Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership

marcofisher

Three at the back Y/N?

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.

Edited by marcofisher
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Roe said:

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

Still, it's a no from me.

Well it was anything but offensive as the stats will attest. Just like Saturday. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Roe said:

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

Still, it's a no from me.

It looked a lot like 1 at the back to me.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BRISTOL86 said:

Well it was anything but offensive as the stats will attest. Just like Saturday. 

5 defenders, but never once a disciplined line of 'em. Shocking tonight defensively, shocking

Edited by AppyDAZE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Edited by AppyDAZE

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
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

Edited by AppyDAZE

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Johnson has sadly overloaded the squad with CBs and CMs. Pick your best two CBs, best two CMs and stop pissing around with effectively Bailey Wright playing instead of Eliasson

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, cidercity1987 said:

Johnson has sadly overloaded the squad with CBs and CMs. Pick your best two CBs, best two CMs and stop pissing around with effectively Bailey Wright playing instead of Eliasson

I applaud you, sir. Best tonight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Edited by AppyDAZE
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, cidercity1987 said:

Johnson has sadly overloaded the squad with CBs and CMs. Pick your best two CBs, best two CMs and stop pissing around with effectively Bailey Wright playing instead of Eliasson

Will that not risk us getting overrun centrally?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Will that not risk us getting overrun centrally?

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

Share this post


Link to post
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 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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 

Share this post


Link to post
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!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Against teams who are near the top of the table away, yes. The problem was we didn’t have the right personnel as Kalas or Moore weren’t available and O’Dowda was out of position also Hunt is more suited to that position than Pereira. But any other game 433/442 for me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...