How about this for a 'flexible' formation

Discussion in 'Team Formation' started by basskadet, Jul 1, 2010.

  1. basskadet VIP Member Moderator

    basskadet
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2008
    Messages:
    11,358
    Location:
    Hackney
    Ratings:
    +7,139 / 38 / -0
    I was thinking about the world's obsession with a 451 & I was trying to think up something we could try & utilise to not just match it, but topple it & I think I've thought of something that is extremely versatile in both an attacking sense & a defensive one & something we have the perfect players to make it work.

    It is a basic 3-5-2 formation but with a kind of anti-clockwise shift into a 4-4-2 when required.

    You see a 3-5-2 can be considered too offensive if you use traditional wingers or it can get a little muddled with more modern wing-backs also but I think, at Spurs, we have the perfect players to make it work.

    you see, we can play a back 3 of King - Dawson - Kaboul, all capable Centre-backs but Kaboul (as he proved last season) is a more than adequate RB. Corluka could also be used as he can do a job as a CB & is an excellent RB.

    In the midfield we can then play Bale on the left as he has the ability to drop back into a LB role, with the back 3 all moving across into a traditional back 4. However, Bale is also athletic enough to get forward & cause problems.

    That then allows us to play 2 holding mids out of Huddleston, Palacios or Sandro and then 1 more creative, attacking midfielder out of Kranjcar, Modric and (if we got him) Cole - all of whom can drop into a position on the left if Bale drops back into defence (if you follow me). That would allow us to play the more attack-minded Lennon on the right as a traditional winger because, if he gets exposed & someone gets in behind him, our midfield & defence can shift round anti-clockwise to cover him.

    That then allows us to keep a proper strike partnership too, Crouch & Defoe or whoever, with 1 midfielder really able to get forward in support & at least 1 wide-man firing in the crosses.


    -------------------------------Gomes--------------------------------
    ---------Kaboul/Corluka-----Dawson--------King/Bassong---------
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    --------------------Huddleston--------Palacios/Sandro--------------
    Lennon------------------------------------------------------------Bale
    -----------------------------Modric/Kranjcar/Cole---------------------
    ----------------------Defoe----------------------Crouch---------------


    which could then shift round into this comfortable 442 should Lennon be exposed:

    -------------------------------Gomes--------------------------------
    Kaboul/Corluka------Dawson---------King/Bassong-----------Bale
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    --------------------Huddleston--------Palacios/Sandro--------------
    Lennon-----------------------------------------Modric/Kranjcar/Cole
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ----------------------Defoe----------------------Crouch---------------

    That way we have the numbers in midfield not to get over-run, we have even more going forward & more options in the box than just a lone striker and we have a solid defence. I think it could work well but it would require the team working in perfect harmony in order for it not to lost shape, Bale having to be fully aware of Kaboul/Corluka's positioning and so on
    • Like Like x 1
  2. US_Spurs_Fan Well-Known Member

    US_Spurs_Fan
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,698
    Location:
    Cincinnati, U.S.A
    Ratings:
    +431 / 0 / -0
    Not exactly what I was expecting from a flexible 'formation' ;)
  3. basskadet VIP Member Moderator

    basskadet
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2008
    Messages:
    11,358
    Location:
    Hackney
    Ratings:
    +7,139 / 38 / -0
    Well, what I mean is most people do not expect a 3-5-2 to go into a 4-4-2. Traditionally it was a 3-5-2/5-3-2 & that is out-dated now.
  4. P UNIT Tha Mac Daddy Pimp Mo Fo Super Moderators

    P UNIT
    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2007
    Messages:
    22,762
    Location:
    my high horse
    Ratings:
    +10,468 / 38 / -1
    Or dropping to a 5-3-2 when defending.

    It would be more of a counter attacking formation.
  5. US_Spurs_Fan Well-Known Member

    US_Spurs_Fan
    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,698
    Location:
    Cincinnati, U.S.A
    Ratings:
    +431 / 0 / -0
    I was referring to a flexible formation of 2
  6. basskadet VIP Member Moderator

    basskadet
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2008
    Messages:
    11,358
    Location:
    Hackney
    Ratings:
    +7,139 / 38 / -0
    Well, that's partly why I avoided the traditional 5-3-2. It also means that you cannot really play Lennon & you would instead have to play more of a WB.

    The other issue with a 3-5-2/5-3-2 is that it operates in too straight lines and teams that create triangles with the modern 4-5-1/4-3-3 can play through you. By playing this 3-5-2/4-4-2 you have players moving across to cover, rather than dropping back which means, in theory, it would be harder to play thru with angled passing.

    You wouldn't really want a formation where you are switching too much or else it is too confusing & you loose your overall shape. You normally play a 'rigid' formation. as we have with the 4-4-2, or a 'flexible' one where you can switch between 2 fairly easily, such as the now infamous 4-5-1/4-3-3. You could, as was suggested, use the 3-5-2//4-4-2 as I describe along with a 5-3-2 if you wanted to but I think that would just result in a mess, with players not really knowing when they should be moving across into the 4-4-2, 0r back into the 5-3-2. You have to give players clearly defined jobs or else they are having to think too much about where they should be & what they should be doing rather than just doing it instinctively
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2010

Share This Page