Is having 3 centre backs our problem?

[LeningradCowboy]

The third centre-back is a wasted shirt at the moment. We're not difficult to score against and the only one who offers anything in possession is McGuinness. I don't see why we couldn't play an extra midfielder sitting in front of two centre-backs and still get our full-backs high up the pitch when we have the ball.

[Rjk]

The third centre-back is a wasted shirt at the moment. We're not difficult to score against and the only one who offers anything in possession is McGuinness. I don't see why we couldn't play an extra midfielder sitting in front of two centre-backs and still get our full-backs high up the pitch when we have the ball.

don't think of it as an extra defender, think of it as an extra midfielder, 3 at the back instead of 4, allowing the wingbacks to get forward and be a major attacking outlet.
with 4 at the back full backs occasionally get forward but typically one or the other . the idea with this formation is to get both of them up the pitch and attack with 5 players - one in each of the traditional channels (roughly :winger, inside left, center forward l, inside right, winger) which stretches the defence.
every formation has its strengths and weaknesses, but I like the principles behind this one. and when it is done well it is very good to watch