Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ditch 5 at the back.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

    Originally posted by Tuerto View Post
    Playing a flat back four and midfield really negates and width or loading up with a wing back. It could act as a short term solution, but I don't think that it's particularly progressive, especially as we are a team that likes to get crosses into the box.

    The other thing that I don't like about 2 central midfielders is that they will almost always be outnumbered. We can't cope with a 3 in the middle, reverting to 2 in the middle would be suicide in my opinion.
    Don't we play with2 now in the 343? The 4 being 2 wing backs and 2 CM?

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

      Originally posted by dembethewarrior View Post
      Don't we play with2 now in the 343? The 4 being 2 wing backs and 2 CM?
      we sometimes play more of a 3-5-2 or a 3-4-1-2.
      you could almost call it a 3-3-1-3 at times as well

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

        Originally posted by Rjk View Post
        we sometimes play more of a 3-5-2 or a 3-4-1-2.
        you could almost call it a 3-3-1-3 at times as well
        Think we only play that last one when we’re losing

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

          Originally posted by the other bob wilson View Post
          Think we only play that last one when we’re losing
          that was a classic bielsa formation when he was managing Chile and Argentina I think

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

            Originally posted by Rjk View Post
            that was a classic bielsa formation when he was managing Chile and Argentina I think
            Yes it was, Chile definitely played it while Gary Medel was with us.

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

              Originally posted by the other bob wilson View Post
              Yes it was, Chile definitely played it while Gary Medel was with us.
              medel was often part of the back 3 wasn't he?
              he's just the type of player we need in the pack role tbh

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

                Originally posted by Rjk View Post
                medel was often part of the back 3 wasn't he?
                he's just the type of player we need in the pack role tbh
                Yes on both counts.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

                  Originally posted by Rjk View Post
                  we sometimes play more of a 3-5-2 or a 3-4-1-2.
                  you could almost call it a 3-3-1-3 at times as well
                  Only once I remember us going with Bacuna in the CM which to me made that 3 in CM, even with Colwill behind the strikers he's still a part of the front 3 IMO.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

                    Originally posted by dembethewarrior View Post
                    Only once I remember us going with Bacuna in the CM which to me made that 3 in CM, even with Colwill behind the strikers he's still a part of the front 3 IMO.
                    I think that it depends on where we are on the pitch, attacking, defending, setting up attack, getting back in behind the ball etc. I suppose the formation is changeable depending on the circumstances, that's probably why most teams play that formation now as it's more flexible. 442 is much more rigid.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X