I can't see how a system which would have Mata, RVP, Rooney and Herrera in it can be considered defensive.
So the 3-5-2
- Thread starter Ole's_toe_poke
- Start date
My issue is that I think we need a player like those you mentioned in order to have a top class attack. Yes, we are playing to the strengths of what we have, which is the point. Their strengths are too similar. The personnel should be changed then.
The presence of Robben didn't lead to a different formation for Holland, it led to it being made effective because the Dutch then remained balanced and had different types of threats.
Also, Januzaj will never become that player if he is marginalised.
For the reserves and U18s he played the vast majority of his matches from one wing or the other, and only a few from #10.
One of the various reasons why I don't think 3 at the back suits our players.
Whether he prefers playing there or not isn't really important - you'll hardly find a winger with good ball control who doesn't want to play #10. I think it's a no-brainer that he's more effective coming in off the wings. His real strength is that he's so good at so many things. Yes, he has great close control, is good in tight areas, and can produce a nice through-ball. But he's also pacy, a great direct dribbler, and a beautiful crosser of the ball.
Play him at #10, and you use half of these qualities.
Play him from a wide starting position, with license to either come inside into the #10-type-areas or to try and beat his fullback down the outside, and you use all of these qualities.
The former option makes him a good #10. The latter makes him an absolute nightmare for defenders, who are essentially having to mark a direct pacy winger and a tricky, creative #10 at the same time, with no idea what he's going to do every time he goes forward.
It really is a no-brainer, and I've watched it play out that way over and over in the youth teams, and then last season in the first team. He's good enough to be just as influential a team player from a nominally wide starting position, and it makes him twice as dangerous individually.
EDIT:
The point is that for me, regardless of what system we use we badly need that second quality CM if we want to get back to a high level. Once we have that player (let's say Vidal, for argument's sake), then a 4231 fits our players much better than a 352/532:
DDG
Rafa Smalling Evans Shaw
Herrera Vidal
Januzaj Mata Rooney
RVP
The players in bold are the ones who particularly lose out in a 3-at-the-back system (provided you're not one of those who somehow still thinks Rafa can't defend, as if it's still 2010). But the fact that we lack numbers at CB makes it a particularly weird decision. Do we want to have to play all our senior CBs in every single game? Makes no sense whatsoever.Rafa Smalling Evans Shaw
Herrera Vidal
Januzaj Mata Rooney
RVP
Because there are constantly 3 players at the back and you arguably play with 5 defenders? Nobody said that a 3-4-1-2 has to be defensive, a offensive 4-3-3 is just more offensive than an offensive 3-4-1-2, that's the whole point, even if you play Total Football it will be more defensive with the 3-4-1-2 than with a 4-3-3.
Why are we even calling it 3-5-2 and not 3-4-1-2 anyways? A 3-5-2 was always that for me:
Well, I think we're all pretty sure we'll sign at least one more CB, if not two and then there's still Michael Keane. After Van Gaal's comments I really think the main reason for the 3-4-1-2 was that we have two great strikers in the team, add to that that we don't really have a top quality CB and our midfield is kinda shaky the whole formation makes perfekt sense. Even if I'd so much like us to do a 4-3-3, we need at least 3 new signings to be better with it than we are using the 3-4-1-2.
Because there are constantly 3 players at the back and you arguably play with 5 defenders? Nobody said that a 3-4-1-2 has to be defensive, a offensive 4-3-3 is just more offensive than an offensive 3-4-1-2, that's the whole point, even if you play Total Football it will be more defensive with the 3-4-1-2 than with a 4-3-3.
Why are we even calling it 3-5-2 and not 3-4-1-2 anyways? A 3-5-2 was always that for me:
With all due respect but in 4 men defenses, only one defender would usually attack and when he does, someone else (winger or CM) would slot in his role to avoid being hit by a quick counter. The rest of the defense will usually stick back with the rb taking a slightly more central role to help winning balls from crosses.
In 3-5-2 system you have a permanent 3 men CB with full backs covering both LB and RB role. One can easily argue that such system would lack width or would be particularly taxing on the full backs which need to be absolutely on top of their game. However its far from defensive. You cant be defensive with 4 attacking minded players in the team.
Its more of a 3412, but the wing backs can make it 5 at the back, in the middle, or 4/5 in attack which is the strong point for me.
