So the 3-5-2

Hopefully with our superior players we don't have to play a similar style to the Dutch even if it's the same formation.

They only tried to play on the counter attack and lead to some very negative football against teams that were happy to sit back and leave no space for Robben to break.

Another concern about 3-5-2 is how reliant that formation is on good wing backs to provide width to the attack. From what we've seen of Shaw he's a better defender than he is getting forward (think he had 1 assist last season). Rafael on the other side already has horrible positional discipline as a right back, at right wing back I can picture him constantly being caught the wrong side of wingers and getting lots of cards. Valencia has the engine to do the role but not much of a threat going forward.

Wing backs getting caught up the pitch rely on the holding midfielder to cover them too, I don't think Carrick or Fletcher have that mobility to cover the wide positions quickly, signing someone like De Jong will happen I believe.

That is why we desperately need to sign another CM player, this is the problem I have with our current forwards, they are all too similar. Rooney RVP mata have to play a certain system for them too work and be effective, mata must play more central to get the best out of him. But Rooney and RVP are not guys who are going too pull you apart, so we need speed from our midfield, herrera and janazaj is a start has they will offer us something different, but we need another midfield who is mobile is well. Valencia who has a good engine on him and works hard could work. But I still feel we need a top class winger too see us really put teams to the sword, and stretch the opposition.

If our midfield going into the new season consists of
herrera Vidal or de jong
valencia mata janazaj

We will have hard-working, yet creative midfield that could compensate with the lack of that 4th defender, if its 3 at the back with valencia used has a defensive winger. I stillf eel we are lacking a winger who can offer us a bit of everything
 
Under Fergie, we often won games not because we played much better football, but also because we were mentally just so much stronger. We won games by pure will power. Under LVG, I can see that we also outclass our opponents on the pitch and play brilliant football (here's hope)
 
That would be the case if he said anything about being unable to change the squad in the future, but he didn't. All he said was that it was unbalanced, which is a criticism of the choices made in the past. It may or may not have been a swipe at Moyes, or even Fergie, but I don't see a criticism of our current transfer dealings in there.

Erm no.

Its not balanced in the sense that we have too many "good" attacking midfielders and strikers.
He said he cant play 4-3-3 because that would mean 3 strikers are being benched. The 3-5-2 is largely there to accommodate the strikers and abundance of number 10s we have.

LvG said hes using this system because its the best way to utilize the players we have. We have an abundance of strikers and number 10s which is why 352 is his chosen formation I dont think it has anything to do with the transfer markets. Im sure he knows that without another competent CM the 352 wont work.


agree with all this, but I was saying that you could argue that after admitting their is an imbalance in tge squad that if we are still using this formation at the end of the window that we have failed to address this imbalance.

assuming of course that lvg wishes to address this imbalance. It could be that he doesnt feel its worth addressing, as you say, because the imbalance is due to having a number of excellent players in one position.

at the same time, I mean when we go for new players it we dont have to necessarily assume they are being bought to fit into a 343 system as he may wish to change that system with new buys
 
If we stick with this system long term it's quite hard to work out which players get moved on. We would still need to hold on to a couple of wingers when we change systems but obvioussly in the system with Rooney and RVP up top there's no room for one. You'd have to say Nani and Young look surplus to requirements, but we still have Zaha, Lingard and Januzaj who don't really fit in, the latter would only really geet game time if we moved on Kagawa too.
 
We've been crying out for an effective system to bin the shite out wide and accommodate our glut of attacking forward talent in the middle, so if it does work out I think it'll be popular in the short-term at least. The 3-4-1-2 system basically excludes any wide players who can't play wing-back, #10 or up front. Januzaj's the only exclusion I'm concerned about because he's already extraordinary in a role that doesn't exist in a 3-4-1-2.
 
Of course, you're pointing out the lack of personnel for the 3-5-2, but you could argue the same for 4-4-2 or 4-3-3 or 4-1-3-2, as all could be argued need that defensive mid we don't really have, and those also need quality wingers, which on the last 2 years viewing we don't really have either.

3-5-2, looks to make the best of Rooney, VP and Mata. That's a start, as that was the main conundrum
Getting the best out of rooney, mata and van persie would be pointless if we concede bucket loads of goals. We need a balanced team out there both in terms of attack and defence.
 
Jones seems to be an ideal sweeper, though I think he still has a bit to improve.

But he's a CB comfortable enough to play as a defensive midfielder, pretty much the job description.
Don't think jones is ideal at all. He just isn't good enough on the ball, not much of a great passer either. We need a marquinho's like CB.
 
I dont think this is a big issue. I think its a safe assumption that LVG will bring in new players. I mean look at our defence. We have 1 LB, 1 RB and 3 CBs + some youngsters. Whether we play a back three or a four we definitely need reinforcements in that area. So we're already committed to bringing people in. He'll just go for players he knows can work whatever system he's going for.



I don't think that having a back 4 based formation obviates the need for a holding midfielder. There are times you need someone to shield your defence, whether its three or four. Indeed you might argue that a pure holding midfielder is less important in a back three, because one of them can step out to make early interventions and still leave two behind, which you cant do with a CB pair.



There's two reasons I'm not too worried about that.

Firstly is the fairly obvious issue that we're not in Europe this year, so we're not going to be facing many of those top teams. Our season this year is going to be defined by how we perform against teams outside the top 4. If consistently we do well against them we'll make the top 4, and then our performances against the top 4 will simply define where in the top 4 we finish.

I'm personally ambivalent about playing with a pure number 10, but recognise that our squad make up kind of demands it. However the time it works best is in games against teams sitting back where you need to make a breakthrough, and managing that's going to be a large part of our success. We can deal with managing Suarez/Messi/Neymar coming at us from wide positions next season.

The other thing is that LVG has shown himself to be a very flexible manager wrt formations. There's no reason to think that he'd rather lose a game of football than change his approach (something I've often wondered of Wenger). I'm sure that when we play Chelsea at OT and face (arguably) the best counter attackers in the league, he'll choose a formation to take account of that.
The back four does absolve the need for a holding mid as then we can obviously opt for two box to box mids instead of a holding and a no8+a10. If we'd sign someone like vidal we wouldn't be able to use him as the defensive option in the team, instead he'd have to be part of the 2 in from of the holder which we'd also need to purchase.

We'll be in europe soon so I don't see why we should have that in consideration when deciding what to do with the team. Our aim should be to build a elite team that can compete with the best in the world, not chop and change on a season to season basis.
 
The back four does absolve the need for a holding mid as then we can obviously opt for two box to box mids instead of a holding and a no8+a10. If we'd sign someone like vidal we wouldn't be able to use him as the defensive option in the team, instead he'd have to be part of the 2 in from of the holder which we'd also need to purchase.

Sorry I don't quite get why you can have two box to box midfielders with a back 4, but not with a back 3?
 
Sorry I don't quite get why you can have two box to box midfielders with a back 4, but not with a back 3?
Because in a back four the Fullbacks for the majority of the time are being protected by wingers. Without this protection when defending in transition, Center backs are always pulled to the wide areas and need a man to plug the gaps were the opposition can penetrate. A holding mid is thus ever present in those situations while a box to box isn't.
 
Because in a back four the Fullbacks for the majority of the time are being protected by wingers. Without this protection when defending in transition, Center backs are always pulled to the wide areas and need a man to plug the gaps were the opposition can penetrate. A holding mid is thus ever present in those situations while a box to box isn't.

Firstly that only counts if you have wingers. If you have a narrow 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3 or a diamond, then you don't have wingers who are going to cover the full backs. In those formations you still need a midfielder to cover the wide areas on the counter attack. Indeed the only time that's always the case is with a 4-4-2/4-5-1 type formation, which has other pros and cons to consider, not least that you need wingers who are as good at defending as well as attacking.

The other thing is that you seem to be overlooking the extra centre back. With a back four if a winger is covering the full back's space then you have four players involved - the winger & full back out wide and the two centre backs in the middle.

But in a back three if the centre back has to cover the full back, you still have four people involved - the centre back and wingback out wide and a pair left in the middle. There's no more or less space to cover than in a back four.

fwiw I think a good holding midfielder is essential in a squad, because whatever formation you play you're going to be under pressure at times during the season, and sometimes you need to sacrifice an attacker for cover at the back. But I dont see what thats relevant only to a back three and not a four.
 
Firstly that only counts if you have wingers. If you have a narrow 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3 or a diamond, then you don't have wingers who are going to cover the full backs. In those formations you still need a midfielder to cover the wide areas on the counter attack. Indeed the only time that's always the case is with a 4-4-2/4-5-1 type formation, which has other pros and cons to consider, not least that you need wingers who are as good at defending as well as attacking.

The other thing is that you seem to be overlooking the extra centre back. With a back four if a winger is covering the full back's space then you have four players involved - the winger & full back out wide and the two centre backs in the middle.

