Tactics and why they are good as they are.

[Dhenry]

Sometimes this place seriously saddens me.. If Mancini gets the sack any time within the next 12 months, I only blame the negativity stemming from the fans and without going into the discussion of stability or changes being better, I will lose some love for this club.

Now, on with my point.. Mancini has been referred to as attacking, balanced and defensive in the media. I think those are more in the right that suggest the middle view.

I'll argue my point:

4-3-3 set up
The problem I've ALWAYS had with this approach is the lack of natural width in the middle of the park. I much prefer a 4-4-2 with restless wide midfielders. But 4-3-3 is what everyone here wanted and now we have it.

Now from that, there are two ways of creating the width, so to prove any sort of a threat to the opposition: wide forwards tracing back lots (and leaving the central forward alone and having to seek options to be involved in the play by going wide to where the play is) or using full-backs.

Now obviously both options have problems, which we at City recently have witnessed: Ade drifting wide is precisely for that, he wants to get involved and get the ball but standing solitary in the middle, chances are the ball won't even get that far. So he comes out wide and suddenly there is no-one in the box.

Option two leaves the centre-halfs exposed, obviously. If the other team has any pace, even worse as that is not really a necessity for a typical centre-half. So what is needed is some cover. Suppose both fullbacks get involved in the attack, the wider midfielders stay further behind and ensure the centre-halfs have some backup. The middle positioned midfielder orchestrates the passing by making himself available, also slightly further back (Ireland was given the chance for this role but he's not on form really, is he?). This gives the full backs the opportunity to go forward and the forwards have the liberty to actually be in the central area to create something.

Now this formation CAN work. The trick here is a team that can work together really well. If players make themselves available, the orchestrating midfielder will not need to seek passes further back the field to maintain posession.

Having seen all our 4-3-3 games recently, we are getting better at this. Before we relaxed in the last 10 minutes, we had 68% (!!!) per cent posession. Where we still lack is some fast movement up the field when they do have 10 men behind the ball, but considering we have played this way for 4 weeks with a very much changing personnel due to injuries, I'd say it's going quite well.

The signs today were good, Mancini's tactics are working and we are becoming a pretty team to watch. Look at the evolution in Pompey-Hull-Bolton.

I said in late December when everyone was giddy about him, that it would still take at least a month for me to deliver a verdict. Well I have now, and I'm liking what I'm seeing. Posession play, attack minded. In that order.

 

[kenzie115]

I agree that if the full backs push on and we have a "quarter back" style midfielder then 4-3-3 can work. However, after about 20 minutes our full backs stopped pushing on as much and none of De Jong, Vieira or Barry are "quarter backs".

Do you not agree that we looked a lot more balanced when Shauny came on and we went for 4-4-2?

In my opinion, at home especially, we should go with 4-4-2. Traditional wingers in Shauny and Johnson with Adebayor/Santa Cruz and Tevez/Bellamy up front.

Away from home I'd be more tempted to go 4-5-1 with Tevez up front and Bellamy and Johnson on the wings and Ireland in the middle. We then have pace on the break and a midfielder who can orchestrate the counter attacks.

 

[dctid]

Sometimes this place seriously saddens me.. If Mancini gets the sack any time within the next 12 months, I only blame the negativity stemming from the fans and without going into the discussion of stability or changes being better, I will lose some love for this club.

Now, on with my point.. Mancini has been referred to as attacking, balanced and defensive in the media. I think those are more in the right that suggest the middle view.

I'll argue my point:

4-3-3 set up
The problem I've ALWAYS had with this approach is the lack of natural width in the middle of the park. I much prefer a 4-4-2 with restless wide midfielders. But 4-3-3 is what everyone here wanted and now we have it.

Now from that, there are two ways of creating the width, so to prove any sort of a threat to the opposition: wide forwards tracing back lots (and leaving the central forward alone and having to seek options to be involved in the play by going wide to where the play is) or using full-backs.

Now obviously both options have problems, which we at City recently have witnessed: Ade drifting wide is precisely for that, he wants to get involved and get the ball but standing solitary in the middle, chances are the ball won't even get that far. So he comes out wide and suddenly there is no-one in the box.

Option two leaves the centre-halfs exposed, obviously. If the other team has any pace, even worse as that is not really a necessity for a typical centre-half. So what is needed is some cover. Suppose both fullbacks get involved in the attack, the wider midfielders stay further behind and ensure the centre-halfs have some backup. The middle positioned midfielder orchestrates the passing by making himself available, also slightly further back (Ireland was given the chance for this role but he's not on form really, is he?). This gives the full backs the opportunity to go forward and the forwards have the liberty to actually be in the central area to create something.

