3-5-2

[wolleyneerg 0]

It seems to me that we should really look at this formation. In my opinion it solves a few issues we have all noticed which are as follows: our lack of quality or depth at wingback, the fact we try to play a possession based game, and finally that our forward players tend to work much more effectively if they are partnered with a second striker/number 10 positioned player.

Furthermore, we have good central defenders who can play the ball out from the back. Martin and Bassong (if he''s up for it) have composure and can make driving runs. We can sidestep the issue of the fullback position being suspect for us and targeted by opponents. Whittaker is inconsistent at best especially when backtracking, and Russ has stated it''s not his preferred position and perhaps he lacks the pace to track opposing wingers. Instead we can look to play wing backs who are encouraged to get forward. We have a natural left-sided wingback in Olsson and on the right we could perhaps play Whittaker when we need to contain and Elliott Bennet or even Redmond there when we are looking to chase a game or dominate the opposition.

This then allows our midfield to rotate and be adaptable. Perhaps Howson, Tettey and Johnson would be the most used combination with Howson pushing up more. But also with VOO or O''Neil dropping in as required.

I really feel that we struggle with one up top, and I suppose the main point of a 3-5-2 is that it maintains midfield dominance with the opportunity to have another player up top (as opposed to a 4-5-1). Of course the burden of the formation is on the wingbacks to make the running, to fill in defensively but also to provide the width for crosses going forwards. As our fullbacks (as they are usually positioned) are arguably better going forwards I feel that with good selection for the match and coaching they could adapt well to this formation.

As for the strikers we can afford again to be situational in the selection. We can play Hoops/Jerome (little man/big man) or Wes or Redmond with Hoops (creator/finisher) or drop

Lafferty in to add more physical presence.

Maybe this is a terrible idea, and ManUre haven''t exactly taken to the formation that smoothly or effectively, but given the qualities and weaknesses within our squad I''m tempted to think it might be really effective and allow us to play possession-based and progressive football.

Your thoughts please.

[Barclay seats 4849 the 3rd 0]

We need to run up their end and put the ball in the net , at the other end , we need to stop it going in for 90 minutes ,, job''s a good''un.

[Jack Barak 46]

I can see what you are saying but we struggle to field two centre-halves in reasonable form without having to find a third.

Also, the reason most teams stopped playing three at the back was because nearly all teams moved to one up top or one up with one very withdrawn (false nine), three people marking one was rightly seen as a waste of personnel and overkill. It strikes me that the modern game is won and lost in central midfield, if teams get overrun through the middle they have no chance which is why so many play three in there now. I get that 3-5-2 puts three in there but they have to cover far more ground than if we had proper wingers so you et the same problem with being outnumbered.

I would have thought a version of 4-5-1 was out best formation (4-3-3 in attack and 4-5-1 in defence).

[mrs miggins 0]

I wanted us to play 352 (or 3511) before the start of the season, even more so now because our defence have been so poor.

[im spartacus canary 0]

i favour 2 diamonds with 1 up top.... a kind of 121,121, 2  [:D]

[im spartacus canary 0]

or even 2 up top

[Bill 1,788]

"I would have thought a version of 4-5-1 was out best formation (4-3-3 in attack and 4-5-1 in defence."

and where do these 5 in defence arrange themselves, and what do they have to remember to do to ensure they remain part of that 5 and not get entangled with the four behind themif the opposition loses the ball how quickly can 2 of them move forward to become the front 3 ?is it the same 2, or those nearest the ball ?and how quickly can they get back to being a 5 if the opposition gains the ball or it runs out of play ?and what is more important,when they e attacking that you are challenging the opposing player with the ball or marking another player irrespective of who or where you are on the pitch... or ensuring that you are in the correct position in relation to the formation ?

[Jack Barak 46]

[quote user="City1st"]"I would have thought a version of 4-5-1 was out best formation (4-3-3 in attack and 4-5-1 in defence."

and where do these 5 in defence arrange themselves, and what do they have to remember to do to ensure they remain part of that 5 and not get entangled with the four behind themif the opposition loses the ball how quickly can 2 of them move forward to become the front 3 ?is it the same 2, or those nearest the ball ?and how quickly can they get back to being a 5 if the opposition gains the ball or it runs out of play ?and what is more important,when they e attacking that you are challenging the opposing player with the ball or marking another player irrespective of who or where you are on the pitch... or ensuring that you are in the correct position in relation to the formation ?

[/quote]

I would suggest the answer to your first question is in the question - what do they have to remember, not to get entangled with the four.

How long is apiece of string - would surely depend upon the players.

Would depend upon the opposition and the circumstance - I would suggest we consider the opposition ahead of the game through some form of scouting network and then decide what to do.

I would rather see a high pressing game but obviously (judging from your question) that should not be at the expense of being dragged all over the pitch. However, I doubt there is a team in this league competent enough to pull a team about that much.

[grefstad 0]

3 at the back could well work...at another club than Norwich.

Reason being that we have no pace whatsoever in the backline.

Martin, Turner, Bassong (not a slouch, but not quick either), Cuellar, Hoijveld, Whittaker....it is all slow.

Only Olsson has got some pace, but he can not play in the 3-man backline. Would do a great job as a wingback in 3.5-2 though.

A change of system, espescially mid-season, without having the suited personell for the formation, seems a bad idea.

I think Norwich anyway need to do wholesale changes in the backline, if not this window, then the summer window. We need more pace, and if we should be promoted, we will not stand a chance with the slow backline we have got,

That is why Hughton played a defensive style of football as well. He knew we did not have the pace to push the team high up the pitch, leaving exploitable space behind the backline.

I think a 3-5-2 system could well be experimented with, but then we would need the players suited for it. We dont, as per now. Better to look at it in the summer, when eventual new players have come in, hopefully with more pace.

[The Walsham Wonderer 0]

I think that we have the players in the squad to make this system work. It''s a system that does require at least one of the three central defenders to be comfortable carrying the ball out from defence and into the midfield. That player for me would be Martin, however, based on current form I wouldn''t like to try and find the other 2 centre halves to partner him.

As for wing backs, I''d pick Olson and a fit E Bennett (I think this role would suit him, he''s more capable defensively than Redmond whilst still being able to carry an attacking threat from the wide position).

Playing this system however does mean that you may not be able to play the likes of Redmond, Murphy or Hoolahan, but it certainly offers food for thought.