The two striker trouble...

[miketork]

Would be interested in seeing a 4-1-2-1-2 or 4-4-2 diamond, whatever you prefer to call it. We were so ineffectual on the wings yesterday it was silly, we're forcing a CM to be a winger just to fit our formation.. If we have significant injury problems to the point that we're playing silly players in silly positions, why not alter the formation?

Yesterday's players could have played like (Nacho for Navas):
----------------Hart----------------
Zab-Kompany--Mangala-Kolarov
--------------Nando---------------
---------Yaya-----Delph----------
---------------KdB-----------------
----Iheanacho---Aguero--------

This would have everyone in their natural position, Nando in his absolute best position sitting in front of back four, Yaya with the protection not in a midfield 2, KdB central & the threat of the 2 guys up top. We'd be relying on Zabaleta/Kolarov for width, but we were so ineffectual with our wing play with Delph/Navas I don't see it being any worse off.

I'd also say there's potential to play KdB in place of Delph as a 3rd midfielder & have Nasri/Silva ahead of him, or Nasri in the deeper role with KdB/Silva ahead.

Doubt we'll ever see this under Pellegrini unfortunately.

 

[UnknownGenius]

I've been thinking about this for a while and he's my train of thought.

Aguero is wonderful - world class etc etc. But we've come to rely upon him so heavily. In my opinion too heavily.
A lot of our play is based around him, but we know there's a reasonable chance that we'll lose him due to injury at some point in any given season.

So that's why we have a backup right? - whether it be Bony, Iheanacho or someone else. However, if that striker is a permanent backup, they're either going to want to move on for more game time, or they're going to be a relatively unambitious striker happy to take a pay cheque.

That leads to the conclusions that we either keep relying on Aguero, and accept we have a relatively mediocre backup, OR we have someone else of an extremely high calibre alongside him (working on the assumption that no world class striker will sit on the bench waiting for an Aguero injury).

That then leads me to believe there's no real option other than to play with two strikers. I think this is what Pellegrini wanted, but Bony simply hasn't worked out.

If we accept the premise that we should probably have two strikers, then something has to give in the positions behind the strikers... i.e. there's probably only room enough for two AM's... that's two from KdB, Silva, Sterling, Navas, Nasri.

So my questions to you all are these:

- Is two strikers the better way to go?
- If yes, then which two from KdB, Silva, Sterling, Navas, Nasri are going to be getting most of the game time?
- if no, then how do we overcome our reliance on Aguero?

Sir, Pellegrini has pulled the wool over our eyes and pretended to play a 4-2-3-1. But if you look closely, you'll realize that Silva's been playing second striker for most of the season. It's not as evident, because he tends to drift, but it's pretty clear when we "press".

 

[FanchesterCity]

Would be interested in seeing a 4-1-2-1-2 or 4-4-2 diamond, whatever you prefer to call it. We were so ineffectual on the wings yesterday it was silly, we're forcing a CM to be a winger just to fit our formation.. If we have significant injury problems to the point that we're playing silly players in silly positions, why not alter the formation?

Yesterday's players could have played like (Nacho for Navas):
----------------Hart----------------
Zab-Kompany--Mangala-Kolarov
--------------Nando---------------
---------Yaya-----Delph----------
---------------KdB-----------------
----Iheanacho---Aguero--------

This would have everyone in their natural position, Nando in his absolute best position sitting in front of back four, Yaya with the protection not in a midfield 2, KdB central & the threat of the 2 guys up top. We'd be relying on Zabaleta/Kolarov for width, but we were so ineffectual with our wing play with Delph/Navas I don't see it being any worse off.

I'd also say there's potential to play KdB in place of Delph as a 3rd midfielder & have Nasri/Silva ahead of him, or Nasri in the deeper role with KdB/Silva ahead.

Doubt we'll ever see this under Pellegrini unfortunately.

If we assume there's 4 at the back (whoever they are) then let's focus on midfield and attack...

Option 1:

----DM-----DM----DM------
-------AM-------AM---------
----------Aguero-----------



Option 2:

-------DM-------DM--------
---AM------AM------AM---
----------Aguero----------



I've avoided getting over complicated with which os the AM's might play a little more forward - it's just the basic formation for illustration purposes.

If we go with option 1 - we struggle to find 3 solid DM's. Yaya (deteriorating rapidly), Fernandinho (very good) and Delph/Fernando (probably not good enough), and we are then having to chose only 2 from Silva, KdB, Nasri, Navas, Sterling. We either have wide, but not quality, or quality but no width.

