Chicken Mcgraw
Well-Known Member
*this is a disclaimer to say the post is very long and potentially boring so if you don’t fancy reading that amount then this is your warning. I am also not advocating the use of 3-5-2, just merely speculating what it may look like!
With the current make up of the squad, there’s a slight possibility we may return to a back 5 at some stage. This is mostly because Luke Woolfenden has arrived leaving us with 3 first team CB’s who are going to be expecting minutes. We also have Bidwell and Lati who would be far more suited to playing CB in a back 3 than 4. Kaine Kesler Hayden has come from a Preston team that played a back 3 system too.
I cannot bear to watch Miguel Angel Brau play any more minutes at all never mind at left wing. That’s a very real possibility if we stick with a back 4.
Can we make a back 5 work?
Well let’s look at the success we had with it last season. By my reckoning we used a back 5 in the following games:
Coventry 1-0 Bristol City - 3-5-2 (W)
Blackburn 0-2 Coventry - 3-5-2 (W)
Coventry 2-1 Watford - 3-5-2 (W)
Swansea 0-2 Coventry - 3-5-2 (W)
Coventry 0-2 Leeds - 3-5-2 (L)
Coventry 1-4 Ipswich - 5-4-1 (L)
Coventry 1-0 QPR - 3-5-2 (W)
Sheffield Wednesday 1-2 Coventry - 3-5-2 (W)
Throughout these games, Lampard regularly reverted to a 5-4-1. That allowed him to use Sakamoto or Mason Clark on one side and Rudoni on the other. I didn’t particularly like it, but it at least shows the wide men wouldn’t be totally excluded from the team should we go that way.
In truth this run of form wasn’t pretty. We ground out results and sometimes needed late goals to do so. The points tally however speaks for itself and that form didn’t continue once we ended the season in a back 4.
How did it look then?
Going forwards:
It wasn’t too dissimilar to what we are running with currently. As shown in the images below it involves the full backs very high and wide with Rudoni and another forward floating around a central striker:
You can see Grimes is slightly highly than usual but as always, Rudoni and Torp are acting as box crashing forwards.
Both wingbacks are attacking the box. Lampard specifically mentioned this to the press a few times as something that he demands in the absence of wingers.
Going backwards:
In both variations of the 5 back, I was always interested in how narrow Lampard wanted to defend. This is an example of us pressing in midfield, look how narrow we sit:
Then when deep in our own half, you could throw a blanket over the back 5 and midfield 3:
The principle here is that, when high on the pitch, forcing the ball to the opposition full backs allows us to cut passing lanes and prevent more dangerous players getting on the ball.
When deep, we are forcing the cross to come in and relying on our back 3 to win the first header. We need to be wary here as Rushworth has looked incredibly shaky when the opposition have put quality crosses over, particularly to his back post.
How can it look now?
Does Grimes prevent it from working?
Grimes made his full debut at home to QPR in a 1-0 win. I’m sure we all remember how poor that game was and the goal wasn’t scored until Kitching was subbed and we reverted to a back 4.
The following game we went to Sheffield Wednesday and remained in a back 5. We struggled until a last minute calamity from Bannan and Pierce Charles. The back 5 was never seen again.
The dilemma is that Grimes wants to play in the back 3 when on the ball. He wants to get us from our own box to the opposition half almost by himself. He cannot do this in a back 5 and would have to trust the centre backs to progress from deep themselves:
Interestingly this following screenshot shows the set up with Grimes and the back 3. Just after this, Kitching breaks the lines with a great pass, Grimes turns and plays a nice forward ball into EMC. We gained 50-60 yards in 2 passes. So Grimes is capable to doing it:
How I think it could look:
Our on ball system would need to look like this:
Here’s a real life example of what this looks like:
There is a weird diamond at the back with both wing backs high and wide and the usual rotations from the forwards.
Off the ball it’s something like this:
But can it stop our main weaknesses?
Well what are they? This year it has been defending set pieces. Last year it was being bullied at poor teams away from home (Luton, Derby, Plymouth). With MVE, Dasilva, Grimes, Sakamoto (and even potentially Allen now), it is very hard for us to match up with the most physical sides at set pieces and sometimes throughout the game. Adding in a centre half should in at least in theory aid those issues. That centre half is…
Luke Woolfenden
Having seen a fair bit of him, he isn’t that great in the air, nor does he have much pace. He seems more suited to a back 5 in that he is classy on the ball and a good reader of the game. Here’s the numbers:
It doesn’t make much sense to me to sign a player with these strengths when you have Grimes. I believe it would have made more sense to bring in a more athletic / duel winning cb whose limitations on the ball could be covered by Grimes dropping deep. Woolfenden is a pretty similar profile to Hughes which suggests it was that type of player we were seeking. That to me again hints a back 5 could be in his thinking.
As the title of Hannah Montana’s hit song says, can we get the best of both worlds?
We look great in the 4-2-3-1 at times. Scintillating going forward to the point teams can’t live with us. But we are frail at the back, we concede a lot of goals. Saturday’s tale of 2 halves shown this.
In a 3-5-2, we aren’t fluid, the attack is clunky but we defend more solidly and don’t look petrified at every set piece.
It has been levelled at Lampard that he is reluctant to use his bench. Would he be willing to change formation during games?
The idea being that, whilst 2-1 up away at Oxford for example, you could substitute Mason Clark for Woolfenden and have that extra bite at set pieces and defensive solidity. You have attacked well, got ahead, now try to grind it out.
How about the Thomas Frank style of back 4 at home and back 5 away? Okay it’s not quite that simple but the idea is, in the ‘easier’ home games you can play the expansive 4-2-3-1 and in the tougher more physical away days you revert to the back 5.
This could potentially allow us to have the best of both worlds. We retain that attacking threat and fluidity in the games / periods we need it but can go defensive when required. If you look at Plymouth last year as an example, we were able to tear them apart at home but they outmatched us physically away. Would that have happened had we tweaked into a back 5 at their place?
As of right now, EMC and Sakamoto are going to need to rack up more minutes than they have managed at any season during their careers. There just isn’t adequate cover for them. You have Asante but he might be needed up top too. Then you’re into the full backs covering there. That’s a risk. Having the flexibility to change systems at will can help manage their minutes without forcing them to the bench for 5 games in a row.
Can a 3-5-2 work? Will it even happen? Can we use both in the same game? What are your thoughts?
With the current make up of the squad, there’s a slight possibility we may return to a back 5 at some stage. This is mostly because Luke Woolfenden has arrived leaving us with 3 first team CB’s who are going to be expecting minutes. We also have Bidwell and Lati who would be far more suited to playing CB in a back 3 than 4. Kaine Kesler Hayden has come from a Preston team that played a back 3 system too.
I cannot bear to watch Miguel Angel Brau play any more minutes at all never mind at left wing. That’s a very real possibility if we stick with a back 4.
Can we make a back 5 work?
Well let’s look at the success we had with it last season. By my reckoning we used a back 5 in the following games:
Coventry 1-0 Bristol City - 3-5-2 (W)
Blackburn 0-2 Coventry - 3-5-2 (W)
Coventry 2-1 Watford - 3-5-2 (W)
Swansea 0-2 Coventry - 3-5-2 (W)
Coventry 0-2 Leeds - 3-5-2 (L)
Coventry 1-4 Ipswich - 5-4-1 (L)
Coventry 1-0 QPR - 3-5-2 (W)
Sheffield Wednesday 1-2 Coventry - 3-5-2 (W)
Throughout these games, Lampard regularly reverted to a 5-4-1. That allowed him to use Sakamoto or Mason Clark on one side and Rudoni on the other. I didn’t particularly like it, but it at least shows the wide men wouldn’t be totally excluded from the team should we go that way.
In truth this run of form wasn’t pretty. We ground out results and sometimes needed late goals to do so. The points tally however speaks for itself and that form didn’t continue once we ended the season in a back 4.
How did it look then?
Going forwards:
It wasn’t too dissimilar to what we are running with currently. As shown in the images below it involves the full backs very high and wide with Rudoni and another forward floating around a central striker:
You can see Grimes is slightly highly than usual but as always, Rudoni and Torp are acting as box crashing forwards.
Both wingbacks are attacking the box. Lampard specifically mentioned this to the press a few times as something that he demands in the absence of wingers.
