Why do successive managers play 3 at the back?

[bayernoatcake]

It all started with Hughes trying to copy Wales from Euro 2016.

And it was the beginning of the end for him.

And every manager since has looked at their squad that isn’t suited to playing 3 at the back, that has barely contained a wing back and thought “I know what will work, 3 at the back”.

Every single fucking one of them.

Oh it’ll make us stronger at the back some fans cry. IT DOESN’T. It just confuses them even fucking more as they haven’t got a brain to start with so trying to add another person to play off and communicate with just adds more thinking to their already tiny mind.

It sums this club up since Hughes thought it was a good idea really.

People don’t seem to want to learn.

Nobody wants to seem to break the cycle.

They all try the same as the bloke before and then wonder what wrong.

Why can’t these highly paid professionals see that it just doesn’t work for us?

[Absolution]

How many other teams in the Championship play that system? Is it a 'Championship' thing, or a 'Stoke' thing?

Did our previous managers play that way before they turned up here?

I suppose all I'm asking is, is there interference from elsewhere? It just seems odd. I think we're all scratching our heads to work out what goes on at this club

[bayernoatcake]

Mar 17, 2024 1:59:23 GMT Absolution said:

How many other teams in the Championship play that system? Is it a 'Championship' thing, or a 'Stoke' thing?

Did our previous managers play that way before they turned up here?

I suppose all I'm asking is, is there interference from elsewhere? It just seems odd. I think we're all scratching our heads to work out what goes on at this club

I did wonder if it’s something the owner wants but that is just wild baseless speculation on my part.

And ultimately I think it’s absolute fucking bollocks.

But I have no actual good explanation why they all think it will work bar they’re just thick.

[PotterLog]

Because they place higher value on what it is *supposed* to do and how it *should* work than what actually happens when they implement it.

And that itself is probably partly down to ego - they want to prove themselves as progressive, adaptable coaches capable of making tactical changes to suit different games, who are above sticking to a tried and trusted (old-fashioned and predictable) system.

[stayingupforbigbazza]

Well we had 3 at the back in first half and got ripped to pieces. But first goal was our defenders with this pushing up malarkey leaving 2 players to run on goal with the freedom of the bet 365..🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬 Whilst fans and players pleaded for an off side that never was slating the lino who got it right .🤬🤬

[sportsman]

We concede easily, manager then comes under pressure, panics and tries keep it tight because he can’t trust his defence

[coldtuesdaynight]

You can’t reasonably expect us to play a system with wingers when we have only signed 200 of them this season can you? (Sarcasm)

5-3-2 was bad enough when we had Soutarr able to make up for the lack of options in front of him by pinging long accurate passes to the one player in space. Now we’ve not got anyone who’s capable of even trying that it seems like pure insanity.

[theonlooker]

Roberto Martinez said years ago, when 4231 was flavour of the month that coaches will eventually move to variants of 361. Be it 3511 or 3421.

He's slowly being proven correct and if I'm right, didn't Schumacher have the 3421 at Plymouth?

It's all about getting more bodies in midfield and getting proper rotations through the centre of the pitch but what comes with that is a need for specific types of players in the back three but also in midfield, not to mention the wing backs.

We don't have any and it ends up looking shite.

The back three we've got aren't mobile enough and can't defend. The midfield is a bomb site apart from Burger and Bae...and if Gooch is a wing back then I'm from outer Mongolia.

We can get away with a back three when we sit in and make it tough to beat like against Preston but when we try and push up and press like today it's taken apart like a three year old attacking a Happy Meal.

[GreaterGlasgowstokie]

Watching Coventry yesterday, and then us, the gap was massive particularly in this area.

At the back in Bobby Thomas and Kitching they are aggressive centre backs but importantly, when they got the ball they played it forward quick and well.

Our play from the back is so slow the other team can set and press us really well.

None of our centre backs are good enough for that so we need to go four at the back and just be more direct, look for second ball.

The problem he has though is he can't trust our centre backs to match up to people like sergeant and Barnes physically, so he went with 3 centre backs to give them a chance.

Again, it's not really the head coaches fault that stoke city doesn't know how to find and sign good players.

[worcsstokie15]

3 at the back got us 3 points last week. Were you on here moaning about the formation then?

Fundamentally, we just didn’t play very well and once again, made individual defensive clusterfucks which produced goals.

