Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It isn't 3 at the back, it's 5.

Well here is your problem. Just what the hell was that formation?

 

The personnel that started are good enough to play the 3-5-2 game. But B Wilson and Mills both played as wide midfielders, neither bombing on or defending. This freed up Yeovil players to exploit the space around the back three.

 

An additional problem was that we had three ineffective front men. Johnson offered little as a midfielder so in reality we had a 3-4-3 formation. The 4 was the widest diamond I've ever seen on a football pitch. So we were piss easy to pass through leaving Dieng over-run.

 

I was sticking up for the manager and his formation choice earlier. If it had been a swashbuckling 3-5-2 it might have worked. But Johnson's free role and the lack of contribution from the wing-backs offensively or defensively left the midfield undermanned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well here is your problem. Just what the hell was that formation?

 

The personnel that started are good enough to play the 3-5-2 game. But B Wilson and Mills both played as wide midfielders, neither bombing on or defending. This freed up Yeovil players to exploit the space around the back three.

 

An additional problem was that we had three ineffective front men. Johnson offered little as a midfielder so in reality we had a 3-4-3 formation. The 4 was the widest diamond I've ever seen on a football pitch. So we were piss easy to pass through leaving Dieng over-run.

 

I was sticking up for the manager and his formation choice earlier. If it had been a swashbuckling 3-5-2 it might have worked. But Johnson's free role and the lack of contribution from the wing-backs offensively or defensively left the midfield undermanned.

You make some really good points and Im in total agreement, for a 3-5-2 to work ypu need 3 very strong midfielders but it was more of the diamond 4 on a back 5 and if Philly and Johnson are part of the 4 your going to get exploited,

Jones and Dieng where fighting a losing battle. Teams have now worked us out they press high up the pitch putting pressure on Kasunga and Elokobi and it leaves us exposed as they give the ball up far to easily, thought Donny was bad but at least we showed some endevour down the wings, today was very hard to understand from start to finish its a complete head scratcher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

scrap it, burn it, spit on it... do whatever the fck you want with it aslong as we don't see it at boundary park ever again! ive never liked it and never will, even some of the top teams in Europe struggle with it when they try

 

centre halves aren't used to playing as a 3, they like to know who's dropping off, who's going up for the header and who's marking who... as a 3 they just never know who's responsible for who and end up blaming each other

 

they genuinely didn't have a clue who was at fault for the second, kusunga should have done better but Wilson and elokobi were marking each other leaving loads of space in the middle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say the biggest mistake in going for a back 3 was not having players in it that could move forward if it wasn't working. ie having Dieng in the 3 so he can go central mid if we go back to a back 4. Or Jones at RWB so he can move forward and then Kusunga to RB.

 

Obviously wouldn't have been the best place to start Jones, that was just an example, but we had 5 defenders starting with none of them capable of playing in midfield should a change be required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...