3-5-2

[HampsteadCanary 0]

Could this be a possiblity away from home...just a thought, please don''t slaughter me!

Ruddy

Martin Turner Bassong

Whittaker Tettey/Fer Howson/BJ Olsson

Wes

RvW Hooper

Would keep bassong/martin/turner on the field, width with the attacking fullbacks, Fer bursting from midfield with Tettey/BJ holding, Wes stays further forward with two mobile targets in front him to aim for....definitely an option? Turns into a 5-3-2 when defending.

Could start with Bennett/Snoddy in the right wingback position as they''re defensively disciplined wingers capable of putting in a good tackle when needed.

This will probably never happen, and maybe rightly so, but it could solve some problems and get some of our attacking options on the pitch in their most natural positions. No room for Pilks/Redmond though...either could play the Wes role

[A Gay Schoolboy 0]

I was preparing to say its a silly idea but looking at how you''ve laid out the team, it doesn''t look a half bad idea does it? Shame that it will never happen though, I think the days of us playing multiple different tactics and formations over the course of a season are long gone.

[Baracouda 47]

The 3-5-2 is a good formation, and I''ve been thinking about the same idea...

I came to the conclusion that, both the 4231 and especially the 352 relies on the passing ability of the 2 CM/DM''s. Both formations are possession football with the 4231, retain possession whilst midfielders join the forwards and the 352 whilst the wide players move forward.

The downside of the 352 is your effectively defending with 7 (3 CB''s, 2 WB''s, and 2 DM''s) and with the 4231, your defending with the 6.

Whilst your idea of the 352 makes sense... I would personally stick to the 4231... I would try Redmond in the hole, particularly against Hull he was drifting in field too much for my liking.

When we have Tettey and BJ as defensive midfielders both are the destroyers and without the deep lying play maker we need to create easy passing opportunities for them and usually the easiest pass will be to a wide player stood in front of the fullback, so i''ll go ahead and play Olsson on the left, and Redmond in freerole AM, and Snoddy on the right.

Drop Fer back into the CM''s and he appears to be considerably more cultured in the passing department. Choice would be Tettey/BJ/Howson in the other Cm role.

[vlad666 203]

I like the look of that formation. Seems best to suit the players we have. I''d prefer redmond in instead of Wes though...

 

[A Gay Schoolboy 0]

Warning: long tactics nerd post ahead.In general terms Baracouda I agree with your analysis, but the problem is that our current implementation of a  supposed 4-2-3-1, isn''t really one.To play a successful 4-2-3-1 your wide players need to be positionally fluid, defending as wide midfielders as if they were in a 4-5-1, while attacking as if they were forwards in a 4-3-3, ours don''t do this. We''re so obsessed with defensive disclipline that our defence and midfield are playing as 2 rigid banks of 4. In reality we are playing a 4-4-1-1, which is taking the worst part of a 4-4-2, the lack of positional fluidity, and not even using the only advantage of 4-4-2, having 2 players permanently in the striker positions. Lets face it, we''re not defending with 6, we''re defending with 8.Until our wide players (and possibly even our full backs) are allowed more freedom, we''re not going  to see any of the advantages of a 4-2-3-1 and RVW is going to continue looking very lonely. In other threads people are complaining about Wes passing the ball backwards and sideways, but most of the time he''s only got one forward option, who is being marked by two centre backs. On the rare occasions where our wide players make runs from a forward position, Wes is often able to slip in a nice through ball inside the centre backs and the full back.In some senses the 3-5-2 (or even a Bielsa/Martinez style 3-4-3) could mitigate these problems by providing Hughton with the large amount of defensive players he desires, but also more players further up field so we aren''t so utterly predictable going forward.Unfortunately the discussion is rather academic as we all know we''re going to be playing 4-4-1-1 for the entire season.

[Baracouda 47]

Good Post Dandy.

I agree we are defending with 8 and only attacking with 4 instead of the 6 with the two fullbacks regularly moving into midfielder covered by the two DM''s.

Instead of utilizing the possession nature of the 4231, and defensive shape by the 2 man DM''s.

We are using the 4231 as a containment formation and get deeper and deeper, which is very frustrating as I believe we have the personnel for the large part to make the possession nature work.

The containment strategy, unfortunately means we start deep in our own half and the attacking players are too far away from the ball to be used early, so the passing for large part is between the DM''s and CB''s, and has been breaking down a lot in this area. Which compounds the problems.

