Why 3-4-3 is not for me.

Based on what I saw against Chelsea and Liverpool, this new formation is not a viable long term option.

It doesn’t look like 3-5-2 with wingbacks to me; instead it seems to be a Barcelona esque 3-4-3.

The wider players e.g. Milner and Kolarov seem to get isolated on the touchline with little influence on the play further infield. Once the move breaks down the ball is quickly moved forward and the two players in these positions struggle to get back into the game.

There is too much space between the defence and midfield which the opposition are quickly learning to exploit. The two goals scored by Chelsea were a result of too much time and space for the opposition on the edge of the City 18 yard box. The Suarez non free kick free kick was a result of last ditch defending as Liverpool had time and space and were looking dangerous. Again, close to the City 18 yard box.

Once the City players are committed further up the field and they lose possession it only takes a quick threw ball to put City on the back foot. Chelsea failed to capitalise but last Sunday I lost count of the number of times Vincent Kompany had to make a last ditch tackle in order to keep City in the game.

Against the top sides and especially in the Champions League, this is just asking for trouble.

Ya Ya Toure, probably our most dominant attacking player, does not seem to benefit in this system. It appears he is somewhat restricted in his attempts to get forward and support the attacking players. In the match at Anfield Toure was unable to impose himself in the final third of the field. Case in point, after the changes were made, Toure ventured forward and scored the first equalizer.

A scorer of crucial goals since he’s been at the club, Toure’s goals and creativity is a must for City. To almost lose his goals within this formation will severely damage our attacking options.

The two most creative players in the team will be hampered by this formation. The 3 actually look more like a 1 behind a 2. This would suggest that Silva and Nasri cannot play together as only one will play at a time.

Neither are old school central midfielders with the requirements to play in the middle of the park. For whatever reason; Nasri was first choice for both games in the 1 role. Against Chelsea he looked the part, but during the Liverpool game he lacked any real support and was unable to create anything of real significance. His effectiveness faded and he was eventually substituted.

Silva made a difference when he came on at Anfield and began to find those pockets of space he loves and which cause havoc for defenders. If both Silva and Nasri had been on together from the start two points could have become three.

In the 4-2-3-1 formation which brought City the title, the full backs push on to provide the width. This in turn allows the creative players to use the pockets of space around the edge of the 18 yard box. These spaces provided so many goals for City last season; Zabaletta’s against QPR on May 13^th is a fine example.

When using the new formation these ‘pockets’ do not seem to exist, if they did there is only one creative player to fill them. As pointed out most weeks on certain football shows these spaces are essential to City’s tactics and the way they play.

The right hand side is well covered as I would argue Milner, Zabaletta and Micah Richards could all play that role. The left is slightly different; Clichy is top class going in both directions. However for all his dead ball ability I often feel Kolarov’s defending leaves something to be desired.

If 3-4-3 is to be persisted with; surely City’s number one transfer target this summer should have been Gareth Bale. He can get up the pitch, is a goal threat and provides a real outlet. As he started his career at left back he should be well versed in the art of tackling. His pace, power and skill would be tailor made for that role.

Its one thing for the boys from the Nou Camp to play 3-4-3 but for City to do it is slightly different. Barcelona are potentially the greatest club side in the history of European football. They have arguably world class players in every position. Many of them youth team graduates of La Masia who have grown up together and know each other’s movements, positions, strengths and weaknesses as well as they know their own.

Within that group is a group of three players, Messi, Iniesta and Xavi, who in my eyes could adapt to any formation and set of tactics in the world. Although this is the best City team I have ever seen, we have a way to go to reach that level of elite performance.

If it’s not broke don’t fix it. If only Kevin Keegan had heeded that advice during Newcastle’s exciting yet unfulfilled title challenge of 95/96, that team may have won the title they deserved.

City won the title last season, playing some scintillating, attacking football in a 4-2-3-1 formation. The players are used to it, it suits the type of players we have and it’s a great system for both attack and defence.

A slightly different counter-attacking version of this was used during 10/11 due to Mancini’s regime still building its head of steam. Tevez was almost our only goal threat at this time and the tactics mainly relied on his brilliance in front of goal. City often looked lost without him if he suffered a rare off day. This version also brought us a trophy in the form of the FA Cup.

I do not claim to be a football expert and be able to analyse every part of the beautiful game. This is simply my opinion mixed with my observations. From what I’ve seen I believe it will be difficult to make this 3-4-3 work effectively in the Premier League.

Despite writing all this I am a huge fan of Mancini and trust completely what he is doing at City. I’m more than likely missing the point of this formation and all the positives it brings. If so I apologise.