Win percentage with 3 at the back

[Neville Kneville]

This season playing a back 4 with 11vs11 we've conceded an average of 0.8 goals per game. We'd win the league with that ratio.

This season playing a back 3 we've conceded on average 1.7 goals per game. More than double the amount we do with a back 3, and you don't think there's a difference? Give me strength.

I've not got time to pick apart every point in your War and Peace post, but if you don't think we're more liable to the counter attack with 3 at the back than 4 then I can only assume you've not really being paying attention while watching the games.

Ah so we don't have any problems with counter attacks when we play a back 4.

Manuel will be delighted, he imagined it all.

 

[Shaelumstash]

Ah so we don't have any problems with counter attacks when we play a back 4.

Manuel will be delighted, he imagined it all.

Wish I could use the face palm emoji as a reply to this post, that would be enough.

But seen as I can't, I think it's important to note that it's rather harsh to blame Guardiola for Pellegrini's ineptitude as a manager.

But talking about this season, we looked far less vulnerable to the counter attack when playing 4 at the back then playing a 3. The stats back it up, the performances back it up. If you don't believe me, go back and watch the goals we have conceded with a back 3 compared to a back 4.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

We played well and defended well against Everton, Southampton, and Middlesborough with 3 at the back. But they all scored a goal on the counter attack against us off their only chance. That's the problem with 3 at the back, if you don't have 2 absolute mustard wing backs (which we don't) we leave ourselves so vulnerable to counterattacks and long balls.

The benefit of 4 at the back is that it's enough players to mark the space right across the width of the pitch. With 3 at the back, they could be the 3 best centre backs in the world, but they will still be vulnerable to direct balls from wide because 3 bodies just can't cover the width of the pitch without leaving loads of space through the middle.

There is just absolutely no need for us to play that way.

For me, while Fernandinho is out, we should go back to the 433 we started the season with, and see if Gundogan can play that role Fernandinho was playing. He's certainly got the tools, but Pep seems reluctant to try him there for some reason.

Spot on.

 

[Neville Kneville]

I think you may have misunderstood the reasons for us playing a high line. It's not so we can play an offside trap.

Pep has said he spent his whole career attacking small spaces and defending big spaces. To play like this gets the most out of small, technical, creative players. Players like Silva, Gundogan, Aguero, Sterling etc.

By pushing the back line right up, it forces the other team to drop deep towards their goal. This means there is very little space in their half and around their box. The idea is that our smaller, technical players are going to be better than their defenders in these tight spaces.

So the main purpose of the high line is an attacking one, not a defensive one where we're hoping to catch them offside.

In Spain and Germany he managed to play this system very effectively because he knew opposition would be forced in to only playing on the counter attack. So he would prepare all week to nulify the opponents threat on the break. It was very successful for him, as it was for us early on in the season.

But the difference is in England teams aren't afraid to just launch the long ball forward and hope for scraps. This is what Guardiola is talking about when he says "in England you need to control the second ball". Teams in Spain and Germany very rarely play that long ball, so it's a new threat he's not faced before.

My view is that with 4 at the back we are much more capable of dealing with the long ball. Having 4 players spread out accross the width of the pitch means you have enough bodies to deal with long ball counter attacks and not have your defenders isolated 1v1.

Playing 3 at the back with a high line is extremely vulnerable to long balls when you don't have defensive minded wing backs (which we don't). Teams can just play a long ball down our left channel and it will lead to a 1v1 foot race between Kolarov and Vardy or Kolarov and Willian or Otamendi and Costa or Clichy and Lukaku.

They're all mismatches. Our players don't have the pace or strength to deal with those opponents 1v1. The results when playing a back 3 prove that. But we didn't encounter the same problem when we had 4 at the back earlier in the season.

It's been a feature of English football for as long as I remember. Very rarely do teams play 3 at the back, unless they plsy deep and have defensive minded full backs, like Chelsea this season. The last time I remember a team even trying 3 at the back with a high line was AVB at Chelsea and it was an absolute disaster.

