Why is Ten Hag committed to the 3-1 buildup?

[Teja]

Our basic, plan-A build up structure is:

------ FB --- CB --- CB --
-------------- DM ------------

I don't claim to be a tactical expert but everyone and their grandmother has moved on to a 3-2 build up (De Zerbi, Arteta, Klopp, Pep etc.) because it's too easy to crowd out a single pivot. Especially true for single pivots comprising of an out and out DM like Casemiro / Amrabat.

Of course there's a lot of positional rotation that happens in-game, football is dynamic and it's hard to boil all your build up woes down to one specific thing but there are many glaring deficiencies in the 3-1. Casemiro has given the ball away on many an occasion resulting in oppo chances (and goals). Amrabat also struggled yesterday.

We have fairly traditional fullbacks / wing backs in Shaw, Reguilon, AwB, Dalot but lots of different sides have that problem and they've solved that by playing a midfielder at fullback instead. Ten Hag's easily smart enough to find a structure that works if he decides to go to a 3-2 build up.

I thought given the Mount signing we'll go to a 3-2-2-3 structure with Mount and Bruno as the two advanced players and a 3-2 base constructed from the 2 CBs, DM and 2 FBs.

Any Thoughts?

 

[ShamrockD]

Yesterday it looked worse, like more 4-1 buildup where the fullbacks did not help progression at all. The reasons I can think of:

- The current fullbacks like Dalot and Reguillon cannot understand how to be that extra player in the midfield. Apparently there is a reason these players are overpaid now (see Timber). Shaw could do it and last year it worked.
- Our current defenders are incapable of moving the ball forward and we struggle with sideways passes. Lisandro did that perfectly.

I think until these two are back the only thing that it can work is a more traditional buildup with a double pivot and just push one of the fullbacks higher to be the extra player. It has become a pattern with Eriksen coming in next to the DM and suddenly everything is rolling.

 

[Stack]

Our basic, plan-A build up structure is:

------ FB --- CB --- CB --
-------------- DM ------------

I don't claim to be a tactical expert but everyone and their grandmother has moved on to a 3-2 build up (De Zerbi, Arteta, Klopp, Pep etc.) because it's too easy to crowd out a single pivot. Especially true for single pivots comprising of an out and out DM like Casemiro / Amrabat.

Of course there's a lot of positional rotation that happens in-game, football is dynamic and it's hard to boil all your build up woes down to one specific thing but there are many glaring deficiencies in the 3-1. Casemiro has given the ball away on many an occasion resulting in oppo chances (and goals). Amrabat also struggled yesterday.

We have fairly traditional fullbacks / wing backs in Shaw, Reguilon, AwB, Dalot but lots of different sides have that problem and they've solved that by playing a midfielder at fullback instead. Ten Hag's easily smart enough to find a structure that works if he decides to go to a 3-2 build up.

I thought given the Mount signing we'll go to a 3-2-2-3 structure with Mount and Bruno as the two advanced players and a 3-2 base constructed from the 2 CBs, DM and 2 FBs.

Any Thoughts?

Casemiro giving the ball away isnt a function of any formation.

 

[Eddy_JukeZ]

De Zerbi's Brighton build up in a 2-4 from what I've seen.

But I would prefer the 3-2 over the 3-1 building up.

 

[lex talionis]

We’re asking too much of Casemiro.

 

[bond19821982]

I'm starting to realize that Shaw and Martinez is quite critical to his build up. Basically he needs a left footed player on our left side to progress the ball into midfield.

Having said that, I have no idea what he is trying now. Do that 3 1 against City and they will put us to knife.

 

[noodlehair]

I hate this bollocks. It's just a complicated way of saying we can't play with a one man midfield, which is correct and very obvious but it doesn't matter if you call it a 3-1 or a 3 whatever to try and make it sound smart.

Yesterday ETH was blaming it on us constantly having to change our back 4 and therefore not having the players to make it work, which gives arise to the question of why the feck he is trying to do something that he already knows isn't going to work.

