Moving to 3 at the back then?

[domalino]

There was really no difference between the formation we played yesterday and the one we played at the beginning of the season.

We started playing 4231 with Fernandinho dropping between the CB's and the fullbacks tucking into midfield giving us effectively a back line of 3, 2 fullbacks sitting in next to De Bruyne, then Sterling, Nolito, Silva behind the striker - A 3-3-3-1 sort of display - a formation which Pep used a lot in his second season with Bayern.

Yesterday we just played a more rigid version of it. Instead of 2 Cb's and Fernandinho dropping in between to act like one, we just started with 3 CB's.

Instead of 2 fullbacks tucking into midfield to play next to De Bruyne, we just used to central midfielders.

The only difference between Saturday's formation and the one we played vs. Sunderland on the opening day is it lacked the ability to shift into a 4231 without the ball - which probably shows that Pep thinks the players are getting more familiar with it, but could just as easily be down to lacking a decent RB option.

Not worth getting hung up about whether we are "moving to a 3 at the back" - for starters we've been playing pretty much the same way already, and secondly we're going to be constantly shifting, we're not on a path with a fixed formation at the end like Chelsea are with Conte who's transitioning into a 352.

 

[cibaman]

There was really no difference between the formation we played yesterday and the one we played at the beginning of the season.

We started playing 4231 with Fernandinho dropping between the CB's and the fullbacks tucking into midfield giving us effectively a back line of 3, 2 fullbacks sitting in next to De Bruyne, then Sterling, Nolito, Silva behind the striker - A 3-3-3-1 sort of display - a formation which Pep used a lot in his second season with Bayern.

Yesterday we just played a more rigid version of it. Instead of 2 Cb's and Fernandinho dropping in between to act like one, we just started with 3 CB's.

Instead of 2 fullbacks tucking into midfield to play next to De Bruyne, we just used to central midfielders.

The only difference between Saturday's formation and the one we played vs. Sunderland on the opening day is it lacked the ability to shift into a 4231 without the ball - which probably shows that Pep thinks the players are getting more familiar with it, but could just as easily be down to lacking a decent RB option.

Not worth getting hung up about whether we are "moving to a 3 at the back" - for starters we've been playing pretty much the same way already, and secondly we're going to be constantly shifting, we're not on a path with a fixed formation at the end like Chelsea are with Conte who's transitioning into a 352.

I thought there was quite a bit of difference. At the start of the season Fernandhino dropped intermittently into the back 3, the full backs pushed into midfield intermittently. But not much more than 15-20% of the game. It was basically a back 4 with Fernadhino as a pivot. Much different to Satuurday.

 

[domalino]

I thought there was quite a bit of difference. At the start of the season Fernandhino dropped intermittently into the back 3, the full backs pushed into midfield intermittently. But not much more than 15-20% of the game. It was basically a back 4 with Fernadhino as a pivot. Much different to Satuurday.

Fernandinho dropped into the back 3 whenever we had posession, so it was more like 60-70% of the time. It was obviously well rehearsed, every single time the ball came to us, he dropped back.

 

[Father Paul]

I thought in the main the back 3 worked, especially having wingers rather than wing-backs pushing Evertons full backs back.

We made one defensive error and it was punished. Clichys "defending" for the goal was horrendous, he allowed Lukaku to do exactly what he wanted. Clichy should have engaged him as early, and as far away from goal as possible, instead he backed off. Once deciding not to tackle, he has to show him inside on to his right foot which Lukaku uses purely to stand on, not only does this push Lukaku on to his weaker side it also pushes him on to Clichys stronger left side but no he shows him on to the outside. Once he does this he has to slide in to try and block the shot, he stands up and does nothing. In fact if Clichy is removed from the equation Lukaku wouldnt do a single thing differently. You could have replaced Clichy with a traffic cone and we wouldnt have been any worse off, in fact Lukaku potentially might have accidentally run into the cone.

Not sure if the point was already made but Clichy had to make up a lot of ground to cover. True he perhaps should have done better but was he really more at fault than Stones or Otto?

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

I don't think we'll see City play 3 at the back regularly, or any other formation regularly. I do think Pep really does come up with something different for every opponent and on Saturday Sterling and Sane wre to stay wide and pin Coleman (in particular) and Oviedo right back on their own 18 yard line and beyond. Everton have always used their full backs as attacking players putting quality crosses in - but if this was their plan on Saturday it never looked like getting going.

