3-5-2

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

blader

blader

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2009
Messages
2,536
Reaction score
3,923
Location
West Yorks
Can we now please put to bed this fantastical notion that switching to a back 4 would improve us?

Our best formation is 3-5-2 and we must persist with it. We have played it for years and recruited players to suit this system. We really don’t have the players to play 4 at the back and this is the best chance we have.

I know we’ve been poor but we’ve been much worse in other shapes. We have to stick with it as it really plays to our ‘strengths’ as a squad compared to anything else.

There might be many issues at the club and many mistakes being made, but 3-5-2 is the best chance we have IMO
 

I still think this could work:

GK: Fotheringham
RB: Baldock
LB: Robinson
RCB: Anel
LCB: Trusty
RW: Bogle
LW: Larouchi
CM: Hamer
CM: Souza
CF: McBurnie
ST: Archer

Edit: Whoops I missed out a player, amended now
 
blader said:
Can we now please put to bed this fantastical notion that switching to a back 4 would improve us?

Our best formation is 3-5-2 and we must persist with it. We have played it for years and recruited players to suit this system. We really don’t have the players to play 4 at the back and this is the best chance we have.

I know we’ve been poor but we’ve been much worse in other shapes. We have to stick with it as it really plays to our ‘strengths’ as a squad compared to anything else.

There might be many issues at the club and many mistakes being made, but 3-5-2 is the best chance we have IMO
Click to expand...

That first half was absolutely torrid in a traditional 3-5-2

You probably don't realise it yet, but we actually changed to 4-5-1 in the 2nd half ;)
 
3-4-2-1 was the second half formation and that's what we look best in, because we cater for our deficiencies in midfield athleticism and passing with an extra man.

Means we'll not create much, but that's no difference to 3-5-2 really, and means we can get McAtee and Hamer in the same team.
 
blader said:
Can we now please put to bed this fantastical notion that switching to a back 4 would improve us?

Our best formation is 3-5-2 and we must persist with it. We have played it for years and recruited players to suit this system. We really don’t have the players to play 4 at the back and this is the best chance we have.

I know we’ve been poor but we’ve been much worse in other shapes. We have to stick with it as it really plays to our ‘strengths’ as a squad compared to anything else.

There might be many issues at the club and many mistakes being made, but 3-5-2 is the best chance we have IMO
Click to expand...
Have you been watching the same game, deary me.
 
I think the biggest problem with 4 at the back is the lack of reliable full-backs. Baldock would be fine as RB, but Bogle wouldn't. And at LB there's basically nobody I would trust in a 4-4-2.
 
Don't think formation had much to do with today, more about hard work and application in the second half. There were occasional spells when Baldock, Bogle and McAtee had a three-way on the right, but you could probably have sacrificed Bogle from that and included someone to offer a bit more threat down the left or chucked on a second striker towards the end. What we shouldn't do is stick stubbornly to one or the other, especially when we have players who can adopt a few positions. Bogle basically stayed in midfield for most of the second half, even if it was still a notional back 5 when we were defending.

Best left back in a back 4 would be Robinson (or RND in a fantsasy world where he's available), but that would require some central defenders to be fit.
 
blader said:
Can we now please put to bed this fantastical notion that switching to a back 4 would improve us?

Our best formation is 3-5-2 and we must persist with it. We have played it for years and recruited players to suit this system. We really don’t have the players to play 4 at the back and this is the best chance we have.

I know we’ve been poor but we’ve been much worse in other shapes. We have to stick with it as it really plays to our ‘strengths’ as a squad compared to anything else.

There might be many issues at the club and many mistakes being made, but 3-5-2 is the best chance we have IMO
Click to expand...
It was second half but not first - thanks to Macatee losing Brewster was a godsend of only to change it Archer on his own Macatee behind allowed our wing backs to push forward
So let’s not assume 3-5-2 is the rigid answer
Today was the players wanting it not managerial tactics
 
Thrice said:
I think the biggest problem with 4 at the back is the lack of reliable full-backs. Baldock would be fine as RB, but Bogle wouldn't. And at LB there's basically nobody I would trust in a 4-4-2.
Click to expand...

