Author Topic: three at the back...  (Read 572 times)

Offline colinwhite

  • Jimmy Hill
  • *
  • Posts: 2130
three at the back...
« on: October 20, 2019, 08:29:38 AM »
Scott Parker got it wrong yesterday .Playing three at the back didnt work. In fact it created lots of problems for the team even in the second half when the whites played a lot better ,looked more determined and created a lot more going forward. I hope Scott has learnt some valuable lessons from this defeat. Its easy to be wise after the event but trying to play out from the back with 3 players in defence   is far more risky than  with 4 backs ,particularly when the opposition presses high and aggressively. Effectively we had our extra Man ( Bobby Reid) up front running around but making little contact with the  ball . The side  centre backs  were forced out wide and got caught in defensive transition wide and high leaving us exposed and vulnerable at times.
To be fair to Stoke their game plan was to cut out our passing channels by sheilding in front of Mitro and Cairney. Lots of passes to these players were cut out early before reaching their target.
I still have  a lot of faith in Scott Parker but I dont understand why he didnt change our formation at half time. The players looked lacklustre and tired during the first half which he clearly thought could be improved with more effort and sharpness. To a certain degree this worked but we were still plagued by the same problem that the 3 at the back system created an imbalance in the team , and made  it much more difficult to play out from the back  ,because Mawson and Bryan would end up in wide positons when playing forward with the threat of loss of possession making them look uneasy and giving Stoke a real feeling that they could get at us.

 Our starting line-up was  extremely offensive, on paper at least. It was a brave team selection by our head-coach ,it could be said. It looked however a bit  like a classic case of a trainer stubbornly sticking to his guns when it was obvious to most around him that things werent working . I believe Parker will learn from this although some tough decisions in team selection will have to be made from time to time.
When Bobby Reid was benched after the Reading game it looked like a very harsh decision given that he had a decent game in that 4-1 win. His game changing performance against Charlton also made it difficult to leave him out yesterday . Changing playing system to accomodate players that have performed well proved not to be the way to go moving forward and it was Scotts team selection against Charlton that was the truely  brave one .
« Last Edit: October 20, 2019, 09:13:59 AM by colinwhite »

Offline bobbo

  • Jimmy Hill
  • *
  • Posts: 2007
Re: three at the back...
« Reply #1 on: October 20, 2019, 01:54:24 PM »
I hope he learns , we have an array of very capable players , so for me it's pointing at Scott where errors are being made . I'm sure he's learning from mistakes , but do we have the time?

Online The Rational Fan

  • Jimmy Hill
  • *
  • Posts: 2242
Re: three at the back...
« Reply #2 on: October 20, 2019, 02:08:21 PM »
Changing playing system to accomodate players

is frankly a beginner error that every manager has made.

I fear Scott Parker is the next Sir Bobby Robson, a terrible Fulham manager that becomes great manager later is his career.


Offline colinwhite

  • Jimmy Hill
  • *
  • Posts: 2130
Re: three at the back...
« Reply #3 on: October 20, 2019, 02:23:07 PM »
Its not so much about whether or not he is going to mistakes ,its more about how he learns from them. Yesterday he got it wrong on other occasions hes been unlucky. With a bit of luck we could have had 4-6 more points.

Offline filham

  • Mr Fayed
  • **
  • Posts: 11047
Re: three at the back...
« Reply #4 on: October 20, 2019, 02:57:43 PM »
Three at the back worked well for us in the second half  against Charlton as it gave us an extra man in attack. Yesterday Stoke took an early advantage of the three at the back by having raw pace in their attack and Ried our extra attacker did not really earn n his place, his first goal is now overdue.

It was a risky gamble that Parker took against the bottom of the table team and his attacking players failed him by not finding the net in 95 minutes play.

I think he will now be forced into a quick retreat and we will see Odoi restored against Luton to give us the security of a back four. If he chooses to take the risk of a back three again and it fails there will be more calls for his head, if it were to succeed he will be called a brave man with convictions.

Offline The Swan

  • Legend
  • ***
  • Posts: 1692
Re: three at the back...
« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2019, 01:34:26 PM »
Please Scotty don't play three at the back ever again. Especially with Ream in the left back position.


Offline MJG

  • MAESTRO
  • **
  • Posts: 2507
  • Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Re: three at the back...
« Reply #6 on: October 22, 2019, 01:40:34 PM »
Three at the back is fine as a tactic and as I may have said here before it is my goto one really. I like it a lot and coached it as well.

One of the issues I had with it at the weekend was the two wide plyers were wingers making it 3-5-2 instead of 5-3-2, and away from home at a place like Stoke was a big mistake.

