"Should we persist with three at the back?"

I think we should bin 3 at the back as well except when it's absolutely necessary do to injuries/suspensions. 4-2-3-1 and 4-3-3 (which can easily be deployed in the same game tactically) is are the best systems we can play in my opinion though I wouldn't be opposed to seeing how we work with a diamond in midfield.

The wingbacks in the 3-5-2/5-3-2 end up exposed if we lose possession and more often than not have to sprint back into position rather than attempt to win the ball back. Since they're out of position one of the two holding mids have to swing over if the wingback's man is bombing up the flank which in our case seems to lead to an open middle of the pitch with the CB's we have wondering whether they need to be getting back or close the man down. In the end I feel like what should be a stronger defensive formation actually confuses our defenders more. Whether that's just an indictment on the footballing ability/intelligence with them or just a flaw in how we implement the system I'm not sure.

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.

There is nothing "new"about 3-5-2, as any student of  German, and more recently Italian, football will testify.

Four at the back is obselete.

No formation triumphs in itself, as the formation of the opposition and the ability of players to play it are such great variables.

Obselete(sic) as in pervasive and entrenched?

For me the bottom line is this;

What would have more influence on the game?

Allen/Henderson, Lucas and Gerrard? Or Agger/Skrtel, Touré and Sakho?

For me it's got to be the former as the latter is allowing teams to get at us far too easily and we haven't even faced top class opposition with this new formation yet.

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.

Your point about the balance of the squad is spot on even if it's understandable due its highly transitional nature right now. However, I don't buy your analysis about Pardew coming up wit a solution to address our system at the weekend. We dropped points last Saturday because we passed the ball without any real accuracy or tempo. If we'd added that to our game, we'd have twitted Newcastle everywhere.

I see many Reds writing off the new system as a failure after a grand total of four matches, in none of which have we been able to deploy our best eleven. Now, there's a good argument for saying no team can ever rely on a best eleven, which is of course true. That said, I think Rodgers is entitled to a bit of leeway at least until he gets Coutinho (the player for whom this system is designed in my view) back into the team. 

There is nothing "new"about 3-5-2, as any student of  German, and more recently Italian, football will testify.

 

Four at the back is obselete.

 

No formation triumphs in itself, as the formation of the opposition and the ability of players to play it are such great variables.

Spot on with your last line, even if I nearly had to neg you for describing it as 352...

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?

Self evidently, we're not at Barca's level though, are we? In that context, we need to be more robust at the back until we can dominate the ball (if ever that's attainable) like they do.

As for your point about the full backs ending up as yet more defenders in a three at the back system, that was always my issue with it until I saw this variation and the players we'd see as central to its execution. For me, the key men are Enrique, Johnson and Coutinho rather than, as everyone else seems fixated on, the centre halves. The theory of 3412 is that the full backs actually defend far less and play in more advanced position and, when you consider how advanced Johnson and Enrique often have been when playing in a back four, that's only to be encouraged, in my view.

No, as I've said elsewhere, four games without the key players available is simply not enough evidence on which to base a judgement. The way some people are describing it, you'd think we'd been battered week in, week out and also that we'd dropped from some lofty height last season simply because we've switched to 3 at the back.

I have made my views on this clear elsewhere but, being a pedant, would like to point out that whatever the formation in general play it cannot be held responsible for conceding at set pieces.

Why play two average fullbacks out wide and depend on them creating anything going forward when it only happens once in a blue moon instead of actual midfielders Paul?

There is a good reason they are fullbacks and not midfielders and its because they are both very limited going forward and more often than not happen to end up in no mans land.

The problem has been that when we play 3 at the back more often than not we haven't had 3 centre midfielders.  We are obviously playing 3 at the back so that we can play 2 up front.  Instead of playing 3 centre midfielders though which obviously gave us all that possession and control last season we are playing 2 and Moses.  People seem to think it would change things if Coutinho returned and played in Moses position.  It might do but I can't see it.  Instead of it being a 352 it's actually more of a 343/3412 which is leaving us a lot more open and is the main reason for me why we aren't controlling midfield the way we did last season.

For me I see this as a makeshift formation until Coutinho returns.  We should have been playing 3 centre mids or not playing the formation at all.

The other alternative to this (trying to get 2 centre forwards playing) is to play 442.  This would leave us with the same problem of only having 2 centre midfielders.  The advantage of 442 which is massively understated though is it is the formation most players have been playing for years and everybody knows exactly what they should be doing.

It's been mentioned above but I think the main problem with 3 at the back is because it's not used as much as 4 at the back players aren't 100% on what they should be doing all the time.  Playing with 1 other centre half is probably the most natural thing to do for most centre backs.  It's why it's always hard to judge a formation like this because the formation might be great and the odd goal/chance conceded due to it may be just down to the players adapting and after a number of games they would be able to eradicate them.  This is not a given though and if you are always going to go back to 4 at the back in the end anyway it makes it very hard to justify the players getting used to it and conceding due to it to subsequently just fuck it off any way.

