|
|
Post by stevek192 on Sept 8, 2014 14:56:38 GMT
Can you play with three at the back WITHOUT playing full backs at wingbacks? My own thoughts are that provided the back three are mobile and the team marks players and moves up the pitch then there is no reason why not although it could possibly leave the team susceptible out wide and would need good organisational skills by the back three.
Mildenhall
Trotman Lockyer Brown
Martin Sinclair Monkhouse Mansell Belanta
Cunnington Taylor
What are peoples thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Sept 8, 2014 15:00:02 GMT
I think it's doable but I also think we would need 4 wingers in the matchday squad as I can't see any of them lasting 90 mins of non stop running.
|
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Sept 8, 2014 15:00:46 GMT
I am not calling myself a football expert by trying to answer your question though  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2014 15:00:54 GMT
You'd need some seriously fast, fit and visually aware defensive midfielders. You would also lose the game in midfield as a result. Sounds tricky.
|
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Sept 8, 2014 15:07:35 GMT
It would also need us to be aggressive as a side and play high up the field in order to squeeze the opposition wingers/full backs and not allow them forward. This could leave us at risk of them breaking through and putting them through on goal.
When was the last time we played a high pressure game though?
|
|
|
|
Post by worrelsterlingalbion on Sept 8, 2014 15:22:33 GMT
Newbie here,
I wouldn't dream of classing myself as a football expert but my thoughts (based on having played as a wingback in a 5-3-2 & a full back in 4-4-2). I think to do without a naturally defensively minded player on either side would rely on your holding midfielder to be able to cover whichever wing back finds themselves highest up the pitch. Effectively you’re looking for a midfield sweeper & I’m not sure Clarke or Mansell would naturally do that job. Having seen our 3 home games I think we lack pace& the ability to carry the ball in wide positions so I’d go 4-4-2.
Mildenhall Leadbitter Lockyer Trotman Brown; Sinclair Mansell Monkhouse Balanta; Cunnington Taylor.
UTG
|
|
|
|
Post by stevek192 on Sept 8, 2014 15:23:46 GMT
I think the fact we don't play high up the field is one of the reasons we are so bloody poor.
|
|
|
|
Post by BishopstonBRFC on Sept 8, 2014 15:31:04 GMT
I think the fact we don't play high up the field is one of the reasons we are so bloody poor. Yep. It makes such a difference, especially at this level where many teams won't have the ability to turn us over if they can't get out. It forces mistakes/rash decisions from your opponents too. Instead we seem to invite pressure on, especially away from home. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2014 17:26:20 GMT
We don't play football though, so this formation means 5 players are out of the game. It would turn into 5 3 2 anyway because we don't gamble, are not fit enough nor do we think ahead.
That being said, no harm in trying something new, since we are pap.
|
|
|
|
Post by Centenary Gas on Sept 8, 2014 17:29:24 GMT
We don't play football though, so this formation means 5 players are out of the game. It would turn into 5 3 2 anyway because we don't gamble, are not fit enough nor do we think ahead. That being said, no harm in trying something new, since we are pap.
7 points from the last 4 games isn't exactly terrible, despite the performance in the last game.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fetch on Sept 8, 2014 17:38:40 GMT
I play that formation on Football Manager with Chelsea, with instructions set to Very Fluid and Control. Won the league three times. It's good.
Afterword: clearly i am an expert on football bc of football manager do not judge me
|
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Sept 8, 2014 17:39:13 GMT
Has Anyone seen Chiles 3-1-3-3 ?
It doesn't involve wing backs or full backs.
The idea is that the team has players spread evenly throughout the pitch and it relies on a total football philosophy.
Not something I would ask a non league side to attempt though.
I think now we have another winger / attacking wide man we should play 4-2-3-1 or 4-4-2.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2014 17:39:30 GMT
We don't play football though, so this formation means 5 players are out of the game. It would turn into 5 3 2 anyway because we don't gamble, are not fit enough nor do we think ahead. That being said, no harm in trying something new, since we are pap.
7 points from the last 4 games isn't exactly terrible, despite the performance in the last game.
All rides on Tuesday I guess |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2014 19:02:15 GMT
We don't play football though, so this formation means 5 players are out of the game. It would turn into 5 3 2 anyway because we don't gamble, are not fit enough nor do we think ahead. That being said, no harm in trying something new, since we are pap.
7 points from the last 4 games isn't exactly terrible, despite the performance in the last game.
Dress it up how you want. We are pap imo and our predicament shows it how it is. I can't remember the last game we outplayed a team with decent football. |
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Sept 8, 2014 20:52:27 GMT
Totton(?) in the FA Cup? Apart from a couple of Muzzy inspired homes.
It's odd how posters called DC tinker man then start suggested he uses bizarre team selections MM would be proud of, let's just stick to 4-4-2
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
|
|
|
|
Post by Jon the Stripe on Sept 8, 2014 21:00:21 GMT
.
"Football is a simple game made complicated by people who should know better." Bill Shankly
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2014 21:19:44 GMT
Can you play with three at the back WITHOUT playing full backs at wingbacks? My own thoughts are that provided the back three are mobile and the team marks players and moves up the pitch then there is no reason why not although it could possibly leave the team susceptible out wide and would need good organisational skills by the back three. Mildenhall Trotman Lockyer Brown Martin Sinclair Monkhouse Mansell Belanta Cunnington Taylor What are peoples thoughts? Are you DC in disguise.  |
|
|
|
Post by Dirt Dogg on Sept 8, 2014 22:03:58 GMT
Does anyone else remember when McGhee put Lund at RB and Smith at CDM?
I genuinely think he got the two of them mixed up!
|
|
