Three At The Back

[its_a_goal]

DM has tried 3 at the back and I can't recall ever been a success. Despite this, I have never heard a post match interviewer, commentator, pundit, expert, or reporter bring up 3 at the back as being the cause of the problem in any particular game. Yet on here, numerous people have seen the flaws when we try this system. Are we all wrong?

[afc1903mad]

DM has tried 3 at the back and I can't recall ever been a success. Despite this, I have never heard a post match interviewer, commentator, pundit, expert, or reporter bring up 3 at the back as being the cause of the problem in any particular game. Yet on here, numerous people have seen the flaws when we try this system. Are we all wrong?

Yes, you are wrong.
There has been no comments as we did not play three at the back.......

[Mason89]

I wasn’t there but Willie Miller said we were playing 3 at the back. Was he wrong as well?

[Spielführer_1903]

I wasn’t there but Willie Miller said we were playing 3 at the back. Was he wrong as well?

We were absolutely playing 3 at the back.

[InversneckieDob]

There's no reason that a three man central defence cannot work, if done properly with the right shaped midfield.
It will never work with Consi as a wing back.

[afc1903mad]

I wasn’t there but Willie Miller said we were playing 3 at the back. Was he wrong as well?


We were absolutely playing 3 at the back.

Who was the Three at the back then?

I believe the formation was 4-3-2-1

....................Lewis
Logan Arnasun McKenna Considine
.......Tansey O'Connor Shinnie
...............Christie McLean
........................May

It was only when Tansey was replaced by GMS that we gained some width down the left and reverted to the traditional 4-2-3-1

....................Lewis
Logan Arnasun McKenna Considine
..........O'Connor Shinnie
.....Christie...McLean........GMS
.....................May

Here's some screenshots showing our back 4 and midfield

7368

7369

7370

[LED]

DM has tried 3 at the back and I can't recall ever been a success. Despite this, I have never heard a post match interviewer, commentator, pundit, expert, or reporter bring up 3 at the back as being the cause of the problem in any particular game. Yet on here, numerous people have seen the flaws when we try this system. Are we all wrong?
Andy walker on sky said within 3 mins the 3 at the nack wasn't working forcus and both commentators said it wasn't working after the 2nd went in.
When we played hearts at murrayfield we went 3 at the back and michael stewart highlighted the flaws in the way we play the system then.

I have to say, when I saw that team sheet I and thousands of dons fans knew we were playing 3 at the back and it wouldn't work. I can only imagine how the players felt.

McInnes left his players out to dry last night no doubt about it. DM is a bottler and his 3 at the back got us knocked out of Europe, beaten by sevco and lost us the league cup final last season.
If he's allowed to carry on he will lose us more games as there is no telling him otherwise.

[Mason89]

I know what you believe the formation was. It’s just everyone else that’s wrong

[its_a_goal]

1903mad, whether we were or were not playing 3 at the back last night, DM has tried this formation a number of times before with limited success, if any success at all.

Good to hear that both Andy Walker and Michael Stewart have both picked up on the 3 at the back flaws. I wish someone would raise this with DM directly either in post match interviews or any other forum.

[Mason89]

There's no reason that a three man central defence cannot work, if done properly with the right shaped midfield.
It will never work with Consi as a wing back.

The only side I can think of where 3 at the back consistently worked, was Martin O’Neils Sellick team. I could’ve played as part of that 3 & it wouldn’t have made that much difference.

We don’t have the players for it

[afc1903mad]

The only side I can think of where 3 at the back consistently worked, was Martin O’Neils Sellick team. I could’ve played as part of that 3 & it wouldn’t have made that much difference.

We don’t have the players for it

Celtic played us off the park recently, changing to a 3 at the back system.
Initially, they tried to have their two centre back spread to create width (with most teams playing only 1 up front), whilst Lustig and Tierney bombed forward.
With us having Rooney and May up front, they told Lustig to go back into a back three, with Bitton and Lustig providing the width, with Boyatta free to have the ball.
Rogers then changed it to put Boyatta on the left of the three to leave Bitton free in the middle with better distribution.

We absolutely did not play three at the back last night, however given the tactics deployed and our full backs getting pulled out of defence, it might actually have been the right solution to ensure we were solid in the middle

[afc1903mad]

I know what you believe the formation was. It’s just everyone else that’s wrong

Who was the back three then Mason?
Certainly doesn't seem that way in the screenshots I provided

[Mason89]

Who was the back three then Mason?
Certainly doesn't seem that way in the screenshots I provided

I know you’re quite chuffed with them but the game lasts 90minutes. You could screen shot any formation you like. If it’s all the same, I’ll go with Willie Millers opinion

[afc1903mad]

I know you’re quite chuffed with them but the game lasts 90minutes. You could screen shot any formation you like. If it’s all the same, I’ll go with Willie Millers opinion

Did you watch the game? Doesn't sound like it.

