With all the talk over which system works best I took a couple of minutes to go through our Premier League fixtures so far and check the stats for both systems. I ignored Cup games as we've played teams in lower divisions. As we've started 12 games with each system it's a good time to compare things. Here are the numbers: Back Four Chelsea (A): 0-2 (0 pts) Norwich (H): 1-0 (3 pts) Man City (A): 0-2 (0 pts) Cardiff (H): 1-1 (1 pt) Newcastle (A): 3-2 (3 pts) West Ham (H): 1-0 (3 pts) Villa (H): 0-0 (1 pt) Everton (A): 1-2 (0 pts) Sunderland (H): 1-0 (3 pts) Palace (H): 0-1 (0 pts) Fulham (H): 6-0 (3 pts) Spurs (H): 1-1 (1 pt) Played 12 (Won 5, Drawn 3, Lost 4) Points: 18 total (1.5 per game) Scored 15, Conceded 11 (+4 difference, 5 clean sheets) Back Three Spurs (A): 0-1 (0 pts) Southampton (A): 1-4 (0 pts) Liverpool (H): 3-1 (3 pts) Arsenal (H): 0-2 (0 pts) Swansea (A): 1-1 (1 pt) Stoke (H): 0-0 (1 pt) West Brom (A): 1-1 (1 pt) Man Utd (H): 2-3 (0 pts) Liverpool (A): 0-2 (0 pts) Chelsea (H): 0-2 (0 pts) Norwich (A): 0-1 (0 pts) Palace (A): 0-1 (0 pts) Played 12 (Won 1, Drawn 3, Lost 8) Points: 6 total (0.5 per game) Scored 8, Conceded 18 (-10 difference, 1 clean sheet) To me that difference is staggering, particularly when you consider that the only league win for the back three was the Liverpool game, and even then it was 1-1 until we brought Rosenior on, went 4 at the back and scored the winning goal(s) within minutes of that change. Take that game out and the numbers are even worse for the back three. Of course there's no guarantee a back four would've changed the results, and you could say the back three has been used in tougher fixtures, but the numbers for the back four do include away games at Chelsea and Man City which are arguably the two toughest fixtures on the calendar. I for one much prefer the back four, even before looking at these numbers, and I've been a bit frustrated that we instantly went back to the back three despite the fluidity we showed against Fulham. Hopefully Chester's injury is a blessing in disguise and it makes Bruce continue with a back four...
Fully agree and have been wondering about this for a while. I hadn't checked the actual stats like yourself, but just remember being disappointed after games where we'd gone 3 at the back.
Good work, this proves what many have been saying, and I always felt a flat back four with Rossy at right back behind Elmo, not only looked safer defensive wise, but Elmo was able to get forward, which suits his game better.
Good work getting the stats together but Bruce will obviously know this. He isn't stupid. He'll know we've lost games playing with a back 3 but he still thinks it's right to play that way at times so he obviously thinks there's more to it.
I hope we'll play a back four on Saturday, but those figures don't tell the whole story. We've played far better at home and there are more home games in which we've played a back four. We haven't played better at home just because we played a back four more often, we've played a back three much better at home too.
To be fair, looking at the fixtures of the 'Back 3' - the only ones that are truly disappointing are the last two away games (and even then... I don't think we can expect to win those away games). Actually in the Swansea, WBA, Man Utd and Norwich games we came really close to getting even better results - all tough games, compared to a lot of the home wins with a back 4. Perhaps with a back 4, we would have done even worse in those fixtures. It is pretty difficult to tell. That being said, we probably are better with a back 4 - certainly more likely to go and trouble teams anyway (though Long+Jela may have shaken that up). It is pretty hard to say by quite what extent though, given the difference in fixtures.
I strongly favour the back four, although I think the home/away element can be a bit of a red-herring. The shape impacts on tactics and individual performance; the venue is more a confidence thing and that is often shaped by tactics, which can be impacted by . . . . . . I think consistency is our biggest challenge and,, although predictability can be a foe, it can also be a huge afriend if done with style and confidence. Perhaps we now have the squad available to have a run at consistency - but what's the bets it will be a back 3?
I prefer a back 4 but once Aluko is back we need a 3-5-2 if we are to play Brady, Aluko, Long & Jelavic, which we surely will want to.
Bringing one of Brady, Aluko or Long on in the second half would be a nice option to have. I don't necessarily think they all have to start.
Really? Who would you drop? Aluko's our best player, Brady's our top scorer and Long's our best striker (and cost a small fortune). Sounds like I'm being deliberately awkward but I'd sooner drop Jelavic than all 3, but that won't happen either given his price tag.
If everyone was fit, I'd go with a front 6 of: Elmo-----Livermore-----Huddlestone----Aluko ------------Long-------Jelavic With the way we play, I think having a big, strong striker is essential which is why I'd play Jelavic (also he's a ****ing good player). Although, at some point I'd like to see Aluko and Long up top with Brady on the left. On attacking quality only, I'd drop Elmo and put Aluko wide right, but reckon we'd get arse-raped defensively.
442 McGregor Rosenior - McShane - Davies - Figueroa Elmo - Livermore - Huddlestone - Brady Long - Jelavic 4411 McGregor Rosenior - McShane - Davies - Figueroa Elmo - Livermore - Huddlestone - Brady Aluko Long/Jelavic 4231 McGregor Rosenior - McShane - Davies - Figueroa Livermore - Huddlestone Aluko ----- Long ----- Brady Jelavic That's if all are fit. In reality players pick up injuries and suspensions, it's not often you have all players available - just look at how long Brady and Aluko have been out this season. What our squad gives us now is depth. With all fit we can play a number of systems and have skilled players on the bench to make 2nd half impact. We can rotate if players get little niggles without losing quality. We still have Boyd and Quinn on top of those who can do a job in attacking roles, plus Fryatt, and Meyler for the central positions. Look at Man City: Aguero, Negredo, Dzeko and Jovetic are all worthy starters but they rotate and change around when needed. They don't use a weaker system to try and squeeze them all in together. Much better to be in this position that to only have 1 quality player for each position and be screwed the instant someone gets injured. Ask West Ham and Andy Carroll about that... Keep the core "back six" positions constant for stability (back four and two central mids) and vary the attacking positions based on opposition and players available for selection.
Rosie is playing much better than Figs though so surely we need cover on the left more than on the right? Brady could supply that cover and then if Aluko played RM we would just need Livermore to cut back a bit when Aluko went forwards.
I love this starting line-up/formation. I highlighted the same formation when we bought both strikers in... it does look a little weak defensively personnel-wise but I think the formation is very strong defensively, so counteracts that argument. Nice work on putting the stats together, of course they don't tell the whole story but interesting reading nonetheless.
There is a reason pretty much every top team plays this formation now. The problem for us though is that neither Hudd or Livermore are really traditional CDMs so it may lack a bit of strength there.
I'd call Huddlestone a holding midfielder, he's a big unit who likes to stay deep to get on the ball and spread passes about. I think his quality on the ball makes many overlook how good he is at winning the ball - when he gets there in time anyway With jake, who's a well rounded player, doing all the leg work next to him it's a perfect partnership I reckon. The problem is the one who plays in front of them, Long is a striker, Aluko is lightweight, Brady has been gash every time he's played there... I don't think it would hurt to have one of the three to bring on off the bench, Boyd and Koren both have it in them to change a game and give us incisiveness but there's no one with pace and tricks to terrorise tired legs.
I'd agree that they're not traditional CDMs but I was watching something a while ago that showed Barca's tackle rate in the middle of the park is actually very low, its more about interceptions. Carrick is another case were he doesn't put a lot of tackles in but still wins the ball often. In regards to Long playing in number 10 role, the other option if you're losing the midfield battle is to put Livermore there with Meyler sat in front of back 4. Edit: Also Boyd would probably do a decent job in the number 10 role, I've been really impressed with his workrate and defensive duties this season.
