"Should we persist with three at the back?"

Who have we used 3-5-2 well against?

we should persists with 352 until January (when we hopefully buy some decent midfielders) because it covers our shit midfield and allows us to play all our best players and is perfect to accommodate the three of Cou, Suarez and Sturridge so they can play they fav positions.

I completely agree with Ian Brown's second para.

It suits counter attacking. Under pressure it's five at the back and then it quickly floods the midfield when in possession or pressuring. Or at least it should.

I've got a feeling it's currently being used more to accommodate Sakho and Cissokho whilst they acclimatise to the league and playing with new team mates.

I worry that, particularly at set pieces, so many bodies leads to nobody taking responsibility. Toure, to my eyes, looks more comfortable when he's not crowded and has space to command.

My personal persuasion is towards Ian’s view of things, although on the occasions when we used 3-5-2 last season, I did like it. I’m also old enough to remember when Roy Evans' side used the formation to good effect (for a time at least) in the mid 90s.  So, I’ve never been against its use, until now.

I think the reason why I feel this way is that Rodgers managed last season to convince the team, and many of the supporters (well, me at least) that we could pull off this pressing/passing/possession game. The formation we had been playing up until recently – variations of a 4-3-3 – is perfectly suited to this and I had been looking forward to more of the same.

The injuries to our full backs and to Coutinho forced us into a change of system, but now that these players are returning, I see no benefit in persisting with a system that was born of necessity. 

In addition the points that Ian makes, there is also the fact that centre backs, with the odd rare exception, tend to be the worse ball players in a team. Not so much of a problem if you are playing Roy Hodgson style, but something of an obstacle if you are aiming for an approach where retention of the ball is the primary objective.

I remember Rodgers, last season, saying something about the importance of having a goalkeeper that can pass and play, as it gives a team a competitive advantage – 11 ‘footballers’  rather than 10.  The 3-5-2 does the opposite by reducing the number of footballers on the park. That’s not a criticism of Toure, Sakho or Skrtel (ok, it is a bit of a criticism of Skrtel!), but all of our midfielders are more comfortable with the ball than those three. I guess that’s why they’re midfielders.

For me, 3-5-2 is a system that is good to have as a fall back when personnel shortages make it a least bad option. We are no longer in that position.

With Lucas available we might go back to 4-3- 3 on saturday or possibly when Coutinho returns

It's a useful option for particular games or in particular circumstances (e.g. Injuries to key players) but I don't think it's the way forward as good teams with good managers will find ways to exploit it. Let's face it even Pardew managed to come up with a system which allowed his inferior team to boss the game until they went down to ten men.

Having a squad with seven centre backs and only two wide players isn't really a good reason for changing your formation except maybe on a short-term basis while you re-balance your squad.

Sticking with the back 3 might not be a great choice, but i would definitely wish to see how how the front 3 plays like when Coutinho is back.

I am wondering why has BR not tried 4-4-2 diamond before, or a modified 4-3-3 that allows 2 striker to play up front at the same time instead of 1 has to constantly go wide to maintain width. 
  

Because we don't have the players to play a diamond-style midfield, we don't have a proper regista nor a tough holding midfielder, we could play Henderson and Gerrard/Allen as the engine a la Seedorf & Gattuso in that brilliant Milan side few years back, but to be honest we'd need to buy 3 new midfielders to play an effective diamond formation

Whatever happened to the simple Anchorman and Support Man that Championship Manager 92 used to have?

No, it's shit.

The major problem is you can currently drive a bus through our midfield. I don't think we can address that in a 3-5-2 with the current personnel.

Think it's ok in certain games like next week agains Arsenal I would have no issues with it,but definitely don't think we should use it Saturday and shouldn't have been used against the Geordies.

3-5-2?

Sadly we are playing 5-3-2 and it needs to be binned.

Think it's ok in certain games like next week agains Arsenal I would have no issues with it,but definitely don't think we should use it Saturday and shouldn't have been used against the Geordies.

Arsenals strength are their midfield, going 2 in the middle against them would be asking for trouble. Pointless having the league's best strikers if they aren't going to get a sniff off the ball as our midfield gets overrun.

I have a feeling that Rodgers is sticking with 3 at the back out of necessity. Not because we have so many players capable of playing centre back that it needs 3 in there to keep them happy and playing more regularly. Not because it puts Johnson in the one position for which many believe he is best suited, as a right wing-back. And not because it allows Rodgers to play both Suarez and Sturridge in a front 2.