Its not defensive and when you have Jones at CB my expectation is that he drives on into midfield as well and plays a lot of the game as the deepest midfield player just in front or the other two defenders.
We should also theoretically get caught out less on the break as Smalling and Evans are at least familiar with having to defend at full back. We allow Shaw and Valencia to attack at will along with having our three best attacking players in the the right area of the pitch. It works for what we have right now, but other signings could well change that.
Its not defensive and when you have Jones at CB my expectation is that he drives on into midfield as well and plays a lot of the game as the deepest midfield player just in front or the other two defenders.
We should also theoretically get caught out less on the break as Smalling and Evans are at least familiar with having to defend at full back. We allow Shaw and Valencia to attack at will along with having our three best attacking players in the the right area of the pitch. It works for what we have right now, but other signings could well change that.
This formation will be a great counter-attacking set up against the top teams who seek to dominate and control the game and all we can do is sit back and counter well.
But for the other games, where the opponent are trying to get a draw out of it and we are in need of scoring I can see us having huge issues. Similar to Chelsea last year who put forth an amazing counter-attacking team but then lost a lot of points when the opponents were happy to sit back.
But for the other games, where the opponent are trying to get a draw out of it and we are in need of scoring I can see us having huge issues. Similar to Chelsea last year who put forth an amazing counter-attacking team but then lost a lot of points when the opponents were happy to sit back.
Why do people care about us never playing like this before? It's a weird thing to be sentimental about, not playing with wingers...
That bolded part isn't true and I'm sure not what you meant. The thing with the 3-4-1-2 is that when defending you basically have a backline of 5 defenders and the transition/build up play is way slower than with wingers in a 4-3-3 who are further up the pitch, which makes the 4-3-3 more attacking IMO.
Similar to the Netherlands against Costa Rica, even though they had enough chances admittedly, that was only in the last 10-15 minutes, when the opponents were tired. I feel the build-up could be too slow like stated in my above post. Costa Rica were basically parking the bus and Holland couldn't do much about it.
The one thing that bothers me is the lack of options for the wing backs when they have possession deep in our half.
no, thats the point of this system having wingbacks. It would be a counter attacking system with either the 5 at the back or 3 at the back depending on the phase of play. Against chelsea, particularly away the WB's will play a lot deeper to plug that gap. This is assuming we utilise the likes of Rafael and shaw as the wingbacks (sometimes valencia). If it were young/januzaj then yes we would be mullered at the back.
But it wont be that.
Think it could work but would be worried playing this formation vs Arsenal, City, Chelsea and Liverpool.
But you've just said we need two more CBs to have enough to be playing three at the back week in week out. Whereas we basically just need a top CM to have a strong 4231 side.
I'm not convinced its something we should stick to permanently either. Mainly because we only have 3 CBs. What if the inevitable happens? i.e. Smalling, Jones or Evans get injured? I'm not comfortable with the idea of having Carrick, Fletcher of Fellaini playing at the back just to make the 3-5-2 system work throughout the whole season.
No, I said we need 3 signings for 4-3-3/4-2-3-1. I counted 1 quality CM, 1 quality CB and 1 quality winger. We do have the numbers when it comes to wingers, but out of our current crop I only feel comfortable with Januzaj, I don't want to see Nani, Valencia or Young in our first team which is why I for now prefer to see us lining up 3-4-1-2.
That's a 5-3-2, where you play 3 centre backs with 2 full backs. The full backs play as they would do in a back four, but you've added an extra defender in the box. Thats definitely a defensive move.
The 3-4-3 that LVG seems to be advocating is where you use proper wingbacks. Their starting position is 10 or 15 yards further up the pitch, and both are given license to pile forward at once (which is normally a high risk move in a back 4) and move backwards more slowly. They do a lot more attacking and a lot less defending.
Bear in mind too that in a back 3, the central CB is normally encouraged to move out with the ball and make an option for a midfield teammate, or to stop counter attacks with early interceptions. This means your central midfielders need to worry less about covering the back four, so they too get the option of pushing forward to join in with attacks.
A 3-4-3 isnt necessarily less attacking than any other formation, its more about how you work it.
Exactly, and what we need are to have two options on each side which means we can switch from a defensive 5-3-2 to a proper 3-5-2 with a wide midfielder on each side, or one wide midfielder on a specific side to deal with an opponent who has a dangerous winger.
