Wing backs forced back

[Bergen Blade]

When we first started playing with a back three I thought we were very good at making the formation a 3-5-2, as opposed to 5-3-2. We were so strong going forward that teams tried counter acting this by matching our formation. This meant their own wide play suffered, and our wing backs often were free to push into midfield to press and chase. This meant we had a midfield FIVE, helping us press and win the ball in good areas.

What happens regularly now is that opposition teams regularly have a man hugging the touch line high up at all times. This forces our wing backs to stay back to mark them. Consequently our midfield three are isolated and get a lot of space to cover. Against Leicester they pushed across, from side to side as they switched play, but really struggled to get close enough to make a challenge. It is tiring them out and affecting their energy offensively as well.

I wish it was possible to publish video clips to show this, but due to copyright stuff it's not possible. Instead, here are some screen shots:


Leicester switching from (our) left to right. Justin is occupying Baldock and just off the photo, Albrighton is doing the same to Lowe. Leicester are easily bypassing our strikers, despite McBurnie trying to help. Our midfield three push across, but struggle to get close to them.





Seconds later, Leicester switch play back again to the other side. Again our midfield trio have to run across to get anywhere near them.





When this happens over time gaps appear, and it becomes unclear who's supposed to press and who covers. With movement and skill they punish us, even though we have a back five. These images are from the attack that ended with Vardy getting in behind and hitting the post.




Is it possible for us to counteract this? We have to find some way of helping those three midfielders out. The first half at Leicester was embarrassing at times and fans are starting to argue about which individual player to single out.

Couple of options to consider:

• Pushing a centre half into midfield. We used to do this with Basham a lot. When it started looking like we were losing the midfield, he'd join them and help us press better, chase, get more tackles in. Bryan also has experience playing in midfield. We could do this for spells in games, not necessarily from the start.
  • Downsides to this? Basham is not always composed on the ball when pressed from various angles. After one of his last Championship matches in midfield he said he viewed himself as a centre half now, having looked uncomfortable. We lose a centre half to deal with situations in the box. Would the remaining two centre halves cope? We'd also lose the overlapping contribution from wide centre halves.
• Dropping a striker into midfield. I've advocated this a few times, playing 5-4-1. Burke has experience as a RM. Put him to the right of Lundstram in the last image and Justin may have to think twice about going so high. Same with Albrighton if he had a LM to chase after in case Leicester lose possession. A midfield four would mean smaller distance between our midfielders, making it easier to get a challenge in, easier to be more aggressive.
  • Downsides: Obviously we'll lose a player up front. Although it's not done much for us this season, Wilder wants to get a partnership going. We'd lose the threat of his pace in behind, if it means Burke goes to RM. But watch the space he could have on the right in the last photo. There would be less runs in behind, but maybe more runs at the defence
• More attacking formations/line ups. Seen a lot of people wanting us to play 3-4-1-2 with a midfielder sacrificed for a number 10, even with Norwood included in the midfield 2. Maybe there would be occasions when we could peg some more opposition players back, but I think the remaining two midfielders would just struggle more to cover space and we'd be punished a lot more than currently. I also see suggestions which include Mousset as a wide striker in a 3-4-3. Again, to put it mildly, I think this would leave us too vulnerable. I don't pay attention to suggestions which are reasoned with "we can't do any worse", or similar.

 

[Stegosaurus]

When we first started playing with a back three I thought we were very good at making the formation a 3-5-2, as opposed to 5-3-2. We were so strong going forward that teams tried counter acting this by matching our formation. This meant their own wide play suffered, and our wing backs often were free to push into midfield to press and chase. This meant we had a midfield FIVE, helping us press and win the ball in good areas.

What happens regularly now is that opposition teams regularly have a man hugging the touch line high up at all times. This forces our wing backs to stay back to mark them. Consequently our midfield three are isolated and get a lot of space to cover. Against Leicester they pushed across, from side to side as they switched play, but really struggled to get close enough to make a challenge. It is tiring them out and affecting their energy offensively as well.

I wish it was possible to publish video clips to show this, but due to copyright stuff it's not possible. Instead, here are some screen shots:


Leicester switching from (our) left to right. Justin is occupying Baldock and just off the photo, Albrighton is doing the same to Lowe. Leicester are easily bypassing our strikers, despite McBurnie trying to help. Our midfield three push across, but struggle to get close to them.


View attachment 100055


Seconds later, Leicester switch play back again to the other side. Again our midfield trio have to run across to get anywhere near them.


