Three centre backs.

[lake district canary 4,531]

Several "expert" posters scathingly ridiculed a post I made the other week suggesting we used three centre backs, but the promising and relatively successful three centre backs at Man City has given us new insight into the way we can play, making best use of our resources.  Even though Martin is out for a match, could this be something of a regular tactic to be tried?   Whittaker and Olsson (or Brady) can be utilised as good wing backs - it gives them more license to get forwards and still get back when needed.  Eliot Bennett could well be brilliant at that role in the team too and with someone like Redmond in the team as well, the attacking ooptions look good. 

It won''t be there against Swansea, unless AN wants to use Wisdom to use this system regularly, but as a way forwards particularly against the big clubs, is it something we are going to see more often?   Even against Swansea, we may need to err on the side of caution to make sure we give them nothing, whilst maintaining an attacking  thrust with Jarvis, Redmond and Mbokani up front.  It does question mark whether there would then be room for Wes, but he could come on from the bench.  Plenty of options and AN is showing that he isn''t afraid of trying different things. 

                    

[Hoola Han Solo 448]

Not gonna happen.

Not the time to be experimenting with an already fragile defence.

The fact that we''ve only three centre backs on our books means we''d have no back up on the bench.

Alex Neil sees Wisdom as a centre back.

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

The willingness to experiment with tactics and formations was a real question mark with Alex Neil – until the recent run of bad results, the same system has worked for him with very few tweaks (4-2-3-1, with overlapping full-backs, mobile centre-backs, one holding midfielder dropping deep to cover the gap, and a mobile front man willing to run himself into the ground). He had no need to change it. However, now our one tactic has been ''gamed'' by numerous managers in a short space of time, he has no alternative but to tinker a bit. The new system worked really well against Citeh, and although we used Brady on his unfamiliar side, we were really effective. I definitely think Elliott Bennett should be brought back into the squad after his loan ends – he''s played the RWB role really well for Bristol City, and if you''re defending a lead he''s the ideal person to give you fresh legs – pace and decent crossing ability in attack, and positional diligence in defence. Not saying we should become a full-time 3-5-2 team, but versatility is going to be key to our battle for survival.

[Woodman 92]

Aside from Bennett''s lack of concentration for the first goal and Ruddy/Tettey''s indecision for the resultant penalty, I agree, we looked more solid.

Now that Mulumbu is getting back to fitness, I can see us going with him, Howson and Tettey as part of that midfield 5, with Olsson/Brady left, Whittaker right and Jarvis, Redmond or Wes in two positions behind Mbokani/Jerome. More of a 3-5-1-1 if you like.

Ruddy

Bennett, Martin, Bassong

Whitaker, Howson, Mulumbu, Tettey, Olsson/Brady

Jarvis/Redmond/Wes

Mbokani/Jerome

[Essjayess 307]

One of the two teams directly below us are certain to pick up points this weekend as Bournemouth face Newcastle, so City defo need points to stay out the bottom 3. Maybe  City should experiment with 10 CBs and go for a lucky clean sheet and a 0-0 draw

[hogesar 9,618]

I think it was important it was used against Man City, but I do think it was probably a one-off as well.

Hopefully our confidence will start to build with a couple good results, and certainly with a fully fit Tettey and Mulumbu we shouldn''t need 3 centre backs on top of that.

We looked relatively solid but I don''t really want to see it used regularly. Most of the ''big'' teams this season can be got at, in my opinion.

[Mr Jenkins 0]

Good tactical switch by AN which should have delivered a point. Delighted to see his tactical nouse and willingness to learn and change.

[It's Character Forming 1,160]

Absolutely Mr J.

 

I think it''s probably one to keep for relatively rare games like Saturday.  Most games we''re better served with 5 in midfield and we need better cover in midfield against attacks on the break.  As well as simply drilling better for defending set pieces. 

[can u sit down please 0]

I suggested 3 at the back and we press more under hughton and was laughed at.

[Iwans Big Toe 312]

My objection to playing three at the back is that we just don''t have enough bodies to play it on a regular basis week in, week out. This point is emphasised by the fact that Russ is suspended for the game against Swansea leaving us with just two players who have played center back on a regular basis. If either Seb or Ryan get injured we will then be down to less than the bare bones and would have to ask someone to play out of position in the middle. This makes me wonder about the wisdom of sending Turner out on loan, and releasing Cuellar and Miquel before finding a replacement. Not that any of them would be good enough for a regular start, but I would argue that they would be a better option than playing Whits in the middle!

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

Also, I don''t think Wisdom will be available at the weekend – I think I read that they thought he''d be out for a fortnight after the Everton game. Back four pretty much picks itself if that''s the case (unless Olsson is dropped and we play with Brady/Jarvis down the left). However, after Saturday, I''d be more comfortable with both Russ and Wisdom playing as one of three CBs than one of two – there are more elements of full-back play involved in being one of the two wider components of a three. Before the Citeh game Russ had being playing quite poorly wherever he was positioned, so if we use do three at the back I''d be happy with Russ, Ryan and Seb (and Wisdom as backup).

[Ray 111]

It isn''t 3 CB''s, it''s 2 CB''s and a sweeper behind, and if this is RM then the so called third CB can and does play RB, where many on here would prefer RM to play (appreciating he cannot play this weekend). This then makes use of his ''all rounder'' abilities and experience.

This system allows the FB''s to continue to push on, leaving the sweeper (RM) to cover left and right or to step up in to a flat back 3 if needed, if Tettey was to stay defensive then this also mean he can drop in to a flat back 3 whilst RM covers the appropriate winger, assuming the midfield can''t get back to do the job.

It would also allow Mulumbu to press higher up the pitch without leaving us too exposed.

I would tend to play this formation no matter who we are playing as I think it allows greater flexibility, furthermore it gets the guys used to one system rather than chopping and changing on a regular basis, thus fostering consistency.

My preference would to play Brady & Jarvis as left and right midfield, although that may be pie in the sky given that Jarvis may be out for a while.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="can u sit down please"]I suggested 3 at the back and we press more under hughton and was laughed at.[/quote]

You certainly weren''t the first! I suggested it under Morgan and was LOLled at...

[grefstad 0]

I think the system employed vs Man C will likely be used in most games against the "big" sides, even in home games. I will not be surprised to see the system in use vs Arsenal at home in a few weeks time.

Also got a feeling that AN has been pondering on such a setup against the better sides for some time. Don''t think it was a sudden invention just in time for the Man C game.