Does Nige want to play 4 at the back?

[Harry]

We read a lot on here about Nigel’s desire to play 4-3-3 or some variation of which involves playing only 4 at the back (ie 2 centre backs). Whereas we’ve been playing a 3 for most of this season. 
 

I had a quick look at the formations of the other teams in the Championship over the last few weeks. This is not an exact science, just a quick look. 
 

The top 2 (Fulham & Bournemouth) tend to play 2 CB’s. 
The bottom 4 (Barnsley, Derby, Peterborough, Reading) tend to play 2 CB’s. 
5th bottom Birmingham tend to play 2 CB’s with an occasional 3. 
Everyone else tends to play with a 3 either all the time or the majority of the time. 
 

It would seem that, unless you are very good, playing a 2 will leave you near the bottom of the table. 

Do we think it’s right that Nige wants us to move to a back 4 next season? 
Thoughts……. 

[cidered abroad]

If we had two sturdy and tall full backs to be alongside similar centre halves, I would go for a back 4 with 3-3 and it's variations, 4-2 and 5-1, in front of them. 

But if we have only full backs of similar build to Tanner and Dasilva, then it must be a back three. With this it would be essantial to have top quality wing backs. Finding two is difficult enough and finding four, ready to come on as subs because of the very energetic role, is almost certainly not going to be available to us. 

A big problem for Nigel Pearson to solve before next season and one which could determine where we are in the table; lower middle and looking over our shoulders all the time or eyeing a play-off spot?

[GrahamC]

Think he does.

At the moment we particularly (but not only) struggle at RB in order to be able to do so, Tanner is understandably currently a long way away from a 40 games a season RB at this level, whilst JD is a bit of a gamble in this formation because he’s susceptible to a diagonal ball to the back post.

Assuming Kalas leaves, Klose & Cundy get new deals & we bring in a new RB & CB then a back four of;

New RB, Klose, Atkinson/new CB, Dasilva in a 4-3-3 is how I think he wants to go. 

Cover from Tanner. Cundy. Pring & 1 of whoever we bring it at CB, Klose & Atkinson.

[Cowshed]

15 minutes ago, Harry said:

We read a lot on here about Nigel’s desire to play 4-3-3 or some variation of which involves playing only 4 at the back (ie 2 centre backs). Whereas we’ve been playing a 3 for most of this season. 
 

I had a quick look at the formations of the other teams in the Championship over the last few weeks. This is not an exact science, just a quick look. 
 

The top 2 (Fulham & Bournemouth) tend to play 2 CB’s. 
The bottom 4 (Barnsley, Derby, Peterborough, Reading) tend to play 2 CB’s. 
5th bottom Birmingham tend to play 2 CB’s with an occasional 3. 
Everyone else tends to play with a 3 either all the time or the majority of the time. 
 

It would seem that, unless you are very good, playing a 2 will leave you near the bottom of the table. 

Do we think it’s right that Nige wants us to move to a back 4 next season? 
Thoughts……. 

Peterboro play 3-4-1-2. Barnlsey have played over half the season with 3-4-1-2 and 3-4-3. Derby played 4-2-3-1 and systems of 4-3-3 etc. 

But you may, or not want to advance the thinking here. Fulham play 4-2-3-1 and Bournemouth 4-2-3-1 and 4-3-3 as part of possession based football. Their teams intent and its outcomes are clear. 

City play 3-4-1-2, 3-5-2 and make several hundred passes less a game than the above. What is the intent behind Citys formation? Its not clear.  

[Davefevs]

25 minutes ago, Harry said:

We read a lot on here about Nigel’s desire to play 4-3-3 or some variation of which involves playing only 4 at the back (ie 2 centre backs). Whereas we’ve been playing a 3 for most of this season. 
 

I had a quick look at the formations of the other teams in the Championship over the last few weeks. This is not an exact science, just a quick look. 
 

The top 2 (Fulham & Bournemouth) tend to play 2 CB’s. 
The bottom 4 (Barnsley, Derby, Peterborough, Reading) tend to play 2 CB’s. 
5th bottom Birmingham tend to play 2 CB’s with an occasional 3. 
Everyone else tends to play with a 3 either all the time or the majority of the time. 
 

It would seem that, unless you are very good, playing a 2 will leave you near the bottom of the table. 

Do we think it’s right that Nige wants us to move to a back 4 next season? 
Thoughts……. 

For me, the most important player in a back 4 is the one that plays in front of it!!!

Get that player right, the world is your oyster.

[Roger Red Hat]

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

For me, the most important player in a back 4 is the one that plays in front of it!!!

Get that player right, the world is your oyster.

Marlon it is then!

[chinapig]

20 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

Well the top sides bar maybe Chelsea all play a back 4 , so have nearly every top European side .  It depends  if you are building for tomorrow or using what we have right now . 
 

