Tactics Talk:

[SpacedX]

3 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Really, you want us to play 442? 

No, I didn't say that - or rather didn't intend it to come across that way. 

 

Next season, I want us to be capable of playing a 4-4-2 should the need arise. 

[Facecloth]

12 minutes ago, Line-X said:

No, I didn't say that - or rather didn't intend it to come across that way. 

 

Next season, I want us to be capable of playing a 4-4-2 should the need arise. 

I'm sure we could play it now. With Albrighton on one wing, Ricardo on the other maybe, or even Under. I just don't see how it benefits us. Very few tops teams play 442* for a reason, and that being that these days you get overun in midfield. Even though we played it in the title winning season, we didn't really. Okazaki was deeper than Vardy and supported the midfield a lot, and Kante was two players.

 

*As I type this I see Man City are being shown as lining up 442, but they are different class, and lets be honest, Pep will have a different twist on it.

 

[turtmcfly]

1 hour ago, 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!

 

We did 'break them down' completely Strider, once! And we 'broke through' what was a well set up defence a number of times and should have got at least one more.

 

I don't understand people saying we were abysmal, as thought it was a return to the Puel games (someone even said that it literally was) where we were one-dimensional and had no chances on target. 

 

Keep reading posters coming up with cliches that we were 'passive', should have 'upped the pace'. It never comes with an explanation of exactly what they think we should have done in terms of actual actions on the pitch. Hollywood balls from one side of the pitch to the other? Faster more intricate passing of the type only Man City have really shown the ability to maintain for extended periods?

 

The thing that really screwed us last night was letting a 10 man team score

 

[StriderHiryu]

5 minutes ago, turtmcfly said:

 

We did 'break them down' completely Strider, once! And we 'broke through' what was a well set up defence a number of times and should have got at least one more.

 

I don't understand people saying we were abysmal, as thought it was a return to the Puel games (someone even said that it literally was) where we were one-dimensional and had no chances on target. 

 

Keep reading posters coming up with cliches that we were 'passive', should have 'upped the pace'. It never comes with an explanation of exactly what they think we should have done in terms of actual actions on the pitch. Hollywood balls from one side of the pitch to the other? Faster more intricate passing of the type only Man City have really shown the ability to maintain for extended periods?

 

The thing that really screwed us last night was letting a 10 man team score

 

Exactly. It was a poor performance but we made enough chances to win. For me there was nothing wrong tactically with how we setup, but it's a game of opinions and everyone is entitled to their own!

[Facecloth]

@turtmcfly @StriderHiryu can I just say again, my post in this thread was not about last night on its own, it was more a comment on the formation we have been using, and how whilst it's brought out the best in certain players is it viable going forward long term if we want to bring other back in, or switch to a back 4.

Edited 1 May 2021 by Facecloth

[moore_94]

8 minutes ago, StriderHiryu said:

Exactly. It was a poor performance but we made enough chances to win. For me there was nothing wrong tactically with how we setup, but it's a game of opinions and everyone is entitled to their own!

I also feel it wasn't the system that was the issue last night it just seemed to be that the majority of our players forgot what to do when in the box

 

Another night when our players were able to take their chances properly and it could have been a battering again

 

[Mike Oxlong]

I’m with Brendan re the performance last night

 

”the speed of our game wasn’t at the level till we went behind in the game”

 

Particularly against ten men who are sitting in you need to move the ball quicker to stretch them and find space and if it doesn’t come off that’s ok because with the extra man the chances of a quick recycle are good and then go again 

 

I thought we looked a bit jaded last night but regardless we aren’t at a level where we’re not going to throw in some under par performances. 

[SpacedX]

1 hour ago, Facecloth said:

I'm sure we could play it now. With Albrighton on one wing, Ricardo on the other maybe, or even Under. I just don't see how it benefits us. Very few tops teams play 442* for a reason, and that being that these days you get overun in midfield. Even though we played it in the title winning season, we didn't really. Okazaki was deeper than Vardy and supported the midfield a lot, and Kante was two players.

 

*As I type this I see Man City are being shown as lining up 442, but they are different class, and lets be honest, Pep will have a different twist on it.

 

Ha!. I noticed that too, but as you say, a full strength Man City are able to be the exception - an do what they want.  But I do agree with you - the concern is the vulnerability in MF although the formation is far from extinct - depending in the opposition. Yes, Okazaki often dropped deep, and Kante was two players in one, but another key to the success of the formation was a very tight and compact well drilled and disciplined back four. Often there simply wasn't a way through MF or into the channels, whilst Huth and Morgan dealt admirably with resultant aimless crosses that then came from the flank. But think about it, when we play a three man MF, in reality a fully fit Maddison (which would be the preferred option) is high in the hole as opposed to shoring up the MF which isn't his strength anyway and certainly not as deep as his current detractors have correctly criticised him/Brendan for being right now. That's not his game. 

 

Potentially, with the long awaited acquisition of an able replacement for Mahrez opposite Barnes, (Casmiri? ), with a fully fit JJ as LB and Castagne RB, we could pose such a threat from either wing that the opposition can't afford to load the MF. 

 

This isn#t absolute - my point is, that we should be able and willing to adapt along with the flux and mutability of the game of football.  

 

I maintain, you need an exceptionally talented, quality out and out centre-forward to consistently perform up top as a lone striker. Perhaps I am too much of a traditionalist, but I do like the notion of a strike partnership or a No.10 closely bringing up the rear (which Okazaki essentially was). I concede it doesn't come without a trade off though.  

 

Brendan favoured the diamond at Liverpool which again is an option that we should be able to employ if necessary - but then he had Gerrard. We have the caliber of CBs and N'Didi sat in front to make this work. Do you recall when Tinkerman actually started to tinker again and he dropped this on the squad a few hours before kick off away at St.Mary's? In Fuchs and Simpson, we didn't simply didn't have the modern style of mobile FB to exploit this in terms of the contemporary game and boss the flanks. Forward in time to 2019 away to Villa, we did, albeit against lacklustre opposition on the day - but not wishing to underestimate Villa, that was one of the reasons we deployed it. Although I don't think this brings out the best in Youri, he was nonetheless immense, but crucially, it afforded us a glimpse of the Vards/Iheanacho potential.

 

I'm not saying that we should necessarily be starting with a 4-4-2/4-4-1-1. However, in tandem with our coaching, the possibility of embarking on another European campaign and as we strengthen the squad in terms of depth and versatility, the current calls for a back four on here should then expect this to be accompanied by agile and responsive, adaptable philosophy as opposed to the prescriptive rigid one dimensional expectation of 4-3-3 every week. If it works, why change it? - because quite often, injury or the opposition demands that we should be able to - either during the season or proactively / responsively within 90 minutes. That could quite possibly involve or favour the scenario of a 4-4-2 for example. 

 

I don't expect that we'll see the 4-1-4-1 again any time soon though. 

 

Edited 1 May 2021 by Line-X

[filbertway]

Same thing every single game we come out slow and very risk averse. Our quality means we create some chances.

We then step things up when were desperate. It's the same. Every. Single. Week.

 

I hope our intention isnt to be this kind of team long because it's so boring.

 

I miss the team that would come out and blow a team away in the first 30 minutes of a game

[ARM1968]

We need a little bit of urgency no matter what tactic we play. Not good enough to go behind and then find a gear. That will see us come unstuck. 

[CloudFox]

Iheanacho actually plays more as a slightly withdrawn striker, so I think the formation is less of a problem than we think. He and Maddison are effectively different options in that position, so a 4-2-3-1 could still work.

 

Or, 4-3-1-2 with Ndidi dropping into defense to allow the full/wing backs to rampage forward and provide the width. Then Barnes can play the current Vardy/wide forward role to stretch play and find Kele space.

 

There you go, solved it. Call me, Brendan 😘

Edited 1 May 2021 by CloudFox

[SpacedX]

27 minutes ago, CloudFox said:

There you, solved it. Call me, Brendan 😘

Fortunate then that you are not. 

[CloudFox]

6 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Fortunate then that you are not. 

I mean I'm being a bit flippant - it's obviously not that easy. As others have said, any of the formations discussed here work better when we have penetration on the left - whether that be through Barnes, Justin or (hopefully) Gosens.

 

That's no disrespect to Thomas, but he is more of a technical full back than a rampaging one like Pereira or Castagne.

[SpacedX]

1 hour ago, filbertway said:

Same thing every single game we come out slow and very risk averse. Our quality means we create some chances.

We then step things up when were desperate. It's the same. Every. Single. Week.

 

I hope our intention isnt to be this kind of team long because it's so boring.

 

I miss the team that would come out and blow a team away in the first 30 minutes of a game

 

40 minutes ago, ARM1968 said:

We need a little bit of urgency no matter what tactic we play. Not good enough to go behind and then find a gear. That will see us come unstuck. 

When we play well against decent opposition, we have patiently contained and build in a measured way - then upping the press and intensity later in the game where we exploit weakness in the opposition. Unfortunately, many of our 'supporters' lack that patience and granted, it can be risky because it places us under substantial pressure. This doesn't mean that we should sacrifice our tempo, but the idea is to enable us to pull the pin at 65/70 minutes. The trouble is, as you say, there are games that we should have killed earlier as we did against the Baggies (which was actually everything I've just described in reverse), and our football is currently sluggish and ponderous. Last night, we should have immediately changed formation and attacked when Saints went down to ten instead of allowing them to reshape - inviting the protracted arduous and onerous prospect of competing against the low block. But as well as defending admirably, they actually came at us. Credit to them. 

