3-5-2 (1 Viewer)

skybluek · Aug 28, 2012

I would love us to play this formation most matches as it shows that your going to be attackive from the off
Murphy
Malaga-wood-edge
Clarke -------jennings--------hussey
Barton----------fleck
Elliot------Cody
Yes I have just edited this so what do you think about this team for most matches

chem90 · Aug 28, 2012

skybluek said:
I would love us to play this formation tonight as it shows that your going to be attackive from the off
Murphy
Malaga-wood-edge
Baker-------jennings--------hussey
Barton----------kilbane
Elliot------cody
I would use this as it offers more going forward it leaves the horrendous brown out baker would only play there when Clarke or Christine is not fit it puts kilbane in a more attacking position so he doesn't have to go up and down the wing as he's more likely to get tired easier if we are chasing the game take hussey of put sheff on and swap with kilbane but they most likely will play zigic so we have 3 strapping defenders that can actually heads ball what team would you put out tonight remember we do have injuries to fleck which he is out for

Please don't put your CV forward for the job.

WeWillBeBack · Aug 28, 2012

Very balanced down the right... NAWT

skybluek · Aug 28, 2012

3-5-2 is a much better formation than the diamond

SkyBlueScottie · Aug 28, 2012

Baker on the right is a naturally attacking player, therefore will leave acres of space behind himself for Brum to exploit, Barton Kilbane Cody and Elliot will end up getting very crowded in there and very narrow.

skybluek · Aug 28, 2012

We havent got much options on the right would have clarke but injured ditto christie so who else would you have down the right

Sutty · Aug 28, 2012

I've posted a similar formation on a couple of threads, but I think yours doesn't have an appropriately creative player for the central attacking midfield position.

Personally think a 3-4-1-2 formation suits our squad quite nicely, with Clarke and Hussey as the wing backs, Jennings and Thomas/Barton as the central two and Fleck creating for a strike partnership. I agree with other posters though that Baker would be a disaster there.

skybluek · Aug 28, 2012

Ino but I'm on about tonight I would prefer Clarke their but just saying we would have more joy plying 3 at the back

Sutty · Aug 28, 2012

Even tonight I'd rather have Reece Brown or a youth team player (Pegg, Phillips) there than Baker. Like the back 3 idea though.

skybluek · Aug 28, 2012

Sutty said:
Even tonight I'd rather have Reece Brown or a youth team player (Pegg, Phillips) there than Baker. Like the back 3 idea though.

Phillips is actually a decent player thanks for the encouragement than the just your stupid and your an idiot or the sarcastic comments

BrumSkyBlue · Aug 28, 2012

I hate the 3 at the back idea personally, it can often work out quite defensively. Look at Man City at the weekend, they essentially replaced an attacking player with an extra center back and wingbacks and it left them with fewer options higher up the pitch. Clarke Wood Malaga Hussey is a solid (albeit not amazing) back 4 defensively and going forward in this league.

I reckon we need something different going forward. Something along the lines of this would suit me:

Clarke Malaga Wood Hussey
Kilbane Jennings
Baker Fleck McSheffrey
Cody

Gaskell · Aug 28, 2012

Nathan Redmond, Burke, Ambrose, King to name a few, would have a field day if we had 3 at the back. IMO

Yorkshire SB · Aug 28, 2012

Would drop Kilbane, he's been a passenger in our midfield in the opening three games, looks like he may prove to be another Tim Sherwood!

skybluek · Aug 28, 2012

BrumSkyBlue said:
I hate the 3 at the back idea personally, it can often work out quite defensively. Look at Man City at the weekend, they essentially replaced an attacking player with an extra center back and wingbacks and it left them with fewer options higher up the pitch. Clarke Wood Malaga Hussey is a solid (albeit not amazing) back 4 defensively and going forward in this league.

I reckon we need something different going forward. Something along the lines of this would suit me:

Clarke Malaga Wood Hussey
Kilbane Jennings
Baker Fleck McSheffrey
Cody

But its all about how you use it great example Wigan the decent centre backs then Boyce and Figueroa which both like to go forward but are also decent full backs so they are taking the roles of the right and left wingers freeing up more options further up the pitch

Sutty · Aug 28, 2012

3 at the back tends to work well against a front 2 because it gives you a spare defender to deal with other threats, whereas if the opposition line up with one up front then you have a wasted defender. (thanks Michael Cox )

I think it's something worth having in our armoury for facing certain opponents. Imagine that... different tactics for different games

Spence CCFC · Aug 28, 2012

People need to open their eyes, 3 at the back is potentially future for football in this country. Wigan used it to great success and we could as well. Instead of 'wingers' being used as the wide players it works much better with 'wingbacks'. So Clarke/Christie and Hussey would play wide with 3 central defenders. This would aid the midfielders because they wouldn't have to track back with the covering defenders helping out the wingbacks when they push forward and are counter attacked. The central pairing would have more freedom to operate in this system opposed to a rigid diamond formation.

I would go for:

Malaga, Wood, Edge
Christie Hussey
Barton Jennings
Fleck
Cody Elliot

skybluegod · Aug 28, 2012

so we could lose by bigger amounts? we're not good enough for fancy formations 4-4-2,4-3-3,4-1-2-1-2 are the only ones we should try.

skybluegod · Aug 28, 2012

Spence CCFC said:
People need to open their eyes, 3 at the back is potentially future for football in this country. Wigan used it to great success and we could as well. Instead of 'wingers' being used as the wide players it works much better with 'wingbacks'. So Clarke/Christie and Hussey would play wide with 3 central defenders. This would aid the midfielders because they wouldn't have to track back with the covering defenders helping out the wingbacks when they push forward and are counter attacked. The central pairing would have more freedom to operate in this system opposed to a rigid diamond formation.

I would go for:

Malaga, Wood, Edge
Christie Hussey
Barton Jennings
Fleck
Cody Elliot

1-we're not in in the premier league.
2- we're not wigan and don't have their quality of players
3- we don't have a decent manager or coach to get us playing well in that formation as of yet.

BrumSkyBlue · Aug 28, 2012

Spence CCFC said:
People need to open their eyes, 3 at the back is potentially future for football in this country. Wigan used it to great success and we could as well. Instead of 'wingers' being used as the wide players it works much better with 'wingbacks'. So Clarke/Christie and Hussey would play wide with 3 central defenders. This would aid the midfielders because they wouldn't have to track back with the covering defenders helping out the wingbacks when they push forward and are counter attacked. The central pairing would have more freedom to operate in this system opposed to a rigid diamond formation.

I would go for:

Malaga, Wood, Edge
Christie Hussey
Barton Jennings
Fleck
Cody Elliot

This is kind of exactly my point though, with 4 at the back hussey and christie/clarke can still get forward, especially with jennings and kilbane having more defensive roles and covering when they do get forward. But with three at the back we're now effectively playing with 5 defenders and only three midfielders. As limited as they may be I'd rather have baker and Mcsheffrey on the flanks than christie and Hussey as it's far more attacking, and we've still got Barton, Jennings and Fleck in the midfield.

*Should have added Barton instead of Kilbane in my previous post, forgot all about him for some reason!

Mucca Mad Boys · Aug 28, 2012

If the same people who are slagging off the diamond suggesting we play 3-5-2 are hypocrites!

The 2 a quite similar, both have wing-backs, the 'no width' argument will re-surface.

In defence it'll be similar, as Jennings in the diamond is almost that 3rd CB.

When you think of it, they're quite similar, but flat 4 at the back for me.

3-5-2 looks good on paper but how many teams use it, especially in L1 but isn't that great in reality.

Sorry...

skybluek · Aug 28, 2012

Don't you think it's time for a change we have had no success in recent years playing the same 442 or 41212 why not change things up and if it goes wrong we can say we tried then think of something else

Mucca Mad Boys · Aug 28, 2012

BrumSkyBlue said:
This is kind of exactly my point though, with 4 at the back hussey and christie/clarke can still get forward, especially with jennings and kilbane having more defensive roles and covering when they do get forward. But with three at the back we're now effectively playing with 5 defenders and only three midfielders. As limited as they may be I'd rather have baker and Mcsheffrey on the flanks than christie and Hussey as it's far more attacking, and we've still got Barton, Jennings and Fleck in the midfield.

*Should have added Barton instead of Kilbane in my previous post, forgot all about him for some reason!

But we haven't got a striker that can play the 'lone striker' role and we'd struggle goals wise. Imo

Hateley's Heed · Aug 28, 2012

Sutty said:
Personally think a 3-4-1-2 formation suits our squad quite nicely, with Clarke and Hussey as the wing backs, Jennings and Thomas/Barton as the central two and Fleck creating for a strike partnership. I agree with other posters though that Baker would be a disaster there.

Like the look of that myself especially if the back 3 were Cameron, Malaga and Wood.

skybluek · Aug 28, 2012

Hateley's Heed said:
Like the look of that myself especially if the back 3 were Cameron, Malaga and Wood.

None of us want brown in the starting line up don't see Why thorn brung him in thought we could of gotta loan striker in instead of ball for example Harry Kane from spurs went on loan to milwall last season scoring a decent amount of goals but also did very well with link up play

Mucca Mad Boys · Aug 28, 2012

skybluek said:
None of us want brown in the starting line up don't see Why thorn brung him in thought we could of gotta loan striker in instead of ball for example Harry Kane from spurs went on loan to milwall last season scoring a decent amount of goals but also did very well with link up play

Brown seemed a decent move until we seen him play! Meant to be versatile, someone you need in your team, but he's been terrible.

Kane did well at Millwall, in the championship, why would he drop down and come here!? Also, he's on the bench for Spurs atm.

3-5-2 (1 Viewer)

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency