Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Chripper

Livingston currently showing that three at the back CAN work

Recommended Posts

In the SPL today, six out of 10 teams are playing with a variant of 3 at the back. 5 teams are playing with it in the EPL.

Crystal Palace aren't doing a bad job with it against Man City. (Not saying they'll win.)

One of argument it me was "No one plays with 3 at the back anymore".

</Theory bebunked>

 

Share this post


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

In the SPL today, six out of 10 teams are playing with a variant of 3 at the back. 5 teams are playing with it in the EPL.

Crystal Palace aren't doing a bad job with it against Man City. (Not saying they'll win.)

One of argument it me was "No one plays with 3 at the back anymore".

</Theory bebunked>

 

 

More teams have been playing three at the back recently.  Scotland looked terrible trying it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

More teams have been playing three at the back recently.  Scotland looked terrible trying it.

What, you mean the whole 180 minutes we gave It a try? (with one win) Yes, we can it a whole two games and we didn't look like Barcelona, so lets go back to the tried and failed system.

"Repetition is the mother of learning" 

Share this post


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

lets go back to the tried and failed system.

"Repetition is the mother of learning" 

Every time you say that it knocks back my ability to listen to anything you say seriously.

You make plenty good points, but that one shows a total ignorance of football. Maybe over the last 20 years if we had played three at the back we might have qualified for something ,maybe not. impossible to have done worse which seems to be what your argument is based on,.

What happens next has nothing to do with what has happened before.

This is nearly a  totally different group of players. End of last season nobody was suggesting Fraser should be in the team, now he is a first choice. Forrest was crap, and we weren't even sure who our best left back was . You can only pick a team with what you have, and if you have enough good players in certain positions you play them in the formations they play well in at club level if possible. Currently we have a number of good players playing in four at the back teams all we can do is fill in the blanks. You seem to think you can just change the system and leave yourself  ten blanks to fill.

 

Share this post


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

Every time you say that it knocks back my ability to listen to anything you say seriously.

You make plenty good points, but that one shows a total ignorance of football. Maybe over the last 20 years if we had played three at the back we might have qualified for something ,maybe not. impossible to have done worse which seems to be what your argument is based on,.

What happens next has nothing to do with what has happened before.

This is nearly a  totally different group of players. End of last season nobody was suggesting Fraser should be in the team, now he is a first choice. Forrest was crap, and we weren't even sure who our best left back was . You can only pick a team with what you have, and if you have enough good players in certain positions you play them in the formations they play well in at club level if possible. Currently we have a number of good players playing in four at the back teams all we can do is fill in the blanks. You seem to think you can just change the system and leave yourself  ten blanks to fill.

 

You make good points, especially with Fraser, Forrest and Robertson, etc.

However, the "That was then and this is now" argument happens after every failed qualification campaign. The exact same thing will happen after the next failed European Championship qualifiers. I guarantee, when we fail to qualify for Euro 2020 the traditional way, I'll bring us altering the system and people will say "That was then and this is now".

I respect your opinion, as I do with everyone here, though it may seem otherwise. But in my opinion we don't have players suitable for a 4 at the back system. You say that we do, fine, how many of our players are still in European competitions? Robertson, Gordon, McGregor, Forrest, McTominay, Tierney. No center backs to be seen.

As I said, I respect your opinion, so there's no hard feelings with anyone here. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, as long as they do it in a respectful way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Malcolm said:

 

More teams have been playing three at the back recently.  Scotland looked terrible trying it.

 

10 hours ago, Chripper said:

What, you mean the whole 180 minutes we gave It a try? (with one win) Yes, we can it a whole two games and we didn't look like Barcelona, so lets go back to the tried and failed system.

"Repetition is the mother of learning" 

 

At club level when you have a lot of time to train up to playing 3 at the back, it may well work for the players Scotland have. If Scotland were a club side, maybe they would have every day at training to learn the system.

 

But the national side doesn't have endless amounts of time and the players looked far more comfortable playing 4 at the back. I was in Haifa, we were a shambles defensively that night, with SOD and Robertson both being caught numerous times too high exposing our back three to pacey Israeli wide players. Indeed it was how Souttar ended up being cautioned twice and thus being dismissed.

 

I'm not against 3 at the back, it worked against England last campaign, but for me, the formation needs to be horses for courses. Against Albania and Israel, we were a good enough team to play four at the back and it's no coincidence that when we reverted to that, we got two better results than the games we played 3 at the back. Against inferior teams, 4 at the back works better for us. Against better teams, 3 at the back may have merit but we need to find a better right wing back than SOD to play it.

Personally I also don't agree with comparisons to Craig Brown teams of near 20 years ago. He had players far superior and thus far more able to adapt than Alex McLeish has. Comparing chalk with cheese

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, BucksburnDandy said:

 

 

At club level when you have a lot of time to train up to playing 3 at the back, it may well work for the players Scotland have. If Scotland were a club side, maybe they would have every day at training to learn the system.

 

But the national side doesn't have endless amounts of time and the players looked far more comfortable playing 4 at the back. I was in Haifa, we were a shambles defensively that night, with SOD and Robertson both being caught numerous times too high exposing our back three to pacey Israeli wide players. Indeed it was how Souttar ended up being cautioned twice and thus being dismissed.

 

I'm not against 3 at the back, it worked against England last campaign, but for me, the formation needs to be horses for courses. Against Albania and Israel, we were a good enough team to play four at the back and it's no coincidence that when we reverted to that, we got two better results than the games we played 3 at the back. Against inferior teams, 4 at the back works better for us. Against better teams, 3 at the back may have merit but we need to find a better right wing back than SOD to play it.

Personally I also don't agree with comparisons to Craig Brown teams of near 20 years ago. He had players far superior and thus far more able to adapt than Alex McLeish has. Comparing chalk with cheese

I know that the amount of time the team can practice a system is limited to what, a week or so? I know that that can be a factor, but the more we endeavor and persevere with it the more chance that I think the players have of adapting to it. It won't happen overnight, the only thing that happens overnight is Dawn. Teams across Europe are playing with a variant of 3, and a fair share of them in our top league.

I do agree that we had a better midfield under Craig Brown, but not necessarily better defenders... well... apart from Colin Hendry.

I think it's moot anyway as Alex McLeish will almost certainly play with 4 at the back till he either quits or he's fired.

To be honest, the only chance of us shaking things up is by hiring a progressive manager, but the chances of that happening are nonexistent.

I hope I'm wrong, I hope we qualify for 2020 in a blaze of glory with 4 at the back. We all do, that's what brings us together, even if we may fight like cat and dog, at the end of the day we all want the same thing.

Share this post


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

Sometimes we get too hung up on systems.  Craig brown played four at the back quite a few times by the way.  You need good players at the end of the day.

I agree that yes, we do get too hung up on systems because at the end of a game it's how the players perform.

He did? I'm sure it was just a couple of times. The Craig Brown years where the generation that I grew up in so I always paid extra close attention to every match.

Back then we did have much better midfielders and better strikers and better keepers, but you could make an argument about McKenna and Bates and Souttar either being as good as or they could be better than Elliot, Matteo, Daily, Boyd, Calderwood, etc. 

The entire philosophy of 3-5-2 is to have 8 players down the middle with the midfield being compact and the defensive three being well organized. If you have numbers in certain positions and you're well drilled then it can be a leveller. The key is having a three at the back because when we play with 2 we're the football equivalent of Swiss cheese.

My seasonal wish is for there to be an opportunity for me to be proven wrong, but I get the distinct impression that McLeish will play 4-3-3 from now on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This week Fri-Sun a total of 6 SPL out of 12 played with three at the back.

Including McKenna, Berra and Souttar.

Not back for a formation that "No one uses anymore"

Share this post


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

This week Fri-Sun a total of 6 SPL out of 12 played with three at the back.

Including McKenna, Berra and Souttar.

Not back for a formation that "No one uses anymore"

Unless I'm reading this wrong, are you saying McKenna played in a back 3? 

If so, he never played at all due to injury and Aberdeen played a back 4 as the do most weeks.

Share this post


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

Unless I'm reading this wrong, are you saying McKenna played in a back 3? 

If so, he never played at all due to injury and Aberdeen played a back 4 as the do most weeks.

Oops, my bad, he is injured.

But no, Sportscene did about 5 minutes of analysis on the three at the back system that Aberdeen used at the weekend.

Share this post


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

Oops, my bad, he is injured.

But no, Sportscene did about 5 minutes of analysis on the three at the back system that Aberdeen used at the weekend.

