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
lcfc sheff

3 / 5 at the back thread

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

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

not sure any manager has ever looked to these threads to decide their tactics, tbf 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to suggest that when playing teams that have 1 attacker - which seems to be most of them these days - we really don't need 3 at the back. I'd like to see a new aggressive 2 at the back with wing backs allowing us to play 2 defensive midfielders who can cover at the back when needed. With the present players something like:

 

Kasper

 

Evans

Maguire

 

Albrighton (or chilwell) as attacking WB

Ndidi 

Choudhury (or Iborra if you aren't as progressive as I am :P)

Pereira (as attacking WB)

 

Silva

 

Maddison

 

Slimani or Iheanacho or whichever attacker you fancy

Vardy

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AKCJ said:

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

Read ndidi's critique seeing out exactly why you are wrong above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lgfualol said:

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

Go for a 4-4-2 in diamond then. I'm fairly certain that Puel will use it. 

 

3 at the back is a fairy tale which some here should give up on. We simply don't have the players and enough squad depth to make it our regular formation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AKCJ said:

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.

We had one. But we played captain rum instead.

 

Personally I think all systems have merits.

 

I would love to know what we plan to do tho.

 

With the squad we have as it stands.

 

Kasper

 

Pereria 

 

Amartey

Evans

Slab Head as he's now known. Ffs

 

Chillwell

 

Ndidi 

 

Gray

Maddison

Diabate

 

Vardy

 

May work.

 

Albrighton becomes your back up rwb.

 

Silva back up no.10 but I can't see him being happy with that.

Iborra the back up holding player. But again does he stick that.

 

I think we have options but maybe not in areas we need.

 

Still feel we may need to move a few put before more come in otherwise our squad becomes too big.

 

Do mendy, musa, slim etc come back into the fold?

 

Lots of questions still remain.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, OhYesNdidi said:

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. 

 

Good analysis, but I disagree here.

 

In the 3 at the back, one of them usually steps up to help cover and or link with the deepest lying midfielder (probably Ndidi) when we're dominating the game or stay back when we're under the cosh to have 3 centre backs  Plus the LCB and the RCB will go to the side to cover the wingbacks when required. Wingbacks are there to offer the width and late runs for the CMS to pick out. Normally they wouldn't both be pushed up at the same time and can tuck in to support CMs if required.

 

Silva and Ndidi would be there to pick out the wingbacks or forwards on the run with longer balls or thread it through to Maddison to create

 

Plus it enables us to have 2 up top.

 

I like this formation a lot.

Edited by Arriba Los Zorros
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Beechey said:

Think he means (players possibly to change of course)

 

image.thumb.png.8a08ba3fe4113a998cdb47813a79c112.png

Just my opinion, but the reason I don't like this is:

 

1) the left hand side of this formation looks weak. Chilwell's inclination will always be to be high up the field but in transition this could leave space down the left hand side to be exploited in the transition phase. Chilwell is arguably our worst player in that team in terms of quality, awareness, positioning, and im sure he would be heavily targeted by opponents down that side for their attacks.

 

Presumably, youd also be asking Maguire to bring the ball out from the back from the LCB position, which again would leave space if possession was turned over quickly.

 

2) Would you not want Maddison deeper in this formation where he can affect the play more by getting on the ball more? We look cluttered at the top end of the field and a lot of teams will probably sit a DM between their defensive and midfield line. From a deeper position he would have more passing options as the man with arguably the best passing and vision we have in the team.

 

Also, would you not want a midfielder dropping back into the DM slot to pick the ball up off the back 3 and create angles for passes? I think a more natural midfield might look something like:

 

-----------------------Maddison (CM)----------Ndidi (Box to Box)

 

--------------------------------------   --  Iborra (DM)

 

3) What is Iheanacho's role in this formation? an out and out striker with Vardy? if anything hes probably more useful in coming towards the ball to make room for Vardy to run into and bringing defenders out of their position....... so again if it was me id be playing Maddison deeper (but if its on, telling him to get forward).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Capture.PNG.99957d5054f652104a21eac0eacac45d.PNG

 

There is some football manager language on here

 

Iborra at half back will slot between the two centrebacks to pick up the ball and then move forwards. Like a third centreback that then comes forward with the ball from a deep position

 

Ihaenacho as a false 9 will drop deep into midfield, and want the ball to feet to attack the box late, more than being an "out and out" striker.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Donut
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some good suggestions here with both the 3-5-2 and the 4-4-1-1 with a narrow midfield. Puel's preferred system in France was 4-2-3-1, but you'd have to say that *as it stands* this seems high risk given our most creative wide player has been sold and we don't have a replacement, then it's reasonable to think that the other systems might be used.

 

We'll probably only find out as the pre-season friendlies come around.

