Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Finnegan

3atb.

Recommended Posts

What's the obsession with suggesting three man defences? We're never going to do it, we all know that, we don't really have the personnel for it and we haven't played that way except a very brief stint in the great escape. 

 

I know it's vogue at the minute because Chelsea make it work and everyone else has briefly tried it out but there's no evidence to suggest we'll try it or be any good at it. 

 

The players we sign are almost exclusively to fit a 442, we don't have enough tidy midfielders to play three together and we'd need nearly all our fit CBs to play together. 

 

I see people suggest 3412 the most with two strikes and Mahrez in the hole (which he's always, always been shit at - he's a winger not an AMC) along with wing backs which is far more attacking than anyone else playing 352 and we'd still get overrun. 

 

Amartey got stick last night but it was Albrighton that was supposed to be watching Robertson but he kept drifting inside to cover the midfield. Yet people keep suggesting he should be a wing back while we STILL play two CMs and Mahrez in the middle? We'd get killed. 

 

The other one I see is 3421 with wing backs AND wingers? That's a FIFA formation, not a real one. We're never going to do that. 

 

Really, I don't get it. Every week in the pre match threads there's people calling for 352/3412/3421. It's not going to happen guys. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would look at going that way at the moment as we are currently being exposed at the back every game and overrun in midfield, 532/352 gives us an extra man in the centre of defence and an extra man in midfield.

 

It's always been my favourite formation, but I don't think I even bother posting in the pre match threads these days, so it probably wasn't aimed at me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

What's the obsession with suggesting three man defences? We're never going to do it, we all know that, we don't really have the personnel for it and we haven't played that way except a very brief stint in the great escape. 

 

I know it's vogue at the minute because Chelsea make it work and everyone else has briefly tried it out but there's no evidence to suggest we'll try it or be any good at it. 

 

The players we sign are almost exclusively to fit a 442, we don't have enough tidy midfielders to play three together and we'd need nearly all our fit CBs to play together. 

 

I see people suggest 3412 the most with two strikes and Mahrez in the hole (which he's always, always been shit at - he's a winger not an AMC) along with wing backs which is far more attacking than anyone else playing 352 and we'd still get overrun. 

 

Amartey got stick last night but it was Albrighton that was supposed to be watching Robertson but be kept drifting inside to cover the midfield. Yet people keep suggesting he should be a wing back while we STILL play two CMs and Mahrez in the middle? We'd get killed. 

 

The other one I see is 3421 with wing backs AND wingers? That's a FIFA formation, not a real one. We're never going to do that. 

 

Really, I don't get it. Every week in the pre match threads there's people calling for 352/3412/3421. It's not going to happen guys. 

All of that makes perfect sense and is right on the nose as far as I can see.  But don't try to také away people's 352 343 dreams from them.  they live to post these formations every pre-match

 

We can also probably stick 4-3-3 in the bin of exotic formations that Shakey wouldnt give the time of day

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Captain... said:

I would look at going that way at the moment as we are currently being exposed at the back every game and overrun in midfield, 532/352 gives us an extra man in defence and an extra man in midfield.

 

But it relies on having wing backs of genuine quality. 

 

Chelsea make it work because they have Ngolo Kante in their midfield, who made our 2 play like a 3, and they've got Moses (an absolute machine) and Alonso (the best wing back in the league) running their lines. 

 

We've got an off form Albrighton and a young, questionable Ben Chilwell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

All of that makes perfect sense and is right on the nose as far as I can see.  But don't try to také away people's 352 343 dreams from them.  they live to post these formations every pre-match

 

We can also probably stick 4-3-3 in the bin of exotic formations that Shakey wouldnt give the time of day

 

You've got far more chance of us playing 433/451 than any 3atb. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it's because 4-4-2 keeps looking exposed against good teams/Huddersfield so people are looking for a shape that can give us a bit more in midfield but also allowing us to play two of our many, many forwards. But like you say, never gonna happen so it's kind of pointless bringing it up - we will never start a game under Shakey in anything other than 4-4-2/4-4-1-1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3atb! 3atb! 3atb! :P

 

I actually disagree and think we do have the players to play that formation.

 

I think with Albrighton and Chilwell, we have two potential wing backs who would suit that formation very well. 

 

The 4-4-1-1 just doesn't work consistently enough without a player like Kante. We get over-run far too often in midfield. 

