Back four

[Bugsy911]

We have possibly 2 players that can defend well enough to play a bdvk 4 , Boly and Marcal both injured.

It's madness to stay with a 4 unless we replace most the defence which isn't happening this month so please revert back to the system that's worked and protected our inefficiency.

 

[pacamac]

No I know all of that - but moutinho has taken podence name on the team sheet

so we’ve replaced a creative player with a player that wants to do most his play on the half way line

it’s no wonder we are less creative

Oh yeah get you see your point yes agree.

Hate that false 9 crap

 

[wolfgar]

For the Baggies I'd revert to a 5 at the back, drop Moutinho and Silva and bring in Traore and Cutrone.

 

[pacamac]

Make your bloody minds up.

Don't think anyones saying ditch it completely, going with a back 4 was always good to use as an option (even changing mid game) why does it have to be one or the other, I'd still like to see it used just against certain opposition or at certain points of games we need to be more fluid with our formation changes. But with the current players we have to use its a back to basics for me Saturday.

 

[Glow69]

Back 4 is fine. Its just we havnt got to two centrebacks who are fit for the role.

Kilman looks the most comfortable

 

[Royal wolf]

It’s not the problem, the midfield is. Between Moutinho snd Donk there is no goals and no assists! I’m not sure how I find chances created but I’d imagine it’s very low too.

Neves is a one man midfield at times, he is the only one looking like scoring or creating

This

How Nuno hasn’t seen the need to upgrade this position in 3 years baffles me.

 

[sedgwolf1980]

As I put on another thread, can’t help but feel we have thrown the baby out with the bath water.

Nuno talks constantly about our identity. Feels like we have lost it.

 

[maws]

For the Baggies I'd revert to a 5 at the back, drop Moutinho and Silva and bring in Traore and Cutrone.

Complete opposite of what we should do IMO. The baggies won’t come at us, 5 at the back is for counter attack. We play 5 at the back against them we won’t create a thing and will be susceptible to losing 1/0 to a corner, all in my opinion of course.

If we played 3 at the back and used Traore and RAN as out and our wing gets maybe that would work, and put them on the opposite flanks as crossing is going to be pointless, we won’t win a header, need inverted wingers on this one

 

[Bankswolf The Third]

Semedo, Coady and RAN in the back 4. No wonder we cant defend crosses.

Need Boly back and another commanding CB. Coady is a legend but not a CB in a back 4.

Why can't Kilman get a game?

I can answer the last question, Burnley away he was awful
Back four works when you buy players for that system, semedo and RAN were signed for the old system that Nuno decided on a whim to ditch

 

[Bugsy911]

Complete opposite of what we should do IMO. The baggies won’t come at us, 5 at the back is for counter attack. We play 5 at the back against them we won’t create a thing and will be susceptible to losing 1/0 to a corner, all in my opinion of course.

If we played 3 at the back and used Traore and RAN as out and our wing gets maybe that would work, and put them on the opposite flanks as crossing is going to be pointless, we won’t win a header, need inverted wingers on this one

Unless we get Jonny and Marcal back our other options at full back cant defend well enough in that system , we will continue to ship goals for fun if we stick with it regardless of who we play against.

 

[Oh When the Wolves]

Complete opposite of what we should do IMO. The baggies won’t come at us, 5 at the back is for counter attack. We play 5 at the back against them we won’t create a thing and will be susceptible to losing 1/0 to a corner, all in my opinion of course.

If we played 3 at the back and used Traore and RAN as out and our wing gets maybe that would work, and put them on the opposite flanks as crossing is going to be pointless, we won’t win a header, need inverted wingers on this one

agreed

3 at the back against a team that don’t attack

FFS

 

[DDPPwolf313]

Anyone else feel this change of system hasn't help anyone? Still not creating enough chances and now giving away sloppy goals!

Back to a back five Nuno please....

I'm not sure if it's a formation or a personnel problem, but the organisation and positioning of the defence is all over the shop. And has been all season.

Even when we have played well and won, the defence has been erratic and positionally awful, completely on the contrary to the past 3 seasons. What ever Nuno is trying to do with the back 4/5...it's not working.

A far bigger worry than our attacking problems.

