3 at the Back

[AlexLaw76]

Any one offer a suggestion why our club is seemingly fixated on this (god awful) system?

how is it that we seem to stumble on managers who prefer this formation, even in the case of Still who prefer a different set up.

 

just fucking weird 

[Osvaldorama]

It’s enforced from the top down. 
 

Some spreadsheet or metric dictates it. 

Only thing that makes sense, because anyone with a brain can see it’s fucking abysmal 

[tdmickey3]

The Southampton way but a ineffective way

[Sheaf Saint]

The way we were being so overrun in midfield in the first half for the umpteenth time this season, it truly beggars belief that we persist with it. 

[sockeye]

It sounds ridiculous saying it out loud but surely at this point someone is pushing for it even if it’s not an outright mandate?

[RedArmy]

The Rasmus way. 

[JohnnyShearer2.0]

The goalkeeper and the defence dont make it work. 

Coaching behind the scenes must be awful.

[Harry_SFC]

It's quite clearly a club thing at this point.

[S-Clarke]

It encourages the backwards passing because the 3 CB's are always free to receive the ball, it's pretty much simple to everyone - right? Why can we all see it yet we keep persisting with it? The oppo are more than happy for us to do what we're doing.

Stick an extra CM in midfield, and encourage more progressive passing as we have extra bodies up field. That's where we need them.

I'm bored shitless, absolutely tired of watching Wood > Stephens> THB > Bazunu > THB > Wood > Stephens > Manning > Bazunu. Just bored. It's pointless.

It's the ultimate propaganda football and it's killing us stone dead. It's a club strategy, clearly, that's why we only get yes men who agree to do it - the U21's and U18's play the same way. 

At this point it's basically self sabotage.

[beatlesaint]

It might be alright if we had three good central defenders and at least one who would carry the ball forward with purpose, but we haven’t so it’s pointless.

 

[davefizzy14]

We have to go to a back four. We need an extra body in midfield.

Edited 1 hour ago by davefizzy14

[bugenhagen]

1 minute ago, davefizzy14 said:

We have to go to a back four. We need an extra body in midfield.

Sadly, we need new owners for that to happen...

[S-Clarke]

5 minutes ago, beatlesaint said:

It might be alright if we had three good central defenders and at least one who would carry the ball forward with purpose, but we haven’t so it’s pointless.

 

One of the reasons coaches play 3 at the back is to enable more control of the ball from the defensive third, and through the middle thirds of the pitch. Then you have progressive attacking full backs able to stretch the play (go back to Wolves in their pomp - Ait-Nouri and Semedo). But it doesn't work for us because we have a winger at RB and one of the worst LB's (if not the worst) in the entire league.

For this tactic to be truly successful you need progressive ball playing CB's like John Stones, who can feed the ball into a Rodri/KDB type - with progressive wing backs pushing high. We have Manning, Nathan Wood and Jack Stephens, with Downes receiving it in CM.

It's never going to work. I don't know why we can see it, but the guys paid £100000's more than us can't.

Edited 1 hour ago by S-Clarke

[LGTL]

Have to say this is one of the more bizarre periods of following Saints. I’ve never been one for outlandish conspiracy theories but I do have a very strong suspicion that 3 at the back is the whole club philosophy and that it’s here to stay. Which is completely fucking mental. 

[tdmickey3]

19 minutes ago, beatlesaint said:

It might be alright if we had three good central defenders and at least one who would carry the ball forward with purpose, but we haven’t so it’s pointless.

 

Winning a header in our own box would be help 

[Willo of Whiteley]

Can someone compile a spreadsheet of the number of seasons where a team that play with three CB won the league in either the Premier League or Championship?

I can only recall Wolves under Nuno. 

Not a single other team can I recall someone getting promoted with this weird hybrid back five/three formation that leaves you with no attacking threat and overrun in midfield.

Can someone pass that stat onto Sports Republic? Ta.

[Willo of Whiteley]

It’s very simple stuff.

Three CB’s invites pressure as you have less of a midfield.
Your “wing backs” become full backs and form a back five.
You get pinned in defensively and will struggle to get out.

An extra player in midfield or up top allows flexibility and puts the opposition on the back foot.

For a team of our supposed attacking talent we don’t half do our best to waste it.

[Fabrice29]

A way of getting height in the team in a league where set pieces are big.

Allows Fellows to pick up the ball from deep rather than playing high up and not having a target man to play off.

Without the target man we only have one or two ways out so it gives extra passing options as we cant go long.

[S-Clarke]

Just now, Fabrice29 said:

A way of getting height in the team in a league where set pieces are big.

Allows Fellows to pick up the ball from deep rather than playing high up and not having a target man to play off.

Without the target man we only have one or two ways out so it gives extra passing options as we cant go long.

Given that we concede from most set pieces, it doesn't particularly add much - if anything. I've always felt 3 at the back confuses the situation more than aids it. 

I think too much can be played on the 'target man' line, not all teams play with a target man - the key is to move the ball quickly, stretch the game and open it up and get yourselves in behind. Fellows playing deep does not allow us to do that, especially against teams who press up against him - it means he has to focus on defending, which just nullifies his influence. 

Stick him wide right, Leo wide left, Azaz in the 10. Play forward quickly through the midfield and stretch the play - not relying on wing backs, but actual wingers, to provide the width. Let Leo and Fellows commit and run at players higher up the pitch, that's where they're dangerous.