Tactics Talk:

[StriderHiryu]

6 minutes ago, Lambert09 said:

It is a huge issue though. The west ham goal in particular was shocking. But crystal palace cut through us twice with it yesterday. 
 

Really hoping they are working on it as if we can get that right we will be solid! 

Well the two times they got in were due to players not releasing the ball quickly enough rather than playing a high line. First half was Youri getting pressed which led to their first goal, and second half Ndidi was culpable letting Riedewald get in. Against West Ham I would agree with you though, in both games we conceded numerous sloppy goals and chances due to positioning with our high line.

 

The reason why we and many proactive teams do it is because it compresses play into the opponent's half and lets a team sustains attacks over and over. One of the reasons why we score so many goals in the second half was evident against Palace, the last 15 we were camped in their half attacking over and over again. When that style of play goes wrong it backfires spectacularly, but it even happens to teams like Bayern Munich, Man City and Liverpool. But then it works it's so effective that it's worth persevering with. Personally if you compare Leicester in the Rodger era to the Puel era, that high press is the defining change. Under Puel we had possession football but it was side to side and easy to stop. Under Rodgers it's high tempo, pushing right up the pitch and it's taken us to another level. 

[Lambert09]

13 minutes ago, StriderHiryu said:

Well the two times they got in were due to players not releasing the ball quickly enough rather than playing a high line. First half was Youri getting pressed which led to their first goal, and second half Ndidi was culpable letting Riedewald get in. Against West Ham I would agree with you though, in both games we conceded numerous sloppy goals and chances due to positioning with our high line.

 

The reason why we and many proactive teams do it is because it compresses play into the opponent's half and lets a team sustains attacks over and over. One of the reasons why we score so many goals in the second half was evident against Palace, the last 15 we were camped in their half attacking over and over again. When that style of play goes wrong it backfires spectacularly, but it even happens to teams like Bayern Munich, Man City and Liverpool. But then it works it's so effective that it's worth persevering with. Personally if you compare Leicester in the Rodger era to the Puel era, that high press is the defining change. Under Puel we had possession football but it was side to side and easy to stop. Under Rodgers it's high tempo, pushing right up the pitch and it's taken us to another level. 

It’s definitely a strategy and one that does work well but I think they have to pick their moments more effectively. 
 

The second chance in particular, (I can’t  share a screen shot due to CR) you can see we are getting into trouble and rather than drop off we hold a line about a meter in our half. That chance in particular they have 4 players they could put through... if they read that danger early and drop off there’s very little danger. 
 

Having our cbs charge the ball is great but there are times they have to trust wilf to nullify the threats. 
 

[Lambert09]

That was tight! These high lines give me anxiety 

[Facecloth]

@StriderHiryu watching last night I was wondering about this, and as you're the tactics expert I thought I'd ask you.

 

Do you think we've played ourselves into a formation headache? We've discovered the Iheanacho can only really play in a two up front. In order to do that, coupled with losing our best winger we've switched to the 3 at the back with wing backs as this allows us to still include the midfield trio. Last night was screaming out for us to lose a centre back, but I fail to see any way we could do that whilst still playing 2 up front and keeping the 3 midfielders on. There's literally no formation that allows us to play 4 at the back, Ndidi, Tielemans and Maddison and still play Iheanacho and Vardy as a front 2. Possibly a 4222, but I don't think that's a particularly good formation for any team.

 

I'm don't think realistically we can carry on with 5 at the back long term, as we aren't as strong, especially on the right side, Forfana gets caught out quite a bit. Also we'll eventually get Barnes back. I don't see a formation that allows us to still let Iheanacho flourish, play the midfield 3, and play 4 at the back.

Edited 1 May 2021 by Facecloth

[Steve Earle]

3 hours ago, Facecloth said:

@StriderHiryu watching last night I was wondering about this, and as you're the tactics expert I thought I'd ask you.

 

Do you think we've played ourselves into a formation headache? We've discovered the Iheanacho can only really play in a two up front. In order to do that, coupled with losing our best winger we've switched to the 3 at the back with wing backs as this allows us to still include the midfield trio. Last night was screaming out for us to lose a centre back, but I fail to see any way we could do that whilst still playing 2 up front and keeping the 3 midfielders on. There's literally no formation that allows us to play 4 at the back, Ndidi, Tielemans and Maddison and still play Iheanacho and Vardy as a front 2. Possibly a 4222, but I don't think that's a particularly good formation for any team.

 

I'm don't think realistically we can carry on with 5 at the back long term, as we aren't as strong, especially on the right side, Forfana gets caught out quite a bit. Also we'll eventually get Barnes back. I don't see a formation that allows us to still let Iheanacho flourish, play the midfield 3, and play 4 at the back.

There literally is - 4-3-1-2. And another - 442 diamond.

Edited 1 May 2021 by Steve Earle
amend

[Facecloth]

2 minutes ago, Steve Earle said:

There literally is - 4-3-1-2. Or another - 442 diamond.

Both extremely narrow so I can see why we don't want to play either. Rodgers clearly wants width, but also wants the midfield trio to play, but also has to play Iheanacho with a partner. You can't play those 3, plus Iheanacho with a strike partner and still get enough width, hence why he's gone three at the back to get the width from the wing backs.

[Deeg67]

If he wanted width he'd play wingers.

[Stadt]

22 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

@StriderHiryu watching last night I was wondering about this, and as you're the tactics expert I thought I'd ask you.

 

Do you think we've played ourselves into a formation headache? We've discovered the Iheanacho can only really play in a two up front. In order to do that, coupled with losing our best winger we've switched to the 3 at the back with wing backs as this allows us to still include the midfield trio. Last night was screaming out for us to lose a centre back, but I fail to see any way we could do that whilst still playing 2 up front and keeping the 3 midfielders on. There's literally no formation that allows us to play 4 at the back, Ndidi, Tielemans and Maddison and still play Iheanacho and Vardy as a front 2. Possibly a 4222, but I don't think that's a particularly good formation for any team.

 

I'm don't think realistically we can carry on with 5 at the back long term, as we aren't as strong, especially on the right side, Forfana gets caught out quite a bit. Also we'll eventually get Barnes back. I don't see a formation that allows us to still let Iheanacho flourish, play the midfield 3, and play 4 at the back.

              Vardy Iheanacho 

                   Maddison

          Tielemans      Praet

                       Ndidi

  Thomas Soyuncu Evans Castagne

[Facecloth]

Just now, Stadt said:

              Vardy Iheanacho 

                   Maddison

          Tielemans      Praet

                       Ndidi

  Thomas Soyuncu Evans Castagne

So all the width is from the full backs?

[Facecloth]

11 minutes ago, Deeg67 said:

If he wanted width he'd play wingers.

We don't have any right now.

 

He's playing 3 cb to get width from the wing backs.

Edited 1 May 2021 by Facecloth

[Tielemans63]

It's a shame that Cengo has proven to be unreliable/ not quite up to it. I think everyone expected him to be a lot better than he is.

 

That said, I thought he was a gamble worth taking last night, bringing him on for Timmy may have been a worthwhile option because TC's crossing was not good last night and he was playing the ball back inside a lot because he couldn't beat his man. Cengo brings chaos but that might have been the order or the day last night.

Edited 1 May 2021 by Paddy.

[LaCiudad]

Rodgers clearly instructs the players to play with patience. I think the players confuse slowing the game down and playing without intensity with patience.

Rodgers needs to tweak this thinking.

[StriderHiryu]

1 hour ago, Facecloth said:

@StriderHiryu watching last night I was wondering about this, and as you're the tactics expert I thought I'd ask you.

 

Do you think we've played ourselves into a formation headache? We've discovered the Iheanacho can only really play in a two up front. In order to do that, coupled with losing our best winger we've switched to the 3 at the back with wing backs as this allows us to still include the midfield trio. Last night was screaming out for us to lose a centre back, but I fail to see any way we could do that whilst still playing 2 up front and keeping the 3 midfielders on. There's literally no formation that allows us to play 4 at the back, Ndidi, Tielemans and Maddison and still play Iheanacho and Vardy as a front 2. Possibly a 4222, but I don't think that's a particularly good formation for any team.

 

I'm don't think realistically we can carry on with 5 at the back long term, as we aren't as strong, especially on the right side, Forfana gets caught out quite a bit. Also we'll eventually get Barnes back. I don't see a formation that allows us to still let Iheanacho flourish, play the midfield 3, and play 4 at the back.

I think people are overreacting to a disappointing result. Saints played with 10 men for 80 minutes so essentially defended for the entire game. We should have been able to break them down but couldn’t, and that sort of result against 10 men is quite common in football. 
 

For me the formation was irrelevant, especially as Brendan changed it up in the second half. Maddison has a poor game and Vardy had several clear cut chances which aren’t going in at the moment. I think we take the point and move on!

[Facecloth]

Just now, StriderHiryu said:

I think people are overreacting to a disappointing result. Saints played with 10 men for 80 minutes so essentially defended for the entire game. We should have been able to break them down but couldn’t, and that sort of result against 10 men is quite common in football. 
 

For me the formation was irrelevant, especially as Brendan changed it up in the second half. Maddison has a poor game and Vardy had several clear cut chances which aren’t going in at the moment. I think we take the point and move on!

I'm not just talking about last night, I'm talking about going forward. I think we've found a way to get something out of Iheanacho, but that doesn't fit well with any other formation and combination of players other than what we started with last night, which has its own issues as previously mentioned. I also don't find the three at the back as fluid as other previously used set ups. When Barnes is fit, and we potentially sign a new winger, we're gonna struggle to play them in a formation that suits Iheanacho and allows him to play his favoured midfield trio.

[Stadt]

1 hour ago, Facecloth said:

So all the width is from the full backs?

Yeah, Praet takes up quite wide positions too, generally. I’m not a huge fan of a diamond but in games like yesterday it’s preferable to having a wasted spare CB

[StriderHiryu]

7 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

I'm not just talking about last night, I'm talking about going forward. I think we've found a way to get something out of Iheanacho, but that doesn't fit well with any other formation and combination of players other than what we started with last night, which has its own issues as previously mentioned. I also don't find the three at the back as fluid as other previously used set ups. When Barnes is fit, and we potentially sign a new winger, we're gonna struggle to play them in a formation that suits Iheanacho and allows him to play his favoured midfield trio.

Assuming we have another 50-60 game season we will have more than enough games to rotate through most of the squad. 
 

In the 3412 our lack of left hand side penetration is an issue, which is why the potential signing of Robin Gosens is very exciting. But at the same time it’s important to remember we lost both Barnes and JJ a while ago! Any team will struggle with an entire first choice flank injured. TBH Rodgers deserves massive credit for somehow finding a way despite this. 

[Dahnsouff]

Hypothetically, could we remove Vardy and play with a 2nd no 10's behind Kel, so as to offset Vardy's value to Nacho?

I in no way believe Maddison or Perez deserve this formation tweak, but that is why it hypothetical  

[Facecloth]

6 minutes ago, Stadt said:

Yeah, Praet takes up quite wide positions too, generally. I’m not a huge fan of a diamond but in games like yesterday it’s preferable to having a wasted spare CB

Yeah, it would have been. I was calling to lose a centre back after the red card.

 

My initial post is taking about going forward though, playing a formation that allows our best players to flourish whilst still getting the same tune out of Iheanacho.

[Facecloth]

1 minute ago, Dahnsouff said:

Hypothetically, could we remove Vardy and play with a 2nd no 10's behind Kel, so as to offset Vardy's value to Nacho?

I in no way believe Maddison or Perez deserve this formation tweak, but that is why it hypothetical  

But going forward that doesn't accommodate Barnes and a potential new winger.

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, Facecloth said:

But going forward that doesn't accommodate Barnes and a potential new winger.

Not directly, but it does give a way to move towards a 1 up front in preparation for Barnes and Trincao (for example). I mean we can never play with 2 wingers and 2 forwards, can we? 

[SpacedX]

2 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Not directly, but it does give a way to move towards a 1 up front in preparation for Barnes and Trincao (for example). I mean we can never play with 2 wingers and 2 forwards, can we? 

We have done in the past.  

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, Line-X said:

We have done in the past.  

We don`t play a flat 442 or 4411 anymore, or are you suggesting we should return to these formations?

[Facecloth]

Just now, Dahnsouff said:

Not directly, but it does give a way to move towards a 1 up front in preparation for Barnes and Trincao (for example). I mean we can never play with 2 wingers and 2 forwards, can we? 

I can't see how we could, because it probably mean a 442. I don't see a midfield 2 of Ndidi and Tielemans working in a 442. We'd also lose the creativity of a number 10.

 

We have played with a 1 up top before with Vardy and wingers either side. If we accept Vardy is on the wind down and Iheanacho might take a bigger role next year than unless Rodgers can coach it onto him, he struggles playing as the lone striker, then it makes that formation completely in effective next season.

[SpacedX]

3 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

We don`t play a flat 442 or 4411 anymore, or are you suggesting we should return to these formations?

Sorry, to clarify, yes I was referring to the option of a 4-4-2. 

 

I think with shrewd coaching, suitable depth and versatility, we should be adapting our shape to the opposition. 

[Facecloth]

4 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Sorry, to clarify, yes I was referring to the option of a 4-4-2. 

 

I think with shrewd coaching, suitable depth and versatility, we should be adapting our shape to the opposition. 

Really, you want us to play 442?