3-5-2

[northernsoul]

I'm no football coach and don't watch this team train everyday, so this is just an idea and not a demand.

 

I discussed the possibility of a 3-5-2 in the pub the other week, which received some mixed responses. I only brought this up as there is pretty much no effective creativity in this team. How could we solves this?

 

Well for instance our best player, creative spark and goal threat is right/centre midfielder who has been papped out on the left wing. There is no doubt this has been a great success but when the ball is on the opposite wing I feel Cairney is wasted as he's pretty much out the game for spells.

 

I'd have him right behind the strikers, one-twos with the strikers, Albert Craig esque runs and in the centre of the pitch where he can be involved as much as possible. Would he continue with good form? Who knows this is just a guess more than anything and a bored fan in the stand wanting some service for the strikers and more goals.

 

Cairneys form was the basis to this idea but our full backs could more than step up to the wing back position, they have the pace and pushed up a little more up the park, maybe they'd be getting to the byline more.

 

Worries over this - Archies pace at the back and whether the players would adapt.

 

 

 

 

Fox

 

Kinnibugh/Robertson Archibald Cole

 

O'Donnell -------------------------------------------- Sinclair

Rowson-------------- Paton

Cairney

Doolan Elliot

 

 

Thoughts?

Edited January 8, 2012 by northernsoul

[brick_top]

I love 3-5-2, but you can only play it if you have the right players for the wing-back position.

 

It seems like we do, so go for it, I say.

[PaleGreySky]

Yeah, I'd be keen in that, but with a faster player in central defence/sweeper. A central defence of something like Archibald, Cole and Kinniburgh might work. McNamara said Cole's use of the ball was good so that fits.

[Steven H]

Been saying the same thing most of the season, 3-5-2 seems to fit nicely with the players we have (had really, this was while we had Balatoni and Hutton). Our wide midfielders don't provide width, coz we have three centre midfielders and a right back in the midfield. I'd agree with the OP's type of line up.

[kni]

It could work but with Archie on the left of the defensive 3. The other problem with that line-up is that it has, including Paton, six defensive players. There needs to be more midfield creativity, i.e. a passing playmaker, to create chances.

[Norgethistle]

It could work but with Archie on the left of the defensive 3. The other problem with that line-up is that it has, including Paton, six defensive players. There needs to be more midfield creativity, i.e. a passing playmaker, to create chances.

 

And there lies the problem unfortunatly

[Steven H]

It could work but with Archie on the left of the defensive 3. The other problem with that line-up is that it has, including Paton, six defensive players. There needs to be more midfield creativity, i.e. a passing playmaker, to create chances.

 

I think Cairney could easily provide that from a position right behind the strikers. The wing backs would also have more attacking responsibilities, but crossing would need to be improved (particularly with Sinclair).

[twinny]

Not sure we have the centre backs for it. Robertson isn't reported to be the best (I haven't seen him) and Cole is untested. Kinniburgh is still out injured isn't he, so we'd have no cover there? I agree with the formation in principle though. When Kinniburgh is back you could see him and Archie there, and perhaps Paton as a front sitting sweeper, leaving us more or less where we are now.