Liverpool FC Forum

by **hobbes** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 9:01 am

We should try this and see.

Reina

Cara Hypia Traore

Sissoko Didi / Xabi

Finnan Gerrard Riise

Sinama Ciise

by **hobbes** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 9:06 am

We should try this and see.

Reina

Cara Hypia Traore

Sissoko Didi / Xabi

Finnan Gerrard Riise

Sinama Ciise

by **Ace Ventura** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:00 am

Chelsea forever. wrote:There is one way you can use this formation to good effect.

Note - No intention in including Chelsea, just using it as an example.

-----------------------------Cech

--------------Gallas---------Carvalho----------Terry

---------------------Maka--------------Parker

------------------------------Lampard

------------------Duff----------------------Robben

-------------------------Drogba-----Crespo

Here you have a natural sweeper in Carvalho. IMO he is easily amongst the top3 in the world when it comes to mopping up. Gallas and Terry will cover well and Ricardo will sweepup all the .

Then you have 2 natural DMF's in Maka and Parker. When its on the left you have Gallas and Maka with Carvalho and Terry as CB and Parker for cover, on the right you have Terry and Parker with Carvalho and Gallas as CB and Maka for Cover. Now you can do this because Carvalho is a sweeper and a good CB, and because you have 2 natural defensive midfielders --- not one natural DMF in Xabi and box-box in Sisoko.

In front of them you have Lampard, where you would have Gerrard. Good in defense, good at making central runs in that space between Duff and Robben and can spray the long balls.

If its a long ball you have Drogba to bring it down with Duff, Robben and Crespo as options. If he plays if to Duff you have Drogba Crespo and Robben as options. So you always have 3 options upfont while you attack.

When the entire team is defending it will look like this

-----------------------------Cech

--------------Gallas---------Carvalho----------Terry
---------------------Maka--------------Parker
------------------------------Lampard
-------------Duff------------------------------Robben

-------------------------Drogba-----Crespo

With Drogba and Crespo chasing everything down.

Now this is not possible for us because (1) we dont have Parker and (2) its a bizzare formation which Jose would never use.

Its not possible for you because (1) you dont have a sweeper or a player along Zenden (2) its a bizzare formation which Rafa would never use

-----------------------------Reina

--------------Carra--------- ? ?----------Hyypia

---------------------Alonso--------------Hamman

------------------------------Gerrard

------------------Zenden---------------------- ?

-------------------------Crouch-----Cisse

Chelsea Forever.

Why include Parker in your post if he has left ?

I actually think SOME of what hobbes is saying makes sense.
3-5-2 can be quite flexible, when your attacking midfielders can support the attack, and if the team is on the back foot the midfield can drop back and support the back 3.
Having said that i dont think at Liverpool we have good enough players to do this because i wouldnt really feel comfortable with Traore in there, and Warnock is too small to be one of the back 3.
Also Finnan would be limited coming forward against the better sides.

by **Chelsea forever.** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:04 am

Yes he does. If you read iv mentioned in point (1) that we dont have Parker.

by **mighty mo** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:17 am

this obviously an americanwho created this thread , the 3-5-2 formation is flawed,there,s only one big european team successful team that plays 3-5-2 and that,s bayern munich.the formation that is successful is the old trusted 4-4-2 or the new trendy modern 4-3-3 or 4-3-2-1,i don,t think managers like 3-5-2 because it leaves defenders isolated if the wing backs have pushed to far forward,hence that why it is not popular amongst the big clubs nowadays.also roy evens liverpool team played it throughtout his liverpool reign and our defensive performances were shocking.

by **Ace Ventura** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:19 am

Chelsea forever. wrote:Yes he does. If you read iv mentioned in point (1) that we dont have Parker.

I see that, so why mention him ?

by **JC_81** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:24 am

I'm sorry but I've never read as much nonsense on one thread since I joined this site. :censored:

taken from an american website and chelsea forever's long-winded and incorrect analysis of what constitutes an effective 3-5-2 formation. Jesus.

