Phube Posted 3 November 2016 Posted 3 November 2016 I can understand why Claudio wanted to add another defender against the two massive Copenhagen strikers last night, and I've always been a massive fan of 3-5-2 since MON's days... But why last night's combo? Surely Fuchs is perfect as a LWB and Albrighton could do a great job as a Guppy-esque RWB. With Hernandez-Huth-Morgan across the back. Leaving Drinky and Amartey (King) and Riyad in the centre with Vardy and Musa(Okazaki) as the two? Or is that just me?
MPH Posted 3 November 2016 Posted 3 November 2016 5 minutes ago, Phube said: I can understand why Claudio wanted to add another defender against the two massive Copenhagen strikers last night, and I've always been a massive fan of 3-5-2 since MON's days... But why last night's combo? Surely Fuchs is perfect as a LWB and Albrighton could do a great job as a Guppy-esque RWB. With Hernandez-Huth-Morgan across the back. Leaving Drinky and Amartey (King) and Riyad in the centre with Vardy and Musa(Okazaki) as the two? Or is that just me? Not trying to be a boblet but wasnt Guppy a LWB not a RWB?
Phube Posted 3 November 2016 Author Posted 3 November 2016 5 minutes ago, MPH said: Not trying to be a boblet but wasnt Guppy a LWB not a RWB? I know!!!! I mean an awesome crossing winger cum wing back, not defensive wing back.
Lcfcrory Posted 3 November 2016 Posted 3 November 2016 Could play a nice 343 schmeichel Hernandez Morgan Huth Albrighton Drinky King Fuchs Mahrez Slimani Gray we'd have two wing backs who could put crosses into Slimani all day long and it would give Mahrez and Gray more freedom and less defensive responsibility
st albans fox Posted 3 November 2016 Posted 3 November 2016 Have to admit that both me and my son didn't even notice we were playing 3 at the back. Granted behind the goal doesn't give away the best view but I think we made a dogs dinner of it. Hernandez was surely too deep and Fuchs dragged too far wide? the whole thing was cock eyed to the extent that it looked like a back four but the midfield were playing as if it were a three. No wonder we were terrible until we reverted to 4-4-2 ish shape.
MPH Posted 3 November 2016 Posted 3 November 2016 10 minutes ago, Phube said: I know!!!! I mean an awesome crossing winger cum wing back, not defensive wing back. Oh ok!
ScouseFox Posted 3 November 2016 Posted 3 November 2016 16 minutes ago, st albans fox said: Have to admit that both me and my son didn't even notice we were playing 3 at the back. Granted behind the goal doesn't give away the best view but I think we made a dogs dinner of it. Hernandez was surely too deep and Fuchs dragged too far wide? the whole thing was cock eyed to the extent that it looked like a back four but the midfield were playing as if it were a three. No wonder we were terrible until we reverted to 4-4-2 ish shape. i watched it on tele and had no idea we were playing 3 at the back until i read this about half an hour ago. who were the 3? what on earth was our formation?
urban.spaceman Posted 3 November 2016 Posted 3 November 2016 Albrighton did an excellent job in the 3-5-2 in the Great Escape. I quite like Fuchs going forward too so that could be a good option.
Phube Posted 3 November 2016 Author Posted 3 November 2016 2 minutes ago, ScouseFox said: i watched it on tele and had no idea we were playing 3 at the back until i read this about half an hour ago. who were the 3? what on earth was our formation? I think: Morgan - Huth - Fuchs Hernadez - Drinky - Amartey - Schlupp Mahrez Vardy - Musa
ScouseFox Posted 3 November 2016 Posted 3 November 2016 Just now, Phube said: I think: Morgan - Huth - Fuchs Hernadez - Drinky - Amartey - Schlupp Mahrez Vardy - Musa haha mad. no wonder we looked so shit.
crazyleicester Posted 3 November 2016 Posted 3 November 2016 We can speculate on formations and team selection as much as we like but CR went for the point and got it. We shouldnt complain either as he wanted a clean sheet and he has managed a 4th one on the bounce in the CL. Also looking at some Copenhagen stats only Real Madrid had stopped them from scoring at home in 11 Champions League games which included them playing sides like Juventus, Galatasaray and Bayer Leverkusen. The reality is the players who were playing in position hardly excelled never mind the subtle formation changes yesterday. I doubt we will need to use a 352 anytime soon but its another string to CRs ever widening bow. He has now managed to blood new players, drop certain players, tried to install confidence by giving people a chance like good old Jeff and Amartey and believes in picking Hernandez at right back for Europe despite Simpsons form. On a personal note, I hope we go 451 or 433 before we revert to a 352.
MarriedaLeicesterGirl Posted 3 November 2016 Posted 3 November 2016 13 minutes ago, ScouseFox said: i watched it on tele and had no idea we were playing 3 at the back until i read this about half an hour ago. who were the 3? what on earth was our formation? I was listening on LCFC Radio, while following on their twitter feed...they weren't even sure what the formation was.
Guest CityFan 06 Posted 3 November 2016 Posted 3 November 2016 3-5-2 is certainly an option that could be looked at. It's proven to of worked with this group of players (more or less) in the Great Escape 2014/15. Albrighton flourished on that right side which a position I feel he should play in more, using his natural foot. I'd be struggling to decide between Simpson or Hernandez in a proposed back three though. Schmeichel Simpson Morgan Huth Albrighton Drinkwater King Fuchs Okazaki / Mahrez Vardy Musa
Filbert_Ross Posted 3 November 2016 Posted 3 November 2016 Thought the team selection was odd straight away, presumed it was Kasper Hernandez Morgan Huth Fuchs Mahrez Drinkwater Amartey Schlupp Vardy Musa didnt notice it being 3 at the back at any point. Quite strange. Got the point we came for though so that's all that matters.
st albans fox Posted 3 November 2016 Posted 3 November 2016 Mahrez was on the right and musa on the left so it was 3-4-3 this is probably where it goes wrong as in addition to Hernandez being too deep, the three up top had mahrez and musa trying to be slightly withdrawn into the holes between the wing backs and the middle two. It was a cock up imo. at least play 3-5-2 which many of the players had got used to 18 months ago. 3-4-3 doesn't solve much as it still leaves you 2 v 3 in the central midfield area.
yorkie1999 Posted 3 November 2016 Posted 3 November 2016 I thought we were playing 5 at the back. that's how it seemed to me they lined up at the kick off.
FireFox Posted 3 November 2016 Posted 3 November 2016 It looked like it was supposed to be 343: Morgan - Huth - Fuchs Hernandez - Amartey - Drinky - Schlupp Mahrez - Vardy - Musa But it was so disorganized, more like this: Morgan - Huth Fuchs Hernandez Amartey - Drinky Schlupp - Musa Mahrez Vardy Morgan, Hernandez, Amartey, and even Mahrez didn't know who to mark defensively, but got the job done. Schlupp and Musa were lost, Fuchs a rock though. If Claudio does want to try 3 at the back, I don't know why he doesn't play Albrighton and Fuchs as the wingbacks, Hernandez as the right side CB. That's obvious to all of us, but for some reason, twice now, he has tried Hernandez as the wingback and Fuchs as the left side CB. Maybe he should try to move Amartey back? Like this: Amartey - Morgan - Huth Hernandez - Drinky - King - Fuchs Whatever front 3
Harry - LCFC Posted 3 November 2016 Posted 3 November 2016 Ultimately we got the draw we wanted but I do feel we approached the game in the wrong way. We defended reasonably but they were better I felt. I'd have kept up with 4-4-2 or at least have changed the personnel in the 3-5-2. The lack of subs was an odd one too. Oh well, it was good enough
Ashley Posted 3 November 2016 Posted 3 November 2016 Was a 4-4-2 for me, at no point did it come across as we were playing 3 at the back. Only change I noticed was Musa going left wing, Schlupp to the right and Mahrez in 'the hole'
AKCJ Posted 3 November 2016 Posted 3 November 2016 What the **** were you lot watching? It was the same 4-4-2 we've been playing for ****ing ages
Phube Posted 3 November 2016 Author Posted 3 November 2016 7 minutes ago, Ashley said: Was a 4-4-2 for me, at no point did it come across as we were playing 3 at the back. Only change I noticed was Musa going left wing, Schlupp to the right and Mahrez in 'the hole' 5 minutes ago, AKCJ said: What the **** were you lot watching? It was the same 4-4-2 we've been playing for ****ing ages You mean apart from Claudio, Kasper and Wes all stating they were playing 3 at the back?
Ashley Posted 3 November 2016 Posted 3 November 2016 8 minutes ago, Phube said: You mean apart from Claudio, Kasper and Wes all stating they were playing 3 at the back? Didn't look like it. Especially not the 3 at the back like we played when we stayed up.
FireFox Posted 3 November 2016 Posted 3 November 2016 4 minutes ago, Ashley said: Didn't look like it. Especially not the 3 at the back like we played when we stayed up. Exactly. But we were trying to play it. It was just incredibly disorganized and the personal/positional (Hernandez RWB, Fuchs LCB) choices were odd.
Ashley Posted 3 November 2016 Posted 3 November 2016 24 minutes ago, FireFox said: Exactly. But we were trying to play it. It was just incredibly disorganized and the personal/positional (Hernandez RWB, Fuchs LCB) choices were odd. Especially how much Fuchs was getting foreward too, Mahrez was more or less right back sometimes last night. Wasn't a 3-5-2 for me but if they've said it was it was..
Phube Posted 3 November 2016 Author Posted 3 November 2016 8 minutes ago, Ashley said: Especially how much Fuchs was getting foreward too, Mahrez was more or less right back sometimes last night. Wasn't a 3-5-2 for me but if they've said it was it was.. To be fair, all they said was "3 at the back", what the rest were supposed to be doing was anyone's guess!?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.