Could 3-5-2 be the answer ?

User avatar
NewCorkSeth
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 9524
Joined: 05 Jul 2013 00:17
Location: Wherever Nameless may be.

Re: Could 3-5-2 be the answer ?

by NewCorkSeth » 21 Nov 2016 13:11

3points
NewCorkSeth Stam seems to suggest if we are using the 3-5-2 formation and playing well it will end up being a 3-3-4.
Which Im assuming looked a little something like this? Can anyone confirm who was at the match if our shape seemed a little like this at times?


-----------------------Al-Habsi
----------Moore---Mcshane---Blackett
Gunter---------------Evans--------------Obita
McCleary----Williams--Samuel----Beerens


No Beerens was much more central most of the game. my interpretation was this

------------------------------Al-Habsi
--------McShane------------Moore-----------Blackett
Gunter---------------------Evans------------------------------Obita
-----------------------William------Beerens
------------------McCleary--------------Samuel

Tbf - Gunter looked a bit lost a lot of the time. His general starting position was on the half way line and didn't get forward as effectively as Obita did on the left. Beerens certainly drifted left but started centrally but helped Obita to overload their right back on numerous occasions. Williams played a bit deeper than Beerens as well and did a decent amount of tracking back and defensive duties. He was often covering right back and helping out McShane when Gunter wasn't quite in the right position

Interesting! I guess my only questions is why we didnt just play the Chelsea formation like this:

------------------------------Al-Habsi
--------McShane------------Moore-----------Blackett
Gunter---------------Williams---Evans-------------------Obita
---------------------McCleary------Beerens
--------------------------------Samuel

If McCleary and Beerens were quite central for most of the game (with the obvious freedom to drift out to create channels) why did we feel the need to allow Williams so much room to move forward? Was it purely tactical due to a perceived opposition weakness?

I guess I would just prefer to see the 3-4-3 I posted above than the 3-5-2 or the 3-3-4. If we have decided McCleary and Beerens are capable of playing a roaming inside forward role than why go for the weaker formation that requires 2 out and out forwards?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Clyde1998, Royals and Racers and 265 guests

It is currently 08 Oct 2025 17:46