View attachment 100056


When this happens over time gaps appear, and it becomes unclear who's supposed to press and who covers. With movement and skill they punish us, even though we have a back five. These images are from the attack that ended with Vardy getting in behind and hitting the post.

View attachment 100054


Is it possible for us to counteract this? We have to find some way of helping those three midfielders out. The first half at Leicester was embarrassing at times and fans are starting to argue about which individual player to single out.

Couple of options to consider:

• Pushing a centre half into midfield. We used to do this with Basham a lot. When it started looking like we were losing the midfield, he'd join them and help us press better, chase, get more tackles in. Bryan also has experience playing in midfield. We could do this for spells in games, not necessarily from the start.
  • Downsides to this? Basham is not always composed on the ball when pressed from various angles. After one of his last Championship matches in midfield he said he viewed himself as a centre half now, having looked uncomfortable. We lose a centre half to deal with situations in the box. Would the remaining two centre halves cope? We'd also lose the overlapping contribution from wide centre halves.
• Dropping a striker into midfield. I've advocated this a few times, playing 5-4-1. Burke has experience as a RM. Put him to the right of Lundstram in the last image and Justin may have to think twice about going so high. Same with Albrighton if he had a LM to chase after in case Leicester lose possession. A midfield four would mean smaller distance between our midfielders, making it easier to get a challenge in, easier to be more aggressive.
  • Downsides: Obviously we'll lose a player up front. Although it's not done much for us this season, Wilder wants to get a partnership going. We'd lose the threat of his pace in behind, if it means Burke goes to RM. But watch the space he could have on the right in the last photo. There would be less runs in behind, but maybe more runs at the defence
• More attacking formations/line ups. Seen a lot of people wanting us to play 3-4-1-2 with a midfielder sacrificed for a number 10, even with Norwood included in the midfield 2. Maybe there would be occasions when we could peg some more opposition players back, but I think the remaining two midfielders would just struggle more to cover space and we'd be punished a lot more than currently. I also see suggestions which include Mousset as a wide striker in a 3-4-3. Again, to put it mildly, I think this would leave us too vulnerable. I don't pay attention to suggestions which are reasoned with "we can't do any worse", or similar.

Hello, Stegosaurus here,

What I think is

 

[S64 Blade]

When we first started playing with a back three I thought we were very good at making the formation a 3-5-2, as opposed to 5-3-2. We were so strong going forward that teams tried counter acting this by matching our formation. This meant their own wide play suffered, and our wing backs often were free to push into midfield to press and chase. This meant we had a midfield FIVE, helping us press and win the ball in good areas.

What happens regularly now is that opposition teams regularly have a man hugging the touch line high up at all times. This forces our wing backs to stay back to mark them. Consequently our midfield three are isolated and get a lot of space to cover. Against Leicester they pushed across, from side to side as they switched play, but really struggled to get close enough to make a challenge. It is tiring them out and affecting their energy offensively as well.

I wish it was possible to publish video clips to show this, but due to copyright stuff it's not possible. Instead, here are some screen shots:


Leicester switching from (our) left to right. Justin is occupying Baldock and just off the photo, Albrighton is doing the same to Lowe. Leicester are easily bypassing our strikers, despite McBurnie trying to help. Our midfield three push across, but struggle to get close to them.


View attachment 100055


Seconds later, Leicester switch play back again to the other side. Again our midfield trio have to run across to get anywhere near them.


View attachment 100056


When this happens over time gaps appear, and it becomes unclear who's supposed to press and who covers. With movement and skill they punish us, even though we have a back five. These images are from the attack that ended with Vardy getting in behind and hitting the post.

View attachment 100054


Is it possible for us to counteract this? We have to find some way of helping those three midfielders out. The first half at Leicester was embarrassing at times and fans are starting to argue about which individual player to single out.

Couple of options to consider:

• Pushing a centre half into midfield. We used to do this with Basham a lot. When it started looking like we were losing the midfield, he'd join them and help us press better, chase, get more tackles in. Bryan also has experience playing in midfield. We could do this for spells in games, not necessarily from the start.
  • Downsides to this? Basham is not always composed on the ball when pressed from various angles. After one of his last Championship matches in midfield he said he viewed himself as a centre half now, having looked uncomfortable. We lose a centre half to deal with situations in the box. Would the remaining two centre halves cope? We'd also lose the overlapping contribution from wide centre halves.
• Dropping a striker into midfield. I've advocated this a few times, playing 5-4-1. Burke has experience as a RM. Put him to the right of Lundstram in the last image and Justin may have to think twice about going so high. Same with Albrighton if he had a LM to chase after in case Leicester lose possession. A midfield four would mean smaller distance between our midfielders, making it easier to get a challenge in, easier to be more aggressive.
  • Downsides: Obviously we'll lose a player up front. Although it's not done much for us this season, Wilder wants to get a partnership going. We'd lose the threat of his pace in behind, if it means Burke goes to RM. But watch the space he could have on the right in the last photo. There would be less runs in behind, but maybe more runs at the defence
• More attacking formations/line ups. Seen a lot of people wanting us to play 3-4-1-2 with a midfielder sacrificed for a number 10, even with Norwood included in the midfield 2. Maybe there would be occasions when we could peg some more opposition players back, but I think the remaining two midfielders would just struggle more to cover space and we'd be punished a lot more than currently. I also see suggestions which include Mousset as a wide striker in a 3-4-3. Again, to put it mildly, I think this would leave us too vulnerable. I don't pay attention to suggestions which are reasoned with "we can't do any worse", or similar.

Some good points here.

For option 1, you could use Ampadu, rather than Basham, for that role as he is more composed on the ball.

What would your thoughts on a 4-3-3 be? With the 2 of the front free acting as inside forwards (pretty much what Leicester are doing above) - my thinking would be Burke and Brewster/Mousset out wide and McBurnie spearheading the attack. McBurnie could also drop deep if needed, with the wide two taking a more central position, if needed (i.e. going to a 442 diamond)

 

[blade too long]

Its more we are missing OConnell who communicated when to stay and when to go
its been a devastating loss to our system

 

[FMBlade1]

Tactically outdone | S24SU Forum | Sheffield United Community

^^^

Agree totally, been saying this for quite a while

Anyway, Wilder would say that we are being Playstation managers so should shut up

 

[Champagneblade]

Hi Bergen, I think you make a very valid point about Burke.

Asking him to be a striker in 3-5-2 or 5-3-2 seems pointless to me.

He's 6'2", but not in the bustling target man sense. He's not a natural finisher either.

But put him more in the right of 4 in the same line up and his size does then make a difference as he's going to outmuscle most fullbacks and he's one of the guys who will beat his man for pace then get the ball into a danger area.

He isn't the guy who applies deft finishes in tight games. But he could be a good outlet up we went 5-4-1, with the same personnel as Sunday.

I reckon against Man U this is the sort of tactic that might work. You could have McBurnie and Mousset take a shift each to provide nuisance value down the middle.

 

[hidesbehindapseudonym]

Hi Bergen, I think you make a very valid point about Burke.

Asking him to be a striker in 3-5-2 or 5-3-2 seems pointless to me.

He's 6'2", but not in the bustling target man sense. He's not a natural finisher either.

But put him more in the right of 4 in the same line up and his size does then make a difference as he's going to outmuscle most fullbacks and he's one of the guys who will beat his man for pace then get the ball into a danger area.

He isn't the guy who applies deft finishes in tight games. But he could be a good outlet up we went 5-4-1, with the same personnel as Sunday.

I reckon against Man U this is the sort of tactic that might work. You could have McBurnie and Mousset take a shift each to provide nuisance value down the middle.

Is Moose fit? He's never done a "shift" in his life.

 

[DeanLearner'sCat]

Tactically outdone | S24SU Forum | Sheffield United Community

^^^

Agree totally, been saying this for quite a while

Anyway, Wilder would say that we are being Playstation managers so should shut up

Yeah, based on that thread, you were saying we'd been found out tactically in August 2019, at the beginning of a season when we ended up finishing 9th in the Premier League. That's probably what he means by "Playstation manager".

 

[Wards]

Advocate of 4-5-1 or 5-4-1 here Certainly against some of the better sides who use the width really well like you have highlighted.

I think CW may be too stubborn to play one up top but he may be forced to soon to make us harder to beat. Although he’s adamant the system isn’t an issue - which I disagree with. First and foremost we need to stop being a soft touch to score against.

 

[FMBlade1]

Yeah, based on that thread, you were saying we'd been found out tactically in August 2019, at the beginning of a season when we ended up finishing 9th in the Premier League. That's probably what he means by "Playstation manager".

We had been found out by Leicester, Bristol City and Leeds. Other teams didn't use their tactics against us, hence we finished 9th

 

[DeanLearner'sCat]

We had been found out by Leicester, Bristol City and Leeds. Other teams didn't use their tactics against us, hence we finished 9th

It's weird that we'd been tactically found out but Premier League managers like Jose Mourinho, Mauricio Pochettino, Unai Emery, Roy Hodgson etc didn't notice and we somehow managed to get results against them. Thankfully, they aren't as perceptive as you.

Incidentally, we also beat Leeds in that Championship season. You might recall, it was quite a big game. I guess Bielsa forgot how he'd found us out.

 

[FMBlade1]

It's weird that we'd been tactically found out but Premier League managers like Jose Mourinho, Mauricio Pochettino, Unai Emery, Roy Hodgson etc didn't notice and we somehow managed to get results against them. Thankfully, they aren't as perceptive as you.

Incidentally, we also beat Leeds in that Championship season. You might recall, it was quite a big game. I guess Bielsa forgot how he'd found us out.

Ah yes, the Leeds game, where we changed our own tactics and had Basham in midfield.

Emery and Poch were sacked for underachieving last season, Mourinho was going through a transition team after Poch, and we beat Palace courtesy of a horrendous goalkeeping error with Guita dropping a Norwood cross into the net.

 

[Houston_Blade]

Tactically outdone | S24SU Forum | Sheffield United Community

^^^

Agree totally, been saying this for quite a while

Anyway, Wilder would say that we are being Playstation managers so should shut up

Another day another:

 

[Bergen Blade]

Some good points here.

For option 1, you could use Ampadu, rather than Basham, for that role as he is more composed on the ball.

What would your thoughts on a 4-3-3 be? With the 2 of the front free acting as inside forwards (pretty much what Leicester are doing above) - my thinking would be Burke and Brewster/Mousset out wide and McBurnie spearheading the attack. McBurnie could also drop deep if needed, with the wide two taking a more central position, if needed (i.e. going to a 442 diamond)

I'd describe Leicester's formation against us as 3-4-2-1.

Although tempting on paper, I think we lack the types to play 4-3-3. Defensively it would be similar to now, but with one less centre half to deal with things in the box, and the same troubles in covering space in midfield.

For a 4-3-3 to work, I think we'd need stronger, quicker centre halves and we'd need the wide forwards to drop into wide midfield off the ball, similar to Aston Villa. Burke could do such a wide role, but I'm struggling to see other good options within the squad. I think Mousset and Brewster are more out and out central strikers.

 

[Russ]

When we first started playing with a back three I thought we were very good at making the formation a 3-5-2, as opposed to 5-3-2. We were so strong going forward that teams tried counter acting this by matching our formation. This meant their own wide play suffered, and our wing backs often were free to push into midfield to press and chase. This meant we had a midfield FIVE, helping us press and win the ball in good areas.

What happens regularly now is that opposition teams regularly have a man hugging the touch line high up at all times. This forces our wing backs to stay back to mark them. Consequently our midfield three are isolated and get a lot of space to cover. Against Leicester they pushed across, from side to side as they switched play, but really struggled to get close enough to make a challenge. It is tiring them out and affecting their energy offensively as well.

I wish it was possible to publish video clips to show this, but due to copyright stuff it's not possible. Instead, here are some screen shots:


Leicester switching from (our) left to right. Justin is occupying Baldock and just off the photo, Albrighton is doing the same to Lowe. Leicester are easily bypassing our strikers, despite McBurnie trying to help. Our midfield three push across, but struggle to get close to them.


View attachment 100055


Seconds later, Leicester switch play back again to the other side. Again our midfield trio have to run across to get anywhere near them.


View attachment 100056


When this happens over time gaps appear, and it becomes unclear who's supposed to press and who covers. With movement and skill they punish us, even though we have a back five. These images are from the attack that ended with Vardy getting in behind and hitting the post.

View attachment 100054


Is it possible for us to counteract this? We have to find some way of helping those three midfielders out. The first half at Leicester was embarrassing at times and fans are starting to argue about which individual player to single out.

Couple of options to consider:

• Pushing a centre half into midfield. We used to do this with Basham a lot. When it started looking like we were losing the midfield, he'd join them and help us press better, chase, get more tackles in. Bryan also has experience playing in midfield. We could do this for spells in games, not necessarily from the start.
  • Downsides to this? Basham is not always composed on the ball when pressed from various angles. After one of his last Championship matches in midfield he said he viewed himself as a centre half now, having looked uncomfortable. We lose a centre half to deal with situations in the box. Would the remaining two centre halves cope? We'd also lose the overlapping contribution from wide centre halves.
• Dropping a striker into midfield. I've advocated this a few times, playing 5-4-1. Burke has experience as a RM. Put him to the right of Lundstram in the last image and Justin may have to think twice about going so high. Same with Albrighton if he had a LM to chase after in case Leicester lose possession. A midfield four would mean smaller distance between our midfielders, making it easier to get a challenge in, easier to be more aggressive.
  • Downsides: Obviously we'll lose a player up front. Although it's not done much for us this season, Wilder wants to get a partnership going. We'd lose the threat of his pace in behind, if it means Burke goes to RM. But watch the space he could have on the right in the last photo. There would be less runs in behind, but maybe more runs at the defence
• More attacking formations/line ups. Seen a lot of people wanting us to play 3-4-1-2 with a midfielder sacrificed for a number 10, even with Norwood included in the midfield 2. Maybe there would be occasions when we could peg some more opposition players back, but I think the remaining two midfielders would just struggle more to cover space and we'd be punished a lot more than currently. I also see suggestions which include Mousset as a wide striker in a 3-4-3. Again, to put it mildly, I think this would leave us too vulnerable. I don't pay attention to suggestions which are reasoned with "we can't do any worse", or similar.

What’s your thoughts on a 5-5-0 formation?

Might sound too defensive but when other teams have possession and are passing it round their defence, our strikers never get anywhere close to putting in a challenge so all that happens is there is a slight delay until they get over the half way line.

Then when we do get the ball, we can over run the opposition and it’s just a case of who we can use in the midfield to go into forward positions.

Sorry if this sounds stupid but I’m thinking something needs to change and wondered what your thoughts are as you seem knowledgeable.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Hi Bergen, I think you make a very valid point about Burke.

Asking him to be a striker in 3-5-2 or 5-3-2 seems pointless to me.

He's 6'2", but not in the bustling target man sense. He's not a natural finisher either.

But put him more in the right of 4 in the same line up and his size does then make a difference as he's going to outmuscle most fullbacks and he's one of the guys who will beat his man for pace then get the ball into a danger area.

He isn't the guy who applies deft finishes in tight games. But he could be a good outlet up we went 5-4-1, with the same personnel as Sunday.

I reckon against Man U this is the sort of tactic that might work. You could have McBurnie and Mousset take a shift each to provide nuisance value down the middle.

Yes, and I can see him bombing into space and causing problems with opposition midfielders struggling to catch up with him. With Berge and Fleck also doing some of that we have some decent ball carriers, and I think Ampadu would help us win the ball more in midfield. I think McBurnie plays an important role in us not conceding 1 or 2 goals from set pieces alone in every match, but I agree it would be interesting to see that 5-4-1 with Mousset up front, maybe against Man U.

 

[Bergen Blade]

What’s your thoughts on a 5-5-0 formation?

Might sound too defensive but when other teams have possession and are passing it round their defence, our strikers never get anywhere close to putting in a challenge so all that happens is there is a slight delay until they get over the half way line.

Then when we do get the ball, we can over run the opposition and it’s just a case of who we can use in the midfield to go into forward positions.

Sorry if this sounds stupid but I’m thinking something needs to change and wondered what your thoughts are as you seem knowledgeable.

On occasions both our strikers can be seen helping out deep in our own half, but in general one striker is needed as a forward pass option.

 

[robbiez666]

Said it several times since first lockdown but teams just push their wingbacks/fullbacks on to stop ours getting forward. Whereas previously you'd get wingbacks coming into midfield to help, they can't. They can't get forward. That's us done.

The easiest way to combat the problem would be to play Ampadu as one of the CBs and push him into midfield when we have the ball. This only really works when we're up against one main striker though. So, instead of playing overlapping CBs, which we don't really have anymore, you'd have a CB who also pushes into DCM. You'd therefore have 2 DCMs and give the two other midfielders licence to push further up and to get out to the wings. The best way to stop your WBs being pushed back is to push the opposition's back. Exploit the space in and behind on the wings.

 

[finlaytheblade]

When we first started playing with a back three I thought we were very good at making the formation a 3-5-2, as opposed to 5-3-2. We were so strong going forward that teams tried counter acting this by matching our formation. This meant their own wide play suffered, and our wing backs often were free to push into midfield to press and chase. This meant we had a midfield FIVE, helping us press and win the ball in good areas.

What happens regularly now is that opposition teams regularly have a man hugging the touch line high up at all times. This forces our wing backs to stay back to mark them. Consequently our midfield three are isolated and get a lot of space to cover. Against Leicester they pushed across, from side to side as they switched play, but really struggled to get close enough to make a challenge. It is tiring them out and affecting their energy offensively as well.

