Why can’t we play 4 at the back?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Berlin Blade

Berlin Blade

Large Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Messages
885
Reaction score
2,830
Location
Berlin, Germany
I know he’s ridiculously stubborn and at this point, after all the Mike Bassett messages of ‘THIS IS THE SYSTEM. WE STICK TO IT’, I’d borderline lose respect for him if he goes back on it. This is the bed he’s made for himself unfortunately. But I’m just asking why we can’t play a back four, he can even point to the myriad of injuries as an excuse for going against the grain and adapting.

Baldock-Jags-Ampadu-Stevens
Bogle-lunny-Fleck-osborn
Two-strikers

I think that provides overlaps, cover on the wings going backwards (4 fullbacks on the pitch!) and attacking threat. The two centre halves compliment each other, amps doing the running, jags talking him through the game (when egan’s back he’s in for jags).

I’ve been wanting us to do this for about 18 months, basham’s been our best player for me, but having him on the bench in this system means you can bring him on at 55 and completely turn the system on it’s head. The winners of games this season seems to be defined on who makes the best changes at 55/60 and which teams adapts to those changes, and I feel like our plan A is so tired and contrived, and we don’t have a plan B. If we went with this system til the end of the season we’d catch out so many teams that have worked us out.

Am I insane in this logic? Show your working.
 

Midfield is being over run and 4 at the back would allow more shape and structure in the middle of the park. The current system or players are not delivering at the moment so why not change the system. Some have said that some of our players can only play effectively in a 532 or 5212 system. But all of the squad will have spent most of their lives playing in a 442 or 443 system.
 
Berlin Blade said:
I know he’s ridiculously stubborn and at this point, after all the Mike Bassett messages of ‘THIS IS THE SYSTEM. WE STICK TO IT’, I’d borderline lose respect for him if he goes back on it. This is the bed he’s made for himself unfortunately. But I’m just asking why we can’t play a back four, he can even point to the myriad of injuries as an excuse for going against the grain and adapting.

Baldock-Jags-Ampadu-Stevens
Bogle-lunny-Fleck-osborn
Two-strikers

I think that provides overlaps, cover on the wings going backwards (4 fullbacks on the pitch!) and attacking threat. The two centre halves compliment each other, amps doing the running, jags talking him through the game (when egan’s back he’s in for jags).

I’ve been wanting us to do this for about 18 months, basham’s been our best player for me, but having him on the bench in this system means you can bring him on at 55 and completely turn the system on it’s head. The winners of games this season seems to be defined on who makes the best changes at 55/60 and which teams adapts to those changes, and I feel like our plan A is so tired and contrived, and we don’t have a plan B. If we went with this system til the end of the season we’d catch out so many teams that have worked us out.

Am I insane in this logic? Show your working.
Click to expand...
The only issue, with that team , although a fairly major one, is it's a team of midgets. Only jags and Stevens at 6" and they're not particularly good in the air. We're bad enough at set pieces as it is, because of a lack of height and heading ability throughout the team.

Even with Basham and Egan, we've really missed Joc's ability in the air, to be able to defend crosses and set pieces. Bryan will have to play whether in a back 4 or 5, simply to give some height to the team.
 
Nagima said:
Midfield is being over run and 4 at the back would allow more shape and structure in the middle of the park. The current system or players are not delivering at the moment so why not change the system. Some have said that some of our players can only play effectively in a 532 or 5212 system. But all of the squad will have spent most of their lives playing in a 442 or 443 system.
Click to expand...
Don't think we'd get away with playing 443, but after some of the things VAR has missed it's probably worth a try
 
We simply don't have the centre backs or central midfielders with the defensive qualities to play it. 1 and 2 goal defeats would become 2, 3 4, 5 and 6 imo. I can understand the temptation though. We're in a rock and a hard pace as neither system will work with the available personnel. What is more difficult to understand for me is the lack of pace in the team. Without the overloads, and ability to transfer up the pitch by means of short term passing, we simply must have a threat in behind and down the sides. This is especially vital now as our defensive line will be even deeper to defend Jags who can't run.
 
So we don't have players who can run, head, are defensively minded in midfield, or can play in a centre half pairing at the back.

We probably deserve to go down, this is the most ruthless league in the world.
 
