Win percentage with 3 at the back

[jaiguruKun]

I think many have been guilty of overstating the importance of the formation (myself included). One thing I've noticed is that in spite of us playing such a high line, either with a back three or four, very rarely do opposition players get caught offside. Players seem to go on a frolick of their own with very little awareness of where their team mates are. We used to play a great little offside trap on the edge of our box which worked a treat but it seems to me very little thought going into this sort of thing now. It's like the players aren't even aware of the offside rule. There also seems to be very little communication going on since Hart left. What Pep said today about having "no defence" is very worrying. His attitude seems to be that it will take care of itself once we have the right personnel rather than trying to improve what we already have. I'll be accused of being a Phillistine by the Pep fan boys but the sooner he realises that you cannot simply rely on having better players as he did at barca and bayern the better. We're not just going to steamroller other teams as the gap in quality has narrowed significantly in the Premier League..more so than in other leagues. Some thought needs to go in to trying to stop the other team from a defensive point of view. This seems to be entirely lacking at the moment.

 

[kaz7]

PEP: The last month we have to accept it’s not going well. The last games at home we didn’t win. I don’t have a defence.

He means he has no defence for the media not literally no defence

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

don't know about 3 at the back but something in the fair weather mindset of our players:

City league record since start of 2015/16 season.

August-October: Pld: 21, W: 15, D: 3, L: 3, GS: 51, GC: 18, GD: +33, Pts: 48, Pts per game: 2.29, GS per game: 2.43, GC per game: 0.86, Win %: 71.43.
November-May: Pld: 32, W: 13, D: 9, L: 10, GS: 52, GC: 42, GD: +10, Pts: 48, Pts per game: 1.50, GS per game: 1.63, GC per game: 1.31, Win %: 40.63.

Which over a 38 game season would equate to:

Aug-Oct: Pld: 38, W: 28, D: 5, L: 5, GS: 92, GC: 33, GD: +59, Pts: 89.
Nov-May: Pld: 38, W: 15, D: 11, L: 12, GS: 62, GC: 50, GD: +12, Pts: 56.

It's quite staggering the drop off in form after the first 2 months of the season, for the past 2 seasons running.

 

[Shaelumstash]

I think many have been guilty of overstating the importance of the formation (myself included). One thing I've noticed is that in spite of us playing such a high line, either with a back three or four, very rarely do opposition players get caught offside. Players seem to go on a frolick of their own with very little awareness of where their team mates are. We used to play a great little offside trap on the edge of our box which worked a treat but it seems to me very little thought going into this sort of thing now. It's like the players aren't even aware of the offside rule. There also seems to be very little communication going on since Hart left. What Pep said today about having "no defence" is very worrying. His attitude seems to be that it will take care of itself once we have the right personnel rather than trying to improve what we already have. I'll be accused of being a Phillistine by the Pep fan boys but the sooner he realises that you cannot simply rely on having better players as he did at barca and bayern the better. We're not just going to steamroller other teams as the gap in quality has narrowed significantly in the Premier League..more so than in other leagues. Some thought needs to go in to trying to stop the other team from a defensive point of view. This seems to be entirely lacking at the moment.

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.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

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 we don't concede because of long balls, or a vulnerability to it. We concede to a range of goals where the vast majority of times the striker gets one-on-one with Bravo, who then dives the wrong way. The core problem is not three at the back, but the fact that the defenders continually decide they're going to play their own way and completely disregard any basis which could prevent 95% of these goals occurring.

If the back 3 played as one line, with one leader dictating the line, then not only would we narrow the pitch, but we would prevent 90% of the goals we'd concede. It's poor decision making, poor reading of the game and a lack of concentration from our defence that is costing us over and over again.

 

[Maldeika]

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.

Oh - the reason of the high line for sure is not that the own players have less space - that is just a result of it you have to live with and overcome. And even without a higher line the most teams will park the bus so the space near the box will not be bigger anyways. The reason mainly is to hold a small distance between your own players - and that after ball losses the pressing and recovery of the ball can happen very fast and in team - so that the opponent who receives the ball in that moment does not have time and space to make something with the space he has.