I wish it was possible to publish video clips to show this, but due to copyright stuff it's not possible. Instead, here are some screen shots:


Leicester switching from (our) left to right. Justin is occupying Baldock and just off the photo, Albrighton is doing the same to Lowe. Leicester are easily bypassing our strikers, despite McBurnie trying to help. Our midfield three push across, but struggle to get close to them.


View attachment 100055


Seconds later, Leicester switch play back again to the other side. Again our midfield trio have to run across to get anywhere near them.


View attachment 100056


When this happens over time gaps appear, and it becomes unclear who's supposed to press and who covers. With movement and skill they punish us, even though we have a back five. These images are from the attack that ended with Vardy getting in behind and hitting the post.

View attachment 100054


Is it possible for us to counteract this? We have to find some way of helping those three midfielders out. The first half at Leicester was embarrassing at times and fans are starting to argue about which individual player to single out.

Couple of options to consider:

• Pushing a centre half into midfield. We used to do this with Basham a lot. When it started looking like we were losing the midfield, he'd join them and help us press better, chase, get more tackles in. Bryan also has experience playing in midfield. We could do this for spells in games, not necessarily from the start.
  • Downsides to this? Basham is not always composed on the ball when pressed from various angles. After one of his last Championship matches in midfield he said he viewed himself as a centre half now, having looked uncomfortable. We lose a centre half to deal with situations in the box. Would the remaining two centre halves cope? We'd also lose the overlapping contribution from wide centre halves.
• Dropping a striker into midfield. I've advocated this a few times, playing 5-4-1. Burke has experience as a RM. Put him to the right of Lundstram in the last image and Justin may have to think twice about going so high. Same with Albrighton if he had a LM to chase after in case Leicester lose possession. A midfield four would mean smaller distance between our midfielders, making it easier to get a challenge in, easier to be more aggressive.
  • Downsides: Obviously we'll lose a player up front. Although it's not done much for us this season, Wilder wants to get a partnership going. We'd lose the threat of his pace in behind, if it means Burke goes to RM. But watch the space he could have on the right in the last photo. There would be less runs in behind, but maybe more runs at the defence
• More attacking formations/line ups. Seen a lot of people wanting us to play 3-4-1-2 with a midfielder sacrificed for a number 10, even with Norwood included in the midfield 2. Maybe there would be occasions when we could peg some more opposition players back, but I think the remaining two midfielders would just struggle more to cover space and we'd be punished a lot more than currently. I also see suggestions which include Mousset as a wide striker in a 3-4-3. Again, to put it mildly, I think this would leave us too vulnerable. I don't pay attention to suggestions which are reasoned with "we can't do any worse", or similar.

I take on board all you say Bergen.
Wilder says we havnt been rumbled!
Your reflections suggest we have.
Or is it we just dont have the nous to make the system work.

 

[JKBlade]

Completely agree we need to get another player into midfield. 30% possession again against Leicester, we just can’t keep the ball enough to build pressure going forward.

Trying to find someone to replace JOC has failed, and playing three central defenders is a waste.

We have to change something. Living off last season this long is insane.
I’d argue if this isn’t the time to take a wrecking ball to it then when is?

 

[Mojo]

When we first started playing with a back three I thought we were very good at making the formation a 3-5-2, as opposed to 5-3-2. We were so strong going forward that teams tried counter acting this by matching our formation. This meant their own wide play suffered, and our wing backs often were free to push into midfield to press and chase. This meant we had a midfield FIVE, helping us press and win the ball in good areas.

What happens regularly now is that opposition teams regularly have a man hugging the touch line high up at all times. This forces our wing backs to stay back to mark them. Consequently our midfield three are isolated and get a lot of space to cover. Against Leicester they pushed across, from side to side as they switched play, but really struggled to get close enough to make a challenge. It is tiring them out and affecting their energy offensively as well.

I wish it was possible to publish video clips to show this, but due to copyright stuff it's not possible. Instead, here are some screen shots:


Leicester switching from (our) left to right. Justin is occupying Baldock and just off the photo, Albrighton is doing the same to Lowe. Leicester are easily bypassing our strikers, despite McBurnie trying to help. Our midfield three push across, but struggle to get close to them.


View attachment 100055


Seconds later, Leicester switch play back again to the other side. Again our midfield trio have to run across to get anywhere near them.


View attachment 100056


When this happens over time gaps appear, and it becomes unclear who's supposed to press and who covers. With movement and skill they punish us, even though we have a back five. These images are from the attack that ended with Vardy getting in behind and hitting the post.

View attachment 100054


Is it possible for us to counteract this? We have to find some way of helping those three midfielders out. The first half at Leicester was embarrassing at times and fans are starting to argue about which individual player to single out.

Couple of options to consider:

• Pushing a centre half into midfield. We used to do this with Basham a lot. When it started looking like we were losing the midfield, he'd join them and help us press better, chase, get more tackles in. Bryan also has experience playing in midfield. We could do this for spells in games, not necessarily from the start.
  • Downsides to this? Basham is not always composed on the ball when pressed from various angles. After one of his last Championship matches in midfield he said he viewed himself as a centre half now, having looked uncomfortable. We lose a centre half to deal with situations in the box. Would the remaining two centre halves cope? We'd also lose the overlapping contribution from wide centre halves.
• Dropping a striker into midfield. I've advocated this a few times, playing 5-4-1. Burke has experience as a RM. Put him to the right of Lundstram in the last image and Justin may have to think twice about going so high. Same with Albrighton if he had a LM to chase after in case Leicester lose possession. A midfield four would mean smaller distance between our midfielders, making it easier to get a challenge in, easier to be more aggressive.
  • Downsides: Obviously we'll lose a player up front. Although it's not done much for us this season, Wilder wants to get a partnership going. We'd lose the threat of his pace in behind, if it means Burke goes to RM. But watch the space he could have on the right in the last photo. There would be less runs in behind, but maybe more runs at the defence
• More attacking formations/line ups. Seen a lot of people wanting us to play 3-4-1-2 with a midfielder sacrificed for a number 10, even with Norwood included in the midfield 2. Maybe there would be occasions when we could peg some more opposition players back, but I think the remaining two midfielders would just struggle more to cover space and we'd be punished a lot more than currently. I also see suggestions which include Mousset as a wide striker in a 3-4-3. Again, to put it mildly, I think this would leave us too vulnerable. I don't pay attention to suggestions which are reasoned with "we can't do any worse", or similar.

I think it's just having the balls to push up when we have the ball, if those opposition forwards don't track back then our full backs would be totally free.


It's like if you put 6 men up front when defending a corner, would the opposition team leave 6 men back to mark them?

 

[ancientblade]

Advocate of 4-5-1 or 5-4-1 here Certainly against some of the better sides who use the width really well like you have highlighted.

I think CW may be too stubborn to play one up top but he may be forced to soon to make us harder to beat. Although he’s adamant the system isn’t an issue - which I disagree with. First and foremost we need to stop being a soft touch to score against.

agree with you on this play 1 striker and get an extra man in midfield im also dissapointed chris hasnt tried something different and hes not on his own being stubborn plenty on here argue that its not the system to blame

 

[Houston_Blade]

a forward pass option.

FKA 'a hoof'.

 

[Geordie Blade]

What’s your thoughts on a 5-5-0 formation?

Might sound too defensive but when other teams have possession and are passing it round their defence, our strikers never get anywhere close to putting in a challenge so all that happens is there is a slight delay until they get over the half way line.

Then when we do get the ball, we can over run the opposition and it’s just a case of who we can use in the midfield to go into forward positions.

Sorry if this sounds stupid but I’m thinking something needs to change and wondered what your thoughts are as you seem knowledgeable.

If you do that, then it effectively means that the opposition can push all but one of their defenders up front to join attacks. The forwards have two jobs (i) to try and close down, and (ii) to be a deterrent to the other team. It still amazes me that so many teams bring every single player back for corners. Leaving one (or even two) on the halfway line take three or four of the opposition players out of the box.

 

[cooperblade]

When we first started playing with a back three I thought we were very good at making the formation a 3-5-2, as opposed to 5-3-2. We were so strong going forward that teams tried counter acting this by matching our formation. This meant their own wide play suffered, and our wing backs often were free to push into midfield to press and chase. This meant we had a midfield FIVE, helping us press and win the ball in good areas.

What happens regularly now is that opposition teams regularly have a man hugging the touch line high up at all times. This forces our wing backs to stay back to mark them. Consequently our midfield three are isolated and get a lot of space to cover. Against Leicester they pushed across, from side to side as they switched play, but really struggled to get close enough to make a challenge. It is tiring them out and affecting their energy offensively as well.

I wish it was possible to publish video clips to show this, but due to copyright stuff it's not possible. Instead, here are some screen shots:


Leicester switching from (our) left to right. Justin is occupying Baldock and just off the photo, Albrighton is doing the same to Lowe. Leicester are easily bypassing our strikers, despite McBurnie trying to help. Our midfield three push across, but struggle to get close to them.


