Jump to content
Note to existing users - password reset is required Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Rogue Baboon

3-5-2 at home?

Recommended Posts

I saw a post on Facebook yesterday that I originally dismissed as ludicrous. The post suggested playing 3-5-2 away at man city with a back 3 of bassong, Olsson and Martin. Obviously we would get annihilated away at Man City playing this way.

However I then got thinking onto the Cardiff game. 3-5-2 in the second half with Turner, Bennett and Bassong at the back when Cardiff offered nothing going forward.. Obviously this puts massive pressure the wingers but in Ollsson we have someone I think could suit this way of playing perfectly. It then allows 2 strikers whilst keeping that midfield trio that seems to be improving every game

Does anybody think that we could utilise this against West Ham if we are once again dominating without scoring?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It''s worth considering, but only against teams who have little/nothing going forward e.g. Cardiff, West Ham, Palace etc. I''d line the team up as follows if we were to utilise it:

Ruddy

Martin Turner Bassong

Pilks Tettey Howson Fer Olsson

Ricky Hooper

Bench: Bunn, Whitts, Bennett, Redmond, Johnson, Wes? and Elmander

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It worked well under Mike Walker, but I don''t recall any manger since that has employed it. It has potential, but there is no way Hughton would employ this formation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Snodgrass would play if we played 3-5-2... I wouldn''t want him too, but he would. Olsson and Snod. Bennett would be the ideal choice.

But Redmond wouldn''t be able to play it, so to get Redmond on you''d have to take off a striker. Probably the same for Pilks as well really. And revert to 4-5-1.

I like the idea of this formation and it can work, especially with Tettey, Fer and Howson. Whittaker, Bennett and Olsson are the only wide men who''d really be any good at the wingback role, and if you played Whitts and Olsson you''d have plenty saying how defensive it is playing five defenders....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing is, swapping a defender for a midfielder doesn''t mean you''ll score more goals. The defenders win the ball back and then get it forward. Less defenders means less people to win the ball back. Of course the argument is that midfielders can help win the ball back, but it''s not always that easy.

To be able to play this requires some very flexible centre backs. The majority of centre backs - certainly those who have played much of their career in Britain - are used to playing in a back 4. They get used to the positioning required to play in their position. Even the difference between playing on the right or left of the central defence can take some time to get used to it if you haven''t done it for a while. To then swap the formation so drastically to 3 at the back is very hard for defenders to do well.

Let''s also bear in mind that we had 31 shots on Saturday. We created quite a few more decent chances which resulted in crosses being cleared or last ditch challenges etc. There was nothing wrong with the set up. We should have scored 5 or 6 to be honest. If we had had a striker with his shooting boots on the pitch, we would have done so. A change of formation wouldn''t have made us any more attacking than we were on Saturday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liverpool play it to accommodate Suarez and Sturridge but I think they''re the only ones. I did ask Hughton about this at the fans meeting but he didn''t seem to keen. He said he didn''t envisage playing to up top very often this season. He also talked about playing Hooper off RVW. I expected that to be the case on Saturday but to be fair RVW was apparently not fit to start. So I still don''t think he''s had the luxury of having all his strikers fit at the same time. When they are team selection and bench options should be more interesting.

 

Lambert tried 3 at the back on more than one occasion but changed it very quickly when it was obviously failing. But it''s working ok for Liverpool.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You''re right to say that 3 at the back means less men to win and recycle the ball Aggy, but also means that we would nealy always have at least one man over in midfield plus two up front....and in my opinion that is the key point of the system.... if, and only if, ball retention by the front 2/mid field 5is good enough then you are literally taking the game to the opposition. On the other hand if played against a 442 containing the likes of van persie and hernandez it could spell disaster. against a 1 up /5 in midfield it can work well. i''m sure ,as we do have a wealth of midfield/widemen, esp when bennet fit again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I love the thought of varying formations for different games, always have done.

I do accept that this not Hughton''s way, I always have done.

I may be wrong but I think you are wasting your time if you think it will be adopted.

I just cannot see Hughton opting to go from 9 at back and mid to only 8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bassong, martin and olsson would never work. too weak although bassong, bennett and turner as the back three with olsson and whittaker as wing backs might. still very defensive though and pretty much means redmond, pilkington & snodgrass wouldnt get a game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I posted this very same idea about 2 months ago, and it had a mixed reception.

My idea was

Martin - Turner - Bassong

Tettey - Fer

Snod/Redmond - Howson/Wes - Olsson

RVW - Hooper

Although the real problem is that are strikers aren''t playing high enough up the pitch, and Howson /Fer aren''t getting close enough to them. RvW is coming short to receive the ball and then isn''t up top when he needs to be. We all know that Snoddy isn''t being direct enough. When was the last time RvW or whoever received a pass into feet on the edge of the D, or we played a 5/10 yd pass from outside the box for the CF to run onto?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lambert toyed with this formation on occasion but as Nutty rightly points out it never really worked for him. It was pretty clear that he wanted to get more control of games (Hughton has maybe gone too far this way which is why some deem him to be overly negative) and this formation should have done this whilst still allowing two strikers. It does create a new set of problems though in that as very few teams play with two out and out strikers these days you don''t really have a need for three centre halves. I think you need at least one of the back three to be able to step into the midfield for this to have any chance of working. Otherwise you''re just wasting a player back there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×