If you watch the 2nd half Bogle was removed of all defensive duties and was playing as a pure midfield (probably a position which gets the best out of him), giving us overloads with Mcatee on the right time and time again.

4-5-1 or arguably 4-3-3 is what I saw (I'm sure Bergen Blade will be able to give a better picture)

1699121341316.png
 
blader said:
Can we now please put to bed this fantastical notion that switching to a back 4 would improve us?

Our best formation is 3-5-2 and we must persist with it. We have played it for years and recruited players to suit this system. We really don’t have the players to play 4 at the back and this is the best chance we have.

I know we’ve been poor but we’ve been much worse in other shapes. We have to stick with it as it really plays to our ‘strengths’ as a squad compared to anything else.

There might be many issues at the club and many mistakes being made, but 3-5-2 is the best chance we have IMO
Click to expand...
We played 352 first half and we were as bad as we've been in any game this season, or a long time before.

We didn't play 352 second half (it was somewhere between 4321 and 3421) and, coupled with whatever was said at half-time, we competed and attacked.

We don't have the midfielders or forwards to play a 352 and the current injury list means we don't have the defenders either.

352 is also the hardest formation to accommodate McAtee.

Today was a brilliant moment, not sure we deserved it but not bothered. Let's enjoy it and build on it.

However we got the starting line-up wrong and the scoreline will hide that.
 
blader said:
Can we now please put to bed this fantastical notion that switching to a back 4 would improve us?

Our best formation is 3-5-2 and we must persist with it. We have played it for years and recruited players to suit this system. We really don’t have the players to play 4 at the back and this is the best chance we have.

I know we’ve been poor but we’ve been much worse in other shapes. We have to stick with it as it really plays to our ‘strengths’ as a squad compared to anything else.

There might be many issues at the club and many mistakes being made, but 3-5-2 is the best chance we have IMO
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure, Bogle and Thomas are not good enough defenders to play in a 4 and Trusty has had to play on the wrong side.
Baldock, Anel, Trusty and RND could easily work.
 
jono_t2000 said:
That first half was absolutely torrid in a traditional 3-5-2

You probably don't realise it yet, but we actually changed to 4-5-1 in the 2nd half ;)
Click to expand...
Spot on. Anyone who watches us has known all season we can’t play 2 up top. A fluid 5 in midfield has always been the answer. Hecky today was forced to play our best formation. Who do we think we are playing 2 up front. Second half today was great. Please keep it this way !
 

jono_t2000 said:
If you watch the 2nd half Bogle was removed of all defensive duties and was playing as a pure midfield (probably a position which gets the best out of him), giving us overloads with Mcatee on the right time and time again.

4-5-1 or arguably 4-3-3 is what I saw (I'm sure Bergen Blade will be able to give a better picture)

View attachment 174056
Click to expand...
We didn't play a neat formation like that at all, Thomas was a bit further forward with not much else on the left unless McAtee went over there, Hamer was more in normal midfield, Bogle was never anywhere close to central midfield, it was more like this
lineup(2).png
 
Ginger Gnome said:
We didn't play a neat formation like that at all, Thomas was a bit further forward with not much else on the left unless McAtee went over there, Hamer was more in normal midfield, Bogle was never anywhere close to central midfield, it was more like this
View attachment 174062
Click to expand...

Yep you're definitely more accurate, mine was just a simplified example.
 
jono_t2000 said:
If you watch the 2nd half Bogle was removed of all defensive duties and was playing as a pure midfield (probably a position which gets the best out of him), giving us overloads with Mcatee on the right time and time again.

4-5-1 or arguably 4-3-3 is what I saw (I'm sure Bergen Blade will be able to give a better picture)

View attachment 174056
Click to expand...
We went after them and pressed so high that I can understand it being difficult to assess. The shape second half was a 3-4-2-1. Hecky mentioned in his post match interview that they wanted to have Hamer and McAtee up with Archer. It was still a back three with wing backs:

1699124130628.png

The front three chased and pressed quite successfully and the rest of the team were able to join in with that.

