| 3-5-2 it is? 12:59 - Aug 4 with 3435 views | Deatho |
By all accounts, it looks like Ollie has settled with a 352 formation after much tinkering last season.
If Washington gets to stay up front and has a partner with him, I'm all for it.
Centre midfield we have loads of options but I'm worried about the back 3.
if we go with Perch, Ned and Lynch, I'm concerned we will revert to going long as they aren't really suited with the ball at their feet.
Bournemouth noticed early we were trying to split the 18 yard box and trying to get Smithies to roll it out and start the play from the back. I was relieved when they pushed right up on us because without Hall, we don't have the ability to play it out from the back. Lynch has a decent left foot on him but aims for the channel every time. Perch is a massive liability just begging to be sent off in games and Ned with the ball at his feet looks uncomfortable although as a defender, is very decent at this level. If Mass can get it off them quickly then we may be ok but I'm concerned we will get it off Smithies and then punt it long which Smithies could just do himself.
I'm actually pleased we haven't gone mad in the transfer window, I think we have enough in our squad to improve this year and settle the side down.
Scowen looked decent against Bournemouth so hopefully he is a great find.
I would like a ball playing centre half to come in, possibly a loan as we are short there but if not, maybe Caulker could emerge and fill in after all his problems.
I'm quite optimistic for the season ahead, mid table would be a good effort and think Manning, Freeman and Washington could really kick on this season.
Wing backs will be key and we will rely on decent quailty for the front two.
Hoping Furlong gets more of a chance and Eze gets some minutes if Ollie feels he's ready.
Roll on tomorrow.
|  | | |  |
| 3-5-2 it is? on 13:35 - Aug 4 with 3367 views | WestbourneR |
I really hope not.
- it's fad because Conte won the league with it. Ollie wouldn't have looked at 12 months ago.
- we haven't got the defenders or wing backs to do it as you've noticed. You need ball playing centre backs (we don't) and you need really wing backs (we don't).
- Ollie is not a great tactician and should keep it simple. Anyone who saw the infamous video of his pre game tactics talk for the team when we played t mbt nnn tnt the cup will know his intellectual limitations
- I think it's mainly being done to crow bar Washington into the team and he's not good enough to build a plan around.
- I don't think it provides genuine width and a lot of our best players - Yeni being one / Shodipo and Wsolek and Freeman the others -don't really have a position in that formation |  |
| |
| 3-5-2 it is? on 13:49 - Aug 4 with 3339 views | stevec |
Not sure it matters what shape we play, all I know is Smith will end up 30 yards away from the midfield who in turn will be 30 yards away from the defence.
And our goalkeeper will do a lot of diving. |  | | |
| 3-5-2 it is? on 14:08 - Aug 4 with 3306 views | Deatho |
| 3-5-2 it is? on 13:35 - Aug 4 by WestbourneR |
I really hope not.
- it's fad because Conte won the league with it. Ollie wouldn't have looked at 12 months ago.
- we haven't got the defenders or wing backs to do it as you've noticed. You need ball playing centre backs (we don't) and you need really wing backs (we don't).
- Ollie is not a great tactician and should keep it simple. Anyone who saw the infamous video of his pre game tactics talk for the team when we played t mbt nnn tnt the cup will know his intellectual limitations
- I think it's mainly being done to crow bar Washington into the team and he's not good enough to build a plan around.
- I don't think it provides genuine width and a lot of our best players - Yeni being one / Shodipo and Wsolek and Freeman the others -don't really have a position in that formation |
I would be happier with a flat back 4 as 352 rely's on Hall playing.
You can't have a formation dependant on one player but let's see what happens.
I'm sure it won't be as rigid as he want's it to be. | | | |
| 3-5-2 it is? on 20:42 - Aug 4 with 3160 views | Roller |
We don't have fullbacks worthy of the name, this formation eliminates the need to play any. Midfield is by far our strongest area, this formation gets at least on more of them into the starting eleven - it's genius. |  | | |
| 3-5-2 it is? on 09:57 - Aug 5 with 2918 views | francisbowles |
| 3-5-2 it is? on 13:35 - Aug 4 by WestbourneR |
I really hope not.
- it's fad because Conte won the league with it. Ollie wouldn't have looked at 12 months ago.
- we haven't got the defenders or wing backs to do it as you've noticed. You need ball playing centre backs (we don't) and you need really wing backs (we don't).
- Ollie is not a great tactician and should keep it simple. Anyone who saw the infamous video of his pre game tactics talk for the team when we played t mbt nnn tnt the cup will know his intellectual limitations
- I think it's mainly being done to crow bar Washington into the team and he's not good enough to build a plan around.
