Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Chripper

Livingston currently showing that three at the back CAN work

Recommended Posts

53 minutes ago, vanderark14 said:

they played four at the back, check with Aberdeen fans who were there.  

On a separate note and totally unrelated to this, what team do you support besides Scotland?

So, they did analysis on Sportscene of an entirely different Aberdeen? Watch the coverage on the bbc iplayer. Scroll to 30 mins. 

If you want to say that Aberdeen played with four at the back, fine, email sportscene and tell them that they're wrong.

I've mentioned it once or twice in my tenure here, if you're really that interested then you can look for yourself, if you aren't then you won't. And no, it's not Celtic or Rangers, before you jump to any conclusions that would make me feel sick.

Share this post


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

So, they did analysis on Sportscene of an entirely different Aberdeen? Watch the coverage on the bbc iplayer. Scroll to 30 mins. 

If you want to say that Aberdeen played with four at the back, fine, email sportscene and tell them that they're wrong.

I've mentioned it once or twice in my tenure here, if you're really that interested then you can look for yourself, if you aren't then you won't. And no, it's not Celtic or Rangers, before you jump to any conclusions that would make me feel sick.

Michael Stewart said it was a back 3, every dons fan I have spoken to said it was our usual back four. 

I won't be searching to find out who you support, you could have been decent and said who you support but as always you decided to be an ass about it. Its not really important, there was no real motivation behind me asking the question, just curiosity. 

 

Share this post


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

I guarantee, if Nuno Espirito Santo (Wolves manager) was in charge of Scotland we'd qualify for whatever was in front of us.

Take the top 6 out of the EPL and they're comfortable the best team in the league. Is that all down to formation? No. It's down to the players being drilled and knowing their job, inside and out. It's about organization and it's about team spirit. All that is down to the manager.

But you're right, a formation is dictated by players available, which points quite clearly to the fact that we can't play with a flat back four, and we haven't been about to since the early 90's. It's up to McLeish to have the balls to pick a three and stick to it. He was a top defender, surely to god he can give the players the information needed to adapt.

A defence of Souttar, Bates and McKenna has immense potential.

They also threw money at it, which a national manager can't do.

Share this post


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

They also threw money at it, which a national manager can't do.

And they have the players seven days a week all season added to the fact that all our players play in four at the back formations. This thread thread should either be archived or in the football related forum.

OK a minority of teams play it but the surface Livingston play on is far more relevant to their position in the league than their formation, but it is pretty stupid to suggest we should adopt it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, ceudmilefailte said:

And they have the players seven days a week all season added to the fact that all our players play in four at the back formations. This thread thread should either be archived or in the football related forum.

OK a minority of teams play it but the surface Livingston play on is far more relevant to their position in the league than their formation, but it is pretty stupid to suggest we should adopt it.

What does that even mean? Our players play with a 4 all season long, is that correct? So, our players should be good at it, right? Wrong. None of our players play at the very top level, fighting for major silverware. (Apart from Robertson)

Stupid? Yes. Let's keep doing the same old tried and failed system and don't even attempt to think outside the box.

Maybe I should break it down: International level is a massive level. We have average players. When an average team plays at a massive level they must bridge the gap somehow. That "somehow" is playing more players in a position where we are vulnerable. Our defenders simply are not good enough to play in a four at international level. Just because a core of our players look good against St Mirren and Hamilton all year round doesn't mean four is our best system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, vanderark14 said:

Michael Stewart said it was a back 3, every dons fan I have spoken to said it was our usual back four. 

I won't be searching to find out who you support, you could have been decent and said who you support but as always you decided to be an ass about it. Its not really important, there was no real motivation behind me asking the question, just curiosity. 

 

It also came up the formations at the start of the match. Both started with a three, according to Sportscene..

Oh, you mean decent like:

"You have a great evening replying to yourself and resurrecting old arguments👍🏻👍🏻🤣"

Yes, well, if you give out derision don't be surprised if you receive it back.

Share this post


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

 

It also came up the formations at the start of the match. Both started with a three, according to Sportscene..

Oh, you mean decent like:

"You have a great evening replying to yourself and resurrecting old arguments👍🏻👍🏻🤣"

Yes, well, if you give out derision don't be surprised if you receive it back.

if you think that was derision, you should stay off football forums. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vanderark14 said:

if you think that was derision, you should stay off football forums. 

If you think my reply showed a lack of decency, you should take your own advice.

Share this post


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

What does that even mean? Our players play with a 4 all season long, is that correct? So, our players should be good at it, right? Wrong. None of our players play at the very top level, fighting for major silverware. (Apart from Robertson)

Stupid? Yes. Let's keep doing the same old tried and failed system and don't even attempt to think outside the box.

Maybe I should break it down: International level is a massive level. We have average players. When an average team plays at a massive level they must bridge the gap somehow. That "somehow" is playing more players in a position where we are vulnerable. Our defenders simply are not good enough to play in a four at international level. Just because a core of our players look good against St Mirren and Hamilton all year round doesn't mean four is our best system.

Not even going to bother explaining that to you.

Share this post


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

Not even going to bother explaining that to you.

Because I'm right?

Wise move not to challenge it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We're really weak up front right now. I'd like to see us playing three up front. I know it's not what the lads are used to, but it will give us some real support in a vulnerable area, and it's time we tried something completely different, because the current system just isn't working. 

Share this post


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

We're really weak up front right now. I'd like to see us playing three up front. I know it's not what the lads are used to, but it will give us some real support in a vulnerable area, and it's time we tried something completely different, because the current system just isn't working. 

Huzzah! The voice of reason!

If I were you I'd keep quiet about that one, lest you be chased by POF Villagers wielding pitchforks and torches. Apparently people are happy with keeping the status quo and underachieving. 

I don't think people here like change. What did Einstein say? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. People are obsessed with four at the back because it's traditional, even though we've been failing with it for 17 years. How many years of failure do people need to be able to be open minded to try something new?

Share this post


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

Huzzah! The voice of reason!

If I were you I'd keep quiet about that one, lest you be chased by POF Villagers wielding pitchforks and torches. Apparently people are happy with keeping the status quo and underachieving. 

I don't think people here like change. What did Einstein say? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. People are obsessed with four at the back because it's traditional, even though we've been failing with it for 17 years. How many years of failure do people need to be able to be open minded to try something new?

 No, Einstein's famous quote was "Don't belive everything you read on the internet." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mrniaboc said:

 No, Einstein's famous quote was "Don't belive everything you read on the internet." 

No. No. That's not the one that I'm thinking of. The Einstein quote that I was looking for is: "Three at the back is the way forward for teams with limited ability"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/4/2019 at 6:46 PM, mrniaboc said:

We're really weak up front right now. I'd like to see us playing three up front. I know it's not what the lads are used to, but it will give us some real support in a vulnerable area, and it's time we tried something completely different, because the current system just isn't working. 

Umm..
did we not win our last 2 competitive games playing a back 4?
and lost the last competitive game we played a back 3?
and played all bar one of our 6 compitive games in 2017 with a back 4, and were undefeated?

Which part of this isnt working and needs a drastic change?

Does anyone actually even play 3 at the back any more?
Wasn't it just a fad that went thru a few years ago?
Can anyone tell me the teams who are in the top 5 of any decent European league who play with a back 3? Cos I think there's one, maybe.

Share this post


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

Umm..
did we not win our last 2 competitive games playing a back 4?
and lost the last competitive game we played a back 3?
and played all bar one of our 6 compitive games in 2017 with a back 4, and were undefeated?

Which part of this isnt working and needs a drastic change?

Does anyone actually even play 3 at the back any more?
Wasn't it just a fad that went thru a few years ago?
Can anyone tell me the teams who are in the top 5 of any decent European league who play with a back 3? Cos I think there's one, maybe.

I think you should read my post again. It was a pastiche. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, andyD said:

Umm..
did we not win our last 2 competitive games playing a back 4?
and lost the last competitive game we played a back 3?
and played all bar one of our 6 compitive games in 2017 with a back 4, and were undefeated?

Which part of this isnt working and needs a drastic change?

Does anyone actually even play 3 at the back any more?
Wasn't it just a fad that went thru a few years ago?
Can anyone tell me the teams who are in the top 5 of any decent European league who play with a back 3? Cos I think there's one, maybe.

So, we won our last 2 competitive games (Against the football powerhouses Albania and Israel) and that eradicates us missing out on 9 tournaments? I don't think so.

Does anyone actually play 3 at the back anymore? Last weekend half of the SPL teams played it, so I'm thinking yes. Wolves are also playing it and doing quite well.

Newsflash, Scotland are hopeless. It's a fact. Whether "top teams don't play with a 3" just goes to solidify my point. We are not a top team, so we have to condense matches and make it uncomfortable for the opposition. Playing with a three, just by mere numerical values, will make it tougher to play against us.

Edited by Chripper

Share this post


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

So, we won our last 2 competitive games (Against the football powerhouses Albania and Israel) and that eradicates us missing out on 9 tournaments? I don't think so.

Does anyone actually play 3 at the back anymore? Last weekend half of the SPL teams played it, so I'm thinking yes. Wolves are also playing it and doing quite well.

Newsflash, Scotland are hopeless. It's a fact. Whether "top teams don't play with a 3" just goes to solidify my point. We are not a top team, so we have to condense matches and make it uncomfortable for the opposition. Playing with a three, just by mere numerical values, will make it tougher to play against us.

You're blaming not going to 9 tournaments on playing a back 4? How many teams (many who are poorer than us in terms of playing staff) made it to those tournaments playing a back 4? I'll happily wager that the number is pretty high.

Last weekend in the SPL.. the pinnacle of football. The teams that played back 3s (or 5s) were: Hibs, St Mirren, Hearts, Motherwell and Livi. Not exactly an advert for success, is it? Taking your premise that playing a back 3 solidifies your side against better opposition, this lot still get stuffed most weeks and only Hearts are threatening the top 5, tho that league position is in large part down to the early season form when they were (you guessed it) playing with a back 4. Ask yourself how many players in the squad play in teams who play a back 3. Is it.. none?

"Newsflash, Scotland are hopeless." Well, you should just give up now then, boss. Cos I've seen a side with potential. A bit of pace finally, Fraser becoming more influential, Forrest actually playing well, strikers in decent form, young defenders coming thru and a more balanced midfield than we've had in a long time. Now's the time to very much stick with what we have and let the team grow. Swapping to a back 3 now pulls the rug out from under everyone, make young players have to try and play roles they're not familiar with while at the same time coming to grips with playing international football. And that's something even our prize player and captain was complaining about not long ago. It might be a simple shift to you, but Robertson was saying how he didn't really know what he was doing as a wing back. And forgive me if i take his opinion over yours.

End of the day. We're not actually in a bad spot right now. And those with a furvor for a back 3 are mostly just kneejerkers, who want to pretend they know why we haven't qualified in a long time and want to seem like they're so smart that they have an answer to fix it. They're like brexiters: "Information and facts be damned, we've got a daft idea and we're sticking to it!" Aye, great.. thankfully no ones asking the public if they want a back 3.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, andyD said:

You're blaming not going to 9 tournaments on playing a back 4? How many teams (many who are poorer than us in terms of playing staff) made it to those tournaments playing a back 4? I'll happily wager that the number is pretty high.

Last weekend in the SPL.. the pinnacle of football. The teams that played back 3s (or 5s) were: Hibs, St Mirren, Hearts, Motherwell and Livi. Not exactly an advert for success, is it? Taking your premise that playing a back 3 solidifies your side against better opposition, this lot still get stuffed most weeks and only Hearts are threatening the top 5, tho that league position is in large part down to the early season form when they were (you guessed it) playing with a back 4. Ask yourself how many players in the squad play in teams who play a back 3. Is it.. none?

"Newsflash, Scotland are hopeless." Well, you should just give up now then, boss. Cos I've seen a side with potential. A bit of pace finally, Fraser becoming more influential, Forrest actually playing well, strikers in decent form, young defenders coming thru and a more balanced midfield than we've had in a long time. Now's the time to very much stick with what we have and let the team grow. Swapping to a back 3 now pulls the rug out from under everyone, make young players have to try and play roles they're not familiar with while at the same time coming to grips with playing international football. And that's something even our prize player and captain was complaining about not long ago. It might be a simple shift to you, but Robertson was saying how he didn't really know what he was doing as a wing back. And forgive me if i take his opinion over yours.

End of the day. We're not actually in a bad spot right now. And those with a furvor for a back 3 are mostly just kneejerkers, who want to pretend they know why we haven't qualified in a long time and want to seem like they're so smart that they have an answer to fix it. They're like brexiters: "Information and facts be damned, we've got a daft idea and we're sticking to it!" Aye, great.. thankfully no ones asking the public if they want a back 3.