Also, City, Arsenal etc. would not play this system with Bruno and Mount and a CB at fullback. Gundogan/Kovacic have more in common with Eriksen than Mount in terms of their positioning and skills etc, they will be the 2 in the 3-2 a lot of the time and are definitely not a second no10 like Mount is (or McTominay was for 45 minutes last night). They are an available pass from the back line and a barrier when the opposition get possession or the ball comes loose. This is quite important because a fullback can't be in two places at once where as a link player doesn't need to be.

Casemiro is getting all kinds of shite at the moment for being asked to run the team on his own which literally NO player on earth would be able to do in our system, and as was made clear last night when he wasn't there and Amrabat looked utterly lost playing in his place, he does make a pretty good go at it for someone the wrong side of 30.

We SHOULD be playing Eriksen and shouldn't have sold Fred who made 50+ appearances last season in the position we now don't seem to play anyone in, but here we are.

 

[didz]

3-1-6 was all the rage not so long ago. Obviously Ten Hag had success using that structure at Ajax, but for other managers too. Guardiola used it against back fives while he was at Bayern to keep defenses stretched, for example. In fact I think he even went into his first PL winning season experimenting with Sane and Sterling as wingbacks to achieve the shape more easily.

If you have defenders that are good enough on the ball to situationally step into midfield and play the forwards in, it's fine. If you have one really good playmaker who can carve out space for themselves and play on the turn, it's fine. We, of course, have neither of those things.

Obviously Ten Hag wants us to attack in numbers, and us being pretty goal shy of late probably makes doing so even more attractive. But we could start 9 attackers and it won't matter if we can't get the ball to them in good positions. So yeah... 3-1 bad.

 

[Partridge]

i am all for the 1-9-1 formation. that way, we can attack like a tidal wave..

 

[Plant0x84]

4-1, 3-1, 3-2, 4-2 but I thought we won 1-0?!!!

 

[ole@thewheel]

We hardly have a 3-1 buildup, as our fullbacks dont get tucked in, but stay wide on the build-up or get into the midfield.

Our issue is not the build-up as much as our 'transition defending' from losing the ball in the final third.

ETH uses a very aggressive 2-1-4-3 shape in the attacking third, which leaves our DM very isolated in the transition.

CB CB

DM


RB- AM AM LB
RW ST LW

This system would need three very important things (in order) to work:

1) A compact and well drilled team that would work cohesively in pressing to quickly retain the ball after losing it. Attacking 7 work on combination in triangle sectors (AM-AM-ST or AM LB LW etc) to trap opposition players into no open spaces or openings for a pass.
This would have to be consistent for 90 minutes with everybody (especially with our players that have and lose the ball the most i.e. Rashford) , as you are a pass away from ending in a 3 vs 4 counter-attack if not dedicated to it.

2) A very very good DM, that can cover a lot of space, giving our fullbacks time to move back if pressing is not succesful. Also they need to be able to flawlessly recycle the ball very quickly to create transition, which makes a big difference in the attacking phase.

3) Intelligent fullbacks, that will understand when to press into the attacking third, and simultaniously be prepared to move back in any sign of breach of the pressing line. They also have to be versed to play into various positions in attack as required by the phase, FB-DM/CM-Winger which requires traditionally atypical skills for a FB i.e. passing, close control etc.

Just a reminder that even a team like City, with the best DM in the world and world class FBs dropped this system and uses a box 2-2 base (CB CB - FB DM) or even a CB CB CB- DM nowadays.

 

[Teja]

The current fullbacks like Dalot and Reguillon cannot understand how to be that extra player in the midfield. Apparently there is a reason these players are overpaid now (see Timber).
..
Our current defenders are incapable of moving the ball forward and we struggle with sideways passes. Lisandro did that perfectly.
..
I think until these two are back the only thing that it can work is a more traditional buildup with a double pivot and just push one of the fullbacks higher to be the extra player. It has become a pattern with Eriksen coming in next to the DM and suddenly everything is rolling.

I totally agree with these statements. I think the solution is to start a player like Eriksen in the middle in a more restrained role. That unfortunately changes the offensive pressing system entirely. If you can't rely on Eriksen being an advanced #8 then other adaptations need to take place when you're counter pressing.

Maybe that's part of why he's resistant to go to a 3-2 build up.

Shaw could do it and last year it worked.

