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

Commentator

Well-Known Member
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.
I get the theory; the wide man tucks in and creates space for the fullback, but that doesn't happen. Kent runs across the bloody pitch with the ball into traffic and loses it whilst Borna stands waving his arm like a madman. We sit in GF6 and everyone in there is shouting 'man free over here', 'lift your head', 'this f'n side' etc. Borna is underused and Kent mis-used.
There's potential for an outstanding left-wing partnership between those two and it's being squandered.
 

AllyRFC

Well-Known Member
People have had an obsession with 3 at the back on here for as long as iv viewed the site and i just dont get it.

I dont like the 3 man defence but im not one of the aspiring FF master technicians so what do i know.
 

J Dawg

Well-Known Member
So if it is forced upon him and they
.

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

So if they are still scudding teams 3/4/5 nil with a non full fit squad and not their preferred formation then what does that say??

Doesn't exactly bode well for us does it??
 

JCDarcheville

Well-Known Member
I get the theory; the wide man tucks in and creates space for the fullback, but that doesn't happen. Kent runs across the bloody pitch with the ball into traffic and loses it whilst Borna stands waving his arm like a madman. We sit in GF6 and everyone in there is shouting 'man free over here', 'lift your head', 'this f'n side' etc. Borna is underused and Kent mis-used.
There's potential for an outstanding left-wing partnership between those two and it's being squandered.
Agreed.

We have a player in Kent who is capable of beating a man, or drawing two or three towards him. By utilising him centrally, he's not drawing anyone out as the defenders are where they want to be, and he struggles to skin anyone due to sheer numbers and lack of space.

He should be used more flexibly, the full backs should be capable of taking the inside overlap if he goes wide.
 

davmcc

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
3 at the back is not the answer!

However 4-3-2-1 clearly isn't working for us! Why anyone would want to proceed with this is mind blowing.
 
Last edited:

SuperGers07

Well-Known Member
We have to change something, like Warbs before him, we've been sussed tactically and so far Gerrard has no answer to it.

I'd move to 2 up front for starters from tomorrow and see how it goes
 

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
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.

Kamberi has scored 3 league goals in 22 games this season

That's 5 less than Arfield, 3 less than Kent, 2 less than Jack and the same as Stewart, but Greg has had way less starts.

Hardly prolific.

He was signed as cover for Defoe and Morelos, not as a 1st choice starter.
 

Boab4

Well-Known Member
There's nothing sudden about it, folk have been on here wanting it for as long as I can remember, even though when we last tried it we fell to bits.
 

Wacaktb

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
It's not a sudden obsession as far as I'm aware, plenty folk including myself were suggesting it as far back as last season, we tried it once in a tough away game and it didn't work but we have had plenty other opportunities to try it when leading 2-3 nil at half time in games at Ibrox and haven't bothered to which I find strange if I'm honest
 

dt17

Well-Known Member
Lennon switched the formation and got Griffiths & Edouard playing well together.

We play the same formation and play guys like Aribo & Hagi out of position, even though that formation hasn't been working for weeks now. Teams know that if they park the bus against us we'll struggle big time.
 

MearnsUnionist

Well-Known Member
3 at the back is not the answer!

However 4-3-2-1 clearly isn't working for us! Why anyone would want to proceed with this is mind blowing.

It's hardly mind blowing when you have the key personnel that made it a success, up until the 29th December, all finally fit again.
 

makey

Member
should always be playing 2 upfront at home in spl. Them with10 men behind ball with 1 up front. Us playing with one is not enough, 2 up front makes the defenders work harder and moves then about all the time, 1 up top and it easy for them. as for 3 at back at home should be norm , wingers means more attacking options again. Its been to easy for teams with 2 banks of 5 with us only 1 upfront.
 