Its fine chashing a game with the attacking wide men, but if you start a game like that and your losing...where do you ?
We have seen Parker/Wells use 3 CB's at times to hold onto games, its their default setting at times and maybe we saw them go against the club plan on saturday. (TK has spoken about 433 being the formation of choice for the club) and go in the direction they really want to play....well if so it backfired.


But just because of all above does not mean that 3 at the back is wrong and should never be used, it just needs to have the right tactics/players with it.

Online The Rational Fan

  • Jimmy Hill
  • *
  • Posts: 2242
Re: three at the back...
« Reply #7 on: October 22, 2019, 02:13:21 PM »
Three at the back is fine as a tactic and as I may have said here before it is my goto one really. I like it a lot and coached it as well.

One of the issues I had with it at the weekend was the two wide plyers were wingers making it 3-5-2 instead of 5-3-2, and away from home at a place like Stoke was a big mistake.

Its fine chashing a game with the attacking wide men, but if you start a game like that and your losing...where do you ?
We have seen Parker/Wells use 3 CB's at times to hold onto games, its their default setting at times and maybe we saw them go against the club plan on saturday. (TK has spoken about 433 being the formation of choice for the club) and go in the direction they really want to play....well if so it backfired.


But just because of all above does not mean that 3 at the back is wrong and should never be used, it just needs to have the right tactics/players with it.

I went into transfermarkt for Fulham and selected the most valuable XI playing "3-1-4-2".

              Cav     Mitro
            Reid      Cairney 
Bryan           Arter        Kncokaert
      MLM    Mawson   Christie
                  Betts

The computer selected a much more sensible a lineup.

             

« Last Edit: October 22, 2019, 02:16:39 PM by The Rational Fan »

Offline MJG

  • MAESTRO
  • **
  • Posts: 2507
  • Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Re: three at the back...
« Reply #8 on: October 22, 2019, 02:21:20 PM »
Three at the back is fine as a tactic and as I may have said here before it is my goto one really. I like it a lot and coached it as well.

One of the issues I had with it at the weekend was the two wide plyers were wingers making it 3-5-2 instead of 5-3-2, and away from home at a place like Stoke was a big mistake.

Its fine chashing a game with the attacking wide men, but if you start a game like that and your losing...where do you ?
We have seen Parker/Wells use 3 CB's at times to hold onto games, its their default setting at times and maybe we saw them go against the club plan on saturday. (TK has spoken about 433 being the formation of choice for the club) and go in the direction they really want to play....well if so it backfired.


But just because of all above does not mean that 3 at the back is wrong and should never be used, it just needs to have the right tactics/players with it.

I went into transfermarkt for Fulham and selected the most valuable XI playing "3-1-4-2".

              Cav     Mitro
            Reid      Cairney 
Bryan           Arter        Kncokaert
      MLM    Mawson   Christie
                  Betts

The computer selected a much more sensible a lineup.

           
I'd like to see fans reaction to that lineup ....could be X rated.


Offline charlieFFC

  • Lakey/Dark Room
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: three at the back...
« Reply #9 on: October 22, 2019, 02:21:54 PM »
Three at the back is fine as a tactic and as I may have said here before it is my goto one really. I like it a lot and coached it as well.

One of the issues I had with it at the weekend was the two wide plyers were wingers making it 3-5-2 instead of 5-3-2, and away from home at a place like Stoke was a big mistake.

Its fine chashing a game with the attacking wide men, but if you start a game like that and your losing...where do you ?
We have seen Parker/Wells use 3 CB's at times to hold onto games, its their default setting at times and maybe we saw them go against the club plan on saturday. (TK has spoken about 433 being the formation of choice for the club) and go in the direction they really want to play....well if so it backfired.

When anyone squad algorithm churns out Christie as a solution that computation should be void.


But just because of all above does not mean that 3 at the back is wrong and should never be used, it just needs to have the right tactics/players with it.

I went into transfermarkt for Fulham and selected the most valuable XI playing "3-1-4-2".

              Cav     Mitro
            Reid      Cairney 
Bryan           Arter        Kncokaert
      MLM    Mawson   Christie
                  Betts

The computer selected a much more sensible a lineup.

           

Offline Arthur

  • Legend
  • ***
  • Posts: 1534
Re: three at the back...
« Reply #10 on: October 22, 2019, 02:41:52 PM »
A well-reasoned post, MJG.

Whether three- or four-at-the-back, I believe we would have lost on Saturday regardless because Stoke defended well and we were unable to break them down. I disagree with the O.P. about our difficulty in playing out from the back. We had no trouble doing so in the second half. The first half was more difficult, but that's always the case if our opponents opt to press us. My memory is far from fail-safe but I don't recall us once giving the ball away with the first pass; we always managed to play out to a midfielder.

