3 at the back

[AlexLaw76]

What is it and this horrific formation that makes saints managers play it

disgusting 

[tdmickey3]

Agreed 

[Osvaldorama]

Absolutely fuckin atrocious. 
 

Literally exposes our weaknesses and doesn’t do anything to play to our strengths (not that we have many) 

Dont get it at all, especially at home. 

[Willo of Whiteley]

Three CBs or five at the back supposedly closes up shop if you’re defending, but you need to have defenders that are good enough, that we don’t.

There is no benefit in playing a back five, you lose an attacking option. 

Sitting in the Chapel end today, the amount of times Fraser or Manning had the ball and there wasn’t a single player to play a through pass to. Armstrong made runs but that’s all he could do.

Downes and Charles are basically the same player, both were playing no further than maybe five yards ahead of the CBs. Throw Matty Fernandes who dropped very deep pretty much most of today and we effectively had three CDMs and three CBs, Armstrong on his own against two 6”4” centre halves and Fraser and Manning out wide with seemingly no one to pass to.

If these amazing tactics are to whip it into the keeper and play a diagonal ball for ninety minutes it’s going to be a long season.

[saintant]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

What is it and this horrific formation that makes saints managers play it

disgusting 

Ditch it now and stop the fucking excuses about it being the only system we can utilise with the players we have because that is just a cop out.

[Fabrice29]

The idea that suddenly become more creative and efficient just through a change of formation is silly fwiw. Started with 1 player with more than 7 goals in a league season to their name I think so okay, you stick another striker on and make that 2, that's still not enough.

[derry]

Playing three at the back with the players we have is a nonsense. Their slow passing sucks the life out of the team. Sideways sideways sideways diagonal to full back back to centre back into midfield lose the ball to the press. When we conceded the first goal we were caught on the break FFS with three centre backs all lacking pace. The second goal needed Stephens to be hard headed and take a last man red. Play a proper back four and counter the break. We don't need two holding midfielders and one striker or no wingers. The side lacks balance. Get back to basics 5 defensive, 5 attackers, 4 1 3 2, 4 3 3, 4 4 2, I don't care. certainly not 5 3 1 1 it's garbage and slow. Speed everything up there is no tempo or cutting edge especially with the ball continually being crossed hail mary style no wonder we lost.

[Osvaldorama]

1 minute ago, Fabrice29 said:

The idea that suddenly become more creative and efficient just through a change of formation is silly fwiw. Started with 1 player with more than 7 goals in a league season to their name I think so okay, you stick another striker on and make that 2, that's still not enough.

Of course you can. Get an extra man in the middle instead of 3 shite centre backs and we would have a chance of controlling a game instead of being passengers. 
 

This formation, with these players is absolutely idiotic. 
 

Woll Still is making the exact same mistakes that the last few managers have made.
 

95% of the fan base can see the same issues, yet the club can’t. 

[Fabrice29]

4 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

Of course you can. Get an extra man in the middle instead of 3 shite centre backs and we would have a chance of controlling a game instead of being passengers. 
 

This formation, with these players is absolutely idiotic. 
 

Woll Still is making the exact same mistakes that the last few managers have made.
 

95% of the fan base can see the same issues, yet the club can’t. 

The only midfielders in our squad with goals to their name are presumably very high on supporters wish lists to leave (Aribo and Smallbone). So just sticking another man in the middle when they aren't very productive isn't the answer. Get a midfielder who actually gets into the box and is comfortable doing it would be a really good start and moving Fernandes back to a controlling midfield role would also really help.

Edited August 23 by Fabrice29

[Fabrice29]

It's not about formations for me. It's about player characteristics. Neither Fernandes, Downes or Charles have shown in their career they are midfielders who are suited to being in the box so asking Fernandes specifically to play off the striker doesn't suit his best attributes. If you want all 3 to play then yes you'll have to change the formation and bring a defender out but just doing that when there's no conceivable player in the squad that is going to score goals from midfield seems silly.

