Three at the Back

[IBlue]

The three at the back was a disaster when implemented, for the simple reason that we never had the personnel to make it work. Almost to a man, it didn't suit our squad. We haven't got the wing backs with pace who can tackle and cross. The ones who can tackle cant cross, and vice versa. Our best centre halves work as a solid duo and aren't at their best spreading out and having people run into the channels. Whilst it might have some merit as a change formation when trying to break inferiour teams down - and this is where it ended up being used - it was the wrong formation for the champions league and out early league games. It left us exposed to well drilled teams on the break.

In fact I think playing it all close season and regularly during the first couple of months of the season was a major contributor in getting our season off track. We played for those first few months with 3 and 4 different systems every game, a huge turnover of players and couldn't find any rythmn. In some ways we never recovered.

A big managerial mistake to dive into this season leaning so heavily on this untried system.

I don't really think it was untried, we used the system quite a few time last season, Rags in the cup when 3 down and adopted it in a few games in the run in when trying to shut up shop and hit on the break. We did this when bringing Richards on, Rags home and Newcastle away, this is what irked me more when after one of the Euro games this year after a loss, Richards saying never played it or something like that. I think it only became an issue when we lost games.

This season also, Spurs at home changes to 3 when losing, last week against Liverpool when we changed to 3 we got back into the game and started to impose, when used correctly and in context of the game its a useful ploy

 

[Deleted member 52846]

The three at the back was a disaster when implemented, for the simple reason that we never had the personnel to make it work. Almost to a man, it didn't suit our squad. We haven't got the wing backs with pace who can tackle and cross. The ones who can tackle cant cross, and vice versa. Our best centre halves work as a solid duo and aren't at their best spreading out and having people run into the channels. Whilst it might have some merit as a change formation when trying to break inferiour teams down - and this is where it ended up being used - it was the wrong formation for the champions league and out early league games. It left us exposed to well drilled teams on the break.

In fact I think playing it all close season and regularly during the first couple of months of the season was a major contributor in getting our season off track. We played for those first few months with 3 and 4 different systems every game, a huge turnover of players and couldn't find any rythmn. In some ways we never recovered.

A big managerial mistake to dive into this season leaning so heavily on this untried system.

I don't think you necessarily have to be able to corss the ball as a wing back. If we have Agüero and Tévez up front, what's the point in crossing the ball in from wide?

What wing backs with paqce can give you is a drive into the box that can cause havoc and either end up in a shot at goal, a cut-back pass or being brought down by the defender. It also provides the width that spreads defences wider across the pitch when they're trying to defend narrowly and tighten up any space. When you spread them wider there becomes larger spaces in the middle and there are more opportunities to shoot or run into that space.

The whole point of wing backs is that they bomb up and down the pitch in the wide areas. The whole reason he attempted to implement it woould have been to give us some width and overlap whilst maintaining the midfield. Of course a wing back needs to be able to cross, and run, and overlap, and cover lots of ground. It's nonsense to suggest a wingback should come inside, that's why you don't play them on their opposite foot (although horribly, Mancini has done once or twice)

You can run into the box and cut the ball back from wide areas after bombing and overlapping up the wing. I didn't mean cutting inside but that is something that can also be done. Aarron Lennon and Gareth Bale are prime examples, they get themselves into the box all the time after runs down the wing. Neither are that good at crossing.

 

[Graceyboy]

The three at the back was a pragmatic approach to inject some width into the side.

Look over the last two summers, oru main targets have been Alexis Sanchez and Eden Hazard, we have come away with Samir Nasri and Scott Sinclair. Nasri contributed at times last season but has been poor this term and does not offer any width. Sinclair hasnt played.

While the club had lost patience with Johnson rocking up to training hungover, in hindsight he was the only player offering width and should of been retained.

So Mancini has a problem, plan A is our passing through the middle game, when this doesnt work he needs to inject width into the team and with no recognised wingers his option is to emply (not a left back) Kolorov, and attacking right-back Maicon in the wing-back roles.

On the face of it I think its a good idea, and certaintly the only option available to us in terms of generating width short of playing people out of position. In pre-season i thought it looked good, however during the season it has been hit and miss, there are other problems it creates that we havnt been able to deal with. I think Bobby deserves some credit for thinking outside the box but at the end of the day he wants to play 4-2-3-1, or 4-(2-2)-2 with one of the attacking midfielders as a wide man. Plan for the summer, buy a winger!

I have been saying this for a while too. I think tactically, our management team are one of the best around, I think Mancini's downfall is his man management, he's a little hot headed and wears his heart on his sleeve.

I like the fact he has completely baffling plan B's. Last year it was the "Yaya Show" and it worked so many times. However, that was only going to last so long before teams counter act the formation change and nulify the threat.

I mentioned in close season that Roberto needed to invent a "new" plan b for tricky games, and he did. He had some great success with Dzeko Super sub, but that soon stopped when Edin started to play from the start. His Attacking midfielder off and defender on tactical change was one that caught so many people out and had them claiming he had lost the plot. I thought it was a master stroke.

Look at his counterparts tactical weaponary over in Trafford, take off any midfielder and bring on Ryan Giggs, the 40 yr old tw@t, or bring on Scholes the ginger pig. theres nothin tactical about it, its just player for player.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

I don't think you necessarily have to be able to corss the ball as a wing back. If we have Agüero and Tévez up front, what's the point in crossing the ball in from wide?

What wing backs with paqce can give you is a drive into the box that can cause havoc and either end up in a shot at goal, a cut-back pass or being brought down by the defender. It also provides the width that spreads defences wider across the pitch when they're trying to defend narrowly and tighten up any space. When you spread them wider there becomes larger spaces in the middle and there are more opportunities to shoot or run into that space.

The whole point of wing backs is that they bomb up and down the pitch in the wide areas. The whole reason he attempted to implement it woould have been to give us some width and overlap whilst maintaining the midfield. Of course a wing back needs to be able to cross, and run, and overlap, and cover lots of ground. It's nonsense to suggest a wingback should come inside, that's why you don't play them on their opposite foot (although horribly, Mancini has done once or twice)

You can run into the box and cut the ball back from wide areas after bombing and overlapping up the wing. I didn't mean cutting inside but that is something that can also be done. Aarron Lennon and Gareth Bale are prime examples, they get themselves into the box all the time after runs down the wing. Neither are that good at crossing.

Well for a start those two are wingers and not wing backs, but you're trying to burn a straw man. We haven't got the players with the all-round game (pace, crossing, recovery) to play effectively at wing back. Richards is the closest, followed by Clichy.

 

[IBlue]

I think another difference this year is that the full backs are playing 10yds further back, last year Richards and Clichy's starting position was virtually in the opponents half, the centre backs split and Barry dropped into the hole, another sort of 3 at the back formation, this automatically put us on the front foot. Our problem this year is that this flexibility is missing, our staring point is a 442 and that is getting exploited as Silva or Nasri come inside, both attacking as we become very narrow and defensively as Dortmand proved as teams are hitting the space where a normal 442 wide man would be

 

[Deleted member 52846]

The whole point of wing backs is that they bomb up and down the pitch in the wide areas. The whole reason he attempted to implement it woould have been to give us some width and overlap whilst maintaining the midfield. Of course a wing back needs to be able to cross, and run, and overlap, and cover lots of ground. It's nonsense to suggest a wingback should come inside, that's why you don't play them on their opposite foot (although horribly, Mancini has done once or twice)

You can run into the box and cut the ball back from wide areas after bombing and overlapping up the wing. I didn't mean cutting inside but that is something that can also be done. Aarron Lennon and Gareth Bale are prime examples, they get themselves into the box all the time after runs down the wing. Neither are that good at crossing.

Well for a start those two are wingers and not wing backs, but you're trying to burn a straw man. We haven't got the players with the all-round game (pace, crossing, recovery) to play effectively at wing back. Richards is the closest, followed by Clichy.

Indeed so you'd see a wing back, with more defensive duties, to do the job of a winger but more sporadically. Richards and Clichy would be good wing backs.

 

[EricBrooksGhost]

The problem with three at the back is that it too easily becomes five. When that happens you lose out in midfield and have no depth to your defense . If the wing backs are disciplined and avoid this they then become to easy to exploit with the space behind them. You need a seriously well drilled team with the correct players and backup players to make three at the back work.

 

[King Of All Geordies]

I'm not convinced when two of the three are full backs i.e. Zab, Kompany, Clichy. I'd be happier with the system with three actual centre backs in there - i.e. Kolo, Kompany, Nastasic...

 

[IBlue]

I'm not convinced when two of the three are full backs i.e. Zab, Kompany, Clichy. I'd be happier with the system with three actual centre backs in there - i.e. Kolo, Kompany, Nastasic...

Think when all fit the best 3 would be
Richards, Kompany, Nastasic

 

[King Of All Geordies]

I'm not convinced when two of the three are full backs i.e. Zab, Kompany, Clichy. I'd be happier with the system with three actual centre backs in there - i.e. Kolo, Kompany, Nastasic...

Think when all fit the best 3 would be
Richards, Kompany, Nastasic

Agreed.