Team

VDB out, Jones in. Ayling at CB with Jones Wing back you'd think, unless he's going back to 4 at back.
 
Will be interesting to see if Ayling tucks into RCB and Jones goes to RWB to keep the same shape or whether he reverts to 4-2-3-1 with Ayling at RB and Jones at RF.

My preference would be Ayling to RCB and stay 3 at the back.
 
Will be interesting to see if Ayling tucks into RCB and Jones goes to RWB to keep the same shape or whether he reverts to 4-2-3-1 with Ayling at RB and Jones at RF.

My preference would be Ayling to RCB and stay 3 at the back.
Agree.
 
Not really any difference between Ayling RB/ Jones RW, and Ayling RCB / Jones RWB

It’ll be exactly the same either way when we have the ball
 
You’re talking about two or three players changing their starting position by about 10 yards though

As Sir Michael always says, people place too much importance on putting labels on “formations”
 
You’re talking about two or three players changing their starting position by about 10 yards though

As Sir Michael always says, people place too much importance on putting labels on “formations”
That's what I would say I'd been playing the wrong formation for weeks on end as well. It's not a coincidence we've stopped being caught out down our flanks since we changed it..
 
I’ve seen Guardiola describe formations as meaningless a few times. The best teams change and adapt constantly depending on any number of factors. These days if you stick to a rigid shape you get broken down and punished.
 
Will be interesting to see if Ayling tucks into RCB and Jones goes to RWB to keep the same shape or whether he reverts to 4-2-3-1 with Ayling at RB and Jones at RF.

My preference would be Ayling to RCB and stay 3 at the back.
I think this is what he will do because jones will offer something totally different in that position RWB and we might surrender some possession but lure them in and be devastating on the break hopefully 🤞 🙏🏻. Come on Boro. Good buzz in the ground 👍
 
He said it when we were winning as well tbf!

I’ve seen Guardiola describe formations as meaningless a few times

It's just guff though. If formations or shape didn't matter then they would just read 11 names out and not tell them where they play.

What they are trying to say is it's not as simple as just playing a rigid 4-4-2 or whatever formation they play. But it's more fluid and the shape can change through different phases. There's still a clear difference between our 4-2-3-1 formation and our 5-2-2-1 or whatever you want to call it.
 
I think it’s impossible to say in the first half whether Ayling was playing RCB, or RB who tucks in when we have the ball.

Probably because it’s a bit if both, it changes throughout the game, and there’s hardly any difference.






Even last season, it was Giles and Jones / Forss who provided the width and were effectively wing backs at times
 
Without jonesy at RWB today I think It could’ve been worse because Ayling wouldn’t of offered what jones did
And I thought ayling was really good at center back with paddy and Clarke; who was my man of the match today.
 
It's just guff though. If formations or shape didn't matter then they would just read 11 names out and not tell them where they play.

What they are trying to say is it's not as simple as just playing a rigid 4-4-2 or whatever formation they play. But it's more fluid and the shape can change through different phases. There's still a clear difference between our 4-2-3-1 formation and our 5-2-2-1 or whatever you want to call it.
Of course there’s a difference but if the shape changes in different phases of play, why is it only one of the shapes that we say is the formation? The only reason is that it’s an easy way to picture where the players are lined up when kicking off. There can be a world of difference between teams playing the same formation so it doesn’t really describe the way a team will play beyond this.
 
Back
Top