|
3-5-2
Feb 7, 2016 22:42:59 GMT
via mobile
Post by cheeesfreeex on Feb 7, 2016 22:42:59 GMT
Systems, systems.. seem to becoming less relevant now Hughes is tearing up the rule book. We are most effective when we have the least possession. A bit counter intuitive in that when we dominate the game we tend to lose. And an indicator that playing intricate passing football doesn't necessarily work in terms of results. At the moment we're an unhappy hybrid between the possession and the swift counter attack. I like the probing and rangy cross field balls, but there's a limit to it when there's eleven faces laughing at you.
It's a nice job for Sparky to achieve a better balance. Perhaps a warm weather break will allow Hughes to wipe his brow, bring Imbula into the fold and re-assess the way forward.
Loads of problems in not encouraging partnerships to develop and relying on individuality to take the day. Our xmas wins were more about Arnie and Shaq firing rather than the formation. There's a destructive element to Hughes in that he breaks things up when they're working. (See bringing off Odemw against Crystal Palace, Shaq yesterday etc.) Loads of examples of overall and on a game by game basis. He's bought into the Stoke way by making things unnecessarily okkerd for himself. We'll never know all the ins and outs and dressing room nuances but for me the back to basics Hughes is now advocating are obvious:
We play with full backs acting as wing backs. Pieters isn't up to it going forward and Johnson isn't up to it defensively. It pulls us apart and knackers any chance of shape.
We get terribly exposed when the wing backs go forth. It leaves us exposed at the back and renders the inverted wingers generally redundant. We don't get enough bods in the box with the lone striker shite, so why concentrate and rely on that for our main attacking threat.
It's brill when it works but we could be better more regularly. And without Shawcross we struggle to keep any defensive shape. 3-5-2.
And set pieces. Come on Stoke.
|
|
|
Post by GeneralFaye on Feb 7, 2016 22:55:21 GMT
Butland Johnson Shawcross Wolly Pieters Imbula Afellay Arnie Bojan Shaqiri Diouf
When all fit, this team should be given a run of games to get things right. Sod chopping and changing.
|
|
|
3-5-2
Feb 7, 2016 23:00:44 GMT
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2016 23:00:44 GMT
Butland Johnson Shawcross Wolly Pieters Imbula Afellay Arnie Bojan Shaqiri Diouf When all fit, this team should be given a run of games to get things right. Sod chopping and changing. Cameron and Imbula feels even a bit of a stretch but Afellay and Imbula I cannot see mate
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Feb 7, 2016 23:02:02 GMT
No
|
|
|
3-5-2
Feb 7, 2016 23:02:54 GMT
via mobile
Post by GeneralFaye on Feb 7, 2016 23:02:54 GMT
Butland Johnson Shawcross Wolly Pieters Imbula Afellay Arnie Bojan Shaqiri Diouf When all fit, this team should be given a run of games to get things right. Sod chopping and changing. Cameron and Imbula feels even a bit of a stretch but Afellay and Imbula I cannot see mate With Shawcross back in the team that will make us more solid, I'm just looking for a way for us to score some bloody goals.
|
|
|
3-5-2
Feb 7, 2016 23:07:07 GMT
via mobile
Post by cheeesfreeex on Feb 7, 2016 23:07:07 GMT
-----------Butland-------- --Cameron Wollscheid Pieters-- Johnson Imbula Afellay Arnautovic--- ---------Joselu Bojan (Diouf, Shaq, Ireland or Crouch.)----
Maximize the positives and minimize the deficits.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 0:13:54 GMT
Cameron and Imbula feels even a bit of a stretch but Afellay and Imbula I cannot see mate With Shawcross back in the team that will make us more solid, I'm just looking for a way for us to score some bloody goals. I do think Geoff gives us the mix of dynamism, athleticism and the bit of steel we need though really. Tell you who I'd love, Besic at Everton. Boss player him. See where you're coming from though, I think Imbula will prove to be instrumental in a midfield 2.
|
|
|
3-5-2
Feb 8, 2016 0:33:52 GMT
via mobile
Post by trickydicky73 on Feb 8, 2016 0:33:52 GMT
-----------Butland-------- --Cameron Wollscheid Pieters-- Johnson Imbula Afellay Arnautovic--- ---------Joselu Bojan (Diouf, Shaq, Ireland or Crouch.)---- Maximize the positives and minimize the deficits. You'll get the "3-5-2 is a shit formation" rebuff, now. Not long ago 4-4-2 was being called old hat and not fit for purpose in modern football. Aren't you a player short, though?
