Onuoha: How 3-4-3 can work to our advantage

[Stanley]

“We have got four senior centre-backs who can all play anywhere in that three and we have got the wing-backs too whether they are defensive minded or attack-minded. We have got so many midfielders too, so it could be perfect for us. We will have to work on it and see if it turns out to be what we go for.

3-4-3 was Roberto Mancini’s safety net if a game was ever going in a direction he didn’t like. He would throw the three at the back to be secure while still keeping an attacking intent as well. I can’t see our manager using it as a defence mechanism at all though.

It is a way to guarantee at least two strikers up front. When we started the game with Norwich we had two strikers and a number 10 (Tjaronn Chery) playing and that was because we had three at the back whereas, with a full four you can’t really do that can you.”

Read more: http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/sport...-qpr-12227241?

[hal9thou]

this did seem to be an obvious option given personnel available i.e. ned sc hall or indeed another variation. There was a thread on this somewhere maybe six months ago?

worth noting that 3-4-3 works particular well with GK sweeper i.e. not the RG/harry version.....

[nasser95]

this did seem to be an obvious option given personnel available i.e. ned sc hall or indeed another variation. There was a thread on this somewhere maybe six months ago?

worth noting that 3-4-3 works particular well with GK sweeper i.e. not the RG/harry version.....

Smithies has looked great doing that recently too

[brightonr]

Smithies has looked great doing that recently too

With the exception of that back pass in the first half against Norwich. Was way too slow and indecisive IMO.

[Stanley]

With the exception of that back pass in the first half against Norwich. Was way too slow and indecisive IMO.

I saw that more as the back pass from Ned being too weak (did similar with Rob Green if you recall), which allowed the striker to almost nip in. Smithies did well under the circumstances.

[rodman]

More to do with the lack of pace put on the back pass by Onhua than Smithies being slow.

[West Acton]

I saw that more as the back pass from Ned being too weak (did similar with Rob Green if you recall), which allowed the striker to almost nip in. Smithies did well under the circumstances.

If it's one I'm thinking of I thought ball held up when it bounced and never came on to keeper as he had anticipated

[Rangers77]

Not Smithies finest hour sweeping up behind a high line today. But those things happen.

[Olly]

If it's one I'm thinking of I thought ball held up when it bounced and never came on to keeper as he had anticipated

It did, it bounced up instead of forward

[kenthoop]

352 - does it suit our players?

Now I understand that playing 4231 in the past hasn't worked great for us, but does anyone feel like we haven't got the squad to deploy a 352 successfully?

The key to the formation is width - and I just feel like with the "wingbacks" we have, they're not suited to it. Robinson isn't blessed with pace, so you'll see him make a run and cut back inside. Likewise, Perch isn't one to take defenders on.

Last night we were playing so narrow (when we had 11 men), so it's no surprise Polter isn't having any joy - he's the kind of player who needs service.

Would like to see the formation played with wingers on the pitch, as we've all seen Shodipo put some great balls in this season.

Anyway, enough ranting! Hoping we can click into gear against Rotherham, U RRRRRR'S.

[hal9thou]

I prefer 4-5-1 goes 4-3-3 ball won. Similar but different, Olly should know, worked for him in the past.

4-2-3-1 is history, too easy to read unless you have exceptional players. Any system which depends on a single striker at all times relies on too many hard to tick boxes (great back to goal skill from the 9, visionaries in midfield and pace to burn out wide). Because of that and the fact that it became common currency defences worked it out. Contrary to what's been said on here in the past, 4-5-1 is not the same as 4-2-3-1, t's more flexible the lines are different, and that is crucial.