If you go with option 2 - We have a highly porous midfield, because there's only two serious DM's and at least one of those will have issues (Either past it, or not quite good enough). Then we are choosing 3 from Silva, Kdb, Nasri, Navas, Sterling and we still face the same problem of width with only one playmaker, two playmakers and one winger, or three playmakers but no real width.

This is leading me to the following conclusion:
In any given formation, we are weak in DM, and our attack is can either be creative down the middle but no width, or we have width but little creativity in the middle.

Navas and Sterling simply don't have creativity - just width. They are largely useless unless guided by playmakers in the middle.
If we offer playmakers in the middle, then there's no room left in the team to have the wide players, thus is starts forcing the playmakers to go out wide (not their best position).

It seems to me that the lesser of the two evils is to have our playmakers having to go out wide doing the best they can (but at least they have the brains to try and create something).
If we play Sterling and Navas, we lose a lot of creativity, so they're ineffective.

 

[miketork]

If we assume there's 4 at the back (whoever they are) then let's focus on midfield and attack...

Option 1:

----DM-----DM----DM------
-------AM-------AM---------
----------Aguero-----------



Option 2:

-------DM-------DM--------
---AM------AM------AM---
----------Aguero----------



I've avoided getting over complicated with which os the AM's might play a little more forward - it's just the basic formation for illustration purposes.

If we go with option 1 - we struggle to find 3 solid DM's. Yaya (deteriorating rapidly), Fernandinho (very good) and Delph/Fernando (probably not good enough), and we are then having to chose only 2 from Silva, KdB, Nasri, Navas, Sterling. We either have wide, but not quality, or quality but no width.

If you go with option 2 - We have a highly porous midfield, because there's only two serious DM's and at least one of those will have issues (Either past it, or not quite good enough). Then we are choosing 3 from Silva, Kdb, Nasri, Navas, Sterling and we still face the same problem of width with only one playmaker, two playmakers and one winger, or three playmakers but no real width.

This is leading me to the following conclusion:
In any given formation, we are weak in DM, and our attack is can either be creative down the middle but no width, or we have width but little creativity in the middle.

Navas and Sterling simply don't have creativity - just width. They are largely useless unless guided by playmakers in the middle.
If we offer playmakers in the middle, then there's no room left in the team to have the wide players, thus is starts forcing the playmakers to go out wide (not their best position).

It seems to me that the lesser of the two evils is to have our playmakers having to go out wide doing the best they can (but at least they have the brains to try and create something).
If we play Sterling and Navas, we lose a lot of creativity, so they're ineffective.

Got to say I'm a little confused as to why this post is directed at me? The threads about playing 2 up top, I suggested a formation that I feel could work - you've ignored everything I've said & just suggested a couple of formations that we already play this season with nothing actually relevant to me or my post :-P.

My suggestion was:

-----DM-----
--CM--CM--
-----AM-----
--ST--ST--

I'd argue this isn't weak in DM, from the extremely few cases we've witnessed Fernando at DM in a City shirt I've been very impressed. The problem is we play him as a CM (you call it a DM in your positions but it isn't IMO) - this forces him to get up the pitch, try to pick forward passes & get involved in attacking play, all of which he's not great at anyway & exposes his lack of pace getting back. In my suggestion he'd be sat back, clearing up counters & just playing simple passes to the CM's (ala Busquets with less passing range if you will).

Like I said the weakness here is the width with reliance on the fullbacks, but if our wide players are Delph/Navas then we have very little threat in those areas anyway (as seen yesterday), I'd much rather an attacking trio of KdB/Aguero/Nacho up top - all of whom could provide some width when needed to stretch the defence.

 

[ZZmaestro]

for me the reason Pellergrini keeps picking Bony over for Kelechi is probably to hope that Bony will at some point come good. Does this mean that Bony was Pellers choice to buy - could be, hence the total backing of him by the manager

As we can see Kelechi offers more of a threat with his movement but gets overlooked all the time. Kelechi will hopefully get a chance to properly prove himself when Pep arrives and gets actual game time, he deserves that much at the very least

This, and the sole fact that we bought him for £28M, his value deflated dangerously due to his detrimental performances.

Nowadays, you would hardly find any club willing to pay £15M for such a donkey, let alone dreaming of breaking even on that business
http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/wilfried-bony/profil/spieler/81808

Pellers must have been told by the guys upstairs to give him some game time in the prospect of getting rid of him this summer,
as players who spend the most of their time on the bench usually go for really cheap money.