Going backwards:
In both variations of the 5 back, I was always interested in how narrow Lampard wanted to defend. This is an example of us pressing in midfield, look how narrow we sit:
Then when deep in our own half, you could throw a blanket over the back 5 and midfield 3:
The principle here is that, when high on the pitch, forcing the ball to the opposition full backs allows us to cut passing lanes and prevent more dangerous players getting on the ball.
When deep, we are forcing the cross to come in and relying on our back 3 to win the first header. We need to be wary here as Rushworth has looked incredibly shaky when the opposition have put quality crosses over, particularly to his back post.
How can it look now?
Does Grimes prevent it from working?
Grimes made his full debut at home to QPR in a 1-0 win. I’m sure we all remember how poor that game was and the goal wasn’t scored until Kitching was subbed and we reverted to a back 4.
The following game we went to Sheffield Wednesday and remained in a back 5. We struggled until a last minute calamity from Bannan and Pierce Charles. The back 5 was never seen again.
The dilemma is that Grimes wants to play in the back 3 when on the ball. He wants to get us from our own box to the opposition half almost by himself. He cannot do this in a back 5 and would have to trust the centre backs to progress from deep themselves:
Interestingly this following screenshot shows the set up with Grimes and the back 3. Just after this, Kitching breaks the lines with a great pass, Grimes turns and plays a nice forward ball into EMC. We gained 50-60 yards in 2 passes. So Grimes is capable to doing it:
How I think it could look:
Our on ball system would need to look like this:
Here’s a real life example of what this looks like:
There is a weird diamond at the back with both wing backs high and wide and the usual rotations from the forwards.
Off the ball it’s something like this:
But can it stop our main weaknesses?
Well what are they? This year it has been defending set pieces. Last year it was being bullied at poor teams away from home (Luton, Derby, Plymouth). With MVE, Dasilva, Grimes, Sakamoto (and even potentially Allen now), it is very hard for us to match up with the most physical sides at set pieces and sometimes throughout the game. Adding in a centre half should in at least in theory aid those issues. That centre half is…
Luke Woolfenden
Having seen a fair bit of him, he isn’t that great in the air, nor does he have much pace. He seems more suited to a back 5 in that he is classy on the ball and a good reader of the game. Here’s the numbers:
It doesn’t make much sense to me to sign a player with these strengths when you have Grimes. I believe it would have made more sense to bring in a more athletic / duel winning cb whose limitations on the ball could be covered by Grimes dropping deep. Woolfenden is a pretty similar profile to Hughes which suggests it was that type of player we were seeking. That to me again hints a back 5 could be in his thinking.
As the title of Hannah Montana’s hit song says, can we get the best of both worlds?
We look great in the 4-2-3-1 at times. Scintillating going forward to the point teams can’t live with us. But we are frail at the back, we concede a lot of goals. Saturday’s tale of 2 halves shown this.
In a 3-5-2, we aren’t fluid, the attack is clunky but we defend more solidly and don’t look petrified at every set piece.
It has been levelled at Lampard that he is reluctant to use his bench. Would he be willing to change formation during games?
The idea being that, whilst 2-1 up away at Oxford for example, you could substitute Mason Clark for Woolfenden and have that extra bite at set pieces and defensive solidity. You have attacked well, got ahead, now try to grind it out.
How about the Thomas Frank style of back 4 at home and back 5 away? Okay it’s not quite that simple but the idea is, in the ‘easier’ home games you can play the expansive 4-2-3-1 and in the tougher more physical away days you revert to the back 5.
This could potentially allow us to have the best of both worlds. We retain that attacking threat and fluidity in the games / periods we need it but can go defensive when required. If you look at Plymouth last year as an example, we were able to tear them apart at home but they outmatched us physically away. Would that have happened had we tweaked into a back 5 at their place?
As of right now, EMC and Sakamoto are going to need to rack up more minutes than they have managed at any season during their careers. There just isn’t adequate cover for them. You have Asante but he might be needed up top too. Then you’re into the full backs covering there. That’s a risk. Having the flexibility to change systems at will can help manage their minutes without forcing them to the bench for 5 games in a row.
Can a 3-5-2 work? Will it even happen? Can we use both in the same game? What are your thoughts?
Nice pictures though.