[morty 0]

Don''t be silly, that would require a manager with some tactical nous

[king canary 7,578]

My only problem with this formation is how it stacks up v. the current standard of playing one up front. When Lambert tried it we often ended up with 3 defenders looking after one striker, so when we had the ball we were outnumbered.

[Kolin Kob 0]

[quote user="Dandy Mountfarto"]I was preparing to say its a silly idea but looking at how you''ve laid out the team, it doesn''t look a half bad idea does it? Shame that it will never happen though, I think the days of us playing multiple different tactics and formations over the course of a season are long gone. [/quote]We played multiple tactics and formations over the course of the last game.

[Reggie Strayshun 0]

When you get to Prem level, Kolin, multiple formations are not only a good idea...they are essential . One of the reasons why CH came unstuck on so many occasions last season was that he kept on with the same tactics even though everyone , including the players, could see it was not working. QPR , Stoke and Wigan away , and Fulham and Newcastle at home spring to mind.

So all this talk of what is better...3-5 -2 , 4-3-2-1 etc is all very intersting, but , surely the point is that the players he''s got and brought into the squad should be able to adjust quickly minute by minute. It really did seem at Hull that we were unable to adapt to the fact that Hull were down to ten men.

[HampsteadCanary 0]

[quote user="king canary"]My only problem with this formation is how it stacks up v. the current standard of playing one up front. When Lambert tried it we often ended up with 3 defenders looking after one striker, so when we had the ball we were outnumbered. [/quote]

I guess you''re right, but at the moment we have few options for passes going forward, so maybe the 3-5-2 would allow the team to move more fluidly. I know Wigan got relegated playing this formation, and its never really worked for us. I seem to remember Lambert using it away at Chelsea, perhaps not the best game to try a new formation, but I think against some of the lower sides it might give us a little more scope for creativity whilst remaining solid.

7 defenders (3 centre backs, 2 CMs and 2 wingbacks) should be quite enough, whilst allowing us to attack with 6 as well (2 Fwds, 2 wingbacks, CAM and ONE CM while one sits!).

With Russ at RCB, Bassong at LCB (I know he''s not a LB but he is left footed and has plenty of pace)and Olsson at LWB, its easy for the back 3 to slide across and drop into a back 4 when necessary

Wes was at his best at the tip of the diamond, receiving the ball in dangerous places (such as the edge of the penalty area, any on remember that place!?) and threading through wingers/Holt/Martin. This allows him that roaming role, with good midfield cover, good width and crossing from the WBs and options ahead of him in RvW and Hooper. I think I need to go and buy FIFA and check this one out!

[damn that Ralph Coates! 47]

likely to continue with 4-4-1-1 aren''t we?

so will Hooper ever ply with RvW?

[HampsteadCanary 0]

I''m afraid so

[damn that Ralph Coates! 47]

I fear Hooper or RvW will be naffed off about their number of games, unless the no 2 gets a long run in the Carling Cup.

[Lavanche 0]

Problem with 3-5-2 would be squad depth, which is clearly build for attacking wingers so 4 players (Pilkington, Redmond, Snoddy and Bennett) wouldnt get playtime in their prefered positions, thought Bennett probably would be a good wing back too.

Also we would need more CB''s for rotation.

Even if we wouldnt play anymore than couple of games with 3 at the back it would mean quite drastical change for positioning. I played centre back in my youth day and I know quite well how much formation changes what and how you need to think on the field. Changing tactics day after day that are based completely different ideology of pitch balance is quite risky way. Lambert era in premiership showed it quite well that we were at best with diamond everyone was familiar with and most times struggled to get team balanced when tinkering the formation.

Also I do not agree at all with Dandy Mountfarto''s tactical analyses. Our wingers (except Snoddy) are very comfortable with dropping down and getting back to the high end of the pitch. Snoddy is bit slow which sometimes make our formation unbalanced, but same time it gives us nice second wave, if we build up from Pilkington''s side. Previous season Snoddy got probably more chances because of this from Pilkington or Hoolahan than our strikers did as full back didnt notice his slow run behind them.

Also it is false fact that our fullbacks wouldn''t be allowed to get forward. I have explained this many times already that when our team reaches certain point on the field as a unit, fullbacks will almost automatically do the overlapping to allow our wingers cut in. In Everton game where we had Whittaker on the field he almost had a free role to push forward.