Stoke's main attacking ploy was to whack the ball down the middle of the field. They weren't trying to get to us down the flanks. Their full-backs rarely ventured over the half-way line. We didn't need four at the back (I don't see how this would have prevented the first goal) - at least, nowhere near as much as we needed the players in front of our defenders to play well. With the exception of Arter, the rest were below par - considerably so in the case of some.

We play three at the back and lose, and it's all-to easy to assert that this is the reason we lost. We failed to score - so we were never going to win. Parker's biggest mistake, if he made one, was to place his faith in the likes of Decordova-Reid, Knockaert, Mitrovic et al turning in the sort of performance that justifies their tag as 'better than average' players in this league. Maybe these players' lack of form was down to Parker - who can say? In my opinion, the formation was, however, neither here nor there with regard to the outcome.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2019, 02:44:54 PM by Arthur »

Online The Rational Fan

  • Jimmy Hill
  • *
  • Posts: 2242
Re: three at the back...
« Reply #11 on: October 22, 2019, 03:40:25 PM »
A well-reasoned post, MJG.

Whether three- or four-at-the-back, I believe we would have lost on Saturday regardless because Stoke defended well and we were unable to break them down. I disagree with the O.P. about our difficulty in playing out from the back. We had no trouble doing so in the second half. The first half was more difficult, but that's always the case if our opponents opt to press us. My memory is far from fail-safe but I don't recall us once giving the ball away with the first pass; we always managed to play out to a midfielder.

Stoke's main attacking ploy was to whack the ball down the middle of the field. They weren't trying to get to us down the flanks. Their full-backs rarely ventured over the half-way line. We didn't need four at the back (I don't see how this would have prevented the first goal) - at least, nowhere near as much as we needed the players in front of our defenders to play well. With the exception of Arter, the rest were below par - considerably so in the case of some.

We play three at the back and lose, and it's all-to easy to assert that this is the reason we lost. We failed to score - so we were never going to win. Parker's biggest mistake, if he made one, was to place his faith in the likes of Decordova-Reid, Knockaert, Mitrovic et al turning in the sort of performance that justifies their tag as 'better than average' players in this league. Maybe these players' lack of form was down to Parker - who can say? In my opinion, the formation was, however, neither here nor there with regard to the outcome.

Excellent post, made me change my opinion a little, because our major problem is we didn't score and the formation was good for scoring.


Offline Sting of the North

  • Legend
  • ***
  • Posts: 1466
Re: three at the back...
« Reply #12 on: October 22, 2019, 03:56:40 PM »
A well-reasoned post, MJG.

Whether three- or four-at-the-back, I believe we would have lost on Saturday regardless because Stoke defended well and we were unable to break them down. I disagree with the O.P. about our difficulty in playing out from the back. We had no trouble doing so in the second half. The first half was more difficult, but that's always the case if our opponents opt to press us. My memory is far from fail-safe but I don't recall us once giving the ball away with the first pass; we always managed to play out to a midfielder.

Stoke's main attacking ploy was to whack the ball down the middle of the field. They weren't trying to get to us down the flanks. Their full-backs rarely ventured over the half-way line. We didn't need four at the back (I don't see how this would have prevented the first goal) - at least, nowhere near as much as we needed the players in front of our defenders to play well. With the exception of Arter, the rest were below par - considerably so in the case of some.

We play three at the back and lose, and it's all-to easy to assert that this is the reason we lost. We failed to score - so we were never going to win. Parker's biggest mistake, if he made one, was to place his faith in the likes of Decordova-Reid, Knockaert, Mitrovic et al turning in the sort of performance that justifies their tag as 'better than average' players in this league. Maybe these players' lack of form was down to Parker - who can say? In my opinion, the formation was, however, neither here nor there with regard to the outcome.

This is a good post, and I agree with you that playing 3 at the back was not the problem as such. However I would like to add that in my opinion SP:s biggest mistake on Saturday was to change the formation that he has used from pre-season onwards. It's of course easy to be wise after the fact, but particularly first half no one seemed to know what they were doing at all. No partnerships seemed to function. In my opinion, that is on SP. But then again, I only have the sample size of one game so there may be many reasons for the poor performance.

Offline Statto

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 8051
Re: three at the back...
« Reply #13 on: October 22, 2019, 04:16:46 PM »
The last time I can remember us successfully employing 3 or 5 at the back for more than the odd half game, I think we had Jerome Bonnissel in the back line.

It's almost invariably a mistake (eg last weekend) and/or an act of desperation ("nothing else has worked, let's try this...")

