What was wrong with Roy’s 3-5-2

[Bob]

Can't count on Kewell and Pennant doesn't strike me as the kind to beat the fullback all day, more the kind to get some space to knock in a good cross. BUT Bellamy would suit the role nicely IMO. Gonzalez might do well there, and I suppose although not a winger, Garcia might be an interesting option. I think it would be worth trying. I suppose it's not all that different to what we've played on occasions anyway. There is a theory that you have a rigid formation in defence but in attack you have more fluidity with a less identifiable formation - I think I subscribe to that.

Its not a theory - its set in footballing stone. When you have the ball do whatever you like (within reason). When you don't have the ball stay in formation and press the ball! The fundamentals of football and most other sports like basketball. Its so frustrating when a team you're watching doesn't have the ball for say 10 passes, and the left back is up in midfield, yes AURELIO, that's right! I'm talking to you.

At the moment we're playing quite a rigid 442 with wide midfielders. I can only see Rafa sticking to it. But, obviously i liked to see my theory given a run i suppose when we're in the final third it can resemble what i'm babbling on about!

[Dhav]

Imagine 3-5-2 with Finnan and Aurelio (or JAR) constantly on the attack. I bet the Galatasaray manager is having wet dreams about it.

[Rigadon]

"What was wrong with Roy’s 3-5-2?"

Nothing wrong with the formation. Roy's was a great team that played fantastic football. He allowed players to express themselves and we often outplayed the so-called 'big teams'. Unfortunately, there was no discipline and a lack of professionalism. Too many players taking the piss (pass the coin game, for example).

We should have won the Premiership under Roy Evans.

[CharlieMansonsSquint]

Ah yes, although I'd just call that 4-3-3 tbh. It is a very flexible formation, potential for 4-4-2 or 4-5-1. Our midfield three is perfect for it IMO, shame we don't really have the wingers for it. I think Bellamy would suit that role though.

If we could sign a Robinho type for the right it could work really well.

Of what we have now Kuyt can play on the right in that formation so could Garcia.

[Bob]

We should have won the Premiership under Roy Evans.

Too bloody right we should have.

Premiership footballers annoy the life out of me, the money obsessed little leeches. All is forgiven briefly when they score that winning goal though!

[CharlieMansonsSquint]

Too bloody right we should have.

Premiership footballers annoy the life out of me, the money obsessed little leeches. All is forgiven briefly when they score that winning goal though!

Our defence was never good enough. Razor, Harkness, McAteer at wing back, I'm not even going to mention the disasters that were Babb, Kvarme and Bjornabye. I mean c'mon.

What's really criminal is that we wasted the best years of the best English striker since Lineker. Sad.

[Sir Bob]

With the players we have at the moment I think 3-5-2 is far & away the best formation.

We have 3 excellent centre halves for a start. All our LB are better going forward than they are defensively. We still alck quality width apart from SG who doesn't like to play there. 3-5-2 would allow SG to have the freedom he needs to be at his best but with Momo & Alonso there to provide proper defensive cover.
my team would be

-------------------------Reina------------------------
-----------Carra----------Sami------------Agger
Finnan------SG----------Momo------Xabi--------JAR
---------------Crouch-----------Kuyt

I don't see how anyone can say this system is weak defensively. It has 5 defenders plus Momo. More importantly it allows SG to do what he does best, power forward causing the opposition problems. All players have defensive responsibilities but this limits Sg's to the minimum.

[Morph]

To be honest I think all this talk of 3 5 2, is a bit odd, considering we're shipping goals with alarming regularity so far this season. we don't need anything extra going up front, because we're creating the chances we need, we just aren't putting them away unfortunately.

If we were going to change the the formation, then the only change I could see would be to play a holding midfielder, to protect the back four, to limit the goalscoring chances. However you can also argue that, theams aren't getting that many chances against us anyway, they are just getting lucky with the chances they have.

If I was going to changes the formation at all then I would have to say:

--------------Reina------------

--Finnan--Carra--Agger--Riise--
-------------Sissoko-----------
-------Gerrard-----Alonso------
----Garcia-----------Kewell----
--------------Kuyt------------

You could call it 451, but i'd prefer to think of it as 433, as Kewell and Garcia, are most definately attacking players, and aren't going going to be doing a lot of defensive duties. Also obviously, we can't play Kewell at the moment, so maybe switch him for Bellamy, of give Gonzalez a run in the side.

Here's one just for Bob as well while i'm thinking about it:

--------------Reina------------

--Finnan--Hyypia--Agger--Riise--
--------------Carra-------------
-------Sissoko-----Alonso-------
-------------Gerrard------------
--------------Kuyt--------------
-------------Crouch-------------

It solves the problem of who to play between the three defenders, because we can play them all, but i'm sure a lot would prefer to see Carra in the center of defense, but maybe he can command better from that position. It would also relsease all three center mids. There's no width in the formation, but it would be easy for gerrard and Kuyt to drift out wide and use Crouch as a target man.

[Shaggy]

I don't think Rafa would've brought in two genuine wingers in the summer if he had any designs on playing 3-5-2. I quite like the formation, for what it's worth, and it can be effective if you've got the right set of players.

[Rigadon]

"Our defence was never good enough. Razor, Harkness, McAteer at wing back, I'm not even going to mention the disasters that were Babb, Kvarme and Bjornabye. I mean c'mon."

