Three at the Back...moving forward

[Qprtanpa1]

The 2nd half today, beyond an impressive display of character, prompts the obvious question: Why not play 3-5-2 moving forward?. Am very confident with Toni, Darnell and Grant in the back, and with five in the middle (sans Scowen) we are a very dangerous looking team with a massive potential to score. Tuesday would start with the team that ended the game, and have both Eze and Osayi ready to pounce fom the bench. For too many games we have conceded midfield control in favor of a 4-man back line. What’s wrong with shifting formation to adjust to the reality we don’t have enough midfield skill right now to go with only 4 players there.

[hal9thou]

The problem with the three is that it relies on high quality wing backs offensively and defensively. We just didn't have that last term.

What I do think is good is that we now have real options tactically, personnel and set up wise.

[Rangers77]

We went back to four at the back when Pawel replaces Lynch. Bidwell and Furlong pushed up, mind.

Lynch has to be dropped after today. Both the BFG, Hall and Furlong are right sided, however....

[Stanley]

Lynch has to be dropped after today. Both the BFG, Hall and Furlong are right sided, however....

Indeed 77, and reckon that saving grace is the reason Steve has persisted this long with Lynch.

[gator]

We went back to four at the back when Pawel replaces Lynch. Bidwell and Furlong pushed up, mind.

Lynch has to be dropped after today. Both the BFG, Hall and Furlong are right sided, however....

Sinton said we were staying with a Back 3 with Furlong taking Lynch's spot, he was on the right wing interchanging with Wszolek most of the time!

[1973 ranger]

Whichever system we play the one thing that is crystal clear is we are a better team when we play at pace and on the front foot. The changes at half time showed that we are actually a half decent side where as the first showed us to be relegation material. I just hope McClaren saw it the same way and the three that were subbed stay subbed.

[Tarbie]

Still not sure we have the personnel to regularly select 3-5-2, regardless of whether it worked in the 2nd half yesterday or not.

[West Acton]

I’m not sure I would change to three at the back based on yesterday’s 2nd half performance. It was magnificent and we looked the business but those were unique circumstances given score and they were clearly sent out to go for it. No way on earth would we play that open if we were level or from the off

think more important then the system was the tempo, energy and desire we showed!!! If we done that week in week out the formation is irrelevant

[1973 ranger]

Westy. All to do with who is in the middle of the park as shown yesterday. Cameron moves it quickly as does Cousins.

[Rangers77]

Sinton said we were staying with a Back 3 with Furlong taking Lynch's spot, he was on the right wing interchanging with Wszolek most of the time!

How can or could Furlong move to left CB from RB. That was where Toni played. Happy to sometimes move to three at the back, and Furlong, Hall and Toni could work. When Lynch went off it looked a standard four to
me. If Furlong were one of the three he wouldn't be pushing up, would he? Furlong pushed up, sure, but he stayed behind Pawel and made most of his excellent long throw. Pawel, as usual, provided cover to Furlong. Dropping him for BOS (who was played on the left) was silly.

I doubt Sinton, however ubiquitous he may be, knows what formation Steve is going to play tbh.

[jamesnutt]

Furlong nothing player . However , his best position would be on the right of a three at the back .JN

[SheepRanger]

The 2nd half today, beyond an impressive display of character, prompts the obvious question: Why not play 3-5-2 moving forward?. Am very confident with Toni, Darnell and Grant in the back, and with five in the middle (sans Scowen) we are a very dangerous looking team with a massive potential to score. Tuesday would start with the team that ended the game, and have both Eze and Osayi ready to pounce fom the bench. For too many games we have conceded midfield control in favor of a 4-man back line. What’s wrong with shifting formation to adjust to the reality we don’t have enough midfield skill right now to go with only 4 players there.

You mean like Olly played?

Surely this is tactically naive?

[1973 ranger]

Would go 4 4 3 when all are fit. Lumley, Bidwell, Hall, Furlong and Rangel at the back. Cameron, Cousins and Luongo in the middle with Freeman, Wells and Smith or Hemed up top. Cameron and Cousins protect the back 4 and also cover the full backs when attacking. It would give luongo the freedom to get into dangerous areas.

[West Acton]

We allowed extra man 73

[Hitman34]

I’m not sure I would change to three at the back based on yesterday’s 2nd half performance. It was magnificent and we looked the business but those were unique circumstances given score and they were clearly sent out to go for it. No way on earth would we play that open if we were level or from the off

think more important then the system was the tempo, energy and desire we showed!!! If we done that week in week out the formation is irrelevant

Spot on, we spent 3 quarters of last season with that formation and it was dire.

Half a game does not constitute a change back to that tactic which destroyed pav and Bidwell.

Next, people will be calling for the hill of hell to return.