Lowe at left back

Hoban and considine at CB

Logan at right back.

 

Share this post


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

Lowe at left back

Hoban and considine at CB

Logan at right back.

 

Watch Sportscene.

On the three at the back system, Match of the day also did an analysis of Wolves's usage of it.

Share this post


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

Watch Sportscene.

On the three at the back system, Match of the day also did an analysis of Wolves's usage of 

I'll watch the highlights online of all he Scottish games on Monday. I don't want or need to watch their analysis of wolves back 3.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vanderark14 said:

I'll watch the highlights online of all he Scottish games on Monday. I don't want or need to watch their analysis of wolves back 3.

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

That sounds good.

You don't want or need it? Obviously. it's football, it's not life saving surgery. 

Nah. Just noting that I noticed the kid on his debut. And I brought up a fact, despite the fact that some people think no one plays with three at the back anymore.

I'm sorry about that, is it against the rules? If so, I'm awfully sorry. I'm so ashamed of myself. How can I possibly make amends?! That's rhetorical. Meaning there's no need for you to reply.

I can see why you're so spikey, though, what with you not even knowing what formation your team played. Yikes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3, 4 or 5 at the back can all work, it would be unnecessary to rule out any reasonable formation. Bumping this thread anytime Livingston have a good win or performance is comical though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

3, 4 or 5 at the back can all work, it would be unnecessary to rule out any reasonable formation. Bumping this thread anytime Livingston have a good win or performance is comical though. 

Is that why I bumped it?

They just lost 3:0. I suggest that you read my post. I didn't even mention Livingston. However, I did note that 6 teams out of 12 used three at the back. Not bad for an obsolete formation.

 

Share this post


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

Is that why I bumped it?

They just lost 3:0. I suggest that you read my post. I didn't even mention Livingston. However, I did note that 6 teams out of 12 used three at the back. Not bad for an obsolete formation.

 

Fair point. It’s not an obsolete formation, maybe at the higher levels it’s used less frequently, I don’t know. But the formation we play surely is dictated by our players available and opponents 

Share this post


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

Fair point. It’s not an obsolete formation, maybe at the higher levels it’s used less frequently, I don’t know. But the formation we play surely is dictated by our players available and opponents 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

Nobody can make that guarantee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, ParisInAKilt said:

Nobody can make that guarantee

The main argument of us not playing three at the back is that our players don't play with that formation at club level, well, when half of the SPL teams play it in a set of weekend fixtures, it's time to put that argument away.

Yes, coached well almost all formation can work, but we've had what, seven full time managers in the past 17 years? (McLeish twice) Two of them were top defenders, and yet we've qualified for zilch. Either none of those managers can't coach our defenders in those years to be successful with a flat back four, or our defenders simply cannot cope at international level in a four. I think it's the latter.

 

Share this post


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

The main argument of us not playing three at the back is that our players don't play with that formation at club level, well, when half of the SPL teams play it in a set of weekend fixtures, it's time to put that argument away.

Yes, coached well almost all formation can work, but we've had what, seven full time managers in the past 17 years? (McLeish twice) Two of them were top defenders, and yet we've qualified for zilch. Either none of those managers can't coach our defenders in those years to be successful with a flat back four, or our defenders simply cannot cope at international level in a four. I think it's the latter.

 

There’s more than one reason why we’ve failed to qualify, 2010 World Cup sticks out especially and I’d primarily blame Levein’s tactics or lack for that. World cups are especially hard to qualify but we’ve undoubtedly underperformed to not make a few playoffs. Our attitude away from home absolutely stinks and has been a problem with each manager and squad since 2008.

Maybe a back 3 would have improved results, it’s difficult to say and I’ve never said we shouldn’t adopt, although in the little time I’ve considered I don’t think it would be good for this group of players or the tactics we come up against.

Share this post


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

That sounds good.

You don't want or need it? Obviously. it's football, it's not life saving surgery. 

Nah. Just noting that I noticed the kid on his debut. And I brought up a fact, despite the fact that some people think no one plays with three at the back anymore.

I'm sorry about that, is it against the rules? If so, I'm awfully sorry. I'm so ashamed of myself. How can I possibly make amends?! That's rhetorical. Meaning there's no need for you to reply.

I can see why you're so spikey, though, what with you not even knowing what formation your team played. Yikes.

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?

Edited by vanderark14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...