I think the reason we are currently using 3 at the back is because it doesn't require a screening player in front of the defence. At least 2 of the midfielders can take turns at that role during games as needs must, but nobody needs to be employed to do it full time. These days, playing with a back four requires at least one midfielder to sit in and play a disciplined role, and I suspect that Rodgers feels we don't have that one player at the club who can do it effectively at a high level based on how he wants the team to play. 

That probably sounds like I'm discounting Lucas, and to an extent I am. He is absolutely tip-top when it comes to being a professional, is a willing learner, fully prepared to be a dogsbody if it helps the team, and is a nice guy. However, he isn't mobile or athletic enough to be the guy that can hold his own in that role without becoming over-exposed himself. That's not his fault, and it certainly doesn't preclude him from fulfilling an important role in the squad, but I have a suspicion that Rodgers feels the team cannot transition effectively or quickly enough without over-exposing Lucas in midfield.

What is noticeable with Rodgers' signings is that he's introduced a lot more athleticism and mobility to the squad. Not all his signings have been a success (as of yet) but the one thing they all have in common is their mobility. If he and the transfer committee can identify and capture a midfielder that can fulfil the role he has earmarked (in my view of course), then I would say that he will be able to switch back to a back 4 and set-up the team to be stronger in midfield.

It's still too early to say whether the switch to a back 3 has been a success or not, but it is worth considering that this prolonged run using that formation gives Rodgers a lot of flexibility when it comes to making adjustments for games and also during games further down the line. If we need to do it, we can do it.

I'm not sure if many of you will remember the La Liga draft we had on the forum a few months ago. My draft team shamefully didn't get very far (what can I say, you people still get swayed by shiny things, but I'm not bitter, no way!) but I also mentioned the importance of flexibility without compromising effectiveness. I show how it can work with my draft team, and Rodgers has the chance to achieve it with this squad, if he spots and then takes the opportunity.

Should we persist with a back 3? No, I don't think we'll need to, as long as the current midfield imbalance can be corrected. It's a shame that Mascherano chose to leave when he did, because his qualities are almost exactly what is currently required.

 It's a shame that Mascherano chose to leave when he did, because his qualities are almost exactly what is currently required.

I still think we'd get overrun in midfield. Hopefully Rodgers picks our two best defenders (debateable who they are) picks Allen or Henderson to partner Lucas and Gerrard and we start to control games again because this end to end football is going to give many a Liverpool fan a cardiac arrest.

It's not really working for me. We could stick at it and get better at it but I just think it leaves us too light in midfield and I don't see how that's going to get much better with the personnel we have available. Coutinho is good but he can't do everything. I would definitely like to see us revert to a back 4 as things stand.

I think Rodgers is trying to maximise the strongest part of our team numbers wise (cb), and fit both Sturridge and Suarez into the same team in our strongest position, without losing control of the middle of the park numbers wise.

The benefits are that having both Suarez and Sturridge means we've always got goals in us, the drawbacks are that we've lost the fluidity and control of the ball we had last season (and only really in the first half v Villa this.

Bringing Coutinho into the mix might make it work better, linking the rest of the team to Suarez and Sturridge.

The best thing to do in my opinion would be to play the formation which allows us to perform to our maximum, which is 4-2-3-1. Play Suarez right or left, and make him do a job for the team. Yes you'll lose some of his potency but we'll have a better balanced side all round.

If we had 2 more attacking midfielders, then Suarez or Sturridge would have to compete for that central striking spot, but we don't so playing Suarez as an inside forward, as Rodgers might say, or a 7 and 3 quarters, might do the job for now.

I hate 3 / 5 at the back, I've always hated 3 / 5 at the back. To me it is an anti-football formation, it does never and has never worked for us.

It unbalances the side, it allows too many players the opportunity to absolve themselves of any responsibility for picking up a man or making a tackle, like the fucking Chuckle Bros. "To me, to you etc"

The wing back argument is a joke. What's the difference between our full backs (in a back 4) and our wing backs (in a 3 / 5) ? The answer is one extra defender / centre back, one fewer midfielder. Their starting positions are the same but they have fewer attacking options infront to pass to, and more defence in behind.

3 / 5 at the back is also becoming increasingly unneccessary and defensive when more and more teams are playing with only 1 striker. Why do we need 3 defenders to mark 1 man ? Fucked if I know.

This 3 / 5 at the back malarkey also supplies ammunition to those people (of whom I'm not one) who would point the finger at Rodgers and accuse him of not having the bollocks to upset the applecart and pick his best two centre halves, regardless of whose nose he puts out of joint.

