5 at the back

[Champagneblade]

The reason why 5 at the back worked with Wilder is because we had 2 fully fit players who fit that style. O'Connell and Basham. They helped out attacking threat by overlapping. Neither of them are fit, no one in the squad can replace their energy and intent of going forward. 5 at the back is a thing of the past now.

I have no issue with 5 at the back.

BUT

If the wing backs don't bomb forward at every God-given opportunity and the defenders on the outside don't push on to support the attack, then you may as well just have another midfielder in there.

Baldock and Stevens need to be playing pretty much as wingers but Stevens especially had so few overlaps.

I don't know how you move him on or if you just let him go next summer but it's sad to see him regressing. However as Deadbat states we have 4 left wing back options yet neither of them are really up to much on what we've seen.

Osborn is too small, an obvious defensive weakness and at times struggles with the basics.

Lowe may have been prime Roberto Carlos at Forest but he just put in a cameo that will struggle to be beaten in terms of how abject it was.

Norrington-Davies I think is the pick of the lot and going forward he's a work in progress. He can at least pass half way though and control the ball which puts him above his contemporaries.

 

[Berlin Blade]

I would persevere with the 5, despite not seeing an overlapping centre back for about 2 years.

I wasn’t even annoyed at the team sheet and agreed it was the right personnel and shape to go with given the players missing. I actually liked the idea we could switch it up and bring off a centre half for an attacking player and go to a 4 later in the game if we were chasing it. I was however quite baffled that when we made the changes at 70 mins that we continued in a back 5 which included Baldock at CB, Osborn at RWB, norrington davies at CB. Especially when you think how poorly Fleck was playing, it was crying out for Osborn in the middle, so I was very happy with the subs but completely baffled by the shape they came on into.

It should and could have been
Lowe - Clark - egan - baldock
At 70 minutes. Then we could have had brewster, khadra, ndiaye, berge, sharp all trying to nick an equaliser.

 

[Lmaobob]

disagree

Fleck is actually more advanced than Berge in this picture. Norwood in line with Berge.



Don't see many attacking midfielders on the edge of our box defending like this

 

[Wapping Blade]

I have no issue with 5 at the back.

BUT

If the wing backs don't bomb forward at every God-given opportunity and the defenders on the outside don't push on to support the attack, then you may as well just have another midfielder in there.

Baldock and Stevens need to be playing pretty much as wingers but Stevens especially had so few overlaps.

I don't know how you move him on or if you just let him go next summer but it's sad to see him regressing. However as Deadbat states we have 4 left wing back options yet neither of them are really up to much on what we've seen.

Osborn is too small, an obvious defensive weakness and at times struggles with the basics.

Lowe may have been prime Roberto Carlos at Forest but he just put in a cameo that will struggle to be beaten in terms of how abject it was.

Norrington-Davies I think is the pick of the lot and going forward he's a work in progress. He can at least pass half way though and control the ball which puts him above his contemporaries.

Agreed, the wingbacks were not good enough, which we rely on heavily. At least George got into some advanced positions but the end result was lacking.

 

[bonobo]

At least half of not more of the teams in the division play 3 at the back now.

 

[Rudders]

Your basing everything on friendlies and a narrow loss against a side who are 2nd favourites to go up. You're completely ignoring how terrible we were with 4 at the back under Slav and the turn around with 5 at the back under Heckingbottom

I actually think we began the turnaround under Slav.
Hecky did well last year but what was not filling the bench all about last night, making a point to the owners with not picking Coulibaly? Its an embarrasment, fans don't appreciate it. So what the director of football suggests you take him in the squad.
This formation/tactical set up, squad and manager are going to quickly run out of road unless they can demonstrate that they can compete a bit better than last night.

 

[biggiesablade]

View attachment 140887

View attachment 140889

Fleck is actually more advanced than Berge in this picture. Norwood in line with Berge.