It breaks down like this:

We do not have a sweeper or a proven 3rd CB after Carra/Hyypia.

We have only one natural wingback in Riise. Good wing-backs are the key in an effective 3-5-2 as they have an immense workload and must be equally good at attacking and defending.

3-5-2 went through a period of being popular in England in the early-mid nineties, but no team has ever won the premiership using this formation. Even in Italy where some teams did have success using this formation it has now fallen out of fashion in favour of 4 at the back.

I'm sure there will be another craze in a few years when 3 at the back will be popular again, but for now most of the top coaches have turned their back on it. The versatile 4-5-1/4-3-3 is the current 'in-fashion' formation in England with Chelski, the scum, ourselves, Bolton and the english national side all experimenting with it.

Chelsea forever, what were you on about saying that in a 3-5-2 the 2 forwards do no defending at all compared with other formations? There is no tactical advantage to this and all good teams defend from the front. Never heard of that in my entire life :laugh:

We need to stick with 4 at the back, it has been proven by many teams down the years to be a superior set-up and it also suits our current players better

by **Ace Ventura** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 10:39 am

john craig wrote:I'm sorry but I've never read as much nonsense on one thread since I joined this site. taken from an american website and chelsea forever's long-winded and incorrect analysis of what constitutes an effective 3-5-2 formation. Jesus.

It breaks down like this:

We do not have a sweeper or a proven 3rd CB after Carra/Hyypia.

We have only one natural wingback in Riise. Good wing-backs are the key in an effective 3-5-2 as they have an immense workload and must be equally good at attacking and defending.

3-5-2 went through a period of being popular in England in the early-mid nineties, but no team has ever won the premiership using this formation. Even in Italy where some teams did have success using this formation it has now fallen out of fashion in favour of 4 at the back.

I'm sure there will be another craze in a few years when 3 at the back will be popular again, but for now most of the top coaches have turned their back on it. The versatile 4-5-1/4-3-3 is the current 'in-fashion' formation in England with Chelski, the scum, ourselves, Bolton and the english national side all experimenting with it.

Chelsea forever, what were you on about saying that in a 3-5-2 the 2 forwards do no defending at all compared with other formations? There is no tactical advantage to this and all good teams defend from the front. Never heard of that in my entire life

We need to stick with 4 at the back, it has been proven by many teams down the years to be a superior set-up and it also suits our current players better

Couldnt agree more,

Chelsea Forever has on this thread broken the record for the longest post EVER...and also the record for the most line-ups in one post as well.

by **mighty mo** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:02 am

john craig wrote:I'm sorry but I've never read as much nonsense on one thread since I joined this site. taken from an american website and chelsea forever's long-winded and incorrect analysis of what constitutes an effective 3-5-2 formation. Jesus.

It breaks down like this:

We do not have a sweeper or a proven 3rd CB after Carra/Hyypia.

We have only one natural wingback in Riise. Good wing-backs are the key in an effective 3-5-2 as they have an immense workload and must be equally good at attacking and defending.

3-5-2 went through a period of being popular in England in the early-mid nineties, but no team has ever won the premiership using this formation. Even in Italy where some teams did have success using this formation it has now fallen out of fashion in favour of 4 at the back.

I'm sure there will be another craze in a few years when 3 at the back will be popular again, but for now most of the top coaches have turned their back on it. The versatile 4-5-1/4-3-3 is the current 'in-fashion' formation in England with Chelski, the scum, ourselves, Bolton and the english national side all experimenting with it.

