Win percentage with 3 at the back

"whoever" is an answer, because you defend against whoever's in your zone, depending on the progression of the attack.

Kolarov would have only been doing what Otamendi has been doing with varying degrees of success all season. Even if we disagree on 2, there were still 4 other steps and 3 subsequent steps to Mahrez having a bit of influence, which I think a player of his calibre would have in a 3 or 4.

If Mahrez takes up the positions he was Sayurday, he would pull the back three all over the place. Just as he did.

As the op suggests, we haven't really used a back 3 to any real level of success.
Certainly not against a traditional 442 counter attacking side.

As I say, Pep said he got it wrong. I'm off to the game now. Watford play 442 or a variation of it, I'm guessing/hoping its a back 4. Fernando, Kolarov, Clichy, Zabateta simply aren't good enough for a 343 or 3 box 3.
 
If Mahrez takes up the positions he was Sayurday, he would pull the back three all over the place. Just as he did.

As the op suggests, we haven't really used a back 3 to any real level of success.
Certainly not against a traditional 442 counter attacking side.

did he? Certainly for the goals I think we handed them to Leicester more than him tearing us apart. He took advantage of our colossal capitulation for the third, but the others, not for me. It just writes a good narrative to say so, I'm focusing purely on the goals as they're what matter.
 
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
Phase%201%20Leicester%201%20up.png

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
phase%202%20Leicester%201%20up.png

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?
Phase%203a%20Leicester%201%20up.png

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.
Phase%203b%20Leicester%201%20up.png

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.
Phase%204%20Leicester%201%20up.png

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
Phase%205%20Leicester%201%20up.png

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.

Only just had time to read this properly. You've clearly spent a lot of time and effort analysing how the goal could have been prevented while playing a back 3. On that subject, your points are all sound and I'm not going to disagree with any of them. If they'd followed your suggestions, they could have prevented that goal in a back 3.

But the point is, they didn't.

And I'm more interested in the reasons they didn't. Firstly, in points 3 and 4 you analyse John Stones lack of awareness, his getting caught in two minds and possible naivety. He's a 23 year old centre back. He's probably played less than a dozen games in a back 3 in his professional career. He's playing in the centre, so is the centre back with the most responsibility. He also has an erratic attacking left back for company on one side for centre back company, and an ageing, average right back on the other. And he's playing against the best counter attacking team in Europe. Against last seasons top scorer who's possibly the fastest player in the league, and last seasons player of the year. And John Stones is expected to marshall a rag tag back three away from home in these circumstance. It's no wonder Stones' lack of experience was exposed in this pattern of play.

Perhaps if we had Bonucci, Barzagli and Cheileni as our back 3, with hundreds of games experience under their belt, they would have followed the text book way to defend there that you suggested. But we don't have them. We have Sagna, Stones and Kolarov. They don't have hundreds of games experience in that set up. They don't even have hundreds of games experience of playing centre back full stop!

It's possible to do analysis of every single goal ever scored and explain how it could have been stopped from a defensive point of view. Every goal is the result of some kind of mistake an opponent has made, every goal is preventable. I don't think showing how a goal could have been prevented is a particularly compelling argument for the system being sound.

It's more helpful to look at the reasons we didn't defend better in that phase of play. The reasons you offered are that John Stones is inexperienced and Kolarov is erratic. Well, it wouldn't take a genius to work out that they would be pretty significant issues in playing a Sagna, Stones, Kolarov back 3! Stones is inexperienced, particularly to play in the centre, and Kolarov is erratic and prone to a brain fart, no matter where he plays. We can only select the players we have available, and if the players we have available are unsuitable for a certain system, play a different system!

If I had the MNF touch screen, I could show you that if we had a back 4:

In phase 1: If the centre back was in possession, the left back could have dragged wide to make an easy passing option. If Mahrez went and pressed the left back, then it would open up the space for an easy pass to DeBruyne

Phase 2. We would have been 4 vs 3 instead of 3 vs 3, so one of the centre backs or full backs could have pressed Mahrez and cut off the chance straight away, while still leaving us 3 v 2 behind.

Phase 3. Stones is clearly caught in 2 minds here, does he press Slimani or does he track Vardy? Again, if we had a back 4, naturally one centre back presses the ball, and the other looks after Vardy. Someone pressing Slimani there would force him to release the ball quicker, making it much easier for the covering centre back to push up and play Vardy offside. Or if he decides to track the run, the left back can also tuck in to make it 2v 1.

Phase 4. See phase 3.

Phase 5. I doubt there would be a phase 5 in this passage of play with a back 4. There simply wouldn't be the space for Vardy to just stroll in to. Each player we selected in the back 4 would have played many hundreds of games in a back 4 and would instinctively known when to press Slimani, when to step up to play Vardy off, or when to close up to restrict Vardy's space and stop the run. It wouldn't need to be worked on all week, because these players have dealt with a long ball from a centre back up to a forward on the edge of our box in a back 4 thousands of times.

4 v 3 in that situation with the defenders we have, with the experience they have of playing in a back 4, I think they'd be very confident of dealing with that phase of play very easily.
 
Only just had time to read this properly. You've clearly spent a lot of time and effort analysing how the goal could have been prevented while playing a back 3. On that subject, your points are all sound and I'm not going to disagree with any of them. If they'd followed your suggestions, they could have prevented that goal in a back 3.

But the point is, they didn't.

And I'm more interested in the reasons they didn't. Firstly, in points 3 and 4 you analyse John Stones lack of awareness, his getting caught in two minds and possible naivety. He's a 23 year old centre back. He's probably played less than a dozen games in a back 3 in his professional career. He's playing in the centre, so is the centre back with the most responsibility. He also has an erratic attacking left back for company on one side for centre back company, and an ageing, average right back on the other. And he's playing against the best counter attacking team in Europe. Against last seasons top scorer who's possibly the fastest player in the league, and last seasons player of the year. And John Stones is expected to marshall a rag tag back three away from home in these circumstance. It's no wonder Stones' lack of experience was exposed in this pattern of play.

Perhaps if we had Bonucci, Barzagli and Cheileni as our back 3, with hundreds of games experience under their belt, they would have followed the text book way to defend there that you suggested. But we don't have them. We have Sagna, Stones and Kolarov. They don't have hundreds of games experience in that set up. They don't even have hundreds of games experience of playing centre back full stop!

It's possible to do analysis of every single goal ever scored and explain how it could have been stopped from a defensive point of view. Every goal is the result of some kind of mistake an opponent has made, every goal is preventable. I don't think showing how a goal could have been prevented is a particularly compelling argument for the system being sound.

It's more helpful to look at the reasons we didn't defend better in that phase of play. The reasons you offered are that John Stones is inexperienced and Kolarov is erratic. Well, it wouldn't take a genius to work out that they would be pretty significant issues in playing a Sagna, Stones, Kolarov back 3! Stones is inexperienced, particularly to play in the centre, and Kolarov is erratic and prone to a brain fart, no matter where he plays. We can only select the players we have available, and if the players we have available are unsuitable for a certain system, play a different system!

If I had the MNF touch screen, I could show you that if we had a back 4:

In phase 1: If the centre back was in possession, the left back could have dragged wide to make an easy passing option. If Mahrez went and pressed the left back, then it would open up the space for an easy pass to DeBruyne

Phase 2. We would have been 4 vs 3 instead of 3 vs 3, so one of the centre backs or full backs could have pressed Mahrez and cut off the chance straight away, while still leaving us 3 v 2 behind.

Phase 3. Stones is clearly caught in 2 minds here, does he press Slimani or does he track Vardy? Again, if we had a back 4, naturally one centre back presses the ball, and the other looks after Vardy. Someone pressing Slimani there would force him to release the ball quicker, making it much easier for the covering centre back to push up and play Vardy offside. Or if he decides to track the run, the left back can also tuck in to make it 2v 1.

Phase 4. See phase 3.

Phase 5. I doubt there would be a phase 5 in this passage of play with a back 4. There simply wouldn't be the space for Vardy to just stroll in to. Each player we selected in the back 4 would have played many hundreds of games in a back 4 and would instinctively known when to press Slimani, when to step up to play Vardy off, or when to close up to restrict Vardy's space and stop the run. It wouldn't need to be worked on all week, because these players have dealt with a long ball from a centre back up to a forward on the edge of our box in a back 4 thousands of times.

4 v 3 in that situation with the defenders we have, with the experience they have of playing in a back 4, I think they'd be very confident of dealing with that phase of play very easily.

You make some valid points, and explain how a 4 can deal with the situation. My point however is that there were 5 stages where as a 3 some basic following of Pep's instructions and some basic defensive nous would have prevented the goal just as easily. It wasn't as much a comment on how in a 3 they could have prevented it, but how they completely disregarded what they'd been taught previously and basic defensive principles along the way.

You make valid points on unfamiliarity and the limitations of the players, but they have been exposed to create 1-on-1s against Bravo from which we've conceded in a back 4 as well this season, and I can easily point to our defensive line being equally as hopeless in organising 1 offside line.

Ultimately, if Kolarov plays the pass to De Bruyne early, or kicks it anywhere but up the middle of the pitch, we avoid the goal (3 or 4 backline). If Kolarov presses a la Ota, we can avoid the goal (3 or 4). If Stones steps up at ANY point realising he can trap Vardy offside, we can avoid the goal (3 or 4 the situation the way we're defending would likely have been similar). If Bravo reacts quickly enough, we can still avoid it.

For me there are weaknesses in any system, I don't dispute that. What I do dispute is people blaming 3 at the back when it's for me 99% the players blatantly disregarding the basic principles of what Pep has taught them and the principles of defending which meant we failed to stop Vardy scoring despite having 5 clear opportunities to do so. I won't dispute Mahrez running in space looking showy and threatening, what I will dispute is that that's why we conceded those goals. It isn't. It's basic defensive errors, and the way we've defended this season they've occurred in both 3 at the back and 4, and ultimately when you have 5 chances as a back 3 to stop a goal, then it tells me the back 3 system has given you more than enough opportunity to do your job properly.
 
