Is having 3 centre backs our problem?

When McCarthy took over he soon decided to play 3 centre backs, probably as a way of stopping us conceding goals, particularly soft, early goals.

Looking back, much of his initial success came because of the energy levels we played with and the hard work we did in pressing opponents. Gradually our season petered out and our energy levels dropped, our intenisty and our pressing dropped off.

One thing that has barely been considered was whether there was ever a need to play 3 centre backs in the first place. Morrison and Nelson were a decent partnership and knew each other's roles. Now we play a back 3, Morrison looks lost. He's played hundreds of games in a back two and so playing in a back 3 must still feel unusual.

Is it time to go back to a back two with full backs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee

When McCarthy took over he soon decided to play 3 centre backs, probably as a way of stopping us conceding goals, particularly soft, early goals.

Looking back, much of his initial success came because of the energy levels we played with and the hard work we did in pressing opponents. Gradually our season petered out and our energy levels dropped, our intenisty and our pressing dropped off.

One thing that has barely been considered was whether there was ever a need to play 3 centre backs in the first place. Morrison and Nelson were a decent partnership and knew each other's roles. Now we play a back 3, Morrison looks lost. He's played hundreds of games in a back two and so playing in a back 3 must still feel unusual.

Is it time to go back to a back two with full backs?

---

We don't have quality at left and right back

If we did we could play with two centre backs

But we don't so 3 is best imo

I like the 3-4-3 / 3-5-2 formations - never really made sense the way McCarthy wanted to play it, but Morison is on the right track I think.

I think the problems we have now are simply down to having less quality than previously.
and some of the older players seem to have started to decline.
imagine this formation with a fit and inform Tomlin pulling the strings, or a Harry Wilson - or even a Sheji Ojo
or a younger Morrison and Bamba as part of the back 3.

many teams are playing with 3 at the back these days and it is not without reason

Three at the back so that Morison can play wing backs. If we to a flat back four then he wont be able to do that, he'd push three in the middle and one on the left and the right of them with a lone striker. I really don't know, although maybe Eric is on to something when he says that Morrison isn't as comfortable in a back three, or maybe he's just got old!

I think today our problem was having no centrebacks

Issue is we have very few options especially in the wide areas.

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.

I'm not a fan of it, we don't have the players for it in my opinion, clearly others including the managers feel differently.

I don't think the current group of players are set up for it, the centre backs aren't comfortable enough on the ball an. I think a back 4 may suit us better

Smithies

Ng McGuinness Flint Giles

Bowen/Pack Ralls

Davies Colwill Evans

Moore

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee

When McCarthy took over he soon decided to play 3 centre backs, probably as a way of stopping us conceding goals, particularly soft, early goals.

Looking back, much of his initial success came because of the energy levels we played with and the hard work we did in pressing opponents. Gradually our season petered out and our energy levels dropped, our intenisty and our pressing dropped off.

One thing that has barely been considered was whether there was ever a need to play 3 centre backs in the first place. Morrison and Nelson were a decent partnership and knew each other's roles. Now we play a back 3, Morrison looks lost. He's played hundreds of games in a back two and so playing in a back 3 must still feel unusual.

Is it time to go back to a back two with full backs?

---

No. We havent got a left back for starters.

I only caught a few minutes of Call Rob this evening, but one thing I did hear was x Jack striker Rory Fallon saying you need some “super quick” centrebacks to play three at the back well - my reaction to that was to think “ah, that explains a lot about City this season”. My own view is that Morrison and Nelson especially are having poor seasons and would be if we were playing with a back four - they’re not playing like they are because we have an extra centre back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

I only caught a few minutes of Call Rob this evening, but one thing I did hear was x Jack striker Rory Fallon saying you need some “super quick” centrebacks to play three at the back well - my reaction to that was to think “ah, that explains a lot about City this season”. My own view is that Morrison and Nelson especially are having poor seasons and would be if we were playing with a back four - they’re not playing like they are because we have an extra centre back.

---

I think even with a back 4 you need one of the 2 centre backs needs to have a bit of pace about them, as we've seen a few times over the years with various incompatible partnerships.
take away the fullbacks and it becomes even more vital.
I think it's why you often see converted fullbacks doing well in a back 3 -think Kyle Walker for man city/England.
Nelson has performed that role.for.us recently, but it clearly isn't working that well this season.

it is also usually said that you need someone who is adept at passing the ball into midfield, and someone who can bring the ball out when space opens up as well, bit I think those have more to do with how successful it is with the ball rather than without it

Our CBs are extremely slow paced (except Mcguinness maybe) , which makes us extremely vulnerable. I don't know what the answer for this problem is. Maybe go back to a 4 at the back with proper LB and RB Bagan and Ng maybe, and use Giles as wide midfield/out and out winger.
Spedger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

I think even with a back 4 you need one of the 2 centre backs needs to have a bit of pace about them, as we've seen a few times over the years with various incompatible partnerships.
take away the fullbacks and it becomes even more vital.
I think it's why you often see converted fullbacks doing well in a back 3 -think Kyle Walker for man city/England.
Nelson has performed that role.for.us recently, but it clearly isn't working that well this season.

it is also usually said that you need someone who is adept at passing the ball into midfield, and someone who can bring the ball out when space opens up as well, bit I think those have more to do with how successful it is with the ball rather than without it

---

Remember when Warnock decided to play Flint and Morrison together at the start of the 2019/20 season? After we conceded three goals at Wigan on the opening day, his response was to stop them pushing any higher up the pitch than the edge of our penalty area so they couldn't get beaten by balls over the top!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeningradCowboy

Remember when Warnock decided to play Flint and Morrison together at the start of the 2019/20 season? After we conceded three goals at Wigan on the opening day, his response was to stop them pushing any higher up the pitch than the edge of our penalty area so they couldn't get beaten by balls over the top!

---

Yes. It's why Nelson ended up being Morrison's regular partner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee

When McCarthy took over he soon decided to play 3 centre backs, probably as a way of stopping us conceding goals, particularly soft, early goals.

Looking back, much of his initial success came because of the energy levels we played with and the hard work we did in pressing opponents. Gradually our season petered out and our energy levels dropped, our intenisty and our pressing dropped off.

One thing that has barely been considered was whether there was ever a need to play 3 centre backs in the first place. Morrison and Nelson were a decent partnership and knew each other's roles. Now we play a back 3, Morrison looks lost. He's played hundreds of games in a back two and so playing in a back 3 must still feel unusual.

Is it time to go back to a back two with full backs?

---

Three at the back, or four,really makes little difference.
It is quality. It could be Morrison or Flint but they are both too slow, awkward and uncomfortable on the ball and adding Nelson just shows how we are unable to compete.
If Morison is not allowed to bring in transfers in January then we can only hope and pray that the bottom 3 keep losing and are cut adrift.
However, if this is left until the summer then we must act decisively. I would let Morison and Flint move on.

even though we are conceding a lot less than the end days of the McCarthy regime, we still seem pretty brittle at the back. perhaps a little unfair as until the sending off we were winning with a clean sheet, but even when we aren't conceding we often look like we might, it has been a long time since we had a dominant defensive display.
it is a problem that might have a natural time limit on it anyway. Morrison and Flint are out of contract in the summer, as is Pack who has been the main defensive midfielder sitting in front of the back 3.
McGuiness coming through and looking like a legit championship level centre back has been a big bonus for us this season, he should continue to get better and better.
If we give the manager beyond the summer and he sticks with this formation then. we may well see flint and Morrison leave in order to being in someone with a bit more pace.
there are other options we can try as well. someone like Ng could drop into the back 3, or Bagan, or Brown. if we managed to pull away from the relegation battle somewhat then maybe we can try some of these things out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuerto

Three at the back so that Morison can play wing backs. If we to a flat back four then he wont be able to do that, he'd push three in the middle and one on the left and the right of them with a lone striker. I really don't know, although maybe Eric is on to something when he says that Morrison isn't as comfortable in a back three, or maybe he's just got old!

---

I think morrison is more suited to a back 4, I'm no expert but obviously the roles have different demands and maybe his skill set is suited to a 2 cb role.

We don't play 3 Centre backs because the wing backs aren't good enough either to reply to sludge, we play them for a tactical reason, we do it the right way under this manager as we paly it 3 at the back not the 5 we did under Mick which basically rendered them useless.

I think the issue is the 3 centre backs we have available, they aren't suited to the roles being asked of them.

Perhaps Morisons lack of experience and time in the game is the reason he sticks with the formation, because it worked at youth level he found a formation that worked and had the players to pull it off, it's no shame not to have a playbook as thick as war of the worlds this early in in his career and he'll pick up more the longer he is around. Maybe he isn't comfortable with a 4 at the back and doesn't yet know how to play it so he's sticking to what he knows for now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

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

---

Italy did this brilliantly in their run. Looked a different team then their right wing back (I think) got injured as the replacement didn't offer the same going forward. Read a good article on it on the athletic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

We don't have quality at left and right back

If we did we could play with two centre backs

But we don't so 3 is best imo

---

This. We have 4/5 decent CB's, and fewer (and less experienced) FB's..that's why we play 3 CB's .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G rangetown Blue

This. We have 4/5 decent CB's, and fewer (and less experienced) FB's..that's why we play 3 CB's .

---

Bollocks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dembethewarrior

Bollocks.

---

We have 3 young FB's, and 4 experienced CB's ....you do the maths :hehe:

or just say BOLLOCKS again...your call :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G rangetown Blue

We have 3 young FB's, and 4 experienced CB's ....you do the maths :hehe:

or just say BOLLOCKS again...your call :shrug:

---

:hehe: it wasn't an angry reply.

It may have been the case under MM but under SM he's played the system at u23 level as well its one he knows and is comfortable with.

Listen to his interviews, he defends it, I think it's his way of playing.

And by my maths, he'd be better off playing 2cb with 4 fit senior ones available..playing 3 leaves 1 spare in case of injury..surely better to play 2 and have 2 as cover. Situation doesn't change with the wide defenders as we have 3 regardless to fit 2 spots..in either formation.

I like maths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dembethewarrior

:hehe: it wasn't an angry reply.

It may have been the case under MM but under SM he's played the system at u23 level as well its one he knows and is comfortable with.

Listen to his interviews, he defends it, I think it's his way of playing.

And by my maths, he'd be better off playing 2cb with 4 fit senior ones available..playing 3 leaves 1 spare in case of injury..surely better to play 2 and have 2 as cover. Situation doesn't change with the wide defenders as we have 3 regardless to fit 2 spots..in either formation.

I like maths.

---

Me too!

I like Bagan and Sang, and hopefully we will be 'safe' soon and they will get more game time..in a 4 - 2 - 3 - 1 maybe?.... I like that formation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G rangetown Blue

Me too!

I like Bagan and Sang, and hopefully we will be 'safe' soon and they will get more game time..in a 4 - 2 - 3 - 1 maybe?.... I like that formation.

---

I would rather something like that myself.

3 of Evans Harris Colwill Davies behind Moore possibly even Sang in the mix there as well.

Ralls and our loan star at Blackpool possibly as the 2 in the middle.. McGuinness and another at CB..

Or he finds the players to make his preffered system work. Starting with the centre backs.
We can leave the attack alone, we need another CB comfortable on the ball he may look to the youth as the season wears on, maybe he was hoping the experience would help initially and didn't fancy throwing too many young players in positions like CB..and cover for wing back. If we did get wintle back from loan and he plays for us with the same form that covers the middle of the park..