Back3/5 solution

[Cjay]

So lots of chat about is the back 3/5 the key, is it coincidental, is it a Farke masterstroke or just playing to the strengths of the squad.

Many have views and those are fine, everyone entitled.

But imo I think it's interesting to look at why this tactical switch works just from a positional perspective.

Does it work as well without the more direct passing style? Probably not but just from a formation/positional perspective  . . .

First of all the negating of the left hand side problem. We have had an issue conceding the same type of goals usually coming down our left and cut back into the box. Against Man City DF tried a simple player swap, didn't work and they scored literally within seconds. Against Chelsea however much less of an issue and the player position was key. Over half of the losses of possession by Chelsea was on that left hand space (their right). And key to that was the positional play of 4 players in particular, Pascal Struijk, Jaka Bijol, Ethan Ampadu and Gabriel Gudmonssen.

This is the heat map of those players from yesterday.

You can see how compact they were in that left hand area.

And this is an indication of where Chelsea lost the ball, a lot of those losses of the ball were in that exact area.

May also note the possession losses in the box? Where usually an attacker is rushing on unmarked to knock the ball in from one of those cutbacks?

Why didn't that happen?

Because that is where Joe Rodon could be

Or Bijol himself if Gudmonssen is back defending and Struijk has gone wide to help he can watch the runners into the box without having to worry about over his shoulder because Rodon is behind him.

So the formation change seemed to help in this respect.


Second of all the formation does allow a slightly more aggressive pressing attitude from the central midfield. Having the extra cb does mean with most teams playing a lone striker even if one of your cbs pushes up in possession to create a 2 with your holding midfielder (Ampadu) you still outnumber the striker (Delap in this case) and it either forces the supporting 10 (Joao Pedro) to drop off to help his midfielders (thus leaving the striker more isolated) or go man for man with our 2 remaining cbs but leave us with a numerical advantage in midfield in possession.

As you can see there is a correlation between Joao Pedro and the position of Bijol or Rodon whose position was at times central or holding midfield which allowed us to push the Chelsea 10 back when in possession or put him under pressure in less threatening areas out of it without having to worry as much about gaps and runners behind.

This bit of freedom for the midfield makes it easier for a team lacking wingers (a traditional attacking role) to get the support from its midfield up to its strikers. Something which both Ao Tanaka and Anton Stach did very well when the opportunity arose.

As we can see here Tanaka and Stach are generally a little more advanced than Ampadu for example who has support from Rodon or Bijol a little deeper when required.

As we can see here with the combined heat map of Rodon, Bijol and Ampadu.

They are still close enough together to not leave big gaps but far enough apart to allow a bit of freedom for Stach and Tanaka to join the attacks when it allows.

Finally (relief for all I'm sure) the support that having 2 strikers gives to eachother and the outlet it gives to a team in order to relieve pressure.

It was plain to see that having the pair of them was helping the structure of the team. They were much more involved than usual for strikers in our team and spent more time in the areas that we want them.

Nmecha sometimes drifted wide or deep or sometimes DCL did and Nmecha went up vs the Chelsea cbs.

They alternated and gave eachother a rest, sometimes one pressed or the other, sometimes one challenged for the ball then the other.

It meant one man wasn't having to do all the pressing all the dueling all the heavy lifting and could save a bit of energy on occasion

And it meant they had support nearby, as well as the more advanced cms they had eachother to knock down to or lay off the ball to rather than having to hold onto it for 10 seconds waiting.

Is no question imo the playing style helped as well in terms of passing and what we focused on.

But imo the structure of the team was massively helped by the formation change.

It fixed problems we've had most of the season, a permanent fix? Who knows.

But certainly I think pointed to a potential solution.

The whole system helps create overloads in the right areas of the pitch

It's a system many of our players are comfortable with.

Bijol played in a back 3 for Udinese, Stach played in a team using a back 3 for most of his time at Hoffenheim under Pellegrino Matarazzo, Bogle played in a back 5 for Sheffield United, Gudmonssen is on record for preferring to play left wing or left wing back not full back.

It's the system our players know.

