3 / 5 at the back thread

[lcfc sheff]

Seen a lot of people not too pleased of discussions of this formation in other threads ... so here we go

 

@toddybad why do you think that’s the wrong formation?

[WigstonWanderer]

Personally I’d like this thread to ignore whether the manager has ever played this way, or is likely to in the future and just discuss it in terms of the merits of the formation bearing in mind the players we have.

[Donut]

I think just in my opinion, the issue with the wing back system is it demands a lot of the two wingbacks, who can then also be left exposed in the transition phase if we lose the ball with the wingbacks high and against 2 v 1s in defending scenarios.

 

In the second half against Croatia you could see how Ashley Young was being doubled up on and we were vulnerable to the quick switch of play from left to right.

 

I think playing this kind of system also means a more passive style of pressing for the same reason that the wingbacks do not want to be exposed high up the pitch with space left down the channels.

 

There aren't that many excellent teams that play a 3 at the back system, relatively speaking. You could argue Barca did it to an extent under Luis Enrique when Alba and Vidal/Roberto pushed high and Busquets dropped between the two centre backs, Chelsea surprised everyone with a 343 system but its not that common.

[AKCJ]

I think 5 at the back gets the best out of Maguire, Chilwell and Pereira.

 

But we definitely need another CB to ever begin to consider it.

[Guest]

I think it's Leicester fans banging on about a system we used to have success with.

 

We don't have the central defensive back up to support it (we'd need 5 prem quality cbs).

 

I'm more concerned about whether we have enough going forward so taking away an attacking player to have an extra cb seems barmy.

 

4 at the back has much more historic success in every league at every level.

 

Aside from a handful of games for the England lads, have any of our players ever played a 3 at the back system? 

 

Have we seen anything from Puel to suggest he had ever, or will ever, use a 3 man defence? If not why would our fans continually be putting forward potential line ups that don't remotely look like anything puel has ever played?

Edited 12 July 2018 by Guest

[lgfualol]

I want 352 because Gray, Diabate and Albrighton wont create much and Maddison behind Iheanacho and Vardy could be very good. 

[Nick]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I think it's Leicester fans banging on about a system we used to have success with.

 

We don't have the central defensive back up to support it (we'd need 5 prem quality cbs).

 

I'm more concerned about whether we have enough going forward so taking away an attacking player to have an extra cb seems barmy.

 

4 at the back has much more historic success in every league at every level.

 

Aside from a handful of games for the England lads, have any of our players ever played a 3 at the back system? 

 

Have we seen anything from Puel to suggest he had ever, or will ever, use a 3 man defence? If not why would our fans continually be putting forward potential line ups that don't remotely look like anything puel has ever played?

 

I agree it feels unlikely that Puel would pursue a 3 at the back with wingbacks.

 

It is though something that he may be considering as a plan b formation because we are being linked with buying numerous personnel who would fit into such a system.

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I think it's Leicester fans banging on about a system we used to have success with.

 

We don't have the central defensive back up to support it (we'd need 5 prem quality cbs).

 

I'm more concerned about whether we have enough going forward so taking away an attacking player to have an extra cb seems barmy.

 

4 at the back has much more historic success in every league at every level.

 

Aside from a handful of games for the England lads, have any of our players ever played a 3 at the back system? 

 

Have we seen anything from Puel to suggest he had ever, or will ever, use a 3 man defence? If not why would our fans continually be putting forward potential line ups that don't remotely look like anything puel has ever played?

 

Puel has used it a few times when chasing games for us, not to particularly good effect but he clearly sees it as an option.

Also it doesn’t have to take away an extra attacking player if you have wingbacks with good attacking pedigree, it gives you an extra man further up.

[Donut]

1 minute ago, lgfualol said:

I want 352 because Gray, Diabate and Albrighton wont create much and Maddison behind Iheanacho and Vardy could be very good. 

I don't think that formation would win a game of football.

 

Nothing in the middle of the pitch.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, lgfualol said:

I want 352 because Gray, Diabate and Albrighton wont create much and Maddison behind Iheanacho and Vardy could be very good. 

Is there any club team that play this formation? Chelsea and Spurs both use one up top with supporting attackers. No team plays 3-5-2. There is no precedent for a club being successful with that formation in modern football.

