3-5-2 would be perfect

[GingerrrFox]

It is designed to beat teams playing 1 up front.

It's not pal. The way we beat Hull at home this season was by changing our 4-4-2 and playing 4-3-3 against them. When you play 1 up front with 2 wide attacking forwards the back 3 becomes stretched which gives more space in the middle to be exposed.

[fleckneymike]

It's not pal. The way we beat Hull at home this season was by changing our 4-4-2 and playing 4-3-3 against them. When you play 1 up front with 2 wide attacking forwards the back 3 becomes stretched which gives more space in the middle to be exposed.

It's designed to beat those playing 1 up front. 352 came back in fashion (largely due to Bielsa at Bilbao) to counter the rise in 1 upfront. The logic is you need 2 defenders per attacker, facing a side with 1 up front you have a wasted defender.

[GingerrrFox]

It's designed to beat those playing 1 up front. 352 came back in fashion (largely due to Bielsa at Bilbao) to counter the rise in 1 upfront. The logic is you need 2 defenders per attacker, facing a side with 1 up front you have a wasted defender.

If a team play 1 up top, you play 4 at the back so that 1 cb can mark the striker, the rb and lb mark the 2 wide forwards and the spare cb tracks runners coming from midfield. If a team play 2 up top, you play 3 at the back so that 2 cb's mark the 2 strikers and the spare cb looks for runners from midfield, and the rm and lm track their opposing men.

[marbelladave]

In theory any system can be played to counter any other, 4-4-2 countered by 4-5-1, in turn countered by 3-5-2, ad infinitum.

In the real world it doesn't quite work like that, reminds me of a story about the French army in the run up to WW2.

They tested anti tank guns against all known tanks and came to the view that, however strong the tank, a gun could be built that was powerful enough to destroy it. Since this, effectively, meant that tanks were obsolete since they were so easily destroyed, the French army decided it did not need anti tank guns.

Moral of the story, the opposition never does what you think they will do, applies to football too.....

[Leicester_Numan]

It's not pal. The way we beat Hull at home this season was by changing our 4-4-2 and playing 4-3-3 against them. When you play 1 up front with 2 wide attacking forwards the back 3 becomes stretched which gives more space in the middle to be exposed.

Hull's back 3 became stretched because their wing backs were playing too far up when we had the ball, allowing us the space to get in behind and pull the centre backs apart.

Played properly, 3-5-2 is a very strong, flexible system

[cc_star]

If you take the obvious ability difference out of the equation Manchester City's squad and ours are very similar. Centre backs that are good on the ball - Nastasic, Kompany and Zabaleta (Morgan, Keane and St Ledger), attacking full backs in which defending isn't their strongpoint - Maicon, Kolarov and Glichy (De Laet and Schlupp), central midfielders that are good at keeping possession but not really attacking minded - Barry and Garcia (James, Drinkwater, Wellens), Free role attacking players that don't have the out and out pace to play on the wing - Silva and Nasri (Knockaert, Marshall and Gallagher) and a collection of strikers that vary in target man and poacher role - Dzeko, Aguero and Tevez (Wood, Nugent, Kane and Waghorn).

This is why 4231, something ManCity have played to great effect could suit the players here.

To my mind we've only played it once & reasonably effectively Vs Hull in the 0-0 away draw.

CBs who can make reasonable use of the ball (Morgan, Keane & SSL), couple of midfielders who aren't great at attacking but win & retain possession (Drinkwater & James) providing defensive cover for flying fullbacks (RDL & Schlupp) and free role attacking players (Knockaert, Gallagher, Marshall) supporting a frontman (Nugent or Wood).

I'm personally very disappointed we obviously didn't work on it it anyway games and persist with it in games we want to keep tighter, typically away games. If we need the goals we can easily flatten the formation out and go 442 or 424 as fit.

[eye666]

The more I think about it, the more I like the sound of a 3-5-2. Keane on the left, Morgan in the middle, SSL right, with Schluppinator and De Laet pegging it up and down the wings and Knocky in the middle. Get it done Nige.

[l444ry]

It's designed to beat those playing 1 up front. 352 came back in fashion (largely due to Bielsa at Bilbao) to counter the rise in 1 upfront. The logic is you need 2 defenders per attacker, facing a side with 1 up front you have a wasted defender.

Wrong way round Mike. 3-5-2 gives/gave teams a 3 against 2 in the central midfield. One up front was introduced the regain midfield parity against the 3 man defence whilst maintaining the "stability" of the back four. The "new" variant of 3-5-2, certainly in Italy, is to play with 2 holding defensive midfielders.