Wing backs (1 Viewer)

[Otis]

Suggested it before and will say so again, wouldn't it be a good idea to try wing backs?

Both Christie and Adams are pretty good at getting forwards, but our defence looks ropey. Half the time Christie and Adams are caught out going forwards anyway with the way we play, so why not go for 3 at the back and play wing backs?

We could go for


--------------- Murphy ------


------- Wood Cameron Edge

Christie ---------------------- Adams


Baker Jennings/Bailey Mouss/Fleck Sheff

--------------- Clarke/ Elliot



With 3 at the back that will give us a bit more protection for the marauding fullbacks. To me they are almost playing like wing backs anyway. Just think 3 at the back might make us a bit more solid when teams counter attack us.


Not saying it will necessarily work, just saying it might be worth a try.

 

---

[stupot07]

It's worth a try, but where it will fall down is that Christie and Adams couldn't cross a road let a lone a decent ball into the box.

The other is that most teams seem to play 1 up top and pack the midfield which would mean 3 centre backs marking 1 man.

But like you say it would be worth a try.

 

[Otis]

Just think Christie and Adams are bombing forwards and putting in crosses anyway.

 

[ccfcway]

which would mean 3 centre backs marking 1 man..

Well, we are struggling with 2 marking 1 man at the mo, so 3 might help

 

[stupot07]

I think a lot of this could be remedied with 1 of the 3 central midfielders being more disciplined and literally just sitting in front of the back 4 like makelele used to do for chelsea.

 

[Otis]

True.

Jennings is supposed to be the defensive midfielder, but he seems to be all over the park rather than just be sitting in front of the back 4.

 

[deanocity3]

playing that sysyem means losing the holding midfield player as we will need to support the front man/men
you would need a centre three midfielder,from baker,jennings,bailey,moussa,macca,fleck.
I myself would play macca up front with elliot and drop clarke altogether.
---------------- murphy -----------------------
-------------------christie edge wood----------------------
j.clarke------------------------------------ adams
---------------- moussa bailey baker-----------------------------
---------- elliott mcsheffrey ----------------------

 

[PVA]

Unless I'm reading it wrong, the team in the OP is 3-6-1/5-4-1.

Not sure that's gonna work tbh.

 

[Otis]

It's 5-4-1.

We are playing 4-5-1 pretty much at the moment and we are getting caught out at the back with regularity. We are supposed to have a defensive midfielder in front of the back four and he's not doing it.

All you are doing here, is strengthening the central defence and then taking out one midfelder. That would also aid us when Adams and Christie are pushing forwards and lose possession.

All I am suggesting is the standard, well known and recognisable wing back formation and nothing else.

 

[PVA]

All I am suggesting is the standard, well known and recognisable wing back formation and nothing else.

Don't agree I'm afraid.

Standard wing back formation is 3-5-2. With 3 central midfielders and two strikers.

You effectively have 4 central midfielders, 2 of which are filled by wingers (Baker and McSheff).


If we were to play with wing backs it'd look something like this:

Murphy

Cameron - Edj - Wood

Christie --------------------- Adams

Bailey - Jennings - Moussa

Clarke - Elliott​

That's a standard wing back formation.

 

[Otis]

Sorry. Wasn't focusing on up front, was focusing on the defence and midfield. My mistake there. You're right, 3 -5- 2. That is indeed is what it should be.

Anyway, what I was trying to say was 5 at the back including wing backs.

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

Isnt the whole premise of wingbacks to offer a greater fluidity to the team- so defensively when the opposition has the ball its 5-3-2- but when attacking its 3-5-2.. whatever the intracacies of the system- I like the idea and think it might work with the players we have- but I also think its going to need work on the training ground beyond the week to week opportunities we now have- i.e it needs a close season?

 

[Paxman II]

We are too flat footed and slow at the back and this would only compound that though.
Di think Jennings should stick in front of the back 4 though and protect them.