[Charl91]

I'd like the idea of 3/5 at the back. Feel like we'd need another CB though.

 

.....If only we'd signed Dragovic. Evans, Maguire and Dragovic would be a great back 3.

[Beechey]

3 minutes ago, Donut said:

I don't think that formation would win a game of football.

 

Nothing in the middle of the pitch.

Think he means (players possibly to change of course)

 

[lgfualol]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Is there any club team that play this formation? Chelsea and Spurs both use one up top with supporting attackers. No team plays 3-5-2. There is no precedent for a club being successful with that formation in modern football.

343 then, whichever is ok if it means we are not just giving the ball to Gray and Albrighton and hoping they do something Mahrez was capable of.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, lgfualol said:

343 then, whichever is ok if it means we are not just giving the ball to Gray and Albrighton and hoping they do something Mahrez was capable of.

I'd be very surprised if we saw much of albrighton tbh. I'm expecting 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 with Madison, grey, diabate and a new signing fighting for three spots. May well be wrong, of course.

[mozartfox]

To play 3, you need serious speed in there somewhere which is something we do not have within the ranks of our current CB's.

 

With the right personnel, it could work in some games, but if we are honest here, our defense was a shambles for the most part last season and we struggled to master a flat back 4.   I would be all for the recruitment of some new Italian defensive coach to really sort things out including the goal-keeping aspect.

[OhYesNdidi]

11 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Think he means (players possibly to change of course)

 

The wing backs will end up getting doubled up on by opposition wingers & full backs. 

 

Silva and Iborra don't have the legs to be able to cover the wide areas. / lack of numbers in the middle. 

 

Morgan in a back 3 is just ludicourus. Playing 3 at the back is useful as it opens up more passing options, what's the point in playing a player who doesn't want the ball then? We might aswell play 4 at the back and put an attacking player on. Morgan won't exactly be able to pass or play through the press.

 

The need to get the ball wide quickly and switch it, not sure anyone in that team is able to do that - unless silva is a 40 yard passing machine, or we sign a CB who's able to switch it, it's pointless IMO. 

Edited 12 July 2018 by OhYesNdidi

[Finnegan]

I have no objection to the formation I just wish people would shut the **** up suggesting it in every other thread when there's literally never any indication that we're ever going to play it. 

 

Like it Puel's old club played 352 or had said he was interested in it or something then go crazy. 

[les-tah]

37 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Think he means (players possibly to change of course)

 

Cant take people seriously when they continue to find a place for Morgan in their starting 11.  

[AKCJ]

27 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

I have no objection to the formation I just wish people would shut the **** up suggesting it in every other thread when there's literally never any indication that we're ever going to play it. 

 

Like it Puel's old club played 352 or had said he was interested in it or something then go crazy. 

On paper the formation fits our squad perfectly IMO. Especially now we don't have Mahrez.

[Xen]

16 minutes ago, les-tah said:

Cant take people seriously when they continue to find a place for Morgan in their starting 11.  

Think it's more of a case of 'This is the formation I think we could/should play, and this is how our current players would fit into it'.

 

 

There are numerous posts above saying that we'd need to sign another CB in order to play with 3/5atb, and the post you quoted itself mentions that the players could change!

[Finnegan]

3 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

On paper the formation fits our squad perfectly IMO. Especially now we don't have Mahrez.

 

Yeah quite possibly but it's still a redundant discussion if the manager has no intention of doing it. 

[lcfc sheff]

I’m mearly playing devils advocate. 

 

However, i do feel it could help Maguire more than anyone along with chilwell.

 

i noticed it seemed a few ‘ITKs’ believed we were going for this formation and I think that’s why so many of us have spoken about it at times.

[Beechey]

51 minutes ago, les-tah said:

Cant take people seriously when they continue to find a place for Morgan in their starting 11.  

Well considering we have no other first team CBs there's not many other options if people want a back 3 is there?

[AKCJ]

35 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

Yeah quite possibly but it's still a redundant discussion if the manager has no intention of doing it. 

'Redundant discussion' might as well be FoxesTalk's strapline.

[Finnegan]

2 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

'Redundant discussion' might as well be FoxesTalk's strapline.

 

Fair point.