The mancityfans.net football forum

There's a current thread re Kolarov, so apologies if this topic should have been included in that one. If so, perhaps the mods would move it there.

However, I've just been wondering if a 5-3-2 option should be one for us to now consider using, on the following grounds :-

(i) To tighten up the centre of our defence and resolve the 'Kolo or Lescott' question
(ii) To address the perceived defensive shortcomings of our full back options
(iii) To allow our full backs to provide the attacking width we need
(iv) To maintain the narrow midfield three format that Bobby Manc likes to employ
(v) To prepare for life after Carlos, should he leave in the summer (i.e. pairing Dzeko and SuperMario up front)

When Mark Hughes continued the determined pursuit of Joleon Lescott, in the face of Gollum's refusal to consider such a possibility, as well as attempting to sign John Terry, I wondered at the time if our then Manager had the idea in his mind to play three centre backs, comprising Kolo, Terry and Lescott (especially with Joleon being a left footer).

Kenny Mumbles (as Chinners has so prosaically termed him) is now using this formation for the Red Scousers, conceding only one goal inthe last five games as a result.


We might, for example in this formation, use the following players :-

Hart

Richards Kolo T. Kompany Lescott Kolarov

Silva De Jong Yaya T.

Dzeko SuperMario

Such a set up would provide additional cover, on the flanks, for our full backs at those times when we were on the defensive and being hard pressed. Such support might minimise the crosses coming in to our box and nullify, to some extent, the perceived defensive shortcomings of our full backs (i.e. not tackling back, tackling itself, speed and positional shortcomings etc.). Kolo would support the right back and Lescott the left back.

When we were attacking, the fullbacks would become proper wing backs, thus playing to their greater strengths of going forward and providing a four or five man midfield, according to circumstances. Having three centre backs would, on occasion, also permit Kompany the luxury of stepping forward into midfield to aid the attack.

Having, on occasion, the possibility of five men in midfield would allow City to play two out and out strikers in Balotelli and Dzeko if, the worst came to the worst and Carlos left in the summer (which is IMHO a continuing concern). There would be no need for either of these two to drop deep.

Such a formation wouldn't have to be necessarily defensive in its outlook; we've even played such a system before in the 2001/2002 promotion season under King Kev; with a youthful SWeeP playing in the Rightside Wing-Back role.....and King Kev's sides certainly weren't defensive by any means. However, having a potential for five at the back would make us harder to break down in really difficult games.

In short, rather than buying new fullbacks, can't we use what we've already got in a better way - utilising strengths and minimising weaknesses and, on this basis, would a change to a 5-3-2 formation be a good option for us to consider ??

Feel free to shoot me down at your leisure.

Mancini has looked at it in training.

I've nothing against that formation in principal but we've got Balotelli to come in a week or so & we can't get him Tevez & Dzeko into the team playing that way. In a 4-3-3 ish type formation or a 4-4-2, we have the option of playing all 3 + Silva if we want.

Meant to mention AJ, will be back next season & isn't good enough defensively as a wingback.

Douglas Higginbottom wrote:Mancini has looked at it in training.

I remember reading your report about that Mr H. From memory, it wasn't too long ago.

From what you've been able to glean, has Bobby Manc dropped it completely since then, or has he toyed with it further ??

i can barely tell sometimes what formation we ever play with. 4-3-3, 5-3-2, 4-4-2...those kinds of terms are all so fluid for the modern manager that it really does a disservice to what they are trying to engender in a team who change shape in attack to throw bodies forward but can retain a shape under duress which can stifle an opponent.

tin hat on.

cheers

My only concern with such a formation is the midfield. When you use a formation like this, the three midfield players all have to be very mobile and have both attacking and defending qualities; this proves a problem for us, because it would mean a midfield three of Yaya, Barry, Milner would be the most suited to it, as De Jong is too defensive minded and Silva is too offensive; so we would have to leave these two out, which to me proves to be a big blow to our ability to protect the back line (De Jong) and create something going forward (Silva).

Nothing wrong with the formation on Saturday. We bossed the game and if Tevez or Silva had scored a spectacular goal instead of Shrek we would've won. In fact if Silva had scored in the second minute like he should I reckon we would've well and truly fucked them over.

