Why does SG not try 352?

david1982

david1982

Well-Known Member
With the players we have I think 352 would be a decent formation.

We like the 2 full backs high and wide, we like 2 holding and a 10 and it gives us the added advantage of 2 up front and an extra threat and cover at set pieces with 3 centre backs.

Also gives us a bit more security with an extra body at the back should an opponent break on us.

Something has to be changed this 433 or 4321 isn't working.
 
Probably two-fold

1 being that we can barely muster 2 half-decent CB’s to play in a back 4, never mind trying to find 3 CB’s to play in a back 3

The 2nd, is a hell of a lot more controversial than the first....how do you suppose the media in the cesspit will portray this? Picture it. Celtic come back from their winter break having adopted a 3-5-2 which is working really well it seems. All of a sudden Gerrard switches to a 3-5-2. The headlines are written.
 
boghall bear said:
Probably two-fold

1 being that we can barely muster 2 half-decent CB’s to play in a back 4, never mind trying to find 3 CB’s to play in a back 3

The 2nd, is a hell of a lot more controversial than the first....how do you suppose the media in the cesspit will portray this? Picture it. Celtic come back from their winter break having adopted a 3-5-2 which is working really well it seems. All of a sudden Gerrard switches to a 3-5-2. The headlines are written.
Click to expand...
I doubt SG would give a shit about what the media say.

The media are more likely to scrutinise more on the fact he wont change it...

I would like to see it tried it cant be any worse than the pish were seeing just now
 
tried it against motherwell i think it was and didnt work out so looks like he doesnt fancy it, but he does need to mix things up tactic wise and formation wise as we are too predictable
 
When these team shut up shop / park the bus against us it will be even harder to break them down if we are playing with an additional centre half
 
Tbh it’s not a bad idea except...
Tav and Barisic almost play that way anyway but without the cover of the extra CH.
Having two up front would be nice but creation of real goal scoring chances seem to be an issue.
Our 433 at times is a 451..
Our midfield aren’t good enough to be short imo

all of that made sense in my own brain anyway
 
A 3-5-2 with Goldson Katic Helander Tav Barisic Jack Arfield Hagi Alfie Kamberi or a 4-4-2 Diamond Tav Goldson Helander Barisic Jack Arfield Aribo Hagi Alfie Kamberi
 
david1982 said:
The way our full backs play it's more like a 2 at the back we have. The 3 would still allow them to play as they do with an extra body behind them.
Click to expand...
I cany see it happening, we need to make the impact up front. 4312 or a 442. We need to stop playing formations to fit certain players Play what works...we played 2 up top against braga and it changed the game the same happened today before we tried to defend a 2-1 lead.
 
Great white tadpole said:
Couldn’t fit Kent into that formation would be one of the reasons , not enough fit centre backs either
Click to expand...
We have 3 fit centre backs albeit 1 of them is all over the place at the moment granted.

Kent can take a seat on the bench.

McGregor

Goldson..Katic..Edmundson/Helander

Tavernier..Davis.. Arfield/Kamara..Barasic

Hagi/Aribo/Kent

Morelos/Defoe..Kamberi
 
Marc said:
Tbh it’s not a bad idea except...
Tav and Barisic almost play that way anyway but without the cover of the extra CH.
Having two up front would be nice but creation of real goal scoring chances seem to be an issue.
Our 433 at times is a 451..
Our midfield aren’t good enough to be short imo

all of that made sense in my own brain anyway
Click to expand...
The amount of crosses we get in with only 1 target though....

Getting the ball up to and into the opposition's box isn't the problem....having players on the end of it is and with 2 strikers and a 10 coming in behind instead of 2 number 10s trying to break through 8 players?...
 
david1982 said:
The amount of crosses we get in with only 1 target though....

Getting the ball up to and into the opposition's box isn't the problem....having players on the end of it is and with 2 strikers and a 10 coming in behind instead of 2 number 10s trying to break through 8 players?...
Click to expand...
Agree...
But also feel our 3 including Alfie rarely male burst in to the box or to the front post fir example...
V Braga Alfie’s run and cross to Kent rushing in was an exciting rarity
 
I would like to see this and would hopefully minimise the stupid goals we are losing if another centre half is there to cover
 
Tried it once and we drew 3-3 with Motherwell if im right.

A big thing against Gerrard is we are far too predictable with how we line up the same formation no matter the matter the personel.

When Kamberi came on Sunday that formation we were playing made us look more dangerous but he reverted back to this formation that's not working. This current form is Gerrards biggest test as a new manager and he has to brave and make a change domestically as he has been found out in this style it doesn't work domestically at the moment.
 
I think it would suit someone like Ross mcrorie to play in a back 3, if we need to change it he can go into the midfield
 
I think we should forget all this tactics nonsense. We should just buy a big monster centre forward and lump balls up the him every chance we get. it seems to work for every other scottish team that plays against us. Only problem is he would get sent off every second game.
 
What about Tav, Goldson, Katic or Helander, Barisic and then a diamond midfield of Edmundson in front of the centre backs in a holding roll, i don't like playing players out of position but i think we need some power and dig in midfield as we are getting bullied in there against these hammer throwers and he is a big lad who can handle himself, he can also pass a ball and is quite quick and would protect our central defenders. Jack to the right of it with Arfield or Aribo on the left and Hagi at the top just behind the front pair of Morelos and Kamberi. Tav and Borna would give us the width pushing forward if required. Our formation is failing at the moment so surely worth a try.
 
to play 3 at the back your centre backs need to be very organised as they are coverying the whole back line. Our 2 centre backs run into one another as per the weekend and thats having to look out for 1 partner.
 
