Jump to content
IGNORED

3-5-2

where's the joy

By where's the joy
in Football Chat

Recommended Posts

reddoh

reddoh

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, spudski said:

And you fella...been great reading your posts on the forum this year. As with many others...for all it's ups and downs...this is a great forum.

trouble is you talk football sense , I don't. just watch the home games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Maltshoveller

Maltshoveller

Posted
Posted

Glenn Hoddle ans Harry Redknapp were on the radio a few days back talking about formations

Both said 3-5-2 is the best one when you have the ball

But it is by far the hardest to tight at the back when you dont have the ball

As we seem unable to keep clean sheets 3-5-2 might not be right for us at the moment

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BCFC_Dan

BCFC_Dan

Posted
Posted

One way to defend with a back 3 is to switch it to a back 4 when defending by having a centre half who can play full back and one wing back who is basically a full back and the other basically a winger.

City did this under Wilson with Coles or Carey in the back 3, Bell on the left as a full back / wing back and Murray on the right as a winger / wing back. When attacking it was a 3-5-2 but when defending Carey or Coles would go to right back and Bell would drop in at left back.

Chelsea, I believe, do something similar now. They have Azpilicueta in the back 3, who can play right back, Alonso at LWB, who can play full back and Moses at RWB, who is basically a winger. They also play with wide forwards and by playing the player least likely to defend, Hazard, in front of the defensive wing back, Alonso, they compensate for his defensive shortcomings.

City did something similar at Barnsley. They used Moore as the right sided centre back slash full back, Bryan as the left wing back and Matthews on the right. The difference there being that it's not clear which out of Bryan and Matthews would be the attacking player. As Spudski mentioned above, Matthews can't (or hasn't shown that he can) get up and down the flank all game and the formation doesn't work with Bryan as the attacking player unless Magnusson can play left back, which doesn't seem ideal.

It could become an option but probably not with the current players. Golbourne could be the defensive left sided player perhaps, but there are no stand out candidates for the right wing role. Possibly Burns when he returns but I wouldn't want to rely on that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ashtonwurzel

Ashtonwurzel

Posted
Posted
On 20/12/2016 at 09:15, spudski said:

Did no one listen to the players being interviewed when we regularly played 352 under SC?

Those that played wing backs found it a nightmare.

If anyone thinks Matthews could play wing back, then with respect, start watching rugby instead, you don't understand football.

He can barely put in a sprint without stretching his hamstrings to breaking point playing as a deep sitting RB now...expecting him to play wing back is laughable.

Even a very fit Bryan would struggle.

It's not our formation that's so much a problem, but the quality of players trying to execute them efficiently.

Disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ashtonwurzel

Ashtonwurzel

Posted
Posted

                                 Fielding

                   Moore     Flint     Magnusson

       Little                                                     Bryan

                       O'Neil              Smith

                                  Tomlin

                        Tammy       Wilbs/Engvall

 

Would be very competitive in this Division IMO.

The key though is to be able to play several different formations and not be "blinkered" to one as has happened in the past. We are currently very predictable and easy to play against and 1 up front is far to easy to nullify.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lrrr

Lrrr

Posted
Posted

Fielding

Moore            Flint       Magnusson

Matthews                                                                           Bryan

Freeman      Pack        Smith 

Tomlin

Abraham

 

Matthews has shown when fit he's able to get up and down and overlap with Freeman in the current formation, if he stays fit then he should be perfectly capable in this role. Moore is also capable of filling in as the RB in a back 4 when Matthews gets forward. Bryan is more at home in this formation with less defensive responsibility. Freeman would have the freedom to roam in this formation picking up the ball from defence/Pack and getting it to advanced positions. Smith is capable of being the box to box player, however we've often relied on him being the guy to stay deeper to break play up. Pack does the role of staying back and mopping up fairly well, however it is still a position to improve on. 

Tomlin would also have a fairly free role to pick up the ball and cause problems by drifting. Abraham has shown he has the ability to collect and hold the ball up laying off to others which in this formation sees Tomlin playing just off him looking to take the ball. Wilbraham can be brought on about the hour mark if things aren't working to put two up top. 

We definitely need new additions but under this formation I think we'd be a lot harder to beat.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dynamite Red

Dynamite Red

Posted
Posted

                                     Fielding

                        Moore     Flint     Magnusson

       Brownhill                                                 Bryan

                       Reid        Smith    Tomlin                                

                           Tammy       Engvall

Brownhill has a better engine to get up and down the pitch. Ideally you would want more steel in midfield to partner an inform, fit Lorry Smith and allow Tomlin focus more as a AM. Neither O'Neil or pack have the athleticism required so Reid gets the place until a physical box to box player can be found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BCFC_Dan

BCFC_Dan

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, xerox6060 said:

Would be more than happy to see us try 3-5-2, just feel 4-4-2 gives us no protection as I witnessed with a complete overrunning at Huddersfield, but feel we do need two up front.

But it was a complete overrunning on the flanks, especially our left where Tomlin gave no protection to Golbourne.

Given that Tomlin stands in the same place no matter what position he's been asked to play, I suppose they might as well formalise the arrangement and go with wing backs, but I don't think it'll fix anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Unan

Unan

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, where's the joy said:

Harlee Dean believes that Brentford’s switch to a 3-5-2 formation has allowed them to control games more.

They made the switch after a 5-0 defeat at Norwich and were rewarded with wins against Burton Albion and Bristol City.

how many times do we need to lose games before switching formation?

 

11 times in a row

Link to comment
Share on other sites
redsince1994

redsince1994

Posted
Posted
On 20/12/2016 at 20:26, BanburyRed said:

Not that my thoughts are worth anything but....

..I don't understand why 3-5-2 doesn't get employed more often, if nothing else it seems to offer enormous flexibility.

Could keep as a 3-5-2 formation or drop one of the wingbacks into defence to make a 4-4-2 or indeed drop both wingbacks back to shore up with a 5 man defence if you need to protect a lead. 

Also offers you ability to move a man further forward from the 5 man midfield to effectively become the elusive '10' role behind the front 2. If this pushed on to join the front 2 properly you've then changed to 3-4-3....

I've thought for a while now that we should be playing this formation, I know we did under SC, eventually though you get found out and then I think it comes down to the quality & calibre of players you're asking to play in that system. They have to understand it through training drills then be confident enough and disciplined enough to see it through during a game.

Maybe the wingbacks of the 5 in midfield should be more genuine 'winger' based athletes rather than trying to convert fullbacks? Not sure if Patterson and/or O'Dowda fit into this category?

Who knows? It's a dilemma, we also have opinions, just wanted to throw mine in there....

Something I posted a while back, IMO 352 works when you are simply better than the opposition. Which we were in league one and weren't last season. However despite recent results i think our squad is far better this year (despite lacking serious depth in certain areas) so could be worth a try.

With how shite our form is, a major formation change could reinvigorate our season, or could get us absolutely hammered.

I guess what im saying is I don't have a clue and I'm glad I'm not a manager :P!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
old_eastender

old_eastender

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, where's the joy said:

so another game sails by and the 4-4-2 doesn't work at Wolves.

our best player tomlin is struggling for form and goals and stays out wide with bobby reid still in the side for some unfathomable reason.

just change the formation to anything other than what it is now an do it now

we are going down at this rate

We didn't go 4-4-2, well not until Wilbs came out as a sub. We played 4-5-1. I think I'm right in saying the ONLY game we have started 4-4-2 in the last ten was Ipswich at home which we won!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...