3 at the back

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Thu Mar 23, 2017 5:58 pm

We should copy Chelsea and try it away from home. Mee would make an excellent wide left defender and Tark is to good to sit on the bench much longer. Added threat from set pieces, Brady wing back. We have nothing to lose away from home because the current 442 hasnt worked all season long.

evensteadiereddie · Post by **evensteadiereddie** » Thu Mar 23, 2017 6:02 pm

It might work but then again we could be a little more fragile at the back and take some confidence - sapping thrashings. 4 points from Spurs and Stoke and, yes, give it a whirl. Two defeats and I'm not so sure.

Bin Ont Turf · Post by **Bin Ont Turf** » Thu Mar 23, 2017 6:03 pm

Let me guess, Darikwa as right wing back?

cricketfieldclarets · Post by **cricketfieldclarets** » Thu Mar 23, 2017 6:04 pm

Ward has been our most consistent player and is never less than 7/10. He would be one of the last players I would drop.

We need to experiment away but the defence by and large has been fine.

Maybe look at 3 up top. Or 5 in midfield. But the defence should stay as it is. Lowton has been almost as good as Ward. If we put 5 in midfield we could afford to be a bit more attack minded anyway.

Heaton
Lowton Keane Mee Ward
Barton
Arfield Defour Brady
Hendrick
Gray

Still have physical presence from Hendrick and he offers a threat like Barnes. Defour can play the balls through to Gray to run onto. Brady has experience defensively but is more of an attacking threat than Boyd. Arfield works as hard as Boyd.

BleedingClaret · Post by **BleedingClaret** » Thu Mar 23, 2017 6:17 pm

....................Heaton
....... Keane.......Tark........Mee
Lowton................................Ward
................,,,Barton.................,,,
........Defour...........,,,Hendrick......
........Vokes.......Gray......Barnes......

Braindead · Post by **Braindead** » Thu Mar 23, 2017 6:19 pm

BleedingClaret wrote:....................Heaton
....... Keane.......Tark........Mee
Lowton................................Ward
................,,,Barton.................,,,
........Defour...........,,,Hendrick......
........Vokes.......Gray......Barnes......

Love the fact you have snuck an extra player on.

The old 3-5-3.

Stevie2112 · Post by **Stevie2112** » Thu Mar 23, 2017 6:20 pm

I think that's 12 BC

cricketfieldclarets · Post by **cricketfieldclarets** » Thu Mar 23, 2017 6:21 pm

Braindead wrote:Love the fact you have snuck an extra player on.

The old 3-5-3.

Was just about to say that looks a great team, how have I never thought of it!

Bin Ont Turf · Post by **Bin Ont Turf** » Thu Mar 23, 2017 6:22 pm

Keane should be in the middle and Lowton and Ward aren't wing backs in a month of Sunday's.

BleedingClaret · Post by **BleedingClaret** » Thu Mar 23, 2017 6:22 pm

Bin Ont Turf wrote:Let me guess, Darikwa as right wing back?

England still played proper full backs Walker & Bertrand, as the wing backs in the 5've.
Accepted they were pacy but we could sit Tark in and play Lowton and Ward still?

Steve1956 · Post by **Steve1956** » Thu Mar 23, 2017 6:23 pm

Stevie2112 wrote:I think that's 12 BC

Maybe no one will notice,think it's the only way we will win away...lets cheat!

BleedingClaret · Post by **BleedingClaret** » Thu Mar 23, 2017 6:26 pm

Bin Ont Turf wrote:Keane should be in the middle and Lowton and Ward aren't wing backs in a month of Sunday's.

I was posting as you were posting this but they may be able to be more forward and put balls in as Lowton did at Liverpool without us getting as exposed down the flanks as we were at Swansea.
We also then have an extra header at the back

Roosterbooster · Post by **Roosterbooster** » Thu Mar 23, 2017 6:27 pm

Bin Ont Turf wrote:Keane should be in the middle and Lowton and Ward aren't wing backs in a month of Sunday's.

I agree Lowton isn't a wing back, but I think Ward would be an excellent wing back. He already provides nearly all our attacking width

BleedingClaret · Post by **BleedingClaret** » Thu Mar 23, 2017 6:27 pm

Braindead wrote:Love the fact you have snuck an extra player on.

