Just go to a back 4

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

LewishamBlade said:
No, it’s not cos we’ve drawn, it’s cos we’ve not got 4 fully fit first team defenders 😂
Click to expand...
Have you seen our record with a back 4? Did you see how out of sorts we looked last season? You’re accommodating one player out of position. You change to a 4 and effectively you’ve got all 4 defenders out of position. The only one I’d say would be fine is Baldock because he plays that way for Greece.

Ireland play back 3, Wales play back 3 & Bash is a back 3 player.

I don’t disagree that on paper a back 4 makes more sense, but it’s not as easy as that
 



SwissBlade said:
I get that there’s a desire to change an entire system after 1 below par performance in 10 and seeing no signs in the second half of last season which suggested that we needed to change things dramatically.

I understand the panic because we’ve run short of defenders who can play on the left.

So to go to a four:
Bash would move out of his RCB position - which is a huge part of the way we play, into a purely defensive position. He could break with the ball though. So that’s a positive.

Baldock or Bogle would sit deeper at RB
RND would be sat deeper as well at LB

And then we’d have to change the midfield or what would we do there? Keep a 3 but make it flatter?
Click to expand...
RND would be fantastic as a LB, think that’s his position. And it would suit Baldock as he’s wasteful going forward.

Khadra is a natural winger, Ndiaye can definitely play that role, Brewster probably at a push. McAtee too. Norwood/Doyle/Berge in a 3, McBurnie up top. Just until we get some defenders back.

Bash could play centre half in a 4 100% - he did it against Forest away in his first start of last season and he was our best player.

It’s surely our best option until Clark, Robinson, Stevens or Osborn are back fit.
 
Millhousesblade1889 said:
Have you seen our record with a back 4? Did you see how out of sorts we looked last season? You’re accommodating one player out of position. You change to a 4 and effectively you’ve got all 4 defenders out of position. The only one I’d say would be fine is Baldock because he plays that way for Greece.

Ireland play back 3, Wales play back 3 & Bash is a back 3 player.

I don’t disagree that on paper a back 4 makes more sense, but it’s not as easy as that
Click to expand...
We have different players now, a different manager, and we won’t try and keep possession for possessions sake.

It’s like comparing chalk and cheese last season and this season. Might not work, but I don’t think we have much choice at this point. We shouldn’t be so inflexible.
 
Not sure we should go to a back 4, but rightly or wrongly Khadra won't play LWB again, and we have far better options for a 4-3-3 sort of thing than we did last season

Wes
Baldock Bash Egan RND
Berge Norwood Doyle
Ndiaye Khadra
McB

Hardly looks hopeless does it
 
LewishamBlade said:
RND would be fantastic as a LB, think that’s his position. And it would suit Baldock as he’s wasteful going forward.

Khadra is a natural winger, Ndiaye can definitely play that role, Brewster probably at a push. McAtee too. Norwood/Doyle/Berge in a 3, McBurnie up top. Just until we get some defenders back.

Bash could play centre half in a 4 100% - he did it against Forest away in his first start of last season and he was our best player.

It’s surely our best option until Clark, Robinson, Stevens or Osborn are back fit.
Click to expand...
That all sounds lovely, but the key to how we play football and have done in the last few years is overloading wider areas with defenders offering support in advanced areas…

How would we address that? Since we haven’t really had a need to change things too much, even yesterday
 
One mark against a back 4 is the players did not like it last season. Some of them sulked about it.
 
Nothing wrong with considering a temporary change during a defensive injury crisis.

Moving people around to keep the wing backs is potentially as problematic as trying a four.

Felt a bit for Gordon yesterday as clearly a winger/attacker was preferred at wing back to him playing RCB snd moving Bash across a la PNE.

It may not work but considering the players not available and our array of attack minded midfielders, its far from stupid as a consideration.
 
