The thinking behind Pearson's tactics

[Fez of Mahrez]

I've already built a barricade to hide behind given the thread title, but I'd be interested to know whether people think Pearson's current tactics are just stupid and naive or whether there's some logical, reasoned thought behind them.

 

Whether you think it's been 3-4-3 or 5-4-1 in the past couple of games is largely irrelevant. A lot of managers would probably pack the central midfield but Pearson hasn't done that for a long time this season, even when it was initially successful (we were playing so deep in the first few games that Nugent was effectively a third central midfielder for most of the time). Then we had the diamond (which I still maintain might have worked if we'd had Mahrez at the tip rather than King) and then he went to a flat 4-4-2 for most of our long losing run and now it's 3-4-3 / 5-4-1.

 

When you've tried lots of different formations and you can't rely on the players you thought were the best ones you had, it's logical to look across the season and see what's worked well. It's pretty easy given that it's practically nothing. I'd say the one time we look good is on the counter attack - getting the ball from back to front quickly, even with very few numbers. It was amazing how good we were against Arsenal when it was often three against five or six with Schlupp, Mahrez and Kramaric. None of those started in the front three on Saturday. Instead it was the front three from the Manchester United home game - again a highlight and again a game where we impressed when we got the ball forward quickly.

 

Also the fact that we have four different players (Schlupp, Mahrez, Nugent, Vardy) who have impressed at various times in the same position (wide forward) isn't something we can say about any other position really. There were parts of the second half on Saturday where you thought "yes, this is the kind of Leicester City team I want to see and they look like they belong in the Premier League".

 

Then think of the home games against the likes of Crystal Palace and West Brom where we didn't have the opportunity to counter. We struggled for long periods. And then the Villa home game where, as poor as Villa were, it felt like they dominated possession and the chances we created were mainly due to quick counter attacks down the wings. Similar story with Tottenham at home. Those have been our two best 90-minute performances at home.

 

In that context, the 5-4-1 makes a certain amount of sense. I was a bit surprised when people were slagging Pearson off for going 5-4-1 against Villa away in the cup because it seemed a good tactic to me based on the above. We lost that game because we played abysmally rather than because of the formation.

 

I'm not necessarily saying I agree with it in every game or even that it's a good idea generally, but do you think he's surrendering the middle of the park on purpose? If so, do you think it makes sense to play two in there and Cambiasso's one-touch long passing means it makes sense that he's one of the two? If we're playing superior teams who dominate possession, even if it's at home and they're not traditional "Big 4" clubs (with one eye on the Swansea and Southampton games), should we play 5-4-1?

[Osavo]

As long as the formation is played with attacking wing backs, rather than slow, defensive full backs like Konchesky and Simpson, then I actually like it and see sense in it.

We played well using the 3-4-3 on Saturday and I was especially impressed by the performances of Vardy and Nugent in wide areas. Whilst Ulloa didn't appear to have that much of an effect on the match, he provided a good focal point which is necessary in a front three, and one which Kramaric probably couldn't provide.

I would personally be happy to see the 3-4-3 played for the remainder of the season, really cannot see some people's hatred for it.

[Webbo]

I don't claim to any expert in tactics but imo we're a man short in CM.

 

If as Pearson claims we're playing 3-4-3 that's 3 centre halfs, 2 wing backs, 2 centre midfielders and 3 strikers, Our main problem seems to be keeping possession and creating chances for the front men. Surely we'd be better sacrificing 1 of the front men for an extra body in midfield? 

[Donut]

The biggest problem for me, is that i cant really tell in some games what the plan actually is.

 

Take for example the much maligned 5-4-1 formation. I could understand that maybe, he wanted a bank of 4 in midfield who could play narrow and make it congested in that area of the pitch, and difficult to play through. But then, youre expecting the width to come from the full backs and we had Simpson and Konchesky on the pitch who were never going to offer the energy and attacking threat going forwards.

 

With the 3-4-3, We offered a lot of attacking threat, but couldnt find room in the side for our arguably two best attacking players, Kramaric and Mahrez. On the subject of Kramaric, the fact that he was left out vs Spurs puzzled me a lot. Do you not trust your 9 mil striker in your biggest games? Why waste him being isolated in previous games, then give him (potentially) the support of a Nugent and Vardy up front and not play him?

 

Id heard talk post Hull, that the inside left position that Kramaric took up was a position he was used in at times for Rijeka. Yet against Spurs, that position was given to Vardy.

 

So when the players were initially bought, what purpose were they bought FOR?

 

And with the players we have at our disposal, i think the one formation that could bring us some joy, is the one we never see, the 4-2-3-1 with Nugent as a number 10 dropping back into midfield, wide players that can tuck in when needed to make a 5 yet still link up with a central striker.

 

What i dont see at Leicester, which we need, is a clearly defined style of play as a basis to work from. Pretty much every side in the division has one, except us.

[RowlattsFox]

Liverpool play 343 but you can tell the difference between theirs and our approach. Ours too often becomes 523 and has proven to be relatively effective away home, particularly going forward.

