Tisdale's successful formation 3-5-2

[Moomin Grecian]

Back when most of us liked Tisdale, you know, when we could win a decent number of home games and kept improving season on season, we used, for the most part a 3-5-2 formation with 'wing backs'.

This was an extremely successful formation for Tisdale and it enabled us to get the best out of players such as Harley who used to have a free role. We also used to have bags of energy going down the flanks with the likes of Tully, Golbourne or Moxey....it worked really really well. Dunne and Sercombe providing energy in the midfield plus a balanced back-three.

So, why the heck did he decide to ditch this formation and go with a more orthodox back four when the 3-5-2 was so successful? Did he just fancy a change? Because it's been downhill ever since....

Sadly we don't really have the personnel to play this way effectively now, but I just think it's another example of where Tisdale has tried to be too clever and keep 'tinkering'.

Discuss.

 

[Jason H]

I recall we used both a back four and a back 3 (or 5, depending on which way you look at it) at various times rather than predominantly a 3-5-2.

 

[edwin_price]

3-5-2's a good system if you've got wide players to make it work. Moxey and Golbourne were both outstanding. Not easy to get them in though. Ribeiro was up to it for a season.

Maybe Riley-Lowe and Stacey can do the business, who knows? Got a lot of wingers nowerdays though, and lack central midfielders.

 

[Red Bill]

Riley Lowe epitomised that role at Crewe.

 

[Moomin Grecian]

I recall we used both a back four and a back 3 (or 5, depending on which way you look at it) at various times rather than predominantly a 3-5-2.

Perhaps I'm misremembering how often we used the back three but it was certainly used pretty often. The mid league 1 season was a good example with Duffy, Troy and Taylor at the back. As I say it really helped us get the best out of Harley who could have a free role.

As the post above says CRL seems to have the necessary attributes for a decent wing back and possibly Stacey too. Obviously now it would be a problem getting the best out of Holmes but I'd still like us to try something a bit different.

 

[D__Lo__]

I think you've both shown that things used to, at the very least, be mixed up a bit whereas now there's no variety and it's all too predictable.

 

[manc grecian]

Not necessarily the formation we played but the variety of players we had and they seemed to compliment each other. It almost seemed like there was a plan.

 

[Snoop Fog]

The OP answers their own question. Back then we had the players required to play 3 at the back with wing backs. TAH Taylor in the middle with pace out wide. Harley was superb back then. Unfortunately he's never quite been the same although still worthy of a place ahead of our other midfielders.

 

[CREDYGRECIAN]

Formations aren't that important if you've got decent players - there are only 4 players I'd be disappointed to see leave in the current squad

That's not enough regardless of tactics or formations

 

[Frustrated Grecian]

It was a case of Stanno and Mackie tiring the defence out with their work rate and then Logie and Mac coming on and changing the game. It was unpredictable and worked a treat.