The 5-3-2 Doesn't Work

Sorry for the delay in the review of Wednesday's 3-1 loss to SKC but I wanted to do something different with this post and I didn't have time to do the research until now.  For the 3rd time in 4 games the Rapids lined up in a 5-3-2 (or maybe 3-5-2) formation.  And for the 3rd time in 4 games the opposition abused us putting up high numbers in possession, shots, and shots in goal.  In particular we saw, once again, that the overlap between Rosenberry and Abubakar is a weak spot with KC consistently attacking that hole.  In general Abubakar had a horrible game and left Rosenberry scrambling on multiple occasions.

Rather than break down the goals and talk about individual performances I wanted to take a step back and look at what's happened lately with the Rapids defense, because it has been quite poor. So I went back and analyzed the numbers from all 9 games this season.  In 6 of the games we started with a "standard" 4 man back line.  In 3 we started with a 3 man back line and two wingbacks or a 5 man backline, depending on how you want to describe it.  Now caveats about small sample size apply with only 9 games total split 2:1 between 2 formations, but I do think they show some bad indicators.

Opposition possession:

4-man line: Avg: 51.4% Low: 37.4% High: 65.7%

5-man line: Avg: 55.8% Low: 53.9% High: 57.5%

Average opposition shots:

4-man line: Avg: 11.8 Low: 8 High: 21

5-man line: Avg: 17.8 Low: 14 High: 22

Average opposition shots on goal:

4-man line: Avg: 4.8 Low: 3 High: 7

5-man line: Avg: 6 Low: 5 High: 7

Despite having an extra defender in the game we're giving up more shots and shots on goal with 5 defenders.  We're also giving up more possession, though that's less surprising as pulling off a midfielder for a defender would make it harder to keep possession.  The high opposition possession and opposition shots and the second highest opposition shots on goal happened in the recent Dallas game, which was the game after we tried the 5-man line the first time against LAFC.

Clearly something has changed in our defense in the last 4 games.  The averages in these stats for the 5-man line are almost higher than the high values for these stats in the 4-man line.  While we won 2 of the 4 games, they were against the worst team in the West and the 3rd worst team in the East, and the latter required Yarbrough to stand on his head to get us the win.  As soon as we hit any quality, like LAFC or SKC, they ripped us apart.

Quite simply, the 5-3-2 doesn't work.  I'm not sure what Fraser is trying to accomplish by switching us from the 4-5-1 we've used since he took over.  Is this due to feeling like he needs to get Abubakar, Wilson, and Trusty playing time?  If so, he really doesn't.  Lalas has not looked good this season and can justifiably be benched in favor of starting Trusty and Wilson on a 4-man back line.  Is this a response to Namli's long-term injury?  Is the thought that without him we're going to be conceding possession and we need to switch to a counter0attacking style and add another defender to help with the amount of attack we're welcoming?   Its not working if that's the case.

This is also not a roster built for this formation.  We've spent 2 years stocking up on wingers.  Barrios, Lewis, Benezet, Galvan, and Shinyashiki (along with the afore-mentioned Namli) were all expected to get time on the wing this year, but the 5-3-2 that Fraser is using only allows one of them to start at a more central forward position along-side Rubio.  That's a lot of talent (and money) being left on the bench in order to force the roster into this formation.

Against Seattle next weekend we need to see our standard back 4 and 2 wingers.  Giving Seattle the amount of possession and space that the current formation has allowed the likes of Cincinnati is suicide.  The Sounders will eat us alive in front of the biggest crowd in two years.  Beating the top team in the league is a big enough hill without weighting ourselves down with poor lineup choices.

Man of the Match: None.  Not because everyone played poorly (though a couple did) but because everyone was so meh that nobody stood out.