I can't remember a single team playing 3 at the back with a high line and being successful in England. Not one. And my personal belief is the reason why is because of the long ball. It's a unique phenomenon to England that they don't see much in Spain, Italy or Germany.

But the 'long ball' which troubled us v Leicester, was straight down the middle where we had 3 defenders plus Fernando.

It didn't go wide afterwards, where we had no defender, it went down the middle, where ALL OF THEM were. Nobody did anything.

The excuse of blaming their complete lack of any kind of defence against two players in the middle of the pitch, cannot be explained away by blaming a system. If it had been a 4, there would have been one player less, to deal with it, not a player more. It should have been easier to defend it, not more difficult.

Last season we saw Spurs do exactly the same thing, at our place, with a back 4 sat deeper.

We have seen all of these goals scored time & again, whether we have ten defenders or two.

That is the problem Pep has to deal with. Whether it is a 4 or a 3 or a 10 he uses is irrelevant. He has to get a bunch of players who are shit at defending, to learn how to defend, whilst playing attacking football.

 

[domalino]

Given we've swapped from back 4 to back 3 or visa versa on the hop in multiple games this season, this thread is completely and utterly pointless.

In fact in some games we've played both 3 and 4 at the back simultaneously depending on who has possession.

How can you try and boil down a win % with all that going on? You can't.

 

[Neville Kneville]

Boro and southampton counter attacking goals. Not a defender in sight.

 

[Shaelumstash]

But the 'long ball' which troubled us v Leicester, was straight down the middle where we had 3 defenders plus Fernando.

It didn't go wide afterwards, where we had no defender, it went down the middle, where ALL OF THEM were. Nobody did anything.

The excuse of blaming their complete lack of any kind of defence against two players in the middle of the pitch, cannot be explained away by blaming a system. If it had been a 4, there would have been one player less, to deal with it, not a player more. It should have been easier to defend it, not more difficult.

Last season we saw Spurs do exactly the same thing, at our place, with a back 4 sat deeper.

We have seen all of these goals scored time & again, whether we have ten defenders or two.

That is the problem Pep has to deal with. Whether it is a 4 or a 3 or a 10 he uses is irrelevant. He has to get a bunch of players who are shit at defending, to learn how to defend, whilst playing attacking football.

Lol, ok mate

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

3 or 4 or false 9 or wingbacks cutting in.... None of it matters if the players cant be arsed or have a losing/negative mindset. That is what Pep has to solve, not some simple tactical change.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

going to put my two cents worth in here, by giving my take on Leicester's opening goal. Just to demonstrate my view that it's not the 3 at the back system, but the error strewn displays of the players within it. I will be using some very rudimentary images and scribbles to illustrate.

I would say there are 5 phases to the first goal, within each are what I believe to be errors from City players that led to the goal being conceded.

Stage 1: The Kolarov Clearance

Stage 1 shows the backline spread with the purple line. Kolarov has the ball in his own area, you can see the vast spread of City players in front of him, there is a huge gap between the lines which Pep seeks to avoid. This is one of the reasons he likes his teams to play out from the back. Now Kolarov should have 3 options, play long, play inside to Fernando or outside to De Bruyne. Fernando hasn't tracked over enough to provide that option which may have influenced Kolarov, but he still had a very playable ball to De Bruyne which would have retained possession. Kolarov's decision to hoof it long up the centre of the pitch is the critical mistake, and the catalyst for the goal.

Stage 2: Kolarov fails to track Mahrez

Apologies for all of the squiggles but I don't have sophisticated tools. Huth inevitably won the header, the blue curves show that the City players have been turned back towards their own goal after pushing out after Kolarov's clearance. The yellow lines show the huge gaps between the City lines, because of Kolarov's rushed clearance, players like Fernando, Zabaleta & De Bruyne have been caught in no-man's land as Huth's header sails back over them. Crucially, in Phase one you can see how close Mahrez was to closing Kolarov down. By Phase two Kolarov has let Mahrez go completely and both he and Slimani are completely unmarked. This then allows Mahrez to play a ball unchallenged to Slimani to set up Stage 3.

