3-5-2

[donald]

I know this isn't a likely prospect, and I wouldn't want to try it in the Croatia game, but does anyone think it'd be worth experimenting with a 3-5-2 in a friendly?

For instance:

McGregor;

Martin, Hanley, Mulgrew;

Hutton, Brown, McArthur, Anya;

Morrison;

Maloney, S. Fletcher.

The key to this formation is the wing-backs. I think Anya would enable us to play this way. Could Hutton (club problems not withstanding) play as a right wing-back? His game is largely based on energy and getting forward: this system would provide lots of cover behind him.

It can also easily be adapted to a 4-4-2 or 4-3-3, with Hutton and Mulgrew as full-backs.

[jagfox]

3-5-2 is unlikely imo as we are struggling to get two centre halves for Scotland games at the moment. Mulgrew hasn't impressed me much at left back or at centre half and seems much more suited to a defensive midfield role.

Also Strachan hasn't tended to use that role and it is quite rare in International football these days. Even the minnows are more likely to pack the midfield than employ an extra CB.

Strachan seems to have steadied the ship and I don't see the 3-5-2 being employed anytime soon. Even Levein didn't resort to this formation and I don't think it would bring any benefits to out team.

[Aufc]

Im quite happy with our current formation. It suits us

[Gordopolis]

Agree that Anya opens up a few different systems for us. 1 up with him on the wings could look far more attacking than anything we've seen in recent years.

[Diamonds are Forever]

In the last few games Strachan seems to have found a system that suits us and we've looked a lot more confident and comfortable on the ball than we have in a long time. Would be daft to piss about with it now.

[RandomGuy.]

No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

[Apache Don]

For home games against teams we really should be beating:-

McGregor

Martin Hanley Mulgrew

f)&g)Brown Morrison

a) Anya Snodgrass b)

c) Maloney

d)&e) Fletcher Naismith

Options a) Burke, Forrest, Bannan, Hutton

b) GMS, Bannan, Conway

c) Bannan, Dorrans, Morrison

d)&e) Rhodes, Mackie, McCormack, Griffiths

f)&g) McArthur, Fletcher, Mulgrew

other options for defence = Whittacker, Webster, Wilson, Wallace, Berra, Caldwell?

[craigkillie]

Or we could stick with a system that the majority of our players play at their clubs and which doesn't require everyone to try and learn brand new roles in the space of about 3 days?

[the jambo-rocker]

For home games against teams we really should be beating:-

McGregor

Martin Hanley Mulgrew

f)&g)Brown Morrison

a) Anya Snodgrass b)

c) Maloney

d)&e) Fletcher Naismith

Options a) Burke, Forrest, Bannan, Hutton

b) GMS, Bannan, Conway

c) Bannan, Dorrans, Morrison

d)&e) Rhodes, Mackie, McCormack, Griffiths

f)&g) McArthur, Fletcher, Mulgrew

other options for defence = Whittacker, Webster, Wilson, Wallace, Berra, Caldwell?

I'm sorry but playing Snodgrass as a wing back is ludicrous, as is having any other attacking midfielders you've mentioned as the exposure down the flanks would kill us. Anya, Hutton, Whittaker, Bardsley and Wallace would be the players better suited to that role. You could double with the full backs on 3-4-3 overloading the flanks but that would mean wasted Maloney through the middle.

[Apache Don]

I'm sorry but playing Snodgrass as a wing back is ludicrous, as is having any other attacking midfielders you've mentioned as the exposure down the flanks would kill us. Anya, Hutton, Whittaker, Bardsley and Wallace would be the players better suited to that role. You could double with the full backs on 3-4-3 overloading the flanks but that would mean wasted Maloney through the middle.

The actual opposition would be a factor in deciding personnel. My example would be for a game with - as my opening line states - a team we should be comfortably beating. A straight 3-4-3 would as you point out, remove the No10 role, however Maloney's club side - Wigan - play a 3-4-3 that has 2x playing off main striker, as inside forwards rather than wide.

ie. McGregor

Martin Hanley Wilson

Anya Brown Mulgrew Snodgrass

Morrison Maloney

Fletcher

[Aufc]

The actual opposition would be a factor in deciding personnel. My example would be for a game with - as my opening line states - a team we should be comfortably beating. A straight 3-4-3 would as you point out, remove the No10 role, however Maloney's club side - Wigan - play a 3-4-3 that has 2x playing off main striker, as inside forwards rather than wide.

ie. McGregor

Martin Hanley Wilson

Anya Brown Mulgrew Snodgrass

Morrison Maloney

Fletcher

Why do people always suggest a radical change to our tactics. Our current formation is the one that is best for us. We changed the formation against liechenstein and nearly lost. Lets just focus on trying to get the team used to our current formation

[the jambo-rocker]

The actual opposition would be a factor in deciding personnel. My example would be for a game with - as my opening line states - a team we should be comfortably beating. A straight 3-4-3 would as you point out, remove the No10 role, however Maloney's club side - Wigan - play a 3-4-3 that has 2x playing off main striker, as inside forwards rather than wide.

ie. McGregor

Martin Hanley Wilson

Anya Brown Mulgrew Snodgrass

Morrison Maloney

Fletcher

I see your point, but I think our biggest naivity is that we believe that there are a lot of teams that we should be beating and that simply isn't the case. Taking Macedonia for example, they have only been beaten twice in their last eleven home matches and they were to strong opposition in Croatia and Belgium. If we're going to play wing backs, they have to be players that are familiar and thrive in those positions rather than just throwing them in. Snodgrass and the mentioned examples have no such thing.

