Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

This would have been a good game for the 352 (+ Harry tactics rant)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • This would have been a good game for the 352 (+ Harry tactics rant)

    More dodgy tactics today from Redknapp, and not just the fact we sat off United and let Di Maria, Herrera, Mata and Blind pick any passes they liked.

    I don't see why we spent all summer and the first few games of the season playing 352 if we weren't going to use it today, against a rare side with two proper forwards and not much attacking width.

    352 formation works well against a team with two strikers, as it lets you keep three three centre mids while still retaining a spare man at the back (352 dropped out of fashion when most teams started playing with just one proper striker ten or so years ago - a back three was left with two spare men not really contributing, while getting outnumbered on the flanks).

    It works well against teams without much attacking width, as otherwise wing-backs tend to be forced into the back line (one of the reasons 4231 put 352 out of business).

    Against a side like United that plays fairly narrow without real wide attacking players (both today and in their 352 earlier in the season), what's the point in having fullbacks? Our wingers ended up covering their full backs, at times Hoilett and Phillips were basically fullbacks themselves; Rio+Caulker vs Rooney+RVP; and then they used their 4 vs our 3 to dominate central midfield and thus the game.

    Of course, this could and should work in reverse too. Today we outnumbered United on flanks, giving us an obvious route of attack: take advantage of United's narrow diamond midfield, get our fullbacks overlapping and exploit 2v1s against their fullbacks. So then why chose Clint Hill over Traore? It makes no sense. Hill saw a lot of the ball but was as unadventurous-yet-wasteful as ever, and he's hardly got the engine to be zooming around on overlaps anyway.

    Presumably noticing that our fullbacks had lots of chance to attack while not needing to do all that much defending (relatively), Harry rectified things at half-time by bringing on Traore. But this is the umpteenth time he's had to make a change at half-time due to messing up the starting lineup and tactics. And anyone with half a clue about football tactics should know that when playing against either a midfield diamond or a 352 your full-backs will have lots of time on the ball.

    It's decisions like this that really makes me wonder how much Harry thinks about tactics pre-game, if at all.

  • #2
    Could have even made the change after 5 minutes without using any subs:

    ------------------Austin
    ---------Krancjar------------Phillips
    Hoilett ------- Sandro - Fer ------- Isla
    --------------Hill - Rio - Caulker

    (front three arranged either as above or with Niko behind Austin & Phillips)

    The advantage of this setup:

    - three centre backs vs their two strikers, we keep a spare man at the back
    - 1vs1 on each flank and not such a problem if our wingbacks (as opposed to wingers) end up pushed into defence
    - 4 vs 4 in centre mid; we could have put Sandro specifically on Mata, for instance.

    PS I know Hoilett is no wing-back (switches off too easily, tactically too stupid, and I don't like having an 'inverted' wingback - as opposed to winger - as there's no fullback overlapping to maintain the width and draw the opposition outside).

    Comment


    • #3
      Yesterday proved why we should have replaced Simpson. If we had another RB we could have pushed Isla further forward to protect the flank and do a man to man job on Di Maria. Traore should have started too.
      Supporting QPR isn't just about a football team. It's about roots and identity.

      Comment

      Working...
      X