| Three At Back Not Working 11:44 - Oct 24 with 3688 views | NorthantsHoop |
Pulled apart yet again by pacy attacking players like Dembele, who was very good yesterday. The defensive system needs more adaptation, fine in a three formation with big lumbering sides like Birmingham, Blackburn types, but lack of pace and solidity against quick counter attacking teams has got us undone i.e yesterday, Bournemouth and Bristol City. Warburton needs to think about four at the back for some games and pack five in midfield with one up front, most likely Dykes. |  | | |  |
| Three At Back Not Working on 12:44 - Oct 24 with 2679 views | Antti_Heinola |
As said before, think it would be even worse with four at the back. We don't have the full backs for it, it exposes Barbet and restricts him and Dickie breaking forward. Think we have to find a way od just doing it better. |  |
| |
| Three At Back Not Working on 12:47 - Oct 24 with 2662 views | PlanetHonneywood |
| Three At Back Not Working on 12:44 - Oct 24 by Antti_Heinola |
As said before, think it would be even worse with four at the back. We don't have the full backs for it, it exposes Barbet and restricts him and Dickie breaking forward. Think we have to find a way od just doing it better. |
Back Fives Matters...such a conundrum! |  |
| |
| Three At Back Not Working on 12:49 - Oct 24 with 2653 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| Three At Back Not Working on 12:44 - Oct 24 by Antti_Heinola |
As said before, think it would be even worse with four at the back. We don't have the full backs for it, it exposes Barbet and restricts him and Dickie breaking forward. Think we have to find a way od just doing it better. |
I agree with this.
We just need to tweak our defensive line (it may be too high at the moment?) and - at all costs - protect the backs.
If we switched to four at the back my worries are:
a) Our defence would get worse, and
b) Our full/wing backs would spend the entire game in defence and under pressure robbing us of any width/overlaps in attack. |  |
| |
| Three At Back Not Working on 15:07 - Oct 24 with 2511 views | Northernr |
The problem is the midfield. You don't win many games allowing yourself to be outnumbered and beaten in midfield. It's exposing the defence, it's overworking Johansen. We need an extra body in there with Ball/Field and Stefan, preferably Amos and preferably instead of the second striker because neither Austin or Gray are showing they should be starting atm. |  | | |
| Three At Back Not Working on 15:25 - Oct 24 with 2476 views | Boston |
| Three At Back Not Working on 15:07 - Oct 24 by Northernr |
The problem is the midfield. You don't win many games allowing yourself to be outnumbered and beaten in midfield. It's exposing the defence, it's overworking Johansen. We need an extra body in there with Ball/Field and Stefan, preferably Amos and preferably instead of the second striker because neither Austin or Gray are showing they should be starting atm. |
Absolutely. |  |
| |
| Three At Back Not Working on 15:36 - Oct 24 with 2455 views | steveo04 |
| Three At Back Not Working on 15:07 - Oct 24 by Northernr |
The problem is the midfield. You don't win many games allowing yourself to be outnumbered and beaten in midfield. It's exposing the defence, it's overworking Johansen. We need an extra body in there with Ball/Field and Stefan, preferably Amos and preferably instead of the second striker because neither Austin or Gray are showing they should be starting atm. |
So do you drop Chair or willock and go 352 , with a solid 3 in the middle ie stef , ball and Amos with either chair or willock with a striker, or drop a centre back and go 433 and get our both our creative players on the pitch and still have a solid midfield. | | | |
| Three At Back Not Working on 15:44 - Oct 24 with 2440 views | E17hoop |
| Three At Back Not Working on 15:07 - Oct 24 by Northernr |
The problem is the midfield. You don't win many games allowing yourself to be outnumbered and beaten in midfield. It's exposing the defence, it's overworking Johansen. We need an extra body in there with Ball/Field and Stefan, preferably Amos and preferably instead of the second striker because neither Austin or Gray are showing they should be starting atm. |
This.
I'd start Amos instead of Austin and Ball needs a break so recall Field as soon as he's ready.
II was also worried by how off it Adomah was yesterday. He was targeted by Peterborough - 40% of their attacks were on his side. To be a wingback you need pace and stamina - I'm not sure he had it for 90 minutes yesterday. |  |
| |
| Three At Back Not Working on 15:57 - Oct 24 with 2412 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| Three At Back Not Working on 15:07 - Oct 24 by Northernr |
The problem is the midfield. You don't win many games allowing yourself to be outnumbered and beaten in midfield. It's exposing the defence, it's overworking Johansen. We need an extra body in there with Ball/Field and Stefan, preferably Amos and preferably instead of the second striker because neither Austin or Gray are showing they should be starting atm. |
Mostly agree with this and agree completely with the logic.
i do thin, though, that Field and JoJo held the middle last year when they were both fit and in form, providing that the wing-backs are on form, as when they are they will be a huge help in the middle third as well. We miss Wallace badly and we are yet to solve our RWB problem satisfactorily.
Considering that we play 3421 in possession, that's question marks of either form or availability over all of the 4, at present. Time will solve some of that. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Three At Back Not Working on 16:23 - Oct 24 with 2362 views | Northernr |
| Three At Back Not Working on 15:36 - Oct 24 by steveo04 |
So do you drop Chair or willock and go 352 , with a solid 3 in the middle ie stef , ball and Amos with either chair or willock with a striker, or drop a centre back and go 433 and get our both our creative players on the pitch and still have a solid midfield. |
one up front. always. | | | |
| Three At Back Not Working on 16:49 - Oct 24 with 2314 views | Northolt_Rs |
| Three At Back Not Working on 12:49 - Oct 24 by BrianMcCarthy |
I agree with this.
We just need to tweak our defensive line (it may be too high at the moment?) and - at all costs - protect the backs.
If we switched to four at the back my worries are:
a) Our defence would get worse, and
b) Our full/wing backs would spend the entire game in defence and under pressure robbing us of any width/overlaps in attack. |
100% |  |
| Scooters, Tunes, Trainers and QPR. |
| |
| Three At Back Not Working on 16:50 - Oct 24 with 2313 views | davman |
| Three At Back Not Working on 15:36 - Oct 24 by steveo04 |
So do you drop Chair or willock and go 352 , with a solid 3 in the middle ie stef , ball and Amos with either chair or willock with a striker, or drop a centre back and go 433 and get our both our creative players on the pitch and still have a solid midfield. |
Honestly, Steve, I get there are different opinions and all that, but why would you want two up front when the evidence all the way through this season is that the Team is much, much better, attacking from deep. The lone striker in our formation requires mobility. Austin (at the moment) can't do it, Gray can't hold the ball up, so he's a no, which leaves Dykes.
Aside from perhaps 5-10 minutes in the home game where Dykes and Gray played together (was it Brum?), no combination of our strikers have fed off each other. When was the last time one assisted the other.
This team HAS to play Willock and Chair behind Dykes, it needs someone sitting in front of the back three and some legs to play alongside Johansen.
Two up front is a frigging disaster with the way we play... |  |
| |
| Three At Back Not Working on 16:57 - Oct 24 with 2298 views | steveo04 |
| Three At Back Not Working on 16:50 - Oct 24 by davman |
Honestly, Steve, I get there are different opinions and all that, but why would you want two up front when the evidence all the way through this season is that the Team is much, much better, attacking from deep. The lone striker in our formation requires mobility. Austin (at the moment) can't do it, Gray can't hold the ball up, so he's a no, which leaves Dykes.
Aside from perhaps 5-10 minutes in the home game where Dykes and Gray played together (was it Brum?), no combination of our strikers have fed off each other. When was the last time one assisted the other.
This team HAS to play Willock and Chair behind Dykes, it needs someone sitting in front of the back three and some legs to play alongside Johansen.