 

We need more protection, whether it comes from an extra man in midfield - Maybe a 4-3-3/4-5-1 or as some are suggesting, trying the 3-5-2 

 

I think we have persisted with the 4-4-2 for too long now and it cost us last season and will cost us this season too, in terms of becoming a top 8 club. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that I don't think we have the full backs to play with 3 at the back so I'm happy to stick with 4 but something needs to change but I dares say the type of players we have only allows us to play 442. That's what is frustrating. I have no idea what's best but I'd like to see 4312 given a go. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

Cool. I remember winning the league playing 4411?

Sadly we don't have N'Golo Kante anymore, his attributes allowed us to successfully play this way. Notwithstanding Drinkwater was also highly mobile and adept at getting about the pitch.

 

I tend to disagree with the opening post, I think we have the basis of a squad that could adapt to 3 at the back. Mahrez has only tended to play as a #10 in a 4-4-1-1 where it has been essential for our system to work well that the #10 be a high energy/high work rate player to help us win the ball high up the pitch. In a 3-5-2, assuming he has 2 defensively minded/positionally aware players behind him (N'Didi, Iborra, Silva potentially fill this role), I think he'd have a bit more freedom to be effective than he would get as an auxilliary striker in a 4-4-1-1.

 

I don't think we should copy Chelsea's style if we ever moved to a back 3. Their system relies on a mobile front man with the abilty to hold the ball up, flanked by 2 attacking midfielders who can pull wide (which actually can end up being quite close to the wingback/winger situation you mentioned). Us doing that would nullify Vardy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

You've got far more chance of us playing 433/451 than any 3atb. 

 

 

Definitely.  I would be interested to see one of them maybe, but dont really see the club committing to those formations unless we get a new manager who stamps a philosophy on us.  We only go to 4-5-1 when we're in a mess in games and its of course always messy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

Cool. I remember winning the league playing 4411?

Yes, and it was brilliant but playing a 4411, 442 inventively means you will develop into a defensive side which we are seeing now. I think the players gained so much belief and momentum from the great escape that if even if we'd have carried on with that system we would still have ending up winning it. It's all about hard work, belief and being able to manage your injuries. Maybe if we'd have carried on with that system we would have been completely knackered and not done so well but that's just a maybe. The point is, imo, when we went to that system, we played quick, attacking and direct football and i think that's what fans want again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Finnegan said:

 

But it relies on having wing backs of genuine quality. 

 

Chelsea make it work because they have Ngolo Kante in their midfield, who made our 2 play like a 3, and they've got Moses (an absolute machine) and Alonso (the best wing back in the league) running their lines. 

 

We've got an off form Albrighton and a young, questionable Ben Chilwell.

It really does and that would be my concern, but we tend to give up the flanks when defending and defend narrow force them out wide and deal with the crosses in, so the defensive side isn't too much of a worry it is getting them forwards to support the attack so Vardy isn't isolated.

 

It would also get Albrighton on the right, his stronger side, or it may even be a role for Amartey  or Simpson just because he doesn't get forwards in 4411 formation doesn't mean he can't I remember him whipping in one outrageous cross (admittedly that was one cross in 3 years at the club), it would give Mahrez a free role, or no  role depending on how we line up and we get 3 strong CBs at the back allowing Maguire to carry it out and not leave us exposed, 3 to occupy the middle of the park giving more options for possession retention and Vardy up front as an outlet.

 

It's always been my favourite formation, always will be, but I don't think I ever bother posting in the pre match threads these days, so your original post probably wasn't aimed at me.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not against us changing formation, I have no problem with us putting in an extra central midfielder. 

 

Back four. 

Ndidi

Iborra James/Silva

Mahrez Albrighton/Gray

Striker 

 

I mean that's fairly realistic, it's what Shakespeare has swapped to a few times when we're winning and looking to close a game out. 

 

But we're never going to 352. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

Cool. I remember winning the league playing 4411?

If we refuse to adapt to our current reality simply because we enjoyed success playing a certain way a couple of seasons ago, the consequences could be very serious. We cannot replicate that season because we no longer have Kante - it simply can't be done. We need to find a way of playing that enables us to compete effectively - being overrun every week in midfield will not accomplish that, and if Shakespeare doesn't realise that he won't survive the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

What's the obsession with suggesting three man defences? We're never going to do it, we all know that, we don't really have the personnel for it and we haven't played that way except a very brief stint in the great escape. 

 

I know it's vogue at the minute because Chelsea make it work and everyone else has briefly tried it out but there's no evidence to suggest we'll try it or be any good at it. 

