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 yesterday at 22:51 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 yesterday at 22:54 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 21 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? 

[Farmer Saint]

10 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

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 

Our defence is not good enough to play only 2 x CBs.

[Convict Colony]

9 hours ago, Willo of Whiteley said:

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.

I got you bro

Was checked against 54 seasons in total

All 33 EPLand 21 from 2004/5 championship. 

Very insightful stuff to be honest, with this adherence to 3 at the back its like we've arrived at the nightclub to pull 10mins before the lights turn on.

Edited 14 hours ago by Convict Colony

[Osvaldorama]

12 minutes ago, Convict Colony said:

I got you bro

Was checked against 54 seasons in total

All 33 EPLand 21 from 2004/5 championship. 

Very insightful stuff to be honest, with this adherence to 3 at the back it’s like we've arrived at the nightclub to pull 10mins before the lights turn on.

I could be wrong, but didn’t Brentford play the formation when they got promoted? 
 

I’ve always thought this is where it comes from. Rasmus’ trying to recreate his time at Brentford 

[Willo of Whiteley]

29 minutes ago, Convict Colony said:

I got you bro

Was checked against 54 seasons in total

All 33 EPLand 21 from 2004/5 championship. 

Very insightful stuff to be honest, with this adherence to 3 at the back its like we've arrived at the nightclub to pull 10mins before the lights turn on.

Any chance you have Sports Republic’s email?

Send it today, it’ll be a back four vs Millwall 🤣🤣

[Willo of Whiteley]

41 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Our defence is not good enough to play only 2 x CBs.

I disagree to a point.

Our best for of defence has always been to attack. Even in the last decade we have never been a team to grind out huge defensive displays, but we have been excellent at creating chances, something we were still doing up until recently.

Take the game to the opposition, make them crumble, not us, that then breeds confidence.

Basic football and basic psychology.

[egg]

57 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Our defence is not good enough to play only 2 x CBs.

Yep. 4 at the back and the full backs aren't getting forward, or are left exposed if they do. That said, I'd like to see us play a 4231 and see how we go.

[Harry_SFC]

59 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Our defence is not good enough to play only 2 x CBs.

Our defence isn't good enough with 3 so you might as well try and protect them better by having an extra man in midfield, no? 

[egg]

Just now, Harry_SFC said:

Our defence isn't good enough with 3 so you might as well try and protect them better by having an extra man in midfield, no? 

You want 433? If we go a back 4 it'd surely be 4231, so no more protection for the CB's, and one less of them. He could go full hipster and invert a full back I suppose. 

[Osvaldorama]

1 hour ago, Farmer Saint said:

Our defence is not good enough to play only 2 x CBs.

Don’t buy this at all. 
 

Look at our squad and compare it with anyone else in this league that is playing better than us with 4 at the back. 

It’s all down to coaching and set up. 

[Harry_SFC]

3 minutes ago, egg said:

You want 433? If we go a back 4 it'd surely be 4231, so no more protection for the CB's, and one less of them. He could go full hipster and invert a full back I suppose. 

Maybe one less crap defender would be a good thing. 

[egg]

1 minute ago, Harry_SFC said:

Maybe one less crap defender would be a good thing. 

That doesn't make sense. How is having one less defender on the pitch a good thing when the ones still playing are crap? Putting another CM in there and going 433 addresses that issue, but then there's no room for Azaz. 4231 and the players fit, but those 2 x CB's are so exposed. 

[Osvaldorama]

1 minute ago, egg said:

That doesn't make sense. How is having one less defender on the pitch a good thing when the ones still playing are crap? Putting another CM in there and going 433 addresses that issue, but then there's no room for Azaz. 4231 and the players fit, but those 2 x CB's are so exposed. 

Stephens won games at PL level. THB played for England and been promoted twice. 
Even Edwards was winning games in a back 4 for QPR. 

There are some absolute dross centre backs in this league playing in back fours that are performing better than ours. 

I just don’t buy this narrative at all. It’s all about setting the midfield up correctly in front of them. 

I’d much rather see a 4-3-3 than the turgid mess we are watching personally. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

We can’t play 4-3-3 with our full backs, it would be suicidal. 
 

The problem isn’t the 3 centre halves, it’s 3 shit centre halves. I know jack Stephens is the forum scapegoat but THB is just as bad and played worse yesterday, and wood has an appalling sense of danger. None of them pass the ball with the speed or urgency needed to break the press and when they do Downes bounces it back to them 90% of the time. The young lad isn’t any better, just a quicker version of the same old shit. Add to that the ghost like command of the area Baz has, I don’t see how is 2 centre halves going to be any better than 3. 
 

Who are the full backs going to be in a 4. I’m sure people will go on about the subs performance yesterday, but that was as a wing back, and his best moments we going forward, what’s he like defensively in a 4, we just don’t know, and the other side Manning clearly isn’t a full back that can defend in a 4. A combination of shit centre halves and no real decent full backs has left us where we are, and unless we get different personal in I don’t see much change whatever formation we play. We’d may let in different types of goals, but we’ll still let a bucket full in. 

[Farmer Saint]

26 minutes ago, Harry_SFC said:

Our defence isn't good enough with 3 so you might as well try and protect them better by having an extra man in midfield, no? 

