We Need To Go To A Back 4 - TA specific - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

We Need To Go To A Back 4


Guest Scot1

Recommended Posts

Just watched Patterson play very well for Everton against Liverpool at right Full Back, he played well there against Leeds previous game. Robertson prefers to play Full Back rather than Wing Back. Hickey is playing at Full Back. Tierney at Full Back. We need to switch to a back 4 to progress with this squad. It will allow us to play another Central Midfielder which could give us the numbers and balance we lack in the middle of the park. 
There maybe occasions where a back 3/5 is appropriate, but if we are to move forward, a back 4 needs to be our default. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Brentford play 3-5-2 usually, just lost their three first choice CBs so temporarily moved to a back 4 to fit Ben Mee in who's more used to that system at Burnley.

Everton started the seaosn playing 3-5-2.

McKenna starting every week in premier league at Forest in a back 3.

So easy to make counter arguments aswell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tartan Chris said:

Brentford play 3-5-2 usually, just lost their three first choice CBs so temporarily moved to a back 4 to fit Ben Mee in who's more used to that system at Burnley.

Everton started the seaosn playing 3-5-2.

McKenna starting every week in premier league at Forest in a back 3.

So easy to make counter arguments aswell.

Everton started with 3/5 at the back as they were waiting on signings and players to come back from injury. They’ve played 4/3/3 last couple of games and look a lot better. 
 

How I’d set up

                Gordon

Patterson CB.  McKenna Robbo

                 Tierney   

McTominay Gilmour. McGregor.  

             McGinn

                         Stewart/Adams

i put CB instead of a players name in the Right Centre Half position because Souttar isn’t playing at the moment, if he was he’d be my 1st choice for the position, Hendry has just moved to Italy, or Hanley can play there if need be.
If Gilmour isn’t available I’d go with a midfield of

                   Tierney

McTominay. McGregor Turnbull

We need to play to our strengths, which are our full backs and the midfield if the right balance and numbers is employed. Get the midfield correct and they will offer the centre half’s a lot of protection. That’s why I’ve went with 4 in midfield rather than 3, ie Tierney as a defensive midfielder. The best way to protect our centre halves is to keep the ball, retain possession, not by having 3 centre halves. That midfield is capable of playing possession football, of scoring goals and creating opportunities as well as protecting the defence.  It also gives cover for when the full backs push up and attack. 
We have good pace all over the park so the team can move up and down the park as a cohesive unit. 

Edited by Scot1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, borojock said:

personally think our CB's aren't good enough against decent opposition to play 4 at the back - i think a 3rd cb gives us that extra level of security we need against the decent opposition as two i think we would get exposed - again only my humble opinion 

The best way of protecting our centre halves is by keeping possession, the best way to do that is by having the right numbers and balance in midfield. We play 3/5 at the back, we are dropping at least 1 player from midfield, unless you play 5/4/1 which will leave us pretty toothless upfront.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, bigfingers said:

I quite like the 3-5-2 tbh. 

I prefer 3/5/2 or 3/5/1/1 to 3/4/2/1, not a great fan of that formation. But I believe that we will be more successful playing 4/1/3/1/1 , 4/4/1/1, 4/4/2 something along the lines of a setup I’ve posted above. And at the end of the day that’s what we all want. We’ve got the best squad we’ve had in a long time, some good youngsters coming through which will strengthen the squad even more. We just need to play them the right way. The way that gets the best from them as individuals and as a team. In my opinion a back 3/5 doesn’t do that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, borojock said:

personally think our CB's aren't good enough against decent opposition to play 4 at the back - i think a 3rd cb gives us that extra level of security we need against the decent opposition as two i think we would get exposed - again only my humble opinion 

I agree, we can still play a defensive midfielder in front to protect the back three. With two energetic wing backs we can be well covered at the back and the front. 

At the moment we don't have top class CBs. We've got better CBs now because they are playing at higher levels but we are not at the point of going back 4 yet IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 433 would be my preference. We dont have enough proper wingers to play a 442 or 451. A 433 allows us play a front three of say adams fraser stewart or adams dykes burke/morgan. Maybe even mcginn could be played as one of the forward three and then have a midfield three of say gilmour mcgregor armstrong/turnbull. 

I can only think of 2 or 3 good wingers we have and one of them(fraser) doesnt turn up very often anyways. Playing a formation with wingers is just not an option for us right now imo. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, mccaughey85 said:

A 433 would be my preference. We dont have enough proper wingers to play a 442 or 451. A 433 allows us play a front three of say adams fraser stewart or adams dykes burke/morgan. Maybe even mcginn could be played as one of the forward three and then have a midfield three of say gilmour mcgregor armstrong/turnbull. 

I can only think of 2 or 3 good wingers we have and one of them(fraser) doesnt turn up very often anyways. Playing a formation with wingers is just not an option for us right now imo. 

 

Based on current form if we play a 433 then McTominay starts in midfield. Not sure who would be the 2 CBs however 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A big problem with 4 at the back for us was that our CBs arent good enough on the ball and therefore everything ended up going long. Doesnt matter how many ballplayers you have in midfield if they either dont get the ball (like Ukraine at home) or if they need to come and collect it from the CBs.

One of the main reasons why we look more comfortable as a team playing 3 CBs is that 2 of them arent really CBs and are very comfortable on the ball and offer different things. Tierney breaks out of defence and overlaps Robertson. Something teams really struggle to setup against. McTomminay breaks out of defence but more central, allowing space for Patterson to stay wide but also McTomminay is brilliant at the "shaping to spray a pass wide right but then firing it hard and low through the centre, normally to either Gilmour or McGinn. Again teams find it difficult to setup against as they cant play narrow due to Patterson but cant play wide due to leaving pockets of space where McGinn and Gilmour operate.

Another good thing with the 3 is the 3rd CB could just be an old school defender. Ball winner etc. Thats why "limited" defenders have looked so good there. Play the same players, ie Gallacher, Halkett, Considine in a back 4 at International level and we are back to being a laughing stock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, er yir macaroon said:

4-4-2 McTominay and Tierney up and down the pitch with McGregor pulling the strings in the middle. McGinn tip of the diamond. Burke or Anderson as second striker supporting Adams. 

Gordon

Patterson

Souttar

McKenna

Robertson

McTominay

McGregor

Tierney

McGinn

Adams

Anderson

Whos anderson? Also mctominay isnt a winger and i doubt he would do well there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, er yir macaroon said:

Not a winger, it’s a diamond. McTominay and Tierney midfielders inside right and left channels, but can also drop when the full backs get forward and overlap. 

Anderson Newcastle. 

Yeh i forgot about him but theres players more deserving of a start and it might be a while before anderson becomes a first team starter for scotland.

Not sure if i am keen on playing no wingers in a 442. Would rather play wingers but sadly we just dont have enough of them playing at a high level and our best winger doesnt turn up for squads. Maybe if mikey johnston and 1 or two others turn into good players then we can play with wingers. Maybe morgan and burke could be tried on the wings but i am not sure burke is a proper winger. Hes more of a forward in the way martial or mane is but obviously not nearly as good.

433 for me needs to be tried, we have plenty of strikers/forwards who are potentially going to be playing a good level over the next few years. Stewart,morgan,burke,adams,brown, fraser are our future forwards. Not exactly a stellar group but they should be able to score the necessary goals against teams of a similar level or below to us. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, csinclair said:

I'm personally happy with back 3 as a plan A, there's just too many times where we could do with back 4 as a plan B and we don't have the players on the bench to change that way i.e decent wide players in the squad.

I posted after the Ukraine game that whatever system we use that it needs to suit the players on the pitch. By that I mean that the reason we play back 3 is because of what Tierney brings to the LCB role and what McTomminay brings to RCB.  To an extent we can play the same way with either Souttar or Hendry playing RCB however we dont currently have a replacement for Tierney.

We try and showhorn in McKenna or Cooper in LCB when they dont offer any of the attributes Tierney does. I suggested at the time that we either need to find somebody who plays the same (but perhaps might not be as good a player as McKenna / Cooper), such as Kingsley at Hearts or we need to scrap the back 3 when Tierneys not available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Diamond Scot said:

I posted after the Ukraine game that whatever system we use that it needs to suit the players on the pitch. By that I mean that the reason we play back 3 is because of what Tierney brings to the LCB role and what McTomminay brings to RCB.  To an extent we can play the same way with either Souttar or Hendry playing RCB however we dont currently have a replacement for Tierney.

We try and showhorn in McKenna or Cooper in LCB when they dont offer any of the attributes Tierney does. I suggested at the time that we either need to find somebody who plays the same (but perhaps might not be as good a player as McKenna / Cooper), such as Kingsley at Hearts or we need to scrap the back 3 when Tierneys not available.

I agree that the 3 only works if the 2 either side have the ability to bring the ball out like Tierney, Souttar, McTom, Hendry. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up seeing a similar situation to Robbo/KT with Patterson & Hickey with Hickey playing in the 3.
McKenna is an odd one as he plays on the left side of a 3 for Forest but I'm not convinced he'd suit playing there for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, csinclair said:

I agree that the 3 only works if the 2 either side have the ability to bring the ball out like Tierney, Souttar, McTom, Hendry. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up seeing a similar situation to Robbo/KT with Patterson & Hickey with Hickey playing in the 3.
McKenna is an odd one as he plays on the left side of a 3 for Forest but I'm not convinced he'd suit playing there for us.

Forest dont play the back 3 the same way we do though. He is much more of a defender for Forest. 

I think Hickey could play the position but my only fear is that he still favours his left foot, albeit very good on his right. Thats why im surprised that he ia playing RB for Brentford. No doubt a very imprrssive young player though.

The debate is much more complicated than many on here make out. Its not just a case of 4 or 5, or wingers / diamond etc. Its about having the players to play these systems and every system or style of play has a possible benefit but also an inherent weakness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Diamond Scot said:

Forest dont play the back 3 the same way we do though. He is much more of a defender for Forest. 

I think Hickey could play the position but my only fear is that he still favours his left foot, albeit very good on his right. Thats why im surprised that he ia playing RB for Brentford. No doubt a very imprrssive young player though.

The debate is much more complicated than many on here make out. Its not just a case of 4 or 5, or wingers / diamond etc. Its about having the players to play these systems and every system or style of play has a possible benefit but also an inherent weakness.

McTominay and Tierney are powerful athletes and that’s why they’re in midfield in my team. If we’ve got players who can get about the pitch and impose themselves I think we should use them in that way. The back three, for me, leaves us short in midfield against good sides and we end up on the back foot and under pressure. With the help of McGregor and McGinn, I’d fancy McTominay and Tierney to get us much more of the ball. We have fantastic full backs who could then support the attack. 

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...



×
×
  • Create New...