• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Should we go to three at the back?

Maltese Falcon

Maltese Falcon

Niko Kranjcar
Great articles by Jonathan Wilson (as usual) in the Guardian focusing in tactics, starting with three at the back http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/dec/29/tactical-review-of-2014-three-at-the-back-back-in-fashion-football

Got me thinking...

Would it be something that would work for us? My biggest concern with the current team is the massive gaps we leave, especially when we lose possession in midfield; Fazio's limitations against fast strikers, our vulnerability from playing the high press and the gaps we leave when we lose possession in midfield and the isolation of our striker because the three midfielders are defending 10 yards back taking forever for the midfield to join the attack when we get the ball back...

Could 3 - 4 - 2 - 1 work, say:

-------------------------------Lloris-----------------------------


-------Dier -----------------Fazio ------------------Verthongen


Walker --------- Mason-------------Bentaleb------------------Rose


--------------Lamela --------------------------Eriksen-------------


----------------------------Kane------------------------------------


Fazio would give us the height and physicality, with Dier (or Chiriches) and Verthongen offering the more mobile defensive shield, one on each side of Fazio ready to cut in if he is beaten for pace. This would counter one of the biggest dangers of Poch defensive high line (we are regularly seeing 1 vs 1 situations between opposition strikers and our CBs) . Also all three, but especially Dier and Verts are excellent on the ball and will help us build from the back.

Walker and Rose are actually wing-backs already and have great stamina needed to cope with the role. They are more attack oriented so having a defender behind them will cover for the defensive lapses that we know they are prone to but which are compensated by their attacking prowess.

Mason and Bentaleb have great potential but they are no Nemanja Matic; they are unable to play as defensive midfielders and we have all seen the gaps they leave behind them every game. But this would now be covered by the constant 3 centre backs behind them allowing them to concentrate on creating changes rather than stopping them and give them (especially Mason) a greater licence to bomb forward with less risk to the team.

Because there would effectively be 7 players behind them, Lamela and Eriksen can move inside without (as happens with the wonky) disrupting the shape of the team - both in terms of the gaps they leave behind when we lose possession as well as the congestion that often happens with having three similar players (when Chadli also plays); also, because they are further forward in the play, they would be able to join Kane in attack that much quicker and therefore more effectively.

The other big advantage of three at the back is the example that Jonathan Wilson gives - "Chile, under Jorge Sampaoli, used a back three because playing an extra midfielder allowed them to press with greater urgency high up the pitch. In a sense defenders were there only to be used in extremis; ideally the ball would be won long before they were engaged" This is exactly Poch's masterplan!!

Seems so good on paper but I am sure posters will find plenty to criticise :)
 
No ... honestly hate when managers try "the latest fad" for no applicable reason.

Lets ask the question, who has tried 3 at the back this season and has it worked?
- Believe both ends of scale (in talent) in QPR and Manure tried it, both had a few really bad games with it

Our shape is good now, tempo is good, we need to work on width without over commitment.
 
We would have to drop the pressing game if we went three at the back because we would have less players in advanced positions to press.
 
We're just about starting to snap into place it seems, not the time to make wholesale changes to our system and line-up. Rather the time for consistency and incremental development. Made a long-ish post in the Poch thread about the (imo) rather stupendous amount of changes Poch has had to oversee so far in his Spurs career. A drastic change in formation at this point seems to me like the perfect way to increase that instability and make it even harder for the players to settle in to our system.

We have a promising developing centre back partnership with Vertonghen and Fazio, starting to show decent results in terms of points gathered and goals not conceded (at least that's what's been posted in the Fazio thread). So the obvious think is to throw a so far inconsistent 20 year old into the mix in a system our players aren't at all used to?

Walker and Rose are not suited to wing back roles at all. Not good enough on the ball, not enough end product. No starters for me in key positions to make that system work. Look at the players United and Liverpool are playing in those roles with some success. Rather different from what our options offer us.

