Fulham (H) Post Match Thread

[Mark79]

Nah, its not really harsh, I HATE 3 at the back (or 5), have done since the Roy Evans era and continue to. As I'm pretty sure I've said on here before, imo it is a formation only ever employed at LFC by managers who find themselves for whatever reason with a squad with too many central defenders and not enough elsewhere.

I think it can be more to do with accommodating players in other positions. Evans wanted to play 352 because he felt he had a few players who would be best suited as wing backs and because it allowed McManaman to play a free role rather than stuck on the wing. So he purposely bought Babb and Scales so he had enough centre backs to play it.

[Norbs]

I think it can be more to do with accommodating players in other positions. Evans wanted to play 352 because he felt he had a few players who would be best suited as wing backs and because it allowed McManaman to play a free role rather than stuck on the wing. So he purposely bought Babb and Scales so he had enough centre backs to play it.

Babb, Scales and Ruddock all provided something different too. Babb was built like a forward and very mobile, Scales had some culture to his game and could bring the ball out and Ruddock was the Colonel. Whilst all pretty decent, our centre backs lack certain qualities that make the system work (as has been outlined already)

[The_weatherman]

Nah, its not really harsh, I HATE 3 at the back (or 5), have done since the Roy Evans era and continue to. As I'm pretty sure I've said on here before, imo it is a formation only ever employed at LFC by managers who find themselves for whatever reason with a squad with too many central defenders and not enough elsewhere. Without Beckenbauer, Cafu and Facchetti in your squad I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.

I agree about drawing conclusions from individual games in general, but imo that equally applies to the West Brom game, and if you look at the evidence of the season so far as a whole I believe I am correct suggesting that our record is better both in terms of points per game and goals conceded when we've played a back 4 as opposed to a 3. How we should set up in front of the defence I'm not so sure about, I can see arguments for all sorts of variations on 442, 433, 4231 etc, but I will never be happy seeing us go out with a 352/532 (even though I understand it has been close to a necessity at points with injuries etc).

While it will do fine in some games against some oppositions, and in others superior personnel will win out in the end despite the system, I just feel it has too many weaknesses that can be exploited by well organised teams playing 4-5-1, matching up against our midfield & attack, doubling up down the sides and overstretching our wing backs, while our 3 CBs aren't quite sure what they should be doing against a lone forward and none of them are really that amazing on the ball to be stepping forward (apart from Agger perhaps who wasn't even playing). I totally don't see the point in Skrtel, Sakho or Toure being the spare man. That's without even looking at how it effects Lucas - negatively I'd argue as it somewhat negates the point of his screening role.

Indeed the only thing it really seems to do well is enable us to play Sturridge and Suarez up top as a 2, but against quality opposition they can end up very isolated as the wingbacks get pushed back, the midfield is scrapping man v man, and our spare man is on the edge of our own box rather than joining them in the attacking third. I'd really like to think we can find another way to play S&S together just as effectively while retaining a regular back 4, and that while systems are absolutely not everything, I genuinely believe we will have a much better chance of top 4 if we do not persist with the "3 at the back" experiment any more than we absolutely have to.

I agree, don't want it again, I think it creates more problems for us than it solves. The three defenders need to compliment each other and be of a right mix and I totally agree regarding the impact on Lucas - I'd argue that we should only consider playing this system when Lucas is out.

[MrMichael]

I think it can be more to do with accommodating players in other positions. Evans wanted to play 352 because he felt he had a few players who would be best suited as wing backs and because it allowed McManaman to play a free role rather than stuck on the wing. So he purposely bought Babb and Scales so he had enough centre backs to play it.

Mmm, perhaps. Not sure I agree about the wing backs though, mostly McAteer and Bjornebye wasn't it? The latter was never a wingback and the former was a midfielder who was a bit dodgy in defence, while they did ok in the roles they weren't really players you took one look at and thought "wingbacks!" I suppose it did that with Macca, and I suppose you could be right but in general I always thought we ended up playing it in order to shovel the available players best into a first XI rather than as a deliberate plan pre-purchase of those 2. Wouldn't have been the first time we accidentally bought 2 players for the one position after all

Regardless, as has been pointed out those 3 were very different and appeared to compliment each other in that system better than one would think a combination of our current CB's would. And really I'd like to argue that, going back to the mid 90's, in the end the formation even with those players possibly being better suited (or at least as well suited) to it was found to come up short. Hence why it almost completely dropped out of use in the league after a short time in-vogue.

I agree, don't want it again, I think it creates more problems for us than it solves. The three defenders need to compliment each other and be of a right mix and I totally agree regarding the impact on Lucas - I'd argue that we should only consider playing this system when Lucas is out.

[Mark79]

Mmm, perhaps. Not sure I agree about the wing backs though, mostly McAteer and Bjornebye wasn't it? The latter was never a wingback and the former was a midfielder who was a bit dodgy in defence, while they did ok in the roles they weren't really players you took one look at and thought "wingbacks!" I suppose it did that with Macca, and I suppose you could be right but in general I always thought we ended up playing it in order to shovel the available players best into a first XI rather than as a deliberate plan pre-purchase of those 2. Wouldn't have been the first time we accidentally bought 2 players for the one position after all

Regardless, as has been pointed out those 3 were very different and appeared to compliment each other in that system better than one would think a combination of our current CB's would. And really I'd like to argue that, going back to the mid 90's, in the end the formation even with those players possibly being better suited (or at least as well suited) to it was found to come up short. Hence why it almost completely dropped out of use in the league after a short time in-vogue.

Personally I'm not a fan of 352 either and I agree with your opinions on its draw backs, but those were apparently Evans' reasons for adopting it. It certainly got the best out of McManaman and I'd say Bjornebye too, he got something like 16 assists from wing back one season! McAteer was by no means a revelation but we were probably better off with him there than in midfield.

[Patricks_Berger]

Personally I'm not a fan of 352 either and I agree with your opinions on its draw backs, but those were apparently Evans' reasons for adopting it. It certainly got the best out of McManaman and I'd say Bjornebye too, he got something like 16 assists from wing back one season! McAteer was by no means a revelation but we were probably better off with him there than in midfield.

I remember McAteer ws amazing in his first season after he signed from Bolton in the autumn. After that he broke his leg against Blackburn and was never quite the same - didnt seem to get around the fullback like he did before.