Mancini - A new Dawn?

[Didsbury Dave]

For those saying it wasn't a 4-4-2 because chalkboards show movement around the pitch and players didn't stick rigidly to their positions, well of course they didn't stick rigidly to their positions. Football is a fluid game and not table football with metal rods stuck through their backs lol.

They set up 4-4-2 with Balo and Tevez up front together, Yaya and Nige in central midfield and AJ and Silva occupying the wide positions.

Are you dense? Look at the graph, slowcoach!

MB - 61% of his touches were near the left touchline. 0% of his touches were on the entire right hand side of the Sunderland half! He's playing on the fucking lllllleeeeeeeeeeefffffffffffffttttttttt.

This is a phenomenal discussion. I suspect it'll get to a thousand pages, such is the complete inablilty to understand very basic concepts. And it's totally fucking pointless anyway, it doesn't even matter who's right!

Favourite thread ever, easily.

Were you at the game mate?

 

[Damocles]

The madness about all of this, is that you're both wrong and you're both right.

We set up as a 4-4-2. That is our 'transitional' or default formation. However, during the game, we rarely stuck to a rigid 4-4-2 so in a sense we didn't "play" a 4-4-2.

I think this is a misunderstanding of terms, because you are both agreeing with each other. We SETUP as a 4-4-2, we PLAYED a fluid formation (at lest when attacking, we actually played a completely rigid 4-4-2 when out of possession).

 

[fbloke]

Are you dense? Look at the graph, slowcoach!

MB - 61% of his touches were near the left touchline. 0% of his touches were on the entire right hand side of the Sunderland half! He's playing on the fucking lllllleeeeeeeeeeefffffffffffffttttttttt.

This is a phenomenal discussion. I suspect it'll get to a thousand pages, such is the complete inablilty to understand very basic concepts. And it's totally fucking pointless anyway, it doesn't even matter who's right!

Favourite thread ever, easily.

Were you at the game mate?

Are we all now certain that City didn't play 4 3 3 or perhaps 4 2 4 or even 41311?

***sniggers***

 

[WNRH]

Well then it's not a 4-4-2 is it? You can't say we set up 4-4-2 and then we were fluid that allowed the wide man on the left of our formation to go wandering on the right. If it's 4-4-2 then it's what it says on the tin. If it's 4-2-3-1 like i have said all along then you can understand the interchange of players and the stats that i have given and provided.

a 4-4-2 formation isn't flexible, it is the most rigid formation out there, that is why the majority of teams do not use it anymore and why it has taken so long for football in this country to adapt.

By the same argument you will never have a formation then as one of your chalkboards will show that a player dared to run into a different square on one of your fucking graphs! ;-)

4-4-2 all day long and i don't need a graph to show me as i saw it with my own eyes as well.

No not at all, the '3' in a 4-2-3-1 allows all 3 to play in more or less a free role as the '2' are there behind to protect them. You cannot do that in a 4-4-2, it is so ridgid it doesn't allow you to be a fluent as we were on Sunday.<br /><br />-- Thu Apr 07, 2011 4:08 pm --<br /><br />

Well then it's not a 4-4-2 is it? You can't say we set up 4-4-2 and then we were fluid that allowed the wide man on the left of our formation to go wandering on the right. If it's 4-4-2 then it's what it says on the tin. If it's 4-2-3-1 like i have said all along then you can understand the interchange of players and the stats that i have given and provided.

a 4-4-2 formation isn't flexible, it is the most rigid formation out there, that is why the majority of teams do not use it anymore and why it has taken so long for football in this country to adapt.

Oh ye Gods give me strength

You have to laugh, fucking hell

Brilliant Dave.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

The madness about all of this, is that you're both wrong and you're both right.

We set up as a 4-4-2. That is our 'transitional' or default formation. However, during the game, we rarely stuck to a rigid 4-4-2 so in a sense we didn't "play" a 4-4-2.

I think this is a misunderstanding of terms, because you are both agreeing with each other. We SETUP as a 4-4-2, we PLAYED a fluid formation.

Ye Gods. All formations are "fluid", or else it would be table football.

We might have showed more "fulidity" in our movement that someone like Bolton, becuase we have better and more varsatile players, but none of this changes the fact that that was a team playing the 4-4-2 formation.

I think you know it too, damocles, and you're just half heartedly banging the drum for the hell of it ;-)

 

[fbloke]

By the same argument you will never have a formation then as one of your chalkboards will show that a player dared to run into a different square on one of your fucking graphs! ;-)

4-4-2 all day long and i don't need a graph to show me as i saw it with my own eyes as well.

No not at all, the '3' in a 4-2-3-1 allows all 3 to play in more or less a free role as the '2' are there behind to protect them. You cannot do that in a 4-4-2, it is so ridgid it doesn't allow you to be a fluent as we were on Sunday.

So a 4 4 2 is very rigid? I assume then that the 4 4 2 with the full backs pushed playing a wing-back role would be called something else?