The thing we keep struggling about is our centre middlefield. Without it getting those slow build ups, we wont see much of fullbacks pushing forward and ofc same goes for our centre backs. They need to build up with better accuracy and the old phrace "pass and move" have to be repeated in every training as staying playable is very important and Johnson, Turner and Howson are notoriously bad moving in a right slot after passing.

What comes to Hoolahan I partly agree but not with same arguments. In my opinion we see him dropping too many times out of pocket to build up and wing option comes very hard for him there. This is also side effect of the bad build up from our centre middlefielders and centre backs.

3-5-2 is good tactic, but I dont think we can just jump there and I doubt neither our squad nor the management would be comfortable with it. Also after few losses with it our beloved fans would be all over them and pressure would be too high to keep using it.

For a counter version I think we lack attacking midfielders. As Hoolahan would be good link up player, but goals would have to come somewhere else. Howson and Fer both can score and Howson could even flourish in tactic where he could roam free and have more time to pass, but still depth in sector of goalscorers behind strikers is quite poor. Also what comes to strikers RvW and Hooper are a bit too similar for getting most out of it. Someone like Lavezzi, Tevez etc (fast technical and good build up player) would be better for playing side of clinical goal scorer. Elmander then is a bit slow for that role too in my opinion.

Version that is based on posession we lack good middlefielders. Howson and Johnson are clearly not up to task of posession game and creativity of Tettey is arguably poor. Fer is still a bit question mark. Also in posession version we would need another 10 instead of striker for playing side to side with Hoolahan to give us extra strenght for midfield. Elmander again could do the job, but hard to see us succesful without few new names in the roster (good regista and goal scoring trequartista).

So at the end I see our squad builded up for either 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 and without more versatile players like Fer it is very hard to use different formations without great risk of relegation. (Yes I still think even 4-4-2 comes with huge risk because of our midfield even thought some of our players would probably prefer it or more modern versions of it like diamond.)

[mrs miggins 0]

tactical nous? yeah that sounds great. Lets drop our only attacking threats in snodgrass on the right and either pilks or redmond on the left and replace them with a right back and a left back, going 5 at the back when not in possession. Not having a go at the OP as it was a suggestion, i''m having a go at the people who seem to want to bash hughton for playing with two proper wingers...how dare he, we should play defenders there instead....retarded.....well not for this forum atm

[JF 694]

Top post that Dandy, you have put into words far better than i and others have been trying to say.

[A Gay Schoolboy 0]

[quote user="mrs miggins"]tactical nous? yeah that sounds great. Lets drop our only attacking threats in snodgrass on the right and either pilks or redmond on the left and replace them with a right back and a left back, going 5 at the back when not in possession. Not having a go at the OP as it was a suggestion, i''m having a go at the people who seem to want to bash hughton for playing with two proper wingers...how dare he, we should play defenders there instead....retarded.....well not for this forum atm[/quote]Only one person in this thread has bashed Hughton, and they didn''t mention wingers anywhere in the post? The rest of the thread is people having a grown up and polite conversation about our tactical options, until you jumped in anyway.

Lavanche, I agree with you that 4-2-3-1 is the best option given the squad we have, which is why its so infuriating that our current implimentation of it is so lacklustre. We just don''t have the fluid changes between the defensive and attacking phases, there''s never enough attacking options because the primary focus is retaining defensive shape. You rightly mention that we should be looking to pass and move but I think the issue is that too much ''move'' leaves players potentially out of position and that is considered unacceptable to our coaching staff, so we''re left with only risk-free movement which is wholly predictable. How often do we see us taking the ball up to the corner of the penalty box, hovering, passing it back, passing it back, taking it up to the other corner, and then repeat? All the time.Its odd because when our players do try to get in behind, Wes is capable of slipping those passes in the channels and we look dangerous, but it doesn''t happen enough, or at all when we are away from home.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

The three central defenders approach only works if you have excellent wing backs. Which we don''t.

It also plays three central midfielders and three central defenders....

But I agree with one of the other posters said, what was a 4-2-3-1 with Pilks and Snod seems to have become a 4-4-1-1 with the two wide midfielders playing deep.

Against Hull we ended up playing with a 4-5-1 because attacking midfielder Fer did not push forward enough.