Ditch 5 at the back.

Printable View

12-12-21, 22:55
AfricanBluebird

Ditch 5 at the back.

I hope Morison ditches 3 centrebacks and the wing back system and goes to a 442 or 4231 formation.

The three centre backs are too far apart due to the wing-backs pushing up. We need to go to a 4 man defence. I think that would make us more solid. Also would allow us to play with an extra player in midfield. Davies looks like he could now hold down a wing/attacking role on the right and Giles on the left.

Surely it's time to ditch three centrebacks? It doesn't make us any more solid and limits our attacking play. We are playing catch-up too often.
12-12-21, 23:20
Eric the Half a Bee

Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

I agree totally.
13-12-21, 00:06
Dorcus

Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

Absolutely right and I'd love to see two proper fullbacks
13-12-21, 06:07
the other bob wilson

Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

Nothing wrong with the system, it worked well enough in the second half of last season and it’s players falling short of the standards theyve set for themselves that is the problem. I can’t prove this, but I think players such as Morrison and Nelson would have struggled as much in a back four as they have in a back three simply because they’re not playing well.

Look at the two goals we conceded on Saturday, for the first, one of our wing backs was able to get around and across to cover through the middle, but then put in a very weak challenge that Deeney brushed aside. The second goal saw Birmingham players showing greater desire and speed when they saw a counter attacking opportunity than we saw from our players who should have been busting a gut to prevent that happening. The goals were down to individual and collective mistakes, not the formation we were playing.

Also, who plays wide in front of the full backs if we revert to a 4-4-2 or similar? Giles maybe, but we’ve no senior wingers left at the club.
13-12-21, 08:29
WJ99mobile

Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

We've got no full backs or wingers
13-12-21, 08:34
dembethewarrior

Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

Giles looks better coming from deep. I don't think a winger role suits him.
13-12-21, 10:59
AfricanBluebird

Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

All great points ..

Still think an extra player further up the field would help cut out some of the opposition attacks and with 4 at the back in a flatter formation would push the centrebacks closer and reduce the space for the opposition.

But then there's the question of personnel.

I think Ng is a better full back than wing back.... So that leaves the left hand side. Bagan maybe a better left back than wing back.

I would be tempted to play Giles as a left winger and Isaak Davies as a right winger ..

But yeah, we are still struggling from the last transfer window which in my opinion was one of the worst we have had. No left back, no wingers and no creative midfield players. Seriously, what was the board and Mick thinking.

And that certainly reduces our options.

Making January very important. Even if we can't spend money, getting some pace and guile into the team is a must.
13-12-21, 11:04
Rjk

Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

we don't play with 5 at the back, we play with 3 at the back!

we have an extra player further up the pitch compared to a back 4.

wingbacks are basically midfielders, they are not the same as fullbacks.
13-12-21, 11:11
dembethewarrior

Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

Bagan looks a good wing call from what I've seen recently in the u23s.
13-12-21, 11:27
The Bloop

Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

Wing backs only work if the one not attacking drops back and the 3 centre backs shuffle across accordingly. Either that or the defensive midfielder has to slot back in.
Don't think we're good enough or consistent enough at the moment in either discipline, but hopefully it will improve.
13-12-21, 11:38
Rjk

Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bloop

Wing backs only work if the one not attacking drops back and the 3 centre backs shuffle across accordingly. Either that or the defensive midfielder has to slot back in.
Don't think we're good enough or consistent enough at the moment in either discipline, but hopefully it will improve.

most teams playing a back 3 these days, seem to do the second of your described versions, with a defensive midfielder sitting in front of the 3 .
I have seen a Tony Pulis side pivoting from a 4 to a 5 in and out of possession, but I don't think that's in line with the way we are trying to play.
13-12-21, 11:40
Undercoverinwurzelland

Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

Wolves seem very keen for Giles to play as a wingback, and might recall him if he's not playing there.
Not that Wolves should be dictating our tactics, but that may be the pickle we're in.
13-12-21, 11:51
Rjk

Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undercoverinwurzelland

Wolves seem very keen for Giles to play as a wingback, and might recall him if he's not playing there.
Not that Wolves should be dictating our tactics, but that may be the pickle we're in.

I doubt they would recall him if he was getting game time as a winger or a fullback
13-12-21, 13:26
dembethewarrior

Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undercoverinwurzelland

Wolves seem very keen for Giles to play as a wingback, and might recall him if he's not playing there.
Not that Wolves should be dictating our tactics, but that may be the pickle we're in.

He was on the wing/attacking 3 and not a wing back in MM version of the 343.
13-12-21, 13:43
Tuerto

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.
13-12-21, 14:51
dembethewarrior

Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuerto

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?
13-12-21, 14:58
Rjk

Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dembethewarrior

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
13-12-21, 15:34
the other bob wilson

Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rjk

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 :hehe:
13-12-21, 15:41
Rjk

Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

Think we only play that last one when we’re losing :hehe:

that was a classic bielsa formation when he was managing Chile and Argentina I think
13-12-21, 15:45
the other bob wilson

Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rjk

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.
13-12-21, 15:49
Rjk

Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

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
13-12-21, 15:54
the other bob wilson

Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rjk

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.
13-12-21, 16:59
dembethewarrior

Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rjk

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.
13-12-21, 17:12
Tuerto

Re: Ditch 5 at the back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dembethewarrior

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.