4 at the back vs 3-5-2 2014/2015 season

[Eborted]

Admittedly I only normally browse this forum briefly after match day or to help me fill my post/pre-season Wanderers void but I've not seen much of a discussion on Lennon's repeated fruitless use of this seemingly crazy formation. Every time I've seen us play it we've looked awful and the fact he hasn't binned it has led me to grow increasingly mistrustful of our former (or hopefully still current) saviour.

I'm not a fan of it no matter what, as it expects to much of the wing backs and offers no protection. This is one of the reasons I will not chastise Feeney. He's been given a thankless task and was never a defender. I don't pretend to be an expert on general tactical analysis but I often thought how many points we'd won with 4 at the back under Lennon in the 4-4-2 or the 4-5-1 we played with Chungy vs with 3.

Being a sad c*nt with a bit of time I did my research to find out. I've not been to any away games and missed 1 home game so my main source has been Marc Isles but I've not just gone on his predicted formation and have gone to the trouble of finding out what we actually played.

There are a few matches when I was going through that I put an asterix too. Fulham at home I've included as 4 at the back as Lennon changed it after they went ahead (You've done it once and it worked you stubborn prick!!). Watford at home I've included as being 3 at the back as when we were up 2-1 and looking dangerous on the counter, Lennon changed it to 3 and put Saido Janko in his 2nd senior game on the flank. He was promptly exposed for at least one of their goals as was Feeney for their eventual winner. I don't remember ever being as angry at a manager as I was with Lennon after that game this was because I expected so much more. Ahh well the persistence has put paid to that. Derby away, I've reluctantly included as 4 at the back even though Isles has Moxey playing midfield most of the game which I find hard to believe but oh well and it sounded like a right Lennon clusterfuck.

Anyway the results. With 4 at the back we recorded 40/78 (51.28% of all points)....not too bad. With 3 at the back we scored 6/27 (22.22% of all points). We won 1 game against Cardiff and the other 3 points came in draws in games we should be easily winning (Blackpool. Charlton at home, Wigan away). The 3-5-2 seemed to only work for him against Liverpool where we lined up against an identical formation and in the miracle at Cardiff which I tactically don't know the background too so can't comment on.

The first time we played it in the league was the apparent horror show at Rotherham so why didn't it end there?!

4-4-2 hasn't been perfect but we seemed to lose our way when we floated out some dodgy personnel to fill those holes. We started Twardzik at left back apparently against Forest. Every time he did switch it back from 3 at the back to 4 at the back between games we seemed to do better bar of course the last game against Birmingham but that was just one of those out right shite days.

Anyway enough. Bottom line is; I think it's shit and we don't have the players for it and a few choice buys will not sort this. Lennon thinks it's brilliant despite results not showing this at all which makes me fear deeply about next season. I feel the same way I did when Coyle insisted on playing Pratley and Reo-Coker and we kept getting battered despite all evidence pointing to that when Muamba replaced one of them we did better. We all know where we ended up after that season.

Your opinions????

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I don't think it matters what formation you play if your defence is inept, you don't have/play proper full backs and have an injury list in double digits. Moving forward it is about getting some proper full backs and a centre back capable of preventing Timmy from getting his annual award.

[Armchair Wanderer]

I haven't done that much research on this but... With 4-4-2 the midfield we have can look a bit lightweight. So, you want 5 in midfield but a 4-5-1 is too defensive and not what the fans pay to see. So you need 5 in the middle and 2 up top, which leaves 3 at the back.

The logic makes sense to me, and it's slightly concerning that NL continued with a losing formula but I think maybe the 2014/15 season was all about staying up and trying to slowly turn ourselves back into a football team. If this group of players can start getting used to the system then with a handful of bargain basement signings next season it should work better.

If there was limitless money you could buy whichever players you wanted to play whichever system. With our budget, current players and kids breaking through it's probably easier to get defenders to work in a three at the back than it is to get that one 20+ goals a year striker. Defenders are cheaper than strikers, right?

If it's the system next season and is not working after a few games then it'll either have to change or someone else will eventually come in.

[Prufrock]

If you're picking your formation on the basis that an imagined group of fans are too thick to see that "two up top" =/= "attacking, and then counting backwards from there then you're bollocksed.

