3 at the Back

[S-Clarke]

2 minutes ago, Lee On Solent Saint said:

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

Goztepe seem pretty wedded to 3 at the back/5 at the back, not sure about Valenciennes as there are no historical line-ups/formations listed anywhere I can see.

[Lee On Solent Saint]

2 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

Goztepe seem pretty wedded to 3 at the back/5 at the back, not sure about Valenciennes as there are no historical line-ups/formations listed anywhere I can see.

One for Christophe or Fred to answer there then. Possibly three teams playing the same system..........The SR way.

[aintforever]

Whatever system you play the manager should be flexible enough to change it when it clearly isn’t working. Yesterday was fucking awful, just endless passing between the full backs and centre backs because there were not enough options in midfield and there was no no9 who can hold the ball up.

1point from games against two shite opponents is just not good enough, even with a shite right back we would have done better with a more attacking 4-2-3-1 lineup IMO.

[Gloucester Saint]

2 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

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

It’s still not good enough with three CBs - witness the numerous free headers given away eg Coventry - and to boot it surrenders the midfield where we have got some of the better players in the league. Part of that is Manning making zero effort to stop/limit crosses coming in with total space and time to deliver on the spot and injured RBs (Bree needs to come in) but not all of it.

[Lord Duckhunter]

21 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

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

It was 3, not 5 

[sfc4prem]

Three 'central' defenders places greater emphasis on few things in my understanding (which may be severely limited!!):

- The quality of the central midfielder in using their presence to physically dominate, blocking runs and passes and being able to play on the turn to shift defense into attack

- The tenacity and drive of the wing backs to get up and down the pitch. Emphasis on stopping crosses and staying wide to not infringe on the two 'outer' central defenders

- The organisation, communication and reading of the game of the three 'centre backs'. Not leaving people unmarked, communicating positioning and responsibilities at set pieces or in open play when in the defensive third.

[S-Clarke]

2 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

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

I've seen this mentioned a few times now, it seems bonkers to suggest that a formation/tactical setup is being used to hide/dilute the limitations of the players we have. It's entirely backwards if that is the logic and it's not how formations are meant to be used.

Tactical setups/formations are in place to give you a foundation and structure to get the best out of the players you have in the squad profile, they're not there to be used as an aid to cover deficiencies and gaps in individual quality.

Let me suggest something ground breaking - maybe to cover deficiencies, you buy better players? Just thinking outside the box here. But no, they keep renewing the contracts of these poor players so we're in a groundhog day loop.

[Willo of Whiteley]

Three CBs highlights the following for me:

- Less attacking threat

- Overrun in midfield, permanently 

- Less chances created

- Just how many we continue to concede even with more defenders on the pitch, it’s no worse than two CBs

- Just how poor they are

- An inability to win a header in our own penalty area

 

It’s not rocket science

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, Willo of Whiteley said:

Three CBs highlights the following for me:

- Less attacking threat

- Overrun in midfield, permanently 

- Less chances created

- Just how many we continue to concede even with more defenders on the pitch, it’s no worse than two CBs

- Just how poor they are

- An inability to win a header in our own penalty area

 

It’s not rocket science

Why is there less attacking threat? 
 

How many players do you want in midfield?
 

Do you think we should be creating more chances than we did against Charlton, Leicester, WBA, first Birmingham game or even Swansea  at home.

Why would replacing a centre half with Jelert result in being able to defend crosses better. Surely it would make our “inability to win a header” even worse. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, S-Clarke said:

Let me suggest something ground breaking - maybe to cover deficiencies, you buy better players? Just thinking outside the box here. But no, they keep renewing the contracts of these poor players so we're in a groundhog day loop.

That’s a completely different argument, which re enforces the point as to why we’re playing 3 centre halves. 

[AlexLaw76]

If having 3 CBs is better to deal with crosses, why not have 4? Or, throw one in the middle of the park and have 5?

the point about 3 at the back is that it leaves us consistently light in midfield and we are too quickly defending the 18 yard line. This coupled with glaring gaps behind Manning and Fellows, which requires a CB constantly being pulled wide. THB is half decent at this but fuck me, Stephens is shite.

people are pointing out how bad Romeu looks, but he is clearly completely unsuited to a 2 in midfield in our set up. The amount of grass our 2 CMs need to cover is phenomenal. Put Romeu at the base of a 3 and he will look better than he does. 
 

Against half decent teams, we are no struggling to get out and up the pitch consistently… why? Generally we are defending the 18 yard line as the midfield is easily bypassed.

