Five at the back

[Mark]

1 minute ago, moore_94 said:

 

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

Well Castagne and Ricardo on the right surely would be better than just Albrighton punting long balls from our own half. Not ideal but at least they can run with the ball and make way up the field.

[Babylon]

2 minutes ago, Nod.E said:

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.

Remember when Barnes couldn’t hit a barn door, Perez was on the wing, Maddison 10 and we were in the top 4 for half of last season. 
 

Having both attacking full backs AND wingers gives us width. It gives the players support so that they can do give and goes  and means more attacking options.

 

With the wing backs we don’t get that, they are just stood isolated without support and you are almost asking a miracle for them to do anything at all. 

[matty98]

I don't mind a back 5 if we had the players available that suit it but we just don't. 

Albrighton and Thomas don't have the athleticism to the play the role properly so we just end having absolutely no attacking threat whatsoever. 

It only works when we have JJ and Castagne as the wingbacks.

 

[moore_94]

4 minutes ago, Mark said:

Well Castagne and Ricardo on the right surely would be better than just Albrighton punting long balls from our own half. Not ideal but at least they can run with the ball and make way up the field.

We have seen that Castagne and Ricardo on the right doesn't work though, it is why it hasn't been tried again since

[jmono84]

Just now, Babylon said:

Remember when Barnes couldn’t hit a barn door, Perez was on the wing, Maddison 10 and we were in the top 4 for half of last season. 
 

Having both attacking full backs AND wingers gives us width. It gives the players support so that they can do give and goes  and means more attacking options.

 

With the wing backs we don’t get that, they are just stood isolated without support and you are almost asking a miracle for them to do anything at all. 

Absolutely!

 

Thomas and Albrighton have limited pace so need someone they can work with and play give and goes. Albrighton especially struggles because he can’t defend. Our best wing back is chucked in at CB, I could understand if he had to make up for the lack of our other CB’s pace but Soyuncu and Fofana are rapid! They don’t need anyone else and should be played as a two.

 

Rodgers has a lot to answer for this tactic because it’s been crap for weeks yet still persists with it. I honestly have no idea why he likes it so much, it’s soooo crap.

[Guest ttfn]

It’s 5 at the back and that box midfield that’s the problem.

 

No goal threat, no creativity, no passing patterns, no width. It just doesn’t work, it only threatened to work when Ricardo came on because he’s the only fit player in our squad capable of beating a man.

[Webbo]

We conceded from a corner, where all the players are back and a pen. Other than that we kept them out.

[Nod.E]

6 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Remember when Barnes couldn’t hit a barn door, Perez was on the wing, Maddison 10 and we were in the top 4 for half of last season. 
 

Having both attacking full backs AND wingers gives us width. It gives the players support so that they can do give and goes  and means more attacking options.

 

With the wing backs we don’t get that, they are just stood isolated without support and you are almost asking a miracle for them to do anything at all. 

I'm not exactly an advocate of a back 5. I myself have bemoaned it at times. But right now with some of the injuries we have, with the form of some of the players, it doesn't matter what formation we play.

 

Maddison should be nowhere near the starting 11 at the moment. I can't believe Iheanacho didn't start. 

[Kopfkino]

We don’t have the players available and properly fit to play either a 4 or 5 and look good consistently. 

[Mark]

Just now, moore_94 said:

We have seen that Castagne and Ricardo on the right doesn't work though, it is why it hasn't been tried again since

I’m not a fan myself but we’re in desperate need of players who are able to run with the ball and this system is putting a stop to it.

[Nod.E]

3 minutes ago, ttfn said:

It’s 5 at the back and that box midfield that’s the problem.

 

No goal threat, no creativity, no passing patterns, no width. It just doesn’t work, it only threatened to work when Ricardo came on because he’s the only fit player in our squad capable of beating a man.

So it's personnel then?

[TrentFox]

I don’t think it matters how many are at the back when we are absolutely toothless up front. Vardy has been beyond immense for this club, but he looks absolutely finished  to me. Kels scoring disguises his technical shortcomings. We are a shambles on the attack when they are supported by an out of sorts Madders and a limited Perez. 

[Babylon]

1 minute ago, Kopfkino said:

We don’t have the players available and properly fit to play either a 4 or 5 and look good consistently. 

We might not, but he’s not even tried the 4 has he. He’s just plodding along doing the same thing over and over again. It’s woeful.

[Guest ttfn]

Just now, Nod.E said:So it's personnel then?

Well yes and no, I’d have thought that was obvious from my comment?

