Should we go to three at the back?

[Gutter Boy]

United and Liverpool look incredibly fragile at the back doing it. It's so easy to exploit (balls into the corners, push your wide players up), I don't think it has a future

One thought though - I think Davies would be our 3rd CB rather than Dier

 

[africanspurs]

United and Liverpool look incredibly fragile at the back doing it. It's so easy to exploit (balls into the corners, push your wide players up), I don't think it has a future

One thought though - I think Davies would be our 3rd CB rather than Dier

Yeah, am feeling more the Van gaal type opinion on this one if i am honest

has a future but more part of a malleable formation i think. we should be able to play INTO that formation that maltese put there...

ahem *wonky does just that* cough cough cough

but seriously, that formation in possesion is lethal....if you can get the wide players to buy into the defensive side of things that its actually a no brainer formation

i think the real problem is finding those players that are deadly wingers and also extremely fit and capable fullbacks at the same time.....so few of them out there and almost all get taken by the top 5 teams in the world

 

[Jordinho]

Jonathan Wilson on why 4-2-3-1 is king (in 2008): http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2008/dec/18/4231-442-tactics-jonathan-wilson

The first to deploy the new formation self-consciously, at least according to the Spanish coaching magazine Training Football, was the Real Sociedad coach Juanma Lillo while he was in charge of the Segunda Division side Cultural Leonesa in 1991-92. "My intention was to pressure and to try to steal the ball high up the pitch," he explained.

"It was the most symmetrical way I could find of playing with four forwards. One of the great advantages is that having the forwards high allows you to play the midfield high and the defence high, so everybody benefits. But you have to have the right players. They have to be very, very mobile and they have to be able to play when they get the ball. You have to remember that they're pressuring to play, not playing to pressure."

Playing 4-4-2, 4-4-1-1 or 4-2-3-1, it allows two banks of four when defending, but quickly transitions into a back three when we're attacking.

Rather than get caught up in the numbers, what types of players do we want out there?

 

[braineclipse]

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:

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

The same way other teams that play 4 at the back solve them.

Or are you seriously saying that 3 at the back is the only way to solve those things?

1. This is not unique for us, nor for a back 4. A back 3 does very little to solve this. Yes we have to work on when and how many of our full backs and deep midfielders push forward.
2. This is not unique for us, not for a back 4. Plenty of teams play defenders that are fairly slow. Demichelis did very well for City last season. Hummels is outstanding and slow, has been so for a very high pressing Dortmund. Pique is slow, for a high pressing Barca he was very good. It's about frequencies.
3. Disagree. They did rather well against for example Chelsea and Everton. It's about developing that and other partnerships to improve. There's absolutely no reason to think a 4-2-3-1 can not be solid.
4. Did we play a high press against Leicester and United? Was only occasionally from what I remember. We were exposed, but guess what, so are teams that play 3 at the back at times.
5. A back 3, playing wing backs wouldn't leave us with gaps wide?
6. Again, not isolated to us, not isolated to a 4 at the back system.

You're seemingly claiming that a back 3 system would leave us (1) with more players covering the central defenders, (2) with more cover wide leaving fewer gaps, (3) with more players back covering for counter attacks, (4) with more players further forward supporting the strikers when we attack on the break and (5) with more players further forward to allow us to press higher. This seems rather impossible to me.

3 at the back is certainly a decent way to go about things. As is a back 4. I'm often a bit surprised by the rigid nature of formations and quite interested by managers like LvG, Bielsa, Rodgers and Pep that seem willing to move away from the accepted norms and get results that way. I see absolutely no reason to think that a back 3 is inherently not a good idea, but I equally see no reason to think that a back 4 is inherently not a good idea.

I fail to see how you're argued successfully in support of why a back 3 would be better for us at this time. You've claimed that it is better, but that's a very different thing.

 

[Maltese Falcon]

Rather than get caught up in the numbers, what types of players do we want out there?

But that's just it! I can tell you what players I would like out there but they won't be coming to Spurs anytime soon.

My post was specifically aimed to discuss how we can get the best out of the current squad and above all how to address our massive deficits of shape and cohesiveness which everyone seems to be glossing over.

If we are doing so well with our current formations, how come we have not won a single comfortable premiership game other than against QPR in August? Why are we always hanging on in the last 10 minutes either defending a slender lead or else stealing three points at the death?

 

[Jordinho]

But that's just it! I can tell you what players I would like out there but they won't be coming to Spurs anytime soon.

My post was specifically aimed to discuss how we can get the best out of the current squad and above all how to address our massive deficits of shape and cohesiveness which everyone seems to be glossing over.