Two up front is a frigging disaster with the way we play... |
I agree 2 up front don’t work I never said it did , we all agree the midfield don’t work with just two it getting over run . So is the answer is to play a more solid three but to get an extra midfielder in you have to sacrifice chair or willock ( 3cb , rwb, lwb , then you go ball stef and Amos) with chair or willock playing off dykes , or change to a 433 you get the 3 solid midfielders plus chair and willock either side of dykes . | | | |
| Three At Back Not Working on 17:33 - Oct 24 with 2254 views | ParkRoyalR |
| Three At Back Not Working on 16:57 - Oct 24 by steveo04 |
I agree 2 up front don’t work I never said it did , we all agree the midfield don’t work with just two it getting over run . So is the answer is to play a more solid three but to get an extra midfielder in you have to sacrifice chair or willock ( 3cb , rwb, lwb , then you go ball stef and Amos) with chair or willock playing off dykes , or change to a 433 you get the 3 solid midfielders plus chair and willock either side of dykes . |
Move Dickie to the middle of the 3, he steps out well with the ball and would then have SJ to his left and Amos to his right. | | | |
| Three At Back Not Working on 08:44 - Oct 25 with 2021 views | stainrods_elbow |
All things considered, in terms of our shape, I would be taking my cue from the Everton game, when we pushed Willock up alongside Charlie, had Chair pulling the strings in the hole/no 10 role, and a four man midfield, which I agree needs stiffening. With personnel adjustments based on current form and returning players, I'd be going with an iteration of that 3-4-1-2 set-up, with the following as our strongest current team:
Dieng
Dickie Dunne Barbet
Adomah Johansen Field/Amos Wallace
Dykes Willock |  |
| |
| Three At Back Not Working on 09:53 - Oct 25 with 1968 views | PlanetHonneywood |
| Three At Back Not Working on 08:44 - Oct 25 by stainrods_elbow |
All things considered, in terms of our shape, I would be taking my cue from the Everton game, when we pushed Willock up alongside Charlie, had Chair pulling the strings in the hole/no 10 role, and a four man midfield, which I agree needs stiffening. With personnel adjustments based on current form and returning players, I'd be going with an iteration of that 3-4-1-2 set-up, with the following as our strongest current team:
Dieng
Dickie Dunne Barbet
Adomah Johansen Field/Amos Wallace
Dykes Willock |
Hard enough with 11 players currently, surely 10 will exacerbate the challenge? | |
| |
| Three At Back Not Working on 10:21 - Oct 25 with 1945 views | terryb |
| Three At Back Not Working on 08:44 - Oct 25 by stainrods_elbow |
All things considered, in terms of our shape, I would be taking my cue from the Everton game, when we pushed Willock up alongside Charlie, had Chair pulling the strings in the hole/no 10 role, and a four man midfield, which I agree needs stiffening. With personnel adjustments based on current form and returning players, I'd be going with an iteration of that 3-4-1-2 set-up, with the following as our strongest current team:
Dieng
Dickie Dunne Barbet
Adomah Johansen Field/Amos Wallace
Dykes Willock |
I'm assuming that Chair would be the 11th player? | | | |
| Three At Back Not Working on 10:34 - Oct 25 with 1922 views | daveB |
It's the midfield which is a problem imo, not enough legs around Johanssen and 2 up front for us just doesn't work and doesn't really help the forwards we have. Still you can play whatever formation you like but if you play a high line which has been caught out several times already you deserve all you get, that second goal on Saturday was ridiculous. |  | | |
| Three At Back Not Working on 10:50 - Oct 25 with 1888 views | TacticalR |
| Three At Back Not Working on 10:21 - Oct 25 by terryb |
I'm assuming that Chair would be the 11th player? |
He will be in the invisible position, emerging out of the darkness during night games at Loftus Road. |  |
| |
| Three At Back Not Working on 10:53 - Oct 25 with 1871 views | PlanetHonneywood |
| Three At Back Not Working on 10:21 - Oct 25 by terryb |
I'm assuming that Chair would be the 11th player? |
Let’s sit on this for a while. | |
| |
| Three At Back Not Working on 11:04 - Oct 25 with 1837 views | Hunterhoop |
| Three At Back Not Working on 15:07 - Oct 24 by Northernr |
The problem is the midfield. You don't win many games allowing yourself to be outnumbered and beaten in midfield. It's exposing the defence, it's overworking Johansen. We need an extra body in there with Ball/Field and Stefan, preferably Amos and preferably instead of the second striker because neither Austin or Gray are showing they should be starting atm. |
Clive, where are you playing Willock and Chair, assuming Dykes is your one up top?
If you play Ball/Field, Johansen, Amos, you can’t play the 3 above, 3 centre halves and 2 wing backs. With the keeper you’re at 12.
Obviously 2 strikers isn’t right.
But as I said on the other thread I started a week or two back, you can’t play 3 central midfielders without sacrificing one of Willock, Chair, or a centre half. The fudge is Willock at LWB, but I don’t like the idea of playing your best player out of position in a role they are unfamiliar with.