I don't think Shaw ever played that role but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. He made one of the back 3, so it was:

----- Varane --- Martinez --- Shaw -----
----------------- Casemiro ----------------------
---- Dalot --------------------- Eriksen -------

... and so on

We hardly have a 3-1 buildup, as our fullbacks dont get tucked in, but stay wide on the build-up or get into the midfield.

The 3-1 is when our fullbacks don't tuck in. The 1 is a DM. Once the FB tucks in along with the DM it's a 3-2.

 

[In Rainbows]

I hate this bollocks. It's just a complicated way of saying we can't play with a one man midfield, which is correct and very obvious but it doesn't matter if you call it a 3-1 or a 3 whatever to try and make it sound smart.

It's not complicated at all and nobody expects to sound smart when saying it. It means exactly as what the poster stated. 3 at the back and 1 midfielder. How is that a complicated way of saying we can't play with a one man midfield? A one man midfield only explains the 1, but it could be a back 4 that retains its shape. Notice which is more convenient?

Again, it's not complicated at all. It's simple and straight to the point.

 

[tenpoless]

Me when something is not 4-4-2 classic:

 

[Lentwood]

I'm concerned that ETH is working really hard to implement a system that is already 5+ years out of date.

As OP says, teams have worked out how to suffocate the single pivot. We're consistently unable to play through the middle of the pitch and end up running into dead ends out on the flanks.

I'd ban passes to the flanks in our own half in training games as an exercise in how to work the ball through the midfield. We should be playing into two of Casemiro/Eriksen/Amrabat and working the ball forward/wide to Bruno/Antony/Rashford/Hojlund/Garnacho etc...from there

Currently, we find that route through the middle blocked, so we end up in the fullback position, playing a hopeful channel pass or feeding it into Antony/Rashford whilst they are facing away from goal, running back to receive the pass.

 

[HJ12]

Me when something is not 4-4-2 classic:

Man, I long for these simple days!

 

[Freak]

I prefer the 1-0-0 buildup with attack consisting of 10-0-0

 

[NotoriousISSY]

I always found our best playmaker in the defensive setup was Luke Shaw, even more so than Martinez. He had a lot of variety in his play and is just a very good all round footballer technically.

Of course our entire set up should not falter in the absence of one player, but it's certainly part of it.

 

[Shakesy]

Me when something is not 4-4-2 classic:

 

[Red00012]

i am all for the 1-9-1 formation. that way, we can attack like a tidal wave..

Mighty ducks

 

[astracrazy]

Yesterday it looked worse, like more 4-1 buildup where the fullbacks did not help progression at all. The reasons I can think of:

- The current fullbacks like Dalot and Reguillon cannot understand how to be that extra player in the midfield. Apparently there is a reason these players are overpaid now (see Timber). Shaw could do it and last year it worked.
- Our current defenders are incapable of moving the ball forward and we struggle with sideways passes. Lisandro did that perfectly.

I think until these two are back the only thing that it can work is a more traditional buildup with a double pivot and just push one of the fullbacks higher to be the extra player. It has become a pattern with Eriksen coming in next to the DM and suddenly everything is rolling.

This is why we looked a bit better when Amrabat played LB.

 

[noodlehair]

It's not complicated at all and nobody expects to sound smart when saying it. It means exactly as what the poster stated. 3 at the back and 1 midfielder. How is that a complicated way of saying we can't play with a one man midfield? A one man midfield only explains the 1, but it could be a back 4 that retains its shape. Notice which is more convenient?

Again, it's not complicated at all. It's simple and straight to the point.

Its not. The fullback is really quite irrelevant to the scenario since the issue is that we are playing with 2 no10s, at least one of who invariably either isn't even a no10 or doesn't really do much there. This isn't what City, Arsenal or other teams who play this system do.its not a 1 or a 2 depending on where the fullback is because again then you're back to asking players to be in 2 places at once.

I'm also not sure the 3 bit is even accurate as both our fullbacks frequently disappear up the pitch at the same time and definitely aren't helping the lone midfielder out. They end up as advanced as Fernandes, Mount, etc. so all the passing lines are very easy to cut off. The opposition basically just have to stand a couple of people between our centrebacks and Casemiro (or whoever is playing there) and that's it.