It is likely to be more related  to available players , though Nige has always stated he wants a back 4 . 

A moot point I think.

Liverpool's centre backs play a high line and split wide with Fabinho ahead of and in between them. Their full backs start high up the pitch. Is that a back 4?

Man City tend to push their full backs into midfield, with Cancelo more forward than Walker. Is that a back 4?

There are so many variations these days it's harder to say what a back 4 even means!

What variation Nigel prefers, if any, I have no idea. My guess is he is a more sophisticated thinker than people believe though.

[Davefevs]

29 minutes ago, billywedlock said:

Well the top sides bar maybe Chelsea all play a back 4 , so have nearly every top European side .  It depends  if you are building for tomorrow or using what we have right now . 
 

It is likely to be more related  to available players , though Nige has always stated he wants a back 4 . 
 

We have added counter attacking to our game , but we retain possession poorly , low pass completion levels as mentioned above . We need to defend better as we all know . So I guess as I say , much depends on Nige , if he wants to grow our possession levels ( he has said he does but we don’t have the players ) . 
 

No idea why EP has not asked more detail in this area , just what is the plan , as we are clearly making do right now , but that dies not mean that is where we want to be 

Good points….always the dilemma about how quickly you move to your preferred way of playing, and how much pain you’re prepared to take to get there.

Still remember the old post-World Cup stuff / fall-out - bomb out the old players, start bringing in the young’uns….ready for the Euros, then fail to qualify.

If you’re lucky most of the players are already here….it doesn’t feel like it though….however sometimes it only takes 1 or 2 players to make it click.

[The Bard]

32 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Think he does.

At the moment we particularly (but not only) struggle at RB in order to be able to do so, Tanner is understandably currently a long way away from a 40 games a season RB at this level, whilst JD is a bit of a gamble in this formation because he’s susceptible to a diagonal ball to the back post.

Assuming Kalas leaves, Klose & Cundy get new deals & we bring in a new RB & CB then a back four of;

New RB, Klose, Atkinson/new CB, Dasilva in a 4-3-3 is how I think he wants to go. 

Cover from Tanner. Cundy. Pring & 1 of whoever we bring it at CB, Klose & Atkinson.

This, but I'd guess Pring would be picked over JD in a 4 as he's robust and better in the air.

Pearson is a pragmatist and so we're playing a back 3 this season as it suited what he had.  I'd like to think he will now recruit to what he wants as he now knows who is here for the long term. 

Pack would absolutely suit being the screen and he'd help with us keeping the ball too.  Interesting how James and William's would then fit in as they're not compatible imo.

[Steve Watts]

38 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

For me, the most important player in a back 4 is the one that plays in front of it!!!

Get that player right, the world is your oyster.

Oh for Kalifa Cisse to roll back the years....

[GrahamC]

1 minute ago, The Bard said:

This, but I'd guess Pring would be picked over JD in a 4 as he's robust and better in the air.

Pearson is a pragmatist and so we're playing a back 3 this season as it suited what he had.  I'd like to think he will now recruit to what he wants as he now knows who is here for the long term. 

Pack would absolutely suit being the screen and he'd help with us keeping the ball too.  Interesting how James and William's would then fit in as they're not compatible imo.

Not sure what’s going on with Pring, not as convinced as others that Nige rates him, he’s only played the full 90 once since the Swansea debacle & more often is an unused sub.

With regards to Williams I think he could fit in if we ever saw the player we signed, but whether we ever will is debatable now.

James is always going to be a trusted member of Pearson’s squad whether he starts or is on the bench.

What we badly need is another Bradley Orr, a physical, hard working RB who competes for the ball both aerially & on the deck.

[Cowshed]

4 minutes ago, chinapig said:

A moot point I think.

Liverpool's centre backs play a high line and split wide with Fabinho ahead of and in between them. Their full backs start high up the pitch. Is that a back 4?

Man City tend to push their full backs into midfield, with Cancelo more forward than Walker. Is that a back 4?

There are so many variations these days it's harder to say what a back 4 even means!

What variation Nigel prefers, if any, I have no idea. My guess is he is a more sophisticated thinker than people believe though.

The full backs frequently play the full length of the pitch starting from that tucked in (its inversion) position. The formations are still 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1 but they are a means to the control of possession.

Liverpools full backs go high because the likes of Henderson drop in to full back positions and centre back positions to create security. Out of possession the team goes into a traditional shape.

If your interested in this. Henderson uses a movement know as Laviplana build up. Common in Germany. Common in Spain now becoming more common in England.

[Engvall’s Splinter]

9 minutes ago, Steve Watts said:

Oh for Kalifa Cisse to roll back the years....

Was Cisse consistently that good? Players often go up a notch in reputation when they retire. Cisse played 60 ish games in near 3 seasons here. I can’t remember him being anything more than decent. 

