3-5-2

[st albans fox]

Brought this back as it needs exploring

 

my basic view is that if you  are a very good side then you can play 4 at the back against anyone. However, if you are anything short of a very good side and you come up against a very good side playing three at the back you have to match them up formationwise. 

 

For us, that means anyone of the top six playing three at the back against us means we MUST also go three at the back. 

 

[Bert]

It's not the three at the back that's the problem, as most teams generally only play one up front now, meaning we should normally have a man spare at the back. It's the two in the middle getting overran by their three in the middle that's the biggest issue for me. 

[weller54]

1 hour ago, Bert said:

It's not the three at the back that's the problem, as most teams generally only play one up front now, meaning we should normally have a man spare at the back. It's the two in the middle getting overran by their three in the middle that's the biggest issue for me. 

This!... 

Feel for Ndidi... The choice of either James or King as his partner is a joke at this level.. Both are Championship standard at best! 

[Guest Mickyblueeyes]

I think it's the exact direction that Shakey wants to move into. His substitutions during games so far suggest this as well. The problem he has got is that he is left with an experienced midfielder on the treatment bench and another in limbo due to a transfer cock up.

 

That leaves Ndidi and James as the only two midfielders that has his trust to carry on. They run themselves into the ground chasing two men and gaps appear. Iborra needs to get fit asap and the Silva situation needs to resolve itself.

 

Unfortunately, with the games we've had the manager has not had any room for error. 

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, Bert said:

It's not the three at the back that's the problem, as most teams generally only play one up front now, meaning we should normally have a man spare at the back. It's the two in the middle getting overran by their three in the middle that's the biggest issue for me. 

 

Three at the back allows you to have that three in midfield and not leave the a lone striker isolated

 

chelsea pretty well had had a line of four between our midfield and defence for most of the first period who were linking with morata. 

[Koke]

Why can't we explore 433? It beefs up the midfield so it won't get overran and bullied, and it allows for more creative players like Mahrez & Gray to play either side of Vardy. We would solve 2 problems in one go. It does, however, mean Simpson would need to support the attack a bit more.

[sm1]

4 minutes ago, Koke said:

Why can't we explore 433? It beefs up the midfield so it won't get overran and bullied, and it allows for more creative players like Mahrez & Gray to play either side of Vardy. We would solve 2 problems in one go. It does, however, mean Simpson would need to support the attack a bit more.

I think thats been the thinking behind Shakey's subs in the last 2 games where he has subbed on Gray & King early. No Coincidence that the Vardy chance at the end of the Chelsea game came from a Simpson cross as he went forward more.

[ozvaldo]

Kasper

 

Dragovic, Harry, Fuchs

 

Albrighton, N'Didi, Iborra, James, Chillwell

 

Ian Nacho, Vardy

 

[sdb]

Can't help but think 3-5-2 offers us way more options, as well as giving us better balance. Gray, albrighton, Mahrez, chilwell, Fuchs, Simpson are all versatile. Maguire can be a ball playing CB for weaker opponents (probably Amartey and Iborra too). Wide players will get more game time, given the work load of the wing back role, and we can actually play two up top. It worked wonders before Kante. Should work again.