Tottenham’s ploy of playing two wing backs in the 0-0 draw on Sunday was negated somewhat by the state of the Stevenage pitch but could this be a useful formation for Harry to consider in the future?

It marked an odd departure for a squad that seems to play 4-5-1 whenever Rafael van der Vaart is fit and 4-4-2 otherwise and it may have been influenced by the injury to BAE.

Of course it does rely on us having three fit centre halves which at the moment isn’t always the case. However, when we do have a trio to call on maybe it’s an option for certain games.

We’re constantly seeing Kyle Walker’s attacking attributes and Harry’s comparison to Roberto Carlos seems to be sticking with him. On the left flank, Gareth Bale could be an option to drop back as an alternative to Danny Rose but would that be harsh on BAE?

So is there any future in 3-5-2 or has Sunday suggested that it should be shelved?



  1. Imo there is no current future for this formation at spurs, bae has been one of our most consistent tar performers this season, couldn’t fathom dropping him. I also feel it would leave us too vulnerable, especially considering the pace of the premier league. Nelsen looks a solid player, but can’t help but feel he will always get done by pace…

  2. Walker isnt good enough to look after the whole right side. Defensively sound but he cant beat a man going forward. Stick with any formation with a back 4 (442/451/433/4141 etc) its served us well so far why change?

  3. Hell no. Why? You try making a consistent set of 3 centre backs from King, Gallas and Kaboul and Dawson AND Nelsen. It would change every game – and sometimes you would only have 2 or 3 fit, with a youngster on the bench for cover… 3 does not work in defence UNLESS one is in front as a screen. It was worth the experiment, and we now know that we can depend on Nelsen more. Also Rose. The problem was that a lot was on the shoulders of the young wing backs.

  4. No it doesn’t work. Obviously.

    Anyway, can we have some team news for sunday please?
    Gooners look shot to pieces but we’re pretty patched up too.

  5. Worst of all worlds in my book. You end up with players who are neither wingers and not quite backs either. Going forward they crowd the space where Bale and Lennon should be doing damage and they stop us playing our from the back as efficiently. So much of our build up these days goes through the CB.full back axis (especially Benny’s side). I still think our 4-4-1-1 formation is the best, 4-4-2 at home against weaker sides perhaps.

  6. Ignoring which players would have to be used for the various systems, the only reason I can think to use 3 in the back would be tactics.

    Marcelo Bielsa did something like this with Chile in the last World Cup. The idea is to always have (just) 1 more defender than opposing forwards.

    If the other team plays a 4-4-2 (or variation) you play 3-5-2 and have 3 defenders to their 2 forwards, 5 mids to their 4 and 2 forwards to their 4 defenders. The last sounds like an imbalance but it basically means they have a wasted man on the field.

    If they play a 4-5-1 (or variation) you play a 4-4-2, with 2 CBs against their 1 forward, your fullback now have freedom to attack and combine with your mids so you effectively have 6 mids vs. their 5, and 2 forwards against their 4 defenders (if they send their fullbacks forward it means they are only guarding our forwards 1:1.

    Obviously I’m oversimplifying things — I just wanted to point out there is a reason 3 at the back might be useful.

  7. that formation had me remembering the hoddle era where he always played that formation. I was at the game and we were poor- the strikers wer often isolated, kaboul looked uncomfortable playing at left of trio and there was massive gap between the defenders and the centre mids. terrible formation we should stick to 4411 or 442!


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.