Valencia/Young is nowhere near being that wide midfielder for us though, in his peak he would have been perfect but now he is nowhere near it.
I didn't refer to the starting position though, I said when defending, obviously dependant on the opposition, the wing-backs come way deeper, which makes it look like a backline of 5 players. I know that there aren't 5 at the back constantly.
I disagree. The 3-4-1-2 is pretty balanced when it comes to attack vs defence. The front three are obviously purely attacking players and likewise the three centre halves are defensive. But the two midfielders and the wing backs have a dual role. If you watched us today Shaw and Valencia spent as much of their time pinned to the opposition full back as they did doing their defensive duties, while the midfielders were scrapping in deep positions as much as they were creating.
Vidal is the absolutely perfect player for that role and Rafael would be excellent to come in for Valencia. I we wanted to play the system regularly long term then we'd need a top draw centre half to sit in between two of our current ones too.
There were only 2 pure attacking players, the attacking-mid did track back in the first and in the second half. To the bolded part, I clearly don't think that will happen against a stronger opposition, at least it was that way with the Netherlands, they where higher up the pitch, yes, but when defending deep it was pretty much a backline of 5.
And if the transition isn't fast enough I don't think Rooney + Van Persie will be effective.
I find it interesting how over time formations change, and its not always for a positive reason (i.e a manager has a bright idea).
In olden days of yore, we had 442. simple. Then the 4-4-1-1 arrived with one of the strikers (the number 10) dropping back a little deeper to plug the gap between midfield and attack.
To counter this, and the growing importance of the midfield in tactical battles, teams (like utd in 2003-5) utilised a 4-5-1 with a DM who could mark out the influential number 10 (or tequarista if you're on the continent
).
This over time turned into a 4-2-3-1 with 2 deeper CMs than normal, offset by two attacking wingers or 'inside forwards' (i hate that term). The benefit of this was that it pegged defences back. attacking teams were able to utilise the old full back in 442 into wingbacks and overlap with the 'inside fowards', who over the last few years got more narrow with the likes of David silva as opposed to a traditional winger like Nani/giggs for example.
Smaller sides got narrower and narrower (as they didnt have to contend with the likes of giggs/beckham/robben etc, but the likes of silva,mata,nasri,corzola etc) and narrowed the gap between defence and midfield to stifle the AMC's. Unfortunately, muppets like moyes decided the best way round this was to load the wings again, get wider and cross, cross, cross (like against fulham). But against and organised defence that just wouldnt work, and having two of your most creative players (wingers) boxed in on the touchline with only half a direction to pass the ball increasingly doesnt work.
The other issue is that the lone striker in a 4231 increasingly gets margianalised as the AMC is less of a deeper striker (ala rooney) and more of an AMC (ala mata).
Perhaps the 3 at the back is a result of this, more and more teams are trying it (particularly on the continent). the three at the back allows you to conentrate on the one lone striker, and the one less at the back allows you to have two up front, which means the opposition are forced to keep 2 CB's at least.
Its like a formation merry go round.
It could be that.
That could all be unbelievable bullshit though.
In olden days of yore, we had 442. simple. Then the 4-4-1-1 arrived with one of the strikers (the number 10) dropping back a little deeper to plug the gap between midfield and attack.
To counter this, and the growing importance of the midfield in tactical battles, teams (like utd in 2003-5) utilised a 4-5-1 with a DM who could mark out the influential number 10 (or tequarista if you're on the continent
).This over time turned into a 4-2-3-1 with 2 deeper CMs than normal, offset by two attacking wingers or 'inside forwards' (i hate that term). The benefit of this was that it pegged defences back. attacking teams were able to utilise the old full back in 442 into wingbacks and overlap with the 'inside fowards', who over the last few years got more narrow with the likes of David silva as opposed to a traditional winger like Nani/giggs for example.
Smaller sides got narrower and narrower (as they didnt have to contend with the likes of giggs/beckham/robben etc, but the likes of silva,mata,nasri,corzola etc) and narrowed the gap between defence and midfield to stifle the AMC's. Unfortunately, muppets like moyes decided the best way round this was to load the wings again, get wider and cross, cross, cross (like against fulham). But against and organised defence that just wouldnt work, and having two of your most creative players (wingers) boxed in on the touchline with only half a direction to pass the ball increasingly doesnt work.