 

The players we sign are almost exclusively to fit a 442, we don't have enough tidy midfielders to play three together and we'd need nearly all our fit CBs to play together. 

 

I see people suggest 3412 the most with two strikes and Mahrez in the hole (which he's always, always been shit at - he's a winger not an AMC) along with wing backs which is far more attacking than anyone else playing 352 and we'd still get overrun. 

 

Amartey got stick last night but it was Albrighton that was supposed to be watching Robertson but he kept drifting inside to cover the midfield. Yet people keep suggesting he should be a wing back while we STILL play two CMs and Mahrez in the middle? We'd get killed. 

 

The other one I see is 3421 with wing backs AND wingers? That's a FIFA formation, not a real one. We're never going to do that. 

 

Really, I don't get it. Every week in the pre match threads there's people calling for 352/3412/3421. It's not going to happen guys. 

Iborra is too slow for a 4-4-2, Silva played in a 4-5-1 as far as I know, King isn't good enough in a 4-4-2 and Ndidi is doing what he can in a 4-4-2.

 

The midfield has always been a problem since Kanté left and after +55 games or so we can safely say that we're shit in a 4-4-2. I don't think Iborra, Nacho and Silva were bought to play further in 4-4-2 unless we're happy to buy (relatively) expensive players just to put them on the bench and let them watch us being overrun and hoof the ball like there is no tomorrow while a striker, who spends more time on his arse than on his feet, runs like a mad man to compensate for the missing midfielder.

 

So maybe not three at the back since we lack wingbacks and the adequate replacement (on that I agree) and more a 4-5-1 or a 4-3-3. For my own sanity I keep telling myself that we only play 4-4-2 because Silva is in limbo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

I'm not against us changing formation, I have no problem with us putting in an extra central midfielder. 

 

Back four. 

Ndidi

Iborra James/Silva

Mahrez Albrighton/Gray

Striker 

 

I mean that's fairly realistic, it's what Shakespeare has swapped to a few times when we're winning and looking to close a game out. 

 

But we're never going to 352. 

Swap Ndidi for Maguire and you have 3 at the back. Maguire has been better on the ball than Ndidi has this season, and he is the biggest reason to play 3 at the back at the moment. He can help bring the play forwards but won't leave us exposed with 2 defenders behind him. He can step up if we are being overrun in the middle and give our midfield an option to pass it backwards and keep possession. He could be our Bonucci.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not entirely sure how you can suggest we don't have the personnel for it.

 

Kasper

Maguire Morgan Dragovic

Albrighton -- Ndidi Iborra -- Chilwell

Mahrez

Vardy Iheanacho

That's all 11 players fitting in perfectly IMO.

 

Albrighton is probably the best "defensive" winger in the league.

 

Ndidi and Iborra can sit in and protect. Both exactly as they like to do.

 

Mahrez can do whatever the **** he likes with no defensive limitations.

 

Vardy and Iheanacho can sit on the last man as the love to do.

 

Chilwell isn't good enough defensively but has proven to be a superb attack minded full back.

 

Maguire and Dragovic have licence to play the ball out without the need to boot it long.

 

Morgan sweeping.

 

Potential to bring in players like Okazaki, Simpson, Fuchs, Silva, Slimani with ease...

 

I agree that winning the league with a 4-4-1-1 was our best formation at that time, but without Kante we are routinely being dominated in midfield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

Not entirely sure how you can suggest we don't have the personnel for it.

 

Kasper

Maguire Morgan Dragovic

Albrighton -- Ndidi Iborra -- Chilwell

Mahrez

Vardy Iheanacho

That's all 11 players fitting in perfectly IMO.

 

Albrighton is probably the best "defensive" winger in the league.

 

Ndidi and Iborra can sit in and protect. Both exactly as they like to do.

 

Mahrez can do whatever the **** he likes with no defensive limitations.

 

Vardy and Iheanacho can sit on the last man as the love to do.

 

Chilwell isn't good enough defensively but has proven to be a superb attack minded full back.

 

Maguire and Dragovic have licence to play the ball out without the need to boot it long.

 

Morgan sweeping.

 

Potential to bring in players like Okazaki, Simpson, Fuchs, Silva, Slimani with ease...

 

I agree that winning the league with a 4-4-1-1 was our best formation at that time, but without Kante we are routinely being dominated in midfield.

I can buy that. Shame we'll never know how it would fare

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...