3 at the back, what’s the point?

[gurujuan]

8 hours ago, Dutch McLovin said:

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 

You’re right, we don’t really have the personnel to play either That’s my point though, it makes zero difference to our defensive capabilities, playing the extra centre back It does however, mean that we play one less up front

[Quist]

10 hours ago, gurujuan said:

It doesn’t make us any more secure, and inhibits elsewhere

Jos said he used this system as we were too open at back. He was correct we do not have good enough defenders to play a back 4. I was convinced he would recruit better defenders so we could move to different system. This has been prevented.

I have pointed out in another thread today that I consider a back 3 to be a flawed system and one which can be easily contered. I have seen other teams who employ 3 at back stifled and we did it to Blunts at Lane.

I can see Jos is trying to have fluid system and switch between styles he did this last night when he brought Penney on. It was also evident at weekend and can see how this can work but we need a better quality of player in certain areas to accomplish this, especially against better opposition.

[Animis]

Just play 4-4-2 - with the players we have anything else is a risk.

[Blatter]

10 hours ago, WalthamOwl said:

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

Thought it was changed at half time last night.

[gurujuan]

3 minutes ago, Quist said:

Jos said he used this system as we were too open at back. He was correct we do not have good enough defenders to play a back 4. I was convinced he would recruit better defenders so we could move to different system. This has been prevented.

I have pointed out in another thread today that I consider a back 3 to be a flawed system and one which can be easily contered. I have seen other teams who employ 3 at back stifled and we did it to Blunts at Lane.

I can see Jos is trying to have fluid system and switch between styles he did this last night when he brought Penney on. It was also evident at weekend and can see how this can work but we need a better quality of player in certain areas to accomplish this, especially against better opposition.

We forget that for that game at the Lane, we played most of the match with a back four, following Loovens early dismissal 

I can see some merit in a side being able to switch systems during a game, but it’s asking a lot of players at this level 

Quite frankly, we don’t look any less open with three at the back, whatever Jos says 

If Sunderland could have finished, they’d have probably beaten us Look at the chances Wigan carved out against us 

Too much emphasis is put on worrying about what the opposition might do to us, when really we should be taking the game to them

[Ash77]

Baker lees hutch/nielson penney

 

    Reach  joey  bannan  matias

 

                Ff       Joao  

 

A fluid 442 could be 433 with matias advanced, 451 if ff tracks/occupies the left back or even 4222/4132

[gurujuan]

As I said, my main gripe with the system is, it usually means leaving out a forward 

Perhaps Id find the system more palatable  if we went 3-4-3, at least it would be more entertaining

Take the Norwich game, we still looked shaky at the back, despite playing 3 at the back, but we were able to overwhelm them with the quality of our forward play 

Why do we continue to sacrifice our best asset, our attack?

[Quist]

10 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

We forget that for that game at the Lane, we played most of the match with a back four, following Loovens early dismissal  

I can see some merit in a side being able to switch systems during a game, but it’s asking a lot of players at this level 

Quite frankly, we don’t look any less open with three at the back, whatever Jos says  

If Sunderland could have finished, they’d have probably beaten us Look at the chances Wigan carved out against us  

Too much emphasis is put on worrying about what the opposition might do to us, when really we should be taking the game to them

We stopped conceeding goals at previous rate when we had 3/5 at back. It was certainly more defensive in we had greater numbers playing at back than previously. If youhave a look at player ratings thread I think you will find I am in agreement with view on 3 at back.

[DesWalker]

I think after Thorniley's performance coming on for Fox on Saturday we'll see him start at LWB on Sunday.  Baker on the right, but at Brentford it'll be more of a 5-3-2

 

 

[torres]

I said this last season even when we were winning - we were conceding 4 or 5 very good chances a match and being very clinical upfront.

 

Hull away for example - on paper looks a solid 1-0 win  - in reality they could have had 5 easily.

 

There is not enough pace to cover the gaps this formation creates - i fear he won't change it in the near future though.

[Steelman]

10 hours ago, IstillhateSteveBould said:

 

Who would you play at left back?

Matt Penney. Simple.

[edwinowl]

Totally agree with this.  

Were not comfortable with this system anymore.  

And we are a sitting duck in wide areas.  

Decent teams will annihilate us.  

[vulture_squadron]

Not a fan of us playing 352. Our wing backs are not good enough. The ball always comes inside and our midfield 3 seems to lack the energy to keep finding space. Even Bannan gives the ball away now and then.

 

343 looks better cos the wing backs at least can play up the channel to the wide forwards. Riskier though 

[smhouston]

If we are going to persist with this formation then I'd personally I would like to see Penney given a go at LWB. He's meant to be highly rated and I liked the look of him last night. Baker looked ok the other day going forward. Hutchinson and Thorniley should have enough in their tank to cover across should Baker / Penney bomb forward

 

                       Wildsmith

         Hutchinson Lees Thorniley

Baker                                         Penney

                        Pelupessy

          Reach                    Bannan

       Fletcher                     Forestieri

 

If Hooper / Lee ever come back then I'd take out Pelupessy and Fletcher

[oldishowl]

We have some decent forwards and are always capable of nicking a goal but we have to give ourselves the best chance of not conceding otherwise we are always going to be struggling in games.

