.jpg)
3-5-2 or 4-4-2?
Huw Williams looks at the formation situation at Edgar Street.
The three centre back formation has been Graham Turner's preference so far. I've only seen it in action in the home defeat by Morecambe, but I'm not convinced. In its most effective deployment, 3-5-2 uses two defenders in a marking role, with the third as a spare man, sweeper, libero, or whatever you want to call him. This third man is expected to bring the ball out from defence and help build moves from the back. Most English teams that try it just string three big men across the back and, with all due respect to our guys, none of them are able to really fill the creative role.
The full backs pushed up and rather than giving width just added congestion to midfield. Michael Rose always seemed to come inside when he was on the ball, which just carried it into an already crowded area, and also brought the ball onto his right (weaker?) foot, although Pitman seemed to work better on the right hand side. As an aside, who'd have picked him out as our top scorer so far?
United switched to 4-4-2 in the second half, with Parry moving wide rather than playing as a out and out striker, which seems much more natural for him. The team also looked better balanced at the back, although with Morecambe down to ten men and playing a lone striker, our defence shouldn't have been under too much pressure anyway.
4-4-2 is a formation which will seem much more comfortable to most of the team, I'm sure. Three at the back may work, but I hope GT is prepared to switch back if it doesn't. I don't know how well it worked at Nuneaton, but you can't complain about the result! Time will tell.
