Three at the back

It's still the first half of the Wozzle game and we're winning 3 - 1. I know this is a bit premature but now that Parky's actually tried a back 3 (albeit due to having his hand forced) and so far it's working, will he stick with it? 

If we go on to win this, surely he has to?

Tbh it worked well today, 3 might become 5 away at Bradford at times but that's what you would expect

Still need to work on it, Morais looked dead on his feet second half and only some good defending from Derik stopped us from being caught out. Key will be sorting out the middle three not sure Trotter, Spearing and vela is the right combination.

Thought Long looked good when he came on, looked sharper than ALF and on last two games deserves a chance.

wanderlust wrote:It's still the first half of the Wozzle game and we're winning 3 - 1. I know this is a bit premature but now that Parky's actually tried a back 3 (albeit due to having his hand forced) and so far it's working, will he stick with it? 

If we go on to win this, surely he has to?

Was there three at the back? Most of the second half it looked like a clear back line of 4

rammywhite wrote:

wanderlust wrote:It's still the first half of the Wozzle game and we're winning 3 - 1. I know this is a bit premature but now that Parky's actually tried a back 3 (albeit due to having his hand forced) and so far it's working, will he stick with it? 

If we go on to win this, surely he has to?

Was there three at the back? Most of the second half it looked like a clear back line of 4

TBH I'm surprised Parky didn't bottle it completely and bring Moxey on. 
Still at least Parky now knows what to do to score goals.

wanderlust wrote:Still at least Parky now knows what to do to score goals.

Pick Trotter?

It was a back 3, Parky confirmed it on the radio after the match. It was forced on him but at least he knows it can work and is an option now.

Norpig wrote:It was a back 3, Parky confirmed it on the radio after the match. It was forced on him but at least he knows it can work and is an option now.

I heard him confirm it- which is why I asked the question. But as I've said elsewhere it didn't look like it.
Certainly two up top (Alf and Madine) was a clear tactic. but the defence looked like a constant back 4 to me- only allowing Derik forward on occasion. Still, I'm no tactician so I'm happy to be wrong.

i think Parky tried to pull a fast one as during the warm up they were definitely a back 4 but when the game started they went to a back 3. Taylor and Morais were almost like wingers during the first half

rammywhite wrote:

Norpig wrote:It was a back 3, Parky confirmed it on the radio after the match. It was forced on him but at least he knows it can work and is an option now.

I heard him confirm it- which is why I asked the question. But as I've said elsewhere it didn't look like it.
Certainly two up top (Alf and Madine) was a clear tactic. but the defence looked like a constant back 4 to me- only allowing Derik forward on occasion. Still, I'm no tactician so I'm happy to be wrong.

 Looked like Derik, wheater, beevers as a back three with taylor and Morais playing wing backs. What surprised me was we didn't dominate the middle of the park as we should with an extra man in there, however it was nice to see Madine have players closer to him.

I think you'd expect at least one of the wingbacks to drop a bit deeper when the opposition attack, especially when the squad are used to playing a back 4  so it's not surprising that it may have looked like a back four at certain points in the match and the second half in particular when we were comfortably ahead. I wouldn't put the result down to Wozzle being crap either because they've had some great wins this season. 

I think the most pleasing thing about it is that Parky actually tried something less predictable and should have gotten enough encouragement to consider it an option in the future, even if it's only for part of a game e.g. if we're trailing and need a goal.

Even though ALF didn't get much of a look in, that system implied more of an attacking intent and it was good to know that we have more pace and willingness to shoot than before the transfer window. Long's goal was a screamer. The point being that we created enough and had enough shots on target to make our own luck for once and even if we'd had a couple of bad refereeing decisions we'd still have won because we did enough to make sure for once - and I think that's partly down to the system.

Rammy. This game was typical of how a back three approach looks. But I understand that some people don't notice the same things on the pitch so it can look the same. I sit with my Dad and he says it always looks the same to him so there are always key moments where I point out the shape to him and how it differs. It is harder to do on a forum but I will attempt it anyway and maybe you can look out for it next time... Because it is written, though, I will have to generalise a bit.

So the 3 centre halves command the centre of defence, all generally playing within the width of the 18 yard box, even if one goes slightly ahead of the other two (which you will have seen in Derik being further forward as you mentioned), especially when we are in posession of the ball. However when the play switches and we are on the defensive the centre backs eventually drop into a stricter line (even though, depending on the play, the highest centre back may attempt to break up play or slow it down, which gives the wing backs time to recover into a defensive position, then Derik will drop into the centre back role fully.)
The wing backs have a licence to go forward, just like many full backs do - only as wing backs they can both go forward at the same time! Not just on the side we are attacking down. This gives us the "extra" man in midfield - and the mistake people make when thinking about an extra man is that they tend to look in the middle. This might seem confusing at first because if you drew a 3-5-2 formation on paper and compared the drawing to a 442 formation on paper - it would seem like the "extra man really is in the middle. So I will try to explain a little below.

Say the other team are attacking down the right wing, our defenders might drop into this formation...
So it could resemble a flat back 4.
...............................................................
..........CM...........CM........CM..........RWB
LWB.....CB........CB..........CB
................................GK

But if we win the ball back the LWB is now able to go forward with the rest of the midfield....

.................................CM...................RWB
....LWB.............CM.............CM
.................................................................
....................CB..............CB...........CB
......................................GK

or many variations of the above....

sometimes the formation is easy to confuse with other formations and can look like 442 or even a diamond at times, but the roles are different - the principle thing is not how it looks at any single moment in time it is more about the role assigned to each player and his movement or his instructions, and normally, you can see the layout aswell.


One final addition. Compare how the 3-5-2 looks when we have the ball (above) to how a 442 might look with a full back pushing forward.

................................CM..................RM
......................LM...............................RB
...........................................CM
......................LB........CB............CB
..............................GK

(Admittedly, hard to demonstrate what is in my head with dots and letters)

Biggie,
Thanks for this and particularly all the effort that you put in to explain it. I thought that it was simply with a poor quality set of forwards from the opposition (like on Saturday) ,it makes sense that the full backs push on to provide extra  men in wider attacking positions. So Andy Taylor often seems to be playing well up the pitch- far further forward than a traditional full back. As a kid I was always coached to keep making yourself available, keep finding space, stay with your man when defending.
Any way- you've made it clearer- but I think I'll sit with your dad in future then we can both ask-'what the hell is going on!!'

Three at the back is very flexible and the differences are subtle for example Chelsea play Marcos Alonso where we should have played him - effectively a left sided midfielder in an attacking 3-4-3 whereas Wigan survived under Martinez playing the same system but much deeper so at times it was a 5-3-2 or even 5-4-1. Both are similar to the "diamond" that used to be popular and the differences are simply down to how adventurous/forward-thinking the wing backs are.
Chelsea have the confidence to play with a high press and TBF who can blame them with the quality of players they have, but it works just as effectively as a defensive measure. Just need wingbacks with a good enough engine to get up and down the pitch and enough quality to chip in at both ends. I think it suits us and I'm both delighted and surprised Parky even tried it.

rammywhite wrote:Biggie,
Thanks for this and particularly all the effort that you put in to explain it. I thought that it was simply with a poor quality set of forwards from the opposition (like on Saturday) ,it makes sense that the full backs push on to provide extra  men in wider attacking positions. So Andy Taylor often seems to be playing well up the pitch- far further forward than a traditional full back. As a kid I was always coached to keep making yourself available, keep finding space, stay with your man when defending.
Any way- you've made it clearer- but I think I'll sit with your dad in future then we can both ask-'what the hell is going on!!'

Haha, thanks rammy, hope it was a bit clearer than mud!

Biggie wrote:Rammy. This game was typical of how a back three approach looks. But I understand that some people don't notice the same things on the pitch so it can look the same.

Early runner for most condescending post of the year.

Breadman will have to up his game.

I do irrational ranting and imaginative invective.

Condescension's your bag.

You manky-looking shit gibbon......

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Biggie wrote:Rammy. This game was typical of how a back three approach looks. But I understand that some people don't notice the same things on the pitch so it can look the same.

Early runner for most condescending post of the year.

Breadman will have to up his game.

It might well be- but I'm not offended

Shit stirring. You can see by the context that it wasn't said in a condescending manner.

3 at the back managed to keep Rochdale out, but what happened to the incisive attacking we had in the last match? Fix one problem and we seem to spring a leak somewhere else.
I really hope Parky doesn't go back to shutting up shop away at Bradford and Sheff U or we'll get murdered.