Now this formation CAN work. The trick here is a team that can work together really well. If players make themselves available, the orchestrating midfielder will not need to seek passes further back the field to maintain posession.

Having seen all our 4-3-3 games recently, we are getting better at this. Before we relaxed in the last 10 minutes, we had 68% (!!!) per cent posession. Where we still lack is some fast movement up the field when they do have 10 men behind the ball, but considering we have played this way for 4 weeks with a very much changing personnel due to injuries, I'd say it's going quite well.

The signs today were good, Mancini's tactics are working and we are becoming a pretty team to watch. Look at the evolution in Pompey-Hull-Bolton.

I said in late December when everyone was giddy about him, that it would still take at least a month for me to deliver a verdict. Well I have now, and I'm liking what I'm seeing. Posession play, attack minded. In that order.

There is nothing wrong with a 4 3 3 - but when the midfield 3 are all defensive midfield players with very little creative flair between them and fairly limited passing abilities then there is a problem.

Hull got in our faces closed down the midfield and by doing so shuts down our attacking threat as the strikers dont get the ball - a Bullard type players instead of a Viera or DJ for me would improve our midfield immensily.

 

[Petetheblu]

The biggest problem is the Zonal play coming from midfield, I would like to see at least one of those midfielders be able to break the zonal trend when attacking.

Also if your playing with three defensive midfielders it can get very tight in the middle so we need to pick up our passing speed and movement, especially our movement with someone making a dash from deep. At the moment we are to pedestrian and far to easy to get the ball back off.

We can still play zonal as long as we pass and move quicker with runners making space.....It's now all about drills and learning them.

 

[Freestyler]

The whole point of a 4-3-3 is to have creativity in the centre to be able to feed both the wingers and the strikers, we didn't have that tonight and we haven't had it for 3 games now.

 

[Dhenry]

Sometimes this place seriously saddens me.. If Mancini gets the sack any time within the next 12 months, I only blame the negativity stemming from the fans and without going into the discussion of stability or changes being better, I will lose some love for this club.

Now, on with my point.. Mancini has been referred to as attacking, balanced and defensive in the media. I think those are more in the right that suggest the middle view.

I'll argue my point:

4-3-3 set up
The problem I've ALWAYS had with this approach is the lack of natural width in the middle of the park. I much prefer a 4-4-2 with restless wide midfielders. But 4-3-3 is what everyone here wanted and now we have it.

Now from that, there are two ways of creating the width, so to prove any sort of a threat to the opposition: wide forwards tracing back lots (and leaving the central forward alone and having to seek options to be involved in the play by going wide to where the play is) or using full-backs.

Now obviously both options have problems, which we at City recently have witnessed: Ade drifting wide is precisely for that, he wants to get involved and get the ball but standing solitary in the middle, chances are the ball won't even get that far. So he comes out wide and suddenly there is no-one in the box.

Option two leaves the centre-halfs exposed, obviously. If the other team has any pace, even worse as that is not really a necessity for a typical centre-half. So what is needed is some cover. Suppose both fullbacks get involved in the attack, the wider midfielders stay further behind and ensure the centre-halfs have some backup. The middle positioned midfielder orchestrates the passing by making himself available, also slightly further back (Ireland was given the chance for this role but he's not on form really, is he?). This gives the full backs the opportunity to go forward and the forwards have the liberty to actually be in the central area to create something.

Now this formation CAN work. The trick here is a team that can work together really well. If players make themselves available, the orchestrating midfielder will not need to seek passes further back the field to maintain posession.

Having seen all our 4-3-3 games recently, we are getting better at this. Before we relaxed in the last 10 minutes, we had 68% (!!!) per cent posession. Where we still lack is some fast movement up the field when they do have 10 men behind the ball, but considering we have played this way for 4 weeks with a very much changing personnel due to injuries, I'd say it's going quite well.

The signs today were good, Mancini's tactics are working and we are becoming a pretty team to watch. Look at the evolution in Pompey-Hull-Bolton.

I said in late December when everyone was giddy about him, that it would still take at least a month for me to deliver a verdict. Well I have now, and I'm liking what I'm seeing. Posession play, attack minded. In that order.

There is nothing wrong with a 4 3 3 - but when the midfield 3 are all defensive midfield players with very little creative flair between them and fairly limited passing abilities then there is a problem.

Hull got in our faces closed down the midfield and by doing so shuts down our attacking threat as the strikers dont get the ball - a Bullard type players instead of a Viera or DJ for me would improve our midfield immensily.