Mason and Bentaleb have come up through our academy as far as I know primarily playing back 4 systems. They're still settling, what they need is time to continue to adjust to the PL in an environment that is as stable as possible, not for us to throw out the play book.
 
braineclipse said:
We're just about starting to snap into place it seems, not the time to make wholesale changes to our system and line-up. Rather the time for consistency and incremental development. Made a long-ish post in the Poch thread about the (imo) rather stupendous amount of changes Poch has had to oversee so far in his Spurs career. A drastic change in formation at this point seems to me like the perfect way to increase that instability and make it even harder for the players to settle in to our system.

We have a promising developing centre back partnership with Vertonghen and Fazio, starting to show decent results in terms of points gathered and goals not conceded (at least that's what's been posted in the Fazio thread). So the obvious think is to throw a so far inconsistent 20 year old into the mix in a system our players aren't at all used to?

Walker and Rose are not suited to wing back roles at all. Not good enough on the ball, not enough end product. No starters for me in key positions to make that system work. Look at the players United and Liverpool are playing in those roles with some success. Rather different from what our options offer us.

Mason and Bentaleb have come up through our academy as far as I know primarily playing back 4 systems. They're still settling, what they need is time to continue to adjust to the PL in an environment that is as stable as possible, not for us to throw out the play book.
Click to expand...

Spot on
 
No, no, no :D

3 at the back causes confusion, the centre backs leave it to one another and a striker nips in to score whilst the defenders accuse one another.

With 4 at the back it is clear who should go where and works way better IMO.

Every time Spurs or Pool or Utd play with a 3 you can see hesitation and confusion and 'less distance covered' which essentially means your team are covering less ground.

Last season MotD highlighted a few occasions where 3 at the back was torn apart by a midfield runner cutting between the centre backs and causing "after you Claude" confusion.
 
Aren't the managers who are playing three at the moment doing so because they are not sure what to do with their squads or how to get the best of them?
 
3 at the back it seems is a reactive formation now rather than a preferred one. LVG does it because of wrong personnel, essentially not having any decent full backs. Hence why Shamus Coleman is a target and his annoyance at fat Luke Shaw.

Villa, Sunderland and QPR are trying to shore up poor defenses in desperation to avoid the drop.

No top football team has employed it bar Bayern and it is baffling when Pep does it.
 
LutonSpurs said:
3 at the back it seems is a reactive formation now rather than a preferred one. LVG does it because of wrong personnel, essentially not having any decent full backs. Hence why Shamus Coleman is a target and his annoyance at fat Luke Shaw.

Villa, Sunderland and QPR are trying to shore up poor defenses in desperation to avoid the drop.

No top football team has employed it bar Bayern and it is baffling when Pep does it.
Click to expand...

True. LvG also moved to that with Holland because of the injury to Strootman rather than preferring that formation. In addition to lacking decent full backs United are overloaded with central attacking players and a wing back system has allowed LvG to use more of those players.

Rodgers used it at times last season and now recently this season. But rarely for extended periods of time, more reactive as you say.
 
LutonSpurs said:
3 at the back it seems is a reactive formation now rather than a preferred one. LVG does it because of wrong personnel, essentially not having any decent full backs. Hence why Shamus Coleman is a target and his annoyance at fat Luke Shaw.

Villa, Sunderland and QPR are trying to shore up poor defenses in desperation to avoid the drop.

No top football team has employed it bar Bayern and it is baffling when Pep does it.
Click to expand...

Did you see Wilson's article cause most of the replies were covered in his brilliant expose`.

Of course managers go with three at the back to get the best

Juventus under Conte have played three at the back for years and been immensely successful. I appreciate England is the bastion of conservatism but if 3 at the back is not the solution, then how do you suggest we will address the problems I highlighted:

the massive gaps we leave when we lose possession in midfield;
Fazio's limitations against fast strikers,
Bentaleb and Mason ineffectiveness to cover the defence
Our vulnerability from playing the high press and the constant 1 vs 1 situations we saw against Leicester and even more against Manure
The gaps we leave especially on the flanks and the lack of shape which is so patently obvious
and the isolation of our striker with midfielders taking forever to join the attack when we get the ball back..
 