 

Not exclusively, no. But you have to look at the facts. Since Craig Brown left we haven't qualified for anything. He realized that we couldn't play with a 4, so it astounds me that his successors didn't. Did you just ask me how many poorer teams have qualified playing a back four? How can they be poorer than us and yet they qualified and we didn't? That makes absolutely no sense. I'd say that every international team who have qualified for each World Cup and Euro Championships have been better than us... which is why they qualified and we didn't.

Whether or not Scottish football is the pinnacle of football is irrelevant. You asked a question "does anyone play with a 3 anymore?", and I answered. Players who play in Scotland are still being chosen for our national team, therefore, the formations and tactics that are used in Scotland is relevant, whether you like it or not. Again, you can play the snob all you like by looking down your nose at the SPL, Hibs, St Mirren, Hearts, Motherwell and Livi (Aberdeen also played with a back three), all you like, doesn't lend any more credence to your argument. Just makes you look like a general English football journalist. How many Scotland players played in a back three? Souttar and Berra. Again, it's irrelevant. Under Craig Brown we had who playing in a back three? Hendry, Calderwood and Weir. None of them played in a three at club level, ever... and yet...

You see potential? How many false dawns have we had for the last 18 years? More than I can actually remember. Too many that I'd care to remember. And with each and every one we should feel more and more embarrassed that we ever thought that things would change. The facts are if we don't change something then we are going to be in a perpetual state of stasis, if we aren't in it already. It feels like Groundhog day being a Scotland fan. We get all exited and we think that this is the time that we FINALLY make our mark, that we have a few decent kids on the horizon and we have a blend that could bring success... the curtain goes up... and then we fail. Repeat for every qualification campaign.

Personally, when Vogts was appointed manager I was cursing him for ripping up the formation that brought us success and switched to a back four. So, personally, I've been wanting us to play with a back three for 18 year... and counting...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the "None of our players play with three at the back at club level" means absolutely nothing. During Craig Brown's tenure, how many Scotland players played in a three at club level? One. Matt Elliott. 

So, in essence, people are saying that our players are so bad that they can't adapt to different formations or our pool of players are worse than they were under Craig Brown. Or maybe it's both. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot of reason we've slumped since Brown. An aging side than needed replaced, a succession of poor or non-committed managers, some tough draws, influx of foreign players getting game time ahead of home-growns, an improvement in the general quality of international sides that had previously been classed as mickey-mouse. There's a lot of reasons. None of them are because we tried to play 4 at the back.

I didn't just ask if anyone played 3 at the back, i asked for " top 5 of any decent European league "  and you gave me St Mirren. The point I was making about 3 at the back is.. no one has any success with it currently, do they? This thing that you're parading as the answer to all our troubles is rejected by every football team that isn't at propping up a league. And while you might think Scotland are hopeless, we just won our nations league group and have never  propped up an international qualifying group in my memory.

4231 suits our current personnel. A back 3 does not, ask our captain if you want evidence of that.

Your reasoning that "we've failed before" is equally silly. Yes, a different group of players didn't get quite enough results against a different group of different nations.. So let's do something drastic with this new group of players we have now who are showing good signs in the 4231 system. Your logic is.. not logical.

You're 100% kneejerking imo. You want change because you're disappointed, and we all are disappointed. But a back 3 is not a magical solution that will make us any better. We don't have the players for it, but we do have a decent crop for the 4231 we've recently played. So the culmination is that you're advocating something silly because you're frustrated with 20 years of not quite getting over the line. But that frustration doesn't make it less silly of a thing.

Anyway, if you want to shout abot aback 3, be my guest. Just be aware that you're bonkers while doing it. I on the other hand am now comforted in the knowledge that I've got a fall-back career that i'm suited for should my current gig fail. MOTD2 here i come!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, andyD said:

You're blaming not going to 9 tournaments on playing a back 4? How many teams (many who are poorer than us in terms of playing staff) made it to those tournaments playing a back 4? I'll happily wager that the number is pretty high.

Last weekend in the SPL.. the pinnacle of football. The teams that played back 3s (or 5s) were: Hibs, St Mirren, Hearts, Motherwell and Livi. Not exactly an advert for success, is it? Taking your premise that playing a back 3 solidifies your side against better opposition, this lot still get stuffed most weeks and only Hearts are threatening the top 5, tho that league position is in large part down to the early season form when they were (you guessed it) playing with a back 4. Ask yourself how many players in the squad play in teams who play a back 3. Is it.. none?

"Newsflash, Scotland are hopeless." Well, you should just give up now then, boss. Cos I've seen a side with potential. A bit of pace finally, Fraser becoming more influential, Forrest actually playing well, strikers in decent form, young defenders coming thru and a more balanced midfield than we've had in a long time. Now's the time to very much stick with what we have and let the team grow. Swapping to a back 3 now pulls the rug out from under everyone, make young players have to try and play roles they're not familiar with while at the same time coming to grips with playing international football. And that's something even our prize player and captain was complaining about not long ago. It might be a simple shift to you, but Robertson was saying how he didn't really know what he was doing as a wing back. And forgive me if i take his opinion over yours.

End of the day. We're not actually in a bad spot right now. And those with a furvor for a back 3 are mostly just kneejerkers, who want to pretend they know why we haven't qualified in a long time and want to seem like they're so smart that they have an answer to fix it. They're like brexiters: "Information and facts be damned, we've got a daft idea and we're sticking to it!" Aye, great.. thankfully no ones asking the public if they want a back 3.

 

100% right in every aspect, but when you can just retort with "but we haven't qualified for any thing for 20 years" you really are wasting your time pointing things  out.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I didn't just ask if anyone played 3 at the back, i asked for " top 5 of any decent European league "  and you gave me St Mirren. The point I was making about 3 at the back is.. no one has any success with it currently, do they? This thing that you're parading as the answer to all our troubles is rejected by every football team that isn't at propping up a league. And while you might think Scotland are hopeless, we just won our nations league group and have never  propped up an international qualifying group in my memory.

4231 suits our current personnel. A back 3 does not, ask our captain if you want evidence of that.

Your reasoning that "we've failed before" is equally silly. Yes, a different group of players didn't get quite enough results against a different group of different nations.. So let's do something drastic with this new group of players we have now who are showing good signs in the 4231 system. Your logic is.. not logical.

You're 100% kneejerking imo. You want change because you're disappointed, and we all are disappointed. But a back 3 is not a magical solution that will make us any better. We don't have the players for it, but we do have a decent crop for the 4231 we've recently played. So the culmination is that you're advocating something silly because you're frustrated with 20 years of not quite getting over the line. But that frustration doesn't make it less silly of a thing.

Anyway, if you want to shout abot aback 3, be my guest. Just be aware that you're bonkers while doing it. I on the other hand am now comforted in the knowledge that I've got a fall-back career that i'm suited for should my current gig fail. MOTD2 here i come!

I gave you St Mirren? I didn't give you St Mirren. I didn't even mention St Mirren. You're the one who brought St Mirren into the debate. If anything, I said Livingston and Wolves. Has anyone had any success with three? Not that I'm aware of. But that's the point, isn't it? The teams that win things don't have to resort to plugging holes by playing three at the back. Did I say that playing three would solve all our ailments? No, I did not. Our game should be gutted, from root to branch. I don't care if we won the nations league group. I don't care if we beat Albania and Israel. It all means nothing. It's nothing but a plaster over a bomb wound.

Yes. We've had so much success with 4 at the back. It was last success, when? 1990? Ponder that one for a bit and then come back to me and tell me that we're equipped to play with 4. 

We have failed with 4 at the back since 2001. It's fact. I have facts backing me up. We have failed. The simple fact that people don't want to even try to go back to something that actually worked, is quite frankly, insane

I've been championing 3 at the back for 18 years. That's one hell of a long kneejerk reaction!

Listen, we've given 4 at the back a chance. We've had a gay old time of it. We've had our ups and our downs (a LOT of downs). No one says we haven't, because we have. But it's time to try other avenues and go down different paths. We haven't had success with 4 at the back and I doubt we ever will, till we can produce two high standard center backs and a good right back. Personally, I think we should give three at the back a chance. The problem is that McLeish completely lacks any kind of conviction. He was adamant that we should "go back to the future", in terms of playing with a three, and yet he only gives it a couple of matches. He's completely spineless.

If you want someone to give the Beeb a reference, give me a shout. :P

 

 

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  

×