Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Chripper

Livingston currently showing that three at the back CAN work

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Texas Pete said:

It was 1:0 but accies are shite and Livi are now 8th in the league so they are hardly worth gushing over the way you did in your  post. 

If Livingston get relegated this season I'll never post on here again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Malcolm said:

Good luck finding three centre halfs...  bad enough trying find two that can play.

This is the attitude that I don't really understand.

So, we're bad in central defence, the solution is to play less players there? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Example: We're hopeless in attack, so we should play two strikers in order to lighten the load.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Chripper said:

This is the attitude that I don't really understand.

So, we're bad in central defence, the solution is to play less players there? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Example: We're hopeless in attack, so we should play two strikers in order to lighten the load.

It is generally acknowledged we have more accomplished midfielders than central defenders. The argument for playing as few mediocre players as possible is a compelling one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On this subject I decided to take in the Montpellier game at the weekend and noticed they play 5-3-2 also.

They looked a really effective side smashing Marseille 3-0 should have been more and look much less open that we do on the break.

Most importantly they are joint 2nd so must be doing something right?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, er yir macaroon said:

It is generally acknowledged we have more accomplished midfielders than central defenders. The argument for playing as few mediocre players as possible is a compelling one. 

Generally acknowledged? By whom, exactly? Let's say our midfield is McGinn, McDonald and Armstrong/McGregor: One plays for a struggling side in the English Championship; one plays for a struggling EPL team; one plays for a side who can't break into a struggling EPL team/regularly plays against teams who have no transfer budget.

I would love to know who started this rumour that we're strong in midfield. Spain are strong in midfield, so are Germany and Belgium and France... we are mediocre.

It's a popular misconception that we're stronger in midfield, the truth is, we're equally as bad in midfield as we are in defence.

We're weak in defence and midfield, therefore we need to play three in the middle of midfield AND defence. This was why we played with three in defence in the 90s, our defence sucked, apart from Colin Hendry. But then again, our midfield was considerable stronger then than it is now, what with Collins, McAllister, Lambert. Now THAT is a strong midfield. One of those midfielders is stronger than all of our midfielders combined.

 

Edited by Chripper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, N4Footsoldier said:

On this subject I decided to take in the Montpellier game at the weekend and noticed they play 5-3-2 also.

They looked a really effective side smashing Marseille 3-0 should have been more and look much less open that we do on the break.

Most importantly they are joint 2nd so must be doing something right?

Good post.

The thing is, if you have make it cohesive unit and make sure every single player knows their job, and every single player works for their team-mates, and as you said, be play with relatively fluidity and freedom whilst still keeping discipline, it can be effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Chripper said:

Generally acknowledged? By whom, exactly? Let's say our midfield is McGinn, McDonald and Armstrong/McGregor: One plays for a struggling side in the English Championship; one plays for a struggling EPM team; one plays for a side who can't break into a struggling EPL team/regularly plays against teams who have no transfer budget.

It's a popular misconception that we're stronger in midfield, the truth is, we're equally bad in midfield as we are in defence.

We're weak in defence and midfield, therefore we need to play three in the middle of midfield AND defence. This was why we played with three in defence in the 90s, our defence sucked, apart from Colin Hendry. But then again, our midfield was considerable stronger then than it is now, what with Collins, McAllister, Lambert. Now THAT is a strong midfield. One of those midfielders is stronger than all of our midfielders combined.

I would love to know who started this rumour that we're strong in midfield. Spain are strong in midfield, so are Germany and Belgium and France... we are mediocre.

I would suggest our relative success in the 90s was down to the three midfield players you mentioned rather than anything to do with five at the back, not that we were any great shakes even then.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, er yir macaroon said:

 beI would suggest our relative success in the 90s was down to the three midfield players you mentioned rather than anything to do with five at the back, not that we were any great shakes even then.

Fair point.

I wouldn't say entirely, though. The team were compact, they knew their jobs and they worked like a unit. People like to roll their eyes at three at the back, but there is an argument to be made that it can make a leaky defence more solid, but as always, it needs to be thought out by a manager who knows what what he's doing.

I'm still bewildered by Scotland fans saying that we're "strong in midfield" though. It resembles the whole "If you tell a lie long enough the people start to believe it".

Edited by Chripper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Chripper said:

Fair point.

I wouldn't say entirely, though. The team were compact, they knew their jobs and they worked like a unit. People like to roll their eyes at three at the back, but there is an argument to be made that it can make a leaky defence more solid, but as always, it needs to be thought out by a manager who knows what what he's doing.

I'm still bewildered by Scotland fans saying that we're "strong in midfield" though. It resembles the whole "If you tell a lie long enough the people start to believe it".

I think 3 at the back only works if the players know how to play it. In the last couple of games it has led to large spaces in behind SOD and Robbo when they go forward leaving a narrow back three exposed to counter-attacking wingers putting in lots of crosses. I totally get your point about adding more bodies potentially being a solution to not having great players, but I still think the most natural argument against it is that none of these guys really ever play it week in week out with their clubs. Playing professional footballers out of position in a formation they are not used to is a formula for disaster.

On your other point, I don't think our midfield is as strong as it was a couple of years ago (Fletch, Brown, Morrison, Snoddy etc) but it's hard to argue against the fact we still have a lot more options there. There are only 3 recognised CBs in the squad and one of them is uncapped. Of course we're not as strong as the four best teams in Europe midfield-wise, but that's not what people are saying I think. What they mean is within the Scotland squad alone, midfield is easily our strongest area (apart fro left-back hahaha).

Edited by mrniaboc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mrniaboc said:

I think 3 at the back only works if the players know how to play it. In the last couple of games it has led to large spaces in behind SOD and Robbo when they go forward leaving a narrow back three exposed to counter-attacking wingers putting in lots of crosses. I totally get your point about adding more bodies potentially being a solution to not having great players, but I still think the most natural argument against it is that none of these guys really ever play it week in week out with their clubs. Playing professional footballers out of position in a formation they are not used to is a formula for disaster.

On your other point, I don't think our midfield is as strong as it was a couple of years ago (Fletch, Brown, Morrison, Snoddy etc) but it's hard to argue against the fact we still have a lot more options there. There are only 3 recognised CBs in the squad and one of them is uncapped. Of course we're not as strong as the four best teams in Europe midfield-wise, but that's not what people are saying I think. What they mean is within the Scotland squad alone, midfield is easily our strongest area (apart fro left-back hahaha).

I definitely agree. It's the managers job to make sure that every single player knows their job, to the letter, once they cross the white line. Whether McLeish is that man is still up for debate. But yes, the players have to know how to play it, which can only come from training and drills. I think the formation, when done with fluidity and freedom, can combat the "wingbacks creating spaces at the back", with one of the central defenders moving out wide, in the old "piece of string" philosophy.

I get the "none of the players play with a three with their clubs", but I look back to when we did qualify for tournaments and we played with a three, none of the players played with a three for their clubs then, either. Not one. Football, like any other sport or activity, the more you do something the more you become proficient with it and muscle memory kicks in.

I suppose, but isn't that scary? That we're stronger in midfield? I mean, what in the holy hell does that say about the other areas of the park? It says we're screwed. 😋

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McLeish currently alludes to the lack of experience in the squad and not being able to expect accomplished international players within the first few caps.

I think that inexperience coupled with what is still quite a niche system in world football is hurting us at the moment. If we want to go 5 at the back with attacking fullbacks personally I don't think we need the extra body up front as currently it looks a law of diminishing returns versus there being one less midfielder to cover space when we can get attacked on the break.

Similar to Strachan a major drawback with McLeish is that he's stubborn and will stick with it. Unfortunately it feels like we've spent 75% of the last 4 or 5 years in a transitional period like this one now. We'll see what the next set of international games brings out. Not a big ask to get 2 good results against these next 2 opponents but big questions will indeed be asked if we don't...

Edited by N4Footsoldier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 5:05 PM, N4Footsoldier said:

McLeish currently alludes to the lack of experience in the squad and not being able to expect accomplished international players within the first few caps.

I think that inexperience coupled with what is still quite a niche system in world football is hurting us at the moment. If we want to go 5 at the back with attacking fullbacks personally I don't think we need the extra body up front as currently it looks a law of diminishing returns versus there being one less midfielder to cover space when we can get attacked on the break.

Similar to Strachan a major drawback with McLeish is that he's stubborn and will stick with it. Unfortunately it feels like we've spent 75% of the last 4 or 5 years in a transitional period like this one now. We'll see what the next set of international games brings out. Not a big ask to get 2 good results against these next 2 opponents but big questions will indeed be asked if we don't...

Spot on. McLeish is showing himself to be a dinosaur by not embracing change. I find it quite embarrassing that he said that he was adamant that he was going to switch to 3-5-2 and give it a proper chance, and then he goes ahead and ditches it after two competitive matches.

When everyone is fit this is my first 11. The right wingback position is a questionable one.

                                  McGregor

                        McKenna - Bates - Souttar

    ?                                                                           Teirney

                    Armstrong - Robertson - Fraser

                               Forrest - Fletcher

Play this formation and these players (barring injury) for a solid two years of a qualification campaign, and drill the tactics into the players, and we will qualify for Euro 2020.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Chripper said:

Spot on. McLeish is showing himself to be a dinosaur by not embracing change. I find it quite embarrassing that he said that he was adamant that he was going to switch to 3-5-2 and give it a proper chance, and then he goes ahead and ditches it after two competitive matches.

When everyone is fit this is my first 11. The right wingback position is a questionable one.

                                  McGregor

                        McKenna - Bates - Souttar

    ?                                                                           Teirney

                    Armstrong - Robertson - Fraser

                               Forrest - Fletcher

Play this formation and these players (barring injury) for a solid two years of a qualification campaign, and drill the tactics into the players, and we will qualify for Euro 2020.

You're obsession with playing our best player in a position that is alien to him and negates his best assets (crossing/speed) absolutely baffles me.

That and your obsession with playing 3 at the back and being adamant it'll see us qualify no questions asked.

Thankfully, you aren't the manager.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Squirrelhumper said:

You're obsession with playing our best player in a position that is alien to him and negates his best assets (crossing/speed) absolutely baffles me.

That and your obsession with playing 3 at the back and being adamant it'll see us qualify no questions asked.

Thankfully, you aren't the manager.

We've been playing players in their "best position" for 18 years. What have we qualified for since then?

No. No questions asked at all. Our players are simply not suited to four at the back, haven't been since the mid 90s.

Yes, thankfully I'm not the manager. Enjoy another qualification campaign of failure, I think people would rather have that than change something and see where it takes us.

Edited by Chripper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Chripper said:

We've been playing players in their "best position" for 18 years. What have we qualified for since then?

No. No questions asked at all. Our players are simply not suited to four at the back, haven't been since the mid 90s.

Yes, thankfully I'm not the manager. Enjoy another qualification campaign of failure, I think people would rather have that than change something and see where it takes us.

I think that's what a "Yes" voter would've said after the referendum results.

And since I voted Yes, and I said the aforementioned quote, it's exactly what a yes voted would've said after the referendum results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, PASTA Mick said:

Celtic look dreadful whenever we play 3 at the back.

I really don't think it would work for Scotland. 

Really? I'm surprised at that, as three at the back CAN be an expansive way of playing. 

However, it can also be a tight and compact way of playing, which is why I think it would suit Scotland. a variation of 4 at the back makes us look like Swiss cheese and the better players/teams expose us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chripper said:

I think that's what a "Yes" voter would've said after the referendum results.

And since I voted Yes, and I said the aforementioned quote, it's exactly what a yes voted would've said after the referendum results.

Are you talking to yourself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Squirrelhumper said:

You're obsession with playing our best player in a position that is alien to him and negates his best assets (crossing/speed) absolutely baffles me.

That and your obsession with playing 3 at the back and being adamant it'll see us qualify no questions asked.

Thankfully, you aren't the 

He wants half of our team playing in positions they don't play on a regular  basis and there's nobody to play right wing back, having nobody for that position is bizarre enough but wanting out best player who is tearing teams apart from LB to move to midfield is beyond stupidity 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

He wants half of our team playing in positions they don't play on a regular  basis and there's nobody to play right wing back, having nobody for that position is bizarre enough but wanting out best player who is tearing teams apart from LB to move to midfield is beyond stupidity 

Yeah... I'm asking some of the players to adapt to a new formation and new tactics, I'm not asking them to adapt to a new sport.

Difference is, Liverpool have Keita and Fabinho in midfield... we don't. Robertson would be an absolute tiger in midfield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mrniaboc said:

How can this same discussion now be happening on three separate threads?

There's a common denominator in all of the threads. The guy is like a dog with a fuckin bone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×