Wigan was the prime example, awful at the back, irrelevant that we scored two good goals and could have scored more.

 

I think Venancio and Hunt are big losses to the 3 at the back, Venancio was mobile for a centre back and more importantly it allowed Lees to play in the centre.

 

I don’t think Jos will go away from 3 at the back but we did see some differences against Hull.

Lees didn’t stay on the right of the three , he man marked Campbell which meant he was competing for the headers and Hutch was not given a marking job which left him free to keep stepping up into midfield.

It was more a case of a back two of Lees and Pudil with Hutch free to either sweep behind or step up into midfield as required.

 

Needs a lot of talking and organising though 

[Animis]

The problem with the formation is a mix of demands and compromises. For example, I would hope most would agree that when fit, FF, Bannan and Lees start. If so, most say FF can't play in a front two; he needs to play wide left in a 4-4-2 or wide left in a 4-3-3 or behind the front two as say a 4-3-1-2 or 3-5-2. The problem is i think everyone would also want a fit Hooper in the team either as one of the front two or use behind to main striker (Nuihu, Fletcher or Joao). 

 

The problem then in accommodating the strikers is the wing backs and midfield. We don't have the physical presence in midfield without playing a central three, with a holding player, or Hutch in a central two. Whilst KL is a good player, him and Bannan in the centre are simply too weak and have been for three years. Other than Reach and Boyd we don't really have true wing backs and Boyd looks weak and slow so wouldn't be a first team start for me. This leaves Reach on the left. The right is anyone's at the moment and Pamer seems to have played himself into favour, but I don't see him as a wing back.

 

I don't think a back 3 works with the personnel we have - maybe Hutch and Pudil at the side of Lees could work, but we suffer from injuries with these two to make this a permanent plan - the kids seem uncomfortable with the system, and it only works if you have good wing backs - we don't.

 

We either go 4-3-3 or 4-4-2 or 5-3-2 and play FF our wide. But still I think the midfield is weak and exposed but at least we would be solid at the back if they play a straight back line. In the 5-3-2 we could have Hutch as the deep holding player protecting the defence allowing Bannan to play more advance and the two full backs to press/overlap. 

[Yellowbelly]

13 hours 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.

Reach has the legs to be that up and down left mid. I wouldn’t want a 442 though as it leaves us short in the middle & removes FF from his best position. 433 for me, with back 4 + Hutch defending & everyone else making it tick in attack.

[fpowl]

We was much better when we went to 4 at the back second half 

 

I keep saying our best formation with our players for me is 4 at the back and a holding midfielder you can configure the rest of the attacking players in any formation then because there’s a wealth of them 

 

personally I’d go two other in midfield that can push wider to give us width but mainly stay narrow 

 

and have a from three for our width 

FF, Joao, fletcher, bannan, reach,

hutch holding 

then a back four 

that team becomes more solid and allows our forwards to play 

 

this current formation we mess about with it too much uncomftably at the bank and bannans two deep

 

we don’t protect the back three and our full backs arnt effective enough 

 

 

[CraigSGM]

I think a 4 2 3 1 would work pretty well based on our squad. It's a funny one, because wasn't that rumoured to be Jos' preferred formation when he arrived? 

 

Palmer    Lees    Hutchinson    Fox/Penney

              Pelupessy    Bannan

  Boyd/Matias    Reach/Hooper   Forestieri

                   Nuhiu/Fletcher        

 

For me, Palmer is more effective as a traditional full back rather than a wing back, so we'd be stronger defensively there. Lees is the obvious first choice centre back. In a 2 I think Hutchinson is the best partner for him, but Thorniley or Van Aken could grow into that role as the season progresses. Pudil is also a strong option. Left back is probably our weakest position, pressure is on Penney to claim it this season.  

 

Pelupessy and Bannan as the deep midfielders, if Hutchinson is in the back 4. If Pudil/Thorniley/Van Aken are playing, then Hutchinson should partner Bannan. 

 

Then an attacking trio with 2 wide men. Forestieri is obviously first choice on the left, although in case of injury then Reach can move out there. Matias and Boyd both good options on the right. Through the middle as an advanced midfielder, or deep no10, we really do have a lot of depth. At the minute, that would be where Reach starts. Hooper can also play that role and dovetail with the big centre forward, as can Lee if he manages to get fit. (Infact, Lee could also play a little deeper to give Bannan a higher position). Lucas Joao can play all along this line, or up top. 

 

The big man up front would be Nuhiu or Fletcher, of course. Given the high line of attacking players behind them, this wouldn't really be a lone-striker role, as there is always going to be plenty of support, so Hooper could easily play the role too. 

 

Going forward, we have 2 players for every position. It's the 2 holding midfielders that are the concern. Bannan plus Hutch/Pessy is solid enough, but we're definitely lacking cover in that area. 

[Guest]

Back four all day long for me,  Penney and Ash Baker full backs