Three at the back

Someone was saying this on the most recent AFCB podcast -- it comes down to, are the wingbacks "wingers" or "defenders"? If you play wingers as WBs, you will tend to end up with more of a 3-5-2 formation, but if you play defenders then it will tend to be 5-3-2. The exciting thing about 3 at the back is that it can turn into "only" 3 at the back, with the other 7 players attacking in one way or another. So it has the potential to be one of the most attacking formations ever. But it depends on the personnel.
Stacey and Smith are both defenders, so we've seen things necessarily more defensive-tilted.
What about Zemura on the left and Stanislas on the right? That would be interesting.
You need a very solid back 3 to do that though.
There is a third option of playing right and left side midfielders , neither wingers or full backs. There aren't many examples but an old school player like Steve Hodge for Forest and England able attack and defend but essentially a midfielder with discipline that can also link well with a winger ahead of him. Why is that most midfielders now just want to be centre mid?
 
Not sure that is an issue tbh, at times this season Stacey and Smith have been our furthest players up the pitch. Against Norwich for example Stacey arrived at the back post to meet a cross and nearly score with a header, I’d say Stacey and Smith are more natural attackers than defenders. Just a shame one of them isn’t left footed.
If you look other stats on their average position you might see they aren't as far forward in some games as you might think.
 
If you look other stats on their average position you might see they aren't as far forward in some games as you might think.
Anyway it's not only about average position, but will they take the opportunity to attack when it comes? A fullback/wingback can be deadly in attack even with only a few well-executed runs or crosses per game.
The question is not whether Stacey is a good attacking player - I think he is - but how he would compare to someone like Stanislas as RWB. Obviously, he'd be better at defending than Stan, but Stan is better in attack. So who comes out on top overall? This may depend on our opposition, but in the Championship we can probably get away with tipping the balance more to attack.
 
Someone was saying this on the most recent AFCB podcast -- it comes down to, are the wingbacks "wingers" or "defenders"? If you play wingers as WBs, you will tend to end up with more of a 3-5-2 formation, but if you play defenders then it will tend to be 5-3-2. The exciting thing about 3 at the back is that it can turn into "only" 3 at the back, with the other 7 players attacking in one way or another. So it has the potential to be one of the most attacking formations ever. But it depends on the personnel.
Stacey and Smith are both defenders, so we've seen things necessarily more defensive-tilted.
What about Zemura on the left and Stanislas on the right? That would be interesting.
You need a very solid back 3 to do that though.

no one players wingers as the wide men in 352/532, you'd get totally murdered. always fullbacks/wingbacks.
 
Chelsea won the league with a winger at wing back. Arsenal won the FA Cup with a winger at wing back.

People are too rigid when determining someone’s nominal position. The reality is a lot more fluid and players interpret the role based on their different strengths.

For a side hoping to challenge at the top of the league there’s more emphasis on the attacking attributes of our wing backs. Whether their Wikipedia says full back or winger isn’t really that important.
 
Except Eddie? Who as I recall played Stan, Ibe, the Scottish player, Pugh, and others as wingbacks (and fullbacks)?

struggling to think of anyone who's done it without injuries or been successful with it. Usually always attack minded fullbacks, people that can play at fullback in flat back 4 as well..
 
This needs a thread of its own. It NEEDS to go. JT please ditch it, we threw away two points again today because of it. It’s clear as day. Our wing backs are getting isolated badly, we are one of the big hitters in this division so teams are going to sit back on us. The only way to play against this is width, we looked like a completely different side when we were able to overload the flanks. It just doesn’t suit us at all! Pray to God JT is not stubborn on this because I genuinely think that our season could depend on it.
 
Also have to remember we have been unbeaten and pretty solid with 3 at the back .
Also our attacking players are only now all back so that could change JTthinking .

I don’t think we should set out to play one formation . We should be able to switch from 4 at the back to 3 in a game without having to make subs .
 
Typical overreaction. There's nothing wrong with three at the back in certain games. It certainly wasn't the right option today but we have actually played well with it this season.
 
Also have to remember we have been unbeaten and pretty solid with 3 at the back .
Also our attacking players are only now all back so that could change JTthinking .

I don’t think we should set out to play one formation . We should be able to switch from 4 at the back to 3 in a game without having to make subs .
We are unbeaten yes, but without sounding rash, who actually cares? I have no doubt that we’d have accumulated more points had we just gone with an ‘out score the opposition’ approach, we may have lost the odd game on the way but you don’t get promoted by drawing every week. We are third right now, that’s all that matters.
 
Typical overreaction. There's nothing wrong with three at the back in certain games. It certainly wasn't the right option today but we have actually played well with it this season.
We have played well a couple of times with it but in general the quality of our performances has been poor relative to the quality of players that we have, surely you can see that?
 

;