The strange case of Cardiff City's inability to fire when they play with a back three.

[the other bob wilson]

http://mauveandyellowarmy.net/

[Fine Lines]

Excellent read as ever.

I’m not sure I agree with all of it , but well written and informative none the less.

[Lawnmower]

Can't argue with much of that.

Just like to add , 3 at the back is OK if you have 2 attack minded pacy wing backs. Bennett is reasonably suited to this, but Richards isn't. I would have played Patterson there.

Richards is frustrating going forward. An even more negative version of Andrew Taylor. He never goes past his man or gets a decent cross in. Always opting for the easy option of laying it back and always at a slow pace.

Patterson isn't quick, but is far more positive and willing to try things.

Bamba had his worst game yesterday and also looked lost in 3 at the back v Burton on day 1.

I would have set up similar to Warnock yesterday and yes we did get a clean sheet, but I'm not convinced it's the way forward for us.

The best we've looked with 3 at the back was last season at Huddersfield with Connolly playing and bringing the ball out comfortably.

However apparently he struggled in the same role at QPR a few weeks back

[A Quiet Monkfish]

Team formations have always confused me - there was a long debate around me at half time v. Sunderland as to where Richards was playing - some said full back, some said midfield, and some, like me, didn't have a clue.

I think ideally you'd like to play a back 4 if your full backs are able to power up the pitch and get crosses in etc, but along with most Championship sides we don't have that luxury.

Anyway, our initial success this season has come from a solid defence with the sneaking of goals on the counter attack, so I say let's stick to a back 4 and bring in a replacement for Danny Ward sooner rather than later...

[the other bob wilson]

Can't argue with much of that.

Just like to add , 3 at the back is OK if you have 2 attack minded pacy wing backs. Bennett is reasonably suited to this, but Richards isn't. I would have played Patterson there.

Richards is frustrating going forward. An even more negative version of Andrew Taylor. He never goes past his man or gets a decent cross in. Always opting for the easy option of laying it back and always at a slow pace.

Patterson isn't quick, but is far more positive and willing to try things.

Bamba had his worst game yesterday and also looked lost in 3 at the back v Burton on day 1.

I would have set up similar to Warnock yesterday and yes we did get a clean sheet, but I'm not convinced it's the way forward for us.

The best we've looked with 3 at the back was last season at Huddersfield with Connolly playing and bringing the ball out comfortably.

However apparently he struggled in the same role at QPR a few weeks back

It's always struck me that Warnock's liking for wingers means that a system which uses wing backs would struggle to work properly - I think players like Hoilett, Mendez-Laing, Harris, Wildschut etc. would have to show an awful lot of defensive discipline if we play wing backs in the manner that I understand the term by.

[joecity]

It's always struck me that Warnock's liking for wingers means that a system which uses wing backs would struggle to work properly - I think players like Hoilett, Mendez-Laing, Harris, Wildschut etc. would have to show an awful lot of defensive discipline if we play wing backs in the manner that I understand the term by.

I agree with this. The wing backs are the wingers as such when playing 3 at the back. The midfielders tuck in a bit more. If you want real wingers then play a back four.

[cardiff55]

If you want a winger play a winger not a full back as a wing back. When you get back three you lose a midfield player, who is creative, so you are a man short on the rest of the pitch to shore up the defence. You can't expect full back to be as creative as wide midfielders or wingers. I've no idea why Warnock chose to play 5 at the back yesterday, we look much better with a back 4 and the extra man in midfield.

[City123]

A 4-3-3 suits the side better than 3 at the back and that's when we've been at our most effective

[Fine Lines]

If you want a winger play a winger not a full back as a wing back. When you get back three you lose a midfield player, who is creative, so you are a man short on the rest of the pitch to shore up the defence. You can't expect full back to be as creative as wide midfielders or wingers. I've no idea why Warnock chose to play 5 at the back yesterday, we look much better with a back 4 and the extra man in midfield.

it looked a 3-4-3 to me. Bennett and Richards providing the width, in the midfield 4, Ralls and Grujic in the middle. With a front 3 of Hoilett, Zohore, and Wildschut.

I thought in the second half, we were getting out run by their midfield and could have done with Damour in there for Wildschut, making it a 3-5-2.

[life on mars]

back four please we don't have the centre backs to play a back 3, you would need pacy defenders

[life on mars]

it looked a 3-4-3 to me. Bennett and Richards providing the width, in the midfield 4, Ralls and Grujic in the middle. With a front 3 of Hoilett, Zohore, and Wildschut.

I thought in the second half, we were getting out run by their midfield and could have done with Damour in there for Wildschut, making it a 3-5-2.

Yep we blew out, I thought we played some lovely passing football outside thier penalty box