Five at the back

[coolhandfox]

Doesn't matter what formation you play is you are passive and play with no speed or aggression.

[SpacedX]

13 hours ago, Mark said:

Please stop setting up this way whoever we’re playing. The best managers are flexible, use it when we need to in certain away games but in games like this? The last 3 home games in the league we’d mustered one goal (a penalty) and yet nothing changes.

 

It's clearly more suited to away games.

 

 

I don't recall you starting a similar thread when Nige played a flat back five at home against Stoke, or was it Hull? - possibly both? Also, Webbo is right - it was technically three at the back, 3-4-2-1. The Great Escape was brought to you using a similar system and O'Neil introduced it to devastating effect. That was back then though. 

 

Regardless, what you are saying along with many others is absolutely right. Ultimately, we put out five defenders (and not very good ones right now), against a team with the worse defense in the league, that we knew would sit back and counter, benched our wide attacking threat - instead relying on JJ and the inexperienced but very promising Thomas. You don't play narrow with three CBs (actually, two - one of them is a converted left back). People are also right when they say that irrespective of the formation it doesn't really matter when you can't string more than a couple of passes together and are that sluggish both on and off the ball. And you are correct Mark, when you say 'nothing chamges' - that's the most frustrating thing. 

 

Contrary to what others have suggested I don't think that this is Brendan's favoured system but do remember that our tailspin during the second half of last season, involved four at the back and we didn't lose Ricardo until March during the anomaly when we smashed Villa. This system was employed in response to our injury crisis. As Finnegan suggested yesterday, which made me gut laugh - "He's gone through his whole career being a fan of possession based attacking football, he gets one whiff of success parking the bus at the Etihad and now he's ****ing Tony Pulis". He appears to regard a back four as a formation that we can't reliably play right now until Söyüncü, Castagne, Ricardo and Wilf are all available - (Not meaning to be harsh on Mendy, he has significantly stepped up). I have no doubt that we will immediately revert to 4-1-4-1 personnel permitting. In the meantime, such caution away to the big teams is understandable and we did a commendable job containing Man City and Arsenal. But at home to Fulham? And as has been pointed out on this thread, you are going to find yourselves at the mercy of man on man counter attacks and in the absence of  pace (Evans, Fuchs) you are absolutely screwed. 

 

If it wasn't for the clumsy penalty and the post/crossbar denying us we probably would have undeservedly won that, but would have come away nonetheless with serious misgivings concerning our management, player commitment and The Blades on Sunday.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

4-1-4-1 with full backs and proper wingers. I'm on my knees.

[Fosse93]

Wouldn't be against us going 4-4-2 for Sheff Utd.

 

GK. Kasper

 

RB. Castagne

CB. Fofana

CB. Evans

LB. Justin

 

RM. Under

CM. Tielemans

CM. Mendy

LM. Barnes

 

ST. Iheanacho

ST. Vardy

 

The starting 11 last night desperately lacked goals, it was far too reliant on Vardy to make the difference. We clearly need more bodies in and around him. Always thought Iheanacho and Vardy had much better link up than Maddison / Vardy, and he gives us more of a goal threat. 

[Finnegan]

14 hours ago, Webbo said:

It patently 3-4-3

 

No it isn't. At all. 

 

What we played yesterday and against Wolves was basically 541 with the four arranged in a loose square. It offered no width, no pace and no movement. 

 

Four central midfielders all have nothing except Jamie Vardy to aim for which makes it so, so incredibly easy to defend. 

 

I don't have Strider's patience to go taking screenshots and making gifs for the benefit of a forum that's going to just conclude I'm an "anti Rodgers moaner" or something anyway given people only really want to listen when you're saying nice things. 

 

But Rodgers definitely needs to snap out of this experiment quickly. I've written three or four replies in different threads since the game ended and just deleted them all and decided I couldn't be bothered. 

 

But the bottom line is, nobody has ever won the Premier League without width and a moderate amount of pace. Only one manager has won it playing consistently with three centre backs and that was Conte, who had Hazard, Pedro and Willian interchanging as wingers/wide forwards in a genuine 343. 