[bugenhagen]

3 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

It's not about formations for me. It's about player characteristics. Neither Fernandes, Downes or Charles have shown in their career they are midfielders who are suited to being in the box so asking Fernandes specifically to play off the striker doesn't suit his best attributes. If you want all 3 to play then yes you'll have to change the formation and bring a defender out but just doing that when there's no conceivable player in the squad that is going to score goals from midfield seems silly.

I agree with the start of your post if we are discussing the difference between a 4321, 433, 4231 or a 4222.

A back five vs a back four changes so much more in my opinion. But I strongly dislike a back five, so I can never be rational. I even hated it when Koeman had a bit of a struggle, and changed to a back five for run of games to get our mojo back.

[derry]

In three league matches 5 goals 4 scored by defenders. One solitary goal from Robinson. Nothing from anyone else.  It is a given that Armstrong can't play up front on his own. Downs and Stewart are a long way from being an answer. BBD has never been tried there. Archer looks lost. Bring in a dynamic big centre forward to lead the line. Unload a couple of the above. I'm not sure Azaz will come now, we really do look poor playing this way.

[Osvaldorama]

You have a valid point that the squad is shit and makes no sense. We have a load of nothing midfielders, with no stand out characteristics

 

But that doesn’t mean we need 5 at the back against Stoke at home, sorry. Stupid 

[SouSaint]

Crap formation. 

[ErwinK1961]

2 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

What is it and this horrific formation that makes saints managers play it

disgusting 

You literally said we should play with a 5 atb at the start of the season, because of the current squad makeup.

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, ErwinK1961 said:

You literally said we should play with a 5 atb at the start of the season, because of the current squad makeup.

I said we should? Or said it could work? After Wrexham first half, it was clear it is atrocious for us (still) 

[ErwinK1961]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

I said we should? Or said it could work? After Wrexham first half, it was clear it is atrocious for us (still) 

Can’t remember, but the revisionism from you is strong.

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, ErwinK1961 said:

Can’t remember, but the revisionism from you is strong.

I have been against the formation for ages. Yes, the line up against Wrexham looked good. 45 mins in, clear to see it was crap 

do you not agree?

[ErwinK1961]

5 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

I have been against the formation for ages. Yes, the line up against Wrexham looked good. 45 mins in, clear to see it was crap 

do you not agree?

I said to you at the time I think 5 atb is rubbish, I was surprised you were for it going into Wrexham. 

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, ErwinK1961 said:

I said to you at the time I think 5 atb is rubbish, I was surprised you were for it going into Wrexham. 

Yes, I was wrong for about 1 half of football 

[Wiggles31]

We’ll see the end of 3 at the back at the end of the window. 
 

It’s pathetic that the transfer window remains open for a whole month of the season. 

[Convict Colony]

We need 10 at the back, 3 is costing us goals.

[sfc4prem]

I mean, I think 4 or 5 at the back, with our squad as it is, changes nothing. Our players are still weak-willed and just a bit airy-fairy.

This is the team that collected 12 points last season.

Despite a few additions, we are still presented with most of the dross that was served up on the teamsheet reveals last season.

Guts and guile are lacking. So is tenacity and speed (both literally and of thought).

We need some additions to stand a chance of automatic promotion.

[Whitey Grandad]

Playing 3 centre backs leaves us a man short in midfield.  Other only test, it doesn't make our defence any stronger. They just get in each other's way. 

I'm with Mikee Bassett on this. Four four f***ing two.

Edited August 23 by Whitey Grandad

[LoyalSaintSO50]

We went 4-4 fkin 2 at the end and created even less. Rearrange this lot and it wouldn’t matter a jot, not good enough. Possibly the only club in the country without a natural winger 

[CSA96]

6 hours ago, derry said:

Playing three at the back with the players we have is a nonsense. Their slow passing sucks the life out of the team. Sideways sideways sideways diagonal to full back back to centre back into midfield lose the ball to the press. When we conceded the first goal we were caught on the break FFS with three centre backs all lacking pace. The second goal needed Stephens to be hard headed and take a last man red. Play a proper back four and counter the break. We don't need two holding midfielders and one striker or no wingers. The side lacks balance. Get back to basics 5 defensive, 5 attackers, 4 1 3 2, 4 3 3, 4 4 2, I don't care. certainly not 5 3 1 1 it's garbage and slow. Speed everything up there is no tempo or cutting edge especially with the ball continually being crossed hail mary style no wonder we lost.

