Three at the back?

[der Berliner 3,743]

Point is, for long spells we play with 2 CHs, usually 2 DMs (deep CMs) and 2 fullbacks as auxilliary wingers. That leaves us with far too few real attackers - as countless games against low blocks have shown.

 

Possible 3MD (3-man-defence) against low blocks might be ...

 

Balogun/Tavernier - Goldson/Helander - Bassey

 

Either defender on the side could rove forward every now and then, with the others taking up the usual central defence double, with ONE DM (e.g. Jack or Kamara) dropping back too.

 

Midfield could be ...

 

Patterson/Hagi - Hagi - Jack/Kamara - Aribo - Kent/Wright

 

... with either winger asked to track back if needed, Jack the destroyer, Hagi and Aribo the creative/run-into-spaces type of guys. Up front ...

 

Morelos - Sakala/Roofe

 

That would be 3 defenders with the option that 1 could join the attack. One DM to clear the danger, and 5-6 primary attacking players.

Edited November 29, 2021 by der Berliner

[RANGERRAB 3,653]

To go 3 at the back you need the right players to do so. We don’t have them at present 

[der Berliner 3,743]

1 hour ago, RANGERRAB said:

To go 3 at the back you need the right players to do so. We don’t have them at present 

Balogun - Goldson - Bassey can very well do that. The latter may need a touch of coaching, but sure is a decent enough left-sided defender. And we have seen Balogun play well on the right side.

[ranger_syntax 4,316]

On 29/11/2021 at 20:26, der Berliner said:

Point is, for long spells we play with 2 CHs, usually 2 DMs (deep CMs) and 2 fullbacks as auxilliary wingers. That leaves us with far too few real attackers - as countless games against low blocks have shown.

 

...

Sounds like a problem from seasons gone by.

 

We already have a solution to it anyway.

 

When we want more in attack we swap a defensive midfielder for an attacking one. Consider Davis out for Arfield against Livingston.

[ranger_syntax 4,316]

On 29/11/2021 at 09:32, Sutton_blows_goats said:

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.

I noticed this but I would never describe it as playing 3 at the back.

[ranger_syntax 4,316]

On 29/11/2021 at 11:26, DMAA said:

"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.

This removes an attacker in favour of playing 3, sometimes 4, fullbacks.

 

Why do people imagine that this would help with anything?

[the gunslinger 3,366]

35 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said:

I noticed this but I would never describe it as playing 3 at the back.

Perhaps  it is a reasonable compromise. 

 

If we were to do it do it with a sweeper. 

 

I used to play lee sharpe at sweeper in champ man italia 94 and wow did it work. 

[Bill 13,717]

53 minutes ago, ranger_syntax said:

This removes an attacker in favour of playing 3, sometimes 4, fullbacks.

 

Why do people imagine that this would help with anything?

Clearly it wouldn't. Most of our problems lately have stemmed from the wrong player trying to do the right things ... or the right player doing the wrong things.

Edited December 1, 2021 by Bill

[DMAA 3,658]

10 hours ago, ranger_syntax said:

This removes an attacker in favour of playing 3, sometimes 4, fullbacks.

 

Why do people imagine that this would help with anything?

That’s a very simplistic summary, it’s taking one thing in isolation rather than looking at the knock on effect on other positions. Our current system relies on width from two fullbacks who don’t always have the freedom they want to get forward due to defensive responsibilities. The centre mids can be a bit restricted too. 
A 3 at the back system allows attack-minded full backs like Tav, Patterson and Barisic to play as wing backs. 4-3-3 can sometimes result in an isolated striker too and a lack of players making good runs in goal scoring positions, 2 strikers goes a long way to resolving that problem. We saw Celtic adopt this system to great effect in the second half of the 19/20 season. 

Edited December 1, 2021 by DMAA

[the gunslinger 3,366]

14 hours ago, DMAA said:

That’s a very simplistic summary, it’s taking one thing in isolation rather than looking at the knock on effect on other positions. Our current system relies on width from two fullbacks who don’t always have the freedom they want to get forward due to defensive responsibilities. The centre mids can be a bit restricted too. 
A 3 at the back system allows attack-minded full backs like Tav, Patterson and Barisic to play as wing backs. 4-3-3 can sometimes result in an isolated striker too and a lack of players making good runs in goal scoring positions, 2 strikers goes a long way to resolving that problem. We saw Celtic adopt this system to great effect in the second half of the 19/20 season. 

Celtc scrapped through that end of season and adopted it because they were shite.