Three At The Back

[mozo]

Strangely, we may this season play with three central defenders, two wing-backs, three in central midfield with two up front in a classic 3-5-2/5-3-2 shape.

The reason? Surely our abundance of central defenders and midfielders could be the factor to force Johnson's hand.

Or is it by design? He has commented previously that he had often wanted to this formation as a tactical option, and now has his chance to try it out in the first 'block of ten'.

I honestly never thought that I'd see City revert to this formation. Can you remember the last time we tried it for any length of time?

Three at the back hasn't always been so unusual. Glenn Hoddle was an advocate and had his England team line-up that way. The system had a brief renaissance in English football at the time but 4-4-2 prevailed as the most popular formation.

English fans was unlucky enough to see 3-5-2 used to perfection when Carlos Bilardo's Argentina side used the formation to get the best out of Diego Maradona in the 1986 world cup. Of course, cheating was another tactic that contributed to Argentina lifting the Jules Rimet that year...

We also had the joy of watching the Germans line-up with the same shape in their successful World Cup 90 and Euro 96 campaigns (bloody penalty shoot-outs ).

Since the nineties, we have seen very little of the formation, and instead the 4-5-1/4-3-3 shape has become increasingly popular, as epitomised by Chelsea's previous method of leaving the Drog up front with midfielders such as Joe Cole and Shaun Wtight-Phillips acting as wide-men with a licence to support.

Is 3-5-2 a step too far for City? Wing-backs are expected to be natural athletes who can cover the length of the pitch throughout the game. The centre-backs are required to work particularly hard on positioning. If they are marking two strikers man for man, the 'sweeper' then needs to know who to mark when defending, and when to push up to support the midfield during attacks. If a wing-back is beaten in defence, the centre-backs need to know who is moving across to cover. Keeping possession deep will not be a problem, but counter-attacking breakaways are more difficult without attacking wingers to support the strikers.

Will it happen? Should it happen? Could it work?

[BCFC_Dan]

Danny Wilson employed it quite successfully for a while during his first couple of seasons.

The wing backs were Bell and Murray and when defending it changed into more of a 4-4-2 with Bell playing left back and Murray left wing. Central defence was Hill, Butler and Carey and central midfield was Tinnion, Brown and Clist.

Prior to that John Ward tried it early in the 97/98 promotion season with Bell and Locke as wing backs. Aside from a 2-0 win at Millwall it never really met with much success and he was soon forced to reintroduce 4-4-2 and Greg Goodridge on the wing.

[Ron]

Judging by the wing-backs we played against Wycombe or Yeovil, no, it won't work. They looked so isolated and it was as though a quick word on how to mark them had really ended our gameplan. It always seemed to be run down the wing, into trouble, back to Hartley who would chip it into a crowded group of players and would end up as nothing, or at least until Wycombe started to put their reserves out.

[Drew Peacock]

Prior to that John Ward tried it early in the 97/98 promotion season with Bell and Locke as wing backs. Aside from a 2-0 win at Millwall it never really met with much success and he was soon forced to reintroduce 4-4-2 and Greg Goodridge on the wing.

And, if I remember correctly, at the end of 96/97 when he was appointed manager & took us into the play offs.

[Maltshoveller]

I like playing with wingbacks

Looks like GJ will play Orr and Jimmy Mac there to start with

For me both are defensive players which when we play way

to the stronger sides is fine

But when at home to teams like plymouth scunny who we should

be beating, will these two get forward enough to make chances

or will GJ be brave and play more attacking players?

[mozo]

I like playing with wingbacks

Looks like GJ will play Orr and Jimmy Mac there to start with

For me both are defensive players which when we play way

to the stronger sides is fine

But when at home to teams like plymouth scunny who we should

be beating, will these two get forward enough to make chances

or will GJ be brave and play more attacking players?

Yes as part of a back five they will be fine but the end to end running will be too much to ask. Perkaps that is where Blackman and Ribeiro come in?

It also begs the question, how do we mount attacks? Traditionally we would go wide where wingers were supported by full-backs, but now we either rely on the wingbacks (which I'm not sure I would looking at the personnel) or build up attacks through the three man midfield.

The problem is, when we want to switch to 4-4-2, our only recognised winger in Ivan Sproule, a benchwarmer/supersub.

[miketh2nd]

The problem is, when we want to switch to 4-4-2, our only recognised winger in Ivan Sproule, a benchwarmer/supersub.

