pete 320 Posted June 9, 2023 Just watched a replay of the 2015 play off final in it Tettey excelled as DM alongside Howson. The only success we have is with this formation and the move to 433 has seen disatrous results and performances. In the play off final we had Martin and Bassong as CB's not giants in that position. But Tettey ensured they were effectively protected. In the last two seassons the DM's recruited were sorely inadequate in that role. It is essential the next recruit in a DM role is more Tettey than Hayden. With a proper selection as DM we could get back to a formation that suits us best. But to find a DM to do the job maybe beyond City's recruitment team. Kenny could be coupled with that person but if he is first choice to be DM we are in desperate trouble. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Petriix 2,853 Posted June 9, 2023 The trouble is we've now lost our entire attack from our most successful period with the 4-2-3-1. We do desperately need a CDM (as we have for two years now) but we also need a bunch of skillful attacking midfielders and a striker or two before we can hope to emulate our previous success. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Newtopia 519 Posted June 9, 2023 I thought we had beeN playing 4 2 3 1? Aarons Hanley Gibson Gianoulis Sara Mclean Dowell Sargent Hernandez Pukki Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barham Blitz 658 Posted June 9, 2023 (edited) As always the devil is in the detail. A 4-2-3-1 can be a very different system depending on the personnel involved, particularly in the wide areas. Similarly 4-3-3. It comes down to how we deal with transitions. The issue that we've faced with both is that with two out and out wingers or forwards in the wide areas we just get overloaded in midfield and can be easily countered whichever system we play. When we were successful with 4-2-3-1 it was because both Todd and Emi would tuck in and put a shift in defensively and Stieperman was a rather unconventional #10 who could also defend. Plus we didn't let the opposition have the ball ... Personally I agree that a double pivot serves us best but would certainly argue that Sara shouldn't be one of them as he lacks the positional nous to play the role and is far more suited to that #10 role. If we are to play a single pivot - particularly with attacking fullbacks - it does need to be a highly mobile destructive CDM who can also receive the ball on the half turn and play it off quickly with maybe Gibbs and Sara as the midfield two. I have a horrible feeling it is going to be Kenny though ... I don't really see where Barnes fits into a 4-3-3 unless as a #9 but surely we should be looking to play Sarge there? I also have my doubts as to his ability play #10 in a 4-2-3-1 unless he is a lot more mobile than I remember. Going to be interesting to see how we line up ... Perhaps we are going all Euro 96 and resurrecting the Christmas Tree .. Edited June 9, 2023 by Barham Blitz 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Petriix 2,853 Posted June 10, 2023 17 hours ago, Barham Blitz said: A 4-2-3-1 can be a very different system depending on the personnel involved, particularly in the wide areas. I couldn't agree more (with your entire post actually). Our previous success and more recent failures have all been in the midfield. Narrower 'wide' midfielders and a decent CDM have been pretty crucial to the good times, even as recently as Dowell's purple patch before getting injured. I absolutely see Sara as a number 10 with a bit of a box-to-box leaning rather than being explicitly in an attacking role. But I think we've lost all quality in the wide areas unless Nunez develops (the positional skills) and Mumba comes good. Our attempts to play wingers and strikers out wide have been... unsuccessful, but I fear we're so heavily invested in this (with Sargent, Idah, Tzolis and Hernandez all on long contracts) that we're only going to see more of the same for the foreseeable future; which troubles me greatly. The central midfield is still a massive issue until we sign that elusive enforcer type. McLean has strengths and weaknesses but is the best we have as an 8. If he's our first choice 6 then we're getting things seriously wrong. Ultimately I think the squad has lost the attributes which made the 4-2-3-1 work before. Whether we'll see a different version emerge remains to be seen, but I'm not very hopeful at this stage. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