 

[Wolferoo]

Defensively we have been poor all season whether we play a four or a five at the back so I am not entirely sure that is the issue. we have no clean sheet in 11 league games and the fifth worst goals conceded in the division which is totally in keeping with our position in the table. This is not the kind of form that Nuno has built our success over the last few seasons on.
We are regularly conceding the first goal and can't defend crosses into our box. We seem to concede goals too often from teams who are having relatively few actual shots and often with their first shot on target and to add that I don't think Rui has been as commanding as last season.
We need to get back to basics and start winning ugly again. Despite our attacking problems, we do seem to be finding the net at least once in most games but equally we do seem to have a inability to stop the opposition from scoring which is costing us too many points.
Burnley have shown the difference a mean defence can make to your results and even Utd recently have shored up at the back and got the rewards.
I would take a few ugly 1-0s.

 

[Ian]

Semedo, Coady and RAN in the back 4. No wonder we cant defend crosses.

Need Boly back and another commanding CB. Coady is a legend but not a CB in a back 4.

Why can't Kilman get a game?

Kilman plays better on the left ( as does Boly supposedly) Saiss has again forced his way back into favouritism as the left sided centre back and Coady is undroppable.
We desperately need to upgrade our centre backs especially if we want to go 4 at the back..... I'm hoping Hoever will become one of them sooner rather than later.

 

[geowolf]

What I don’t get is this idea that 343 is a negative formation. When played at its best it can be exhilerating. Also I don’t understand why the club has bought and developed players to fit into the 343 system and then played a 433 system where they are less effective – eg Coady, Saiss, RAN, Semedo, Neves, Traore. Now that Semedo and RAN have found their feet and Neves and Traore their form I'd definitely go 343 for the rest of the season.

 

[Wolfy McWolf-Face]

I can answer the last question, Burnley away he was awful
Back four works when you buy players for that system, semedo and RAN were signed for the old system that Nuno decided on a whim to ditch

Don't get me wrong, i like all 3 players I named. Just not enough physicality in my opinion when they make up 3 of the back 4. Like you say, change in system didn't help.

Physicality looking a real issue for us generally.

 

[Perton Wolf]

Kilman plays better on the left ( as does Boly supposedly) Saiss has again forced his way back into favouritism as the left sided centre back and Coady is undroppable.
We desperately need to upgrade our centre backs especially if we want to go 4 at the back..... I'm hoping Hoever will become one of them sooner rather than later.

That may be part of the problem. Good in a 5, poor in a 4 I'm afraid. We need better in the long run.

 

[Sketchead]

The reason, for me, that it's all going to tatters is because the players at the other end of the pitch can't hold it up and build up sustained attacks.

Obviously having a left back who doesn't know where to stand, doesn't wish to tackle nor challenge for headers either in our out of the box, doesn't help in a four either, as there's less chance of him being bailed out. Semedo being really hit and miss doesn't help in a four either, as there's less chance of him being bailed out.

It's leading to far too much pressure on our back line and, in a four, it doesn't look organised enough to hold strong. I know we conceded first to Chelsea due to Boly going to sleep but we were in control of that game, both with and without the ball. It looked like the Wolves we knew. Was that the last time we played five at the back?

Until we're in the 'nice' position we were in November, where we had that many good forward players we felt like we needed to change formation to fit them all in, we need to go back to a five. More organisation and the rest will follow.

 

[wolfgar]

Complete opposite of what we should do IMO. The baggies won’t come at us, 5 at the back is for counter attack. We play 5 at the back against them we won’t create a thing and will be susceptible to losing 1/0 to a corner, all in my opinion of course.

If we played 3 at the back and used Traore and RAN as out and our wing gets maybe that would work, and put them on the opposite flanks as crossing is going to be pointless, we won’t win a header, need inverted wingers on this one

I do see your point, but it doesn't need to be completely negative. You'd have Ait Nouri, Semedo, Neto and Traore attacking the flanks, with Donk pushing up to support Cutrone. Last night we spent periods of the game with Silva and Hoever out on the wings and with MGW playing upfront, and we didn't offer that much going forward even with 4 at the back?