It makes our strikers less isolated

It leaves less room in the wide areas and between midfield and defence.

It's the correct formation if you want your full backs pressed high

It's flexible as can become a back 3 in build up or back 5 out of it naturally

[weasel]

All tactics/formations have strengths and weaknesses.

If Dan James and Willy Gnonto were both fully fit then I still think we are more of an attacking threat playing 2 wingers. The change for me this season has been that we haven't been playing the 10 which we did last season - wher we had a front 4 with the 9, 10 and 2 wingers - or front 6 several times with Firpo and Bogle pushing forward too. This season we have had 3 central midfielders at the expense of having a 10. This was likely as a result of James and Gnonto being injured as well as us buying Stach and Longstaff - having 5 central midfielders made it easier to play 3 of them rather than just 2. Also with Aaronsen playing on the wing rather than James or Gnonto we lost a lot of attacking threat as well as losing the busy bee Aaronsen being in the 10 position and being close to the 9.

Given our available personnel at the moment it makes sense to go 532.

[CUSSIE01]

So lots of chat about is the back 3/5 the key, is it coincidental, is it a Farke masterstroke or just playing to the strengths of the squad.

Many have views and those are fine, everyone entitled.

But imo I think it's interesting to look at why this tactical switch works just from a positional perspective.

Does it work as well without the more direct passing style? Probably not but just from a formation/positional perspective  . . .

First of all the negating of the left hand side problem. We have had an issue conceding the same type of goals usually coming down our left and cut back into the box. Against Man City DF tried a simple player swap, didn't work and they scored literally within seconds. Against Chelsea however much less of an issue and the player position was key. Over half of the losses of possession by Chelsea was on that left hand space (their right). And key to that was the positional play of 4 players in particular, Pascal Struijk, Jaka Bijol, Ethan Ampadu and Gabriel Gudmonssen.

This is the heat map of those players from yesterday.

Screenshot_20251204_023205_Samsung Internet.jpg


You can see how compact they were in that left hand area.

And this is an indication of where Chelsea lost the ball, a lot of those losses of the ball were in that exact area.

Screenshot_20251204_023626_Samsung Internet.jpg


May also note the possession losses in the box? Where usually an attacker is rushing on unmarked to knock the ball in from one of those cutbacks?

Why didn't that happen?

Because that is where Joe Rodon could be

Screenshot_20251204_024300_Samsung Internet.jpg

Or Bijol himself if Gudmonssen is back defending and Struijk has gone wide to help he can watch the runners into the box without having to worry about over his shoulder because Rodon is behind him.

So the formation change seemed to help in this respect.


Second of all the formation does allow a slightly more aggressive pressing attitude from the central midfield. Having the extra cb does mean with most teams playing a lone striker even if one of your cbs pushes up in possession to create a 2 with your holding midfielder (Ampadu) you still outnumber the striker (Delap in this case) and it either forces the supporting 10 (Joao Pedro) to drop off to help his midfielders (thus leaving the striker more isolated) or go man for man with our 2 remaining cbs but leave us with a numerical advantage in midfield in possession.

Screenshot_20251204_030608_Samsung Internet.jpg

As you can see there is a correlation between Joao Pedro and the position of Bijol or Rodon whose position was at times central or holding midfield which allowed us to push the Chelsea 10 back when in possession or put him under pressure in less threatening areas out of it without having to worry as much about gaps and runners behind.

This bit of freedom for the midfield makes it easier for a team lacking wingers (a traditional attacking role) to get the support from its midfield up to its strikers. Something which both Ao Tanaka and Anton Stach did very well when the opportunity arose.

Screenshot_20251204_031549_Samsung Internet.jpg

As we can see here Tanaka and Stach are generally a little more advanced than Ampadu for example who has support from Rodon or Bijol a little deeper when required.

As we can see here with the combined heat map of Rodon, Bijol and Ampadu.

Screenshot_20251204_031759_Samsung Internet.jpg

They are still close enough together to not leave big gaps but far enough apart to allow a bit of freedom for Stach and Tanaka to join the attacks when it allows.

Finally (relief for all I'm sure) the support that having 2 strikers gives to eachother and the outlet it gives to a team in order to relieve pressure.