In such moments are titles lost!

john@staustell wrote:Nothing wrong with the formation on Saturday. We bossed the game and if Tevez or Silva had scored a spectacular goal instead of Shrek we would've won. In fact if Silva had scored in the second minute like he should I reckon we would've well and truly fucked them over.

In such moments are titles lost!

That's a fair comment. The praise curently being heaped on Shrek for his spectacular effort is masking, to some extent, just how well City did play and that we should have run out worthy winners, instead of coming away from the Swamp with nothing.

However, I just wonder if we'd had three centre backs (and in position, of course) would Nani have found it far more difficult to score the first goal ??

Many years ago when I played football (albeit at a fairly low level), in one of the teams I used to turn out for, the coach had the idea to play a 3-3-4 formation because we had a number of good forwards and this was a way to use them all. We scored a lot of goals but also conceded plenty, which was great unless you were the centre back.....which was me.

However, after the first few games, without the coach's consent I started telling the full backs to move further infield and closer to me to try shore up the middle more, which seemed to work in that respect. In effect, we were almost playing with three centre backs but without the wing backs, which meant we were totally exposed down the flanks and had lots of crosses to defend.

We ended up by winning more games than we lost, but didn't draw so many.

To get back to City's situation, even if they did use 5-3-2, I feel there would still be a need for Big Nige in midfield as, with wing backs possibly being upfield and out of position, there would always be the need for a fireman working all along the back line.

Mikhail Chigorin wrote:To get back to City's situation, even if they did use 5-3-2, I feel there would still be a need for Big Nige in midfield as, with wing backs possibly being upfield and out of position, there would always be the need for a fireman working all along the back line.

This situation could work I guess. A 5-1-2-2 when defending, which turns to a 3-1-4-2 when going forward, with the wing backs supporting the attack and providing width. I guess it's all down to how quick they are to go back when we lose possession so that the flanks don't get exposed, and how much stamina they have to do this work for a full game, considering we are going to have three games a week for most of the season.

Unless you have someone like Alves (or younger SWP) though, we would be effectively swapping an attacking player for a fullback compared to the potential team we could put out in our usual formation(s) when everyone is fit.

Mikhail Chigorin wrote:

Douglas Higginbottom wrote:Mancini has looked at it in training.

I remember reading your report about that Mr H. From memory, it wasn't too long ago.

From what you've been able to glean, has Bobby Manc dropped it completely since then, or has he toyed with it further ??

He did it before the WBA game ( a reaction to the goals going in v Brum?) and hasnt really had a full training session since then cos of the internationals.

I like 3-5-2, i'd like to see a 3-5-2 re jigged with de jong as one of the 3 in some games.
-------------------------------Hart--------------------------------------

----------------Boateng---------------Kompany------------------------

--Richards-----------------de Jong-------------------------Kolarov---

------------------Yaya----------------------Barry------------------------

------------------------------Silva-----------------------------------------

----------------------Tevez------------Dzeko/Balotelli------------------

I hadn't thought of Big Nige being one of the three, but when you set it out like that, it does look interesting - and it is a formation where we do get the bonus of using two up front, without employing 4-4-2, which I, personally, don't like all that much.

Wonder how such a system would shape up against the Chelseas, Scummers and Arsenals of this world i.e. three teams who would each bring different approaches against it ??

Most interesting all the same.

Mikhail Chigorin wrote:I hadn't thought of Big Nige being one of the three, but when you set it out like that, it does look interesting - and it is a formation where we do get the bonus of using two up front, without employing 4-4-2, which I, personally, don't like all that much.

Wonder how such a system would shape up against the Chelseas, Scummers and Arsenals of this world i.e. three teams who would each bring different approaches against it ??

Most interesting all the same.

Scum would knock balls in behind Kolarov for Nani to run onto, Barry & DeJong would be too slow to cover, Vinnie would get pulled across & Rooney or midfield runners would score from the resulting space. They would scare the fucking bejeezus out of us.

Barry & Kolarov are too slow to operate in that system against good teams. Kolarov would end up having to stay in his own half & we would effectively have 5 at the back.

That's a keen analysis Ted; think I'd like to ponder the points you've perceptively made.

In the meantime, how do you think that Arsenal and Chelsea would fare against it and the approaches they would bring ??