belgium 3-4-2-1 formation

Govan loyal

Active Member
ad really like to see us give this a bash at some point as we have the players to execute it. think it could be very useful in european away ties.

McGregor GK


helenader CB
goldson CB
katic CB

borna LWB
davis CM
jack CM
tav RWB

kent CAM
arfield CAM

morelos ST

a think this would work a treat in europe and even away domestically as well. weve also kamara and king can slot into CM role. aribo and ojo for CAM as well. gerrard did say he mite use the 3 at the back formation when signing helander
 
Last edited:

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
ad really like to see us give this a bash at some point as we have the players to execute it. think it could be very useful in european away ties.

McGregor GK

goldson CB
katic CB
helenader CB

tav RWB
davis CM
jack CM
borna LWB

arfield CAM
kent CAM

morelos ST

a think this would work a treat in europe and even away domestically as well. weve also kamara and king can slot into CM role. aribo and ojo for CAM as well. gerrard did say he mite use the 3 at the back formation when signing helander
Your post would have been clearer laid out as I've amended it above.

Personally I've never been a fan of 3/5 at the back and I wouldn't want to go down that route - though I do understand the arguments in favour. Simply looks like trying to shoehorn 3 of our 4 centre-backs in to me.
 

Business_Bear

Well-Known Member
The Belgian defence is unbelievably composed with the ball at their feet, I'm not sure if Goldson and Katic's distribution would be good enough?
 

ICA_86

Well-Known Member
Can’t believe you’re even trying to suggest a different formation on here, the mass panic is sparks is pretty amusing.

We definitely need more than one formation, be it a 3-5-2/3-4-3 variant or a standard 4-4-2.

The idea that we’ll only play one way and that’s that is Warburton-esque.
 

tazzabear

Well-Known Member
Your post would have been clearer laid out as I've amended it above.

Personally I've never been a fan of 3/5 at the back and I wouldn't want to go down that route - though I do understand the arguments in favour. Simply looks like trying to shoehorn 3 of our 4 centre-backs in to me.
I always have the same comment and the same question on this topic.
Three at the back is often one more than we play!
Also, a way to beat a three is to play the ball into the area behind the wide player, let’s say wing back.
Pulls a centre back out and puts the wing back on his heels.
This can be countered of course but, I think the defending team has lost the initiative at this point.
One more thing, Conte and Martinez know a helluva lot more than I do on this.
 

TN8

Well-Known Member
I dont think theres any real tactical reason for doing this in Scottish football. Taking out a midfielder just to shoehorn in another centre back. Our full-backs play high up anyway. Think you'd just be reducing our attacking threat.
 

AriseSirWalter

Well-Known Member
I’ve posted this many times, it’s a formation I’d like to see us use when we need to be tough to break down. It gives you 2 supporting the forward without sacrificing the central area.

Rodgers used it against us at Ibrox against Murty when everyone fancied us and IMO they wouldn’t have won had it not been for that formation.

McGregor
Katic Goldson Helander
Tav Jack Davis Kent
Aribo Arfield
Morelos
Would give you natural width from Tav and Kent and would allow you to change to a 4321 without subs (assuming Helander would be ok at LB, might not be the case).

But definitely something worth exploring. The more flexible we are in terms of tactics the better.

I’d like us to become comfortable with a back three as it’d allow us to pack the midfield like above or go with two up front without sacrificing midfield.
 

AriseSirWalter

Well-Known Member
I dont think theres any real tactical reason for doing this in Scottish football. Taking out a midfielder just to shoehorn in another centre back. Our full-backs play high up anyway. Think you'd just be reducing our attacking threat.
It would be useful when going to the piggery IMO, and maybe Tynecastle/pittodrie. It gives us a solid structure to dominate/contain midfield, while still allowing support for the striker. Plus if we were under the cosh we could easily revert to 541 to weather attacks without subs.

In terms of games where we’re having to attack going 3 at the back would allow us to go 352 and get crosses into forwards - although if doing this we’ve probably ran out of ideas.
 

SDF

Well-Known Member
Kinda nullifies your argument when one of the best teams in the world played it against Scotland and it was like a training match for them
Scotland weren't sitting with two lines of four and five strung along their 18 yard box the way St Mirren, Livi and Killie are.
 

ca100

Well-Known Member
I just don't think Barisic would give us enough going forward for us to use this formation domestically right now.

On the H&H tactics pod, Ally Bain suggested a similar formation with Jones at LWB.
 

ElBarrileteCosmico

Well-Known Member
If you’re genuinely counting the wing backs in that formation above as out and out defenders, then nobody can help you.
Ive not played football manager in ages but Tav and Barisic are defenders. You just made the “out and out defender” but for a little dramatic flourish I suppose.
 