I've gave a summary of analysis explaining our full backs getting pulled out of position and our centre halfs getting pulled across to cover.
In a transitional phase, a defensive midfielder attempting to drop deep to cover does not actually make them part of the defence.

The idea was to be more on the front foot, but our lack of width was exploited by what is SevCo's strength.

If your happy to go with Willie Miller, then maybe leave him to do the debating if you never actually watched the game ;)

P.S. the screenshots was from the highlights and shows both before the GMS tactical change, after the change and also in the second half so representative of the tactics throughout the game.

I did not show after Arnason went off and O'Connor dropped into defense from midfield.

[Mason89]

Be sure to tell Willie Miller he knows f*ck all about defending if you ever bump into him

[afc1903mad]

Be sure to tell Willie Miller he knows f*ck all about defending if you ever bump into him

Whatever min.
You don't go to Pittodrie, you can't debate points or posts in the threads and you can't even watch a game when its on the telly.
In terms of being a supporter, your irrelevant ;)

Nevermind though, you get to be a moaning minnie though which is your forte

[Spielführer_1903]

The Tale of the Back Three

O' Connor Arnason McKenna

The End.

[Mason89]

Whatever min.
You don't go to Pittodrie, you can't debate points or posts in the threads and you can't even watch a game when its on the telly.
In terms of being a supporter, your irrelevant ;)

Nevermind though, you get to be a moaning minnie though which is your forte

You’re not debating a point. You’re saying you’re right despite everyone, including the greatest defender this countries ever produced, are wrong.

Everyone’s marching out of step apart from you.

And settle down with the top red stuff, nobody gives a f*ck how many games I or you attend

[Pauldolski10]

We played 3 at the back with Considine and Logan wing backs until we went 2-0 down and the game was lost. Then changed to normal formation and were better but still shiite

[Spielführer_1903]

We played 3 at the back with Considine and Logan wing backs until we went 2-0 down and the game was lost. Then changed to normal formation and were better but still shiite

This.

[87kilos]

Considine was never an attacking wing back in a million years last night. He doesn't have the pace or ability. Failed to see a single darting run from him. Shay at least has the pace to play as a wing back but again didn't see him venturing far forward either.

If that was a back 3 it was shambolic as it never looked like a back 3.

We need an ankle snapping beast in midfield who can hold his own and protect the back line.

We also need Shinnie as a left back.

[JuanFatche]

Considine was never an attacking wing back in a million years last night. He doesn't have the pace or ability. Failed to see a single darting run from him. Shay at least has the pace to play as a wing back but again didn't see him venturing far forward either.

If that was a back 3 it was shambolic as it never looked like a back 3.

We need an ankle snapping beast in midfield who can hold his own and protect the back line.

We also need Shinnie as a left back.

We were crying out for Ross Draper, but McInnes signs Tansey (who I actually think is ok, but he's being asked to do a job he can't do.). He should be signing that Kamara from Dundee in January. He won't though. It was ****ing negligence not signing John McGinn when he was on a free two or three years ago.

[Mason89]

I suggested on here we should sign John McGinn at the time. I also said we should’ve signed one of his brothers n’all, so I’ll not blow my own trumpet

[elderado9193]

We essentially were 3 at back....McKenna, Arnason and Logan....Considine posted missing....all their good play came from the right wing. That aside the team is fekin awful. Sick of watching this p1sh. McInnes can go to them as far as I'm concerned. One decent game I've seen them this season and that was St j at home. Brutal to watch. :s

[JuanFatche]

I suggested on here we should sign John McGinn at the time. I also said we should’ve signed one of his brothers n’all, so I’ll not blow my own trumpet

The right back one is ok, is he not?

[Mason89]

The right back one is ok, is he not?

He’s alright. Missed an open goal at Pittodrie that time we played Dumbarton in the cup.

[JuanFatche]

He’s alright. Missed an open goal at Pittodrie that time we played Dumbarton in the cup.

Aye, I mind that. Two or three all right players wouldn't go amiss though. Nor would it break the bank.

[Pacman1903]

Be sure to tell Willie Miller he knows f*ck all about defending if you ever bump into him

:D