I guess my feeling is that we should go back to a formation that suits our players, that they know well and that will help us stop conceding poor goals. If we need to score 2 or 3 every time to pick up points then we are going to be in trouble. If I were Albion and we played 4 at the back I certainly wouldn't sit back completely and I'd be loading that box for every set piece.

It will be interesting to see what Nuno does. I just hope both Neto and Traore are available.

 

[jrpb-3]

we are certainly more solid defensively with a back 3/5, mainly because thats how we've played for much of time since Nuno arrived. but it limits how quickly we get forward when we're not counter attacking and find it hard to break down defensive teams. Going to 4 4 2 has helped us get the ball forward quicker and create a bit more, but it hasn't really translated into more goals.
Since Nuno has been here we've never been a team who scored loads of goals. We've never really created lots of clear cut chances and have relied on having a quality striker in Raul who can feed of the limited chances/half chances we do create, and by finishing games stronger and other chipping in with goals later in games when the opposition tire.

With Raul out we now have no one of the required quality to finish those half chances (it was happening a bit before Rauls injury as he wasn't on top form). Silva has shown a few glimpses of potential but clearly not ready yet to be a direct replacement for Raul, and is now suffering from loss of confidence/overthinking things. I'm not sure we are going to be able to find anyone who will really score a lot of goals on the limited service they will get with out current style of play.

Yes we could use a striker in the short term but we also need to adapt who we play to provide whoever is playing there with enough service to score. Our other source of goals in finishing games stronger and waiting for mistakes from opposition has also dried up somewhat, partly down to us going behind in more games and having to chase games from earlier on, and partly down to trying to move to a more possession based game and take the game to the opposition more, recently we have seemed to fade late in games rather than finish the stronger team.

Our overall game hasn't been awful but with the change in tactics and all the injuries we've been a bit more fragile at the back and not got enough of a cutting edge up front. Right now we need to stay strong weather the storm and grind out a few results until we get players back from injury. We could use a target man up front who can hold up the ball and get on the end of crosses to give us some different options.

 

[WolfInSheep'sClothing]

Anyone else feel this change of system hasn't help anyone? Still not creating enough chances and now giving away sloppy goals!

Back to a back five Nuno please....

I don't know. I feel like we might have gone through the hard part now.

 

[WolfInSheep'sClothing]

Complete opposite of what we should do IMO. The baggies won’t come at us, 5 at the back is for counter attack. We play 5 at the back against them we won’t create a thing and will be susceptible to losing 1/0 to a corner, all in my opinion of course.

If we played 3 at the back and used Traore and RAN as out and our wing gets maybe that would work, and put them on the opposite flanks as crossing is going to be pointless, we won’t win a header, need inverted wingers on this one

3/5 at the back doesn't have to be for counter attack.
Play traore and Ait-Nouri as the wing-backs and get at them.

 

[maws]

I do see your point, but it doesn't need to be completely negative. You'd have Ait Nouri, Semedo, Neto and Traore attacking the flanks, with Donk pushing up to support Cutrone. Last night we spent periods of the game with Silva and Hoever out on the wings and with MGW playing upfront, and we didn't offer that much going forward even with 4 at the back?

I guess my feeling is that we should go back to a formation that suits our players, that they know well and that will help us stop conceding poor goals. If we need to score 2 or 3 every time to pick up points then we are going to be in trouble. If I were Albion and we played 4 at the back I certainly wouldn't sit back completely and I'd be loading that box for every set piece.

It will be interesting to see what Nuno does. I just hope both Neto and Traore are available.

Fair play, I do get your points, o just hope to god we get all out goals in one game, the next one!!!

 

[maws]

3/5 at the back doesn't have to be for counter attack.
Play traore and Ait-Nouri as the wing-backs and get at them.

To me I’d call that 3 at the back, I sort of agreed with you in the post, let’s attack the ****ers

 

[SakosRightFoot]

3 at the back is not defensive in our system. It pushes the attacking wing backs higher up the pitch and spreads the play. Albion will be tight and compact so we need that width to draw them out

 

[WolfInSheep'sClothing]

To me I’d call that 3 at the back, I sort of agreed with you in the post, let’s attack the ****ers

Yeah, fair point. Attack the ****ers.
Literally if needs be.