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

[Guest An Sionnach]

26 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

Brilliant we can do away with managers then, and just put the players in random spots since its that simple.

Not necessarily but simplicity beat science yesterday.

[Dan LCFC]

Quite simply it's the way to get probably our strongest XI into the team in their actual positions. We all know our wingers are either not that good, or not really wingers, so it makes sense to change it up.

 

Now that he's actually done it I can't see why we wouldn't just stick with that. Keep doing it until we've gotten better wide options.

 

There's something there with this system though. Should in theory be even better when Ricardo is back.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

21 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/

A very enjoyable read.

 

And I learned a new word.
"Sagacious."

 

18 hours ago, Tom12345 said:

Hang on, did we really start with 3-4-1-2?

The club tweeted (with graphics) it was 3-4-1-2 within four minutes of kick off it was that formation.

They probably wouldn't have knocked that graphic together in a couple of minutes which suggests they knew in advance we would start 3-4-1-2.

 

9 hours ago, Suzie the Fox said:

Big fat thank you to @UpTheLeagueFoxfor helping him get his foot on the ladder too. 

He seems a talented lad, nowt to do with me Suze! I just gave him a quick pointer.

Edited 6 July 2020 by UpTheLeagueFox

[Nicolo Barella]

9 hours ago, Stadt said:

We built up with Justin slotting in as part of a three with Albrighton staying wide in the first half. It wasn’t a natural 3412.
 

I don’t think we should be getting ahead of ourselves, Palace gifted us 2 goals and it probably would have finished 0-0 if they hadn’t. Plus it’s only one game.

If we're getting into hypotheticals, there a number of chances we could have converted as well. Albrighton's cross to Iheanacho, Vardy's miscontrol from Perez's pass, Justin hit the crossbar, all were scenarios were the ball could have easily slipped in. I agree we shouldn't get too excited though.

[blaaklint]

formations aren't so simple. when without the ball we were playing a flat back four of chilwell, evans, soyuncu and justin. when attacking, chilwell pushed forward and justin shuffled across to form a back three. in the second half, it was more definitely a 3-4-1-2 with the ball as well as without

[st albans fox]

4 hours ago, blaaklint said:

formations aren't so simple. when without the ball we were playing a flat back four of chilwell, evans, soyuncu and justin. when attacking, chilwell pushed forward and justin shuffled across to form a back three. in the second half, it was more definitely a 3-4-1-2 with the ball as well as without

It’s strange 

as Geoff says, it’s clear from the graphics that the intention was a three at the back formation but would you really leave zaha with that space to run into? so as you say, it was a with the ball/without the ball set up.  Perhaps they decided against a palace side who don’t press the ball and force quick turnovers that was a safe strategy.......against a young arsenal side who absolutely will, that could be tactical suicide! 

[Chrysalis]

13 hours ago, An Sionnach said:

Not necessarily but simplicity beat science yesterday.

Sometimes things can look simple but they not.

 

Southampton would have had a game plan going into that game.

[Chrysalis]

4 hours ago, st albans fox said:

It’s strange 

as Geoff says, it’s clear from the graphics that the intention was a three at the back formation but would you really leave zaha with that space to run into? so as you say, it was a with the ball/without the ball set up.  Perhaps they decided against a palace side who don’t press the ball and force quick turnovers that was a safe strategy.......against a young arsenal side who absolutely will, that could be tactical suicide! 

Second half of Everton we effectively played with just two defenders.  A very different shape to the games proceeding it.  Not a 2 banks of 4 behind the ball.

[Guest An Sionnach]

1 minute ago, Chrysalis said:

Sometimes things can look simple but they not.

 

Southampton would have had a game plan going into that game.

Yes I'm sure they did but Man.City usually turn your plan inside out and you just have to wing it.

[coolhandfox]

Everyone says Rodgers has no plan B, we have played this season 4-4-2, 4-2-3-1, 4-4-1-1, 4-1-2-1-2, 3-4-1-2.

 

Oh I get it, not plan B means we don't hoof it 70 yards into the box in the last 10 mins. 

Edited 7 July 2020 by coolhandfox

[Chrysalis]

with me the formation is a part of it but its also the personel used, and the way they play.

 

For most of the season rodgers has drifted between 2 systems, with one dominating over the other.  So the other systems have never really been used for any consistent period of time, just temporarily here and there.

