Jump to content
IGNORED

4 at the back?


SecretSam

Recommended Posts

We are vulnerable with the three but we are also more offensive,can you imagine Bryan,Bennett or Little staying back when we attack ?

They are all better attacking than defending as the manager has bought to play three at the back, it worked last season ad can this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Mad Cyril said:

I don't get all this park the bus stuff.

That's what we did second half against MK Dons. I don't want to pay to watch that ever.

How is playing with a back four equal to 'parking the bus' ?

It doesn't take a genius to see that our problems are almost all down to an inability to keep goals out, and playing four defenders instead of three seems like a no brainer to me. 

Whether we have the personnel to do it, of course, is another matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other teams that came up with us have a back four yet they are experiencing similar problems to us. The main problem is the ex-Prem teams have better, more experienced players than ours, until we build a decent squad we are going to lose more than we win. Having said that we have played more teams in the top half than the bottom and have a few games before Christmas where we could pick up some points. If we're still in the bottom 3 then there could be a change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying there isn't an argument for going to a back four, but it's worth pointing out that prior to Saturday we'd conceded 3 goals in 4 games, including two clean sheets. Take the Fulham game out of the equation and we've been improving defensively in recent weeks and until the weekend plenty of here were saying the same.

We need to be careful about overreacting to one admittedly very poor result, when the broader picture over the past month has been more positive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said:

I'm not saying there isn't an argument for going to a back four, but it's worth pointing out that prior to Saturday we'd conceded 3 goals in 4 games, including two clean sheets. Take the Fulham game out of the equation and we've been improving defensively in recent weeks and until the weekend plenty of here were saying the same.

We need to be careful about overreacting to one admittedly very poor result, when the broader picture over the past month has been more positive.

A good point re the recent improvement, but the goals against tally is atrocious and if it continues at this rate for the remainder of the season we are in trouble. 

Lets hope Saturday was an isolated incident! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In some ways going to 451 or 433 might make a difference. I do think we have the players, just, to at least try it. But, if we did, we would be sorely lacking in backup midfielders.

Because of Flint's less then stellar performances a couple of years ago in a back 4 it would probably require Moore and Baker to be fit, for me to be convinced that it was worth a go, as well.

Bennett would make sense on the right hand side up top, Agard as a backup. Bryan (assuming Williams gets the nod at left back) or Freeman on the left? Freeman on the left means Reid in the middle. Kodijer to start up front, surely... but has he ever played that role? Could he?

That's a lot of, if not square pegs in round holes, then asking some players to remember when at least they WERE a round peg! 

Lastly, I found out from my only hemi-demi-semi contact into professional football, who works for Fulham, that they changed their formation for Saturday. Whether that had anything to do with what happened between the hours of 1500 and 1530 on Saturday afternoon, I have no idea... 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Leveller said:

NO.

There is no need to change. Just pull the wing backs deeper as a default position, so we play 532. Then only push one of them forward at a time.

From the Cardiff game, that's the way we set up away from home. Although I did catch Elliott in a massively advanced position when we were defending our left back position (think Litts's starting positions last season). It was only the once, and the ball got cleared straight to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, foghornred said:

We are vulnerable with the three but we are also more offensive,can you imagine Bryan,Bennett or Little staying back when we attack ?

They are all better attacking than defending as the manager has bought to play three at the back, it worked last season ad can this.

You need players that are very strong in their division to get away,or prosper,with wing backs.only one club in this division played regularly with three at the back last season and they had bags of quality......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Robert the bruce said:

You need players that are very strong in their division to get away,or prosper,with wing backs.only one club in this division played regularly with three at the back last season and they had bags of quality......

Yep, it worked last season because clubs needed ten chances to score against us. This season they need one or two. The caliver of opposition is incomparable in the main. 

Like someone above said, Ayling and Williams essentially play central midfield when we attack and both wing backs are attacking players. It's so exposed when we lose the ball high up the pitch and we will continue to leak goals if something doesn't change. 

Not saying that we HAVE to change formation but if we're going to persist with only playing three defenders then they have to be a hell of a lot more disciplined in their positioning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Leveller said:

NO.

There is no need to change. Just pull the wing backs deeper as a default position, so we play 532. Then only push one of them forward at a time.

I think there's a lot to be said for this. For me it's as much about positional discipline as it is the formation. The players we have suit the formation, so stick with it but adopt a subtly more defensive approach as Leveller suggests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said:

I think there's a lot to be said for this. For me it's as much about positional discipline as it is the formation. The players we have suit the formation, so stick with it but adopt a subtly more defensive approach as Leveller suggests.

Absolutely agree.  On Saturday, we started with our usual 3-5-2, but the two wing backs were immediately pushed so far up the field that effectively it was 3-3-4.  If you are playing with wing-backs then they have to be wing-backs.  On Saturday we were playing with out and out wingers at least until we were two down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, smokey live said:

yep just like that. wave the magic wand, change formation and then clean sheet after clean sheet.

Well okay then just keep it how it is and go down to league 1. It's not waving a magic wand, but it is giving us more chance of conceding less goals by having a solid defensive shape when we are not in possession. You got a better idea?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think today we will learn a lot about Cotterill. He has come out and said that Wolves are a counter attacking team. Countless times at AG we have been done with quick wingers on counter attack. If the same happens today although they know its going to try and happen... I think major questions will be asked. Maybe not for his job as such but a real question at maintaining with 352.

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...