If the season started tomorrow

[Bluedell 5,340]

Do any other teams play 3 at the back these days?

[Guest Flying Hippo]

Do any other teams play 3 at the back these days?

 

Not domestically, no

 

Celtic under O'Neill were pretty much the last British (he he) team to play it, and we showed how easy it was to negate by playing 3 pacy forwards who could stretch their centre halves all over the place

 

If you want to control a midfield and keep Davis centrally, play 4-2-3-1, not 3-5-2

[craig 5,199]

Do any other teams play 3 at the back these days?

 

Doesn't mean it cant work.

 

Or should we be shackled because everyone else plays 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 ? If we did that then we would never have shifted from the 2-3-5 days, which funnily enough our team ended up playing last night at XI's... though the heat and humidity might have had as much to do with that as formation and tactics

 

Surely we could evolve enough to utilise different formations, even 3 at the back.

[craig 5,199]

Not domestically, no

 

Celtic under O'Neill were pretty much the last British (he he) team to play it, and we showed how easy it was to negate by playing 3 pacy forwards who could stretch their centre halves all over the place

 

If you want to control a midfield and keep Davis centrally, play 4-2-3-1, not 3-5-2

 

But no team in their right mind would play a 3-5-2 where the opposition have 3 forwards. Even the tactically inept would know that. You would pull the 2 wide players back to have a "5" at the back with either 3 in midfield or pulling a striker back to have a 5-4-1.

 

Don't forget that in a 3-5-2 there is still a requirement for the wide midfielders to drop deeper and also defend - this is why this would suit Whittaker - he seems to have the engine to both defend and get forward.

 

Controlling a midfield is one thing and, sure, playing 4-2-3-1 would do that - but you then only have one forward and the only real option we have there is Miller - I wouldnt be expecting a great deal from Lafferty, Naismith, Fleck et al if any of them had to play the lone striker.

 

I am not averse to playing 4-2-3-1 either to be honest - but I also think there is a time and place to play 3-5-2 - and I think we have most of the personnel to play it

[Bluedell 5,340]

Doesn't mean it cant work.

 

Or should we be shackled because everyone else plays 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 ? If we did that then we would never have shifted from the 2-3-5 days, which funnily enough our team ended up playing last night at XI's... though the heat and humidity might have had as much to do with that as formation and tactics

 

Surely we could evolve enough to utilise different formations, even 3 at the back.

 

If coaches throughout the UK, who know far more about tactics than I will ever do, don't use it then it suggests that there is a reason for it and it may not be as effective as other formations in the current footballing climate.

 

Football evolves and it may become more relevant again in the future, but I don't see it's the way to go next season (but as I've said, I'm far from an expert on an issue like this - until Walter cocks up and I'll instantly be an expert on where he went wrong.).

[craig 5,199]

If coaches throughout the UK, who know far more about tactics than I will ever do, don't use it then it suggests that there is a reason for it and it may not be as effective as other formations in the current footballing climate.

 

Football evolves and it may become more relevant again in the future, but I don't see it's the way to go next season (but as I've said, I'm far from an expert on an issue like this - until Walter cocks up and I'll instantly be an expert on where he went wrong.).

 

That almost stymies the debate BD. When we say others more expert then in each discussion/debate we will end up with that as a closing comment.

 

Boooooooo

 

Makes far more interesting viewing and discussion to suggest why you think it wouldn't work.

 

Typical bloody accountant - far too rigid in their responses :devil:

[rbr 1,247]

I will just settle for having 11 players that are played in a position which even barely resembles where they should be , ie strikers not playing in midfield , midfielders not playing at the back and wide players playing wide , shit forgot we dont have any of them !!!!!!!

[Danny 0]

:sw::mb::wilson::sp:

:sd::me::lm:

:sn::kl:

 

Solid 4-3-3 with attacking intent.

[Bluedell 5,340]

That almost stymies the debate BD. When we say others more expert then in each discussion/debate we will end up with that as a closing comment.

 

Boooooooo

 

Makes far more interesting viewing and discussion to suggest why you think it wouldn't work.

 

Typical bloody accountant - far too rigid in their responses :devil:

 

I don't know why it wouldn't work.

 

It just wouldn't. :fish: