Why is 3-4-1-2 working for us?

[Vardinio'sCat]

 

 I had a quick read of this article, and it might not be that brilliant, but I wondered what others think. Are we done with wingers?

 

https://foxesofleicester.com/2020/07/05/leicester-city-palace-3-4-1-2/

 

'For only the 11th time in Rodgers’ career, he chose a starting XI in a 3-4-1-2 formation. Throughout Rodgers’ entire managerial career he’s only picked a three at the back formation 64 times out of his 400 games (16%). The two key points of reasoning for why he made this decision, are to ensure that firstly, the Foxes had three central midfielders whilst also providing a partner for Jamie Vardy upfront. Ordinarily, teams would have to sacrifice one for the other.'

[Deeg67]

It's working for us because we have players who are natural wing-backs (all the better when Pereira is healthy), and we don't have players who are natural wingers.  All the guys who start regularly as wingers are better playing centrally, with the exception of Albrighton (and I would argue he's better-suited to wing-back than winger).  Three at the back allows more guys to slot into roles that are natural for them.

 

If BR wants to play with wingers - and his career proves that he does - the long-term solution is to get some guys who can actually succeed in that role.  In the meantime, 3 at the back is probably the best band-aid.

[Vardinio'sCat]

17 minutes ago, Deeg67 said:

It's working for us because we have players who are natural wing-backs (all the better when Pereira is healthy), and we don't have players who are natural wingers.  All the guys who start regularly as wingers are better playing centrally, with the exception of Albrighton (and I would argue he's better-suited to wing-back than winger).  Three at the back allows more guys to slot into roles that are natural for them.

 

If BR wants to play with wingers - and his career proves that he does - the long-term solution is to get some guys who can actually succeed in that role.  In the meantime, 3 at the back is probably the best band-aid.

 

Definitely less square pegs in round holes now. Tielemans sparkled again, and Perez looked like quality, Wilf appreciated the help, and we started to find our confidence. I liked the solidity on set plays that Bennett added, although with JJ and Cags either side of Evans we did have a lot of pace in the back 3 before.

 

I wish BR had done it a bit earlier really, but hey, it is easy with hindsight. I suppose that losing Ricardo might have pushed us in this direction.

 

The concern is that we will be slaughtered down the wings, but it didn't happen yesterday. We are the new wingless wonders, hopefully.

[Vardinio'sCat]

 

Does anyone else in the league play this formation on a regular basis?

[Scotch]

7 minutes ago, Vardinio'sCat said:

 

Does anyone else in the league play this formation on a regular basis?

Sheffield Utd definately do..... off of the top of my head I cant think of anyone else. Chelsea used to...

Edited 6 July 2020 by Foxy_Bear

[Nicolo Barella]

28 minutes ago, Vardinio'sCat said:

 

Does anyone else in the league play this formation on a regular basis?

Wolves played a 3-5-2 last season but switched to 3-4-3 because of its limitations this season. Sheff Utd also play a 3-5-2, with two workmanlike No. 8s and one playmaking 6, similar to Wolves last season. Nobody plays with a 10 behind the strikers. 

 

3-4-1-2 is a great offensive formation and definitely a very ideal Plan B but starting with it gives the opposition manager too much of a chance to counter it, imo. Unless Brendan figures out a new way to make it viable. 

[Tom12345]

2 hours ago, Vardinio'sCat said:

 

 I had a quick read of this article, and it might not be that brilliant, but I wondered what others think. Are we done with wingers?

 

https://foxesofleicester.com/2020/07/05/leicester-city-palace-3-4-1-2/

 

'For only the 11th time in Rodgers’ career, he chose a starting XI in a 3-4-1-2 formation. Throughout Rodgers’ entire managerial career he’s only picked a three at the back formation 64 times out of his 400 games (16%). The two key points of reasoning for why he made this decision, are to ensure that firstly, the Foxes had three central midfielders whilst also providing a partner for Jamie Vardy upfront. Ordinarily, teams would have to sacrifice one for the other.'

Hang on, did we really start with 3-4-1-2? Justin and Chilwell were pretty much operating as full backs, although Chilwell also occupied a bit of the left wing, with Tielemans and Vardy moving a bit to the left to support when attacking while Nachos brilliantly moved into midfield to help pick up the ball on occasions.

 

It wasn’t until Bennett was introduced that we really started playing 3 at the back, which given Palace’s only threats pretty much came from the occasional crosses and corners I thought it was a great introduction.

[Tom12345]

2 hours ago, Vardinio'sCat said:

 

Definitely less square pegs in round holes now. Tielemans sparkled again, and Perez looked like quality, Wilf appreciated the help, and we started to find our confidence. I liked the solidity on set plays that Bennett added, although with JJ and Cags either side of Evans we did have a lot of pace in the back 3 before.

 

I wish BR had done it a bit earlier really, but hey, it is easy with hindsight. I suppose that losing Ricardo might have pushed us in this direction.

 

The concern is that we will be slaughtered down the wings, but it didn't happen yesterday. We are the new wingless wonders, hopefully.

Less square pegs in round holes. Agree. That sums it up for me.

 

More options for each pass, rely less on square pegs performing through round holes, allowing our better ball players to get on the ball, etc.

 

As someone said on another thread, I think we are not good enough like Liverpool and Man City so that we can always play the same formation and ways. We need to mix it up depending on the opponents, but the key is to get our way around the opponent so that we have the likes of Perez, Tielemans, Barnes, Vardy and Nachos playing more football and less walking around the park or trying to play roles they are not comfortable with; instead of, as I also said in other threads, trying to have the likes of Evans, Cags, Kasper and Chilwell play creative possession football at the back (eg. see last minute of Everton game when despite the urgency they could not pass the ball upfield). I think a lot of fans get frustrated at Chilwell (me included) because BR rely on him to be our creative force when he is a square peg for that role - I think this will drastically change if he can just play LB, concentrate on defending and offer the occasional mazy runs upfield to give us variety and extra options.

Edited 6 July 2020 by Tom12345

[Deeg67]

14 minutes ago, Tom12345 said:

Hang on, did we really start with 3-4-1-2? Justin and Chilwell were pretty much operating as full backs, although Chilwell also occupied a bit of the left wing, with Tielemans and Vardy moving a bit to the left to support when attacking while Nachos brilliantly moved into midfield to help pick up the ball on occasions.

 

It wasn’t until Bennett was introduced that we really started playing 3 at the back, which given Palace’s only threats pretty much came from the occasional crosses and corners I thought it was a great introduction.

I agree with this.  The first half was definitely not 3-4-1-2.

[Nicolo Barella]

25 minutes ago, Tom12345 said:

Hang on, did we really start with 3-4-1-2? Justin and Chilwell were pretty much operating as full backs, although Chilwell also occupied a bit of the left wing, with Tielemans and Vardy moving a bit to the left to support when attacking while Nachos brilliantly moved into midfield to help pick up the ball on occasions.

 

It wasn’t until Bennett was introduced that we really started playing 3 at the back, which given Palace’s only threats pretty much came from the occasional crosses and corners I thought it was a great introduction.

In possession we were almost a 3-4-1-2, with Perez usually very central, Albrighton very wide on the right and Chilwell very advanced with Justin tucking in fairly often (not always though). Defensively, absolutely 4 at the back. 

 

You're right that it changed 2nd half.

[CosbehFox]

1 game

[Aus Fox]

3 hours ago, Vardinio'sCat said:

 

 I had a quick read of this article, and it might not be that brilliant, but I wondered what others think. Are we done with wingers?

 

https://foxesofleicester.com/2020/07/05/leicester-city-palace-3-4-1-2/

 

'For only the 11th time in Rodgers’ career, he chose a starting XI in a 3-4-1-2 formation. Throughout Rodgers’ entire managerial career he’s only picked a three at the back formation 64 times out of his 400 games (16%). The two key points of reasoning for why he made this decision, are to ensure that firstly, the Foxes had three central midfielders whilst also providing a partner for Jamie Vardy upfront. Ordinarily, teams would have to sacrifice one for the other.'

I don’t think we did, we started with a flat back 4 and then changed it when Chilwell got injured.

No way would we start with 3 at the back and have JJ as the third CB.

When Bennett came on we went 3-4-2-1

[st albans fox]

Seriously people - we payed it for a half against a sh1t side and we scored after 4 minutes .....

 

 

[Foxes96]

I felt like we started with a lobsided sort of 3-4-1-2. Perez was certainly playing centrally just off Iheanacho and Vardy. Albrighton often played with JJ just inside him and further back and Chilwell basically had the freedom of the left hand side but with no support. The graphic below shows how lob sided we were with YT often filling in to the LB slot to pick up the ball to encourage Chilwell further on. Diagram almost looks like a 4-3-2-1 with MA quite central but I thought it looked like it was supposed to be a 3-4-1-2 imo.

 

Hence I think it’s unfair that Chilwell has received so many pelters for his performances this year given that he’s received very little support defensively on the left all year ie. Barnes in front of him or Maddison who would usually end up inside anyway. Not a dig at any player just think Chilwell has struggled sometimes this year because of being isolated and from a lack of support. Eg. Had no option but to try to take on the Palace winger and FB or cut inside for support on Saturday. 

 

Edited 6 July 2020 by Foxes96

[Plastik Man]

8 minutes ago, Foxes96 said:

I felt like we started with a lopsided sort of 3-4-1-2. Perez was certainly playing centrally just off Iheanacho and Vardy. Albrighton often played with JJ just inside him and further back and Chilwell basically had the freedom of the left hand side but with no support. The graphic below shows how lob sided we were with YT often filling in to the LB slot to pick up the ball to encourage Chilwell further on. Diagram almost looks like a 4-3-2-1 with MA quite central but I thought it looked like it was supposed to be a 3-4-1-2 imo.

 

Hence I think it’s unfair that Chilwell has received so many pelters for his performances this year given that he’s received very little support defensively on the left all year ie. Barnes in front of him or Maddison who would usually end up inside anyway. Not a dig at any player just think Chilwell has struggled sometimes this year because of being isolated and from a lack of support. Eg. Had no option but to try to take on the Palace winger and FB or cut inside for support on Saturday. 

I'm surprised it shows Albrighton so central, he appeared to be hugging the touchline, despite playing in what I thought was a diamond in the first half. 

[AKCJ]

3 hours ago, Vardinio'sCat said:

 

Does anyone else in the league play this formation on a regular basis?

Sheffield United, Wolves, Arsenal and Spurs all often play 3 at the back.

[AKCJ]

31 minutes ago, Foxes96 said:

I felt like we started with a lobsided sort of 3-4-1-2. Perez was certainly playing centrally just off Iheanacho and Vardy. Albrighton often played with JJ just inside him and further back and Chilwell basically had the freedom of the left hand side but with no support. The graphic below shows how lob sided we were with YT often filling in to the LB slot to pick up the ball to encourage Chilwell further on. Diagram almost looks like a 4-3-2-1 with MA quite central but I thought it looked like it was supposed to be a 3-4-1-2 imo.

 

Hence I think it’s unfair that Chilwell has received so many pelters for his performances this year given that he’s received very little support defensively on the left all year ie. Barnes in front of him or Maddison who would usually end up inside anyway. Not a dig at any player just think Chilwell has struggled sometimes this year because of being isolated and from a lack of support. Eg. Had no option but to try to take on the Palace winger and FB or cut inside for support on Saturday. 

 

I said in the match thread. I didn't feel like it was a classic 3 at the back because Justin was definitely in the right back position.

 

Looking back, I think it was a bit like this. Probably done so to double up on Zaha.

 

Kasper

Justin Evans Soyuncu -------

Albrighton Ndidi Tielemans Chilwell

Perez

Iheanacho Vardy

[Oswinner]

We started with a 3412. My mates and I were talking about it and only when Bennett came on in the second half did the commentators pick up on it.

[Angus Scott]

59 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Seriously people - we payed it for a half against a sh1t side and we scored after 4 minutes .....

 

 

Spot on. Palace were awful, one of the worse sides we have played this season. Also don't get carried away thinking Bennett is some kind of Franco Baresi, he's not.

 

3 at the back could work for us next season when Ricky is back, but we need a quality centre back alongside Evans & Caglar

[Grebfromgrebland]

It worked for 45 minutes. Calm down

[boosmanana]

We started in a 4312 and ended in a 3412

[fuchsntf]

4 hours ago, Deeg67 said:

It's working for us because we have players who are natural wing-backs (all the better when Pereira is healthy), and we don't have players who are natural wingers.  All the guys who start regularly as wingers are better playing centrally, with the exception of Albrighton (and I would argue he's better-suited to wing-back than winger).  Three at the back allows more guys to slot into roles that are natural for them.

 

If BR wants to play with wingers - and his career proves that he does - the long-term solution is to get some guys who can actually succeed in that role.  In the meantime, 3 at the back is probably the best band-aid.

Thats what probably Rodgers thought sometime ago,but Wanted to see if  a direct winger might stand out...

but to be honest...Rodgers has Never Set the Team up for only direct wing play..he puts names on the selection list,but doesn't expect Maddison nor Ayrez

to Play out on the wing...

 

Thats Why some posts about Maddison playing on the wing has been nonsense...Maddison or whoever,always cuts in,or Drift around that

8 or 10 position. Gray since Rodgers First Games seemed to be the only One that really was told in the odd game to Play as an out n out winger.

Barnes also would be seen to Drift around,but had times where he hugged the Left Side with Chilwell...in both  our Good & Bad periods..

 

All managers Today will put out a selection list favouring a particular Set up,and over a season will Jiggle with the formation,and Nick n tuck.

When you hit a poor Run of form...fans always like to become the wiser experts..

Alot of times the Media and fans will look at the selected players will assume a formation,then see it disperse after the game kicks off...

 

Wingers today,Like you mention with Albrighton do tend to Play anyway as wing-backs. Isnt that Really what Barnes and Gray do..

[fuchsntf]

10 minutes ago, Angus Scott said:

Spot on. Palace were awful, one of the worse sides we have played this season. Also don't get carried away thinking Bennett is some kind of Franco Baresi, he's not.

 

3 at the back could work for us next season when Ricky is back, but we need a quality centre back alongside Evans & Caglar

Expecting Any player to be the comparison of someone else,Abs always been a failure of this forum.

We have the fixed squad ,and it will produce the Team and individual Skill Sets those players have...they are The Team I support,Not a Dream Bubble created in my desperation to make Leicester into something they are not...We won the title without Messi, or Franco Baresi...

So for now,I wouldnt swap Soyu,Evans,Bennet for any dream character trying to be imposed  on us,through wishfull thinking fans...I

 

How many of you, are still getting it wrong with Vardy..!!

[StriderHiryu]

42 minutes ago, boosmanana said:

We started in a 4312 and ended in a 3412

Yep that's correct, we didn't start with that formation, we switch to it at half time when Bennet came on.

 

If we keep using it and it's working, I will make a tactics thread about the formation, as it's quite interesting. Given the form of our players at the moment, it's allowing our players who are in form to make more of an impact in the system. Notably Perez is way more of a threat, Vardy is less isolated, and the Nacho man is also to be on the pitch who is in good form too. Almost all of our wingers have been misfiring so it gives us a different dimension of attack.

[Steve Earle]

1 hour ago, AKCJ said:

I said in the match thread. I didn't feel like it was a classic 3 at the back because Justin was definitely in the right back position.

 

Looking back, I think it was a bit like this. Probably done so to double up on Zaha.

 

Kasper

Justin Evans Soyuncu -------

Albrighton Ndidi Tielemans Chilwell

Perez

Iheanacho Vardy

That was my reading - 3412 but the back three lined up very much like the right-sided three quarters of a back four...if that makes sense!