It was plain to see that having the pair of them was helping the structure of the team. They were much more involved than usual for strikers in our team and spent more time in the areas that we want them.

Nmecha sometimes drifted wide or deep or sometimes DCL did and Nmecha went up vs the Chelsea cbs.

They alternated and gave eachother a rest, sometimes one pressed or the other, sometimes one challenged for the ball then the other.

It meant one man wasn't having to do all the pressing all the dueling all the heavy lifting and could save a bit of energy on occasion

And it meant they had support nearby, as well as the more advanced cms they had eachother to knock down to or lay off the ball to rather than having to hold onto it for 10 seconds waiting.

Is no question imo the playing style helped as well in terms of passing and what we focused on.

But imo the structure of the team was massively helped by the formation change.

It fixed problems we've had most of the season, a permanent fix? Who knows.

But certainly I think pointed to a potential solution.

The whole system helps create overloads in the right areas of the pitch

It's a system many of our players are comfortable with.

Bijol played in a back 3 for Udinese, Stach played in a team using a back 3 for most of his time at Hoffenheim under Pellegrino Matarazzo, Bogle played in a back 5 for Sheffield United, Gudmonssen is on record for preferring to play left wing or left wing back not full back.

It's the system our players know.

It makes our strikers less isolated

It leaves less room in the wide areas and between midfield and defence.

It's the correct formation if you want your full backs pressed high

It's flexible as can become a back 3 in build up or back 5 out of it naturally

You need to get out more.

[Cjay]

You need to get out more.

Potentially

That only took 10 minutes

[The Subhuman]

I enjoyed the scrolling...

Very difficult to draw conclusions because Chelsea didn't turn up, be interesting to see the same maps after we've been beaten 3-0 in the 532. My guess, not a lot of difference

[Cjay]

I enjoyed the scrolling...

Very difficult to draw conclusions because Chelsea didn't turn up, be interesting to see the same maps after we've been beaten 3-0 in the 532. My guess, not a lot of difference

Potentially not.

And as Maresca said Farke has barely ever used a back 3 or 5 in his career so despite the 2nd half vs Man City he may have just thought it was a yolo not to be repeated.

It's much harder when teams expect and prepare for it.

But Imo said all summer it's what we signed for.

Combined with the much more direct and progressive setup.

[The Subhuman]

Potentially not.

And as Maresca said Farke has barely ever used a back 3 or 5 in his career so despite the 2nd half vs Man City he may have just thought it was a yolo not to be repeated.

It's much harder when teams expect and prepare for it.

But Imo said all summer it's what we signed for.

Combined with the much more direct and progressive setup.

I think our normal formation probably results in the same score...

[Cjay]

I think our normal formation probably results in the same score...

I would doubt that.

We played our normal formation and style first half vs Man City and it was like a training game for them.

Lost to Forest, Spurs, Brighton, Burnley etc.

It isn't just the formation of course (direct approach less messing about with the ball etc).

But imo the formation helps.

[Lufc76Cor]

Brilliant read Cjay

[GreennWhite]

Potentially

That only took 10 minutes

No one believes that, even you

[Cjay]

No one believes that, even you

The words took maybe 10 minutes.

You underestimate the speed which I can spew out thoughts

[weasel]

I enjoyed the scrolling...

Very difficult to draw conclusions because Chelsea didn't turn up, be interesting to see the same maps after we've been beaten 3-0 in the 532. My guess, not a lot of difference

Well said and very important to not jump to conclusions on a small sample size. The 5-3-2 is likely a better formation against teams like City or Chelsea where they have vastly superior players and the key is to make it as crowded as possible in our defensive areas whilst also allowing us to be a threat from simple clearances.

I would disagree that Chelsea didn't show up. When I saw how many changes they had made I was confident. We went for it right from the start with players geeing up our crowd and the tackles flying in. We played the game that Chelsea least liked and for me that was the most important factor. Full credit to the ref, although he wasn't perfect he lot a let of good challenges go and allowed the game to be a little bit of a throwback - in many ways it reminded me of our last seasons where we struggled against teams like Blackburn, Preston etc that got stuck into us and the ref didn't protect us - this season the boot is on the other foot and it is us trying to 'bully' the primadonnas. So whilst Chelsea didn't show up it was because we refused to let them settle, refused to let them play their game.

