Stumbling across Plan B by LoneRanger 13 Jan 2021 8:03
Hi everyone — first time poster (favourite cheese Camembert), but a (very!) long-time reader of this great site.

I know its only one win (although I think we had much improved performances against Norwich and Fulham), but it feels like we have come across, possibly stumbled across, a really effective formation for us and our players:

LTC — lovely footballer, but potentially fragile if swarmed by a more populated midfield oppositon, and really needs options ahead of him. This is significantly less exposed in a 3-5-2 with less populated centre field having Ball and Chair near as well as the protection of the three at the back behind.

Ball — lots of effort, seems a leader, never hides, but is clearly a bit limited. But there is a pivotal role for him in a 3-5-2 as a person to plug gaps, be a leader and help keep the team solid whilst forward players focus on trying to get us goals

Chair — gets the opportunity to develop in a central, more prominent role, rather than being stuck on the left and potentially out of the game. The more time we can give him in this role, the more he will develop and hopefully become the really consistent creative number 10 we would love and hope for him to become.

Cameron — his very apparent lack of mobility is not as exposed in a back three as it is in midfield.

Barbet — his sometimes psychotic defending is less exposed in a back three, and actually his distribution and predominantly left sided-ness provide better balance in 3-5-2

For both Dickie and Barbet — having three at the back helps them be able to bring the ball out from the back with less risk.

Charlie — well, previously our best goalscorer in a generation. But, despite being a 'big-lad', he really is a brilliant goalpoacher (much more akin to a Kevin Phillips type). I think many clubs have mis-used him, thinking of him as a target man (which he can do, but is not great at), when he is a great second striker to a workhorse (like Zamora when we were in the Premier league), which brings me onto…

Dykes — clearly he is very raw, but I think — if we use him right — he could be a right pain in backside for defenders to play against, especially if he really puts himself about. I don’t think he looks like he will be an effective golascorer, but used correctly could be a really effective player. He needs support and other players around him who will get goals.

In addition defensively — even if we don’t practice defending set-pieces (scratching my head on that one) — we are better set up defending them with 6 big players (three centre backs, Ball, and the two strikers), as well as Dieng who is certainly impressing.

The only clear immediate problem with this formation in my mind is the wing-backs — I actually think it also suits Kane compared to being a full-back, but he has still some improving to do - especially it clearly doesn't suit Bright (who is on his day possibly our best player) and I am not convinced Niko will be good enough. And we have Uncle and Willock who would need to find a role.

In some ways it reminds me (with a less good team than then) of the glorious 3 games under Jim Magilton in 2009, when we (because of injuries) stumbled across a way of playing with Taarabt, Buszaky, Simpson, Routledge in the same team and thumped Preston, Reading and Derby. I also recall Magilton scrapped the formation to return to a 4-4-2 at Doncaster, with disastrous consequences. I hope Warburton does not do something similar — plan B now seems better than plan A.

Still a lot of room for improvement - would like to see more goals from round the team, we are still a bit limited in quality and it feels we like we lack some depth in key positions - but I am hopeful today, which I certainly was not a couple of weeks ago (or even 24 hours ago!)