MannameadGreen":3oni4o56 said:
Am I the only one who doesn't think this 3-5-2 will be 'found out'?
Whenever teams like us go on poor runs of form playing 4-4-2, do people say 4-4-2 has been found out? We might go on mediocre runs in the future playing 3-5-2 but that won't be because of it: it's simply the formation that suits our players and playing style the best.
Yeah I've always found it to be a deeply flawed statment.
3-5-2 has strengths (fluidity) and weaknesses (sometimes easy to play counter attack against).
4-4-2 has its strengths (its inherent simplicity) and it's weaknesses (lack of ability to flood the midfield or play between the lines).
Yet when we lose under 4-4-2 it's put down to the players, or the wrong subs, or lack of passion but when we struggle under 3-5-2 it is always the tactical flaws that seem to be pointed out above any other factor. Just because 4-4-2 was the most common formation in the lower leagues (perhaps still is, I don't really know) doesn't mean that it's flawless or that it should be the ultimate end game when all of the other inferior formations are 'found out'.
Under 4-4-2 we were mid-table fodder. Under 3-5-2 we've produced form that's automatic promotion comfortably. How that can be looked at and seen as not comfortably the best for us is beyond me. Mellor and (on the basis of yesterday though I was critical in previous games) Kellett are far more suited to that role of getting up&down the line than Berry, Purrington or an unfit Parsons. We've got at least one, maybe two, natural wing-backs in our squad. Last season we only had one and he was very rarely fit.