- I don't think it provides genuine width and a lot of our best players - Yeni being one / Shodipo and Wsolek and Freeman the others -don't really have a position in that formation |
'played t mbt nnn tnt the cup'
Either you've been drinking or your predictive text has gone mad but I agree with you! |  | | |
| 3-5-2 it is? on 10:19 - Aug 5 with 2885 views | TacticalR |
3-5-2 always seems to end in tears for us.
My thoughts after we used it against Huddersfield in January this year:
'We tried to play it against Blackpool and Clint Hill and Benoît Assou-Ekotto ended up covering the same area and treading on each others toes.
This time around it looked like we had the opposite problem when Bidwell didn't seem to know what he was doing and periodically there was a big space on the left and Wszołek didn't look too comfortable defending either.'
And don't forget when Harry decided to bet everything on 3-5-2 (selling off Danny Simpson and getting in Isla) and then abandoned the system after one game. |  |
| |
| 3-5-2 it is? on 15:50 - Aug 5 with 2787 views | timcocking |
I mentioned already somewhere, but i wish our manager would desist in announcing our intended formation before the start of each season. It justs makes us look even more mickey mouse every year when we revert to a more negative formation after two defeats. |  | | |
| 3-5-2 it is? on 08:43 - Aug 6 with 2571 views | daveB |
| 3-5-2 it is? on 15:50 - Aug 5 by timcocking |
I mentioned already somewhere, but i wish our manager would desist in announcing our intended formation before the start of each season. It justs makes us look even more mickey mouse every year when we revert to a more negative formation after two defeats. |
He didn't announce our formation at all, he said he knew how he wanted to play never said what formation it would be |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| 3-5-2 it is? on 10:23 - Aug 6 with 2492 views | Hunterhoop |
| 3-5-2 it is? on 08:43 - Aug 6 by daveB |
He didn't announce our formation at all, he said he knew how he wanted to play never said what formation it would be |
Dave, what do you think the formation was yesterday? From what I've read some are saying 433, some 442 and some 352. My Dad said he reckoned it was an unsymmetrical 352, whereby Wszolek played more forward, and Bidwell deeper, on their respective flanks. He said it could have been called a 442, but Freeman played a free role not left wing, which confused me because that, and his above suggestion, makes it sound like no one was on the left at all!
The one thing everyone has said is that "the midfield 3 of" Scowen, Luongo and Freeman were excellent. That makes me think it was a slightly lopsided 352. Great news is Wszolek can do a good job as a wing back. I'm less than convinced Bidwell can though. |  | | |
| 3-5-2 it is? on 10:46 - Aug 6 with 2445 views | rsonist |
The impression I'm getting from the reports is that when you have a player like Scowen suddenly everything clicks. |  | | |
| 3-5-2 it is? on 10:50 - Aug 6 with 2433 views | WadR |
| 3-5-2 it is? on 10:23 - Aug 6 by Hunterhoop |
Dave, what do you think the formation was yesterday? From what I've read some are saying 433, some 442 and some 352. My Dad said he reckoned it was an unsymmetrical 352, whereby Wszolek played more forward, and Bidwell deeper, on their respective flanks. He said it could have been called a 442, but Freeman played a free role not left wing, which confused me because that, and his above suggestion, makes it sound like no one was on the left at all!
The one thing everyone has said is that "the midfield 3 of" Scowen, Luongo and Freeman were excellent. That makes me think it was a slightly lopsided 352. Great news is Wszolek can do a good job as a wing back. I'm less than convinced Bidwell can though. |
Think an unsymmetrical 352 is pretty much spot on.
It was very much Luongo and Freeman in central midfield and Scowen in DM - Mass and Freeman were pressing really high when Reading had goalkicks and possession deep in their own half and although both had a degree of freedom to roam and move out wide (Scowen's discipline and midfield coverage helped allow this) - they were both primarily playing in the centre.
Thought Wszolek was rather quiet for the first half (excellent assist aside) and was playing more conservatively as a wingback than a winger. Once Reading were down to 10 men, he was playing very advanced, pretty much as a right winger and with Perch even overlapping pretty regularly. A feature of the second half was Wszolek making some excellent back line stretching runs but Freeman and Luongo either not seeing them or choosing to maintain possession. If the latter, I think that's fine - there was no need to force anything at 2-0 up against 10 men.
Bidwell played very well actually. I had reservations on the basis that I've always thought he's a full back not a wingback but he got forward well, made 2 or 3 excellent crosses and was solid enough defensively. Playing the fluid formation we did, requires a lot of communication when passing on opposition players to team mates - and being low down in Ellerslie - it was notable in the first half that Bidwell and Lynch were talking a lot - making sure they knew which one of them was picking up Popa, the right winger.
There were a few times in the first half when Bidwell was doubled up on, Reading got in behind and a better side would've made more of the opportunity - so there's clear areas for defensive improvement. | | | |
| 3-5-2 it is? on 10:54 - Aug 6 with 2418 views | Roller |
I think that the fact that we can't nail the formation shows how fluid and adaptable to the game situation it was. I thought 3-5-2. Our excellent midfield 3 were often quite tight and so would have left far too much of both flanks exposed if they'd not be part of a 5. Reading couldn't cope with their constant chasing and harrying, and having won the ball back their close control and ball smuggling was most impressive.
I also need to give some credit to Mackie. I groaned when I saw him in the starting eleven, but he played really well and was perfect for the role Ollie gave him. | | | |
| 3-5-2 it is? on 11:31 - Aug 6 with 2345 views | TacticalR |
Mackie gave us some much-needed oomph. Without doing anything particularly decisive in the game he drove us forward, added an extra body to attack and needled the opposition. At one point it looked like he was going to try and send off the ref. | |
| |
| 3-5-2 it is? on 17:58 - Aug 6 with 2157 views | francisbowles |
I thought it was a 352 and changed to a 442/433 when Reading went down to 10 men. Pavel moved up and Perch went to rb. | | | |
| 3-5-2 it is? on 18:23 - Aug 6 with 2115 views | daveB |
| 3-5-2 it is? on 10:23 - Aug 6 by Hunterhoop |
Dave, what do you think the formation was yesterday? From what I've read some are saying 433, some 442 and some 352. My Dad said he reckoned it was an unsymmetrical 352, whereby Wszolek played more forward, and Bidwell deeper, on their respective flanks. He said it could have been called a 442, but Freeman played a free role not left wing, which confused me because that, and his above suggestion, makes it sound like no one was on the left at all!
The one thing everyone has said is that "the midfield 3 of" Scowen, Luongo and Freeman were excellent. That makes me think it was a slightly lopsided 352. Great news is Wszolek can do a good job as a wing back. I'm less than convinced Bidwell can though. |
I'll be honest mate I'm still not sure what formation we played. I'd like to see the game again to have a better idea as we seemed to get so many forward when we had the ball and everyone back withot it.
Looked like a 5-3-2 without the ball and 3-4-3 with it but i don't say that with much confidence, when we had the ball Bidwell was excellent getting forward on the left, his best game for us I thought, Luongo and freeman also had far more freedom to get forward as Scowen did an excellent job in front of defence.
Performance was very similar to the one at Reading in January | | | |
| 3-5-2 it is? on 19:47 - Aug 6 with 2060 views | bosh67 |
| 3-5-2 it is? on 10:46 - Aug 6 by rsonist |
The impression I'm getting from the reports is that when you have a player like Scowen suddenly everything clicks. |
Where Scowen was so impressive was not just the way he plays, it's the way he talks to and organises everyone around him. Finally a Hill/Derry style leader in the team again. |  |
| |
| 3-5-2 it is? on 09:53 - Aug 7 with 1883 views | simmo |
| 3-5-2 it is? on 18:23 - Aug 6 by daveB |
I'll be honest mate I'm still not sure what formation we played. I'd like to see the game again to have a better idea as we seemed to get so many forward when we had the ball and everyone back withot it.
Looked like a 5-3-2 without the ball and 3-4-3 with it but i don't say that with much confidence, when we had the ball Bidwell was excellent getting forward on the left, his best game for us I thought, Luongo and freeman also had far more freedom to get forward as Scowen did an excellent job in front of defence.
Performance was very similar to the one at Reading in January |
That's about right Dave, 5-3-2 without and 3-4-1-2 with the ball (Freeman being the 1). Bidwell and Wzsolek basically playing as LM/RM rather than wing backs which meant when Reading did look threatening it was down our left side behind JB. It didn't really happen though and meant everyone was pushed right up.
Scowen was mainly the holding midfielder but he was everywhere, dropped in to cover when Perch/Lynch whoever went forwards or to be an extra man to defend crosses, then was in/around the area and played a few nice balls into the box at certain points. Proper box-to-box but with a slightly more defensive tinge to his game. |  |
| ask Beavis I get nothing Butthead |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
