3atb.

[Gazza M]

I don't think its so much 3 at the back, it's a need for 3 in central midfield. We do have the personnel definitely. 3-5-2 is good as would allow us to keep two out and out strikers and with 5 centre halves on the books, would make sense.

[Koke]

We are gonna play 442 til death do us apart. Finners is right that there's zero chance of CS going 3atb. None. 433 is a slight possibility. 

 

Apart from 2nd half v Atletico Madrid when has Shakey gone 3atb? Did we play 3atb v Spurs? I've wiped that game off my memory.

[AKCJ]

2 minutes ago, Gazza M said:

I don't think its so much 3 at the back, it's a need for 3 in central midfield. We do have the personnel definitely. 3-5-2 is good as would allow us to keep two out and out strikers and with 5 centre halves on the books, would make sense.

I don't think we can afford 3 of our current midfielders to be fair. None have enough attacking quality to play at the top of the three. I think Mahrez is our current best bet but I expect Silva would be superb in that position.

[Finnegan]

I'm not against 3atb by the way. I don't think it'd be great but I don't think 442 is perfect either.

 

My point is more that it's never going to happen. 

[mozartfox]

2 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

Cool. I remember winning the league playing 4411?

I remember 2-3-5.  Mind you we never won anything of note using that system and all teams played the same way.

[CosbehFox]

3 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

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

 

We gave it a go against Chelsea in the second half and we looked an absolute shambles. 

 

You play 4-3-3, you isolate Vardy so much. Unless you can get Gray and Mahrez working inside as well as out

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

18 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

 

We gave it a go against Chelsea in the second half and we looked an absolute shambles. 

 

You play 4-3-3, you isolate Vardy so much. Unless you can get Gray and Mahrez working inside as well as out

Yeah, but in a situation like that we don't really use a 433 properly.  Thats just desperate tactics of trying to gain control in the middle of the pitch by sticking bodies in.  A real use of it would take more commitment, tactical training, belief in it as a formation for attacking; not just plugging the gap when we're getting effed in the A

[Fox92]

2 hours 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.

No he's not. I can pick many games where we've been hammered down one side where Albrighton is supposed to be, including last night. Albrighton should be dropped he has showed nothing decent since the Arsenal game. That was probably the last time he put a good cross in too.

 

As for Chilwell, he is no worse than Fuchs defensively. We concede so many times down our left with Fuchs and Albrighton on that side - Arsenal and Chelsea games this season as an example.

[AKCJ]

3 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

No he's not. I can pick many games where we've been hammered down one side where Albrighton is supposed to be, including last night. Albrighton should be dropped he has showed nothing decent since the Arsenal game. That was probably the last time he put a good cross in too.

 

As for Chilwell, he is no worse than Fuchs defensively. We concede so many times down our left with Fuchs and Albrighton on that side - Arsenal and Chelsea games this season as an example.

Out of interest, who would you say is a better defensive winger in the league?

 

Chilwell is worse defensively. Come on now. Chilwell regularly plays against poor opposition in the Cups etc.

 

Fuchs and Albrighton concede against two of the best attacking teams in the league. Shock. Would you have expected Gray and Chilwell to concede less goals?

[Webbo]

“Players lose you games, not tactics. There’s so much crap talked about tactics by people who barely know how to win at dominoes”, Brian Clough 

[Fox92]

33 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

Out of interest, who would you say is a better defensive winger in the league?

 

Chilwell is worse defensively. Come on now. Chilwell regularly plays against poor opposition in the Cups etc.

 

Fuchs and Albrighton concede against two of the best attacking teams in the league. Shock. Would you have expected Gray and Chilwell to concede less goals?

Don’t know of the top of my head but I bet there’s plenty of wingers with the defensive work and ability of Albrighton. As I said, he’s been poor this season and it’s about time we started on the front foot with Gray and Mahrez.

 

I am not a big fan of Fuchs. During our title winning season he was superb but since then he seems to have gone backwards. We concede a lot down that side - the games I selected were only examples. Chilwell, for me, is no worse than Fuchs now. Two years ago I would have had a different opinion.

 

We’re just so boring, and always start to not lose a game. With Gray and Mahrez we’d have two wingers who run at opposition players, direct, fast with a bit of trickery. I know Gray makes wrong decisions but at least he gets the ball down and runs at players.

[Bryn]

4 hours 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. 

 

I'm not saying we should go three at the back but I don't agree that we don't have the personnel for it. I think we could play that shape but it wouldn't be the bombastic, fluid, high intensity way the big teams play it. It'd would be quite defensive minded.

 

Kasper

 

Dragovic Morgan Maguire

 

Albrighton ------------------------------------ Chilwell

 

Iborra Ndidi


Okazaki

 

Vardy Iheanacho

I'm not saying that's how I'd have us playing but it's not so terrible that I'd be starting a thread saying it's illogical. The limitations would be that our middle centreback Morgan wouldn't step into midfield well like Luiz or Fernandinho do and Morgan can't play as  the wide centreback, our wingbacks wouldn't be as much of a force as bigger teams and it'd put a huge amount ofpressure on Vardy and Iheanacho to create and score chances.

[st albans fox]

4 hours ago, Koke said:

We are gonna play 442 til death do us apart. Finners is right that there's zero chance of CS going 3atb. None. 433 is a slight possibility. 

 

Apart from 2nd half v Atletico Madrid when has Shakey gone 3atb? Did we play 3atb v Spurs? I've wiped that game off my memory.

second half we did - battered them for 15/20 mins, got a goal and then poch pulled dele back to cover chillers. then they got the third and shakey lost the plot making subs and changing it again. always thought that with our intensity sides will struggle to have any control with us playing 3-5-2. however, whether it works without drinky is a moot point.  maybe have to wait for silva to arrive.

[murphy]

With all the complaints about 4-4-2, you'd think we were the only club that still employs it.

 

I thought I'd do a little digging and see what are the premier leagues most popular formations.  The only data I could find was 3 years old but interesting all the same.

 

The most popular formation is 4-2-3-1 (220 times) and 4-4-2 (or 4-4-1-1) was easily the second most popular (176 times).

 

3-5-2 was nowhere (10 times).

 

So in many cases we should be matching up like for like so why do we always get overrun in midfield?  Perhaps, because two of the 4 are wingers rather than wide mids.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/mar/13/louis-van-gaal-united-tinker-table-premier-league

[HoustonFox]

8 hours 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. 

Finners, thank you for this thread.  I'm 100% behind your opinion.  We need to get over it.  Those that said we did in Great Escape, wasnt' that 541 or something mad?  With the player we have, and more importantly, the way we play, we will either have the Wing Backs as Full Backs permantly or get over run down the flanks.  Unfortunately, 352/532/343 or whatever are for footballing teams, who keep possession, not hoofers who give the ball back when they get it.  They are not counter attacking formations either.  Would need a massive tactical and personnel change IMHO.

 

5 hours ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

 

We gave it a go against Chelsea in the second half and we looked an absolute shambles. 

 

You play 4-3-3, you isolate Vardy so much. Unless you can get Gray and Mahrez working inside as well as out

That's because we don't play 433 properly, we play 451.  

5 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Yeah, but in a situation like that we don't really use a 433 properly.  Thats just desperate tactics of trying to gain control in the middle of the pitch by sticking bodies in.  A real use of it would take more commitment, tactical training, belief in it as a formation for attacking; not just plugging the gap when we're getting effed in the A

Totally agree AOTFYN.  We could play it properly, but we don't.  I think we have the personnel to do it, make the most of Vardy and Mahrez, and give us an extra body in midfield.  A dynamic 3 across the top would be fantastic to see.  I'm surprised Riyad isn't crying out for it.  The more he plays well in that formation, the better the chances of his dream move to Barca!

[DMU Fox]

7 hours 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.

Funnily enough in this game of fantasy manager, this would be the team i'd play. I think it would actually suit us and get us playing better than what we currently are. I'm fairly sure we did it 2nd half against Madrid last season and it seemed to work ok.

 

Slightly disappointed we didn't trial different formations in Pre-Season, i think we're so committed to 442/4411 is because we don't have enough confidence to try anything different, and we daren't expose that in a game situation. 

[volpeazzurro]

5 hours ago, Fox92 said:

No he's not. I can pick many games where we've been hammered down one side where Albrighton is supposed to be, including last night. Albrighton should be dropped he has showed nothing decent since the Arsenal game. That was probably the last time he put a good cross in too.

 

As for Chilwell, he is no worse than Fuchs defensively. We concede so many times down our left with Fuchs and Albrighton on that side - Arsenal and Chelsea games this season as an example.

I think the problem with him last night he had two jobs, his and Armartys,  the latter getting a nosebleed if he left his own penalty area in the first half, he thought he was a 4th centre half I think.

[mozartfox]

3atb is thesame name as Pearson Junior's new movie.  Filmed on location in Bangkok.

[Phube]

I've always been a big fan of 3-5-2 ever since the MON days, and if we can make Impey and Guppy into decent wing backs then sure as hell so can Albrighton and Chilly!

[TrentFox]

I'd like us to be at the vanguard of formation-engineering and try 1atb. Even better, I'd like it to be Jakupovich. He who dares .....

[Foxxed]

I've wanted three at the back, but not because I think that'd sure up our defence, but because it could mean Chilwell and (you know, in form) Albrighton giving us the creative spark our midfield and a doubly marked Mahrez fails to deliver at present. If we had a quality creative midfielder I'd not be so keen on three at the back.

[Stadt]

6 hours ago, Webbo said:

“Players lose you games, not tactics. There’s so much crap talked about tactics by people who barely know how to win at dominoes”, Brian Clough 

I agree, football is exactly the same tactically as it was 30 years ago.

[Webbo]

12 minutes ago, Wookie said:

I agree, football is exactly the same tactically as it was 30 years ago.

Pretty sure it's still 11 versus 11

[Stadt]

Just now, Webbo said:

Pretty sure it's still 11 versus 11

When we won the league we didn't have purely the best players otherwise they wouldn't have been at Leicester. Tactically we were set up so well and players hit the form of their careers at the right time. Tactics are hugely important and that's why sometimes good teams struggle (amongst other reasons of course) and some teams over perform.

[Webbo]

5 minutes ago, Wookie said:

When we won the league we didn't have purely the best players otherwise they wouldn't have been at Leicester. Tactically we were set up so well and players hit the form of their careers at the right time. Tactics are hugely important and that's why sometimes good teams struggle (amongst other reasons of course) and some teams over perform.

The second sentence of that quote is spot on though.