Three at the Back

[masterwig]

Should we have persisted with the back three experiment? Underperformance almost across the board has been a major downfall of the side but when I think back to some of our away games maybe we should have given it more time.

The team looked shakey and was conceding goals but in the long run would we have benefitted? And do people think that we should use the rest of the season to work on it? As a plan B, something some fans accuse us of lacking, it does give us an option. The Spurs game was won by going to three at the back.

 

[MCRJON]

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!

 

[Deleted member 52846]

I think 3 at the back stops us sticking Silva and Nasri out in wider positions and allows us to play both Agüero and Tévez together upfront more easily, and it also allows us to play up to Džeko differently if you put him in there too.

It is important that the right players are part of that back 5 though. As in the right three centre halves (Nastasić Kompany and Zaba possibly) and the right two players in the wing back roles (Clichy and Richards). You have to have absolute pace, good defending qualities and good attacking qualities as a proper effective wing back. In this formation the wing backs are the most important players in the team.

Also you don't have to play with two holding midfielders and release Yaya on a free midfield role. Plus the lack of pace of the one holding player isn't exposed as much.

-----------------------Hart----------------------
--------Zabaleta-----Kompany-----Nastasić------
Richards-----------------------------------Clichy
----------------------Milner---------------------
---------------Yaya-----------Silva--------------
-----------------Agüero----Tévez----------------

or

-----------------------Hart----------------------
--------Richards-----Kompany-----Nastasić------
Milner--------------------------------------Clichy
----------------------Barry---------------------
---------------Yaya-----------Silva--------------
-----------------Agüero----Džeko----------------
(but no Zaba :( )

But it suits our squad more than four at the back, for me.

I really like the formation.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

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'm no cynic but...]

I think 3 at the back stops us sticking Silva and Nasri out in wider positions and allows us to play both Agüero and Tévez together upfront more easily, and it also allows us to play up to Džeko differently if you put him in there too.

It is important that the right players are part of that back 5 though. As in the right three centre halves (Nastasić Kompany and Zaba possibly) and the right two players in the wing back roles (Clichy and Richards). You have to have absolute pace, good defending qualities and good attacking qualities as a proper effective wing back. In this formation the wing backs are the most important players in the team.

Also you don't have to play with two holding midfielders and release Yaya on a free midfield role. Plus the lack of pace of the one holding player isn't exposed as much.

-----------------------Hart----------------------
--------Zabaleta-----Kompany-----Nastasić------
Richards-----------------------------------Clichy
----------------------Milner---------------------
---------------Yaya-----------Silva--------------
-----------------Agüero----Tévez----------------

I really like the formation.

I like this formation too. What a big miss it is by losing Richards though. I couldn't count on Maicon to have the same defensive abilities to make this line up work.

 

[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.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

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)

 

[I'm no cynic but...]

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 rhythmn. In some ways we never recovered.

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

A bigger managerial mistake was to bring in a non-English speaking Defence Coach at the start of the season, and there were the odd comment or two from defenders who claimed they didn't understand the new system. This was a bit of a lame excuse as professional players should understand everything that is required on the pitch, but having the right kind of players for the system and having the right kind of coach who can get the message across is vitally important.

 

[Bill]

we could play 33 at the back but if our goalie drops the ball and our brilliant midfielder scores a worldy past him we are fucked.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

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 rhythmn. In some ways we never recovered.

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

A bigger managerial mistake was to bring in a non-English speaking Defence Coach at the start of the season, and there were the odd comment or two from defenders who claimed they didn't understand the new system. This was a bit of a lame excuse as professional players should understand everything that is required on the pitch, but having the right kind of players for the system and having the right kind of coach who can get the message across is vitally important.

I've got to say, it worried me immensely when I heard he didn't speak English, but it would be putting 2 and 2 together and making 5 if I were to say this is a problem.