Stage 3: Whose line is it anyway?

This image (badly) shows the positioning of the back 3, and how they are not holding one line. In fact, they've got themselves into such a disorganised pickle they have their own clearly definable defensive lines. This creates a big problem as illustrated below.

Now this is where it comes to my opinion, but whilst there are attacking benefits to a high defensive line, the key part of that phrase is "defensive line" i.e. one of them. The onus here for me falls on Stones, he is the central player in that 3 and he is also the deepest. There needs to be clear leadership from one of the three (like Vinnie at his best) and clear instruction on how to deal with this situation.

Now for me this falls into one of two errors by Stones. The first, and gravest if true, is that Stones fails to read the situation properly. Slimani has taken his touch, and this pass is the most telegraphed pass you will see all season. Stones's rough field of vision (or at least his sphere of what he should be aware of and alert to) is in blue. Stones should read that:
-Vardy is committed to making a run off his left shoulder.
-Vardy is the only viable passing option for Slimani.
-Slimani's lack of technique means it is evident even from the still that he is telegraphing this pass.
-He is the last line of defence.

Now if Stones didn't read the situation, then we have a problem because he'll endlessly make these errors of judgement. The second option is that he made the wrong call to deal with it. At this point, and yes hindsight is a wonderful thing, with Stones backpedaling and Vardy already on his run, for me Stones has to realise he cannot win that foot race in those circumstances. Therefore for me, as outlined with the purple arrows, he should step up and instruct Kolarov to do the same. By stepping up he has the chance to play the committed Vardy offside, or alternatively pressure Slimani into misplacing the pass. At worst, Vardy somehow beats the trap and ends up in the same situation anyway, a goal-scoring opportunity with Bravo. For me the sensible option for Stones was to step out, and not backpedal.

Stage 4: Still time to rescue this.

Stones backpedals, and Kolarov commits to chasing Vardy. Vardy is now off and this pass is about to be played. This is milliseconds after the previous image but Stones has already back-pedaled several steps and AK is committed to the run. At this point a signal from Stones and one last change of decision, and stepping up, can play Vardy clearly offside. It leaves it in the hands of the linesman, but at this point Vardy is ahead of AK and turned onto his run whilst Stones is still facing the ball. At this point neither Stones or Kolarov can get the ball off Vardy. For me this is the final chance for Stones to step up and make the right move. He fails to do this twice.

Phase 5: Bravo fails to read the play

We move the footage on, Vardy has run clean through. Now there is a risk of him being lobbed, but if Bravo stands up then I think he makes the chance much harder for Vardy. The fact is though, Vardy has run clean through and now has the ball, and Bravo is only just coming off his line. For me, Bravo reacts FAR too late to the move, and should be anticipating this chance once Stones starts to backpedal and Vardy is on the turn. He should be out much quicker and at the edge of the blue box area (6 yard line side), thus making him bigger in the goal and starting to narrow Vardy's angle. Instead, the ball is almost past Bravo before he reacts to try and save because he is still on the move trying to narrow the angle, and because he hasn't come out far enough he's left the angle open to the far post, the one area a right footed player will naturally aim for. If Bravo had reacted quicker, and narrowed Vardy's angle, he takes away the far corner and has much more chance (although Wickham's goal suggests otherwise) of preventing Vardy scoring either in the middle of the goal or to his near post, which is the much harder shot for a right footer.