Berlin Blade said:
I know he’s ridiculously stubborn and at this point, after all the Mike Bassett messages of ‘THIS IS THE SYSTEM. WE STICK TO IT’, I’d borderline lose respect for him if he goes back on it. This is the bed he’s made for himself unfortunately. But I’m just asking why we can’t play a back four, he can even point to the myriad of injuries as an excuse for going against the grain and adapting.

Baldock-Jags-Ampadu-Stevens
Bogle-lunny-Fleck-osborn
Two-strikers

I think that provides overlaps, cover on the wings going backwards (4 fullbacks on the pitch!) and attacking threat. The two centre halves compliment each other, amps doing the running, jags talking him through the game (when egan’s back he’s in for jags).

I’ve been wanting us to do this for about 18 months, basham’s been our best player for me, but having him on the bench in this system means you can bring him on at 55 and completely turn the system on it’s head. The winners of games this season seems to be defined on who makes the best changes at 55/60 and which teams adapts to those changes, and I feel like our plan A is so tired and contrived, and we don’t have a plan B. If we went with this system til the end of the season we’d catch out so many teams that have worked us out.

Am I insane in this logic? Show your working.
Click to expand...
Fleck wouldn’t be able to play in the middle on his own in the Prem.
 
ChipButtyBlade said:
I would love Bogle to play but that goalkeeper tackle has put him out for a few weeks.
Click to expand...
Keepers need to be held accountable now, they get protected way too much and get away with murder. Pickford taking Van Dijk out, and Areola taking Bogle out in the fashion they do it is almost assault, how in a day of VAR they get away with it is beyond inept. 🤬
 
I’d like to see us play 4 at the back going forward. It offers more flexibility and attacking threat. Couple that with the fact we’ve lost all 3 of our preferred CB’s it’s surely time for a change! However.... 🤷‍♂️

I’d like...
Rammers
Baldock Jags Amps Stevens
Burke Norwood Fleck Osborn
Didzy McB
Something like that.

Reckon we will see...
Rammers
Baldock Amps Jags Bryan Stevens
Lunny Norwood Fleck
Didzy Sharp

Regardless of the formation though... I want to see the players that are either in form or who we expect to perform next season.
Bogle, Brewster, Burke should be playing most games from now on in
 
Berlin Blade said:
I know he’s ridiculously stubborn and at this point, after all the Mike Bassett messages of ‘THIS IS THE SYSTEM. WE STICK TO IT’, I’d borderline lose respect for him if he goes back on it. This is the bed he’s made for himself unfortunately. But I’m just asking why we can’t play a back four, he can even point to the myriad of injuries as an excuse for going against the grain and adapting.

Baldock-Jags-Ampadu-Stevens
Bogle-lunny-Fleck-osborn
Two-strikers

I think that provides overlaps, cover on the wings going backwards (4 fullbacks on the pitch!) and attacking threat. The two centre halves compliment each other, amps doing the running, jags talking him through the game (when egan’s back he’s in for jags).

I’ve been wanting us to do this for about 18 months, basham’s been our best player for me, but having him on the bench in this system means you can bring him on at 55 and completely turn the system on it’s head. The winners of games this season seems to be defined on who makes the best changes at 55/60 and which teams adapts to those changes, and I feel like our plan A is so tired and contrived, and we don’t have a plan B. If we went with this system til the end of the season we’d catch out so many teams that have worked us out.

Am I insane in this logic? Show your working.
Click to expand...
Hasn’t CW just indicated that he may have to play a back four in the next few matches ?
 
Kozzy_is_my_Dad said:
So we don't have players who can run, head, are defensively minded in midfield, or can play in a centre half pairing at the back.

We probably deserve to go down, this is the most ruthless league in the world.
Click to expand...
Put McBurnie in the back 3 or, dare I say it, 4!
You know it makes sense.
 

wizadry said:
Keepers need to be held accountable now, they get protected way too much and get away with murder. Pickford taking Van Dijk out, and Areola taking Bogle out in the fashion they do it is almost assault, how in a day of VAR they get away with it is beyond inept. 🤬
Click to expand...
Agreed. It's now considered dangerous if you raise your foot slightly challenging for a ball that bounces, it's considered a potential red if you're "out of control", but if you're a keeper you can come out full body at a player's legs and yet it's the keeper that gets a free kick (ref blew against Bogle without even thinking) and then the reason for why Bogle's wasn't a penalty was "It's a 50/50 and some contact is expected". Why wasn't that the case when Lundstram got sent off? I'm not even saying Lundstram shouldn't have been, but if we assume that was a correct decision then how is the challenge on Bogle "controlled"? The laws of the game allow for the goalkeeper to use their hands. They outlaw challenging the keeper when they have it under control in their hand/s. The laws don't give them special rights about how to tackle.
 