Another tweak we did was swapping JR and Trusty, so JR was central. I think with Baldock and Trusty the wide centre backs we had more confidence that they were going to have the pace to keep up with their runners on counter attacks. This meant we dared to push higher up, our wing backs, especially Bogle pushed really high up to press them and also win tackles and second balls. Souza and Norwood also pressed higher than we've usually done.

We turned the game into a real fight second half and in the end proved we were a little more up for it than them.
 
You could argue a case that we do have the players to play four at the back, what we lack is wingers to play four across midfield. Right back, two centre backs, left back. What's the complication? Do we not have any of these in the squad?

If we play four at the back then we either play 4-4-2, which we don't have the squad for, 4-3-3, which we don't have the midfield for, 4-5-1, which we don't have the wide players for, 4-2-3-1 which we could potentially do, but relies on the two wider players to track back and defend, which isn't Hamer and Mcatee’s strong point.

There are lots of combos for 4 at the back. We can play with four at the back but don't have the right squad for the potential formations in front of them. Our recruitment has caused us a handicap to this effect as we don't have the players for anything other than 5 at the back and up until today it would seem that this no longer worked and we're stuck with it as a result. Our squad needs more variety for flexibility.
 
Formations are overrated. Battle like fuck as though your life depends on it like we did 2nd half and 50% of this league will crumble
 
blader said:
Can we now please put to bed this fantastical notion that switching to a back 4 would improve us?

Our best formation is 3-5-2 and we must persist with it. We have played it for years and recruited players to suit this system. We really don’t have the players to play 4 at the back and this is the best chance we have.

I know we’ve been poor but we’ve been much worse in other shapes. We have to stick with it as it really plays to our ‘strengths’ as a squad compared to anything else.

There might be many issues at the club and many mistakes being made, but 3-5-2 is the best chance we have IMO
Click to expand...
Baldock is what improves us!, get Mcburnie back, and we can try n get going!
 
As long as we keep pressing and not sitting back be it 4 sat back or 5 sat back then that is more important than anything , 3 must be 3 and not 5 for 90mins.We could all see that Wolves found it hard to hurt us when they struggled to get out and up the pitch, on other games we have conceded that easy possession to teams and allowed them to build and play game in our half , not yesterday 2nd half
 
Another take. Make VAR make some decisions when attacking and odds are you will eventually get a call in your favour.
 
Been thinking about this and despite what Wilder says publicly… I think he’s desperate to get back to 3-5-2.

Getting Holgate in isn’t really about the specific player but more getting any general RCB in (likely why linked to so many)

Wilder obviously wants to play 3-5-2 next season and by getting an additional RCB in now allows him to coach that formation now and give the players half a season getting used to it.

So maybe, just maybe there is some 3 dimensional planning going on. 🤷‍♂️
 
We were bloody awful after going to 3-5-2 the other day, I think it's useful to have the option of a couple of shapes but not rigidly sticking to it has been one of Wilder's main positives since coming back. The 4-3-3 with BBD and McAtee wide but floating is a much better system.
 
Ginger Gnome said:
We were bloody awful after going to 3-5-2 the other day, I think it's useful to have the option of a couple of shapes but not rigidly sticking to it has been one of Wilder's main positives since coming back. The 4-3-3 with BBD and McAtee wide but floating is a much better system.
Click to expand...

I agree and statistically 3-5-2 is the least successful formation used in the prem.

However I believe that’s what Wilder is striving to return to
 
Ginger Gnome said:
We were bloody awful after going to 3-5-2 the other day, I think it's useful to have the option of a couple of shapes but not rigidly sticking to it has been one of Wilder's main positives since coming back. The 4-3-3 with BBD and McAtee wide but floating is a much better system.
Click to expand...

We were a lot better defensively in the 2nd half
 

jono_t2000 said:
I agree and statistically 3-5-2 is the least successful formation used in the prem.
Click to expand...
I imagine that's skewed because the top teams don't generally play 3atb.

Different styles work better depending on what your level is. Weaker teams should prioritise defense and stronger teams should prioritise attack.

There's sides that have had real success with a back 3 in recent years. Us, Wolves, Brentford, Brighton, Luton. There's definitely been a trend towards more 4-4-2 pressing systems recently but a well coached 3atb gives you a solid base.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom