How much longer???

[Arsenal Of The North]

Can we keep playing 3 at the back, I get that we play 3 at the back because we are defensively fragile, but even that isn’t stopping us from conceding, it’s also stifling any attacking play because we’re compensating to much defensively.

At what point does DS move away from 3 at the back? Our wing backs today were scared to cross the half way line in the first half.

Playing 5 at the back v 2nd bottom of the league….. and still losing. Something has to give.

[Canadian Rover]

Can we please stop saying we are playing 3 at the back. It's a 5. Always has been. Maybe you could say a 3 and a 2 but it's a 5. We had a great and I do mean great wingback at this level which should be key to the formation. Not only did we let him leave but we played him at centre half!!

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

We were worse when we went to 4......

[Super Colin Cramb]

When we changed to a flat back four we conceded.

[Prez]

We could play 9 at that the back.

We would still concede.

[Sammy Chung was King]

He knew he didn’t have a defensive unit that works. Nothing was done about it. We bring a kid in from higher up, in Nelson. We might as well have just played Bobby week after week, when he’s been fit. He really couldn’t have done any worse than those who have played.

[Donnybax]

I don’t think we really play it because we’re defensively weak I think we play it because it’s what DS prefers. The issue is 343 is a difficult system to play/coach and is not suited to league 2 footballers/football

[Sammy Chung was King]

It takes intelligence to play that formation. The centre half position is slightly different in a three. The wing backs need to be able to do a full back and wingers job. We don’t have the midfielders to protect the defence playing this system. I like the system it just doesn’t suit the players he has.

[Bailey Vickerage]

Can we please stop saying we are playing 3 at the back. It's a 5. Always has been. Maybe you could say a 3 and a 2 but it's a 5. We had a great and I do mean great wingback at this level which should be key to the formation. Not only did we let him leave but we played him at centre half!!

how is it a back 5? The wingbacks are often the furthest forward. It is a back 3. Also we never conceded on Saturday whilst playing 3 at the back, we went to 442 after nelson went off and that’s when we conceded.

[Bessie Red]

Can we please stop saying we are playing 3 at the back. It's a 5. Always has been. Maybe you could say a 3 and a 2 but it's a 5. We had a great and I do mean great wingback at this level which should be key to the formation. Not only did we let him leave but we played him at centre half!!

how is it a back 5? The wingbacks are often the furthest forward. It is a back 3. Also we never conceded on Saturday whilst playing 3 at the back, we went to 442 after nelson went off and that’s when we conceded.

Hartlepools goal had nothing to do with a back 3, 4 or 5 and everything to do with  Williams inability to do anything positive to stop their player.

[Bailey Vickerage]

Can we please stop saying we are playing 3 at the back. It's a 5. Always has been. Maybe you could say a 3 and a 2 but it's a 5. We had a great and I do mean great wingback at this level which should be key to the formation. Not only did we let him leave but we played him at centre half!!

how is it a back 5? The wingbacks are often the furthest forward. It is a back 3. Also we never conceded on Saturday whilst playing 3 at the back, we went to 442 after nelson went off and that’s when we conceded.

Hartlepools goal had nothing to do with a back 3, 4 or 5 and everything to do with  Williams inability to do anything positive to stop their player.

although I agree he could’ve maybe gone out and put a tackle in, he was 1v1 and on a yellow card, if he had gone and committed then been taken on the goalscorer would’ve been in the middle of the box 1 on 1 with the keeper and RSW would’ve been criticised for not keeping him wide. Looking back he will probs be thinking that he could’ve done better but I can understand why he jockeyed him, was a great ball from Umerah and a a good strike. The biggest criticism from me would be that we over committed to getting a winner when there was still 2 minutes (plus the 7 that was added) left.

[Butchers Red]

Can we please stop saying we are playing 3 at the back. It's a 5. Always has been. Maybe you could say a 3 and a 2 but it's a 5. We had a great and I do mean great wingback at this level which should be key to the formation. Not only did we let him leave but we played him at centre half!!

how is it a back 5? The wingbacks are often the furthest forward. It is a back 3. Also we never conceded on Saturday whilst playing 3 at the back, we went to 442 after nelson went off and that’s when we conceded.

Hartlepools goal had nothing to do with a back 3, 4 or 5 and everything to do with  Williams inability to do anything positive to stop their player.

Williams had to make a challenge in that situation, their scorer even got away with a heavy touch at one point - I am 100% sure at that point Faulkener would have nailed him. It's so very frustrating being told that Faulkener isn't ready,etc,etc and then watching a cart horse failing to defend 1 on 1's repeatedly.

[Sammy Chung was King]

We need a solid four that just defends, nothing clever just stops goals going in.
Two midfielders that work hard centrally to protect and Create. A couple of wingers that provide chances, get shots on goal and track back. Strikers that plague the opposition defence, the first line of defence. They also hold onto the ball, get shots off and score a few.

[DonnyBazR0ver]

Can we please stop saying we are playing 3 at the back. It's a 5. Always has been. Maybe you could say a 3 and a 2 but it's a 5. We had a great and I do mean great wingback at this level which should be key to the formation. Not only did we let him leave but we played him at centre half!!

how is it a back 5? The wingbacks are often the furthest forward. It is a back 3. Also we never conceded on Saturday whilst playing 3 at the back, we went to 442 after nelson went off and that’s when we conceded.

Hartlepools goal had nothing to do with a back 3, 4 or 5 and everything to do with  Williams inability to do anything positive to stop their player.

although I agree he could’ve maybe gone out and put a tackle in, he was 1v1 and on a yellow card, if he had gone and committed then been taken on the goalscorer would’ve been in the middle of the box 1 on 1 with the keeper and RSW would’ve been criticised for not keeping him wide. Looking back he will probs be thinking that he could’ve done better but I can understand why he jockeyed him, was a great ball from Umerah and a a good strike. The biggest criticism from me would be that we over committed to getting a winner when there was still 2 minutes (plus the 7 that was added) left.

Totally agree with all that. RSW would have been slaughtered for getting sent off and leaving us vulnerable for the last 8 mins or so. He did right not to dive in.

Maybe he could have got closer to block the shot etc but he checked at one point to make sure the player didn't switch inside. The shot threaded a needle to evade Mitchell's fingertips and hit the post. One of those where 9 times out of 10 its either wide or saved by the keeper.

[Sammy Chung was King]

It should be an insult to every player to lose a game, especially at home. Teams should be coming to our ground not expecting to get anything. It’s just far too easy for sides to come and get three points. A bit of pride and total determination to win is needed.

Be the one that makes a difference. If the side needs a leader, step up and be that person. Too many grey players want to blend into the background. Grow some b..locks and turn you and your team mates into winners.