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

Recommended Posts

Posted
41 minutes ago, Raw Dykes said:

Won't be hard to squeeze Perez in there. Playing with 10 from the off is either brave or insulting.

..could always play Maddison as an 8 and bring Nacho in the front three and Perez upfront. 

  • Like 2
Posted
53 minutes ago, Walkers said:

Funny how we spend all season trying to qualify for a European competition, then we rest our players for it

We've qualified for the next round.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

So we win this and we don’t play the seeded CL dropdowns, right?

Yes ideally. Or we just need to equal Bragas result. 

Edited by FoyleFox
  • Like 1
Posted
31 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

There's a feeling among some fans that 3 at the back is more defensive than 4 at the back.

Wing backs are not always defensive.

Is 3-5-2 more defensive than 4-4-2? Not necessarily. 

Simpson-Morgan-Huth-Fuchs was pretty damn defensive.

You have to look beyond the actual formation.

 

Fair enough but to play 352 effectively you need wing backs who are great going forward. Unfortunately, our currently available options at full back don't quite fit that bill (and that's not to say that Justin in particular isn't coming on very well). With Ricardo and Timmy back, it would be a different story of course.

Posted
1 hour ago, sacreblueits442 said:

..could always play Maddison as an 8 and bring Nacho in the front three and Perez upfront. 

You could, although I'd like to see a front four of:

 

   Under  Perez  Barnes

              Nacho

 

Although, I think you would have to play something like a double pivot to do that. A midfield of Mendy and Tielemans (maybe even Praet) might work, but I don't think sticking Maddison in there would.

Posted
5 minutes ago, Sunbury Fox said:

Fair enough but to play 352 effectively you need wing backs who are great going forward. Unfortunately, our currently available options at full back don't quite fit that bill (and that's not to say that Justin in particular isn't coming on very well). With Ricardo and Timmy back, it would be a different story of course.

I doubt we'll play 3 at the back often when everyone is fit but it's an option.

We are muddling through without the key defensive players - and muddling through pretty well as it goes.

Expecting a pre match FT meltdown on Thursday of course ha!

Posted
24 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

I doubt we'll play 3 at the back often when everyone is fit but it's an option.

We are muddling through without the key defensive players - and muddling through pretty well as it goes.

Expecting a pre match FT meltdown on Thursday of course ha!

Yes the Tin Foil Brigade will be out in force.

I've come  to actually find it amusing. 

Posted

Feels like the importance of this one is being underestimated, generally.  If you want to make a deep run in this competition this is pretty much a must-win.  Yeah you'd think it's an opponent you could beat without your best 11, but I'd rather start a strong side and sub guys out if we lead comfortably than start a scrub team and have to rely on the A-listers saving our asses at the death.  I might not start Vardy but I'd sure as hell have him ready to go as a sub if needed.

  • Like 2
Posted

I think there's also a financial incentive to win the group. Not massive but will at least pay towards the cost of last week's flight out to the Ukraine. 

Posted
6 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

There's a feeling among some fans that 3 at the back is more defensive than 4 at the back.

Wing backs are not always defensive.

Is 3-5-2 more defensive than 4-4-2? Not necessarily. 

Simpson-Morgan-Huth-Fuchs was pretty damn defensive.

You have to look beyond the actual formation.

Hallelujah  :worship:

 

Been trying to bang this drum for a while, it’s about system not perceived formation on a news feed

Posted
7 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

There's a feeling among some fans that 3 at the back is more defensive than 4 at the back.

Wing backs are not always defensive.

Is 3-5-2 more defensive than 4-4-2? Not necessarily. 

Simpson-Morgan-Huth-Fuchs was pretty damn defensive.

You have to look beyond the actual formation.

 

True.  People moan at 5 atb as if it were a flat back five.  Perhaps it would be better if we called it 3-4-3.

 

 

Posted
8 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

There's a feeling among some fans that 3 at the back is more defensive than 4 at the back.

Wing backs are not always defensive.

Is 3-5-2 more defensive than 4-4-2? Not necessarily. 

Simpson-Morgan-Huth-Fuchs was pretty damn defensive.

You have to look beyond the actual formation.

 

And very successful too. Each knew their role and it worked fantastically. 

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

There's a feeling among some fans that 3 at the back is more defensive than 4 at the back.

Wing backs are not always defensive.

Is 3-5-2 more defensive than 4-4-2? Not necessarily. 

Simpson-Morgan-Huth-Fuchs was pretty damn defensive.

You have to look beyond the actual formation.

 

Agreed, it's more about the players chosen in those line ups and how they are employed. 

When all fit, a back 3 of Fofana, Evans and Soyuncu with Ricardo and Castagne as wing backs could be quite a devastating attacking set up! Two of those centre halves are very strong and mobile with an older, very experienced head to martial them. That surely has the potential to be one of the best attacking 'defences' in the Premiership. 

 

Likewise, Ranieri's more  Italianesque older style excellent flatter back 4 was brilliant at that time because of the mix of players in front of them (or 2 players in the case of Kante).

 

Sometimes you get a team that is so brilliant though with it's personnel and style like Barcelona with Xavi, Iniesta, Busquets and Messi etc, that it's for 'the rest' to conceive of a way to try and beat them! That is quite unusual though.

 

There's still a place for both and other formations but, all are dependent upon the players available to the manager to pick. In Rodgers case and in fairness to him, he's been absolutely scuppered through injuries this season BUT, the quality and style of the opposition has to be taken into account also. The latter perhaps has been the most debatable point with some. Rigidity in formation recently has not arguably been what has been required e.g. with who we've had available, should we set up in the same way against Man City and Liverpool compared to Fulham and Sheffield United for example?

 

It has to have been an absolute nightmare for Rodgers at times in terms of injury and in fairness, we as supporters don't have his knowledge and true grasp of that situation including fatigue issues. Sometimes however, from the outside, to slavishly follow a certain 'philosophy' or a rigid formation with certain personnel is very difficult to fathom.

Edited by volpeazzurro
  • Like 4
Posted

Kasper 

 

Justin

Morgan

Fofana

Thomas

 

Choudhury

N’Didi

 

Barnes

Praet

Under

 

Iheanacho

  • Like 1
Posted
20 minutes ago, MGLCFC said:

Swap Choudhury for Perez  for me. Don't think we need 2 defensive midfielders against a team who have lost 10 of their last 11 European games.

Yeah absolutely no need for Ndidi and Choudhury at home to this lot

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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