adw95 Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 (edited) Am I the only one that remembers going 352 vs. West Brom, at which point we improved dramatically and came from 2-0 down to draw 2-2? It's about how the tactics are used against specific oppositions, not just the tactics themselves. Slow day at work? Quite busy actually but I'm eating lunch! Edit: It's a slow day on here considering you're not banned yet... Edited December 3, 2013 by adw95 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwan Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 I think had had more to do with the players coming on than the formation. Every time we have played the 5-3-2 and don't kid yourself in saying that it's a 3-5-2, the football has been especially dire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJVillan Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 (edited) Am I the only one that remembers going 352 vs. West Brom, at which point we improved dramatically and came from 2-0 down to draw 2-2? It's about how the tactics are used against specific oppositions, not just the tactics themselves. It was actually 3-4-3. Vlaar Baker Clark; Bacuna KEA Westy Delph; Weimann Gabby CB. We improved dramatically because we brought on pace and energy up front. We had 3 players up the pitch, Westwood got up to support them well so they weren't too isolated. The difficulty with playing that too often is it was high risk. We became very open in midfield. But based on the West Ham and Man City games when we definitely were playing 3-5-2, those were poor performances in which our strikers were isolated for 95% of the game. Edited December 3, 2013 by TJVillan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adw95 Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 (edited) Am I the only one that remembers going 352 vs. West Brom, at which point we improved dramatically and came from 2-0 down to draw 2-2? It's about how the tactics are used against specific oppositions, not just the tactics themselves. It was actually 3-4-3. Vlaar Baker Clark; Bacuna KEA Westy Delph; Weimann Gabby CB. We improved dramatically because we brought on pace and energy up front. We had 3 players up the pitch, Westwood got up to support them well so they weren't too isolated. The difficulty with playing that too often is it was high risk. We became very open in midfield. But based on the West Ham and Man City games when we definitely were playing 3-5-2, those were poor performances in which our strikers were isolated for 95% of the game. It's still 3/5 at the back that everyone is complaining about, so my point is still valid... Two games that we didn't lose as well, Edited December 3, 2013 by adw95 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 Am I the only one that remembers going 352 vs. West Brom, at which point we improved dramatically and came from 2-0 down to draw 2-2? It's about how the tactics are used against specific oppositions, not just the tactics themselves. Nope people are judging us how we played in certain games with a 3-5-2 last season but this season we beat Man City with that formation and we saw the dramtatic turn-around against West Brom. Its not just about formations anyway! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 I think had had more to do with the players coming on than the formation. Every time we have played the 5-3-2 and don't kid yourself in saying that it's a 3-5-2, the football has been especially dire We probably had our best away performance of last season with that formation. Actually two best away performances, Norwich in the cup too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted December 3, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted December 3, 2013 They're missing Boruc. And Kelvin Davies is crap. So that's a good thing He's missing too, it'll be Paulo Gazzaniga as he came on Sunday. Fair enough. I don't know much about Gazzaniga so not sure if that's a good thing or not But still, when Boruc isn't cruyff turning he's been pretty good so can't be a bad thing that he'll be missing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adw95 Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 Am I the only one that remembers going 352 vs. West Brom, at which point we improved dramatically and came from 2-0 down to draw 2-2? It's about how the tactics are used against specific oppositions, not just the tactics themselves. Nope people are judging us how we played in certain games with a 3-5-2 last season but this season we beat Man City with that formation and we saw the dramtatic turn-around against West Brom. Its not just about formations anyway! That's why I included the second sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 Am I the only one that remembers going 352 vs. West Brom, at which point we improved dramatically and came from 2-0 down to draw 2-2? It's about how the tactics are used against specific oppositions, not just the tactics themselves. Nope people are judging us how we played in certain games with a 3-5-2 last season but this season we beat Man City with that formation and we saw the dramtatic turn-around against West Brom. Its not just about formations anyway! That's why I included the second sentence. yep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwan Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 Let's be honest. The City game was dire. We got lucky with an offside goal, a wonder free kick, and a lucky hoof. We were dire versus West Ham. We got a good burst for a few minutes versus WBA, but tallied off in the end. It will not work in the long term Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adw95 Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 Let's be honest. The City game was dire. We got lucky with an offside goal, a wonder free kick, and a lucky hoof. We were dire versus West Ham. We got a good burst for a few minutes versus WBA, but tallied off in the end. It will not work in the long term Nobody (I hope) is saying use it every game, but it's nice to have options to switch between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaglint Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 Nursery reckons Weimann is going to play ?! So if were going with 3 at back how does that work? Maybe as an advanced midfielder behind Gabby and Benteke/Kozak? Or same thing with Gabby and Andi swapping? Or could it be the Christimas tree formation with the two of them behind a top striker. 