Problem is our back 3 aren't good enough without protection which means the 'wing backs' are forced back. At home teams don't come at us so we will need the extra man in midfield to try and get some control.

[Tielemans63]

I think there's been several occasions this season in which he's got the formation right but selected the wrong players for the system. E.g. playing De Laet as an RB in a four-man defence Simpson as an RWB in a back 5 when arguably it should be vice versa.

[RedSoxUK]

I think the tactics / formation / and execution of the initial plan was bang on vs Tottenham.

 

Lessons are being learnt, and i'm sure we'll be reverting back to 4 - 4 - 2 or 4 - 3 - 3 next season as the majority.

3 at the back just opens up too many holes and has been exploited far too easily, the defensive nature of the 3 CBS doesn't outweigh a plater such as DD or Dean Hammond in midfield.

 

You have to remember that most of the Premier League follow a strict 4 - 2 - 3 - 1 variation, with adept players in these positions for a number of years. We've been 4 - 4 - 2 for a number of years and as history tells you bar Manchester City for obvious reasons - it's inferior on paper.

 

I stick by whatever Nigel's plan is - fighting for points in the remaining games will prove people right and wrong about his team selection judgements. 

[Stadt]

I think we haven't played 3 in midfield enough, there's been too much space which has left the defence, well Morgan anyway, too exposed. All of our midfielders are slow so them having to cover too much ground means that they don't provide penetrative runs or adequately help the defence. I think we should have perhaps tried a 352 instead of a 541/343 like this

Gk

Morgan

Huth

Wasyl

RDL

Schlupp

Cambiasso

James

Drinkwater(is he too shit now?)

Nuge/Vardy

Nuge/Ulloa

Nuge/Kram

Or alternative Mahrez behind the strikers removing a central midfielder.

I think we got it wrong in the summer in terms of recruitment, tge be lance of the squad was and still is wrong, our central midfielders are too similar technically and physically and we've only exaggerated our weaknesses by playing with a two.

Of course it's easy to say in hindsight but I don't think Nige has been pragmatic enough, he's often played the right players/system in the wrong games and then not persisted with them when they'd perhaps work.

All in all Pearson has got things wrong this season but we've had too many abject performances from the players to attribute them solely to tactics.

I don't even think we've been out-tacticed (/allardyce) because mostly the opposition we've played against have let us make a mistake and then played really deep to close the game out because we don't have enough quality to break sides down which in part stems from the lack of variation in midfield.

Anyway Pearson is a slow learner and probably not good enough for this level for a whole yet but his championship record is exemplary and I'd hope we stick with him next season.

[Ricey]

I think you are right about his logic behind the 5-4-1 / 3-4-3. His thinking is that it is our one proven strength, so let's make the most of it. However, that logic is flawed.

 

With players like Schlupp, Mahrez, De Laet and Vardy we'll always counter well. Why not look to use the formation to strengthen a weakness? For me he's never given 3 central midfielders and keeping more possession enough of a chance. He is surrendering the midfield battle on purpose, which is strange to me. The more ball the opposition has the more chances they will create. Even with 3 central defenders, we are prone to defensive errors, so it equals disaster.

 

Despite there being logic, I'm still not convinced he really knows what he's doing. We are playing to the strengths of players like Schlupp, but I'd much sooner see us concentrate on trying to win the midfield battle and also creating the kind of chances Kramaric and Ulloa will finsih.

 

We are set up like a side aiming for a giant-killing in the up, rather than one that could win enough points to stay in the Premier League.

[st albans fox]

You need to take into account that we have been rumbled quite early on as a side that breaks at pace and is dangerous in that context.

Sides outside the top six or so will set up to deny us that opportunity. It is our failure to respond to the opposition tactics that has been our problem this season. Whether that's the players not up to it or the manager to respond ingame is what needs discussing.

Perhaps it's less about our formation and more about the opposition ?

[hackneyfox]

You need to take into account that we have been rumbled quite early on as a side that breaks at pace and is dangerous in that context.

Sides outside the top six or so will set up to deny us that opportunity. It is our failure to respond to the opposition tactics that has been our problem this season. Whether that's the players not up to it or the manager to respond ingame is what needs discussing.

Perhaps it's less about our formation and more about the opposition ?

Spot on, as Babs mentioned we look good against the top teams as they are confident enough in their own game that they let us play ours.

[Fez of Mahrez]

You need to take into account that we have been rumbled quite early on as a side that breaks at pace and is dangerous in that context.

Sides outside the top six or so will set up to deny us that opportunity. It is our failure to respond to the opposition tactics that has been our problem this season. Whether that's the players not up to it or the manager to respond ingame is what needs discussing.

Perhaps it's less about our formation and more about the opposition ?

 

 

Spot on, as Babs mentioned we look good against the top teams as they are confident enough in their own game that they let us play ours.

 

For me, it's less about failing to respond to opposition tactics and more about the poor decisions he's made to set up the team in different ways at the start of games.

 

He's done it well once or twice (changing to match Man United man for man at home, the 5-4-1 away at Arsenal), but it's cost us in the long run (the diamond against WBA, the 4-5-1 at Newcastle, the 4-4-2 with Ulloa and Vardy up front during the losing run, the 3-4-3/5-4-1 against Hull at home) when I think we'd have more points now if we'd stayed consistent with the 4-4-1-1 that served us well last season and the start of this season.

 

This isn't to say formations are the be-all and end-all but I don't think we have the players to adapt as much as we have.

 

Pearson rarely implements a plan B well. He's at his best when he has a settled team and a settled formation. As soon as he loses faith in his best XI or formation, either in a game or before one, we're in trouble and that was true in the Championship too.

[Ricey]

For me, it's less about failing to respond to opposition tactics and more about the poor decisions he's made to set up the team in different ways at the start of games.

 

He's done it well once or twice (changing to match Man United man for man at home, the 5-4-1 away at Arsenal), but it's cost us in the long run (the diamond against WBA, the 4-5-1 at Newcastle, the 4-4-2 with Ulloa and Vardy up front during the losing run, the 3-4-3/5-4-1 against Hull at home) when I think we'd have more points now if we'd stayed consistent with the 4-4-1-1 that served us well last season and the start of this season.

 

This isn't to say formations are the be-all and end-all but I don't think we have the players to adapt as much as we have.

 

Pearson rarely implements a plan B well. He's at his best when he has a settled team and a settled formation. As soon as he loses faith in his best XI or formation, either in a game or before one, we're in trouble and that was true in the Championship too.

 

This is a huge point for me and one which worries me greatly in regards to next season if he is in charge.

[sulfoxide]

Whatever his thinking is...IT ISN'T working!

[Swiss_tony]

I think the tactics / formation / and execution of the initial plan was bang on vs Tottenham.

 

Lessons are being learnt, and i'm sure we'll be reverting back to 4 - 4 - 2 or 4 - 3 - 3 next season as the majority.

3 at the back just opens up too many holes and has been exploited far too easily, the defensive nature of the 3 CBS doesn't outweigh a plater such as DD or Dean Hammond in midfield.

 

You have to remember that most of the Premier League follow a strict 4 - 2 - 3 - 1 variation, with adept players in these positions for a number of years. We've been 4 - 4 - 2 for a number of years and as history tells you bar Manchester City for obvious reasons - it's inferior on paper.

 

I stick by whatever Nigel's plan is - fighting for points in the remaining games will prove people right and wrong about his team selection judgements. 

if the tactics/formation/execution were bang on why did we concede the most goals we have conceded in a game all season?

[somebum]

Pearson occassionally gets it right, in a similar way that a blind squirrel finds the occassional nut. The man is completely clueless in this division and should have been sacked in November.

[Stadt]

Pearson occassionally gets it right, in a similar way that a blind squirrel finds the occassional nut. The man is completely clueless in this division and should have been sacked in November.

Whilst he hasn't been good enough to suggest he is completely clueless is perhaps over exaggerating, in most games we've had enough chances to win nor have we been battered - which is nothing to be proud of but we've been shit but the fact Pearson is still in a job, the atmosphere is generally supportive and the players are still playing for him suggests he isn't completely clueless.

[Col city fan]

Is there any thinking?

I thought he just sat with his coaching team and drew lots to decide on a formation.

And just played the same players.

[somebum]

4 wins all season suggests otherwise, this growing reliance of paranoid conspiracy theories about us being unlucky or not getting the decisions is embarrassing, just not good enough im afraid

[sylofox]

Is there any thinking?

I thought he just sat with his coaching team and drew lots to decide on a formation.

And just played the same players.

FFS Nige does read FT and took your advice Col

 

[m4DD0gg]

The formation is irrelevant when the bulk of the team are simply not good enough.

 

Trying to impose a tactic or positions on the pitch to make effective use of the ball through possession is a none starter when players like calamity hoof the moment they come into contact with the ball.

 

On the rare occasion we do have a spell of possession our players are either too scared to hold the ball, have the first touch of a baby elephant or run blindly into the opposition. 

[Monsell1976]

It's so frustrating that these formations that he has tried and failed with this season, he is so slow and stubborn to change when they clearly don't work.

[nettle]

Tactics have never been Nigey's strong point this why we are failing this year. I think we've got the squad if we play to our strengths which is on the front foot, as we did at the start of the season and played well.

Last year I think we got lucky regarding this because we had a settled side with no major injuries so you could basically keep the tactics the same in most games. We also dominated possession in games last year which helped a hell of a lot.

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

I don't claim to any expert in tactics but imo we're a man short in CM.

If as Pearson claims we're playing 3-4-3 that's 3 centre halfs, 2 wing backs, 2 centre midfielders and 3 strikers, Our main problem seems to be keeping possession and creating chances for the front men. Surely we'd be better sacrificing 1 of the front men for an extra body in midfield?

Agreed, it seems whatever our formation we always seem to be short in midfield, if we play 5 at the back with attacking wing backs Mahrez should be sacrificed for a extra midfielder.

[Lionheart]

You can play whatever formation you like but if the individual players aren't good enough for this level then it makes no odds,if you match up our lads player for player against every other side then 9 times out of 10 our lad is not as good as theirs simple.