3-5-2. Can anyone name one really successful side that has played 3-5-2? I'm sure I'm overlooking a couple of really classic examples but they escape me at present. I seem to remember Hoddle fannying around with this at the last World Cup and failing miserably.

-- Anonymous, October 22, 2001

Answers

england, italia 90.

they looked shite in opening games, the players lobbied with uncle bob to move to 352, they then looked like world champs after the switch.

depends on what kind of players you have, england had a world class sweeper in mark wright, wing back in stu pearce and midfielders that could play, gazza, waddle, platt. the move to 3-5-2 allowed those players to play to their strengths. bobby's move yesterday was counter productive because it took a couple of key guys out of position and some of the others didn't understand their role.

there's that and the fact that speed & shearer resembled pub players all afternoon.

-- Anonymous, October 22, 2001

Thanks, George. I was meaning a team that had actually conistently won things, but, in England terms, a semi final is success.

-- Anonymous, October 22, 2001

i think the formation thing (yesterday's game) has been over played. toon played 442 vs wham and lost convincingly, you could have argued there that bob should have played a marker on di cannio.

against spurs he probably reasoned that they only play one striker (les f.) with sheringham floating about di cannio like, so why have 4 players marking one when there are 2 or 3 attacking players operating from deep. blah blah blah, the fact is that in the prem. tactics are less important than is the ability to impose yourself on the opposition. the toon are not always good at this cos they're not always any good.

-- Anonymous, October 22, 2001

You make a good point George, the formation is not soley to blame. Good players should be able to adapt but we lack quality, especially in the midfield. However, Bobby's failure to acknowledge that his system was problematic and his failure to make changes to the side until too late is of concern.

-- Anonymous, October 22, 2001

Yes, to an extent, good players should be able to adapt. But I still can't see the sense in bringing in a debutant into a new formation - one in which we have consistently failed to perform. Lunacy.

-- Anonymous, October 22, 2001

The Germans have tended to play 352 when they've been most successful, but again it's dependent on having the right players for the job. 352 seems the most natural thing in the world if you've got a sweeper like Matthaus or Beckenbauer and wing backs like Brehme, Ziege etc. Looks a bit silly with wingbacks who can't tackle and no natural leader at the back.

-- Anonymous, October 22, 2001

Bayern Munich seem to consistently play 3-5-2 to great effect in Europe and their own competition. Doesn't always encourage the most attractive sort of football though. Can't think of anyone in Italy using it at the mo. Where's Softie to confirm this?

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

You'll probably find that Bayern Munich's Reserves, Under-19's and Under-17's all play 3-5-2 as well.

That's the point - they have decided that is their Club policy, and then everything is geared that way, including ensuring they have adequate playing assets to play that way.

Only unprofessional @rses like NUFC would decide to play that way on a Wednesday because the opposition have Gus bloody Poyet in their side!

BTW, we do have one natural WB in the squad who could/should have played once we had decided to play that way - Olivier Berard. In addition, either Warren Barton or Andy Griffin could have played RWB infinitely better than Solano - mind so could I!

The point that makes this entire situation even more ludicrous is that BR wanted the benefit of 3-5-2, without losing the advantages of using two wingers in 4-4-2, which in our team is actually 4-2-4. Hence we played two wingers - who couldn't defend to save their lives - as WB's.

End result - chaos, utter chaos.

I'm still bloody steaming!

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

I think George Best makes some good points. Underlying our defeats is the inability to pass the ball accurately, and lack of pressure we exert on the opposition. Granted, a new formation can't help, but there's a more fundamental issue lurking there.

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

Someone said to me yesterday that no one is better than NUFC when we are playing well, no one worse when we are playing badly. This is the real issue that needs addressing because we have seen spells of how well we can play so there are, ultimately, no excuses for the shite we get served on occasion. Dropping non-performers would be part of the answer, but certain positions are uncovered at present (eg. Solano's). Anyone notice how much better the CHs are now that there is a bit of competition at the back?

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

Spot on Clarky, I'm just baffled Uncle Bobby couldn't see that it would work out that way before we kicked off.

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

Didn't we play a game, with Rob Lee in a sweeper role, which worked fantastically? We shouldn't get too carried away with formations, it's an easy excuse when the reality is that the players underperformed.

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

It worked that fantastically that we got stuffed 5-0(as I recall) at Highbury and 1-0 at Upton Park.

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

I'm sure there was a home game where it worked, but I can't remember which one!

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

I distinctly remember Rob Lee being compared to Matthaeus or someone by the press (or was it Bobby?), but I don't recall the experiment being repeated.

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

Like Aaron Hughes being used a man-marker - using RL as sweeper worked once, and then proved to be a disaster each time it was repeated - on about 2 or 3 other occasions I seem to recall.

Peter,
I'd be the first to criticise the players if I felt their under- performance was the key factor in defeat, but in this case I blame the Manager fair and square.

Yes, some individuals performed badly on Sunday, particularly in passing the ball, but imo this sits behind the general choas that ensued immediately after the KO, and the genuine attempts to shore things up, and cover the massive gaps that were appearing all over the field because players just didn't know where they were supposed to be. For crying out loud, we even discussed the likely problems, and predicted the probable outcome on here on Saturday afternoon/evening. That's how incredible it all is.

Perhaps you needed to be at the game, and be able to see the entire pitch for the full extent of the carnage to be apparent. However, believe me in the 1st half it was a total orgainisational shambles, and BR does himself no credit not to take the blame squarely on his shoulders, and move on - lesson learned and all that.

