Change the goalie and go 5 at the back.....

Now Etheridge has not done much wrong in terms of saves but distribution is almost as important these days and his is woeful with its inaccuracy putting pressure on the defence. If Camp is still not ready then Murphy should come in Friday.
The way the defence is now leaking goals shows the importance of Morrison. Bringing Connelly in and reverting to 5 at the back will go some way to shoring things up in the meantime. How about this team for Friday
Camp(Murphy)
Pelts
Manga
Bamba
Bennett
Connelly
Ralls
Bryson
Mendez
Junior
Ken

I don't think you can blame him for his distribution, he takes a lot of back passes under pressure and he's obviously been told to hoof the ball into midfield and beyond at which point it becomes a 50/50 ball. And if one of our players happens to win that header, it's still a 50/50 as to to who wins the next again and again until someone eventually comes away with the ball under control. It's a very poor tactic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYCBlue

I don't think you can blame him for his distribution, he takes a lot of back passes under pressure and he's obviously been told to hoof the ball into midfield and beyond at which point it becomes a 50/50 ball. And if one of our players happens to win that header, it's still a 50/50 as to to who wins the next again and again until someone eventually comes away with the ball under control. It's a very poor tactic.

---

Agreed, yet City treat the goalkeeper's hoof as if it's a really important part of the game if you look at how keen outfield players from a range of sixty yards down are to get the ball back to Etheridge so he can boot it sixty yards upfield when possession is, invariably, given back to the opposition. Before anyone says I'm only saying this because we have lost a couple of games, I've always thought it was, to use your words, a very poor tactic and we were winning despite it, not because of it. Also, as you say, the quality of the balls played back to him often leave of a lot to be desired.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Agreed, yet City treat the goalkeeper's hoof as if it's a really important part of the game if you look at how keen outfield players from a range of sixty yards down are to get the ball back to Etheridge so he can boot it sixty yards upfield when possession is, invariably, given back to the opposition. Before anyone says I'm only saying this because we have lost a couple of games, I've always thought it was, to use your words, a very poor tactic and we were winning despite it, not because of it. Also, as you say, the quality of the balls played back to him often leave of a lot to be desired.

---

His indecision cost the 4th goal. Seconds left he could've put the ball into a dangerous area but waited until everyone was upfield which meant absolutely no cover from fulhams half.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philbccfc

His indecision cost the 4th goal. Seconds left he could've put the ball into a dangerous area but waited until everyone was upfield which meant absolutely no cover from fulhams half.

---

So the fact that he had absolutely no defence in front of him had nothing to do with the 4th goal then ?!!. We were chasing the game at 3-2 down with everyone upfield, so no one is to blame for that 4th. It was also a brilliant chip finish from the Fulham player by the way. Etheridge wasn't to blame for any of the goals - its the easy way out to always blame him. He is a good young goalie with lots of potential and needs encouragement not consant critiscism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Agreed, yet City treat the goalkeeper's hoof as if it's a really important part of the game if you look at how keen outfield players from a range of sixty yards down are to get the ball back to Etheridge so he can boot it sixty yards upfield when possession is, invariably, given back to the opposition. Before anyone says I'm only saying this because we have lost a couple of games, I've always thought it was, to use your words, a very poor tactic and we were winning despite it, not because of it. Also, as you say, the quality of the balls played back to him often leave of a lot to be desired.

---

Anyone notice how even the intricately-passing Fulham had a game plan for a long ball from the keeper?

On at least two occasions when the ball was in the keepers hands a player started sprinting from about 15 yards in front of the back line of our defence. Didn't come to anything, but the threat was there. It was also very obvious that Fulham not only tried (successfully) to catch us with breakaways but also we seemed either unable to cope with that or oblivious to the threat.

Are we expecting a championship goalkeeper to ping balls to feet from 60 yards? Lol

There’s not many players in the Premier League that can do that, let alone goalkeepers!!!!

Have you seen the pressure we invite on when we have been 5atb?

5 at the back at home to Preston?

We are 3rd in the league not 22nd and looking to scrape any point we can!!!

We need 3 points

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J R Hartley

5 at the back at home to Preston?

We are 3rd in the league not 22nd and looking to scrape any point we can!!!

We need 3 points

---

What about 4-4-2 and partner Healey and Zohore? If we're going to go long most of the time might it make more sense to have a front two?

If we are to go 5 at the back then play the formation Spurs etc use in the PL.

Discard the wingers for wing backs. Looks like a 343/ 3412 on paper.
Or as we don't have that "CAM" role as Tomlin doesn't play go 352...3CB 2wing backs 3CM and 2 up top

Doing 5 at the back the way we have tried it is negative and ****ing pointless as we just invite pressure on all game

We don't have the strength in midfield to only play two players there in my opinion, especially if it's Bryson, who is a good worker but doesn't take control of the ball very often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee

What about 4-4-2 and partner Healey and Zohore? If we're going to go long most of the time might it make more sense to have a front two?

---

Problem with that is with Gunnar out we can’t even win the midfield battle with 3 in midfield, let alone 2 from Ralls / Damour / Bryson.

Not a bad idea, Paterson and Bennett as wing backs giving Laing and Hoilett a much needed break. Ken and Healey or Bogle if fit up top. If were chasing the game bring on the wingers and Tomlin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J R Hartley

Problem with that is with Gunnar out we can’t even win the midfield battle with 3 in midfield, let alone 2 from Ralls / Damour / Bryson.

---

Yes. It would mean dropping a winger and getting someone like Paterson or Damour on one side to provide a midfield 3, leaving one flank rather exposed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKB

Not a bad idea, Paterson and Bennett as wing backs giving Laing and Hoilett a much needed break. Ken and Healey or Bogle if fit up top. If were chasing the game bring on the wingers and Tomlin.

---

Wing backs AND wingers would be suicide in my opinion.

Go with winge backs we need an extra striker and creative midfield influence up top. A striker to support Ken and a number 10.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKB

Not a bad idea, Paterson and Bennett as wing backs giving Laing and Hoilett a much needed break. Ken and Healey or Bogle if fit up top. If were chasing the game bring on the wingers and Tomlin.

---

Yep, I like the sound of it but not sure Warnock will. We have to shore defence first and worry about attack after.