3 at the back!

#1
We need to change to a back 3 at ibrox and put kamara or jack in the back 3.

the amount of time worrall and goldson have on the ball n have no ideas

Someone more comfortable on the ball at the back. With 3 centre mids infront of him will find a pass and if not on can bring the ball out until they are closed down creating space for others.

Obviously this is only an option at ibrox
 

RFC4ME

Well-Known Member
#6
We have barely lost a goal in weeks - chucking on a defender neither affords us better defensive stability or more attacking options.

A team on paper laid out in 3-5-2 looks shit
 
#8
We need to change to a back 3 at ibrox and put kamara or jack in the back 3.

the amount of time worrall and goldson have on the ball n have no ideas

Someone more comfortable on the ball at the back. With 3 centre mids infront of him will find a pass and if not on can bring the ball out until they are closed down creating space for others.

Obviously this is only an option at ibrox
Jack gave the ball to worral last night umpteen times to start the attacks off.
 

Sebo1872

Well-Known Member
#9
I don't mind the idea of a 3 5 2 but playing Kamara or Jack at CB is a woeful idea.

We need to see if Defoe is up to it for next season and if this squad are capable of playing in that formation. There is no point in trying it for one game or 15-20 mins here and there.

Commit to it and give it a proper chance.
 

essexbluenose

Well-Known Member
#13
Tried a back three at Motherwell, drew because of a freak goal but played some great stuff.

Yet 99.9% of fans had a meltdown about it and demanded to go back to 4-3-3 immediately.
Also played Flanagan as CB.

Back 3 could of worked a times this season but its too late now
 

MearnsUnionist

Well-Known Member
#14
Playing 3 central defenders against teams who defend deep, with 1 up front makes no sense.

You're actually reducing your attacking capabilities and playing an extra defender.

There's other, more attacking formations to play more than 1 striker.
 
#15
Jack mccrorie kamara all want to have the ball and be looking at the game infront of thrm. Not getting the ball passed into there feet with there back to goal.

Tht is why jack comes so deep to get the ball then he only has arfield n kamara and both have a man on them and opposition have a spare man in there aswell, with goldson and worrall stand either side of him in acres of space
 
#16
Dropping back a traditional ‘midfield’ player as part of a 3 has worked for other teams but requires high stand of player.

it would look more like 2 at back with the midfielder slightly in centre , the wing backs providing additional coverage , but the 2 should be enough given only 1up front by most of our opposition and we would still have our 3 central midfielders in advance of that as well

Discounting it out of hand is short sighted, there is no question teams, especially at Ibrox are happy to concede possession & time to Goldson & Worrall as they don’t have the passing skills / vision to do anything with the ball
 

ICA_86

Well-Known Member
#17
Playing 3 central defenders against teams who defend deep, with 1 up front makes no sense.

You're actually reducing your attacking capabilities and playing an extra defender.

There's other, more attacking formations to play more than 1 striker.
3 at the back is more defensive than a 4 if you depend on the full backs like we do, absolutely.
 
#19
I don't mind the idea of a 3 5 2 but playing Kamara or Jack at CB is a woeful idea.

We need to see if Defoe is up to it for next season and if this squad are capable of playing in that formation. There is no point in trying it for one game or 15-20 mins here and there.

Commit to it and give it a proper chance.
At ibrox?? U want to play 3 centre backs! Against 1 striker
 

MearnsUnionist

Well-Known Member
#20
Tried a back three at Motherwell, drew because of a freak goal but played some great stuff.

Yet 99.9% of fans had a meltdown about it and demanded to go back to 4-3-3 immediately.

We played well in the 1st half, but Motherwell played an extra midfielder 2nd half and we could barely get out our own half.

We were fortunate to get a draw in the end, as they missed some absolute sitters.
 

MearnsUnionist

Well-Known Member
#24
We would have 2 up and still have 3 on 3 in midfield

The way we play at the moment we have 3 forwards and 5 midfielders when attacking and 4 defenders and 5 midfielders when defending.

With 3-5-2 you'll always be 1 attacking player short.

Like I said earlier, there's better, more attacking ways to play 2 strikers than 3-5-2.
 
#25
3 forwards n 5 midfielders the now and 1 of they players will have the ball, my way the guy with the ball at the back will have 7 players infront of him so not losing an attacking option. And still have 3 guys in the centre moving off the ball to find space. With someone who is confident on the ball in possession of it
 
#26
Jack has ball. Options infront of him last nyt.

Arfield and kamara against 3 aberdeen centre mids

Play a 3 at back with jack in there.

He has arfield kamara and davis/mccrorie against 3 aberdeen centre mids.

1 of they aberdeen cm needs to step out to pressure jack or he will be confident enough to keep coming forward with the ball.

If aberdeen cm does the inevitable and closes jack down we have a 3 2 advantage in the middle of the park to find a pass and get onto there back 4.
 

Once a BEAR

Well-Known Member
#30
Katic should be in the team every game, said it many times before he is our best centre half. Again Goldson kept passing the ball to them or out the pitch, shocking.
 
#34
Well i would rather it be 3 centre backs over your idea of a CM who has never played CB before, Yes.

