Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
gurujuan

3 at the back, what’s the point?

Recommended Posts

We did pretty well with the Lees + Loovens partnership, so for me I would be looking to find a suitable Loovens replacement, rather than a new system. 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was all for 3-5-2 and it worked for us last season, but having Sold Hunt and not having a proper wing back for.the other side, I'm not sure it will work for us unless we start playing a lot more direct and forget about trying to make the pitch bigger from goal kicks.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We haven’t got the players that can play that formation. Needs to change it ASAP. 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Kopparberg said:

We did pretty well with the Lees + Loovens partnership, so for me I would be looking to find a suitable Loovens replacement, rather than a new system. 

 

61aErKn9oYL._UY445_.jpg.62dcf0272baf9ed2e9d5728c614b83e1.jpg

 

* just kidding Glenn

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Jos first came he played 5 at the back out of necessity to scratch some points out with clean sheets.

 

Now there is more onus on attacking, the formation has switched to 3-5-2 but we don’t have the personnel to play it.

  • Agree 3
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. We don’t have the players to play 3–5-2 as our wingback options are very limited.

 

4 at the back and we looked so much more composed tonight. Players actually seemed to know what they were doing.

 

I know Boyd has been slated but he was never signed as a wing back and he looked a slightly better player when moved further forward.

 

Round pegs in round holes. Football is a simple game. 

  • Agree 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. It doesn’t matter who he plays in this system we just have massive holes at the back. And the full backs are nowhere near good enough. 

 

We just look so vulnerable defensively playing it...

  • Agree 3
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ever the pessimist said:

When Jos first came he played 5 at the back out of necessity to scratch some points out with clean sheets.

 

Now there is more onus on attacking, the formation has switched to 3-5-2 but we don’t have the personnel to play it.

We don’t, and unless we can bring in 3 or 4 players in this window, to make it work, then I’d switch to a flat back four

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, gurujuan said:

We don’t, and unless we can bring in 3 or 4 players in this window, to make it work, then I’d switch to a flat back four

 

Who would you play at left back?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sticky belly said:

Yeah. It doesn’t matter who he plays in this system we just have massive holes at the back. And the full backs are nowhere near good enough. 

 

We just look so vulnerable defensively playing it...

Yes, we often look shaky For me though, it’s the knock on effect, it leaves us short, either in midfield, or up front

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IstillhateSteveBould said:

 

Who would you play at left back?

Any competent player who only has to mark and defend and keep the line.

 

It's all we can do with what we've got.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what - we were shaky at the back again today.

 

Nielsen had some really bad touches when in possession, but he was sound defensively for instance.   

 

Learning curve - as a club we are trying something that is alien to every single player we have.    Things will take time to stick and come good.

 

Look at the pigs when Wilder took over, and they were playing really poor teams week in and week out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IstillhateSteveBould said:

 

Who would you play at left back?

In a flat back four, Pudil Not ideal, as he probably doesn’t have the legs to get up and down He’d be reasonably solid as a defensive left back, and certainly no worse that whoever we use in a five Again though, it would enable us to play three in midfield, and more importantly, three up front Personally, I’d opt for 4-2-3-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, IstillhateSteveBould said:

 

Who would you play at left back?

 

It's a fair question, Thorniley maybe? Did OK at the weekend. Fact is Palmer is not good enough to play an attacking role as wing-back, Baker is unproven and Boyd and Fox have proved not to be the answer on the left. If we are to continue with 3-5-2 the at least one of the wing-backs needs to be comfortable on the ball going forward in that position as well as competent defensively. Reach could do the wing-back job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember people saying Irish's legs had gone and he went on to carry on being the best left back or left winger we had for about 3 or 4 years after.

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree it flogs our midfielders too, they have to cover more ground with another cb sat there at the expense of a midfielder.

 

433 or 442 has to be the way, 442 can be more fluid than a flat 442 eg 4222/4312/4132, whichever suits our 11 best vs the opps

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, IstillhateSteveBould said:

 

Who would you play at left back?

Reachio

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...