3-5-2?

Earl of Leven

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
Might we revisit this?

We have three good centre halves. We have wing backs....best in the league.

We have a #10 now.

Motherwell game was unlucky and not so bad...no need to panic IMHO. I felt idea was thrown out too quickly.

Might also help create more in certain games against teams in SPL that are 'the other ten'
 

RFC_Champions

Well-Known Member
By playing 4 at the back - we only ever habe 2 players constantly playing defensive (the CB’s) as the two full backs are generally attacking.

By playing 3 at the back - we’ll pretty much have three players playing defensive. So ironically it’ll be more of a defensive formation.
 

Earl of Leven

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
By playing 4 at the back - we only ever habe 2 players constantly playing defensive (the CB’s) as the two full backs are generally attacking.

By playing 3 at the back - we’ll pretty much have three players playing defensive. So ironically it’ll be more of a defensive formation.
Not if sweeper steps through to start play?

Even 2-4-4 might work as tried by Kloop and Pep. One defender man marks, one seems, full backs watch for midfield wide men.
 

wee_bear

Well-Known Member
This should definitely be one of our formations in our arsenal for all the reasons outlined by the OP. Just get the feeling the management won’t change it though so the players simply have to make the 4-3-2-1 work.
 

HandsomeHead

Well-Known Member
I’d welcome that kind of approach for games against the ten men behind the ball mob, but I get the impression Gerrard doesn’t have any interest in doing so.
 

TynesideTrueBlue

Well-Known Member
Maybe once Alfie goes and new personnel’s brought in to suit a change of formation I would like to see this as it’s a more attacking formation.
 

SDF

Well-Known Member
Kent perhaps up front. Hagi as #10 albeit he was poor yesterday.
I don't think the midfielder is good enough for it. 3-5-2 would have Jack and Kamara taking the ball off the centre backs toes.

I like our formation, I honestly think we're a box to box midfielder(or two) away from clicking weekly.

Only one from Jack/Kamara/Davis is required against the league bar Celtic. Have them as the holding midfielder and then two dynamic box to box to complement.
 

Ted Rangers

Well-Known Member
Kent perhaps up front. Hagi as #10 albeit he was poor yesterday.
If we had bought different midfielders and an extra striker I could see this as a plan B or C. I don't think Kent would be effective as a striker, and we'd have to drop Aribo or either Jack or Kamara (or Zungu) to make the system work.
 

Jaws II

Well-Known Member
If we continue with 1 striker and two wide players who struggle to get more than 10 goals a season I don’t think we will ever silverware.
 

MightyGersLand!

Well-Known Member
Might we revisit this?

We have three good centre halves. We have wing backs....best in the league.

We have a #10 now.

Motherwell game was unlucky and not so bad...no need to panic IMHO. I felt idea was thrown out too quickly.

Might also help create more in certain games against teams in SPL that are 'the other ten'
How difficult would it be to go 3 up against St Mirren after 45 or 60 next week and give it a try.
And try it out over 3 or 4 games we are winning at a canter.
 

Drumchapel-Bear

Well-Known Member
We have nothing remotely like their front three, or the ball winning and recycling of Henderson, Fabinho etc
It's all relative though. We are trying to break down McKenna and Devlin, and midfield up against Lego Heed. Not Lapporte and KDB.

Lack of flexibility is a problem though I'm totally with you on that. I've been calling for it myself for nearly 2 years but I can't see us changing now.

Gerrard and Beale been working on this shape and tactics for too long now and they are very big on every player knowing their exact job on and off the ball.

Whisper it, Plan A seems to be do Plan A better (and with better players) :eek:
 

HandsomeHead

Well-Known Member
Games like yesterday will see him sacked. Third season of technical skills leading to 70/30 possession but hardly any shots at goal. It can't go on.
We could be wrong and see a completely different approach against St. Mirren next weekend, but I highly doubt it.

I think the idea is more likely to get in some better players in order to make their favoured 4-3-3 (or variants of) work.
 

New Jersey Bear

Well-Known Member
Official Ticketer
We need Hagi as part of the midfield 3 with Aribo and one of jack/kamara holding. Same role as Christie and then a right forward who’s direct. Hagi wasted in the RF position imo.
 

NDC bear forever

Well-Known Member
It's all relative though. We are trying to break down McKenna and Devlin, and midfield up against Lego Heed. Not Lapporte and KDB.

Lack of flexibility is a problem though I'm totally with you on that. I've been calling for it myself for nearly 2 years but I can't see us changing now.

Gerrard and Beale been working on this shape and tactics for too long now and they are very big on every player knowing their exact job on and off the ball.

Whisper it, Plan A seems to be do Plan A better (and with better players) :eek:
To be fair, we’ve never had a right winger good enough that they can play any other formation than the current one.
 

Hap Hapablap

Well-Known Member
We are playing 4-2-3-1. It's what we played yesterday, it's what we will play on Wednesday and it is what we will play in oat if not every game, including v the Scum.

This may look negative when we play at home to St Mirren or anybody else in the league but Gerrard is banking on this formation being solid when required.

Aribo and Hagi to create and breakdown 'low blocks'. Kent to be available for through passes, to cut inside, be explosive. The 3 of them to be switched on and telepathic when on breakaway.

Morelos or his replacement to be the arrowhead.

4-2-3-1 is here to stay and in my opinion Gerrard won't deviate from it much. Teams may suss it out but he is putting enormous faith in the ability of our front 4.

3-5-2 simply does not accommodate our best players or our philosophy.
 

Cadzow Bear

Well-Known Member
I would like to see us use 3-5-2 occasionally, even if it's just to change things when it looks like we're getting into a rut. We could do with being more flexible in our formation.
 

Brennan Huff

Well-Known Member
Michael Beale must wonder why he wasted so many years learning his trade at Chelsea, managing Liverpool u21's, moving to Brazil to experience coaching in a different country & gaining UEFA coaching badges along the way.

He could've saved so much time & hassle by just logging on to FF & taking the advice of some randoms who have won leagues playing Football Manager...

Because that's how Football works.
 

Hap Hapablap

Well-Known Member
Michael Beale must wonder why he wasted so many years learning his trade at Chelsea, managing Liverpool u21's moving to Brazil to experience coaching in a different country & gaining UEFA coaching badges along the way.

He could've saved so much time & hassle by just logging on to FF & taking the advice of some randoms who have won leagues playing Football Manager...

Because that's how Football works.
People are allowed opinions on football fans forums believe it or not.

It's why we all, you included I presume, join in.
 

MearnsUnionist

Well-Known Member
By playing 4 at the back - we only ever habe 2 players constantly playing defensive (the CB’s) as the two full backs are generally attacking.

By playing 3 at the back - we’ll pretty much have three players playing defensive. So ironically it’ll be more of a defensive formation.

Perfect description.
 

strider

Well-Known Member
The back 3 is making something of a comeback, but the better sides using it are trying to emulate the way Sheffield United play it by having full backs as part of the 3, or even midfielders in some cases.

I don't think it would suit us. And I don't believe our formation is in any way a problem.
 

HandsomeHead

Well-Known Member
We are playing 4-2-3-1. It's what we played yesterday, it's what we will play on Wednesday and it is what we will play in oat if not every game, including v the Scum.

This may look negative when we play at home to St Mirren or anybody else in the league but Gerrard is banking on this formation being solid when required.

Aribo and Hagi to create and breakdown 'low blocks'. Kent to be available for through passes, to cut inside, be explosive. The 3 of them to be switched on and telepathic when on breakaway.

Morelos or his replacement to be the arrowhead.

4-2-3-1 is here to stay and in my opinion Gerrard won't deviate from it much. Teams may suss it out but he is putting enormous faith in the ability of our front 4.

3-5-2 simply does not accommodate our best players or our philosophy.
I said the same last season. This is how Gerrard wants to play the game and he’ll live or die by it.

In order for it to work though, and by that I mean be successful enough to usurp Celtic, he needs 3 or 4 better players to virtually anyone we currently have and I think that only has a chance of happening if we sell Morelos.
 

DaveC

Well-Known Member
Might we revisit this?

We have three good centre halves. We have wing backs....best in the league.

We have a #10 now.

Motherwell game was unlucky and not so bad...no need to panic IMHO. I felt idea was thrown out too quickly.

Might also help create more in certain games against teams in SPL that are 'the other ten'
In 3-5-2 Tav and Barisic would still do the exact same job, very rarely yesterday were they ever deeper than our deepest midfielders when we had possession.

Realistically all your doing is swapping a “10” for a centre half.
 
Last edited:

cav

Well-Known Member
That formation requires the correct personnel and an awful lot of drilling to get it right,even then teams can learn to exploit it.
Braga showed how it should be done first half and how it can go wrong in the second
 

PalefaceRedskin

Well-Known Member
It was
Might we revisit this?

We have three good centre halves. We have wing backs....best in the league.

We have a #10 now.

Motherwell game was unlucky and not so bad...no need to panic IMHO. I felt idea was thrown out too quickly.

Might also help create more in certain games against teams in SPL that are 'the other ten'
[/QUOTE

I think it was thrown out not simply because of Motherwell but because they felt Alfie was too tactically indisciplined to play in a pair Or at least wasn’t suited to it. If Alfie does go I think we may well be more likely to use the system in certain situations.
 
Top