Ryan

Well-Known Member
I like 3 at the back I just feel certain games it would suit us to have an extra man in agtavk whilst keeping a good shape. I also like 442 with one out and out winger and someone like stewart or aribo out on the right. I would also play Hagi with Morelos think he's wasted on the wing. We won't try a 3 at the back any time soon as we only have 3 fit defenders and we won't try a 442 as a don't think we would try Hagi up front/off Morelos. We only have 2 fit out and out strikers.

Our biggest problem is we may have the best starting 11 in the league when everyone is fit but we don't have the best squad/backups looking at the bench the other night for instance can't remember the last time anyone on that bench scored a goal for us besides Edmundson. It's the same when Ojo and Barker are on the bench they haven't done anything in months for Ojo and Barker just hasn't done anything at all. We got told last summer quality over quantity and nothings changed probably have 13-14 players that we would be confident in doing a job for us to win the league.

Mcgregor
Tav
Goldson
Katic
Helander
Borna
Jack
Davis
Kamara
Kent
Morelos
Arfield

Probably missed an obvious one but folk must get where am coming from injuries and suspensions and we are snookered.

Played 16 games with Borna and Tav starting won 15 drawing 1

With either of them no starting we have played 9 games and won 4 or 5.
 

davmcc

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
It's hardly mind blowing when you have the key personnel that made it a success, up until the 29th December, all finally fit again.
I don't really care about the 29th December and before tbh mate.

We have played 4-3-2-1 eight times this year and every game we have been slow, predictable, boring and lacked creativity.

Teams know how to play against this formation now, it's time for a change.
 

Jaws II

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?
SG’s formation is a 433 with one striker and 2 attacking wide players. At the start he was using Kent and Ojo. Once he found Ojo wasn’t working and Jones got injured against the scum he then tried a mixture of Arfield and Aribo.

We then get Beale coming out and saying we don’t use wide attacking players/wingers but we actually use number 10s.
Here is the problem, we don’t really have any natural number 10s apart from Stewart who barely gets a game.
He is a collected a whole load of players for these positions and all have been poor. Aribo has nice touches and rarely scores.
Kent for the money spent has been a massive waste. He has had about 6 good games for us and has scored 6 and a couple of assists. Most other games he is missing. He needs dropped out of this team.

That is terrible for a Rangers front 3 player.
Barker, Ojo, Jones have been poor. Stewart looks ok but rarely plays.
Aribo and Kent is who he has relied on and they haven’t delivered.
The manager doesn’t change things.
For this he needs both full backs to play well and the last few months he has lost both at different times.
He never changed it despite having lesser players in these position and when it never worked this team did its usual. They panicked and crumbled when put under pressure and once again the manager never did anything to change this.

It doesn’t matter if Lennon was forced to make changes. He did it and his team hammer everyone since we beat them.
 
Last edited:

RenfrewBear72

Well-Known Member
Nothing to do with the mankymob.
We tried it once last year in a tough away game and it was never tried again.
2 wingbacks bombing on, 3rd central defender sitting between cdm and cb pinging passes about, Alfie and Kamberi up top.
Nothing to lose now so may as well try it.
 

CaptainCourageous

Well-Known Member
Our squad is lop sided, it's a mess when a few regulars are out and the manager isn't prepared to change. We have one set up, the same old week in week out. We shoehorn players into a set up that's not suited to their game and it affects the while team. Defoe for Morelos, Halliday/Flanagan for Barišić, Flanagan/Polster for Tavernier, for example. You can't ask those replacements to do the same job of the ones they are replacing.

No one on here knows if three at the back is the answer or not.

People are wanting to see change, whether it's 3-5-2, 4-2-2 or more of a 4-2-3-1 set up with wide men instead of two number 10's.

We want Gerrard to show and prove he can mix it up. It's one of the areas where he is heavily questioned and criticised.

Given we signed a host of wingers in the summer, I would rather see more of a 4-2-3-1 set up bit with a bit of width and balance.

I'm no lover of Greg Stewart but he deserves a shot given the chances and mistakes others have made this season. He also gets close to Morelos, supports attack and creates opportunities in tight spaces.

