"Should we persist with three at the back?"

It’s obviously not as simple as that because there are all kinds of variables involved during a football match but my eyes continue to tell me that there’s a reason why not many teams set their team to play up the way we currently are.

Ian Brown

I’d stick with it in principle, but we need to work on two key issues which continue to cost us goals. I’m a patient man but there are several things concerning me that this system doesn’t cover up our weaknesses quite as much as I first hoped.

Firstly, we keep conceding goals from set pieces. It keeps kicking us in the balls and off the top of my head I can think of four goals, two costing us points (Newcastle away, Southampton at home) and one (United) knocking us out of the Carling Cup. It is a severe impediment to the progress we’re making, because further up the pitch we seem to have developed far more of a ruthless streak but keep conceding soft, needless goals from free kicks.

The second goal at Newcastle was particularly hard to stomach – firstly because it was scored by a no-mark substitute who we’ll no doubt never hear of again and secondly because it was so avoidable. It was just a percentage lump into the box that we totally failed to deal with – a typical Liverpool goal to donate to opposition in need.

With three centre halves on the pitch we simply shouldn’t be giving goals like that away – but we are, continue to do so and it continues to absolutely kill us.

Secondly, we need to smarten up in midfield. Cabaye’s goal on Saturday was another example of the midfield surrendering too much room. Someone has to close him down before he shoots. If midfield can’t, one of the centre halves has to push up slightly and stop him getting the shot away. Midfield for me is a bigger issue than the three at the back because I still think it’s too easy for teams to get through us at the moment.

Ultimately the system is still in its infancy and we need to be patient. We’re scoring plenty of goals and we look reasonably solid until someone gets a corner or a free kick. That’s the biggest issue. We definitely need work in midfield but that has been the case for 18 months. That, for me, requires work in the transfer market but we have to make do with what we have for now.

It would be foolish to rip it up and start again. Is it the long term solution? I don’t know. But we’re scoring plenty of goals with it – we just need to wise up and I’m sure it will be a successful long term switch.

Dan Thomas

I've pretty much always hated three at the back. To me, it was a "paper over the cracks" formation that tried to address defensive weaknesses in a cack-handed way and ultimately impeded attacking football because it was frequently as unresponsive to opposing formations as a staid old 442.

However, as I wrote in the last edition of the fanzine, this 3-4-1-2 has really captured my imagination. It quite clearly suits our current squad brilliantly as we have: an abundance of centre halves; two players in Johnson and Enrique who have the ability and stamina to play up and down their entire flank for the full 90 minutes; the best striking partnership in the country; and a young No. 10 with the potential to be as good as anyone in the league.

Furthermore, the way Rodgers wants to play with this system encourages fluidity all over the pitch as centre halves step up, across or forward to fill gaps, centre mids compress the play further forward and full backs pull opposing defences wide to create space in the middle within which Suarez, Sturridge and Coutinho can create mayhem.

So then why the antipathy from so many Reds? For me, I think we've become too jittery as fans; too "now, now, now". No doubt this system has had some teething problems, not least in central midfield where gaps have appeared defensively and also behind the front two where, in Moses, we've been using a player without the skills or nous to unlock opposing defences from tight spaces (hardly alone there, is he?). However, wasn't it always going to be wobbly to start with?

At the time of writing, this system is four - yes, four! - matches old and yet the horses are well and truly scared. Let's remember that we remain a hugely transitional team which underwent further major squad surgery in the summer. We also still have a couple of obvious gaps to plug in the first eleven and retain a bench sorely lacking in game-changing players, so let's not attribute all our relative ills to a nascent idea that has had little or no chance to bear fruit.

The reaction of many fans to mere moments of disappointment within matches, never mind disappointing results (of which there have been few in the context of where we ended last season and where we find ourselves now) is completely OTT in my view; let's afford our manager a little bit of trust and see where his experiment goes - at least until he can use with his strongest eleven players. The implementation of change in any organisation takes time and football is no different. If it was all so easy, then players wouldn't even bother training; they'd just turn up on match day and play.

No, this system has the potential to be a thing of brilliance that bamboozles opposing sides with intelligent, fluid football full of goals and aggression. Can we at least wait until we've given it a couple of matches with our first choice eleven before we claim it's not working? I remain fully open to the possibility that it might fall flat on its face, but in the meantime, I'm going to sit back and admire the courage of a manager who is genuinely trying to innovate, not to mention enjoy the tantalising anticipation of brilliant attacking football. 

Paul Natton