 

[sw88]

Id give it a go against Crewe! Its obvious we're going to need to be attacking, whilst being weary of the counter attack

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

It strikes me that our defensive frailties are dictating/mandating our attacking options.. i.e having to play 4-5-1 with Jennings in front of the two Centre Halves.. maybe be its time for a defensive personnel rethink- perhaps the Wood-Edge partnership needs a shuffle?

 

[stupot07]

It strikes me that our defensive frailties are dictating/mandating our attacking options.. i.e having to play 4-5-1 with Jennings in front of the two Centre Halves.. maybe be its time for a defensive personnel rethink- perhaps the Wood-Edge partnership needs a shuffle?

But that's the point Jennings doesn't sit in front of the back four, he wanders off probably under instruction. I fact in all 4 goals conceded this week I seem to remember Jennings being in their half.

 

[Otis]

Yep. He obviously isn't disciplined enough to stick to that job.

 

[ohitsaidwalker king power]

But that's the point Jennings doesn't sit in front of the back four, he wanders off probably under instruction. I fact in all 4 goals conceded this week I seem to remember Jennings being in their half.

You're right I'm sure... but I cannot see how he is given that as a direct instruction.. surely he's the play 'breaker' rather than the play 'maker'... on this basis he's either not doing his job correctly and venturing forward too often..or MR has it wrong?.. why would you play 5 in midfield and not adopt Jennings as the 'sitting' man?
If not- why not play 4-4-2... albeit to repeat my earlier view I think that Wood and Edge might not be the holy grail of central defensive partnerships given the lack of pace between the two.

 

[dongonzalos]

Suggested it before and will say so again, wouldn't it be a good idea to try wing backs?

Both Christie and Adams are pretty good at getting forwards, but our defence looks ropey. Half the time Christie and Adams are caught out going forwards anyway with the way we play, so why not go for 3 at the back and play wing backs?

We could go for


--------------- Murphy ------


------- Wood Cameron Edge

Christie ---------------------- Adams


Baker Jennings/Bailey Mouss/Fleck Sheff

--------------- Clarke/ Elliot



With 3 at the back that will give us a bit more protection for the marauding fullbacks. To me they are almost playing like wing backs anyway. Just think 3 at the back might make us a bit more solid when teams counter attack us.


Not saying it will necessarily work, just saying it might be worth a try.[/quote)





Weird I was think just the same thing yesterday whilst having a swim.


--------------- ---Murphy ------


------- Wilis Malaga Wood

Christie ---------------------- ---Adams



----------------Bailey ---------
Baker----------------------------Sheff

--------------- Clarke/ Cody----------

Malaga back to deal with set pieces and be a threat at Set pieces for us

There is an entire thread going in about how good he was against Sheff Utd.

He was hoofed out over a language barrier surely that can be rectified with extensive lessons.

Willis and Wood have previously played left and right back so can cover the marauding full backs.

Bailey and Moussa providing that extra bite and back up for the full backs.

Cody on his final chance once his fitness and confidence are up. Cody to scavenge off the supply from the full backs and Sheff and Baker.

Leon to provide the foil for Cody and keep Leins goal scoring up

My idea will probably become a side show due to choosing Malaga, Willis and Cody.

However I agree with you a formation that would suit us.

 

[Otis]

I was with you all the way there Don ... until you mentioned Malaga.

 

[dongonzalos]

I was with you all the way there Don ... until you mentioned Malaga.

I know a controversial one

However he played against Sheff Utd has a stormer gets rave reviews.

Then has a shit second half against Bury like the entire team did, then he is bombed out of the club.

Suggestion from someone with genuine inside knowledge, was he doesn't speak a word of English.

Hence he is got rid off.

Lots of people have commented recently about our lack of ability at defending set pieces. Also at Beene a threat when we have them.

Malaga not only defended well against Sheff Utd but he gave them hell when we had set pieces.

Including scoring a perfectly good goal ( not given)

We desperately need that type of defender.

Managers like to stamp their Mark when they arrive at a club. Rightly so as it sets their stall out. My gut feeling tells me MR did that and Malaga fell victim.
He has then pissed Robins off by refusing to stay in loan at Nuneaton.

I think he has no way back.

Yet although it is hard to judge on 180 minutes of football

He looked to me for 135 minutes of it to be what are crying out for

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

I think 4-3-3 could be a viable option for CCFC.

 

[dongonzalos]

I think 4-3-3 could be a viable option for CCFC.

Sounds interesting who are the 3 up front

If you say Baker, Leon, Moussa then that is just 4, 2 3 1 really

 

[deanocity3]

We played with wing backs under dave sexton with dyson gillespie and butterworth as the back 3.but they were also comfortable on the ball and would run with it out of defence. Can't see any today who could do that.danny thomas and harry roberts were the wing backs and pushed forward more,thats how harry scored his goal.daly hunt and gerry francis were the middle 3, they could tackle,score and pass,we then had a choice of english,hateley or thompson.we don't have those type of players today to play 3-5-2

 

[Nick]

If Christie and Adams did some extra crossing practise then they would be great as wing backs.

 

[deanocity3]

No good putting crosses in if the bloke in the middle won't attempt to get to them.

 

[Nick]

No good putting crosses in if the bloke in the middle won't attempt to get to them.

To be fair, the blokes in the first 10-15 rows of the stand would struggle to header most of them too!

 

[deanocity3]

To be fair, the blokes in the first 10-15 rows of the stand would struggle to header most of them too!

I would say 16-20 is more realistic

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Sounds interesting who are the 3 up front

If you say Baker, Leon, Moussa then that is just 4, 2 3 1 really

No it's not because the shape is different.

Flat 3 in midfield, with Bailey a bit back and I'd partner him with Thomas, and Moussa OR Fleck or Barton, so there's a balence in midfield, front 3 would be Baker, Clarke or Elliott (more Clarke tbh) and Moussa OR Sheff.

I'd have the same shape as we played v MK Dons, Fleck Moussa and Jenno were excellent and we played some fantastic stuff, but Moussa on the wing, Bailey in for Jenno and Thomas in CM, I think that'd be even better

 

[dongonzalos]

No it's not because the shape is different.

Flat 3 in midfield, with Bailey a bit back and I'd partner him with Thomas, and Moussa OR Fleck or Barton, so there's a balence in midfield, front 3 would be Baker, Clarke or Elliott (more Clarke tbh) and Moussa OR Sheff.

I'd have the same shape as we played v MK Dons, Fleck Moussa and Jenno were excellent and we played some fantastic stuff, but Moussa on the wing, Bailey in for Jenno and Thomas in CM, I think that'd be even better

Sounds good

 

[dongonzalos]

We played with wing backs under dave sexton with dyson gillespie and butterworth as the back 3.but they were also comfortable on the ball and would run with it out of defence. Can't see any today who could do that.danny thomas and harry roberts were the wing backs and pushed forward more,thats how harry scored his goal.daly hunt and gerry francis were the middle 3, they could tackle,score and pass,we then had a choice of english,hateley or thompson.we don't have those type of players today to play 3-5-2

I agree at least one needs to be able to bring the ball out, which is why I thought Willis may do a job?

 

[dongonzalos]

If Christie and Adams did some extra crossing practise then they would be great as wing backs.

Not sure about Adam's crossing yet but I think Christie always puts it in the danger are but you need a Cody type or a Micky Quinn ( I don't mean fat) who are always in those danger areas

 

[stupot07]

Not sure about Adam's crossing yet but I think Christie always puts it in the danger are but you need a Cody type or a Micky Quinn ( I don't mean fat) who are always in those danger areas

Christies crossing is just as bad as Adams - you're lucky if you get 1 decent cross a game the rest either hit the feat man or go out of play.

 

[Nick]

Not sure about Adam's crossing yet but I think Christie always puts it in the danger are but you need a Cody type or a Micky Quinn ( I don't mean fat) who are always in those danger areas

Danger of concussion to spectator area!