As it will mean dropping Kent.

I think we are well set up for a 3-5-2. Will get the best out of our wing backs and give Hagi the chance to play in the hole
 
Not enough quality CB's for this level to play 3-5-2. Form me 4-5-1. Kent on the right Aribo on the left Hagi through the middle with Davis and Jack on either side. There would be goals in that setup and enough dept in the middle to make it competitive in that area.
 
Let me get this straight.

We are lacking goals, and you want us to take out a midfielder and replace him with another centre half?

Our full backs already play high. And most teams only play one up top, so we’d have 2 spare men at the back.

This kind of formation only works if your centre defenders are comfortable on the ball and can step forward.

I prefer us to go 4-2-3-1, get Kent wider where he’s more suited, Hagi central and close to Morelos, and one of the dozen other wingers on our books on the other flank.
 
It would mean admitting that he was wrong. I don’t feel he wants to do that.
 
Last edited:
DarthVader said:
Let me get this straight.

We are lacking goals, and you want us to take out a midfielder and replace him with another centre half?

Our full backs already play high. And most teams only play one up top, so we’d have 2 spare men at the back.

This kind of formation only works if your centre defenders are comfortable on the ball and can step forward.

I prefer us to go 4-2-3-1, get Kent wider where he’s more suited, Hagi central and close to Morelos, and one of the dozen other wingers on our books on the other flank.
Click to expand...
352 changes from 1 striker to 2.....which attempts to remedy the lack of goals you refer to....
 
david1982 said:
352 changes from 1 striker to 2.....which attempts to remedy the lack of goals you refer to....
Click to expand...
But 3 centre defenders vs. 1 striker?

Not sure why you need to go 3-5-2, what’s wrong with a basic 4-4-2?

Doesn’t necessarily need to be 2 wingers, Smith and Advocaat liked playing one winger with someone narrower on the other side. This might be our best option when we have either Tav or Barisic missing, we can play a winger on the same side as Halliday or Flanagan to retain the balance and threat down both flanks.

4-4-2 seems to be taboo in the modern game but it does have a lot going for it, particularly in Scotland where we have most of the possession.
 
Would allow the 2 full backs to be constantly forward and a fluid midfield. Not to mention 2 upfront. It’s not a more defensive formation as people are suggesting, far from it.
 
I've said before that thought mccrorie could have played a sort of hybrid dm/cb position, he could slot in between the CB's when needed and step up when the pressure is off. Would provide extra cover when the full backs are forward but wouldn't waste a player by playing an extra out and out defender.

None of our midfielders just now are proper holding mids, we aren't good or solid enough to play without one on current form. Davis usually plays deepest but he still gets involved in attacks and we get left open to counters. Very few of the goals we concede come from sustained periods of pressure from the opposition so something has the be done to snuff out the counter attacks
 
Not sure if it’s the answer but maybe be worth a try , I feel his stubbornness to constantly play the same system and failure to change it when it’s not working will be his downfall.
 
DarthVader said:
But 3 centre defenders vs. 1 striker?

Not sure why you need to go 3-5-2, what’s wrong with a basic 4-4-2?

Doesn’t necessarily need to be 2 wingers, Smith and Advocaat liked playing one winger with someone narrower on the other side. This might be our best option when we have either Tav or Barisic missing, we can play a winger on the same side as Halliday or Flanagan to retain the balance and threat down both flanks.

4-4-2 seems to be taboo in the modern game but it does have a lot going for it, particularly in Scotland where we have most of the possession.
Click to expand...
I heard a stat tonight on the H&H podcast that we have lost 10 goals from a simple punt up the park and a mistake from one of our 2 centre backs.

If that's not an argument for trying 3 at the back and playing 2 strikers I dont know what is.
 
speedie said:
Would allow the 2 full backs to be constantly forward and a fluid midfield. Not to mention 2 upfront. It’s not a more defensive formation as people are suggesting, far from it.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Ot allows us to maintain the 2 wide/high full backs, allows 2 strikers and provides more cover defensively and more threat at set pieces.
The only sacrifice is a 10 which let's be honest isn't working with 2 of them just now anyway.

The last time we played 352 we had lafferty up front and Flanagan as one of the 3 centre backs
 
I don't mind 3-5-2.. usually not a formation I like to start with.. more When chasing the game.

I don't like 4-3-3 unless you have a hazard , Messi, Salah types, that assist and score..and exceptional fit full backs..

I like 4-2-3-1. With a number 10 close to a 9 and wingers...not false 10s


4-4-2 with a diamond I like... If you have the full backs and a number 10.

A normally 4-4-2 can work too... Usually one of the side mids is more a wingers and the other more an inside wide midfielder. Like us having Neil McCann on one side and Reyna on the other.
 
Feel Borna and Tav would be suited to it and it would allow us to play another striker. Might be a good way to play against teams who pack the box at Ibrox.


Playing exactly the same way every game isn’t doing us any good.
 
It’s not the Liverpool way I think he won’t drop his favourite players and to do so would see a few of them on the bench, as much as I believe we can play 3 at the back against most in Scotland I can’t see him changing
 
Unfortunately at this moment in time Gerrard has absolutely zero interest in trying other options. I don't know why but he's clearly not keen on doing it. Whether it's because he wants to fit specific players in or not who knows.

He needs to snap out of this single tactic notion quick smart though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top