If he still plays 3 at the back tomorrow he's completely lost the fucking plot..
 
It's ok lads, Mark Noble says the system is fine so let's stick with it. 👏 👏 👏 👏
 
PokerBlade said:
Agreed. It's now considered dangerous if you raise your foot slightly challenging for a ball that bounces, it's considered a potential red if you're "out of control", but if you're a keeper you can come out full body at a player's legs and yet it's the keeper that gets a free kick (ref blew against Bogle without even thinking) and then the reason for why Bogle's wasn't a penalty was "It's a 50/50 and some contact is expected". Why wasn't that the case when Lundstram got sent off? I'm not even saying Lundstram shouldn't have been, but if we assume that was a correct decision then how is the challenge on Bogle "controlled"? The laws of the game allow for the goalkeeper to use their hands. They outlaw challenging the keeper when they have it under control in their hand/s. The laws don't give them special rights about how to tackle.
Click to expand...
They’ve made the game that confusing with every thing involved regards laws and rules of the game that they literally make it up as they go along and no one is accountable for it, there’s not many jobs in life where you can do what ever you want without following a set of procedures or rules, football doesn’t make any sense most of the time nowadays!
 
wizadry said:
They’ve made the game that confusing with every thing involved regards laws and rules of the game that they literally make it up as they go along and no one is accountable for it, there’s not many jobs in life where you can do what ever you want without following a set of procedures or rules, football doesn’t make any sense most of the time nowadays!
Click to expand...
Souness went on a great rant about the Bogle incident and how refs make it up as they go along. The laws of the game are what they are but the constant interpretation and reinterpretation of the rules means a ref can look at one incident and say it's a penalty and another and say something as vague as "some degree of contact is expected" (no explanation at all as to why he gave a free kick the other way if contact is expected and allowed...). On the rare occasions we get to hear an explanation for a decision it's always done in that kind of vague interpretation manner, never do we hear an actual law of game.

Football is played mostly by convention rather than clear rules. It's like the timewasting thing. The rules say (from memory) it's an offence to "deliberately delay the restart of play". How that's interpreted is if you kick the ball thirty yards away it's a yellow, if it's the 90th minute and you've been warned five times before then it's a yellow. But for the majority of a match, if a free kick occurs, one player picks up the ball and carries it ten yards away and drops it, a second player pretends they're going to pass it back and runs past it, a third player throws the ball high up in the air to pass it back as slowly as possible, a fourth player then runs over the ball now it's in place to stop it being taken, and this is all just routine. Even though everyone in the world knows exactly what's happening, it doesn't fit the convention of "timewasting" and therefore nothing is done.
 
He should have gone 4-5-1 and made us hard to beat months ago but he won’t. Instead of accepting that we couldn’t replace JOC, he carried on trying everyone in that role and sticking to a system teams had figured out late last season.

He will never change. Excited to see it next season but this season we should have tried something else.
 
The problem with going to 4 at the back has always been that we only really have Egan who suits playing in a back two. Now he's injured the situation is even worse.

Unfortunately the squad we've built is really rigid and we're lacking the personnel to significantly change the shape.

I don't think the refusal to change shape is down to Wilder's stubbornness, it's down to not having decent traditional centre backs as back up.
 
Never mind what formation to play, I’m more worried about us having anyone fit enough to actually play.
 
FMBlade1 said:
It's ok lads, Mark Noble says the system is fine so let's stick with it. 👏 👏 👏 👏
Click to expand...
The master tactician himself. That has to be one of the strangest thing I’ve heard from wilder. “These trainers are fine, Hi-Tec said so“
 

Snowflake said:
Why would playing four at the back cope better with Mane, Salam and Firmino ?
Click to expand...
Less space for them to get in behind the wing backs and our 'overlapping' center backs as west ham did repeatedly last time out.

Also we currently have 3 centre backs out injured so the less reserve team players and square pegs in round holes in the side the better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom