Sean Dyche teams vs Wingbacks

[dandeclaret]

A theory I've long held is that Sean Dyche's teams do incredibly well against teams who set up with wingbacks / 3 at the back..... I've no stats to back this up, so 2 questions

1) Do any of those who have analytical databases have any way of pulling stats on this?

2) If indeed it is the case, why do we do so well against teams with 3 at the back?

[claretandy]

We didn't a while ago, but more recently we have got to grips with the system.

[dandeclaret]

I think it's been pretty much a consistent position throughout Dyche's period in charge. I always feel more confident when we're playing a team with 3 centre halves.

[SalisburyClaret]

I also think we do better against teams that play out from the back - just plays into our hands

[Red Fox Rocks Socks]

I think it was one of the reasons brownhill played over JBG so he can tuck in and make a 3 in cm so we don’t get overrun.

[RVclaret]

I have noticed this too.

Gray and Ings were excellent at exploiting space in the channels as Vydra seems to do quite well.

[Stevie Morgan]

Wolves couldn't deal with our balls into the channel. More space there vs 3 at the back .

[Quickenthetempo]

A theory I've long held is that Sean Dyche's teams do incredibly well against teams who set up with wingbacks / 3 at the back..... I've no stats to back this up, so 2 questions

1) Do any of those who have analytical databases have any way of pulling stats on this?

2) If indeed it is the case, why do we do so well against teams with 3 at the back?

A few teams change to 3 at the back to play against us, with having 2 up top. Leicester being one of them.

[jojomk1]

Didn't Newcastle play with three at the centre and two wing backs ?

[jojomk1]

I also think we do better against teams that play out from the back - just plays into our hands

Spot on

Just hope next year at the Etihad, City start with three CB's and try and play out from the back

We might be able to then keep them down to four goals

[dandeclaret]

Didn't Newcastle play with three at the centre and two wing backs ?

They may do..... and they dominated them for a good while. It's not a 100% record, nothing in football is, hence asking for the stats in the first question to see if the data matched up a perception

[superdimitri]

I've thought the opposite, we usually play poorly against teams with 3 centre halves because we usually lump it time and time up to them.

Reason we had success in the last game was because we mixed our play more than we usually do, which is exactly what you have to do against 3 centre backs.

Also, lets face it. Wolves were very poor. Its not often Wood is given a chance to score from a corner like that when the opposing team has 3 centre backs. I put it down to them having a poor game, but also a lack of height throughout the rest of their team.

[huw.Y.WattfromWare]

You might be right but we never got a kick at Chelsea.

[Rileybobs]

I commented to my brother at the time that I always thought we looked more of a threat against 3 at the back. I think it actually gives more space for our forwards, less individual responsibility for the opposition defenders and more uncertainty.

[the_magic_rat]

i think it depends on whether the opposition are playing 3-5-2 or 3-4-3, as Wolves did. We have often been overrun against sides with three at the back and five across midfield. Our midfield 4 were absolutely outstanding against Wolves' 4 on Sunday and dominated proceedings from the first minute.

[Jakubs Tash]

A theory I've long held is that Sean Dyche's teams do incredibly well against teams who set up with wingbacks / 3 at the back..... I've no stats to back this up, so 2 questions

1) Do any of those who have analytical databases have any way of pulling stats on this?

2) If indeed it is the case, why do we do so well against teams with 3 at the back?

I would agree and I’m sure a lot of others have also noticed. It’s been obvious for a long time now that we tend to be quite effective when playing against a back 3 - not always but usually causing problems for the opposition.

[claretspice]

My impression is that whenever we've had a front two with at least one player whose game is to run in behind down the sides (Ings, Gray, Vydra), we've been quite successful playing against teams that play wingbacks, certainly against teams who would consider themselves to play 3 at the back rather than 5 - particularly when we've also had at least one wide midfielder playing the role Brownhill did on Sunday (by turns the direct match up for their wingback, and the third central midfielder, and led the press at times too - a remarkable amount of work), e.g. Arfield.

I think that form has probably dipped when Barnes and Wood have played together, because (for all their many qualities) they tend to play much closer together and take up positions to "fix" onto centre backs in order to look for knockdowns etc., and a well drilled side playing 3 centre backs, or indeed 2 centre backs and a quarter-back just in front, tends to be able to congest the space for that sort of game.

Given that Wood is himself much more mobile than your average target man, at present we've got a really quite mobile front 2 and that does give you a chance when the wingbacks are pushed on.

[Down_Rover]

i think it depends on whether the opposition are playing 3-5-2 or 3-4-3, as Wolves did. We have often been overrun against sides with three at the back and five across midfield. Our midfield 4 were absolutely outstanding against Wolves' 4 on Sunday and dominated proceedings from the first minute.

This is my impression.

It is because our midfield 4 is not overrun but, probably more importantly, gives our wingers, particularly McNeil, has space to run into just like on Sunday.

When the opp has five in midfield our wingers end up being too deep most of the time and so we resort to hoofball

[superdimitri]

Will be interesting today if West Ham play 352. Hopefully their centre halves play like Wolves did against us.