Jump to content

3 at the back?????

ChaddesdenRam

By ChaddesdenRam
in Derby County Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Uptherams

Uptherams

Posted
Posted

I think some people are getting a little confused at how 3 at the back works. For example: If we are attacking down the right, Brayford would be encouraged to go forward. The two other CB's will then naturally drift back into the position of the CB'S whilst playing a 4-4-2. One of the central midfielders would hold their position and stay behind the ball, ready to cover the right hand side, in case of a counter attack.

 

The right sided midfielder and front-man (Coutts and Russell) would work as a 3 with Brayford and play in a triangle instead of just the traditional over lapping full back and 1-2 style play. Instead of having only one option for a short pass from Brayford or two from Coutts, Brayford would now have two options (Coutts and Russell), Coutts would have 3 (Brayford, Russell and Hughes/Hendrick/Bryson). 

 

If you look at how the top teams and defenders play you will notice that when in possession of the ball, only the two CB'S would be in their own half, slightly positioned to the side of which the ball is. When the CB's are comfortably in possession you will see one centrally with the ball whilst the other occupies the position of left/right back 25-40 yards away. This is how 3 at the back would look in these situations. 

 

When defending a counter attack with Brayford in front of the ball, the opposition would naturally attack the open space. The job of the spare central midfielder would be to encourage that attack down the line, not to win possession immediately and to limit the directness, pace options of a counter attack. 

 

That all being said, I could potentially see Coutts being dropped and us using Bryson, Hendrick and Hughes. As far is I am concerned Coutts cannot cross or shoot and can not last 90 minutes. We wouldn't miss Coutts if we played the right formation and I think a 3-4-3 is it. 

 

My only concern would be who to play as part of the 3 at the back. If only we had someone exactly like Brayford who played on the left. Could this be Freeman? Or do we need to play 2 CB's (Keogh and Buxton) and perhaps have two different styles down both wings? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scott129

Scott129

Posted
Posted

Why are people obsessed with 4-3-3?

 

1) it leaves holes on each side of the CMs which opposition full backs can exploit UNLESS your wide-forwards track back... and if you're gonna do that then you aren't actually playing 4-3-3 you're playing 4-5-1

 

2) You need a proper holding midfielder to do this... Someone with some bit in the tackle... which we don't have (unless we sign Eustace and play him every game)

 

3) Whenever we play this formation the CF gets isolated... Our midfield play too deep or aren;t quick enough to get forward and support... and our wide forwards don't drop in-field enough to provide the extra man in the box...

 

4) We've just signed a new CF... what's the point in playing him wide-right?!?!?!?

 

Maybe the answer to the first 3 is practice... but does no-one think playing Russell out wide is a waste?

 

Russell's spent most of his career playing wide right in a front 3 - Mackay Steven on the left, Jon Daly through the middle and Russell (for Dundee United).

 

If anything, it would be playing to his strengths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Joel

Joel

Posted
Posted

Just have a horrible feeling that Cloughs version of three at the back would actually be three CB`s plus Brayford and Forsyth playing fullback in effect five at the back.

 

Why would that be horrible? It'd be extremely sensible away from home which is essentially where we need to improve.

 

We shipped far too many goals away from home last season and were too open a lot of the time, an effective back five with three in midfield would prevent that. It makes a lot of sense to try a 3-5-2 / 5-3-2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DcFc Dyycheee

DcFc Dyycheee

Posted
Posted

Just have a horrible feeling that Cloughs version of three at the back would actually be three CB`s plus Brayford and Forsyth playing fullback in effect five at the back.

That would be brilliant for home AND away games, possibly wouldn't play 3 at the back at home though, I like the 4-3-3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gary Teale

Gary Teale

Posted
Posted

This is like football manager on here. I cant believe how many tactical experts we have on here, i think some have been watching sky to much. Clough is a 442 man predominantly throughout he management career and i can't see him making any big changes, he may try others but normally reverts back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ronnieronalde

ronnieronalde

Posted
Posted

A few home defeats playing anything other than 4-4-2 and we all know what's going to happen...

 

I'm assuming here that you mean the idiotic moron element of our fans will start chanting we pay your wages, play 4-4-2?

 

Then of course they reserve the right to come on here later that very same evening and complain that 4-4-2 is the only tactic Clough has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Van der MoodHoover

Van der MoodHoover

Posted
Posted

I recall England have on occasion switched to a 3 at the back system - notably at Italia 90 with Mark Wright, Terry Butcher and Paul Parker + wingbacks. because it fitted the personnel at the time. And it was successful!

 

Germany used to use that system as well - until they got dismantled 5-1 in Munich by England (they played Jens Nowotny, Christian Worns and Thomas Helmer i think that night). They ditched it because they then DIDN'T have the presonnel.

 

I think UptheRams has got it spot on. if we have the right people and IF Cloughie and his coaches can get the system organised, it does not matter much (in my view) what the system actually is.

 

i saw a few away games last season and the system wasn't the problem. Getting caught cold and conceding early was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
StockholmRam

StockholmRam

Posted
Posted

I think some people are getting a little confused at how 3 at the back works. For example: If we are attacking down the right, Brayford would be encouraged to go forward. The two other CB's will then naturally drift back into the position of the CB'S whilst playing a 4-4-2. One of the central midfielders would hold their position and stay behind the ball, ready to cover the right hand side, in case of a counter attack.

 

The right sided midfielder and front-man (Coutts and Russell) would work as a 3 with Brayford and play in a triangle instead of just the traditional over lapping full back and 1-2 style play. Instead of having only one option for a short pass from Brayford or two from Coutts, Brayford would now have two options (Coutts and Russell), Coutts would have 3 (Brayford, Russell and Hughes/Hendrick/Bryson). 

 

If you look at how the top teams and defenders play you will notice that when in possession of the ball, only the two CB'S would be in their own half, slightly positioned to the side of which the ball is. When the CB's are comfortably in possession you will see one centrally with the ball whilst the other occupies the position of left/right back 25-40 yards away. This is how 3 at the back would look in these situations. 

 

When defending a counter attack with Brayford in front of the ball, the opposition would naturally attack the open space. The job of the spare central midfielder would be to encourage that attack down the line, not to win possession immediately and to limit the directness, pace options of a counter attack. 

 

That all being said, I could potentially see Coutts being dropped and us using Bryson, Hendrick and Hughes. As far is I am concerned Coutts cannot cross or shoot and can not last 90 minutes. We wouldn't miss Coutts if we played the right formation and I think a 3-4-3 is it. 

 

My only concern would be who to play as part of the 3 at the back. If only we had someone exactly like Brayford who played on the left. Could this be Freeman? Or do we need to play 2 CB's (Keogh and Buxton) and perhaps have two different styles down both wings?

3 at the back works.. IF the 3 are Baresi, Roy Mac and Beckenbaur!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WestLondonRam

WestLondonRam

Posted
Posted

Ward getting down the left whilst attacking, Hughes moving back into centre, eustace pushing them up the field with brayford overlapping with Bryson/ coutts. Hard system to work!! Eustace may drop to cover brayford a runs. Hughes could wait around the box for a ball to drop, Russell working off Hughes.

First time in ages we have a team to try different formations. Starting to look good

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gary Teale

Gary Teale

Posted
Posted

I recall England have on occasion switched to a 3 at the back system - notably at Italia 90 with Mark Wright, Terry Butcher and Paul Parker + wingbacks. because it fitted the personnel at the time. And it was successful!

Germany used to use that system as well - until they got dismantled 5-1 in Munich by England (they played Jens Nowotny, Christian Worns and Thomas Helmer i think that night). They ditched it because they then DIDN'T have the presonnel.

I think UptheRams has got it spot on. if we have the right people and IF Cloughie and his coaches can get the system organised, it does not matter much (in my view) what the system actually is.

i saw a few away games last season and the system wasn't the problem. Getting caught cold and conceding early was.

It worked for England that time but also famously failed against Norway and recently against Croatia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...