3 at the Back

[Lord Duckhunter]

Just now, Willo of Whiteley said:

Ducky playing devils advocate for every possible tactical decision, team selection, formation etc, etc.

What you on about man. It’s called an opinion. When people are suggesting a centre half pairing of THB & Stephens, should I just say “ah ok, good idea”.

When we’ve had pages of people suggesting we need 3 central midfielders, pointing out that some suggestions have exactly the same numbers in there isn’t playing devils advocate, it’s having a discussion.

I’ve seen nothing suggested which will have us playing as well as we did last month, nothing. But if you want me to pretend I have, what sort of debate is that.

The reason we’re mid table is because we’ve got a ghost in nets, poor defenders and a weak mentality, that’s not going away regardless of which formation we play. 3 at the back is a red herring imo. 

[whelk]

21 minutes ago, Turkish said:

this is the team chatgpt recommended so at least we know AI isn't picking the team

Best Formation: 4-2-3-1 (Fluid / Wide Support)

 

Bazunu

Jelert / Roerslev Harwood-Bellis Edwards Bree / Manning

Downes Jander

Fellows Azaz Scienza

Armstrong

 

It also says

🧠 Bottom Line

Southampton aren’t struggling because a back three is bad.

They’re struggling because:

• ❌ Wrong CB profiles

• ❌ No real wing-backs

• ❌ Midfield imbalance

• ❌ Isolated striker

• ❌ Championship intensity punishes passive shapes

Best fix:

👉 Ditch the back three
👉 Return to 4-2-3-1 / 4-3-3
👉 Build around Downes + creativity + real wingers

All things we've said tbf

How many goals does it think Damion Downs will score this season?

[saintstowin]

A stat before the Birmingham game said we were last and second last in the division for goals conceded and (I think) shots or chances conceded - away from home. I didn't realise it was quite that stark. So something is obviously terrible.

I think we were protected somewhat the last time we were in the championship by the sheer volume of possession. And even then we conceded way too many considering our dominance.

With some similar names in defence  and less dominance especially away it's no surprise we're rubbish. 

The issues run deeper than formation, but having said that, surely getting more time on the ball further up the pitch (with 4 at the back and that spare player contributing in midfield) we would take pressure off a dodgy defence who clearly cannot cope for any length of time.

[Turkish]

The way i see it is that the issue with 3 at the back isnt that all our centre backs are shit, it's that they're all similar. All ball playing type centre backs who lack leadership, power and pace. Quarsie was meant to be the big, strong, powerful one but he isn't really ready yet, Stephens is meant to be the leader but isn't the other 3 all quite similar. None of them particularly dominant or mobile. 

[Turkish]

30 minutes ago, whelk said:

How many goals does it think Damion Downs will score this season?

would THRIVE in a 4-2-3-1

Expected Goals this Season (Championship 2025/26):

• Optimistic projection: 8–10 goals

• Realistic development target: 6–8 goals

• If struggles continue: 3–5 goals

Best Tactical Fit for Downs

• 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3

• Ball served into the box and runs in behind

• Supported by wide players and creative #10

[Willo of Whiteley]

Jack Stephens and Gavin Bazunu do nothing other than hinder the team.

Lack of real leadership or authority on the pitch, so much for the supposed leader tag off it.

Those two you could replace with any other player and I don’t think it would make too much difference.

[The Wyvern]

16 minutes ago, Turkish said:

The way i see it is that the issue with 3 at the back isnt that all our centre backs are shit, it's that they're all similar. All ball playing type centre backs who lack leadership, power and pace. Quarsie was meant to be the big, strong, powerful one but he isn't really ready yet, Stephens is meant to be the leader but isn't the other 3 all quite similar. None of them particularly dominant or mobile. 

Surely Wood is in as a physical presence and isn’t considered primarily as a ball playing centre back? 

[coalman]

14 minutes ago, Turkish said:

The way i see it is that the issue with 3 at the back isnt that all our centre backs are shit, it's that they're all similar. All ball playing type centre backs who lack leadership, power and pace. Quarsie was meant to be the big, strong, powerful one but he isn't really ready yet, Stephens is meant to be the leader but isn't the other 3 all quite similar. None of them particularly dominant or mobile. 

Playing three mediocre centre backs isn't a replacement for two competent ones. And leaves us woefully light in midfield. Net result we get overrun and peppered with crosses. Which our centre backs aren't good with. Extra bonus is it's easy to shut down our out ball.

[saintant]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

There’s no way on earth that side plays as well as we did at Charlton, Birmingham home, WBA or Leicester, no chance. Jelert seems to be the latest member of “the less you play, the better you become” club. Nobody knows how he’ll pan out, he maybe the answer. But if he’s not Fellowes will need to cover him, and nothing I’ve seen suggests Wellington won’t need Leo’s help defensively. If we play that side, I’ll be putting my hands over my eyes when every corner, free kick or cross goes into the box, and with that lack of any pace centrally will kill us unless McCarthy’s starting position is incredibly high. Stephens & THB, I don’t know why you’re pretending that’s the answer…

 

Do you not do that already because I do 🙂

[saintant]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

This side is ok, better than other suggestions. But, some people wrote they didn’t like 3 at the back because it left us light in midfield, so I presume they won’t like just having 2 in there centrally (or maybe that’s not the reason).
 

