Evidence a 352 can work

It should definitely be tried again this season.

BB and JT are both wingbacks so it makes sense to utilise them. Also gives us the opportunity to get Morelos and Defoe up top.

After the old firm we should give this a go.
 
I know I’m in a minority but I love the 3-5-2 formation, it gives a lot of flexibility given the players are able for it.

Even a 4-4-2 where the holding midfielder can drop back and make 3 along defence to allow the fullbacks to push forward works well.
People forget that Walter Smith had Rangers doing this in 1991 - Stevens and Robertson given licence to get forward and support the attack and Nigel Spackman slotted back as needed to support Gough and Nizzy/Kutnetsov/Brown.
 
mkgers said:
It should definitely be tried again this season.

BB and JT are both wingbacks so it makes sense to utilise them. Also gives us the opportunity to get Morelos and Defoe up top.

After the old firm we should give this a go.
Click to expand...
Are both our full backs not primarily wing backs just now?
Would this mean dropping Candeias and Kent?
Who’d be the “third centre back”.
 
I don't think many dispute the idea of the formation.

it is the context of games we typically play and the personnel we have.
 
tazzabear said:
Are both our full backs not primarily wing backs just now?
Would this mean dropping Candeias and Kent?
Who’d be the “third centre back”.
Click to expand...
Yeah they are but they could worry less about defending in a 352.

Not necessarily could accommodate Kent in a CAM/10 role.

Worrall goldson katic?
 
Eck2104 said:
Completely takes Kent out of the starting line up
Click to expand...

Has Kent done enough to warrant building a team round him though?
His stats are far from impressive and while he’s shown flashes of promise etc
But if he can’t play behind a striker then he’s no use in that formation. If the formation gets the best out of the rest of the team then it’s a worthwhile sacrifice for me (and I’m a big RK fan)
 
I just don’t get this msssive hard-on for “changing the formation”.
We’ve set up, not necessarily played, 4-3-3 for the best part of the season.
We’re heading for our best league position in years.
What’s the purpose?
To give Morelos a partner that he doesn’t need?
Here’s the solution, get more goals out of the rest of the team and if that means this is where we spend the money for next season, so be it.
Caveat time, I might change my mind if Morelos moves.
 
RabSpackman said:
I know I’m in a minority but I love the 3-5-2 formation, it gives a lot of flexibility given the players are able for it.

Even a 4-4-2 where the holding midfielder can drop back and make 3 along defence to allow the fullbacks to push forward works well.
People forget that Walter Smith had Rangers doing this in 1991 - Stevens and Robertson given licence to get forward and support the attack and Nigel Spackman slotted back as needed to support Gough and Nizzy/Kutnetsov/Brown.
Click to expand...

If you're a member in the Rangers Archives Facebook group, you see that we played 3/5 at the back a lot throughout the 90s and 00s; Advocaat used it quite a bit too.
 
tazzabear said:
I just don’t get this msssive hard-on for “changing the formation”.
We’ve set up, not necessarily played, 4-3-3 for the best part of the season.
We’re heading for our best league position in years.
What’s the purpose?
To give Morelos a partner that he doesn’t need?
Here’s the solution, get more goals out of the rest of the team and if that means this is where we spend the money for next season, so be it.
Caveat time, I might change my mind if Morelos moves.
Click to expand...
I get what you're saying mate but the attacking players in our current lineup haven't shown any sign of increasing their goal tally.

We have a proven goalscorer sitting on the bench most weeks because we can't accommodate him.
 
Bob Belcher said:
If you're a member in the Rangers Archives Facebook group, you see that we played 3/5 at the back a lot throughout the 90s and 00s; Advocaat used it quite a bit too.
Click to expand...
Smith, yes, in his first spell when he had Laudrup, Gascoigne, Hateley, Steven, McCoist, Durrant, Miko, Brown, etc.
A bit different.
Not during his second spell though.
Advocaat, I seem to recall being an avowed 4-4-2 man?
I don’t recall 3-5-2 at all under him.
 
Bob Belcher said:
The equaliser was lost at a set-play, so I wouldn't necessarily put that one down to the formation.
Click to expand...


We fluked a draw that day mate.

We couldn't get out our half 2nd half and Motherwell missed some absolute sitters.
 
mkgers said:
I get what you're saying mate but the attacking players in our current lineup haven't shown any sign of increasing their goal tally.

We have a proven goalscorer sitting on the bench most weeks because we can't accommodate him.
Click to expand...
We can accommodate him but it’s probably to the detriment of a better player.
 
It does not matter what system you play, if you have not got the quality of player,,, the problem we have is that teams we play against play ultra defensive football, so it's all about breaking them down, rather than winning the midfield where most games are usually won
 
tazzabear said:
What do you do when the opposition play a ball down the touch line?
Click to expand...


Exactly Tazza and that's just what the mentally challengeds would do.

You'd have the nightmare scenario of Katic, Worrall or Goldson getting pulled wide and exposed in a 1 on1 against Sinclair, Forrest or Burke.

Thankfully Gerrard and Beale will be well aware how the mentally challengeds set up, so no chance we'll play that way.
 
MearnsUnionist said:
Exactly Tazza and that's just what the mentally challengeds would do.

You'd have the nightmare scenario of Katic, Worrall or Goldson getting pulled wide and exposed in a 1 on1 against Sinclair, Forrest or Burke.

Thankfully Gerrard and Beale will be well aware how the mentally challengeds set up, so no chance we'll play that way.
Click to expand...
I would never suggest playing this way against them.

I think the Dec game proved the 433 is more than adequate and slaying the mhankies! More of the same next week
 
MearnsUnionist said:
If you play a 3-5-2 against a team that play one striker and two wide men, like the mentally challengeds, you are in deep shite.
Click to expand...
More meaning for games against the other teams. But even against Celtic for instance
It basically gives you a 5 man defence if you want it that wat
 
If we're talking about winning at Neverland...I just went back and watched the Hearts vs Tims at the beginning of the season. Hearts won 1-0 and were on them from the start. Not a second on the ball without a Heart's player on them.
We can have our formations but unless we harass them a win is unlikely. Almost every team that plays in their face more than matches them. They couldn't pass around it with Rogers. Now TLB is in charge.
 
JW1988 said:
More meaning for games against the other teams. But even against Celtic for instance
It basically gives you a 5 man defence if you want it that wat
Click to expand...


It doesn't though mate.

Experienced attacking full backs like Tierney and Toljan will push right on to Tav and Barisic, leaving our central defenders exposed to their wide players.

There will be games when 3-5-2 could work, but not against the mentally challengeds.
 
JW1988 said:
I didn’t say with the current squad.

However I’m up for the challenge

McGregor
Goldson Worral Katic
Tav Jack Arfield Kamara Barisic
Morelos Defoe
Click to expand...
I think we have a set of professional footballers and they should be more than capable of playing within more than one formation of team.

Within a match, any professional football team should be able to switch between 442/433/352 as the match progresses.

The idea that a modern day player can “only” play in a specific formation is ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top