Why not go back to 3 at the back?

[trane]

I was patient last year, and I understood why we had the year we had. I started this year, with an open mind, but expecting to make the playoffs, and have a run once we got it. Now that we are in the final third of the season, I am getting tiered of the continuous defensive lapses that have cost us points all season long.

Now, some lapses will happen, while we have been better health wise, it has still been not great, and we lost many of our key players to the gold-cup.

Having said, that our most successful football ever, and some of the best football ever played in the MLS was with us playing with three at the back. I like the formation, because it gives you defensive stability, it protects the box, and helps to assure that there are defenders in good defensive positions even when we lost the ball in our own half. In light of all the bad giveaways, and poor positional play ( defensively) which has lead to many goals scored on us, why is Vanney, the manager that had us play in that system durring our most succesfull times, not going back to it this season?

This is really a question. Did he say something that explains his abandoning the three at the back. Is it simply because he does not think we have enough quality CBs? If not then why not two DMs, that Canadian kid has played well? We need to stop dropping points. We almost did it again on Saturday. ( Our keeper is not helping with his distribution and decision making with the ball)

[jabbronies]

I agree - not sure why we moved away from that considering how dominate we were playing under it.

[Section_105]

I think its because our CB's have spent more time on the trainers table than the training pitch. We've been super light there. JMo played a couple of games there and michael spent 1 so I'm not sure we have enough personnel to have a solid 3 and a bench spot for injuries. but if Mavinga stays healthy then a 3 at the back is perfect for when he does his marauding forward move which I can't believe hasn't ended in goals for him. He tears through mid fields.

[Mikmacdo]

No way they go to 3 at the back teams started figuring them out with that formation and the roster doesn’t suit it anymore. TFC now has 4 wingers who would be useless in that formation.

[trane]

I think its because our CB's have spent more time on the trainers table than the training pitch. We've been super light there. JMo played a couple of games there and michael spent 1 so I'm not sure we have enough personnel to have a solid 3 and a bench spot for injuries. but if Mavinga stays healthy then a 3 at the back is perfect for when he does his marauding forward move which I can't believe hasn't ended in goals for him. He tears through mid fields.

I have to think that this is part of the reason.

As for the issue of wingers, as we have added another one, there must be something to it. But then we should think of playing with two DMs, as going forward has not been the issue this year.

[Ultra & Proud]

Problem with it was width and our attack often went enemic minus individual acts of brilliance. That's what cost us the 2016 MLS Cup and could have cost us the 2017 without Altidore's act of brilliance. Also as stated above, it was found out. It would be nice however to have that in our back pocket to throw teams off here and there or switch things up like we used to do when re-introducing the diamond to change the game.

[zorsofstesab]

YIKES, please no. Flat footed Moor and what appears to be a slower Gonzalez as the back 3? No way, no how. We struggle with 4 in the back.

[trane]

3 at the back is not less defensive then 4 at the back, just because there is supposedly one less player at the back. four at the back ussualy means, as we are playing now, two CB and two fullback. The two full backs, tend to do more attacking then defending, so we are often left with only two defenders, or less, when caught on the counter, and it is particularly bad, when we lose the ball in our own half of the midfield or as we are taking the ball out from the back.

While I appreciate some of the concerns about a static attack. I think that we have enough creativity, particularly with our Jozy and Pozulo, to create enough offenses. But we are leaking bad goals all season, and that may cost us the playoffs despite our talent.

[Auzzy]

3 at the back is not less defensive then 4 at the back, just because there is supposedly one less player at the back. four at the back ussualy means, as we are playing now, two CB and two fullback. The two full backs, tend to do more attacking then defending, so we are often left with only two defenders, or less, when caught on the counter, and it is particularly bad, when we lose the ball in our own half of the midfield or as we are taking the ball out from the back.

While I appreciate some of the concerns about a static attack. I think that we have enough creativity, particularly with our Jozy and Pozulo, to create enough offenses. But we are leaking bad goals all season, and that may cost us the playoffs despite our talent.

I agree. In the NYRB game, with supposedly 4 in the back, Gonzalez and Mavinga were sometimes both so out of position, and so pulled over to one side, that you would have Auro (for example) alone in the box, trying to cover 2 or 3 attackers. 3 at the back can be more solid, and the fullbacks can also come back, giving you 5 at the back when needed.

But I think Vanney will continue to play what he thinks is correct, according to his theories. Just like playing with a single striker, even when we don't have a player that fits that position well.

[TheGoodson]

I actually think Jozy is the perfect nine for this team... I though let he played extremely well the last 5 or 6 games. He has been the target striker well. Has been clinical up front. The issue is there is no back up Jozy on this team. Play the formation we have been playing but play with 2 dm being Bradley and either Delgado and or Fraser or rotate them in based on match up. The only issue with the formation is that Osorio didn’t fit and he’s an impact sub.

[trane]

I agree. In the NYRB game, with supposedly 4 in the back, Gonzalez and Mavinga were sometimes both so out of position, and so pulled over to one side, that you would have Auro (for example) alone in the box, trying to cover 2 or 3 attackers. 3 at the back can be more solid, and the fullbacks can also come back, giving you 5 at the back when needed.

But I think Vanney will continue to play what he thinks is correct, according to his theories. Just like playing with a single striker, even when we don't have a player that fits that position well.

Last night, I saw the goal coming because on the play before Mavinga was alone at the back( well at midfield but he was the last man there) and he was pressed but he was able to keep the ball and pass it. And I thought to myself this is not good, hopefully they recognize it and make sure not every one is pushing so hard up. But then again everyone was up and we gave away the ball and left ourselves wide open.