Thats because many teams use that system , its popular. But you can continue being dramatic about it
Manchester United (A) - Sat 6 Nov 12:30 | Pre-Match Thread
- Thread starter MAG
- Start date
- Status
City_Sean
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I agree with this. Ultimately though whether we do have an issue against teams that play 352 etc, we should still have enough for them. If they play Ronaldo and Cavani, then I don't think they can play at a great speed on the break.
For us in a game like this it's vital we don't give the ball away. I'd be tempted to let Kev sit this out and play Gundo and Bernardo to control the middle.
United are very vulnerable to pace, I'd be tempted to play Jesus on the right to threaten the channels behind Maguire.
dadnlad
Well-Known Member
he runs his bollocks off for them hope he plays tonight
If we restricted Chelsea to 0 shots on target we should be able to do the same to United. They have a team with less quality in midfield and defense and a less quality manager ffs.
It's just a matter of which City team will show up, the one vs Chelsea or the one vs Palace.
About 20-25%% of sides in the league use it, and yet it's 60% of our defeats.
Your stats are all over the place. You showed the games we lost in the last two seasons ( not this one ) then say that about 20-25% use this system and its in 60% of our defeats... which seasons are you talking about ??
Since you're such a fan of statistics tell us how many teams playing that system did we face during that time ? how many wins , how many defeats so on ? what about this season ?
Youre posting some stats with no context at all while trying to prove a point.
B
B
bluemc1
Guest
Ederson
Walker stones Dias Cancelo
Bernardo Rhodri Gundo
KDB foden Grealish
also think
KDB Jesus Foden for the front 3
Walker stones Dias Cancelo
Bernardo Rhodri Gundo
KDB foden Grealish
also think
KDB Jesus Foden for the front 3
I've literally spelled out for you which seasons and which defeats, it you're too stupid to see the correlation I'm not going to waste my entire day explaining it to you over and over.
How many teams we beat who play 352 isn't relevant, what matters is the extremely disproportionate rate at which we lose to these teams. 61 games last season. 8 defeats. 5 to 352. 63% of losses.
Last edited:
Oh so 20-25% of teams since the season 19/20 have played 3-5-2 ? Care to show a source for that claim ?
Also care to show how many wins we had against teams playing that system in the same interval so se can have a context to the whole stats ?
You don't have to show these things , by the way, if they prove your argument was bad to being with. Its ok.
oh... you edited ... its not relevant because it doesn't help your narative ?
A stat to be relevant you have to show the whole context of it, showing half of it shows that youre not really committed to the truth but rather are being subjective in your view of it.
You have to post how many games we played against teams in a 3-5-2 formation , how many wins, draws, defeats. Then we can have a proper idea if that system really hurts us or not. I'm not even saying that you are definitely incorrect , maybe there's something there , but your stats are incomplete and lack context !!!!
Last edited:
Danny Hoekman
Well-Known Member
How are some of you lot so knowledgeable about them - their formation, their players, their system/style of play? I only watch them twice a season with drink taken. The only thing I know about them with any certainty is that they play in red.
balotellishaircut
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,298
- Team supported
- City
Same here, I’m usually stood up in the South Stand, I guess a lot on here don’t go to City games.
OK fine, I've got 5 minutes to look through it. Here we go. Last season.
61 games played. 22 of those against 3 at the back. (that's 36%)
Winning % vs. 352 - 68%
Winning % vs. 4 at the back - 82%
So our record of dropping points against 3 at the back teams is 77% higher.
Losing % vs. 352 - 27%
Losing % vs. 4 at the back - 5%
27% to 5%. Let that sink in for a bit. We were 5.5x more likely to lose against a team playing 3 at the back last season. We are still playing the same way, with the same system this year.
Manchester City - Schedule 20/21 (Detailed view)
This page contains an complete overview of all already played and fixtured season games and the season tally of the club Man City in the season 20/21.
Last edited:
bigstanhibbert
Well-Known Member
Now we're getting somewhere with some context !OK fine, I've got 5 minutes to look through it. Here we go. Last season.
61 games played. 22 of those against 3 at the back.
Winning % vs. 352 - 68%
Winning % vs. 4 at the back - 82%
So our record of dropping points against 3 at the back teams is 77% higher.
Manchester City - Schedule 20/21 (Detailed view)
This page contains an complete overview of all already played and fixtured season games and the season tally of the club Man City in the season 20/21.www.transfermarkt.co.uk
Yeah , it seems we are more suited to win against 4 at a back , BUT a 68% win rate against these teams also shows that we shouldnt be in panic mode just because we face a team playing 3-5-2. With or without Lindelof we should win this , if we don't its because we weren't doing our best, not because the mighty Lindelof was at the back in a 3 man system.
No, this is why you panic
Losing % vs. 352 - 27%
Losing % vs. 4 at the back - 5%
We were 5.5x more likely to lose against a team playing 3 at the back last season.
We are still playing the same way, with the same system this year.
again its just 5 defeats lol maybe in some of thoes games we were missing players ... the margin is too small !
we have a 68% winning rate against 3-5-2 last season , but here you are being defeatist and dramatic because MAYBE united will play 3 at the back with the mighty Lindelof. Get a grip
Last edited:
It's always worth noting that due to our slower play (compared to everyone else) that playing teams with many numbers back is challenging. When we play teams that defend deep usually we need to either play particularly well to break it down and able, be particularly clinical to take our chances, or particularly lucky somehow.
Teams that play with 5 at the back almost always are teams that will park the bus against us. On top of that they're usually better at managing the wider areas too. So it's not too tough to see why playing a 5 man defence can be problematic for City.
They are hardly impossible to beat though. Just potentially more frustrating.
Teams that play with 5 at the back almost always are teams that will park the bus against us. On top of that they're usually better at managing the wider areas too. So it's not too tough to see why playing a 5 man defence can be problematic for City.
They are hardly impossible to beat though. Just potentially more frustrating.
IMO Its where our unusual fullbacks hurt us.
The way to beat 352 is to pull apart the 3 by having fullbacks overlap wide to occupy the wingback, then have wingers run in between the wingback and wide centrebacks, pulling them out and leaving the middle CB on his own.
But Zinchenko doesn't overlap, Cancelo is always cutting in, and Walker is not an attacking threat.
We could get around this by having Grealish or Foden wide left, Cancelo underlapping inside and Sterling or Jesus/Walker doing the same on the right, but with Sterlings form thats unlikely and I'm not sure Jesus is going to stick to the touch line like we need from the wingers.
If we do pull that off, I think we will score plenty because McTominay/Fred aren't going to track Foden/Gundo/KDB making runs into the box to help out the isolated CB for 90 minutes without slipping up multiple times.
- Status