I’d drop a centre half. |  | | |
| Three At Back Not Working on 11:05 - Oct 25 with 1836 views | GaxZE |
I think we're unbalanced as a squad and Mark will have his favourites/those who he depends on and based on the 2nd half of last season I get it why.
Johansen isn't having a great time lately, same as Charlie, bit of a passenger in a team which plays high and needs an active press, whilst quality on the ball. We're still competing but we're relying on scoring 3 goals a game to win most of them.
But I feel we have too many 'good players' on paper who can't be left out or played out of position. Example, we have 4 very good championship centre backs. But Barbet is best suited as the left of a 3 and isn't as effective as a flat 4. I'd argue it's between Barbet and Dunne for the fastest out of the four but Dickie is clearly the best on the ball. Move further up the pitch, we have Chair and Willock combined with Dykes and Austin/Gray. Now, Chair and Willock are by far our most dangerous and creative players. So you can't really drop them. But then you want that goal threat from Austin, which despite his current form, if the ball is in the box he is the one you want to be on the end of it. Dykes' alround game is the best out of the 3 and Gray for me hasn't made an impact to deserve to start any games. Lives offside, which every Watford fan told me he would.
Now, changing the formation means us losing out either at the back and/or in attack. Fullback is clearly our weakest area. Moses got the hype after his performance in friendlies when he had a contract to play for, you can argue the same for Johansen and Charlie did similar. Johansen isn't getting about the pitch anymore and would probably be better suited in a midfield 3, hopefully Field and Dozzell/Amos will do his running. It worked for him at Fulham as a 3. But as soon as we do something like that - chair and willock are played out wide which I think can work, but isn't their best positions. It does simplify the issue in attack, where we will be forced to pick Dykes as neither Austin or Gray are able to hold on to the ball for a 433 or 4231 to work. 442 is probably the worst formation for our squad.
I think Mark has to be brave and solidify that middle and simply tell the full backs to tuck in rather than become wingers. If we're going to play with passengers in the team then it needs to be 1 passenger and in my opinion that's johansen in a 433 or something. I'd even be inclined to switch Barbet to left back while Wallace is out. | | | |
| Three At Back Not Working on 11:21 - Oct 25 with 1817 views | stevec |
| Three At Back Not Working on 11:04 - Oct 25 by Hunterhoop |
Clive, where are you playing Willock and Chair, assuming Dykes is your one up top?
If you play Ball/Field, Johansen, Amos, you can’t play the 3 above, 3 centre halves and 2 wing backs. With the keeper you’re at 12.
Obviously 2 strikers isn’t right.
But as I said on the other thread I started a week or two back, you can’t play 3 central midfielders without sacrificing one of Willock, Chair, or a centre half. The fudge is Willock at LWB, but I don’t like the idea of playing your best player out of position in a role they are unfamiliar with.
I’d drop a centre half. |
Yes, it is in issue how to play the other seven.
Willock and Chair our best players, so have to play only one ahead of them. Much as I like the back three, it’s not working. If we play a back four RB is a problem and to an extent, Barbet at LB. what to do.
Perhaps play a back four, any 2 CB’s from 3, one of our LB’s and Albert RB, he has the speed and less up and down the pitch.
Centre Midfield of 3 from JJ, Ball, Amos, Dozzell, Field
One CF up front with Willock and Chair playing wide in a 451 when out of possession and 433 when we have the ball.
Would possibly make us narrow in attack but pass pass pass until it gets to the wing seems to have been sussed by most opposition. |  | | |
| Three At Back Not Working on 11:38 - Oct 25 with 1788 views | BAWHoops |
I don’t think it’s major surgery required. Just a few tweaks.
Johansen is being asked to be all things to all men. Stop attacks, start attacks, finish attacks.
I’d like him and Ball to just sit in and provide a base.
Chair likely to be the other body in there who can move forward and drift to support Willock who is the pace behind Dykes |  |
| http://blogandwhitehoops.wordpress.com/ |
| |
| Three At Back Not Working on 13:01 - Oct 25 with 1704 views | saxbend |
"Not working" requires several big jumps from "didn't get us out of jail this time". |  | | |
| Three At Back Not Working on 13:03 - Oct 25 with 1695 views | BazzeR |
When the team were forced to play 4 at the back during the games against Middlesbrough,Orient and Everton was the defence worse ? If so I didn’t notice.
Good teams/players and managers should be able to mix things up by changing formation depending on the oppositions strengths and weakness. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
