Three at the back?

[ranger_syntax 4,316]

The manager has stated his preference for 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1.

 

The personnel are there to fit 4-3-3.

 

Despite these facts the idea of three at the back is really compelling to some.

 

Is this because it would solve some important problem that the team has just now? Or is it just that many fans don't realise that there are tactics beyond formation bingo?

[BlackSocksRedTops 3,751]

I think if the personnel is right it can work. Look how Conte adapted his Chelsea team a few years back to win the title. 

[Frankie 8,562]

I think teams should be capable of adapting to any formation where it may be required.

[Sutton_blows_goats 5,326]

We played 3 at the back at times yesterday it looked to me. Kamara dropped in when Livi were taking goal kicks and at other long ball scenarios.

[DMAA 3,658]

"Worth discussing" is a low bar and I'd say yes, largely due to Patterson being on bench when he is one of our best outlets on either wing.

 

             Tavernier  Goldson  Bassey/Helander

Patterson                                                      Barisic

                     Kamara       Jack/Davis

                             Kent/Hagi/Aribo

                    Roofe/Sakala  Morelos

 

A team along those lines could do pretty well in games where it's mostly a matter of breaking down a low block, it doesn't look solid enough for tougher opposition without Helander at the back though.

 

There are some obvious problems with it, by accommodating Patterson you are negating a lot of Tavernier's threat, though with the low block we play most weeks and given how much of the ball defenders have these days I think he could contribute quite a lot in breaking the lines and the opposition wouldn't know who should be picking him up. A second problem is how solid are you defensively with potentially two full backs in your back three. The third big one is that we do currently have a number of attacking midfielders and it's not easy to fit them into this system.

Edited November 29, 2021 by DMAA

[the gunslinger 3,366]

We don't have 2 CH never mind 3. 

 

It's also a dead formation for dinosaurs. 

 

 

[RANGERRAB 3,653]

A good team will always exploit a team playing three at the back by playing the ball into the wide areas upfront.

[Rousseau 10,600]

4 minutes ago, RANGERRAB said:

A good team will always exploit a team playing three at the back by playing the ball into the wide areas upfront.

Yes, but a good team playing three at the back won't allow that, i.e. Chelsea. 

[DMAA 3,658]

1 hour ago, Rousseau said:

Yes, but a good team playing three at the back won't allow that, i.e. Chelsea. 

Conte uses it too doesn’t he. I generally prefer a back 4 but a good manager can always use a 3 at the back based formation effectively. 

[CammyF 8,079]

Hate it with a passion.