Port Said Red Posted January 14, 2005 Report Share Posted January 14, 2005 I can't run a link to it currently as the site is down, but I read the interview with Tinns last night. He said that he was/had been considering 3-5-2 before the Tranmere game and "might" use it again at home. All well and good, I would love to think that will be what we see tomorrow. A couple of other comments he made seemed a little strange though. He said he liked it "because it gave Wilkshire a freer role behind the front two". Well! Never! the penny drops at last! The other comment was really strange though. he said that "it shouldn't be considered a defensive formation as the full backs push forward". Now I don't know about you, but I always thought the problem with the formation was that it was considered by a lot of coaches as too attacking. 5-3-2 would appear defensive, but 3-5-2..... Are we talking at cross purposes here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tactical Genius Posted January 14, 2005 Report Share Posted January 14, 2005 The standard way of playing with three central defenders is having two of them mark the two strikers and the other one covering up. No full-backs but two wing-halves and three central midfielders are also part of the package. I would imagine that the use of Smith and Bell (who are both full-backs), coupled with Orr and Tinnion taking two of those midfield berths could lead to the accusation that it was used as a defensive formation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedUn Posted January 14, 2005 Report Share Posted January 14, 2005 The other comment was really strange though. he said that "it shouldn't be considered a defensive formation as the full backs push forward". I expect what he meant was "it shouldn't be considered a negative formation" ... I would hope that any formation was defensive. Now I don't know about you, but I always thought the problem with the formation was that it was considered by a lot of coaches as too attacking. 5-3-2 would appear defensive, but 3-5-2..... Are we talking at cross purposes here? ← Simple: the formation changes according to whether your team is in possession or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted January 14, 2005 Report Share Posted January 14, 2005 I'd prefer to play 3-5-2 at home because its more of a attacking formation...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr Snufflelufagus Posted January 14, 2005 Report Share Posted January 14, 2005 As it was on Monday I would consider it 5-3-2 as we played two 'full backs' however if we played Goodfellow and Murray in these positions I would say it was 3-5-2 due to the mentality of the playersin question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashcott Boy Posted January 14, 2005 Report Share Posted January 14, 2005 I think we should go with Murray and Bell tomorrow, Murray hasnt been in the best of form lately and i think he would do well in a wing-back position. Hopefully we will be able to get more crosses in and as Tinnion says Wilkshire will havea free role to do whatever he wants, which is a good thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zookeeper Posted January 14, 2005 Report Share Posted January 14, 2005 One of the main positives as I see it from this article is that he hasn't told the opposition what we are doing. The start of the season Brian really did show his naivity with the amount of information he was giving away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordofthebling Posted January 14, 2005 Report Share Posted January 14, 2005 The problem with this team is width. Now i know Riazzi will pick up on this old age arguement, and i know a lot of people don't agree, but i feel in a 3-5-2 Amankwaah would be better on the right. I just feel Brooker doesnt get any service from two defensive minded wingbacks, Amankwaah or "Bambi" on the right would give us some pace. Its a case of what do we play and when? Away, I would like to see an old age 4-4-2 with two out and out wingers, however for home games i like the fact that Wilkshire has the run of the park. But.... Do Tommy and Tony have the stamina to play this formation? Is Orr consistent enough? Has Tinnion got the legs? In a 3-5-2 there is no way you can play murray and goodfellow as "wingbacks", so all of our play is likely to come through the middle... If we did play 4-4-2 and Wilkshire is still given a free role, i would apply that to murray as well. With 4 defenders at the back, allowing murray to swap flanks and cut inside on his right would be an excellent advantage, especially with his shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Said Red Posted January 14, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2005 But.... Do Tommy and Tony have the stamina to play this formation? Is Orr consistent enough? Has Tinnion got the legs? In a 3-5-2 there is no way you can play murray and goodfellow as "wingbacks", so all of our play is likely to come through the middle... ← No but you could play Scott Brown, from what I have seen he has the ability to go "box to box" and more importantly at home, he looks to get beyond the strikers at times. Wilkshire could use someone like that alongside him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.