Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

3-5-2 or 4-4-1-1



Charlies Shinpad

Charlies Shinpad

New member
Jul 5, 2003
4,415
Oakford in Devon
Lookslike CH is thinking of switching formations maybe sometime soon
After watching the way Man City played it against us I reckon it could be the way forward and I do realise we don't have the calibre of players they have.
 






P

Postman Pat

Well-known member
Jul 24, 2007
6,971
Coldean
Argus suggesting 3-4-3 rather than 3-5-2. A four in midfield would suit our squad better than a five and still provide the width we need.

I think it has potential, especially at some of the bigger teams away from home.
 


N

Napper

Well-known member
Jul 9, 2003
23,870
Sussex
We could play it with the players we got but I think the purpose for us would be to be more solid ie away from home.

I think the midfield pairing lets it down and of course it doesn't solve our striker issues.

...................Kruhl
..........Gold....Duf.....Dunk
Sch/Bru............................March
................Prop....Steph.
Knockaers(free)
.....................Gross
...................Hemed

Home games 4-4-1-1 all the way


We need Brown back to give some decent options
 


midnight_rendezvous

midnight_rendezvous

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2012
3,737
The Black Country
Napper said:
We could play it with the players we got but I think the purpose for us would be to be more solid ie away from home.

I think the midfield pairing lets it down and of course it doesn't solve our striker issues.

...................Kruhl
..........Gold....Duf.....Dunk
Sch/Bru............................March
................Prop....Steph.
Knockaers(free)
.....................Gross
...................Hemed

Home games 4-4-1-1 all the way


We need Brown back to give some decent options
Click to expand...

Surely you'd want Dunk in the middle of the back three to act as the sweeper, a role he is clearly suited to. Also, March at wing back? ???

IF we were to persevere with 3-4-3/ 5-2-3 I'd go with:

-------------------Ryan--------------------
-----Duffy-------Dunk-------Goldson--
Bruno-----------------------------Suttner
------------Propper----Gross------------
Knockhaert------------------------March
--------------------Hemed------------------
 
Last edited:




studio150

studio150

Well-known member
Jul 30, 2011
29,607
On the Border
I think the formation change on Tuesday was solely down to the players that CH wanted to use. By electing not to use Hemed or Murray there would have been little point in using our standard firmation for this season.

Fully expect usual 4411 on Sunday
 


S

Springal

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2005
23,830
GOSBTS
3-5-2 with only 2 strikers ?
 


N

Napper

Well-known member
Jul 9, 2003
23,870
Sussex
midnight_rendezvous said:
Surely you'd want Dunk in the middle of the back three to act as the sweeper, a role he is clearly suited to. Also, March at wing back? ???

IF we were to persevere with 3-4-3/ 5-2-3 I'd go with:

-------------------Ryan--------------------
-----Duffy-------Dunk-------Goldson--
Bruno-----------------------------Suttner
------------Propper----Gross------------
Knockhaert------------------------March
--------------------Hemed------------------
Click to expand...

Yeah Dunk middle.

March WB as has been brilliant defensively this season.

Not a formation I want to see really as indicates we are struggling with our tried and tested.

Just acknowledging it is possible and an option if we hit real rocky waters
 




B

BensGrandad

New member
Jul 13, 2003
72,015
Haywards Heath
Not sure how you could change the formation and still include Stephens who is getting better and more accustomed to his role in the Premier as he gets more games under his belt.
 




perseus

perseus

Broad Blue & White stripe
Jul 5, 2003
23,456
Sūþseaxna
Everton and Bournemouth did better than us against Man City playing five across the back.

I reckon modern computer programs could plot the players and calculate the optimum use of defenders. I reckon four at the back, or six with two defensive midfielders can cover all players and space without bumping into each other and going for the small ball.

Three at the back and one long ball can catch the wing-back out of position and enable weaker teams to pinch the points.

All systems have their weaknesses. It is getting the balance between attack and defence right. I think 3-5-2 and 4-1-4-1 are badly flawed though.

There is an old and rarely used (nowadays) system with five defenders but one plays as an attacking centre-half* entitled to play in both midfield and attack, but producing an extra defender under pressure. More usual is pull back the striker (Murray) to defend when under pressure. (*Ray Kennedy played like that for Liverpool in the late seventies. It could be classed as the box2box midfielder in a 4-3-3? )
 
Last edited:












midnight_rendezvous

midnight_rendezvous

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2012
3,737
The Black Country
GreersElbow said:
He has been defensively brilliant, would not be a bad idea.
Click to expand...

He is at his best as a winger taking on his man. Yes, he has shown the defensive aspect of his game recently but to play him as an out an out wingback would come at the cost of his impetus going forward IMO.
 




You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here