Some thoughts on Spurs away and 3-5-2

[GoldhawkR]

It’s hard to know where to start with QPR’s performance at White Hart Lane on Sunday afternoon, so much went wrong all over the pitch it was reminiscent of some of the performances from Rangers when they were last in the top-flight.

The 3-5-2 system was picked apart by Spurs, every time they came forward they looked like scoring. I mentioned in my last blog (if anyone read it) that Richard Dunne wasn’t someone I wouldn’t fancy having on the left-side of the three and he proved it again today....

http://jordanjamesfoster.wordpress.com/2014/08/25/some-thoughts-on-spurs-away-and-3-5-2/

[Kevin Mcleod]

Stevie Wonder told the geezer from Peters & Lee that QPR are going to get hammered by four goals or more by every single club in the top half of the prem if they play three at the back with Richard Dunne being one of those three.

[Rangers77]

Stevie Wonder told the geezer from Peters & Lee that QPR are going to get hammered by four goals or more by every single club in the top half of the prem if they play three at the back with Richard Dunne being one of those three.

Peters and Lee? By their cultural references shall their age be known....

[Kevin Mcleod]

see them down the chiswick club with my grandad when I was about ten and its never left my memory. (the scars have never healed i mean )

[Factamondo]

lenny was a bacon!

[winalotto]

Really surprised he went with that formation at spurs , i thought he would go 4-3-3 which is 4-5-1 without the ball. Even more surprised that he went with Dunne instead of Onouha , when you play 3 at the back the space is in behind the wing backs so why have Dunne ? Hes and old fashioned centre back in a 4 , he cant play in a 3 he is not comfortable enough on the ball he turns like an oil tanker and has no pace, play him in a 4 in the middle no problem but never in a 3.

[Shepherds Mush]

I'd prefer to see us play a 4-2-3-1. Makes me shudder when I think of us only having 3 at the back.

[Busheyboy]

I think we have be be flexible in our formation. For god's sake these guys are earning huge money and supposed to be professionals. If we play 3 at the back surely 2 of them have to be Caulker & Nedum.

Surely we should look at who we're playing and decide where 3 or 4 at the back gives us more chance of stifling the opposition. Is it really that complicated?

If we play 3 at the back, aren't the 2 wing backs supposed to support the 3 in defence when the opposition are attacking us?

Please someone tell me if I've misunderstood. It doesn't seem to be rocket science!