Dava75 Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 Yeah, let's jump on the 3 at the back bandwagon - the fashionable formation - and then blame the manager for playing square pegs in round holes! We haven't had that one on the blame list for a while so it could work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toddy Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 3 at the back? What has that got to do with a team that creates 20 odd chances away from home. But can only find the net once? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alph Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 8 minutes ago, Richard246 said: We should of tried it against Grimsby. The idea of 3 at the back is to get more players in forward positions get the wing backs playing as wingers and the front 3 can play closer together. Perhaps then Martin is the answer in the front 3 if you can stop him sulking i actually think it may work. Who gets forward though that can't now? To change to that formation we are asking our wingers to play wing back (a position that players often don't play, they end up playing like fullback anyway) Rowett likes the ball forward quickly. The system suggested has less width in less advanced positions. So the success we have had with our raiding style of attack would come from where? Down the middle? Surely if you want wing backs to play as wingers then your better off playing wingers on the wings? I can't see a single thing that's not working for us now that it solves? Why do we want to pull our wingers back and push Wisdom to CB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G STAR RAM Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 20 minutes ago, Richard246 said: We should of tried it against Grimsby. The idea of 3 at the back is to get more players in forward positions get the wing backs playing as wingers and the front 3 can play closer together. Perhaps then Martin is the answer in the front 3 if you can stop him sulking i actually think it may work. Rowett had 10 games at the end of last season plus pre season if he wanted to toy with new formations. I think the sale of Christie would indicate wing backs are not really in his mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coneheadjohn Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 1 hour ago, RoyMac5 said: Lol. Flourish? But I thought Rowett said formations were flexible depending on the opposition? Agree,not materialised yet though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 9 minutes ago, coneheadjohn said: Agree,not materialised yet though? Well a derisory attempt at 4-3-3 with Martin and no service. Can't say that Huddz and Johnson have convinced me of owt yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coneheadjohn Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 10 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said: Well a derisory attempt at 4-3-3 with Martin and no service. Can't say that Huddz and Johnson have convinced me of owt yet. Needs someone very high energy to work with Huddlestone. It's like sending a tank into battle without infantry support. May as well sell Martin if we're going to lift balls over the top all season,bring in Clayton Donaldson I'm in the pub...relax!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 1 minute ago, coneheadjohn said: Needs someone very high energy to work with Huddlestone. It's like sending a tank into battle without infantry support. May as well sell Martin if we're going to lift balls over the top all season,bring in Clayton Donaldson I'm in the pub...relax!! Cheers! But yeah no point in not getting service or support to Martin or Nugent. The only thing that would make Nuge first choice then is his ability to run around lots. Happy days. Of course if we got some legs in midfield and another winger then we might get the best from our strikers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coneheadjohn Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 Just now, RoyMac5 said: Cheers! But yeah no point in not getting service or support to Martin or Nugent. The only thing that would make Nuge first choice then is his ability to run around lots. Happy days. Of course if we got some legs in midfield and another winger then we might get the best from our strikers... To be honest,I liked the look of Lawrence,I reckon he's going to do the business. He was all over the place and he did try to get close to Martin. It was a bad situation to be thrown into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archied Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 At this point formation means nothing ,,, rowett has one job to do and that is to get these players heads in the right place , that's the task that the previous few managers have failed to do ,, it's nothing to do with square pegs and round holes or how you write names on a blackboard or teamsheet ,,, motivated teams find a way to win no matter what formations are put before them before or during games ,,, what we have now is a squad / team that lays down way too easily and until that is changed we can forget about promotion ,, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Sheriff Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 I would have tried this pre season. Christie would of been ideal in this formation. It would eliminate the wing forward positions that we have struggled with too. To try it now wouldn't be ideal, we haven't recruited for it at all and we haven't gave this new one a proper chance. Just need to trust Gary now to make it