 

[Chi-town blues]

Vinny is our backup striker now that leaves us with 2 in the back.
Revolution 101

 

[cleavers]

The defence is a problem. I am not convinced by Otamendi. He does some things well but his diving in, going awol and distribution are very hit and miss. We totally dominate a game yet they score a goal that once again was too easy. Spurs 2nd goal was too easy, West Ham's goal was too easy. Sunderlands goal was too easy and spurs first and uniteds was a gift. These are not well worked quality goals. They are all completely preventable.

I agree with this, and reducing it by 1 defender isn't going to improve it.

3 at the back can work with 3 specialist "3 at the back" defenders, which we don't yet have, Stones yes, Otamendi perhaps, Kompany I'm not convinced about, even if he stays fit, none of the other defenders are anywhere near it imho, so for now I don't think we should play it.

 

[OB1]

Fernandinho dropped into the back 3 whenever we had posession, so it was more like 60-70% of the time. It was obviously well rehearsed, every single time the ball came to us, he dropped back.

Yes but Dinho was playing as a lone pivot in most of the preceding games; against Everton both he played as a double pivot with Gundogan. Much of what Guardiola does may be a variation on a theme but Saturday was quite a variation on what we have seen so far and, IMO, rather more of a difference than you seem to allow.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

I thought in the main the back 3 worked, especially having wingers rather than wing-backs pushing Evertons full backs back.

We made one defensive error and it was punished.

I've lost count of the number of times one error per game costs a goal.

 

[dajd1984]

There was really no difference between the formation we played yesterday and the one we played at the beginning of the season.

We started playing 4231 with Fernandinho dropping between the CB's and the fullbacks tucking into midfield giving us effectively a back line of 3, 2 fullbacks sitting in next to De Bruyne, then Sterling, Nolito, Silva behind the striker - A 3-3-3-1 sort of display - a formation which Pep used a lot in his second season with Bayern.

Yesterday we just played a more rigid version of it. Instead of 2 Cb's and Fernandinho dropping in between to act like one, we just started with 3 CB's.

Instead of 2 fullbacks tucking into midfield to play next to De Bruyne, we just used to central midfielders.

The only difference between Saturday's formation and the one we played vs. Sunderland on the opening day is it lacked the ability to shift into a 4231 without the ball - which probably shows that Pep thinks the players are getting more familiar with it, but could just as easily be down to lacking a decent RB option.

Not worth getting hung up about whether we are "moving to a 3 at the back" - for starters we've been playing pretty much the same way already, and secondly we're going to be constantly shifting, we're not on a path with a fixed formation at the end like Chelsea are with Conte who's transitioning into a 352.

This.

At the start of the season when we were transitioning back into a defensive phase the left and right CBs would be prepared to cover wingers coming at them down the flanks, and the inverted full backs would cover their more central positions, which is what the DCMs could do now. It appears the same to me except the players are in their more natural positions. And the Dinho was only in defence a bit argument is rubbish, the CDs now wont be sticking to defence either when were going forward, we'll be pivoting on all of them, especially the central one.

Having an extra forward player still didn't unlock their defence though.

 

[Terra Passenger]

Under Pep, we'll play multiple formations. Whatever formation we play will be tailored to best exploit our opposition.

This year... the first under Pep.. our squad is not optimal. This will hamper Pep's ability to tailor our formation.

After next year's transfer window (Summer)... we'll be far deeper. Pep will play whatever formation best suits us.
============
I've recently been reading "Pep Confidential" - maybe it's not the greatest read in the world... but it sure does let you know how Pep thinks and what his tactics/strategy might be. I recommend it for any City fans desiring to know more about how Pep thinks.

 

[blue wang]

Not sure if the point was already made but Clichy had to make up a lot of ground to cover. True he perhaps should have done better but was he really more at fault than Stones or Otto?

If Lakakua cut on his inside after been shown the inside, it would have been an easy shot. I am sure he could probably score with his weaker foot.

Fine margins and all that , It was an excellent finish. I dont think clichy did too badly there. The Shenanigans from Stones was immature and the main reason for the goal

 

[BlueDeadHead]

Not sure if the point was already made but Clichy had to make up a lot of ground to cover. True he perhaps should have done better but was he really more at fault than Stones or Otto?

No but that is not the point. Ninja is spot on. Clichy did everything wrong regardless of whether the others were also at fault.

 

[BlueDeadHead]

This.