[robwahlmann]

SS seems to think 5 at the back makes us more solid, but in fact it's quite the opposite. We need to play 4 at the back and should do that the whole season. We also need to make sure we sign players able to fill in at this system. If we stay up I really hope we can bring in two left backs, two central defenders if not the promising young one out on loan can make a claim for one spot, another winger with pace and a striker able to get into double figures and of course a goalkeeper.
Wesley, Campbell, Haksa, Cundle, Hoever, Stevens, Clarke and McNally will be finished here because the loans or contracts are up. I would also offload Johnson and consider offloading Wilmot and Thompson. Another summer with lots of outs and ins I guess!

Goalkeepers: Iversen/Travers, Bonham + a youngster.
Left backs: 2 new needed.
Right backs: Junior and Gooch.
Central defenders: Rose, the youngster out on loan, Wilmot?, a new one or two.
Midfield: Burger, Pearson, Laurent, Baker, Junho, Sidibe, Thompson?.
Wingers: Manhoef, Vidigal, Junho, + one or two new faces.
Strikers: Mmaee, Ennis, + one at least.

[lordb]

Wasn't aware Mark Hughes started 3 at the back at Stoke
Brian Little must have been a figment of our collective imagination *




*sadly he wasn't

[Trouserdog]

It works in certain games and when combined with a more defensive mindset than we adopted yesterday.

If we're away from home and sit in deeper with the 3 CBS and that 'box' of 4 in midfield (3-4-2-1 essentially) it can grind us results out.

If we try it with a high line and press like we did yesterday, it's comically bad. How many times did we see waves of Norwich players charging through against 1 centre back? It was bloody awful.

The way that Norwich play exploited every weakness in our approach. Their wingers stayed high, thus exploiting the space behind the wing backs. Their full backs charged forward, and there was no winger there to track them and keep them in check.

However, we saw that in the second half, when we changed to a 4 at the back, that yes it was better, but we still managed to lose that half 0-1 as well because we can't do the basics like defend a set piece.

Formations are important, but they're only part of the story. The individual mistakes players keep making are also a massive issue why we are where we are.

[bayernoatcake]

Mar 17, 2024 7:38:31 GMT worcsstokie15 said:

3 at the back got us 3 points last week. Were you on here moaning about the formation then?

Fundamentally, we just didn’t play very well and once again, made individual defensive clusterfucks which produced goals.

I didn’t watch the game so didn’t comment about anything but I would honestly sack any Stoke manager on the spot once a back 3 was selected.

[bayernoatcake]

Mar 17, 2024 8:16:54 GMT Trouserdog said:

It works in certain games and when combined with a more defensive mindset than we adopted yesterday.

If we're away from home and sit in deeper with the 3 CBS and that 'box' of 4 in midfield (3-4-2-1 essentially) it can grind us results out.

If we try it with a high line and press like we did yesterday, it's comically bad. How many times did we see waves of Norwich players charging through against 1 centre back? It was bloody awful.

The way that Norwich play exploited every weakness in our approach. Their wingers stayed high, thus exploiting the space behind the wing backs. Their full backs charged forward, and there was no winger there to track them and keep them in check.

However, we saw that in the second half, when we changed to a 4 at the back, that yes it was better, but we still managed to lose that half 0-1 as well because we can't do the basics like defend a set piece.

Formations are important, but they're only part of the story. The individual mistakes players keep making are also a massive issue why we are where we are.

Yesterday was all about the formation and tactics. The manager is 100% to blame for that shower yesterday and it started with picking such a negative team in a negative formation.

He set them up to fail.

[walrus]

It was awful to watch towards the end of MON’s era. Then arguably even worse when Neil tried to do it. Yet somehow Schumacher has managed to take us to new depths of shite with his version of the back five.

MON’s successful period came playing 4-2-3-1. Neil’s brief successful period came playing 4-3-3.

If I’d been asked to give Schumacher one piece of advice when he joined it would likely have been “Don’t try and play five at the back”. And yet here we are.

If he was trying to do something a bit different and it wasn’t clicking I’d be much more inclined to give him more time. But seeing him try to do the exact same thing that didn’t work for either of his two immediate predecessors and then blame everything but the tactics themselves for it not working just makes me want him gone. He’s not up to it, and the perseverance with the back five is the clearest sign of that we’ll ever need.

[stokemark]

Plenty of teams make it work if they have the right personnel

We don't have the right personnel for any formation as if we play a back 4 it's clear the two centre half's we choose out of the 3 we have aren't good enough and we don't have defensive left or right backs.

