04 Jan 2018 00:16:22
Anyone else feel like 3 at the back just doesn't work for us? I feel like it just reduces the responsibilities of each centre back, leading to confusion sometimes (e. g when an attacker is running in the middle of 2 cbs, who picks him up? ) . Also leaves gaps between the wing backs and wide cbs when we lose possession. more importantly, it means we have 1 less player in the midfield.

1.) 04 Jan 2018
04 Jan 2018 05:32:51
3,4,5 or 10 at the back doesn't make a slight bit of difference to our defending. Poor coaching and players is the problem.

2.) 04 Jan 2018
04 Jan 2018 06:15:50
The problem with 3 CB's is that they are often only marking one forward, leaving 2 spare CB's. I am a huge fan of a fluid 4-4-2 or 4-4-1-1, which was the chosen formation of Wenger's during his most successful period at the club.

3.) 04 Jan 2018
04 Jan 2018 16:17:19
It looked OK last night from where I sat, and i think playing the 3 allows us to bring in the slightly more inexperienced Holding and or Chambers without exposing them quite as much as being one of two CD's. It also certainly helps in bringing the ball out from the back with the 3 CB's spread across the pitch. Also, it allows for the wing backs to push more forward. However, I suspect a true defensive midfielder will do the same job but with perhaps a bit more flexibility by playing just behind Wilshire/ Ramsey and Xhaka and slipping back into defense when needed. I know there are few fans of N'Zonzi on here but watching a lot of Seville on TV over the last couple of years that is exactly what he does (or did) for them, where he either plays just behind midfield or slips back to become the 3rd CD when needed, and therefore he, or a similar type player, would easily allow us to slip back into a more 4-3-3 formation IMO.