work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiddingsRam Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 3 hours ago, Alpha said: What will 3 at the back help us with that we lack? Genuine question. Genuine answer , no sarcasm ( for once). The majority of championship teams play a lone striker , therefore having 2 centre halves to mark one centre forward seems a bit daft. Playing the 3 will allow every forward player to be picked up and if were overun, it allows a midfield player to drop into effectively a 4 to help out , now depending on how you set up you can overload the midfield use the width of the wingbacks and still allow for a good attacking performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuespachRam Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 I'm not sure if it was mentioned on here already but Rowett spoke about 3 at the back after the game saying that it is easy to play against because none of the defenders ever mark anyone.....so I would think that we aren't going that route Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Mackay Ate My Hamster Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 We seem to have 4-3-3 ensconced in our DNA the last few years. It worked well for a while under Schteeve, but we had no plan B. What we're crying out for is one or two tough tackling central midfielders who can bring the ball forward. A Championship Viera if you like. Without a midfield general we constantly get over run in midfield and teams rampage through us when we haven't got possession. What we've recruited in the last couple of years under Mel is an embarassment of attacking midfied/strikers with ill-defined roles. They're all sort of behind the striker players and we're struggling to fit them in. So our natural line up by skill set sort of resembles 4-5-1 or 4-2-4, no matter how you position them, with players tripping over each other trying to slot their skills into a team with similar players who have played their careers doing similar jobs at their previous clubs. Previously decent servants like Bryson, Martin and Russell seem to be on the wane, or just confused as to where they fit in. Confusion reigns because we can't get any degree of balance, despite or because of many managers. We've pinned all our playing style on a defensive midfielder, previously Thorne who's been rarely fit, and now Huddles who is essentially a football "quarterback" pinging balls upfield, bypassing the midfield. Even worse, we've often crow barred any old player into this role because it seems to be an obsession. If you've got ( a Championship) Kante or Makelele the position makes sense, if you're trying anybody in that position, what's the point? Unless we have at least one, possibly two decent central midfielders who can control a game it won't matter who we have up front because we won't ( and aren't ) creating enough ammunition for them and are losing too much possession too often to avoid pressure on our defence. Square pegs, square holes. The balance has been wrong for sooo long.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jourdan Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 I think three at the back works well if you have a good coach to implement it, the right players to fit it, and the time to perfect it on the training ground. I think we fall down on all three counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronRam 140.6 Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 7 hours ago, Jimbo Ram said: I am not sure Hudders and George can play in the midfield together..no pace or mobility.... I think they can personally. It's when we play 3 CF's in front of them it'll go wrong. Our attacking midfield 3 (none of whom are actual midfielders) is our undoing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IlsonDerby Posted August 28, 2017 Share Posted August 28, 2017 1 hour ago, MuespachRam said: I'm not sure if it was mentioned on here already but Rowett spoke about 3 at the back after the game saying that it is easy to play against because none of the defenders ever mark anyone.....so I would think that we aren't going that route Wow we must have been terrible if none of Wolves defenders were marking our forwards! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiddingsRam Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 2 hours ago, Jourdan said: I think three at the back works well if you have a good coach to implement it, the right players to fit it, and the time to perfect it on the training ground. I think we fall down on all three counts. Disagree , I think we can tick at least 2 of the boxes and half tick the time box , we've got as much time as anyone else would have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiddingsRam Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 2 hours ago, IronRam 70.3 said: I think they can personally. It's when we play 3 CF's in front of them it'll go wrong. Our attacking midfield 3 (none of whom are actual midfielders) is our undoing. That was my point earlier no real wingers as such , so use wing backs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimmu Posted August 29, 2017 Share Posted August 29, 2017 8 hours ago, MuespachRam said: I'm not sure if it was mentioned on here already but Rowett spoke about 3 at the back after the game saying that it is easy to play against because none of the defenders ever mark anyone.....so I would think that we aren't going that route I'm not saying we should go with three at the back, but that surely is a very limited view from Rowett. For example, Juventus' defenders mark players alright-ish... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.