3 at the back, what’s the point?

[theowlsman]

Only works with solid, effective, defenders who know how to fill the gaps left by team mates. We're no good at it.

 

Plus, as others have said, you then need good wing backs and we don't have them either.

 

Would prefer us to find players who can fit the system well else abandon the tactic.

 

I do wonder what goes through JL's head sometimes. My current view is that he is still stumbling around in the dark hoping to haplessly fall upon something that might work with our disparate mix of experience, youth, flair and average players.

[Salmonbones]

Just now, SallyCinnamon said:

Losing Hunt and Venancio has made us a lot weaker with 5 at the back. 

 

Don't agree, sorry.

 

Palmer is akin to Hunt, just without the marauding efforts.    But we have a kid coming through who looks equally the part.    It was an easy trade off to make - get some money back and not really be weakened in that position by the loss of Hunt.

 

Venancio, we NEVER wanted to sign - I said this from the start, we simply have too many prospects coming through in that position.   Nielson,  Thornily, O'Grady - and this doesn't count that we have Van Aken who was never allowed enough time to show if he's good enough.     Then you have others like Fox and Pudil who can perform in that position.    Hutchinson also into the mix.   

 

Vanancio was never needed - he did well but we have equals to him and why should we sign players to make up a squad place?    Buy better or keep money in your pocket - paying for squad fillers is what got us into trouble in the first place.

 

 

[spike1867]

Hallelujah!

 

It served its purpose last season, but how do 3 players cover the width of the pitch better than 4? Especially when the wingbacks are tactically unaware or don't track back.

 

Tom Lees looks so much happier in a back 4. Personally I'd put Pudil next to him and Thorniley at LB, Baker at RB. Hutch in at DCM, Reach next to him as the box to box. FF Bannan and Matias across the middle  with either Nuhiu or Fletcher as CF.

[airborne_rat_of_s6]

7 minutes ago, Bouncing Owl said:

I’d go 4-3-3.

Agreed. Bit of defensive solidity with the players we have plus we are limited for winger options, so why not stretch the game by having FF playing off two CF’s. Hutch, Bannan and one other in midfield would provide bite and ability to get the ball forward quickly. Lot of teams have played like this in the Championship and done it successfully.

[Bouncing Owl]

2 minutes ago, airborne_rat_of_s6 said:

Agreed. Bit of defensive solidity with the players we have plus we are limited for winger options, so why not stretch the game by having FF playing off two CF’s. Hutch, Bannan and one other in midfield would provide bite and ability to get the ball forward quickly. Lot of teams have played like this in the Championship and done it successfully.

 

Totally agreed. Fulham play 4-3-3 and they did ok last year. We have more attackers and that is where out strength lies so I suggest we play to our strengths. Love to see Lee, Hutch and Bannan in midfield and Joao, Hooper and FF up front. Lots of variety there. 

[Morepork]

We have neglected what is arguably the modern games most import position, what’s more we did it in both sides of the park.

 

We’ll struggle regardless of formation until we have wide defensive players with the ability to A. Defend B. Get up and down the park with pace and regularity C. Deliver a good cross with some consistency.

[IstillhateSteveBould]

10 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

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

 

Agree he's probably still the best option, but as you say, he's certainly not ideal.

 

Have to say I don't think we have the players to play either a 3 or a 4 very well at the moment. 

 

And midfield is a major problem whichever way we go.

 

For me, we're just so unbalanced, our only real chance of putting a few wins on the board, is by keeping 3 attackers on the pitch as often as possible. I think 343/352 makes that slightly easier, so for that reason I'd stick with 3 at the back for now.

 

Just stop weeing about trying to pass it around in defence. Get it forward as often and as quickly as possible.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, HubristicClapper said:

 

Don't agree, sorry.

 

Palmer is akin to Hunt, just without the marauding efforts.    But we have a kid coming through who looks equally the part.    It was an easy trade off to make - get some money back and not really be weakened in that position by the loss of Hunt.

 

Venancio, we NEVER wanted to sign - I said this from the start, we simply have too many prospects coming through in that position.   Nielson,  Thornily, O'Grady - and this doesn't count that we have Van Aken who was never allowed enough time to show if he's good enough.     Then you have others like Fox and Pudil who can perform in that position.    Hutchinson also into the mix.   

 

Vanancio was never needed - he did well but we have equals to him and why should we sign players to make up a squad place?    Buy better or keep money in your pocket - paying for squad fillers is what got us into trouble in the first place.

 

 

 

Completely disagree. The marauding efforts of Hunt are a large part of what makes an effective wing-back. Palmer can't do it and Baker is far from proven at this level yet. 

Jos clearly wanted to sign Venancio, he played him every week even when others were available. Van Aken and Nielsen may come good but I wouldn't bet on us keeping a clean sheet in the Championship with those 2 in the side. Fox is not good enough, Pudil will struggle to play a full season, Hutchinson is solid there but a back 5 of Hunt, Lees. Hutch, Venancio and Reach would offer better than what we currently have.

 

We have played 3 games now and each time our poorest performers have been in the back 5 and more often than not the wing-backs, Van Aken & Palmer at Wigan, Fox last Saturday and Boyd tonight. It doesn't help that 3 of those 4 were not playing in the preferred position at the time.