 

Puel strikes me as the type of manager that doesn't really care what other people think and thus would go into a new season with Diabate, Gray, Albrighton and Barnes as the attacking players in a 4-2-3-1. Personally I think it would take balls of steel to do that and would be a massive risk we shouldn't take, but I guess players are only get better if they actually play. Maddison I guess would be the central player of the 3 so you only need 2 of the other 4.

 

Maddison provided a huge number of key passes, goals and assists last season which is why there is huge hope for him. But we struggled with our creativity last season so really we need him and at least another player to provide that spark. That for me is what we need before the season starts, OR we are relying big time on one of the young lads to step up. I think Diabate will improve a lot this year, but it's still too much to burden him with.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, OhYesNdidi said:

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. 

 

That's why two defensive midfield players are employed.. Either to do the same as in a 4-2-3-1 or for when a central defender defends the full back area and one defensive midfielder to drop in and make up the three centre halfs. Anyway, the idea is to force the opposition into playing the play inside in the first place. Just because England didn't react to Croatia's second half tactics doesn't mean that doubling up the wing back in unsolvable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, StriderHiryu said:

There are some good suggestions here with both the 3-5-2 and the 4-4-1-1 with a narrow midfield. Puel's preferred system in France was 4-2-3-1, but you'd have to say that *as it stands* this seems high risk given our most creative wide player has been sold and we don't have a replacement, then it's reasonable to think that the other systems might be used.

 

We'll probably only find out as the pre-season friendlies come around.

 

Puel strikes me as the type of manager that doesn't really care what other people think and thus would go into a new season with Diabate, Gray, Albrighton and Barnes as the attacking players in a 4-2-3-1. Personally I think it would take balls of steel to do that and would be a massive risk we shouldn't take, but I guess players are only get better if they actually play. Maddison I guess would be the central player of the 3 so you only need 2 of the other 4.

 

Maddison provided a huge number of key passes, goals and assists last season which is why there is huge hope for him. But we struggled with our creativity last season so really we need him and at least another player to provide that spark. That for me is what we need before the season starts, OR we are relying big time on one of the young lads to step up. I think Diabate will improve a lot this year, but it's still too much to burden him with.

I agree totally. With our current attacking wide options, playing 442 or 4231 again would not optimise our squad and would result in some talented players being left out in other positions. I think we would have switched to a 3 at the back long ago if it wasn’t for Mahrez needing to be in the team 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours 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.

1600965685_download(1).jpeg.c0069b13988e237f46165cd6a4c96cbb.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about....

 

Kasper

 

Pereirra (RWB)

 

Wes

Evans

Maguire                              

 

Fuchs (LWB)

 

Choudhary

Ndidi

Iborra

 

Vardy

Ulloa

 

This team would boss set pieces but lacks pace. Also miss out on talented attacking players like Diabate, Gray and Maddison with the formation above.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, foxtillidrop said:

How about....

 

Kasper

 

Pereirra (RWB)

 

Wes

Evans

Maguire                              

 

Fuchs (LWB)

 

Choudhary

Ndidi

Iborra

 

Vardy

Ulloa

 

This team would boss set pieces but lacks pace. Also miss out on talented attacking players like Diabate, Gray and Maddison with the formation above.

Uhh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, foxtillidrop said:

How about....

 

Kasper

 

Pereirra (RWB)

 

Wes

Evans

Maguire                              

 

Fuchs (LWB)

 

Choudhary

Ndidi

Iborra

 

Vardy

Ulloa

 

This team would boss set pieces but lacks pace. Also miss out on talented attacking players like Diabate, Gray and Maddison with the formation above.

What an awful team that is

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to see a move to three at the back but it needs a top back line to work effectively and that usually comes from top players or those who have got to know each others game inside out over a good period of time. So its a bit of an ask with newly introduced back line players as we all know a Maguire, Morgan and Simpson back line doesn't meet the top players requirement. 

 

Iborra in front of the back three and Ndidi as a roving ball getter in midfield could work in a kind of roving diamond but that is so 1990's. Mind you 4-4-2 was so 1970's and that worked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What we should be looking for is the formation that kills 3 at the back - the new trend everyone else will want to copy.

 

Part of Chelsea’s early success with 3 at the back was its newness in relative football terms - players and managers were unsure how to counteract it, but solutions are being found. 

 

Same with our high press 4-4-2, to start with a goldmine, now teams are wise.

 

Thankfully, I have faith in Puel coming up with such a plan for this coming season and can’t wait to see how our 6 at the back with 2 holding midfielders formation works in pre-season.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Beechey said:

Think he means (players possibly to change of course)

 

image.thumb.png.8a08ba3fe4113a998cdb47813a79c112.png

I think that formation would need a different midfield pairing Iborra is too static and Silva too attack minded. Either Mendy or Amartey would be needed to give a more solid base, especially against tougher opposition. The CMs need to be able to cover the space behind the wing backs and hold their shape. They also need to cover for the CBs going marauding. Silva would be vying with Maddison for that position behind the strikers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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