Three at the back?

[IslandExile]

[LN747]

No it doesn’t work - does anyone else play it anymore and I’m not talking about prem teams who push one fullback onto midfield 

[SecretDave]

Long term, I'd go back to 4-2-3-1

Wildsmith

Wilson   Nelson   Cashin   Elder

Bird   Hourihane

Ward   Sibley   Mendez-Laing

Waghorn

Subs: Vickers, Forsyth, Bradley, Smith, Barkhuizen, Washington, Collins

[Ram1988]

I agree. A back 3 isn't working for me. We need to go back to a back 4.

[Zag zig]

3 at the back can and does work, some fans forget the success Jim Smith had and he was an early adapter of it.

3 at the back doesn’t work if all 3 are told to push up and get exposed to any sort of pace. Our back 5 yet alone 3, are struggling to work together, that’s before we get to the lack of creativity from midfield.

[kevinhectoring]

as much as anything it depends who the back 3 are. Don’t have a fundamental problem with the formation. It also depends how they link with the midfield but sadly our midfield is often the missing link 

[alram]

2012 called it wants its formation back

 

it would be less painful if we had legs in the team to get up and down the pitch

 

he just seems to play system after system that is completely incompatable with the players he has and worse yet SIGNS himself

Edited August 15, 2023 by alram

[plymouthram]

Mr Paul Warne

 

 

[CornwallRam]

Nothing wrong with 352.

Lots wrong with 352 if your the centre backs are painfully slow and you play three holding midfielders. 

I don't think he should ditch the formation yet. The one thing showing promise the wing backs. 

I'd try Rooney, Forsyth and Cashin as the three and start Thompson with Hourihan along side him as attacking midfielders and Bird as the holder. 

Waghorn as the 10, Collins as the 9 and swap the wingbacks at 60 mins. NML as one of the four wingbacks.

 

[plymouthram]

3 at the back will only work with at least 2 of them having some pace when the wingbacks have gone forward and the other team have won possession and counter attack.

[Rich3478]

36 minutes ago, alram said:

2012 called it wants its formation back

 

it would be less painful if we had legs in the team to get up and down the pitch

 

he just seems to play system after system that is completely incompatable with the players he has and worse yet SIGNS himself

Calling out the lack of pace is breaking me!! Sign some then!

[Rampant]

In the Jim Smith side the three at the back included Igor Stimac tbf. Who were the others? A typical side from that period would be what?

                              Hoult

                Rowett   Igor   Yates

 Carsley                                      Trollope?

                   Flynn             VDL

                            Willems

                 Sturridge     Gabbiadini

Who was the LWB? I'm sure I've missed a couple out.

[inter politics]

We have one player who looks suited to the system and that's Wilson. That's not enough is it...

[oodledoodle]

13 minutes ago, Rampant said:

In the Jim Smith side the three at the back included Igor Stimac tbf. Who were the others? A typical side from that period would be what?

                              Hoult

                Rowett   Igor   Yates

 Carsley                                      Trollope?

                   Flynn             VDL

                            Willems

                 Sturridge     Gabbiadini

Who was the LWB? I'm sure I've missed a couple out.

Only Chris Powell, nobody important.

[ollycutts1982]

15 minutes ago, Rampant said:

In the Jim Smith side the three at the back included Igor Stimac tbf. Who were the others? A typical side from that period would be what?

                              Hoult

                Rowett   Igor   Yates

 Carsley                                      Trollope?

                   Flynn             VDL

                            Willems

                 Sturridge     Gabbiadini

Who was the LWB? I'm sure I've missed a couple out.

Chris Powell

[Ellafella]

1 hour ago, IslandExile said:

It’s not working with the players we have right now. The problem is glaringly obvious. No outlet from the back through midfield & our so-called wing-backs too deep and not successful thus far in supplying the width.

A good manager can see this & Warney has admitted as much post-game tonight. So, structural overhaul this Saturday v Fleetwood. Waghorn must start & possibly Thompson. Still time to recover but must just must stop supplying passes to opposing strikers to slot home. Football is a simple game made complex by unnecessary dogma & theory. 

[valakari]

        Both Ward and Bird will be out so i would start with this team on saturday

                Wildsmith

Rooney Forsyth Cashin Elder

NML Thompson Hourihane Sibley

       Washington Waghorn

 

[Rampant]

1 hour ago, oodledoodle said:

Only Chris Powell, nobody important.

 

1 hour ago, ollycutts1982 said:

Chris Powell

Yeah, of course. 

[IlsonDerby]

2 hours ago, Zag zig said:

3 at the back can and does work, some fans forget the success Jim Smith had and he was an early adapter of it.

3 at the back doesn’t work if all 3 are told to push up and get exposed to any sort of pace. Our back 5 yet alone 3, are struggling to work together, that’s before we get to the lack of creativity from midfield.

He did have Igor tbf 

[Gaspode]

Once upon a time, playing a back five would involve 3 centre halves and wing backs who would take it in turns to go forward so that the defence always had cover (or else the holding midfielder would drop back to fill a wide position when the wing back was charging forward) - Warne's version seems to have both wing-backs permanently stationed in the opposition half and the DM running aropund like a headless chicken - at one point last night, Fozzy was our most advanced player (by a long way) - I don't get what he's trying to achieve...