At the start of the season when we were transitioning back into a defensive phase the left and right CBs would be prepared to cover wingers coming at them down the flanks, and the inverted full backs would cover their more central positions, which is what the DCMs could do now. It appears the same to me except the players are in their more natural positions. And the Dinho was only in defence a bit argument is rubbish, the CDs now wont be sticking to defence either when were going forward, we'll be pivoting on all of them, especially the central one.

Having an extra forward player still didn't unlock their defence though.

Of course we unlocked their defence. We had two penalties.

 

[Terra Passenger]

Of course we unlocked their defence. We had two penalties.

And, perhaps debatably, we should have had a third. Early in the first half Sane makes one of his trademark moves against the much slower Oviedo. He kicks it past Oviedo intending to quickly run past the defender and onto the ball.

What happens? - Oviedo clumsily trips Sane in the penalty box. Foul not given as the ball seemed to be out of reach of Sane - a mistake though given what Sane was planning. Penalty should have been awarded.

 

[TFC]

And, perhaps debatably, we should have had a third. Early in the first half Sane makes one of his trademark moves against the much slower Oviedo. He kicks it past Oviedo intending to quickly run past the defender and onto the ball.

What happens? - Oviedo clumsily trips Sane in the penalty box. Foul not given as the ball seemed to be out of reach of Sane - a mistake though given what Sane was planning. Penalty should have been awarded.

And missed ;)

 

[Terra Passenger]

And missed ;)

Doh! :-)

 

[Mattyc55]

Hopefully.. bar Sagna we dont have one half decent full back.

Get Kompany back in ASAP and pray he stays fit.

 

[Andrew___K]

There was really no difference between the formation we played yesterday and the one we played at the beginning of the season.

We started playing 4231 with Fernandinho dropping between the CB's and the fullbacks tucking into midfield giving us effectively a back line of 3, 2 fullbacks sitting in next to De Bruyne, then Sterling, Nolito, Silva behind the striker - A 3-3-3-1 sort of display - a formation which Pep used a lot in his second season with Bayern.

Yesterday we just played a more rigid version of it. Instead of 2 Cb's and Fernandinho dropping in between to act like one, we just started with 3 CB's.

Instead of 2 fullbacks tucking into midfield to play next to De Bruyne, we just used to central midfielders.

The only difference between Saturday's formation and the one we played vs. Sunderland on the opening day is it lacked the ability to shift into a 4231 without the ball - which probably shows that Pep thinks the players are getting more familiar with it, but could just as easily be down to lacking a decent RB option.

Not worth getting hung up about whether we are "moving to a 3 at the back" - for starters we've been playing pretty much the same way already, and secondly we're going to be constantly shifting, we're not on a path with a fixed formation at the end like Chelsea are with Conte who's transitioning into a 352.

Spot on. I don't know if the debate about back3/back4 is meaningful at all. I suspect it doesn't really matter how many defs we are using, the real tactical situations are solved according to the opponents' movements and our goals in different pitch sectors. I'm lazy, but this topic is worth making some screenshots - here are examples from the 1st half of Barcelona game.
1. When we were in possession, City used 3-back system. Most often it was Zabaleta who moved up to CM spot forming a midfield trio with Dinho and Gundogan:

2. Sometimes it was Stones who helped to flood the midfield while defending:

3. Another role for Zabaleta was a wide midfielder, moving up along the wing while remaining 3 defs were spreading across the pitch (Kolarov was clearly less tactically movable during this game):

4. Good example of using our defs in pressing: we press Ter Stegen, and Stones joins the attacking group to cover Rakitic.

As a result, the ball is passed long to the strikers, Kolarov moves up and covers the opponent while Nolito sprints back to close the passing lane for Barca's RB (Mascherano):

5. As I assume, City were switching to 'conventional' 4-back system only when the oppos were comfortably in possession and our team was forced to fall back:

So how many defs were we actually playing? 4 on paper. In reality? I don't know if there's one correct answer, it seems that the 'defensive line' is just one of the reference points for our players, the others being the position/movement of partners and opponents in different sectors. It's very difficult to do a detailed 'reverse engeneering' of Pep's tactics without specific knowledge and playing experience, anyway, I think it's meaningless to discuss the number of defenders not taking the bigger picture into account.
The rotational movements, the fluidity in our defence is amazing, you can compare it with Barca's back 4 tactics for example - they're still using the same simple system that Pep had borrowed from La Volpe and installed 8 yrs ago. No tactical improvement at all. Of course it will take time to get used to such complex innovations, some fails are bound to happen. But the leap in tactical intelligence is already obvious.