It was the stupidity of it
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Three at the back
- Thread starter kentgully
- Start date
It was the stupidity of it
Wardy's twin
Well-known member
- Oct 21, 2014
- 8,434
I would agree don't change a winning formula BUT having a plan B or looking at ways of improving plan A are not stupid its called progress.
Personal view is that we don't a get our wingers far enough forward and we don't get decent 20-40 yard passes from either Kayal or Stephens nor proper when he was playing. See Dunk as potentially fulfilling this role but seems to have regressed, same with him coming forward with the ball. So anyway we can improve on this would be good.
I know people will say Gross is the answer but in his adopted no 10 role he is generally further forward than the wingers.
Its an opinion based on what i see from where i sit.
Personal view is that we don't a get our wingers far enough forward and we don't get decent 20-40 yard passes from either Kayal or Stephens nor proper when he was playing. See Dunk as potentially fulfilling this role but seems to have regressed, same with him coming forward with the ball. So anyway we can improve on this would be good.
I know people will say Gross is the answer but in his adopted no 10 role he is generally further forward than the wingers.
Its an opinion based on what i see from where i sit.
- Thread starter
- #23
Go **** yourself
Ⓩ-Ⓐ-Ⓜ-Ⓞ-Ⓡ-Ⓐ
Hove / Παρος
If we are playing Dunk Duffy Balogun in the starting line up what happens if there is a suspension or an injury?
Ⓩ-Ⓐ-Ⓜ-Ⓞ-Ⓡ-Ⓐ;8647448 said:
Switching to 3 at the back doesn't mean you can only ever play 3 at the back from then on. Switch to 4 at the back. Or if three at the back proves to work better and we want to stick with it, use one of the full backs on the relevant side of the back 3. Or do whatever we'd do if we play the system we do now and suffer two injuries or suspensions.
Ⓩ-Ⓐ-Ⓜ-Ⓞ-Ⓡ-Ⓐ
Hove / Παρος
Can't see us risking it until at least January when we get Dan Burn back or bring on another experienced centre back in January. I'm not saying I wouldn't like to see a bit of 3-5-2 action, just that I can't see Hughton taking the risk at the moment.
West Upper Seagull
Well-known member
I agree with the general sentiment that it would be foolish to change our back 4 after the 3 wins and clean sheets we’ve had. On the flip side I have always been an advocate of playing 3 CB’s in our away games and have a 3rd central midfielder as this would give us a stronger spine and make us harder to break down and be more competitive in midfield against the better sides, plus we could even afford to play 2 up top an be more of an attacking threat away from home. Our wingers tend to be less influential and often anonymous in away games.
I think one of the reasons we came under so much pressure yesterday was that we struggled to cope with Wolves’ formation who did play 3 at the back, used their wing backs well, and having an extra player in central midfield allowed them to boss the middle of the park. We shouldn’t dismiss using that formation when the situation suits.
I think one of the reasons we came under so much pressure yesterday was that we struggled to cope with Wolves’ formation who did play 3 at the back, used their wing backs well, and having an extra player in central midfield allowed them to boss the middle of the park. We shouldn’t dismiss using that formation when the situation suits.
A fella from Haywards Heath will be along soon, and will agree with you, thereby proving just how completely wrong you are..
oh perhaps he's already here.
D
Deleted member 2719
Guest
3 at the back would be great to see, but I think Chris has dreams of 10 at the back.
I agree, luck and some great defending has been on our side, but we are never going to keep getting away with these 1 nil's.
AZ Gull
@SeagullsAcademy Threads: @bhafcacademy
sydney
tinky ****in winky
they lost because they didn't get one in the net despite numerous chances and matty and d&d playying out of their skins , thought wolves played some great football and like the previous 2 opponents will be wondering how the feck they lost
Lifelong Supporter
Well-known member
I think playing 3 centrally at the back would end up as a 5 defensively. I do not see a back 3 suiting Duffy (whose strength is not on the ground when defenders run at him) and we do not currently have the full backs to play it. I see more the issue as having a no 10 playing well. That is a really key role in the way we play.
