3-5-No Clue: The Imitation Game

[bungle]

Like everyone else at the moment, JED has evidently drawn inspiration for his much-maligned '3 at the back' formation from Antonio Conte's all-conquering Premiership-winning Chelsea side. The only problem is that he's got it completely wrong: Chelsea, Liverpool and virtually every successful exponent of this new innovation play an attacking 3-4-2-1 which is light years away from the turgid defensive 5-3-2 which we are currently enduring.

Let's take a look at Chelsea's most successful iteration of the 3-4-2-1 from last season:

                                 Courtois

                      Cahill   Luiz   Azpilicueta

                    Alonso  Matic   Konte   Moses

                         Hazard              Pedro


                                    Costa

It's very clear that, notwithstanding the obvious and unavoidable gulf in player quality, JED's selections are simply not the right type of players to play the modern variant of the formation.

1. As many have pointed out, we lack a ball playing centre back who can bring the ball out in the Luiz role. (Although Poole could do a much better job than Barnett).
2. We lack genuine defensive midfielders to play the Matic, Konte roles. Crooks and Kasim are more like deep-lying playmakers than genuine stoppers. JJOT's return will go a way to solving this, but McWilliams is probably our best bet until he does.
3. As every man and his dog have said, we lack wingbacks with pace. JED initially tried to get Powell to 'do a Moses' and convert from being a winger. I'm so sick of watching dour defensive rubbish that I'd almost be happy to see him give this another try - it can't be worse than the last couple of games.
4. We're currently not selecting pacey inside forwards to play the Hazard, Pedro/Salah, Mane roles. However, at a pinch I think Long and Waters might be able to pull it off.

If JED is going to persist with three at the back this is what I'd like to see given a shot:

                                       Cornell
                         Taylor     Poole      Pierre
                       Smith   McWilliams Crooks Powell
                              Long                   Waters
                                       Revell

It's attacking, it's counter-intuitive - leaving out Buchanan, Moloney etc, but it surely can't be worse than what we've seen in the last two games. (Futile post I know, but at least it's killed some time ahead of the big match!  )

[guest2677]

Did you forget Grimes or just not keen on him. Please not Revell, it has to be Richards if it's one. The wing backs need to be reversed.

[bungle]

Did you forget Grimes or just not keen on him. Please not Revell, it has to be Richards if it's one. The wing backs need to be reversed.

I like Grimes, although his game isn't really based on pace. Perhaps he could play in one of the inside forward roles so it would be:

                      Waters          Grimes

                                Long

Don't get me wrong, I still think we'd be better in a 4-2-3-1 like everyone else (where Grimes for one would no doubt excel). This was just a little thought experiment to see if I could pick a 3-at-the-back side that didn't make me feel a sense of despair when I look at the team sheet.

[Quintonside]

Like your thinking,  in trying to recreate that Chelsea style 3 at the back I'd have Pierre-Poole-Buchanan

They stretch it across so it's not 3 centre halves.  You can't just have 3 heads on sticks imo.

And whatever the formation grimes has to play.

[EssTeeFree]

To be honest I doubt JEDs desire for 3 at the back has anything to do with modern trends, it's been his preferred setup for some time.

That said I agree that using the Chelsea setup as a basis for our line up could help. I think, to an extent we could probably get away with not changing our wing backs as Buchs and Moloney would benefit from having another player playing vaguely ahead of them to work off/overlap. It would also, be default get more pace and flair into the team. I think Long could play the lone front man role too, given that, if we need an out ball we could stick it in the corners for one of the front three to chase down.

A few of us discussed Buchs playing left side of a back 3 but I'm not sure if you could do that at League 1 level, particularly not against the more direct sides.

As has been said, a distributor from the back is a must. I know he's not a centre half but how about Crooks as the central one of the three? Having said that, if we were to do that we might as well go 4-3-3/4-3-2-1 I guess.

Whatever the system, a bit of invention, a bit of pace and a bit of movement would make a world of difference

[clarkeysntfc]

The OP is absolutely spot on and I've been saying similar for some time.

Somehow he has managed to recruit a squad of players which is neither suited to 4-4-2 nor wingbacks, and yet has played both!

