3 at the back needing binned

[McGruber]

Defending really well 4-4-2 and 4-3-3 then we bin it after getting scudded at Celtic Park. Leaked goals since.

One striker and no wingers on the park last night - until 3 down. 3 at the back, fullbacks and centre mids. Gave us a platform to have lion share of posession, look pretty but be toothless.

Aberdeen started with more attacking players. Had less of the ball.. scored more. It's not rocket science

We have loads of attackers/wide players. Started playing with 3, then 2 and now 1.

The 3 at the back has been the catalyst for down turn in results - that and some weak willed mentality to adversity.

Ironically, the 2 players we are changing the system up for in Rocky and Magennis have largely played well - still hasn't merited the change for me though

[Tyler Durden]

Agree 100%. Hanlon and Henderson need to drop out IMO and get back to a 4-3-3

[JohnM1875]

Agree 100%. Hanlon and Henderson need to drop out IMO and get back to a 4-3-3

Would absolutely be my preference as well with the same players dropping out, Hanlon only just over Porto though.

[SlickShoes]

Would absolutely be my preference as well with the same players dropping out, Hanlon only just over Porto though.

Based on his performance last night Ryan can drop out rather than Paul, Proto was inconsistent at the start of the season, got his act together, got a call up, done the basics right and now he's back to letting his mind wander and making mistakes like not being able to kick the ball and not cutting out a simple cross.

[Eyrie]

3-5-2 puts too much pressure on the wing backs who get criticised for not getting forward enough to provide width in attack and being too far forward when the opposition counter. It leads to centre halves being dragged out wide to cover where they aren't comfortable. It denies us width in attack because both strikers are central. And it is easier to defend against because there are only two forwards.

4-3-3 helps to break teams down because there is both a forward and a supporting full back out wide. Having two wingers in attack provides additional pace for a counter and means the central striker always has support. Defensively it is more solid because the full back has support from the winger when required or can drop back beside the centre halves if the ball is on the other wing.

We were playing well when we were 4-3-3 and the move to 3-5-2 hasn't worked.

[Heisenberg]

Definitely shift back to four at the back. It was working well enough and we were way more solid. Not sure LJ will do it though.

[hhibs]

Definitely shift back to four at the back. It was working well enough and we were way more solid. Not sure LJ will do it though.

Suspect your right about not doing it and will ,unfortunately,see us continue to struggle ,particularly given his seeming inabilty to pick a settled team.

[Unseen work]

I’m not a fan of it with the players we’ve got as I think we rely too much on Cabraja and Cadden.

The 3 in midfield misses someone really creative (same problem in a 433 however).

I’d be tempted for a 442 or 433 next game again but after beating St Mirren 3-0 and then being slightly unfortunate last night I’m unsure if he’ll change it.

[LaMotta]

Defending really well 4-4-2 and 4-3-3 then we bin it after getting scudded at Celtic Park. Leaked goals since.

One striker and no wingers on the park last night - until 3 down. 3 at the back, fullbacks and centre mids. Gave us a platform to have lion share of posession, look pretty but be toothless.

Aberdeen started with more attacking players. Had less of the ball.. scored more. It's not rocket science

We have loads of attackers/wide players. Started playing with 3, then 2 and now 1.

The 3 at the back has been the catalyst for down turn in results - that and some weak willed mentality to adversity.

Ironically, the 2 players we are changing the system up for in Rocky and Magennis have largely played well - still hasn't merited the change for me though

Leaked goals since? Last night yes. But we got a clean sheet last week in probably our best performance of the season and against St Johnstone we hadn't conceded until we went down to 10 men. If we were defending so well with 4 at the back how did Celtic put 6 past us?

[Ronniekirk]

Definitely shift back to four at the back. It was working well enough and we were way more solid. Not sure LJ will do it though.

We had the second best defence in the league and the LJ plays wrong team and wrong system at Celtic park and we are now leaking soft goals
It would be good to know what changed though in the second half as Aberdeen weren’t really troubling us much in the first half

[Tambo]

Rocky and the fish in a back 4 on Tuesday, can't be any worse than last night.

[LewysGot2]

Agree 100%. Hanlon and Henderson need to drop out IMO and get back to a 4-3-3

10 very good days from Porto last month has been followed by a very mixed bag from him. If we were to go to a back 4 it isn’t with Porto playing left CB. He’s not remotely as confident on that side. It has to be Hanlon.