[StriderHiryu]

1 hour ago, Facecloth said:

@turtmcfly @StriderHiryu can I just say again, my post in this thread was not about last night on its own, it was more a comment on the formation we have been using, and how whilst it's brought out the best in certain players is it viable going forward long term if we want to bring other back in, or switch to a back 4.

OK that's fair enough.

 

In the 4231 one player specifically is electric, Harvey Barnes and in the form he was in, it really made the best use of him. In that formation with Barnes, Maddison, Vardy, James Justin and Ricardo all at 100% we are a very strong team. But, we do have one very obvious weakness, which is that we lack an inside right forward of the same level of Harvey Barnes. So we would either have to buy one (Trincao? Thy boy from PSV?) or push Ricardo up there instead. Perez is wasted there as I am sure many would agree.

 

In the 3412, a different player is electric, Kelechi Iheanacho. We also get to use all 3 of our world class CBs, as well as Vardy, Nacho and Maddison up top. In this system the thing we lack is a naturally left footed player, though with JJ I feel that was less of an issue. Given he is probably out till 2022 we would likely have to buy someone, which is why the Gosens links are interesting. Nacho is a lot younger than Vardy, so I would say it's more likely to be system we see more of next season.

 

In 4231 you miss out on Nacho, 3412 you miss out on Barnes. But is there a way to get both into the same team in either formation? Possibly. We could use Barnes instead of Vardy or as a left wing back in the 3412, which might work. Or we could try Nacho as the inside right forward in the 4231, which I am less optimistic about but could also work. Or we could do something a bit like last night when we basically seemed to use Southampton's own system of the 4222 where we had Vardy and Nacho up top, then Perez and Maddison in behind them and use the full backs for width which was done by Albrighton and Castagne. In that system Barnes could play with Maddison in behind Nacho and Vardy, though I feel we would still need a naturally left footed player to play at full back in that system too.

 

John Percy linked us with Edouard (another striker), Gosens (Left wing back) and Soumare (Midfielder with brilliant ball progression stats).  That suggests 3412 is more likely than 4231, but we are a very flexible team and we will play both systems at times next season for sure.

 

For all the talk about systems, I trust the manager to sort it out, he's proved to us all he's no mug. First FA Cup final in 50+ years, currently third in the table, despite being ravaged by injuries all season. Ricardo still not up to speed, Barnes and JJ will have missed at least a third of the season each come the end of it. I'd give him a 9/10 for this season if it ended today, bag the FA Cup and Champions League place and it would be a 10 from me!

[Deeg67]

Strider, the issue I take with your argument is that the 3-4-1-2 forces more of our best players (Barnes, Maddison, Ricardo, Castagne, Vardy) to play where they're less effective positionally than players it helps.  When everyone is healthy I don't think it maximizes the talent we have against most opponents.  And while we've ground out a few results with it against weak opponents, I think the numbers of really good team performances we've put in playing five at the back is infinitesimally small.

[jmono84]

5 hours ago, LaCiudad said:

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.

I think this is where we messed up.

 

I could tell it was going to be one of those games and like yesterday we didn’t do anywhere near enough to win the game. I say we pissed about a lot more than how well Southampton defended.

 

When they scored we were crossing that from all sorts of angles and got the equaliser immediately then reverted back to ‘patience’ which only worked in Southampton’s favour.

 

I would have gone the opposite mentality and encouraged the team to get the ball in the box as much as possible, hopefully get the goal and then play keep ball.

 

I understand it was difficult against a team defending almost all the game with pretty much everyone behind the ball but we helped them out a lot with how we played.

[SpacedX]

1 hour ago, StriderHiryu said:

For all the talk about systems, I trust the manager to sort it out, he's proved to us all he's no mug. First FA Cup final in 50+ years, currently third in the table, despite being ravaged by injuries all season. Ricardo still not up to speed, Barnes and JJ will have missed at least a third of the season each come the end of it. I'd give him a 9/10 for this season if it ended today, bag the FA Cup and Champions League place and it would be a 10 from me!

Quoted for emphasis. 

[Facecloth]

21 minutes ago, Deeg67 said:

Strider, the issue I take with your argument is that the 3-4-1-2 forces more of our best players (Barnes, Maddison, Ricardo, Castagne, Vardy) to play where they're less effective positionally than players it helps.  When everyone is healthy I don't think it maximizes the talent we have against most opponents.  And while we've ground out a few results with it against weak opponents, I think the numbers of really good team performances we've put in playing five at the back is infinitesimally small.

Pretty much what I was halfway through saying. And what worries me is this current formation benefits Iheanacho most, who could well be expected to play a bigger role next year, whilst the formation that benefits most of our players most is the one that Iheanacho struggles in. Obviously putting the ball in the net is the most important thing, but I think we need to be playing a style and system that means as many players as possible are a threat rather than one that seems to have turned one player into the second coming of Alan Shearer. Vardy is 35 next year, so I think we have to accept he'll be winding down. So as deadly as Iheanacho has been lately I think we need a new striker that can play as the lone striker to allow us to maximise the threat of the rest of the team. We can't carry on with this one just because it benefits Iheanacho. I take the point about 3 at the back allows us to play our three quality CBs but that's not how football works, Argentina don't shoehorn in all their world class forwards do they, France have a ridiculous selection of defenders but they don't use them all. We are weaker as a unit in that formation, and Forfana gets exposed at times, so once we have two good wingers we need to get back to a 4 ASAP, which was the whole point of my first post on this, as that formation weakens the effect of Iheanacho.

[Facecloth]

2 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Quoted for emphasis. 

Nobody is complaining about where we are or how well we've done, just trying to understand how we move forward and improve. I also remember last season, after every defeat to Norwich or whoever people coming on here saying "We're still 4th, stop worrying". Our current position is great, but let's not get complacent.

[SpacedX]

2 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Nobody is complaining about where we are or how well we've done, just trying to understand how we move forward and improve. I also remember last season, after every defeat to Norwich or whoever people coming on here saying "We're still 4th, stop worrying". Our current position is great, but let's not get complacent.

I'd suggest that many are overlooking it. If we lose the FA Cup and fail to finish in the top four, (which could well happen), I'm still hugely appreciative of what has been achieved given the challenges we've faced and how far we've come. That's not complacency - we are a club in the process of huge transition. I don't believe that there was any of the latter or expectation in the comment from @StriderHiryu - rather acknowledgement of where we are irrespective of the outcome. 

[fox_up_north]

One thing I have thought recently is the lads just look a bit knackered and jaded. Heavy old season. 

 

We definitely need to work towards expending less energy and dictating play. 

[OhYesNdidi]

8 minutes ago, fox_up_north said:

One thing I have thought recently is the lads just look a bit knackered and jaded. Heavy old season. 

 

We definitely need to work towards expending less energy and dictating play. 

Spent 45 mins against West Brom conserving energy and about 70 mins vs Southampton doing the same 

[Dahnsouff]

Why do people think Rodgers tells the players to slow it down, be patient, as yesterday he was shouting specifically at Vardy and Maddison telling them to move it faster. 

[gerblod]

4 hours ago, turtmcfly said:

 

We did 'break them down' completely Strider, once! And we 'broke through' what was a well set up defence a number of times and should have got at least one more.

 

I don't understand people saying we were abysmal, as thought it was a return to the Puel games (someone even said that it literally was) where we were one-dimensional and had no chances on target. 

 

Keep reading posters coming up with cliches that we were 'passive', should have 'upped the pace'. It never comes with an explanation of exactly what they think we should have done in terms of actual actions on the pitch. Hollywood balls from one side of the pitch to the other? Faster more intricate passing of the type only Man City have really shown the ability to maintain for extended periods?

 

The thing that really screwed us last night was letting a 10 man team score

 

I felt it was a hugely frustrating match in the manner in which a number of others have gone the same way. They play competently, but the verve with which they can play never manifests.

There were frequent potential scoring situations, which on another occasion could have resulted in a different outcome. Hasenhüttl's decision to defend was instantaneous on the red card. I've seen enough 11 vs 10 games to know that, given a 'positive' response, the enhanced fighting spirit of the ten can make it almost impossible to get a result. The team left with an advantage can often find that a burden - because they are expected to win.

Their keeper had a good game and our subs didn't really make an impact. It's the kind of game where you want someone to grab the game by the scruff of the neck. The only player we have with that mentality is Vardy (and, possibly, Cags).

Iheanacho was careless in the way that non-defenders defending can be calamitous. It wasn't an earned goal - and that type of handball is now a construct of a 'committee decision'. He didn't intentionally stop the ball and, according to the commentator, it was flying out anyhow.

I think, in a contrary way, a mistaken decision by the ref. actually disadvantaged us. But the way Vestergard went in was dumb and clumsy - he didn't even protest it.

I hesitate to say we need better subs - Perez actually was more influential than he's been recently and Albrighton always tries hard. But there was nothing different happening - just more banging our heads against a determined defence. Evans saved us but the floodgates didn't open.

Sendings-off always cause unbalanced games.