| So, do we think 5-2-3 / 3-4-3 (however you see it) is now the blueprint? 00:21 - Dec 31 with 748 views | ITFC_84 |
So much more compact and solid with 3 CBs.
I’m guessing we will look to surrender the bulk of possession in games and look to counter attack more often.
Impressive change/tweak from McKenna if so!
|  | | |  |
| So, do we think 5-2-3 / 3-4-3 (however you see it) is now the blueprint? on 08:46 - Dec 31 with 539 views | bsw72 |
I would suggest it is how KM has wanted to play all season but injuries meant that he was without key elements either in the back 4, or the wide men.
With Burns and Broadhead now fit, the only change would possibly be Tuanzebe coming in for Wolfenden, with O’Shea moving into the centre.
It’s actually 4-5-1 which can flex to 5-3-2, 4-4-2 or 5-4-1, very flexible especially with the squad. |  | | |
| So, do we think 5-2-3 / 3-4-3 (however you see it) is now the blueprint? on 08:53 - Dec 31 with 524 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| So, do we think 5-2-3 / 3-4-3 (however you see it) is now the blueprint? on 08:46 - Dec 31 by bsw72 |
I would suggest it is how KM has wanted to play all season but injuries meant that he was without key elements either in the back 4, or the wide men.
With Burns and Broadhead now fit, the only change would possibly be Tuanzebe coming in for Wolfenden, with O’Shea moving into the centre.
It’s actually 4-5-1 which can flex to 5-3-2, 4-4-2 or 5-4-1, very flexible especially with the squad. |
I would argue the formation is always very flexible and I am fairly sure McKenna has stated that on more than one occasion.
It is usually more 4-2-3-1 than 4-5-1 in the initial set-up. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