Yes I’m sure that would’ve been met with a totally balanced reaction. Honestly, I can’t believe we’ve now got people saying Stephens should’ve got himself deliberately sent off and criticising the fact he didn’t. One defeat has sent this place barmy 

[Whitey Grandad]

7 hours ago, CSA96 said:

Yes I’m sure that would’ve been met with a totally balanced reaction. Honestly, I can’t believe we’ve now got people saying Stephens should’ve got himself deliberately sent off and criticising the fact he didn’t. One defeat has sent this place barmy 

Stephens should have tried to block the shot with his right foot instead of his left. Trying to stretch across the player and looking away he was always going to fail. It's what he's good at.

[derry]

10 hours ago, CSA96 said:

Yes I’m sure that would’ve been met with a totally balanced reaction. Honestly, I can’t believe we’ve now got people saying Stephens should’ve got himself deliberately sent off and criticising the fact he didn’t. One defeat has sent this place barmy 

Personally I thought Stepens was a prat. Firstly he's the Captain. Secondly the minimum number of defenders in that position was two because diagonally the second defender gives one depth and allows the first defender to stop the runner without being the last man. Thirdly he wasn't bright enough to recognise that our kamikaze attacking was leaving us vulnerable to a break. A sending off against ten men wasn't too much of a problem and secondly having allowed the situation to happen through his lack of captaincy it was really the only thing he could have done to prevent the goal. I don't think he's the sharpest tool in the box and shouldn't be captain.

[AlexLaw76]

Someone, please make this formation go away.

[sfc4prem]

I'm sure it will once we have all of the players in the door.

No stress! We've only played a few fucking games, pal.

[Willo of Whiteley]

Just now, sfc4prem said:

I'm sure it will once we have all of the players in the door.

No stress! We've only played a few fucking games, pal.

Thank you! Someone with an ounce of common sense on this forum 👏🏻👏🏻

 

[saintant]

Can anyone explain to me the benefits of playing 3 at the back. Maybe being a bit naive I had assumed it makes a team more solid in defence but I'm not seeing that with us. What I do see is that it makes us struggle to compete in midfield. So if someone can explain the merits I'd be grateful.

[maysie]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Someone, please make this formation go away.

Maybe if you post about it roughly every 30 seconds it will help.

Get a life, dickhead.

[Willo of Whiteley]

10 minutes ago, maysie said:

Maybe if you post about it roughly every 30 seconds it will help.

Get a life, dickhead.

This 😂👏🏻👏🏻

[die Mannyschaft]

The benefits are you can attack quickly and score.

The negative is if you don't play a fast break game and have players like Chelsea had when they won title playing 3 at back then you just let too many goals in. 

What's wrong with 4-4-2. I'm too old for modern football just don't see the point in leaving just 3 at back or 5 at back with no one up front getting the ball.

Whike I'm at it the stupid 5 subs is just as pointless. 

[Toussaint]

25 minutes ago, Willo of Whiteley said:

This 😂👏🏻👏🏻

Not really. 

[die Mannyschaft]

On 23/08/2025 at 17:05, AlexLaw76 said:

What is it and this horrific formation that makes saints managers play it

disgusting 

Stupid, its like just locking 3 of the 4 doors on a car then some chav robs your car, or 2 points.

[qwertyell]

I know the manager has said he's playing three at the back because we lack wingers in the squad, but I think he really just doesn't rate any of our centre backs in a two.

And with some justification. Any combination of Stephens, Harwood-Bellis, and Edwards has no pace. Pairing one of them with quick but clumsy giraffes Quarshie or Wood might add a missing attribute to the unit, but at the expense of composure and security.

Bedding Quarshie into the team in a three with a view to moving to a two when he settles down a bit seems to have been abandoned after a couple of chaotic outings. 

They're not getting any protection from an inadequate midfield either - Downes is no DM: his whole career has been based around being a Russell Martin 6 in teams that concede 60+ goals a season. 

Some head scratching to be done by the manager to find a workable balance between defence and attack. It's nowhere near at the moment.