Jump to content

3/5 at the back?


Posh Ram

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Posh Ram said:

It's worked this season for Chelsea and Spurs. In my eyes, Derby have three competent centre-halves, several players who'd be well-suited to playing as "wing-backs", good central midfielders and a lack of quality out wide other than Tom Ince. Playing with a back three would really suit our strengths as a team and it's flexible enough to quite easily switch to our traditional 4-3-3 if the game situation requires it.

My main concerns would be that neither Shackell nor Pearce are very quick, Olsson might not be good enough for so much responsibility in both attacking and defending and there could end up being quite a big gap in between midfield and attack unless Hughes pushes further forward. Overall, though, our lack of direction this season definitely gives Mac an opportunity to experiment and this formation would get more of our good players in the side.

It's worked for Chelsea and Spurs because they have some of the most technically gifted centerbacks in the game. We've tried it before against Chesterfield with a significantly more technical CB partnership than we currently have, Albentosa, Buxton and Keogh, it was an absolute disaster. One of the biggest criticisms that's come from our backline this season (apart from recently starting to ship goals) is the inability of Pearce and Shackell to pass even remotely close to the level of our 13/14 CB's Bucko and Keogh. We have excellent defensive CB's but they're not technically gifted, which means any three CB system is going to be very difficult to properly execute. We'd just be going back to the days of Paul Clement where we were very difficult to break down but very toothless going forward.

Another reason it works for Tottenham and Chelsea is because they have some of the best ball winners around in Dembele and Kante, we don't have a player even remotely similar to them. The closest player we have in midfield to them would be Johnson I guess, but he's nowhere near mobile enough for the role.

People demanded a change from 4-3-3 when Pearson came in, we got it and it was absolutely disastrous for us. I'm not entirely sure why people are desperate for a total revamp again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 29
  • Created
  • Last Reply

A back 3 of which 2 can't pass. 

Asking full backs to play wingbacks... they'd just drift to full back anyway making the whole thing pointless. 

Talking about playing 2 DM's where Johnson has been enough on his own.

Talking about Ince going central when all the best football of his career has come from the wing

Talking about pushing center midfielders forwards on paper with the chance they will still drift to natural positions. Or, like Hughes and Bryson in Pearson's 4231, you take away much of their game.

Lads, give it a rest. Do it on football manager. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact over the past 5 years can someone tell me how many formations we've seen. Actually make it since relegation.

442

4231

433

451

4141

Seen them all. 

Which one has been the best?

Bring back Pearson. He's exactly the description of what everyone asks for.

2 up front, pace and energy, fast attacks and pressing. That's what Pearson does and that has people spunking. Because it sounds amazing. 

Just like when a striker is described as big, strong and fast. Then you get Connor Sammon who was big, strong, fast and rubbish. 

A bit like Pearson's football

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must admit I am not as tactically minded as others on here but I fail to see what is wrong with formation.. We messed around with the formation at the beginning of the season and it didn't work. Since SM took over results have been better and all we need is decent cover for Thorne and Martin. Both we have missed this season. If SM had been in from the start then (based on his results) we would be in the playoffs.. I admit some performances have been poor but we have such a mixture of different managers players we need time to get this right. Stick to 433 and give SM time... We will get there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, lrm14 said:

It's worked for Chelsea and Spurs because they have some of the most technically gifted centerbacks in the game. We've tried it before against Chesterfield with a significantly more technical CB partnership than we currently have, Albentosa, Buxton and Keogh, it was an absolute disaster. One of the biggest criticisms that's come from our backline this season (apart from recently starting to ship goals) is the inability of Pearce and Shackell to pass even remotely close to the level of our 13/14 CB's Bucko and Keogh. We have excellent defensive CB's but they're not technically gifted, which means any three CB system is going to be very difficult to properly execute. We'd just be going back to the days of Paul Clement where we were very difficult to break down but very toothless going forward.

Another reason it works for Tottenham and Chelsea is because they have some of the best ball winners around in Dembele and Kante, we don't have a player even remotely similar to them. The closest player we have in midfield to them would be Johnson I guess, but he's nowhere near mobile enough for the role.

People demanded a change from 4-3-3 when Pearson came in, we got it and it was absolutely disastrous for us. I'm not entirely sure why people are desperate for a total revamp again.

Not sure if I agree with this but it's a superb post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Saul Pimpson said:

I'm pretty sure Shackell would be ripped to pieces playing left side of a back 3.

If Forsyth were fit, he'd be perfect for the role though.

Keogh / Pearce or Shackell / Forsyth

Agree. To play an effective back 3, 2 of the central defenders need to be quite pacey. Pearce and Shackell together wouldn't have the speed but Forsyth would. On the right of the 5, from within the current squad I would play Anya, with Olsson or Lowe on the left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Alpha said:

In fact over the past 5 years can someone tell me how many formations we've seen. Actually make it since relegation.

442

4231

433

451

4141

Seen them all. 

Which one has been the best?

Bring back Pearson. He's exactly the description of what everyone asks for.

2 up front, pace and energy, fast attacks and pressing. That's what Pearson does and that has people spunking. Because it sounds amazing. 

Just like when a striker is described as big, strong and fast. Then you get Connor Sammon who was big, strong, fast and rubbish. 

A bit like Pearson's football

4231 under clough with commons, Bueno and Cywka behind Kuqi

alternatively 2014's 433 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 1967Ram said:

How about this?

Carson

Baird/Christie         Shackell/Pearce       Keogh       Olsson/Lowe

Johnson

Ince         Hughes        Bryson       Russell

Bent

To be picky, Shackell/Pearce and Keogh need to swap sides ;)

But otherwise, with the exception of Butterfield in for Bryson, that was near enough the team that went 10 unbeaten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...