3-4-2-1 type formation Might help bridge the gap between midfield and forwards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adw95 Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 Nursery reckons Weimann is going to play ?! So if were going with 3 at back how does that work? Maybe as an advanced midfielder behind Gabby and Benteke/Kozak? Or same thing with Gabby and Andi swapping? Or could it be the Christimas tree formation with the two of them behind a top striker. 3-4-2-1 type formation Might help bridge the gap between midfield and forwards I don't think anyone has said they know the formation, just speculation. Correct me if I am wrong of course. So it may be 433, 442, 4231, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted December 3, 2013 Moderator Share Posted December 3, 2013 Am I the only one that remembers going 352 vs. West Brom, at which point we improved dramatically and came from 2-0 down to draw 2-2? It's about how the tactics are used against specific oppositions, not just the tactics themselves. I agree that we went 3-5-2 and beat them 2-0 from that point onwards, but I think in that instance it was a lot more to do with who we brought on. We went to our full strength team with a triple substitution. It also worked because without a natural leftback, bringing Clark inside gave us balance we hadn't had to that point. So while we did change to 3-5-2 and come back, I think the formation played the least important role of the 3 (formation, personnel on the pitch, balance) in the comeback. I'm certainly not averse to using that formation though, like some (Kwan? ). It has certainly come up trumps for us a few times this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaglint Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 Nursery reckons Weimann is going to play ?! So if were going with 3 at back how does that work? Maybe as an advanced midfielder behind Gabby and Benteke/Kozak? Or same thing with Gabby and Andi swapping? Or could it be the Christimas tree formation with the two of them behind a top striker. 3-4-2-1 type formation Might help bridge the gap between midfield and forwards I don't think anyone has said they know the formation, just speculation. Correct me if I am wrong of course. So it may be 433, 442, 4231, etc. HH said he thought it was a better bet playing 3 at back and seeing as he is Paul Lambert that's why I raised the point. Agreed though just speculation at this point. Am I the only one that remembers going 352 vs. West Brom, at which point we improved dramatically and came from 2-0 down to draw 2-2? It's about how the tactics are used against specific oppositions, not just the tactics themselves. I agree that we went 3-5-2 and beat them 2-0 from that point onwards, but I think in that instance it was a lot more to do with who we brought on. We went to our full strength team with a triple substitution. It also worked because without a natural leftback, bringing Clark inside gave us balance we hadn't had to that point. So while we did change to 3-5-2 and come back, I think the formation played the least important role of the 3 (formation, personnel on the pitch, balance) in the comeback. I'm certainly not averse to using that formation though, like some (Kwan? ). It has certainly come up trumps for us a few times this season. Well it definitely looked like a 3-5-2 against West Brom to me but HH was adamant we didn't change formation. It obviously can work as a formation but it makes me nervous I'll say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted December 3, 2013 Moderator Share Posted December 3, 2013 I read HH's post and responded at the time. Whether or not it was designed, the fact is Clark did become more central. It goes back to Wenger's impatience about the talk around formations in the first place. You put players on the pitch and once the ball is in motion, formations become irrelevant because it then becomes about the intelligence and effort of the players to take up effective positions. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaglint Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 Yep I'd agree with that I have noticed this season especially we have looked pretty fluid in terms of our formation. There have been a few times when it has been difficult to work out what we are trying to do. As you say though this comes down to the players and no doubt some teams will have a more successful "fluidity" than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leevilla Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 Wasn't to confident of getting anything here but it seems they have a couple of injuries and we are better away from home so hopeful we can get a point. 1-1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samjp26 Posted December 3, 2013 Author Share Posted December 3, 2013 Is the line-up set in stone yet HH? Intrigued as to whether Bacuna will keep his place or if Lowton will come back in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 There's no reason to drop Bacuna is there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts