3-5-2 / other options

Hi all - long time lurker, though haven't really contributed much.

Don't know if anybody listens to World Football Phone in on 5-live at all, just been listening to the episode from the 16th Feb where there was a really good discussion about the type of players you need to play 3-5-2. Thought I'd share given all the chat about the best shape for us to play recently. Mina Rzouki makes the point that the main things you need in order to play 3-5-2 are disciplined wing backs and centre backs that know what they are doing (! - after Saturday) - and also that the formation as a whole requires a much higher level of fitness and stamina than other options, as well as being less flexible (though when we've played it it has seemed quite flexible to me).

I suppose it got me thinking that even though we've had a lot of success with it in recent weeks - maybe now is the right time for a change, as Flicker seems to be touting in his pre-match interview this week. Obviously we've lost our two key wingbacks and desperately need a replacement for Goldbourne. Even so, with the volume of fixtures we've got coming up might we want to try and switch to something that takes less out of the players, and perhaps save 3-5-2 for times we might really need it - or can the players just power through?

http://stitcher.com/s/player.php?eid=21418847 - the chat on 3-5-2 specifically starts about 1hr 14mins, there's a few minutes discussion beforehand with some Man Utd fan saying Ferguson should have played it against Real Madrid.


Anyway - just some thoughts, be interested to get yours.
ELT

 

I agree that it is a much more tiring formation to play, especially against teams that like to push their full backs up (assuming they are playing 4 at the back). Playing wing backs means that instead of two players down either side you just have the one, and they will need a lot of help in order to stop a full back and a wing back, especially if they are caught out high up field. That help needs to come from the midfield 3 who will need come wide to cover for wing backs or close down an approaching full back. I wonder if that's the reason Flicker is hesitant to play Mellis rather than J'OB.

I think the best example was MK Dons as they did like to get the ball down and play and we were sitting quite deep at 2-0 up. Perkins and Etuhu were constantly running out to close down their full backs or double up on their wingers. That sometimes left a big gap in front of the back 3. I reckon Flicker pushed Hassell up to give the two CDMs a bit more freedom to help out wide since Mellis wasn't doing much work.

It's going to be interesting when we play City as Zabaleta and Clichy almost play like wingers and I think we may struggle to cope with those two as well as Milner and Silva attacking our wing backs.

 

Got to be 4-4-1-1 against man city. 2 banks of four with dagnall dropping back to make it a 5 when we haven't got the ball.
scoreline likely to be embarrassing if we go 3-5-2

Steele

hassell crainie foster kennedy

delap Perkins tunnicliffe etuhu

dagnall

harewood

 

I'm not sure, it depends who Flicker manages to bring in at LB and then where he plays Kennedy. It could be a case of 3-5-2/4-4-2 with Kennedy stepping out the back three to play in midfield like against Blackpool.
If it is 4-4-1-1 I think it'll more likely be:
Steele
Delap Foster Cranie Kennedy
O'Brien Dawson Tunnicliffe Perkins
Dagnall
Harewood

There's plenty of options though, Perkins, O'Brien, Etuhu can all play centrally or out wide. Delap, Kennedy, Hassell can all play in defence or midfield. I wouldn't like to guess the formation or personnel. It's going to be interesting that's for sure.