I quite like the idea of the 3-5-2 but feel as if GJ is playing it just so we can accomdate Haynes Maynard and clarkson. I agree though I don't think we have the dept on the bench to change if things goes wrong I mean skuse is elliot but with better passing Williams can change a game sproule sometimes changes things blackman might spice things up. But we have Akinde as the only striker on the bench (trundle isn't in GJ plans as we all know) .

[MATT BCFC]

Not a fan at all. Teams are just going to use two wide men against us and encourage their full backs to get forward resulting in our full backs being overun or two of the centre midfielders having to play wide to help support the full backs.

[dezgimed]

Should be highly effective if done properly.

[Magicdaps]

Not a fan of this, maybe go 3 at the back when chasing the game late on but to go 3-5-2 from the off seems a little odd to me, and pretty rare in the pro game.

Any team with decent wingers will have a field day against us with the full backs supporting high up the pitch meaning BO and JM will be overrun, I might be proved wrong (and hope I am) but I can't help feeling that this is a mistake.

In GJ we trust so i'll reserve judgement until after the "first block of ten"

[Riaz]

It can work, but you need wing backs that naturally get forward and are very fit.

I think this position is ideal for bradley orr, as he gets forward alot anyway, but I think Jamie McAllister will get found out.

A bit like gary neville did for england when mclaren tried 3-5-2 for england. If your going to use a defender as a wingback, he needs to be naturally athletic like ashley cole for example...

[DaveF]

Blackman sounds like he could be a wing back.

[BCFC_Dan]

I think it depends on how well the rest of the team does.

If our 3 man central midfield can take control of the game (and Elliot and Hartley should be well equipped to do that against a lot of teams) then it will be McAllister and Orr pushing their wide players back and our superior numbers in the middle overwhelming them.

If we lose the battle in the centre they will be able to get their wingers forward and push our wide men onto the back foot.

[BCFCfan]

Blackman was brought in as a left back that can play left wing. Left wing-back it is then when JM gets banned/injured. Ribs in for Orr when similar happens.

If we get a few of the CB out though then we will have to go 4-4-2. Square peg in a round hole for left wing in that case in McIndoe goes.

[CodeRed]

For me - the 4-4-2 didn't work so well last season, the problem being that we often lost the battle to control central midfield when playing the Marv/LJ duo in the middle. Hence MM was being told to come inside. When we played the 4-5-1 we looked stronger with the 3 man central midfield but of course although we looked less likely to concede, with the 1 up top we lacked a cutting edge with our midfield slow to support the lone striker.

Clearly GJ thinks we need to try something different - I'm not too surprised he's willing to MM go, how many times did MM go past the full back and get a cross in?

GJ wants to keep things a lot tighter and he's mentioned a couple of times how teams have "altered their shape" to cope with our formation - maybe (with not many teams using 3-5-2) he believes we will at an advantage if teams have to switch to an unfamiliar shape when they play us.

The obvious weaknesses are that we don't have specialist wing backs (Orr can't cross and McA will be caught too high up the pitch and will struggle to recover). I'm not sure either about Clarkson "in the hole", my guess is that the middle 3 will evolve with LJ/Marv/Hartley in those positions.

My own preference is for a 4-4-1-1 which keeps thing tight in midfield when we are defending as it becomes 4-5-1 and 4-2-4 when attacking with the 2 in midfield holding. Unfortunately we don't have the players for this anymore !

CR

[Dave Youell]

Personally I love 3-5-2 as it's a total football mentality for me, but it's not like we are talking about this it's going to be the be all and end all.

Gary has tried different formations before and if this one doesn't work, we will trying a different one. It's really not that big an issue, the important thing is that we have a stronger squad this year that can deal with any formation more effectivly.

[Jordan Tansley]

My earliest memories of watching city was with this formation. we had either Brennan or Bell Bombing on down the left, and usually Murray at right wing back, although it would change when goodridge came on(although for some reason i have it in my head he played wingback on occasions too)

Tinnion was the ball player and would whip it left or right and we played good attacking football. It was the formation i grew up watching and has(probably for that reason) remained my favourite.

Obviously Murray and Bell where much more attacking wide men than Orr and Macca, but i like the concept of wing backs and the hole midfielder too.

looking forward to seeing it in action again.