The other issue is that the lone striker in a 4231 increasingly gets margianalised as the AMC is less of a deeper striker (ala rooney) and more of an AMC (ala mata).
Perhaps the 3 at the back is a result of this, more and more teams are trying it (particularly on the continent). the three at the back allows you to conentrate on the one lone striker, and the one less at the back allows you to have two up front, which means the opposition are forced to keep 2 CB's at least.
Its like a formation merry go round.
It could be that.
That could all be unbelievable bullshit though.
The four at the back wasn't there forever though, it all started with three at the back. Now it's becoming fashionable again it seems.I find it interesting how over time formations change, and its not always for a positive reason (i.e a manager has a bright idea).
In olden days of yore, we had 442. simple. Then the 4-4-1-1 arrived with one of the strikers (the number 10) dropping back a little deeper to plug the gap between midfield and attack.
To counter this, and the growing importance of the midfield in tactical battles, teams (like utd in 2003-5) utilised a 4-5-1 with a DM who could mark out the influential number 10 (or tequarista if you're on the continent
This over time turned into a 4-2-3-1 with 2 deeper CMs than normal, offset by two attacking wingers or 'inside forwards' (i hate that term). The benefit of this was that it pegged defences back. attacking teams were able to utilise the old full back in 442 into wingbacks and overlap with the 'inside fowards', who over the last few years got more narrow with the likes of David silva as opposed to a traditional winger like Nani/giggs for example.
Smaller sides got narrower and narrower (as they didnt have to contend with the likes of giggs/beckham/robben etc, but the likes of silva,mata,nasri,corzola etc) and narrowed the gap between defence and midfield to stifle the AMC's. Unfortunately, muppets like moyes decided the best way round this was to load the wings again, get wider and cross, cross, cross (like against fulham). But against and organised defence that just wouldnt work, and having two of your most creative players (wingers) boxed in on the touchline with only half a direction to pass the ball increasingly doesnt work.
The other issue is that the lone striker in a 4231 increasingly gets margianalised as the AMC is less of a deeper striker (ala rooney) and more of an AMC (ala mata).
Perhaps the 3 at the back is a result of this, more and more teams are trying it (particularly on the continent). the three at the back allows you to conentrate on the one lone striker, and the one less at the back allows you to have two up front, which means the opposition are forced to keep 2 CB's at least.
Its like a formation merry go round.
It could be that.
That could all be unbelievable bullshit though.
I am not really a friend of playing without real wingers. The positive thing is we can play Mata+Rooney+RVP without playing one out of position. So better get the best out of them than hoping for a winger to perform. But what if we sign a world-slass winger and have Januzaj too?
Hopefully the squad will be build to play both ways.
Hopefully the squad will be build to play both ways.
the 1 is for the keeper. It just means van Gaal sees the keeper as a key part of possession
If we are to persist throughout the season with 3 at the back, Cuadrado would be a really good acquisition. He's a hard worker, good going forward and can defend competently.
Well i was wrong, i thought that he would try primarily a 4-3-3.
I like the 3-4-3 because it's a versatile system but we are going to need more CBs int the squad.
I like the 3-4-3 because it's a versatile system but we are going to need more CBs int the squad.
I know. But when we play at home and we attack, they will be in the attacking phase of play. Liverpool and Chelsea are both good counter attacking teams with serious pace, they will look to expose those gaps. The wing-backs will have to be at their very best in those games.
I think @Raoul knows that, would be pretty noob-ish from him if not. I think he meant, why doesn't Van Gaal play the 4-3-3 if it's widely been mentioned that it's his favourite formation plus Woody is willing to spend money on new players. Maybe he just wants to work with our current material of players.
Pros of three at the back:
Allows us to play Mata, RVP, Rooney all in their best positions without the need to shunt them out wide
Means the likes of Welbeck, Henrnandez and Kagawa should see more gametime in their preferred, central roles, than if we were only play one striker and two wingers.
Allows is to play "between the lines" far more than the static, inflexible 442 of previous years
Allows for Herrera and Mata to link up in central ares which will do wonders for our ability to maintain possession and use the ball positively
Covers for the fact that our wingers have been completely dire for at least 2 seasons now
Covers somewhat for our weaknesses both in midfield and in defence
With the right personnel can switch seamlessly into a back four midgame if necessary
Cons of three at the back
Most of our players are completely unfamiliar with a back 3, especially our defenders.
