honeybradger Posted 30 November 2020 Posted 30 November 2020 14 minutes ago, Ric Flair said: Folk who hate 3 at the back, begrudgingly through gritted teeth acknowledge the exceptional results vs Man City, Arsenal, Leeds, Braga and Wolves at home but then quickly criticise the system as we supposedly don't create many chances in it. Or is it the opposition in the majority of those games? I don't recall us creating too much in any of those fixtures in previous seasons, Braga and Leeds aside and for the most we played 4 at the back. We played 4-1-4-1 at home to West Ham this season and got spanked and had about 2 decent shots all game in the final minutes. I think that's what made Rodgers consider 3 at the back again so soon after. I prefer 4-1-4-1 at home to dross, but I can appreciate the benefits of how Rodgers has deployed this system and it has its place here. We aren't a win away from being level on points with 1st without good reason, not being unbeaten in Europe and scoring a decent amount of goals yet again. It was 3 atb for the first 60 mins against west ham, 4 atb against aston villa where we played poorly but we also didnt have vardy. 1
Captain... Posted 30 November 2020 Posted 30 November 2020 As boring as it is to watch there might be more to 3 at the back than we think. This season is going to be particularly tough, condensed because of covid with Europa League commitments on top of that, no real preseason and no fans to get players up for it when flagging. Keep it tight first half, don't expend too much energy, let the opposition do the running while we conserve energy and then if needed step it up second half against tired legs. It's not going to work every game, but if it keeps our players fitter and injury free for longer then the benefits will pay off in the long run. Bigger picture suggests we'd be better off not going hell for leather in every game. 1
Mark Posted 30 November 2020 Posted 30 November 2020 53 minutes ago, Ric Flair said: We played 4-1-4-1 at home to West Ham this season and got spanked and had about 2 decent shots all game in the final minutes. I think that's what made Rodgers consider 3 at the back again so soon after. You've mentioned this a few times but that was definitely a back 5 as it was the same we played against Man City which lasted until Amartey got injured forcing a change, many said pre match we shouldn't have set up that way. He changed back to a four for the Villa defeat, but we had Iheanacho followed by Slimani up front which makes it difficult whatever formation. We haven't played it properly with Vardy since the opening two games of the season. 3
Long Eaton Fox Posted 30 November 2020 Posted 30 November 2020 We do need a fast start in this game not sitting back and conceding after 5 minutes like the last two.
WigstonWanderer Posted 30 November 2020 Posted 30 November 2020 9 minutes ago, pmcla26 said: I think we’ll go for the 3 at the back again but allow the wider centre halves (I imagine Fofana and one of JJ or Fuchs) to wander into midfield to support attacks. Just because we set up with a 3 doesn’t mean we will be negative. But the proof’s in our form at the moment and it’s working. Fofana can be quite an attacking asset
Finnegan Posted 30 November 2020 Posted 30 November 2020 1 hour ago, coolhandfox said: Not saying you wrong about needing to change formation, bit we have scored more in first 9 game (18) this season, then we did last years first 9 games (16). I'd be surprised if we change, BR seems to like it. Seven of those goals came in two home games playing 433. The games we scored goals playing with a back five were away from home against teams that were going to attack us. I can't really fault the approach we took at Leeds and Man City but it absolutely isn't the approach we should take at home against Fulham. 1
Strokes Posted 30 November 2020 Posted 30 November 2020 7 hours ago, surrifox said: People talking about 6 goal wins FFS I know right, bloody pessimists. 1
Spudulike Posted 30 November 2020 Posted 30 November 2020 23 minutes ago, Long Eaton Fox said: We do need a fast start in this game not sitting back and conceding after 5 minutes like the last two. Not sure why we've started doing that again. Used to be at the start of the 2nd half but surrendering the early initiative usually sets the tone for the remainder. I think it was worse during the Puel era where it was put down to his quiet team talk not inspiring enough to send them out with a belly full of fire.
Strokes Posted 30 November 2020 Posted 30 November 2020 I’ve only just realised how early the kickoff is, I better pull my finger out and finish this bloody job and get home. Or stringer will make ears bleed on the way home. 2
Deeg67 Posted 30 November 2020 Posted 30 November 2020 (edited) 29 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said: Fofana can be quite an attacking asset And simultaneously a defensively liability as a result. I like getting some attacking support from the CBs, but if your formation requires you to depend on your CBs to create chances, it's the wrong formation. Edited 30 November 2020 by Deeg67
SpacedX Posted 30 November 2020 Posted 30 November 2020 1 hour ago, Marshall Cockney Fox said: The five at the back is an interesting one. Whilst it undoubtedly is negative/conservative. It's not a Rogers reaction thing. He has pretty much decided it's his preferred formation, regardless of opposition. He feels defensive stability first - attacking/creativity second. Yes it's regressive and in my view unnecessary. But it is his new vision so don't be too surprised when we have 3 CBs this eve. I disagree, unless you are suggesting that in view of our current injuries this is Brendan's preferred formation, in which case you are correct. Once we have Ricardo and Castagne at our disposal we will immediately revert to a back four. Elsewhere on this thread, occasionally there seems to be the usual confusion between what constitutes a back five and three at the back.
Father Ted Posted 30 November 2020 Posted 30 November 2020 3 minutes ago, Line-X said: I disagree, unless you are suggesting that in view of our current injuries this is Brendan's preferred formation, in which case you are correct. Once we have Ricardo and Castagne at our disposal we will immediately revert to a back four. Elsewhere on this thread, occasionally there seems to be the usual confusion between what constitutes a back five and three at the back. If anything, Ricardo and Castagne are more suited as wing backs rather than full backs so you'd think 3 at the back is in to stay...
TrentFox Posted 30 November 2020 Posted 30 November 2020 If we win tonight, we’ve won more games than anyone else in the PL this season - with over a quarter of it gone. I know the three games we lost were abject performances, but the bigger picture is outstanding. 2
SpacedX Posted 30 November 2020 Posted 30 November 2020 Just now, Father Ted said: If anything, Ricardo and Castagne are more suited as wing backs rather than full backs so you'd think 3 at the back is in to stay... They could well be, but a modern FB very much assumes that role irrespective of the formation. Furthermore, I would suggest that Brendan favours a back four which was simply the point that I was making. 1
KrefelderFox666 Posted 30 November 2020 Posted 30 November 2020 6-0 win and we finish top of the table again. 1
Ric Flair Posted 30 November 2020 Posted 30 November 2020 1 hour ago, Mark said: You've mentioned this a few times but that was definitely a back 5 as it was the same we played against Man City which lasted until Amartey got injured forcing a change, many said pre match we shouldn't have set up that way. He changed back to a four for the Villa defeat, but we had Iheanacho followed by Slimani up front which makes it difficult whatever formation. We haven't played it properly with Vardy since the opening two games of the season. I don't know why my brain refuses to compute it hahaha. Either way, the 3 at the back haters seem to refuse to acknowledge that the majority of times it has been deployed this season has been against tough opposition who we have notoriously struggled against or against a couple of new sides (Leeds and Braga) who we have scored 10 goals in 3 games against which seems at odds with some of the criticism of it.
Ric Flair Posted 30 November 2020 Posted 30 November 2020 22 minutes ago, Father Ted said: If anything, Ricardo and Castagne are more suited as wing backs rather than full backs so you'd think 3 at the back is in to stay... Just stick Ndidi as the central one of the back 3 and play Tielemans and Maddison in the midfield with Barnes and Ünder either side of Vardy. Different drinks, different needs. 3
gw_leics772 Posted 30 November 2020 Posted 30 November 2020 2 hours ago, Haywood_6 said: This game will be a horrible banana skin if it is one. Hopefully we play an attacking system and spank em. I agree. I'm going for 6-0. 😱😂
StriderHiryu Posted 30 November 2020 Posted 30 November 2020 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Ric Flair said: Just stick Ndidi as the central one of the back 3 and play Tielemans and Maddison in the midfield with Barnes and Ünder either side of Vardy. Different drinks, different needs. I think we will see this system when Ndidi is back for games like this. It can in effect be the "attacking" version of the 3412. If you have James Justin as one of the CBs then if we dominate the ball he can also be the spare man and contribute to the attack, as he's already done in numerous games this season. I prefer the 4141 for attacking teams, but could definitely see that system working too. I reckon we'd play Mendy alongside Tielemans in that system though, with Maddison in one of the roles behind Vardy instead. Edited 30 November 2020 by StriderHiryu 1
Ric Flair Posted 30 November 2020 Posted 30 November 2020 Just now, StriderHiryu said: I think we will see this system when Ndidi is back for games like this. It can in effect be the "attacking" version of the 3412. If you have James Justin as one of the CBs then if we dominate the ball he can also be the spare man and contribute to the attack, as he's already done in numerous games this season. I prefer the 4141 for attacking teams, but could definitely see that system working too. Agreed, I do think we have weaknesses in a back 3 though and we chop and change the back 3 a lot at the minute and not sure if this is what causes the weaknesses. Some of the poor positioning vs Liverpool and Braga showed this but you'd expect that if this is the preferred system it's going to largely be Evans, Soyuncu and Fofana but I do like Justin in there who gets a free role at times. Imagine how much more of that he will get with Ricardo causing mayhem down the right too?
StriderHiryu Posted 30 November 2020 Posted 30 November 2020 1 minute ago, Ric Flair said: Agreed, I do think we have weaknesses in a back 3 though and we chop and change the back 3 a lot at the minute and not sure if this is what causes the weaknesses. Some of the poor positioning vs Liverpool and Braga showed this but you'd expect that if this is the preferred system it's going to largely be Evans, Soyuncu and Fofana but I do like Justin in there who gets a free role at times. Imagine how much more of that he will get with Ricardo causing mayhem down the right too? When you play a back 3 / 5 system, the gaps are always there behind your wing backs, same as 20 years ago when MON played the same system with Steve Guppy and Andy Impey! The current problem seems to be that the back 3 either step up too quickly or not quickly enough and you end up with opposition players in loads of space in those dangerous channels. If we drill the system enough it should be fixed, though as you say changing the back 3 every other game won't make it a quick fix. Justin's free role is IMO the underrated secret weapon of the season for us so far. Opposition teams aren't quite sure what to do against it and he creates a lot of danger from that position. As you say having him and Ricardo doing that from different positions in the same team, potentially with a LWB also in the team will cause chaos. I think it's one of those systems that will eventually get figured out, a bit like Sheffield United's overlapping CB's this season (from which the tactic is surely inspired from), but in the interim I can see it catching a lot teams out.
Finnegan Posted 30 November 2020 Posted 30 November 2020 31 minutes ago, Ric Flair said: Either way, the 3 at the back haters seem to refuse to acknowledge that the majority of times it has been deployed this season has been against tough opposition who we have notoriously struggled against or against a couple of new sides (Leeds and Braga) who we have scored 10 goals in 3 games against which seems at odds with some of the criticism of it. 1 hour ago, Finnegan said: Seven of those goals came in two home games playing 433. The games we scored goals playing with a back five were away from home against teams that were going to attack us. I can't really fault the approach we took at Leeds and Man City but it absolutely isn't the approach we should take at home against Fulham.
coolhandfox Posted 30 November 2020 Posted 30 November 2020 1 hour ago, Finnegan said: Seven of those goals came in two home games playing 433. The games we scored goals playing with a back five were away from home against teams that were going to attack us. I can't really fault the approach we took at Leeds and Man City but it absolutely isn't the approach we should take at home against Fulham. I agree, I just don't think he confident of playing Evans and Forfana as a two, especially without our first choice RB and LB
deanolegend1989 Posted 30 November 2020 Posted 30 November 2020 29 minutes ago, StriderHiryu said: I think we will see this system when Ndidi is back for games like this. It can in effect be the "attacking" version of the 3412. If you have James Justin as one of the CBs then if we dominate the ball he can also be the spare man and contribute to the attack, as he's already done in numerous games this season. I prefer the 4141 for attacking teams, but could definitely see that system working too. I reckon we'd play Mendy alongside Tielemans in that system though, with Maddison in one of the roles behind Vardy instead. That doesn’t work and doesn’t get the best out of Maddison though. For me it’s quite simple that if everyone is fit it’s either: 4141: Kasper Ricardo Fofana Evans Castange Ndidi Tielemens Maddison Under Vardy Barnes This should be the system we play vs any of the teams we should dominate and are clearly better than, play this and prove we are. Gets the best out of Maddison, gets the best out of Vardy, more width and more options so less easily to nullify is as we have less reliance of Vardy making something out of nothing. Also Ndidi gives better protection, I’d have him in front of Fofana so he can step out and have more cover, and Tielemens on the Evans side as Evans will be more predictable on his positioning than Fofana. I need to say no more about the quality of our full backs, they would be great to. This system and personnel would be a match for anyone. 523: Kasper Ricardo Fofana Evans Soyuncu Castange Praet Ndidi Tielemens Maddison Vardy For tough away games maybe we could adjust to this. This would be bloody hard to run over and we’d be able to cope with most things with that midfield combo. We’d maybe lack much support for Vardy but when we’re away at tough games it’s maybe our best way to get a result than going toe to toe. Definitely for games like tonight, we should be playing a 4141 and going for it. We can’t take Fulham lightly, attack them and we probably win 9/10 times but if we **** around with stupid passive negative defensive formations like we did at home to West Ham we will do our best to lose. Kasper Justin Fofana Evans Thomas Praet Tielemens Maddison Under Vardy Barnes Id love to see that and really have a go. I could see a 5-2 4-1 type game with no handbrake on but ultimately were too good. BR will probably set up: Kasper Albrighton Fofana Evans Fuchs Justin Mendy Tielemens Maddison Vardy Barnes Will be a tougher game if we do what I expect he does. we should still have enough to beat Fulham but we’ll be giving them a better chance and I’d not be 1 but suprised if we fail to win.
filbertway Posted 30 November 2020 Posted 30 November 2020 2 hours ago, Ric Flair said: Folk who hate 3 at the back, begrudgingly through gritted teeth acknowledge the exceptional results vs Man City, Arsenal, Leeds, Braga and Wolves at home but then quickly criticise the system as we supposedly don't create many chances in it. Or is it the opposition in the majority of those games? I don't recall us creating too much in any of those fixtures in previous seasons, Braga and Leeds aside and for the most we played 4 at the back. We played 4-1-4-1 at home to West Ham this season and got spanked and had about 2 decent shots all game in the final minutes. I think that's what made Rodgers consider 3 at the back again so soon after. I prefer 4-1-4-1 at home to dross, but I can appreciate the benefits of how Rodgers has deployed this system and it has its place here. We aren't a win away from being level on points with 1st without good reason, not being unbeaten in Europe and scoring a decent amount of goals yet again. Why do you keep saying we played 4 at the back vs West Ham we played the 5 2 3/3 4 3. We had our wing backs high and kept getting done by long balls down the channels. I can accept the defensive formation against the bigger teams - especially when we're down to the bare bones with defensive options. It offers much needed protection to lesser players and has given us a chance in those games, it makes total sense. What doesn't make sense is deploying a formation that we use to counter attack teams that will come at us, against a team that will want to sit back and not over-commit. All we're doing is levellling the playing field and giving them a massive confidence boost. A back 4 of Justin Fofana Evans Thomas is more than adeqaute for a game at home to Fulham and we should be looking to get at these and start creating some chances.
Recommended Posts