 

[Colin Bell's Boots]

This, and the sole fact that we bought him for £28M, his value deflated dangerously due to his detrimental performances.

Nowadays, you would hardly find any club willing to pay £15M for such a donkey, let alone dreaming of breaking even on that business
http://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/wilfried-bony/profil/spieler/81808

Pellers must have been told by the guys upstairs to give him some game time in the prospect of getting rid of him this summer,
as players who spend the most of their time on the bench usually go for really cheap money.

To be honest, keeping him on the bench looks a much better option, because whenever he plays, he proves that he is f*cking useless and the £28 million was p*ssed away.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Got to say I'm a little confused as to why this post is directed at me? The threads about playing 2 up top, I suggested a formation that I feel could work - you've ignored everything I've said & just suggested a couple of formations that we already play this season with nothing actually relevant to me or my post :-P.

My suggestion was:

-----DM-----
--CM--CM--
-----AM-----
--ST--ST--

I'd argue this isn't weak in DM, from the extremely few cases we've witnessed Fernando at DM in a City shirt I've been very impressed. The problem is we play him as a CM (you call it a DM in your positions but it isn't IMO) - this forces him to get up the pitch, try to pick forward passes & get involved in attacking play, all of which he's not great at anyway & exposes his lack of pace getting back. In my suggestion he'd be sat back, clearing up counters & just playing simple passes to the CM's (ala Busquets with less passing range if you will).

Like I said the weakness here is the width with reliance on the fullbacks, but if our wide players are Delph/Navas then we have very little threat in those areas anyway (as seen yesterday), I'd much rather an attacking trio of KdB/Aguero/Nacho up top - all of whom could provide some width when needed to stretch the defence.

It's half related in as much as your formation and my two options both highlight what you say about the width... we have no wide players with true quality or creativity, and if we were to have two upfront, it might make matters even worse.

People say 'Silva, KdB, Nasri' what an amazing bunch of players - and individually they are, but as part of a team there roles are overlapping way too much, especially Silva and Navas.

If we did go for two up front, it would only emphasise the need for two better wide players.

We'd have something like:

------------DM-------------
--DM/AM-----------DM/AM
-------------KdB----------
----Aguero----Muller----

(Muller just an example). It just puts even more pressure on the wingers to be outstanding in attack and defence.
No matter how we cut it, our wide players are a real weakness. It pains me to say it, and I'm not saying Nasri is a great winger, but in terms of overall benefit to the team, I think Nasri would offer more out wide than either of Navas or Sterling.

I would go with the formation above IF we could find two rock solid DM's who had enough flair to get forward, but they'd have to be DM's first and foremost. What we currently have is two wide players who offer next to no hope in midfield, and aren't making up for it with attacking prowess.

Those two wide midfield positions NEED to be pure quaiity in DM and AM roles otherwise we won't have the balance necessary to become a truly top class team.

 

[miketork]

It's half related in as much as your formation and my two options both highlight what you say about the width... we have no wide players with true quality or creativity, and if we were to have two upfront, it might make matters even worse.

People say 'Silva, KdB, Nasri' what an amazing bunch of players - and individually they are, but as part of a team there roles are overlapping way too much, especially Silva and Navas.

If we did go for two up front, it would only emphasise the need for two better wide players.

We'd have something like:

------------DM-------------
--DM/AM-----------DM/AM
-------------KdB----------
----Aguero----Muller----

(Muller just an example). It just puts even more pressure on the wingers to be outstanding in attack and defence.
No matter how we cut it, our wide players are a real weakness. It pains me to say it, and I'm not saying Nasri is a great winger, but in terms of overall benefit to the team, I think Nasri would offer more out wide than either of Navas or Sterling.

I would go with the formation above IF we could find two rock solid DM's who had enough flair to get forward, but they'd have to be DM's first and foremost. What we currently have is two wide players who offer next to no hope in midfield, and aren't making up for it with attacking prowess.

Those two wide midfield positions NEED to be pure quaiity in DM and AM roles otherwise we won't have the balance necessary to become a truly top class team.

