What's new

Should we switch to 3-5-2 ?

Should we switch to 3-5-2

  • Yes it plays to our strengths

    Votes: 22 36.1%
  • No Ange is right stay as we are

    Votes: 39 63.9%

  • Total voters
    61

G Ron

Well-Known Member
Aug 24, 2012
2,202
8,450
If Ange is sacked this fall our next manager Thomas Frank will play it against difficult opponents and have Turbo Werner, Son and Johnson to counter.
You joke but if it all falls apart and Ange does go I’d take Thomas Frank all day. Very good coach.

That said, Re the OP I think it’s definitely worth exploring as our wide forwards are sub par but our fullbacks are very decent going forward, another centre half will help shore us up defensively (and from set pieces) and we can play Son up top with Solanke (or even Richy and Solanke for a real physical presence).

Managers need to be flexible and this is part of my frustration with Ange, he’s very stubborn.
 

GutBucket

Well-Known Member
May 26, 2013
7,326
12,618
We could make smaller tweaks, Udogie going wide while Son goes inside and does what he does best. We won't lose much control in the midfield if we do that, probably. Or stick with what we are doing and hope that team improves in final third.
 

dannythomas

Well-Known Member
May 17, 2004
3,814
2,952
I have 3 main worries with our present formation..
1. Our full backs are forever in central attacking midfield positions clogging up the space for Maddison and Son and forcing Maddison to go deeper and Son to go wider. Not to mention our full backs constantly being caught out of position.
2. Son in any case is no longer able to operate as a wide left winger and in fact was never really an out and out winger. He is most effective in a front two running in behind.
3. Our wingers are just not good enough to make it work.

‘’I note the valid concerns about lack of cover at centre back although we could always bring in someone else in January and Davies can still play in a back 3 as he has shown for Wales. He is much better cover in that position than as a back up to Udogie where right now we have no effective cover as was shown last season when he was out. We have Spence and Gray as cover for Porro but nobody for Udogie.
of course if we had a flexible coach the system could be adapted for different opposition .
‘I am fully aware that Ange is unlikely to make this change but that doesn’t mean that we can’t have views about whether our squad is better suited to a different formation. See the way that Woolwich can adapt their tactics as necessary. If Ange’s stubborn ways end very soon in his dismissal no new manager will use his existing formation / tactics
So if we keep the present system ‘Son is so ineffective playing wide on the left that he might as well be left out if he can’t play centrally. Against teams that dont play a low block he may be a better option centrally than Solanke but there are not many who don’t play against us that way. Or if we are ahead against a team chasing the game against us he can exploit the space created. And why not play Porro as a winger ahead of either Spence or Gray ?


I
 

rabbikeane

Well-Known Member
Mar 29, 2005
7,616
14,557
Funnily enough these players would have worked better under conte

If you overlook that he didn't want Maddison signed, didn't have faith in Bissouma, and Romero made it clear he'd be leaving If Conte stayed. 50m Johnson investment also a waste, but perhaps that is no matter who manage.
 

Yantino

Well-Known Member
Apr 28, 2012
762
3,416
352 is useful in certain matches, for sure. But if our finishing was better in all our games this season then no one would be talking about different formations.

We are controlling games really well as we are. No need to change it IMO.
 

brasil_spur

SC Supporter
Aug 25, 2006
13,114
17,962
So I think you're half right. We need to change formation, because right now we don't have the quality of players needed to play 4-3-3.

I'd also argue we're not really playing 4-3-3 anyway, because Maddison, our supposed most attacking midfielder, spends most of his time taking the ball of our defence.

So right now we're playing, at best, 4-1-2-3 or more realistically 4-1-2-2-1.

The trouble is our actual ability to play in these positions is hampered as follows:

GK: 1st choice is fine in Vicario but no rotation option here.
RB: One of the few slots we have sorted with Porro first choice and Spence rotation.
RCB: Another slot sorted with Romero and Dragusin.
LCB: Only VDV for this slot, we're missing a player here for rotation.
LB: Only Udogie for this slot, we're missing a player here for rotation.
DM: Probably got this covered between Bissouma and Gray, with Bentancur also able to play here.
CM: Got a lot of CMs right now with Sarr, Deki, Bentancur and probably Bergvall.
AM: Not sure we have much here, in theory Deki should be making this his slot as Maddison is poor right now.
RW: Johnson and Odobert provide us with two young prospect players, not finished articles but still not terrible options.
LW: Werner is really are only LW in Ange's style of football, Son simply doesn't have the skillset to play this role effectively in the way Ange wants.
FW: Solanke and Richarlison are fine options for this slot when fit. Personally I see Son as a second striker rather than LW in Ange's style of football.

Personally I think this means the best chance we have this season is to play with players as follows:

GK: Vicario + NEW (7/10)
RB: Porro + Spence (9/10)
RCB: Romero + Dragusin (10/10)
LCB: VDV + NEW (7/10)
LB: Udogie + NEW (6/10)
DM: Bissouma + Gray (8/10)
CM: Sarr + Bentancur + Bergvall (7/10)
AM: Deki + Maddison (7/10)
RW: Johnson + Odobert (7/10)
LW: Werner + Moore (5/10)
ST: Son + Solanke + Richarlison (8/10)
There are therefore glaring holes in the squad in the following positions:

GK rotation.
LCB
LB
CM (quality not quantity)
AM (consistency needed here)
RW needs more quality/consistency
LW is a mess
 

Blaugrana

Well-Known Member
Jul 1, 2013
133
527
The fact this is even being debated is fucking hilarious to me considering a large majority of this forum was crying about how playing 3 at the back is 'too defensive' and "tactically backward" under Conte

3 at the back doesn't = defensive football. Leverkusen under Alonso is a clear example of how teams can play a back 3 and play on the front foot and control the match.
 

thecook

Well-Known Member
Jan 17, 2009
6,107
12,462
We don't need to go 3 at the back. We just need to be smarter and more flexible with when our full backs tuck in, and when they overlap to give more width and let the 2 wide forwards then get close to the box.
 

SaiboT

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2021
355
508
The fact this is even being debated is fucking hilarious to me considering a large majority of this forum was crying about how playing 3 at the back is 'too defensive' and "tactically backward" under Conte
It is actually possible to play attacking football with a 3-5-2 formation
 
Top