Re: Formation - Style

majson

I have often wonder over the last 14 months as to whether we'd be better off going to a 3-5-2 formation, the squad to me seems to suit this setup really well over-all with some exceptions of course but our biggest struggle has been creating clear chances for the strikers - being a little slow/sometimes not as direct as perhaps we could or should be


The trouble with a 3-5-2 would be how best to accommodate perhaps our two most flair players in Gray and Patrick Roberts - but in 4-2-3-1 we seem to ask one of our strikers to play against their main strengths.

Is it formation thats the problem or have we not recruited as sensibly as we should have - needing a LB and a CAM seemed like vital things over the summer to most of us and we still seem to be lacking in those areas

I don't think a default 3-5-2 suits our squad just because it then gets into who do you actually play where but it isn't really a big issue, with the ball we're often closer to that than 4-2-3-1.

Currently it is probably


Beadle

Iwata Neumann Klarer Cochrane

Doyle Paik

Roberts Stansfield Gray

Ducksch


vs


Beadle

Iwata Neumann Klarer

Roberts Doyle Paik Cochrane

Gray

Ducksch Stansfield



But you'd end up still asking Cochrane to drop deeper and Iwata to step up into midfield, Stansfield, with his pressing, would still be playing of Ducksch and Gray drifting left, which then leaves Roberts to move up on the right to fill space.

I think formation is a lot less important than style of play and movement with/ without the ball, and not something to get hung up on really. Like a 4-2-3-1 with Iwata at RB and Paik at 10 is hugely different from a 4-2-3-1 with Laird at RB and Stansfield at 10 - same nominal formation but significantly different approach.