Dan Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 Whilst I am in the 'dubious about our ability to play 352' camp I think one area which potentially hasn't been considered is the impact on our creativity. In 352 I cannot reasonably see how one or more of Dyer (who I acknowledge I am not fan of), Marshall and Knockaert can be accommodated. The problem with this is that they contributed 8,6 and 5 assists respectively. Those 19 assists excedes the amount contributed by RDL (1), Konchesky (5), King (3) Drinkwater (4) James (4) who have been the starting 'five'. Admittedly only two of Dyer, Marshall and Knockaert can 'start' but that is a lot of assists to find elsewhere. When you add to that the goals 3, 4 and 8 respectively versus 1,1,7,1,3 that's quite a deficit. Different players may get more assists in different positions and in different formations when there are greater possibilities. If we play 3-4-1-2 with Knockaert in front of King/James and behind Nugent/Wood, he'll get a silly number of assists IMO. My whole thought on 3-5-2 ever since it's come about (and before) was that it should be 3-4-1-2 with Knockaert playing as an attacking midfielder. There are defensive concerns, but we will absolutely crucify some sides. We don't have an entire squad to fit 3-5-2 IMO but we definitely have a few such as De Laet, Knockaert etc... I wouldn't mind us adopting it even if it does have faults, simply because I think the long-term potential with it is greater than what 4-4-2 is.
fleckneymike Posted 31 July 2013 Author Posted 31 July 2013 Different players may get more assists in different positions and in different formations when there are greater possibilities. If we play 3-4-1-2 with Knockaert in front of King/James and behind Nugent/Wood, he'll get a silly number of assists IMO. My whole thought on 3-5-2 ever since it's come about (and before) was that it should be 3-4-1-2 with Knockaert playing as an attacking midfielder. There are defensive concerns, but we will absolutely crucify some sides. We don't have an entire squad to fit 3-5-2 IMO but we definitely have a few such as De Laet, Knockaert etc... I wouldn't mind us adopting it even if it does have faults, simply because I think the long-term potential with it is greater than what 4-4-2 is. That's all open to debate, but what isn't is the fact we haven't played 3412, we've played 352. I too would like to see Knockaert afforded a certain degree of freedom playing behind the strikers but at no point this pre-season have we done so.
Dan Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 That's all open to debate, but what isn't is the fact we haven't played 3412, we've played 352. I too would like to see Knockaert afforded a certain degree of freedom playing behind the strikers but at no point this pre-season have we done so. Agree with this and it's a massive shame. The saddest thing is nearly every time Knockaert's been on the pitch in pre-season it's been out wide in a 4-4-2 like last year. When he came on last night he played in attacking midfield and looked head and shoulders the best player on the park.
Finnegan Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 Knockaert is the most natural "free role" I've actually seen play in this division in a long time.
gazfox9 Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 From what I can recall didn't Sav play RWB most of the time under MON? Thats what I thought too. Zagorakis played in the middle when sav played wing back.
Monk Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 From what I can recall didn't Sav play RWB most of the time under MON? Sav played in the middle at the beginning of the MON reign, when Andy Impey was out on the wing. Zagorakis came in 2008, and even then he didn't play every game.
fleckneymike Posted 31 July 2013 Author Posted 31 July 2013 Sav played in the middle at the beginning of the MON reign, when Andy Impey was out on the wing. Zagorakis came in 2008, and even then he didn't play every game. Didn't Parker play more than Sav? First season ticket season and I can remembering him being deployed a lot as a sub on the RW
Guest Sharpe's Fox Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 One issue I have with 3-5-2 is with this side it has the increased possibility of becoming a negative and defensive 5-3-2, as what I remember from last season the side dropped too deep in defense when opposition was in possession.
Monk Posted 31 July 2013 Posted 31 July 2013 Didn't Parker play more than Sav? First season ticket season and I can remembering him being deployed a lot as a sub on the RW I could be wrong, such a long time ago now and we had so many great midfielders over that period. Hazy memory.
FoxesBoyChris Posted 1 August 2013 Posted 1 August 2013 One issue I have with 3-5-2 is with this side it has the increased possibility of becoming a negative and defensive 5-3-2, as what I remember from last season the side dropped too deep in defense when opposition was in possession. It is true that it can revert to a defensive formation but that has its advantages at times too. When you are under pressure 5 defenders and 2/3 defending midfielders is what you need to win the ball back - before quickly springing an attack from the two forward running wing backs, a midfield trio and your two forwards.
Jordan Posted 1 August 2013 Posted 1 August 2013 I was thinking the same thing with regards to those players after watching the Monaco game. 3-5-2 seems to be an outdated formation. Good teams these days that play with 4 defenders always figure out ways to get their full backs to make overlapping forward runs, and "width" isn't an issue.
fleckneymike Posted 1 August 2013 Author Posted 1 August 2013 Nice bit in the mockery on just this issue http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Fan-s-view-Leicester-City-play-4-4-2/story-19601499-detail/story.html?9242305697&redirected=true
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.