Actually - I believe that this is the best system. But - to work it has to be fully engraved into the players and they have to go 100%. If they slow down you see it. But the culprit that often is told to be - often the defender who is pressed into a 1vs1 against an onrushing player - is only a scapegoat as others have done their mistake prior to him.

 

[Shaelumstash]

Oh - the reason of the high line for sure is not that the own players have less space - that is just a result of it you have to live with and overcome. And even without a higher line the most teams will park the bus so the space near the box will not be bigger anyways. The reason mainly is to hold a small distance between your own players - and that after ball losses the pressing and recovery of the ball can happen very fast and in team - so that the opponent who receives the ball in that moment does not have time and space to make something with the space he has.

Actually - I believe that this is the best system. But - to work it has to be fully engraved into the players and they have to go 100%. If they slow down you see it. But the culprit that often is told to be - often the defender who is pressed into a 1vs1 against an onrushing player - is only a scapegoat as others have done their mistake prior to him.

Oh you better tell Pep then because he said last week that he's spent his whole playing and managerial career attacking small spaces and defending big spaces. He's built a career on that, whether that tallies with your opinion or not.

Of course I'm sure Pep would love to play a high line and the opponents don't bother defending and we have loads of space and a free run at goal, but for sure it's not very realistic.

It's inevitable opponents are going to try to defend. So it's inevitable our attackers are going to have less space. And that's one of the reasons Pep values attackers who are good technically in tight spaces.

 

[Shaelumstash]

but we don't concede because of long balls, or a vulnerability to it. We concede to a range of goals where the vast majority of times the striker gets one-on-one with Bravo, who then dives the wrong way. The core problem is not three at the back, but the fact that the defenders continually decide they're going to play their own way and completely disregard any basis which could prevent 95% of these goals occurring.

If the back 3 played as one line, with one leader dictating the line, then not only would we narrow the pitch, but we would prevent 90% of the goals we'd concede. It's poor decision making, poor reading of the game and a lack of concentration from our defence that is costing us over and over again.

It's an interesting idea - the flat back 3, but I can't recall seeing too many teams playing a 3 in a straight line? Usually the player in the centre is deeper than the two wide players.

Also, taking the Chelsea and Everton games where we conceded 4 goals at home in 2 games while playing 3 at the back, all 4 goals were the result of counter attacks.

Whether from a long ball, a one two, or a powerful run from the half way line, all the goals exploited a vulnerability in the 3 at the back system that it left our defender one v one against their attacker.

That's a vulnerability you rarely see with a back 4. The whole purpose of a back 4 is that all 4 are marking space and work as a unit so players don't get isolated one v one.

 

[cibaman]

Juve look good with a back 3. Chelsea look good at the moment.

Watching the Leicester game (shortly after reading one of the recurring Mancini v current manager mini threads on Bluemoon) it did strike me that the one thing that Roberto and Pep seem to have in common is a fondness for 3 at the back despite not having the players who are suited to playing that system.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

It's an interesting idea - the flat back 3, but I can't recall seeing too many teams playing a 3 in a straight line? Usually the player in the centre is deeper than the two wide players.

Also, taking the Chelsea and Everton games where we conceded 4 goals at home in 2 games while playing 3 at the back, all 4 goals were the result of counter attacks.

Whether from a long ball, a one two, or a powerful run from the half way line, all the goals exploited a vulnerability in the 3 at the back system that it left our defender one v one against their attacker.

That's a vulnerability you rarely see with a back 4. The whole purpose of a back 4 is that all 4 are marking space and work as a unit so players don't get isolated one v one.

The goals v Leicester & Chelsea were the result of multiple failures in the build-up, and then individual defensive errors which culminated in one-on-one's with Bravo, who then has a tendency to dive the wrong way.

The point I'm making is not that a back 3 may not have weaknesses, but that it isn't inherently responsible for those goals being conceded.

I don't agree that the goals exploited weaknesses in a back 3, I think they exploited weaknesses in OUR back 3, who should be able to do their jobs properly. A back 4 doesn't prevent those goals in my opinion. Too early for me to go into more depth but I think it's fundamentally players not following Pep's instruction and then making poor decisions in the mess they've made.