You make some valid points, and explain how a 4 can deal with the situation. My point however is that there were 5 stages where as a 3 some basic following of Pep's instructions and some basic defensive nous would have prevented the goal just as easily. It wasn't as much a comment on how in a 3 they could have prevented it, but how they completely disregarded what they'd been taught previously and basic defensive principles along the way.

You make valid points on unfamiliarity and the limitations of the players, but they have been exposed to create 1-on-1s against Bravo from which we've conceded in a back 4 as well this season, and I can easily point to our defensive line being equally as hopeless in organising 1 offside line.

Ultimately, if Kolarov plays the pass to De Bruyne early, or kicks it anywhere but up the middle of the pitch, we avoid the goal (3 or 4 backline). If Kolarov presses a la Ota, we can avoid the goal (3 or 4). If Stones steps up at ANY point realising he can trap Vardy offside, we can avoid the goal (3 or 4 the situation the way we're defending would likely have been similar). If Bravo reacts quickly enough, we can still avoid it.

For me there are weaknesses in any system, I don't dispute that. What I do dispute is people blaming 3 at the back when it's for me 99% the players blatantly disregarding the basic principles of what Pep has taught them and the principles of defending which meant we failed to stop Vardy scoring despite having 5 clear opportunities to do so. I won't dispute Mahrez running in space looking showy and threatening, what I will dispute is that that's why we conceded those goals. It isn't. It's basic defensive errors, and the way we've defended this season they've occurred in both 3 at the back and 4, and ultimately when you have 5 chances as a back 3 to stop a goal, then it tells me the back 3 system has given you more than enough opportunity to do your job properly.

Mate I think we all agree that if the players had adopted the things you said, we wouldn't have conceded. It's a very good argument to how we could have defended better in that situation.

But again, I'm more interested in why we didn't defend better in that situation. Again, we seem to broadly agree on the reasons why we didn't defend better.

You and others have made the point that we have made mistakes in a 4 and in a 3. I accept and understand that. But my initial point is, we looked better in a 4. We played better in a 4. We got better results in a 4. We had a 74% win percentage in a 4. We conceded an average of 0.8 goals per game in a 4 when 11vs11. We've not won a single game in a 3. We're conceding an average of 1.7 goals per game in a 3.

So the argument that we also made mistakes in a 4 just doesn't really stack up for me. Every team makes mistakes. No system is flawless. But we were making less mistakes, conceding less goals and winning more games in a 4. There really is no argument against that.

I personally also believe an overlooked issue is the settled shape. We won the first 10 games with a very settled basic shape of a 433. All of the players knew exactly their job, and whatever the personnel everyone seemed clear on their roles and responsibilities. In the 6 weeks or so since we first played a back 3, the shape and set up has changed from game to game. Sometimes during the game! Players don't know whether they are coming or going.

So in addition to the inherent flaws in a back 3 with a high line in England, which I've talked about, I also think our players are not suited to it, for a variety or reasons, and in addition to that, I think the constant chopping and changing of the shape is exacberating the problem even further by confusing the players and not letting them settle in to a rhythm of playing.

As I've said before, I would love to see us play the next 3 or 4 games with a settled 433 shape again, get some solidity back, put some results together and take it from there. If Pep wants to go back to this 3 at the back idea later in the season, or even next season, no problem. But the players are already adjusting to his methods, to throw a load more confusion in to the mix just isn't helping anyone, particularly as he is adjusting to the new league himself. Let's get back to the basics of what made us look dynamite at the start of the season.
 
Updated record:
Win percentage with a back 4: 76%
Win percentage with a back 3: 0%

Much has been made of Guardiola's methods not working in the PL. He's "struggling to adjust to English football"

Well in the Premier league we have played a back four 13 times and won ELEVEN of them.

That's a win percentage of 86%, which is pretty fucking phenomenal. Can't wait to see what it will be when he "gets to grips with English football"

The problem is not Guardiola, the problem is the high line back 3 which doesn't work in England. The win percentage for us playing a back 3 in the league remains 0%, and the loss percentage 50%.

In the league with a back 4 we have only failed to win 2 games out of 13 and one of them was down to a last minute equaliser by Middlesboro.
 
Interesting strawman, maybe try that technique with someone stupid enough to fall for it?

It's the basic argument on this thread.

Unless the point is that we score more goals with a back 4 ?

V Leicester & Arsenal, if was 0-1 after a few minutes. Same shit both.

V Chelsea it was 1-0 at half time. Then we missed loads & ended up letting 3 in. V Boro we had 11 players back & let in a last min equaliser, v Watford, they missed from 6 fucking yards & we scored.

It's fucking bullshit that our problem is 3 at the back.

The problem has been shite defending & shite finishing, WHATEVER the system. We were fucking ABYSMAL defensivsly v Arsenal, then became average & won. We were fucking ABYSMAL v Celtic& Spurs, drew & lost. We were average then ABYSMAL v Chelsea defensively then lost.

If it turns out our defenders can learn a 4 better than & 3 prior to sacking, fucking great.

What they haven't been in any game v anybody, in any system, is good.

We score the oppo misses we win. We miss the oppo scores we draw or lose.

Same every game. If the solution is 3 4 or 6, I don't give a fuck.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.