The 3-5-2 formation under Ole

[harms]

A few years ago I thought that it was a very good set up for us, but not I'm sure that it's not. There are very few wingbacks in the world that can make that system work and United doesn't have even one, let alone two. So it doesn't hide our lack of true wingers, like it should, but rather highlights it, as we don't have any players who can provide width with and produce enough attacking output. Perhaps Dalot will be able to, but he isn't yet.

Playing Smalling as a central defender in a three is also a bit of a mockery for this set up. Wide central defenders should be equally comfortable centrally and out wide and the central center back should be very good with the ball and comfortable at stepping up to midfield.

 

[DomesticTadpole]

Unless we get another CB, there is too much potential of Jones being involved somewhere.

 

[MadMike]

A few years ago I thought that it was a very good set up for us, but not I'm sure that it's not. There are very few wingbacks in the world that can make that system work and United doesn't have even one, let alone two. So it doesn't hide our lack of true wingers, like it should, but rather highlights it, as we don't have any players who can provide width with and produce enough attacking output. Perhaps Dalot will be able to, but he isn't yet.

In the few games Shaw has been given the freedom, he's looked a real threat down the left. We lack a player on the right, but there's options on the market.

 

[reddevil702]

I like it but we need another CB that is comfortable on the ball to help Lindelof. Until then, I would like to see a back three of Smalling, Jones and Lindelof with Dalot and Shaw as wingbacks.

 

[Web of Bissaka]

3-5-2 <---interchange---> 5-3-2

For european games, it's fine. Tend to be boring but I don't mind too much if it's in CL vs top teams. Just don't if we're vs smaller teams in CL.

For domestic games (EPL and cups), not a fan, tbh I hate it. 4-3-3/4-4-2/4-1-2-1-2 should be the wayy.

 

[Roboc7]

We won against PSG away and we were playing 3 at the back after 20 mins. 3-5-2 is not 5 at the back, needless to say.

Needless to say a back 3 often ends up a back 5 which is part of the problem.

Anyway my point was you have 5 defenders instead of 4, which i don't think anyone can argue with. You have 3 CB’s who aren’t that good on the ball instead of 2 and instead of having fullbacks who aren’t that good going forward you expect the same players to play as wingbacks with even more emphasis on the their attacking skills.

To make a back 3 work you basically need to start all over again. The only defender it suits is Dalot and maybe at a push Lindelof. Shaw isn’t a wingback, maybe he could switch to part of back 3 but that’s a big if.

 

[AJ10]

- PSG away was 3-5-2 after Bailly went off.
- Spurs away was not a good performance, we nicked a goal and got bailed out by DDG after getting dominated for most of the game.
- Pool at home was a 0-0 with only 35% possession, but our selection and formation got affected by then injuries in the first 30 mins.

Arsenal and (moreso) Chelsea away in the cup were good games from us though, that's true. But Arguably we played better in the league game against Arsenal when we lost, just bad luck with finishing and individual mistakes.

-People seem to remember only the last 25/30 mins of that spurs game but forget our chances but regardless of how a team in tune outplayed us at home for 30 mins we still went there and did well to exploit their weakness and got a result. I am not sure many would consider 30 mins out of 90 min, most of the game.
- Pool at home, despite all the injuries (rashford also playing with injury) we still managed to create more than pool did with their 65% possession, they only had 1 shot from 25 yards and got no where near our goal and we weren't even threatened.

Arsenal and wolves games we played better but when you miss sitters like we did then regardless of how well you played you'll never get good results and my comment was more towards the teams we played when we were on that run rather than the formations we used. Regardless of the formation we use, sadly when you have players who lack football intelligence (insert many,many names from our squad) then you're prone to stupidity which effects the entire team.

 

[Trigg]

Hate it. Always have. Don't have the wing backs for it either, which are vital in that system.

 

[Canagel]

We will need more players to perfect it. Instead of one wingback we will need two perhaps even three (we only have one) and a ball playing defender. We already need 2 CM's and a winger it will cost too much for 3-5-2 formation.

 

[Bwuk]

Doesn’t suit our squad at all imo.

 

[Sterling Archer]

Fixtures are a lot harder now then they were earlier. At the beginning of his reign when we went on that run we were playing Cardiff, Huddersfield, Bournemouth, Newcastle, Brighton etc. etc. Now it's Arsenal, PSG, Wolves (twice away), Barca.