We curently only have only 3 senior centre backs, all of whom are injury prone
Playing wingback doesn't really play to the strengths of one of our major signings, Shaw
Means Nani, Zaha, Young and possibly Januzaj will struggle for games
All in all the pros outweigh the cons for me. You can solve pretty much all the cons on the training ground and in the transfer market.
Allows us to play Mata, RVP, Rooney all in their best positions without the need to shunt them out wide
Means the likes of Welbeck, Henrnandez and Kagawa should see more gametime in their preferred, central roles, than if we were only play one striker and two wingers.
Allows is to play "between the lines" far more than the static, inflexible 442 of previous years
Allows for Herrera and Mata to link up in central ares which will do wonders for our ability to maintain possession and use the ball positively
Covers for the fact that our wingers have been completely dire for at least 2 seasons now
Covers somewhat for our weaknesses both in midfield and in defence
With the right personnel can switch seamlessly into a back four midgame if necessary
Cons of three at the back
Most of our players are completely unfamiliar with a back 3, especially our defenders.
We curently only have only 3 senior centre backs, all of whom are injury prone
Playing wingback doesn't really play to the strengths of one of our major signings, Shaw
Means Nani, Zaha, Young and possibly Januzaj will struggle for games
All in all the pros outweigh the cons for me. You can solve pretty much all the cons on the training ground and in the transfer market.
Surprised at some of the negative reaction to van Gaal saying he'll go with 352 this season.
Firstly, I'm sure van Gaal knows what he's doing and is more tactically knowledgeable that anyone on here. Obviously this is how he feels he will get the best out of this crop of players.
Secondly, it's obviously only going to be a short term fix until he shapes the squad into the way he wants it, to enable him to play his favoured system.
Firstly, I'm sure van Gaal knows what he's doing and is more tactically knowledgeable that anyone on here. Obviously this is how he feels he will get the best out of this crop of players.
Secondly, it's obviously only going to be a short term fix until he shapes the squad into the way he wants it, to enable him to play his favoured system.
Not too sure about this, I can see the gaps on the sides being exploited by teams with pacy wingers. Add on to that that we have a massive problem in centre back depth and we are playing all 3 of our only experienced centre backs in this formation. If one gets injured we are screwed. Hell even in a 2 center back formation we still have problems with depth there. We would need another centre back or two at the very minimum. It also means that our more attacking wingers won't be able to get games because the width comes from the wingbacks. Basically in terms of the overall squad, it isn't a very favourable situation. Of course, I fully trust Van Gaal knows what he is doing better than all of us and expect a lot of transfer activity to solve these issues
I like the idea very very much.
With our wingers beeing shite for a too long time, I think this really makes sense. LvG also knows how to play in that formation to perfection.
We will have to buy another LB and CB though I fear. One injury and we might struggle.
With our wingers beeing shite for a too long time, I think this really makes sense. LvG also knows how to play in that formation to perfection.
We will have to buy another LB and CB though I fear. One injury and we might struggle.
because his philosophy isn't tied to one formation. people care too much about "4-3-3/4-3-1-2/4-3-2-1/4-4-2" etc. The default formation doesn't encapsulate the different phases of the game. at times yesterday we had a line of 5/4/3 defenders depending on the game situation.
The formation itself doesn't matter as much as the organization, movement, and interaction between the players. It's just a framework. More important how it's being used. All formations are valid
He has said on MUTV that be counts his goalkeeper as a player. So they must train the same as all the other players.
I trust him tactically, I'm just worried Januzaj won't get the playing time I was expecting this season. I feel his development is important. Again, I trust LVG to teach him. I just don't trust he will get the maximum amount of playing time.
The 3 at the back worked okay today but during the actual season I'm not sure. For one, will Shaw and Rafael make good wingbacks? Having a winger in front of them has always been a part of both their games, could they thrive in this system? For another, we definitely need more center halves. Also, will Welbeck be a sure starter, playing with one or Rooney and Van Persie? That seems unlikely, but Danny has the pace to make this formation work, and Wayne and Robin don't.
Has any team ever won the PL playing 3 central defenders?