Hamandcheese said:
Not sure we should go to a back 4, but rightly or wrongly Khadra won't play LWB again, and we have far better options for a 4-3-3 sort of thing than we did last season

Wes
Baldock Bash Egan RND
Berge Norwood Doyle
Ndiaye Khadra
McB

Hardly looks hopeless does it
Click to expand...
The centre back pairing does and who's protecting them ?
Norwood ? The midfield enforcer
 
It's far from a hopeless pairing and Norwood could play a more disciplined role with 2 other CMs to get forward. His stats for interceptions/tackles are good apparently so although he's not your classic enforcer he is deceptively competent at being in the right place to nick the ball
 
Harry's Game said:
We played a back four at the start of last season.. remember how that went?

The mistake yesterday was playing Kharda LWB he was all at sea and it unbalanced us.

Should have trusted Gordon to play RCB and played RND at LWB.
Click to expand...

Whilst correct, it also wasn't all Khadra's fault. He was asked to play high and wide when we were in possession (PH's post match interview) and presumably as a wing back when we were out of it. I think it asked too much of him, particularly given there was little-to-no preparation time after the international break.

I think we might have to throw Bogle in at LWB on Tuesday as QPR carry a lot more threat.
It's not ideal but it's where we're at.

As for moving to a back 4... no. Short memories. These lads can't play it. We play our best stuff in this system.
One man out of position is better than several.
 
LewishamBlade said:
For crying out loud, we haven’t got the players fit for a back 5, let’s stop with the square pegs in round holes until we have. Playing a back 4 is the system you’re brought up with as a defender, if you can’t play that then you should pack it in.

Until Anel or another left back is fit, let’s just go to a back 4.
Baldock/Bogle - Basham - Egan - RND.

Khadra is NOT a wing back, Bogle can’t play it because he’s very right footed. Let’s stop trying to force it and let’s go back to basics.

Even when we’re chasing a game like yesterday we didn’t once abandon the 5 at the back. It’s like a noose around our neck at times. We need a bit of flexibility, we’ve got too many good forward players not to have.
Click to expand...
Bogle is not very left footed as shown by some of the goals he's scored for us with his left foot.

As regards back 4 or back 5, I guess the question is as follows. Does he put 1 round peg in a round hole or change the shape that effects maybe 4 or 5 players who've been doing really well in the the shape we've used all season and for much of last year.

It is a dilema, and I was surprised given the players selected that lined up with 3 centre backs, but I do see the challenge for Hecky
 
SwissBlade said:
I get that there’s a desire to change an entire system after 1 below par performance in 10 and seeing no signs in the second half of last season which suggested that we needed to change things dramatically.

I understand the panic because we’ve run short of defenders who can play on the left.

So to go to a four:
Bash would move out of his RCB position - which is a huge part of the way we play, into a purely defensive position. He could break with the ball though. So that’s a positive.

Baldock or Bogle would sit deeper at RB
RND would be sat deeper as well at LB

And then we’d have to change the midfield or what would we do there? Keep a 3 but make it flatter?
Click to expand...
Lots of problems with going to a 4 as you say. To my mind it's worth trying both Bogle and Khadra there. If that doesn't work and players don't come back then I guess a change of shape will be needed
 



CaptainMorgans said:
Whilst correct, it also wasn't all Khadra's fault. He was asked to play high and wide when we were in possession (PH's post match interview) and presumably as a wing back when we were out of it. I think it asked too much of him, particularly given there was little-to-no preparation time after the international break.

I think we might have to throw Bogle in at LWB on Tuesday as QPR carry a lot more threat.
It's not ideal but it's where we're at.

As for moving to a back 4... no. Short memories. These lads can't play it. We play our best stuff in this system.
One man out of position is better than several.
Click to expand...
How can a central defender playing in central defence be out of position?
 