It's easy to look good against dross opposition and say it's down to the formation rather than difference in quality.

I don't think it's just formation. But you've conveniently missed arsenal and Chelsea away from that list. Plus the loss to arsenal was a decent performance all considered. I do think we play better with this group in a 433

 

[Fosu-Mens]

Do you like it or not? Is that something you can see us building upon and something that could work with some better options down the right side?

Personally, I see potential in it. It's a good fit for a few reasons:

1. I think all our forwards prefer a more central than wide role when playing
2. Playing 3 in midfield with wingbacks gives more freedom to Pogba/Lingard to join the attack
3. It makes us more robust when we need to defend more during a phase of the game
4. It's (probably) easier to find good wingbacks than wide forwards

I'd say we're probably a good RCB and a really good RWB away from having the right personnel for it.

I know our switch to this formation coincided with worse results. But we have to consider that the recent fixtures have been very tough (Arsenal away, Wolves away x2, Barca) and also some games were lost due to individual mistakes on our part and/or bad luck which can always happen.

What does the Caf think?

The idea of having multiple formations, ways to attack, defend etc. in the teams "toolbox" is never a bad thing. But being able to play in different formations, styles of play and so on means that you will need players with a good tactical understanding and players either having balanced abilites or many different types of players.

Our current squad is not suited to this formation at all. Amongst the current defenders, only Dalot would fit this formation.
Shaw and Young are not good in attack, and they cannot cross the ball. Lindelof, while the team is in possession, is perfect for this formation, but would struggle in 1v1 against attackers. A situation this formation often leads to. The rest of our central defenders are either simply not good enough or too limited on the ball. Playing with 3 central defenders and two wingbacks pushing high(similar to how Tottenham sometimes set up) is dependent on having centrebacks able to pass, like Vertonghen and Alderweireld.

 

[harms]

In the few games Shaw has been given the freedom, he's looked a real threat down the left. We lack a player on the right, but there's options on the market.

It’s all about consistency, and he doesn’t have any when we’re talking about his offensive contribution. He has made a few great crosses and passes this season, but I don’t think that he’s creative or technically sound enough to maintain this level over the course of a season or even multiple ones. He can be a very good fullback in a back four though.

Look at Marcelo or Alves to see what I’m talking about. Or even Alba/Kimmich, if you’re talking about someone younger.

 

[MadMike]

I don't think it's just formation. But you've conveniently missed arsenal and Chelsea away from that list. Plus the loss to arsenal was a decent performance all considered. I do think we play better with this group in a 433

The loss to Arsenal away in the league was 3-5-2, not 4-3-3. We started 4-4-2 with Pogba on LM and then switched it in 25 mins when we were getting hammered down the right and Kolasinac was having tons of space.

The cup win against Arsenal away was not a bad performance but arguably worse performance than our defeat there. It's just different luck between the games. The game against Chelsea away is however a solid example of 4-3-3 working well against a good team.

 

[Reddy Rederson]

Do you like it or not? Is that something you can see us building upon and something that could work with some better options down the right side?

Personally, I see potential in it. It's a good fit for a few reasons:

1. I think all our forwards prefer a more central than wide role when playing
2. Playing 3 in midfield with wingbacks gives more freedom to Pogba/Lingard to join the attack
3. It makes us more robust when we need to defend more during a phase of the game
4. It's (probably) easier to find good wingbacks than wide forwards

I'd say we're probably a good RCB and a really good RWB away from having the right personnel for it.

I know our switch to this formation coincided with worse results. But we have to consider that the recent fixtures have been very tough (Arsenal away, Wolves away x2, Barca) and also some games were lost due to individual mistakes on our part and/or bad luck which can always happen.

What does the Caf think?

It falls apart at point 2. Lingard sucks, and Pogba has been dogshit for a good month or more now. I don’t know what games everyone is watching that they think one or two players is going to make us a great side. Formation and tactics can be bullet proof and will still fail because some our players aren’t good enough/not working hard enough.

 

[Amar__]

Arsenal away and PSG away.

Those were hardy good games.

 

[MadMike]

Those were hardy good games.

I don't think we'll agree then. C'est la vie.

 

[Amar__]

I don't think we'll agree then. C'est la vie.

Fair enough. Arsenal was decent, but we weren't really good against PSG. Fair enough for the romantics, I enjoyed it more than our any other game from past few seasons, but it was a hardly good performance, IMO.

 

[deadrevelz]

Nope. Preferably 4-3-3. If we don't have the players for it, the diamond.

 

[MadMike]

Fair enough. Arsenal was decent, but we weren't really good against PSG. Fair enough for the romantics, I enjoyed it more than our any other game from past few seasons, but it was a hardly good performance, IMO.

Arsenal was a very good performance for me, marred by bad finishing and GK/Referee mistakes. PSG wasn't as good a performance, I agree, but consider who we were playing and how many absentees we had. We had a midfield of Pereira, McT and Fred... on what was Fred's 2 start since December with the other game being vs Palace. We had Young at RCB cause Bailly was so calamitous he had to be withdrawn halfway through the first half. In that context the system held and with a bit of luck we got the needed goals.

Again opinions can differ on these, but I also see people seeing with very rose tinted spectacles our wins against Spurs (league) and Arsenal (cup) away during the run. When in fact we hadn't played that well in those games in context, but got a bit of the rub of the green and then held out thanks to keeper heroics.

Consider for example how we got thoroughly outplayed by PSG at Old Trafford when we played 4-3-3 against them.

 

[Seven Seas Sardines]

I'd say we're probably a good RCB and a really good RWB away from having the right personnel for it.

Cos Lindelöf, Smalling, Jones, Bailly, Tuanzebe and Fosu-Mensah aren't enough? What we need is a world-class LCB in the Koulibaly mould since Rojo is the only one we have...

 

[MyOnlySolskjaer]

I think it’s a system that illuminates how shit our full backs are. If we were to get better options out wide then it would be different.

 

[bond19821982]

He has been using for some games now. We need a better right wing back, better attacking midfielder (Pogba would help) and a better attacker from bench to partner Rashy and Martial .

Suits perfectly Rojo,Maguire and Lindelof.

 

[UNITED ACADEMY]

He has been using for some games now. We need a better right wing back, better attacking midfielder (Pogba would help) and a better attacker from bench to partner Rashy and Martial .

Suits perfectly Rojo,Maguire and Lindelof.

It's only a formation that we used against a certain opposition. Suit against Liverpool 433 to defend against their full back & front three. We probably used it today against Chelsea because we wanted to rest Martial. Rashford is not a lone striker type and he's been dreadful when playing as a lone striker this season so we used this formation to suit him. I think if the three Martial, Rashford & James are fit or available for starting XI then we will stick with 4231 while in defensive mode Rashford will often stay up with Martial for counter while James comes deep to help to defend.

 

[Bestietom]

Until we get in a couple of top midfielders, I would go along with it. But I do prefer 4-3-3 or 4-4-2

 

[Bwuk]

It’s fine for when we are playing on the counter, but I think we struggle to create with it.

4231 suits us better. All of Martial/James/Rashford can fit in it.

 

[Adcuth]

I think switching between this and a 433 are best for us depending on the game and players available. It can be good when we know teams are gin a come out of the blocks fast or pressure us a lot in the first 45. Can help us get a foothold in the game. Ole just needs to know when to use the correct one and when to switch it up to have the greatest effect on the game.

 

[Wednesday at Stoke]

I think its going to be a pattern with 4-3-3 for games United are expected to dominate the ball and 3-4-3 against teams they are expected to soak up pressure and counter.

 

[bond19821982]

It's only a formation that we used against a certain opposition. Suit against Liverpool 433 to defend against their full back & front three. We probably used it today against Chelsea because we wanted to rest Martial. Rashford is not a lone striker type and he's been dreadful when playing as a lone striker this season so we used this formation to suit him. I think if the three Martial, Rashford & James are fit or available for starting XI then we will stick with 4231 while in defensive mode Rashford will often stay up with Martial for counter while James comes deep to help to defend.

I am liking this though. Bar one feck up, the defence was pretty solid. Axel would make hell of a difference in that line up. Quite good for away matches against top 6.

 

[Alfie092]

I think switching between this and a 433 are best for us depending on the game and players available. It can be good when we know teams are gin a come out of the blocks fast or pressure us a lot in the first 45. Can help us get a foothold in the game. Ole just needs to know when to use the correct one and when to switch it up to have the greatest effect on the game.

This.

I can definitely understand it vs Liverpool with their dangerous front 3 and fullbacks. However, whenever we have played the formation this season, we don't seem to create enough chances. The lack of creative midfielders does not help at all, would be interesting to see how it works with a fully fit Pogba in the team. IMO we also need at least one of the wing-backs to be better going forward. Dalot maybe?

 

[Alabaster Codify7]

Don't like it but I can see why Oles doing it. We're most stacked in CB in terms of numbers and he's clearly adopting a safety-in-numbers approach as none of them are 100% reliable. Also, we have what, 3 CM's on the books fit and willing to play. It's a necessary evil for now.

 

[Ekeke]

So once again, we're on the right and our fullbacks ventured up the pitch less than the oppositions fullbacks

Ours was a 5-2-3 formation unless you want to suggest that Chelsea played 2-5-3, in which case then yes you could suggest we played 3-5-2

 

[mu4c_20le]

It’s fine for when we are playing on the counter, but I think we struggle to create with it.

4231 suits us better. All of Martial/James/Rashford can fit in it.

We created more since going 3 at the back, we couldnt even get a shot on target during that run because Ole stuck to 4231. I don't think our midfielders are good enough, we have more 10s than wingers, and ill cry if i see Mata or Pereira shunted out wide again. Two of arguably our worst games this season, West Ham and Newcastle, was 4231.

 

[Bwuk]

We created more since going 3 at the back, we couldnt even get a shot on target during that run because Ole stuck to 4231. I don't think our midfielders are good enough, we have more 10s than wingers, and ill cry if i see Mata or Pereira shunted out wide again. Two of arguably our worst games this season, West Ham and Newcastle, was 4231.

I don't think Rashford can lead the line. 4-2-3-1 with Martial upfront. I don't think we can play it without Martial.

 

[EwanI Ted]

So once again, we're on the right and our fullbacks ventured up the pitch less than the oppositions fullbacks

Ours was a 5-2-3 formation unless you want to suggest that Chelsea played 2-5-3, in which case then yes you could suggest we played 3-5-2

When we had the ball the full backs would push on and the outside member of the back 3 would cover the wide areas behind, and it looked like a 3-4-3-. But when we lost the ball or when they pressed us, the full backs would tuck in and we'd make it a true back 5. Whether you count that as a back 3 or a back 5 overall is fairly academic, the only pertinent question is whether it was effective or not.

 

[Ekeke]

When we had the ball the full backs would push on and the outside member of the back 3 would cover the wide areas behind, and it looked like a 3-4-3-. But when we lost the ball or when they pressed us, the full backs would tuck in and we'd make it a true back 5. Whether you count that as a back 3 or a back 5 overall is fairly academic, the only pertinent question is whether it was effective or not.

Again, you can only argue that we played with a 3-5-2 if you're going to argue Chelsea played a 2-5-3 and I dont recall hearing about that formation in the past

 

[Crashoutcassius]

I would be interested to see vs a team that parks the bus to see if it makes any difference.

 

[Player Red]

Again, you can only argue that we played with a 3-5-2 if you're going to argue Chelsea played a 2-5-3 and I dont recall hearing about that formation in the past

I think the point made was that we played a 3-4-3 not a 3-5-2.

 

[711]

When we had the ball the full backs would push on and the outside member of the back 3 would cover the wide areas behind, and it looked like a 3-4-3-. But when we lost the ball or when they pressed us, the full backs would tuck in and we'd make it a true back 5. Whether you count that as a back 3 or a back 5 overall is fairly academic, the only pertinent question is whether it was effective or not.

Yeah, that sums it up. The average positions surprise me a bit in that we played further forward than it seemed at the time. Probably just me though.

 

[Adcuth]

This.

I can definitely understand it vs Liverpool with their dangerous front 3 and fullbacks. However, whenever we have played the formation this season, we don't seem to create enough chances. The lack of creative midfielders does not help at all, would be interesting to see how it works with a fully fit Pogba in the team. IMO we also need at least one of the wing-backs to be better going forward. Dalot maybe?

I'd try and bring Laird into the squad for acceptable games to see how he fares. Maybe moving AWB to the right side of the 3 centre backs. He doesn't offer enough ofba threat when we go forward in that formation and with the 3 behind he doesn't need to be so conservative. With the way Williams has played I'd be happy trying out both as our wing backs. Especially with the defensive cover they'd have.