1. Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Back Four vs Back Three in numbers

Discussion in 'Hull City' started by Mr. Coat, Feb 6, 2014.

  1. Cortez91

    Cortez91 Moderator
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2011
    Messages:
    9,177
    Likes Received:
    3,717
    How many of those back four games did we switch to back three?

    How many of those back three games did we switch to a back four?
     
    #21
  2. WhittlingStick

    WhittlingStick Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Messages:
    4,781
    Likes Received:
    502
    i posted a detailed reasoning as to why the 3-5-3 formation is failing a while back , i think it was probably an article written by Jonathan Wilson (Inverting the pyramid)
    all made a lot of sense on a chalkboard ,but in a real game that has to take into account more than the oppositions formation it cant be the definitive explanation

    all i can find is this which is a similar piece but not the one i posted before .

    http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/03/24/three-man-defence-in-football-soccer/
     
    #22
  3. Mr. Coat

    Mr. Coat Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2013
    Messages:
    597
    Likes Received:
    6
    The main problem for me is the flanks. In defence the opposition are able to double up on wingbacks - their midfielders can keep our wingbacks pushed back while their fullbacks can then overlap. Central defenders/mids then have to move out to close them down and that creates a gap in the middle.

    In possession we then have the opposite problem as only the wingbacks are wide to receive the ball, but they're usually outnumbered there. The ball then tends to pass around the back three a lot hoping space will open, or into the middle which is very crowded and has even less space. It can find space better if you have two forwards who pull wide but that then takes them away from the box and relies on the central midfielders getting in there to score.

    In the Championship where quite a few teams struggled to exploit the weaknesses it worked, but even teams like Leicester were able to neutralise it. In the Premiership I just don't see it working. Liverpool tried it earlier in the season as a way to play both Suarez and Sturridge up front (along with a couple of fullback injuries) but had mixed success and performed better reverting to a back four.
     
    #23
  4. dem_on

    dem_on Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2011
    Messages:
    823
    Likes Received:
    3
    Regardless of formation two things are apparent to me Long is a front man, his running off the ball is as good as an extra defender up front and he can out jump Jelavic any day of the week.Leave Jelavic up front and he is too slow to be effective in closing down the defenders.Secondly Brady just doesn't seem totally recovered to my mind he is hesitant in the tackle and hasn't the confidence to take on a man like he did earlier in the season.
    From what we saw against Spurs Long and Jelavic have to play in tandem up front.
     
    #24
  5. kccircle

    kccircle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,265
    Likes Received:
    273
    I'd say the main problem is the numbers. Am sure the ref would catch on to the extra player
     
    #25
  6. kccircle

    kccircle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,265
    Likes Received:
    273
    It's all square pegs into round holes squeezing in too many offensive players.

    Meyler (or another running midfielder) is as essential to a formation as a goal scorer.


    Unless we are chasing a game I cannot see any possible way to squeeze in the four that are mentioned without reducing some defensive cover
     
    #26

Share This Page