Ditch 5 at the back.

[dembethewarrior]

Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

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?

[Rjk]

Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

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

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

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

[Rjk]

Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

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

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

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.

[Rjk]

Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

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

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

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.

[dembethewarrior]

Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

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.

[Tuerto]

Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

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.