What makes Nasri and SIlva unsuitable for a 352?

I think they can Dax.

I'll think we'll see 352 at home a lot in the league this season. With Yaya, Nasri and Silva lining up in the middle, especially against those teams who like to park the bus, as it should create more space in the middle with them being distracted by our wing backs (who will hopefully be hugging the line).


In Europe I expect us to be more conservative.

One thing is for sure I can't wait for the season to start.

We win every match at home anyway so I don't really see the point in changing our system at the Ethihad. Away from home though I think this system could be effective but only if we sign another cb and especially a centre mid.

3-5-2 or 5-3-2 allows you to outnumber the opposition when in possession of the ball. It also allows for an open game as there is plenty of permanent width.

There are ways to exploit it like there are 4-4-2, 4-3-3, 1-8-1 or whatever formation you want to play.

Didsbury Dave says it leaves you vulnerable to the break, well unless you play with a flat back 5 that doesn't cross the half way line every team and formation is vulnerable to the break. Unless you really believe that the graphics Sky or BBC put up for the game is what we play for the full 90 mins, you will know that we go through a variety of formations throughout a game. When de Jong plays we more or less play a 3-5-2 anyway, the full backs push on and de Jong sits and becomes an advanced defender, Silva and Nasri drift inside to join Yaya and the two strikers do their thing upfront. Now if you play with 3 out and out central defenders you still need one of the 3 in midfield to sit effectively making a diamond 4 defence. My point being, if we play 4 at the back or 3 and a sitting midfielder, unless those 4 players don't cross the half way line we will always be vulnerable to a break away if both our wide men get forward and get caught.

I completely agree. The manual might tell you that a 4-4-2 is not vulnerable to being hit on the break, but the reality is that we don't play a traditional 4-4-2, and we got hit on the break many times in Europe last season. With attacking full backs and no traditional wide midfielders, we were really vulnerable to quick breaks in Europe.

Playing our full backs in a similar role to last season, but with an extra centre half to help cover, we could end up being less vulnerable to counter attacks than last season, despite what the manual might say! But I agree completely with your comments, that there are no failsafe formations, all of them have their strengths and weaknesses, and we play much more fluidly than the manual or Sky suggests anyway.

Have a similar formation with my Stoke team.

--------------Begovic---------------
Van der Wiel-Shawcross-Vertonghen
--------Fabregas---Arteta----------
Pennant-------Messi---------Bale
--------Balotelli---Sturridge/PCisse

I think we've played 3 at the back because of the personnel available...

Both Savic and Kolarov suit the positions they get in that formation and don't really do well in a flat back 4. Not that we do play a flat back 4 in the traditional sense but having those 2 in a back 4 would be frightening.

In fact if you look at the players we have then most can/could easily play comfortably in either formation really. The exceptions being the 2 previously mentioned. As for Clichy he can play LB or LH fairly comfortably IMO.

In summary I think it's been a case of Mancini picking the best formation for the available players.

But we'll see...

It's an intriguing scenario and I can't wait to see how it will play out when the season starts. As WNRH pointed out there isn't really a rigid formation we use throughout a match, but over the course of a match probably go through many different variations.

I think it will be a good, fresh look.

3 defenders is perfect agains the 2-men attack. Whilst our wide play is complemented by our attacking wing backs, who are brilliant going forward. The 3-men midfield allows us to employ Silva effectively in the middle supporting Aguero and Tevez.

Then again, obviously every formation has a flaw, so it's not fair to pick on the flaw of a particular formation.

I believe it will be used most when we have certain players injured, suspended or away on AFCON, like Nasri, Barry, Yaya or Silva, giving us a dominant, productive alternative to playing our normal formation, rather than being used as our main formation throughout the season. Silva played too many games last season and we, as a team should play more matches next season overall as well with, hopefully, longer runs in the Champions league and FA Cup. Also expect it to be played in 'easier' matches and cup matches to keep us up on the formation.

A good thing about this tactic is that it makes the job easier for the right and left centre backs although they have to be able to cover at full back and as Micah, Savic, Boyata, Zabaleta, Lescott, Rekik and possibly Agger (if we sign him) can all play at full-back which gives them an advantage in these positions another good thing about this formation is that the wing backs have a lot less defensive duties favouring Kolarov (played in a similar formation for Lazio 3-4-1-2 IIRC) on the left and Richards on the right (although both Clichy and Zabaleta have both played on the wing).

Another thing about this 3-5-2 is that it would allow different players to drop into further back positions like Yaya moving to the centre or right of a back 3, GazBaz as the left CB or as a left wing back, Milner or AJ as wing back and DDR (if we signed him).

It has been implemented several times already in Mancini's reign thus far. IIRC we played it on one (if not both) of the CC Semi final legs vs Liverpool, we also used it when we went down to 10 men vs Wolves using AJ as a right wing back, we used it to close the game out vs Newcastle and the rags. I also believe (since watching it back) we used it in the closing stages of the FA Cup final 2011. So don't believe these players aren't used to a formation like this as I suspect they have been working at it since as long as 1 and a half years ago.