The wide players we have signed are all rubbish (bar Million who the jury's out on) and we have a leading goal scorer on 5 goals scored primarily in August.

Yes systems matter and yesterday was awful management but what a rabble we have to choose from.

[bayernoatcake]

Mar 17, 2024 8:40:36 GMT stokemark said:

Plenty of teams make it work if they have the right personnel

We don't have the right personnel for any formation as if we play a back 4 it's clear the two centre half's we choose out of the 3 we have aren't good enough and we don't have defensive left or right backs.

The wide players we have signed are all rubbish (bar Million who the jury's out on) and we have a leading goal scorer on 5 goals scored primarily in August.

Yes systems matter and yesterday was awful management but what a rabble we have to choose from.

We’ve got clean sheets in half of the games Rose and McNally have started in a back 4 haven’t we? This nonsense about them has to stop.

I agree that I don’t think either are good but they work as a pair and we’ve got results with them and clean sheets. It’s the only thing defensively somehow works.

[st3mark]

Most teams play 3 at the back, like all systems this one is currently in fashion and it will change again in the future.

The main question is, why have we been shit at using the system again and again and again?

Why are some people winning leagues with the system but we've been closer to relegation - at times with decent squads.

[walrus]

Mar 17, 2024 8:40:36 GMT stokemark said:

Plenty of teams make it work if they have the right personnel

We don't have the right personnel for any formation as if we play a back 4 it's clear the two centre half's we choose out of the 3 we have aren't good enough and we don't have defensive left or right backs.

The wide players we have signed are all rubbish (bar Million who the jury's out on) and we have a leading goal scorer on 5 goals scored primarily in August.

Yes systems matter and yesterday was awful management but what a rabble we have to choose from.

I absolutely don’t believe that our squad is worse than Plymouth’s. And in the first half of the season at Plymouth he still managed to play positive football that actually matched with the things he told us were his non-negotiables as a manager.

The notion that we don’t have the squad to play a different way just feels like making excuses for him to me.

I think he’s never been up against it before as a manager and has shat himself tactically under the pressure. Simple as that.

[cobhamstokey]

Mar 17, 2024 1:45:40 GMT bayernoatcake said:

It all started with Hughes trying to copy Wales from Euro 2016.

And it was the beginning of the end for him.

And every manager since has looked at their squad that isn’t suited to playing 3 at the back, that has barely contained a wing back and thought “I know what will work, 3 at the back”.

Every single fucking one of them.

Oh it’ll make us stronger at the back some fans cry. IT DOESN’T. It just confuses them even fucking more as they haven’t got a brain to start with so trying to add another person to play off and communicate with just adds more thinking to their already tiny mind.

It sums this club up since Hughes thought it was a good idea really.

People don’t seem to want to learn.

Nobody wants to seem to break the cycle.

They all try the same as the bloke before and then wonder what wrong.

Why can’t these highly paid professionals see that it just doesn’t work for us?

Couldn’t agree more. It over complicates things. Great defence is built on partnerships and understanding (see Hansen/Lawrenson, Pallister/Bruce or Huth/Shawcross).
Because we’ve used the market so badly the managers have felt that chucking in an extra body will resolve the issue which it won’t it just confuses things even more.
To play 3/5 at the back you need
- Good defenders who can play out and organise themselves well.
- 2 excellent wing backs with pace and energy.
We don’t have any of that.

I just don’t understand why we don’t go 4231 and keep it simple.
Have 2 sitting DMs (Burger and Pearson) and tell them to protect the back 4. Then put the creativity in front of them.

One of our biggest problems is

- the lack of a leader at the back. An organiser and a proper defender who knows how to tackle.
- 2 proper fullbacks who can play in a back 4.

Our window was dreadful because we’ve gone in with no plan we’ve just bought bits and pieces players who don’t excell at anything rather than addressing the glaring issues

GK - Iversons improved but still think we could have got better.
RB - More RWBs who don’t know how to defend but OK
LB - Shambolic that the only LB we have is an injury prone player who’s barely featured.
CB - 3 young CBs who all lack strength and power that get constantly bullied and have no idea how to work as a unit and that can’t pass the ball around at the back without gifting the ball away.
CM - Decent when they’re all available though we need another Burger.
AM / WING I like Bae though he’s still bedding in and Manhoef looks to have something but the amount of money that’s been wasted on Johnson, Leris, Vidigal, Haks is criminal when it needed to be spent elsewhere.
STR - Awful. Mmaee has talent but a poor attitude, Wesley’s a joke signing and Ennis tries but lacks any sort of ability.

