Five at the back

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, ttfn said:

Splitting hairs.

 

The point is no team serious about finishing in the top 6 lines up with 3 centre backs at home to a side at the bottom of the league. 
 

No reason at all that we couldn’t have effectively had the same positioning for the full backs and an extra man in an attacking position in a 4-2-3-1 or a 4-3-3. Vardy and Maddison are the only attacking players on the pitch. 

If you're claiming its 5 at the back and it's 3 it's not splitting hairs

[Guest ttfn]

Also the fact that we keep getting done on the bloody counter attack in home games against bottom half sides is maddening. Ultimately it stems from the attacking players not having enough options, losing the ball and pacy opposition players having a free 50 yard run at our 3 centre backs, 2 of whom are probably best described as lumbering.

[adam95581]

5 at the back has a time and a place and it’s worked well for us at times. Today isn’t the game for it. 

[Freeman's Wharfer]

For three years now we’ve struggled against teams that we should be beating at home. 
 

Maybe it’s the pressure of being the favourites but it’s hard to tell when we’ve also had a couple of managers who have self-harmed our chances through an inability to set up differently for these games.

 

Puel resolutely stuck to his Mendy and Ndidi dream and it’s looking like Rodgers now has this back 5 that he’ll stick with regardless also.

[Guest ttfn]

Just now, Webbo said:

If you're claiming its 5 at the back and it's 3 it's not splitting hairs

I’m not claiming anything.

 

The formation is wrong, that’s the point. Whether it’s 3 or 5 is completely academic.

[Nalis]

Brendan deserves slack for whack five at the back and our lack of attack, Jack

[Webbo]

Just now, ttfn said:

I’m not claiming anything.

 

The formation is wrong, that’s the point. Whether it’s 3 or 5 is completely academic.

The title of the thread is "five at the back". 

[Freeman's Wharfer]

8 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It patently 3-4-3

5-3-2 or 3-4-3 most modern formations are fluid so you’re both right to an extent. However the fact that we have 5 players who are defenders in this system probably lends itself to the fact that it’s first and foremost a back 5 otherwise the wide players would be midfielders/wingers so your point is, in many ways, pointless.

[Guest ttfn]

Just now, Webbo said:

The title of the thread is "five at the back". 

But it’s academic, I can’t see what your point is adding to the discussion except for splitting hairs.

[Bryn]

13 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It patently 3-4-3

 

So Thomas and Justin are quality attacking wingbacks are they?

[Webbo]

I can see I've disturbed another Foxestalk hissyfit. I'll let you get on with it. 

[Freeman's Wharfer]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I can see I've disturbed another Foxestalk hissyfit. I'll let you get on with it. 

‘Hissyfit’... says the poster taking issue with the thread title saying ‘back five’ 

[KrefelderFox666]

Leicester should be playing 4-4-f***ing-2.

[Nod.E]

I cannot understand how Rodgers persists with it.

 

It is so obvious to me that in this formation your wingbacks must offer a threat. 

 

It MIGHT work with Pereira and Castagne.

 

If your wide men don't offer a threat, just overload in the middle to deal with any threat there and you're good.

 

I am not a tactical genius. I am not and never have been a football manager. It just seems so obvious. So why do we keep doing it?

[Kopfkino]

The performance second really does enforce the idea that 5atb is the problem...

[HighPeakFox]

Just now, Kopfkino said:

The performance second really does enforce the idea that 5atb is the problem...

Really? It's not been much better. 

[l444ry]

Can't stand 3-4-3. Three at the back to give you two up top then yes. A system that's too clever by half.

[Kopfkino]

Just now, HighPeakFox said:

Really? It's not been much better. 

Yeah it was sarcastically aimed at the folk who can only analyse football matches through what layered combination of numbers adds up to 10

[Sampson]

We've looked just as shite playing 4at tbf.

 

Barnes and Ünder have been just as useless as anyone else since they came on.

[honeybradger]

22 minutes ago, Sampson said:

We've looked just as shite playing 4at tbf.

 

Barnes and Ünder have been just as useless as anyone else since they came on.

I thought under was good, tried to make things happen, barnes got his goal as well. We looked a lot better defensively with 4atb as well, much less open down the flanks.

[Dan LCFC]

Had a horrible feeling he was going to cost us points by setting up so negatively against someone like that.

 

Not good enough. He should know better.

 

Schmeichel

Justin - Fofana - Evans - Thomas

Mendy

Tielemans - Maddison

Under - Vardy - Barnes

 

Tell me that team doesn't put Fulham at home away.

[Tom12345]

9 hours ago, Aus Fox said:

This is clearly 3 at the back, very different to the way we set up against Man City and Arsenal. Justin and Thomas are much higher up the pitch

I observed the same, but in that case play proper wingers in Barnes and Under and go all out. He wants to play attacking football but also play safe at the same time playing defenders in attacking positions when we have much better options.

 

And if we play like that, then we tell all 3 CBs (especially Fofana) to not dash forward and be all over the place at the back.

 

We were badly organised. Defensively a bit over the place and attacking wise we had too many defenders on the pitch. Maybe tactically ok, but we lacked the discipline with the back 3 especially Fofana and lacked attackers in wide areas.

[Chrysalis]

I feel the problem is more than the formation, he seems frit of us losing possession, we dont have players dribbling into their box, or wingers utilising themselves, its just pass, pass, pass between midfielders and defender's, by the time we try to pass forward the other team is in a defensive shape which is why forward passes are been cut out. .  Of course been afraid to lose possession I suppose is coming back to he doesnt trust his defenders.  I also agree about the players in forward positions not moving, so often in games I see a pass been made to barnes as an example, with him initially in a favourable position for the pass, but then the guy marking him will run to intercept whilst barnes is static waiting for the ball to arrive.

Edited 1 December 2020 by Chrysalis

[Guest ttfn]

3/4/5 at the back it doesn’t matter, the problem is lining up with 6 defensive players at home to opposition that want to play on the counter attack.

 

People used to absolutely deride Puel (and Rodgers got the same treatment when he did the same at home to Brighton last year) for picking Mendy and Ndidi together and the issue there was again not necessarily the formation but the fact that it meant we had 6 defensive players on the pitch at home to weak sides.

 

Justin and Thomas yesterday weren’t necessarily playing in defensive positions but they are defenders first and foremost. As somebody else said you might get away with this formation with elite wing backs like Ricardo and Castagne because they are both probably good enough going forward to be top flight wingers in their own right.

 

Obviously a connected problem is that we effectively lined up with only 2 quality attacking players yesterday. Vardy is obviously a top striker and the jury is still out on Maddison as a top half PL player. Tielemans is a class act but scores and assists very few goals. Outside of Belgium Praet has scored 6 league goals in 5 seasons. We simply didn’t have the tools to succeed yesterday and that was a selection issue. 

[Fish]

Couldn’t agree more ! Other teams are so aware of this system and if we don’t score with that first chance we get picked off with balls down the channels . BR is paid to make better plans than this , it’s sooo obvious.