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

10 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I am a fan, with either the right players, or against the right opposition.

Tonight’s game might have you thinking a back 4 - 442 (second half) ain’t the answer either ?

Not the game to over-react.

Its a interesting one though as injuries arent helping the formation. I think with everyone fit 3 5 2 is great yet it does heavily rely on good wing backs to give us chances . 

When we have Hunt and Dasilva as wingbacks you kind of justify not starting Elliason but otherwise IMO he must start . In a 442 elliason starts everytime but in a  3-5-2 i suppose his best position is in front of the two cms let him float or drift to either wing to cross? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes with the right players, think too many have jumped the gun and voted based on our back 3 last night.

Moore, Williams and Kalas. With Hunt and Rowe have looked really good. (Will probably look even better with Dasilva back).

Wright should never be seen anywhere near a back 3 again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was reasonably favourable to 3/5 at the back but now I'm not so sure...

IF we had all fit and we had Hunt-Moore-Kalas-Baker/Williams-DaSilva then things could look quiite different. Moore and Kalas are better suited, better suited to the high line too by dint of age- Baker, Williams and Wright would not be, either due to style or age.

Though none of them are a Webster, I do believe from a style POV ie closest we have, and a suitability POV in terms of a higher line, Kalas and Moore would be an ideal CB pairing. Williams did play at Swansea but he's 35- when you get to that age, this sort of tactic isn't so ideal.

Revert to a back 4 now I think and consider afresh when we have a pretty clean bill of health.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours 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

That system worked very well though, if we're talking about 2 years ago when we had all the injuries?

Can work and actually be good both to watch and in terms of effectiveness, but needs exactly the right personnel- just one style change and the balance all wrong.

Think it was:

                Fielding

Wright Baker Flint Magnússon

Brownhill Pack Smith Bryan

             Paterson

             Reid

Just one change though- ie Diedhiou for Paterson or I don't know, Eliasson for Magnússon with Bryan dropping back to LB and the balance is out the window. Was asymmetrical but worked a treat!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

That system worked very well though, if we're talking about 2 years ago when we had all the injuries?

Can work and actually be good both to watch and in terms of effectiveness, but needs exactly the right personnel- just one style change and the balance all wrong.

Think it was:

                Fielding

Wright Baker Flint Magnússon

Brownhill Pack Smith Bryan

             Paterson

             Reid

Just one change though- ie Diedhiou for Paterson or I don't know, Eliasson for Magnússon with Bryan dropping back to LB and the balance is out the window. Was asymmetrical but worked a treat!

That team at times played sooo much better football, not always getting the best results tho 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, cidercity1987 said:

Well you either play 4-4-2 with two solid deep lying CMs or some variation including a third but very attacking CM 

A Burnley type 4-4-2 perhaps. If we want to take the game to the opposition then I see 4-4-2 in the traditional sense as posing us a problem. 

Nagy and Masesngo deeper, Brownhilll as the central one of the '3' in a 4-2-3-1 maybe a way to go! Would free up Brownhill a bit, yet he has the capability to drop back into a central 3 during other phases.

3 minutes ago, Sturny said:

That team at times played sooo much better football, not always getting the best results tho 

Got some very good results for a time- was an excellent spell and the best football in years. In theory a return to a similar shape, often wondered about how best we could do that with the current personnel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

A Burnley type 4-4-2 perhaps. If we want to take the game to the opposition then I see 4-4-2 in the traditional sense as posing us a problem. 

Nagy and Masesngo deeper, Brownhilll as the central one of the '3' in a 4-2-3-1 maybe a way to go! Would free up Brownhill a bit, yet he has the capability to drop back into a central 3 during other phases.

Got some very good results for a time- was an excellent spell and the best football in years. In theory a return to a similar shape, often wondered about how best we could do that with the current personnel.

I wonder this too. Didn't we stop using those tactics because of heavy injuries? And now with different tactics we've had arguably more injuries with a larger squad. 

I miss when we used to apply very heavy pressure 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sturny said:

I wonder this too. Didn't we stop using those tactics because of heavy injuries? And now with different tactics we've had arguably more injuries with a larger squad. 

I miss when we used to apply very heavy pressure 

Think we started using the 4-4-1-1 initially due to injuries. Was an unexpected masterstroke or pure luck, kind of forced upon us due to the injuries.

Possibly more burnout than injuries was why we stopped but maybe LJ lost his nerve a bit- we've long abandoned that shape and mindset but the injuries just keep on rolling!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin
58 minutes ago, Trueredsupporter said:

the options simply are not good enough. no ball playing CB.

I watched the game on TV last night and was surprised how often Williams brought the ball out of defence, very much in the style that Webster was previously

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted yes but with Kalas and Moore as two of the 3 and Desilva and Hunt as the wing backs high up the pitch. 
However if we want to get Eliasson in the pitch need to go 433 or 451 with Brownhill as the most forward of the 5 as he’s our only midfielder who’s got a goal in him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/11/2019 at 09:09, Fordy62 said:

Thanks. I think we miss him massively. 

 

34 minutes ago, Tears in rain said:

He had hit a good vein of form before that as well which is really irritating. 

We had finally started using him in a position that suited him and he was starting to shine. I rate Pereira just as much, but he is a lot more suited to being a full back, not a wing back like Hunt.

Time to stop putting square pegs in round holes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

I think we need a `maybe` option. I`ve got no problem with a back 3 if the right people play.

I voted yes for this reason. 

If it's Moore Williams Kalas and it frees us up further up the pitch then yes. 

If it's Baker Williams Wright and two holding midfielders then no thanks. 

For the record I don't think Baker or Wright are bad players at this level I just think we've moved on in our expectations since we signed them. They are not ball players. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/11/2019 at 10:07, Trueredsupporter said:

the options simply are not good enough. no ball playing CB.

Recent back 3 not ball players for sure. Williams the only tidy ball player, but Wright and Baker not that.

Obviously we have Taylor Moore who is very good on the ball. But also Pereira and Tommy Rowe have played centre back in a 3 this season. But only briefly. 

If we go with 3 at the back then LJ needs to be more brave and not just have 3 stoppers in there that can't move into midfield. Or just go with a 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

I think we need a `maybe` option. I`ve got no problem with a back 3 if the right people play.

 

17 minutes ago, Chris_Brown said:

I voted yes for this reason. 

If it's Moore Williams Kalas and it frees us up further up the pitch then yes. 

If it's Baker Williams Wright and two holding midfielders then no thanks. 

For the record I don't think Baker or Wright are bad players at this level I just think we've moved on in our expectations since we signed them. They are not ball players. 

It was in reference to how we were playing it. 

Like I said, I am also a fan of 3 at the back but not if Baker or Wright are being shoehorned into it.

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...