Author Topic: 3 at the back  (Read 3527 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

wbafc68

  • Baby Baggie

  • Offline
  • *

  • 72
3 at the back
« on: October 04, 2015, 08:30:19 PM »
We have, when fit an abundance of centre halves. No defensive minded full backs and keep putting our most threatening striker wide left of a front 3. Why not try 3 at the back. Gamboa and Brunt as wing backs or McLean if Brunty struggles. Fletch, Yacob and Morrison with Rondon/Lambert with Berhahino up top. Any thoughts

alwaysbilly

  • Youth Baggie

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 524
Re: 3 at the back
« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2015, 08:46:50 PM »
We have, when fit an abundance of centre halves. No defensive minded full backs and keep putting our most threatening striker wide left of a front 3. Why not try 3 at the back. Gamboa and Brunt as wing backs or McLean if Brunty struggles. Fletch, Yacob and Morrison with Rondon/Lambert with Berhahino up top. Any thoughts

                 Foster

  McCauley.  Evans. Olson

Gamboa.                  Brunt

      Fletcher.    Yacob

           Morrison

  Berahino.    Rondon


Looks good to me

baggiebof

  • Youth Baggie

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 703
Re: 3 at the back
« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2015, 09:15:24 PM »
Doing this would still allow us the 3 in the centre of midfield - which is key with the options that we have in there and would also allow is to play Saido in his best position as a number 9.

I don't think Pulis will switch though, as far as I am aware, he has always been a 4 at the back man and he certainly won't be panicking following the last week.

wbasoprano

  • Youth Baggie

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 797
Re: 3 at the back
« Reply #3 on: October 04, 2015, 09:21:57 PM »
I could see us having even less possession with that line up and formation

Canadian Baggie

  • WBA Newbie

  • Offline

  • 1
Re: 3 at the back
« Reply #4 on: October 05, 2015, 01:02:20 AM »
No way a defensive minded manager like Pulis goes 3 at the back.

BigFrank20

  • Reserve Baggie

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 1667
Re: 3 at the back
« Reply #5 on: October 05, 2015, 04:26:46 AM »
How will he get his much loved defensive two banks of four from that sort of formation??????
BoingBoing, a Baggie born and a Baggie I shall die (one day)

lewisant

  • Senior Baggie

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 4732
Re: 3 at the back
« Reply #6 on: October 05, 2015, 08:20:23 AM »
No way a defensive minded manager like Pulis goes 3 at the back.

Yeah but would he go five?! We pretty much play with a back 6 anyway

fpvmtimbdbo

  • Baby Baggie

  • Offline
  • *

  • 75
Re: 3 at the back
« Reply #7 on: October 05, 2015, 12:52:40 PM »


Yeah but would he go five?! We pretty much play with a back 6 anyway

This is the most defensive minded team I could come up with (5-5-0):


                                    Myhill

     Dawson    McAuley    Olsson   Evans     Brunt

     Gardner   Chester    Yacob    Fletcher    McClean

TP should play this at Old Trafford.

Baggie Artist

  • Senior Baggie

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 2710
Re: 3 at the back
« Reply #8 on: October 05, 2015, 01:05:11 PM »
I think Hull being relegated playing it has put off managers from trying it.

ComebackStrodds

  • Youth Baggie

  • Offline
  • ***

  • 305
Re: 3 at the back
« Reply #9 on: October 05, 2015, 01:15:35 PM »
I think Hull being relegated playing it has put off managers from trying it.

Could be. Hull couldn't score for shi** thought

darbolina

  • Reserve Baggie

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 1117
Re: 3 at the back
« Reply #10 on: October 05, 2015, 01:53:06 PM »
We have the players to make 3-5-2 work well

                             
Although I still think 5 in midfield (or 4-3-3 when attacking) seems a good formation for us
                   
                   Dawson   McCauley     Evans     Brunt

                                  Yacob     Fletcher

C Mc/ Gnabry        Morrison/ Berahino/ Sess          McClean

                                 Rondon / Lambert

Lloydy

  • WBA Manager

  • Offline
  • *******

  • 12362
Re: 3 at the back
« Reply #11 on: October 05, 2015, 01:59:19 PM »
The only reason three at the back seems like a good idea is because Pulis has totally ruined this squad and filled it with mediocre defenders who aren't good enough to play in a 4-4-2. In practice I think this formation would be an absolute disaster.
No no, no no no no, no no no no, no no shots on target.......

darbolina

  • Reserve Baggie

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 1117
Re: 3 at the back
« Reply #12 on: October 05, 2015, 02:19:15 PM »
The only reason three at the back seems like a good idea is because Pulis has totally ruined this squad and filled it with mediocre defenders who aren't good enough to play in a 4-4-2. In practice I think this formation would be an absolute disaster.

Why?

Lloydy

  • WBA Manager

  • Offline
  • *******

  • 12362
Re: 3 at the back
« Reply #13 on: October 05, 2015, 02:25:54 PM »
Why?

Do you mean why would this formation be a disaster?

In my opinion it's an extremely outdated formation that simply would not work. How many teams in England, Spain, Germany, France etc use this formation on a regular basis? If there even are any, is it successful?

The vast majority of top level teams now use some variety of 4-5-1 / 4-3-3. To counteract this and control the midfield we would need two very good wing backs who are not only good defensively but can also support the midfield three. Would you trust Brunt / Dawson / Gamboa / Pocognoli with this role?

We also lack creativity in the middle of the park - the midfield three would end up being Fletcher, Yacob and Morrison or Gardner. I would say the strikers would get even less service than they do now.

Just my opinion, but I don't think this would work at all for us.
No no, no no no no, no no no no, no no shots on target.......

ex coseley kid

  • Reserve Baggie

  • Offline
  • ****

  • 1825
Re: 3 at the back
« Reply #14 on: October 05, 2015, 10:59:22 PM »
I don't understand this thread.

We have eleven at the back.
Head honcho of the Electric Boogie Club, purveyors of (mostly) 70's groove music

MarkW

  • Administrator
  • WBA Coach

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 5088
Re: 3 at the back
« Reply #15 on: October 05, 2015, 11:03:40 PM »
I'm no tactician. I'm sure there are a few on here who have done their coaching badges and the like. My tactical experience is limited to field hockey and several thousand hours on Football Manager since about 2005.

However to me we should be looking to play as a team. Pulis has us defending as a team, but we also need to attack as a team. In an older thread I did some mock-ups of what 3 at the back could look like for us, though these assumed Lambert, Berahino and Rondon would all play (and it was before Lescott left/Evans came).

http://lineupbuilder.com/2014/custom/?sk=8by01
http://lineupbuilder.com/2014/custom/?sk=8by03

I'd say AlwaysBilly has a decent line-up, though I'd be inclined to try Chester as the right-hand CB. Of course that leaves two spaces for McAuley, Dawson, Evans and Olsson.

But I think more importantly we need to learn to attack as a team. We do it on defence, but seldom do we seem to make a concerted, orchestrated attack. That means every player from goalkeeper to centre forward has a role to play, just like Pulis has us doing on defence. If you can nail that, it doesn't matter whether you are playing 3 or 4 at the back because, bar a few circumstances, you utilise your entire team.
B_H_Baggie : Dexy : Dudleylad : kris_boing : MarkW : OldburyWBA
Hull Baggie : LiamTheBaggie : Political Cake : tommcneill : WBArgo

paulosull

  • Senior Baggie

  • Offline
  • *****

  • 3127
Re: 3 at the back
« Reply #16 on: October 06, 2015, 04:30:26 PM »
Pulis had a wet dream 11 gmacs on the pitch with three gmacs as subs