5-4-1: Brendan Rodgers' Tactical Masterclass

[Dan]

30 minutes ago, StriderHiryu said:

Yep that's the match summary in a nutshell.

 

Over-complicated the setup for no reason.

My single biggest gripe with Rodgers.

[StriderHiryu]

2 minutes ago, Dan LCFC said:

My single biggest gripe with Rodgers.

It's plagued him throughout his career. He wouldn't be the first coach to fall victim to it though, see Guardiola changing his setup against Lyon in the Champions League last season and losing to them.

[Rigga]

Any link to Rodgers after match interview ?

Hope he doesn’t defend his own poor tactical selection in the first place..

5-4-1 v West Ham is not needed..

That said, a 5ft 11 converted winger bullies our 3 6ft+ CBs...we didn’t win a header all day..
Shite from first minute to the last..

Credit to West Ham, they outworked ya all over the park..

[StriderHiryu]

17 minutes ago, Rigga said:

Any link to Rodgers after match interview ?

Hope he doesn’t defend his own poor tactical selection in the first place..

5-4-1 v West Ham is not needed..

That said, a 5ft 11 converted winger bullies our 3 6ft+ CBs...we didn’t win a header all day..
Shite from first minute to the last..

Credit to West Ham, they outworked ya all over the park..

Well to be fair it seemed more like 3412, maybe even 3411:

 

                         Kasper

        Amartey   Soyuncu    Evans

Castagne  Tielemans  Mendy   Justin

                         Perez

                                  Barnes

                        Vardy

 

But it meant 3 CBs versus one striker, who still beat all three for the first goal and all 3 sleeping for the second, which was comical beyond belief.

 

As you say West Ham totally deserving of their victory, can't take anything away from them, even if our setup played right into their hands.

[Rigga]

Wasn’t needed...

you play that against Man City/Liverpool..

Very naive from Rodgers 

[Cadno'r Cymoedd]

The biggest concern for me is that Rodgers for all his now considerable managerial experience appears incapable of adapting to the circumstances re players form or fitness or the game in hand. I genuinely thought last week he had turned the corner but today seemed to prove otherwise. In his defence, losing Praet and Maddison was a blow but that probably meant the 3412 set up was less likely to be effective without the 1 being good enough in that role. 

[Dan]

1 hour ago, StriderHiryu said:

It's plagued him throughout his career. He wouldn't be the first coach to fall victim to it though, see Guardiola changing his setup against Lyon in the Champions League last season and losing to them.

I've said many a time those two are actually quite similar, they carry a lot of similar strengths and a lot of similar weaknesses.

[Clever Fox]

1 hour ago, buzzer_b said:

It’s not hard to figure out either. Don't play a defensive shape against an defensive team. After the Man City game we should of come into this game with so much confidence and attacked them from the off. Fell right into West Ham’s hands. 

There were so many mistakes from us starting with the formation. But they were really up for it and I did warn before the game of the danger of Antonio. He's pretty much unplayable when in the form. We were never going to win today unless maybe at full strength.

[Steve Earle]

1 hour ago, StriderHiryu said:

Well to be fair it seemed more like 3412, maybe even 3411:

 

                         Kasper

        Amartey   Soyuncu    Evans

Castagne  Tielemans  Mendy   Justin

                         Perez

                                  Barnes

                        Vardy

 

But it meant 3 CBs versus one striker, who still beat all three for the first goal and all 3 sleeping for the second, which was comical beyond belief.

 

As you say West Ham totally deserving of their victory, can't take anything away from them, even if our setup played right into their hands.

This @StriderHiryu

In terms of set up, what else could Rodgers do absent Maddison & Praet? His options were very limited.

And that’s why I keep banging on about the need for another 8/10. Without Madders today we struggled to get through their low block. We need to add creativity. One more signing in that position would make this a very good window!

[shailen]

Have to say the set up was wrong but the players lack of intensity, the fact they couldn't make a five yard pass, very little fluency in attack....no tactics could compensate for that. I don't agree with the team today or the set up, but I'd cut BR some slack today as that performance would have looked just as bad in a 4-2-3-1/4-3-3 

[whoareyaaa]

11 minutes ago, Steve Earle said:

This @StriderHiryu

In terms of set up, what else could Rodgers do absent Maddison & Praet? His options were very limited.

And that’s why I keep banging on about the need for another 8/10. Without Madders today we struggled to get through their low block. We need to add creativity. One more signing in that position would make this a very good window!

he could have started Nacho up there, he persists with Perez as he signed him but his end product is poor and is quite slow in all aspects he could have had Choudary in there who is more physical

 

 

[StriderHiryu]

9 minutes ago, Steve Earle said:

This @StriderHiryu

In terms of set up, what else could Rodgers do absent Maddison & Praet? His options were very limited.

And that’s why I keep banging on about the need for another 8/10. Without Madders today we struggled to get through their low block. We need to add creativity. One more signing in that position would make this a very good window!

Just play the 4141 but with Perez as the 10 instead of Praet and Under as the inside right forward. If he didn't trust Under yet (fitness, only been with the team a week) then he could start Gray or Albrighton. Or bring Hamza in and push Tielemans to the 10 role. Or even play Nacho there as he did at the end and who looked decent.

 

It's true that the way we played might have meant we were just as bad but it would have meant familiarity with the setup. Maybe he brought in Amartey to deal with Antonio and to be fair to Amartey, I don't think he did much wrong. But it ruined our tempo and flow and well the result and performance overall were dreadful.

 

 

6 minutes ago, shailen said:

Have to say the set up was wrong but the players lack of intensity, the fact they couldn't make a five yard pass, very little fluency in attack....no tactics could compensate for that. I don't agree with the team today or the set up, but I'd cut BR some slack today as that performance would have looked just as bad in a 4-2-3-1/4-3-3 

Definitely true but when you change shape AND you play badly, it looks really bad for the manager. This thread was all about praise for Rodgers last week, but this week being purely objective and taking a step back as a fan, you have to say he got it totally wrong.

[foxfanazer]

I think we have to just accept him for what he is. A very flakey manager! We'll have very good day a la Man City and very bad day like today. His arrogance and stubbornness presents us with a ceiling that we won't be able to break. 

At times the football is beautiful but I feel its more style over substance 

[Steve Earle]

1 hour ago, StriderHiryu said:

Just play the 4141 but with Perez as the 10 instead of Praet and Under as the inside right forward. If he didn't trust Under yet (fitness, only been with the team a week) then he could start Gray or Albrighton. Or bring Hamza in and push Tielemans to the 10 role. Or even play Nacho there as he did at the end and who looked decent.

 

 

None of those options would have worked @StriderHiryu, or should ever be tried, IMO!!

[Corky]

1 hour ago, foxfanazer said:

I think we have to just accept him for what he is. A very flakey manager! We'll have very good day a la Man City and very bad day like today. His arrogance and stubbornness presents us with a ceiling that we won't be able to break. 

At times the football is beautiful but I feel its more style over substance 

We shouldn't, we should demand more.

 

I fully accept we'll lose matches but we lose too many being passive, slow and frankly clueless and unambitious. Norwich away, Brighton, today, Bournemouth- all unacceptably poor.

[foxfanazer]

2 minutes ago, Corky said:

We shouldn't, we should demand more.

 

I fully accept we'll lose matches but we lose too many being passive, slow and frankly clueless and unambitious. Norwich away, Brighton, today, Bournemouth- all unacceptably poor.

He ain't gonna change though unfortunately. And he has us on enough decent runs to get the backing from most fans

[Clever Fox]

His first mistake was not switching James and Castagne, James was a miss match against Antonio.

But I've said it before, He doesn't know how to effect change during a game when things are not going well.

[Guest Col city fan]

Am I right that a criticism of Rodgers is that he’s generally a one trick pony?

 

We DO see this with him at City. If the tactics aren’t working (and I’m not having that they weren’t working last week against Man City, they just needed time), he seems inept at changing things up to gain an advantage

Shoving out the same rubbish after half time today was inexcusable.

[foxfanazer]

1 minute ago, Col city fan said:

Am I right that a criticism of Rodgers is that he’s generally a one trick pony?

 

We DO see this with him at City. If the tactics aren’t working (and I’m not having that they weren’t working last week against Man City, they just needed time), he seems inept at changing things up to gain an advantage

Shoving out the same rubbish after half time today was inexcusable.

Even the most casual football fan would understand this. He baffles me at times. It's as if he doesn't want to make quick changes because that proves he got it wrong in the first place

Edited 4 October 2020 by foxfanazer

[Corky]

25 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

Am I right that a criticism of Rodgers is that he’s generally a one trick pony?

 

We DO see this with him at City. If the tactics aren’t working (and I’m not having that they weren’t working last week against Man City, they just needed time), he seems inept at changing things up to gain an advantage

Shoving out the same rubbish after half time today was inexcusable.

I remember Pearson being criticised on here for hooking a player at half-time (we subsequently won the match) but I like that management- if you don't think it is working, change it.

 

The only time I can recall Rodgers changing something early was dragging Iheanacho off against Norwich last season when it was clear the formation wasn't working. He needs to be more proactive.

[Farrington fox]

Standby to be leathered by Villa

[Guest Kopfkino]

1 minute ago, Corky said:

I remember Pearson being criticised on here for hooking a player at half-time (we subsequently won the match) but I like that management- if you don't think it is working, change it.

 

The only time I can recall Rodgers changing something early was dragging Iheanacho off against Norwich last season when it was clear the formation wasn't working. He needs to be more proactive.

He made a sub at HT at Bournemouth and was slagged for it. He made a half-time change at Spurs, he made two at Everton.

 

 

33 minutes ago, Col city fan said:

Am I right that a criticism of Rodgers is that he’s generally a one trick pony?

 

We DO see this with him at City. If the tactics aren’t working (and I’m not having that they weren’t working last week against Man City, they just needed time), he seems inept at changing things up to gain an advantage

Shoving out the same rubbish after half time today was inexcusable.

But I don't think he thinks the tactics weren't working. He said after the game that we were creating openings in the first half but lacking quality to turn them into chances on goal. He mentioned how poor the goals were that we conceded in the first half, said we weren't aggressive enough and we weren't good enough in the counter press. He had a go at the quality that his players played with. I think he took the view of sending the same players out to sort it out, up the quality. 

 

Tbf I feel he should have changed it at half time but I don't think the fact he didn't was much of a problem. As he said, it was poor defending first half that saw us two down and it was the quality of the pass that stopped us creating much, a tactical change would only have made a difference if the players upped their game.

[HighPeakFox]

I think it's possible to criticise BR without resorting to lazy and assumptive stuff about his ego, his arrogance and his hubris. That's just stuff that gets repeated and repeated until it becomes an accepted truth, whether it is the case or not. 

 

I'm sure he got today wrong, but the players were unbelievably poor, and that's nothing to do with anything in BR. That's on them. It's been a trait of our team on and off since 2016, less so in recent times, but it's sort of in our club DNA still. Today reminded me of home to Palace under Puel, having won 4 on the bounce or something. The players just shrank.

[StriderHiryu]

37 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

I think it's possible to criticise BR without resorting to lazy and assumptive stuff about his ego, his arrogance and his hubris. That's just stuff that gets repeated and repeated until it becomes an accepted truth, whether it is the case or not. 

 

I'm sure he got today wrong, but the players were unbelievably poor, and that's nothing to do with anything in BR. That's on them. It's been a trait of our team on and off since 2016, less so in recent times, but it's sort of in our club DNA still. Today reminded me of home to Palace under Puel, having won 4 on the bounce or something. The players just shrank.

Definitely so, though today I think criticising him for being too clever for his own good is merited. He basically admitted as much post match, which is a good sign.

 

Rather than think of it as being arrogant, let's think about WHY he might decide to line up this way?

- We are a better team than West Ham 1-11 on paper.

- If we match their setup, then the game becomes about 1 on 1 duels where we should win more than they do.

- If we play 3 at the back, I can play Amartey who had a strong game against Man City to help deal with their most dangerous player in Antonio.

- We played well with 3 at the back last week.

- Maddison and Praet have knocks so playing this way I don't have to risk them and save them for bigger games.

 

So if you look at this that way, you can see what he was thinking. But it was always a risk going this way when it's not our "usual" system. For me as mentioned above, it's got an uncanny parallel to Man City going out against Lyon in last season's Champions League knockout stages, where the changed system and it backfired when if they used their usual system they probably would have won.

 

But as you say it did not help that non one turned up, and more worryingly the game reminded us all of the collapse last season, where this happened time and time again.

[adam95581]

Playing 3 at the back was never the right decision but I’m not going to hold that against him as it’s easy to make a mistake. What I will hold against him is that he didn’t change it sooner - he could have gone to a 4 at the back without making any subs in the first half (albeit round pegs in square holes). Alternatively, he could have taken the half time break to re-organise and make the necessary subs but didn’t. It just let the game get away from us.