[Cobbler78]

3 at the back could work, but not with Buchs as wing back, he is an excellent full back but not a wing back. From what I've seen Barnett and Taylor are heads on sticks, they can't pass a ball, so I'd have Pierre and Poole alongside one of them. Mcwilliams brings energy and pace to the team which we need if we are going to play Crooks. Rico and Revs should NEVER play together, but they can share the target man role perfectly. So as it looks like he is sticking with 3-5-2 I'd go with this.

.............Coddington...............
.....Poole....Taylor....Pierre.......
Moloney......................Powell
.......McWilliams....Crooks.........
.................Grimes...............
....Rico/Revs. Waters/Long.....

[vietnamcobbler]

Like everyone else at the moment, JED has evidently drawn inspiration for his much-maligned '3 at the back' formation from Antonio Conte's all-conquering Premiership-winning Chelsea side. The only problem is that he's got it completely wrong: Chelsea, Liverpool and virtually every successful exponent of this new innovation play an attacking 3-4-2-1 which is light years away from the turgid defensive 5-3-2 which we are currently enduring.

Let's take a look at Chelsea's most successful iteration of the 3-4-2-1 from last season:

                                 Courtois

                      Cahill   Luiz   Azpilicueta

                    Alonso  Matic   Konte   Moses

                         Hazard              Pedro


                                    Costa

It's very clear that, notwithstanding the obvious and unavoidable gulf in player quality, JED's selections are simply not the right type of players to play the modern variant of the formation.

1. As many have pointed out, we lack a ball playing centre back who can bring the ball out in the Luiz role. (Although Poole could do a much better job than Barnett).
2. We lack genuine defensive midfielders to play the Matic, Konte roles. Crooks and Kasim are more like deep-lying playmakers than genuine stoppers. JJOT's return will go a way to solving this, but McWilliams is probably our best bet until he does.
3. As every man and his dog have said, we lack wingbacks with pace. JED initially tried to get Powell to 'do a Moses' and convert from being a winger. I'm so sick of watching dour defensive rubbish that I'd almost be happy to see him give this another try - it can't be worse than the last couple of games.
4. We're currently not selecting pacey inside forwards to play the Hazard, Pedro/Salah, Mane roles. However, at a pinch I think Long and Waters might be able to pull it off.

If JED is going to persist with three at the back this is what I'd like to see given a shot:

                                       Cornell
                         Taylor     Poole      Pierre
                       Smith   McWilliams Crooks Powell
                              Long                   Waters
                                       Revell

It's attacking, it's counter-intuitive - leaving out Buchanan, Moloney etc, but it surely can't be worse than what we've seen in the last two games. (Futile post I know, but at least it's killed some time ahead of the big match!  )

agree wtih everything here, although would like the inclusion of Grimes who for me has looked far better than Crooks since his arrival (nevertheless, I think Crooks has the ability to be a key player when he is playing to his potential level)

[Wolvo]

I like Grimes, although his game isn't really based on pace. Perhaps he could play in one of the inside forward roles so it would be:

                      Waters          Grimes

                                Long

Don't get me wrong, I still think we'd be better in a 4-2-3-1 like everyone else (where Grimes for one would no doubt excel). This was just a little thought experiment to see if I could pick a 3-at-the-back side that didn't make me feel a sense of despair when I look at the team sheet.

Exactly how I would like to see us set up. With Powell and Smith wing backs for the extra pace out wide.

If we make it to January with JED still in charge - can guarantee we'll see a couple strikers, couple centre mids offloaded and genuine wing backs brought in. Really surprised at his summer recruitment if the plan was 3-5-2 all along.

[meccanostand]

Can't see wing-backs or JED lasting.

Wing-backs put a tremendous physical strain on the player too which I can't see Moloney in particular coping. It's a tactical dead end at this level.

[Wolvo]

Can't see wing-backs or JED lasting.

Wing-backs put a tremendous physical strain on the player too which I can't see Moloney in particular coping. It's a tactical dead end at this level.

Peterborough are literally 4 wins from 4 playing the wing back formation. It 100% works when it suits the players you have in the squad.

We were once upon a time promoted from League 2 when Calderwood played it.

[everbrite]

Peterborough are literally 4 wins from 4 playing the wing back formation. It 100% works when it suits the players you have in the squad.

We were once upon a time promoted from League 2 when Calderwood played it.

Thought that Smith and Phillips looked the part; so Smith and Powell?