If we are doing so well with our current formations, how come we have not won a single comfortable premiership game other than against QPR in August? Why are we always hanging on in the last 10 minutes either defending a slender lead or else stealing three points at the death?

We are missing 2 or 3 players, but we're not as bad as those that aren't part of everyone keeps saying and we're improving. I think it would still be better to stick with what Poch wants us to play long term anyway, than go to a completely different setup short term. A back three will just bring more issues than it solves before the players get comfortable with it.

This season would always be about getting his ideas across and evaluating the squad. I much prefer him to have a good look at the players than rushing out to buy players we might not need after all, even if we have to wait for transfer windows to make the changes/upgrades that's needed. Patience is still key.

 

[Maltese Falcon]

The same way other teams that play 4 at the back solve them.

Or are you seriously saying that 3 at the back is the only way to solve those things?

1. This is not unique for us, nor for a back 4. A back 3 does very little to solve this. Yes we have to work on when and how many of our full backs and deep midfielders push forward.
2. This is not unique for us, not for a back 4. Plenty of teams play defenders that are fairly slow. Demichelis did very well for City last season. Hummels is outstanding and slow, has been so for a very high pressing Dortmund. Pique is slow, for a high pressing Barca he was very good. It's about frequencies.
3. Disagree. They did rather well against for example Chelsea and Everton. It's about developing that and other partnerships to improve. There's absolutely no reason to think a 4-2-3-1 can not be solid.
4. Did we play a high press against Leicester and United? Was only occasionally from what I remember. We were exposed, but guess what, so are teams that play 3 at the back at times.
5. A back 3, playing wing backs wouldn't leave us with gaps wide?
6. Again, not isolated to us, not isolated to a 4 at the back system.

You're seemingly claiming that a back 3 system would leave us (1) with more players covering the central defenders, (2) with more cover wide leaving fewer gaps, (3) with more players back covering for counter attacks, (4) with more players further forward supporting the strikers when we attack on the break and (5) with more players further forward to allow us to press higher. This seems rather impossible to me.

3 at the back is certainly a decent way to go about things. As is a back 4. I'm often a bit surprised by the rigid nature of formations and quite interested by managers like LvG, Bielsa, Rodgers and Pep that seem willing to move away from the accepted norms and get results that way. I see absolutely no reason to think that a back 3 is inherently not a good idea, but I equally see no reason to think that a back 4 is inherently not a good idea.

I fail to see how you're argued successfully in support of why a back 3 would be better for us at this time. You've claimed that it is better, but that's a very different thing.

That's the beauty of a forum like GG - we all have our opinions

I personally think we are much worse than other teams where shape is concerned. And whilst all teams get exposed, we consistently get dragged into striker vs CB situations with no other defensive cover.

If you want to see if a back three can achieve the 4 outcomes you mention, suggest you watch Juventus play. They show how the formation can achieve success even with moderately outstanding players.

I also agree that it not about a formation per se; it's how to make it work best with your current resources. Hence the reason for the post in the first place.

 

[braineclipse]

Yeah, am feeling more the Van gaal type opinion on this one if i am honest

has a future but more part of a malleable formation i think. we should be able to play INTO that formation that maltese put there...

ahem *wonky does just that* cough cough cough

but seriously, that formation in possesion is lethal....if you can get the wide players to buy into the defensive side of things that its actually a no brainer formation

i think the real problem is finding those players that are deadly wingers and also extremely fit and capable fullbacks at the same time.....so few of them out there and almost all get taken by the top 5 teams in the world

Wing backs are absolutely key to making that formation work. Rose and Walker are not capable wing backs for me.

Walker's biggest disadvantage now is his work on the ball, passing, first touch, crossing. All key aspects for a wing back that will be operating more alone and further forward than an attacking full back with a wide player ahead of him. Essentially all the problems people are having with no width from our non-winger wide men are supposed to be covered for by the wing backs in a back 3. Walker has shown no capability of doing this. In fact what he gives us in attack is almost always combination play with the player ahead of him and creating space with his athleticism. And the occasional counter attack.

Rose is struggling already as a traditional full back. Defensively his responsibility would be heavier as a wing back, he would have less protection and he would have to be smarter and better positionally. I don't think that's a good move from him. Similarly to Walker he's not great on the ball. Most of his good attacking work seems to come from overlapping around a wide player, making runs off the ball stuff. As a wing back the responsibility on him would be much heavier and he would get less attacking support from the player ahead of him.

 

[SoundAndVision]

I honestly think we would look a mess playing 3-5-2, we dont have good enough full backs or wingers. Im happy with either 4-2-3-1 or 4-4-1-1 for now, i wouldn't mind seing us try 4-3-3 at some point.

 

[Rossi22]

I think it would probably work, to some degree. Not sure Walker and Rose are productive enough to carry out those roles though, it's interesting that van Gaal prefers wingers to full backs in that area. This system seems to get used when a team is struggling, so they change it up and try 352, they get a bit of momentum before realising it's not the answer to their prayers and up switching back again, that said I'm not particularly enamoured with 4231, I kind of feel like the #10 role has died out and it asks too much of the full backs, plus the two midfielders need to be good enough on the ball to transition the play forward as well as being defensively disciplined.

442 wonky for me. Or 433.

 

[braineclipse]

But that's just it! I can tell you what players I would like out there but they won't be coming to Spurs anytime soon.

My post was specifically aimed to discuss how we can get the best out of the current squad and above all how to address our massive deficits of shape and cohesiveness which everyone seems to be glossing over.

If we are doing so well with our current formations, how come we have not won a single comfortable premiership game other than against QPR in August? Why are we always hanging on in the last 10 minutes either defending a slender lead or else stealing three points at the death?

What?

"Type of player". Not list the players you want that we can't get...

That's the beauty of a forum like GG - we all have our opinions

I personally think we are much worse than other teams where shape is concerned. And whilst all teams get exposed, we consistently get dragged into striker vs CB situations with no other defensive cover.

If you want to see if a back three can achieve the 4 outcomes you mention, suggest you watch Juventus play. They show how the formation can achieve success even with moderately outstanding players.

I also agree that it not about a formation per se; it's how to make it work best with your current resources. Hence the reason for the post in the first place.

And CB's don't get exposed in a back 3? If anything, particularly for the two wide centre backs, dealing well with being dragged wide is absolutely key.

Juventus?

Again. I'm not saying it cannot work, but Juventus have worked towards that formation for years. And they've done so spending a ton of money.

07/08: Net spend £35m (first season back in the Serie A)
08/09: Net spend £8m
09/10: Net spend £40m
10/11: Net spend £20m
11/12: Net spend £70m
12/13: Net spend £40m

This at a time when the rest of the Serie A have had very little money around. They've been massive spenders and have gotten success domestically, very disappointing in Europe overall. To use this as your example of a club achieving "success even with moderately outstanding players" seems ridiculous to me. Absolutely no reason to think they wouldn't have been successful with a different formation with that spend. As other clubs have been before then in that league.

 

[Maltese Falcon]

What?

"Type of player". Not list the players you want that we can't get...

And the difference is? I can tell you I want another Matic or a defensive midfielder who can control the central area of the pitch, shield his defence and be able to time runs into the opponents half. I can tell you I would like a pivot with vision and passing ability (or another Fabregas); etc etc.

At the end of the day whether I mention names or qualities of a class acquisition, the chances of someone that fits the bill coming in this January is close to zero. Everyone (bar AS) has not grasped that this is not a theoretical treatise on tactics but simply an evaluation of which formation would best suit the current squad we have TODAY. If the squad changes, the formation can easily follow suit. Holland used three different formation in the World Cup; is it such a shock if we play different formations depending on player availability? Are our players so tactically challenged as to be stymied by a simple formation change???

As for our supposedly incompetent full backs, Holland came third with Daryl Janmaat at RB for crying out loud! If there are two players who I think would fit into a wing back it is Walker and Rose. But that's obviously my opinion.

This at a time when the rest of the Serie A have had very little money around. They've been massive spenders and have gotten success domestically, very disappointing in Europe overall. To use this as your example of a club achieving "success even with moderately outstanding players" seems ridiculous to me. Absolutely no reason to think they wouldn't have been successful with a different formation with that spend. As other clubs have been before then in that league.

Nice choice of stats - obviously to support your argument. The only reason Juve have the highest net spend is because they sold no one of note. The likes of Napoli and Roma spent just as much if not more but individual player sales (such as Cavani who massively reduced their net spend from his inflated price). Does not mean that their squad is inferior to Juve - hence the interest in Juve's obviously successful tactics....

 

[braineclipse]

And the difference is? I can tell you I want another Matic or a defensive midfielder who can control the central area of the pitch, shield his defence and be able to time runs into the opponents half. I can tell you I would like a pivot with vision and passing ability (or another Fabregas); etc etc.

At the end of the day whether I mention names or qualities of a class acquisition, the chances of someone that fits the bill coming in this January is close to zero. Everyone (bar AS) has not grasped that this is not a theoretical treatise on tactics but simply an evaluation of which formation would best suit the current squad we have TODAY. If the squad changes, the formation can easily follow suit. Holland used three different formation in the World Cup; is it such a shock if we play different formations depending on player availability? Are our players so tactically challenged as to be stymied by a simple formation change???