Last edited:

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
Can’t believe you’re even trying to suggest a different formation on here, the mass panic is sparks is pretty amusing.

We definitely need more than one formation, be it a 3-5-2/3-4-3 variant or a standard 4-4-2.

The idea that we’ll only play one way and that’s that is Warburton-esque.
We have played, and do play, different variants - just not 3/5 at the back. We've see 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1, 4-3-2-1, 4-1-3-1-1 and I think 4-4-2 even crept in there somewhere along the line.;)
 

JCDarcheville

Well-Known Member
Why anyone would want to sacrifice a central midfielder / forward player to accommodate an extra centre half is absolutely beyond me!

Our biggest issue is slow, non penetrating passes across our back line from central defenders against teams that let them have the ball. This would only make it worse.
 

Govan loyal

Active Member
Why anyone would want to sacrifice a central midfielder / forward player to accommodate an extra centre half is absolutely beyond me!

Our biggest issue is slow, non penetrating passes across our back line from central defenders against teams that let them have the ball. This would only make it worse.
still have 2 centre mids alang wae 2 attacking mids a striker and 2 wingbacks with the full freedom to attack knowing theres 3 at thw back at all times incase a counter attack. not thats still plenty of attacking options. not like its going all out defensive and leaving us short up front.
 

Bob Belcher

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
I think if you play that formation Edmundson would have to start as he is the prob the most composed CB with the ball at his feet
My first thought too. His passing's excellent.

That said, I don't get why 3-at-the-back threads pop up every week. I don't think there's any real need for us to use it, however back 3 would free up both wing-backs and CMs to go forward, whereas at the minute if our full-backs move up the pitch, Jack and Davis usually drop in to plug the gaps.
 

JCDarcheville

Well-Known Member
still have 2 centre mids alang wae 2 attacking mids a striker and 2 wingbacks with the full freedom to attack knowing theres 3 at thw back at all times incase a counter attack. not thats still plenty of attacking options. not like its going all out defensive and leaving us short up front.
Relative to the way we play now, we have one more centre half in the team and he comes first from a more forward area. I don’t understand why that is desirable.
 

Govan loyal

Active Member
Relative to the way we play now, we have one more centre half in the team and he comes first from a more forward area. I don’t understand why that is desirable.
away in europe can lead to tough games of which we may need to sit in for alot of it. think it would give us good balance and good options to go on the counter as well.
 

JCDarcheville

Well-Known Member
away in europe can lead to tough games of which we may need to sit in for alot of it. think it would give us good balance and good options to go on the counter as well.
I think against a team that we are likely to have limited possession, and which plays with 2 or 3 forwards, it could make sense.

It limits our ability to press though and on the counter you are asking a hell of a lot of the wing backs to get forward.
 

whitbybear45

Well-Known Member
I have advocated 3 at the back for some time now and I do think we have the players to make it a success. Katic, Helmander and Edmundson are all good,fast and intelligent players both as defenders and providing a springboard for attack. In Borna and Tav we have potentially the best wide attacking full backs in the country. With Davis, Jack and Aribo in the middle of a 5 man midfield there is no chance of us being outnumbered and the opposition will find that there is no room for them to dwell on the ball and start attacks. Up front, we have Alfie and Kent. Nuff said.
 

Gee

Member
Think Kamara long term is our best option in there
Are you mad??? He hasn’t kicked a ball since the 2-0 win over them he gives the ball away in dangerous positions often the honeymoon period is over now he was a bargain at 50k but he is no more than a squad filler and if he was a regular we can forget catching them as he simply isn’t good enough
 

Valley Bluenose

Well-Known Member
I have advocated 3 at the back for some time now and I do think we have the players to make it a success. Katic, Helmander and Edmundson are all good,fast and intelligent players both as defenders and providing a springboard for attack. In Borna and Tav we have potentially the best wide attacking full backs in the country. With Davis, Jack and Aribo in the middle of a 5 man midfield there is no chance of us being outnumbered and the opposition will find that there is no room for them to dwell on the ball and start attacks. Up front, we have Alfie and Kent. Nuff said.
You've just dropped Goldson and Arfield mate. Not happening.
 

supersonic

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
ad really like to see us give this a bash at some point as we have the players to execute it. think it could be very useful in european away ties.

McGregor GK


helenader CB
goldson CB
katic CB

borna LWB
davis CM
jack CM
tav RWB

kent CAM
arfield CAM

morelos ST

a think this would work a treat in europe and even away domestically as well. weve also kamara and king can slot into CM role. aribo and ojo for CAM as well. gerrard did say he mite use the 3 at the back formation when signing helander
Seen it the other night and thought exactly the same. 5 at the back when out of possession then high full backs in possession. outside CBs are in better position to pass to pass to full backs who already in advanced starting position.
 
Top