McGregor
Tavernier Goldson Katić Barišić
Davis Jack
Stewart Hagi Kent
Morelos

 

Jaws II

Well-Known Member
Nothing to do with the mankymob.
We tried it once last year in a tough away game and it was never tried again.
2 wingbacks bombing on, 3rd central defender sitting between cdm and cb pinging passes about, Alfie and Kamberi up top.
Nothing to lose now so may as well try it.
he won’t it will be his usual with Morelos, Kent and A.N Other out of Aribo, Hagi or Arfield.
 

Godrup99

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?
I'm not clamouring for 3 at the back but there's a very obvious flaw with your thinking.

You mentioned being without tav, barasic, Jack etc.

It's his job to then adapt to that loss. He hasn't, we continues in the same vein and have paid for it 3 times now. If we can't play his way when they are out, he must have a different plan, if he doesnt, the 3 bad results suffered just continue
 

le suede

Well-Known Member
The issue with our play, other than the speed/tippy tappy p1sh, and why it's been such a success for them is the basic ability to alter how we play and make us less predictable.

All we seem to be able to do to alter formation during a game is switch Kent to the right and aribo left. Hardly confusing for the opposition. Their basic ability to switch to 3 at the back, regardless of whether it was forced upon them or not, is something we just aren't able to do....or are unwilling to do.

The tippy tappy thing is an issue all of its own.
 

MearnsUnionist

Well-Known Member
I don't really care about the 29th December and before tbh mate.

We have played 4-3-2-1 eight times this year and every game we have been slow, predictable, boring and lacked creativity.

Teams know how to play against this formation now, it's time for a change.

The formation should have been changed when it was clear we didn't have the players capable of playing it.

That's no longer the case.
 

Jaws II

Well-Known Member
They have adapted better as they have 2x the budget and 2x the strength in depth.
we haven’t been playing Celtic. We’ve been getting beat by Hearts, Killie and drawing with the sheep who have an even bigger gap in depth and budget.

feeble excuse.
 

mdingwall

Administrator
....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?
There isn't a sudden obsession - your subject header is a psychological ruse by yourself to imply that such thoughts are daft and you hold the answers due to you super tactical analysis. But nice try. :)
 

MearnsUnionist

Well-Known Member
I'm not clamouring for 3 at the back but there's a very obvious flaw with your thinking.

You mentioned being without tav, barasic, Jack etc.

It's his job to then adapt to that loss. He hasn't, we continues in the same vein and have paid for it 3 times now. If we can't play his way when they are out, he must have a different plan, if he doesnt, the 3 bad results suffered just continue

If you read the OP mate, I said he should've changed the formation when certain key players were missing.
 

blueshire

Active Member
The main concern for me is the managers inability to change formations and shape,his sytem relys on tav and barasic to provide the width,why did he stick with same formation when tav was out,it clearly wasn't working and it's up to him to tweak it and find solutions,his subs are baffling as well,he needs to change it quicker
 

Shepchenko83

Active Member
Think people are just looking for something in anything that might change our current form.

We need to change something whether it be personnel or formation though because we are far too easy to play against at the moment.
 

MearnsUnionist

Well-Known Member
There isn't a sudden obsession - your subject header is a psychological ruse by yourself to imply that such thoughts are daft and you hold the answers due to you super tactical analysis. But nice try. :)

Not true.

I've said Gerrard should've realised he had to change formation, as he didn't have the players to play it, when he had to bring in a couple of fringe players to replace key players.

No great tactical analysis from me, just a suggestion to give the formation AND the players who made it successful a go, now they're all available again.

If you don't agree, fair enough.

It's only an opinion on a forum.
 

supersonic

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
we haven’t been playing Celtic. We’ve been getting beat by Hearts, Killie and drawing with the sheep who have an even bigger gap in depth and budget.

feeble excuse.
Yes I know mate? My point is they can deal with injuries because they have better depth and more options? What the eff does that have to do with playing celtic? No game is easy in this league and there are some tough venues to go to
 
Top