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

Completely agree Clarky. No one has come out of this well, but YBR could acknowledge his part in the mess. The players were not totally to blame.

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

The first time I saw us play 3-5-2 was under McFaul, a coach well ahead of his time....

----------------Beasant

-----Anderson--Scott--Thorn-----

-Stephenson-McCreery-D Jackson-Wharton-O'Neill

----------Hendrie----Mirandinha----

We didn't go down the man to man marking bit but it was very similar otherwise. Paul Stephenson and Michael O'Neill had proven attacking skills but negligible defensive ability. McCreery was an Ulster Acuna, at a push Jackson could be Bellamy. Coventry played with two wingers who couldn't believe they had no defenders facing them, except when one of the confused centre halves came bumbling out. To add to the fun Beasant couldn't catch a cross, nor make a shot stick. We were 3-0 down at half time, with htat nice David Speedie having a field day. Plus ca change

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

Clarky, to my recollection, using Hughes as a manmarker has failed once. I know you thought he struggled against Hassler: the fact that Hassler did nothing other than concede a penalty to my mind suggests otherwise. Oh, and the fact that we won the tie home and away. But of course, as I say in the Shearer thread, perceptions vary depending on where you're sitting and whether you're watching on telly etc so it's difficult to say these things with any certainty. He wasn't manmarking against Troyes: according to YBR, he was sort of sitting in front of the back lads. That didn't work.

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

PS. You're right, though, Clarky, that we do seem to think that a formation that has worked in extremis can work regularly. I mean, who were Lolo and Solano working on in training that Bobby could decide that they were good enough for the job. Bassedas was playing Poyet FFS. Maybe the lack of good headers at the club accounts for why we can't defend set pieces: who do the CHs come up against in training who's an aerial challenge?

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

First attempted it during the false dawn that was Boro away last season (and possibly this one too) where we won 3-1. We repeated it at home to Everton and away at West Ham and lost both games 1-0. We soldiered on against Bradford at home in the Worthy and snuck through 4-3. We perservered until half time at home to Ipswich but changed it by bringing on Gary Caldwell for Solano and went on to win 2-1 having been drawing 1-1. Not exactly conclusive, but the difference is that it was a case of needs-must while this latest experiment was voluntary.

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

Ajax

As opposed to us who play 9 1

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

Huh! Luxury. We used to play 9-1-0 with the 1 being John Barnes. Don't know you've been born ;-)

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

Article on Teamtalk (I know!) that frankly I find scary:-

Robson sticks by tactical switch
Bobby Robson called a team meeting to explain the tactics he used against Tottenham on Sunday, but failed to concede that he had made a mistake.

The change in formation left his players bewildered during the 2-0 defeat at St James' Park and, in a full and frank discussion yesterday, the manager asked his side for their opinions on why on the wing-back system backfired so badly.

Robson took on board some forthright views from several star players, but made no apology for his tactical tinkering.

A source in the Newcastle dressing room told TEAMtalk: "One or two of the lads told Bobby in no uncertain terms that they thought the wing-back tactic had been a mistake. He told them his thinking behind it, though, and didn't back down."

Whatever the mood and outcome of the meeting, it is unlikely the veteran former England boss will persist with his 3-5-2 formation at Everton on Saturday.

I'm afraid things are not right at SJP!

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

Seems to be a reasonable post mortem type meeting, with both sides expressing their opinion. Nowt wrong with that and at least it cklears the air, rather than having festering dissent.

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

did the formation induce a virus in Rob Lee ?

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

Did we not play 5-3-2 v 'boro away last year and beat the 3-1?

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

Can anybody see me?

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

Sorry? Anyone else see someone looking like Warren Barton breeze through here? ;-)

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

icDeadPeople is running a similar piece about the team meeting. Bobby is still insisting it's the player's fault. They had practiced the formation for 3 days and Bobby asked Solano and Robert if they were ok with it. Allegedly both said they were. Whatever happened, the tactic should not be used again without good reason. I still ahven't heard any explanation for why Bobby felt a change was needed in teh first place.

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

So they practised it for 3 days even though Robert was only back for the Saturday training session? Which other left sided midfielder deputised for the absent Robert and why wasn't he playing? Exactly: they didn't and we haven't got another one.

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

Why it was needed in the first place ? Well, probably because Poyet always scores against us and Bobby tried something different to neutralise him. The idea was that Aaron could man-mark him and still leave enough people to cope with the rest of Spurs hard working midfield.

As for it being Bobby's fault, does anyone recall the last fifteen/twenty minutes ? We tore Spurs apart playing the same formation. How did we manage that if the tactics were so badly wrong ?

The problem before that was not the position the players took on the field but their inability to pass to a team mate or move around the pitch to create space when we had the ball.

I have yet to find anyone give me a decent reason for it being Bobby's fault apart from the age-old "it hasn't worked before". The three at the back didn't have any real problem coping with the strikers. The problems came from midfield where we were supposedly superior in numbers !

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

We were playing 4-4-2 in the last twenty minutes, probably by accident.

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

In fairness, though, Homer, Bobby has said that at least we didn't go home whining about Ferdinand and Sheringham scoring, too.

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

In the last ten minutes, Ameobi was a midfielder, Lua Lua a right winger and the rest just fannied about.

Apparantly Ameobi used to play as a midfielder but got switched to a striker's role after he scored some goals for the academy sides. Another case of spoiling a player? Could be another Aarondite story.

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001

Paul, that's why I am terrified at suggestions that we should give Gary Caldwell his debut ar fullback: nooooooo! He's a centre half. Leave him be!

-- Anonymous, October 23, 2001