Like you say though this formation isn't foolproof and I can see us losing with it otherwise, as Farke himself basically said, every team would simply switch to that formation.

[weasel]

Potentially not.

And as Maresca said Farke has barely ever used a back 3 or 5 in his career so despite the 2nd half vs Man City he may have just thought it was a yolo not to be repeated.

It's much harder when teams expect and prepare for it.

But Imo said all summer it's what we signed for.

Combined with the much more direct and progressive setup.

We played 5 or 3 at the back many times last season it just wasn't 3 centrebacks as such but one of Ampadu or Gruev simply becoming part of a 3 as Bogle and Firpo bombed forward. Our system was fluid, as are most top teams these day and continually adapting and changing throughout the match but using the players already on the pitch rather than taking a player of and replacing them with someone. Unfortunately many fans don't notice that the formation has changed unless the manager makes it obvious by say taking of a midfielder and bringing a central defender on and then the fans notice we have 3 actual central defenders on the pitch. Players such as Ampadu who offer flexibility are vital for the system. Similarly KP would often drop at times into Bielsa's defensive line and we would have 3 'centre backs.'

I would challenge any non Leeeds fan to look at Firpo's heatmap (basically where he spent most of the match) last season and tell me what position he played. I doubt many would think he was a defender in a back 4.

[Cjay]

Well said and very important to not jump to conclusions on a small sample size. The 5-3-2 is likely a better formation against teams like City or Chelsea where they have vastly superior players and the key is to make it as crowded as possible in our defensive areas whilst also allowing us to be a threat from simple clearances.

I would disagree that Chelsea didn't show up. When I saw how many changes they had made I was confident. We went for it right from the start with players geeing up our crowd and the tackles flying in. We played the game that Chelsea least liked and for me that was the most important factor. Full credit to the ref, although he wasn't perfect he lot a let of good challenges go and allowed the game to be a little bit of a throwback - in many ways it reminded me of our last seasons where we struggled against teams like Blackburn, Preston etc that got stuck into us and the ref didn't protect us - this season the boot is on the other foot and it is us trying to 'bully' the primadonnas. So whilst Chelsea didn't show up it was because we refused to let them settle, refused to let them play their game.

Like you say though this formation isn't foolproof and I can see us losing with it otherwise, as Farke himself basically said, every team would simply switch to that formation.

Surely that's all you require from a formation?

Against any team.

We tried passing 4-3-3 vs Man City and it was like a training game for them.

5-3-2 stifled them creatively and allowed us to get up the pitch quicker and have a threat.

Surely that's all you need.

Not suggesting this formation is a silver bullet but it clearly suits the players.

DCL, Nmecha, Bijol, Struijk, Gudmundsson, Tanaka, Ampadu have had their best games in it.

Players previously really struggling.

How we cope if for example Liverpool plan for it (maybe Chelsea thought it was a yolo vs Man City given as Maresca said Farke has barely ever used it) who knows.

But it's been the formation of choice for quite a few managers of newly promoted teams who have gone on to establish themselves as top level managers (Nuno, Frank for example) despite it not being "their way".

I don't see why a formation against better teams wouldn't work against weaker ones, we've played 8 teams in the bottom half and won 2 playing 4-3-3 ploddyball.

Alternatively we've played 2 of the current top 4 for 1.5 games and won our one half 2-1 and the full game 3-1 playing 5-3-2 direct aggressive ball.

To me it suggests a plan that works going forward atleast in the short term.

[Cjay]

We played 5 or 3 at the back many times last season it just wasn't 3 centrebacks as such but one of Ampadu or Gruev simply becoming part of a 3 as Bogle and Firpo bombed forward. Our system was fluid, as are most top teams these day and continually adapting and changing throughout the match but using the players already on the pitch rather than taking a player of and replacing them with someone. Unfortunately many fans don't notice that the formation has changed unless the manager makes it obvious by say taking of a midfielder and bringing a central defender on and then the fans notice we have 3 actual central defenders on the pitch. Players such as Ampadu who offer flexibility are vital for the system. Similarly KP would often drop at times into Bielsa's defensive line and we would have 3 'centre backs.'

I would challenge any non Leeeds fan to look at Firpo's heatmap (basically where he spent most of the match) last season and tell me what position he played. I doubt many would think he was a defender in a back 4.

It's not the same a midfielder dropping in.

Most teams do that if full backs push on.

Your taking a midfielder out which leaves more space in midfield (hence why teams get done on transition a lot).

Is a difference between a natural back 3 system and a back 4 with full backs pushing on and a midfielder dropping in in build up.

Far more vulnerable to counters as the midfield is a player light.

Can be fun though, 3-5-2 , some of the best managers ever used it (Cruyff, Pep, Van Gaal)

[weasel]

Surely that's all you require from a formation?

Against any team.

We tried passing 4-3-3 vs Man City and it was like a training game for them.

5-3-2 stifled them creatively and allowed us to get up the pitch quicker and have a threat.

Surely that's all you need.

Not suggesting this formation is a silver bullet but it clearly suits the players.

DCL, Nmecha, Bijol, Struijk, Gudmundsson, Tanaka, Ampadu have had their best games in it.

Players previously really struggling.

How we cope if for example Liverpool plan for it (maybe Chelsea thought it was a yolo vs Man City given as Maresca said Farke has barely ever used it) who knows.

But it's been the formation of choice for quite a few managers of newly promoted teams who have gone on to establish themselves as top level managers (Nuno, Frank for example) despite it not being "their way".

I don't see why a formation against better teams wouldn't work against weaker ones, we've played 8 teams in the bottom half and won 2 playing 4-3-3 ploddyball.

Alternatively we've played 2 of the current top 4 for 1.5 games and won our one half 2-1 and the full game 3-1 playing 5-3-2 direct aggressive ball.

To me it suggests a plan that works going forward atleast in the short term.

Well not really. If you are going for the win then you may be taking more risks, flooding men forward at the expense of being able to have a crowd of players when defending. Us in the championship as an example wouldn't have been better off employing a more defensive formation as the onus was on us to go for the win. If we set up defensively against a team playing defensively then it is hardly playing to our strengths - hence why I said it probably suits us against the Citys, Chelseas etc whereas against West Ham, Everton etc the onus was on us to force the pace and we did it very well against them.

In the championship there were quite a lot of games where we went in front and then the opposition went more attacking against us and we saw Ampadu dropping deeper and us soaking up pressure and hitting teams on the break, usually with the pace of Solomon and James but also with Bogle and Firpo breaking quickly. That's why I say we changed formation several times in matches without changing personnel. We went 532 523 33211 etc. Because players like Bogle and Firpo weren't chained to a full back position, because Gruev or Ampadu were happy to sit deeper etc we were always a fluid formation rather than a set in stone one.

So yes the 532 suited us in this game but it isn't a one size formation fits all.

[Cjay]

Well not really. If you are going for the win then you may be taking more risks, flooding men forward at the expense of being able to have a crowd of players when defending. Us in the championship as an example wouldn't have been better off employing a more defensive formation as the onus was on us to go for the win. If we set up defensively against a team playing defensively then it is hardly playing to our strengths - hence why I said it probably suits us against the Citys, Chelseas etc whereas against West Ham, Everton etc the onus was on us to force the pace and we did it very well against them.

In the championship there were quite a lot of games where we went in front and then the opposition went more attacking against us and we saw Ampadu dropping deeper and us soaking up pressure and hitting teams on the break, usually with the pace of Solomon and James but also with Bogle and Firpo breaking quickly. That's why I say we changed formation several times in matches without changing personnel. We went 532 523 33211 etc. Because players like Bogle and Firpo weren't chained to a full back position, because Gruev or Ampadu were happy to sit deeper etc we were always a fluid formation rather than a set in stone one.

So yes the 532 suited us in this game but it isn't a one size formation fits all.

Well it definitely should be our base formation imo.

It gives us a much more solid base and the fact it made us look a better team whilst we've struggled a lot in 4-3-3 emphasise it.

But formation is irrelevant anyway without the right style.

Direct and aggressive over ploddy and passive is the key.

We aren't good enough to play out from the back, get it away from our goal to our forwards ASAP.

I firmly believe a base formation of 5-3-2 or 3-5-2 suits us.

Take the Championship point but this isn't the Championship, all the advantages we had then don't exist now as DF points out as often as he can.

Starting formation is far more important and style in the Premier League in our position

Is currently no reason to go back to a back 4 or a possession based style.

Stick with this.

How we cope when teams prepare for it will be interesting

[FeelsLikeThunder]

Brilliant post OP, an amazing read.

As for the match, safe to say I was not expecting that! Were any of us?! I don't want to believe it is that simple, but hey, the manager seems to have played to our strengths, and what do you know, we won. Yes, a lot of that is probably down to Chelsea being crap. But you can only beat what's in front of you.

We know he can do it now, so he has no excuse. That's the sort of setup and performance that will keep us up. I was very, very pleasantly surprised.

[weasel]

Well it definitely should be our base formation imo.

It gives us a much more solid base and the fact it made us look a better team whilst we've struggled a lot in 4-3-3 emphasise it.

But formation is irrelevant anyway without the right style.

Direct and aggressive over ploddy and passive is the key.

We aren't good enough to play out from the back, get it away from our goal to our forwards ASAP.

I firmly believe a base formation of 5-3-2 or 3-5-2 suits us.

Take the Championship point but this isn't the Championship, all the advantages we had then don't exist now as DF points out as often as he can.

Starting formation is far more important and style in the Premier League in our position

Is currently no reason to go back to a back 4 or a possession based style.

Stick with this.

How we cope when teams prepare for it will be interesting

Like you say the way we play is more important than a rigid formation. However again though a lot depends on the opposition. We saw in the championship that a lot of the time we needed the 'ploddy ploddy' to move the opposition around. Similar in how City play but they have players who can create more so when the opposition switch off they can cut you open. Our aggression etc last night was perfect for this game but if say we'd have done this last season against the Prestons etc we would have played into their hands.

So basically it is a case of different tactics, different approaches, flexible interchange of players to be able to adapt to different formations during the game etc rather than just saying this is our formation, this is the tempo we play at and we are gonna pump it long all game. We play that way as an example v Everton and likely they find it easy to defend against.

We were excellent playing it out from the back against Everton and West Ham. So much depends on the opposition and as Farke himself has said it is about finding ways to match up against teams with better players. Despite the results we have been in most games and we saw with City v Fulham how City can be excellent and sh*t so it is probably not wise to read too much into our match v them. In the City match we got off to the worst possible start and looked shell shocked for the rest of the half. Likely at half time Farke read the riot act and got a reaction from that as much as the reaction from the change of formation. Also likely that City simply took their foot off the gas, it had been so easy in the first half, and then struggled to get their intensity back until Pep gave them a b*ll*cking.

I'm not poo-pooing the formation, and I use that word with extreme reluctance, as I say given our current personnel it probably makes most sense but as SH has suggested we could play this formation in another match and lose 3-0 if we don't have our players fully at it.

[weasel]

Brilliant post OP, an amazing read.

As for the match, safe to say I was not expecting that! Were any of us?! I don't want to believe it is that simple, but hey, the manager seems to have played to our strengths, and what do you know, we won. Yes, a lot of that is probably down to Chelsea being crap. But you can only beat what's in front of you.

We know he can do it now, so he has no excuse. That's the sort of setup and performance that will keep us up. I was very, very pleasantly surprised.

I was expecting that after seeing us warming up and how we were geeing the crowd up and how we were crunching into tackles from the start. You could tell we were up for it. It was almost like the reverse of how we looked often in the last 2 seasons when we had 12.30 kick offs in away matches and you could see we weren't really fired up - whereas the opposition were for those games.

At 2-1 I actually fancied us to win 5-1 and we could have done and it wouldn't have flattered us.