5 At The Back

[CW 90+3 02/05/16]

Don't like it one bit.

Far too negative and asking for trouble when we play this.

Pedants will argue it's a back 3 with wing backs but it's 5 defenders.

Flat back 4 for me every time.

[blythswood]

It was a back 5 first half but back 3 with being backs second half.

Nearly worked. Given the players we had out yesterday we were always up against it and the tactics were justified. First goal was important and we very nearly got it.

[CW 90+3 02/05/16]

It was a back 5 first half but back 3 with being backs second half.

Nearly worked. Given the players we had out yesterday we were always up against it and the tactics were justified. First goal was important and we very nearly got it.

Agree with your post despite my OP. Yesterday was circumstances.

We done it second half last week at home too though.

Just never been a fan of the back 5 unless you have exceptional wing backs.

Also find 3 centre backs a waste of an attacking jersey.

[Mr Sensible]

Don't like it one bit.

Far too negative and asking for trouble when we play this.

Pedants will argue it's a back 3 with wing backs but it's 5 defenders.

Flat back 4 for me every time.

Gotta agree....

You would think we were a lower league team in that first half yesterday,trying to keep the score respectable.....the sad thing about it is there not even that great as was showed when we finally showed a bit of ambition.....

Paying 25 quid to watch those tacticts aint my idea of money well spent,and then to top it off he comes on radio yesterday to say "we had a go"

FFS try telling that to the boys i spoke to at half time

[blythswood]

Also find 3 centre backs a waste of an attacking jersey.

In normal circumstances absolutely. Unfortunately most of our attacking jerseys are left in the kit bag at the minute. Badly need another option up front.

[CW 90+3 02/05/16]

Don't like it one bit.

Far too negative and asking for trouble when we play this.

Pedants will argue it's a back 3 with wing backs but it's 5 defenders.

Flat back 4 for me every time.

I put this politely on Sunday, I'll now put it more bluntly.

Get this nonsense formation to fk.

3 centre backs and 5 defenders FFS

[Ludo*1]

I do like it. I like it a lot. I think we have the players to play it and we can play effectively with it applied correctly against the stronger teams.

That doesn't mean we should play it against League One opposition though, bizarre to start out like that.

[CW 90+3 02/05/16]

I do like it. I like it a lot. I think we have the players to play it and we can play effectively with it applied correctly against the stronger teams.

That doesn't mean we should play it against League One opposition though, bizarre to start out like that.

We've been beaten 1-0 from St Johnstone when we switched to it

2-0 from Aberdeen playing it and 3-1 from Dunfermline when playing it

Seriously?

Edited 25 August 2015 by Perth Road Dee

[blythswood]

We don't have the players to play it, they looked totally lost tonight. Fair enough to spoil on Saturday but against a team 2 leagues below????

Harkins wasted 5 yards in front of the back 4 as well whilst McGowan wastes pass after pass in front of him.

No matter what pish Hartley comes out with, everyone in the ground could see that formation was a disaster tonight.

[Ludo*1]

Perth Road Dee, on 25 Aug 2015 - 10:20 PM, said:

We

We've been beaten 1-0 from St Johnstone when we switched to it

2-0 from Aberdeen playing it and 3-1 from Dunfermline when playing it

Seriously?

We didn't concede when we switched to 5 at the back vs St J. We conceded before then and it was that very formation that helped us see the game out.

We also didn't concede when we played it conservatively against Aberdeen, and it was only when Hartley decided to get a bit braver did we concede.

Tonight we conceded 2 goals once we changed the formation and an attacking midfielder came on for Julen. We should never have played it in the first place tonight though, and it did put us in an awkward position against lower opposition from the get go.

[chomp my root]

We didn't concede when we switched to 5 at the back vs St J. We conceded before then and it was that very formation that helped us see the game out.

We also didn't concede when we played it conservatively against Aberdeen, and it was only when Hartley decided to get a bit braver did we concede.

Tonight we conceded 2 goals once we changed the formation and an attacking midfielder came on for Julen. We should never have played it in the first place tonight though, and it did put us in an awkward position against lower opposition from the get go.

That's how I saw it, first half against Aberdeen I thought we gave them too much time (and respect) and it was hard to watch us being so defensive but it worked. As you say, I thought it was a poor tactic to use against a lower league team, I guess Dunfs 'rep' for scoring goals prompted the defensive set up last night, that and a lack of forwards.