It's been reported in the press in the last few days that Sherwood might switch the tactics to a 3-5-2 formation. The more I look at it, the more it makes sense given the players we've got. Here's why:
1. Amavi and Bacuna are better going forwards than they are at defending. Having 3 at the back with Sanchez protecting the 3 allows the full backs to try things going forwards, and for it not to be a disaster if they lose the ball. For instance if Amavi tries to go past a player and loses the ball, Clarke will have covered for him at left back and we'd then temporarily have a back 4 until we get the ball back. It also means that Amavi and Bacuna's defensive weaknesses would be less exposed when they are in defensive positions since there's more cover.
2. We've got an abundance of centre halfs. It's a young team in general and having 3 at the back means we can fit Lescott (an experienced head) in, without letting his lack of pace cause us issues (at 33 he can't be the quickest anymore).
3. Having Sanchez protecting 3 at the back allows Gueye and particularly Veretout to get forwards without us being exposed if we lose the ball. Obviously it would be up to Gueye, Veretout, Amavi and Bacuna to decide who gets forward for which attacks, because they can't all go at once.
4. Having 3 in the midfield lets Grealish (or Gil) play in a free role as a second striker without needing to use a lot of energy tracking back. This player will be far more creative if he can save his energy for attacking.
I have attached an image showing what I think represents our strongest line up as a 3-5-2 (and I believe our strongest line up full stop, actually).
What do you think of 3-5-2? Worth a go? IMO potentially superior to other formations since it theoretically allows our players to play to their strengths.