Switching from back 4 to back 3 mid season

We won’t know about this until next season. It’s a tough period but if it means we hit the ground running next year because Amorim has had time to work out who to keep and not, it’ll be worth it.

I know the formation impacts all parts of the game, but I don’t think the defence has really been much of a problem from open play. We’ve conceded 5 more goals than Chelsea in fourth, but scored 17 less. The issues are from not having productive wing backs and a decent striker, not because we’re playing a back three.

We don’t play with 3 defenders, we play with 5. Which is likely a contributing factor to why we have scored 17 less (amongst several other factors of course).
 
Your post literally has no point, just words for the sake of typing words.
What?

There is clearly a point, unless you are so against 3-4-3 you will ignore anything that goes against that system.
 
Well then don’t say ‘the team was 13th before’ if I am instead supposed to respond to something else. That was the point that was made, and I pointed out that the season had barely started. And we were very unfortunate to be 13th anyway, sue to a series of terrible decisions and bad luck. We were also only about 4 points of the top 4/6 at the time.

And even if we did finish 8th last season, I’m pretty confident we’ll do a lot worse than that this time round so why is this change being viewed as positive?
The team that finished 8th should have, by all the metrics, finished an awful lot lower than they did.

Did the terrible decisions and bad luck account for where we should have finished last season, or was it because the players were just bad even with four at the back?
 
We don’t play with 3 defenders, we play with 5. Which is likely a contributing factor to why we have scored 17 less (amongst several other factors of course).
Impossible to prove really, but I’d be willing to bet we would have much better goal difference with Dalot at right back and an attacking left wing back.

My point is that the central defenders have been pretty comfortable, I don’t think they’ve had an issue going from two to three.
 
Bumping this thread I started before Amorim took over, where I asked when switching from 4 to 3 at the back had previously happened mid season, and if so, how successful had it been.

The most common example I got was that of Conte at Chelsea, who switched to 3 at the back early on in the season and went on to win the league.

Why was that Chelsea team able to switch to 3 at the back practically overnight and go on to be successful, whereas with our players it's like we're asking them to split the atom?

Can someone with more tactical nous than I, or more familiar with that Chelsea team, give me the differences. Was their squad simply better quality, or did they have specialist wing backs? Did they still play a 3 man midfield and just left 2 attacking players?

I know people are blaming the current formation for our bad results. But it can't be just the formation if Chelsea won the league with that same formation!
Conte switched the system because 433 wasn't working for him and he felt his players suited a 343 much better and it obviously worked, immediately. Amorim's situation is a bit different as the suitablity of the players isn't dictating the formation, he's playing the formation regardless of the players.

But it is not as though a back 3 is some revolutionary form of football that comes as a completely brand new mystery to the players, they will all have played it at some point and as professionals should be familiar with it. Under Potter Brighton improved massively switching between a back 4 and a back 3 during games regularly after playing a static back 4 for years before.

Most of your defence have played as a back 3 before and played well, you could argue Maguire for instance is better in a back 3. Apart from the LWB position, you have a squad that should be able to do this well and at times you've shown that. Some of the performances under Amorim have been a vast improvement on what we saw under ETH in the last 18 months.

I genuinely think it's a matter of confidence and psychology. Against Liverpool, Arsenal and City, you looked really good in large parts of the game. Against Southampton and us you looked poor. I can only put that down to over confidence or only having the ability to raise your game against teams where the players feel they need to.

I think that's why Amorim is clearly trying to spark some kind of reaction via the press and apparently lost it after the Brighton game. You actually on paper have a good squad, but they struggle with intensity and concentration in games where they should be winning. That and Casemiro and Eriksen should never play together in midfield.

Tldr: It's not the formation, it's a motivation and concentration issue.
 
Well then don’t say ‘the team was 13th before’ if I am instead supposed to respond to something else. That was the point that was made, and I pointed out that the season had barely started. And we were very unfortunate to be 13th anyway, sue to a series of terrible decisions and bad luck. We were also only about 4 points of the top 4/6 at the time.

And even if we did finish 8th last season, I’m pretty confident we’ll do a lot worse than that this time round so why is this change being viewed as positive?
Funny thing is you'll be called an EtH lover and I know you completely hated him.
 
Conte had immediate success at Chelsea and surprisingly won the the league. They only had Hazard, Luiz and Courtois as world class players, the others where mostly workhorses who tracked back all the time and defended as a unit. Even Diego Costa.
Even with Van Gaal when he played 3-5-2 which was a surprise for everyone and we looked flat, we weren't as bad as we are now in terms of results and way of playing. We kept the ball better, created more and even if the individual mistakes were there, we still got better results.
The fact that we have 2 consecutive managers that play different systems and the results are mostly the same, means the problem lies elsewhere, player quality, motivation, concentration.
 
I think one of the main problems with United is that most competitive teams, particularly those without a load of exceptionally gifted technical players, like Brighton, are filled with proper athletes whose physical presence alone is enough to disrupt the tippy-tappy slow build ups we invariably revert back to. We get out-muscled then get caught on the break with a few deft passes and suddenly these athletic players are threatening the goal while we're still wondering what happened to the ball.
Same in attack, our offensive players are repelled by a wall of tirelessly hard working defenders and we run out of ideas.
 
The team that finished 8th should have, by all the metrics, finished an awful lot lower than they did.

Did the terrible decisions and bad luck account for where we should have finished last season, or was it because the players were just bad even with four at the back?


Seems like some have also forgotten last season, we had the most absurd amount of injuries, the whole season.

I don't think statistics work like that. We were around the top 6 for most of the season, until things really deteriorated at the end of the season. We were 6th after 34 games, however bad it was, it was still better than things now.
Playing that many games, with no squad to rotate, was impossible.

I still would have wanted to see much more, but you can even see with City/Arsenal this season how much difference injuries of a few key players make.

The metrics most use to argue that, is a ranking based on xG - xGA, where the team with the highest difference is number 1 and the team with the lowest is number 20.

However, if you have a horror match, where you concede a lot of xG, it is just one match and shouldn't be aggregated to determine multiple (expected matches). That is the fundamental flaw in that reasoning. One match cannot count for multiple matches, you cannot lose 7 points to Liverpool just because they battered you.

All teams below us, had even worse of a goal difference than we did and only west ham scored more than we did. This we should have been 15th talk is rubbish when we were close to top 4 even by gameweek 24.

Under EtH we had quite a few matches were completely battered and conceded so much xG, but in general, though conceding many shots, he found that we were able to grind some results in most matches even if we didn't dominate at all. He was playing survival football all season.

It was already quite a lot better this season apart from the Spurs match under him, and we were quite unlucky in a few matches with dodgy decisions.

All in all, it was nowhere near good enough though.
 
Blame INEOS

Its partly their fault yes. Had they done the correct thing and either sacked Ten Hag in the summer or given Ruud the rest of the season so Amorim could start in the summer, some of these problems would have been mitigated.
 
Bumping this thread I started before Amorim took over, where I asked when switching from 4 to 3 at the back had previously happened mid season, and if so, how successful had it been.

The most common example I got was that of Conte at Chelsea, who switched to 3 at the back early on in the season and went on to win the league.

Why was that Chelsea team able to switch to 3 at the back practically overnight and go on to be successful, whereas with our players it's like we're asking them to split the atom?

Can someone with more tactical nous than I, or more familiar with that Chelsea team, give me the differences. Was their squad simply better quality, or did they have specialist wing backs? Did they still play a 3 man midfield and just left 2 attacking players?

I know people are blaming the current formation for our bad results. But it can't be just the formation if Chelsea won the league with that same formation!
Also worth mentioning that Tuchel came in and switched to a back 3 and we went on to win the CL.

With Conte, we played with two central midfielders - 2 of Kante / Matic / Fabregas, who were all world class at that point and could eat up the yards in midfield. We also had the best player in the whole league in Hazard - the shift in formation was brought about in large part because it gave extra protection to Hazard and allowed him to stay high without tracking back. Alonso immediately becoming one of the most potent and unique attacking threats from LWB was purely a bonus but presumably Conte saw something in training.

The main thing though was that it allowed Conte to phase out some key members of the old guard who were on their last legs - namely Terry & Ivanovic. We immediately became far more mobile and athletic - much much more pace in the team.
 
We don’t play with 3 defenders, we play with 5. Which is likely a contributing factor to why we have scored 17 less (amongst several other factors of course).

Is it, but we were also low scoring before he came. So its probably a combination of that and the fact that our attacking players werent in form in the first place and barely getting any goals. Now having 5 players pinned back defending the box more often doesnt help at all. But we werent scoring goals anyway.

We were joint 6th lowest scorers in the league the week before Amorim came in. We're joint 6th lowest scorers in the league now. We were 9th worst defence in the league the week before he came in, we're 12th (or the other way around we were 11th best and now we're 8th best defensive record)

So while we've made no progress for goals scored, we have done a bit better defensively. That hasnt resulted in us gaining many points - just 10 from 27. ETH had 11 from 27 before he was relieved
 
Switching systems mid season (like Tuchel & Conte) is doable if you have suitable players.

We don't, therefore we shouldn't have attempted it.

That's fine, we made a mistake - but to not recognise that mistake and make any adjustments is ludicrous.
 
It was the absolute dumbest thing we've ever done. Also unnecessary, since Amorim actually preferred to come here in the Summer and there is zero rush to sign him in November. Not to mention that we clearly have no money to support him in this transformation, with buying decent players he can actually use.

Makes you question what kind of morons are running this club. We've already learned that apparently Ashworth was not "best in the class", after all. Maybe Berrada is also not all that? Tsk tsk tsk
I think EtH had to go, so do we just continue on with yet another caretaker, or, do we go for the man that likely City would go all in for in the summer (and who knows who else).

It was the right call. What wasn't the right call, was a complete change without time to train or to adapt, meaning we'll "suffer" for the rest of the season with little to no gain compared to just adapting for the end of the season then fully changing everything in the summer.
 
Teams switch formations all the time and sometimes during a game even.
3-4-3 is not working for us at the moment so stop being so fecking stubborn and switch back to 4 at the back and bring back the wingers and let’s have a go at teams again.
We may lose but at least we will lose trying and attacking,
I totally dislike this defensive 5-4-1 and all this passing at the back rubbish.
Attack Attack Attack not pass back pass back pass back.
United is built on attacking football.
 
The transition to 343 is only a part of the issue. This is a team that has only ever excelled at reactive counter attacking football, and has struggled when it needs to dominate, whether that's against small teams doing a low block at Old Trafford, or going away from home to big teams.

Our issues over the last few years are pretty fundamental - we've struggled to play through a press, we've struggled to build patiently but effectively from the back, we've struggled to pin teams back and we've struggled to unpick teams sitting in their box. This isn't simply about changing from 4231 to 343. Its doing all of those other fundamentals as well. As a club, we just haven't modernised over the last decade, in terms of recruiting, training and match day tactics. We're not just behind the title winners now - mid-table teams are more tactically flexible and able than we are.

There's so much to change at United, I find it impossible to believe that a single pre-season would be all it would take anyway. Its going to take months, and whenever we tried to manage that change, our form was going to suffer. To my mind, it makes more sense to do that in a season that was already heading downhill, rather than risking a brand new season with everything to play for.
 
Impossible to prove really, but I’d be willing to bet we would have much better goal difference with Dalot at right back and an attacking left wing back.

My point is that the central defenders have been pretty comfortable, I don’t think they’ve had an issue going from two to three.

It’s very easy to prove, we literally line up with 5 footballers who are and have been defenders their entire careers in most games. Half of our outfield XI are defenders by trade, in the majority of our games. We ask them to contribute more going forward, but they can’t - because they are defenders.

And the central defenders have not been pretty comfortable. Martinez and particularly Yoro have struggled to defend wide areas, it’s clear Yoro would be better suited to having a proper full-back outside of him.
 
Is it, but we were also low scoring before he came. So its probably a combination of that and the fact that our attacking players werent in form in the first place and barely getting any goals. Now having 5 players pinned back defending the box more often doesnt help at all. But we werent scoring goals anyway.

We were joint 6th lowest scorers in the league the week before Amorim came in. We're joint 6th lowest scorers in the league now. We were 9th worst defence in the league the week before he came in, we're 12th (or the other way around we were 11th best and now we're 8th best defensive record)

So while we've made no progress for goals scored, we have done a bit better defensively. That hasnt resulted in us gaining many points - just 10 from 27. ETH had 11 from 27 before he was relieved

What we had done prior is by the way. That’s the whole reason for changing the manager, improvement was needed. So the conversation here is what has the new manager done in an attempt to improve the goalscoring fortunes of a team previously struggling to score goals? And the answer to that is that he has added an additional defender to the team. That’s something you can get away with if it works, but if it is ineffective, questions will be asked and you will be asked to show your working.

If the idea was that a new manager would not be able to improve what had gone before then there would have been little point in getting one. Scoring 11 in 17 got a manager sacked, because it’s agreed that the squad should do better.
 
Impossible to prove really, but I’d be willing to bet we would have much better goal difference with Dalot at right back and an attacking left wing back.

My point is that the central defenders have been pretty comfortable, I don’t think they’ve had an issue going from two to three.
This is one of my biggest gripes. It is so evidently not working defensively or offensively that you have to ask what it will take to change it?

Dalot has to start RWB, he is not ideal but he the only player athletic enough to play it and with familiarity of the role.
LWB you either shoehorn Maz on that side - which he has done a few times - or you roll the dice a bit and play a winger there.
 
Do Conte and Tuchel (the examples brought up in this thread) still play with 3 central defenders?


They are pragmatic coaches who used it in the context of their squads, it isnt their identity.

With Amorim it seems identity, same for Alonso though but not sure if he'd play 3 CB's when he inevitably moves to Real Madrid.
 
Do Conte and Tuchel (the examples brought up in this thread) still play with 3 central defenders?


They are pragmatic coaches who used it in the context of their squads, it isnt their identity.

With Amorim it seems identity, same for Alonso though but not sure if he'd play 3 CB's when he inevitably moves to Real Madrid.
We had 3 CBs constantly but one was usually Azpilicueta. The biggest difference between Conte and Tuchel was that Conte preferred to sit deep and attack on the counter with Hazard / Costa / Willian / Alonso, and Tuchel had us playing and pressing far more proactively, with either Azpilicueta or Rudiger stepping into midfield all the time.
 
To be honest, what i think has been harder for us switching from 4231/433 attack to an attack that has one striker in front of 2 AM.

Id say no one seems to fit the forward line well - even Amad looks regularly better as a RWB than a RAM.
 
We had 3 CBs constantly but one was usually Azpilicueta. The biggest difference between Conte and Tuchel was that Conte preferred to sit deep and attack on the counter with Hazard / Costa / Willian / Alonso, and Tuchel had us playing and pressing far more proactively, with either Azpilicueta or Rudiger stepping into midfield all the time.
Cheers, I meant did Tuchel play 3 at the back at Bayern and Conte now out Napoli?
 
It’s very easy to prove, we literally line up with 5 footballers who are and have been defenders their entire careers in most games. Half of our outfield XI are defenders by trade, in the majority of our games. We ask them to contribute more going forward, but they can’t - because they are defenders.

And the central defenders have not been pretty comfortable. Martinez and particularly Yoro have struggled to defend wide areas, it’s clear Yoro would be better suited to having a proper full-back outside of him.
So have the central defenders been more comfortable since Amorim took over or were they performing better under Ten Hag? Martinez was dogshit last year. Yoro had one shakey game and is a young kid. He has the pace to play as RCB no problem. Maguire has improved and De Ligt has been fine.

If the question of the thread is whether it’s been an issue switching to a back five mid season, I don’t think it has been defensively. The issues are personnel related and we should see a benefit next year of having these tough situations now.
 
Cheers, I meant did Tuchel play 3 at the back at Bayern and Conte now out Napoli?
Ah apologies!

Conte has switched away from a 3ATB system for the first time in ages - he sets up with more of a 4-3-3 with both 8s playing extremely high in and around the opposition area. Historically though he's always used 3ATB.

Tuchel is much more of a pragmatist than anything; he isn't really wedded to one system but prefers to just pick one based on the players he has at his disposal. Last year Bayern played more of a 4-2-3-1 / 4-1-4-1 for the most part.
 
Cheers, I meant did Tuchel play 3 at the back at Bayern and Conte now out Napoli?
Conte is 4 at the back I think now
You know why though? When the footballing talent of a generation needs to be unlocked in AM, you pander to the flying Scotsman (5 goals, 3 assists, 1 Scotty)
 
We either did it mid-season and found out who wasn't good enough or we did it start of next season and be willing to give ut blank slates, yet again.

We'd be in no better position now had we gone into next season not knowing.
 
Are you dense mate?

Yes I am, because I am the one to blame the owners who have been here for less than 1 year.

Its almost as if we were super successful before INEOS came in... oh wait but I am dense.
 
So have the central defenders been more comfortable since Amorim took over or were they performing better under Ten Hag? Martinez was dogshit last year. Yoro had one shakey game and is a young kid. He has the pace to play as RCB no problem. Maguire has improved and De Ligt has been fine.

If the question of the thread is whether it’s been an issue switching to a back five mid season, I don’t think it has been defensively. The issues are personnel related and we should see a benefit next year of having these tough situations now.

The central defenders playing in the middle of the three have been comfortable. I have said as much in this thread. Maguire has a centre half left and right of him. It’s great. The problem is for those playing in the wider areas.

If we are only going to see the benefit next season, not because it is a new season, but because we change the players - then I see no point in persisting with this in the present. If you don’t have the players, then stop playing against their strengths.
 
Yes I am, because I am the one to blame the owners who have been here for less than 1 year.

Its almost as if we were super successful before INEOS came in... oh wait but I am dense.
Who made the decision to keep ETH in the summer?
 
Teams switch formations all the time and sometimes during a game even.
3-4-3 is not working for us at the moment so stop being so fecking stubborn and switch back to 4 at the back and bring back the wingers and let’s have a go at teams again.
We may lose but at least we will lose trying and attacking,
I totally dislike this defensive 5-4-1 and all this passing at the back rubbish.
Attack Attack Attack not pass back pass back pass back.
United is built on attacking football.
So go back to the formation that we managed to end the season on -1 goal difference?

Not sure if you've watched us over the past few years...but it has been a long time since we were 'Attack Attack Attack' and 'having a go at teams'.

No idea why people seem to agree that we need an overhaul of payers, culture, everything really...and then get cold feet as soon as we have some bad results and want to change to what has not worked for us before.
 
Personally I think suggesting it's a system issue is giving the players an excuse for their pitiful performances this season.

I think in the long run what we are seeing will be a good thing. It will separate those who are good enough or not, or it'll separate those that want to work hard and adapt or not.

As soon as the manager was changed the league season was a write off and I don't mean that as a negative, I think we need a massive change in how we play and the mentality change in our squad. I think we are seeing it.

As long as we don't get relegated, I think ultimately we will be better off from next season onwards for having this terrible season and I think we have a manager who won't be scared to drop/sell anyone.
 
INEOS. Mid season.

The issue is the timing of it all.

So would you guys have prefered Ten Hag not to be sacked?

It is obvious that Amorim did not want to join another team in the summer.

Finally, also we didn't sack Ten Hag because INEOS didn't have their choice CEO in place.

They clearly knew he wasn't the guy in the summer, hence no new contract, only an extension. What you are ignoring is SJR has actually come out and said they have made mistakes.

It is clear that they are trying to change things.
 
So would you guys have prefered Ten Hag not to be sacked?

It is obvious that Amorim did not want to join another team in the summer.

Finally, also we didn't sack Ten Hag because INEOS didn't have their choice CEO in place.

They clearly knew he wasn't the guy in the summer, hence no new contract, only an extension. What you are ignoring is SJR has actually come out and said they have made mistakes.

It is clear that they are trying to change things.

He should have been sacked in the summer. No extension. Especially given our financial situation.
Then they sack him but instead of letting Ruud finish this season and then giving Ruben the optimal way to start on this revamp, they rush him in.

They have admitted it was a mistake. Doesnt change the fact that it is the primary reason why Amorims reign has been such a rough start.