As for our supposedly incompetent full backs, Holland came third with Daryl Janmaat at RB for crying out loud! If there are two players who I think would fit into a wing back it is Walker and Rose. But that's obviously my opinion.

Well then is it any more likely that we'll sign players that fit a for us completely new system in January?

I actually think Ben Davies, Fazio and Vorm all have shown that they fit in quite nicely. Stambouli is starting to show something similar whereas Dier is obviously still very young. A left back that was better on the ball and more solid defensively, a centre back that was commanding in the air and good on the ball, a central midfielder that's better on the ball and a more effective passer. These are all player types, player types we signed.

In my initial post in this thread and in every single one since I've been rather clear that I do not think a move to a back 3 would be a good choice for us today. With our squad. Please have another glance at my posts if you don't get this. I even went out of my way to explicitly state that I do not think 3 at the back is inherently a bad formation. But feel free to level unfounded accusations at others in between claiming that when other misrepresent you it's insulting...

The World Cup and the Premier League are very different situations. Us in the PL and Holland at the World Cup were teams in very different situations with very different players.

I gave my reasons for why I don't think Walker and Rose are suited for those roles above, re-stating the contrary as your opinion is obviously fair. Although not much of an argument.

Nice choice of stats - obviously to support your argument. The only reason Juve have the highest net spend is because they sold no one of note. The likes of Napoli and Roma spent just as much if not more but individual player sales (such as Cavani who massively reduced their net spend from his inflated price). Does not mean that their squad is inferior to Juve - hence the interest in Juve's obviously successful tactics....

You really think that looking at money spent outright ignoring player sales is more informative and objective than looking at net spend? And you call me out for choosing stats that suit my argument...

 

[Maltese Falcon]

Listen mate, we're just putting our opinions across. I have tried to back my position with arguments but appreciate that everyone has their own opinions and everyone identifies arguments to support them. I am not saying total spend is better than net spend; just saying you can look at the same position from different perspectives...

 

[Cochise]

Interesting that you brought up Juve, although whenever I got a chance to watch them under Conte they played with Tevez off of Llorente in a more withdrawn role as opposed to having two AM's off a central striker. I'm assuming that that is just your choice due to what we have to work with, but it does bring us back to the personel argument. Juve had a goalkeeper and three centre backs who were very confident and capable on the ball, two wingbacks who could run all day and were solid on the ball, two complete midfielders in Pogba and Vidal, a pair of lethal strikers and of course the maestro Pirlo at the heart of it all, playing the short passes with the back three, switching play to either full back and shielding the defence when called upon. The team was not just technical but very athletic, something which I don't think we have the players for.

A big reason why Juve and to a lesser extent Liverpool had so much success was the way they used Pirlo and Gerrard. Both players have the ability to play perfectly weighted 30-40 yrd balls into the space that the teams front 2-3 have created. Without a player like that in our ranks I don't think we could have the success of those teams. Even UTD had to go long an aweful lot on the weekend because they couldn't consitently play it out from the back.

I think transitioning to three at the back when in possession is a good idea, Liverpool did it well with Gerrard last season and we do kind of do that at times when we get a chance to settle into our shape. Quite often when we work the ball across the pitch, we end up with one of the central midfielders dropping to a deep position just inside where a fullback would sit. For instance when the RB starts passing the ball backwards, we eventually end up with the following shape by the time the CM gets the ball:

-----------------Vertonghen--------------
------Fazio---------------------CM-------
--------------------CM-------------------
RB----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------LB

Kind of a lopsided back three, but that is essentially how we look with a 3421 kind of shape. What you are proposing is losing some of the flexibility of the current system for a bit more stability at the back. I like that it would enable us to essentially keep a solid block of four at all times, it's more secure and as you say would help to break down counters. I would however argue that Mason and Bentaleb are better passers of the ball than any of our back four with perhaps Vertonghen being the exception and that losing their ability to pass and move quickly from the team would cripple us more so. We have recently sliced through a few teams passing the ball out from the back, it is something we do well and a lot of that I think is down to the personel we have there.

 

[braineclipse]

Listen mate, we're just putting our opinions across. I have tried to back my position with arguments but appreciate that everyone has their own opinions and everyone identifies arguments to support them. I am not saying total spend is better than net spend; just saying you can look at the same position from different perspectives...

Sure thing.