Remembering of course that dependant on the opposition a 4 4 2 can be very attacking or indeed very defensive - defensive where the nominal wingers act more like additional defensive midfield players and it may well appear as they formation is a 4 2 2 2 - that said the players would start the game set-up as a 4 4 2.

A 4 4 2 against Spurs would more than likely rely on the winger on Bale's side being far more defensive than the opposite winger who is free to push further up.

So in that instance the formation would perhaps be judged by 'graphs' as a 4 5 1 due to the pressure that Bale can put a defence under. But it still starts out with a basic 4 4 2 formation.

 

[WNRH]

The madness about all of this, is that you're both wrong and you're both right.

We set up as a 4-4-2. That is our 'transitional' or default formation. However, during the game, we rarely stuck to a rigid 4-4-2 so in a sense we didn't "play" a 4-4-2.

I think this is a misunderstanding of terms, because you are both agreeing with each other. We SETUP as a 4-4-2, we PLAYED a fluid formation (at lest when attacking, we actually played a completely rigid 4-4-2 when out of possession).

How would you explain then if we played a rigid 4-4-2 when defending, Balotelli's tackles in our half were all on the left, right and centre? If we were 4-4-2 when defending then surely he should be up top with Tevez where he made his 3 tackles?

The fact that he made his tackles and interceptions in our half on both sides and in the middle suggests that he wasn't the second man in the two upfront of a 4-4-2 when defending, he was infact part of the three infront of de Jong and Yaya with Silva and Johnson which says we played 4-2-3-1 when defending aswell as attacking.

 

[fbloke]

The madness about all of this, is that you're both wrong and you're both right.

We set up as a 4-4-2. That is our 'transitional' or default formation. However, during the game, we rarely stuck to a rigid 4-4-2 so in a sense we didn't "play" a 4-4-2.

I think this is a misunderstanding of terms, because you are both agreeing with each other. We SETUP as a 4-4-2, we PLAYED a fluid formation (at lest when attacking, we actually played a completely rigid 4-4-2 when out of possession).

How would you explain then if we played a rigid 4-4-2 when defending, Balotelli's tackles in our half were all on the left, right and centre? If we were 4-4-2 when defending then surely he should be up top with Tevez where he made his 3 tackles?

The fact that he made his tackles and interceptions in our half on both sides and in the middle suggests that he wasn't the second man in the two upfront of a 4-4-2 when defending, he was infact part of the three infront of de Jong and Yaya with Silva and Johnson which says we played 4-2-3-1 when defending aswell as attacking.

Because Balotelli is unmanageable and an idiot? ;-)

 

[ST Coleridge]

We set up as a 4-4-2. That is our 'transitional' or default formation. However, during the game, we rarely stuck to a rigid 4-4-2 so in a sense we didn't "play" a 4-4-2.
We SETUP as a 4-4-2, we PLAYED a fluid formation (at lest when attacking, we actually played a completely rigid 4-4-2 when out of possession).

Damocles, I get it, I really do. But we've been reverting to two banks of four all season (when defending). Don't you think so?

It was still 4 in front of two, and two banks of four when defending. If it looked more like a 442 to the 'frigging eyes' (pmsl, etc) of some, then that's fine.

Now, if we're talking about a more advantageous deployment of Yaya flippin' Toure...Then that's another matter altogether. But guys, Mancini didn't alter his formation much at all.

AND IT WOULDN'T MATTER IF HE DID, BECAUSE IT'S NOT ABOUT GRAPHS OR TACTICS, IT'S ABOUT THE HUMAN ELEMENT! IT'S ABOUT SLAP-UP FUCKING DINNERS AND MANCINI FINALLY SHOWING SOME HUMILITY! IT'S ABOUT PEP-TALKS FROM CHAIRMEN, IT'S ABOUT... (*slumps forward exhaustedly, cock in hand*)

Now, onto Liverpool - who wants to see Barry back in?

 

[Rammy Blue]

So you aren't always up for a tactical discussion then Rammy as that is contributing nothing.

Why can't you answer my questions to you? They're fairly simple, if you beleive we played 4-4-2 then they should be easy to answer if you are up for a football discussion like always as you have said?

This isn't a tactical discussion, it's horseshit.

Listen fella, I have said this before and I'll say it again once more....

IF you were at the game, with a half decent view, you would have seen that we lined up in a 4-4-2.

The TV cameras don't allow you to see the full pitch in which case you don't get the true picture.

Of course AJ is far more of a true winger and we wouldn't expect Silva to hug the left touchline - you see, you play to strengths - Balo is used to playing wide left in the 4-2-3-1 so it makes sense that he drifts that way rather than to the right.

I think the term you all like to use is fluid however the fact remains that when the ref blew the whistle to start the game, WE WERE LINED UP IN A 4-4-2 and that was our ultimate shape that we attempted to adopt when we didn't have the ball.