Wing backs forced back

[blades14]

Another reason to play 4 at the back. Leave Baldock and Enda/Osborn to defend and defend. Creativity can come from midfield. Midfield will have an extra man so theyre not running around like headless chickens and gives us an option of either fleck, lundstrum or even didzy pushing upfront more without the worry of bursting to get back into position as that would be covered by berge or ampadu. Would allow more fluidity in midfield. Provides extra support for mcburnie and brewster. and allows more link play between attack and midfield without hoofing it up

 

[ancientblade]

Another reason to play 4 at the back. Leave Baldock and Enda/Osborn to defend and defend. Creativity can come from midfield. Midfield will have an extra man so theyre not running around like headless chickens and gives us an option of either fleck, lundstrum or even didzy pushing upfront more without the worry of bursting to get back into position as that would be covered by berge or ampadu. Would allow more fluidity in midfield. Provides extra support for mcburnie and brewster. and allows more link play between attack and midfield without hoofing it up

exactly because our centre backs dont overlap anymore were basically playing a back 5 every game ive wanted us to play 4 at the back for ages and go 433 lone striker with 1 either side but a little deeper its our only hope imo just go for it

 

[Pedro Verde]

Ive always been in favour of leaving 2 or 3 up when the oppostion have a corner

 

[Isaw Joeshaw]

Another reason to play 4 at the back. Leave Baldock and Enda/Osborn to defend and defend. Creativity can come from midfield. Midfield will have an extra man so theyre not running around like headless chickens and gives us an option of either fleck, lundstrum or even didzy pushing upfront more without the worry of bursting to get back into position as that would be covered by berge or ampadu. Would allow more fluidity in midfield. Provides extra support for mcburnie and brewster. and allows more link play between attack and midfield without hoofing it up

Much to commend in that post .

Many of the more successful teams , not only in the PL but across Europe often deploy a 4-1-3 -2 line up . This system eliminates many of the shortcomings of the one we persist in using , in spite of the fact that it has produced the worst ever start in the club’s history and made us the least attractive side to watch in the PL .

A back 4 with a holding midfielder sitting in front allows for the other 5 players , whilst not all being out and out strikers , to be naturally attack minded players who can put defenders under pressure , create chances for the front two and score the odd goal themselves .
There are a number of permutations of players who could be used in such a formation , but one that appeals to me is :-

...........................Ramsdale ........................
...Basham Egan Robinson Stevens
.................... Norwood or Berge.....................
Baldock..........McGoldrick ..........Burke ..........
............McBurnie / Brewster or Sharp...............

I’m sure having Fiery George at RCM will raise a few eyebrows but I believe he could be great in that role , rather than his present one of being expected to be Len Badger at one end of the pitch and Colin Morris at the other .

 

[coaxingstar71]

I totally agree, but I would add it doesn't help that we're turning the ball over so quickly and cheaply when we have it. Therefore the opposition has it and it's tiring our players out by having to chase them around.

I feel in this respect, we are masters of our own downfall.

 

[blackydog]

Hello, Stegosaurus here,

What I think is

Not important...

 

[COYB1988]

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.

Brewster has played left wing before as an inside forward and mousset can play either wing he would probably be a very good inside forward with his pace and dribbling tbh

 

[BanderSerge]

No he hasn’t

 

[Bladesman]

I totally agree, but I would add it doesn't help that we're turning the ball over so quickly and cheaply when we have it. Therefore the opposition has it and it's tiring our players out by having to chase them around.

I feel in this respect, we are masters of our own downfall.

True, if we keep giving the ball back then our wingbacks are going to be sat in their own half.

 

[Bergen Blade]

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.

In my opinion the main problem is that the wing backs aren't helping out with us being aggressive and winning possession when the opposition are attacking. In stead they are just passively holding a defensive position in case the opposition wide man get the ball. This gives the midfielders too much to do and makes us unable to win the ball, we're just trying to contain them. A few times we let Leicester pass the ball around until a gap appeared and then they just cut through us.