 

It was defensively sound because he deployed Kante and Matic to secure the middle of the park and surrender creativity from central areas, for which he compensated by having extremely talented, fast, creative players in the final third and extremely athletic wing backs (one of whom a converted forward) doubling down on creating width. It was balanced. 

 

What we did against Wolves and Fulham was box up the middle of the park and allow Fulham to condense their defence. We made next to no effort to get round or behind them and force them to turn (before we changed shape and "won" the second half with a proper shape) and thus we created absolutely nothing.

 

We did the same against Wolves and our two decent chances were both penalties. 

 

This shape is NOT balanced. 

 

There's more than one way to skin a cat, we've all heard that, there's more than one way to set up a football team. But whether you want to dominate a game, counter attack in a game, play route one, play a crossing game, park the bus, pass and move or anything else, if you want to be successful your team needs balance. Flooding the pitch with an overabundance of the same type of player isn't balanced. 

 

A system with more defenders isn't necessarily more secure, a system with more centre mids isn't necessarily more creative and simply throwing on a lot of strikers doesn't mean you're going to score more goals. 

 

Last autumn we put together one of the best runs in the history of this club and secured its biggest ever top flight away win (or anyone's biggest ever top flight away win) with a 433/4141 because it was perfectly balanced. It had the right number of attackers, midfielders and defenders in familiar, settled positions who had clearly defined roles that suited their strengths and weaknesses. Just like every other successful team. 

 

Look, three/five at the back can have value. It can work. We put it to good use away at Man City and Leeds because it was designed to sit deep, soak up pressure and then break with Vardy and Barnes combining at pace to punish an over committing attack and a sub standard back four. Absolutely great, no problems. Nobody is complaining about that (I don't think even Mark is?) 

 

But 541 against ****ing muck like Fulham? Eh. That's verging on the kinda territory that warrants the manager putting his hand up publicly, taking responsibility and admitting he's not going to try that again. 

[Babylon]

1 hour ago, Line-X said:

Webbo is right - it was technically three at the back, 3-4-2-1.

It's 5 defenders whichever was you want to dice the formation. If this was Ricardo and Castagne, I can understand anyone backing the 5 or 3 at the back, because whilst being defenders they are exceptional attacking players. Justin and Thomas aren't a patch on those two, so if people are insisting it was three at the back, then it means we've put two defenders in what should be creative attacking positions. 

[SpacedX]

1 minute ago, Babylon said:

It's 5 defenders whichever was you want to dice the formation.

Agree entirely - precisely why I said this...

 

1 hour ago, Line-X said:

Regardless, what you are saying along with many others is absolutely right. Ultimately, we put out five defenders 

 

[North Leeds Fox]

Got no issue with the 5atb as it is obviously being used to prevent fatigue, but our wing backs are not currently good enough to be enough of an attacking threat right now. It makes the decision to play two inverted wingers even more mystifying last night as we offered no attacking threat to them and our wing backs were constantly not attacking or defending. If we continue with this system next year, we need another good wing back option. Preferably a left footer like gosens, as he is an attacking threat, which would allow madders or praet to play. 

[RonnieTodger]

Has Thomas played in a back four yet? Seems as though BR doesn't think he's ready to be a standalone left back.

[Mark]

Really had enough of three centre backs now, every time it ruins us.

[sly1]

Back line shocking 

[st albans fox]

It’s like we think that because there are three defenders we don’t need to mark anyone .......

[RGFox]

This is absolutely killing us. Too much ponderous passing at the back. Not enough options in midfield. 

 

Cags and Fof would've been better today. Play ndidi as sweeper

[sly1]

THATS A WARNING LEICESTER C,MON

[Shane]

We need to scrap 3atb asap but if Brendan is going to persist with it, i’d like to see Fuchs instead of Amartey.
 

Fofana-Soyuncu-Fuchs. Fofana can go on his forward runs & Soyuncu won’t look like a lost puppy on the left!

[Analysethis]

5 at the Back with Evans being one, Riccardo at wing back and Justin at LWB wouldnt look bad.

 

                                 Kasper

                   Caglar - Evans - Fofana

Riccardo                                                     Justin

                       Ndidi - Tielemans

      Maddison                                 Barnes

                                Vardy

 

However, I dont think its working with the current available players.

[Facecloth]

12 minutes ago, Analysethis said:

5 at the Back with Evans being one, Riccardo at wing back and Justin at LWB wouldnt look bad.

 

                                 Kasper

                   Caglar - Evans - Fofana

Riccardo                                                     Justin

                       Ndidi - Tielemans

      Maddison                                 Barnes

                                Vardy

 

However, I dont think its working with the current available players.

Its not just about the players in that 5 at the back, it's about the team as whole and we look more disjointed with 3 at the back. Plus I don't think maddison out wide is a great move either.

[Ian Nacho]

I know we won tonight but I don’t think it really works with our players. Look a total shambles at times. Soyuncu in particular doesn’t look comfortable at all. 

[honeybradger]

Forget about how poor it looks going forwards, the back 3 makes us look so shakey in defence when on paper we have some top quality centrebacks. Back 4 from now on please.

[baldeagle]

We played 5 at the back because of shit loads of injuries, we only had Kevin as our only out and out winger that is fit so he clearly wants to use fullbacks as our attacking option  out wide . Yes we were dreadful at times in the first half but we resorted to 5 at the back last time we had loads of injuries. It’s clearly not Brendan’s first choice formation but needs must . 

[Collymore]

39 minutes ago, Ian Nacho said:

I know we won tonight but I don’t think it really works with our players. Look a total shambles at times. Soyuncu in particular doesn’t look comfortable at all. 

Yes, couldn't believe what I was seeing first half. I mean their goal kind of sums up how farcical it was but there were times when Castange and Ricardo had gone AWOL and it would have been a simple miss placed pass at times that would have seen them 5 on 3 each time. It was a mess. 

 

What makes it worse was I thought "Well we haven't got a defence but surely that'll mean when we get the ball forward we'll be like an irresistible wall of 5 going forward" but then it was complete shambles attacking wise too. 

 

 

[Facecloth]

2 minutes ago, baldeagle said:

We played 5 at the back because of shit loads of injuries, we only had Kevin as our only out and out winger that is fit so he clearly wants to use fullbacks as our attacking option  out wide . Yes we were dreadful at times in the first half but we resorted to 5 at the back last time we had loads of injuries. It’s clearly not Brendan’s first choice formation but needs must . 

Teams are built on defending well though. Get that right, and worry about the attacking side after. Set the foundation that works for us which is 4 at the back if that means playing a youth player on the wing or shoving someone out wide who wouldn't normally then so be it. Often we start with 3 to a poor team and they get ahead and then make it tough for us to attack them, so it might be an idea to stop going behind by playing a defensive shape that suits us.

[baldeagle]

1 minute ago, Facecloth said:

Teams are built on defending well though. Get that right, and worry about the attacking side after. Set the foundation that works for us which is 4 at the back if that means playing a youth player on the wing or shoving someone out wide who wouldn't normally then so be it. Often we start with 3 to a poor team and they get ahead and then make it tough for us to attack them, so it might be an idea to stop going behind by playing a defensive shape that suits us.

Oh I agree we looked  rubbish with  5 at the back Cag’s especially always looks rubbish in a 5 . I just think he thought it’s the lesser of two evils . 

[Collymore]

2 minutes ago, baldeagle said:

just think he thought it’s the lesser of two evils . 

It would be nice to see what the other evil looks like too. 

[Facecloth]

3 minutes ago, baldeagle said:

Oh I agree we looked  rubbish with  5 at the back Cag’s especially always looks rubbish in a 5 . I just think he thought it’s the lesser of two evils . 

It's not though and I would have thought there enough previous evidence to prove otherwise.