Here we go:

The question, often, is not the what or the how but the why. On Sunday, after Manchester United had staggered to a 1-1 draw against Sunderland and Queens Park Rangers had been hammered 4-0 by Tottenham, there was much carping about 3-5-2, the formation United had used in taking one point from their first two Premier League games of the season, and QPR in losing both their opening matches.

That Hull City had played 3-5-2 in beating QPR and had been 1-0 up with 3-5-2 against Stoke City when James Chester was sent off tended to be overlooked amid the carping. It is rarely the system to blame, but the personnel and their application of it.

Advertisement

The biggest question about Louis van Gaal’s immediate implementation of 3-5-2 is the why. It was a formation that worked for him at the World Cup, but he only adopted it in March, almost as a last resort. Kevin Strootman, who had been key to his midfield, was badly injured in a friendly away to France in which Bruno Martins Indi was tormented by Karim Benzema.

Troubled by his defenders’ ability to handle one-on-one situations, Van Gaal went to watch three of them play for Feyenoord against PSV Eindhoven. They lined up in a 3-5-2, the extra man in the middle at the back meaning one-on-one situations were minimised, and that, he realised, was the answer. That the system was right for Holland can – if you judge on results, which not all the Dutch do – hardly be denied, but why did that make it right for Manchester United?

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

I'll be gutted if Di Maria is forced to play as a wing back. Not to sure how Di Maria will fit in the 3-5-2 formation. One of the front 3 makes sense as Rooney, RvP and Mata are just too slow, we need a bit of pace but out of the 3 who would LVG drop?

Red, I think most of us are well aware of the reasons for the formation, having debated at length the Mata, Rooney, RvP conundrum.

With that being said, I think a new conundrum - or rather, a variation of a previous one - now exists... Pace. This system with those 3 at the peak of it lacks pace (and, in my view, chemistry, most notably between Rooney and RvP).

We lack pace (combined with quality) in attacking/penetrative areas of the pitch. Di Maria goes a long way to rectifying that, but not in midfield or as a WB. If he played the 'Robben-role' then maybe, but I'd argue that if he is prepared to drop Rooney, RvP or Mata, then he may as well revert to a more well understood and practiced formation.

Imo looking at our attacking options 4 at the back makes more sense.

Di Maria Mata/Rooney Adnan
RvP/Rooney

We all know RvP is going to spend half the season injured anyway so what's the point in changing formation to accommodate all 3?

I still don't get the "Di Maria could play left in a 3 man midfield".

Surely not alongside Herrera, with Mata further forward?

I read this earlier but I felt he went over the Rooney/RVP issue far too easily and claimed there are other issues that are more pressing.

Maybe that's the case but I still am unconvinced that the 2 can work and a big reason why we seem to be persisting with this formation is to keep both playing in their favoured position.

One of the reasons I was pleased with the LVG appointment was because he seems to take no sh-t. I guess he's entitled to see for himself if the 2 can work, but looking at the past 2 years I have my doubt. If they continue not to gel then I hope LVG has the balls to drop one of them, I really believe it will be for the good of the team.

A few suggestions that ADM may play on the left of the midfield three, not up front. It would be interesting to see how his movement and runs from deep beyond Mata could change the dynamic of the favoured front three.

ADM is fascinating in that he could credibly fit in as a winger back, a midfielder or a forward with the formation benefiting in each scenario from his attributes.

As as Ji mentioned having di Maria in a midfield 3 can work but it would assume that the other 2 will be Herrera and then either a defensive midfielder or Mata.

That IMO doesn't solve our problems, no matter what we need a combative defensive minded CM, so that leave Herrera and di Maria with that player to make the 3. That leaves Mata out of the side, is that what he is suggesting?

JSP, he was effective on the left of a three man midfield for Real, albeit in a 433.

RR

Yeah I've no dount he can work in a midfield 3 as he did last season and mentioned it himself the other day. But who are the other 2 next to him?

Either Mata or a defensive CM (which is vital) are going to be dropped to accommodate di Maria in a midfield 3 surely?

