Cardiff City Forum



A forum for all things Cardiff City

Does it work?

You may select 1 option

 
 
View results

5 at the back... Does it work?

Sat Jan 22, 2022 4:15 pm

5 at the back...

Does it work?

Let's have a poll. And hope SM reads here. Cos its been obvious for months.

Re: 5 at the back... Does it work?

Sat Jan 22, 2022 4:20 pm

Well our 5 at the back does not work that is for sure

Re: 5 at the back... Does it work?

Sat Jan 22, 2022 4:22 pm

Abergavenny wrote:Well our 5 at the back does not work that is for sure


Amen.

Yet, come next Sunday. Team will be released... guaranteed 5 at the back. 3 Cms. No width. No balance.

Re: 5 at the back... Does it work?

Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:28 pm

Apparently it’s not 5. It’s 3 with 2 widemen.

But 3 or 5 …. Nope not working. We have no balance or threat up field.

Re: 5 at the back... Does it work?

Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:33 pm

Even if it is 3 with 2 wide, it’s pointless as the midfield are too slow to get the ball out of them quickly and release them up the pitch.

Also the case that we don’t win enough in midfield making it too hard for the wing backs to get forward for fearing of losing possession.

He either keeps this formation and puts forward thinking midfielders in or needs to change so that we have more bodies in the middle.

Re: 5 at the back... Does it work?

Sat Jan 22, 2022 5:56 pm

Why is there a 'yes' option?

Re: 5 at the back... Does it work?

Sat Jan 22, 2022 6:00 pm

One of the "width" is a player who'll end up under a better coach as a the right side of the three centre halfs !!!!

McGuiness is OK with the ball but all of the four others who have been selected are shit and in Nelsons case embarrassingly shit. The key to the back three model is mobility. Big lumbering centre halfs are from yesteryear, we have two who can only be the central one because they turn like barges.

With genuine width being caught up field you then have the most important element of the back three, the defensive midfielder.
This is a specialist position that's pretty rare in our country. Their job is to intercept the trouble before it gets to the back three. Gunnar developed into one of these in the second half of his career. Gunnar could see trouble and was quick enough over 20 yards to snuff it out. We have played Pack !!! Marlon is too slow for this position and definitely is not in the late and very fcuking great deep lying playmaker role of Whitts as he passes backward more than Dwane Peel.

There's nothing wrong with it. Sol, Bruno & Connolly with Gunnar in front would give us a decent platform. But we don't have the players for it.

NG Mozza McGuiness & Bagan as a flat back four.

Re: 5 at the back... Does it work?

Sat Jan 22, 2022 6:18 pm

llan bluebird wrote:One of the "width" is a player who'll end up under a better coach as a the right side of the three centre halfs !!!!

McGuiness is OK with the ball but all of the four others who have been selected are shit and in Nelsons case embarrassingly shit. The key to the back three model is mobility. Big lumbering centre halfs are from yesteryear, we have two who can only be the central one because they turn like barges.

With genuine width being caught up field you then have the most important element of the back three, the defensive midfielder.
This is a specialist position that's pretty rare in our country. Their job is to intercept the trouble before it gets to the back three. Gunnar developed into one of these in the second half of his career. Gunnar could see trouble and was quick enough over 20 yards to snuff it out. We have played Pack !!! Marlon is too slow for this position and definitely is not in the late and very fcuking great deep lying playmaker role of Whitts as he passes backward more than Dwane Peel.

There's nothing wrong with it. Sol, Bruno & Connolly with Gunnar in front would give us a decent platform. But we don't have the players for it.

NG Mozza McGuiness & Bagan as a flat back four.


Bang on. Great analysis. Exactly how I've been calling it. How on earth the powers that be can't see it?!

Re: 5 at the back... Does it work?

Sat Jan 22, 2022 8:11 pm

Your question is not fair really

If we move to a flat four we are left with absolutely no width relying on a poor midfield to create through the middle

It may work a bit better I’d suggest something like this for a game or two probably if we switch to a 4 but McCarthy royally ducked as over leaving no out and out wingers in the club

Smithies

Drameh Morrison mcguiness NG

…………….. Wintle……………………

Davies Doyle ralls Sang/Harris

…………… Watters/Moore (when fit)


Our problem being that we don’t have anyone off the bench to replace the wingers if they are having a poor game so it would mean formation changes during a game you might be winning and ultimately end up losing

Re: 5 at the back... Does it work?

Sat Jan 22, 2022 8:19 pm

One positive I took from today was that Watters looked lively made some good runs which we typically missed as everyone in midfield is shit scared to pass the ball forward and took his goal well

If we can incorporate Doyle and Colwill into the team together I fancy Watters to bag plenty of goals

Re: 5 at the back... Does it work?

Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:34 pm

Floppsy wrote:Why is there a 'yes' option?


Well it works for the opposition so maybe that's why.

Re: 5 at the back... Does it work?

Sun Jan 23, 2022 8:17 am

Floppsy wrote:Why is there a 'yes' option?



Just incase steve morrison uses the forum

Re: 5 at the back... Does it work?

Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:14 am

His is why we are failing and as much as morison likes the style and formation he doesn't have the ammunition to Outlook it off.non3 of the centre backs are comfortable on the ball and lack of pace and awareness is telling.

Re: 5 at the back... Does it work?

Sun Jan 23, 2022 10:53 am

I think the results are pretty telling so far...