That pic perfectly illustrates my concerns. Azaz is woeful defensively, so won’t be able to drop into the central midfield. It’s inevitable that Fellowes & Leo will get pushed back and end up helping out the full backs when we’re under pressure. Whereas in a 3, the wider centre halves can help out and the other 2 shuffle over.

 

 

 

 

Surely in this illustration Charles helps out on the left and Jander on the right - they are allowed to move to assist our fullbacks if required. The system has to be fluid and adapt to when we go forward or defensively when we are being pushed back. These are supposed to be pro footballers so none of this should be rocket science to them. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

23 minutes ago, coalman said:

Playing three mediocre centre backs isn't a replacement for two competent ones. And leaves us woefully light in midfield.

We haven’t got 2 competent ones.
 

The suggestion of 4-3-3 doesn’t address this either. 

[Lee On Solent Saint]

55 minutes ago, saintstowin said:

I think we were protected somewhat the last time we were in the championship by the sheer volume of possession. And even then we conceded way too many considering our dominance.

That sheer volume of possession amounted to countless sideways and backward passes between the centre backs and keeper mostly.

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 minutes ago, saintant said:

Surely in this illustration Charles helps out on the left and Jander on the right - they are allowed to move to assist our fullbacks if required. The system has to be fluid and adapt to when we go forward or defensively when we are being pushed back. These are supposed to be pro footballers so none of this should be rocket science to them. 

People’s concerns were the lack of numbers in the central midfield, if one of the players is helping out a full back, what’s that doing for numbers centrally? 
 

Every system is fluid on paper, including 3 centre halves. If THB has to shift over to give Fellowes support, then the other 2 centre halves move over and Manning drops into a left full back position. 
 

The problem Tonda has created for himself which is driving the calls for a back 4, is he insists on keeping 3 centre halves on the pitch no matter what the game situation is. Plenty of times he should have removed one, but hasn’t. So we’ve ended up with 3 centre halves against 10 men, and 3 when we’re chasing the game and sides are defending deep. I’ve no problem with a back 4, but in my opinion the players we have available at the moment are suited to setting up as a 3. Our best performances have been in a 3, and personally I think it’s gets the best out of Leo, AA & Azaz. It takes slightly away from Fellowes game, but not as much as Azaz or Leo’s game if they had to fill in defensively a bit more. 

[coalman]

11 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

We haven’t got 2 competent ones.
 

The suggestion of 4-3-3 doesn’t address this either. 

No it doesn't. But at least we'd be playing football further away from our goal and might stop more crosses from coming in.

[saintant]

2 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

People’s concerns were the lack of numbers in the central midfield, if one of the players is helping out a full back, what’s that doing for numbers centrally? 
 

Every system is fluid on paper, including 3 centre halves. If THB has to shift over to give Fellowes support, then the other 2 centre halves move over and Manning drops into a left full back position. 
 

The problem Tonda has created for himself which is driving the calls for a back 4, is he insists on keeping 3 centre halves on the pitch no matter what the game situation is. Plenty of times he should have removed one, but hasn’t. So we’ve ended up with 3 centre halves against 10 men, and 3 when we’re chasing the game and sides are defending deep. I’ve no problem with a back 4, but in my opinion the players we have available at the moment are suited to setting up as a 3. Our best performances have been in a 3, and personally I think it’s gets the best out of Leo, AA & Azaz. It takes slightly away from Fellowes game, but not as much as Azaz or Leo’s game if they had to fill in defensively a bit more. 

I get a lot of what you are saying. However, now is surely the perfect time to experiment with different formations and players. Let's face it the way we are bumbling along we won't get near the top six and we won't get relegated. Something has to change and experimenting now is the way to find a way of playing that maximises our squad and their strengths and weaknesses.

[Lord Duckhunter]

9 minutes ago, coalman said:

But at least we'd be playing football further away from our goal and might stop more crosses from coming in.

You’ve more faith in Manning & Wellington stopping crosses than I have. I’d want to double up and somebody sat in front of them to stop that. 4-5-1, or 4-4-2. In manning’s case probably 4-6-0.

I actually think this is one of the reasons we play 3, we’re so shite at stopping crosses, that we’ve got an extra body to deal with the ones that come in. The problem is, we’re equally shite at dealing with them as stoping them, and if we were really serious about dealing with crosses, would have binned Baz for AM. 
 

It’s a mess defensively which ever formation we play. Poor centre halves and piss poor full backs. 

Edited 2 hours ago by Lord Duckhunter

[coalman]

1 minute ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

You’ve more faith in Manning & Wellington stopping crosses than I have. I’d want to double up and somebody sat in front of them to stop that. 4-5-1, or 4-4-2. In manning’s case probably 4-6-0.