 

If we had world class wing backs it might work. We don’t (at least not with Ricardo and Justin injured and Castagne at centre back).

 

As it is we have no creativity. Surely you pick a formation to suit the players at your disposal, no? Any (sensible) formation can be effective but certain formations - and this is one - have their effectiveness severely limited by requiring very specific skill sets from certain players: in this case the wing backs and the two attacking midfielders, none of whom are capable of carrying the ball well.

 

The best exponents of this formation in recent times are the Chelsea title winners of 16/17: they had Hazard and Pedro/Willian - direct runners - behind a striker and a converted attacking midfield player (Moses) at wing back.

[jmono84]

1 minute ago, Babylon said:

We might not, but he’s not even tried the 4 has he. He’s just plodding along doing the same thing over and over again. It’s woeful.

This is what’s pissing me off. I could understand if we were solid but tonights game was going one way, it’s was absolute one way traffic and he just continued. Makes me wonder if he knew he would lose so just stuck with it, that team in that set up does not win that game

[Mark]

1 minute ago, jmono84 said:

This is what’s pissing me off. I could understand if we were solid but tonights game was going one way, it’s was absolute one way traffic and he just continued. Makes me wonder if he knew he would lose so just stuck with it, that team in that set up does not win that game

Did the same against Newcastle and wouldn’t change it even when 4-0 down

[South Shire Fox]

He plays 5 at the back because we have no fit wingers who can provide an attacking threat and pace. Badly needs to invest in a rapid skillful winger on the right to compliment Barnes down the left when hes fit. 

[Babylon]

9 minutes ago, South Shire Fox said:

He plays 5 at the back because we have no fit wingers who can provide an attacking threat and pace. Badly needs to invest in a rapid skillful winger on the right to compliment Barnes down the left when hes fit. 

He’s literally played games with Maddison and Perez on the wing before. 

[South Shire Fox]

2 minutes ago, Babylon said:

He’s literally played games with Maddison and Perez on the wing before. 

Are Maddison and Perez fast attacking out and out wingers? Square pegs in round holes, they need players who can actually play there and offer a threat not shoehorning two slow number 10s there that offer nothing in that position

[Babylon]

2 minutes ago, South Shire Fox said:

Are Maddison and Perez fast attacking out and out wingers? Square pegs in round holes, they need players who can actually play there and offer a threat not shoehorning two slow number 10s there that offer nothing in that position

The point I’m making is that having to play them there before didn’t stop him playing wingers. 
 

Perez played there almost exclusively last season whilst we were top 4.

 

Having wingers is only part of it, it’s as much to do with having two attacking full backs to play off them. It wasn’t long ago most of our attacking play went through the full backs.

[deanolegend1989]

In my opinion, the single biggest reason we will thrown away the top 4 again.

We have been shocking vs anyone competitive since we changed to this after Barnes injury.

 

Burnley (A)

Brighton(A)

Sheffield Utd(H)

Man City(H)

West Ham(A)

West Brom(H)

Palace(H)

Saints(A)

Newcastle(H)

Man Utd(A)

Chelsea(A)

 

Now other than a woeful Sheffield Utd team and a first half against an awful West Brom team, we’ve looked absolutely awful nearly every game.

Burnley away to draw and Brighton away we were extremely lucky to knick it, Same as Palace at home. All 3 times world class individual ability from Youris passing and Nachos world class finishing turned games we really struggled hard overall vs cannon fodder.

Man City are great but I’ve not seen a team get run over so convincingly - negative tactics too deep , not enough players forward.

West Ham we bottled it negatively again. Saints it was there for the taking vs 10 men, should be throwing the kitchen sink at it. Newcastle home, there for the taking, negative again.

Even The cup final, takes world class individual ability from our players to make it work.

The system is broke, we look like a shambles but the worse thing about it is that we look like a team who could perform a lot better in the right system.

Its a massive massive shame. 

 

[sacreblueits442]

2 hours ago, ttfn said:

It’s 5 at the back and that box midfield that’s the problem.

 

No goal threat, no creativity, no passing patterns, no width. It just doesn’t work, it only threatened to work when Ricardo came on because he’s the only fit player in our squad capable of beating a man.

...totally agree with you......!!!

We were always going to be at a disadvantage in this game, hard to raise ourselves after Saturday and Chelsea were going to be the one who could dig deep to produce in this game.

[Dan LCFC]

I really think some of our results have come in spite of it rather than because of it.

[Mark]

What is the point? 
It does nothing for us, makes us worse defensively and short in midfield.

Miracle they’d only scored one by 90 minutes.

😡🤬😤🤬😡