I agree in concept with you but considering Irelands recent performances and the fact we didn't get Mariga, those three are the best on form we can have. Unless you wanna give young Ibrahim a chance again.. Mancini played Ireland in the 3 before switching to those three, keep that in mind. One player must be more of the orchestrative creative kind for this to work - and the full backs need to keep going more, but you are missing one key thing that also changed after 20 min. When the full backs started staying back more, Johnson was the one staying further wide. So you could argue we reverted to a 4-4-2 with three central and one wide midfielder, hence having one full back who would go forward and the defensive by nature midfielders playing further up as well.

I think your point is a valid one but on the basis of today's game, I think Mancini took note of that as well. What I did want to highlight though is the obsession with the 4-3-3 that was taking place here 2 months ago..now we have it, the same people are moaning about it.

 

[smiles]

Shock horror at the balanced views and intelligent tactical analysis. Not a 'ade is sh*t' style comment in sight.
While the strict zonal positioning is clearly working for us in defense we look too inhibited in midfield and going forward.
I was under the impression mancio opted for a diamond midfileld rather than a 3 msn midfield.
Either was it was a tad boring and narrow. There's a definite improvement, and the new manager's tactics don't seem so 'lost in translation'
But saying that we'd get spanked if we played like we did tonight against any of the big teams.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

It was a diamond midfield today that changed into 442. At no time did we play 433.

 

[Lucky Toma]

Yeh it was definitely a diamond formation which I'm not a fan of at all because it narrows the play.

I agree with your dissection of 4-3-3 up to a point Dhenry but your analysis makes it sound like when a wide-attacker tracks back they both track back. And when one of the full-backs pushes up they both push up. This isnt correct. A good functioning team that knows each others play and works together should have a natural ebb and flow to it. If our right-back steams up the flank (like Micah loves to do if allowed) I would expect our left-back to stay back and the back three to move across. The reverse is obviously true if say Bridge pushes on.
If Tevez tracks back and helps our right-back out (or follows someone in-field) then Bellamy (or Johnson or whoever is our left-sided attacker that day) should stay up field and either make himself available out wide for a counter-attack or move closer to Ade creating a temporary front two.
4-3-3 and 4-5-1 should be fluid and inter-changable and is the way forward in the modern game. Look at Barca. Look at the Scum. Look at Mourinho's Chelsea.

 

[Dhenry]

Yeh it was definitely a diamond formation which I'm not a fan of at all because it narrows the play.

I agree with your dissection of 4-3-3 up to a point Dhenry but your analysis makes it sound like when a wide-attacker tracks back they both track back. And when one of the full-backs pushes up they both push up. This isnt correct. A good functioning team that knows each others play and works together should have a natural ebb and flow to it. If our right-back steams up the flank (like Micah loves to do if allowed) I would expect our left-back to stay back and the back three to move across. The reverse is obviously true if say Bridge pushes on.
If Tevez tracks back and helps our right-back out (or follows someone in-field) then Bellamy (or Johnson or whoever is our left-sided attacker that day) should stay up field and either make himself available out wide for a counter-attack or move closer to Ade creating a temporary front two.
4-3-3 and 4-5-1 should be fluid and inter-changable and is the way forward in the modern game. Look at Barca. Look at the Scum. Look at Mourinho's Chelsea.

Again, good and fair point. What I want to stress though is that in that formation, the central striker role only works when both the wide forwards are up. The full backs can only go up if they have good cover.

I too think one of the midfielders needs to be an all around one. Maybe not quite an attacking one (lots of quality demanded from other two, and understanding between the three of them) but one whose core skill is reading the play, passing and creativity. I think Vieira, for all he is, has these features. He is not perfect for the role, as he is still a defensive midfield player, but he is a good reader of the game. Barca and United (especially)have all benefited from working together in that single concept for long periods of time. United is a good example as the parts of the team are not that good really - it is the sum that makes them who they are. Arsenal, to an extent, purely depend on that, and that is the reason many of their players are listed 'flops' when they move clubs.

In a sense this is going to the stability/change argument again but I'd refrain from that by restating my point that I think change can be noticed between a week on Sunday and last night. Of course we will lose some more, I personally am quite worried about Stoke away with their narrow pitch, but looking at an overall picture (which is rarely done here), we are certainly heading in the right direction in my mind.

I was a Hughes 'inner' (I didn't want him sacked, but my main line of support was with the club and seeing Hughes as an employee), and I'm a Mancini supporter now, however I can highlight the clear difference the two managers have on their tactics. It is, a cliche with Italian managers, but one that is once again proving to be true. Hughes put faith in the skills of the players and that the bond between them would come, Mancini is working towards making that happen. Working with attack, midfield, defence separately proves that point quite well.