Especially given the number of goals we scored playing that 4-5-1 with Lee Clayton and Feeney behind Cravies. I don't remember the fans not accepting it.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

Wanting two up top is laudable. But it's also what Owen Coyle wanted.

Lennon was playing with a bad hand, and I suspect that if the defence had imploded two or three weeks earlier we'd have seen more incomings at that end in January: until Rotherham we'd looked relatively ship-shape, only losing one away game in three months (at Huddersfield, Dec 28). What's more worrying, as noted, was that he usually persisted in starting with it even when the losses piled up – a self-belief that might be seen as pig-headedness if he hadn't occasionally abandoned the system mid-match, usually when behind.

So this is, again, a big summer. If he wants 3-5-2, he needs to get the players to play it. I've no problem with it being among our suite of options, but personally I think we looked better playing the 4-2-3-1, which allows the "No.10" (could be Clough) to join the front man and generally covers more of the pitch with more men – it's no coincidence that it's a much more widely used formation than a back three. Perhaps the Liverpool games, and conversations thereat with his compatriot and friend Brendan Rodgers, overly convinced Lennon that a back three is best, whereas experience this spring strongly suggests otherwise. Either he learns from that experience or he teaches them how to play it, because we can't start next season like we finished the last.

[SmokinFrazier]

I didn't like to see us play with three at the back last year because I don't think we had the players to make it work, though I can accept us going with that formation if Lennon was thinking long term and wanted the players to get used to the formation now, then preparing to add three or four players over the summer to make it more effective for next season. It didn't work for us last year but I've got no issue with it, or any other formation, providing that the players we've got are suited to the system. If we can sign two proper wing backs, our strength in central midfield should be impressive and that plays to our strengths. It looks fine if we go with something like:

___________Bogdan
____Dervite - Ream - Baptiste
??? ______________________ ????
______Vela - Davies - Danns
________Clough - Clayton

If we don't sign two players who are capable of playing at wing back, which means they need to be good at both ends of the pitch, be quick and have a load of stamina, then I don't see it working, just like it didn't when Ream and Feeney were asked to play that role because they're either a defender or winger, they can't do both. We need two wing backs who can do both but whilst I like the idea of the system and think it plays to some of our strengths, it'll be difficult to bring in two players who fill those requirements.

[Worthy4England]

Honestly, I don't give a flying what formation he plays, if he gets us promoted. I'd settle for a season of 1-0 boring-as-fck wins.

[officer_dibble]

I want us to have the personnel in the squad to be able to do both.

3-5-2 will work in some games
451 in others
442 as well

Tactical flexibility is the future.

[Eborted]

I don't think i should have banged on about my personal prejudice of the formation in my original post because that wasn't really the point and I could be wrong, if you have the players for it, it will probably work out, however I think it's really hard to get those players especially at Championship level as Frazier said they need to be good in attack, in defence and have plenty of stamina and finding one player with those attributes never mind 2 will prove hard.

The main point was as DSB addressed the failure of Lennon to notice it wasn't working with the players we had and yet to still keep going back to that well is fecking alarming! In the league we played well once in nine games! Surely that was enough to give him the picture, I too couldn't give a flying feck what formation we play if we get promoted but the formation he did play on a number of occasions with the players he had didn't work and he had evidence they could be deployed in a better way.

On a side note I thought we played best last season in the 4-5-1 with Lee as a number 10. Obviously you need a good one for it to work and maybe Clough is the man but I do accept that different matches will call for different looks or line ups but they need to work for us! 3-5-2 last season didn't.

[Eborted]

6/30 then. fecking garbage after the initial promise of last week. Stubborn c*nt.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

According to the official Twitter feed we switched to a back four halfway through the first period, at 2-0 down.

Sounds like it's effectively eight at the back anyway.

[BWFC_Insane]

According to the official Twitter feed we switched to a back four halfway through the first period, at 2-0 down.

Sounds like it's effectively eight at the back anyway.

Bit late at that point. And presumably all prep was done with a 3 at the back in mind.

[Jugs]

It actually now worries me that we're after Pisano, a pacey left-back who likes to get forward. It just screams 3 at the back is in Lennon's mind.

[BWFC_Insane]

It actually now worries me that we're after Pisano, a pacey left-back who likes to get forward. It just screams 3 at the back is in Lennon's mind.

He's a right back. But point remains. What worries me more is that Wilson looks perfectly adequate. We should be using that money elsewhere in my view.

[Dave Sutton's barnet]

According to the official Twitter feed we switched to a back four halfway through the first period, at 2-0 down.

Sounds like it's effectively eight at the back anyway.

Bit late at that point. And presumably all prep was done with a 3 at the back in mind.

Oh, quite. Not arguing with the central premise.

Also not too worried about getting a better right-back - we need two really, although Holding and Threlkeld might object.

Defensive reinforcement might help.

For the record, I generally don't like a back three - a very difficult formation to get right.

[officer_dibble]

Its fine with right personnel. Which we dont have.

[BWFC_Insane]

According to the official Twitter feed we switched to a back four halfway through the first period, at 2-0 down.

Sounds like it's effectively eight at the back anyway.

Bit late at that point. And presumably all prep was done with a 3 at the back in mind.

Oh, quite. Not arguing with the central premise.

Also not too worried about getting a better right-back - we need two really, although Holding and Threlkeld might object.

Defensive reinforcement might help.

For the record, I generally don't like a back three - a very difficult formation to get right.

Ideally we would sign players in quite a few areas. But find someone who can score some goals and you gloss over a lot of other deficiencies sometimes.

I also think we are so short of width. Though Pisano can apparently play in midfield so perhaps he would provide missing width. I've never seen a 3 at the back work for long periods in English football. Some sides have success with it for a while, but I generally don't think it is the way to go.

[thebish]

second half seems to be better - we haven't conceded, anyway!

Boro taken foot off gas? change in personnel mad a difference? both? summat else?

[twilight]

[quote="thebish"]second half seems to be better - we haven't conceded, anyway!


Boro taken foot off gas? change in personnel mad a difference? both? summat else?[/quote

took their foot off the gas. damage done in first half. am still seething!!

[danardif1]

According to the official Twitter feed we switched to a back four halfway through the first period, at 2-0 down.

Sounds like it's effectively eight at the back anyway.

Bit late at that point. And presumably all prep was done with a 3 at the back in mind.

Oh, quite. Not arguing with the central premise.

Also not too worried about getting a better right-back - we need two really, although Holding and Threlkeld might object.

Defensive reinforcement might help.

For the record, I generally don't like a back three - a very difficult formation to get right.

That's very true. It worked for him at Celtic as an alternative tactic because he had players like Charlie Mulgrew (who I'm a big fan of, excellent player) who were very versatile and even switched between covering at left wing back and in midfield within the same match (the Barcelona one being a good example... Mulgrew was employed in midfield initially but with a remit to cover Dani Alves which pushed him wider and further back). Mikael Lustig on the other side was a more typical right back but can play in the middle too. It was the flexibility his Celtic players had that allowed Lennon his own flexibility tactically. We just don't have that versatility within our own squad.

If you look at this lineup from zonalmarking you see how the original 4 at the back ends up needing to be shifted to a 5 because of Barcelona's own shape... you need players who can play multiple positions though and his Celtic team had that. http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/ee5 ... celona.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think Lennon may have to learn that some games we will just lose by the odd goal using our normal tactics, because there are teams better than us. The Boro game and others have shown that you can't just out-tactic someone in this league, so learning to be less stubborn and actually to stop over-complicating and overthinking the problem at hand may end up being a better solution for us. As I've said there are better teams in the division and Boro are almost certainly one of them, but with our standard formation there is less opportunity for a calamitous mismatch tactically that leads to the kind of mauling they were handing us in the first half. I can accept losing 2-0+ when a team is demonstrably better than us, but when it's so obviously a mismatch it's hard to take, and getting it wrong like that doesn't help our goal difference either... in a league this competitive that matters too.

Squad depth is what affords tactical flexibility and we don't have that, so it has to be a case of finding a team and formation that works and just going with that. Wholesale changes like yesterday just don't seem to work.