|
|
|
3-5-2
Feb 8, 2016 0:55:14 GMT
Post by cheeesfreeex on Feb 8, 2016 0:55:14 GMT
-----------Butland-------- --Cameron Wollscheid Pieters-- Johnson Imbula Afellay Arnautovic--- ---------Joselu Bojan (Diouf, Shaq, Ireland or Crouch.)---- Maximize the positives and minimize the deficits. You'll get the "3-5-2 is a shit formation" rebuff, now. Not long ago 4-4-2 was being called old hat and not fit for purpose in modern football. Aren't you a player short, though? Fuck yeah, sandwich short etc Trick. Cheers. It was actually meant to be a multiple choice... + anyone from within the brackets.{}. Even room for Whelan in there if you need someone to mop up. The flexibility of such a set up. I think when it's not working the combination of wing backs, inverted wingers etc makes us exposed at the back and limited up front. 9 conceded and 0 scored recently suggests something needs changing. Certainly no players in the opposition box and leaving huge gaps at the back isn't particularly working at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Feb 8, 2016 1:11:42 GMT
Yeah, I realize that we are in a minority of two on here but fuck it! With that formation there is enough attacking threat and the 3 at the back could still have protection from a deeper midfielder.
I also like the idea of 2 up front and we have various options as to which two to pick.
I'm not saying that this should be our go to system, but I don't see why it is not a viable option. We could have been beaten 6 or 7 nil yesterday, after all, so it's not as if we are solid now!
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Feb 8, 2016 8:54:27 GMT
Systems, systems.. seem to becoming less relevant now Hughes is tearing up the rule book. We are most effective when we have the least possession. A bit counter intuitive in that when we dominate the game we tend to lose. And an indicator that playing intricate passing football doesn't necessarily work in terms of results. At the moment we're an unhappy hybrid between the possession and the swift counter attack. I like the probing and rangy cross field balls, but there's a limit to it when there's eleven faces laughing at you. It's a nice job for Sparky to achieve a better balance. Perhaps a warm weather break will allow Hughes to wipe his brow, bring Imbula into the fold and re-assess the way forward. Loads of problems in not encouraging partnerships to develop and relying on individuality to take the day. Our xmas wins were more about Arnie and Shaq firing rather than the formation. There's a destructive element to Hughes in that he breaks things up when they're working. (See bringing off Odemw against Crystal Palace, Shaq yesterday etc.) Loads of examples of overall and on a game by game basis. He's bought into the Stoke way by making things unnecessarily okkerd for himself. We'll never know all the ins and outs and dressing room nuances but for me the back to basics Hughes is now advocating are obvious: We play with wing backs. Pieters isn't up to it going forward and Johnson isn't up to it defensively. It pulls us apart and knackers any chance of shape. We get terribly exposed when the wing backs go forth. It leaves us exposed at the back and renders the inverted wingers generally redundant. We don't get enough bods in the box with the lone striker shite, so why concentrate our attacking from there. It's brill when it works but we could be better more regularly. And without Shawcross we struggle to keep any defensive shape. 3-5-2. And set pieces. Come on Stoke. Glenn Close was less obsessed with Michael Douglas in Fatal Attraction than you are with this godforsaken 3-5-2. You say the problem is that we play wing backs (which we don't) and then advocate a system which totally depends on wing backs? It's a bad idea.
|
|
|
3-5-2
Feb 8, 2016 21:23:23 GMT
Post by cheeesfreeex on Feb 8, 2016 21:23:23 GMT
Glenn Close was less obsessed with Michael Douglas in Fatal Attraction than you are with this godforsaken 3-5-2. You say the problem is that we play wing backs (which we don't) and then advocate a system which totally depends on wing backs? It's a bad idea. I disagree with your wing back point Rob, we rely on our fullbacks Pieters and Johnson {and Bardsley before him} for width, very much like you would wing backs. When it's not working it leaves us terribly exposed at the back, it forces the inverted wingers either into ineffective areas or into defensive tracking back rather than positions to hurt the opposition. Doesn't get the best out of the forwards, and as a by-product looks like it's knackering the fullbacks out too. Similarly the lone striker thing isn't particularly floating me boat at the moment. Getting bodies in the box has been a huge issue. You are correct of course I am a bit obsessed with 3-5-2, it usually bubbles to the surface in times of leakiness and impotency {and drunkenness}. It's only a two week dip, but it's been a fortnight which has shone a light on our deficiencies, and while I'm happy to take it a game at a time, and there are no 'easy' games, I don't particularly like the look of the next few fixtures. {Teams who have been struggling but appear to be improving.} It makes a bit of a nonsense of the 'periodisation' method of training, and squad football if this poor form is down to fatigue. {Isn't it why we have taken slow starts on the chin?} We have improved in the second half of the two previous seasons but we also run the risk of being a hostage to injury. {Last seasons strong finish was accomplished in the absence of Ryan, Bojan, Muniesa, Moses {and Huth}. Players that Hughes had at the forefront of his plans. It's a funny old game.} A return of Shawcross and the arrival of Imbula etc may be the magic bullets required to arrest this blip. If neither are then I don't see how giving the 3-5-2 a proper go would be any worse than the Dog's dinner we've got at present. It'd be ok getting pulled out of shape at the back if we were creating owt much to compensate, we're not. I'm far from despondent and I'm not trying to convert you, I can understand you not liking my answer. I just thought you were a bit dismissive of my 'working out'.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Feb 8, 2016 21:58:32 GMT
Glenn Close was less obsessed with Michael Douglas in Fatal Attraction than you are with this godforsaken 3-5-2. You say the problem is that we play wing backs (which we don't) and then advocate a system which totally depends on wing backs? It's a bad idea. I disagree with your wing back point Rob, we rely on our fullbacks Pieters and Johnson {and Bardsley before him} for width, very much like you would wing backs. When it's not working it leaves us terribly exposed at the back, it forces the inverted wingers either into ineffective areas or into defensive tracking back rather than positions to hurt the opposition. Doesn't get the best out of the forwards, and as a by-product looks like it's knackering the fullbacks out too. Similarly the lone striker thing isn't particularly floating me boat at the moment. Getting bodies in the box has been a huge issue. You are correct of course I am a bit obsessed with 3-5-2, it usually bubbles to the surface in times of leakiness and impotency {and drunkenness}. It's only a two week dip, but it's been a fortnight which has shone a light on our deficiencies, and while I'm happy to take it a game at a time, and there are no 'easy' games, I don't particularly like the look of the next few fixtures. {Teams who have been struggling but appear to be improving.} It makes a bit of a nonsense of the 'periodisation' method of training, and squad football if this poor form is down to fatigue. {Isn't it why we have taken slow starts on the chin?} We have improved in the second half of the two previous seasons but we also run the risk of being a hostage to injury. {Last seasons strong finish was accomplished in the absence of Ryan, Bojan, Muniesa, Moses {and Huth}. Players that Hughes had at the forefront of his plans. It's a funny old game.} A return of Shawcross and the arrival of Imbula etc may be the magic bullets required to arrest this blip. If neither are then I don't see how giving the 3-5-2 a proper go would be any worse than the Dog's dinner we've got at present. It'd be ok getting pulled out of shape at the back if we were creating owt much to compensate, we're not. I'm far from despondent and I'm not trying to convert you, I can understand you not liking my answer. I just thought you were a bit dismissive of my 'working out'. We play attacking full backs Cheesy. That isn't the same thing as full backs. A 3-5-2 requires actual, proper wing backs who carry the burden of attacking and defending the flank. It leaves you even more exposed to rapid wingers and balls in behind the defence. That isn't going to get the best out of Arnie in an attacking sense either. I'm not saying nothing needs to change but a back three isn't the answer. Not with our players and not, generally speaking, in the Premier League, where it's rarely worked for anyone for any significant amount of time to any great degree.
|
|
|
Post by Olgrligm on Feb 8, 2016 22:09:35 GMT
I've got this horrible, recurring nightmare about Brian Little.
|
|
|
Post by swampmongrel on Feb 8, 2016 22:26:51 GMT
Has anything other than a back 4 worked for a sustained period for anyone? Anywhere?
Genuine question?
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Feb 8, 2016 22:29:45 GMT
Has anything other than a back 4 worked for a sustained period for anyone? Anywhere? Genuine question? The Italians love a good back three.
|
|
|
3-5-2
Feb 8, 2016 23:07:56 GMT
Post by cheeesfreeex on Feb 8, 2016 23:07:56 GMT
We play attacking full backs Cheesy. That isn't the same thing as full backs. A 3-5-2 requires actual, proper wing backs who carry the burden of attacking and defending the flank. It leaves you even more exposed to rapid wingers and balls in behind the defence. That isn't going to get the best out of Arnie in an attacking sense either. I'm not saying nothing needs to change but a back three isn't the answer. Not with our players and not, generally speaking, in the Premier League, where it's rarely worked for anyone for any significant amount of time to any great degree. Not convinced by that Rob. I absolutely think that both Johnson and Arnie have the perfect balance of attacking and defensive skills to fulfill the 'wing back' duties, much as they do anyway, but a disciplined 3 at the back could better compensate defensively, and 2 up top would hopefully give them more options to aim at. Currently the respective cb and Whelan get pulled all over the place as a result of the high position Pieters and Johnson adopt. I don't think it'd leave us more vulnerable to attack than we are currently. I think it would maximize Arnie's abilities, he's great at dropping the shoulder and marauding from deep, and with a deeper defender defending behind him, rather than over-lapping could get on with attacking more. I think there are plenty of players who potentially would suit such a system. Pieters concentrating on defending, forwards suited to a partnership up front, maybe even Muniesa as a left 'wing back'? I'm not suggesting it'd necessarily be a long term fix, and as you say it hasn't been kind to teams in the Prem who've stuck with it, though with Wigan and Hull it reaped rewards in Cup competitions, and Pearson used it to stabilize Leicester last season. Not saying it's a long term solution, but nobody knows whether it would work? Perhaps we should treat the next four fixtures as a mini cup run, try it out. A change is as good as a rest etc.
|
|
|
3-5-2
Feb 9, 2016 2:33:06 GMT
Post by PotterLog on Feb 9, 2016 2:33:06 GMT
5 is simply not a number that belongs in football formations.
|
|
|
3-5-2
Feb 9, 2016 5:47:53 GMT
Post by mateybass on Feb 9, 2016 5:47:53 GMT
Has anything other than a back 4 worked for a sustained period for anyone? Anywhere? Genuine question? Not sure but Leicester were playing 4-4-2 at Man City when they beat them... pretty sure that's what they've been playing all season too...
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Feb 9, 2016 7:54:14 GMT
We play attacking full backs Cheesy. That isn't the same thing as full backs. A 3-5-2 requires actual, proper wing backs who carry the burden of attacking and defending the flank. It leaves you even more exposed to rapid wingers and balls in behind the defence. That isn't going to get the best out of Arnie in an attacking sense either. I'm not saying nothing needs to change but a back three isn't the answer. Not with our players and not, generally speaking, in the Premier League, where it's rarely worked for anyone for any significant amount of time to any great degree. Not convinced by that Rob. I absolutely think that both Johnson and Arnie have the perfect balance of attacking and defensive skills to fulfill the 'wing back' duties, much as they do anyway, but a disciplined 3 at the back could better compensate defensively, and 2 up top would hopefully give them more options to aim at. Currently the respective cb and Whelan get pulled all over the place as a result of the high position Pieters and Johnson adopt. I don't think it'd leave us more vulnerable to attack than we are currently. I think it would maximize Arnie's abilities, he's great at dropping the shoulder and marauding from deep, and with a deeper defender defending behind him, rather than over-lapping could get on with attacking more. I think there are plenty of players who potentially would suit such a system. Pieters concentrating on defending, forwards suited to a partnership up front, maybe even Muniesa as a left 'wing back'? I'm not suggesting it'd necessarily be a long term fix, and as you say it hasn't been kind to teams in the Prem who've stuck with it, though with Wigan and Hull it reaped rewards in Cup competitions, and Pearson used it to stabilize Leicester last season. Not saying it's a long term solution, but nobody knows whether it would work? Perhaps we should treat the next four fixtures as a mini cup run, try it out. A change is as good as a rest etc. I don't understand your logic Cheesy. For starters, you're talking about this as if it makes us defensively tighter, despite the fact that you're halving the number of players positioned on the flank. Surely we're going to be even more exposed when the wing backs go forward, even with an extra centre back? Second, your assertion that Arnie is well-suited to playing there... There's a world of difference between tracking back to help out your left back and being entrusted with the whole flank yourself. Playing as a wing back wouldn't give him 'freedom to concentrate on attacking', it'd lumber him with more defensive duties than before. When you see these back threes, the wing backs are hardly ever wingers pushed back, they're virtually always full backs pushed forward. There's a reason for that. Our full backs don't especially attack much more than your standard Premier League full back is expected to and I think Pieters actually gets the balance just right, even though he hasn't played well of late.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2016 8:33:31 GMT
It's not wholly about systems or tactics when you've witnessed the stale performances we have in the league recently.
It's about players within whatever system you put out. Their mentality has to be right and they have to be on it. Both in terms of form and fitness.
Or is Mark Hughes the first ever manager to make a 4231/433 system the first one in world football that makes a centre half play the ball across his own box, a goalkeeper fetch a player down in his own box whilst his midfield don't create a single chance worthy of the name in 90 minutes?
|
|
|
3-5-2
Feb 9, 2016 8:39:26 GMT
Post by chiefdelilah on Feb 9, 2016 8:39:26 GMT
It's not wholly about systems or tactics when you've witnessed the stale performances we have in the league recently. It's about players within whatever system you put out. Their mentality has to be right and they have to be on it. Both in terms of form and fitness. Or is Mark Hughes the first ever manager to make a 4231/433 system the first one in world football that makes a centre half play the ball across his own box, a goalkeeper fetch a player down in his own box whilst his midfield don't create a single chance worthy of the name in 90 minutes? Nobody's said it is though have they?
|
|
|
3-5-2
Feb 9, 2016 9:21:06 GMT
Post by reddipotter on Feb 9, 2016 9:21:06 GMT
I'm sure the Tinkerman will try this formation sooner or later. It'll work for one game because it takes opponents by surprise, then fail in the second game, after which the formation will be changed again and several players dropped (though not the ones who played worst).
|
|
|
3-5-2
Feb 9, 2016 10:11:21 GMT
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2016 10:11:21 GMT
It's not wholly about systems or tactics when you've witnessed the stale performances we have in the league recently. It's about players within whatever system you put out. Their mentality has to be right and they have to be on it. Both in terms of form and fitness. Or is Mark Hughes the first ever manager to make a 4231/433 system the first one in world football that makes a centre half play the ball across his own box, a goalkeeper fetch a player down in his own box whilst his midfield don't create a single chance worthy of the name in 90 minutes? Nobody's said it is though have they? Never said they did. I'm just chucking it out there to add (or take away from) the debate.
|
|
|
3-5-2
Feb 9, 2016 20:28:40 GMT
Post by cheeesfreeex on Feb 9, 2016 20:28:40 GMT
Has anything other than a back 4 worked for a sustained period for anyone? Anywhere? Genuine question? Not sure but Leicester were playing 4-4-2 at Man City when they beat them... pretty sure that's what they've been playing all season too... Pearson used it to steady the ship and the rest is history, Ranieri {the artist formerly known as 'the Tinkerman'} has reverted to 4-4-2 but if you can believe what he says he isn't too arsed about tactics and such any more. Very much back to basics.
|
|
|
3-5-2
Feb 9, 2016 20:46:21 GMT
Post by mrteddysalad on Feb 9, 2016 20:46:21 GMT
when healthy...
-----------Butland--------
Johnson Ryan Wollscheid Pieters Cameron Imbula Shaq Bojan Arnautovic
Joselu
But I don't care too much at this point. Sparky just needs to pick something and stay with it. He's all over the place this year.
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Feb 20, 2016 12:59:30 GMT
Interesting to see how Koeman has used the 3-5-2 to arrest Southampton's decline and turn their season around. Given that they've not conceded for over nine hours of football it belies the idea that such a system leaves a team exposed. Similarly Saints have scored eleven goals from headers, an indication perhaps that the system enables you to get more bodies in the opposition box.
I'll be keeping an eye on how Championship high flyers Hull get on against Arsenal today. Brucie's still a fan of 3-5-2. {And he's playing Harry Maguire today too}.
I reckon we'll start to see more use of this system to counter the current obsession with counter attacking football. Not sure with Johnson's injury and Hughes' preference for inverted wingers that we'll give it a go, but I do think it would offer a viable option when trying to break down the more resolute.
|
|
|
Post by Pretty Little Boother on Feb 20, 2016 14:07:42 GMT
Invert the pyramid back again. Butland Shawcross Wollscheid Shaqiri Imbula Arnautovic Joselu Diouf Bojan Crouch Walters
I'd prefer that to 352, personally speaking.
|
|
|
Post by 2004 on Feb 20, 2016 14:30:40 GMT
Fuck me Wollscheid in a 3! No thanks.
|
|
|
3-5-2
Feb 20, 2016 16:13:52 GMT
via mobile
Post by iamcliveclarke on Feb 20, 2016 16:13:52 GMT
Juve have done it for years haven't they? I wouldn't mind seeing us try it
|
|