Chelsea forever, what were you on about saying that in a 3-5-2 the 2 forwards do no defending at all compared with other formations? There is no tactical advantage to this and all good teams defend from the front. Never heard of that in my entire life

We need to stick with 4 at the back, it has been proven by many teams down the years to be a superior set-up and it also suits our current players better

exactly right mate ,i mentioned it in my earlier post that non of the big teams play it besides bayern munich,it is a flawed system and doesn,t bring that much success.german teams play it because they believe in having a sweeper playing and is part of their footballing heritage.watch the champions league this week and will see spanish english italian dutch and french teams all playing with the tried and trusted four at the back and the german teams playing with three at the back.

by **JC_81** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:15 am

mighty mo wrote:
john craig wrote:I'm sorry but I've never read as much nonsense on one thread since I joined this site. taken from an american website and chelsea forever's long-winded and incorrect analysis of what constitutes an effective 3-5-2 formation. Jesus.

It breaks down like this:

We do not have a sweeper or a proven 3rd CB after Carra/Hyypia.

We have only one natural wingback in Riise. Good wing-backs are the key in an effective 3-5-2 as they have an immense workload and must be equally good at attacking and defending.

3-5-2 went through a period of being popular in England in the early-mid nineties, but no team has ever won the premiership using this formation. Even in Italy where some teams did have success using this formation it has now fallen out of fashion in favour of 4 at the back.

I'm sure there will be another craze in a few years when 3 at the back will be popular again, but for now most of the top coaches have turned their back on it. The versatile 4-5-1/4-3-3 is the current 'in-fashion' formation in England with Chelski, the scum, ourselves, Bolton and the english national side all experimenting with it.

Chelsea forever, what were you on about saying that in a 3-5-2 the 2 forwards do no defending at all compared with other formations? There is no tactical advantage to this and all good teams defend from the front. Never heard of that in my entire life

We need to stick with 4 at the back, it has been proven by many teams down the years to be a superior set-up and it also suits our current players better

exactly right mate ,i mentioned it in my earlier post that non of the big teams play it besides bayern munich,it is a flawed system and doesn,t bring that much success.german teams play it because they believe in having a sweeper playing and is part of their footballing heritage.watch the champions league this week and will see spanish english italian dutch and french teams all playing with the tried and trusted four at the back and the german teams playing with three at the back.

You're right there Mo,

Bayern are one of the last teams to persist with this formation and you're right about it being part of their football heritage.

Even last year though, Bayern went 4 at the back for certain games, I'm wondering whether they're going to scrap the 3 altogether this year. Lizarazu is going to start to struggle to do an up-and-down the flanks wing-back job that he did so well in his first spell with Bayern.

Will be interesting to see if any sides in this year's champions league apart from the Germans go with 3-5-2. There won't be many

by **Chelsea forever.** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:16 am

All good teams do defend from the front.

When you have your striker charge at the defender who has to make a hasty clearance or when your wingers and striker are pressing the opposition which makes them play a long ball which eventually falls to your player and then you pass it around and start your attack --- that is defending from that front as you dont give them time on the ball and win it back by making them pass it to you.

by **JC_81** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:20 am

Chelsea forever. wrote:in a 3-5-2 you straight off sacrifice 2 players - thats the front 2 who are not expected to help in defending. That means you have only 8 players to defend, when you can have 10

Explain this to me then CF?

Did you just make it up? :laugh:

by **Chelsea forever.** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:37 am

I stand corrected.

I should have said in a 3-5-2 your front 2 dont really help in defending as 3-5-2 is a highly attacking formation.

It can be successful only if you have solid MF players as they will have absorb and deploy the defending % of the attackers aswell. The CF are positioned narrow and centerally right upfront playing on the shoulder and the 5 man MF is expected to run the show.

Morning coffee really gets you going sometimes :cool:

by **Chelsea forever.** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:39 am

Err .. im not too sure but i think Bayern are the only team still using that formation ?

I think Milan or Juve did use it in a game or 2 last season??

by **Ace Ventura** » Tue Sep 13, 2005 11:44 am

I think you two are getting your wires crossed a bit, CF is saying that defending from the front is vital, although i am unsure how playing 3-5-2 prevents this, no matter what formation the strikers should still be tracking the defenders and closing them down.

Liverpool FC Forum

3-5-2 - Will this work?

Who is online