Over the years, True Blue has long since advocated this tactic, and I have long since derided it. But given both the development of the squad and the expected leaving of the Mahgician, I'm wondering whether three at the back might start to suit us?
With both Evans and Maguire able to play out from the back, they could quite happily fit in to the side roles of such a system. Indeed it may well help Maguire as he would have more cover behind him. Signing Dragovic would provide competition, while (and this may be an unpopular suggestion but nevertheless practical) Morgan may be able to continue as the central defender of the three. In this his strengths would still be available to the team while not giving him any real responsibility to actually make plays.
Chilwell as a wing back feels like a decent fit as an idea, Pereira too, and Albrighton can also play there as competition. We have several central midfield options available to us, even more so if we pursue Maddison from Norwich. Meanwhile there's just enough flexibility in the system for Gray and Diabate to genuinely compete for a place, whether that be alongside Vardy or out wide either side of him. Or even in a free role behind a front two and in front of two central midfielders. The only one who would truly miss out would be Simpson, although his days are looking somewhat numbered anyway.
Now, granted that Puel hasn't necessarily shown a great deal of interest in a three at the back formation in the past, but I just wonder whether the way the squad is developing might be conducive to this going forward. And, to be blunt, if we are going to persist with out-and-out wingers then I'm not convinced that the quality is there to create enough chances.
Three at the back
posted on 11/6/18
Nev, I didn't really want this article to be about either Puel, you, or Puel and you, but since you bring up the differences to when Puel tried him as a full back last season:
- It is a different role to a wing back with three centre backs, which provides a lot more natural cover;
- Playing as a full back, although he improved at it over time, exposed him defensively repeatedly, including one time when he got a red card and another when he conceded a penalty;
- It was an interesting experiment with a certain degree of success going forward, but with the major caveat above.
Cheesy - We'd need another centre back to play with them, but I'm generally keener on having an aerially dominant and strong centre of a three as he'll have to be there to clear crosses and do the dirty defending. Morgan ticks a lot of boxes for that; Maguire could but doesn't show enough discipline for my liking, while others I consider too small. Dragovic would be good competition for a side place but not central, while I've never been convinced by Fuchs as a centre half, even in a three. Better that he provides competition for Chilwell on the left flank, although physically he obviously wouldn't manage a whole season out there so would have to rotate. Which might suit the situation anyway.
And then of course there's Amartey...
posted on 11/6/18
Nev
Are you talking about when Allbrighton was deployed as a wing back to mark Saha out of the game at Palace.
3 at the back seems to be popular tactic with most of the big teams. Peps preferred tactic at Man C, Contes defining change at Chelsea in 16/17, the way Poch builds his teams at Tottenham and Klopp at Liverpool. Its also maestro Southgates sysyem for England, so |Harry Mac should be used to it. Its a system that works well if you've got the right players to play it , and are not fitting square pegs in round holes.
Over to you Claude
UTF
posted on 11/6/18
I like Diabate Dunge, and I see potential in Gray even if I don’t like him nor be totally convinced he will realise it. But I don’t see either being a natural in behind a main striker as both are quite direct and like to run with the ball.
Perfect for a wide striker in a 3. But for me, not in behind Vardy.
That said, I believe we are trying very hard to being in a number 10 to replace Mahrez. Which is strange, because despite his ability Puel never really played Mahrez as a number 10. Another of my frustrations.
But if we did procure this player, you could see a 3-4-3 working well. Diabate and Gray should in theory fit nicely in those wide roles.
As for Albrighton, I understand the full back experiment. He’s shown he can read the game and defend, and he’s shown he can be a success at wing back. So it’s not that big a jump to try him as an attacking full back.
What we can all agree on though, is it didn’t work!
posted on 11/6/18
comment by Nevsaysagoal2city (U5194)
posted 1 hour, 37 minutes ago
So Dung can say Albrighton as a wing back but when Puel tried it and i said it was a good option i got nailed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Puel played him as a full back not a wing back
Jesus nev.....
posted on 11/6/18
Having seen 3 at the back work very well I wouldn't be averse to us trying it out again, certainly in a 3-5-2.
posted on 11/6/18
I have some concerns about us trying to replicate the current England 3 at the back formation. It encourages a passing style of playing out of defence which in turn stifles any quick fast break (just as we have seen with England in the last two friendlies). This cancels out the Vardy factor and again as we have seen with England in this formation Vardy gets no service. I would prefer to stick to the quick fast break from a 4 4 2. What we really need is a midfield general who can play the quarter back passes out to the fast wingers and strikers. Our last two games of the season have proven this is our most effective system.
posted on 11/6/18
Maybe we drop Vardy to make Puel’s style work?
Finally a role for Nacho.
You think I’m joking, and in a way I am. But I think if Puel want his football to work he needs the right player in every position.
I’m not sure Vardy can play Puel football. If I were him I’d be considering my options.
posted on 11/6/18
comment by El Zorro (U13253)
posted 1 hour, 3 minutes ago
I have some concerns about us trying to replicate the current England 3 at the back formation. It encourages a passing style of playing out of defence which in turn stifles any quick fast break (just as we have seen with England in the last two friendlies). This cancels out the Vardy factor and again as we have seen with England in this formation Vardy gets no service. I would prefer to stick to the quick fast break from a 4 4 2. What we really need is a midfield general who can play the quarter back passes out to the fast wingers and strikers. Our last two games of the season have proven this is our most effective system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you haven't watched Leicester this Season that style is exactly waht Puel wants and why Vardy has been starved of chances making his scoring tally even more remarkable.
The only difference is the back 3, that could make us more exciting and can still create an exciting attacking style assuming the players are allowed to pass the ball forwards and further than a few feet at a time.
posted on 11/6/18
I disagree completely, Mersey. Vardy scored 20 goals last season, most under Puel and many after Christmas when we were playing crappassball. Puel's been converting him into a loiterer and Vardy's shown he can play that role and score goals.
posted on 13/6/18
I disagree completely Dunge.