Why play two average fullbacks out wide and depend on them creating anything going forward when it only happens once in a blue moon instead of actual midfielders Paul?

 

There is a good reason they are fullbacks and not midfielders and its because they are both very limited going forward and more often than not happen to end up in no mans land.

It's about the space they create in the middle Frode. Watch the Southampton debacle again when we didn't have a full back in the team and look at how it reduced our options up front. The full backs pull defenders out of position and leave opponents outnumbered and outgunned in the middle. That's both the theory and the reality. I've watched it happen in most matches under Rodgers. The only difference is that three at the back theoretically makes us less vulnerable defensively.

Why play two average fullbacks out wide and depend on them creating anything going forward when it only happens once in a blue moon instead of actual midfielders Paul?

 

There is a good reason they are fullbacks and not midfielders and its because they are both very limited going forward and more often than not happen to end up in no mans land.

I wouldn't say they were average.  They are both better going forward than backward as well.  Add this to the fact we haven't got any genuine wide men and it seems obvious to play them as wing backs in a 352.

You do become overly reliant on them though as they become your only source of width.  I would say any formation we have played recently has relied on them quite a lot though.

It's about the space they create in the middle Frode. Watch the Southampton debacle again when we didn't have a full back in the team and look at how it reduced our options up front. The full backs pull defenders out of position and leave opponents outnumbered and outgunned in the middle. That's both the theory and the reality. I've watched it happen in most matches under Rodgers. The only difference is that three at the back theoretically makes us less vulnerable defensively.

The space they create in the middle for who, our two sitting CM's and our three CB's?

The wide players are easily covered by the opposition, like Brownie pointed out in the original post, no one is coming up behind them to double up out wide, I dont think I have ever seen Johnson going past a player on the outside even with a midfielder infront of him so what exactly is he supposed to do and Enrique is totally dependent on someone making space for him and someone to play him in as with the ball at feet he is useless.

Going forward this system is terrible wit the players we use in it, if we played actual midfielders out wide with a bit more in their locker than Enrique and Johnson it would be a bit better, but still then we would have the problems with these midfielders being given more defensive duties and because of that sit back more than normal.

No matter how good it sounds in theory, in reality playing 3 CB's always will restrict a team going forward because the wide players will have no cover or more imoportantly support behind them.

At back it will usually also create problems with picking up runs from CM as the gaps will be too big and when one CB usually can push out this will create even more space in this formation.

The space they create in the middle for who, our two sitting CM's and our three CB's?

 

The wide players are easily covered by the opposition, like Brownie pointed out in the original post, no one is coming up behind them to double up out wide, I dont think I have ever seen Johnson going past a player on the outside even with a midfielder infront of him so what exactly is he supposed to do and Enrique is totally dependent on someone making space for him and someone to play him in as with the ball at feet he is useless.

 

Going forward this system is terrible wit the players we use in it, if we played actual midfielders out wide with a bit more in their locker than Enrique and Johnson it would be a bit better, but still then we would have the problems with these midfielders being given more defensive duties and because of that sit back more than normal.

 

No matter how good it sounds in theory, in reality playing 3 CB's always will restrict a team going forward because the wide players will have no cover or more imoportantly support behind them.

 

At back it will usually also create problems with picking up runs from CM as the gaps will be too big and when one CB usually can push out this will create even more space in this formation.

No matter how good it sounds in theory, in reality playing 3 CB's always will restrict a team going forward because the wide players will have no cover or more imoportantly support behind them.

 

 

Not so.

You assume that the three are Carragher style centre backs. 352 as conceived by Billardo's Argentina and the Kaiser's West Germany relied on one of the three playing a sweeper role. In Agger we are fortunate to have a very skilfull ball playing central defender.

I do not claim that 352 offers a silver bullet. It does address the modern need to swamp and win midfield. It is certainly not defensive, yet can offer greater defensive cover than 442.

Space for who? Er, three fellas called Luis, Daniel and Phillip.

They have more than enough space, playing a defensive line up like this where 7 players basically are no threat whatsover does not exactly help create space for them or support them either.

Another thing with this system I noticed especially against Newcastle is that since our attackers gets no support they comes deep more often to pick up the ball.

Apart from imaginary scenarios there are no positives at all with this formation, lets count ourselves lucky we have been up against some really shite teams while playing it.

Not so.

 

You assume that the three are Carragher style centre backs. 352 as conceived by Billardo's Argentina and the Kaiser's West Germany relied on one of the three playing a sweeper role. In Agger we are fortunate to have a very skilfull ball playing central defender.

 

I do not claim that 352 offers a silver bullet. It does address the modern need to swamp and win midfield. It is certainly not defensive, yet can offer greater defensive cover than 442.

With fullbakcs out wide it will always be defensive, how many goals have these two attacking superpowers scored or created during their careers?

With fullbakcs out wide it will always be defensive, how many goals have these two attacking superpowers scored or created during their careers?

To which "two attacking superpowers" do you refer? Argentina and Germany have hardly been slouches in their development of the game.

