Time to revert to a back 4

[Fulwood Blade]

Here we go again........why change a winning formula?

The last back 4 we had, we were bottom

3-5-2 has got us to top, and now temporarily 2nd - could even be top by 5pm Saturday - we will be by end of Feb.

CW only reverts to a back 4 when we are losing or chasing a game - and lets be right, CW's back 4 isn't a back 4, it's a back 2 as we still play with wing backs pushing up.

The day will come when CW finds 4 defenders that can actually do that roll. Out of our present squad probably only Lafferty and JOC are decent enough, strong enough and nearly fast enough to play it.

To play 4 at the back, a team needs to defenders with qualities that I don't see any of ours having. JOC might grow into that roll, but promotion this season may see 2 x proper CH's being brought in that have pace, height, strength and a footballing ability that makes them capable of managing as a 2 when needed.

3-4-1-2 will get us out of this division - it's up to CW & AK to solve the problems we have now. The system just needs tweaking a bit, and hopefully the last 10 days has sorted it out.

UTB

 

[LJBlade]

Doesn't make a jot of difference what we play while ever we continue to have the same sub-standard liabilities at the back.

Yeah, those defenders that got us to the top of the division are terrible.....

I'm not sure why you're still banging that drum. You've failed to answer several of my questions on this topic before.

 

[larkymasher]

Nah...... Its worked well this season. No need for change.

May be just need to calm down a tad.

 

[ChipButtyBlade]

Same system for me,with maybe two or three changes.Hanson up front,Wright at centre back,which displaces Basham,if you want to keep Basham in the side then drop Coutts

 

[Tyler Durden]

Yeah, those defenders that got us to the top of the division are terrible.....

I'm not sure why you're still banging that drum. You've failed to answer several of my questions on this topic before.

The defence had nothing to do with it, the hatfuls of goals have. The defensive players have been a hinderance from start to finish, making those goals scored an even more vital necessity.

 

[LJBlade]

The defence had nothing to do with it, the hatfuls of goals have. The defensive players have been a hinderance from start to finish, making those goals scored an even more vital necessity.

Are you really suggesting the defence had nothing do with getting us to the top of the league?

We've scored plenty of goals, which have obviously helped us win many games, but the amount of goals scored could indicate that we are very attacking team (which we are). Any defence in an attacking team (such as ours) are always likely to concede more goals. It might just be that the quality of the defence has allowed us to be a more attacking team, resulting in us scoring more goals.

I'm glad you've moved on from your claim that we don't actually have any defenders or whatever nonsense it was you were going on about recently.

 

[Tyler Durden]

Are you really suggesting the defence had nothing do with getting us to the top of the league?

We've scored plenty of goals, which have obviously helped us win many games, but the amount of goals scored could indicate that we are very attacking team (which we are). Any defence in an attacking team (such as ours) are always likely to concede more goals. It might just be that the quality of the defence has allowed us to be a more attacking team, resulting in us scoring more goals.

I'm glad you've moved on from your claim that we don't actually have any defenders or whatever nonsense it was you were going on about recently.

You can dress it up however you like. Whatever the tactics are, the defenders are sub-standard at defending, which funnily enough is a key part of their job.
34 goals conceded by January, the second highest in the top 6 does not suggest that we got to the top because of the defence. We did so in spite of it.

 

[Lane Ender]

You can dress it up however you like. Whatever the tactics are, the defenders are sub-standard at defending, which funnily enough is a key part of their job.
34 goals conceded by January, the second highest in the top 6 does not suggest that we got to the top because of the defence. We did so in spite of it.

I thought CW would have brought in another CH in the window.
I know its been said over and over but we really do need Wright in Saturday
We,ve got to stomach Moore but he will cost us every high ball i,m shitting it

 

[Tyler Durden]

I thought CW would have brought in another CH in the window.
I know its been said over and over but we really do need Wright in Saturday
We,ve got to stomach Moore but he will cost us every high ball i,m shitting it

Moores had a tough time of it lately, but I'm not too worried about him because I realise that he's had virtually no support from those in front of him, especially in the past few weeks.
Wright simply has to be back in the team, it's pretty vital to our prospects.

 

[Kevincarterversion2.0]

Jake Wright has to come back in now - we need his organisation and cool head in there.

I'd start Hanson tbh - or revert to Sharp/Done, as that does get us results.

 

[LJBlade]

You can dress it up however you like. Whatever the tactics are, the defenders are sub-standard at defending, which funnily enough is a key part of their job.
34 goals conceded by January, the second highest in the top 6 does not suggest that we got to the top because of the defence. We did so in spite of it.

I'm not dressing it up as anything. We're an attacking team and attacking teams concede more goals because the midfielders and forwards provide less support for the defence. You say you're not worried about Moore because he hasn't had any support but the same doesn't apply for the defence itself? It's not just the defence who are responsible for defending you know.

You stated that the defence have played no part in getting us to the top of the league. Are you suggesting that if we'd played without defenders we would still be in the same position?

 

[Tyler Durden]

I'm not dressing it up as anything. We're an attacking team and attacking teams concede more goals because the midfielders and forwards provide less support for the defence. You say you're not worried about Moore because he hasn't had any support but the same doesn't apply for the defence itself? It's not just the defence who are responsible for defending you know.

You stated that the defence have played no part in getting us to the top of the league. Are you suggesting that if we'd played without defenders we would still be in the same position?

Well if you're having to reduce your argument to , "Would you rather have 3/4 fewer players on the pitch than play the defence we've got" then it doesn't really say much about the defence does it?

Furthermore, if the current state of things is acceptable/good then why is there an almost unanimous call to get Jake Wright back in? I'm not the only one who can see that this area is badly lacking.

 

[LJBlade]

I never suggested having 3/4 fewer players on the pitch but nice swerve of the question anyway.

I also never suggested that the current state of things (I'm guessing you mean the last few games) is acceptable. What I am suggesting is that just because the defence (and team as a whole) are currently going through a bad spell it doesn't make them bad defenders. As I've said, the fact we got to the top of the division with those defenders actually suggests that they are quite good.

As I've also said, we're a very attacking team and as such we're more likely to concede goals. Looking at 'Goals Conceded' statistics is very simplistic and is an easy argument to make but it doesn't show the bigger picture.

 

[South Bucks]

Ok so lets look at goals conceded against the top teams

Scunny = 2
Bolton = 2 (twice)
Fleetwood = 1 & 2
Bradford = 3
Rochdale = 1
Southend = 3 & 2

So basically on average we have to score about 2 to get a point and 3 to win. Not a great defensive record which then puts alot of pressure on our forwards and makes our fans nervous. Wouldn't be surprised if this is part of the reason BDTBL is so quiet, many are bricking it which then transmits back to the players.

Concern for me is our defence has been weak for many games now and we've seen no evidence of any changes to fix it, just slogging on expecting it will all come good on its own.

 

[derfblade.3]

4-4-3 would give us a huge advantage!

 

[mancunianblade]

Ive got a radical idea, we could just keep it as it is, and make one simple change, Wright in for Basham. Not that Basham has done much wrong to be dropped, but EEL and JOC need that calming old head alongside them. Sorted. Bring Basham on for Coutts if its a tight one and we are up by one.

 

[blade67]

This is what I'd like to see happen on saturday.

I'd also like to see O'Connell at centre half. He'd be my first choice from the current crop, because he heads the ball better than anyone else. Maybe I'd be tempted to put Jake Wright alongside him too - because I think that mix of experience and youth could work well and they could help each other.

If we did that then we need to revert to 2 conventional full-backs as well. This is where it starts to get tricky because we don't have a natural left back at the club (do we?). I don't know what we'd do there, unless Riley is given a chance at full back, but I thought we'd bought him to act as a winger more than a full back?

You'll notice I've omitted to mention a certain player in all this. I just don't see any room for him if we go to a back 4 tbh. But I doubt that he'll be dropped all the same.

I think if we do go to a back 4 we'll probably do it by adding Jake Wright to the centre and leaving the other 3 as is. Which, I can understand because it means less disruption, for now, but it still leaves us with "bombscare" at centre half.

you are the tinkerman aren't you?

Always wanting to change the team or the system. Personally I'd have Wright in, plus Hanson up top. That would leave Basham, Lavery, O'shea, Carruthers, Done and Riley on the bench.

Freeman is a wing back and the current midfield looks better as a 3 than with one trying to play wide.

Basically, you are wrong

 

[larkymasher]

What a wonderful idea................... NOT !!!