I actually think this is one of the reasons we play 3, we’re so shite at stopping crosses, that we’ve got an extra body to deal with the ones that come in. The problem is, we’re equally shite at dealing with them as stoping them, and if we were really serious about dealing with crosses, would have binned Baz for AM. 
 

It’s a mess defensively which ever formation we play. 

I really don't have faith in them 😉. Nor do I disagree with you.

I'd rather have my cover further up the pitch though. Playing three centre backs doesn't appear to make us harder to score against.

[Lee On Solent Saint]

1 minute ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

that we’ve got an extra body to deal with the ones that come in.

I feel having that extra body to deal with crosses is our biggest issue. One of the three will quite often leave it for one of the other two to deal with, which more often than not means it doesn't get dealt with. Even with a three we still seem to be experts at marking space when a ball comes in. There is a massive issue with them taking any sort of responsibilty for marking. Maybe a two would ensure a little more responsibilty in marking, but then again I doubt it.

[Lord Duckhunter]

7 minutes ago, Lee On Solent Saint said:

There is a massive issue with them taking any sort of responsibilty for marking. Maybe a two would ensure a little more responsibilty in marking, but then again I doubt it.

I think a lot of modern coaches don’t like coaching the ugly part of the game. I don’t think they want to put the hours and hours of drilling needed to perfect the art. There’s absolutely no doubt in my mind that had Tony Pullis come in after Still, THB, Wood, Stephens, all of them would be getting their head on the ball, making blocks & last ditch tackles. AM would be in bloody nets as well. 
 

Players don’t like being drilled defensively, remember Lego said he played the way he did because he didn’t enjoy just heading it and kicking it when he was a player. They all think they’re Pep nowadays…

[Midfield_General]

Can’t be arsed to read the whole thread so sorry if it’s already been said, but one of our main issues at the back is the total lack of anyone who can organise it. Fonte was brilliant at it and instantly made all the players around him better because he continually instructed them and made them work as a cohesive unit. 

None of our defenders or keepers have that sort of football brain and without at least one player doing that effectively, you’ll struggle regardless of who’s playing and what formation they’re in. 

Stephens and THB think leadership is shouting and waving their arms. It isn’t. It’s nous and the ability to tea the game and organise. 

[hypochondriac]

I'd agree with @Lord Duckhunter if we had a few games trying a new formation to see if we perform much worse. We concede multiple goals most games anyway. Maybe a change of formation will allow us to play to our strengths more and pose even more of a goal threat and out score teams.

[hypochondriac]

Tonda not dogmatic about formation apparently. Could have fooled me! Has he played anything other than three at the back at any point ?

[whelk]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Tonda not dogmatic about formation apparently. Could have fooled me! Has he played anything other than three at the back at any point ?

TBF it had a decent start, just unraveled recently. Although don’t think it is so simplistic and more players attitudes and abilities that is letting us down

Edited 1 hour ago by whelk

[macca155]

Plenty of teams play 3 at the back successfully, it's a formation that's been around for years. Problem is our CBs simply aren't  good enough, the midfield is easily overwhelmed, and it becomes 5 at the back for sustained periods.

I hate to admire anything AI, but that Chatgpt analysis seemed pretty spot on, 'passive play is overwhelmed by championship intensity' ..... sounds familiar.

I keep going on about Bragg, but the Charlton game was pretty unique. Bragg has a physical presence, and an eye for a forward pass. That's was all our forwards needed. Downes and Jander are blockers and disrupters, very good ones, but their instinct is to pass sideways.

His lordship is right, the defenders are not coached in the basics, there isn't a leader. It isn't working so Tonda for all our sakes just try 3 in the middle and drop a CB.

[hypochondriac]

33 minutes ago, whelk said:

TBF it had a decent start, just unraveled recently. Although don’t think it is so simplistic and more players attitudes and abilities that is letting us down

No problem with him playing it when it's a surprise and teams haven't adapted. Once it becomes obvious that we've been found out we need another way of playing. We haven't shown we can do anything other than one thing.

[hypochondriac]

50 minutes ago, macca155 said:

Plenty of teams play 3 at the back successfully, it's a formation that's been around for years. Problem is our CBs simply aren't  good enough, the midfield is easily overwhelmed, and it becomes 5 at the back for sustained periods.

I hate to admire anything AI, but that Chatgpt analysis seemed pretty spot on, 'passive play is overwhelmed by championship intensity' ..... sounds familiar.

I keep going on about Bragg, but the Charlton game was pretty unique. Bragg has a physical presence, and an eye for a forward pass. That's was all our forwards needed. Downes and Jander are blockers and disrupters, very good ones, but their instinct is to pass sideways.

His lordship is right, the defenders are not coached in the basics, there isn't a leader. It isn't working so Tonda for all our sakes just try 3 in the middle and drop a CB.

We can also play it successfully at times. The issue is when we aren't playing it successfully or we have teams who can play against it easily. What then?