[camffiti]

After the game Mick McCarthy said, of our defenders, only Tom Lees is capable of playing in a back 4 

 

I said the same on here, 6 months ago ... Jos is probably thinking the same 

 

[Bluesteel]

It scares the life out of me this three at the back. We originally did it because we were too open, now we have gaping holes on the flanks where our wing backs don’t cover and the crosses come in easily. 

 

Get 4231 on the go 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, camffiti said:

After the game Mick McCarthy said, of our defenders, only Tom Lees is capable of playing in a back 4 

 

I said the same on here, 6 months ago ... Jos is probably thinking the same 

 

 

Hutch seemed OK when he played alongside Lees in a 2 previously.

[camffiti]

1 minute ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Hutch seemed OK when he played alongside Lees in a 2 previously.

 

Yeah that's probably the only central partnership we could field. 

 

Pudil would be the only LB choice ... F*ck knows for RB 

[shezzas left peg]

As long as we're not looking to play lees & Van Akren together as a cb partnership, to be fair I know all three made their mistakes, but van Akren really scared me, about 20 mins in and Sunderland played a through ball, it was like watching an inexperienced H. G. V 1 driver turn, then sprint after the ball and I'd swear loovens is still quicker. 

Don't like knocking the lad and he's been out injured for a long time, but the two younger lads made less mistakes and far more solid. I want him to come good here and prove me wrong, but I'm beginning to believe as others have been saying, we've signed another dud. 

Edited August 16, 2018 by shezzas left peg

[Kopparberg]

The feeling I got against Hull was, it’s all going to be down to

 

Reach 

Bannan

FF 

Fletcher 

 

to win us games this season, the rest of the team might not add much in this formation.  

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, camffiti said:

 

Yeah that's probably the only central partnership we could field. 

 

Pudil would be the only LB choice ... F*ck knows for RB 

 

Don't think we could play Pudil at LB unless it was a flat 4 in front with an up and down left midfielder in front of him. He would be too exposed in a 4-3-3 and wouldn't be able to cover the ground which is why he no longer plays that position regularly.

[camffiti]

2 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Don't think we could play Pudil at LB unless it was a flat 4 in front with an up and down left midfielder in front of him. He would be too exposed in a 4-3-3 and wouldn't be able to cover the ground which is why he no longer plays that position regularly.

 

Yeah, his bombing forward days are probably over

 

The other options are Fox ... or a back 3 

[davethemagicweasel]

Our squad is much better suited to 4, we're just leaving our weak links exposed at WB. A fit Lee and Reach might work but persisting with WBs is madness when most of our options would be better off as FBs. 

 

Since we've not recruited the DM we've needed for 3 years Hutch has to be in midfield until the embargo is lifted, so imho Thorniley's been the most impressive of Lee's potential partners so I'd give him the nod for half a dozen games. 

 

Baker   Lees   Thorniley   Pudil 

                      Hutch 

          Bannan        Reach 

Joao       Fletch/Nuhiu    Fessi 

 

(Lee when fit either at RB or Mid with Reach going to LB depending on which full back is playing best.)

[Dutch McLovin]

We don’t have the personnel to play 4 at the back never mind 3. 

 

Were ok with 3 as long as we play our best team which isn’t always easy. Reach is a wing back it’s where he’s best. Play him there. Baker it’s still early days but looks like he has the energy for wing back. Play him there. As much as I want Hutchinson in midfield we need him RCB to play out and command. Keep Lees in the middle as he can defend and won’t meed to pass there. Play Thornley LCB as he is a prospect. Pudil as back up.

 

Problem is midfield. With Hutch at the back means we have a CM of Pelupessy Bannan. That is it. And if we’re plyinh 3 at the back we need to play 3 up top 

[Salmonbones]

8 hours ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Completely disagree. The marauding efforts of Hunt are a large part of what makes an effective wing-back. Palmer can't do it and Baker is far from proven at this level yet. 

Jos clearly wanted to sign Venancio, he played him every week even when others were available. Van Aken and Nielsen may come good but I wouldn't bet on us keeping a clean sheet in the Championship with those 2 in the side. Fox is not good enough, Pudil will struggle to play a full season, Hutchinson is solid there but a back 5 of Hunt, Lees. Hutch, Venancio and Reach would offer better than what we currently have.

 

We have played 3 games now and each time our poorest performers have been in the back 5 and more often than not the wing-backs, Van Aken & Palmer at Wigan, Fox last Saturday and Boyd tonight. It doesn't help that 3 of those 4 were not playing in the preferred position at the time.

 

Not a chance in hell.

 

Looks like we disagree completely on both these points though.

[Bouncing Owl]

I think we are probably best equipped to play a 3 at the back as long as we play Reach left wing back.

 

However, we potentially could play a back 4 with Lees and Pudil in the centre and Thorniley at left back. I want to see us bring Thorniley into the side - he’s our best prospect in my opinion. He’s a centre half but I think playing him left back in a conventional back 4 would be good grounding prior to playing him in the centre. He should not play left wing back. We will ruin him by playing him in this position.  If we did play with this formation, it would allow us to play Hutch in defensive midfield in place of Joey.