[questionable]

Opposition teams could play nobody at the back and we’d still fail to score

[clivey05]

Mar 17, 2024 7:40:02 GMT robwahlmann said:

SS seems to think 5 at the back makes us more solid, but in fact it's quite the opposite. We need to play 4 at the back and should do that the whole season. We also need to make sure we sign players able to fill in at this system. If we stay up I really hope we can bring in two left backs, two central defenders if not the promising young one out on loan can make a claim for one spot, another winger with pace and a striker able to get into double figures and of course a goalkeeper.
Wesley, Campbell, Haksa, Cundle, Hoever, Stevens, Clarke and McNally will be finished here because the loans or contracts are up. I would also offload Johnson and consider offloading Wilmot and Thompson. Another summer with lots of outs and ins I guess!

Goalkeepers: Iversen/Travers, Bonham + a youngster.
Left backs: 2 new needed.
Right backs: Junior and Gooch.
Central defenders: Rose, the youngster out on loan, Wilmot?, a new one or two.
Midfield: Burger, Pearson, Laurent, Baker, Junho, Sidibe, Thompson?.
Wingers: Manhoef, Vidigal, Junho, + one or two new faces.
Strikers: Mmaee, Ennis, + one at least.

I’d have Wilmot nowhere near this team. He’s been here nearly 3 years and he’s no better now than when we signed him. He’s a centre half in right backs body.

[Gods]

I'm a straight 4-4-2 man myself.

I don't pretend to understand anything else.

If you were a cave man coming to football for the first time it's what you'd come up with!

[Staffsoatcake]

3,4,5,6,7 8 9,10 at the back,it won't matter,the majority of these players couldn't play in any formation,they are that poor.

We have to bring in players who are best suited to whatever formation we are going to play.

No more square pegs,or else we will just continue to struggle.

[StokieDJC]

In my opinion most Championship, League 1, League 2 managers are no more tactically clue’d up than your average fan, the only real difference is they know the ins and out of how club football works.

Most haven’t got an original thought between them, most come across thick as pig shit.

They watch these top teams in Europe implement a philosophy and style and think they can repeat it while not giving it a second thought to whether it suits the players or not.

Every time we have played this 5 at the back we have been exposed by having 2 poor “wing backs” far too high up the pitch and leaving gaping holes behind.

Then if they want to stop those gaping holes it requires centre halves to pull out wide which then leaves gaping holes down the middle.

Rarely a manager at this level will pick his style based on the strengths of his team.

The game is made to be so complicated by wannabe Peps it’s ridiculous.

[Gods]

Mar 17, 2024 9:01:44 GMT StokieDJC said:

In my opinion most Championship, League 1, League 2 managers are no more tactically clue’d up than your average fan, the only real difference is they know the ins and out of how club football works.

Most haven’t got an original thought between, most come across thick as pig shit.

They watch these top teams in Europe implement i a philosophy and style and think they can repeat it while not giving it a second thought to whether it suits the players or not.

Every time we have played this 5 at the back we have been exposed by having to poor “wing backs” far too high up the pitch and leaving gaping holes behind.

Then if they want to stop those gaping holes it requires centre halves to pull out wide which then leaves gaping holes down the middle.

Rarely a manager at this level will pick his style based on the strengths of his team.

The game is made to be so complicated by wannabe Peps it’s ridiculous.

Yep, if you're going to dick about with the ball at the back and play over lapping wing backs you'd better be good at it!

[robwahlmann]

Mar 17, 2024 8:56:10 GMT clivey05 said:

Mar 17, 2024 7:40:02 GMT robwahlmann said:

SS seems to think 5 at the back makes us more solid, but in fact it's quite the opposite. We need to play 4 at the back and should do that the whole season. We also need to make sure we sign players able to fill in at this system. If we stay up I really hope we can bring in two left backs, two central defenders if not the promising young one out on loan can make a claim for one spot, another winger with pace and a striker able to get into double figures and of course a goalkeeper.
Wesley, Campbell, Haksa, Cundle, Hoever, Stevens, Clarke and McNally will be finished here because the loans or contracts are up. I would also offload Johnson and consider offloading Wilmot and Thompson. Another summer with lots of outs and ins I guess!

