SHOULD WE GO 3-5-2 INSTEAD ?

[Thracian]

Surely if Martin Allen had any plans to play the 3-5-2 some appear to want, he would have signed extra wing-backs and centre backs suited to this archaic system. It's amazing what one defeat in an unimportant friendly does to the senses of some.

I agree - on the other hand if he's going to play 4-4-2 he might have signed fast, direct wingers and at least one proper target man to work with.

The friendly with Kilmarnock wouldn't matter a jot if our shortage of firepower and creativity hadn't been apparent last close season only to remain unaddressed.

I don't think MA is ignoring the problems but Cort - an important piece of the puzzle - seems more suited to an "absent friends" toast than anything else and the Killie match only served to graphically show how little we appear to have in attack - either with old players or new.

And I don't mean just scoring.

[l444ry]

I agree - on the other hand if he's going to play 4-4-2 he might have signed fast, direct wingers and at least one proper target man to work with.

The friendly with Kilmarnock wouldn't matter a jot if our shortage of firepower and creativity hadn't been apparent last close season only to remain unaddressed.

I don't think MA is ignoring the problems but Cort - an important piece of the puzzle - seems more suited to an "absent friends" toast than anything else and the Killie match only served to graphically show how little we appear to have in attack - either with old players or new.

And I don't mean just scoring.

He's signed three or four wide players (all with pace) and a several strikers. I don't think he's after the old Frank Worthington style target man. He prefers pace and strength allied to getting the ball forward quickly and over the top as neccessary. His style is to attack with 11 men behind the ball and pressing up the pitch if possession is not retained. The 4-4-2 model you seem to mention is not Martin Allen's model.

[Chrysalis]

The primary argument for playing 442 seems to be that players struggle to handle other formations, technically 352 is much superior mainly because it allows a 352 when attacking and 532 when defending the 2 wingers probably working harder then the rest of the team in that formation whilst a 442 its more evenly spread. However I dont like the sound of a manager rigourisly sticking to 1 formation, surely a team must learn how to play in at least 2-3 formations so if needed a formation can be changed during the game to counter the opposing teams tactics, if a manager cant adapt a team to new formations then many games will be lost because of it.

[l444ry]

The primary argument for playing 442 seems to be that players struggle to handle other formations, technically 352 is much superior mainly because it allows a 352 when attacking and 532 when defending the 2 wingers probably working harder then the rest of the team in that formation whilst a 442 its more evenly spread. However I dont like the sound of a manager rigourisly sticking to 1 formation, surely a team must learn how to play in at least 2-3 formations so if needed a formation can be changed during the game to counter the opposing teams tactics, if a manager cant adapt a team to new formations then many games will be lost because of it.

Can't disagree about playing different systems during a game - I doubt many top level matches are ever completed without both sides adapting in one way or another. The thing I struggle to comprehend is why 5-3-2 should be the starting formation when it is the easiest system on the planet to combat. No decent top level sides, either at national or international level, bother with system anymore because of that.

Just look at England's performances when they adopted it. They succeeded in making average sides look half-decent. It's a system mainly used by non-league and struggling outfits these days. The main reason Martin O'Neill succeeded with it is because the players work ethic ensured it would work. If he hadn't employed that system I doubt there would be as many calling for it's return.

[potter3]

Can't disagree about playing different systems during a game - I doubt many top level matches are ever completed without both sides adapting in one way or another. The thing I struggle to comprehend is why 5-3-2 should be the starting formation when it is the easiest system on the planet to combat. No decent top level sides, either at national or international level, bother with system anymore because of that.

Just look at England's performances when they adopted it. They succeeded in making average sides look half-decent. It's a system mainly used by non-league and struggling outfits these days. The main reason Martin O'Neill succeeded with it is because the players work ethic ensured it would work. If he hadn't employed that system I doubt there would be as many calling for it's return.

Or perhaps because it fits the players we've got, better than a 4-4-2 or 4-3-3

[Fez of Mahrez]

Following on (in agreement with) Walkers' post....

If Kaebi is:

1. a winger

2. someone we know bugger all about

3. a player with no previous experience of the physical English game

...then how the hell can people be slotting him in at right wing-back - a very, very demanding and specialised position to play in?

Bonkers.

1. He's primarily an attacking full-back who would suit playing right wing-back perfectly.

2. He's obviously got incredible stamina. We can all sit here and say we know nothing about him but it'll become fairly obvious that he will bomb up and down the wing all day long when the season starts, mark my words.

It's also a complete myth that nobody plays 3-5-2 anymore. Northampton played it very effectively last season. As long as your team is ultra-fit and your wing-backs in particular have boundless energy (which Ka'abi, Chambers, Mattock, Stearman and Sheehan all have) then it can really work in your favour to have that extra man in central midfield.

Obviously I know it is pointless going on about this as it will not happen this season but until I see a Leicester team with effective wingers, I refuse to agree with people who say 3-5-2 is too defensive. The extra man in midfield makes the team more competitive and the wing-back on the side where play is developing should overlap to provide width.

Hopefully Allen will sign two more players for the left side to make this argument redundant because the massive downside with 3-5-2 is that you couldn't accommodate both Ka'abi and Chambers, who are going to be huge assets this season with their pace and energy.

[l444ry]

Or perhaps because it fits the players we've got, better than a 4-4-2 or 4-3-3

What's that supposed to mean? Or do you know something Martin Allen doesn't?

[l444ry]

1. He's primarily an attacking full-back who would suit playing right wing-back perfectly.

2. He's obviously got incredible stamina. We can all sit here and say we know nothing about him but it'll become fairly obvious that he will bomb up and down the wing all day long when the season starts, mark my words.

It's also a complete myth that nobody plays 3-5-2 anymore. Northampton played it very effectively last season. As long as your team is ultra-fit and your wing-backs in particular have boundless energy (which Ka'abi, Chambers, Mattock, Stearman and Sheehan all have) then it can really work in your favour to have that extra man in central midfield.

Obviously I know it is pointless going on about this as it will not happen this season but until I see a Leicester team with effective wingers, I refuse to agree with people who say 3-5-2 is too defensive. The extra man in midfield makes the team more competitive and the wing-back on the side where play is developing should overlap to provide width.

Hopefully Allen will sign two more players for the left side to make this argument redundant because the massive downside with 3-5-2 is that you couldn't accommodate both Ka'abi and Chambers, who are going to be huge assets this season with their pace and energy.

Ka'abi, if he's as good as the reports, ought to make a good overlapping full-back in a 4-4-2.

I don't think anyone is saying that nobody plays 3-5-2 anymore - only that no top level winning side does. Not wishing to be disparaging towards the Cobblers, but they finished halfway down Division One which hardly fits the bill of a successful side. Lower level sides try to make themselves competitive by trying to outnumber the opposition in midfield, as you know. But any decent side will exploit the space left by the wing-backs and pull the centre-backs all over the place.

[bigjonnyauk]

Ka'abi, if he's as good as the reports, ought to make a good overlapping full-back in a 4-4-2.

I don't think anyone is saying that nobody plays 3-5-2 anymore - only that no top level winning side does. Not wishing to be disparaging towards the Cobblers, but they finished halfway down Division One which hardly fits the bill of a successful side. Lower level sides try to make themselves competitive by trying to outnumber the opposition in midfield, as you know. But any decent side will exploit the space left by the wing-backs and pull the centre-backs all over the place.

at look at todays team has martin read this #

http://www.foxestalk.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=40706

[Simon]

at look at todays team has martin read this #

http://www.foxestalk.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=40706

He's still playing 4-4-2 though...