The old 3-5-3.

Damn
Shush we need to try something radical

BleedingClaret · Post by **BleedingClaret** » Thu Mar 23, 2017 6:31 pm

BleedingClaret wrote:....................Heaton
....... Keane.......Tark........Mee
Lowton................................Ward
................,,,Barton.................,,,
........Defour...........,,,Hendrick......
........Vokes.......Gray......Barnes......

Braindead is a spoilsport
I couldn't decide on the front two so played all 3
I think away from home 532 losing one of the front 3
Or 433 with Tarks out and this front 3 is worth a shot as is 451 again, 3 points from 45, surely anything is worth a go

ablueclaret · Post by **ablueclaret** » Thu Mar 23, 2017 6:36 pm

If you want to go that way, SD won't

Then.
Heaton

Keane. Tarkowski. Mee

Boyd. Ward

Barton. Hendrick

Defour. Brady

Gray

Quickenthetempo · Post by **Quickenthetempo** » Thu Mar 23, 2017 6:58 pm

The front 3 is a must in my opinion Barnes coming from the left like he did for Brighton. Vokes the centre man for winning headers and Gray on the right as he can cross if he ends up out on the wing.

There is no point playing 5 in midfield as they aren't good enough at ball retention.

corporal jones · Post by **corporal jones** » Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:17 pm

Don't you need marauding speed merchant box to box wing backs for that system? Can't say I've noticed too many of those in our line ups recently.

Bin Ont Turf · Post by **Bin Ont Turf** » Thu Mar 23, 2017 10:51 pm

corporal jones wrote:Don't you need marauding speed merchant box to box wing backs for that system? Can't say I've noticed too many of those in our line ups recently.

Well, ish.

I do think that your wing backs have to have a bit of pace and to be technically skillful.

The resident idiot has Boyd and Ward as wing backs, for goodness sake.

I don't think some folk understand that we don't have the players to play 3 at the back with wing backs.

We've got 4 very good (as a whole) defenders and we don't need to change that just because the OP is mental, and wanting to get more players further up the pitch like he's on a computer game.

KRBFC · Post by **KRBFC** » Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:26 pm

Bin Ont Turf wrote:Let me guess, Darikwa as right wing back?

Not Darikwas biggest fan, although I don't see Lowton as a wing back. Arfield and Brady at wing back.

Holtyclaret · Post by **Holtyclaret** » Fri Mar 24, 2017 2:09 pm

Useless on my phone at making it line up but this is copying how England set up Wednesday. As mentioned IF we're safe with a few games to go, I'd love to see us give it a go. Really solid but very fluid!

minnieclaret · Post by **minnieclaret** » Fri Mar 24, 2017 5:36 pm

Our 4-4-2 allows us to defend with 8. 3-4-3 would mean defending with 7.
I've been one calling for the 3 at the back to get Tarks in but I don't feel it's the system that lets us down away from home but the fact everybody is 10 or 15 yds deeper and slower to support when we break.
This is a mind set or under instruction. As it's not working it's time for a change. Show some cajones and have a go, as we do at home.

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Fri Mar 24, 2017 6:57 pm

It was definitely sitting too deep that screwed us away from home in the first half of the season, but we have improved since then greatly.
Still a work in progress though, and not helped by injuries and suspensions to key players in this second half.
As the main objective is still to get the midfield higher up the pitch a three at the back sounds great, but only against certain teams, and only after its been practiced enough to be comfortable.

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Fri Mar 24, 2017 9:22 pm

The missing three, Vegas! 22411

3 at the back

3 at the back

Re: 3 at the back

Re: 3 at the back

Re: 3 at the back

Re: 3 at the back

Re: 3 at the back

Re: 3 at the back

Re: 3 at the back

Re: 3 at the back

Re: 3 at the back

Re: 3 at the back

Re: 3 at the back

Re: 3 at the back

Re: 3 at the back

Re: 3 at the back

Re: 3 at the back

Re: 3 at the back

Re: 3 at the back

Re: 3 at the back

Re: 3 at the back

Re: 3 at the back

Re: 3 at the back

Re: 3 at the back

Re: 3 at the back