Tactics Talk:

[Phil Bowman]

4 hours ago, Guest said:

What a lot of these people want is for us to be constantly attacking, piling forward and scoring goals but also never giving the ball away, making mistakes or conceding.

So pretty much if it isn’t the 9-0 away at Southampton they’ll be disappointed.

Although that probably wouldn’t count as it was only against ten men.

[st albans fox]

The fact that we are able to be more attacking as the second half progresses is also reflective of a lot of the side to side passing of the first period.  It does actually wear the opposition out, despite what some of you think about it.  As they tire, more spaces open up. 
 

it’s not rocket science but it does require patience from the crowd 

[Dahnsouff]

16 minutes ago, whoareyaaa said:

Sounds like 2015/2016

Yes but you can fool them once, maybe twice, but not consistently. People seem to feel a repeat of 2015/2016 style would work just as well now. 

[FoxesAreBlue]

I have nothing to add here other than that I absolutely love this thread - it’s the first and only one I have “followed”.

 

I feel it really captures one essence of what FT can be all about - reasoned discussion, q&a’s and many points backed up with evidence and examples - thanks to all involved but especially @StriderHiryu 

[Nalis]

10 hours ago, st albans fox said:

The fact that we are able to be more attacking as the second half progresses is also reflective of a lot of the side to side passing of the first period.  It does actually wear the opposition out, despite what some of you think about it.  As they tire, more spaces open up. 
 

it’s not rocket science but it does require patience from the crowd 

Conpletely agree, if we keep it tighter at the back until later in the game then we should see out a win to nil. We haven't had a clean sheet in the league since the opening day of the season.

[st albans fox]

5 minutes ago, Nalis said:

Conpletely agree, if we keep it tighter at the back until later in the game then we should see out a win to nil. We haven't had a clean sheet in the league since the opening day of the season.

You can’t account for errors though. Stuff happens.  But if your opponent is unable to run as much as you in the last half hour then you have a good chance of out scoring them ……. I think we’d all like a 1 or 2 nil in the PL to settle us down ….

[Le Renard]

This thread is a bit too sensible at the moment, the team is lacking confidence and I don't think anyone has mentioned for the last few pages the customary ' we have no PLAN B'.   

[deep blue]

12 hours ago, st albans fox said:

The fact that we are able to be more attacking as the second half progresses is also reflective of a lot of the side to side passing of the first period.  It does actually wear the opposition out, despite what some of you think about it.  As they tire, more spaces open up. 
 

it’s not rocket science but it does require patience from the crowd 

But surely, just as valid is the tactic of going at a team from the start and getting a good enough lead to secure the points.  We've done this very successfully in some games under Rodgers.

 

The danger of the "wearing the opposition out" tactic is that if it backfires and you lose a goal or two then you have less time to recover from it. We've seen that happen often enough recently.

[ScrumpyJack]

DJ Campbell has to start.

[lcfc_forever]

On 27/09/2021 at 12:04, StriderHiryu said:

In the last 3/4 games we've started with a 433 formation. Here was our average player position against Burnley to show it in more detail. 

 

 

Notice how Tielemans and Soumare push high up the pitch, with Ndidi sitting much deeper than usual. This means that both fullbacks can bomb on forwards and on average played in the opposition half. The "twist" in our setup is that Lookman often drifted into the centre of the pitch so Ricardo could overlap him. This led to some problems in this game with Ricardo getting caught out by Cornet twice, and was why he was subbed for Castagne in the second half, who improved our defensive stability on that wing. The system creates natural passing triangles for LB / LW / LCM and RB / RW / RCM through the half spaces, with 3 players at the back for the turnover.

 

I've seen some posts on here suggesting "Soumare had an unusual position" but he really didn't. He was the left sided central midfielder in a 433, and was asked to do the same job Tielemans does, just on the other side. He was a bit hit and miss, but this moment showcases what he's expected to do for the team. Progress the ball up the pitch and get it into the final third. He plays a great pass here taking 4 players out of the game and leading to a decent opportunity for Vardy.

 

 

Here's the goal from the Brighton match, an example of the RW, RB and RCM working together to make a chance for Vardy. Notice how high Tielemans is (and at the end of the clip notice Soumare lurking in a mirrored position on the other side of the box).

 

 

So why play 433 instead of 4231? It means we can have better midfield superiority with 3 in the middle of the park when off the ball, but when attacking push up more of the team to attack. We miss a player drifting between the lines who would play the 10 role, but in exchange have a player that on paper contributes more to the game in terms of direct running, power, tackling and meaningful possession. Tielemans definitely fits this description, so it's down to Soumare to match that output. I think he's shown enough to suggest he can do it, and it's still very early in his career so far at Leicester.

 

Now in all the games we've played 433 so far it must be noted that Kelechi Ihenacho came on late on and we went to more of a 4231 and he made a difference in every game. So which is the better system? I can't answer that right now! We have a lot of new players being bedded in, players need to get used to it, and defensively we have not been good. With both systems defence hasn't been down to a fault of the tactical system, but more down to unforced errors and IMO zonal marking at set pieces, Wellbeck beat Vardy in the air against Brighton and then Vardy scored an OG against Burnley.

 

 

@StriderHiryu- great posts.

 

One thing I missed was Rodgers had made a slight tactical adjustment. Rather than Bertrand filling in as a LCB in a back 3 when attacking, looks like he wants both full backs to push up, with Ndidi moving into a centre-half role instead to create a back three. 

 

I think he's realised teams had shifted their tactics to attack the space left by the lop-sided approach. 

[StriderHiryu]

12 minutes ago, lcfc_forever said:

@StriderHiryu- great posts.

 

One thing I missed was Rodgers had made a slight tactical adjustment. Rather than Bertrand filling in as a LCB in a back 3 when attacking, looks like he wants both full backs to push up, with Ndidi moving into a centre-half role instead to create a back three. 

 

I think he's realised teams had shifted their tactics to attack the space left by the lop-sided approach. 

That's one of the key differences with 433 compared to 4231. In 4231, one full back sits to leave 3 at the back whilst the other one goes forwards. In a 433, the CDM steps backwards to form the back 3. Liverpool do the same.

 

It's not without it's issues though, Ricardo got taken off because he kept wandering too far forwards. Not only should he have done better for the goal, but literally 3 minutes later Cornet got in again and could have scored. Castagne was more defensive, but also contributed to our attack. But just making that side more stable meant we were both better attacking and defending down that side. Liverpool also have this problem, with Alexander-Arnold often caught out of position when they concede.

 

The tactical adjustment / innovation Rodgers has in our 433 is that our RW comes in centrally a lot more often so our RB can push up even further. Lookman's average position shows this, but it also means on paper we can get the most out of players like Maddison and Perez too.

[Dahnsouff]

26 minutes ago, StriderHiryu said:

That's one of the key differences with 433 compared to 4231. In 4231, one full back sits to leave 3 at the back whilst the other one goes forwards. In a 433, the CDM steps backwards to form the back 3. Liverpool do the same.

 

It's not without it's issues though, Ricardo got taken off because he kept wandering too far forwards. Not only should he have done better for the goal, but literally 3 minutes later Cornet got in again and could have scored. Castagne was more defensive, but also contributed to our attack. But just making that side more stable meant we were both better attacking and defending down that side. Liverpool also have this problem, with Alexander-Arnold often caught out of position when they concede.

 

The tactical adjustment / innovation Rodgers has in our 433 is that our RW comes in centrally a lot more often so our RB can push up even further. Lookman's average position shows this, but it also means on paper we can get the most out of players like Maddison and Perez too.

Yes, noticed this and Ricardo seemed to lose a bit of discipline, so understood the sub. Interesting stuff on the 433/4321 differences  

[Nicolo Barella]

On 20/09/2021 at 21:14, BenTayfour said:

I think this should be our regular Formation/XI, very similar to liverpool's 433 in the way it operates Fullbacks Ventures forward more often, midfielders mainly stays narrow & tries to dominate the midfield, Front 3 (Barnes = salah main goal threat with his directness and urge to score), Nacho = Firmino (drop to midfield linking up play and creating space by dragging defenders out of position he is better suited for this role than the other strikers due to his hold up playstyle) lookman = a mix of play.

 

A 4.4.2 like the one used at the opening first half vs napoli also can be good one : 4 man press / compact block on the defence / stretches the opposition defence.                               

Whilst I am a fan of this idea, if we are to "replicate" Liverpool with Iheanacho as a false 9, the two wide forwards need to be strong goal threats. Barnes on form might qualify, but as impressive as Lookman has been so far, I don't think he's ever shown a consistent finishing side to his game. I'd be interested to see Daka in his position, as our equivalent to Salah; Salah often plays as more of a forward than a winger anyway, with Firmino vacating the role of the striker. I think Daka could potentially play that role, with Ricardo pushing up like Trent Alexander-Arnold. 

[lcfc_forever]

2 hours ago, StriderHiryu said:

That's one of the key differences with 433 compared to 4231. In 4231, one full back sits to leave 3 at the back whilst the other one goes forwards. In a 433, the CDM steps backwards to form the back 3. Liverpool do the same.

 

It's not without it's issues though, Ricardo got taken off because he kept wandering too far forwards. Not only should he have done better for the goal, but literally 3 minutes later Cornet got in again and could have scored. Castagne was more defensive, but also contributed to our attack. But just making that side more stable meant we were both better attacking and defending down that side. Liverpool also have this problem, with Alexander-Arnold often caught out of position when they concede.

 

The tactical adjustment / innovation Rodgers has in our 433 is that our RW comes in centrally a lot more often so our RB can push up even further. Lookman's average position shows this, but it also means on paper we can get the most out of players like Maddison and Perez too.

Brilliant explanation, thank you! 

[messerschmitt]

2 hours ago, StriderHiryu said:

That's one of the key differences with 433 compared to 4231. In 4231, one full back sits to leave 3 at the back whilst the other one goes forwards. In a 433, the CDM steps backwards to form the back 3. Liverpool do the same.

 

It's not without it's issues though, Ricardo got taken off because he kept wandering too far forwards. Not only should he have done better for the goal, but literally 3 minutes later Cornet got in again and could have scored. Castagne was more defensive, but also contributed to our attack. But just making that side more stable meant we were both better attacking and defending down that side. Liverpool also have this problem, with Alexander-Arnold often caught out of position when they concede.

 

The tactical adjustment / innovation Rodgers has in our 433 is that our RW comes in centrally a lot more often so our RB can push up even further. Lookman's average position shows this, but it also means on paper we can get the most out of players like Maddison and Perez too.

I think JJ would be perfect in a 433, shame we'll have to wait, might not be up to speed till next season.

[messerschmitt]

53 minutes ago, Nicolo Barella said:

Whilst I am a fan of this idea, if we are to "replicate" Liverpool with Iheanacho as a false 9, the two wide forwards need to be strong goal threats. Barnes on form might qualify, but as impressive as Lookman has been so far, I don't think he's ever shown a consistent finishing side to his game. I'd be interested to see Daka in his position, as our equivalent to Salah; Salah often plays as more of a forward than a winger anyway, with Firmino vacating the role of the striker. I think Daka could potentially play that role, with Ricardo pushing up like Trent Alexander-Arnold. 

Surely we can come up with something suitable with Vardy, Iheanacho, Daka, Barnes and Lookman.

[StriderHiryu]

1 hour ago, Nicolo Barella said:

Whilst I am a fan of this idea, if we are to "replicate" Liverpool with Iheanacho as a false 9, the two wide forwards need to be strong goal threats. Barnes on form might qualify, but as impressive as Lookman has been so far, I don't think he's ever shown a consistent finishing side to his game. I'd be interested to see Daka in his position, as our equivalent to Salah; Salah often plays as more of a forward than a winger anyway, with Firmino vacating the role of the striker. I think Daka could potentially play that role, with Ricardo pushing up like Trent Alexander-Arnold. 

That is where Daka played against Napoli. At first I was confused by the system we used in that game, and thought it was some sort of hybrid 442 like we used in a few games at the end of last season, but if you back and look at it again, it was 433. Nacho was in the middle for the most part but he drifting back towards the centre circle. Daka was very unlucky not to score in that game, so that could be something we see more of in the future too.

 

But so far this season we know that Vardy will always be the focal point for our attacks, and whilst he's in the form that he's in, that should remain the case. So that means we will be more of a traditional 433 rather than the Klopp version.

 

Unironically we have a better number 9 than the other two teams in the division that primarily play 433; Man City and Liverpool. That shows you how lucky we are.

[sacreblueits442]

1 hour ago, messerschmitt said:

Surely we can come up with something suitable with Vardy, Iheanacho, Daka, Barnes and Lookman.

....you need two good dribblers upfront and Barnes and Lookman would be the wide options and we use a out and out #9 or play with a False #9 (Nacho)!!!

We are limited with options and only certain players can take up the appropriate rolls.

[HoustonFox]

1 hour ago, StriderHiryu said:

That is where Daka played against Napoli. At first I was confused by the system we used in that game, and thought it was some sort of hybrid 442 like we used in a few games at the end of last season, but if you back and look at it again, it was 433. Nacho was in the middle for the most part but he drifting back towards the centre circle. Daka was very unlucky not to score in that game, so that could be something we see more of in the future too.

 

But so far this season we know that Vardy will always be the focal point for our attacks, and whilst he's in the form that he's in, that should remain the case. So that means we will be more of a traditional 433 rather than the Klopp version.

 

Unironically we have a better number 9 than the other two teams in the division that primarily play 433; Man City and Liverpool. That shows you how lucky we are.

For the Napoli game, Daka drifting in worked really well and he is clearly better through the middle. When the change first happened it was a straight 442 to 4411 swap with him and Perez and it wasn’t working. It wasn’t until Perez went off and we went to more of a 433 with Daka having more licence to cut in that he looked more effective. He’s a pure 9 though, very instinctual finisher. 
 

4231 or 4411 is probably our best formation right now. I’m concerned about a back 3 just because Vesty isn’t performing as it means we miss on Lookman and Barnes. 343 is never something we’ve been comfortable with and that then displaces Nacho and leaves the RM with too much to do (if Nacho is our RF in that scenario - something Pipes talks about). 
 

I’m also not sure Bertrand has regained full fitness since Covid and it’s limiting him pushing on. He’s more of a balanced LB than Thomas, and definitely less attacking than Ricardo. I think Tim probably edges RB right now as he’s more balanced and our RCB needs more support if it’s not Evans. 
 

If down fo me, I’d pay 4411 with Vardy and Kels up top, Barnes and Lookman wide, Youri and Wilf and then a back 4 or Bertrand / Thomas (depending on oppo), Cags, Evans and Castagne / Ricardo (again depending on oppo). 
 

For games where we need more presence and cover I’d maybe swap Kels for Soumare, who I think is very good and provides good energy. He’s unfortunately being asked to do too much attacking wise. He’s a 6 or 6.5, not an 8 and definitely not a 10. If Madders is fit and on it (and bulks you) you could swap him for Soumare for more of an 8 with some 10. 

[KingsX]

On 19/09/2021 at 11:08, StriderHiryu said:

IMO in modern football the 10 position is a relic of the past and too much of a luxury player. So our 10 needs to be part of a midfield 3 like we had today. For all Maddison's quality on the ball, he's too slow to play that system effectively.

 

Perhaps at home we can play 4231 against weaker teams, but there's a reason why very few of the top teams in Europe play that way any more.

 

On 25/09/2021 at 12:53, StriderHiryu said:

The crazier thing is why he wont just play him as a 10!

 

Look at Vardy's second goal. Nacho is very deep in midfield but receives the ball under pressure, turns and plays a great pass with the outside of his foot. His interception and blocking stats are among the best of any striker in the division, and better than many attacking midfielders including Mount and Maddison.

 

So the real myth is that we have to play 2 strikers to incorporate Nacho. We can play 4231 and have Nacho in Maddison's position. He doesn't have to play parallel to Vardy at all.

 

Care to land on one side of this fence or the other? 

[StriderHiryu]

If we play 4231, try Nacho as a 10.

If we play 433 try Maddison as an 8 instead of as a 7. When Rodgers first got here we played 4141 so there's precedent for it.

 

Personally I don't think 4231 is a good system to use in football in 2021. However, Nacho is one of our best players this calendar year and sometimes you have to forgo your favourite system / tactics to get the best results for your team, so 4231 that's almost a 442 when attacking with Nacho could be worth trying for that reason. I also don't mind switching to the 4231 later in games to attack them when we are behind. Going 4231 against Palace would be OK with Ndidi in the team but without I would go 433.

 

If we stuck to the 433 and mastered it, I think long-term we'd improve as a team if we went that way. But we are in a mini-crisis right not so just need to turn the corner by hook or by crook.

 

3 at the back should only really be used when desperate. It didn't work well (again) against Legia. I know Tuchel plays 343, but Chelsea are struggling a bit of recent too, and that's despite a galaxy of stars at their disposal.

[Deeg67]

Chelsea is "struggling" with 13 points in 6 matches, 1 point off the top of the table, and a +10 GD.  How i long for the day when our struggles look like that.

[Dan LCFC]

Think it simply has to be Barnes, Iheanacho and Lookman behind Vardy, but I admittedly struggle on the midfield pair behind it at the minute and Ndidi's absence means he's invariably going to go back to that ghastly back 3 which'll invariably fail.

[sacreblueits442]

15 hours ago, Dan LCFC said:

Think it simply has to be Barnes, Iheanacho and Lookman behind Vardy, but I admittedly struggle on the midfield pair behind it at the minute and Ndidi's absence means he's invariably going to go back to that ghastly back 3 which'll invariably fail.

....playing Soumare alongside Tielemans is more than an option!!!

There is more than one way to play with the 4-2-3-1 formation and Soumare does not have to replicate Ndidi in order to be successful.

[An Sionnach]

19 minutes ago, sacreblueits442 said:

....playing Soumare alongside Tielemans is more than an option!!!

There is more than one way to play with the 4-2-3-1 formation and Soumare does not have to replicate Ndidi in order to be successful.

Playing two wide players would require much stronger defensive cover than Tielemans and Soumaré , Iheanacho is no defender. We would be easily outfought in midfield by many teams. The CBs would be badly exposed.