I guess one tweak to it that makes it easier to envisage is Januzaj dropping out, Rooney going wide. Then Mata gets in. But that is only a very slight improvement.
So the 3-5-2
- Thread starter Ole's_toe_poke
- Start date
She's one hell of a lady you've got there.
That's what I told her, repeatedly, while building up the courage to ask about this jaunt to the pub.
I feel your pain. I plan on saying a prayer saturday night/sunday morning asking for the end of the 3-5-2.
One would think with 2 of our 4 established cb's injured we would go to 4 at the back.
Makes me laugh that people are suggesting using Rooney behind RVP and Falcao.. The most one dimensional, imabalanced attack I've ever seen.
Yeah, it would/will be horrible. But we're probably going to see it quite a bit.
I know we all like Mata, but I think the 'no.10' role has to go, especially if there are two strikers - which should also go.
3 up front. Job's a good 'un.
So his opening lines in the press conference offer some hope that 3-5-2 might not necessary be the way we go from now on, not by any means certain but some hope at least.
Surely the injuries to centre halves will mean we don't have enough for this 3 centre halves bollocks. Although if he is insistent that a team without Kevin Strootman in it cannot play with 4 defenders, then he coukd probably play Evans, Rojo and Blind, which would further have the negative effect of having Fletcher in midfield.
If we are going to play with 3 up top, Angel has to be one of them. No more of this one paced nonsense with no runners.
If we are going to play with 3 up top, Angel has to be one of them. No more of this one paced nonsense with no runners.
After January I doubt we'll see 3-5-2 ever again, nor do I expect to see 2 strikers. At the moment? anything goes.
If we play 352 surely 2 from Mata, Di Maria, Rooney, RVP and Falcao are not playing? I hope we are dropping it!
Van Gaal has made no bones about the fact the 3-5-2 is/was picked due to personnel issues. With the last push in the market--especially Blind--is it a squad he would feel up for the 4-3-3?
Furthermore, does he still favor it philosophically?
Furthermore, does he still favor it philosophically?
4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 would also mean dropping 2 of those players from the XI (or shunting one of the central players into an unfavourable wide position). The only way you could really limit the number of those players dropped to 1, would be with narrow diamond or Christmas tree formations. I'm not sure the primary concern at the moment should be trying to shoehorn everyone into the XI though.
I'm really hoping we move to 4-3-3 now. Even though it would mean a selection head-ache up front, I still think we'd be a better team with that system.
Do you think he has the "specialists" he needs?
And thus this formation died it's death. Goodbye.
From BBC: Louis van Gaal reiterates the fact that he ditched a back three today as Chris Smalling and Phil Jones were out injured. "I was more or less forced to play with four defenders," he says.
I still hope he sticks with 4 at the back like today. The 4-3-1-2/4-1-2-1-2 works much better imo going forward as it allows us to field all of our best players imo.
How anyone can possibly think 3-5-2 is the best formation for us is deluded.
formations with 4 at the back are far more logical than 3-5-2. I hope LVG will see that.
Am hoping that's it now for this silly waste of points.
I hope he is really not seriously said that. If he does then I must say he is one of the most stubborn manager out there.
Doesn't make any sense to me when we have Rojo, Evans and Blackett. He probably just relize that 352 is too hard and take way too long to settle. He is just a man with pride.
Thats your classic Leo for you. Nice observation!
A-fecking-men.
Hopefully we stick with today's formation.
Yes a bit of slight of hand from Van Gaal I think. He could easily have played 3-5-2 today had he wished to do so, with Blind moving to left wingback. A 'lack of defenders' seems like a convenient excuse to abandon a system which wasn't working, without any danger of losing face. I hope we stick with the diamond for a while; we may find it necessary to alter the system on the occasion we come up against a decent side with attacking fullbacks, but for games like today, 4-3-1-2 is ideal.
Yep, perhaps even to keep the opposition guessing what formation we will play.
Like you say, he could have played it today with Blind/Shaw at left wing back.
I certainly can see why we tried the 3-5-2, but we do look more comfortable with the back four. That's the way to go I think.
The hatred of the 3-5-2 is hysterical made even worse by using today as a vindication to sacking it off. I wonder how we would've performed in this diamond with young, Valencia, fletcher and cleverley in the starting 11.
Better than with those same three players and an extra centre back, that's for sure.
3-5-2 and the diamond are really similar systems, the latter undeniably suits us better however in terms of personnel. It looked great today providing most of the same benefits whilst keeping a back line that our defence is more comfortable with.
Everything good about today had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the formation, it was the personnel. I'm not saying 3-5-2 is the better formation but its being judged under ridiculous circumstances.
I can't believe we'll go back to it again now
That's not me saying we'll stick with the diamond either (although I can't see a better way of getting the most of the players we have)
That's not me saying we'll stick with the diamond either (although I can't see a better way of getting the most of the players we have)
The formation goes some way towards determining the personnel, and vice versa.
1 player difference between the two formations. When we have the ball it players almost exactly the same, 1 CB steps forward to a DM style role and a midfielder pushes further up to an advanced playmaker.
That's how I see it too.
With Blind sitting deep in the diamond, it's a very similar system anyway, and Blind has experience of playing across the defence so he can easily drop back and cover when we're under pressure. Just means we have an actual midfielder distributing from deep rather than a Centre-back.
The rest of the team is pretty much the same, albeit the full-backs will have a little less freedom to attack, but can still get forward to provide width.
This system will also allow us to accommodate 3 of Mata, Rooney, Van Persie and Falcao, all in their best positions to boot. Plenty of playing time for all of them. Any injuries to that four should see game time for Wilson and Januzaj too.
If LvG wants to stick with the Blind-Herrera-Di Maria midfield (and why wouldn't he ffs) then we can't play 3-5-2 as that would mean we have to drop two of Mata, Rooney, RvP, Falcao. That just won't happen. Blind has to play, Di Maria-Herera has to play and 3 of Mata, Rooney, RvP, Falcao also has to play.
Let's hope this is put to bed. No more 3-5-2 please
I agree with everything you've said. Your point on the fullbacks is actually why at their respective bests I prefer the 3-5-2 to the diamond, as that extra width often provides a better balance to the side. As it is, this diamond system suits us more and the width point is largely negated anyway as it's extremely rare to have a hybrid player like Di Maria playing as one of the midfielders - he makes up for that difference in width from the fullbacks by himself.
But yeah, the only thing I'm slightly surprised at is that Van Gaal - given his pride - didn't try to convince us all that it was still a 3-5-2 with Blind as a centre back stepping out of defence
With all out attacking and no midfield players, it only makes sense to ditch this formation for good. Why bring in an extra centre back for one of Blind, Herrera or Mata?!