3 5 2 or 4 3 3

44 effing 2

It has to be 3-5-2 or there was no point signing May. We can’t expect a player to repeat scoring 20 goals if we don’t put him in the same role to do it 

433 but have Fraser playing just behind May so he isn't too isolated, I believe Fraser has the composure and intelligence to trap the ball that end of the pitch, think he's a bit wasted in the middle at times. 

I really want 532/352 to work, but we need more players for it to work, for now I'd go with 433 until we get more players in. 

We have 3 games at home in the first month and if we are honest, they're very favourable fixtures. Points on the board matter while we strengthen

killerandflash said:

I want us to play 352 BUT not at the moment.

I agree Alfie May needs a strike partner, hence 2 up top being better, but we don't have one at the moment, and it's a bit ridiculous if you end up with Kirk up front and CBT at left wing back, just to fit the system.

Agreed, we can't be starting Kirk up top. To get the best out of May we really need Leaburn fit or Aneke or someone with a bit of power/ target man

Oggy Red said:

DyerConsequences said:

3-5-2 it's clearly what Holden wants. Do we have the correct tools through the door right now? No. That is how we will start the season though and although we'll switch into into 4-3-3 at times I expect us to go with the 3 at the back for the majority of the time.

I trust Holden enough to believe he knows what he wants and how he thinks he can get the best out of it. Now he just has to be supplied with the right players to give him the chance of succeeding. 

This is the issue for Saturday's game. 

3-5-2 will mean square pegs in round holes. And as the last 2 friendlies have shown, we're wide open and easily exposed defensively on the counter.
Orient will have their heads in the sand if they don't set up to exploit that.

If Holden can shuffle the cards to plug the vulnerabilities, then stick with the 3-5-2 that the team has obviously been trained to do.
But we can't afford to ship easy goals and if it means 4 at the back for the Orient game, then defenders should be naturally comfortable enough with that.

I've said it before: the 1st rule of football is not to get beat.

All successful teams are first built on sound defence.
No point scoring 2 and conceding 3.

4-3-3 also will mean square pegs in round holes though. We don’t have a left back, May isn’t a lone striker. It’s only marginally a better fit for what we have. So I’d rather stick with what we’ve been using in pre-season and what we are planning to use for the rest of the season. 

Also in the Millwall game our defence only fell apart when we switched to 4 at the back so not sure why last 2 games is used there? We were brilliant against Millwall with the 3-5-2. Change of formation and change of personnel was our downfall 

3-5-2 is what Holden wants, 3-5-2 is what we are going to get. Aberdeen were the strongest opposition we faced all pre-season and I do not expect us to play that standard of opposition unless drawn in a cup all season long. I think we are underestimating how dangerous we will be with this formation and how sh*t most teams will be in L1 this season. From a quality perspective the additions of May, Edun, Taylor, Pan, Jones and Isted makes us stronger in nearly every area compared to last year, with another two exciting prospects in Asiimwe and Anderson having come from nowhere (for most of us). 

NabySarr said:

Oggy Red said:

We're more or less singing from the same hymn sheet, @NabySarr

I'm not really advocating 4-3-3, but the need to field a sound defence on Saturday.  

I said stick with 3-5-2 if the defensive vulnerabilities can be plugged, after all that's the primary formation we've trained for.
But we can't afford to be caught time and time again on the counter, as we have been recently.

Team selection is going to have to be a compromise, whatever until specialist players are fit or brought in.

I think Thomas playing LCB should plug them, as when CBT is caught lacking he has shown he can fill in at Left Back before so should be able to cover better than Ness did. Looked like Hector had a nightmare game also, but him playing more minutes will hopefully mean he is less rusty on Saturday and won’t repeat. 

First game of the season is always likely to be a bit more of a cautious affair so I doubt we will be as open, especially as Orient won’t be as good as Aberdeen were at exposing the weaknesses

Agree again, Naby ..... especially that on paper at least Thomas may have to be the player for now to cover the big defensive hole behind CBT.

Against Aberdeen Ness wasn't able to do that, being drawn out of position and exposed constantly.
Plus Hector also drawn out of position trying to cover the hole left by Ness, meaning the back line often completely lost it's shape. 

I do take your point about Aberdeen being a better standard of opponent than we're likely to face in League One.
We still, however need to get points on the board, making the good start that builds momentum. As Seth Plum would say it's "a must win game"

But here we are, pinning all our hopes on Thomas being our defensive hero!

