Three At The Back

[ericblack4boss]

my preference ideally would be 3-5-2 always been a fan of that formation and with the three centre backs we now have don't see why we can't go with that formation

[Pudgie]

I used to get a two at the back. And the sides. Left slightly longer on top.

 

Now it's just a mop!

[tup]

I assume that's why we signed the wingers.

 

3-5-2 would work well with the right three defenders.

[sheepiekev]

what about 4-2-3-1?

 

Definitely not 3-5-2

Half of the teams just play 1 up front, especially at Pittodrie, so it's pointless having 3 central defenders up against 1 striker.

4 at the back for me....and a variation for midfield and up front dependant on who we're playing.

[ericblack4boss]

three at the back is what Brown afvoured with the national side too,

 

with Considine, Anderson and Reynolds as back three

we could have Jack or magennis as right wing back,

 

on the lft Naismith, or Milsom

 

you know it could work!

[tup]

I think we could go with Reynolds, Naysmith and Anderson in a back three and cope with playing 3-5-2 with Hayes and McGinn or Pawlett on the flanks.

[ericblack4boss]

what about 4-2-3-1?

 

Definitely not 3-5-2

Half of the teams just play 1 up front, especially at Pittodrie, so it's pointelss having 3 central defenders up against 1 striker.

4 at the back for me....and a variation for midfield and up front dependant on who we're playing.

Sheepie Kev if it's pointless playing 3 defenders against one striker, then how do you work out it's better to play 4 against one striker?

[Pash]

4-3-3 but with only ONE defensive minded midfielder.

 

Rae/Hughes sitting with Milson and Jack ATTACKING.

[Foster14]

Why would we sign wingers, to then go ahead and employ a system that would not suit them or utilise them properly them at all?

[Pudgie]

Sheepie Kev if it's pointless playing 3 defenders against one striker, then how do you work out it's better to play 4 against one striker?

The wingers would go forward more making it more of a 2-6-2

[Foster14]

Sheepie Kev if it's pointless playing 3 defenders against one striker, then how do you work out it's better to play 4 against one striker?

 

I see football tactics are nae a fort

[sheepiekev]

Sheepie Kev if it's pointless playing 3 defenders against one striker, then how do you work out it's better to play 4 against one striker?

 

going by your team selection for last Saturday, and what you have just said, I am doubting you have any knowledge of football?

3 central defenders against one striker is a no.

In a back 4, it would be TWO central defenders against one striker.

[tup]

There is a good reason no-one uses 3-5-2 anymore.

 

I wouldna say nobody uses it.

 

You need three very good defenders to make it work.

[sheepiekev]

I see football tactics are nae a fort

[Foster14]

I wouldna say nobody uses it.

 

You need three very good defenders to make it work.

 

I can't recall the last time I saw any team use it from the outset of a game. Barcelona adopted it a couple of times recently but more often than not it changed in to a 2-5-3. They don't really do formations there. Is there any team who adopts it as their main approach now?

 

It does need three very good defenders, all well drilled in their roles to make sure they aren't tripping over each other.

 

I think it generally needs teams to play against you with more than one out and out striker though. It could match up well against a 4-4-2 if you have the correct personnel, but in todays game where there are 4-5-1s, 4-3-3s, 4-2-3-1s and such like being used, the 3-5-2 is usually found to be wanting.

[tup]

Celtic used it in O'Neill's day, with Agathe and Petta on the flanks, to great effect in Europe particularly.

[barnared]

4-3-3 is always my favourite but with our squad its the only possibility

[K-9]

There is a good reason no-one uses 3-5-2 anymore.

This.

[sheepiekev]

I can't recall the last time I saw any team use it from the outset of a game. Barcelona adopted it a couple of times recently but more often than not it changed in to a 2-5-3. They don't really do formations there. Is there any team who adopts it as their main approach now?

 

It does need three very good defenders, all well drilled in their roles to make sure they aren't tripping over each other.

 

I think it generally needs teams to play against you with more than one out and out striker though. It could match up well against a 4-4-2 if you have the correct personnel, but in todays game where there are 4-5-1s, 4-3-3s, 4-2-3-1s and such like being used, the 3-5-2 is usually found to be wanting.

 

Agreed.

Pretty much every team plays with a back 4, and variations in midfield/up front depending on their personnel.

[stand_free]

I can't recall the last time I saw any team use it from the outset of a game. Barcelona adopted it a couple of times recently but more often than not it changed in to a 2-5-3. They don't really do formations there. Is there any team who adopts it as their main approach now?

 

It does need three very good defenders, all well drilled in their roles to make sure they aren't tripping over each other.

 

I think it generally needs teams to play against you with more than one out and out striker though. It could match up well against a 4-4-2 if you have the correct personnel, but in todays game where there are 4-5-1s, 4-3-3s, 4-2-3-1s and such like being used, the 3-5-2 is usually found to be wanting.