 

If your brain thinks in only black and white (extremes), then maybe you think the only alternative is to hoof it in the box.

 

The alternative to not letting your players forward in numbers, and a isolated striker, is to have 8 of the 11 push forward, 2 strikers, and instead of cross after cross, you do cutbacks, and runs into the box,  thats an alternative without HOOFs.  Its actually more in line with what we were doing start of the season and the end of last season.

 

Also there is nothing with occasional HOOFs either, its a problem if thats all you do the entire game though, the best is mixing it up so there is less predictability.  We got into a rot where we spent every game passing the ball between defenders and midfielders, with the occasional cross into the box, we were doing that game after game, hence the no plan B comment.

[ajthefox]

8 hours ago, blaaklint said:

formations aren't so simple. when without the ball we were playing a flat back four of chilwell, evans, soyuncu and justin. when attacking, chilwell pushed forward and justin shuffled across to form a back three. in the second half, it was more definitely a 3-4-1-2 with the ball as well as without

100% this.

 

I spent a while just watching our positions specifically and noted this. Brendan obviously thinks a lot of Chilwell in almost giving him two roles but I thought we suffered from being very imbalanced first half as Chilwell was constantly having to make up ground and had no support out wide. He did as well as you could expect but I don't think working in an asymmetrical way like that is a good option.

[Vardinio'sCat]

On 06/07/2020 at 15:02, Suzie the Fox said:

Thanks for posting that although i would beg to differ that it wasn't brilliantly written since it was written by my budding journalist nephew  He only finished Uni this summer and this is one of his early works. 

 

Big fat thank you to @UpTheLeagueFoxfor helping him get his foot on the ladder too. 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, I just didn't want to put up stuff and call it gospel unless I know the source was good. Some fan-sided article's I have seen were not great, and I do tend to notice that kind of thing. Also, if you say you think an article is great, people become motivated to pick holes. My record on threads isn't the best tbh, although I've never quoted Sean from Enderby!

 

Kudos because it was the first article I had seen about the new formation, although the Mercury has mentioned it repeatedly. Stringer and Piper were obviously unclear post-match, because they mentioned that BR told them it was 3-4-1-2 in the post match interview. Obviously JJ was wider to cope with Zaha in the first half, which is maybe where the confusion comes, although I could be wrong.

 

I think getting your articles referred to on the forums is a good sign that you are asking the right questions. I actually did newspaper journalism training many years ago, so I've just re-read it with a keener eye, and it is proper detailed analysis, with many aspects mirroring what has been said by others in this thread.

 

The use of the word sagacious in the second par was particularly pleasing.

 

It's great that FT has been a conduit for some advice and support, when I trained the internet was very new, and I found good advice on the specialist press hard to come by.

[Webbo]

Well that aged well.

[StriderHiryu]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

Well that aged well.

I don't know I think that's being harsh. Compared to our first 3 games after the restart we had a lot more fluent play and were creative. Nacho had a number of chances, as did Vardy before we put one away properly.

 

What was shown today though is that we look susceptible at the back playing the system. Soyuncu who is normally so assured didn't look as solid as he's been all season. And Bennet you can tell is a loan signing even if he wasn't shocking, just very average.

 

With no Ricardo and seemingly Maddison I think we've been forced into this system and it wasn't bad. We went 343 with Barnes and Gray at the end and that was also half decent. Personally I would persist with this system against Bournemouth.

[Nicolo Barella]

8 hours ago, StriderHiryu said:

I don't know I think that's being harsh. Compared to our first 3 games after the restart we had a lot more fluent play and were creative. Nacho had a number of chances, as did Vardy before we put one away properly.

 

What was shown today though is that we look susceptible at the back playing the system. Soyuncu who is normally so assured didn't look as solid as he's been all season. And Bennet you can tell is a loan signing even if he wasn't shocking, just very average.

 

With no Ricardo and seemingly Maddison I think we've been forced into this system and it wasn't bad. We went 343 with Barnes and Gray at the end and that was also half decent. Personally I would persist with this system against Bournemouth.

I agree, Soyuncu wasn't super steady which I thought was surprising but hopefully with time he can adapt to it. The only massive problem with it was Bennet, who was just a hole in possession as we could never pass through him. Next season, with Ricardo back and another pacy, starting quality centreback like Koch or White, I think we could really use it as a formation. I'd be especially interested in trying out Justin as a LWB, giving him the freedom to cut in could be really interesting.