Three at the Back

[Didsbury Dave]

With regards to your yaya point, the formation to free him defensive duties is/was 4231 with him as the central advanced midfielder.

We saw that a lot last season i agree and generally it worked, but i think there was a feeling we had been found out somewhat and i think Mancini was looking at ways to get 2 of his then 4 forwards on the field at the same same as well has having Yaya's attacking threat.

It struck me that the signing of Maicon was because he was going to play Micah as part of a back 3 and with that signing he still had his requisite 2 players for each position.

Another thought on this is why Sinclair? I always thought Johnsons defensive flaws didnt sit right with Mancini's ideas of how wide players should perform. And i wonder if another part of the grand plan was to teach Sinclair whose attitude seems and on this i dont know but he maybe more pliable to Mancinis aims and the plan is to teach him how to be an attacking wing back and then we could have the further option of Milner and Sinclair as part of a 3-5-2.

When a premier league squad is limited you need flexibilty in your players and you need them to have the ability to play various roles. If everyone is fit i think we are close but i do believe the injury to Richards has proved a major setback to us this season.

I've said many times that Micah has been a big loss this season, but I don't really connect that with the 3-5-2, which for me was the wrong formation for us even if he had been available. We've missed him because of the narrow 4-2-2-2 we have played with most of the year has two "wide men" as the second two, in Silva and Nasri, who both come inside. It has meant that our only width can really come from the full backs. I've said it before and I'll say it again: for all his defensive ability, steel and detirmination, Zabaleta doesn't get behind defenders like Richards can. Richards would have given us another dimension. When you play defensive teams it is hard to go "through" them, easier to go "round" them and get behind them. When a team have 10 men in and around their own box a cross coming backwards from the touchline is hugely more effective than one coming from the corner of the box. With the former, one touch and it's in the net. With the latter, one touch and it's away from the danger area.

 

[Damanino]

But if Richards attacks and there is only Nasri or Silva there who track back when needed we are in trouble. Milner needs to play if Richards starts for this reason. Nasri/Silva are so big players they cant be told to work for the team lot more...

That why our left side is so open so many times too.

If we would have better central midfielders, especially in Barry's position with fast legs, this wouldnt be a big problem maybe, but he cant even help out many times in the middle (like blocking long shots), how could he get there with zero speed...

We arent working as a team and teams that do it like a team will punish us until we learn how to work like a team. It is crystal clear.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

But if Richards attacks and there is only Nasri or Silva there who track back when needed we are in trouble. Milner needs to play if Richards starts for this reason. Nasri/Silva are so big players they cant be told to work for the team lot more...

That why our left side is so open so many times too.

If we would have better central midfielders, especially in Barry's position with fast legs, this wouldnt be a big problem maybe, but he cant even help out many times in the middle (like blocking long shots), how could he get there with zero speed...

We arent working as a team and teams that do it like a team will punish us until we learn how to work like a team. It is crystal clear.

Mate, Nasri would never be in my team, ever, regardless of formation.

 

[Nevizade]

The way I see it, a big weakness for us this season and to an extent last season, particularly in Europe is our susceptibility to the counter attack. To me one of the reaons for this is because when Silva and/or Nasri play in a 4-2-2-2 they both drift off the line to come inside and try to dictate play. What that means is there are spaces in the channels for the wide forwards/false nines/whatever you want to call them (Lavezzi, Eriksen, Reus, Suarez in the recent League game) to exploit. The 3-4-1-2 that we've been employing in theory solves that problem by having the playmaker starting in a central position and therefore the flanks are less exposed. However, we do not have the midfield or defensive personnel to play this formation. We do not have two mobile central midfielders (Rodwell is one but he is never fit), our full-backs don't tick all of the boxes required in either an attacking sense or defensively, and our centre-halves aren't good enough on the ball.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but even at the start of the season a considerable amount of fans were sceptical about this system. A better 'alternative' formation to suit our players might have been a 4-5-1 which quickly becoms a 4-2-3-1/4-2-1-3 when in possession. Would help amend our weakness a lot more than 3-4-1-2 and much more suitable for European football, particularly away from home.