At last we have realised that the selection of three central defenders is the way forward, especially with the quality of Mee, Tarkowski, Long (and Gibson). This allows for the selection of three central midfield players - Cork, Westwood and Hendrick - thus allowing the full-backs - Taylor (or Ward) and Bardsley (or Lowton) - to become more creative and also allows for two strikers - any two from four with a preference of a combination of height and pace/mobility e.g. Vokes and Barnes or Wood and Vydra. Hopefully then we would be more solid in midfield and in defence and more of a threat going forwrad. Worth a try at Arsenal ?

A 5-3-2 formation can work well against some opponents, but you have to be flexible. 5-3-2 is unlikely going to be the best way to set out against Huddersfield at home, for example, where we'll be attacking more. But yeah, worth a try against Arsenal as that will be similar to the Spurs game.

With 5-3-2 you need very mobile full/wing backs to make it work, it should (in theory) go from a defensive 5-3-2 to an attacking 3-5-2 seemlessly.... but making it work in practice is a bit different.

UTC

For 5-3-2 to work properly you need two exceptionally fit and athletic 'full backs' who can regularly deliver precision crosses. We just don't have them at the moment.

At home v teams such as Huddersfield Town, we could replace the two full-backs with two wide players e.g. Brady/Lennon/Gudmundsson and still remain solid in defence with three central defenders and in midfield with three central midfielders.

Doesn’t play to the fact that Brady and JBG are two of our very few match winners in the squad. Putting either at wingback reduces that impact too and a pure 3 at the back would be suicidal in almost every game for us this season.

If we’re doing 5 at the back a few tweaks to this weekend’s layout isn’t far from Conte’s title winning Chelsea one where you have two wide winger/forwards and a central striker. Style is clearly very different though.

MT03ALG wrote:At home v teams such as Huddersfield Town, we could replace the two full-backs with two wide players e.g. Brady/Lennon/Gudmundsson and still remain solid in defence with three central defenders and in midfield with three central midfielders.

But then that would be 3-5-2. Like I say, formations depend on the opposition as well. We aren't good enough to stick to one, regardless. We need to change accordingly.

5-3-2 can easily be transformed into 3-5-2 if you have the players. Hopefully the stability of the team would depend on three central midfield players (possibly two 'sixes' and a 'number 10') and three central defenders.

Like the idea of 5-3-2.
Better than the 7-2-1 deployed on Saturday.
But credit to the Gaffer for trying something different.
If we can get this right for the games following Arsenal we should be fine.

The 5 at the back does give us the option of Tarks playing further forward and being given license to run with the ball.

That might help against the teams that sit back at home against us.

Tarks could probably play the anchorman role pretty well, as he's decent with the ball.

Oh, I mean as a centre halve with the option to run into the spaces in midfield that tend to be there when we push our guys out wide.

5212 with Tarks in an anchor / DMC role as the roving CB, and Vydra/JBG in the hole behind Vokes/Wood/Barnes, with Wingbacks from 2 of Lennon, Lowton, Taylor, Brady depending on the opponents.

I just think it makes the most of the players we have available, with two CM's from Hendrick, Cork, Westwood and Defour

532 with 3 central midfielders removes the mimimal amount of creativity we currently have.

no ta.

Archer wrote:Doesn’t play to the fact that Brady and JBG are two of our very few match winners in the squad. Putting either at wingback reduces that impact too and a pure 3 at the back would be suicidal in almost every game for us this season.
If we’re doing 5 at the back a few tweaks to this weekend’s layout isn’t far from Conte’s title winning Chelsea one where you have two wide winger/forwards and a central striker. Style is clearly very different though.

Agree with most of that but it doesn’t have to be a rigid 3 at the back. We do very little rigid anyway. The back 3 slide across to cover the attacking side and a mf or opposite wideman drops back to make a 4.
We are not very good at getting assistance up to our front men in any formation. That is the main reason for needing 2 up top.

Three central midfielders might help the stability of the team. Pointless being too creative if we are conceding too many goals. Creativity would come from getting the ball wide to overlapping full-backs or even wingers (!) and getting round the back of opponents.

This is just a stepping stone to a 5-5 formation with Vokes coming on for the last 2 minutes

Mala591 wrote:For 5-3-2 to work properly you need two exceptionally fit and athletic 'full backs' who can regularly deliver precision crosses. We just don't have them at the moment.

We do have one.

I’d personally go with my 3 centre backs as

Tarky(right) Mee gibson(left)
Gibson n tarky both better on the ball than me which leaves Mee to take charge n do what he’s good at which is just head n kick everything that moves

I’d have wing backs as lowton n brady(has played it before
I think)

Midfield 3 as cork jbg Defour as cork n Defour naturally sit deeper allowing jbg to buzz around a bit higher up the pitch n make things happen.

Front 2 as Barnes n vydra

Feel it’s 5-3-2 when needed,3-5-2 when needed n if absolutely necessary could become 4-4-2 quite easily

5-3-2. you have to assume that the full-backs are going to work the wings.
why play two wide-men in front of the wing-backs? why not reinforce the centre?

Full-backs or wide-men - it depends whether your basic aim is to defend or to attack...