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 6 hours 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 6 hours 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.

[Fabrice29]

1 minute ago, S-Clarke said:

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.

We attack like that anyway and it gets nullified by other teams because we have little other options. It's no surprise to me that the first time we've actually been able to bring on different player traits on we've got a reaction out of them tonight.

You cant just stretch play as an instruction. You need to create space to stretch into and teams actively are trying to counter that against us. So it's on us to come up with something different but we don't have other player types to do that. That is obviously on recruitment. I really find it mad people think the media team putting out a fancy graphic of us lining up in a 4231 would suddenly mean that front four become different players, it would still be playing in the same parts of the pitch, still be relying on precise interplay and dribbling and crucially it would still lack any kind of physical threat in the box or able to hold up play elsewhere.

[S-Clarke]

16 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

We attack like that anyway and it gets nullified by other teams because we have little other options. It's no surprise to me that the first time we've actually been able to bring on different player traits on we've got a reaction out of them tonight.

You cant just stretch play as an instruction. You need to create space to stretch into and teams actively are trying to counter that against us. So it's on us to come up with something different but we don't have other player types to do that. That is obviously on recruitment. I really find it mad people think the media team putting out a fancy graphic of us lining up in a 4231 would suddenly mean that front four become different players, it would still be playing in the same parts of the pitch, still be relying on precise interplay and dribbling and crucially it would still lack any kind of physical threat in the box or able to hold up play elsewhere.

You can - you can tell the wingers to hug the line, stay wide, keep the width. You can play with an extra CM to sit deeper, which allows Azaz/Jander/Bragg or whoever to step up higher. 

Azaz coming for the ball in the centre circle is all wrong, Azaz passing the ball back to the centre backs is all wrong. He shouldn't even be in that area. 

Space is created by moving the ball quickly, and also by stretching the game and having your wide players playing wide. We condense it too much through the middle through our safe backwards/sideways passing, you've even got Leo coming inside - and it's Manning who provides the width down the left side. 

I'm not saying we don't need a physical centre forward, we 100% do, but there's also so much more we need to do to our game to make the opposition sweat and think a bit. We make it so, so easy for everyone we play against. You could coach a non-league team to defend against us without much trouble.

[Fabrice29]

Just to add to my post above. Ipswich have 3 ‘target men’ or whatever you want to call it. They played 2 today and 1 in Hirst who I assume is injured. 3 players who through sheer energy, pace, strength and guile can turn bad balls info good ones, win a free kick through holding the play up, or turn a defender and turn play around. We have zero fit/available. It reduce pressure in an instant and they all are a threat from crosses in the box, good and bad ones.  For all of Armstrong and Archers endeavours they are limited in that and in the main they need good service and our whole attack needs to be precise and ruthless for it to be effective. That’s the difference, and no change in formation changes those facts, we’ll end up nullified by our own player limitations eventually whatever formation or manager. That’s why it should be top of the list of recruitment in January, especially as the two players in the squad who supposedly should be playing that role are unreliable. 

[Fabrice29]

14 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

You can - you can tell the wingers to hug the line, stay wide, keep the width. You can play with an extra CM to sit deeper, which allows Azaz/Jander/Bragg or whoever to step up higher. 

Azaz coming for the ball in the centre circle is all wrong, Azaz passing the ball back to the centre backs is all wrong. He shouldn't even be in that area. 

Space is created by moving the ball quickly, and also by stretching the game and having your wide players playing wide. We condense it too much through the middle through our safe backwards/sideways passing, you've even got Leo coming inside - and it's Manning who provides the width down the left side. 

I'm not saying we don't need a physical centre forward, we 100% do, but there's also so much more we need to do to our game to make the opposition sweat and think a bit. We make it so, so easy for everyone we play against. You could coach a non-league team to defend against us without much trouble.

This is all lovely written on a forum but in reality all it does it get worked out quickly and easier. All you’re doing is reducing our two best dribblers to small parts of the pitch on the wings, asking Manning to curb his natural instincts and best traits of overlapping and expecting a very inconsistent Azaz to conduct all our creative play. Like now, it’ll be great whilst it works and bad when it doesn’t. That’s fine, that’s the game, that’s tactics in general but we’re hampered by only having these bits to play with and that’ll always be the case until we’re not. Also not convinced that without Charles we have the physicality and confidence to play two in midfield that has to both run the game and protect a back four. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Fabrice29

[Saint Pete]

Formation being imposed by the club is inherently wrong, the manager/head coach should always have the power to decide what tactical plan is best in any given game. So if SR are imposing this as seems the case if its being employed in all Saints teams, then that is harming us. When Martin was in charge, it seemed like his philosophy was driving everything but maybe not?

3 at the back has its place, it certainly seemed to be suiting our attacking players in Tonda's first few games but there has to be flexibility and a willingness to adapt to availability of players and the opposition you are facing if you are gonna be successful?