Defenders tactical help.

[Ross 95]

Does anybody use tactics like 5-3-2 or 5-2-3? Are using 5 defenders any good or three defenders?

 

[ChrisMorgan]

You wont get much feedback atm, everyone is away bumming Chris22.

 

[robertozig]

i sometimes use the 5-3-2 when i am playing really good teames i.e. the top 4 usually play well sometimes only loose like 1-0

 

[Death Ball]

I've used a 5-3-2 (DL-DCx3-DR/MCx3/STx2) in the last moments to keep an advantageous score, generally when I've played originally a defensive 3-5-2 (DCx3/WBL-WBR/MCx3/STx2). I've done those seeing only key players, so don't have the proper knowledge of it real working to make a detailed post (I will soon play one watching all and then I'll tell you).

The DCs are set to keep back the ones at the sides in the most defensive setting among the team (not less than -8 in mentality), the central as defensive but set to go forward mixed. The wing backs have the team mentality that uses to be attacking and some times normal. Alike to the defense line, the midfielders at the sides are set to be attacking (one of them is the playmaker) and the central is to take a defensive task, though if receiving the ball may run forward with it. The play will go mixed throrough the whole width of the field and set to wide (have to note up to now my field was narrow and short and most of the matches were played in such fields). Defensive line pumped up.

My defenders are fairly good at tackling, heading and in the least not slow. They do work rather well, getting a fair share of off sides, able to get to whoever would get behind and they seem to be effective at keeping the opposition at bay. My problems have been more in the lack of attacking efficiency, but a good part of that was some of my recent past failures at getting the tactics right, with strikers of not that much quality, however the attack wasn't that bad either, as I won a good share of matches and given trouble to some big teams.

It's by dragging the WBL/R to DL/R position how I made it into a 5-3-2, which keeps all the defensive power from 3-5-2, though losses capacity to make offsides by just a little and in the other hand losses much of the attacking potential.

So I would go for the three defenders rather than five, as attack is better, but that's from my experience not watching all the match and with several tactical problems.

 

[Death Ball]

After seeing some full matches in such setting and with some touches, I would say both make for a pretty solid tactic. Offside play with three defenders and no offside with five, though considering the sides would be move up often may not be that worse in terms of offside working, in fact even if that option ticked off when 5-3-2 I give a fair amount of offsides. And with the right passing style, tempo and mentality, the 5-3-2 can keep the offensive power of 3-5-2 pretty well.

The team is able to keep the possession, the midfield can work well to keep the ball with some passes when under pressure. Perhaps the distance to attack line may be a little bit to big but that would be solved by setting to rare the forward runs of one of the strikers.

The results of this tactic has been a 4-1 to Bologna, 4-0 to Bolton, 2-0 to Liverpool (plus one ball removed from the line and three crossbar shots) and Nottingham Forest making a comeback from a 2-0 to draw the match, with a cross (while still 3-5-2) and a penalty (when 5-3-2).

Attached is the 4-1 to Bologna, if you want to see the 3-5-2 in action up to minute 50-60 and 5-3-2 from then on. If memory servers correctly the goal is a freekick conceded. Two goals scored with each formation. Starts being middle slightly toward short passes, medium tempo and attacking, which during the first half moves to be normal mentality, short passing and slow tempo. 3-5-2 with offside trap, 5-3-2 no offside and not sure if I set counter attacking. Always using target man (one of the strikers) and use playmaker (two or three MC: in order Niko Kranjcar, Lee Catermole and Stefan Babovic and Rio Mavuba, Babovic started this match in the bench I think).