The argument that 3 / 5 at the back plays to Suarez and Sturridge's strengths also fails to hold water with me either, because Rodgers' 4-3-3 (or variation of therein) is so fluid up front that Suarez , Sturridge and Coutinho are constantly interchanging positions. They proved this last year by scoring a shit load of goals between them when we were fucking torturing teams and playing some great, exciting football.

The formation is inherently and needlessly negative and despise it.

Arsenals Carzorla on tactics and how arsenals midfield helps get the most out of their full backs.

http://hereisthecity.com/2013/10/24/cazorla-talks-tactics-how-arsenal-get-their-width/

I hate 3 / 5 at the back, I've always hated 3 / 5 at the back. To me it is an anti-football formation, it does never and has never worked for us.

 

It unbalances the side, it allows too many players the opportunity to absolve themselves of any responsibility for picking up a man or making a tackle, like the fucking Chuckle Bros. "To me, to you etc"

 

The wing back argument is a joke. What's the difference between our full backs (in a back 4) and our wing backs (in a 3 / 5) ? The answer is one extra defender / centre back, one fewer midfielder. Their starting positions are the same but they have fewer attacking options infront to pass to, and more defence in behind.

 

3 / 5 at the back is also becoming increasingly unneccessary and defensive when more and more teams are playing with only 1 striker. Why do we need 3 defenders to mark 1 man ? Fucked if I know.

 

This 3 / 5 at the back malarkey also supplies ammunition to those people (of whom I'm not one) who would point the finger at Rodgers and accuse him of not having the bollocks to upset the applecart and pick his best two centre halves, regardless of whose nose he puts out of joint.

 

The argument that 3 / 5 at the back plays to Suarez and Sturridge's strengths also fails to hold water with me either, because Rodgers' 4-3-3 (or variation of therein) is so fluid up front that Suarez , Sturridge and Coutinho are constantly interchanging positions. They proved this last year by scoring a shit load of goals between them when we were fucking torturing teams and playing some great, exciting football.

 

The formation is inherently and needlessly negative and despise it.

Firstly how any team sets up against opposition when it has, and doesn't have, the ball, in attack, in defence, defies conventional formation discussion.

With so many teams playing with a lone striker, having four men sat in defence makes little sense.

A five man midfield itself shields the defence, and provides an extra man going forwards.It also bolsters possession, a key part of Rodgers philosophy.

3-5-2 requires considerable athleticism for the wide men, something that Enrique and Johnson have in abundance, the third central defender also provides extra cover in defence, vital when the aforementioned can be caught out of position in a four.

Whenyou consider how few goals we have conceded tis season, whatever Rodgers thinks is best in defence is fine by me.

It's not the 1920's. Full backs don't stay fully back, they go forward, you never end up with 4 defenders marking a single player. You end up with two center backs doing that.

And a team with 5 defenders instead of four does not provide an extra attacker, it provides one less. The defense is no better screened either. Instead of wingers ( a la Henderson and Coutinho) being able to tuck in high up the pitch, when the ball is lost and where they can apply immediate pressure, you have wing backs running backwards, dragging the team with them and leaving acres of space to the likes of Cabaye.

Because 352 doesn't fix the actual midfield problem of not pressing as a unit, not tracking runners, not compacting space and players defending as individuals.

If you're going to play 3 at the back, you need to play it like Barca. 1 CB and two wingbacks. Otherwise it is what it is, 5 at the back and the third CB a sweeper at that. What next Catenaccio?

It's not the 1920's. Full backs don't stay fully back, they go forward, you never end up with 4 defenders marking a single player. You end up with two center backs doing that.

 

And a team with 5 defenders instead of four does not provide an extra attacker, it provides one less. The defense is no better screened either. Instead of wingers ( a la Henderson and Coutinho) being able to tuck in high up the pitch, when the ball is lost and where they can apply immediate pressure, you have wing backs running backwards, dragging the team with them and leaving acres of space to the likes of Cabaye.

 

Because 352 doesn't fix the actual midfield problem of not pressing as a unit, not tracking runners, not compacting space and players defending as individuals.

 

If you're going to play 3 at the back, you need to play it like Barca. 1 CB and two wingbacks. Otherwise it is what it is, 5 at the back and the third CB a sweeper at that. What next Catenaccio?

I wish I could rep this.

My faith in humanity is restored as the majority seems to not be fooled by the emperors new clothes.

I wish I could rep this.

 

My faith in humanity is restored as the majority seems to not be fooled by the emperors new clothes.

Me too mate.

The only time we've ever had even a sniff of success playing 3 / 5 at the back was under Roy Evans, but I would argue we played some great football despite that formation, not because of it.

McManaman, Collymore and Robbie Fowler had way more influence than shite like Kvarme, Ruddock and Babb.