When will we use the back 3?

AriseSirWalter

AriseSirWalter

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
Think it's fair to say that there's a lot of flexibility in the back 3 given some people see it as being more defensive (extra defender being added) while others see it as being more attacking (frees up others to attack more).

Previously I thought we should have stuck with it from an attacking sense when Gerrard tried it, because if we are going to get crosses into the box then we'd be better with two in the box to get on the end of them. Now, I think we have to be smarter when attacking rather than just crossing from wide so not sure a back 3 is the answer to our attacking issues (against low block).

Having said that we did look good attacking using it against Motherwell but the game was already won so difficult to judge on that alone.

If we use Kent on the left instead of Borna/Yilmaz then I'd say it makes us more attacking. I don't think we can do that against them though as there will be times when we're pushed back and Kent can't be on the defensive line. I think a 3421 would be good against them though as it would allow us to go to a back 5 when under pressure (less space for them to get balls into the box on the deck) but still allow us to have attacking threat up front.


McGregor
Souttar Goldson Davies
Tav Jack Raskin Yilmaz
Cantwell Kent
Morelos​


Where do you see us using the back 3 if at all?
 
I'm not a fan of a back three, but we do have the players to make it effective and Beale is kinda suggesting it.

Hopefully its not the only alternative he's been working on.
 
Our CBs aren't the quickest so them getting pulled out wide is a nightmare. Teams will just fire balls in behind the wingbacks
 
I like a back 3 but you need to have players who can operate in that system, and do it in the right circumstances.

He was defenders comfortable with the ball at their feet, we have fullbacks who can push into midfield positions and we have players who can use the space that’ll be squeezed if our defenders are up around the halfway line to make opponents lives difficult by going through the middle or out wide.

One question would be whether we have a goalkeeper who is comfortable with it next season.

When you look back at the 95/96 and 96/97 seasons as examples of Rangers going with this formation then you see Gough, Petrie & Bjorklund in particular just about camped around the centre circle a lot of the time.
 
Using a back 3 allows the full backs to start much further up the park, so Tav and Yilmaz can receive the ball 20/30 yards further up, so less running for them.
 
An interesting formation/line up and could be used against teams that sit back.Tav,Yilmaz and Borna are usually high up the pitch anyway for long periods of the game.
For me Raskin as a dynamic CM and Cantwells mobility and work rate would make it work. It would provide flexibility and impetus in attack.
It depends on players.For me having Lundstram and Kamara would just kill it and we would end up with plodding 2 midfielders and three defenders plus Tav etc coming deeper to collect the ball from the safe passers as teams sit on us.
 
The problem for me is the space down the side of the 3 centre backs,we wouldn't have much pace in the back 3 and if we lose the ball in transition teams and particularly that mob will just hit the long diagonal in behind and they are pretty strong down the flanks.
 
sheddensbear said:
Using a back 3 allows the full backs to start much further up the park, so Tav and Yilmaz can receive the ball 20/30 yards further up, so less running for them.
Click to expand...

in Scotland against a team camped in with one striker in their set up who is usually no further than 40 yards from their goal, we should be able to play with two centre halfs and overload in the wide areas and centrally.

In fact, that's pretty much what we did in an undefeated season where we won the league just recently.

I cannot see the need for us to have three centre backs in domestic matches.
 
AriseSirWalter said:
Think it's fair to say that there's a lot of flexibility in the back 3 given some people see it as being more defensive (extra defender being added) while others see it as being more attacking (frees up others to attack more).

Previously I thought we should have stuck with it from an attacking sense when Gerrard tried it, because if we are going to get crosses into the box then we'd be better with two in the box to get on the end of them. Now, I think we have to be smarter when attacking rather than just crossing from wide so not sure a back 3 is the answer to our attacking issues (against low block).

Having said that we did look good attacking using it against Motherwell but the game was already won so difficult to judge on that alone.