Our wing backs do move into advanced areas when we're in possession, but we're not good enough at the moment to regularly create chances from possession play. 30% possession, no rhythm or confidence, average players and we think we're going to outpass teams? Ampadu going into midfield when we have the ball wouldn't strengthen the midfield when we don't have the ball.

We'd be better off trying to be stronger in midfield, play with aggression and high intensity, win the ball and aim to hurt teams before they can get reorganised. To achieve this we can't allow players to have passive roles when we defend.

But it's difficult. We've struggled to deal with things in the box with a back five. If the opposition get to that point, it certainly won't be easier with a back four. I'm sure that's Wilder's dilemma.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Brewster has played left wing before as an inside forward and mousset can play either wing he would probably be a very good inside forward with his pace and dribbling tbh

With Mousset it's primarily his defensive work rate that I have doubts about. He'd be required to press, chase and back track. He wouldn't have to be a Nick Montgomery, but maybe at least a Grealish in terms of defensive work. If we got Mousset to even try that I think his attacking contribution would suffer. I'd love it if he proved me wrong on that.

 

[Large Mendonca]

With Mousset it's primarily his defensive work rate that I have doubts about. He'd be required to press, chase and back track. He wouldn't have to be a Nick Montgomery, but maybe at least a Grealish in terms of defensive work. If we got Mousset to even try that I think he'd be limping in no time. I'd love it if he proved me wrong on that.

Fixed it for you

 

[Bergen Blade]

Again our midfield three are given poor reviews, seemingly never winning the ball, nor offering much going forward.

Teams seemed to hate playing us last season and so many opposition fans said their team had an 'off day' against us. We were all over them and gave the opposition little room to play in. Now they've seemed to come up with a plan that works every time.

The master plan that stops Sheffield United:

Put a man high up and very wide on each side. This will force their wing backs back and prevent them from helping their midfielders. Pass it about a little and the tiring midfielders will soon leave gaps to play in. Then punish their struggling central defence with movement, pace and skill.





In the example above our wing backs are pushed back minding their men. S'oton's left back has drawn the attention of Berge. Ampadu is marking Romeu. Fleck is staying in his zone.

Adams holds off the challenge of Basham and no midfielder is close/alert enough to help him. Adams turns and plays Ings through, although Ramsdale saved us on this occasion. I think it shows that we don't manage to keep small distances between players when closing down, hence we never get close enough. When one player slips up, there is often nobody close enough to cover.

Wilder seems determined to keep two strikers, and when the wing backs are also pushed back, we only have three players left to chase and press. Again frustrated fans are singling out individual midfielders for criticism. I don't think it's fair.

 

[FMBlade1]

Yep been saying the same since August 2019:

Tactically outdone | S24SU Forum | Sheffield United Community

This is where Wilder needs to take responsbiliteh, rather than blaming everyone else

 

[Rudders]

Again our midfield three are given poor reviews, seemingly never winning the ball, nor offering much going forward.

Teams seemed to hate playing us last season and so many opposition fans said their team had an 'off day' against us. We were all over them and gave the opposition little room to play in. Now they've seemed to come up with a plan that works every time.

The master plan that stops Sheffield United:

Put a man high up and very wide on each side. This will force their wing backs back and prevent them from helping their midfielders. Pass it about a little and the tiring midfielders will soon leave gaps to play in. Then punish their struggling central defence with movement, pace and skill.



View attachment 100400

In the example above our wing backs are pushed back minding their men. S'oton's left back has drawn the attention of Berge. Ampadu is marking Romeu. Fleck is staying in his zone.

Adams holds off the challenge of Basham and no midfielder is close/alert enough to help him. Adams turns and plays Ings through, although Ramsdale saved us on this occasion. I think it shows that we don't manage to keep small distances between players when closing down, hence we never get close enough. When one player slips up, there is often nobody close enough to cover.

Wilder seems determined to keep two strikers, and when the wing backs are also pushed back, we only have three players left to chase and press. Again frustrated fans are singling out individual midfielders for criticism. I don't think it's fair.

I noticed this. We set out with a back 5 from the word go today, its definitely an instruction, the 2 strikers thing is pointless as they are so far from each other and never get decent service

 

[robbiez666]

The only person pushing our wingbacks back today was our manager. They followed his plan for the first 35 minutes.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Yep been saying the same since August 2019:

Tactically outdone | S24SU Forum | Sheffield United Community

This is where Wilder needs to take responsbiliteh, rather than blaming everyone else

The OP in that thread seemed more about how it could prevent our wide centre halves getting forward when we attacked?

What I think is happening at the moment is that teams are preventing our wing backs helping the midfielders out with pressing and chasing when the opposition attack. It turns us into a passive side low on aggression. Obviously our attacking play also suffers, as we never get any breaks.

 

[Rochdaleblade]

For the wing backs to get forward it needs the midfield to hold on to the ball.

 

[Bergen Blade]

For the wing backs to get forward it needs the midfield to hold on to the ball.

No, this is about wing backs not helping the midfield out defensively - apart form marking their men.

 

[Deadbat]

No, this is about wing backs not helping the midfield out defensively - apart form marking their men.

Agree but i will say we dont keep the ball for more than one or two passes ever so we have no chance of moving up the pitch collectively.

We just punt it forward or lose it meekly.

We have to defend so much as we are set up to not have the ball.

Teams have worked us out but if we dont engage/press and dont keep it when we do have it - we have no chance. Its on and off the ball the issue. Simple!

 

[Bergen Blade]

Agree but i will say we dont keep the ball for more than one or two passes ever so we have no chance of moving up the pitch collectively.

We just punt it forward or lose it meekly.

We have to defend so much as we are set up to not have the ball.

Teams have worked us out but if we dont engage/press and dont keep it when we do have it - we have no chance. Its on and off the ball the issue. Simple!

The way things are going the opposition are just keeping the ball until they decide they can get through us. Then they do. We're just trying to stay goalside (not winning the ball) as much as we can then hope to have enough men back to deal with things in the box. But often that fails too, also from set pieces.

If we find a way to compete better we will win the ball in more dangerous areas. This will help us break better, but also impact how many men teams push forward against us, hopefully reducing how they gegenpress. With us having very little pace today, and not doing more than containing them deep in our half, Southampton regularly just had their two centre halves back. So when they lost the ball they had plenty of players in forward positions who immediately put us under pressure. It often gave us the choice between long punts up to nobody, or losing the ball dangerously.

 

[robbiez666]

The way things are going the opposition are just keeping the ball until they decide they can get through us. Then they do. We're just trying to stay goalside (not winning the ball) as much as we can then hope to have enough men back to deal with things in the box. But often that fails too, also from set pieces.

If we find a way to compete better we will win the ball in more dangerous areas. This will help us break better, but also impact how many men teams push forward against us, hopefully reducing how they gegenpress. With us having very little pace today, and not doing more than containing them deep in our half, Southampton regularly just had their two centre halves back. So when they lost the ball they had plenty of players in forward positions who immediately put us under pressure. It often gave us the choice between long punts up to nobody, or losing the ball dangerously.

I really didn't understand today's team. Wider said after that his plan was to get men behind the ball and keep a good shape and yet he plays our two slowest strikers upfront so there's zero chance of counter-attacking. When the ball comes out there's no one to pass to as everyone is back. It's absolute madness.

 

[Rochdaleblade]

I really didn't understand today's team. Wider said after that his plan was to get men behind the ball and keep a good shape and yet he plays our two slowest strikers upfront so there's zero chance of counter-attacking. When the ball comes out there's no one to pass to as everyone is back. It's absolute madness.

I agree. If you want to play like that you need an out ball.

 

[cooperblade]

The way things are going the opposition are just keeping the ball until they decide they can get through us. Then they do. We're just trying to stay goalside (not winning the ball) as much as we can then hope to have enough men back to deal with things in the box. But often that fails too, also from set pieces.

If we find a way to compete better we will win the ball in more dangerous areas. This will help us break better, but also impact how many men teams push forward against us, hopefully reducing how they gegenpress. With us having very little pace today, and not doing more than containing them deep in our half, Southampton regularly just had their two centre halves back. So when they lost the ball they had plenty of players in forward positions who immediately put us under pressure. It often gave us the choice between long punts up to nobody, or losing the ball dangerously.

We've recruited with a very specific system in mind so we don't have many options for changing things round - we have no wingers. We also have to compensate for our lack of quality by, for example, playing with 3 centre backs.

I think we have two options at a basic level - be more defensive (probably 4-5-1) or go more attacking and try and push teams back a bit. The best I can manage is a 5-2-3 with the front 3 consisting of Burke, Mousset (both playing slightly wider than usual) and someone to link things up and sometimes drop into a 10 (so probably McGoldrick). The 2 central midfielders would just sit in and protect the defence. I'd play Baldock and Osborn at full back and ask them to get forward if possible.

If nothing else, at least the opposition's full backs would think twice about bombing forward all the time.

It's incredibly difficult. Our budget means we don't have suitable back-ups in a lot of positions and it also means we have little tactical flexibility. This was highlighted on Sunday when we went 4-4-2 with Basham and Fleck as the wide midfielders. I really don't think we helped ourselves by picking such a slow side though.

 

[Bladeinleeds]

We've recruited with a very specific system in mind so we don't have many options for changing things round - we have no wingers. We also have to compensate for our lack of quality by, for example, playing with 3 centre backs.

I think we have two options at a basic level - be more defensive (probably 4-5-1) or go more attacking and try and push teams back a bit. The best I can manage is a 5-2-3 with the front 3 consisting of Burke, Mousset (both playing slightly wider than usual) and someone to link things up and sometimes drop into a 10 (so probably McGoldrick). The 2 central midfielders would just sit in and protect the defence. I'd play Baldock and Osborn at full back and ask them to get forward if possible.

If nothing else, at least the opposition's full backs would think twice about bombing forward all the time.

It's incredibly difficult. Our budget means we don't have suitable back-ups in a lot of positions and it also means we have little tactical flexibility. This was highlighted on Sunday when we went 4-4-2 with Basham and Fleck as the wide midfielders. I really don't think we helped ourselves by picking such a slow side though.

The point with the slow side is spot on for me.

If our creative outlets (wing backs) are being pushed back - and make no mistake given the number of defensive minded midfielders we play they are our only creative hope.

we need to have some pace to punish the opposition and make them think twice about pressing so high up. Sharp and mcburnie was never the right call yesterday - not in a million years.

 

[Balham]

Is it time to ditch the 3 at the back given the difficulty it's causing us going forward now the counter measure (wide forwards) is so prevalent? Switching to a 5 man midfield with a mobile or hold-the-ball centre forward may give us a route out of this mess. That would rely on one of the central midfielders dropping into the defence when we're moving forward, switching us to a three and allowing the full backs to attack. There is also absolutely no point, in the current form, playing two centre forwards. At all. In fact, that's the sole thing which is making me question Wilder as it's coming across as intransigent to the point of naive.

Defending:

Ramsdale
Baldock Egan Jagielka* Stevens
Basham Berge Ampadu Fleck Lundstram
Mousset/McBurnie​

Attacking:

Ramsdale
Egan Ampadu Jagielka*
Baldock Basham Berge Fleck Lundstram Stevens
Mousset/McBurnie​

 

[bakeblade]

Again our midfield three are given poor reviews, seemingly never winning the ball, nor offering much going forward.

Teams seemed to hate playing us last season and so many opposition fans said their team had an 'off day' against us. We were all over them and gave the opposition little room to play in. Now they've seemed to come up with a plan that works every time.

The master plan that stops Sheffield United:

Put a man high up and very wide on each side. This will force their wing backs back and prevent them from helping their midfielders. Pass it about a little and the tiring midfielders will soon leave gaps to play in. Then punish their struggling central defence with movement, pace and skill.



View attachment 100400

In the example above our wing backs are pushed back minding their men. S'oton's left back has drawn the attention of Berge. Ampadu is marking Romeu. Fleck is staying in his zone.

Adams holds off the challenge of Basham and no midfielder is close/alert enough to help him. Adams turns and plays Ings through, although Ramsdale saved us on this occasion. I think it shows that we don't manage to keep small distances between players when closing down, hence we never get close enough. When one player slips up, there is often nobody close enough to cover.

Wilder seems determined to keep two strikers, and when the wing backs are also pushed back, we only have three players left to chase and press. Again frustrated fans are singling out individual midfielders for criticism. I don't think it's fair.

I reckon all the opposition managers knew how to stop us last season by playing the above. However they were generally not prepared to change their preferred system to cope with a newly promoted side. Now they realise by changing its an easy 3 points. That's why we've got to start surprising them with a plan b or c.

 

[Bergen Blade]

We've recruited with a very specific system in mind so we don't have many options for changing things round - we have no wingers. We also have to compensate for our lack of quality by, for example, playing with 3 centre backs.

I think we have two options at a basic level - be more defensive (probably 4-5-1) or go more attacking and try and push teams back a bit. The best I can manage is a 5-2-3 with the front 3 consisting of Burke, Mousset (both playing slightly wider than usual) and someone to link things up and sometimes drop into a 10 (so probably McGoldrick). The 2 central midfielders would just sit in and protect the defence. I'd play Baldock and Osborn at full back and ask them to get forward if possible.

If nothing else, at least the opposition's full backs would think twice about bombing forward all the time.

It's incredibly difficult. Our budget means we don't have suitable back-ups in a lot of positions and it also means we have little tactical flexibility. This was highlighted on Sunday when we went 4-4-2 with Basham and Fleck as the wide midfielders. I really don't think we helped ourselves by picking such a slow side though.

Agree it's difficult. Tinkering may also result in worse results, heavier defeats and what then? But it's probably worth trying something and I'd be interested in your suggestion, though I'd also worry that better teams would still make us struggle to cover enough space in midfield. And would Mousset cope with some sort of defensive work load?

Personally I'd try to address the problem for now by sacrificing a striker and playing 5-4-1, which is a variant of your 5-2-3. I'd try Burke and Osborn as wide players and let them play as in a regular midfield four when we defend. In the S'oton screen shot it would be Burke who would go to close down Bertrand. Berge would stay in a more solid partnership with Ampadu and the fourth midfielder (Osborn) may make Walker-Peters think twice about drifting so high and wide. Consequently Stevens wouldn't have to be so wide and we'd generally appear more compact and better equipped to chase and press as a group. If a player slipped up it would be more likely that another teammate would be nearer to compensate. With a pacey striker S'oton's centre halves may be a bit more worried as well.



On paper it looks negative, but we're at the stage now where I think we must try to knock the losing habit out of the players and become harder to beat.

 

[247Blade]

No Stevens and Jags thats fine .... dont ask for alternatives because there are none at the club!

 

[robbiez666]

Agree it's difficult. Tinkering may also result in worse results, heavier defeats and what then? But it's probably worth trying something and I'd be interested in your suggestion, though I'd also worry that better teams would still make us struggle to cover enough space in midfield. And would Mousset cope with some sort of defensive work load?

Personally I'd try to address the problem for now by sacrificing a striker and playing 5-4-1, which is a variant of your 5-2-3. I'd try Burke and Osborn as wide players and let them play as in a regular midfield four when we defend. In the S'oton screen shot it would be Burke who would go to close down Bertrand. Berge would stay in a more solid partnership with Ampadu and the fourth midfielder (Osborn) may make Walker-Peters think twice about drifting so high and wide. Consequently Stevens wouldn't have to be so wide and we'd generally appear more compact and better equipped to chase and press as a group. If a player slipped up it would be more likely that another teammate would be nearer to compensate. With a pacey striker S'oton's centre halves may be a bit more worried as well.

View attachment 100481

On paper it looks negative, but we're at the stage now where I think we must try to knock the losing habit out of the players and become harder to beat.

I just don't see Mousset being able to hold a ball up. I'd rather have McGoldrick in there with Burke going beyond when we need an outlet.