[Davefevs]

8 minutes ago, Engvall’s Splinter said:

Was Cisse consistently that good? Players often go up a notch in reputation when they retire. Cisse played 60 ish games in near 3 seasons here. I can’t remember him being anything more than decent. 

He told me he was the best player at City.

(he did say it tongue in cheek though in front of some of the younger players who’d not seen him play)

[The Bard]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

He told me he was the best player at City.

(he did say it tongue in cheek though in front of some of the younger players who’d not seen him play)

Can remember us beatng a very good Southampton side who were on their way to a 2nd successive promotion.  He more or less ate Lallana alive, who was the best player outside the Premier league at the time. When he played well he was a beast of a player.

[chinapig]

10 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

The full backs frequently play the full length of the pitch starting from that tucked in (its inversion) position. The formations are still 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1 but they are a means to the control of possession.

Liverpools full backs go high because the likes of Henderson drop in to full back positions and centre back positions to create security. Out of possession the team goes into a traditional shape.

If your interested in this. Henderson uses a movement know as Laviplana build up. Common in Germany. Common in Spain now becoming more common in England.

Interesting, thanks, and agreed. I guess when some people talk of a back 4 they are thinking of a traditional flat back 4 where full backs are very much defenders. More Burnley than Brighton so to speak.

Full back is the most interesting position for me in the modern game to the extent that the term full back doesn't seem adequate any more!

If we take Walker, James and Alexander Arnold as the 3 main options for the England team, they're all called right backs but each performs a different role for his club. So you might need to set the team up in different ways to get the best out of the one selected.

[Cowshed]

22 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Interesting, thanks, and agreed. I guess when some people talk of a back 4 they are thinking of a traditional flat back 4 where full backs are very much defenders. More Burnley than Brighton so to speak.

Full back is the most interesting position for me in the modern game to the extent that the term full back doesn't seem adequate any more!

If we take Walker, James and Alexander Arnold as the 3 main options for the England team, they're all called right backs but each performs a different role for his club. So you might need to set the team up in different ways to get the best out of the one selected.

Exactly. These players are not solely defenders. People do vieW full backs as defdenders v players who start at the back(?) but play the full length of the pitch.   

This player makes ninety passes a game that is more than Henderson or Thiago . Its a play making full back. The word full can be interpreted as its plays that FULL length of the park. 

Walkers demented pace allows Man City to create extreme width depth and dispersal. Its defending but not in a traditional sense as the players starting positions are not that of traditional right backs as he covers multiple zones. 

James ditto, no flat back four and none of the traditional you do not advance. 

Walker v Arnold for England .. Very differing players. Southgate has used Walkersas the third CB and at full back but withdrawn v Man City. Arnold? Cant see it. 

 

Edited April 19, 2022 by Cowshed

[Lanterne Rouge]

1 hour ago, Engvall’s Splinter said:

Was Cisse consistently that good? Players often go up a notch in reputation when they retire. Cisse played 60 ish games in near 3 seasons here. I can’t remember him being anything more than decent. 

He was one of those players that you didn`t really notice when he was on the pitch but you certainly did when he wasn`t.

A player we never really replaced and it showed.

[The Swan and Cemetery]

1 hour ago, Tafkarmlf said:

I quite like the current set up have done since Preston. 

It's nearly there, and all we really are looking for is a proper RWB/RB, wonder how we'd have done with Hunt there this season, and Scott and Massengo playing more together in that midfield two, rather than the James/King/Williams situation that doesn't float my boat at all. 

I don't think were that far off and the switch to 4-3-3vs 10 the other week was poor because the pivot was rubbish. 

Was never convinced by Hunt, but totally agree it’s a critical role to fix if we want to go 4-3-3, as is, to a lesser extent, LB. I’ll ‘fess to being reasonably keen on all of King/James/ Williams, as well as Scott and Massengo (and Benarous), think we’re reasonably blessed in CM. Downside is that I suspect King is most able of those to screen in front of the CBs, but even for fans of King like me, difficult to be convinced he’s got lots left in the tank, so risk that even with some very talented CMs, we’ve still got a gap. Maybe it will turn out that it was the role Vyner was always meant to do, but spend all his time doing roles he wasn’t! 

[archie andrews]

2 hours ago, Steve Watts said:

Oh for Kalifa Cisse to roll back the years....

reason we went down in 2013 not having him that awful season....

[cidercity1987]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

He told me he was the best player at City.

(he did say it tongue in cheek though in front of some of the younger players who’d not seen him play)

He is not wrong 

I always rated him highly, a Gilberto Silva sort for my generation or a Kante for the current lot. A great player and seems like a good guy. 

