When will we use the back 3?

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.

Honestly don’t get how people still think formation is basically unimportant.

It does potentially take away a midfielder, who would most likely be lundstram, who is hopeless at taking the ball from the centre halves with his back to play. He usually just plays it out to Tav instead we would have Souttar/Davies/Goldson stepping into midfield facing play and trying to find midfielders who’d be further forward.
 
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.
If we have players who are both fit and comfortable enough to switch between the two set ups mid game it gives amazing flexibility and the capacity to flood out either end of the park with players depending if you are in a period of defense or attack.

I really like the sound of that.

Training to go into games regularly with it as a starting line up? I think it would go against us and end up a terribly defensive, static system and as some fear, basically end up a back 5.

I don't like the sound of that so much.
 
I think it would be to cover the quality, Davies is weak we all know that. A back 3 might offer resiliency against some teams as we’ve lost a crazy amount of goals.
 
Honestly don’t get how people still think formation is basically unimportant.

It does potentially take away a midfielder, who would most likely be lundstram, who is hopeless at taking the ball from the centre halves with his back to play. He usually just plays it out to Tav instead we would have Souttar/Davies/Goldson stepping into midfield facing play and trying to find midfielders who’d be further forward.
I do think formation is important… I just think the current formation with better players would be better.
 
I do think formation is important… I just think the current formation with better players would be better.
Obviously improving players improves the team but there’s no one system that’s the best for all scenarios. We should be able to play more than one system.
 
I said in an earlier post that I don't think our defence currently play as a solid unit the way they should
& at times they might look the part individually- but don't seem to know each other sometimes- let alone help each other

That is a negative whatever formation we line up with
But another negative IMO is that none of our current defence look as if they're suited to a three

Our centre backs don't have anything like the individual skills or urgency to get forward that Bougherra had for example & our current centre backs are too static in comparison

I know Goldson can put in a decent long ball to someone on the opposite wing - but he rarely feeds our midfield with much more than obvious five yard passes - which makes us predictable to the opposition

I'm not convinced Davies or Souttar can fare any better - although I'd love them to prove me wrong

I believe our defence is ultimately pretty limited right now - so 3 is too much of a risk for my liking
 
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.
This is it in a nutshell.
 
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.
Manchester City? Inter when the won the league? Chelsea when they won the league? Italy at the euros? England at the euros?
 
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?


Fuuk, we cannae defend wi a back 4 and you waant tae go 3.
 
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?
Rarely or Never, out of interest if you play with 3 centre half’s dies that mean you need 6 to provide cover?
 
Think we need to bin the wingers we have because they very rarely cross the ball. Plus having 3 centre backs could possibly mean we could use Goldson as a holding midfielder.
For the rest of the season it could be

McGregor
Souttar Goldson Davies
Tav Cantwell Raskin Tilman Yilmaz
Morelos Colak

It’s more attacking and dynamic. Kamara, Lundstrum and Jack slow the game down to much. And having 2 strikers gives us more potential out balls. Because Morelos likes to drift out wide so having Colak hanging about the box gives us a focal point.
 
Would that not effectively be a back five? Add two holding midfielders and Kilmarnock and Livingston will love grinding out 0-0’s against us. I feel like Tav and Yilmaz already get up the park and make a lot of runs into the box, and that 3 at the back would only work with a massive squad overhaul bringing in midfielders that can actually make runs into the box.
 
I don't see what problems 352 would solve. We struggle creating and finishing chances, so we put an extra defender on the park? It's also a formation that puts emphasis on wide crosses from wing backs which we do in abundance already and are absolutely shite at it for the most part.

As long as Kent, Morelos and Sakala are regulars in the side, we will continue to waste chances.
 
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 reckon he’d play Souttar in the centre with the ability to step out allowing Goldson and Davies the ability to play diagonals in behind. A fit Souttar is vital to this system. If he gets injured again I can imagine Lundstram in there and that’s not ideal. I feel like you can rely on Souttar to throw himself at any cutback from wide rather than standing watching.
 
Back
Top