Three at the back

Status
Not open for further replies.
They didn't seem to know where they were meant to be. Positionally all over the place, for Dzeko's header they were nowhere near him, and with 3 of them stood in the box that's terrible. Similarly for their third, nobody goal side of the striker, or even close enough to worry him for that matter.

I think like communism 3 at the back is boss in theory but just isn't a tactic that ever really works.


Exactly my thoughts on this tactical setup arguably cost us the game.
 

They didn't seem to know where they were meant to be. Positionally all over the place, for Dzeko's header they were nowhere near him, and with 3 of them stood in the box that's terrible. Similarly for their third, nobody goal side of the striker, or even close enough to worry him for that matter.

I think like communism 3 at the back is boss in theory but just isn't a tactic that ever really works.
...just like 'trickle down' neo-liberal economic theory (aka: crony capitalism)
 
I cannot agree we do not play regularly with 3 cbs, Barry dropping back does not make him a cb.

just because he's not a conventional centre back??

when we have the ball we have to split CBs and barry, in some cases barry drops deeper as aCB when on brings the ball out of defence leaving us with 2. The same happened yesterday, stones was bringing the ball out leaving us with 2.

The only major difference between yesterday was we started with a 3rd centre back instead of an anchor man
 

I like the idea of a 3 man defense. 3-4-3 as an option if we find ourselves going into a match without a natural defensive midfielder. However, we have to make sure offside traps come off, and the 3 defenders have synergy.

Yesterday it seemed a bit thrown together and the fact Jags was just back from injury and Alcaraz was caught out of position made it look worse than it should have been.

3-5-2 with Barry and McCarthy ahead of the defence should be able to deal with anything thrown at them, could be interesting going forward as well, perhaps if we face a strong side in Europe that dominate possession.
 
To be honest,if its,3,4,or even 5 at the back,i will always panic when the other team attack us lol-i am just never confident with our defence even in a game we are so in control off-as in a spilt second one mistake in a controlled game from us has us all over the place.
 
It's a formation that we've barely played and gave it a first proper try against Man City of all teams.

Like anything, just needs a bit of work.
 
Definitely need more support out wide, that's the only thing. It'd look a lot better with Barry AND McCarthy in the middle.
 

At least he tried it in a game that didn't matter. I'm all for experimenting against a determined team when the pressure is off.
 
At time yesterday you could tell it just wouldn't work. Not with the 3 we had on the pitch anyway.

This formation just wouldn't work away from home, especially against the better teams in this league. Too many gaps on each flank at times yesterday and against a team like the RS, who hit deep balls there, they'd have an absolute field day.

I personally don't like that formation. I will say this though, credit to RM for mixing the tactics up recently to suit our team and to play a certain way to exploit the opposition. Something we simply haven't seen until this season for a while.
 
I think it's good we have options. We just need a bit more practice and play the right players for that formation. After all, it works fine for Juventus, so it's not like playing 3 at the back is suicidal or anything.

If Distin had been fit and we had played Stones in the middle with Jags and Distin each side of him, we would have looked better. Stones ability to come out defense with the ball would have helped us alot yesterday.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Shop

Back
Top