What's The Sudden Obsession With 3 At The Back On Here?

MearnsUnionist

Well-Known Member
....I'm guessing it's because of the tarrier's recent run of form?

Let's remember this was no tactical masterpiece from Lennon, it was forced upon him.

His 1st choice right back (El Ahmed) was injured and so was his 2nd choice (Frimpong).

He doesn't trust Bauer, so he decided to go with 3 central defenders and play Forrest at right wing back and Taylor (usually) at left wing back.

To be fair, he had the bottle to drop his attacking mid (Christie) and play 3 more central mids in Brown, McGregor and Ntcham.

He's also got 2 strikers who are more comfortable playing in a partnership, rather than on their own.

Gerrard has been without Tav since December and Jack since ht at Tynecastle.
He also lost Borna at Hamilton.

You can argue that Gerrard should've done what Lennon did and adjusted his formation to suit the players he had available.

However, if Borna is fit, for the 1st time this year he now has the personnel to play the same formation that was scoring for fun and winning consistently in Scotland and Europe.

Should we go with.....

McGregor
Tav Goldson Katic Barisic
Jack Davis Kamara
Hagi Kent
Morelos

It's maybe harsh on Arfield, Aribo and Stewart, but they're great options from the bench.

Remember, apart from Hagi, that's the players who destroyed Celtic at the piggery and won consistently in Scotland and Europe and were scoring for fun.

Should we not go back to it, now they are all available again?

If not, why not?
 

Bigbluebear

Well-Known Member
He didnt drop Christie either. He was suspended / injured.

He made changes to suit players he had available.

We have struggled on with square pegs in round holes when we have had important players out. Maybe a switch in formation would help us and make us more difficult to figure out.
 

Myc74

Well-Known Member
I don't get it either. Most teams we face domestically play with one striker (if even) so i honestly don't see what the benefit would be in sending out 3 CH's to mark one guy.
Maybe I'm missing something
 

GimmeShelter

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
We could really do with two strikers up front.

The two number 10’s playing behind Alfie isnt working at the moment, they simply don’t contribute enough.

And as we are finding out, when Alfie isnt on top of his game we really struggle.
 

Ballymena Bear

Well-Known Member
I don't get it either. Most teams we face domestically play with one striker (if even) so i honestly don't see what the benefit would be in sending out 3 CH's to mark one guy.
Maybe I'm missing something
It’s more for the benefit of having the rb and lb attacking more
 

BlueKop

Well-Known Member
....I'm guessing it's because of the tarrier's recent run of form?

Let's remember this was no tactical masterpiece from Lennon, it was forced upon him.

His 1st choice right back (El Ahmed) was injured and so was his 2nd choice (Frimpong).

He doesn't trust Bauer, so he decided to go with 3 central defenders and play Forrest at right wing back and Taylor (usually) at left wing back.

To be fair, he had the bottle to drop his attacking mid (Christie) and play 3 more central mids in Brown, McGregor and Ntcham.

He's also got 2 strikers who are more comfortable playing in a partnership, rather than on their own.

Gerrard has been without Tav since December and Jack since ht at Tynecastle.
He also lost Borna at Hamilton.

You can argue that Gerrard should've done what Lennon did and adjusted his formation to suit the players he had available.

However, if Borna is fit, for the 1st time this year he now has the personnel to play the same formation that was scoring for fun and winning consistently in Scotland and Europe.

Should we go with.....

McGregor
Tav Goldson Katic Barisic
Jack Davis Kamara
Hagi Kent
Morelos

It's maybe harsh on Arfield, Aribo and Stewart, but they're great options from the bench.

Remember, apart from Hagi, that's the players who destroyed Celtic at the piggery and won consistently in Scotland and Europe and were scoring for fun.

Should we not go back to it, now they are all available again?

If not, why not?
spot on as usual MU, if need be arfield/aribo on for kamara/davis/jack and change 4231 with hagi through middle and kent out wide on the left, no more free roles in the final 3rd
 

Trueblueal

Well-Known Member
L
....I'm guessing it's because of the tarrier's recent run of form?

Let's remember this was no tactical masterpiece from Lennon, it was forced upon him.

His 1st choice right back (El Ahmed) was injured and so was his 2nd choice (Frimpong).

He doesn't trust Bauer, so he decided to go with 3 central defenders and play Forrest at right wing back and Taylor (usually) at left wing back.

To be fair, he had the bottle to drop his attacking mid (Christie) and play 3 more central mids in Brown, McGregor and Ntcham.

He's also got 2 strikers who are more comfortable playing in a partnership, rather than on their own.

Gerrard has been without Tav since December and Jack since ht at Tynecastle.
He also lost Borna at Hamilton.

You can argue that Gerrard should've done what Lennon did and adjusted his formation to suit the players he had available.