View attachment 140890

Don't see many attacking midfielders on the edge of our box defending like this

View attachment 140891

View attachment 140892


View attachment 140893

Kit looks good though

 

[LJBlade]

Why on earth do we continue to play 5 at the back without adequate replacements in the positions?

Stevens/RND at Left Centre Back? Clark at right centre back? Osborn right wing back?

For what reason on God's green earth are we still trying to lump together 5 defenders at the back.

We had 2 actual defenders on that pitch today. Baldock and Egan. Not gunna blame Clark as he wasn't being played in his usual position... but why. Why oh why oh why keep playing 5 at the back.

The best form of defence is ATTACK, nearly every other team plays 4 at the back and they absolutely pin us back every single game.

Watford were so attacking that they had their foot on our throats the entire game. Our two strikers feeding off scraps. To be honest, not even scraps.

What would your solution be? I don't see we've got the players to play another formation as well as we played this one last season.

 

[Snowflake]

Why on earth do we continue to play 5 at the back without adequate replacements in the positions?

Stevens/RND at Left Centre Back? Clark at right centre back? Osborn right wing back?

For what reason on God's green earth are we still trying to lump together 5 defenders at the back.

We had 2 actual defenders on that pitch today. Baldock and Egan. Not gunna blame Clark as he wasn't being played in his usual position... but why. Why oh why oh why keep playing 5 at the back.

The best form of defence is ATTACK, nearly every other team plays 4 at the back and they absolutely pin us back every single game.

Watford were so attacking that they had their foot on our throats the entire game. Our two strikers feeding off scraps. To be honest, not even scraps.

Are we not playing three at the back with five in midfield ? Playing four at the back is negative which is why most teams avoid it .

 

[S40BLADE]

5atb United. Some Blades would give up their family in exchange for keeping 5atb... its absolutely everything to us without it we are simply nothing...

 

[Lmaobob]

What would your solution be? I don't see we've got the players to play another formation as well as we played this one last season.

BREAKING: Professional footballers can't play in a certain position other than 5 at the back

 

[LJBlade]

BREAKING: Professional footballers can't play in a certain position other than 5 at the back

It's more that we don't have wingers

What's your solution?

 

[Lmaobob]

It's more that we don't have wingers

What's your solution?

Why do we have to play wingers just to play 4 at the back?

 

[Barney]

4-2-3-1

Fod
Baldock - Anel - Egan - Lowe
Arblaster - Basham
Khadra - Berge - Ndiaye
Brewster

 

[LJBlade]

Why do we have to play wingers just to play 4 at the back?

Maybe we don't. What alternative are you suggesting?

 

[mancunianblade]

If we sign James McAtee then for me the recruitment would suggest we are at least looking at alternative options as we are overloading personnel in attacking positions. We had two advantages when we started with 5 at the back we have overlapping CBs and the second advantage was opposition clubs changing their recognised formations to match our 5 at the back this was happening from League one to the PL now we have lost both those advantages as we no longer overlap and a decent chunk of the league play 5 at the back.

Formations are trends they have their time, Sheffield United were playing 5 at the back under Spackman were they not? then it went then it came back again. personally, we are desperate for and have been for way to long a DM, I was hoping Doyle was that player but I think he maybe more advanced still I think a 433 would be far more effective based on losing berge

 

[Lmaobob]

Maybe we don't. What alternative are you suggesting?

 

[LJBlade]

View attachment 140903

See, that was easy. Guaranteed wins from that team.

It doesn't really solve the biggest issue with the current set up though, which is the flat 3 in midfield, rather than 3/5 at the back.

 

[Lmaobob]

See, that was easy. Guaranteed wins from that team.

It doesn't really solve the biggest issue with the current set up though, which is the flat 3 in midfield, rather than 3/5 at the back.

