Jump to content
IGNORED

Three at the back Y/N?


marcofisher

Three at the back Y/N?  

163 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Curious to see how the forum feels about our persistence to play with a back three? 

I am a fan of a back three, but we certainly do not have the players for it i.e Baker and wingers playing in wing back positions. 

Personally, I cannot wait to see us return to a back four. The quality of football has been absolutely dire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tears in rain said:

Baker can’t pass not mobile enough 

Willians can only play as the middle CB

Wright can’t pass and is prone to making mistakes 

Don’t have a ball playing CB like Ayling, or Webster 

Formation might help Dasilva and Hunt though 

Nail on the head. Completely inappropriate system for our personnel so why the stubborn refusal to adapt to what’s available. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tears in rain said:

Baker can’t pass not mobile enough 

Willians can only play as the middle CB

Wright can’t pass and is prone to making mistakes 

Don’t have a ball playing CB like Ayling, or Webster 

Formation might help Dasilva and Hunt though 

Is Hunt injured?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tears in rain said:

Baker can’t pass not mobile enough 

Willians can only play as the middle CB

Wright can’t pass and is prone to making mistakes 

Don’t have a ball playing CB like Ayling, or Webster 

Formation might help Dasilva and Hunt though 

Precisely what I am referring to. Plus it means we have to leave our most creative outlet in Eliasson on the bench! He will be itching to leave at the end of the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

I refuse to call it a 3 at the back. That suggests a modicum of positivity. 

It’s a 5 at the back and it’s an enormous no from me.  

It wasn't 5 at the back at all today unless you count Smith and Nagy.

Still, it's a no from me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a no from me, particularly with those players available at the moment. Neither wing back offers anything going forward and as such are effectively extra defenders. Add to that midfielders more adept at defending so, effectively, we have nine defensive type players and only two attacking type players. I'm omitting O'Dowda from any permutation, as he is a total waste of space in any position, at the moment. I think that's how we've ground out results so far. We usually get a little more freedom away from home but, we were just too feeble in most that we did tonight and were second best physically in nearly every challenge attempted. One special mention must go to Williams who did his best to get his legs going, sadly they were on a go slow tonight. Our defense lacked pace and it was exploited by a very good team, who were more skillful, quicker, decisive, bigger and set up properly in a formation they are used to which probably varies little, week on week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Septic Peg said:

Yes when Kalas, Williams and Moore in the side.

Would be even better with Hunt and Dasilva on the flanks just in front.

 

Otherwise, it's a no.

I'd go no , I always prefer the best 4 you have, but you make a good point. Where are our wing-backs at the moment anyway? Nowhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, AppyDAZE said:

I'd go no , I always prefer the best 4 you have, but you make a good point. Where are our wing-backs at the moment anyway? Nowhere.

Dasilva is still in recovery (last heard using an anti-gravity treadmill so it regulates the weight he puts on the foot).

Jack Hunt has just disappeared off the planet. Thought he only had a minor strain? That was nearly 4 weeks ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS Whose bright idea was it to get Wright and Baker to hug the touchlines in the first half? One bad pass from (as it turned out Josh) and we';re ******. Surely you're up against WBA a good team, don't you get all compact and difficult for the oppo to attack against first? Weird starting selection, and weird tactics tonight to say the least

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It

25 minutes ago, marcofisher said:

Curious to see how the forum feels about our persistence to play with a back three? 

I am a fan of a back three, but we certainly do not have the players for it i.e Baker and wingers playing in wing back positions. 

Personally, I cannot wait to see us return to a back four. The quality of football has been absolutely dire.

Feels much more like a back 5 than a back 3 to be honest. Then throw in the fact that we started with arguably 3 defensive midfielders tonight, it doesn’t exactly get you excited does it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, when you have the right 3 CB's available, the expansive game of our wing backs in how often they want to get forward would leave us too exposed in a back 4 and then limits the abilities of the WB's/FB's, Hunt provides a lot of assists, Rowe likes to get forward as well, they'd have to curb their intentions of getting forward for fear of leaving too little at the back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, phantom said:

Has to be Kalas Williams and Moore or flat back four

There seems to be an obsession with getting as many centre backs on the pitch as possible. It wasn't that long ago the back four were all centre backs

It's basically due the fact the gaffer looks at every game and thinks how can I go about not losing this game first. OK, it has worked to a degree. look at our league position.

But is the football great to watch in home games and does the atmosphere at AG get the blood pumping? If you think I'm talking shit, how many home games can you come up with where we have gone to town and put the oppo to bed? I'm talking about bread and butter home games. It never happens in all honesty.

Never. Yes the club is moving forward, but a warning.. if the football goes stale, it can all come tumbling down pretty quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with 3 at the back but I think people worry too much sbout formations. Whatever system is deployed its up to the players to do their job. 3 at the back isnt the reason we lost tonight. Brownhill getting robbed facing his own goal, Palmer trying to dribble out from the edge of our box and Bentley trying to pass to Nagy instead of kicking it long was. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, nickolas said:

Yes. But only because this generally then gives us 3 x cm to control midfield. Not tonight though! 
4231 for me now please. Eliasson MUST start games. 

4231 for me also. Have COD and AW playing as inside forwards, they can cut in or go wide, when they cut inside then that then allows the fb to get forward. Fam up top and Palmer playing CAM with Nagy and Smith as the CDMs. It's so bloody obvious. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

I don't have a problem with 3 at the back but I think people worry too much sbout formations. Whatever system is deployed its up to the players to do their job. 3 at the back isnt the reason we lost tonight. Brownhill getting robbed facing his own goal, Palmer trying to dribble out from the edge of our box and Bentley trying to pass to Nagy instead of kicking it long was. 

You may be highlighting a flaw with the formation. The three collectively are not comfortable on the ball. This means others have to drop in if the team are attempting to play out, it should still mean players drop but errors are frequently down to player skills not meeting team need.

In regards to Nagy. It was his error. He chose to drop in and let the ball roll across him. He should be checking for pressure and if its there play the way he is facing. A holding midfielder should be able to take a ball under light pressure and be able to receive retain release and repeat. Nagy was attempting the right thing to move the opposition and then did the wrong thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...