[Albion] 3 at back

[amexer]

Will Potter persevere with 3 at the back. We had great success post lockdown when we played Hughton style and 2 CBs and 2 fullbacks. If he does will he feel obligated to play all 3 with either Webster out of position at fullback.

 

[seagully]

Seemed to me we played the whole second half with a flat back 4 this afternoon anyway. After Lamptey went off Webster went to LB with Veltman at RB

 

[Sarisbury Seagull]

I think we should persist with it starting games as it suits our players but be prepared and ready to be flexible and change it mid game when necessary.

I’m surprised Potter wasn’t quicker to change it today as it clearly wasn’t working very well today, we needed one less centre back and an extra man in midfield.

 

[Swansman]

We will see more tactical adaption as the season goes on. Currently there is not much data on how different teams are shaping up in different games but once that settles a bit, there will be more opportunities for "tactical outplay". We'll see four man at the back in some games, even if the current tactic might be the "go to" option.

 

[nwgull]

Is 3 at the back responsible for conceding 5 from set pieces and 2 from giving the ball away in our own half? If we were getting sliced through in open play I’d say that the formation was more of an issue, but we’re not.

 

[Eeyore]

Is 3 at the back responsible for conceding 5 from set pieces and 2 from giving the ball away in our own half? If we were getting sliced through in open play I’d say that the formation was more of an issue, but we’re not.

This.

Looking at the goals conceded so far this season, three at the back has had little part to play. It's mainly been individual errors.

The responses here are post-match knee jerk.

 

[fleet]

So the 2 goals with an unmarked man - should Solly have tracked back as cover or should one of the back 3 have been over there? Or should someone else have been there?

We also need to learn set piece defending - just shocking.

 

[Javeaseagull]

Bearing in mind how many CBs we have it would seem pretty obvious to play 3 at the back, no?

 

[zefarelly]

Bearing in mind how many CBs we have it would seem pretty obvious to play 3 at the back, no?

Given the performance ratings 5 may be nearly enough.

 

[Stato]

Is 3 at the back responsible for conceding 5 from set pieces and 2 from giving the ball away in our own half? If we were getting sliced through in open play I’d say that the formation was more of an issue, but we’re not.

This is true. Defending at set pieces has been poor and we have given the ball away in dangerous spaces for a few goals. The first needs work. The second however, seems a system problem.

I understand that we want to play out and break the press in order to benefit from space further forward. This involves a level of risk because sometimes it will fail and we will present an opportunity high up the pitch. What is annoying me about this is that I can think of repeated instances where the approach has gifted goals, Chelsea this year and last, United at the Amex last year, Liverpool, Everton today, but struggle to think of incidents where it has worked and we have scored. The risk/reward seems out of balance. We have looked good playing higher up the pitch, pressing and harrying defenders in possession. We also now some have pace that can benefit from occasional longer balls in behind. Can anyone convince me that the continued obsession with knocking it around at the back is worth the goals we are handing to some very good teams?