No, because our issue seems to be marking, so having less players to mark is not a good idea.

[Farmer Saint]

22 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

Don’t buy this at all. 
 

Look at our squad and compare it with anyone else in this league that is playing better than us with 4 at the back. 

It’s all down to coaching and set up. 

Well, it's been an issue since Puel was here. We've had various different managers, coaches etc, and no-one has been able to sort it out.

[Lee On Solent Saint]

6 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

No, because our issue seems to be marking, so having less players to mark is not a good idea.

We zonal mark don't we? Maybe if we tried man marking at set pieces it might help. At least with man marking there is a degree of responsibility. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

26 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

Look at our squad and compare it with anyone else in this league that is playing better than us with 4 at the back. 

Our squad is only better than anyone else’s further up the pitch, our centre halves, full backs and keeper is the same level as everyone else’s (if not worse). Our formation has to be built around getting the best out of our best players and giving them less defending to do. 

[Convict Colony]

36 minutes ago, egg said:

You want 433? If we go a back 4 it'd surely be 4231, so no more protection for the CB's, and one less of them. He could go full hipster and invert a full back I suppose. 

think your formation would suit our midfield skillset bettter with jander going forward and downs stopping as well along with azaz central

[Lord Duckhunter]

38 minutes ago, Harry_SFC said:

Our defence isn't good enough with 3 so you might as well try and protect them better by having an extra man in midfield, no? 

What do you want 4-5-1? 
 

You yourself have said we play 3 at the back, therefore you’re confirming we already play with 4 across the midfield (2 CM and 2 wing backs) . If you want 4 at the back, and “one more”  in midfield, it will mean 4-5-1.

[Turkish]

36 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

Stephens won games at PL level. THB played for England and been promoted twice. 
Even Edwards was winning games in a back 4 for QPR. 

There are some absolute dross centre backs in this league playing in back fours that are performing better than ours. 

I just don’t buy this narrative at all. It’s all about setting the midfield up correctly in front of them. 

I’d much rather see a 4-3-3 than the turgid mess we are watching personally. 

Im with you. There has been a narrative that all our centre backs are so shit we have to play with 3. Like you say im no fan of Stephens but he has played over 100 premier league games, Harwood-Bellis has two promotions and an England cap on his CV, he played in a Burnley team which won the title with 101 points and only conceded 35 goals. Wood is competent at this level and we have Edwards and Quarise as our YHGTIers. You cant tell me that 2 of those 5, with two decent CDMs, Eleit and Rostov either side of them as full backs allowing us to play Fellows, Azaz and Scienza at an attacking 3 would do worse than the shambles we see every week defensively. 

Edited 12 hours ago by Turkish

[danjosaint]

I can't stand the 3/5 at the back but also agree 433 wont work because of our fbs so to me it has to be a 4231 or even a 4141 the issue with latter is we haven't the Rodri type player to take the ball from cbs on the half turn to feed the more creative guys, if it were to be Downes it would just be recycled to THB who suddenly thinks he can ping 60yd cross field balls like he did yesterday and pretty much all went out of play or lost possession 

Edited 12 hours ago by danjosaint

[Lord Duckhunter]

6 minutes ago, danjosaint said:

I can't stand the 3/5 at the back but also agree 433 wont work because of our fbs so to me it has to be a 4231

The problem is what happens if the FB’ s keep being isolated one on one. You can’t pull one of the CDM over to cover, or a centre half. What will happen is one of the attacking 3 behind AA will have to fill in. When playing poorly & being pressed back, 3 at the back ends up with wing backs becoming full backs. With this formation pressure means it becomes 4-5-1 instead of 4231. 
 

There’s no silver bullet. Shite keepers, full backs & centre halves are shite in any formation…

[EBS1980]

13 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

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 

Quite simply we don’t (or didn’t have until now) have a fit right back to enable us to play 4 at the back.

im sure if we played a centre back there instead people would be moaning saying just play 3/5 at the back instead.

 

[S-Clarke]

7 minutes ago, EBS1980 said:

Quite simply we don’t (or didn’t have until now) have a fit right back to enable us to play 4 at the back.

im sure if we played a centre back there instead people would be moaning saying just play 3/5 at the back instead.

 

Nah I don't truly buy that. When we had Mads and Jelert available earlier this season, we still played 5 at the back.

When Jelert came on yesterday we still played 5 at the back.

The idea seems to be that our attack needs to be supplied by our full backs, which I think is flawed. We've got Leo, Fellows, Robinson etc as wide players - let them supply the attack, let the full backs defend. We've even had Robinson and Fraser playing as wing backs this season, everything just seems so backwards - just out of absolute desperation to keep 5 at the back no matter what.

A lot can be made of formations, and sometimes too much focus is placed on them. In simple terms you need your best players in the 11 in their natural positions, but we don't do that - we shoehorn players into positions they're not as effective in, just to accommodate 5 at the back.

Edited 11 hours ago by S-Clarke

[Lee On Solent Saint]

I can't be arsed to look, but do the French and Turkish lads play the same system as we do?

[Farmer Saint]

50 minutes ago, Lee On Solent Saint said:

We zonal mark don't we? Maybe if we tried man marking at set pieces it might help. At least with man marking there is a degree of responsibility. 

True...