Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Mark

Five at the back

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

Doesn't seem to have made a massive difference.

As I said we had full backs providing width for 69 minutes, and then Albrighton until the end. The tactics remained the same, pass inside to Tielemans and hope. As @Finnegan said in the match thread, it was made for doubling up on the wings given the red card and at no point did we try, it was constant through the middle.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ttfn

We don’t get men forward quickly enough in this formation. It doesn’t help that every time Maddison gets the ball he puts his foot on it rather than looking to play it forwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest ttfn
1 minute ago, Corky said:

There was no reason to play Castagne out of position. It has completely ruined our set-up.

Such an obvious point but it needs to be said.

 

Clever for the sake of being clever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Corky said:

There was no reason to play Castagne out of position. It has completely ruined our set-up.


Think it was a mistake not to put Thomas in on the left.

 

Had Rodgers done that, I expect the balance would have been better - and with his instinct to cover / tuck round, Castagne could have been creating overloads with Ricardo down Newcastle’s left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember the away game against Newcastle? Complete domination in our normal formation, change to a back five for the last 10, invite pressure and almost gave away a 2 goal lead.

 

The main issue as it always is in this formation, we have no ball runners, wingers or overlapping full backs working in conjunction with the winger to get us further forward and create space/turn the opposition defence around. When the ball comes to Tielemans there are no wingers, just defenders providing width so if the ball goes out to them, it's only coming back inside. We can't get the ball forward into good attacking areas, it just encourages the opposition and is going to get worse as more teams realise. I know we've had injuries but not to this extent that Rodgers has to play it no matter what.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted it before and I’m gonna post it again

Since then, Crystal Palace had two shots on target against us, Southampton had three.

 

Evans is the glue that holds the defence together, we should never consider playing three at the back without him.

 

What Brendan has done tonight is criminal, playing Castagne out of position and Albrighton as a wing-back when he’s too slow, is absolutely idiotic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, kingfox said:

Posted it before and I’m gonna post it again

Since then, Crystal Palace had two shots on target against us, Southampton had three.

 

Evans is the glue that holds the defence together, we should never consider playing three at the back without him.

 

What Brendan has done tonight is criminal, playing Castagne out of position and Albrighton as a wing-back when he’s too slow, is absolutely idiotic.

Doesn't tell the full story imo. Mark mentions above how if affects us going forward. Also I mentioned in the match thread, with better finishing we'd have been in real trouble in those games. Those stats don't show how many times the teams got in behind, how often they missed the target, or messed up the final ball. It all we'll and good listing a few stats, but they don't always tell the full story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
14 minutes ago, Mark said:

We going to carry on like this next season then? :nono:

Hopefully not! 
 

I don’t think the back 5 was the main issue today though, it was the decision making during the game. 0-0 at half time, either double down trying to shithouse a draw and bring on Mendy or Choudhury for Perez/Maddison or switch it up and bring on Iheanacho and go for it. We did neither.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Shane said:

Hopefully not! 
 

I don’t think the back 5 was the main issue today though, it was the decision making during the game. 0-0 at half time, either double down trying to shithouse a draw and bring on Mendy or Choudhury for Perez/Maddison or switch it up and bring on Iheanacho and go for it. We did neither.

Back 5 is a massive issue, we're utterly toothless most of the time with it. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It completely takes our game away, I know we won the FA Cup final this way but let’s be honest you take that Tielemans thunderbolt away and it’s a very similar performance.

 

Brendan the formation is pants and no one understands why you play it??!! Go for it you nob! Yet more points handed over due to this negative crap football.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 at the back has been as issue every since we started playing it. Wing backs don't get up the pitch and the midfield is completely over ran. Playing it against filth like Newcastle and a 10 man southampton has cost us this season. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

5 at the back isn't the problem.

 

Passengers like Maddison and Perez are the problem.

 

Close the b*stard thread.

 

 

It is a problem. Most of the time it's absolutely hideous.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tuna said:

It is a problem. Most of the time it's absolutely hideous.

How much do you expect us to create when you're relying on Perez and Maddison? And without the pace of Barnes to open up defences?

 

Personnel the problem, not formation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes 5 at the back has been a pain at times this season, but its not exactly like we have a good amount of wingers sitting on the bench ready to come in and play so we can change formation is there?

 

Albrighton on the left and Perez on the right is all you would be able to have

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...