Like you said our wide areas are weak currently - so why bother forcing ourselves to play wide. I was suggesting that formation & saying we don't have to play with width - let the fullbacks stretch the play & provide some width, whilst having our main threat through the center with Yaya, KdB, Nacho & Aguero linking up. In our strongest line up with available players that would be:

-----------Fernando--------
---Fernandinho---Yaya---
------------KdB--------------
-----Aguero--Iheanacho--

Dinho has for a couple years now been coping with covering for Yaya in a 2, in this formation he has the addition of Fernando sat back cleaning up. There's more than enough defensive capability in that 3. In addition to that both Yaya/Fernandinho are more than capable with the ball & creating attacking moments - there's goals from all 5 of the guys ahead of Fernando.

Personally think that set up gives us both far more control in midfield compared to yesterday (Fernando & Yaya in a 2), and far more balance in attack with the 2 goal scorers up top, KdB in natural position & Yaya with more license to cause damage. Would the lack of width hurt us? Honestly can't see it being any more of a problem than forcing Delph/Navas to try & create something like we saw yesterday in my opinion.

 

[FanchesterCity]

Like you said our wide areas are weak currently - so why bother forcing ourselves to play wide. I was suggesting that formation & saying we don't have to play with width - let the fullbacks stretch the play & provide some width, whilst having our main threat through the center with Yaya, KdB, Nacho & Aguero linking up. In our strongest line up with available players that would be:

-----------Fernando--------
---Fernandinho---Yaya---
------------KdB--------------
-----Aguero--Iheanacho--

Dinho has for a couple years now been coping with covering for Yaya in a 2, in this formation he has the addition of Fernando sat back cleaning up. There's more than enough defensive capability in that 3. In addition to that both Yaya/Fernandinho are more than capable with the ball & creating attacking moments - there's goals from all 5 of the guys ahead of Fernando.

Personally think that set up gives us both far more control in midfield compared to yesterday (Fernando & Yaya in a 2), and far more balance in attack with the 2 goal scorers up top, KdB in natural position & Yaya with more license to cause damage. Would the lack of width hurt us? Honestly can't see it being any more of a problem than forcing Delph/Navas to try & create something like we saw yesterday in my opinion.

I think going forwards, we'd be ok like that, it's facing any half decent team and we're on the back foot where the problems arise. I think KdB can do a decent DM job (even though he's primarily AM). I think Fernandinho is the opposite... he can be a decent AM, but primarily DM. So that's two we're ok with. I think Yaya and Fernando become the weak links. I think Yaya is just past it, and I don't think Fernando is good enough. If we could replace those two with quality players who can do both AM and DM well, we're ok.

But... there's some BIG names missing from that... No Silva, Navas, Nasri or Sterling.

If we want a solid midfield, some of those players are going to have to go, or we're going to end up with two distinct setups... the attacking setup and the defensive one. You could argue we have that now, but the defensive setup is still compromised by too many flair players and lack of proper DM's. We sometimes will say 'he's gone quite defensive' - because he's got Delph, or Fernando in with Yaya and Fernandinho, but in truth it's only a notional defensive setup... only one of those has much talent to operate in a truly defensive manner (Fernandinho).

 

[Tricky_Trev]

It's half related in as much as your formation and my two options both highlight what you say about the width... we have no wide players with true quality or creativity, and if we were to have two upfront, it might make matters even worse.

People say 'Silva, KdB, Nasri' what an amazing bunch of players - and individually they are, but as part of a team there roles are overlapping way too much, especially Silva and Navas.

If we did go for two up front, it would only emphasise the need for two better wide players.

We'd have something like:

------------DM-------------
--DM/AM-----------DM/AM
-------------KdB----------
----Aguero----Muller----

(Muller just an example). It just puts even more pressure on the wingers to be outstanding in attack and defence.
No matter how we cut it, our wide players are a real weakness. It pains me to say it, and I'm not saying Nasri is a great winger, but in terms of overall benefit to the team, I think Nasri would offer more out wide than either of Navas or Sterling.

I would go with the formation above IF we could find two rock solid DM's who had enough flair to get forward, but they'd have to be DM's first and foremost. What we currently have is two wide players who offer next to no hope in midfield, and aren't making up for it with attacking prowess.

Those two wide midfield positions NEED to be pure quaiity in DM and AM roles otherwise we won't have the balance necessary to become a truly top class team.

Essentially, Txiki has fucked up, leaving us with a squad that is unbalanced and not fit for purpose. There are plenty of problems with Pellegrini and with certain players, but ultimately, not enough thought has gone into attempting to create a flexible squad. When there is not a single formation that perfectly suits the players on our books, fingers need to be pointed at those that make the signings.