So the 3-5-2

[Theon]

That's how I see it too.

With Blind sitting deep in the diamond, it's a very similar system anyway, and Blind has experience of playing across the defence so he can easily drop back and cover when we're under pressure. Just means we have an actual midfielder distributing from deep rather than a Centre-back.

The rest of the team is pretty much the same, albeit the full-backs will have a little less freedom to attack, but can still get forward to provide width.

This system will also allow us to accommodate 3 of Mata, Rooney, Van Persie and Falcao, all in their best positions to boot. Plenty of playing time for all of them. Any injuries to that four should see game time for Wilson and Januzaj too.

I agree with everything you've said. Your point on the fullbacks is actually why at their respective bests I prefer the 3-5-2 to the diamond, as that extra width often provides a better balance to the side. As it is, this diamond system suits us more and the width point is largely negated anyway as it's extremely rare to have a hybrid player like Di Maria playing as one of the midfielders - he makes up for that difference in width from the fullbacks by himself.

But yeah, the only thing I'm slightly surprised at is that Van Gaal - given his pride - didn't try to convince us all that it was still a 3-5-2 with Blind as a centre back stepping out of defence

 

[saivet]

With all out attacking and no midfield players, it only makes sense to ditch this formation for good. Why bring in an extra centre back for one of Blind, Herrera or Mata?!

 

[ivaldo]

It'll be the diamond against bottom half teams and 3-5-2 against too tier ssides the formations are so similar we can change it at the drop of a hat depending on the situation.

 

[Ringo 07]

433 is so much more entertaining and attack minded. But the likes of Smalling, Jones and Evans will be targeted by decent strikers if we go for a 433 and they may be exposed in big games but hopefully one of Jones, Smalling or Rojo can really step up the plate this year to give us a solid defence in a 433 otherwise LVG will move back to 352.

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

Everything good about today had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the formation, it was the personnel. I'm not saying 3-5-2 is the better formation but its being judged under ridiculous circumstances.

The 3-5-2 puts more emphasis on our weakest area which seems pointless to me, and as we looked completely hopeless at it in our opening three games against opposition we should be beating, then people are certainly vindicated in their opinion that we are best sticking at 4 at the back from now on.

 

[JTW95]

All we needed to do today was put Blind in LWB and move Rojo to CB and we could have had a 3-5-2 again. So it is easy enough to change to. I am glad we stuck with the diamond though as it looks a much better formation (granted, we did have much better players today). I hope we stick with what we had today.

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

433 is so much more entertaining and attack minded. But the likes of Smalling, Jones and Evans will be targeted by decent strikers if we go for a 433 and they may be exposed in big games but hopefully one of Jones, Smalling or Rojo can really step up the plate this year to give us a solid defence in a 433 otherwise LVG will move back to 352.

If we had been playing top opposition in our first three games I really fear what could have happend to us with the 3-5-2 system, just don't see any logic in going back to it, surely better to protect the back 4 in the bigger games with Blind, and Carrick/Fletcher, then have just the one striker, so 4-2-3-1 or something like that, with Di Maria, Herrera, Mata, and Falcao/Rooney in the top 4 positions we could still do serious damage.

 

[Blue always red]

433 is so much more entertaining and attack minded. But the likes of Smalling, Jones and Evans will be targeted by decent strikers if we go for a 433 and they may be exposed in big games but hopefully one of Jones, Smalling or Rojo can really step up the plate this year to give us a solid defence in a 433 otherwise LVG will move back to 352.

Whilst I agree with most of this, I feel in a 3 man defence, nobody wants to step up and take responsibility. It is much easier for them to leave it to one of the other 2 CBs to deal with the ball or man. In a 2 man defence, one of them absolutely has to orchestrate the back-line. We have the ability further up the field to hold on to the ball and go toe to toe with the very best of opposition.

 

[ivaldo]

The 3-5-2 puts more emphasis on our weakest area which seems pointless to me, and as we looked completely hopeless at it in our opening three games against opposition we should be beating, then people are certainly vindicated in their opinion that we are best sticking at 4 at the back from now on.

