5-3-2

[shaolinpunk]

Certainly when the team was lined up for kickoff it was a very definite 3-5-2 rather than 5-3-2. Obviously as our players failed to cope and Millwall started to control the game that quickly became the defensive variant

 

[Seagulltonian]

The Skysports report has us playing 4 - 3 - 3

 

[Foolg]

Annoyingly he changed the tactics to a negative one last season against Millwall as well with pretty much the same result. Not sure why he thought it would work last night, especially as we came so close to brushing Nottingham Forest apart in the early part of the game on Saturday. Gus seems to play with fear sometimes, maybe he looked at how big the Millwall players were and decided to change our tactics to combat their size and aggression

He feared losing the midfield battle, and thus played the 3 defensive midfielders and 5 at the back (seemingly). We are the home side, you should play the way YOU want to play at home, that's common sense. Watching us play with 8 defensive players on the pitch was f*cking dull. Especially when the end result was no attacking midfielders, leading to long balls up to CMS against......... Danny Shittu. Cracking Idea.

Our home line-ups are becoming more and like the away formations last season, boring.

 

[Foolg]

Certainly when the team was lined up for kickoff it was a very definite 3-5-2 rather than 5-3-2. Obviously as our players failed to cope and Millwall started to control the game that quickly became the defensive variant

If it was a 3-5-2, it was a midfield 5 made up of a full back (bridge), someone who was virtually playing right back (lopez), and the three most defensive midfielders at our club (Bridcutt, Hammond, Crofts).

It's pushing it very far to say it was a 3-5-2. It was extremely negative, and took over half an hour for Gus to twig, everyone around me had latched on 20 minutes before kick off.

 

[Seagull on the wing]

Ah 5-3-2, the old W formation up until the middle 60s.....1964 promotion....over a hundred goals in the season....all the 5 forwards hit double fugures...no cheating,no diving,players who got a knock did'nt roll around in pretend agony (If you are really hurt you lay still)

FOOTBALL HEAVEN

 

[SIMMO SAYS]

He feared losing the midfield battle, and thus played the 3 defensive midfielders and 5 at the back (seemingly). We are the home side, you should play the way YOU want to play at home, that's common sense. Watching us play with 8 defensive players on the pitch was f*cking dull. Especially when the end result was no attacking midfielders, leading to long balls up to CMS against......... Danny Shittu. Cracking Idea.

Our home line-ups are becoming more and like the away formations last season, boring.

This-This and Thrice This

 

[yxee]

If it was a 3-5-2, it was a midfield 5 made up of a full back (bridge), someone who was virtually playing right back (lopez), and the three most defensive midfielders at our club (Bridcutt, Hammond, Crofts).

It's pushing it very far to say it was a 3-5-2. It was extremely negative, and took over half an hour for Gus to twig, everyone around me had latched on 20 minutes before kick off.

I didn't watch the game but surely the way we normally play is with the wing backs being covered by Bridcutt. So I don't get the point of having an additional central defender in there. It's tactically interesting.... did Bridcutt have more freedom to move forward or something?

 

[Foolg]

I didn't watch the game but surely the way we normally play is with the wing backs being covered by Bridcutt. So I don't get the point of having an additional central defender in there. It's tactically interesting.... did Bridcutt have more freedom to move forward or something?

Nope, was sat deep like he usually does. In my opinion it was just extremely negative, and all to try and stop us being over-run in midfield.

What it completely seemed to ignore was the fact that we therefore had zero attacking threat, and basically invited Milwall to attack us. We'd then try and counter - attack with wait for it..... no attacking midfielders or wingers in the team. As I say, the only option left (for the first 40 minutes) was a long ball to CMS and Buckley who were up against Danny Shittu and Mark Beevers (Both 6'3+).

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

The Skysports report has us playing 4 - 3 - 3

The Independent had it as 3-5-2.

It all depends whether wingers and wingbacks are counted as part of the midfield, I guess.

 

[Bladders]

The 3-5-2 would work better if he played at least one creative player in the middle of the park and not 3 holding midfielders like he did last night.

Bit baffled whey Poyet tried this formation just a few days after the last game , the team looked like they'd only had half an hour in training to work on it.

 

[GingerBeerMan]

4-3-3, El Abd right back, Bridge left back, Lopez RW, Buckley LW etc.

 

[BensGrandad]

The starting line up was definitely 3 - 5 -2 and was a complete balls up and rightly Gus changed it unfortunately he was 10 mins late in so doing. It was obvious from the 1st 5 mins it wasn't going to work. With Dunk on the left and El Abd on the right at the back we were exposed.

 

[BensGrandad]

Ah 5-3-2, the old W formation up until the middle 60s.....1964 promotion....over a hundred goals in the season....all the 5 forwards hit double fugures...no cheating,no diving,players who got a knock did'nt roll around in pretend agony (If you are really hurt you lay still)

FOOTBALL HEAVEN

Pre 1960s we played with a formation of 2-3-5 ie 2 full backs, 1 centre half and a wing half either side then a right wing inside right centre foward inside left and left winger. The W formation came about for Man City with what was called the Revie Plan of keeping the back 2 and middle 3 then dropping the inside right and left in between the centre 3 and the 2 wingers and centre forward. Thus forming a W. They then confused it more by playing both of these inside men and the centre forward wearing a no 9 shirt and there was no numbers 8 or 10.

This all changed about 1963 when Alf Ramsey became manager of England and dropped the centre half and 1 defensive wing half back into line with the full backs and brought about 4-4-2.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

Surely it was Arsenal who created the WM formation in the 1920s and 1930s which was basically 3-2-2-3? All other Football League teams copied it but deceptively, team formations were still presented as 2-3-5 in match day programmes.

The Revie plan of the 1950s was simply Don Revie playing as a number 9 in a withdrawn position, with the number 8 and 10 (traditionally the inside forwards) taking it in turn to move to an advanced attacking position. Opposition centre-backs (the number 5) would follow Revie thinking he was the centre-forward (as he wore number 9) even when he strayed away from goal into a deep position. That would be when the number 8 and 10 would exploit the big gaps in the centre of defence.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

. They then confused it more by playing both of these inside men and the centre forward wearing a no 9 shirt and there was no numbers 8 or 10.

That would be illegal to have three players on the same team wearing a number 9 shirt!

 

[BensGrandad]

Goldstone Rapper you may well be correct as I am not old enough to know wat happened under Herbert Chapman at Arsenal but I do remember in my early days of watching Brighton every team lined up as 2-3-5 and it changed in the late 50s early 60s with he Revie plan and then the big change after we won the World Cup in 66 and every full back became an attacking full back in the George Cohen Ray Wilson mould.

 

[BensGrandad]

That would be illegal to have three players on the same team wearing a number 9 shirt!

It wasn't then as Man City did it. Think the rules were changed to prevent it being allowed some time about 1960 ish maybe just before or just after. Seem to remember that Man City wore them for the 1956 cup final vs Birmingham but wouldnt be certain. This may have caused the rule change.

 

[Pondicherry]

IMO it was definately 3-5-2 to start with. As previously stated above it didnt work and it was obvious very early on (within 5 mins) that it wasn't going to work. The main reason I think it didnt work is that the players are used to certain patterns of passing and movement especially at the back. Normally we have 4 at the back to begin our passing play and everything builds from there. With 3 at the back they had less options and were getting closed down too quickly.

I agree with another comment above saying that we should impose our style of play on others. We had the players to play 4 at the back (lopez did well I thought) and we should have started that way. Gus at fault.