Should we go to a back 4?

[Roger]

With the amount of crosses we are conceding and the way teams are getting behind our wing backs would you go to a back 4?

[Appy]

Short answer, Yes. 
 

Utterly bizarre how we stick to a 5 when it just means we fit in more terrible defenders and lose control in midfield. 

[LGTL]

Of course we should. Every fucker can see it except our useless manager. 

[die Mannyschaft]

Can we do 6 or 7 the back

[Lighthouse]

My gut feeling is yes but we have played some of our best football with a five this season and some of our worst with a four, so it isn’t necessarily the obvious solution to our problems that some are perhaps hoping for. With any luck the return of Mads and Jely will give us a couple of better options at RB to play behind Fellows.

[EBS1980]

When we have a fit right back yes.

then hopefully Fellows will be played in his natural position too

[wild-saint]

1 hour ago, LGTL said:

Of course we should. Every fucker can see it except our useless manager. 

Whilst I think most agree a back 4 is the right formation, who are you playing at RB? 

Edited 10 hours ago by wild-saint

[Saint NL]

37 minutes ago, die Mannyschaft said:

Can we do 6 or 7 the back

The social media team would love it

[Osvaldorama]

Yes. 
 

Anything except the torturous shite we’ve had to endure recently. 

[LGTL]

28 minutes ago, wild-saint said:

Whilst I think most agree a back 4 is the right formation, who are you playing at RB? 

Captain Jack to the rescue!

[Harry_SFC]

47 minutes ago, wild-saint said:

Whilst I think most agree a back 4 is the right formation, who are you playing at RB? 

Jelert is supposedly back from injury and Roerslev is a week away. Plus as things stand James Bree is back on Thursday. 

Edited 9 hours ago by Harry_SFC

[RedArmy]

Yes. 
 

Although I will say that we played some of the most exciting football we’ve played in a decade during that little run last month, and that was with a back 3.

[Suhari]

"We don't play in positions, we play FROM positions."

Said by one of the backroom staff many, many, years ago; in better times.

But yes. Fuck off the 3cb bollox and play proper football.

[SNSUN]

I hate 3CBs, always have. This question is one of the easiest to answer. The worrying thing is that while our performances improved a bit after he was brought in as interim, Tonda seems wedded to the 3 CBs. 

The issue is, presently, we have no right backs fit and two left backs that aren't good defenders. Sort that out first. Also our better two CBs this season (low bar) have been THB and Wood, Jack is jack and I've  not been sold on Quarshie since he signed. Edwards meanwhile isn't even getting a look in. I think it's hideously ironic that two positions we have quantity (CB and striker) are the two positions that need improving most. 

[Killers Knee]

maybe the question should be how many midfielders 4 or 5

[Badger]

I’ve thought for a long time that the club have so little confidence in playing any two of the CB’s they put an extra body in to compensate. But 5 at the back , or 3 CB’s, isn’t working.

Edwards has been the surprise to me as he had good reviews at QPR but not given much opportunity here. Quarshie has potential but looks clumsy and no ball control. The rest all have mistakes in them, with THB the other with ‘potential’ (based more on reputation than reality). 

[bugenhagen]

2 hours ago, RedArmy said:

Yes. 
 

Although I will say that we played some of the most exciting football we’ve played in a decade during that little run last month, and that was with a back 3.

How much did those spells have to do with playing 3 at the back, though? When it was good, our right wing-back was an out and out winger, playing as a winger. 

When he has been pegged back, or replaced by Fraser and we play with a more classic wing-back role, it has looked pretty shit…

When it has looked good, our formation has resembled a 4231, and when it looks shit, it has resembled a 523.

[The Wyvern]

Makes little difference on the grand scheme of things. I’d probably go for a back 4, but it doesn’t warrant all the attention it seems to be getting. 

[danjosaint]

Apart from 4atb gives you and extra person in midfield, which is why we can get over run, keeps full backs back slightly so Manning wont get caught up field like he does, releases Fellows into his favoured position,  'should' be better communication from 2 cbs between themselves for who goes/drops/picks up unless we go zonal. Less space in behind to put in all these crosses and gives you options of 433, 4231 4141 all whilst trying to build a somewhat as best we can cb pairing which granted is difficult 

[aintforever]

It obviously can work if played right but I’ve never liked it. Unless you have decent wingbacks who offer a threat going forward all you are doing is adding a defensive player at the expense of a midfielder. It sometimes made sense when in the Prem but in this league we should be more attacking.

If we play it we should at least be flexible enough to take a CB off when it’s clearly not working, which has been often.

[saintant]

It's a close run thing but the vote for a back four seems to be edging it.

[saintant]

So we know that DellmcDellface is Tonda Eckert.

[Jack]

29 minutes ago, danjosaint said:

Apart from 4atb gives you and extra person in midfield, which is why we can get over run, keeps full backs back slightly so Manning wont get caught up field like he does, releases Fellows into his favoured position,  'should' be better communication from 2 cbs between themselves for who goes/drops/picks up unless we go zonal. Less space in behind to put in all these crosses and gives you options of 433, 4231 4141 all whilst trying to build a somewhat as best we can cb pairing which granted is difficult 

Manning should be where he belongs on the bench. He’s not as good at attacking as our left sided attackers, and he’s a far worse defender than just about anyone I’ve ever seen. And like you’re saying, when he does get up the pitch, he hasn’t got the pace, desire or ability to get back and help. Shouldn’t be in the side 

[davefizzy14]

Yeah we should go to a back four. We desperately need another body in the midfield so that we don't get overrun. It will also enable Fellows to be in his more favoured attacking forward position on the right. We have to get back to basics in order to start keeping clean sheets

Edited 5 hours ago by davefizzy14

[Lord Duckhunter]

Why do some people persist in calling it a back 5. FFS Fellowes & Manning are not playing FB. 
 

We haven’t got the full backs to play in a 4, and if anyone thinks THB & the rest of the gang would be any better at defending with only 2 centre halves they’re pretty optimistic. Baz will be Baz in a 4 as well, so it’s doubtful it’ll make much difference. Shite defending is shite defending, you can’t put lipstick on a pig.
 

 If having 3 centre halves enables us to play Fellowes, Azaz, AA & Leo whilst not giving up acres in the midfield then I edge in that direction. 

Edited 5 hours ago by Lord Duckhunter

[danjosaint]

                McCarthy 

Jelert     THB   Quarshie     ?

         Downes    Jander

Fellows        Azaz           Leo

                     AA 

So you can clearly fit them in playing a 4, also if the 3 are a bit offensive then move Jander into Azaz position,  then Bragg/Charles/Romeu(if fit) can fill in. Granted we need a bigger better 9 and a fit Jelert/Roeslav to attempt to have a couple of fb's

[bugenhagen]

18 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Why do some people persist in calling it a back 5. FFS Fellowes & Manning are not playing FB. 
 

We haven’t got the full backs to play in a 4, and if anyone thinks THB & the rest of the gang would be any better at defending with only 2 centre halves they’re pretty optimistic. Baz will be Baz in a 4 as well, so it’s doubtful it’ll make much difference. Shite defending is shite defending, you can’t put lipstick on a pig.
 

 If having 3 centre halves enables us to play Fellowes, Azaz, AA & Leo whilst not giving up acres in the midfield then I edge in that direction. 

I disagree. I believe playing with 3 or 5 at the back demands more of our shit defenders (and wing-backs). None of our lot is up to the task. We play with three sweepers, out of position, marking thin air most of the time.

I do agree with you that when it was working, it gave us the benefit of playing our best attackers, but that little bonus has stopped working, so I think we would be better off switching between a 4231 and a 433 depending on the game and opposition. 

[The Kraken]

28 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

 If having 3 centre halves enables us to play Fellowes, Azaz, AA & Leo whilst not giving up acres in the midfield then I edge in that direction. 

No reason that a back four would mean that can’t happen. A 4231 would have two of Jander/Downes/Charles, then Fellows Azaz and Leo as the 3 with Armstrong up top. If anything I think it would add more to midfield rather than take anything away.

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, danjosaint said:

                McCarthy 

Jelert     THB   Quarshie     ?

         Downes    Jander

Fellows        Azaz           Leo

                     AA 

So you can clearly fit them in playing a 4, also if the 3 are a bit offensive then move Jander into Azaz position,  then Bragg/Charles/Romeu(if fit) can fill in. Granted we need a bigger better 9 and a fit Jelert/Roeslav to attempt to have a couple of fb's

 

1 hour ago, The Kraken said:

No reason that a back four would mean that can’t happen. A 4231 would have two of Jander/Downes/Charles, then Fellows Azaz and Leo as the 3 with Armstrong up top. If anything I think it would add more to midfield rather than take anything away.

I’m not sure the full backs are good enough. We don’t really know what Jelert is like, and nobody is suggesting a left back. A back 4 without decent full backs will result in our progressive players having to help out defensively. Azaz & Leo  in particular are poor defensively and will be impacted with extra defensive responsibilities placed on them.  If we’ve got full backs that will keep getting beat in one on ones, they’ll need protection. If the central midfielders shuffle over, we’ll get out numbered in the middle. It’s inevitable that 2 of the attacking 3 will end up helping the full backs out.  There’s also the prospect of 1 less big man defending set pieces, as poor as we are doing so, I don’t see 1 less improving that. 
 

Im not dismissing it out of hand, but I’m  not convinced it will make much difference overall. I don’t think we will play any better than we did a few games ago, and I’m not sure we’ll defend any better. 

[Willo of Whiteley]

Sport Republic know best. Apparently.

For an “organisation” that is so stat driven I’m amazed they haven’t clocked the fact that if you have the worst GK in the league three years in a row you’ll continue to ship goals.

Likewise having five at the back doesn’t mean you concede any less goals than when you have four at the back.

[die Mannyschaft]

Back 4 all the, simple to understand and simple to execute. Any other formation needs a player directing things all the time

[ant]

In a 4-2-3-1 you're not actually that reliant on the full backs being strong defensively, as the central midfielders are the first line of defence. 

CDMs are a protective layer for the defenders, and recycle the ball for the attackers. They're not necessarily expected to contribute much to the latter. 

At the top, top level you may have some that can play box-to-box and, say, chip in with goals. But it's a bonus rather than necessity.

Scienza, Azaz, Fellows and Armstrong are our prime sources of goals and assists. So let them get on with that.

If nothing else Fellows would more frequently find himself in better positions to get on the attack, rather than starting deep - as he sometimes has to.

Seems a better, more pragmatic fit to the personnel we currently have, rather than trying to shoehorn a club philosophy at all costs.