the case for 3-5-2

[escape2victory]

Its highly unlikely that Kelly would even contemplate changing formation, but due to our plethora of centre backs, poor wingers and seemingly immobile centre midfield, surely playing a 3-5-2 would help to erode some of these problems.

A back 3 of of Kisnorbo, McCarthy and McAuley seems pretty decent to me, with either Johansson or Kenton to cover. McAuley also played in a back 3 with Lincoln so would easily adapt to the new formation.

The centre of midfield would also benefit from having an extra man in there. Looking at what we have,it would probably be Johnson holding, giving Wesolowski and Williams a bit more freedom.

The wingbacks are probably the most crucial factor as they have 2 be fit and be prepared to attack and defend. I think Stearman and Tiatto could do this job as both have a good engine and are ok defensively, even though both suffer from putting quality balls into the box.

So my team would be:

---------------------------Logan

--------------McAuley--McCarthy--Kisnorbo

Stearman---------------Johnson--------------Tiatto

-------------------Williams--Wesolowski

-----------------Hume------------Fryatt

[Guest Gist]

I agree I think that team could be quite effective.

[Fez of Mahrez]

I agree 100%, have posted similar things in the past. Our strikers showed last season they thrive on through balls from central midfield, not crosses into the box from wingers.

[teblin]

I agree 3-5-2 is what i'd go for.

But the following:

---------------Logan

-----Mcauley - Kisnorbo- McCarthy

Kenton-------------------------Tiatto

Wesolowski

------Williams--------Hughes

-------Hume-------Fryatt

Maybe Farrelly is better than hughes to be honest but we'll see!

[Thracian]

That team will never bring the crowds back and will never win us promotion. There's simply not enough attacking ideas or options, it's too easy to stiffle, it won't be in the least bit entertaining and why the hell we should use a 33-year-old whose not nearly as good as Porter is anyone's guess.

The point about crosses into the box is fine and requires the manager to simple tell the wide players to work the ball into the penalty area - and if necessary play some videos showing good teams doing precisely that.

To work the ball into the area you need people who can pass and move. Not people who just passand, even then, not very accurately.

You also need pace and special skills somewhere. Modern defences are invariably well organised and only become disorganised when faced with the unusual ... genuine pace, genuine skill or, like Crouch, unusual height.

[Guest Gist]

I'd gor for that but with Stearman instead of Kenton he seems to be better at going forward.

[lookwhaticando]

That team will never bring the crowds back and will never win us promotion. There's simply not enough attacking ideas or options, it's too easy to stiffle, it won't be in the least bit entertaining and why the hell we should use a 33-year-old whose not nearly as good as Porter is anyone's guess.

The point about crosses into the box is fine and requires the manager to simple tell the wide players to work the ball into the penalty area - and if necessary play some videos showing good teams doing precisely that.

To work the ball into the area you need people who can pass and move. Not people who just passand, even then, not very accurately.

You also need pace and special skills somewhere. Modern defences are invariably well organised and only become disorganised when faced with the unusual ... genuine pace, genuine skill or, like Crouch, unusual height.

My 3-5-2 suggestion includes Porter in the middle if you played with wing-backs. Porter on the wings if you played two defensive midfielders and two wingers + one attacking midfielder.

Something like this...

-Stearman--------------------Sheehan-------

------------------Weso-------------------------

-------Williams------------Porter--------------

Sheehan replaced by Tiatto if you Sheehan stays at Mansfield a bit longer.

Here we have two wing-backs, one defensive midfielder, two more attacking central midfielders.

Or, the altnernative is to have two attacking wingers and attacking central midfielder, and two defensive midfielders instead.

-----------Weso------Johnson-----------------

--------------------------------------------------

--Gradel--------Williams----------Porter------

I can't remember if Johnson was my choice or not... he probably wasn't, but I don't really remember who I would have had there instead... Tiatto perhaps?

Does that meet more with your approval?

(My back four would be Logan in goal, with McCarthy, McAuley, Kisnorbo in front of him)

My strikers would be any two on-form strikers.

[lildave3]

Tiatto drifts inside too much leaving the left back exposed already, if he did that while we had 3 at the back, we'd be done for

[Bert]

My 3-5-2

Logan

Kenton

McCarthy

Kisnorbo

Stearman

Porter

Williams

Weso

Tiatto

Fryatt

Hume

[Fez of Mahrez]

My 3-5-2

Logan

Kenton

McCarthy

Kisnorbo

Stearman

Porter

Williams

Weso

Tiatto

Fryatt

Hume

I think I would probably play that but with Porter and Tiatto the other way round.

[Thracian]

I'm not sold on 3-5-2 for various reasons and certainly not at home.

I prefer a 4-4-2 that can become 4-3-3, 3-4-3 or even 3-3-4 in a hurry.

City cannot afford to play three central defenders, again for various reasons...

a) They don't distribute the ball well enough.

b) They would never be fully occupied centrally and are not quick enough out wide.

c) Assuming a defensive midfielder that would leave us with only six genuinely attack-minded players and that's isn't enough. We need seven/eight especially considering we're not Premiership quality.

I don't see Gradel as a 90-minute adult yet and in his absence the side would have insufficient speed and the only alternative in that direction is Hammond.

To give speed, strength, fluidity, goals I'd say our very best team right would be:

Logan;

Stearman, McAuley, Kisnorbo, Sheehan/Tiatto;

Hammond, Wesolowski, Williams, Porter;

O'Grady, Hume.

Subs: Henderson, Kenton, Gradel, King, Fryatt.

It wouldn't happen because RK won't drop the skipper and I accept that.

But McAuley is our only central defender who can pass.

Hammond (or Gradel when he came on) can join the front two and Stearman/Sheehan/Williams/Porter can back up through midfield and are all at least capable of scoring.

Tiatto and Porter are natural left-sided partners. Both can pass and both are able to defend.

O'Grady gives some holding/redistribution potential and Hammond some extra strike power.

Our tackling/covering/strength capability is high as is our energy.

There are seven attack-capable players for no loss of potential cover.

Substitutions wouldn't change this balance.

Any manager of that side should be able to finish in the top half of the table, maybe as 6-10th. Even now.

[Fez of Mahrez]

Too much emphasis on players who have proved in the past that they leave a lot to be desired (namely O'Grady and Hammond). With lazyarse Williams in midfield, huge pressure would be on Weso defensively. Also big pressure on Stearman defensively.

Can't see that team scoring enough goals to compensate for the attacking nature of the midfield. 3-5-2 is defensively solid and still plays to our best attacking players' proven strengths.

[Tommeh]

3-5-2's deffo what I'd look at with the current crop of players something like this:

---------------------Logan----------------------

-----Kisnorbo----mcCarthy----Mcauley------

Stearman---------------------------------Kenton

--------------Williams-------Weso---------------

----------------------Hume-------------------

--------------COG----------Fryatt---------------

[Tommeh]

Tiatto drifts inside too much leaving the left back exposed already, if he did that while we had 3 at the back, we'd be done for

good point! I also think havin Tiatto there would expose us for pace at the back with McCarthy and mcauley who arn't the quickest and don't want to be isolated

[escape2victory]

I'm not sold on 3-5-2 for various reasons and certainly not at home.

I prefer a 4-4-2 that can become 4-3-3, 3-4-3 or even 3-3-4 in a hurry.

City cannot afford to play three central defenders, again for various reasons...

a) They don't distribute the ball well enough.

b) They would never be fully occupied centrally and are not quick enough out wide.

c) Assuming a defensive midfielder that would leave us with only six genuinely attack-minded players and that's isn't enough. We need seven/eight especially considering we're not Premiership quality.

I don't see Gradel as a 90-minute adult yet and in his absence the side would have insufficient speed and the only alternative in that direction is Hammond.

To give speed, strength, fluidity, goals I'd say our very best team right would be:

Logan;

Stearman, McAuley, Kisnorbo, Sheehan/Tiatto;

Hammond, Wesolowski, Williams, Porter;

O'Grady, Hume.

Subs: Henderson, Kenton, Gradel, King, Fryatt.

It wouldn't happen because RK won't drop the skipper and I accept that.

But McAuley is our only central defender who can pass.

Hammond (or Gradel when he came on) can join the front two and Stearman/Sheehan/Williams/Porter can back up through midfield and are all at least capable of scoring.

Tiatto and Porter are natural left-sided partners. Both can pass and both are able to defend.

O'Grady gives some holding/redistribution potential and Hammond some extra strike power.

Our tackling/covering/strength capability is high as is our energy.

There are seven attack-capable players for no loss of potential cover.

Substitutions wouldn't change this balance.

Any manager of that side should be able to finish in the top half of the table, maybe as 6-10th. Even now.

Cuz Walsh, Elliott, and Taggart where blessed with such blistering pace. The demise of LCFC also coincided with the scrapping of the 3-5-2 system, just a coincedence ??!!

Why is everyone so fascinated with Porter and O'Grady? Just cuz they are young and from the academy doesnt make them world beaters. They will both be playing league 1 or 2 footie within the next few years, just like lots of our previous world beating youngsters (wright, williamson, thomas, oakes, campbell,)

[Fez of Mahrez]

Cuz Walsh, Elliott, and Taggart where blessed with such blistering pace. The demise of LCFC also coincided with the scrapping of the 3-5-2 system, just a coincedence ??!!

Why is everyone so fascinated with Porter and O'Grady? Just cuz they are young and from the academy doesnt make them world beaters. They will both be playing league 1 or 2 footie within the next few years, just like lots of our previous world beating youngsters (wright, williamson, thomas, oakes, campbell,)

I think Porter will make it at this level. O'Grady won't.

[escape2victory]

I think Porter will make it at this level. O'Grady won't.

Yep fair enough, Porter has got a bit more about him than O'Grady. Why people on this forum still pick O'Grady over Hume I will never know. Yes he might be big and do 1 good flick on per game, but in all the games ive seen him play he has never looked like scoring. Not even close. Doesnt gamble and get into areas, which is criminal as a forward. Waste of space.

[BartonFox]

3-5-2, do me a favour.

Just because we have an abundance of mediocre centre-halves doesn't mean we could play that formation.

1 - We don't have a suitable left wing back. Tiatto doesn't have the discipline and Porter just isn't up to it despite what the blue tinted amongst us say.

2 - We have 2 possible RWB's but they are currently frozen out because the manager lacks the man-management skills to deal with them.

3 - We have spent all season moaning about midfield, now we suddenly have 3 central midfielders good enough???

4 - You need a physical presence to dominate in a 3-5-2, we don't have that.

5 - A big man is required up front and the best one we have is currently on a busman's holiday in Holland because the manager is too pig headed to realise he needs him. Don't even think of suggesting O'Grady either.

Also why the hell do people think Hammond would make a right winger? The man can't pass, stay onside or shoot so he sure as hell is not going to be effective out there with the added responsibility of defeding and crossing. If it is pace they need you may as well go one of the local athletic clubs and pick up a sprinter who has some real speed.

[Thracian]

Cuz Walsh, Elliott, and Taggart where blessed with such blistering pace. The demise of LCFC also coincided with the scrapping of the 3-5-2 system, just a coincedence ??!!

Why is everyone so fascinated with Porter and O'Grady? Just cuz they are young and from the academy doesnt make them world beaters. They will both be playing league 1 or 2 footie within the next few years, just like lots of our previous world beating youngsters (wright, williamson, thomas, oakes, campbell,)

Provide the players to match MON's 3-5-2 system and you've got a wholly different case.

My approach is designed to suit our players. If you change the players they may well suit a diferent system.

[Fez of Mahrez]

3-5-2, do me a favour.

Just because we have an abundance of mediocre centre-halves doesn't mean we could play that formation.

1 - We don't have a suitable left wing back. Tiatto doesn't have the discipline and Porter just isn't up to it despite what the blue tinted amongst us say.

I think part of the reason Tiatto drifts inside so much is because our central midfield is so pathetic. He's trying to help out. Stick three in there and he'd have less reason to drift inside. I think he'd be quite well suited to a wing back role as he's not an out-and-out full back or winger. It's not ideal but it's better than the current Johansson as a left back charade.

2 - We have 2 possible RWB's but they are currently frozen out because the manager lacks the man-management skills to deal with them.

Obviously Kelly isn't going to play 3-5-2 so this is all hypothetical anyway in a non-Kelly kind of way.

3 - We have spent all season moaning about midfield, now we suddenly have 3 central midfielders good enough???

A lot of people make this point. The whole point is to compensate for their faults. Lennon, Izzet and Savage all had their individual faults but between the three of them you had one of the best midfields in the Premiership, pound-for-pound. I'm not comparing our current mob to them but the idea is the same. You lessen the workload by putting an extra body in there. Then you can select two genuinely decent attacking midfielders while leaving a holding player further back at all times.

4 - You need a physical presence to dominate in a 3-5-2, we don't have that.

I think we have players of physical presence at the back, particularly Kisnorbo and Kenton, and energetic players such as Wesolowski, Porter and Hume further up the pitch. They may not be big and strong but those three should be the first names on the teamsheet for the energy and forward thrust they give us. I agree we lack a physical presence but this would still be the same in a 4-4-2. We lack the quality wingers needed to make a physical presence less important in a 4-4-2.

5 - A big man is required up front and the best one we have is currently on a busman's holiday in Holland because the manager is too pig headed to realise he needs him. Don't even think of suggesting O'Grady either.

I'd consider bringing him back. Certainly wouldn't want O'Grady in any first-choice XI. The key here for me is Fryatt and Hume's form when Gudjonsson and Williams were feeding them through-balls at the end of last season. That's what we're lacking from Johnson and Hughes.

Also why the hell do people think Hammond would make a right winger? The man can't pass, stay onside or shoot so he sure as hell is not going to be effective out there with the added responsibility of defeding and crossing. If it is pace they need you may as well go one of the local athletic clubs and pick up a sprinter who has some real speed.

Fock knows. Ask Thracian.

---

I'm not saying it's a miracle cure, we have bad players. I just think this system suits our players more and would put an end to certain embarrassing parts of our team.

[stez]

I'm not sold on 3-5-2 for various reasons and certainly not at home.

I prefer a 4-4-2 that can become 4-3-3, 3-4-3 or even 3-3-4 in a hurry.

as can 3-5-2 attack mid going forward in one or two and the wing backs coming inside to cover

City cannot afford to play three central defenders, again for various reasons...

a) They don't distribute the ball well enough.

agreed, but thats because we're to skint to buy anyone who's any good, but then they don't disribute well in a 442.

b) They would never be fully occupied centrally and are not quick enough out wide.

like E2V said walsh taggs and elloit were as slow as! MoN got rid of one of our fastest (prior)

c) Assuming a defensive midfielder that would leave us with only six genuinely attack-minded players and that's isn't enough. We need seven/eight especially considering we're not Premiership quality.

8 attack minded players?! leaving the goalie and 2 defenders? yeah ok

To give speed, strength, fluidity, goals I'd say our very best team right would be:

Logan;

Stearman, McAuley, Kisnorbo, Sheehan/Tiatto;

Hammond, Wesolowski, Williams, Porter;

O'Grady, Hume.

Subs: Henderson, Kenton, Gradel, King, Fryatt.

It wouldn't happen because RK won't drop the skipper and I accept that.

But McAuley is our only central defender who can pass.

Hammond (or Gradel when he came on) can join the front two and Stearman/Sheehan/Williams/Porter can back up through midfield and are all at least capable of scoring.

Tiatto and Porter are natural left-sided partners. Both can pass and both are able to defend.

O'Grady gives some holding/redistribution potential and Hammond some extra strike power.

Our tackling/covering/strength capability is high as is our energy.

There are seven attack-capable players for no loss of potential cover.

Substitutions wouldn't change this balance.

Any manager of that side should be able to finish in the top half of the table, maybe as 6-10th. Even now.

tiatto leaves the left to exposed(in a 442), hammond can't control or pass the ball, williams is lazy and maybe to cleaver (mark draper-style) for our current squad. can't comment on gradel or king as i don't follow the youth team or stiffs

[Bert]

3-5-2, do me a favour.

Just because we have an abundance of mediocre centre-halves doesn't mean we could play that formation.

1 - We don't have a suitable left wing back. Tiatto doesn't have the discipline and Porter just isn't up to it despite what the blue tinted amongst us say.

2 - We have 2 possible RWB's but they are currently frozen out because the manager lacks the man-management skills to deal with them.

3 - We have spent all season moaning about midfield, now we suddenly have 3 central midfielders good enough???

4 - You need a physical presence to dominate in a 3-5-2, we don't have that.

5 - A big man is required up front and the best one we have is currently on a busman's holiday in Holland because the manager is too pig headed to realise he needs him. Don't even think of suggesting O'Grady either.

Also why the hell do people think Hammond would make a right winger? The man can't pass, stay onside or shoot so he sure as hell is not going to be effective out there with the added responsibility of defeding and crossing. If it is pace they need you may as well go one of the local athletic clubs and pick up a sprinter who has some real speed.

Ok then Einstein, what do we do, as you have all the answers.

[BartonFox]

To give speed, strength, fluidity, goals I'd say our very best team right would be:

Logan;

Stearman, McAuley, Kisnorbo, Sheehan/Tiatto;

Hammond, Wesolowski, Williams, Porter;

O'Grady, Hume.

Subs: Henderson, Kenton, Gradel, King, Fryatt.

Oh where to begin

To give speed, strength, fluidity, goals I'd say our very best team right would be:

Logan;

Stearman, McAuley, Kisnorbo, Sheehan/Tiatto;

Hammond, Wesolowski, Williams, Porter;

O'Grady, Hume.

Subs: Henderson, Kenton, Gradel, King, Fryatt.

It wouldn't happen because RK won't drop the skipper and I accept that.

But McAuley is our only central defender who can pass.

I agree whole-heartedly that McCarthey should be no where near the team, let alone have the honour of captaining the team. But Kenton is our most composed player with the ball despite his mishap at the Hawthorns. I'd have him alongside Kisnorbo.

I would like to see Sheehan given the chance as I believe he has ability and although I have pulled your leg on occassion regarding your 'support' for him I think he is better at left full back than anyone who has been played there thus far. I think it is time for Kelly to swallow his prejudices and get Alan Maybury back in and playing like he did when he arrived, our best natural right back by a mile. Also given our lack of decent right wingers we need that solidity in there. I'd start to mould Stearman in to the central area as it might focus his concentration for 90 minutes a bit more.

Logan;

Stearman, McAuley, Kisnorbo, Sheehan/Tiatto;

Hammond, Wesolowski, Williams, Porter;

O'Grady, Hume.

Subs: Henderson, Kenton, Gradel, King, Fryatt.

Hammond (or Gradel when he came on) can join the front two and Stearman/Sheehan/Williams/Porter can back up through midfield and are all at least capable of scoring.

Tiatto and Porter are natural left-sided partners. Both can pass and both are able to defend.

Oh good grief, Elvis Hammond. Are you on medication? He is a terrible footballer and he could not cope with the basics of that position, out of our senior players the only one we have (and I can't believe I am going to say this ) is Momo Sylla, the others just aren't up to it.

I am yet to be convinced that Weslowski has sufficently overcome the physical trauma of 2 leg breaks in a year to think he'll ever reach the potential we all saw. Williams is an enigma, as is Hughes and Andy Johnson is a sand dancing has been.

We don't possess any quality out on the left hand side either, but if I'm picking Sheehan it has to be Tiatto with some experience in front of him.

Logan;

Stearman, McAuley, Kisnorbo, Sheehan/Tiatto;

Hammond, Wesolowski, Williams, Porter;

O'Grady, Hume.

Subs: Henderson, Kenton, Gradel, King, Fryatt.

O'Grady gives some holding/redistribution potential and Hammond some extra strike power.

That front line would get us next to nothing. O'Grady has shown nothing against poor to mediocre teams in this division to warrant any kind of future first team action, Hammond has a better scoring record than him!!!!! I am beginning to see why Levein saw fit to 'drop' Hume as well, however I do believe if used correctly then he can be a player.

Fryatt is our only natural scorer so he starts regardless. Plus I'd get de Vries back like a shot even if to bring off the bench because whether he means it or not he creates chances in and around the box, something O'Grady doesn't do.

Logan;

Stearman, McAuley, Kisnorbo, Sheehan/Tiatto;

Hammond, Wesolowski, Williams, Porter;

O'Grady, Hume.

Subs: Henderson, Kenton, Gradel, King, Fryatt.

Our tackling/covering/strength capability is high as is our energy.

There are seven attack-capable players for no loss of potential cover.

Substitutions wouldn't change this balance.

Any manager of that side should be able to finish in the top half of the table, maybe as 6-10th. Even now.

I reckon we'd be hounded playing that mob.

[Thracian]

3-5-2, do me a favour.

Just because we have an abundance of mediocre centre-halves doesn't mean we could play that formation.

1 - We don't have a suitable left wing back. Tiatto doesn't have the discipline and Porter just isn't up to it despite what the blue tinted amongst us say.

2 - We have 2 possible RWB's but they are currently frozen out because the manager lacks the man-management skills to deal with them.

3 - We have spent all season moaning about midfield, now we suddenly have 3 central midfielders good enough???

4 - You need a physical presence to dominate in a 3-5-2, we don't have that.

5 - A big man is required up front and the best one we have is currently on a busman's holiday in Holland because the manager is too pig headed to realise he needs him. Don't even think of suggesting O'Grady either.

Also why the hell do people think Hammond would make a right winger? The man can't pass, stay onside or shoot so he sure as hell is not going to be effective out there with the added responsibility of defeding and crossing. If it is pace they need you may as well go one of the local athletic clubs and pick up a sprinter who has some real speed.

Hammond doesn't have to make a right winger as such, especially with Staearman in support.

He could go wide when necessary to stretch the opposition but would mainly be a right sided striker and support player but would be able to latch onto any crossfield balls more easily from wide positions than from the centre where he cannot find space so easily and cannot see the defensive line so easily to time his runs.

He would also make space for others and that is vital...as would Gradel in all probability. Neiher Low nor Hughes have any great effect on the right.

PS: MDV is never coming back and you know it.

[Fez of Mahrez]

Hammond doesn't have to make a right winger as such, especially with Staearman in support.

He could go wide when necessary to stretch the opposition but would mainly be a right sided striker and support player but would be able to latch onto any crossfield balls more easily from wide positions than from the centre where he cannot find space so easily and cannot see the defensive line so easily to time his runs.

He would also make space for others and that is vital...as would Gradel in all probability. Neiher Low nor Hughes have any great effect on the right.

PS: MDV is never coming back and you know it.

So basically you're not playing him right-wing and he can't play up front. Where exactly is he playing? The lost city of Atlantis?

Oh yeah and one of his main strengths is "creating space for others". Is that because he is utterly shite and can't do anything himself? I'm sorry but I focking hate Elvis Hammond. Might as well play Dwain Chambers. He'd score as many goals through the law of averages and be even bloody quicker.