So a very long post, with big images with amateurish scribbles on, but I hope my points get across. In summary it comes down to five key phases:

1. Kolarov goes against Pep's teaching and clears the ball long with his team out of balance, and with a viable passing option to De Bruyne available.
2. Kolarov fails to track Mahrez properly and put him under enough pressure to prevent him playing an uncontested pass.
3. The back 3 take up their own defensive lines instead of one uniform line and Stones decides to backpedal instead of step up and play Vardy offside.
4. Given a second chance to step up, Stones fails to do so and Vardy will now have an uncontested chance at scoring past Bravo.
5. Bravo reacts far too slowly to the unfolding action and fails to close down Vardy quickly enough, resulting in Vardy getting a clean strike into his preferred area of the goal which was unguarded.

and for me, none of it is down to playing 3 at the back. Feel free to completely disagree, I'm not Pep after all.

 

[schfc6]

going to put my two cents worth in here, by giving my take on Leicester's opening goal. Just to demonstrate my view that it's not the 3 at the back system, but the error strewn displays of the players within it. I will be using some very rudimentary images and scribbles to illustrate.

I would say there are 5 phases to the first goal, within each are what I believe to be errors from City players that led to the goal being conceded.

Stage 1: The Kolarov Clearance

Stage 1 shows the backline spread with the purple line. Kolarov has the ball in his own area, you can see the vast spread of City players in front of him, there is a huge gap between the lines which Pep seeks to avoid. This is one of the reasons he likes his teams to play out from the back. Now Kolarov should have 3 options, play long, play inside to Fernando or outside to De Bruyne. Fernando hasn't tracked over enough to provide that option which may have influenced Kolarov, but he still had a very playable ball to De Bruyne which would have retained possession. Kolarov's decision to hoof it long up the centre of the pitch is the critical mistake, and the catalyst for the goal.

Stage 2: Kolarov fails to track Mahrez

Apologies for all of the squiggles but I don't have sophisticated tools. Huth inevitably won the header, the blue curves show that the City players have been turned back towards their own goal after pushing out after Kolarov's clearance. The yellow lines show the huge gaps between the City lines, because of Kolarov's rushed clearance, players like Fernando, Zabaleta & De Bruyne have been caught in no-man's land as Huth's header sails back over them. Crucially, in Phase one you can see how close Mahrez was to closing Kolarov down. By Phase two Kolarov has let Mahrez go completely and both he and Slimani are completely unmarked. This then allows Mahrez to play a ball unchallenged to Slimani to set up Stage 3.

Stage 3: Whose line is it anyway?

This image (badly) shows the positioning of the back 3, and how they are not holding one line. In fact, they've got themselves into such a disorganised pickle they have their own clearly definable defensive lines. This creates a big problem as illustrated below.

Now this is where it comes to my opinion, but whilst there are attacking benefits to a high defensive line, the key part of that phrase is "defensive line" i.e. one of them. The onus here for me falls on Stones, he is the central player in that 3 and he is also the deepest. There needs to be clear leadership from one of the three (like Vinnie at his best) and clear instruction on how to deal with this situation.

Now for me this falls into one of two errors by Stones. The first, and gravest if true, is that Stones fails to read the situation properly. Slimani has taken his touch, and this pass is the most telegraphed pass you will see all season. Stones's rough field of vision (or at least his sphere of what he should be aware of and alert to) is in blue. Stones should read that:
-Vardy is committed to making a run off his left shoulder.
-Vardy is the only viable passing option for Slimani.
-Slimani's lack of technique means it is evident even from the still that he is telegraphing this pass.
-He is the last line of defence.

Now if Stones didn't read the situation, then we have a problem because he'll endlessly make these errors of judgement. The second option is that he made the wrong call to deal with it. At this point, and yes hindsight is a wonderful thing, with Stones backpedaling and Vardy already on his run, for me Stones has to realise he cannot win that foot race in those circumstances. Therefore for me, as outlined with the purple arrows, he should step up and instruct Kolarov to do the same. By stepping up he has the chance to play the committed Vardy offside, or alternatively pressure Slimani into misplacing the pass. At worst, Vardy somehow beats the trap and ends up in the same situation anyway, a goal-scoring opportunity with Bravo. For me the sensible option for Stones was to step out, and not backpedal.

Stage 4: Still time to rescue this.

Stones backpedals, and Kolarov commits to chasing Vardy. Vardy is now off and this pass is about to be played. This is milliseconds after the previous image but Stones has already back-pedaled several steps and AK is committed to the run. At this point a signal from Stones and one last change of decision, and stepping up, can play Vardy clearly offside. It leaves it in the hands of the linesman, but at this point Vardy is ahead of AK and turned onto his run whilst Stones is still facing the ball. At this point neither Stones or Kolarov can get the ball off Vardy. For me this is the final chance for Stones to step up and make the right move. He fails to do this twice.

Phase 5: Bravo fails to read the play

We move the footage on, Vardy has run clean through. Now there is a risk of him being lobbed, but if Bravo stands up then I think he makes the chance much harder for Vardy. The fact is though, Vardy has run clean through and now has the ball, and Bravo is only just coming off his line. For me, Bravo reacts FAR too late to the move, and should be anticipating this chance once Stones starts to backpedal and Vardy is on the turn. He should be out much quicker and at the edge of the blue box area (6 yard line side), thus making him bigger in the goal and starting to narrow Vardy's angle. Instead, the ball is almost past Bravo before he reacts to try and save because he is still on the move trying to narrow the angle, and because he hasn't come out far enough he's left the angle open to the far post, the one area a right footed player will naturally aim for. If Bravo had reacted quicker, and narrowed Vardy's angle, he takes away the far corner and has much more chance (although Wickham's goal suggests otherwise) of preventing Vardy scoring either in the middle of the goal or to his near post, which is the much harder shot for a right footer.

So a very long post, with big images with amateurish scribbles on, but I hope my points get across. In summary it comes down to five key phases:

1. Kolarov goes against Pep's teaching and clears the ball long with his team out of balance, and with a viable passing option to De Bruyne available.
2. Kolarov fails to track Mahrez properly and put him under enough pressure to prevent him playing an uncontested pass.
3. The back 3 take up their own defensive lines instead of one uniform line and Stones decides to backpedal instead of step up and play Vardy offside.
4. Given a second chance to step up, Stones fails to do so and Vardy will now have an uncontested chance at scoring past Bravo.
5. Bravo reacts far too slowly to the unfolding action and fails to close down Vardy quickly enough, resulting in Vardy getting a clean strike into his preferred area of the goal which was unguarded.

and for me, none of it is down to playing 3 at the back. Feel free to completely disagree, I'm not Pep after all.

Excellent analysis, can't argue with much. But in your conclusions, at 2, you have Kolarov failing to track Mahrez.
For me, this is where the system can be questioned.
If Kolarov does track Mahrez, if he follows him out wide, that leaves Slimani & Vardy 2 on 2. So we have a problem.
Either way Kolarov stays or goes we are out numbered.

The question is then asked, is Mahrez cheating? By cheating I mean not working for his team and just left in our space. Or was he left in a space too wide for the left sided centre back and too deep for a wingback to pick up tactically? He stood in a near identical position for 2 of their goals. So I'd say he was positioned there on purpose. He'll expose his own full back but always be in yards of space.

Leicester are just about the only team along with Watford to play 2 out and out strikers. If you have a back three against a front two, one of the back three simply can't cover the 'channel' as it was traditionally called.
Mahrez used our system against us.
If Chelsea apply their three at the back Alonso will cover Mahrez, not Azpilicueta.

Mahrez took up a space similar to De Bruyne vs the rags & Chelsea, between the lines, between the full/wing back, the centre back and holding midfielder player.

The rest of what you say is bob on though. There are merits to a back three, as Shaelum is saying. Hard working rapid wing backs are one way, we haven't got them, Pep has tried a slight different approach with the holding 2 centre mids expected to cover the channels. Fernando and Zabaleta simply didn't have the legs or the acumen to cover. Fernandinho & Gundogan just may. They did it exceptionally for an hour vs Chelsea.