Cafc43v3r said:

If Saturday was the play off final I don't think I would play either.  Bit it's the first game of a long season and more often than not your not going to have everything in perfect order so you have to make some compromises.

If it was do or die I would go with a back 4 of Egbo, Hector, Jones, Thomas
Dobson holding
Camara and Anderson 
Fraser in the hole
CBT and May as split strikers ala Taylor amd Grant/Leko.

It does seem more defensively sound and pace on the counter.

Just a side thought, but surely we can play 4-2-3-1 , where it changes into a 3-5-2, so we are more solid but going forward we can play 2 CB and Dobbo sitting just in front and the wing backs pushing forward into the centre, basically what city do? 

352 is going to be a hard one to fit but if we can balance it right where it doesn't leave us exposed and we have the right players to do it. 

Why do people keep suggesting Fraser as a number 10 or attacking midfielder? That is not his position. He best football for us and MK Dons came in a midfield 3, usually on the left. Ipswich signed him to play as a 10, it didn’t work and they shifted him out wide. Last season for us when we went more 4-2-3-1 and he was the 10, it didn’t work. 4-3-3 and 3-5-2 are the formations he fits best, in a diamond he’d fit on the left of it but not sure if he’d be mobile enough to cover out wide for it to work. If we want to play Fraser (which in my opinion we should) then 4-3-3 and 3-5-2 are pretty much the only options 

NabySarr said:

Why do people keep suggesting Fraser as a number 10 or attacking midfielder? That is not his position. He best football for us and MK Dons came in a midfield 3, usually on the left. Ipswich signed him to play as a 10, it didn’t work and they shifted him out wide. Last season for us when we went more 4-2-3-1 and he was the 10, it didn’t work. 4-3-3 and 3-5-2 are the formations he fits best, in a diamond he’d fit on the left of it but not sure if he’d be mobile enough to cover out wide for it to work. If we want to play Fraser (which in my opinion we should) then 4-3-3 and 3-5-2 are pretty much the only options 

If we were to play 4-2-3-1 or a diamond midfield then Payne would be the attacking midfielder, or maybe Anderson (though I’ve not seen him there so maybe not)

We don't have a 10. So he's the closest we have right now. I was just showing how we might line up. 

I also don't think he should be a 10, I'd say 3-5-2 or 4-3-3 as well. 

NabySarr said:

Why do people keep suggesting Fraser as a number 10 or attacking midfielder? That is not his position. He best football for us and MK Dons came in a midfield 3, usually on the left. Ipswich signed him to play as a 10, it didn’t work and they shifted him out wide. Last season for us when we went more 4-2-3-1 and he was the 10, it didn’t work. 4-3-3 and 3-5-2 are the formations he fits best, in a diamond he’d fit on the left of it but not sure if he’d be mobile enough to cover out wide for it to work. If we want to play Fraser (which in my opinion we should) then 4-3-3 and 3-5-2 are pretty much the only options 

If we were to play 4-2-3-1 or a diamond midfield then Payne would be the attacking midfielder, or maybe Anderson (though I’ve not seen him there so maybe not)

I know I put him as a 10 in my "one off team" but I totally agree, but I think it really highlights that there isn't a formation that we can play that doesn't force square pegs into round holes or kids that clearly aren't ready for first team football.

I would be much happier with Fraser as a 10 and CBT as a "wild card", Bowyers description of Leko 1st time round, than CBT as a wing back and Kirk up front.

For me, I see 352 as a slightly more structured and defensive setup.  I’d like to see it against the bigger sides away from home with actual right and left backs as the wing backs.  It would make us difficult to break (something we’ve not been for two seasons now).  But also give us two strikers and the chance to punish teams when we get the chance.

The 433 I see as more organised chaos, the front three, if you have a good three, can cause anyone problems as we did show last season because scoring goals wasn’t a problem.  The obvious issue was the defence, it clearly leaves us more open.  But I’d like to see this in the home games we should be winning, last season it was devastating in certain fixtures (Shrewsbury 6-0).

We have a squad that accommodate both now, perhaps Holden will use both, it worked for bowyer he switched from 4222 to 352 and pulled it off many times.  

I have no issue with 352, but we need a couple of players to really make it work.