[Riaz]

McIndoe would be ideal for left wing back, much better than McAllister

[Jordan Tansley]

McIndoe would be ideal for left wing back, much better than McAllister

one word is suffice here.

no.

[Riaz]

one word is suffice here.

no.

you must agree, he is much much better than mcallister!

[Jordan Tansley]

you must agree, he is much much better than mcallister!

At going forward yes. Defensively... i'd rather have baz savage in goal that mcindoe in a position that requires positional discipline and some sort of ability to mark...

Jamie is solid enough to play i think, and Blackman isnt "far away from the first team" so, like is said. no.

[Robbored]

The draw back with 3 at the back is that a teams wing backs can only get forward when the opposition allows it. If you are up against a team that pins your wing back in their own half then your attacking options are significantly restricted. More likely to happen away from home of course.

Thats why all the discussion about formations is pointless imo. All formations have their draw backs. Football has been around approx 150 years and some great minds have thought about formations and applied them with varying success. In that 150 years every formations possible has been thought of and tried. They have all been countered and there is nothing left to try. Its all been done before.

Imo what managers should concentrate on is possesion of the ball. Thats why Liverpoll were so succesfull in the 60's and 70' under Shankly and then Paisley. They played out from defence and back then no-one had done that before. Eventually others caught on and either copied Liverpool or adopted a high pressure 'in yer face' method of closing down. Thats what Watford did under Taylor.

Possesion of the ball is everything. No 40 yard punts up the pitch or the goalkeeper drop kicking the ball. Keep the ball, pass and move and then do the same again. The quicker its done the harder it is but the more effective it is.

Anyone see Arsenal thump Rangers yesterday? Sublime passing and movement that the Gers just wouldn't have come across in Scotland.They looked like amatuers.

It was hard to tell what the Gooners formation was. They had defenders, midfielders and strikers but what they played was impossible to tell as it changed all the time. Football as it should be played.

[mozo]

Personally I love 3-5-2 as it's a total football mentality for me, but it's not like we are talking about this it's going to be the be all and end all.

Gary has tried different formations before and if this one doesn't work, we will trying a different one. It's really not that big an issue, the important thing is that we have a stronger squad this year that can deal with any formation more effectivly.

We can deal with any formation? Sproule is soon to be the only winger at the club, which surely rules out most popular formations!

The draw back with 3 at the back is that a teams wing backs can only get forward when the opposition allows it. If you are up against a team that pins your wing back in their own half then your attacking options are significantly restricted. More likely to happen away from home of course.

Thats why all the discussion about formations is pointless imo. All formations have their draw backs. Football has been around approx 150 years and some great minds have thought about formations and applied them with varying success. In that 150 years every formations possible has been thought of and tried. They have all been countered and there is nothing left to try. Its all been done before.

Robbored, I'm sure you can raise your game and untilise your mind a bit more than that.

This is not a debate about what is the best football formation, it is about the best formation for this squad.

Of course I agree with you on the issue of posession and passing, but we both know that formation effects how you both defend and attack. For each formation you need the correct personnel, experience and attributes to operate effectively.

So we have a very valid topic here: do City have the players and the ability to make an unpopular system work. We are talking about shape, strategy and ability - Come on Robbored, this is where you put your thinking hat on and engage us!

...

I'd certainly like to see Blackman and Ribeiro using their fitness and pace as wingbacks.

Will we play with five at the back in away games? How would we counter attack.

[Robbored]

So we have a very valid topic here: do City have the players and the ability to make an unpopular system work. We are talking about shape, strategy and ability - Come on Robbored, this is where you put your thinking hat on and engage us!

With Maynard and Haynes/Clarkson as City's likely strikers the one thing that won't work is long high balls. To give them the best service width would be essential along with midfielders capable of seeing a through ball.

With Sproule being the only recognised winger playing 4 across the middle in a 4-4-2 would not be effective. Its obvious that provide width both full backs would need to get forward - wing backs in other words. Thats an ok formation at AG but away with the opposition likely to be more attacking the wing backs can stay on the defensive.

Orr nor McAllister have pace but are capable defenders whereas Ribiero and Blackman may lack defensive experience but have good pace. Who'd be a manager?

Hartley, Williams and Elliot are must starters imo.

In a 3-5-2

Gerkin,

Orr,Carey,Fontain,Nyatanga,McAllister.

Williams,Hartley,Elliot,

Maynard, Clarkson.