| Three at the back 21:44 - Sep 19 with 1287 views | Hastings_Hoops |
Isn’t a back 3 a sensible move? Certainly provides some cover for our high flyings wing’backs’?
Also allows two up front which can only be a good thing. |  | | |  |
| Three at the back on 21:55 - Sep 19 with 1269 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
Good idea.
If Manning stays I don’t see why not. Kakay is athletic enough to do the job on the other side.
My only concern is that we don’t have enough strikers for two up front over a whole season and if Bright stays I’m not sure where we could fit him in. Maybe some kind of free role? [Post edited 20 Sep 2020 0:05]
|  | | |
| Three at the back on 01:37 - Sep 20 with 1130 views | timcocking |
In theory, i always think perhaps. In reality, though, it never seems to work. |  | | |
| Three at the back on 02:03 - Sep 20 with 1121 views | Match82 |
Like it in principle, usually minimizes traditional wingers though, so if BOS stays it's maybe not quite as appealing. |  | | |
| Three at the back on 02:31 - Sep 20 with 1109 views | Hooparoo |
Worth a try. Masterson has good pace so we could play a higher line |  |
| |
| Three at the back on 02:57 - Sep 20 with 1099 views | ozexile |
Yeah it'll stretch the pitch giving Chair more room and give us more stability at the back. (In theory). |  | | |
| Three at the back on 03:20 - Sep 20 with 1089 views | PlanetHonneywood |
From what little I’ve seen in comparison to what I’ve read, the problem isn’t necessarily that we’re playing the wrong formation but rather, individuals not actually defending properly. |  |
| |
| Three at the back on 07:47 - Sep 20 with 1017 views | daveB |
We did play 3 at the back quite a bit last season as well and although it does wok sometimes we still conceded goals every week |  | | |
| Three at the back on 07:49 - Sep 20 with 1015 views | BrianMcCarthy |
| Three at the back on 03:20 - Sep 20 by PlanetHonneywood |
From what little I’ve seen in comparison to what I’ve read, the problem isn’t necessarily that we’re playing the wrong formation but rather, individuals not actually defending properly. |
Agreed. And defending set pieces.
I don't think that the formation is our problem. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Three at the back on 09:04 - Sep 20 with 969 views | stowmarketrange |
Just one at the back who knows what he is doing,and also what the others should be doing would be enough.Not another rabbit in the headlights character,but a proper organiser would help. |  | | |
| Three at the back on 09:08 - Sep 20 with 964 views | Hastings_Hoops |
| Three at the back on 07:49 - Sep 20 by BrianMcCarthy |
Agreed. And defending set pieces.
I don't think that the formation is our problem. |
Three at the back means that if the wing-backs have both gone missing in attack, we’ll always have three defender.
This is the theory of 4-2-3-1 (One full back goes up and one stays back) - problem is we end up defending in a 2-2-5-1 formation!!! | | | |
| Three at the back on 09:50 - Sep 20 with 915 views | bosh67 |
Starting to think this may be an option given that it looks like Dickie and Barbet are going to find it hard to cope with pace coming at them.
I may even be an idea to play a sweeper. Ball is quite quick or we find a younger player with pace. Possibly then play 1-4-4-1 |  |
| |
| Three at the back on 10:48 - Sep 20 with 864 views | EalingHoop81 |
3 at the back gives us options to change formation for other teams where our current set up doesn’t work. The problem of BOS not really suiting it is an issue but the other side of the coin is that we don’t have a natural left winger so the balance feels wrong currently. Thomas may take that left side in due course or potentially Smyth but I don’t quite see him there. Chair is wasted in the left at the moment.
If we go 5-3-2 we can use Kakay and Manning at wing back which may suit them both, with Ball/Cameron in the middle with either Carroll and Amos or one of those with Chair further forward. Two up front could be Dykes with BoS or Chair or Smyth or Thomas. Gives us some options
Obviously if Manning goes then I’m not sure who plays left wing back - no one has seen Nico to know if he could do it but feels more mobile from the reports that Wallace... | | | |
| Three at the back on 11:13 - Sep 20 with 830 views | Hastings_Hoops |
| Three at the back on 10:48 - Sep 20 by EalingHoop81 |
3 at the back gives us options to change formation for other teams where our current set up doesn’t work. The problem of BOS not really suiting it is an issue but the other side of the coin is that we don’t have a natural left winger so the balance feels wrong currently. Thomas may take that left side in due course or potentially Smyth but I don’t quite see him there. Chair is wasted in the left at the moment.
If we go 5-3-2 we can use Kakay and Manning at wing back which may suit them both, with Ball/Cameron in the middle with either Carroll and Amos or one of those with Chair further forward. Two up front could be Dykes with BoS or Chair or Smyth or Thomas. Gives us some options
Obviously if Manning goes then I’m not sure who plays left wing back - no one has seen Nico to know if he could do it but feels more mobile from the reports that Wallace... |
We dallied with three at the back last season, but probably didn’t have the same personnel last year, so it didn’t suit our squad / situation as well as 4-1-4-1 or 4-2-3-1.
I wonder if a move to this could actually be an encouragement for Manning to stay as it would play to his strengths and both he and QPR would ultimately benefit with his stock rising - eg; a club
like Wolves, who play three at the back would be a natural suiter for a decent fee in a year or so. | | | |
| Three at the back on 13:17 - Sep 20 with 775 views | Nov77 |
I think it’s more a problem of personnel than formation.
His comments when he signed Dickie made me wonder if warburton is signing defenders based more on their ability to play out from the back than their ability to defend then there isn’t any formation that can solve that.
You wouldn’t sign a striker and talk only about how good he is at defending.
Leistner might not be Ronald koeman when it comes to playing the ball out, but I’d back him to defend a corner better than any of our current lot. |  |
| |
| Three at the back on 13:35 - Sep 20 with 748 views | bosh67 |
| Three at the back on 13:17 - Sep 20 by Nov77 |
I think it’s more a problem of personnel than formation.
His comments when he signed Dickie made me wonder if warburton is signing defenders based more on their ability to play out from the back than their ability to defend then there isn’t any formation that can solve that.
You wouldn’t sign a striker and talk only about how good he is at defending.
Leistner might not be Ronald koeman when it comes to playing the ball out, but I’d back him to defend a corner better than any of our current lot. |
True. And he had a few cross field parks in the locker including one that led to a great goal for Wells last season. Leistner lacked pace but he won most things in the air.
Pace however at the back remains a problem. Dickie and Barbet aren't blessed with it, Wallace has almost none, Kakay has a bit but not real pace, Kane doesn't really have any and Manning has the pace but quite often not the positioning.
So pace is another major factor and positioning at set pieces. Cameron is 6 foot 4 or something but not great in the air (mainly as a result of the huge head injury he had a number of years ago at Stoke where he almost had to quit) . Dickie is 6 foot and seems okay in the air. Barbet is 6 foot 2 and variable in the air.
I think Warbs seriously missed a trick with Matt Smith. Zero pace but a regular goal scorer and he was brilliant at 6 foot 6 heading set pieces and corners away. We really miss Smith as an option. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