View attachment 100055


Seconds later, Leicester switch play back again to the other side. Again our midfield trio have to run across to get anywhere near them.


View attachment 100056


When this happens over time gaps appear, and it becomes unclear who's supposed to press and who covers. With movement and skill they punish us, even though we have a back five. These images are from the attack that ended with Vardy getting in behind and hitting the post.

View attachment 100054


Is it possible for us to counteract this? We have to find some way of helping those three midfielders out. The first half at Leicester was embarrassing at times and fans are starting to argue about which individual player to single out.

Couple of options to consider:

• Pushing a centre half into midfield. We used to do this with Basham a lot. When it started looking like we were losing the midfield, he'd join them and help us press better, chase, get more tackles in. Bryan also has experience playing in midfield. We could do this for spells in games, not necessarily from the start.
  • Downsides to this? Basham is not always composed on the ball when pressed from various angles. After one of his last Championship matches in midfield he said he viewed himself as a centre half now, having looked uncomfortable. We lose a centre half to deal with situations in the box. Would the remaining two centre halves cope? We'd also lose the overlapping contribution from wide centre halves.
• Dropping a striker into midfield. I've advocated this a few times, playing 5-4-1. Burke has experience as a RM. Put him to the right of Lundstram in the last image and Justin may have to think twice about going so high. Same with Albrighton if he had a LM to chase after in case Leicester lose possession. A midfield four would mean smaller distance between our midfielders, making it easier to get a challenge in, easier to be more aggressive.
  • Downsides: Obviously we'll lose a player up front. Although it's not done much for us this season, Wilder wants to get a partnership going. We'd lose the threat of his pace in behind, if it means Burke goes to RM. But watch the space he could have on the right in the last photo. There would be less runs in behind, but maybe more runs at the defence
• More attacking formations/line ups. Seen a lot of people wanting us to play 3-4-1-2 with a midfielder sacrificed for a number 10, even with Norwood included in the midfield 2. Maybe there would be occasions when we could peg some more opposition players back, but I think the remaining two midfielders would just struggle more to cover space and we'd be punished a lot more than currently. I also see suggestions which include Mousset as a wide striker in a 3-4-3. Again, to put it mildly, I think this would leave us too vulnerable. I don't pay attention to suggestions which are reasoned with "we can't do any worse", or similar.

I think this (pushing the wing-backs back) was something that Steve Bruce did very well against us in the 0-0 at Hillsbro'.

One of the big issues for me with playing 1 up front is that if that player isn't McBurnie, we're going to really struggle to defend set pieces. That means it becomes very difficult to get Brewster or Mousset into the side. It's not an easy problem to solve.

 

[ancientblade]

I think this (pushing the wing-backs back) was something that Steve Bruce did very well against us in the 0-0 at Hillsbro'.

One of the big issues for me with playing 1 up front is that if that player isn't McBurnie, we're going to really struggle to defend set pieces. That means it becomes very difficult to get Brewster or Mousset into the side. It's not an easy problem to solve.

your right but if we do go 1 up top it has to be somebody with pace imo either mousset or brewster im not a mcburnie fan but do think he could play in behind the lone striker or even on one side of a front 3 most prem teams adopt this system now

 

[Kozzy_is_my_Dad]

Bergen Blade IN!

 

[NuddysGloves]

If you do that, then it effectively means that the opposition can push all but one of their defenders up front to join attacks. The forwards have two jobs (i) to try and close down, and (ii) to be a deterrent to the other team. It still amazes me that so many teams bring every single player back for corners. Leaving one (or even two) on the halfway line take three or four of the opposition players out of the box.

I've said this a lot as well that there should always be one man left on the halfway line, also from the attacking team they should always have a man offering the short corner option as it draws two defenders out (one of them being the first man that we always seem to hit!)

 

[Geordie Blade]

I've said this a lot as well that there should always be one man left on the halfway line, also from the attacking team they should always have a man offering the short corner option as it draws two defenders out (one of them being the first man that we always seem to hit!)

I remember playing in a schools game years ago, and the other team left six players forward when we had a corner! It absolutely freaked us out and we weren't sure what to do. I think in the end we left loads of players back, tried to play a short corner and dribble it in, but ran out of ideas and mucked it up.

 

[Houston_Blade]

If this is what teams are doing then either we carry on playing in the negative way that we have been so far or we 'go toe to toe' (using Wilder speak) and then just push our wing backs onto them. If we're going to get relegated we may as well as have a go in the process. If we are good enough when we push on then other teams will have to change their tactics to combat it. Easy this tactics malarkey.