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?