352 / 532

[Wiggles31]

This has to be our formation going forward. We looked much more relaxed, had more control in midfield, created more chances. Come on Ralph make it happen .

Credit to the manager who tactically outfought the opponent and made the right changes at the right time… for once! 

[tajjuk]

Suggested this last week, I think Perraud and KWP/Tino give us enough threat down the wings, whereas when we did it before Bertrand basically just didn’t get forward enough. Plus we don’t need all the inconsistent no 10s, play Armstrong behind the strikers and let JWP get forward more. Then 3 average centre backs is better than two! 

[MAY-Z]

Just came on to post something similar. This is what I would play (assuming Armstrong regains fitness
 

………………..…….Forster…………

—-bednarek..stephens..salisu

tino………………………………………perraud

……………….jwp…….Romeu……

………………..sarmstrong………………….…..

——-aarmstrong………..adams

[Matthew Le God]

39 minutes ago, Wiggles31 said:

This has to be our formation going forward.

Both systems will probably have their uses throughout the season. Not only match to match, but switching it during games for different scenarios like today. 

[Lighthouse]

Worth pointing out we were hopeless with 3-5-2 a couple of years ago and it wasn’t until we moved away from it that results started to improve. That opening game away at Burnley was a particular lowlight.

 

There’s no magic formula, horses for courses.

[Dusic]

I think this might be a good option against the better teams, but not one we should play all the time.

Attacking wise its too predictable IMO and its harder to press as opposition full backs get a lot of time on the ball.

Good option against the top 6 though.

[Wiggles31]

Felt the players appeared much more relaxed with 3 midfielders to tighten things up. As has been said before we often get overloaded in the 4222 and it all becomes a bit desperate until the inevitable goal. 

[The Kraken]

28 minutes ago, Dusic said:

I think this might be a good option against the better teams, but not one we should play all the time.

Attacking wise its too predictable IMO and its harder to press as opposition full backs get a lot of time on the ball.

Good option against the top 6 though.

Yep agreed. No problem with a 4 against fellow bottom half sides, but an extra CB against the top sides is probably wise more often than not.

[Streaky]

1 hour ago, tajjuk said:

Suggested this last week, I think Perraud and KWP/Tino give us enough threat down the wings, whereas when we did it before Bertrand basically just didn’t get forward enough. Plus we don’t need all the inconsistent no 10s, play Armstrong behind the strikers and let JWP get forward more. Then 3 average centre backs is better than two! 

Yeah so did I and glad we changed in 2nd half. Makes more sense with the attacking wing backs we have now. And the more we play it the better we will be. Noticed ralph 2nd half shouting at salissu too bring the ball out into midfield which was good to see. The outer centre backs have to be brave on the ball for it to work.