Back to 4 at the back... - TA specific - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Back to 4 at the back...


daviebee
 Share

Recommended Posts

Not talking about for the Israel game but beyond that.  Have we got solid enough options now?

Gordon

Patterson  Hendry/McKenna  Hanley  Robertson

Tierney  McGregor

Gilmour

McTominay/Turnbull  McGinn/Christie

Some Striker

Robertson would be back in his normal position but Tierney would be out of his.  However, he's easily versatile enough to sit in front of the defence and could still link up with Robertson on the left.  McTominay is a far better midfielder than he is a defender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like a 4-2-3-1 to me. Ideally 4-3-3 is what many teams go for now but I don't think we have enough options for 2 wide players to use that system. The 5 at the back lets us use wing backs for our width. The only really wide players we have are Forrest and Fraser, both of whom are injury-prone. In fact, that is the position in which we need to start finding new talent.

For a back four I would go for the Hanley and McKenna option - Tierney's lack of height makes him vulnerable in a four.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Third Lanark said:

Looks like a 4-2-3-1 to me. Ideally 4-3-3 is what many teams go for now but I don't think we have enough options for 2 wide players to use that system. The 5 at the back lets us use wing backs for our width. The only really wide players we have are Forrest and Fraser, both of whom are injury-prone. In fact, that is the position in which we need to start finding new talent.

For a back four I would go for the Hanley and McKenna option - Tierney's lack of height makes him vulnerable in a four.

You would've hoped that Lewis Morgan and Mikey Johnstone would've continued to develop but looks like that won't happen.  

It'd just be good to see a formation that allows us to get all our best players on the park.  I think having 2 up front is a waste when they can't seem to put the ball in the net.  Maybe better to build through the midfield?  Gilmour aside, these guys aren't world-beaters but they have a high skill level between them.

Just saying, but KT is the same height as Willie Miller!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I very much doubt clarke goes back to a 442 or 451 and its probably for the best he doesn't. We don't have many top wingers barring maybe fraser. Tierney maybe could be tried there but if we get injuries to either then we have not much else as back up. 

I think he sticks with 352 for the future as he has gotten relative success with it although it's not always been spectacular or pretty. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t think we necessarily need to play the same formation in every game. There is absolutely no need to play 3-5-2 at home to Israel. I do understand the need for consistency though and can understand why a manager wants a settled formation.

Wouldn’t be the first time Clarke has changed to 4 at the back at halftime in a game though so I don’t know what the difference would be if he were to do this from game to game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, daviebee said:

You would've hoped that Lewis Morgan and Mikey Johnstone would've continued to develop but looks like that won't happen.  

It'd just be good to see a formation that allows us to get all our best players on the park.  I think having 2 up front is a waste when they can't seem to put the ball in the net.  Maybe better to build through the midfield?  Gilmour aside, these guys aren't world-beaters but they have a high skill level between them.

Just saying, but KT is the same height as Willie Miller!

You are quite correct of course but I just think set plays are even more important nowadays and forwards do seem to be taller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don’t need wingers to play 4/4/2, the width comes from Robbo and Patterson, same if you played 4/3/3 or another variation with a back 4, the full backs provide the width. Id definitely have played a back 4 against Moldova at Hampden. In games where we are expecting to dominate, drop a centre half, put on a midfielder and dominate possession, pin the opposition in their own half. We have pace at Centre half, unless it’s Mbappe or another absolute flying machine, our backline can push high up and are able to deal with balls over the top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Scot1 said:

You don’t need wingers to play 4/4/2, the width comes from Robbo and Patterson, same if you played 4/3/3 or another variation with a back 4, the full backs provide the width. Id definitely have played a back 4 against Moldova at Hampden. In games where we are expecting to dominate, drop a centre half, put on a midfielder and dominate possession, pin the opposition in their own half. We have pace at Centre half, unless it’s Mbappe or another absolute flying machine, our backline can push high up and are able to deal with balls over the top.

Yeah I’d go along with this. The only thing is Clarke probably didn’t want to have to switch from a back 4 against Moldova to a back 3 against Austria in the space of 3 days with only one full days training in between. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Texas Pete said:

Yeah I’d go along with this. The only thing is Clarke probably didn’t want to have to switch from a back 4 against Moldova to a back 3 against Austria in the space of 3 days with only one full days training in between. 

I’d go for a back 4 against Israel and try to do to them what Denmark did to us. Clarke could even play a little ruse. Start the game as 3/5/2 then push Tierney ahead of Robbo and switch to a 4/4/2, 5 minutes into the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Scot1 said:

I’d go for a back 4 against Israel and try to do to them what Denmark did to us. Clarke could even play a little ruse. Start the game as 3/5/2 then push Tierney ahead of Robbo and switch to a 4/4/2, 5 minutes into the game.

I think Clarke definitely needs to try something different against Israel. Whether that will be 4 at the back I don’t know.

I’m really looking forward to the game though which isn’t something I thought I’d be saying about a match against Israel if you’d asked me a few months ago. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Texas Pete said:

I think Clarke definitely needs to try something different against Israel. Whether that will be 4 at the back I don’t know.

I’m really looking forward to the game though which isn’t something I thought I’d be saying about a match against Israel if you’d asked me a few months ago. 

It’s gonna be a great atmosphere.

Clarke might think the addition of Gilmour and perhaps Patterson will swing it our way, within a 3/5/2, plus the emerging partnership of Adams and Dykes. If everyone is fit and available, we are a better team compared to when we played them last.

Link to comment
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...
 Share



×
×
  • Create New...