5 At The Back Needs To Go (8 Viewers)

[Deity]

Losing 9 points from winning positions in my honest opinion , and conceding 6 goals in the last 15 minutes isn't a 5 ATB problem

We'd be just as likely to concede late with 1 less defender and the same 2 holding midfielders .

I'm not sure the need to change to 4 is there yet , again we've lost just 2 games

The only change I'd recommend personally is to swith to the box last 10 in winning situations to offer more defensive support from midfield

We don’t look fit. After 60 mins in most matches we look leggy and get deeper and deeper. Robins denied this after the match but it’s clear for all to see.

 

---

[BlueSkiesForever]

Losing 9 points from winning positions in my honest opinion , and conceding 6 goals in the last 15 minutes isn't a 5 ATB problem

We'd be just as likely to concede late with 1 less defender and the same 2 holding midfielders .

I'm not sure the need to change to 4 is there yet , again we've lost just 2 games

The only change I'd recommend personally is to swith to the box last 10 in winning situations to offer more defensive support from midfield

But I think that the reason we keep losing from these winning positions is we’re not scoring enough goals, if we had more attacking players on the pitch we’d be creating more chances and putting more chances away. I think 5 at the back sets us up to be scoring very few goals and then trying to cling onto slim leads every game.
I agree that the box would definitely be better but I think better still would be doing what 9 of the current top 10 sides are doing and going to 4 at the back.
Like I say there’s a reason why all of the top premier league teams play with a 4-3-3 formation. I’m sure if 5 at the back was tactically advantageous then Pep, Klopp, Arteta etc would all be utilising it.

 

[clint van damme]

But I think that the reason we keep losing from these winning positions is we’re not scoring enough goals, if we had more attacking players on the pitch we’d be creating more chances and putting more chances away. I think 5 at the back sets us up to be scoring very few goals and then trying to cling onto slim leads every game.
I agree that the box would definitely be better but I think better still would be doing what 9 of the current top 10 sides are doing and going to 4 at the back.
Like I say there’s a reason why all of the top premier league teams play with a 4-3-3 formation. I’m sure if 5 at the back was tactically advantageous then Pep, Klopp, Arteta etc would all be utilising it.

There are 5 teams above us who've scored less.
The league leaders have only scored 2 more

 

[shmmeee]

There are 5 teams above us who've scored less.
The league leaders have only scored 2 more

Were mid table in xG.

@Frostie my human Google. Have you got anything on average xG per chance? Curious if we’re creating lots of crap chances or what?

 

[shepardo01]

He's recruited for 5 at the back.
If he goes to a four it would be square pegs in round holes.
Going to a four also (generally) changes the shape of the midfield. We haven't really got the personell (at present) to play a midfield that would work with a back four .....
It would also need a bit of work on the training ground too ....
Can't see it happening....

 

[BlueSkiesForever]

5 at the back isnt the problem. Its ahead of that causing the problems and requires a system change.

One of the 3 centre backs have to step up and drive forward when spare and in acres of space ahead. This isnt happening enough.

Its little tweaks required here and there.

I agree that the centre backs need to step up to the plate and move into the space more, when you have less attackers on the pitch than most teams it’s crucial the defenders start the ball rolling with the attack more often.

However I’m still not convinced 5 at the back suits the players we’ve bought and it’s also not essential to play 5 at the back, most teams play 4 at the back and do brilliantly with it, I don’t understand Robins’ insistence to stick with a formation that nearly all other teams regard as second rate.

 

[shmmeee]

He's recruited for 5 at the back.
If he goes to a four it would be square pegs in round holes.
Going to a four also (generally) changes the shape of the midfield. We haven't really got the personell (at present) to play a midfield that would work with a back four .....
It would also need a bit of work on the training ground too ....
Can't see it happening....

And we have got a midfield to play two in the middle???

 

[BlueSkiesForever]

He's recruited for 5 at the back.
If he goes to a four it would be square pegs in round holes.
Going to a four also (generally) changes the shape of the midfield. We haven't really got the personell (at present) to play a midfield that would work with a back four .....
It would also need a bit of work on the training ground too ....
Can't see it happening....

