3-5-2

[frastheowl]

31 minutes ago, pussface said:

Liam Rosenoir has wrote a good article in the guardian, about managers choosing systems as they're on trend rather than best suited to players at your disposal. Resulting in players deployed out of position to accommodate systems rather than the other way round. 

Three at the back was a boon for Chelsea, but so far a disaster for Chrystal Palace.

 

im not too sure we have the players to carry this off. Plus injury records of players in key postitions adds even more risk. However it could work giving the likes of Fox and Hunt more license to attack. No idea where FF fits in this system.

 

imo our best attacking option is a 4-3-3 derivative. Given FF is staying this means he can play inside left with Wallace/Mattias on the other side.

Draw backs to this are where do you fit in Hooper (hole in front of two DMs? Not sure) and our brittle full backs would be exposed.

 

possibly a mixture of 5-3-2 away from home and 4-3-3 at home or switch depending on the opponent.

 

4-4-2 has become too rigid, predictable, flat and inflexible. 

 

I think you're right about "trendy" formations and shapes, and at the minute, the 3 at the back is the trend.

 

And you look at how many teams are playing it, and wonder how many of those teams are better off for playing that way. Chelsea are the obvious ones who deployed the shape superbly, and the other team in the football league playing it brilliantly, is our neighbours down the road. Their system is fantastic, fluid and gets the best out of their players, and despite their limitations have got them overachieving. 

 

But Arsenal have started playing it, and you ask the question, why?! Are they more effective as they were before? Nope. Crystal Palace have changed to it, despite not having the players available to do so. It's a strange old phenomenon.

 

But for us, it's the opposite way round. It seems like we're playing a system that makes us ineffective, when changing to a back three, on paper at least, would seemingly make us far more effective as a unit.

 

Can't see Carlos changing it to be honest, but we'll see. 

[fpowl]

We do have a squad that can play some interesting formations

 

Personally I would like to see us be much more aggressive going forward 

 

3-4-3 on attack 5-2-3 / 5-4-1 in defence set up to attack at Any moment 

 

Our debth is incredible now

[TrueOwl]

         Westwood

 New     Hutch    New 
         KL       BB
  GB        GH       FF
           SF      JR

[TrueOwl]

Maybe we could try a Luis Enrique Barca style 3-2-3-2:

 

[StudentOwl]

I'd actually consider

 

                           Westwood

             

             Lees          Hutch       van Aken

 

Boyd              Lee             Bannan            Reach

                           

                            Forestieri

 

               Hooper                  Fletcher

 

 

I'm making the assumption (perhaps highly incorrectly), that Venancio is about the same level as Sasso. The reason I'd opt for Hutch at CB is:

-He's less injury prone there

-His distribution from a central position pinging 50 yard diagonals is class

In stages where we're in possession, Hutch in the centre of the 3 allows him to move forward when we're attacking into a more tradition (ultra defensive) defensive midfield role, or alternatively sit deeper than the rest of 'his line' (as he does when in midfield) and play almost as a sweeper as van Aken and Lees push a little wider and sit 5 yards further ahead of him. On balance, if we were to go three at the back, I think Hutch would be most adept at playing that most central role. 

 

The rest of the team pretty much speaks for itself: the four midfielders most likely to cover the most ground over 90 minutes doing the grunt work, Forestieri sitting in the hole supporting both midfield and attack and generally floating to find pockets of space, and then the strikers able to contribute most to phases of play to create chances ahead and hopefully getting support from the creative outlet and the grunts. Every sustained attack could realistically have 6/7 players within 25 yards of the opponent's goal, as opposed to the 4/5 we currently get. 

 

We finally have the CB's to consider a formation like this... it's almost worth giving it a go

[Bouncing Owl]

1 hour ago, StudentOwl said:

I'd actually consider

 

                           Westwood

             

             Lees          Hutch       van Aken

 

Boyd              Lee             Bannan            Reach

                           

                            Forestieri

 

               Hooper                  Fletcher

 

 

I'm making the assumption (perhaps highly incorrectly), that Venancio is about the same level as Sasso. The reason I'd opt for Hutch at CB is:

-He's less injury prone there

-His distribution from a central position pinging 50 yard diagonals is class

In stages where we're in possession, Hutch in the centre of the 3 allows him to move forward when we're attacking into a more tradition (ultra defensive) defensive midfield role, or alternatively sit deeper than the rest of 'his line' (as he does when in midfield) and play almost as a sweeper as van Aken and Lees push a little wider and sit 5 yards further ahead of him. On balance, if we were to go three at the back, I think Hutch would be most adept at playing that most central role. 

 

The rest of the team pretty much speaks for itself: the four midfielders most likely to cover the most ground over 90 minutes doing the grunt work, Forestieri sitting in the hole supporting both midfield and attack and generally floating to find pockets of space, and then the strikers able to contribute most to phases of play to create chances ahead and hopefully getting support from the creative outlet and the grunts. Every sustained attack could realistically have 6/7 players within 25 yards of the opponent's goal, as opposed to the 4/5 we currently get. 

 

We finally have the CB's to consider a formation like this... it's almost worth giving it a go

 

If we did go with this formation, that would be my team, maybe Hunt for Boyd but the rest the same. It does look mouth watering as I am sure we would play some great football. I think that is Hutch's best position - sweeper and he can be the one to take the ball out of defence.

 

One thing for sure, we need to get 3 in the middle of the park, either this formation or 4-3-3. We would get the best out of Ff in a 4-3-3. This 4-4-2 system is doing me head in - playing wingers with no pace.  What's the point? To stifle the opposites and boring them into submission along with the watching fans?

Edited September 1, 2017 by Bouncing Owl

[beloved_aunt]

I'm a bit scared how many people are suggesting Boyd for a right wing back role in this thread.  If you're going to play 3 at the back your wing backs are the only potential source of width in the whole team - both defensively and offensively.  If you play two left footers as WBs then one will be cutting infield removing exactly 50% of all your width and really limiting passing options going forward and cover going back.  Every opposition team would just station someone on the touch line down their left flank and ping balls over to them taking Boyd out of the game. 

[striker]

A change in formation is inevitable given the players we have recruited, they are not suited to 442. With our lack of pace, need to pursue a possession based approach, which means overloading midfield to retain the ball further up the pitch.

[StarmanNWC]

I think this is what he has in mind with Hutch dropping back at times to make a 3 when the full backs go on.

[Southie_Owl]

With the players that are apparently available I'd go 433 or 532 as below. Assuming that Abdi and Lee are not fit. Or maybe have Jones instead of Hutch

 

                Westwood 

Hunt   Lees    V Aken   Reach 

     Butters. Hutch Bannan

      Hoops   Fletch.   FF 

 

or

 

              Westwood 

         Fred  Lees  V Aken

Hunt.                          Reach 

       Butters Hutch Bannan

            Hooper. Fletch 

Edited September 1, 2017 by Southie_Owl

[Matt456]

15 hours ago, Dutch McLovin said:

I'd go:

 

Westwood

Vernacio Lees Aken

Hunt Lee Hutch Reach

Forestieri Bannan/Matias

Hooper

3 centre back and Hutch.  Going to be crowded back there, he sits far too deep.  

[Southie_Owl]

I'd really like it if Staton or Howson or Biggsy would just ask Carlos next week that since we now have 6 players who can play centre back (5 if you discount Pudil) and 6 players who can play in the centre midfield, but only 3 natural wide players, will we see a change of formation from now onwards?

 

Tho I expect they'd just get a usual Carlos answer of him respecting the opposition and that we will play the best way for each game (I.e. It's 442 and get used to it) 

[IstillhateSteveBould]

352 isn't too different to how we play now.  We leave 2 strikers up, fullbacks push on, our wide men tuck in and 1 midfielder sits deep.

 

433 is the way to go imo. Everytime we play that way we look good.

[Swiss Toni]

                Westwood

      Lees  Venancio   Van Aken

Hunt   Lee   Abdi   Butterfield   Reach

             Hooper Rhodes

 

That's how I'd line up primarily. I love Hutchinson but he just doesn't give you enough games so I've gone for Butterfield who can also put his foot in as somebody needs to in this formation. This also means no place for Bannan but I've based this on last season not this as I though our team suited this option better last term. If Abdi is unfit (more than likely) then Bannan comes I here and can push on more. Against weaker or more susceptible sides Forestieri can play the more advanced #10 role.

 

This formation just gives us so many more options. 

[Mickjj]

16 hours ago, Blue and white said:

We have the perfect squad to play 352 or 433, however I'm sure Carlos will stick with the tried and tested 442.

Don't you mean tired and tested

[Guest]

We will play 4-4-2

[LiamK2292]

Carlos is too stubborn to change it.

[StarmanNWC]

2 minutes ago, LiamK2292 said:

Carlos is too stubborn to change it.

We've seen him use the diamond formation which effectively becomes 3-5-2 when the full backs go forward and the point of the diamond links up between the lines.

[mark77]

Anyone who says we always play 442 clearly doesn't watch the game close enough. If you actually sit and study it properly you will see our formation is quite fluid and changes often during a game.

[mark77]

22 minutes ago, StarmanNWC said:

We've seen him use the diamond formation which effectively becomes 3-5-2 when the full backs go forward and the point of the diamond links up between the lines.

Correct, there were times last season when Hutchinson was so deep he effectively became and extra centre back and the full backs were almost playing as out and out wingers, especially when in possession. As I've just stated, our formation can be quite fluid at times.

Edited September 1, 2017 by mark77