Razor, Scales, Babb and Mark Wright were good players until they joined us. Kvarme did well when he left us. Jones, McAteer, Harkness and Matteo weren't that bad. Friedel and James were/are good keepers.

Our defence was poor because of the attitude of the players, which ultimately cost Roy his job. {Not that Razor ever gave a ****}

Something else - Toshack refused the Liverpool job in 1998 because he didn't want to job share with Roy. Houllier ended up being offered the job and Roy left a few months later.

Now Toshack is in charge of Wales and his assistant is Uncle Roy.

[enema of the state]

one of my favourite subjects

First of all, No football match was ever decided by any teams formation - ALL football matches are won and lost on the execution of the basic techniques: shooting, heading, tackling passing etc... EVERYONE should realise once and for all that formation is of LIMITED (not ZERO) importance.

In answer to the question at the start of the thread: NOTHING
Its a good formation and it has won at least 6 world cups for italy and germany.

Roy evans side failed for the following reasons (in no particular order):

Roy was not nearly as good a motivator as those he was up against

Roys players were not nearly as professional as those he was up against - despite having superior talent (compare collymore to andy cole for instance)

Roys key player was a dickhead who'd rather execute a fancy move ending in a goal kick than work a tap in for a jouneyman colleague. the same player ALWAYS went missing when it mattered most.

Roys key striker failed to keep himself in the tip top shape that makes the differnce at that level and had played all his best football by christmas 1995.

Roy put his faith in a substandard keeper who let him down time and again.

Roy played favourites at the expense of putting out a balanced team: Macateer and jones as a pair of wing backs didnt work as well 1 of them plus bjornbye nor was barnes and rednkapp a better pairing than one of them plus michael thomas.

2 young english players with the potential to be the best in the league at their jobs got debilitating injuries. if potential had been fulfilled, gary neville would have only a handful of england caps.

Roy himself was just not up to it

the choice of formation of lfc and man utd of the mid 1990's is INCIDENTAL to the way things worked out. I dont actually think roy had a strong preference for it. As i recall it was a reaction to the disatrous 4-4-2 we had at the tail end of the souness era and even that was a personel issue and not a formation one.

[Neil Young]

Roys key player was a dickhead who'd rather execute a fancy move ending in a goal kick than work a tap in for a jouneyman colleague. the same player ALWAYS went missing when it mattered most.

Sorry, remind me who, please.

[Bob]

Good post by the way bud. Even if i don't agree with most of it

one of my favourite subjects

First of all, No football match was ever decided by any teams formation - ALL football matches are won and lost on the execution of the basic techniques: shooting, heading, tackling passing etc... EVERYONE should realise once and for all that formation is of LIMITED (not ZERO) importance.

In answer to the question at the start of the thread: NOTHING
Its a good formation and it has won at least 6 world cups for italy and germany.

A good formation, players that know their responsibilities, and a good team ethic can overcome a much superior technical team. I would take an organised team over a skillful one any day - Greece in the Euros recently is a fine example. Organisation over formation is key for me - I have actually been speechless (through shouting) after coming off a match before, because my right midfielder keeps going walkies through a game, or my center back thinks he's a winger!

This all takes me back to when i was a kid, and i first realised the importance of organisation. My mate Chris, and I were asked to play for a team when i was about 16, in a one off game, to make up their numbers (and because they kept getting horsed i.e. they were off a 10-0 league drubbing). They were up against my home team (in a cup game), who were the best in the division by some way - so it was a way of evening up the game a bit...

Their coach (a woman) went through all the cliques before the game - remember it's only a game/the most important thing is to enjoy yourself (they got beat 10-0 in their last game FFS). All i wanted to know is where i was playing (mainly cause i hated the left - one footed!), she wouldn't answer me! When we went out on the pitch me and my mate went 'look we need to know where we're playing', to which she said and i quote, "just go in the center and spread yourselves out!" I couldn't believe what i was hearing, me and Chris stared blankly at each other - we were staring a cricket score in the face and this didn't help.

My mate Chris took 6 players and went into midfield, and i took central defence! With a little bit of cajoling, and a stupid amount of shouting we actually managed to get them into extra time 0-0. Certainly one of the most enjoyable games i've ever played in, and the flack we got off our own buddies, on the team we were playing was fierce. But from five minutes into the game we knew we could get something from it, and somehow it didn't care to me for those 90 minutes that i could be knocking my own team out of the cup. Oh, our new team lost 2-0 after 120, but my real team won the final 5-0

It's a fallacy to say formation doesn't help - without it a team is beaten before they start, games change on tactics all the time, and more importantly when players carry out their responsibilities (organisation) - more now than they've ever done.

In answer to the question at the start of the thread: NOTHING
Its a good formation and it has won at least 6 world cups for italy and germany.

Two teams synonymous with good defenses and efficient players. If anyone could pull off that formation it was them, the sweepers Sammer, in particular, was outstanding! Telling they don't play it anymore though. Italy showed in the last world cup that two solid lines of four could be as sufficient!

[Neil Young]

Roys key player was a dickhead who'd rather execute a fancy move ending in a goal kick than work a tap in for a jouneyman colleague. the same player ALWAYS went missing when it mattered most.

Really, who do you mean? I'm racking my (admittedly hungover) brains and I can't think who you're referring to.

[Bob]

Really, who do you mean? I'm racking my (admittedly hungover) brains and I can't think who you're referring to.

McManaman surely