3-5-2 Does not suit our sqaud

[Jimmy]

Let's hope, that given he was not only one of them but our captain, that he did know what we were doing!!!!

he probably thought it was 4 and was then corrected ...

[5waller5]

he probably thought it was 4 and was then corrected ...

 

 

Hope so ..... Wouldn't have been ideal him playing a different system to everyone else!!!!

[Jimmy]

Liam Moore was hanging back to start with too, so he wouldn't of been the only 1

[bob gregory]

Suits us fine, made for De laet and bakayogo,,its early days but looks good. Once our lwb rwb dcm start watching each others runs we will start seeing our back 3 looking more like a 4 when countered

[The Horse's Mouth]

Point being in the two games I have seen is that we have not really threatened the opposition until the creative players have been introduced in the second half.

I hope I am wrong, but for me the starting line up in this formation lacks the creative spark to break sides down.

Sorry if I came of as a cvnt, I was just frustrated. In my opinion, this formation suits our squad. But it doesn't suit the players that Pearson is fielding. We need a Knocky in there to provide creativity, hoofballing it up to Nugent and Vardy clearly doesn't work. I think with our squad, this could work well. But I admit, they're obvious flaws. Knocheskey playing that wingback role is awful for example. Personally, I'm giving it ten gamesish. If it lasts that long that is.

[Mack]

well Morgan was wrong it was Morgan, Whitbread and Konch as a back 3

 

Even Young said it was a back 4 on the moan in tonight.

I don't want this topic disappear off along a pointless argument, but we played a 4 after De Laet went off, and it was quite clear when we did not have the ball we had Konch, Morgan, Zak, Moore across the back.

Suits us fine, made for De laet and bakayogo,,its early days but looks good. Once our lwb rwb dcm start watching each others runs we will start seeing our back 3 looking more like a 4 when countered

 

And I suppose you have seen loads of the new lad?!

[cc_star]

Suits us fine, made for De laet and bakayogo,,its early days but looks good. Once our lwb rwb dcm start watching each others runs we will start seeing our back 3 looking more like a 4 when countered

 

Think it will be ok as the new signings are introduced:

 

Moore - Morgan - Miquel

RDL ------------------------Zoom

 

There's a real problem with Konch's inability to get up & down the left... and the formation just doesn't work if one of the back 3 defenders, namely Whitbread is hoofing it over the (effectively) 5 man midfield... Like yesterday it meant our numerical advantage counted for nothing... If Miquel can play a bit of football like his pedigree suggests he should be able to ... we could be in business.

[Jimmy]

just because Liam Moore didn't bomb forward DOESN'T MAKE IT A 4 Konchesky was so narrow he was practically hugging Whitbread, hardly a full backs position and Alan Young is a ****ing idiot, him saying it should be your 1st clue if we went 442 who the hell was right wing and no one ever went out there, the players took a few moments to reorganise but it was always 352

[sdb]

Haven't read through the thread yet but I agree and disagree with the title in equal measures.

 

For me, the weaknesses we had last season we're defending set plays (void for this argument), getting bullied in the midfield and conceding chances from wide areas.

 

In many ways I think 3-5-2 solves these issues. In midfield we look more (if not totally dominant) with 3 in the centre. With regards to wide areas, we seem to be doing OK also (bar the 'boro goal).

 

The problem we now have is a lack of width and creativity. I think the wing backs have played well personally (I think RDL is tailor made) but it's a shame to see/expect both Knocky and Dyer left out. 

 

Anyway, every formation has pros and cons and considering it's early days (and as a young lad during the O'Neill days) I think it's worth pursuing for now. Hopefully, come the second half of the season we'll be equally capable of playing 442 or 352, which would be a huge weapon. 

[GingerrrFox]

We didn't play a 4! We played 3-5-2 all game! Stop trying to use the substitutions as an argument for dropping the formation, the substitutions showed the changes we need to make the 3-5-2 more creative, nothing else.

[Mack]

How can you have a debate with people who don't ever realize what went on during the game.

Young, Morgan, Konch, Zak and Moore are all wrong and you are right, so sorry!

That will do for me.

My prediction is we will bin this 3-5-2 before the clocks go back, unless he sees sense and gets Knockaert in the middle, that's the only move I can see rescuing it.

[LcFc_Smiv]

I can certainly see why we'd want to keep things tight to start off with and get the players used to the system - especially on the defensive side. I would imagine that after a few games, we'll start introducing a more attacking element, where Schlupp, Bakayogo, Marshall and Knockaert will have important roles to play.

[LcFc_Smiv]

F'ing phone*

 

Anyway I agree with the above comment. The start of the season is about getting points but remaining solid, it doesn't surprise me that we would introduce this formation while trying to build a solid base. Your likes of Knocakert, who is getting time off the bench, Marshall, Schlupp and Bakayogo, who are getting game time in the development squad, will soon be introduced soon enough, hopefully they'll be first team regulars come September. Lets be honest, there would have been nothing worse than starting off with this formation and going for an all out attack, just to lose our defensive capabilities and be two games in with nothing on the board. Of course it's all ifs and buts, however two games in with a new formation, four points to our name, and the likes of Bakayogo, Knockaert, Marshall and Schlupp all to be introduced in time, I think there is a lot more to come from this team.

[lcfcsnow]

I can't see how it can be called a 5 man midfield when both wing backs are defenders, it's a 5 man defence with 3 very defensive midfielders meaning a style of play as boring as the man himself.

[Fox Ulike]

I thought Konchesky looked better as one of the back three than he does at wing-back.

 

Schlupp is the obvious choice for wing-back. He's tailor-made for the role.

 

De Laet - Moore - Morgan - Konchesky - Schlupp.

[Jimmy]

Schlupp is a ****ing striker, why does everyone want him to play out of position, the same people that moan if others are used out of position

[thybluefox]

Tbf we did, at least initially, slip into a 442 when Dyer and Knocky came on.

 

Konch does not suit a 352 (or 532, as it seemed) he just can't get up and down quick enough. It was obvious Leeds were targeting that side as they played the ball over the top into that corner on more than a few occasions. 

 

The midfield 3 of Drinkwater/King/James is also too negative, the amount of times Drinkwater looked to go back instead of forward was so frustrating. At home especially we need Knocky or Marshal in behind the front 2. 

[Dickov22]

Two points:

 

1) Schlupp wont be used as a striker by NP IMO, so whilst NP is here he will play LB or LWB

2) The formation shouldn't really matter. Professional footballers should be able to play in any formation they are asked to

[nickelbyfox]

I can't see how it can be called a 5 man midfield when both wing backs are defenders, it's a 5 man defence with 3 very defensive midfielders meaning a style of play as boring as the man himself.

 

Hahahaha! Agree 

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

I dont agree.

In this system we create nothing offensively, as it does not allow the creative players the freedom to go forward without risking leaving us open to punishing counter attacks.

We simply don't have the calibre of players, who can use any system well, imo.

[XLM]

I reckon if we had a more attacking midfielder like Tomlin - or perhaps sticking Knocky in the middle and telling him to push on, we wouldn't look like such a boring side. But, as someone elegantly put it above - the team definitely reflects the man in charge...

[Father Ted]

IMO, we should just not stick to 3-5-2 all season. We must be flexible and 3-5-2 should just be another option to use against certain teams if NP does his homework. For me 4-2-3-1, 4-4-1-1 and 4-4-2 should be used just as regularly too. MON did it successfully. It was clear on Sunday that we should have changed formation, putting certain attacking personnel into a negative system doesn't just mean that we'll suddenly start creating chances. 

[GingerrrFox]

3-5-2 is not a negative system. It is one of the most attacking formations you can play when you put the right players in the right positions and become comfortable. You have more players in advanced positions, dominate possession and dictate the tempo of play. Just look at how Watford dismantled Bournemouth at the weekend for a perfect example of the system at work.

[NEfox]

I prefer 442 with more attacking players. Stick to this and keep as much of the same side week in week out as much as possible, and we will pick up more points home and away.

 

I am not a massive fan of 352 or 532. I can't get even get them to play using 352 on football manager   

[crisp packet]

As many have said ? For me knocky or Marshall have to play in the 3 man midfield ,I'd like to see one busy midfielder one holding and an attack minded player .

Also your wing-backs have to be attacking ?

Konch just isn't ...