When you watch other (good) teams they do not set up like this at all. They set up to enable their version of Casemiro to have space to make themselves available and link up play, and be able to cover defensive areas, by putting other players around them, which is the opposite to what we are doing.

We're doing the sort of thing you try on fifa to get all your higher rated players in the team because you know you can ignore common sense because it's a computer game.

 

[Oscar Bonavena]

You'll know the crowd have turned on ETH if they start singing "You can stick your single pivot up yer arse!"

 

[T Red]

Well I dont know about you but all I see when we are in possession these days is

Reg-Rash-Brun--Ras-Cas--Ant-Dal







Mag-Amrabat-Lindelof

Onana

In all my years of watching football, I have never seen a team with a bunch of midfielders wo are so disinterested in being a part of the build up play, never.

The moment Onana passes the ball to either of our center backs, the rest of the team (midfielders and fullbacks included) immediately start rushing into the opps 18yard box at full speed in anticipation of a long ball. And then you have Maguire or Varane holding unto the ball much longer than they should while looking for who to give a pass. In the absence of anyone, he finally hoofs it up field in an attempt to pick our very same players who will most likely only win 10 out of every hundred aerial duels.

Whether it is tactics or not its clearly not working, and why ETH doesn't seem to see it as a problem I will never know.
Very often the midfielders or even wingers never come down field to make themselves available and be a part of the build up play, even when they do, they are usually just casually standing or slowly moving and not rushing into space to receive a pass. And this means all the oppos front pressers need to do to force us into hoofing it again is to simply stand between the midfielders and the center backs.
This has been a major reason why the team is always so disjointed.

I am still fully behind the manager, but in all honesty my patience is running thin now.

 

[ToToMarshall]

I think it's as much a personnel issue as it is an ETH issue.

I don't think any of our centre-halves are comfortable defending large spaces wide and especially struggle at it behind them in a high-three like City's and Liverpool's are. Varane's not the athlete he once was, and even if he is the best at it still he's never fit. Martinez can do it but he (and Shaw) accounts for almost all our build-up in the first phase so I don't really want him playing wider, and I'm also not convinced about him playing to last season's great levels in a higher-line. Lindelof isn't that quick, can't defend on the turn, can't manage space, and is crap in duels so can't win first or second balls consistently. Maguire and Evans have the athleticism of corpses.

Our fullbacks are an issue too. Shaw is great and can play any number of roles, but the rest of them all give a bit of a headache when imagining how they might fit in a 3-2. Despite improving a lot, AWB is still a horrible technician. He creates problems in the first-phase if he's deeper but he'd be even worse if you ever asked him to invert. Malacia and Reguilon are worse defensively and physically, but are good athletes and better technically but still not remotely good enough to ask them to step in and form a 2 next to Casemiro, but you could play them as more conventional LBs who cover the entire left-flank if you then played an Amrabat x Casemiro pivot. Dalot is very very very average but could do a job inverting or running a flank. Shaw can play in the 3, invert in the pivot and run the flank.

Casemiro himself poses problems. His ball retention for an elite level DM (which his CV and best performances still would suggest he is) is terrible when compared with his peers. But given the alternatives, when fit he still basically has to play, and then be accommodated for (which Lisandro did very well last year). Then there's the rest of our midfielders. Amrabat next top him in a pivot seems to make sense, but after that? McTominay or Eriksen? No thanks.

How would you set the set the side up in an ideal world with a 3-2?

--------------------------Onana
----------AWB--------Varane--------Shaw
--------------Casemiro-----Martinez
-----Fernandes--------------------Amrabat
Mount-----------------------------------Rashford
--------------------------Hojlund

I think that's probably the best I can come up with. Martinez can drop in to the back, with Amrabat dropping in to the pivot to allow Shaw to step up at points too:

-----------------------Onana
---------AWB-----Varane-----Martinez
--------------Casemiro-----Amrabat
Mount------------Fernandes------------Shaw
----------------Hojlund---Rashford

You can argue about a few of the players but that's the best I can see or think of, and it's still miles from being ideal.