Goalkeepers: Iversen/Travers, Bonham + a youngster.
Left backs: 2 new needed.
Right backs: Junior and Gooch.
Central defenders: Rose, the youngster out on loan, Wilmot?, a new one or two.
Midfield: Burger, Pearson, Laurent, Baker, Junho, Sidibe, Thompson?.
Wingers: Manhoef, Vidigal, Junho, + one or two new faces.
Strikers: Mmaee, Ennis, + one at least.

I’d have Wilmot nowhere near this team. He’s been here nearly 3 years and he’s no better now than when we signed him. He’s a centre half in right backs body.

Better!? I think he has gone the other way to be honest! Seems to have lost his pace as well which was his biggest asset.

[cobhamstokey]

Mar 17, 2024 7:40:02 GMT robwahlmann said:

SS seems to think 5 at the back makes us more solid, but in fact it's quite the opposite. We need to play 4 at the back and should do that the whole season. We also need to make sure we sign players able to fill in at this system. If we stay up I really hope we can bring in two left backs, two central defenders if not the promising young one out on loan can make a claim for one spot, another winger with pace and a striker able to get into double figures and of course a goalkeeper.
Wesley, Campbell, Haksa, Cundle, Hoever, Stevens, Clarke and McNally will be finished here because the loans or contracts are up. I would also offload Johnson and consider offloading Wilmot and Thompson. Another summer with lots of outs and ins I guess!

Goalkeepers: Iversen/Travers, Bonham + a youngster.
Left backs: 2 new needed.
Right backs: Junior and Gooch.
Central defenders: Rose, the youngster out on loan, Wilmot?, a new one or two.
Midfield: Burger, Pearson, Laurent, Baker, Junho, Sidibe, Thompson?.
Wingers: Manhoef, Vidigal, Junho, + one or two new faces.
Strikers: Mmaee, Ennis, + one at least.

For me

Goalkeepers: Iversen/Travers, Bonham + a youngster.
Iversens kicking is terrible. Decent keeper but Travers is a far better option.

Left backs: 2 new needed.
Agreed and proper LBs not wingbacks

Right backs: Junior and Gooch.
I’d get in a proper RB. Gooch is a good squad player

Central defenders: Rose, the youngster out on loan, Wilmot?, a new one or two.
Rose and Wilmot may be OK with a big commanding CB besides them but together they’re not strong enough.
I’d look at getting 2 proper CBs.
I’m surprised Wilmots never been tried at DM could see him being OK there.

Midfield: Burger, Pearson, Laurent, Baker, Junho, Sidibe, Thompson?.
Hopefully Sidibe will come through next season.
I’d let Laurent and Baker go as they don’t offer enough energy. Yesterday showed how much they rely on Burger re doing the leg work.
Thompson’s average at best but a decent squad player.


Wingers: Manhoef, Vidigal, Junho, + one or two new faces.
No idea what’s happened to Vidigal but I’d let him go. The other 2 could really push on but we need a couple more in.

Strikers: Mmaee, Ennis, + one at least.

I’d clear the board and go back to square one.

[Trouserdog]

Mar 17, 2024 8:30:17 GMT bayernoatcake said:

Mar 17, 2024 8:16:54 GMT Trouserdog said:

It works in certain games and when combined with a more defensive mindset than we adopted yesterday.

If we're away from home and sit in deeper with the 3 CBS and that 'box' of 4 in midfield (3-4-2-1 essentially) it can grind us results out.

If we try it with a high line and press like we did yesterday, it's comically bad. How many times did we see waves of Norwich players charging through against 1 centre back? It was bloody awful.

The way that Norwich play exploited every weakness in our approach. Their wingers stayed high, thus exploiting the space behind the wing backs. Their full backs charged forward, and there was no winger there to track them and keep them in check.

However, we saw that in the second half, when we changed to a 4 at the back, that yes it was better, but we still managed to lose that half 0-1 as well because we can't do the basics like defend a set piece.

Formations are important, but they're only part of the story. The individual mistakes players keep making are also a massive issue why we are where we are.

Yesterday was all about the formation and tactics. The manager is 100% to blame for that shower yesterday and it started with picking such a negative team in a negative formation.

He set them up to fail.

He got it badly wrong yesterday, no question. However, we still 'lost' the second half with 4 at the back, so I don't think getting the tactics 'right' or not is the only reason we're losing games. Ultimately the players we've got are too error-prone and poor for the division we're in.