•
•

Bit of a tactical novice here... (self.reddevils)

waffles0708 が 投稿

Can someone explain to me why we're playing 3 at the back? I thought we were playing 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 mainly? Any help would be appreciated

全 8 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]burnedgoatAnder 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

3 at the back is more than 2, just gives you a bit more defensive stability. Won't be seeing it against Boro.

[–]banshee-ohara 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

We needed a good defensive performance away in Russia and at home after the 1:1 away, because as long as they didn't score we'd go through.

Maybe it was in preparation to the Chelsea game, maybe Mourinho tried it in practice before though. Against Chelsea I think it wasn't really 3/5 in the back, but Jones and Herrera had a special role to mark Hazard and other Chelsea midfielders who went forward.

In a 4-man defense he'd only allow one of the fullbacks/wingbacks to go forward attack, with 3 central defenders the 2 wingbacks should have a lot more freedom. Conte is proving that this approach (that he utilized before) is working in the EPL too.

With Shaw and Valencia, who are more attacking minded, this could be a solution for the future too. Mourinho didn't try this formation before though as far as I know.

[–]macismydog 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

It's only been played against Rostov really. Before the red card vs Chelsea, Jones was 100% in midfield, and doing a man marking job on Hazard.

Rostov play a 5 at the back and sit deep. I assume it was to allow us to get bodies forward but also be secure from the counter attack. We pretty much had 7 attacking players while the 3 CB's sat deep vs Rostov.

I'll be very surprised if we don't revert back to a back 4 tomorrow, but with so many injuries and suspensions now, I'm not positive.

[–]abkalu9Carrick 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Jones was 100% in midfield

I'm surprised I didn't notice this. I assumed he was charging at him from deep (from a back 3)

[–]eastxn956 foot 5 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Seemed to me like he told to go man-to-man with Hazard when Chelsea had the ball and to step into midfield when we had possession because they only play with Costa up top.

[–]macismydog 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Nah, even when we were in possession and attacking, Jones was advancing forward in midfield. In contrast, when we played back 3 vs Rostov the CB's sat very deep, even in the attacking phase.

[–]abkalu9Carrick 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'll have to rewatch both games. Thanks

[–]eastxn956 foot 5 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Playing three at the back basically mitigates risk as the defenders occupy more space than what two would, obviously. Makes it harder for the opposition to create chances etc. In Russia I think we went with three at the back due to the shitty pitch, it wasn't a game for playing football on so I think it was just a risk-averse approach. Chelsea are obviously the best team in England right now so it makes sense to try and limit their attacking abilities and to be fair it was working excellently up until the sending off. As for the second Rostov game, I think it was more about trying to preserve energy somewhat as a 0-0 would've got us through and we should have been good enough to deal with their attack. I think we'll see a return to a 4-3-3/4-2-3-1 tomorrow.