But in a back three if the centre back has to cover the full back, you still have four people involved - the centre back and wingback out wide and a pair left in the middle. There's no more or less space to cover than in a back four.

fwiw I think a good holding midfielder is essential in a squad, because whatever formation you play you're going to be under pressure at times during the season, and sometimes you need to sacrifice an attacker for cover at the back. But I dont see what thats relevant only to a back three and not a four.

Exactly. For the last 5 years Evra has essentially been playing wing back and teams have been taking advantage of the space behind him. Vidic (or whoever played LCB) spent a lot of that time covering the winger, leaving us with just one in the middle (two when Rafael eventually got back). At least with 3-5-2 there are two in the middle after the LCB has picked up the winger. Hopefully this might help to reduce the ever increasing glut of goals we've been allowing.
 
Firstly that only counts if you have wingers. If you have a narrow 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3 or a diamond, then you don't have wingers who are going to cover the full backs. In those formations you still need a midfielder to cover the wide areas on the counter attack. Indeed the only time that's always the case is with a 4-4-2/4-5-1 type formation, which has other pros and cons to consider, not least that you need wingers who are as good at defending as well as attacking.

The other thing is that you seem to be overlooking the extra centre back. With a back four if a winger is covering the full back's space then you have four players involved - the winger & full back out wide and the two centre backs in the middle.

But in a back three if the centre back has to cover the full back, you still have four people involved - the centre back and wingback out wide and a pair left in the middle. There's no more or less space to cover than in a back four.

fwiw I think a good holding midfielder is essential in a squad, because whatever formation you play you're going to be under pressure at times during the season, and sometimes you need to sacrifice an attacker for cover at the back. But I dont see what thats relevant only to a back three and not a four.

Well said. My thoughts exactly. But on your last line, a holding midfielder with a 3 man back line would just be counter-productive. I don't think it would even make a better defence, tbf.

I think this formation will benefit Rooney the most. His movement can alternate this between a more attacking 4-3-1-2 vs a more solid 4-3-2-1. Mata needs to find his scoring boots more often too.
 
One of the great things about football is that the size of the pitch and the number of players will always mean that a defense cannot cover the entire field. No matter the formation, there is an area that is weaker than some other area.

Thus the tactics of choosing which areas to allow to be weakest and which players to use to compensate for that.
 
3-5-2 sounds good but considering the options we have, I think Van Gaal has quite the job on his hands. Good wing backs and defenders are a must, and we have an inexperienced back-line this season. Does make one worry.
 
3-5-2 sounds good but considering the options we have, I think Van Gaal has quite the job on his hands. Good wing backs and defenders are a must, and we have an inexperienced back-line this season. Does make one worry.

From the Dutch WC experience, it seems to be a pretty good way to cover over an iffy back line.
 
That video of Woy pisses me off tbh. He clearly understands football and is apparently a very good coach, but he must have a ridiculously stubborn mentality impeding his decisions.
 
Don't think jones is ideal at all. He just isn't good enough on the ball, not much of a great passer either. We need a marquinho's like CB.

What I mean is he's the ideal sort of player to be a sweeper, not that he is a world class sweeper. He needs to improve greatly to get into that discussion, though we don't need him to become that good to be good enough, of course.

We don't want him playing long balls from back there anyway, the sweeper's job would be to get the ball to Herrera and company in midfield.

It is a crucial position, so if we can bring in someone better at the top of their game, then I'm all for it.

If it was me, I would want to bring in the best CB I could get, and if he was good on the ball I'd want him in the middle of the back 3.
 
From the Dutch WC experience, it seems to be a pretty good way to cover over an iffy back line.

I definitely agree, and having all 3 prepared to push up into space on offense it doesn't limit the offense imo.

Smalling, Evans and Jones aren't exactly Baresi on the ball, but for CBs they are good with short passing, this formation takes advantage of that and doesn't ask them to hoof the ball accurately.
 
I definitely agree, and having all 3 prepared to push up into space on offense it doesn't limit the offense imo.

Smalling, Evans and Jones aren't exactly Baresi on the ball, but for CBs they are good with short passing, this formation takes advantage of that and doesn't ask them to hoof the ball accurately.

LA Galaxy did take advantage of the space behind our wing backs in our game against them though. Don't watch Holland/Juventus much, maybe I'm too used to watching teams with 4 at the back.
 
LA Galaxy did take advantage of the space behind our wing backs in our game against them though. Don't watch Holland/Juventus much, maybe I'm too used to watching teams with 4 at the back.

As someone else said, though, if one of the CBs has to cover we still have two CBs in the box. How many times did Vidic cover for Evra leaving his partner alone?

Instead of the deepest midfielder, who has to come from further away and is thus able to help less often, being the covering man you already have someone there.

And if you play someone like Fletcher in midfield you have someone else prepared to drop in for cover.
 
agree with all this, but I was saying that you could argue that after admitting their is an imbalance in tge squad that if we are still using this formation at the end of the window that we have failed to address this imbalance.

assuming of course that lvg wishes to address this imbalance. It could be that he doesnt feel its worth addressing, as you say, because the imbalance is due to having a number of excellent players in one position.

at the same time, I mean when we go for new players it we dont have to necessarily assume they are being bought to fit into a 343 system as he may wish to change that system with new buys

I think he is happy to play 343 and at having 4 strikers who can play there. That wasn't when he said the squad was imbalanced. What he said about the strikers was that it would be a waste not to play two of them. It's the idea that he has got four players who, if I read him right, can only perform as a No 10, in his new system that he was referring to as imbalanced, after all the system only needs One.

I think we will buy at least one central defender preferably two. Hopefully we will buy another central midfielder. I think he will buy to fit players into his new 343 system. He has championed it to be the way to utalize our four strikers. To change this system Permanently would mean admitting he was wrong and I don't see that coming easy to him.
 
Well said. My thoughts exactly. But on your last line, a holding midfielder with a 3 man back line would just be counter-productive. I don't think it would even make a better defence, tbf.

I think this formation will benefit Rooney the most. His movement can alternate this between a more attacking 4-3-1-2 vs a more solid 4-3-2-1. Mata needs to find his scoring boots more often too.

A holding midfielder is always useful against top class attacking opposition, IMO. If we're to play an attacking box-to-box midfielder in Herrera, he should have a partner who can defend a large amount of space, have the awareness to fill in for the wing backs/central defenders who push up, and read the game ahead of him. Plus, such holding midfielders can also be useful as someone who can circulate the ball and get attacking players involved at all times.

Of course, one can argue that a box-to-box midfielder would also be fine given that an extra central defender exists who can add some presence in the middle. However, the wing backs will have to be on their toes, defensively, and be wary of getting dragged forward by the opposition when defending. I think this is where Shaw and Rafael can be useful.

On the topic of pace up front, I don't think we'll need that if we have players who has good lateral and vertical movement to drag the defenders around. In this case, a fully fit van Persie is perfect (a tired, jaded van Persie isn't). Keeping players like Chicharito and Welbeck will also be key as both have good movement to stretch the opposition. Plus, such a system can also help Wilson work on his lateral movement as much of his time is spent through the middle of the pitch (I haven't watched Henriquez so I can't say much about him). Plus, playing wingers like Januzaj, Nani, Young, and Zaha is also useful particularly if they are good finishers as they are comfortable out wide and can isolate central defenders into 1-on-1 situations. The fact that we can't play with such a huge squad, however, means that we'll have to offload a couple of wingers/forwards in order to not overload the squad.
 
LA Galaxy did take advantage of the space behind our wing backs in our game against them though. Don't watch Holland/Juventus much, maybe I'm too used to watching teams with 4 at the back.
Over the last ten years our full backs have always bombed forward (you only have to look in the Evra and Rafael threads to find numerous posts about them slacking in their defensive duties. where we have been weak in the past was that we only had two central defenders to cover for them. Now we have three.
 
Over the last ten years our full backs have always bombed forward (you only have to look in the Evra and Rafael threads to find numerous posts about them slacking in their defensive duties. where we have been weak in the past was that we only had two central defenders to cover for them. Now we have three.

I did read somewhere that a 3 man defence is meant to counter teams with two strikers upfront. Teams that park the bus or with one upfront would leave us with one less attacking player compared to a traditional 4 man back-line with full-backs bombing up top.

Unless Phil Jones magically transforms into a modern day Baresi, which I still believe he will :wenger::wenger:
 
What I mean is he's the ideal sort of player to be a sweeper, not that he is a world class sweeper. He needs to improve greatly to get into that discussion, though we don't need him to become that good to be good enough, of course.

We don't want him playing long balls from back there anyway, the sweeper's job would be to get the ball to Herrera and company in midfield.

It is a crucial position, so if we can bring in someone better at the top of their game, then I'm all for it.

If it was me, I would want to bring in the best CB I could get, and if he was good on the ball I'd want him in the middle of the back 3.
What happens when the opposition stands of him, blocks the passing lines to our midfielders and ask him to play a more expansive pass? Long balls are essential to that position as when that does happen the sweeper has to have the ability to play the ball out from defense. The best work I've seen from that position in the past 5 years was from de rossi and that's cause his range of passing reduced the pressure from his midfielders. Jones just isn't that player. He's ideally suite to one of the Center back roles. His reading of play too isn't good enough to play that position, I'm sorry but its just a no go for me. Evans would be by far the better option.
 
I did read somewhere that a 3 man defence is meant to counter teams with two strikers upfront. Teams that park the bus or with one upfront would leave us with one less attacking player compared to a traditional 4 man back-line with full-backs bombing up top.

Unless Phil Jones magically transforms into a modern day Baresi, which I still believe he will :wenger::wenger:

The last two seasons I've seen teams park the bus against us then counter when they have the ball and we have been caught out defensively. The first half of SAF's last season was especially bad for it, we had to keep coming back from behind. If three players back helps reduce these chances then I am all for it.

My main thing is I trust LVG I am willing to give this system a chance. If we keep losing playing this system he has said we will change back to 433. I personally hope this does not happen. I like a cocky confident LVG.
 
Our season this year is going to be defined by how we perform against teams outside the top 4. If consistently we do well against them we'll make the top 4, and then our performances against the top 4 will simply define where in the top 4 we finish.

I agree absolutely. 80% of the points come from teams outside of top 4, these games are the most important. Last year Chelsea did very well against the top teams, but couldn't break the teams parking the bus, so they finished 3rd. Our number one priority should be to set up a system that would allow us to break these teams and I think 3-5-2 is suiting us best at the moment. Let's review the 3 possible scenarios:

Scenario 1: Playing against a team parking the bus (e.g. most of our home games and some away games against lower teams). 3-5-2 would allow us to use RVP, Rooney and Mata - our best attacking players, the relative lack of pace is not an issue against a team parking the bus, the two wing backs would play in much more advanced position, almost like pure wingers and the 3 CBs should be able to sweep up the rare counter attack. This is very attacking formation and definitely the best for this scenario.
Alternate Scenario 1a: We score 1 or 2, so they might open up a bit. We can bring Januzaj or another pacy forward/winger to inject a bit of pace, so depending on weather we take off a FW or a CB we either keep the 3-5-2, or transform into 4-3-3.
Alternate Scenario 1b: The score is tied or they manage to score against us. This is the most attacking set-up, so just continue doing the same.​

Scenario 2. Playing against a team going full attack against us (e.g. Liverpool away, City away, etc.). 3-5-2 would need to be tweaked a bit. The two wing backs would play in much more withdrawn position, pretty much like traditional full backs, which will make it 5-3-2. Only one of Rooney or RVP should play in attack, the second forward should be someone with pace (Welbeck, Chicha, Januzaj or even Young). The number 10 should be someone who could do more defensive work, but still be able to release the ball quickly for a counter attack (maybe Rooney or Kagawa instead of Mata).
Alternate Scenario 2a: They score 1 or 2, so we would need to open up. The pacy forward moves to the wing (Welbeck, Januzaj or even Young) and we bring Januzaj or another winger and take off a CB, the wing backs move to traditional FB position, in essence transforming the formation into 4-3-3.
Last ditch effort 2aa: We are still losing and there are only 10 minutes left. Bring Fellaini for one of the DMs and try more crosses from the wings.​
Alternate Scenario 2b: The score is tied or we manage to score. This is the best set-up, so just continue doing the same.
Scenario 3. Playing against a balanced attacking/defending team (e.g. Arsenal home and away, Newcastle away, etc.). In this case we could probably start with 4-3-3 and switch later if needed.


In other words with our current players 90% of the time (Scenario 1 and 2) the 3-5-2 or the tweaked version 5-3-2 would suit us best, which also coincides with the fact that it makes best use of our best players. It's a no-brainer that LVG is seeing it as plan A for us. The only issue is that we are lacking depth in the CBs, which I'm sure will be addressed by signing 1 or 2 CBs (especially left footed one, who can play as LB is needed). The other issue of Januzaj not getting enough game time is really not an issue - he will get plenty of game time coming off the bench, or starting as part of the front 2 or as a number 10. In the cases, when we start with 4-3-3 he can start on the wing as well. That's plenty of game time for a 19 year old who is still developing.
 
Firstly that only counts if you have wingers. If you have a narrow 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3 or a diamond, then you don't have wingers who are going to cover the full backs. In those formations you still need a midfielder to cover the wide areas on the counter attack. Indeed the only time that's always the case is with a 4-4-2/4-5-1 type formation, which has other pros and cons to consider, not least that you need wingers who are as good at defending as well as attacking.

The other thing is that you seem to be overlooking the extra centre back. With a back four if a winger is covering the full back's space then you have four players involved - the winger & full back out wide and the two centre backs in the middle.

But in a back three if the centre back has to cover the full back, you still have four people involved - the centre back and wingback out wide and a pair left in the middle. There's no more or less space to cover than in a back four.

fwiw I think a good holding midfielder is essential in a squad, because whatever formation you play you're going to be under pressure at times during the season, and sometimes you need to sacrifice an attacker for cover at the back. But I dont see what thats relevant only to a back three and not a four.
Essentially the difference is in the numbers. If you play a 3-5-2 without a designated holding mid, and instead with 2 box to boxes and a no10 then you have 7 designated defenders in the team. If you play the same formation with 3 in midfield(which is what a holder forces it to be). Then you have 8 defenders. We need a holding mid so that the responsibilities split up between mata and hererra are very similar even with the differences in the quality of the work.
Basically
--------CF-------CF---------
-------------AM-------------
------CM---------CM-------
LWB----CB---CB----RWB
--------------SW-------------

Won't be able to be as solid defensively as:
---------------CF----------------
---------------CF----------------
---------CM--------AM----------
---------------HM---------------
LWB------CB----CB-------RWB
---------------SW----------------

The reason for that is simple, the attacking mid won't be able to get into the defensive line of the midfielders in the first one which will make it easier to find gaps. In the second one he'll be able to as his role in the team will change and won't be as purely offensive.

In the formations with 4 at the back they always protect them with 4 in front of them, which makes them 8(sometimes even 9 if the team uses a 4-5-1. If that falls apart then someone isn't doing their job. Very few if any teams use a 4-3-3. Only barca and the way they use it is based on them winning the ball back early. As we've seen in recent times they haven't been able to do that and are being picked off like cherries.
 
A holding midfielder is always useful against top class attacking opposition, IMO. If we're to play an attacking box-to-box midfielder in Herrera, he should have a partner who can defend a large amount of space, have the awareness to fill in for the wing backs/central defenders who push up, and read the game ahead of him. Plus, such holding midfielders can also be useful as someone who can circulate the ball and get attacking players involved at all times.

Of course, one can argue that a box-to-box midfielder would also be fine given that an extra central defender exists who can add some presence in the middle. However, the wing backs will have to be on their toes, defensively, and be wary of getting dragged forward by the opposition when defending. I think this is where Shaw and Rafael can be useful.

On the topic of pace up front, I don't think we'll need that if we have players who has good lateral and vertical movement to drag the defenders around. In this case, a fully fit van Persie is perfect (a tired, jaded van Persie isn't). Keeping players like Chicharito and Welbeck will also be key as both have good movement to stretch the opposition. Plus, such a system can also help Wilson work on his lateral movement as much of his time is spent through the middle of the pitch (I haven't watched Henriquez so I can't say much about him). Plus, playing wingers like Januzaj, Nani, Young, and Zaha is also useful particularly if they are good finishers as they are comfortable out wide and can isolate central defenders into 1-on-1 situations. The fact that we can't play with such a huge squad, however, means that we'll have to offload a couple of wingers/forwards in order to not overload the squad.
Too many cooks? Or something else?

I would say it's more on tactics employed. Take the Greek team that won UEFA 2004 as an example here. They employed the back 3 to great effect. Infact they also had a holding midfielder but the main purpose was to man-mark the opposition forwards. It was a supremely effective tactic as they team did not have any worthwhile star player threat anywhere in the field.

But this is where we can differ. With the quality that we have, we should look at having the 3rd defender at back more as a Libero than a actual defensive sweeper. I think Jones has the capability to develop as such here, though it sure is a big ask of him. The defensive shift put in by Herrera (and say Vidal, for example) when off possession should be enough to null a majority threat and we always have Jones sweeping up behind. But when we move on up during a attack, it leaves at least Jones or one of the other CB's to play higher supporting the attack. I would like to put Mathias Sammer in as a prime example here.

The other alternate would be if we get a deep lying playmaker, a la Xabi Alonso. He would be comfortable shielding the defence yet dictating gamplay from behind support by Herrera/Fletcher. But then DLP is near exotic nowadays!
 
agree with all this, but I was saying that you could argue that after admitting their is an imbalance in tge squad that if we are still using this formation at the end of the window that we have failed to address this imbalance.

assuming of course that lvg wishes to address this imbalance. It could be that he doesnt feel its worth addressing, as you say, because the imbalance is due to having a number of excellent players in one position.

at the same time, I mean when we go for new players it we dont have to necessarily assume they are being bought to fit into a 343 system as he may wish to change that system with new buys

I agree

I think there is defiantly in-balance in the squad, like I said on the other thread, we do not need both kagwa and mata. Not too mention we have not got much depth in defence or midfield. So it is vital we gain that balance again, like I say I do not see how we can fit in rooney RVP kagwa and mata, not to mention where janazaj and valencia fit in all of this. So it is a big headscrather
 
Essentially the difference is in the numbers. If you play a 3-5-2 without a designated holding mid, and instead with 2 box to boxes and a no10 then you have 7 designated defenders in the team. If you play the same formation with 3 in midfield(which is what a holder forces it to be). Then you have 8 defenders. We need a holding mid so that the responsibilities split up between mata and hererra are very similar even with the differences in the quality of the work.
Basically
--------CF-------CF---------
-------------AM-------------
------CM---------CM-------
LWB----CB---CB----RWB
--------------SW-------------

Won't be able to be as solid defensively as:
---------------CF----------------
---------------CF----------------
---------CM--------AM----------
---------------HM---------------
LWB------CB----CB-------RWB
---------------SW----------------

The reason for that is simple, the attacking mid won't be able to get into the defensive line of the midfielders in the first one which will make it easier to find gaps. In the second one he'll be able to as his role in the team will change and won't be as purely offensive.

The notion that players are either all out attack or defend is a fallacy. All players do a bit of both. So numbers don't really explain anything. If you're playing 4-4-2, but the winger is Ronaldo, you ain't getting much cover.

The question is about balance - how much attacking each player does, and how much defending. Wingbacks attack more than fullbacks, but less than wingers. Centre backs attack less than holding midfielders, and so on.

What matters is not absolute numbers doing each but a) making sure all space is covered and b) each player making good decisions about when to attack and when to defend. That matters whatever formation you play.

If you have three centre backs you have three players who won't be attacking all that often (other than at set pieces etc). However your wingbacks and central midfielders can attack more. With a 4-4-2 and two box to box players you only have two players defending for most of their time (the centre backs) but the full backs have to spend more time defending.

If your wingbacks both fly off, your box to box midfielders fly off, and your middle centreback pushes into midfield, yes you're vulnerable. But the same can be said of any formation.

Very few if any teams use a 4-3-3

What an odd comment. Liverpool, Bayern, Real Madrid, Chelsea, Arsenal, Barca and ourselves have all played 4-3-3 at some point. Real just won the CL with that formation. Its hardly rare.
 
I still think we are a signing away from moving to a 4-3-3. If we can get a quality winger in (which I'd imagine we are looking to do at some point if not now) then that'll be the way it ends up.

As a short term solution I'm happy enough though.
 
I still think we are a signing away from moving to a 4-3-3. If we can get a quality winger in (which I'd imagine we are looking to do at some point if not now) then that'll be the way it ends up.

As a short term solution I'm happy enough though.

The only problem with that is, allot of our players are going to be on the bench, who is he going to bench? RVP Rooney mata janazaj kagwa, plus I would not want a front 3 of rooney RVP and mata in a front 3 in a 433, so allot of square pegs in round holes if we went 433 with the current personal
 
I did read somewhere that a 3 man defence is meant to counter teams with two strikers upfront. Teams that park the bus or with one upfront would leave us with one less attacking player compared to a traditional 4 man back-line with full-backs bombing up top.

Unless Phil Jones magically transforms into a modern day Baresi, which I still believe he will :wenger::wenger:

http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/03/24/three-man-defence-in-football-soccer/

http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/08/09/three-man-defence-three-man-attack/

The basic remedy against the problems that come from the other team playing 1 up front with 2 wingers - without really switching formation - is to have, for example, when the ball is on the right, the RWB (Valencia OR Rafael) press high up and basically play as a winger, with the RCB covering the space in behind and basically playing like an RB and the LWB drops in to make it a happy 4 vs 3 at the back.

So if we play, say, Chelsea and the ball goes to their left side, Valencia/Rafael might look to get up on Felipe Luis (LB), Smalling up on Hazard (LW), Jones + Evans handle Costa (9) + sweep up and Shaw slides inside/backwards a tad and has Willian/Schurrle (RW).
 
didn't someone once say something like if you haven't got 2 top centre backs play 3?

A kind of solidity in numbers type job?
That and the chance to see Rooney and VP properly up front, with Mata as well, makes this a goer.

Will be really interesting how it all pans out.

On the other hand we're used to wingers, but then our wingers haven't been that good for a while now.
 
What if Sir Alex played Smalling and Jones at right back and Evans at left back...

582052b4238618c8d.jpg


...because he knew we would play a 3-man defence in the future?

Memes aside...

http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/03/24/three-man-defence-in-football-soccer/

http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/08/09/three-man-defence-three-man-attack/

The basic remedy against the problems that come from the other team playing 1 up front with 2 wingers - without really switching formation - is to have, for example, when the ball is on the right, the RWB (Valencia OR Rafael) press high up and basically play as a winger, with the RCB covering the space in behind and basically playing like an RB and the LWB drops in to make it a happy 4 vs 3 at the back.

So if we play, say, Chelsea and the ball goes to their left side, Valencia/Rafael might look to get up on Felipe Luis (LB), Smalling up on Hazard (LW), Jones + Evans handle Costa (9) + sweep up and Shaw slides inside/backwards a tad and has Willian/Schurrle (RW).

See, this seems pretty obvious. Even I thought of this straight away when I thought of the first way to solve this issue. However, why don't 3-man defences do this, then? When I watched the Oranje against Australia, their 3-man defence didn't shift and adjust the way I thought they would. Blind kept pushing up, and the 3-man defence all remained in the middle area before starting to get stretched around. The same happened, at times, for Man. Utd. against LA Galaxy in the first half where Shaw/Valencia would push up, and Evans/Smalling wouldn't cover the space behind him (yes, in the second half, this improved, particularly with Smalling doing very well in this).

It seems to me as if this solution is easier said than done. It seems to me as if the average central defender in a 3-man defence is normally focused on covering the central areas rather than leaving the gap for someone else to exploit (basically pursuing the lesser of the two dangers). It seems like the remedy has to be coached into them so that they can solve this famed problem. That's how I see it.
 
The notion that players are either all out attack or defend is a fallacy. All players do a bit of both. So numbers don't really explain anything. If you're playing 4-4-2, but the winger is Ronaldo, you ain't getting much cover.

The question is about balance - how much attacking each player does, and how much defending. Wingbacks attack more than fullbacks, but less than wingers. Centre backs attack less than holding midfielders, and so on.

What matters is not absolute numbers doing each but a) making sure all space is covered and b) each player making good decisions about when to attack and when to defend. That matters whatever formation you What matters is not absolute numbers doing each but a) making sure all space is covered and b) each player making good decisions about when to attack and when to defend. That matters whatever formation you What matters is not absolute numbers doing each but a) making sure all space is covered and b) each player making good decisions about when to attack and when to defend. That matters whatever formation you What matters is not absolute numbers doing each but a) making sure all space is covered and b) each player making good decisions about when to attack and when to defend. That matters whatever formation you play.

If you have three centre backs you have three players who won't be attacking all that often (other than at set pieces etc). However your wingbacks and central midfielders can attack more. With a 4-4-2 and two box to box players you only have two players defending for most of their time (the centre backs) but the full backs have to spend more time defending.

If your wingbacks both fly off, your box to box midfielders fly off, and your middle centreback pushes into midfield, yes you're vulnerable. But the same can be said of any formation.



What an odd comment. Liverpool, Bayern, Real Madrid, Chelsea, Arsenal, Barca and ourselves have all played 4-3-3 at some point. Real just won the CL with that formation. Its hardly rare.
At no point am I suggesting that all players either defend or attack, just there some players that play an important role in the organisational structure side of defending in a team.

You're right with the ronaldo comment, hence madrid got so much success when di maria played in the midfield 3 and covered his side of the defensive work. In the semi's of the CL in 2011/2012, bayern tore them to shreds on that side because of ronaldo's inactivity defensively. Lahm and robben had an absolute You're right with the ronaldo comment, hence madrid got so much success when di maria played in the midfield 3 and covered his side of the defensive work. In the semi's of