[meccanostand]

Peterborough are literally 4 wins from 4 playing the wing back formation. It 100% works when it suits the players you have in the squad.

We were once upon a time promoted from League 2 when Calderwood played it.

Yeah fair point I mean most teams at this level without the financial clout of Posh.

[guest1269]

To be honest (and I'm sure I will be put in my place by those who know better  ) - I think we get far too complicated in discussing the intricacies of formation - sure you don't set out a formation with wingbacks when you don't have players capable of doing that role, you don't play two immobile forwards up front etc etc - but isn't our situation much more simple in that, JED irrespective of his choice of formation is simply tactically bereft - every permutation mentioned on this board has over the years produced both winning and losing sides depending on the actual players being utilized in their best positions correctly or incorrectly  - but the best sides I have seen over the years (both from results and entertainment) have always had a somewhat more flexible approach.

Think of Ricky Holmes at his best for us and indeed for Charlton against us this time - can anyone really say where he fitted in a fixed position in  traditional line up? - with the exception of goalkeeper or centre backs at some point in the game he occupied nearly every other position on the park - and wasn't it both effective and entertaining?

[clarkeysntfc]

Peterborough played the formation that JE was trying to employ v Fleetwood & Charlton, but had the right players in the right positions and as a result it was very well executed.

They had:
3 centre halves, at least one looked like he could pass it & distribute... not 3 heads on sticks.
2 proper defensive midfielders, particularly Grant who did a lot of dirty work up and down, retaining & winning back possession.
2 wide players/wingbacks who were extremely fit and did a lot of running. The left wingback was also right footed but this didn't seem to stop him cutting inside a lot 
1 very creative player (Maddison) in the "number 10" role.
2 small in stature but very strong, quick and agile strikers.

[bungle]

Think of Ricky Holmes at his best for us and indeed for Charlton against us this time - can anyone really say where he fitted in a fixed position in  traditional line up? - with the exception of goalkeeper or centre backs at some point in the game he occupied nearly every other position on the park - and wasn't it both effective and entertaining?

I actually think Holmes is a classic example of a player who was liberated by a change in formation. As I understand it, at Pompey he was made to play as a traditional Chris-Hackett-style winger, with all the tracking back, 'getting to the by-line and crossing it' etc which that position required.

When Wilder started playing him in a 4-2-3-1 he suddenly had a lot more licence to cut inside, get shots off and play cute one-twos with the striker which is much more suited to his game. Part of Wilder's genius is that he looks at the players he has available and chooses the system to accommodate their strengths he is a 'player first' manager. Unfortunately, for us JED is a 'system first' manager who is determined to contort the personnel to fit the system, whether that be the dreadful diamond or the turgid 5-3-2. The reason we are talking so much about formations is purely down to this 'system first' approach.

The original point of post was to make the case that JED has fundamentally misunderstood the modern evolution of the 5-3-2 into its highly successful modern incarnation: the 3-4-2-1. As Clarkeysntfc indicates, Grant McAnn has clearly watched the top Premiership teams and understands the system, understands the personnel required and understands what it takes to implement it successfully. In contrast, JED's turgid 5-3-2 might have been successful 5 years ago with Newport in the conference and lower reaches of L2 but it sure as hell ain't gonna cut it in the ruthless world of this season's league one.

[guest1269]

I actually think Holmes is a classic example of a player who was liberated by a change in formation. As I understand it, at Pompey he was made to play as a traditional Chris-Hackett-style winger, with all the tracking back, 'getting to the by-line and crossing it' etc which that position required.

When Wilder started playing him in a 4-2-3-1 he suddenly had a lot more licence to cut inside, get shots off and play cute one-twos with the striker which is much more suited to his game. Part of Wilder's genius is that he looks at the players he has available and chooses the system to accommodate their strengths he is a 'player first' manager. Unfortunately, for us JED is a 'system first' manager who is determined to contort the personnel to fit the system, whether that be the dreadful diamond or the turgid 5-3-2. The reason we are talking so much about formations is purely down to this 'system first' approach.

Totally agree - and to prove the point with Holmes - the previous season when he was clearly being told to play a much more fixed position he never got past Buchs and looked anything but the player we knew and loved*   (*art not the artist as I did and still think he is an annoying little character)