Should Leicester try this 3-4-3 formation next season?

[sdkessler]

On 22/09/2017 at 16:12, WigstonWanderer said:

I'm surprised Shakey isn't a bit more open to a 3 at the back formation of one sort or another. He was there during the great escape when it was used to great effect.

Actually, here's a minute-by-minute update by Guardian.com on the leicester vs atletico madrid UCL match at the start of the second half:

 

And we’re off again! Leicester have made two changes, removing Benalouane and Okazaki and replacing them with Chilwell and Ulloa. They’ll go three at the back with Albrighton and Chilwell as galloping wing backs. Tinkerman Shakespeare! Penny for Claudio’s thoughts. “If Leicester do this, I’m backing Sergio for the Impregnable Quadrilateral of Golf,” writes cross-pollination’s Simon McMahon.

 

That was the moment we began dominating Atletico Madrid. They were lucky to have only conceded one goal. Good game to rewatch. The contrast is stunning.

 

He was desperate and went for a back 3 because we had nothing to lose at that point. Atletico was dominating us after their first goal.

[WigstonWanderer]

17 minutes ago, sdkessler said:

Actually, here's a minute-by-minute update by Guardian.com on the leicester vs atletico madrid UCL match at the start of the second half:

 

And we’re off again! Leicester have made two changes, removing Benalouane and Okazaki and replacing them with Chilwell and Ulloa. They’ll go three at the back with Albrighton and Chilwell as galloping wing backs. Tinkerman Shakespeare! Penny for Claudio’s thoughts. “If Leicester do this, I’m backing Sergio for the Impregnable Quadrilateral of Golf,” writes cross-pollination’s Simon McMahon.

 

That was the moment we began dominating Atletico Madrid. They were lucky to have only conceded one goal. Good game to rewatch. The contrast is stunning.

 

He was desperate and went for a back 3 because we had nothing to lose at that point. Atletico was dominating us after their first goal.

Yes but he doesn't seem to have tried it much since except in a half arsed, lop sided way occasionally (eg on Tuesday where Amartey seemed to be playing nearer to CB).

[sdkessler]

On 22/09/2017 at 18:51, WigstonWanderer said:

Can someone please explain to me how 4231 differs from 4411? Seems about the same to me as the wingers come forward mostly (well Albrighton a little more defensive perhaps). Surely very little difference. 

Well, firstly, we're supposed to be playing a 4-4-2 but its closer to a 4-4-1-1. Only difference is that we have a striker dropping to the no.10 spot from a striker position rather than just occupying it. The goal is to sometimes make centre-backs follow then and leave spaces at the back for the other attackers to exploit. However, centre-backs now wont leave Vardy to press Okazaki. So, it's quite close to the no.10 when attacking. However. Okazaki isn't really as creative as a no.10 should be but he makes up for it with his work rate. He essentially links play like a standard neutral central defender but higher up the pitch without much creativity. Also, he chases defenders around so the opposition defenders don't get time on the ball to build up from the back. Most no.10s don't do this. They just find space. They're basically the playmaker of the team. Okazaki is the central midfielder higher up. Nowadays, teams usually just cut passing lanes and wait until the opponents reach the half-way line before they start pressing. Many different ways to play a formation. Same formations, different player roles, different tactics.

 

Also, no.10s are actually getting phased out. Top teams are using them less and less. They were very effective before because they were always free between the defenders and midfielders. Teams countered this with holding midfielders. They were there to close spaces between the lines. Take a look at Mesut Ozil. He's a great example of a no.10 that plays exactly like a no.10. Their fans are now asking him to be excluded from important matches because he is very effective only when the team is dominating possession. He don't contribure much when defending.

 

As for 4-2-3-1, if the wingers are higher up, sometimes the midfielders compensate by moving deeper a bit but when the opponent is on the ball, they defend with either a 4-4-1-1, 4-5-1, 4-1-4-1 etc...All depends on what the manager tells them to do. Moving the wingers higher up means they have better chances of creative plays, cutting inside etc but it's harder to track back. For example, let's look at Chelsea last season, they struggle at the beginning and tried out both 4-1-4-1 and 4-2-3-1. People kept asking him to play with 3 in the middle as the EPL is a very physical league. 4-2-3-1 wasn't particularly effective because their midfielders, Kante and Matic were both playing a defensive role.  It proved redundant.

 

Also, another reason Conte moved from the 4-2-3-1 to 3-4-3 was because many many goals in the EPL come from attackers exploiting the space left by fullbacks when they pushed forward since the wingers and now less defensive than before. Playing 5 closed this space. Closing this space is now deemed very important. As a matter of fact, Leicester suffered from the exactly the same problem during our title winning season. He fixed this by replacing De Laet and Schlupp with Fuchs and Simpson, both of whom are more defensively aware and don't leave much space behind them. The match that finally motivated Ranieri to make this change was the 5-2 defeat to Arsenal. Try to take a look at the defensive records before and after the change. It's very very different.

 

Small difference in roles and tactics. Big difference in results. Why? Because top teams can punish even the smallest flaws and mistakes.

[sdkessler]

23 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Yes but he doesn't seem to have tried it much since except in a half arsed, lop sided way occasionally (eg on Tuesday where Amartey seemed to be playing nearer to CB).

We're playing narrower this season than we used to. It's like he's trying to copy Atletico Madrid's style of narrow defending but not executing it well enough. Just see what happened against Arsenal. Their wingbacks had acres of space which directly led to a few goals for Arsenal.

[sdkessler]

On 21/09/2017 at 19:55, ZeGuy said:

And you didn't read whom I quoted and which formation I was referring to.

I was referring to your second sentence:

On 21/09/2017 at 18:13, ZeGuy said:

Not three at the back but we need to get rid of this damned formation as soon as possible

 

[ZeGuy]

1 minute ago, sdkessler said:

I was referring to your second sentence:

 

Ah okay.

 

I don't have anything against three at the back, on the contrary, I just think however.that we don't have enough cover in the squad to play it. If any of the potential WBs (Chillwell and Albrighton) are injured, that's pretty much it. Not to forget that Chillwell still blows hot and cold and Albrighton isn't doing great at the moment.

[sdkessler]

Just now, ZeGuy said:

Ah okay.

 

I don't have anything against three at the back, on the contrary, I just think however.that we don't have enough cover in the squad to play it. If any of the potential WBs (Chillwell and Albrighton) are injured, that's pretty much it. Not to forget that Chillwell still blows hot and cold and Albrighton isn't doing great at the moment.

I have to agree on Albrighton. We really SHOULD have bought at least 1 decent right-back like 3 transfer windows ago. I don't know if Simpson can play that role but probably not worse than Amartey playing right fullback. As for Chillwell, he gets caught out when we get counter-attacked. However, again, one of the main point of 3 centre backs is so the wingback isnt caught out as often. The left center-backs can easily cover. Also, Fuchs seem very adept at attacking from the flanks as well. He can most definitely play as a wingback.

 

A backup plan would be to play 3-5-2 if Albrighton gets injured.

[st albans fox]

3 hours ago, ZeGuy said:

Ah okay.

 

I don't have anything against three at the back, on the contrary, I just think however.that we don't have enough cover in the squad to play it. If any of the potential WBs (Chillwell and Albrighton) are injured, that's pretty much it. Not to forget that Chillwell still blows hot and cold and Albrighton isn't doing great at the moment.

 

Doesnt mean you can't play it when the players are available ?

 

 

4 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Yes but he doesn't seem to have tried it much since except in a half arsed, lop sided way occasionally (eg on Tuesday where Amartey seemed to be playing nearer to CB).

First 15 second half against Spurs and again we were dominant during that spell. 

 

I think his problem is that there isn't room for riyad in the formation if you are playing it from the start. When you are behind with nothing to lose you can shove him behind the front two but that leaves a midfield 2 rather than 3. 

[ZeGuy]

13 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

 

Doesnt mean you can't play it when the players are available ?

 

I'm ready to play 0-0-10 if it means we'd go away from a 4-4-2 that more hampers than helps us. Just don't see it happening with the current squad and manager. We don't even have a real RB to cover Simpson.

[HoustonFox]

On 9/20/2017 at 13:56, sdkessler said:

Hi, I have let this topic die when Mahrez was made the public tweet and decided to wait out a little for transfers and results to be a little more conclusive. I think I would finally like to revive this as I think that my case is now much stronger than before with our transfers and performances. I finally felt like I should make this topic as I feel like Leicester is not playing near the level that we could and should be playing. A tactic or a formation is only as effective until other teams figure it out and I think it is obvious that they have cracked our 4-4-2.

 

What I think are solid arguments for 3-4-3 based on my observations : 

 

1. We kept Mahrez(surprisingly, tbh) and Gray. Like I said before, they work better in the half-space rather than the wings. They fit in very well in the 3-4-3 system as they can play narrower and Mahrez's frequent defensive issues (failed to track back) are less problematic. Gray, on the other hand, is getting better and better.

 

2. One very glaring problem we have is when the ball is passed to Mahrez, he is always isolated. He wants to search for Vardy but pretty much every defender knows that now and have closed the passing lanes to Vardy. The lack of overlapping runs from Simpson doesn't help as well. Then, he would lose the ball because he tries to dribble past 2-3 defenders. Honestly, I blame a lack of support. Playing Albrighton as the wing-back can provide overlapping runs while he can cut in deeper into spaces between the lines rather than hanging out at the wings, I would assume. If he plays wide, Albrighton can cut in instead and provide midfield superiority. I think with these options, we are far more unpredictable.

 

3. We defended too narrowly. This was very evident in the match against Arsenal in my opinion. Bellerin and Oxlade-Chamberlain were absolutely exploiting the vast space on the flanks that night and that directly led to a few Arsenal goals. 5 at the back would make the defense harder to stretch. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what Man City did early in the match against Liverpool (Man City won 5-0). They defended deep with their wing-backs marking Liverpool's overlapping fullbacks.

 

4. Opponents play deep defensive lines against us now. No one plays a high line against us anymore. When the center-backs drop deep to stop Vardy, they leave spaces between the opponent's defensive line and the midfield. This is where a creative no.10 like Gylfi Sigurdsson would be effective. However, we do not have one. Instead, we get a striker to drop deep to exploit this space. Slimani and Ulloa isn't made for this and neither is Iheanacho. Only Okazaki does this well enough. This is why Okazaki is pivotal to our 4-4-2. It's not just the link-up plays and the work rate but also the spaces he exploits are an important counter to defenders sitting deep. What about Mahrez and Gray? They certainly can exploit this space. Unfortunately, they are too far out in the wings to punish the center-backs for dropping too deep. 3-4-3 fixes this. They can now both exploit the spaces left by the retreating center-backs and I think this is really really important because teams defend deeper than usual against us and thus, more room for Mahrez and Gray in the half-spaces.

 

5. I think that Leicester have signed the optimal center-back for a back 3, Harry Maguire. His marauding runs fit the back 3 system far better than the standard 4-4-2 simply because whenever he dribbles forward, we only have 1 center-back defending and is very vulnerable to a counter-attack. I honestly worry everytime he tries to dribble out of the back due to this. We also have Aleksandar Dragovic but I haven't seen enough of him to make a comment. However, we should have enough center-backs for now.

 

6. Chillwell seems like an excellent wing-back, making marauding runs down the left and we have Fuchs as well to compete for that spot.

 

7. We are too rigid going forward. Whenever we go forward, we still seem to be going forward in a 4-4-2 rather than being more fluid and creating passing options, forming passing triangles or rhombuses. This corresponds to my second point. We have low ball retention simply because the entire midfield is usually in a horizontal line when we have the ball rather than making runs, forming passing options etc whereas the strikers are cut off from the midfield.

 

8. We are still incredibly weak against set-pieces, especially corners. It seems that Shakespeare tried to counter that by playing a squad of large players against Liverpool. I still think that another center-back can help defend those corners a little better.

 

9. We also concede way too many goals where the opposition strikers simply ran past our defenders with a through ball and scored in a 1v1. One of the main purpose of a back 3 is to cut these channels for through balls.

 

10. We generally attack from the flanks and rarely through the center simply because we don't have the option to do so without Kante's marauding midfield runs. We make many crosses but neither Okazaki nor Vardy are good in the air. That's exactly why we bought Slimani in the first place. However, like I said in point 4, Okazaki is pivotal to our current system and so is Vardy. Therefore, we can't capitalize on the crosses. I am aware that a front 3 without Slimani would still be the same but we now have the option to attack centrally and out wide while tall midfield players like Ndidi or Iborra have the option to make box-to-box runs and make themselves available for crosses.

 

11. Most importantly, I just think we would be playing the players the way they're meant to be playing. No more Mahrez wider and more defensive than he should be. No more Slimani or Iheanacho playing deeper than they should just to fit the formation like Iheanacho against Huddersfield the other day or wasting Musa on the flanks when he could be lethal if played more centrally(I think he has shown this multiple times).The formation should fit the players we have, not forcing the players to play in different ways to fit the formation if we don't have the ideal players. I feel like 3-4-3 does this. The playstyle can stay the same, but at least everyone can play to their strengths this time around while covering many of our weaknesses.

 

However, these are some of the issues I can think of :

 

1. We lost Drinkwater. I think I have said multiple times that Drinkwater works well in a Chelsea-esque 3-4-3 in Leicester and would be good for the Matic role. Well, I'll be damned. Conte thought exactly the same and replaced Matic with Drinkwater. With the loss of Drinkwater and the Adrien Silva problem, we may lack creativity and quality in midfield. However, I think that this may be an argument against 3-5-2 in favour for 3-4-3. Focus on our strengths instead of playing 3 in the middle when we don't even have enough players in the middle to fit the roles.

 

2. We have many strikers. Doesn't seem like theres many places for the number of strikers we have but I think we can still successfully use them in a front 3 or if, for example, we sub in Slimani/Okazaki for Mahrez, we can easily revert this into a 3-5-2 or maintain the 3-4-3.

 

3. We lack depth in the winger role. We don't have many players that can fulfill the Gray/Mahrez role which was the reason I was against the Kapustka loan but Musa might be a very interesting alternative. He can utilize his pace very effectively like what Salah is doing for Liverpool this season. However, the 3-5-2 is always an option if they are unavailable.

 

 

Constructive Criticism is Welcome

Good post and well thought out, but soon, like me, you'll come to terms with the fact that Shakey is a 442 man, and not going to change.

 

Personally, with the players we have, I think that 343 leaves us still light in the middle as we don't have the CMs to cope or the CBs to cover the Wing Backs when they are exposed.  Chelsea have an outrageously fast CB in Azpiluecueta and Cahill is also quick too.  Harry could play the David Luiz role but I worry about but not sure Wes or Huth could play the wide ones. 532 would be more suitable if you want to play 3 CBs but then our WBs would be more defensive.  

 

433 would suit us much more in my opinion.  

 

Thanks for getting me worked up about tactics again, especially after I was letting it go!

[ZeGuy]

6 minutes ago, pmcla26 said:

Because if you look at our squad we don't have the sufficient quality to play a different style of football and 442 is the best way to set up for counter attacking football in my eyes and gets the most out of our best player

We're not doing it though.

[ZeGuy]

24 minutes ago, pmcla26 said:

We are. Jamie Vardy has scored 5/6 already this season, and you can't say we haven't tried to play on the counter attack unless you haven't watched us this season, maybe not as effectively because we need to be more solid but when we're missing a £25 million centre midfielder that we're supposed to have and replacing him with the likes of Andy King it's going to be hard to keep solid through the centre

I watched every game and we really aren't.

 

- The counter attack style is a far cry from the one which was so successful. We're not pressing high, just sitting deep, trying to contain the opponent and fail at it miserably.

- We're leaking goals like no tomorrow.

- We're unable to string more than three passes together.

- We create nothing, just punt it aimlessly forward most of the time, spray and pray style.

- The opponent walzes through the midfield like a knife hot butter.

- We rely now on Maguire to bring the ball forward,

- We can't accommodate a second striker because Shinji has to start to compensate for the missing man in the middle.

- The technical players are either benched or played out of position or crumbling under defensive tasks.

- Vardy and any other striker are still living on scraps.

 

- Huddersfield were a class above us and should have won that game

- We should've got a tonking from ManU

- We never ever pushed Chelsea to their limits

- The only game where we were "unlucky" was against Arsenal and even then the subs cost us the game.

 

It is more than obvious that the current system is not working and it's not only this season. Granted Iborra was unfit until now and Shakespeare didn't have that much of options in the middle, I'm starting to wonder if he really has a plan. Same formation, same players game in game out. Silva's not going to play until january and I doubt he'll be able to plug all the holes caused by this formation. We're more or less stuck with this squad and it belongs to the manager to adapt his tactics accordingly. Not keeping a system which is clearly showing ist limitations.

 

Until now the fixtures were really tough (4 games gainst the top 6), so I'm holding my judgment. I'm however really waiting for the game against Bournemouth as it will show us what Shakey is made of.