Egan doesn't have the pace nor does Bash have the strength to play as twin CBs against the athletic thugs , they both need a 3rd CB to help out - and even then they can fuck up like yesterday's equaliser.
Norwood is not enough of a unit to protect twin CBs.
Now if we had Anel & JoC , with Coulibaly just in front , 4 at the back might work .... But we ain't
 
Davalon said:
Nothing wrong with considering a temporary change during a defensive injury crisis.

Moving people around to keep the wing backs is potentially as problematic as trying a four.

Felt a bit for Gordon yesterday as clearly a winger/attacker was preferred at wing back to him playing RCB snd moving Bash across a la PNE.

It may not work but considering the players not available and our array of attack minded midfielders, its far from stupid as a consideration.
Click to expand...
Gordon would have got eaten alive by Deeney, I think that’s why he didn’t play. The 2 experienced lads and RND won probably 5% of the high balls against him so Gordon would have been rinsed.
 
Pray Heckingbotham dosen't a/ read this nonsense an b/ be remotely mad enough to act on it.
 
Basham is a defender but I don't think I've ever seen him in a two and felt comfortable. He's a top quality RCB in a back three.

Playing one player out of position or a youngster is better than a whole formation change. Yes we didn't win saturday and play well but for the international break Hecky only had around 5 fit players to work with until Thursday.
 
LewishamBlade said:
How can a central defender playing in central defence be out of position?
Click to expand...
When they get exposed there to the extent that 6 or 7 years ago we entirely changed the system (yeah, I know he'd played it elsewhere too) to accommodate the fact our centre halves weren't classic centre halves so needed a bit of extra cover (as well as allowing them to get forward as they had extra in that department).

Yes he bought Egan into this, but he'd had a reputation of not being the quickest and slow to turn. He's been great for us on the whole but I think we'd all agree he gets exposed in a flat back 4.

And of course playing in a 3's different to a classic centre half pairing. Wayne Allison played up front but you wouldn't want him wide in a front 3 would you?!
 
I'm not a suggesting a back 4 would necessarily work but I'm just a bit surprised at some the comments saying it's a ridiculous suggestion.

You have to be adaptable sometimes even if it's not your preferred system.

Wilder even changed it up away at Leeds and WBA to get the desired results.

There's no question that we've looked better with the current system but especially at home when I'd expect us to have more of the ball usually, I wouldn't be against trying it whilst we've got so many defenders out.

Hopefully, however, with both Bogle back and Anel not as bad as feared, we can put the usual system out without too much disruption. Or st least not dropping attacking players back.
 
Davalon said:
I'm not a suggesting a back 4 would necessarily work but I'm just a bit surprised at some the comments saying it's a ridiculous suggestion.

You have to be adaptable sometimes even if it's not your preferred system.

Wilder even changed it up away at Leeds and WBA to get the desired results.

There's no question that we've looked better with the current system but especially at home when I'd expect us to have more of the ball usually, I wouldn't be against trying it whilst we've got so many defenders out.

Hopefully, however, with both Bogle back and Anel not as bad as feared, we can put the usual system out without too much disruption. Or st least not dropping attacking players back.
Click to expand...
It’s really odd, especially considering we have 4, literally 4, fully fit first team defenders.
 
The big problem is not bringing in a defensive midfielder. The change would then be two up top with a ten in behind. You can't legislate for that many defensive injuries. We have the players to play a four or five. With current available personnel we are relying on Basham and Egan in a four.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Silkblade
Let’s f*cking go for it now!
Replies
22
Views
2K
Cheeky Blade
Cheeky Blade
BiggerBladeThanThou
Credit to ‘Boro
2 3 4
Replies
99
Views
6K
forte
forte
1973Blade
Who do we want to go up in the playoffs?
2
Replies
41
Views
1K
Edgar Allan Poo
Edgar Allan Poo
jono_t2000
Teams vs Watford
2
Replies
48
Views
4K
The Crab
The Crab
Kozzy_is_my_Dad
What tactical change(s) would you make?
Replies
14
Views
973
bonobo
B

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