That first bit doesnt make sense, surely you have want to strengthen weaker areas, not weaken them further by taking another defender away? We didn't have Di Maria, Herrera, Rojo, Rafael, Blind and Falcao and it was the easiest game of the season,why do people refuse to recognise this?!? It was the personnel not the formation that made the difference!

The team would've been

De Gea
Valencia Blackett Evans Young
Fletcher Cleverley Anderson
Mata
Rooney RVP

Tell me that team would've produced a performance like that, stark difference isn't it?

Irregardless the 2 are basically the same formation only the diamond has more emphasis on attack. Imagine the sane line up and Blind as a centre back in the back three, when we have the ball he steps forward, as does Mata, all of a sudden that's a diamond. It'll be 3-5-2 against stronger opposition and the diamond against the likes of QPR.

 

[santeria13]

If we had been playing top opposition in our first three games I really fear what could have happend to us with the 3-5-2 system, just don't see any logic in going back to it, surely better to protect the back 4 in the bigger games with Blind, and Carrick/Fletcher, then have just the one striker, so 4-2-3-1 or something like that, with Di Maria, Herrera, Mata, and Falcao/Rooney in the top 4 positions we could still do serious damage.

I know this sounds weird but I feel that the 3-5-2 actually works better against teams that want to play attacking football. Hollands best games in the WC were against Spain, Chile and Brazil and I saw LVG explain somewhere that it allows them to effectively contain opposition who are always looking to attack or something along those lines. Those were on paper the 3 hardest games for them from a defensive point of view in the WC and they were also the ones in which they looked like the better/more dominant team. I don't count Argentina here because they were set up much like Holland, to contain the opposition, rather than attack and this is where the 3-5-2 has problems. It's a system that very much thrives on counter attacking the opposition which works better against teams that like to attack, obviously. Having someone like Robben or Di Maria who can pick up the ball from deep positions and just run half way across the field, works wonders in such a formation.

As another poster has said I think we'll see the diamond against weaker/defensive minded teams but against top opposition like Arsenal, Chelsea, City, Liverpool etc we will probably go back to using the 3-5-2. It also depends on which personnel are available too

 

[Keeps It tidy]

Hopefully we do not see the 3-5-2 or the rest of the season.

 

[FromTheBench]

Hopefully we do not see the 3-5-2 or the rest of the season.

Won't mind it for some bigger games tactically but yeah, don't wanna see much of it again.

Though we can do better at that with the players back now too but still..

 

[Devil may care]

I don't see how it helps us at all, it means we most likely drop Mata and add an extra CB and none of our senior CB's bar Jones look that comfortable with a back 3 to start with and none of them are all that good at playing it out from the back. To me against better teams Blind will simply sit all game and not make any forward runs like he did at times today, and that will give us better cover than shoehorning in another CB and losing our #10 who is in good goal scoring form.

 

[C'est Moi Cantona]

That first bit doesnt make sense, surely you have want to strengthen weaker areas, not weaken them further by taking another defender away? We didn't have Di Maria, Herrera, Rojo, Rafael, Blind and Falcao and it was the easiest game of the season,why do people refuse to recognise this?!? It was the personnel not the formation that made the difference!

The team would've been

De Gea
Valencia Blackett Evans Young
Fletcher Cleverley Anderson
Mata
Rooney RVP

Tell me that team would've produced a performance like that, stark difference isn't it?

Irregardless the 2 are basically the same formation only the diamond has more emphasis on attack. Imagine the sane line up and Blind as a centre back in the back three, when we have the ball he steps forward, as does Mata, all of a sudden that's a diamond. It'll be 3-5-2 against stronger opposition and the diamond against the likes of QPR.

I think you're wrong, and the U21's playing 4 at the back right now might be another clue that four at the back is the way we are going to go.

When I said you are putting more emphasis on the defence (our weakest area) I meant that you are having to use 3 CB's, and 2 WB's for the system, so in essence you are using five defenders, as there is no way Di Maria can play there.

This is only exposing an area where we are already currently weak, add to this our defenders seem very injury prone so before we know it we will see Carrick as CB, and Young as a WB which can't be a good thing.

 

[HabeasC]

I think the u21s have moved to a diamond, moving away from the 352.

 

[TheGame]

Can't believe people want to move back to 3-5-2. If you have a midfield of Di Maria and Herrara, that is defensively vulnerable. Both those players looked far more comfortable with Blind behind them. I think we should stick with this diamond in all games.

 

[KiD MoYeS]

I'd like to stick with the diamond, but feel van Gaal may continue to trust the 3-5-2 because it served him well during the world cup.

 

[TheGame]

I'd like to stick with the diamond, but feel van Gaal may continue to trust the 3-5-2 because it served him well during the world cup.

Its a totally different team and different personnel. Well the 4-3-3 has served him well but can't seem him playing that.

 

[ivaldo]

Can't believe people want to move back to 3-5-2. If you have a midfield of Di Maria and Herrara, that is defensively vulnerable. Both those players looked far more comfortable with Blind behind them. I think we should stick with this diamond in all games.

Again the two formations are incredibly similar, instead of a DM there's a CB behind Herrera and Di Maria, hardly defensively vulnerable, that 1 player is essentially the difference between the two formations. The 3-5-2 is a slightly more defensive diamond.

 

[KiD MoYeS]

Its a totally different team and different personnel. Well the 4-3-3 has served him well but can't seem him playing that.

Yeah, I just can't imagine van Gaal will react to four games so hastily. I think he has to play the diamond against Leicester now, but I wouldn't write off the 3-5-2 just yet...

 

[Pexbo]

I think the u21s have moved to a diamond, moving away from the 352.

Just came in here to discuss this. Pretty big news I reckon. I think LVG's intention is to play this:

Which when attacking, in order to play a high line and control the midfield exactly like we did yesterday translates to this:

It essentially operates with the same principles of the 3-5-2 and allows us to field our best attacking players, however it gives us someone comfortable on the ball (i.e not a defender) and with great distribution anchoring the defence as we are forward attacking. You can swap Evans out for Jones if you prefer someone quicker to give us more protection as we play with a much higher line.

 

[KiD MoYeS]

The diamond was almost a 4-1-3-2 in possession, with Herrera and di Maria taking up wide positions either side of Mata. It was more of a 4-3-3 when QPR had the ball, with Rooney and van Persie very wide.

 

[TheGame]

Again the two formations are incredibly similar, instead of a DM there's a CB behind Herrera and Di Maria, hardly defensively vulnerable, that 1 player is essentially the difference between the two formations. The 3-5-2 is a slightly more defensive diamond.

I disagree, in the diamond, the holding player stays in front of the back giving them defence shield, with the 3-5-2, with a midfield of Di Maria and Herrara, they would not be great defensively at all. The midfield will totally be exposed. Plus Di Maria will be more deeper than we want him to be. With the 3-5-2, teams can also expose us 2v1 on the flanks. I know its one game but everyone look far more comfortable with a diamond.

 

[Pexbo]

Again the two formations are incredibly similar, instead of a DM there's a CB behind Herrera and Di Maria, hardly defensively vulnerable, that 1 player is essentially the difference between the two formations. The 3-5-2 is a slightly more defensive diamond.

Exactly. See above and I made exactly this point here last week:

The same team doesn't, of course not. But what about when it changes like this:


vs Burnley:

DDG

Jones - Evans - Blackett
Valencia _________________ Young

Fletcher - Di Maria
Mata
Rooney - Van Persie
​

vs QPR

DDG

Jones __ Rojo
Rafael ____Blind_____ Shaw
Herrera - Di Maria
Mata
Falcao - Rooney
​

6 far superior players coming into the side and a twist in the formation so that while it is still technically a 3-5-2, with Blind choosing either central defence or defensive midfield... it could also be perceived as a 4-4-2 diamond or a 4-3-3 proving once and for all that formations on paper mean the square root of absolute feck all.

 

[ivaldo]

I disagree, in the diamond, the holding player stays in front of the back giving them defence shield, with the 3-5-2, with a midfield of Di Maria and Herrara, they would not be great defensively at all. The midfield will totally be exposed. Plus Di Maria will be more deeper than we want him to be. With the 3-5-2, teams can also expose us 2v1 on the flanks. I know its one game but everyone look far more comfortable with a diamond.

When there's 3 at the back you harass and squeeze the space between midfield and defense, the central defender steps forward with the ball and plays the anchor, again very similar.

I don't get the flank part, in both situations we have just 1 player in the wide positions. In the diamond the DM covers the full back and in the 3-5-2 the defensive 3 shuffle over.

I must sound like an advocate for the 3-5-2, I'm not its just being are discarding it in completely ridiculous circumstances, I don't mind which formation we play.

Why did we look more comfortable against QPR? Because it was literally the easiest fixture of the season and we had Herrera, Rojo, Blind, Di Maria and Rafael in the starting XI instead of Fletcher, Cleverley, Valencia and Young.

 

[TheGame]

When there's 3 at the back you harass and squeeze the space between midfield and defense, the central defender steps forward with the ball and plays the anchor, again very similar.

I don't get the flank part, in both situations we have just 1 player in the wide positions. In the diamond the DM covers the full back and in the 3-5-2 the defensive 3 shuffle over.

I must sound like an advocate for the 3-5-2, I'm not its just being are discarding it in completely ridiculous circumstances, I don't mind which formation we play.

Why did we look more comfortable against QPR? Because it was literally the easiest fixture of the season and we had Herrera, Rojo, Blind, Di Maria and Rafael in the starting XI instead of Fletcher, Cleverley, Valencia and Young.

Well when have used the formation earlier this season, there has been no player from defense stepping up, maybe thats why it has not worked. In all fairness Sunderland Burnley should not have been much harder. Also I don't think Blind will play in the centre if we play 3, he'll probably be on the left I think.

Width wise, it seemed Di Maria and Herrara gave the full backs more support, shuffling across depending on flank. Also I noticed the strikers were going wide when we didn't have the ball when we didn't have the ball.

I remain to be convinced on the 3-5-2 but you never know with the change in personnel.

 

[HabeasC]

Just came in here to discuss this. Pretty big news I reckon. I think LVG's intention is to play this:

Which when attacking, in order to play a high line and control the midfield exactly like we did yesterday translates to this:

It essentially operates with the same principles of the 3-5-2 and allows us to field our best attacking players, however it gives us someone comfortable on the ball (i.e not a defender) and with great distribution anchoring the defence as we are forward attacking. You can swap Evans out for Jones if you prefer someone quicker to give us more protection as we play with a much higher line.

I did notice that there were points when we had the ball in defence where the two CBs were quite wide and Blind had dropped in between them.

I guess that is the key to a LVG team - versatility and comfort in a number of positions. Really think that Blind could be key to the system working.

 

[ivaldo]

Well when have used the formation earlier this season, there has been no player from defense stepping up, maybe thats why it has not worked. In all fairness Sunderland Burnley should not have been much harder. Also I don't think Blind will play in the centre if we play 3, he'll probably be on the left I think.

Width wise, it seemed Di Maria and Herrara gave the full backs more support, shuffling across depending on flank. Also I noticed the strikers were going wide when we didn't have the ball when we didn't have the ball.

I remain to be convinced on the 3-5-2 but you never know with the change in personnel.

Either way we will play very similar football, we will retain possession, move the ball quickly and press opposition, LVGs philosophy.

 

[izec]

Would like it if we went to 4-3-3 permanently, but after LvG's comments before the game, it seems he will go back to it when some defenders are fit again.

 

[KeninDC]

This is from LVG's presentation on Barca's tactics. I assume this is something he wants to get back to, except that 10 may be more advanced rather than even with 8.

Blind plays the 6; Mata the 10 with Hererra at 8. ADM 7; Falcao 9 rotating with Rooney and RVP-maybe Rooney/Januzaj at 11.

 

[Pexbo]

Would like it if we went to 4-3-3 permanently, but after LvG's comments before the game, it seems he will go back to it when some defenders are fit again.

We won't play 4-3-3 any time soon because it doesn't fit Blind and Mata in.

 

[KiD MoYeS]

We won't play 4-3-3 any time soon because it doesn't fit Blind and Mata in.

Our shape resembled 4-3-3 a few times yesterday. Mata was almost centre-forward with van Persie and Rooney wide of him.

 

[izec]

We won't play 4-3-3 any time soon because it doesn't fit Blind and Mata in.

yeah i meant the diamond formation

 

[Pexbo]

Our shape resembled 4-3-3 a few times yesterday. Mata was almost centre-forward with van Persie and Rooney wide of him.

Our shape resembled a lot of things if you snapshotted various moments during the game but I don't think it was inherently a 4-3-3. I think I commented in the matchday thread regarding Rooney and Van Persie though, whereas Moyes seemed to want them playing close to each other, which VP seemed to complain about in that interview, Van Gaal has them playing as far apart as possible. As one moves into one area the other takes up space somewhere else. It was as of they were told to keep a good 40 yards between them, presumably with the intention of stretching the defence and creating space in the middle.

 

[Dante]

I thought this was how we lined up against QPR, more or less.

The strikers' starting positions was quite wide yesterday. Mata was ofter the closest to the penalty spot.

If we persist with yesterday's 4-diamond-2, I think RvP will be the one who struggles most. He doesn't have the pace to cause the opposition problems from that area. I'd be tempted to switch Rooney and RvP, even though they'd theoretically be on their wrong foot when cutting in. Rooney is good enough to put in crosses from the right and RvP would benefit from having Di Maria pick up his slack on the left.

 

[mufcwarm92]

I thought this was how we lined up against QPR, more or less.

The strikers' starting positions was quite wide yesterday. Mata was ofter the closest to the penalty spot.

If we persist with yesterday's 4-diamond-2, I think RvP will be the one who struggles most. He doesn't have the pace to cause the opposition problems from that area. I'd be tempted to switch Rooney and RvP, even though they'd theoretically be on their wrong foot when cutting in. Rooney is good enough to put in crosses from the right and RvP would benefit from having Di Maria pick up his slack on the left.

I think it was more of an orthodox front two, but the formation requires the strikers to do a bit more work out wide so they'll often pick it up there. Di Maria and Herrera are perfect for a diamond and Mata can drift out wide so I think the diamond is the most viable option long term.

 

[RuudTom83]

Players like Rooney, Mata, RVP etc are not affected by formation changes.

Players like Di Maria, Herrera, Blind, Rojo etc appear to be suitable for both formations and can play in multiple position easily.

Which only leaves the dopey UK lads that are incapable of playing any formation other than 4-4-2

But LVG hasn't had the full squad available to him yet so the jury should still be out on the back 3/5.

 

[rotherham_red]

In the big games I can see Mata making way for Carrick so that we have a double-pivot in midfield with Blind. Rooney/Di Maria as the 10, and one of RVP/Falcao/Rooney as the striker.

 

[Carl]

Don't necessarily think this is dead, although I do like the look of the diamond. Liverpool in particular showed how to make it effective in this league last season and Blind (or Carrick) could easily operate that deeper role the way Gerrard does.

We need to remember that the side against QPR was easily the strongest side we've had out all season. Like, by a fecking mile. There's no reason that a similar result/performance wouldn't have been obtained by using the 352.

 

[bishblaize]

Again the two formations are incredibly similar, instead of a DM there's a CB behind Herrera and Di Maria, hardly defensively vulnerable, that 1 player is essentially the difference between the two formations. The 3-5-2 is a slightly more defensive diamond.

The key difference is that, given our personnel, we get a much better ball player with a diamond right now. If you have Koeman or someone of that calibre at centre back then it works really well because they're as good on the ball as a midfielder. However we have Evans who, sadly, isn't.

However I still think that the 3-5-2 has merit if we get defenders who are more comfortable on the ball.