[Apache Don]

Why do people always suggest a radical change to our tactics. Our current formation is the one that is best for us. We changed the formation against liechenstein and nearly lost. Lets just focus on trying to get the team used to our current formation

I agree that we seem to be playing current system well but Strachan himself has stated that he is now looking to find a way of playing at home, so inferring that he sees this system as our away set-up. Obviously systems that allow more forwards - playing as forwards - should therefore be looked at. I think we could play a back 3 to allow an extra forward.

Wouldn't it be absolutely mental, if Jordan Rhodes was transferred to an EPL club for 10 or 12 million bangs in 20-30 goals a season and couldn't get a game for Scotland because he's not suited to the lone striker role.

[Aufc]

I agree that we seem to be playing current system well but Strachan himself has stated that he is now looking to find a way of playing at home, so inferring that he sees this system as our away set-up. Obviously systems that allow more forwards - playing as forwards - should therefore be looked at. I think we could play a back 3 to allow an extra forward.

Wouldn't it be absolutely mental, if Jordan Rhodes was transferred to an EPL club for 10 or 12 million bangs in 20-30 goals a season and couldn't get a game for Scotland because he's not suited to the lone striker role.

Would not surprise me. But I don't think that will happen until he develops his game

[RandomGuy.]

All this talk of changing tactic seems purely to try and fit Rhodes in, when surely the best option would be for him to work to try and adapt to the lone striker role. Why should the rest of the players be forced to learn new roles to suit one player? Surely it would be easier for that one player to work on his own game

[Apache Don]

Or we could stick with a system that the majority of our players play at their clubs and which doesn't require everyone to try and learn brand new roles in the space of about 3 days?

Seem to remember a players' committee, led by James Morrison approached Levein before his last couple of games, to request giving a back 3 system a try. Apparently the feeling among the squad, was it would suit the players available more. This was widely reported at the time, quoting Morrison.

I like 4-2-3-1, I like the fact we are playing football on the deck but we'll never outplay Spain at being Spain. We need another option to score more against the weaker sides - especially at home - and to nullify the really top sides. I think we will see Strachan try out a couple of set-ups.

Something I particularly like about Strachan, is the fact he allows the performance and attitude of the players in pre-match training, to affect, influence and change his selection. We can all look at a good performance and say certain players are - injury aside - certs to start next game and that would seem to have been Levein's approach but WGS lets the players impress him on the training ground.

[Apache Don]

I see your point, but I think our biggest naivity is that we believe that there are a lot of teams that we should be beating and that simply isn't the case. Taking Macedonia for example, they have only been beaten twice in their last eleven home matches and they were to strong opposition in Croatia and Belgium. If we're going to play wing backs, they have to be players that are familiar and thrive in those positions rather than just throwing them in. Snodgrass and the mentioned examples have no such thing.

I disagree with the notion that playing 3 at the back requires the wide players to be defensive. The centre mids can drop back and fill gaps left by any of the CBs been drawn out wide.

Interesting fact from Martin O'Neil's Celtic formation, was that neither of his 'wing-backs' were defenders. Didier Agathe was a converted striker and Alan Thomson considered himself to be 'an attacking left-sided central midfielder'.

[South Lanarkshire Jag]

Seem to remember a players' committee, led by James Morrison approached Levein before his last couple of games, to request giving a back 3 system a try. Apparently the feeling among the squad, was it would suit the players available more. This was widely reported at the time, quoting Morrison.

I call bullshit. Can you back it up with a source?

Scotland aren't defensively strong enough to go to 3 at the back or play with 2 up front. We have to play to our, and the players, strengths which is why we play 4-2-3-1.

[Apache Don]

I call bullshit. Can you back it up with a source?

Scotland aren't defensively strong enough to go to 3 at the back or play with 2 up front. We have to play to our, and the players, strengths which is why we play 4-2-3-1.

Daily Record 21/10/12 for one but it was as I said widely reported, on TV news too. Sorry I can't do links or c & p.

[South Lanarkshire Jag]

 

Daily Record 21/10/12 for one but it was as I said widely reported, on TV news too. Sorry I can't do links or c & p.

I stand corrected.

3-5-2 is still the wrong formation for Scotland imo.