Personally if I was DoF, I'd have it written in every manager's contract that we have to play a back 4

Offline MJG

  • MAESTRO
  • **
  • Posts: 2507
  • Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Re: three at the back...
« Reply #14 on: October 22, 2019, 04:41:50 PM »
The last time I can remember us successfully employing 3 or 5 at the back for more than the odd half game, I think we had Jerome Bonnissel in the back line.

It's almost invariably a mistake (eg last weekend) and/or an act of desperation ("nothing else has worked, let's try this...")

Personally if I was DoF, I'd have it written in every manager's contract that we have to play a back 4
that last sentence opens up a whole new thread of questions.
All I'd say is I would not work for you then. While a club should have a philosophy, there has to be flexibility in it. As a manager /coach I might come up againt a team where three at back is best starting point. Are you saying you would overrule me?
If so would that not be far worse than many of the things you point at TK about?


Offline Statto

  • Gentleman Jim
  • ***
  • Posts: 8051
Re: three at the back...
« Reply #15 on: October 22, 2019, 04:59:58 PM »
The last time I can remember us successfully employing 3 or 5 at the back for more than the odd half game, I think we had Jerome Bonnissel in the back line.

It's almost invariably a mistake (eg last weekend) and/or an act of desperation ("nothing else has worked, let's try this...")

Personally if I was DoF, I'd have it written in every manager's contract that we have to play a back 4
that last sentence opens up a whole new thread of questions.
All I'd say is I would not work for you then. While a club should have a philosophy, there has to be flexibility in it. As a manager /coach I might come up againt a team where three at back is best starting point. Are you saying you would overrule me?
If so would that not be far worse than many of the things you point at TK about?

calm down i'm being facetious with the last sentence of course
why not answer the first sentence - when was the last time we consistently played a back 3 or 5 (successfully)?

Offline WindyCity

  • Graham Leggat
  • **
  • Posts: 500
Re: three at the back...
« Reply #16 on: October 22, 2019, 05:11:07 PM »

why not answer the first sentence - when was the last time we consistently played a back 3 or 5 (successfully)?

Second half v Charlton?

Offline MJG

  • MAESTRO
  • **
  • Posts: 2507
  • Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Re: three at the back...
« Reply #17 on: October 22, 2019, 05:24:08 PM »
The last time I can remember us successfully employing 3 or 5 at the back for more than the odd half game, I think we had Jerome Bonnissel in the back line.

It's almost invariably a mistake (eg last weekend) and/or an act of desperation ("nothing else has worked, let's try this...")

Personally if I was DoF, I'd have it written in every manager's contract that we have to play a back 4
that last sentence opens up a whole new thread of questions.
All I'd say is I would not work for you then. While a club should have a philosophy, there has to be flexibility in it. As a manager /coach I might come up againt a team where three at back is best starting point. Are you saying you would overrule me?
If so would that not be far worse than many of the things you point at TK about?

calm down i'm being facetious with the last sentence of course
why not answer the first sentence - when was the last time we consistently played a back 3 or 5 (successfully)?
There was a time under Coleman as you mention, but under Bracewell was the last time we had a manager who was convinced that was the way to play. Now not a successful season in getting promoted but a consistent one. Before that it was Adams when we went up.

Offline colinwhite

  • Jimmy Hill
  • *
  • Posts: 2130
Re: three at the back...
« Reply #18 on: October 22, 2019, 05:33:55 PM »
I dont have a problem with playing 3 at the back eiher. I dont think w e got caught out with any first balls either Aurther. The problems ,for me ,were caused by us partly being forced to play more often centrally through Arter and reed, and more importantly the need for us to push mawson out wide on the right when trying to retain possession. The lack of a second centre back meant that Reems play became very predictable,with stoke finding it easy to cut out his passing channels. Mawson was often wide when we lost the ball exposing us on several occassions.Add to this thatRyan looked very uncomfortable both with and without the ball centrally(making him an easy press target for Stoke), and it is hardly straange that we looked in a right mess. Our sharper play in the 2nd half meant we looked better,but still got caught out in the second half for their goal ,due to some of the problems highlighted above . The system didnt make us more offensive but less,with Bobby Reid barely touching the ball as our "extra man ". Still cant understand why SP didnt change it at half time , or particularly when Arter was forced off.

Offline Sting of the North

  • Legend
  • ***
  • Posts: 1466
Re: three at the back...
« Reply #19 on: October 22, 2019, 08:03:15 PM »

why not answer the first sentence - when was the last time we consistently played a back 3 or 5 (successfully)?

Second half v Charlton?

I believe the key word(s) here was consistently (and maybe successfully).