I can’t see it happening either because Robins rarely changes the setup however I disagree that we don’t have the ability to play 4 at the back.
Lati can play RB for the time being or MVE can play there when he’s back. LB Bidwell. Midfield (left to right) could be: LM Dasilva, then CM Kelly/Allen/Eccles/Ayari (Sheaf for definite when he’s back), then RM Ayari/MVE/Eccles. Up top: LW Wright, ST Simms, RW Sakamoto.
Much more attacking and much more likely to score. Obviously you could say we’re much more likely to concede but I’d rather have the chance of actually winning games than drawing every week.

 

[Frostie]

Were mid table in xG.

@Frostie my human Google. Have you got anything on average xG per chance? Curious if we’re creating lots of crap chances or what?

11.0 xG from 102 shots = 0.11xG per shot.

6 shots from inside 6 yard box
58 other shots from inside the area
38 shots from outside the area

 

[BlueSkiesForever]

There are 5 teams above us who've scored less.
The league leaders have only scored 2 more

But then that means there’s also 11 above us who have scored more?
And yeah fair enough about the league leaders but the point stands that they’re league leaders and we’re not, we’re in 17th, there’s a gulf in quality atm and I don’t think that ploughing on with 5 at the back (when it’s clear it’s not getting us anywhere atm) is a sensible thing to do.
Maybe it’ll come good but how many games do we have to wait for that to happen? It looks worse week after week atm.

 

[BlueSkiesForever]

11.0 xG from 102 shots = 0.11xG per shot.

6 shots from inside 6 yard box
58 other shots from inside the area
38 shots from outside the area

I’m not a stats man myself, is 0.11 per shot good? It sounds bad to me but don’t want to assume anything.
Also, 6 shots inside 6 yard box, is that all season so far? That seems awful if so.

 

[shmmeee]

I’m not a stats man myself, is 0.11 per shot good? It sounds bad to me but don’t want to assume anything.
Also, 6 shots inside 6 yard box, is that all season so far? That seems awful if so.

Average will be pulled up by the odd penalty and sitter as well. Would be interesting to see the median but that’s probably outside of Frosties ability.

 

[clint van damme]

But then that means there’s also 11 above us who have scored more?
And yeah fair enough about the league leaders but the point stands that they’re league leaders and we’re not, we’re in 17th, there’s a gulf in quality atm and I don’t think that ploughing on with 5 at the back (when it’s clear it’s not getting us anywhere atm) is a sensible thing to do.
Maybe it’ll come good but how many games do we have to wait for that to happen? It looks worse week after week atm.

There are 8 teams above us who've scored more.
Our goals against isn't even that bad either.
Our failure to see out games is our biggest issue.

 

[Frostie]

I’m not a stats man myself, is 0.11 per shot good? It sounds bad to me but don’t want to assume anything.
Also, 6 shots inside 6 yard box, is that all season so far? That seems awful if so.

It's not really something I'd look at tbh, especially not this early into the season as the sample size is too small & there's too many variables; i.e. having a penalty at 0.77xG massively skews it.

xG isn't perfect for single shot or even single games as there's no way to account for context/game state. It comes into its own when giving a long term view of over/under performance so the larger the sample size the better.

 

[shmmeee]

It's not really something I'd look at tbh, especially not this early into the season as the sample size is too small & there's too many variables; i.e. having a penalty at 0.77xG massively skews it.

xG isn't perfect for single shot or even single games as there's no way to account for context/game state. It comes into its own when giving a long term view of over/under performance so the larger the sample size the better.

Just doesn’t feel like we’ve been creating many guilt ended chances. Even if we’ve had a few high profile sitters. As I’ve said before Vik missed loads of sitters but we always seemed to get another chance. So like to check my vibes with data.

 

[BlueSkiesForever]

There are 8 teams above us who've scored more.
Our goals against isn't even that bad either.
Our failure to see out games is our biggest issue.

Yeah that’s fair, we definitely can’t see out games well but my argument is that the reason we can’t see games out well is because the formation doesn’t work for us. We score one goal, maybe two at a push, by hook or by crook and then can’t score anymore which inevitably means the opposition starts piling on the pressure and usually scores an equaliser. If we could score more than one goal in the first half and really put the pressure on then it wouldn’t be so bad but we can’t manage it with the way it’s set up atm.
There’s literally zero options whenever we break or look to move forward, it’s just a hit and hope job up to Godden or Simms with almost no midfield support because they either can’t get up in time or don’t want to get up in time, hence the need for a serious rethink, it simply doesn’t work atm.

 

[BlueSkiesForever]

It's not really something I'd look at tbh, especially not this early into the season as the sample size is too small & there's too many variables; i.e. having a penalty at 0.77xG massively skews it.

xG isn't perfect for single shot or even single games as there's no way to account for context/game state. It comes into its own when giving a long term view of over/under performance so the larger the sample size the better.

Yeah that’s fair enough, I know what you mean about it being a small sample size, and I know it’s hard to judge stats on not much data but just on what we’ve got so far, what are the stats saying compared to the norm?
Is 0.11 xG per shot good? It doesn’t sound good but then I don’t properly know tbh.

 

[Esoterica]

I agree that we won’t change it this season because Robins has set his stall out with this 5ATB formation unfortunately. It’s worked well in the past but we don’t have the quality of player to carry on this system well any more. I think the players we’ve got would by accident suit a 4-3-3 much better than our current 5-2-1-2.

Who is your 3 in midfield in a 4-3-3? My own opinion is that a 4-3-3 is incredibly hard on the midfield and they have to be very mobile and aware to make it work. Have we got those players?

 

[clint van damme]

Yeah that’s fair, we definitely can’t see out games well but my argument is that the reason we can’t see games out well is because the formation doesn’t work for us. We score one goal, maybe two at a push, by hook or by crook and then can’t score anymore which inevitably means the opposition starts piling on the pressure and usually scores an equaliser. If we could score more than one goal in the first half and really put the pressure on then it wouldn’t be so bad but we can’t manage it with the way it’s set up atm.
There’s literally zero options whenever we break or look to move forward, it’s just a hit and hope job up to Godden or Simms with almost no midfield support because they either can’t get up in time or don’t want to get up in time, hence the need for a serious rethink, it simply doesn’t work atm.

Very little of the first paragraph of that post makes sense. The idea you need to score more than 2 goals to regularly win games is nonsense.
Leicester have only scored more than 2 once in the league and only won 2 games by more than a 1 goal margin.

As for zero options, We've lost the best box to box midfielder in the league and now have no one that can play the role.

We've got a lad playing attacking midfield who currently looks as though a L1 loan would have been more beneficial to his development.

We've thrown away leads late in games several times including Mondays calamity. The notion this is down to formation is bollocks to be honest.

 

[BlueSkiesForever]

Very little of the first paragraph of that post makes sense. The idea you need to score more than 2 goals to regularly win games is nonsense.
Leicester have only scored more than 2 once in the league and only won 2 games by more than a 1 goal margin.

As for zero options, We've lost the best box to box midfielder in the league and now have no one that can play the role.

We've got a lad playing attacking midfield who currently looks as though a L1 loan would have been more beneficial to his development.

We've thrown away leads late in games several times including Mondays calamity. The notion this is down to formation is bollocks to be honest.

I never said we need to score more than 2, I said if we could score 2 goals it would take the pressure off our defence.

Also, it’s not just about Leicester, what’s the obsession with Leicester? How about Leeds? Or Ipswich? Or Sunderland? Or Hull? Or any of the top 10 sides that are using 4 at the back and doing well? Also if you’re only going to look at Leicester you’ve got to factor in a team’s ability to actually score goals, Leicester look like they could score a goal at any time during a game, we hardly ever look like scoring a single goal during a game, let alone multiple goals. Yes they may only win by 1 goal a lot of the time but they have the ability to score goals in almost any given game at any time, they can turn a game around quickly, whereas we score one dodgy goal and then never look like scoring another.

You make a good point about our players though, it’s a bunch of shit atm and maybe that’s why we’re not doing well, maybe. However I come back to the original point I made and look at why the best teams around the world all play 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 etc. If 5 at the back was actually any good then why the hell doesn’t Pep play it or Klopp play it or Arteta play it or Xavi play it or Tuchel play it? Hardly any of the best teams in the world play 5 at the back and only 4 teams in the Prem play it, and they’re all bottom half. To me it’s glaringly obvious that it’s an outdated way of playing football.

 

[clint van damme]

I never said we need to score more than 2, I said if we could score 2 goals it would take the pressure off our defence.

Also, it’s not just about Leicester, what’s the obsession with Leicester? How about Leeds? Or Ipswich? Or Sunderland? Or Hull? Or any of the top 10 sides that are using 4 at the back and doing well? Also if you’re only going to look at Leicester you’ve got to factor in a team’s ability to actually score goals, Leicester look like they could score a goal at any time during a game, we hardly ever look like scoring a single goal during a game, let alone multiple goals. Yes they may only win by 1 goal a lot of the time but they have the ability to score goals in almost any given game at any time, they can turn a game around quickly, whereas we score one dodgy goal and then never look like scoring another.

You make a good point about our players though, it’s a bunch of shit atm and maybe that’s why we’re not doing well, maybe. However I come back to the original point I made and look at why the best teams around the world all play 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 etc. If 5 at the back was actually any good then why the hell doesn’t Pep play it or Klopp play it or Arteta play it or Xavi play it or Tuchel play it? Hardly any of the best teams in the world play 5 at the back and only 4 teams in the Prem play it, and they’re all bottom half. To me it’s glaringly obvious that it’s an outdated way of playing football.

Even by your standards that post is so batshit mental I'm not going to reply anymore.

You're either a wum or on some nonsense crusade!

If its the latter, good luck!

 

[BlueSkiesForever]

Even by your standards that post is so batshit mental I'm not going to reply anymore.

You're either a wum or on some nonsense crusade!

If it’s the latter, good luck!

Well I’m glad that you’re happy in Clint world, this strange world where Cov are playing great football and 5 at the back is brilliant, unfortunately most of the managers in the real world disagree with you, but no problem as long as you’re feeling good that’s the main thing.

It’s just football at the end of the day and I enjoy having a proper debate but seems we’ll never agree so I guess we’ll leave it there.

 

[shmmeee]

Who is your 3 in midfield in a 4-3-3? My own opinion is that a 4-3-3 is incredibly hard on the midfield and they have to be very mobile and aware to make it work. Have we got those players?

I think Allen can work better there than in a two. Eccles is probably mobile enough but I’m not sure I’d want Kelly with him, maybe Allen, Ayari and one of Eccles/Kelly. It’s not great but neither is our current set up and you’d hope having 3 up front would take some pressure off.

 

[clint van damme]

I think Allen can work better there than in a two. Eccles is probably mobile enough but I’m not sure I’d want Kelly with him, maybe Allen, Ayari and one of Eccles/Kelly. It’s not great but neither is our current set up and you’d hope having 3 up front would take some pressure off.

The thought of Ayari in the middle gives me the fear, even in a 3.
We have no ball carrying midfielder and no midfielder who can take the ball on the turn/half turn and get us on the front foot, (my major gripe about Allen).

We are absolutely dsperate to get the injured players back.

 

[BlueSkiesForever]

The thought of Ayari in the middle gives me the fear, even in a 3.
We have no ball carrying midfielder and no midfielder who can take the ball on the turn/half turn and get us on the front foot, (my major gripe about Allen).

We are absolutely dsperate to get the injured players back.

Definitely agree with you there tbf, we are desperate for O’Hare, MVE and Sheaf to be back. I know we completely disagree about the 4-3-3 thing but I do think Sheaf would be capable of playing in the middle of the park on his own, he’s easily our best midfielder, real shame he’s out atm.

 

[Hobo]

We don't actually play 5 at the back. We play 3 at the back, with wingbacks who are actually pushed slightly more forward, almost more midfield than full on defenders.

 

[shmmeee]

We don't actually play 5 at the back. We play 3 at the back, with wingbacks who are actually pushed slightly more forward, almost more midfield than full on defenders.

We should. But invariably we end up with a flat five with two right in front of them

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Very little of the first paragraph of that post makes sense. The idea you need to score more than 2 goals to regularly win games is nonsense.
Leicester have only scored more than 2 once in the league and only won 2 games by more than a 1 goal margin.

As for zero options, We've lost the best box to box midfielder in the league and now have no one that can play the role.

We've got a lad playing attacking midfield who currently looks as though a L1 loan would have been more beneficial to his development.

We've thrown away leads late in games several times including Mondays calamity. The notion this is down to formation is bollocks to be honest.

Conceding late I think is down to fitness in two respects, the first being the physical ability to keep going right till the end, the second being that the more tired players get the more their concentration will fall and mistakes come in.

 

[BlueSkiesForever]

Conceding late I think is down to fitness in two respects, the first being the physical ability to keep going right till the end, the second being that the more tired players get the more their concentration will fall and mistakes come in.

Yeah I do think that’s part of it but I just don’t understand why Robins is so reluctant to change it up when it’s clear that the midfield is not working and is stretched whilst defending.

I think the lack of options up front when our midfielders or wingers have the ball means we constantly have to go backwards or sidewards and it just invites more pressure. When either Kelly or Eccles looks up they either have to thread the eye of a needle to get to Simms/Godden or they can try and find Ayari who is usually isolated. The formation creates this sort of bottleneck around the CAM position and it takes some serious talent (which we don’t currently have) to get out of that bottleneck with the ball. I know this is mainly hypothetical but I’m just convinced we don’t have the ability to play 5 at the back well.

 

[BlueSkiesForever]

Btw if anyone hasn’t listened to it yet the Sky Blues Extra podcast sums this problem up very well in their latest episode.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I don't think 3 CB's is a massive issue. The problem is that we have WB's who we don't tend to push forward enough.

The idea of the extra CB is that it gives the wide players a bit more freedom to push forward. We're not really doing it. Being forced into playing two very defensive minded CM's is just exacerbating that, along with the possession football where we just pass it along the back three for ages. Not having a creative ACM at the moment also isn't helping.

But do we have the players to play 4 at the back? Although we only have one (injured) RWB do we have any actual RB's? Or would we have a CB playing out of position? LB you'd probably end up going back to Bidwell instead of JD due to his defensive abilities. On the plus side it would give Sakamoto more of a chance to shine, but is that sufficient reason?

I think it's fine to keep the 3CB's, but we have to push the WB's up more, only play one of Kelly or Eccles and look to get the ball into midfield more quickly.

 

[hamertime]

The team lacks confidence and belief. The squad is more than capable of making the play-offs. It just depends whether they can get it together.

 

[StrettoBoy]

Do we really play with 5 at the back?

Isn't it more flexible than that i.e. three CBs and two WBs, playing three at the back when we are in possession and five when the opposition has the ball?

I quite like our formation but, with MVE out injured for weeks, we don't have a ready-made replacement. I like TS but, as we all know, he is not good defensively. I would like to see him, as an experiment, playing further forward and in a more central position. He could be our replacement for Palmer whilst he is out injured. He would do the job differently but I think he could do it.

Worth a go?

 

[StrettoBoy]

I don't think 3 CB's is a massive issue. The problem is that we have WB's who we don't tend to push forward enough.

The idea of the extra CB is that it gives the wide players a bit more freedom to push forward. We're not really doing it. Being forced into playing two very defensive minded CM's is just exacerbating that, along with the possession football where we just pass it along the back three for ages. Not having a creative ACM at the moment also isn't helping.

But do we have the players to play 4 at the back? Although we only have one (injured) RWB do we have any actual RB's? Or would we have a CB playing out of position? LB you'd probably end up going back to Bidwell instead of JD due to his defensive abilities. On the plus side it would give Sakamoto more of a chance to shine, but is that sufficient reason?

I think it's fine to keep the 3CB's, but we have to push the WB's up more, only play one of Kelly or Eccles and look to get the ball into midfield more quickly.

You posted while I was typing. I think we have similar thoughts.

We lack creativity and need to find a way of getting the best out of TS.

 

[hamertime]

I don’t think he can go back now because all the players he has bought are to fit this formation, he is all in. All we need is our injured midfielders back and our strikers to start scoring goals.