It could also help a bit more with set pieces defensively and offensively as it adds more presence.
U want to add another player that isnt comfortable on the ball into the team, in a game when we have 70% possession. Clever
 

Sebo1872

Well-Known Member
#35
U want to add another player that isnt comfortable on the ball into the team, in a game when we have 70% possession. Clever
Your posts and ideas are borderline mental at times.

I'll state again if we had to play 3 at the back as YOU are suggesting i would rather a CB who knows the role rather than playing a CM out of position, i don't see how that makes any sense.
 
#36
Your posts and ideas are borderline mental at times.

I'll state again if we had to play 3 at the back as YOU are suggesting i would rather a CB who knows the role rather than playing a CM out of position, i don't see how that makes any sense.
Because our cb's are the players that have most of the ball, if we had bougherra in our side we would be able to break teams down at home.
 
#38
Tried a back three at Motherwell, drew because of a freak goal but played some great stuff.

Yet 99.9% of fans had a meltdown about it and demanded to go back to 4-3-3 immediately.
One freak goals, 2nd goal was pathetic markung at the back post and the manager making a khünt of a substitution that he put his hand up for and a 2nd half that saw us resort to Motherwells style. We sat too deep, any time we got the ball we just launched it up the park and watches it come back even quicker.

First half was different gravy, the goals were fantastic passages of play, we were absolutely fantastic in an attacking sense and lets not forget we had Flanagan left side of the back three and Arfield going off for Halliday didn't help the midfield one bit.

3-5-2 for us is a better option than 4-3-3 or 4-4-2, which would see us absolutely dominated down the middle of the park, leaving the full backs exposed.

Nothing to play for, we might as try some thing as the current set up and failure to change is chronic.
 

wsb&warmy

Well-Known Member
#39
Playing 3 central defenders against teams who defend deep, with 1 up front makes no sense.

You're actually reducing your attacking capabilities and playing an extra defender.

There's other, more attacking formations to play more than 1 striker.
I posted on the other thread (Defoe & Morelos together) about this...

I'd maybe like to see 3 at the back, it COULD work against deeper lying teams by the central of the 3 moving forward into a midfield sweeper position when we're in possession, which in turn pushes the central midfielders slightly further up the pitch meaning we have less gap between frontline and midfield.

Would effectively look like a back 2 in possession and out of possession it reverts back to a back 3/5.

I think it could definitely work but it might not be the time to start trying it out now as it might take weeks to get it settled properly.
 

Caldow1872

Well-Known Member
#40
We need to change to a back 3 at ibrox and put kamara or jack in the back 3.

the amount of time worrall and goldson have on the ball n have no ideas

Someone more comfortable on the ball at the back. With 3 centre mids infront of him will find a pass and if not on can bring the ball out until they are closed down creating space for others.

Obviously this is only an option at ibrox
No we do not need to put a midfielder in defence FFS
 

derBovril

Well-Known Member
#41
I posted on the other thread (Defoe & Morelos together) about this...

I'd maybe like to see 3 at the back, it COULD work against deeper lying teams by the central of the 3 moving forward into a midfield sweeper position when we're in possession, which in turn pushes the central midfielders slightly further up the pitch meaning we have less gap between frontline and midfield.

Would effectively look like a back 2 in possession and out of possession it reverts back to a back 3/5.

I think it could definitely work but it might not be the time to start trying it out now as it might take weeks to get it settled properly.
Exactly, the back three would not just sit in their 18 yard box. Attacking shape would be more 2-1-5-2.
 

instructor

Well-Known Member
#43
I think with a back 3 the opposition will just kick the ball over Tav's head and we will be in trouble. Wouldn't mind trying to get 2 forwards on, why not try 4-4-2?
 

90minsofmadness

Well-Known Member
#45
we do need to look at 3-5-2 but not by moving midfielders back

We could try keeping the midfielders and wingers and lose the full backs

McRorie Goldson Worrall
Jack Kamara
Candias Arfield Kent
Morelos Defoe
 
#46
U have just put a midfielder back into the defence btw
we do need to look at 3-5-2 but not by moving midfielders back

We could try keeping the midfielders and wingers and lose the full backs

McRorie Goldson Worrall
Jack Kamara
Candias Arfield Kent
Morelos Defoe
U have just put a midfielder back into defence btw!
 

sw26

Well-Known Member
#48
We played well in the 1st half, but Motherwell played an extra midfielder 2nd half and we could barely get out our own half.

We were fortunate to get a draw in the end, as they missed some absolute sitters.
Is this not where tactical flexibility (or lack thereof) comes in?

One of my criticisms of Gerrard to date is he seems reluctant to move away from ‘plan A’ unless forced to by, for example, a sending off or a needs must approach when we are chasing a game.

We were 3-2 up at half time against Motherwell, there was nothing preventing a switch to a more rigid system second half to bolster the midfield and play more on the counter but we persisted with the 3-5-2 and paid the price in the end.
 

Jjbscotty

Well-Known Member
#49
------------- -Mcgregor-------------
--Goldson---McCrorie--- Worrall
—Tav————————— —Halliday
----------Kamara---Davis-----
———— ------Kent-----—————

------------- Defoe Morelos—————
 
Top