 

Calderwood used it a few times as well with Foster and Byrne as the wing backs. Every time we played it was torturous

[barnared]

4-3-3 is the most versatile formation.

 

You can easily use it attack minded and also defend well from it.

 

Defenders have the least work of the team in this formation...the way it should be.

 

Bar

[Foster14]

Celtic used it in O'Neill's day, with Agathe and Petta on the flanks, to great effect in Europe particularly.

 

That was still a good few years back now. 7 years since O'Neill left Celtic. Generally speaking, the attacking element of a formation is a lot more fluid nowadays and makes it difficult for 3 central defenders to have easily defined roles. It would largely be two spare central defenders following wingers about all over the place, it would be disasterous.

 

Calderwood used it a few times as well with Foster and Byrne as the wing backs. Every time we played it was torturous

 

Aye, I remember he did it a few times. Must have been the year of the UEFA Cup run as it was Touzani that he put in defence along with Severin and Diamond if my memory serves me correctly. Bit of a failed experiment.

[barnared]

3-5-2 usually means 5 at the back

 

If not just call it 3-4-3

[The Oxford Don]

Under no circumstances should we even be contemplating 3 at the back.

 

Scottish footballers are not bright enough or tactically astute enough to make this formation work (O'Neill's Celtic aside), and it tends to descend into chaos.

 

One of the reasons we ended up badly in the shit in Willie Miller's final season as manager was because he tried to switch to a 3-5-2. We had far, far better players back then and they were incapable of making it work; with the current crop of numpties I would be genuinely fearful of some kind of appalling calamity befalling the team: folk running into each other, bumping into goalposts, Langfield taking to the pitch in a tiny wee car whose doors fall off when he attempts to get out etc etc.

 

No no no no no no no NO. No.

 

4 in defence, and nothing too fancy in midfield and attack. All else is madness. Or it's just sheer masturbation material for people who have spent far longer playing Footy Manager than they have spent watching actual football.

[barnared]

[Ke1t]

Don't you need a relatively pacy defence to play a back three?

 

How fast is Russ?

[sheepiekev]

Don't you need a relatively pacy defence to play a back three?

 

How fast is Russ?

 

Not if one "sweeps".

The two slower ones Anderson & Considine mark, Reynolds would sweep behind.

That said, we are solid enough at the back so why change from a 4.

[Ke1t]

Not if one "sweeps".

The two slower ones Anderson & Considine mark, Reynolds would sweep behind.

That said, we are solid enough at the back so why change from a 4.

 

I'd say Russ is a pretty decent penalty box defender to play sweeper, but wouldn't a sweeper just serve to narrow an already narrow defence?

 

You'd have to have left and right side players with the stamina and interest to charge up and down their side of the field for 90 minutes to plug wide gaps at the back, and get forward far and fast enough to swing in balls for the front... I'm assuming 2?

 

I don't think I'd fancy the role of wide player in any system going with a back three.

 

Personally I'd go with a back 4 always... unless I'm playing, say, Galafairydean in a Scottish Cup tie. Then I'd play a five man defence.

[sheepiekev]

I'd say Russ is a pretty decent penalty box defender to play sweeper, but wouldn't a sweeper just serve to narrow an already narrow defence?

 

You'd have to have left and right side players with the stamina and interest to charge up and down their side of the field for 90 minutes to plug wide gaps at the back, and get forward far and fast enough to swing in balls for the front... I'm assuming 2?

 

I don't think I'd fancy the role of wide player in any system going with a back three.

 

Personally I'd go with a back 4 always... unless I'm playing, say, Galafairydean in a Scottish Cup tie. Then I'd play a five man defence.

 

Your wing backs have to be quick and have the ability to attack well and defend well.

We dont really have anyone who fills all 3 of those needs.

The bottom line is, very few if any teams employ 3 at the back....there has to be a good reason for that.

Stick with the back 4 - it's ok most of the time.

We need to concentrate on the forward areas - the creation and taking of chances is a far bigger prioirity.

[Ke1t]

Your wing backs have to be quick and have the ability to attack well and defend well.

We dont really have anyone who fills all 3 of those needs.

The bottom line is, very few if any teams employ 3 at the back....there has to be a good reason for that.

Stick with the back 4 - it's ok most of the time.

We need to concentrate on the forward areas - the creation and taking of chances is a far bigger prioirity.

 

This is what I'm thinking... if you're going to start playing an Italian style then you need to have players capable of doing that.

 

It's all very well playing three at the back if you have the personnel capable of filling the huge gaps left at the back, and the defenders capable of defending inside their own box with the confidence not to be hacking down players because there's no cover... but our standard of player can fill ONE role at best, and on occasion can't even fill ONE role... se Mackie, Young, McDonald, Diamond.... etc.

 

Let's just have four at the back, four in the middle, two up top, and cut out the fancy shite.

 

Even a Scottish player can understand those instructions, I would hope.