What do you mean "see, that was easy." i've literally been begging for this for months. Flat 3 is a problem when transitioning from defence to attack. It's not a problem if we have 2 box to box midfielders and a dedicated attacking midfielder whose role it is to link up the play

 

[Nicesheffielder]

Arblaster/Norwood/Coulibaly/Berge/Osborn take your pick

FFS no Norwood

 

[LJBlade]

What do you mean "see, that was easy." i've literally been begging for this for months. Flat 3 is a problem when transitioning from defence to attack. It's not a problem if we have 2 box to box midfielders and a dedicated attacking midfielder whose role it is to link up the play

I meant that I asked you for a suggestion three times before you were able to produce one. You were begging for this whilst it was working last season?

We could have those things you talk about with the current formation, which suggests it's a personnel issue rather than a formation issue.

 

[SufcBilly]

4-2-3-1

Fod
Baldock - Anel - Egan - Lowe
Arblaster - Basham
Khadra - Berge - Ndiaye
Brewster

Blimey learn ball

 

[Lmaobob]

I meant that I asked you for a suggestion three times before you were able to produce one. You were begging for this whilst it was working last season?

We could have those things you talk about with the current formation, which suggests it's a personnel issue rather than a formation issue.

You're starting different topics between each reply. I'm not going to reply to every single thing you say

 

[Barney]

Blimey learn ball

Mate you dont know what you're talking about

 

[LJBlade]

You're starting different topics between each reply. I'm not going to reply to every single thing you say

No I'm not, I'm trying to have a discussion with you about the formation we play and how we could possibly change it to improve. I've not talked about any other topics.

 

[Roygbiv]

I actually think we began the turnaround under Slav.
Hecky did well last year but what was not filling the bench all about last night, making a point to the owners with not picking Coulibaly? Its an embarrasment, fans don't appreciate it. So what the director of football suggests you take him in the squad.
This formation/tactical set up, squad and manager are going to quickly run out of road unless they can demonstrate that they can compete a bit better than last night.

We did fill the bench. It's only 7 subs still

 

[Pedro Verde]

We tried four at the back with Slav it didnt work for various reasons, to play the Slav way would have taken too much money to re profile the squad
Five at the back worked last season so it can work again
Bedwetters weve lost one game 1-0 to a promotion rival so lets rip it all up and start playing four at the back that doesnt work with the players we have

 

[Roygbiv]

I understand why people would like to see a change to a 4 as potentially it helps you include more attacking talent but we still don't have any proper wingers, a genuine defensive midfielder, legs in midfield and that's before we think about how badly our centre halves played in a 4 last season.

I just don't see how it works with the players we have personally

 

[Carlton Blade]

I understand why people would like to see a change to a 4 as potentially it helps you include more attacking talent but we still don't have any proper wingers, a genuine defensive midfielder, legs in midfield and that's before we think about how badly our centre halves played in a 4 last season.

I just don't see how it works with the players we have personally

I disagree with the "we need a defensive midfielder" thing. We need 2 mobile players in there who can get forward and back. We have 3 CB's and the wide CB's don't go forward anywhere near as much as previously.

Wes, Baldock, AA, Egan, RND. That's defensively average or above players across the lot of them.

With McAtee coming in we currently have/will soon have Berge, Ndiaye, Khadra, Doyle, McAtee, Sharp and Brewster who most would see as above average options going forward (not sure I 100% agree but still) with Jebbison, Osula, McBurnie etc to back them up. To sit an extra one of them down to accommodate bog standard players like Clark, JLT etc is frankly horrendous use of resources.

 

[Carlton Blade]

We tried four at the back with Slav it didnt work for various reasons, to play the Slav way would have taken too much money to re profile the squad
Five at the back worked last season so it can work again
Bedwetters weve lost one game 1-0 to a promotion rival so lets rip it all up and start playing four at the back that doesnt work with the players we have

Or, move on from a formation and style of play that is actively stifling our ability to create chances and has done for the better part of 2 years.

The absolute inability to be flexible and to find the most effective way to accommodate good players is massively frustrating. Unless we are going to commit to they QPR and Forest away style performances that involve real intensity and aggression we need more talented attacking players on the pitch. We don't score enough goals