Don't abandon the 3-5-2

[Ricky]

Despite the result yesterday, I think we've only got more to gain by sticking with it. We've got to try and get something out of this season - it definitely isn't going to be promotion. So it might as well be this, familiarising with a new formation which also accommodates players who need development or game time, with next season in mind.

4-4-2's had long enough, and failed, there are many reasons why. 3-5-2 could barely be any worse, and it suits our current squad better anyway, or at least does more to negate its weaknesses. We have no wingers, no two midfielders good enough to be effective in a two man midfield and no convincing defenders either, so it makes sense to increase numbers in defence and midfield to compensate.

Adkins will probably still be here so may want to play this formation next season. No doubt plenty of the players will still be here too so it would be worthwhile to familiarise them with the formation. It takes more time to get used to 3-5-2 than your typical 4-3-3 or 4-4-2, which can be adjusted to any time because all players are used to those systems. So it would be wise to use this season to get used to playing that way with a view to possibly starting next season that way - it's what Bristol City did and they hit the ground running. Or if not, at least have it as an option.

Reed and Cuvelier are two players we need to give a lot of game time to, and it's easier to accommodate both in a three man midfield. Kieran Wallace could also be quite suited to the left wing back position, and Adams can stay up front and hopefully learn from Sharp and build an understanding.

Also, we were solid last week and actually seemed to play quite well for an hour yesterday. So there's no basis to abandon the formation yet, and hopefully Adkins doesn't. If anything's going to change for the upcoming games, I hope it's only the players.

 

[DronnieBlade]

You would only need to go back on my postings over 3 or so years to see that I have long been an advocate, in a general sense, of the 3:5:2 set up.

The problem of its use in the current Sheff UTD squad is that, in order for it to be remotely effective, the play transition through the midfield and into the attacking third of the pitch HAS to be much much faster.

But I guess you could say this in any formation !

In a world where you often see a lone striker, what's the point of having a flat back 4 ?

But the key to 3:5:2, in my mind at least is having 3 key positions filled by individuals who can do the job.

Your wing backs have to be exactly that. Part winger, part full back.

My question would be do we have such players ?

Brayford should be up to this job but has been more than a bit short defensively of late.

Woolford just ain't up to it. Period. I suspect K Wallace would be much better suited when he is completely up to speed fitness wise, which is crucial.

Where it all falls down for me with this formation and the current squad is in the critical holding midfield role. I just don't think we have anyone capable of the role. The role DEMANDS discipline in the sense you can rarely go bombing on even when an opportunity to do presents itself. The other key discipline being an uncanny ability to read the game and to "plug the gaps" anywhere across the back line where space that can be exploited appears.

For all his flaws, Monty was very good at doing this. Doyle was decent at it as well and was a good Monty replacement in that sense.

Sad truth is that we have not adequately replaced Michael Doyle and we have missed his presence this season.

Hammond and / or Reedy don't cut the mustard with me in a true DM role that is essential to 3:5:2.

UTB

 

[sitwell]

Despite the result yesterday, I think we've only got more to gain by sticking with it. We've got to try and get something out of this season - it definitely isn't going to be promotion. So it might as well be this, familiarising with a new formation which also accommodates players who need development or game time, with next season in mind.

4-4-2's had long enough, and failed, there are many reasons why. 3-5-2 could barely be any worse, and it suits our current squad better anyway, or at least does more to negate its weaknesses. We have no wingers, no two midfielders good enough to be effective in a two man midfield and no convincing defenders either, so it makes sense to increase numbers in defence and midfield to compensate.

Adkins will probably still be here so may want to play this formation next season. No doubt plenty of the players will still be here too so it would be worthwhile to familiarise them with the formation. It takes more time to get used to 3-5-2 than your typical 4-3-3 or 4-4-2, which can be adjusted to any time because all players are used to those systems. So it would be wise to use this season to get used to playing that way with a view to possibly starting next season that way - it's what Bristol City did and they hit the ground running. Or if not, at least have it as an option.

Reed and Cuvelier are two players we need to give a lot of game time to, and it's easier to accommodate both in a three man midfield. Kieran Wallace could also be quite suited to the left wing back position, and Adams can stay up front and hopefully learn from Sharp and build an understanding.

Also, we were solid last week and actually seemed to play quite well for an hour yesterday. So there's no basis to abandon the formation yet, and hopefully Adkins doesn't. If anything's going to change for the upcoming games, I hope it's only the players.

I agree ,but the middle 3 is vital. Personally Im not sure Reed is/will be up to it ,but if we give up on the play offs he can experiment in there. Flynn would be out wide for me and at the moment I would try Coutts/Hammond/Cuvelier ,with Reed watching and coming on after an hour. I think the same as you though Ricky ,your main point I think is getting a system and sticking with it ,but I do worry his bottle will go and he will go back to 4-4-2. Chelsea had an interesting formation yesterday of 4-2-3-1 , 4 defenders ,two enforcers and three attacking mids backing the striker ,a bit narrow but a winning one.

 

[DronnieBlade]

I agree ,but the middle 3 is vital. Personally Im not sure Reed is/will be up to it ,but if we give up on the play offs he can experiment in there. Flynn would be out wide for me and at the moment I would try Coutts/Hammond/Cuvelier ,with Reed watching and coming on after an hour. I think the same as you though Ricky ,your main point I think is getting a system and sticking with it ,but I do worry his bottle will go and he will go back to 4-4-2. Chelsea had an interesting formation yesterday of 4-2-3-1 , 4 defenders ,two enforcers and three attacking mids backing the striker ,a bit narrow but a winning one.

And a website I use had Bayern Munich set up as 3:2;3:2 yesterday in a 2-0 win over Wolfsberg.

As you say, narrow and not using out and out wingers, who seem to have fallen well out of favour with a high percentage of modern managers.

UTB

 

[SwissBlade]

And a website I use had Bayern Munich set up as 3:2;3:2 yesterday in a 2-0 win over Wolfsberg.

The Sneaky German bastards...

 

[Ricky]

You would only need to go back on my postings over 3 or so years to see that I have long been an advocate, in a general sense, of the 3:5:2 set up.

The problem of its use in the current Sheff UTD squad is that, in order for it to be remotely effective, the play transition through the midfield and into the attacking third of the pitch HAS to be much much faster.

But I guess you could say this in any formation !

In a world where you often see a lone striker, what's the point of having a flat back 4 ?

But the key to 3:5:2, in my mind at least is having 3 key positions filled by individuals who can do the job.

Your wing backs have to be exactly that. Part winger, part full back.

My question would be do we have such players ?

Brayford should be up to this job but has been more than a bit short defensively of late.

Woolford just ain't up to it. Period. I suspect K Wallace would be much better suited when he is completely up to speed fitness wise, which is crucial.

Where it all falls down for me with this formation and the current squad is in the critical holding midfield role. I just don't think we have anyone capable of the role. The role DEMANDS discipline in the sense you can rarely go bombing on even when an opportunity to do presents itself. The other key discipline being an uncanny ability to read the game and to "plug the gaps" anywhere across the back line where space that can be exploited appears.

For all his flaws, Monty was very good at doing this. Doyle was decent at it as well and was a good Monty replacement in that sense.

Sad truth is that we have not adequately replaced Michael Doyle and we have missed his presence this season.

Hammond and / or Reedy don't cut the mustard with me in a true DM role that is essential to 3:5:2.

UTB

Yep, the wing backs have to be specialists ideally. Being good going forward is more important than being good defensively, they just need to know the full back role quite well. Give me wingers playing that role over defensive minded full backs if you don't have any specialists.

The other key position for me is the centre back - they have to marshal two centre halves instead of just one, they've got to be good positionally and able to organise.

What you want from the midfield three more than anything is the ability to keep the ball and create, especially if the wing backs aren't great at attacking. If the wing backs are good going forward then keeping the ball becomes a bit less important than being a goal threat and supporting the strikers. For the player at the base of the midfield I'd put technical ability before defensive ability, although ideally they'd have both. Sam Morsy would've been perfect.

 

[Alfreton14Blade]

If Nigel flip-flops out of 3-5-2 after one reverse (in which, by all accounts, we played very well for an hour) it really will be a sign that he's losing the plot.

Stick with it, Nige! YKIMS, both attacking-wise & defensively.

 

[Roygbiv]

If he goes back to 4-4-2 then I'll be hugely disappointed. The personnel let us down yesterday with basic errors and missed chances not the tactics.

 

[Alfreton14Blade]

As regards some of the personnel available, I think Basham & McEv are very well suited to being part of a three at the back. (And I'm among the growing number who wouldn't be at all unhappy if McEveley survived the expected close-season cull - his form has been class for a while now, something that has involved a hell of a lot of character.) Edgar I'm not sure about though - dominant last week, but...

Brayford: ideally suited to a roving right-wing back role. Woolford not given the credit he deserved last week - he has speciific strengths: good in the air, very disciplined in his position, naturally a winger. For the time being, I don't see a problem there (with Done & KW to challenge his position).

The two strikers: fine.

Midfield three: let the fluidity develop. But I fear we need Hammond's positional nous, his character, & his aggression in there, rather than going with three lightweights.

Next season it's a wholly new scenario, with new personnel. But I'd love to see 3-5-2 as the basic template: two strikers; flooded midfield; defenders who can come out with the ball.

 

[Revolution]

It will work with midfielders who actually score and create things.

Flynn, Cuvelier, Reed, Coutts and Scougall, all of whom had a go yesterday, do not do this. So it won't work very well.

Only Reed and Coutts will be here next season, if management have any sense.

 

[Ricky]

3-5-2 could also give us a very good League One player we wouldn't have in any other typical formation - Basham. At right centre back he could be very good, he's not particularly outstanding anywhere else.

As for our current midfielders, what some of them do have is an ability to keep the ball, although they're not always the most creative and they're certainly not goalscorers. That means we need more of a threat out wide. That means no Woolford, for a start. Try at least one of Flynn or Done. It would also help if we played midfielders who can contribute out wide, or at least play them on the correct side - like Flynn on the right of the three if he's going to play in the middle.
A combination of Coutts, Reed and Cuvelier should be able to keep the ball pretty well. Flynn and Done as wing backs would offer more of a threat. Obviously the midfield wouldn't be great defensively but you'd hope that the additional possession would help make up for the lack of a defensive midfielder. If you were to put Hammond into that midfield you'd instantly lose the ability to keep as much possession.

 

[sheffielder]

I like the 352 however I think that Adkins could make the team more flexible with who he puts in which positions, which would make us a bit better going forward.

On Tuesday I would like him to go with

.....................Long
....Brayford Edgar Basham
Flynn...............................Done
...... Cuvellier Reed Scougall
............Sharp.......Adams

I play scougall only because it will provide the team with better balance and ideally we would have hammonds physical presence in there. However playing this 3 at the back allows Brayford and Basham to come forward and help in that perspective.

Our options just highlight the lack of balance this squad had when he took over and not been addressed since. Needs power and/or pace.

 

[nopigfansintown]

Great op. Always try and judge performances not results. We need three central midfielder and wing backs, regardless of formation. As fans we need to recognise when a system has allowed us to dominate a game, no matter how gutted we are when we don't get the result. Wouldn'tmind seeing K Wallace at LWB.

 

[finlaytheblade]

I like the 352 however I think that Adkins could make the team more flexible with who he puts in which positions, which would make us a bit better going forward.

On Tuesday I would like him to go with

.....................Long
....Brayford Edgar Basham
Flynn...............................Done
...... Cuvellier Reed Scougall
............Sharp.......Adams

I play scougall only because it will provide the team with better balance and ideally we would have hammonds physical presence in there. However playing this 3 at the back allows Brayford and Basham to come forward and help in that perspective.

Our options just highlight the lack of balance this squad had when he took over and not been addressed since. Needs power and/or pace.

I think that Adkins feels 3 5 2 suits us best it's a pity he didn't try it earlier, the extra man in midfield helps cover our lack of pace in that area.
It also opens the game up a bit and makes the opposition go long as we are more competitive in midfield ( by that I don't mean aggression as we don't have that but numbers ) we do have some nimble players who can get on the ball As the last two games have shown.It's vital to have pace upfront with this system which pushes the opposition deeper which opens midfield a bit.
We maybe don't have the personal (yet )to play it effectively but as I say it opens up the game which makes it more entertaining,maybe it's not too late to find a couple of loan players who can slot into this system more effectively.
I must say Adams looked a real danger yesterday and was unlucky not to score at least once,I get the feeling playing upfront is finally paying off ( understanding finally what's needed in that position )he's a brute physically and will bully defenders with his power and pace I can see now why Adkins is sticking by him upfront might be next season before we really see him at his best ,but with 13 games to go it could still happen this season.
STick with it Nigel!!.