The 3 centre backs experiment

[The Kraken]

Genuinely, the whole thing completely baffles me.

We’ve played variations of 3 CBs before this season, but Ralph has always been very much a 4 at the back man. This pre-season saw a complete change, in 5 games we played all but 45 minutes with 3 CBs. And we only won 1 of those 5 games, so it was not exactly a glowing endorsement of the new system.

I’ve just watched Ralph’s post match interview. He referred to the turning point being the switch to 4, and that the players “gave themselves the answer of how it can work”. Last week, after the Spurs game, Ralph came out with some comments where he said some thing along the lines of  “we thought 5 at the back is more solid but it’s clear it’s not the case.” I remember it specifically at the time as it almost seemed like 3/5 at the back was being forced on Ralph, though I concede that’s perhaps unlikely. Nonetheless I’m still baffled at the whole change in setup, only for the manager himself to call it into question after only one game, and I do still wonder exactly where the change has come from. Tales from the match thread suggest Selles might have been instrumental in making the switch at the drinks break.

So, it will be interesting to see where we go from here. It was clear, I think to everyone, that 3 at the back just wasn’t working and 4 at the back looked so much more natural. Though I do feel that our subs made a big impact too, Leeds also ran out of steam and that was contributory too. But there are so many reasons why I think 4 at the back is a must for us: in general the team can play higher up the pitch, this helps KWP have more options around him going forward, Billy Ketchup looked much more assured in a 4 (his role is much better defined), we don’t have to play Bednarek, the transition from defence to attack is more fluid, and in general everyone seemed to understand their position that bit better. The major downside of 4 at the back is that we don’t have a left back without Perraud. Djenepo did ok second half today but he’s still far from a natural fit there, so that’s the downside. But there’s too many upsides to not go back to it IMO. 

So, whether the 3 CB formation was a Ralph decision or something else, I just hope that’s the end of it. If we line up with it against Leicester I’m going to be totally confused about why we’re doing it.

Edited 13 August, 2022 by The Kraken

[Baird of the land]

With the players we have it is never a 3 other than on paper, it's a 5.

Our FB's (especially KWP) look more threatening coming from a 4.

Playing 3 Cb's doesn't make us more secure.(especially when one is called Bednarek)

Adams looked much improved post change when he actually had some support.

[Saint_lambden]

We’ve never been able to defend whatever the formation so at least 4 at the back gives us more going forward, as it did in the last 20 minutes today. 

[Harry_SFC]

I always think Salisu looks better when he isn't being dragged out wide - which naturally happens when you play with wing backs. 

KWP is better going forward in a 4 as well, which was clear to see in that second half.

It also complements the whole team better as well. Aribo coming off the right, Armstrong or Mara playing off Adams for example. 

[saintant]

59 minutes ago, Saint_lambden said:

We’ve never been able to defend whatever the formation so at least 4 at the back gives us more going forward, as it did in the last 20 minutes today. 

This is my argument. Rather see us play 4 at the back and offer more in the attacking area than 5 at the back which still leaves us crap defensively but stifles any attacking threat we might have. Trouble is, we all know how stubborn Ralph is and he'll probably stick with it in the forlorn hope of proving himself a tactical genius.

[skintsaint]

On paper the formation looks decent enough, on the pitch its utter wank which is where it counts. Ditch it!

[Smirking_Saint]

Without going over it again, players take more responsibility in what they need to do defensively in a 2 rather than in a 3

3 atb is simply harder to play than a 2 at high level, the experiment is shot, it doesn't give us any extra security and clearly numbs our attacking intent, hopefully Ralphs little tinkering in this area died after 70 minutes yesterday

Edited 14 August, 2022 by Smirking_Saint

[Saint Matty 76]

We give teams a lot to worry about with the 4-2-2-2, but the 3atb just leaves us so deep and easy to push onto.

 

[AlexLaw76]

It was obvious all pre season that this formation (for us) is largely a dud.  I am amazed it lasted as long as it did and hope it is consigned to the bin as a framework to build the team around.

Ultimately, we do not have the players, it results in Salisu and co being dragged out wide and ends up with more players at our defensive 3rd of the pitch.  

Starting the season with this formationwith Valery starting was just ridiculous, and demonstrates that Ralph is at the end of his time at Saints.

Edited 14 August, 2022 by AlexLaw76

[Lord Duckhunter]

Personally I like 3 at the back, but you have to have the players. My preference is a centre half and 2 physical full backs, Venables played this way with Gary Neville & Pearce as his wide centre halves. The benefit of this is they can negate one of 3 at the backs biggest weakness, namely centre halves getting dragged into the channels and having to defend one on one in wider areas. Bednarek in particular looks like a fish out of water in this scenario. KWP is the perfect wing back, not sure about the French lad in that role, but OR & JWP are tactically intelligent and the new fella looks like he is. So basically, we have players who can play a formation with a back 3 in every position, apart from the crucial ones. We just  haven’t got good enough defenders to play a 3. IF Ralph wanted to play this way, then he or the recruitment team should have addressed this. Until they do, it’ll be a fucking car crash to continue with it. 

[woodsaint1]

2 hours ago, Saint Matty 76 said:

We give teams a lot to worry about with the 4-2-2-2, but the 3atb just leaves us so deep and easy to push onto.

 

Exactly, play to your strengths.

We are very familiar with the 4222 now (and the new players should be nearly up to speed) and its also easier to press from. I appreciate that 3 CBs works in games where we'll have very little ball and need to sit deeper (City, Liverpool being the only two worthy of that respect), but against every other team in the league just go with the 4222 or variations of it

[Matthew Le God]

3 hours ago, woodsaint1 said:

I appreciate that 3 CBs works in games where we'll have very little ball and need to sit deeper (City, Liverpool being the only two worthy of that respect), but against every other team in the league just go with the 4222 or variations of it

Last season we played 4222 home and away vs Man City and drew both matches. 

Edited 14 August, 2022 by Matthew Le God

[Golac's Cunning Stunts]

23 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Last season we played 4222 home and away vs Man City and drew both matches. 

So what? His point was that 3 CBs might work against City. What formation did we play in the 1-4 cup game smart arse?

[HKsaint]

It seems to me that 3 CBs only work when we sit deep at the back (e.g. vs Chelsea cup game). However, it does not work when we are pressing. Do we need to concede first before changing formation to back 4?

Edited 15 August, 2022 by HKsaint

[eurosaint]

I much prefer a back 4 but in some circumstances we should be able to revert to a back 3 with marauding wingbacks !

I don't see it as an experiment, more an alternative !

I remember the days when RH was castigated for not having a 'Plan B" so we can't have it all ways !

Surely having the flexibility to change formations when necessary can be a positive ??

[AlexLaw76]

1 hour ago, eurosaint said:

I much prefer a back 4 but in some circumstances we should be able to revert to a back 3 with marauding wingbacks !

I don't see it as an experiment, more an alternative !

I remember the days when RH was castigated for not having a 'Plan B" so we can't have it all ways !

Surely having the flexibility to change formations when necessary can be a positive ??

He still doesn’t have a plan B. 

[Super_Uwe]

I don't mind Ralph trying something different, but he needs to get a proper grip of our defence. He has been our manager for nearly 4 years now.

Teams like ours cannot hope to do well if we keep shipping goals left, right and centre. We are not good enough in the attacking third to be able to rely on scoring 3 goals to have a chance of winning games!

[waterlooville saint]

I'm not a tactical expert but I am getting rather fed up with complaints that we don't have a plan B or that we've only just started playing 3/5 at the back. It's not new, we played it a number of times last season. Ralph has also explained in a number of interviews why we've been playing it this season.

I think we ar doing some variations further up the pitch this season, I think we started with a 3-4-2-1 formation on Saturday or something like that.

It will be interesting to see how we line up this Saturday given the impact of the changes after 70 minutes.

[eurosaint]

4 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

He still doesn’t have a plan B. 

Surely the tactical change which turned the game around on Saturday was a Plan B ???

If not, what was it ??

[skintsaint]

9 minutes ago, eurosaint said:

Surely the tactical change which turned the game around on Saturday was a Plan B ???

If not, what was it ??

I'm guessing he is hinting that is the 4222 which is our DNA according to RH...so Plan A I would guess?

[John Boy Saint]

With 2 at CB your responsibilities are more defined “that’s your side - this is mine” stick a third person between them and unless you are perfectly drilled there is a chance of uncertainty. Sadly Jan is that uncertainty,  I can’t say he has presence back there. Kotchup and Salisu are a pair of big lads,  both are mobile and in a 2 the concentration they will both have to apply will add to the solidity. After the changes looking down the pitch the pair of them seemed to have more purpose.

Anyone able to think back to the Che Adams City game - Bednarek and Stephens were the back 2 - their roles were defined, their concentration was running at maximum, they were repelling wave after wave of attack from probably the most lethal attack in the league. Yet as the game was getting to its conclusion and another attempt was snuffed out - the pair of them were smiling at each other because they knew what the other was doing and they were comfortable.
 

Like as has been said already let’s see what happens on Saturday. 

[HKsaint]

1 hour ago, Super_Uwe said:

I don't mind Ralph trying something different, but he needs to get a proper grip of our defence. He has been our manager for nearly 4 years now.

Teams like ours cannot hope to do well if we keep shipping goals left, right and centre. We are not good enough in the attacking third to be able to rely on scoring 3 goals to have a chance of winning games!

5 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

He still doesn’t have a plan B. 

Plan B is back to back 4, right?

Edited 15 August, 2022 by HKsaint