Evidence a 352 can work

[Eck2104]

Exactly.
Pulls a CB out Of position.

If the players know how to play the formation then the CB thats closing down should be getting covered, either by a deep lying midfield or the opposite wing back coming in one.

 

[MearnsUnionist]

You'd prefer Barisic 1v1 in that situation than Worrall?

And on the other side of the park,Tav never gave Sinclair a kick in the last game mate.

We'll definitely go with a back 4.

 

[Leo_Ger]

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.

Advocate dabbled with 3-5-2 a few times after Wibble continually got the better of him but it was so he could shoehorn Konterman into the team and compensate for Ricksen being a poor defender.

If they weren't Dutch, he wouldn't have bothered and it wasn't very successful or good to watch.

 

[OnlyOneAmoruso]

And on the other side of the park,Tav never gave Sinclair a kick in the last game mate.

We'll definitely go with a back 4.

I agree we won't but it's not true to suggest a 3 man defence couldn't work. Celtic have done it to us on more than one occasion when we've played 4-3-3.

 

[MearnsUnionist]

If the players know how to play the formation then the CB thats closing down should be getting covered, either by a deep lying midfield or the opposite wing back coming in one.

Yes maybe after some good coaching of the system and being implemented in actual games, but certainly not going in cold with it at the piggery.

Anyway, we've just beaten and totally outplayed them, with a shutout, for the first time in a long time.

We've found a way to beat them and beat them well.

Why change it?

 

[brain]

Completely takes Kent out of the starting line up

Doesn’t deserve to start every game. We should be flexible enough to play both formations.

 

[MearnsUnionist]

I agree we won't but it's not true to suggest a 3 man defence couldn't work. Celtic have done it to us on more than one occasion when we've played 4-3-3.

They certainly played a 3-4-3 against us on a couple of pevious occasions pre Gerrard, but they were well coached in the system and played the system fairly regularly.

However, there's no chamce they'll risk going 3 at the back against us now.

 

[dookieno8]

I reckon Kent could play up top with Alfie. Allow him to stay more central with Kent has more of a free role looking for the ball in the channels

 

[squaddie-bear]

Rangers 7-1 Motherwell

Evidence the 4-3-3 can work

numerous shitty draws against dross in this league is evidence we need a second option/plan b.

 

[Broxy]

numerous shitty draws against dross in this league is evidence we need a second option/plan b.

I've never said we don't need a plan b, merely stating 4-3-3 can work.

But we did have a shitty draw with Motherwell when playing 3-5-2

 

[tazzabear]

If the players know how to play the formation then the CB thats closing down should be getting covered, either by a deep lying midfield or the opposite wing back coming in one.

Or, you could “mark the space” in the first place.

 

[squaddie-bear]

I've never said we don't need a plan b, merely stating 4-3-3 can work.

But we did have a shitty draw with Motherwell when playing 3-5-2

totally agree that the 4-3-3 can work and is defo the way to go in some games, i just think some people (not necessarily yourself) are dismissing it out of hand despite the evidence that we need to be able to adapt to teams like Aberdeen who have obviously sussed out how to beat the 4-3-3.

 

[tazzabear]

numerous shitty draws against dross in this league is evidence we need a second option/plan b.

No problem with a plan “B” but your plan “A” should always be the best option for your players and your game plan.

 

[tazzabear]

Advocate dabbled with 3-5-2 a few times after Wibble continually got the better of him but it was so he could shoehorn Konterman into the team and compensate for Ricksen being a poor defender.

If they weren't Dutch, he wouldn't have bothered and it wasn't very successful or good to watch.

To be honest, the last third or so of Advocaat’s third season is quite a blur for me.

 

[Valley Bluenose]

Maybe because they had Flanagan in there with them.

Flanagan was indeed in there but was in no way responsible for how uncomfortable Goldson looked, for example.

 

[Valley Bluenose]

numerous shitty draws against dross in this league is evidence we need a second option/plan b.

I wouldn't dispute that - but the Plan B has to be a variation such as 4-2-3-1 or 4-1-4-1or even 4-1-3-2. I don't favour 3 at the back at all and never have.

 

[Jjbscotty]

Flanagan was indeed in there but was in no way responsible for how uncomfortable Goldson looked, for example.

Goldson slipped at the start and his confidence was shot after that.

 

[millar2318]

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.

In his successful seasons you are right advocaat preferred 442 with the midfield usually consisting 3 more central midfielders and one winger. Sometimes kanchelskos on the right with BF, GVB and Albertz as the 3, or McCann on the left with BF, GVB and Reyna

This is still my favourite formation in think in Scotland with 2 up you'd absolutely dominate teams

 

[Barclay the Bear]

433 works perfectly when you play a high pressing game, as we played on the 29th

 

[tazzabear]

In his successful seasons you are right advocaat preferred 442 with the midfield usually consisting 3 more central midfielders and one winger. Sometimes kanchelskos on the right with BF, GVB and Albertz as the 3, or McCann on the left with BF, GVB and Reyna

This is still my favourite formation in think in Scotland with 2 up you'd absolutely dominate teams

Exactly as I recall it.
I’d add that he’d also used his left back, usually Numan, to balance the attacking option when Kanchelskis was on the right.
Although Kanchelskis was a hard worker and tracked back when required, he also had a more defensive minded, or defensively competent player behind him in Porrini.

 

[Ruben Sosa]

I think we might see 3-5-2 at the piggery with McCrorie on the right of the three.

We finished a game recently with that setup at home and I wouldn't be surprised if it was with next week in mind.

 

[Kaiserweiss]

I agree it the way for us to go

 

[senefelder]

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.

Correct, the only notable occasion I can recall was away versus Monaco when Tuguy operated as a sweeper. Advocaat's version of flexibility was how he deployed his four in midfield. Against tougher opposition he invariably plumped for Reyna, Ferguson, Gio VB, and Albertz. His other regular options were of course Kanchelskis and McCann, but rarely did he pick both in the same team as starters.

 

[whitbybear45]

I wouldn't mind a 3-5-2 as long as we had the players for it to work. Perhaps if we played it with two cetre backs and a sweeper behind them in a Cattenachio (sp) formation, it may work with the players we have. Our two most mobile center halfs and the sweeper doing just that, sweeping up if the two ahead of him screw up. We have enough midfielders in Arfield, Jack and Davis or Kamara to play with two attacking full backs but I would like to see Barisic and Grezda together which is a problem personnel wise.

McGregor

McCrorie

Goldson Katic

Tav Jack Kamara Grezda Barisic

Alfie and Defoe.

I am going for a drink, this is getting too much for my aged heid.

 

[inverbear112]

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

Would swap arfield for Kent tbh

 

[CaptainCourageous]

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.

4-3-3 is the right formation to play against the bheggars. We've just got to make sure we are aggressive, in their face, never give them a second, don't sit off them.

We press their full backs and their midfield falls out the game as they sit too deep. They resort to long balls and surrender possession. It puts pressure on their two CB's, and we all know what Boyata is like when he is put under pressure.

Sit off them, give them time and space, and they will pick you apart, especially with McGregor, Sinclair and Forrest.

Quite happily play 3-5-2 in other matches and if that means dropping Candeias and/or Kent, then so be it - they are not bullet proof. We've got the players to change our shape and it gives the opposition some thing to worry/less predictability in our play.

 

[Morelos20]

What do you do when the opposition play a ball down the touch line?

You should be in a flat 5 when the opposition has the ball, your 3 in the middle match up to theirs leaving you plenty of cover.

We weren’t able to execute the formation as the players got it wrong, doesn’t mean it’s the wrong shape going forward.

 

[Redcarbear]

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.

Yea because wolves have had a poor season against most of the premier league 433 teams

 

[MearnsUnionist]

Yea because wolves have had a poor season against most of the premier league 433 teams

Yes mate, but they've played it all season and are well drilled in it.

You don't try it out at the piggery, particularly with the formation they play.

 

[tazzabear]

You should be in a flat 5 when the opposition has the ball, your 3 in the middle match up to theirs leaving you plenty of cover.

We weren’t able to execute the formation as the players got it wrong, doesn’t mean it’s the wrong shape going forward.

I’d have thought it’s 3-5-2 when the opposition have the ball because, firstly, it’s not 3-5-2 you’re now playing, it’s 5-?-?.
Tactically, I thought you’d probably be looking to strangle the midfield and if you’re pulling players back into the midfield in addition to five across the back, one of my question marks becomes a 3,4 or 5.
Doesn’t read like 3-5-2 to me.
Also, you don’t attack in a 3-5-2, or any other formation.
You need players to break from the rigidity of formations to assist the attack.
For example, overlapping full backs, midfielders getting ahead of the ball.
Now, I’m not a coach but this was how we played.