However, if Borna is fit, for the 1st time this year he now has the personnel to play the same formation that was scoring for fun and winning consistently in Scotland and Europe.

Should we go with.....

McGregor
Tav Goldson Katic Barisic
Jack Davis Kamara
Hagi Kent
Morelos

It's maybe harsh on Arfield, Aribo and Stewart, but they're great options from the bench.

Remember, apart from Hagi, that's the players who destroyed Celtic at the piggery and won consistently in Scotland and Europe and were scoring for fun.

Should we not go back to it, now they are all available again?

If not, why not?
It's the front end of that team people will worry about. Kent isn't a ten and Hagi shouldn't get shunted wide. Add Kamberi to that team next to Alfie and bring Hagi central and you have a team with balance
 

Ballymena Bear

Well-Known Member
Tav and Barisic do plenty of attacking in our 4-3-2-1 mate.

They've got almost 30 assists between them this season.
I think the 3 wouldn’t suit us anyway mate. People just looking at what Celtic are doing. Argument is they get even more forward and allows another man up top.

We need to try two strikers but don’t think the 3 cbs is the way to do it
 

Brydo

Well-Known Member
I’m going to sound a bit harsh here, but I think it’s to avoid Halliday or Flanagan playing.

If Borna is fit then back 4.
 

MearnsUnionist

Well-Known Member
L

It's the front end of that team people will worry about. Kent isn't a ten and Hagi shouldn't get shunted wide. Add Kamberi to that team next to Alfie and bring Hagi central and you have a team with balance

The balance couldn't have been better pre Dubai.

Why not play that way again, now we've got all our key players available again?
 

Trueblueal

Well-Known Member
Shagger
Tav Goldson Katic Barisic
Arfield Davis Jack
Hagi
Kamberi Morelos

Aribo and Kent not scoring enough a don't belong in a narrow front 3 at the moment.
 

LostBoy

Member
We need more fire power up top. Our two no10s don’t/aren’t working so surely trying something new isn’t a bad idea
 

Trueblueal

Well-Known Member
The balance couldn't have been better pre Dubai.

Why not play that way again, now we've got all our key players available again?
Hagi is a classic 10 not a striker. I'm not convinced by the 2 10s description. To me it's been 3 upfront but 2 of them are not suited. That's how it looks to me despite the labels attached to Aribo and Kent when they are up there.
 

Vice

Well-Known Member
I've been dead against this 3 t the back idea ever since Motherwell last season but in the last few days I've been trying to think how we would break it down now they play it in the next Old Firm and I'm starting to warm to it but I'm still not entirely convinced it would work. I'd like to see something that packs out the middle to front better though
 

Port Sunlight Ger

Well-Known Member
....I'm guessing it's because of the tarrier's recent run of form?

Let's remember this was no tactical masterpiece from Lennon, it was forced upon him.

His 1st choice right back (El Ahmed) was injured and so was his 2nd choice (Frimpong).

He doesn't trust Bauer, so he decided to go with 3 central defenders and play Forrest at right wing back and Taylor (usually) at left wing back.

To be fair, he had the bottle to drop his attacking mid (Christie) and play 3 more central mids in Brown, McGregor and Ntcham.

He's also got 2 strikers who are more comfortable playing in a partnership, rather than on their own.

Gerrard has been without Tav since December and Jack since ht at Tynecastle.
He also lost Borna at Hamilton.

You can argue that Gerrard should've done what Lennon did and adjusted his formation to suit the players he had available.

However, if Borna is fit, for the 1st time this year he now has the personnel to play the same formation that was scoring for fun and winning consistently in Scotland and Europe.

Should we go with.....

McGregor
Tav Goldson Katic Barisic
Jack Davis Kamara
Hagi Kent
Morelos

It's maybe harsh on Arfield, Aribo and Stewart, but they're great options from the bench.

Remember, apart from Hagi, that's the players who destroyed Celtic at the piggery and won consistently in Scotland and Europe and were scoring for fun.

Should we not go back to it, now they are all available again?

If not, why not?
One thing that 3 at the back gives you is bigger threats at set pieces.The best chance most teams have against us at set pieces.There was an aerial view of the game on wed showing 22 players in the
Centre area of park.That suited them.With Borna out we were very predictable.
Maybe if Jones was introduced when we were ahead it would have put them on the back foot.If someone said good news bad news situ.Beat the scum well at their dump.Still in Europe.Miles ahead of third.We know
the bad news ! Fingers crossed we go unbeaten in league till the end of the season.
 

Bigbluebear

Well-Known Member
One thing that 3 at the back gives you is bigger threats at set pieces.The best chance most teams have against us at set pieces.There was an aerial view of the game on wed showing 22 players in the
Centre area of park.That suited them.With Borna out we were very predictable.
Maybe if Jones was introduced when we were ahead it would have put them on the back foot.If someone said good news bad news situ.Beat the scum well at their dump.Still in Europe.Miles ahead of third.We know
the bad news ! Fingers crossed we go unbeaten in league till the end of the season.
Julien and simunovic both scored from set plays the other night for them.

Our only real threat at set plays is Katic. Goldson isn't really aggressive enough.
 

tazzabear

Well-Known Member
3 at the back is not the solution, that’s for sure.
I still believe it’s an extra defender for us.
I also believe it’s easy to play against us.
Pitch the ball into the “full back” area and it puts our wing back on his heels or it pulls out a centre back, leaving the space in the middle.
 

MearnsUnionist

Well-Known Member
One thing that 3 at the back gives you is bigger threats at set pieces.The best chance most teams have against us at set pieces.There was an aerial view of the game on wed showing 22 players in the
Centre area of park.That suited them.With Borna out we were very predictable.
Maybe if Jones was introduced when we were ahead it would have put them on the back foot.If someone said good news bad news situ.Beat the scum well at their dump.Still in Europe.Miles ahead of third.We know
the bad news ! Fingers crossed we go unbeaten in league till the end of the season.

Yet the stats show we haven't conceded a headed goal all season and scored the most headed goals in the league.
 

DazRFC94

Well-Known Member
Can’t help but feel if we played 3-5-2, Tav and Borna would play the exact same way they do right now.

So essentially an extra centre half and one less attacking player. Not convinced.

I do think a change of shape would be a good idea though.
 

Commentator

Well-Known Member
I'm not wedded to 3 at the back specifically but I do firmly believe we need a plan B and I'm concerned we're not getting the best from players by trying to be too clever. Kent, Aribo and now Hagi being examples.
However, my main and seemingly permanent beef, is with the pace and over-deliberate nature of our play which I believe is caused by the manager's over-prioritisation of possession.
 

GovanRearLoyal

Well-Known Member
I believe especially at home that we don’t need 4 defenders against the usual 1 striker other teams deploy. It also allows us to play 2 up front giving us more of a focal point
 

Danger Zone

Just the tip...
I don’t get it either to be honest. Think it’s also because there’s so much petty debate over our centre backs with everyone have chosen sides and waiting to put the boot in whenever one of the other two makes an error.

But the bottom line is TLB has made it work and we’ve looked like a disjointed mess, or as someone else put it, Square pegs in round holes. It’s the managers job to deal with this and he hasnt done it.
 

JCDarcheville

Well-Known Member
I'm not wedded to 3 at the back specifically but I do firmly believe we need a plan B and I'm concerned we're not getting the best from players by trying to be too clever. Kent, Aribo and now Hagi being examples.
However, my main and seemingly permanent beef, is with the pace and over-deliberate nature of our play which I believe is caused by the manager's over-prioritisation of possession.
Kent in particular should be encouraged to use his "free role" to get into wide areas more often. He's far less effective when constantly in traffic.
 

WinkieWATP

Well-Known Member
A big issue for me, that you have flagged here MU, is the fact that the tarriers have used injuries to their advantage and have adapted well.

A similar number of injuries pretty much fcuks our entire season.
Because they have a far stronger squad than us. Once you go away from our strongest XI we are nowhere near as strong as them in back up players.
 

Lovenkrands

Well-Known Member
If we continue to play at the slow, dull and boring pace we have since the break a change of formation isn’t going to make a difference.

I don’t think it’s three at the back people are desperate for, it’s a sign the manager has another plan when things aren’t going well.

Sadly I fully expect the same formation and style again and again still. It’s okay saying it was working before, but teams have watched us and worked out if they sit in we’re clueless. Hibs were a good example who at Easter Road decided they would take us on and we destroyed them. By the time they came to Ibrox last week they adapted, and it took a late winner to get past them. In Europe and against them when space exists in behind it suits us much better.

Another point we kept saying was the lack of goals from the midfield and wide areas, and our over reliance on Morelos. All we got back was nonsense comparisons to Liverpool’s stats for the season. Now Alfredo’s going through a lean spell we’re struggling too. When their centre half Julien has scored more than Kent that highlights part of the problem.
 

Lovenkrands

Well-Known Member
But it was working perfectly when all our key players were available, like they are now again.
Teams can also do their homework and come up with a solution to nullify your plan. Lennon may or may not have been forced to change, but it seems the rest haven’t found an answer to his adaptation yet.

We don’t even try anything else, one of the criticisms is as you say we haven’t had our best team available, yet we’ve just tried to shoe horn players in and play the same way. When Defoe is in the team for example we just fire balls forward expecting him to hold it up the way Morelos on form does. The lack of flexibility is a real concern.
 
Top