Jump to content

3-5-2


Guest Arnold

Recommended Posts

Guest Arnold

Biggs has just released an article saying we could be gearing up for a formation change to 3-5-2. I would like to see us try it at some point as I think it could work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wilyfox

Could explain links with so many centre-halves. We already have good wing-back options in Reach and Hunt. Abdi might even get a game too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Arnold

Well it seems that way as we have been linked with Ayala Hanley Morrison and keogh. I'd like to see reach and hunt as wing backs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Arnold
Just now, gurujuan said:

If we were planning to play this way, what happens to our wingers, there'd be redundant

What wingers? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To play 3 at the back means having 2 full backs (Wing Backs) that are quality both going forward and defensively, so that would be at the least another 2 more new signings, Hunt and Pudil are decent enough but not good enough to make a 3-5-2 formation work well. I personally think that a change to 3-5-2 would be a move forward but not with the personal we have, Ayala, Hanley, Morrisson would all be great additions but 2 full backs would be the priority .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, paddyowl said:

To play 3 at the back means having 2 full backs (Wing Backs) that are quality both going forward and defensively, so that would be at the least another 2 more new signings, Hunt and Pudil are decent enough but not good enough to make a 3-5-2 formation work well. I personally think that a change to 3-5-2 would be a move forward but not with the personal we have, Ayala, Hanley, Morrisson would all be great additions but 2 full backs would be the priority .

 

Think Hunt would thrive in a 3-5-2 and Reach would be on the left side.

 

Agreed that it might be too much for Pudil (he can also play centre half though right?) and we would need re-enforcements at wing back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, gurujuan said:

 

Well yes' but at the moment, Wallace and Forestieri play wide, and they are by far our most creative players Where would they fit in such a system

 

Wallace plays pretty narrow, so maybe he'd be part of the pool for the midfield three positions?

 

Can only see Forestieri playing up front, which would be a shame IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, gurujuan said:

 

Well yes' but at the moment, Wallace and Forestieri play wide, and they are by far our most creative players Where would they fit in such a system

He definately prefers FF up front. Wallace would struggle to play but I think we need to be looking to improve on him anyway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive been saying for ages that 3-5-2 gets us our best players in their best positions.

 

Hutch at CB with Lees and Loovens.

 

Hunt and Reach at wing backs.

 

Lee and Bannan in the middle.

 

Hooper behind FF and Rhodes

Edited by jonnyowl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jonnyowl said:

Ive been saying for ages that 3-5-2 gets us our best players in their best postions.

 

Hutch at CB with Lees and Loovens.

 

Hunt and Reach at wing backs.

 

Lee and Bannan in the middle.

 

Hooper behind FF and Rhodes

 

Who is going to break the opposition play in central midfield? Don't fancy Bannan, Lee and Hooper winning many physical battles!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, oh_weds_we_love_you said:

 

Think Hunt would thrive in a 3-5-2 and Reach would be on the left side.

 

Agreed that it might be too much for Pudil (he can also play centre half though right?) and we would need re-enforcements at wing back.

I've said it before on here that playing 3-5-2 is the way forward but the full backs are the most important players on the park to make it effective, Reach could probably do a job there but hunt I'm not so sure.

 

George Friend and Eric Lihaj would be my ideal two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...