Cadden is better as a wing back as is Cabraja - both are stronger going forwards than in traditional defensive roles. That needs the 3.

Henderson clearly in last night as Boyle was out. Nisbet was in the warm up last night, as folk will have seen at the game. He and Boyle back together will be an upgrade on any combination this season to date.

[McGruber]

Leaked goals since? Last night yes. But we got a clean sheet last week in probably our best performance of the season and against St Johnstone we hadn't conceded until we went down to 10 men. If we were defending so well with 4 at the back how did Celtic put 6 past us?

The 2 goals from St Johnstone and the 3 goals last night were of the 'leaking' variety. The capitulation, key stone cops defending all over the place type - balls in the box. Different to great moves/strikes. Looked like Aberdeen were going to score every time they went forward for 20 mins after the second.

As for how did Celtic put 6 past us? The answer is there in the question really. Gulf in class, it can happen - happened to Rangers few weeks earlier. If it was 6 from Ross County it would be a different debate

[A Hi-Bee]

Naw, we need 3 at the back but they should all be on the goal-line.
:greengrin

[heretoday]

Get Efe back! He's at Morton by the way.

[JammyDoidger]

Agree don't know where this 3-5-2 has came from I thought we had a style and that style was a 4-3-3.

[LaMotta]

The 2 goals from St Johnstone and the 3 goals last night were of the 'leaking' variety. The capitulation, key stone cops defending all over the place type - balls in the box. Different to great moves/strikes. Looked like Aberdeen were going to score every time they went forward for 20 mins after the second.

As for how did Celtic put 6 past us? The answer is there in the question really. Gulf in class, it can happen - happened to Rangers few weeks earlier. If it was 6 from Ross County it would be a different debate

Yes but in the St Johnstone game there were mitigating circumstances (red card), so you can't fairly pin 3 at the back on the goals being leaked.

This means weve got 2 games to assess 3 at the back, one with a clean sheet and excellent performance and one where we leaked goals and were shocking for 45 mins. Can't really draw any meaningful conclusions from such limited and contradictory evidence.

[Smartie]

352 makes sense in that we don’t have anyone fit or in form to play wide of Myko in the 433, and it avoids having to make much of a decision about the centre halves. Leaving any one of Hanlon, Porto or Rocky is a big call, especially if it’s to accommodate someone like Youan, Melkerson or Henderson out wide in a 433.

As pish as aspects of Friday were, I don’t know if it was the formation at fault. I’d be inclined to stick with what looked perfectly functional in our last home game, with maybe Melkerson coming in to partner Myko up front (3 at the back and one up front is a nonsense). Ross County won’t present the same sort of threat as Aberdeen, and hopefully our centre halves and the likes of Joe Newell will be able to carry out basic defending to a higher level than they did on Friday.

[GordonHFC]

I don't think it matters what formation we play at the back. Until we can bring in central defenders who can attack and clear cross balls we will never progress. We have been asking for those type of players for years now and still we wait.

[KWJ]

3 of the goals were set pieces. The 3 at the back had us controlling the game when it was competitive and finding space in their half. It suits Porteous to bomb forward and get involved too, Hanlon's been decent at it on the left as well.

The formation didn't have us lose on Friday, individual errors did.

[B.H.F.C]

3 of the goals were set pieces. The 3 at the back had us controlling the game when it was competitive and finding space in their half. It suits Porteous to bomb forward and get involved too, Hanlon's been decent at it on the left as well.

The formation didn't have us lose on Friday, individual errors did.

Formation a contributing factor for me. The three at the back leads to more possession but it’s predominantly three centre halves knocking the ball about 70 yards from goal.

The four at the back were working well, functioning, and we looked solid. I think that’s been disrupted and coincides with us looking the opposite. Leads to players playing different roles and I just don’t think it was necessary to rip things up after the one shocker at Parkhead.

[Smartie]

Formation a contributing factor for me. The three at the back leads to more possession but it’s predominantly three centre halves knocking the ball about 70 yards from goal.

The four at the back were working well, functioning, and we looked solid. I think that’s been disrupted and coincides with us looking the opposite. Leads to players playing different roles and I just don’t think it was necessary to rip things up after the one shocker at Parkhead.

I don't think it's been a case of a knee jerk ripping it up after Parkhead - and Johnson did keep the same team together throughout the decent run when he had reason not to.

I genuinely think it's more of an appraisal of the form and fitness of the players available and picking a team and a formation accordingly.

Over time Johnson may have the squad full of players to give him options in his chosen formation but for various reasons he's not there yet.

[silverhibee]

Anyone know if Rocky picked up a injury on Friday night.

[KWJ]

Formation a contributing factor for me. The three at the back leads to more possession but it’s predominantly three centre halves knocking the ball about 70 yards from goal.

The four at the back were working well, functioning, and we looked solid. I think that’s been disrupted and coincides with us looking the opposite. Leads to players playing different roles and I just don’t think it was necessary to rip things up after the one shocker at Parkhead.

There was a bit of that as the option was always there to go back but compared to under Maloney I think they moved it across the back line quite quickly and then played it forward, it rarely was passed along the backline more than once. The midfield were heavily involved, it's probably the most I've seen our centre mids on the ball for over a year.

[Winston Ingram]

Playing a back 3 has always baffled me.

Loads of teams do it now but I genuinely can’t think of a consistently good attacking side that plays it.

The teams that usually play it are mid table jobbers

[MWHIBBIES]

Playing a back 3 has always baffled me.

Loads of teams do it now but I genuinely can’t think of a consistently good attacking side that plays it.

The teams that usually play it are mid table jobbers
It's a very good way of playing, and has its place, no doubt about that. All about execution.

[Jones28]

Playing a back 3 has always baffled me.

Loads of teams do it now but I genuinely can’t think of a consistently good attacking side that plays it.

The teams that usually play it are mid table jobbers

Under Lennon when we played a back 3 was some of the most exciting football I’ve ever seen at Easter road.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Under Lennon when we played a back 3 was some of the most exciting football I’ve ever seen at Easter road.

:agree:

I like a back 3 but it has to be 3-5-2 and not 3-4-3 or 3-6-1.

It can’t be played with a holding midfielder and two full backs on the right and left of the 5 though or it essentially becomes 6 of your 10 outfielders not offering enough going forward. When we played 3-5-2 under Lennon we had Boyle on the right and we had 2 proper centre mids with a 10 infront of them rather than 2 centre mids with a 6 behind them. When we went forward we had Boyle, McGinn, Allan, Kamberi and MacLaren all offering real attacking threat, with the team we played on Friday you’re really just looking at Myko, Henderson and Magennis.

[BoomtownHibees]

Always think 3 at the back is good for allowing you to play 2 strikers. No idea why we didn’t do that on Friday considering it worked so well in the previous game

[Winston Ingram]

Under Lennon when we played a back 3 was some of the most exciting football I’ve ever seen at Easter road.

We played a back 3 from February til May but it was never going to last as we looked really shaky defensively. Lennon carried it on for most of the 1st part next season and it was horrific. It effectively cost Lennon his job

[B.H.F.C]

We played a back 3 from February til May but it was never going to last as we looked really shaky defensively. Lennon carried it on for most of the 1st part next season and it was horrific. It effectively cost Lennon his job

The only reason it wasn’t going to last was because we weren’t going to keep the best midfield in many a year together. Nothing to do with being defensively shaky.

[Jones28]

We played a back 3 from February til May but it was never going to last as we looked really shaky defensively. Lennon carried it on for most of the 1st part next season and it was horrific. It effectively cost Lennon his job

It was horrific because the personnel weren’t the same ones that filled the roles previously. For what it’s worth, it was a great start to the season. Things fell apart, yes, but I don’t think 5-3-2 is a bad system overall. The balance in that team was wrong.

[Winston Ingram]

The only reason it wasn’t going to last was because we weren’t going to keep the best midfield in many a year together. Nothing to do with being defensively shaky.

We shipped loads of chances. We played without out a natural holding midfielder and we had Boyler in front of Efe. The Huns and Killie games we were all over the place at the back.

[MWHIBBIES]

We played a back 3 from February til May but it was never going to last as we looked really shaky defensively. Lennon carried it on for most of the 1st part next season and it was horrific. It effectively cost Lennon his job

lmao, thats not true whatsoever.

Lennon lost McGinn, Allan and McGeough and the 2 forwards stopped scoring. That cost Lennon his job, not the back 3.

Our back 3 really wasn't shaky. Best football Mcgregor and Hanlon ever played for Hibs.

[B.H.F.C]

We shipped loads of chances. We played without out a natural holding midfielder and we had Boyler in front of Efe. The Huns and Killie games we were all over the place at the back.

The Huns game when we just totally went for it, chasing the six goals we needed isn’t the best game to use as an example. Of course we were going to be all over the place.

If we’d kept the same players, the same system would have continued to work and entertain.

Those were two of the most entertaining games at ER in years as well.

[MWHIBBIES]

We shipped loads of chances. We played without out a natural holding midfielder and we had Boyler in front of Efe. The Huns and Killie games we were all over the place at the back.

What about the months where we only lost more than 1 goal, once? Went to Ibrox and only conceded a lucky free kick? Beat the all conquering Celtic team at home?

[Smartie]

We played a back 3 from February til May but it was never going to last as we looked really shaky defensively. Lennon carried it on for most of the 1st part next season and it was horrific. It effectively cost Lennon his job

Did we not get the most points in Scotland over the second half of that season?

What I like about 3 at the back is that it allows you to play 2 strikers - and there are quite a lot of strikers around who don't naturally fit into either of the front 3 positions in a 433 (surprisingly so, given how many teams play it).

It can also help accommodate players who may have a weakness that would be exposed in other formations whilst letting their strengths come to the fore. At Hibs, as opposed to elite level football, we're probably going to have to try to get a tune out of the odd flawed genius.

My main issue with 451 / 433 is that Hibs have never really done it justice, mainly through never having the central striker up to the task. We certainly have that now, it's just the wide positions and the number 10 that we're lacking, although I could see a fit McGeady, Boyle and a sharp Magennis going a long way to solving that. I actually think that would be a great Hibs team, although a decision would need to be made about which CH sits out.

[macca70]

Another consideration when you play 3 at the back is where across the back 3 does Hanlon, Rocky and Porto play. Rocky has been excellent in the middle of the 3 but when we have the ball, it appears Porto is the one we want bringing it out from the back although he's right side of the 3 and seems restricted with options as too close to the right touchline and can only come square or play it forward to his left.

Personally, i don't think the 3 works although when you speak to coaches/managers that have their coaching badges etc they will tell you how it offers more flexibility etc.

All i see is it gives us a surplus centre half when we have the ball and you tend to see Porto going forward, why not have a midfielder or striker in a more forward position than encourage a centre half to go forward.

[sauzeelegod]

I like 3 at the back generally but only it doesn’t turn into a back 5.
You can have a winger/ wide mid on one side so you can defend in a back 4.
Can’t stand having 2 wingbacks who drop into a 5.

[McGruber]

3 centre backs at home to Ross County - and a holding midfielder.

Our balls from wide now from the full backs from deep rather than wingers/forwards. The general play slowed down

Looked good with 4 at the back, changed it. Never looked the same since.

Never looked dangerous in that game from 1st whistle.

In saying all that 3 at the back or not, that was utter pish from the players. The formation alone wouldn't have made the difference - but we could do ourselves a favour and set up better from the off

[Smartie]

The issue with moving from 3 to 4 at the back surrounded which CH to drop.

On tonight’s showing (and recent games) it has to be Porteous. No way he keeps his place ahead of Rocky and Hanlon stays in by virtue of being left sided.

You’ve then got the problem of what you do with the midfield and the forwards, who I actually thought were worse than the defenders tonight.

No easy answers right now and we finished that game with too many players miles short of the ability to drag us back into the game, that’s before you get round to the likes of Henderson who started it.

[PaulSmith]

Porteous was doing fine as a right sided centre half and had Hanlon next to him. For whatever reason LJ has decided he must play Rocky, now the big fella has done ok as the spare centre half but it’s at the detriment of Porto and Hanlon.

Porto is a better right sided CH than Rocky, neither Rocky or Porto can play as the left sided CH so it has to be Rocky that’s dropped.

[B.H.F.C]

The issue with moving from 3 to 4 at the back surrounded which CH to drop.

On tonight’s showing (and recent games) it has to be Porteous. No way he keeps his place ahead of Rocky and Hanlon stays in by virtue of being left sided.

You’ve then got the problem of what you do with the midfield and the forwards, who I actually thought were worse than the defenders tonight.

No easy answers right now and we finished that game with too many players miles short of the ability to drag us back into the game, that’s before you get round to the likes of Henderson who started it.

Re the first point that’s weak management IMO.

I thought similar up at Aberdeen last week when he played 6 midfielders. It was like he wanted Magennis in the team but didn’t have the balls to drop Henderson because he’d scored the week before.

[The Modfather]

I don't think it's been a case of a knee jerk ripping it up after Parkhead - and Johnson did keep the same team together throughout the decent run when he had reason not to.

I genuinely think it's more of an appraisal of the form and fitness of the players available and picking a team and a formation accordingly.

Over time Johnson may have the squad full of players to give him options in his chosen formation but for various reasons he's not there yet.

If we play 3-5-2 we can’t play Kenneh. That leaves 3 defenders, two wingbacks whose weakest part of their game is in the final third, an out and out defensive midfielder and Joe Newell. Newell has improved this season but still only has 1 league goal and no assists. That’s 7 players that don’t create anything. That leaves us back in the Boyle territory of single handedly carrying our goal threat.

It’s just like last season. No matter what formation or personal you choose or how you shuffle the team about it’s impossible to make the scales balance.

[Paulie Walnuts]

If we play 3-5-2 we can’t play Kenneh. That leaves 3 defenders, two wingbacks whose weakest part of their game is in the final third, an out and out defensive midfielder and Joe Newell. Newell has improved this season but still only has 1 league goal and no assists. That’s 7 players that don’t create anything. That leaves us back in the Boyle territory of single handedly carrying our goal threat.

It’s just like last season. No matter what formation or personal you choose or how you shuffle the team about it’s impossible to make the scales balance.

:agree:

Last season everyone slaughtered Maloney. Yes, he wasn’t great, but it was telling when you looked at the “starting 11 for the next game” threads that the other starting line ups being proposed were all absolutely terrible as well. The squad was all over the shop and nowhere near good enough in terms of quality and balance. We even went into a Scottish Cup semi final against Hearts with James ****ing Scott as our only available striker and a 34 year old left back playing centre mid.

This season, we’ve signed an absolute raft of players and yet again we have no real obvious way to make a team out of them. The closest thing we can get to a formation that has everybody playing in somewhere close to their natural positions is 3-5-2 yet that leaves us with 7 players out of 10 offering nothing going forward which doesn’t work. 4-3-3 we don’t have the wide players to play, 4-4-2 we don’t have the legs in midfield to play or the wide players to play.

If someone asked me to pick my team for Kilmarnock right now I’d probably go:

Marshall

Cadden
Rocky
Hanlon
Cabraja

Newell
Campbell
Kenneh

Melkersen
Myko
Youan

And I still look at that team and think there’s 5 players who shouldn’t be anywhere near a Hibs team and Melkersen out of position and it would likely get beat. I don’t expect I’d look at anybody else’s team, regardless of formation or personnel and think any differently.

[Smartie]

If we play 3-5-2 we can’t play Kenneh. That leaves 3 defenders, two wingbacks whose weakest part of their game is in the final third, an out and out defensive midfielder and Joe Newell. Newell has improved this season but still only has 1 league goal and no assists. That’s 7 players that don’t create anything. That leaves us back in the Boyle territory of single handedly carrying our goal threat.

It’s just like last season. No matter what formation or personal you choose or how you shuffle the team about it’s impossible to make the scales balance.

This is exactly where I am with it.

I accept the criticism of the 3 at the back with Kenneh in front but I honestly can't come up with an alternative that I think would work much better unless we get some players back from injury and a few arrivals.

It doesn't just look 1 or 2 players short either.

[Gloucester Hibs]

This is exactly where I am with it.

I accept the criticism of the 3 at the back with Kenneh in front but I honestly can't come up with an alternative that I think would work much better unless we get some players back from injury and a few arrivals.

It doesn't just look 1 or 2 players short either.

If Boyle is back we can revert to the 4-3-3 that performed well when we beat Aberdeen 3-1, if that means Porto or Rocky dropping out, or you play Porto on the LHS and drop Hanlon then so be it.

[Smartie]

If Boyle is back we can revert to the 4-3-3 that performed well when we beat Aberdeen 3-1, if that means Porto or Rocky dropping out, or you play Porto on the LHS and drop Hanlon then so be it.

A fit Boyle, Magennis (properly fit Magennis), and McGeady should make a difference.

I'm not a Nisbet fan but I'm happy to see him try to make an impact somewhere.

But we're unlikely to have any of these players for Saturday and even in spite of everything I find it hard to justify dropping Hanlon, Porto or Rocky to accommodate any one of Youan, Melkerson, Jair, Henderson or Campbell in the number 10 or wide forward positions.