[xerox6060]

Surprised really if he likes / wants 4-3-3 that we've not seen anything of it especially for such an experienced coach, appreciate not ideal players but hardly pulled up tree's with other formations either.

[GrahamC]

3 hours ago, Engvall’s Splinter said:

Was Cisse consistently that good? Players often go up a notch in reputation when they retire. Cisse played 60 ish games in near 3 seasons here. I can’t remember him being anything more than decent. 

No, he wasn’t.

He was good in his first season but phoned it in during the second when it became obvious he wasn’t going to get offered a better contract.

[Rocking Red Cyril]

8 hours ago, Davefevs said:

For me, the most important player in a back 4 is the one that plays in front of it!!!

Get that player right, the world is your oyster.

Spot on Dave, would Marlon be worth a punt ?

[xerox6060]

7 hours ago, billywedlock said:

I don't understand, you saying 4-3-3 is wrong for an experienced coach ? 

No I'm saying I would like to see him play it / try it if that's his preferred system, and that being an experienced coach I would have thought after all this time he would have tried it out by now, and been able to smooth those square pegs into round holes just too see how it went until he got his preferred players for the system. 

[Dr Balls]

2 hours ago, billywedlock said:

IMHO , zero and I mean zero Source. Pack is on our sights. I look at a few things in games, but Nige was all over Marlon after our game against Cardiff. He is 31 years old, on a free lives in Portishead. IM (very) HO he was the biggest loss we had in recent years. I sat with so many away team scouts back then, and chatting away, every time Pack was detailed as our most important player. I see him as a replacement for King, as the experienced player in our group. He is not spectacular, I know, but he does the damn basics, and we miss that. Hey I think Korey Smith did some great work too, and maybe JD will become that player. But... I would be amazed if we are not in for Pack. Fits a position we need and with our finances on the floor, is the type we will be looking at. Of course some fans will be up-in arms, wanting a star signing, someone dynamic etc. But we are not in that place right now , and for me, a Pack in our midfield is a bonus if we want to try and increase our possession and also protect a back 4. I would be very happy if he came back. Extra bonus he is rarely injured and has 350 Championship games under his belt. 

The other thing that people forget about Pack is his physicality and his height. At 6ft 2in and “robust” he can easily slip back in with the centre backs in a way none of our current midfielders are able to do.
As I have said before as a potential locally-based free agent, who never actually requested a move in the first place, you can see why this might work well for both parties.

[Garland-sweden]

11 hours ago, Engvall’s Splinter said:

Was Cisse consistently that good? Players often go up a notch in reputation when they retire. Cisse played 60 ish games in near 3 seasons here. I can’t remember him being anything more than decent. 

When Cisse left we struggled. We went to leauge one. For me he was a very important player, very very good defensive mf. Playing four at the back: dont understand Why Hunt was not giving contract, good rb. He now is playing SW again and think they Will play Championship next season.

[SecretSam]

RE-Cisse and Pack: as others have said, you only notice this sort of player when they aren't there.

Remember when Makelele left Real for Chelski, same time as Beckham came in, Zidane said "We've bought a new coat of gold paint for the Bentley, but sold the engine"

Cisse in particular never did anything spectacular, but was a real 100% player. Physical, not especially gifted, but worked like a Trojan, doing all the unglamorous stuff. Pack could play a bit more, but also was a very disciplined player who read the game well.

[Davefevs]

8 hours ago, Rocking Red Cyril said:

Spot on Dave, would Marlon be worth a punt ?

Think @billywedlockand @Dr Ballshave given you the pluses.

To add to that, he never really had any pace, so there’s not much to have lost (Ala Teddy Sheringham).

Downsides / Other Considerations: where would that leave Matty James?  I don’t think you could play both together.  I think both Williams and Massengo (if he stays) would benefit from him….always available, calm in possession, etc.  Was discussing with @Harryand @redcherryberryyesterday about back 4 and 4141 type stuff.  Pack would fit that nicely.  Perm any 4 in front of that.

I guess we will have to wait and see.  It’s a kind of “romantic” suggestion.

In an ideal world, we should be trying to identify the next Marlon Pack, but it’s not an easy position to pick out watching tv highlights, and trying a data based approach can lead you up blind alleys.  DM screens don’t tend to jump out at you unless you are watching specifically for that.

For info, I looked at the stats of quite a few (realistic Champ) players with the traits to be a good screen….I finally came up with Romal Palmer at Barnsley.  So I sat down and watched some video of him, but he doesn’t screen.  He just gets similar stats from a different role.  Therefore “eyes” so important.

[PHILINFRANCE]

20 hours ago, Davefevs said:

For me, the most important player in a back 4 is the one that plays in front of it!!!

Get that player right, the world is your oyster.

I tend to agree, hence the reason I was promoting the idea of Jens Hegeler playing in that position five years or so ago, a position for which I think he was ideally suited.