Now that Jelert is back and Bree is potentially a couple of weeks away from returning to the club, I hope that we change it up as this set up has been part of an appalling premier league campaign and a Championship season to forget (so far)

Edited 6 hours ago by AlexLaw76

[Harry_SFC]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

If having 3 CBs is better to deal with crosses, why not have 4? Or, throw one in the middle of the park and have 5?

the point about 3 at the back is that it leaves us consistently light in midfield and we are too quickly defending the 18 yard line. This coupled with glaring gaps behind Manning and Fellows, which requires a CB constantly being pulled wide. THB is half decent at this but fuck me, Stephens is shite.

people are pointing out how bad Romeu looks, but he is clearly completely unsuited to a 2 in midfield in our set up. The amount of grass our 2 CMs need to cover is phenomenal. Put Romeu at the base of a 3 and he will look better than he does. 
 

Against half decent teams, we are no struggling to get out and up the pitch consistently… why? Generally we are defending the 18 yard line as the midfield is easily bypassed.

Now that Jelert is back and Bree is potentially a couple of weeks away from returning to the club, I hope that we change it up as this set up has been part of an appalling premier league campaign and a Championship season to forget (so far)

The gap between the defence/midfield two and the front 3 was huge yesterday, especially in the first half. No control in there what so ever. 

[chownie20]

3 hours ago, S-Clarke said:

I've seen this mentioned a few times now, it seems bonkers to suggest that a formation/tactical setup is being used to hide/dilute the limitations of the players we have. It's entirely backwards if that is the logic and it's not how formations are meant to be used.

Tactical setups/formations are in place to give you a foundation and structure to get the best out of the players you have in the squad profile, they're not there to be used as an aid to cover deficiencies and gaps in individual quality.

Let me suggest something ground breaking - maybe to cover deficiencies, you buy better players? Just thinking outside the box here. But no, they keep renewing the contracts of these poor players so we're in a groundhog day loop.

I think it's utter rubbish our CBs are so poor we need three of them. THB has been promoted out of this division twice playing in a back four. Stephens is easily championship quality and proved this when he went out on loan to Bournemouth. Putting them in a three makes them look worse as they aren't doing what they've learned for twenty years in terms of how a back four and CB pairing operate together and a unit

[chownie20]

1 hour ago, AlexLaw76 said:

If having 3 CBs is better to deal with crosses, why not have 4? Or, throw one in the middle of the park and have 5?

the point about 3 at the back is that it leaves us consistently light in midfield and we are too quickly defending the 18 yard line. This coupled with glaring gaps behind Manning and Fellows, which requires a CB constantly being pulled wide. THB is half decent at this but fuck me, Stephens is shite.

people are pointing out how bad Romeu looks, but he is clearly completely unsuited to a 2 in midfield in our set up. The amount of grass our 2 CMs need to cover is phenomenal. Put Romeu at the base of a 3 and he will look better than he does. 
 

Against half decent teams, we are no struggling to get out and up the pitch consistently… why? Generally we are defending the 18 yard line as the midfield is easily bypassed.

Now that Jelert is back and Bree is potentially a couple of weeks away from returning to the club, I hope that we change it up as this set up has been part of an appalling premier league campaign and a Championship season to forget (so far)

Agree with this.

And id say the reason we don't win headers is again because we don't have two center backs and then the usual arrangements where the far full back tucks in to defend and the near fullback tries to stop the cross. It's simple but we're re writing what typical defenders have learned and played for years. It isn't easy to adapt when so much of defending is positional as a group. People don't know where to be and who's role/man is whose.

Edited 5 hours ago by chownie20

[Wade Garrett]

Fucking ridiculous when we could have Jelert and Fellows playing on the right, Welington and Scienza on the left and Azaz pulling the strings in the 10.

We would be fucking murdering teams.  Instead, we have to watch more slow crab football that is so easy to play against.

Surely Eckert will consider this now.  If he doesn’t, he must be another laptop fraud of a manager.

[skintsaint]

1 hour ago, Wade Garrett said:

Fucking ridiculous when we could have Jelert and Fellows playing on the right, Welington and Scienza on the left and Azaz pulling the strings in the 10.

We would be fucking murdering teams.  Instead, we have to watch more slow crab football that is so easy to play against.

This. Such a waste of talent using this current system, not playing to their strengths.

[saintant]

7 hours 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. 

If we really do zonal mark then Tonda is bonkers because it's one of the most stupid things you can do.

Edited 1 hour ago by saintant

[Lord Duckhunter]

4 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

the point about 3 at the back is that it leaves us consistently light in midfield 

How many players do you want in midfield? 

[Willo of Whiteley]

Most teams in this division have three in midfield, most teams in general play with a midfield three now because it adds a lot of flex in terms of defending and attacking.

No one can tell me that Jander and Downes were dominating the middle of the park against Birmingham last night.

As for anyone that want to compare to Leicester, Charlton or West Brom - those games were when our tactics were fresh under a new coach - hard to do homework on something you’re not sure about, one was down to ten men and on the back foot, and the other decided to push that high up the pitch and were and are currently showing how poor they are.