Which 3 at the back.

[Burnley Ace]

If we are sticking with this formation which 3 and where?
Is it Tarks Gibson Mee?

[piston broke]

Long was at fault for the first, on Saturday, but not a droppable offence. He has been more than adequate his other games. Gibsons time will come but as he’s recovering from an injury there’s no rush.

[Bin Ont Turf]

Still not sure where some are getting the idea from that we've been playing a 3-5-2.

It's definitely been a 5-3-2 to me.

Would have loved to see Ward of the last two seasons in that formation though.

[South West Claret.]

If we are sticking with this formation which 3 and where?
Is it Tarks Gibson Mee?

For me yes it is.

[Right_winger]

Tarkowski, Gibson and Long. Mee isn’t good enough

[ClaretAndJew]

Obviously it's 5 at the back why would anyone think otherwise?

Three centre backs a right and left back.

3 midfield players two forwards. Obvious. Why would anyone think different?

[Bfc]

Mee, Long and Gibson as 3 centre backs, 2 full backs with Tarkowski playing as deep centre midfield. Allowing 2 other midfielders to play higher up the pitch, in the belief this will give them more support for the strikers and create more scoring opportunities for the team.

[willsclarets]

Given our system is clearly a 532 rather than a 352, is it possible to play in the same way with arguably our two most creative players in the side in JBG and Brady? I somehow can't see Bardsley and Taylor being replaced by these two in the same roles, less so Brady who has at least played a similar role for Norwich.
It might work if we were able to source a physical cm with a great engine to sweep behind Cork/Hendrick and Defour/Westwood.

A team of Hart, Brady, Mee, Gibson, Tarks, JBG, NEW, Defour, Cork, Vydra/Barnes, Vokes/Wood
Not bad, as long as "NEW" is the next Kante