apparently only 3 teams in the PL have not started with the famous 3 at the back from the start of a match.

West Brom/Southampton and Burnley.

given several peoples love in with Tark's do you think we should try it and if so, in which match would you target to give it a trial?

hopefully not the last one because if it works then it could be used again, at least once anyway .

When we're safe, not before then because our current system is taking us to safety.

I wouldn't have an issue with Dyche trying it, BUT we don't have a 4th central defender do we in the event of an injury?
That would mean a change of formation in the event of an injury during a game, resulting in game plans being chucked out of the window etc.

----------------------HEATON-------------------

-------------TARKS----KEANE---MEE------------

--LOWTON---BARTON----HENDRICK-----WARD---

------------DEFOUR------------BRADY-----------

------------------------GRAY----------------------

POPE
FLANNAGAN
WESTWOOD
ARFIELD
BOYD
BARNES
VOKES

GUDJOHNSON in when fit again

Sidney1st wrote:When we're safe, not before then because our current system is taking us to safety.

I wouldn't have an issue with Dyche trying it, BUT we don't have a 4th central defender do we in the event of an injury?
That would mean a change of formation in the event of an injury during a game, resulting in game plans being chucked out of the window etc.

don't believe we need a fourth, easy to revert to 4 4 2, or even 4 5 1 or 4 4 1 1 Managers are supposed to be able to handle tactical changes and I think we have the players that can do that. Not sure we need to be safe but maybe look in 2 games where we are and what those below have done, if continuing to lose then maybe it is exactly the right time to change, every other manager knows our formation and how we play plus 95% of the time the actual players they will face. This provides them with a tactical advantage in my opinion but obviously difficult to overcome.

Fair comments about people knowing how we play, but we've played like it for x amount of years and still people struggle to counter it when they come to TM.

Three at the back certainly gives the 2 `full backs` far more licence to get forward. Our current full backs are certainly not what you would describe as attack minded in the way that say Walker or Trippier are at Spurs but maybe that is because we play a back 4.Would be interesting to see how we did. I would certainly expect us to both score and concede more goals. Maybe Sunday would be a good time to try it.

Heaton

Tarks Keene Mee

Lowton Barton Hendrick Brady Ward

Barnes Gray

Assuming JGB and Defour are not fit

Definitely worth a try but not yet - I think we should have more of the same v United with the proviso that SD makes changes as soon as they are necessary and not if or when the cause is lost.
I think we should keep the rigid framework and frustrate United perhaps letting Hendrick have a charge at them every now and then.
We'll be alright for a point.

When Ireland have played this system they have preferred Brady at wing back to ward

4 at the back is so often the waste of one player

I think that's the best possible use of our current squad, home and away.

Harleston Claret wrote:----------------------HEATON-------------------

-------------TARKS----KEANE---MEE------------

--LOWTON---BARTON----HENDRICK-----WARD---

------------DEFOUR------------BRADY-----------

------------------------GRAY----------------------

POPE
FLANNAGAN
WESTWOOD
ARFIELD
BOYD
BARNES
VOKES

GUDJOHNSON in when fit again

We don't have the players to play a three at the back with wing backs.

We all know that it would end up as five at the back.

Ward is a magnificent left back but I'm not sure he has the energy for the entire wing.

I was mighty surprised to find ablue hadn't started this thread.

However i would favour 3 at the back, but Dyche won't as it involves players being fluid and constantly moving around. We are super rigid and stick to the shape/framework at all times.

Bit of a footballing renaissance this 3-4-3 formation, I'm all in favour of the total football style invented by the Dutch.

I've long been an advocate of playing Keane at right back/right sided of a three. The question is if we had a team capable of supporting that ahead of them. He's played there for England U21's and for England now. It's not something I'd consider now but if, a big IF; he was to stay. We could work around that but would require massive investment in midfield and up front.

If we were playing three at the back I can't see Lowton or Ward playing, they're both better defensively than going forward. Wingbacks of Boyd/Brady/Arfield would give us some more attacking intent but still capable defensively.

Right_winger wrote:I was mighty surprised to find ablue hadn't started this thread.

However i would favour 3 at the back, but Dyche won't as it involves players being fluid and constantly moving around. We are super rigid and stick to the shape/framework at all times.

Bit of a footballing renaissance this 3-4-3 formation, I'm all in favour of the total football style invented by the Dutch.

The Dutch Maestro J. C. said:
"the average footballer has the ball 3 minutes per game, so it is important what he does for the other 87 minuets" or words to that effect.

given we always have low possession except against West Brom, that might even equate to 2 minuets and 88 minutes to our players.

if we play 3 at the back I agree for much of the time we may look like a 5 at the back but it's the intent of trying to play 3 that interests me, to see a plan C, as others have noted Brady could play in Wards position but I would not advocate myself until we tried and see how it works.

but rest assured I am not holding my breath that this will happen anytime soon and by that I mean this season.

Of the 3 clubs playing a back 4 all season, its worth noting that 2 are the teams in the Premier League most commonly acknowledged as having maximised their resources this season: us and West Brom.

The fact we're hitting the very limit of all of our expectations playing with a back 4 and 2 very hard working wingers/wide midfielders suggests to me that we're not missing out on much (if any) potential that we'd be able to exploit by switching to a back 3. So if there's not much potential reward, there's no real incentive to take the risk that inevitably comes with adopting a very different system which places very different demands on players in a number of positions and disrupts the established rhythms and patterns of the team.

The risk/reward just doesn't support the case for this.