Full backs are out wide whether they are in a defensive 4 or a midfield 5. in a midfield 5 they offer attacking options from midfield, key in the modern game, whilst still leaving three behind them, in a 4 only two are left.

The theory evaporates once players are involved and the question is how adaptable and able those players are to play any system. I continue to worry about Rodgers battle experience, but I have every confidence in him as a student of the game, and a moderniser.

When I look at our squad I can see how a 352 can get the best out of several of them. But throw in the variables of the opposition on the day, player availability and form, and I am not suggesting that 352, or any formation, offers "the answer".

Not so.

 

You assume that the three are Carragher style centre backs. 352 as conceived by Billardo's Argentina and the Kaiser's West Germany relied on one of the three playing a sweeper role. In Agger we are fortunate to have a very skilfull ball playing central defender.

 

I do not claim that 352 offers a silver bullet. It does address the modern need to swamp and win midfield. It is certainly not defensive, yet can offer greater defensive cover than 442.

It dos'nt address the need to swamp and win midfield at all. Do you think we won the midfield battle against southhampton or Newcastle ?

What tends to happen is the oppositions extra central midfielders start dictating play so our two full backs, who should be pushing up to make a midfield five end up pushed back to cover our midfield. It leaves Gerrard in no mans land. Plus our fullbacks haven't the usual outlet of playing the ball forward to the wings.

At the end of the day the proof is in the pudding and our recent performances suggest the system isn't working. The real test will come shortly when we play arsenal, and after watching their game against dortmund on Tuesday i wouldn't be surprised if thats the game that sees the system binned.

It dos'nt address the need to swamp and win midfield at all. Do you think we won the midfield battle against southhampton or Newcastle ?

 

What tends to happen is the oppositions extra central midfielders start dictating play so our two full backs, who should be pushing up to make a midfield five end up pushed back to cover our midfield. It leaves Gerrard in no mans land. Plus our fullbacks haven't the usual outlet of playing the ball forward to the wings.

 

At the end of the day the proof is in the pudding and our recent performances suggest the system isn't working. The real test will come shortly when we play arsenal, and after watching their game against dortmund on Tuesday i wouldn't be surprised if thats the game that sees the system binned.

Self-evidently a midfield five helps to dominate that area of the pitch.

I would not seek to draw any conclusions, positive, or negative, from two fixtures.

If we have five in midfield why should the opposition dictate play? The whole purpose of a five is to prevent that. Now it may be that our midfield is not good enough- but I do not believe that to be the case.

Our league position and goals conceded suggest that Rodger’s IS making the right decisions.

Against  Arsenal, Dortmund played a 4231 which is a 451 when the opposition have the ball. That will not have been  unnoticed by Rodgers. Intriguingly, Villa’s success under lambert, a devotee of the Bundesliga, employed a similar formation in their opening day victory.

They have more than enough space, playing a defensive line up like this where 7 players basically are no threat whatsover does not exactly help create space for them or support them either.

 

Another thing with this system I noticed especially against Newcastle is that since our attackers gets no support they comes deep more often to pick up the ball.

 

Apart from imaginary scenarios there are no positives at all with this formation, lets count ourselves lucky we have been up against some really shite teams while playing it.

Self-evidently a midfield five helps to dominate that area of the pitch.

 

I would not seek to draw any conclusions, positive, or negative, from two fixtures.

 

 

If we have five in midfield why should the opposition dictate play? The whole purpose of a five is to prevent that. Now it may be that our midfield is not good enough- but I do not believe that to be the case.

 

Our league position and goals conceded suggest that Rodger’s IS making the right decisions.

 

Against  Arsenal, Dortmund played a 4231 which is a 451 when the opposition have the ball. That will not have been  unnoticed by Rodgers. Intriguingly, Villa’s success under lambert, a devotee of the Bundesliga, employed a similar formation in their opening day victory.

I'm not trying to discredit Rodgers. I think he's proving to be a good choice as manager.

With the system we are now playing the opposition full backs have freedom to attack space down the flanks which means our full backs have to get through a lot of work going up down the field, it results in a confusing should i stay back or push forward scenario.

Our three centre backs are often marking one forward before they split, which slows up our play when we win the ball.

The system imo negates the talents of Gerrard who's best performance came in an England shirt. Our midfield just hasn't been firing. The system we are playing is imo not working.

Absolutely not, it's shit. 5 defenders, horrible. Back to 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 please.

Our summer signings seems to be dictating the system we play. It's a case of the tail wagging the dog.

We bought three centre halfs. I can't see sakho coming from the bench of psg to sit on our bench in world cup year, so it looks like he was bought to play. Toure has been great, dos'nt deserve to be dropped. Skirtle had a stormer with Toure against the mancs, dos'nt deserve to lose his place. Agger is our most accomplished defending ball player and if the rumours of man city wanting him last summer are true wont be happy sitting on the bench. And I wouldn't like to guess what llori's thinking.

The old adage of its a nice problem to have may be causing Brendan problems, i can see the logic behind buying one or even two center halfs, but why get in three? Who the fuck does he leave out?

To which "two attacking superpowers" do you refer?

Enrique and Johnson.