Maltese Falcon said:
Did you see Wilson's article cause most of the replies were covered in his brilliant expose`.

Of course managers go with three at the back to get the best

Juventus under Conte have played three at the back for years and been immensely successful. I appreciate England is the bastion of conservatism but if 3 at the back is not the solution, then how do you suggest we will address the problems I highlighted:

the massive gaps we leave when we lose possession in midfield;
Fazio's limitations against fast strikers,
Bentaleb and Mason ineffectiveness to cover the defence
Our vulnerability from playing the high press and the constant 1 vs 1 situations we saw against Leicester and even more against Manure
The gaps we leave especially on the flanks and the lack of shape which is so patently obvious
and the isolation of our striker with midfielders taking forever to join the attack when we get the ball back..
Click to expand...
Sorry mate I haven't read it yet. Will be reading it later once the kids are settled. Looking forward to it actually as Wilson is a brilliant football journo in my opinion.
 
Maltese Falcon said:
Did you see Wilson's article cause most of the replies were covered in his brilliant expose`.

Of course managers go with three at the back to get the best

Juventus under Conte have played three at the back for years and been immensely successful. I appreciate England is the bastion of conservatism but if 3 at the back is not the solution, then how do you suggest we will address the problems I highlighted:

the massive gaps we leave when we lose possession in midfield;
Fazio's limitations against fast strikers,
Bentaleb and Mason ineffectiveness to cover the defence
Our vulnerability from playing the high press and the constant 1 vs 1 situations we saw against Leicester and even more against Manure
The gaps we leave especially on the flanks and the lack of shape which is so patently obvious
and the isolation of our striker with midfielders taking forever to join the attack when we get the ball back..
Click to expand...

I think that managers who decide to play a high pressing game do so knowing that it is a high risk strategy but very effective when it is done right. I do not think that it is an approach that you can take half heartedly though. You need players up field to press from the front and try and turnover play where it can be quickly turned into attack.

I am not inherently against any formation but we should only change now if we think that a pressing game will not be effective for us. I think that our game is just beginning to take shape, so it would be a strange time to change for me.
 
Maltese Falcon said:
Great articles by Jonathan Wilson (as usual) in the Guardian focusing in tactics, starting with three at the back http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2014/dec/29/tactical-review-of-2014-three-at-the-back-back-in-fashion-football

Got me thinking...

Would it be something that would work for us? My biggest concern with the current team is the massive gaps we leave, especially when we lose possession in midfield; Fazio's limitations against fast strikers, our vulnerability from playing the high press and the gaps we leave when we lose possession in midfield and the isolation of our striker because the three midfielders are defending 10 yards back taking forever for the midfield to join the attack when we get the ball back...

Could 3 - 4 - 2 - 1 work, say:

-------------------------------Lloris-----------------------------


-------Dier -----------------Fazio ------------------Verthongen


Walker --------- Mason-------------Bentaleb------------------Rose


--------------Lamela --------------------------Eriksen-------------


----------------------------Kane------------------------------------


Fazio would give us the height and physicality, with Dier (or Chiriches) and Verthongen offering the more mobile defensive shield, one on each side of Fazio ready to cut in if he is beaten for pace. This would counter one of the biggest dangers of Poch defensive high line (we are regularly seeing 1 vs 1 situations between opposition strikers and our CBs) . Also all three, but especially Dier and Verts are excellent on the ball and will help us build from the back.

Walker and Rose are actually wing-backs already and have great stamina needed to cope with the role. They are more attack oriented so having a defender behind them will cover for the defensive lapses that we know they are prone to but which are compensated by their attacking prowess.

Mason and Bentaleb have great potential but they are no Nemanja Matic; they are unable to play as defensive midfielders and we have all seen the gaps they leave behind them every game. But this would now be covered by the constant 3 centre backs behind them allowing them to concentrate on creating changes rather than stopping them and give them (especially Mason) a greater licence to bomb forward with less risk to the team.

Because there would effectively be 7 players behind them, Lamela and Eriksen can move inside without (as happens with the wonky) disrupting the shape of the team - both in terms of the gaps they leave behind when we lose possession as well as the congestion that often happens with having three similar players (when Chadli also plays); also, because they are further forward in the play, they would be able to join Kane in attack that much quicker and therefore more effectively.

The other big advantage of three at the back is the example that Jonathan Wilson gives - "Chile, under Jorge Sampaoli, used a back three because playing an extra midfielder allowed them to press with greater urgency high up the pitch. In a sense defenders were there only to be used in extremis; ideally the ball would be won long before they were engaged" This is exactly Poch's masterplan!!

Seems so good on paper but I am sure posters will find plenty to criticise :)
Click to expand...

Dude, amazing post. really well thought through

Seems hard to argue against what you have actually put down there..all i would say is......why do you feel an urgent need to change to something none of our players are accustomed to? would probably be a lot more building work to get your boys used to it you get me
 
Raziel said:
No ... honestly hate when managers try "the latest fad" for no applicable reason.

Lets ask the question, who has tried 3 at the back this season and has it worked?
- Believe both ends of scale (in talent) in QPR and Manure tried it, both had a few really bad games with it

Our shape is good now, tempo is good, we need to work on width without over commitment.
Click to expand...

That's insulting ... I gave specific reasons why I think it is the solution with the current squad not because it is a fad (which is actually rubbish because it has persisted in many European leagues, as Wilson points out). I do not expect you to agree with me but at least do with some valid arguments and discussion.

Also if you think our shape is good, then we need to agree to disagree - big time. Our defensive shape is HORRENDOUS with gaos all over the place and players constantly in crisis management mode whenever we lose the ball. If our shape was good we would not have had SEVEN situations in which RVP or Falcao came one on one vs Fazio or Verts and there were a similar number of exactly identical situations in the Leicester game. The only reason we have 4 points in the bag instead of a big fat zero over Christmas is that we simply lucky that the strikers did not take their chances.
 
Maltese Falcon said:
That's insulting ... I gave specific reasons why I think it is the solution with the current squad not because it is a fad (which is actually rubbish because it has persisted in many European leagues, as Wilson points out). I do not expect you to agree with me but at least do with some valid arguments and discussion.

Also if you think our shape is good, then we need to agree to disagree - big time. Our defensive shape is HORRENDOUS with gaos all over the place and players constantly in crisis management mode whenever we lose the ball. If our shape was good we would not have had SEVEN situations in which RVP or Falcao came one on one vs Fazio or Verts and there were a similar number of exactly identical situations in the Leicester game. The only reason we have 4 points in the bag instead of a big fat zero over Christmas is that we simply lucky that the strikers did not take their chances.
Click to expand...

Please calm it down MF, there is no reason to get in peoples' faces
 
africanspurs said:
Dude, amazing post. really well thought through

Seems hard to argue against what you have actually put down there..all i would say is......why do you feel an urgent need to change to something none of our players are accustomed to? would probably be a lot more building work to get your boys used to it you get me
Click to expand...

Thanks mate

I admit that it's the greatest flaw in my argument BUT the players are clearly still learning the system anyway and we are seeing that they still are nowhere in tune with the pressing game that Poch demands. If there is a time to try this out, it is actually now. Plus the benefits I feel it would give in terms of defensive shape, pressing capacity and attacking cohesiveness are - IMHO - potentially greater than the marginal tweaks that moving to 3-4-2-1 will require of the players.
 
It just seems pointless to me because you are sacrificing a midfield player to play someone at CB and have fullbacks further up the pitch leaving you exposed to balls played into the huge spaces left in those positions, if i felt we had some world class fullbacks than id say maybe it would possibly be worth a try but we dont so........The 3 players in CB also just seem to confuse each other and get in each others way, i think its only beneficial when defending set pieces.So basically i think you end up worse off defensively and no better off attacking wise, i just feel its pointless to do unless you have some really classy fullbacks and even then there are other formations i would prefer to use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back