If we use Kent on the left instead of Borna/Yilmaz then I'd say it makes us more attacking. I don't think we can do that against them though as there will be times when we're pushed back and Kent can't be on the defensive line. I think a 3421 would be good against them though as it would allow us to go to a back 5 when under pressure (less space for them to get balls into the box on the deck) but still allow us to have attacking threat up front.


McGregor
Souttar Goldson Davies
Tav Jack Raskin Yilmaz
Cantwell Kent
Morelos​


Where do you see us using the back 3 if at all?
Click to expand...
Where does Tilman fit into this?
 
I think we’ll use it at Parkhead in April as a test run for the semi-final. Instead of Souttar starting, I reckon Lundstram will be in the middle of the 3 with scope to move up one depending on how the game is going. Much in the same way Gio deployed him.
 
Not great with tactics but i do like the 3-4-1-2 a lot of English championship clubs use. I would always play 2 strikers in our league no matter the fixture it is imo the way to beat Celtic if they are weak its the keeper and crosses/passes in behind the 2 CBs.

I would guess we will want JS playing not in and out the side but we will soon see.

The point about it being cautious makes little sense to me, you dont always need to play with 2 full backs and even if we do both can be told to focus on attacking most of the time.
 
Tbh I only think it would come up in some bigger games if we’re defending a lead or say next season in champions league(if we qualify) playing against more of the elite teams. It’s not really needed in any other games I can think of. If we were to use it in games against smaller teams I would want us to have two strikers on at all times. No point in only having one on the park.
 
I doubt we'll ever shift to a back 3 as our regular formation, but I definitely think we'll use it quite a lot next season.

I also think we'll use it more by switching to it 'in-game' though than actually starting with it, although that will probably happen on occasion too.
 
I am not sure about this 3 at the back.If you are playing 2 full backs further up the pitch and I was an opposition manager I would leave 2 players high and wide.Your full backs are stranded and there will be big gaps to send long balls out for the widemen to attack.This gives your 3 centrebacks something to think about do they get dragged out wide or defend the central area.Get dragged out and they leaves gaps in the middle.442 or similar is the way to go imo.
 
I'm not a great fan of a back 3, and I'm struggling to think of any team across the main leagues in Europe who are champions after playing that system. I still see it as a system for smaller teams to stifle better ones, rather than one for us to use in a league where virtually every game we play we have the majority of the ball.
 
AriseSirWalter said:
Think it's fair to say that there's a lot of flexibility in the back 3 given some people see it as being more defensive (extra defender being added) while others see it as being more attacking (frees up others to attack more).

Previously I thought we should have stuck with it from an attacking sense when Gerrard tried it, because if we are going to get crosses into the box then we'd be better with two in the box to get on the end of them. Now, I think we have to be smarter when attacking rather than just crossing from wide so not sure a back 3 is the answer to our attacking issues (against low block).

Having said that we did look good attacking using it against Motherwell but the game was already won so difficult to judge on that alone.

If we use Kent on the left instead of Borna/Yilmaz then I'd say it makes us more attacking. I don't think we can do that against them though as there will be times when we're pushed back and Kent can't be on the defensive line. I think a 3421 would be good against them though as it would allow us to go to a back 5 when under pressure (less space for them to get balls into the box on the deck) but still allow us to have attacking threat up front.


McGregor
Souttar Goldson Davies
Tav Jack Raskin Yilmaz
Cantwell Kent
Morelos​


Where do you see us using the back 3 if at all?
Click to expand...
I'd rather try 442 if we had the right personnel, noticed its making a comeback of sorts with the likes of atletico
 
AriseSirWalter said:
Think it's fair to say that there's a lot of flexibility in the back 3 given some people see it as being more defensive (extra defender being added) while others see it as being more attacking (frees up others to attack more).

Previously I thought we should have stuck with it from an attacking sense when Gerrard tried it, because if we are going to get crosses into the box then we'd be better with two in the box to get on the end of them. Now, I think we have to be smarter when attacking rather than just crossing from wide so not sure a back 3 is the answer to our attacking issues (against low block).

Having said that we did look good attacking using it against Motherwell but the game was already won so difficult to judge on that alone.

If we use Kent on the left instead of Borna/Yilmaz then I'd say it makes us more attacking. I don't think we can do that against them though as there will be times when we're pushed back and Kent can't be on the defensive line. I think a 3421 would be good against them though as it would allow us to go to a back 5 when under pressure (less space for them to get balls into the box on the deck) but still allow us to have attacking threat up front.


McGregor
Souttar Goldson Davies
Tav Jack Raskin Yilmaz
Cantwell Kent
Morelos​


Where do you see us using the back 3 if at all?
Click to expand...
I don't think it is fair to say 3 at the back is more flexible than 4.

Furthermore, the line up you've posted is basically the same attacking system / unit we employ with 4 at the back but you've changed a midfielder for a defender, which isn't going to help us break teams down.
 
I've posted on other threads that I don't think our defence plays well together as a unit - well certainly not as a solid unit

IMO they don't properly cover for each other, don't keep their shape, often fall asleep & sometimes look as if they've never met each other
Individually they're capable of being half decent- but rarely blend, gel, combine into a cohesive group
( the last two goals we conceded prove the point to me)

All of the above mentioned issues are relevant to 3,4 or 5 man defences IMO
 
A back three was used several times throughout the European run and helped us against the better teams. Lundstram played in the back three and that made the system versatile with him able to step into the midfield and also us moving to a back four in the match if it wasn't working.

I don't think it would work having three central defenders in Scotland. Some say it's more attacking because you have three defenders instead of four but in a back four your fullback's are bombing forward.

The only time I could possibly see it being used would be against Celtic.
 
Quantomleap said:
I'd rather try 442 if we had the right personnel, noticed its making a comeback of sorts with the likes of atletico
Click to expand...
The problem is if we went 442 our fans would expect it to be two strikers two widemen like the 90s which get us battered in midfield, There’s a reason teams avoid it now, games too tactical, a lesser team with 3 in middle will usually beat a better team with 2 in the middle, A midfield diamond could work though
 
barcelonabear said:
The problem is if we went 442 our fans would expect it to be two strikers two widemen like the 90s which get us battered in midfield, There’s a reason teams avoid it now, games too tactical, a lesser team with 3 in middle will usually beat a better team with 2 in the middle, A midfield diamond could work though
Click to expand...
Yeah agree at the end of the day football is mostly played in a transitioning 433 depending on phase of play.
 
Ubik said:
Five defenders and one striker in the starting 11, not for me
Click to expand...
As many remind us, Tav isnt a defender :rolleyes:B-)

It can work, I am not a huge fan of the system but it does have its merits.

Any notion of Kent playing wide is mental in this system though.
 
Back 3?
If we want to play Souttar we drop Goldson....we don't change the whole set up. We play in a Mickey mouse league, 2 CB's are plenty.
 
Dale Cooper said:
It’s a back 5 and there is literally no need for it in Scotland
Click to expand...
Exactly as we already play with 2 wing backs so it takes away a midfielder if we play with the back 3/5 (however it’s put). Folk on here grab a formation and obsess over it as if it’s the answer. It’s better players we need not a new formation.
 
We need to change something people saying it’s defensive. We still ship goals. I think it will help. Mean our full backs who can’t stop a cross so at least we have another CB in to deal with it. And it means more players in n around the box when attacking
 
We could use a back ten and still not be certs to keep a clean sheet.

As for the OP's fishing?

You can stick that back three where the sun don't shine.
 
I like a back 3 formation but only in the short term. Think teans/managers that persist with it usually get found out sooner than later. Tuchel/Conte being the most recent examples.
 
Novichok said:
I don't think it is fair to say 3 at the back is more flexible than 4.

Furthermore, the line up you've posted is basically the same attacking system / unit we employ with 4 at the back but you've changed a midfielder for a defender, which isn't going to help us break teams down.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say it was.

It might help us break teams down if the rest of the team don’t have to worry about defending.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top