3-5-2

Could we pull it off? Do we have the personnel for it?

Chesney
Kos - Mert - Verm
Sagna Gibbs
Wilshere Arteta
Santi
Giroud Podolski


Or some variant of that. Thoughts?



PS - that overly dramatic thing Giroud does whenever he misses - it's starting to annoy me. Even though I'm very happy with his overall contribution.

PPS - Giroud has scored as many league goals as Rooney, Cleverley and Welbeck combined. HA.

We have the personnel to pull it off for a starting XI, sure. But if one of our centerbacks goes down, that leaves Djourou, Miquel, or *gasp* Squid as cover. I'm more comfortable playing 2 CB at the back knowing we can rotate occassionally and maintain quality.

Exactly what Dave said, 100%.

Why would we want to play 3-5-2?

I presume it would be to incorporate all 3 CBs in one team but cant see it happening.

That isnt a very good reason to play 3-5-2

I don't know why we'd want to as opposed to 4-3-3, I can't say which is better for us. BUT I think we have the personnel to do it, should we want to shake it up tactically. Would it give us an advantage over other teams? Maybe. Would it correct our obvious defensive deficiencies? Who knows. Is it worth trying out? Probably. Football evolves and changes and teams get figured out. There may be benefits to it.

As a coach, the problem I have found with 3-5-3 is it limits the ability to play out from the back. It enforces a more direct approach.

4-4-2 or 4-2-3-1 with 2 full backs provides a nice balance and spacing to be able to play out from the back.

I don't really see us changing formation too much. The only time it might happen is when Jack is back to full match fitness maybe playing 4 4 2 pushing Santi forward to play behind the 2 forwards.

------------Arteta-------------
---Diaby------------Jack------
-------------Santi-------------
---Gervinho------Poldolski--

Jonathan Prendergast wrote:As a coach, the problem I have found with 3-5-3 is it limits the ability to play out from the back.

I think your biggest problem is going to trying to explain to the governing body that you have fielded 11 outfield players!

Jonathan Prendergast wrote:4-4-2 or 4-2-3-1 with 2 full backs provides a nice balance and spacing to be able to play out from the back.

I agree with that. I don't mind 3-5-2 but only in situations where it will help us, such as the last few minutes against West Ham to hold the lead. It was obvious they'd just hoof the ball to some big guys so having 3 centre backs helped see out the match and the win. Not sure starting a game with those tactics would be succesful though.

Chris Chan wrote:

Jonathan Prendergast wrote:As a coach, the problem I have found with 3-5-3 is it limits the ability to play out from the back.

I think your biggest problem is going to trying to explain to the governing body that you have fielded 11 outfield players!

Haha

while we're talking tactics and formation, I'm a big fan of 3-5-2 formation and have successfully played in it with my college team before. But mind, it needs a lot of discipline and understanding between players.

Lets say, we field,
Kos - Per - TV
Sagna - Gibbs
Arteta - Wilshere
Santi
Giroud - Podolski

Both Kos and TV have the ability to cover at the fullback positions if either wing-backs are caught up-field, but when one of the CBs moves out to the flanks, one of the CMs needs to fill in at the CB position. That's where the main 3-5-2/4-4-2 dynamics works to keep the shape of the team. But we, right now, don't have a CM who can comfortably fill in at the center of defence to help the transformation. I say that as the main stumbling block to play 3-5-2 with our current team.
While its undeniable the 3-5-2 helps to have plenty bodies in all three areas of the pitch, it could make a team more direct and rigid, as has been mentioned. At the moment, can't see it happening due to the reasons mentioned above.

would it not be better to replace Gibbs with Santos. Than, may be we can see his full potential. he was quite a goal scorer in the turkish league and much more skillful in the final third than gibbs.

KOS PER TV
SAGNA ARTETA SANTOS
DIABY WISHERE
SANTI
PODOLSKI

WE LOOK VERY SOLID AT THE BACK WITH THIS APPROACH WHEN NEEDING TO CLOSE THE GAME OUT . OR HAVE COQUELIN IN ARTETA'S PLACE AND REPLACE DIABY WITH ARTETA.

Subrat Koirala wrote:while we're talking tactics and formation, I'm a big fan of 3-5-2 formation and have successfully played in it with my college team before. But mind, it needs a lot of discipline and understanding between players.

Lets say, we field,
Kos - Per - TV
Sagna - Gibbs
Arteta - Wilshere
Santi
Giroud - Podolski

Both Kos and TV have the ability to cover at the fullback positions if either wing-backs are caught up-field, but when one of the CBs moves out to the flanks, one of the CMs needs to fill in at the CB position. That's where the main 3-5-2/4-4-2 dynamics works to keep the shape of the team. But we, right now, don't have a CM who can comfortably fill in at the center of defence to help the transformation. I say that as the main stumbling block to play 3-5-2 with our current team.
While its undeniable the 3-5-2 helps to have plenty bodies in all three areas of the pitch, it could make a team more direct and rigid, as has been mentioned. At the moment, can't see it happening due to the reasons mentioned above.

Thanks for the insight! I do agree, I don't think any of Mikel, Wilshere, Diaby, Frimpong or Coquelin could comfortably fill in at CB. Perhaps with Song, this formation would've been more viable.

I think the obvious sign of that before people start talking about the 3 or 4 defenders argument is that playing with the 1 striker with 2 wider 'support' players (4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1) isn't working. The main agreement seems to be that we need two central strikers to feed off each other. That would suit Giroud amazingly... and probably Arshavin and Podolski too as they both seem more effective from deeper when playing wider.

As for the three at the back argument. Looking back to the Arsenal days of legend (Wengers first few seasons), when we had the ball we effectively played a 4-4-2 defending, with a 3-5-2 or 3-4-3 defending. We overloaded one of the backs into midfield and went from there. I can't see why Gibbs or Sagna/Jenkinson couldn't do that again.

My vote would be to go for that flexible 4-4-2 again. But it'd kill off Cazorlas role unless he was moved forward into a number 10 role?

The arguable debate of formation will go on until thew end of time...

One thing I have noticed which kills us in matches is playing a 4-2-3-1 seriously opens our wings to counter attacks this is due mainly as I stated in another thread our lack of defensive duties and when attacking having far to many players up field....counter attacks have been a MAJOR problem for us and where a vast amount of goals have been leaked,the problem is during a counter attack our front four high up field have only two behind to cover from wing to wing it stretches us out calls a defender out of positon to help cover the space and does exactly the same to the remaining 3 even two left in defence...no end of goals this season have come from streching us out...and when we are all back..let's say for a corner we are left looking all bunched up in the area with no outlet for an attack of our own....

4-4-2 will suit this league and has done for years.....unfortunately players we have and the rolls they play don't dictate it being played affectively....I still belive we have far to many attacking players......where are the songs,Vieira's??? This is the type of player we need sat in midfiled to do one job back and forth from one wing to the other sniffing out attacks....

We have to go back to basics....we are not defending,letting in far to many goals,we have no shape....sort this out..and the rest should follow...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2232553/Arsene-Wenger-considers-picking-defenders-boost-Arsenal-defence.html

Is this more defenders or simply using TV as a DM?

http://arseblog.com/2012/11/tactics-column-theo-walcott-is-arsenals-striker-on-the-wings/
It's quite a good read from Arseblog