Interesting that you brought up Juve, although whenever I got a chance to watch them under Conte they played with Tevez off of Llorente in a more withdrawn role as opposed to having two AM's off a central striker. I'm assuming that that is just your choice due to what we have to work with, but it does bring us back to the personel argument. Juve had a goalkeeper and three centre backs who were very confident and capable on the ball, two wingbacks who could run all day and were solid on the ball, two complete midfielders in Pogba and Vidal, a pair of lethal strikers and of course the maestro Pirlo at the heart of it all, playing the short passes with the back three, switching play to either full back and shielding the defence when called upon. The team was not just technical but very athletic, something which I don't think we have the players for.

A big reason why Juve and to a lesser extent Liverpool had so much success was the way they used Pirlo and Gerrard. Both players have the ability to play perfectly weighted 30-40 yrd balls into the space that the teams front 2-3 have created. Without a player like that in our ranks I don't think we could have the success of those teams. Even UTD had to go long an aweful lot on the weekend because they couldn't consitently play it out from the back.

I think transitioning to three at the back when in possession is a good idea, Liverpool did it well with Gerrard last season and we do kind of do that at times when we get a chance to settle into our shape. Quite often when we work the ball across the pitch, we end up with one of the central midfielders dropping to a deep position just inside where a fullback would sit. For instance when the RB starts passing the ball backwards, we eventually end up with the following shape by the time the CM gets the ball:

-----------------Vertonghen--------------
------Fazio---------------------CM-------
--------------------CM-------------------
RB----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------LB

Kind of a lopsided back three, but that is essentially how we look with a 3421 kind of shape. What you are proposing is losing some of the flexibility of the current system for a bit more stability at the back. I like that it would enable us to essentially keep a solid block of four at all times, it's more secure and as you say would help to break down counters. I would however argue that Mason and Bentaleb are better passers of the ball than any of our back four with perhaps Vertonghen being the exception and that losing their ability to pass and move quickly from the team would cripple us more so. We have recently sliced through a few teams passing the ball out from the back, it is something we do well and a lot of that I think is down to the personel we have there.

If both full backs push high up the pitch one of the central midfielders have to drop deeper to cover. Typically teams let their anchor type midfielder drop in between the centre backs who then "split" and push wider. But no reason why the central midfielder can't drop in as the wider of those 3. Typically though I would want Vertonghen to push wide as he's got a great left foot and can contribute a bit more. Details at best though.

We do have to work on how and when we commit men forward. It seems that we want to push both fullbacks forward at least somewhat often when dominating games. That leaves significant responsibility on the deep two in midfield to cover. As it is Mason and Bentaleb are still young and inexperienced at this level and Stambouli is new at the club and in the league. But they have to learn quickly. The most attacking of that duo (usually Mason) also has to make smart decisions on when to dart forward into the final third and when to hold back more, when to change it up and let the other player burst forward etc. Not an easy thing to master, but I feel confident that we'll figure it out.

 

[Cochise]

I hear what you say about the usual system of the DM dropping between the CB's, just saying that quite often this season I have seen Mason and Bentaleb take up those positions when the ball has been played across the back four. Maybe Poch doesn't want his CB partnership split open, who knows? Earlier in the season there were times when we did just that with Capoue dropping in between, then as the season progressed we moved to the above system. Just like you, I think there is a fair amount to learn, but I think those two can learn it.

 

[milo]

I hear what you say about the usual system of the DM dropping between the CB's, just saying that quite often this season I have seen Mason and Bentaleb take up those positions when the ball has been played across the back four. Maybe Poch doesn't want his CB partnership split open, who knows? Earlier in the season there were times when we did just that with Capoue dropping in between, then as the season progressed we moved to the above system. Just like you, I think there is a fair amount to learn, but I think those two can learn it.

I do not think that Poch wants to play with a DM which is where part of the current confusion lays. I think that he wants both of his deep lying midfielders to be ball players and that their role is to cut off play rather than break it up.

 

[glasgowspur]

Not a fan of a starting three at the back, but I can see why it's being mooted. Since the start of the season I've said that as the fbs push forward the dm and cm should be dropping back one position. Dm, capoue/stambouli become CB mason/Bentaleb become cm. Never happened though. We were tripping over each other up front and leaving huge spaces at the back. I think it's one of the reasons capoue looked so bad, he was left in no mans land a lot.
In an open game against a good side willing to attack it's got merit, against a park the bus then it's just to congested


Sitting on my porcelain throne using Fapatalk

 

[LCLC]

All I'll say is Hoddle got laughed out of town 3 years ago when he suggested this formation and now
because that rubber faced **** uses it, it's fashionable