even against the so called bigger teams.

CityGer wrote: I don't think changing formation regularly helps cohesion

I think the ability to employ a fluid tactical formation is going to be a cornerstone of Mancini's City mate.

Kladze wrote:

CityGer wrote: I don't think changing formation regularly helps cohesion

I think the ability to employ a fluid tactical formation is going to be a cornerstone of Mancini's City mate.

What's your definition of a fluid tactical formation?

CityGer wrote:

Kladze wrote:

CityGer wrote: I don't think changing formation regularly helps cohesion

I think the ability to employ a fluid tactical formation is going to be a cornerstone of Mancini's City mate.

What's your definition of a fluid tactical formation?

Simply that Mancini has already showed us on a number of occasions that he likes to switch things with, some might say, alarming regularity.
Take the Spurs game for example. We started out with what looked to be a Christmas tree shape but as the match went on it 'evolved' to 4-3-3 ..... 4-5-1 ..... and 4-4-1-1 - all in the course of one game.

Kladze wrote:

CityGer wrote:

Kladze wrote:

CityGer wrote: I don't think changing formation regularly helps cohesion

I think the ability to employ a fluid tactical formation is going to be a cornerstone of Mancini's City mate.

What's your definition of a fluid tactical formation?

Simply that Mancini has already showed us on a number of occasions that he likes to switch things with, some might say, alarming regularity.
Take the Spurs game for example. We started out with what looked to be a Christmas tree shape but as the match went on it 'evolved' to 4-3-3 ..... 4-5-1 ..... and 4-4-1-1 - all in the course of one game.

Perhaps Saturday was an advert for having a core formation that we stick with more often than not. I'm not against us being flexible, I'd just like us to develop a style of play and a formation that the players are comfortale with. I don't think chopping and changing every week or doing so excessively throughout the course of a game is wise.

CityGer wrote:

Kladze wrote:

CityGer wrote:

Kladze wrote:

CityGer wrote: I don't think changing formation regularly helps cohesion

I think the ability to employ a fluid tactical formation is going to be a cornerstone of Mancini's City mate.

What's your definition of a fluid tactical formation?

Simply that Mancini has already showed us on a number of occasions that he likes to switch things with, some might say, alarming regularity.
Take the Spurs game for example. We started out with what looked to be a Christmas tree shape but as the match went on it 'evolved' to 4-3-3 ..... 4-5-1 ..... and 4-4-1-1 - all in the course of one game.

Perhaps Saturday was an advert for having a core formation that we stick with more often than not. I'm not against us being flexible, I'd just like us to develop a style of play and a formation that the players are comfortale with. I don't think chopping and changing every week or doing so excessively throughout the course of a game is wise.

As I said though, it seems likely that Mancini will demand such tactical evolution as standard practice from his players. And, to be honest, if they're good enough (and intelligent enough) they should be quite capable of it.

If he plays 3 DMFs against Liverpool at home again I think I will spazz out.

gillie wrote:After reading a few threads on here lead me to believe that quite a lot of posters on here feel the same as myself that we are full of attacking options but we are too negative.What do you think and reasons why?

I had thought that this was going to be a reference about the fans!!

Anyway yes to both subjects - but re the setup against Spuds - I think that is understandable - I think the idea is that the forward 3 do not need to keep having to come back all the time - it is actually a set-up that Rob would do well in because he would not need to do all the defensive work

And please guys - Ya Ya is much more than a DM - so we have a back 4 - de jong who is an out and out DM - 2 other MFs who can both link with the attack (in turns - depending where the play is) or also cover defence and in particular Ya Ya who can really link up going forward

This is not as simplistic as playing with 3 DMs FFS - and that should be obvious - and if you add to that an RB that can get down the line (think about Boateng in the lead up to the Barry goal against Valencia) and when you see Kolarov charging down the left then you want a MF 3 that can either link up in attack or provide cover in defence

It is not black and white - I personally expect NDJ, GB and YT to start against scouse - for me that is not the issue - it is the 'formation' we play - and it will be much better if Boateng is available 'cos we will see the width and service for the strikers

I thought we looked quite threatening going forward and carved out a few chances. I was quite happy with defence and attack. In some ways i think we almost played the perfect game (I sound like Noel Edmonds on Deal or No Deal)

We have debated this ad infinitum and it seems to me some people dont have the faintest clue what Mancini is about. Not the faintest.

We will keep teams out, and we will hit them hard, particularly later in the game. Or early if he thinks they can be blown away - Burnley, Brum etc.

So many people are advocating a formation that would've given us yet another defeat at Spuds - What planet are they on? We drew FFS.

Give it time boys, give it time!

mcfc1632 wrote:

gillie wrote:And please guys - Ya Ya is much more than a DM - so we have a back 4 - de jong who is an out and out DM - 2 other MFs who can both link with the attack (in turns - depending where the play is) or also cover defence and in particular Ya Ya who can really link up going forward

On this point, a chalkboard-style analysis is useful in demonstrating the different roles that Ya Ya, NDJ, and Barry perform.

For example, the Guardian has a tool (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/chalkboards/create) that allows you to view the passes that are made by each of the players. Against Tottenham, NDJ remained in the anchoring position in the centre of the field in front of the defensive line. Ya Ya was box-to-box across the entire width of the pitch, and Barry was box-to-box on the left side of the pitch.

In other words, as gillie, and many others on this board have pointed out, NDJ is the only DM. Nonetheless, there is an absence of a purely attacking central midfielder. But I agree that Ya Ya can cover enough ground and has enough vision to create opportunities for the attacking players.

away from home we are far to cautious, we have got the squad to go out and attack these teams now. if he starts deploying loads of DM's at home i wont be happy.

It is an interesting scenario and maybe this is close to the real issue.
"We have debated this ad infinitum and it seems to me some people dont have the faintest clue what Mancini is about. Not the faintest"

Close but I would extend the comment to suggest that ,so far, the players also haven't had much of a clue. Certainly last year with our scoreless performances against LPool,Arse,Everton,Scum,Spurs where we played the cautious game it was clear our ability to control games and score goals was very worrying. We must believe that, with more time working with the players and a new group of key players added, we will start to perform better in these games and look like we can win.

In the Spurs game on Saturday we looked lost in the first half and Joe saved us but in the 2nd half there were some good signs of understanding and an ability to control the game.We kept possession better which meant the defence wasn't under seige. I know we didn't threaten to score very often but that will come as the players get used to each other more and confidence grows.