But when Di Maria played in midfield for Madrid, he had a more defensive minded, sitting player in Alonso there. He also had Modric.

For us, presumably it would be Herrera and Mata. Mata offers little defensive cover and Herrera is more a box-to-box creative midfielder. Where is the defensive cover? Would we drop either Herrera or Mata? If the latter, then why bother with this formation at all? Surely it's simply to get him, Rooney and RvP on the pitch at the same time in their best positions?

Who was he partnered with when in CM with Madrid?

Modric and Alonso?

I still don't really get how that would work with Mata in the mix though. It seems very, very attacking.

I wonder if we might see a return to a diamond, at some point

-------------Mata-------------
Di Maria------------Herrera
------------Carrick------------

With Rooney and RVP up top and the full backs and Di Maria providing the main width.

Wilson's article seems to be flawed because he seems to be assuming that we don't need a defensive cm to sit behind Herrera and di Maria. Instead having a 3 of Herrera, Mata and di Maria which won't work IMO, as it's far too attacking and would rely far too much defensive work from all 3 with the absence of an actual defensive midfielder, add the fact our defence is young and not that experienced it would surely be suicide.

Surely every single one of us this past week has been stating the importance of getting in a defensive CM by the end of the window? I definitely feel we need to.

Interesting read. Many issues can be debating but for me the key problem for this formation is that I don't think the defenders look comfortable with it.

I'd still be more confident if we played a back four with a proper defensive midfielder providing cover rather than having three cb's.

Even if that's in a diamond in midfield, to cater to Mata, RVP and Rooney, I think it'd work better.

Ji

The comments on that article seem to be quite interesting as there are many who feel that either a diamond of 433 system would work far better with what we have.

I trust LvG but I too feel that a back 4 could work better because of 2 reasons, our players seems to undersand it far better and we don't have enough quality CBs to operate 3 at the back IMO considering injuries.

Darren

Agreed.

It's gonna take time but none of our defenders seem comfortable with the formation so far and a lot of that has to do with the difference of how the Dutch and England educate their youth. We are pretty much fed 442 from day 1, where as in Holland it seems you are taught to understand more systems, as a result the Dutch seemed fairly comfortable at the WC, even though they looked better when they moved away from 352.

I will hold judgement on the 3-5-2 until we have more players back.

With Rafael and Shaw back... At least they are more prepared for the formation, as the difference between full back and wing back isn't quite so big and going from winger to wing back.

Ji

True, we haven't had the best of luck so far with injuries which prevents us from playing a better team for the system but then again history will show that we often have quite a few injuries so is it really something we should be surprised about?

1982, yeah I agree with that.

They've all played back four. It's one of our weakest areas, so why change to a system that will likely see them struggle even more?

That said, it's early days and we've not had everyone available so they could still adapt. I just have reservations, and by the time they do adapt we could potentially find ourselves off the pace.

We need to start performing fast because it's imperative we get back into the top four.

LVG can talk about his philosophy taking three months all he likes. That's ballacks, he's a good manager so should be able to combine getting results with steadily improving the style of play.

We should have proper back up for both full backs, something that has been lacking (on the right, at least) for some years now.

Rojo solves the LB/LWB slot.

I guess LvG is happy with Valencia and Young covering the other side... But we could be screwed if we revert back to a 4 man defence. I hate seeing Jones or Smalling there.

Exactly, surely all managers have some kind of philosophy but you also have to adapt to the situation, it's a balance.

As I said the other day shouldn't it be evolution, not revolution. We don't wanna be Alan Partridge.

This is why I'd have Carrick as one of the defensive 3. He's able to step into a more forward role when we're playing a team with one forward.

Maybe Jones could perform that role too?

Yea, i thought about that too Robb.... It means we could quickly move into a 4-3-3 as play dictates.

Perhaps that is why LVG was so gutted about Carrick's injury?

Though if that is the case, we have to sign another CM.

Another thought is to have Shaw as the left sided CB. I think he would suit that position well and would possibly allow for Di Maria as a very attacking wingback.