Featured: "Should we persist with three at the back?"

[Code]

To which "two attacking superpowers" do you refer?

 

Enrique and Johnson.

[Code]

 

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.

 

 

We leave 5 man behind as we have 2 sitting midfielders as well as 3 CB's.

 

Syntax error.

[Code]

The only thing imaginary going on here is the definitive conclusion drawn from inconclusive evidence. Three at the back might work or it might not, but I want to see it for more than ten minutes without key players before I write it off.

 

Going by this logic Paul, why not play 10 players in attack, we cant write it off before we have seen it for more than 10 minutes before we do so.

 

On a more serious note, there are enough evidence out there to know exactly how such a system will work out and so far its been exactly as predicted for us, we do not get players fast enough forward, our wide players do not have the quality to go past players both on the in and outside with the ball at feet and we give away too much space at the back. 

[xerxes]

Enrique and Johnson.

The availability of those players is what makes our playing a 352  a potent option.

 

Both are excellent footballers, neither are specialist sitting full backs.

 

An interesting debate which will always be subjective.

[xerxes]

We leave 5 man behind as we have 2 sitting midfielders as well as 3 CB's.

 

 

You can, but it is not a requirement. It can and should bolster the midfield, but availability determines what you do,

[xerxes]

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.

It is true that 352 requires the wide men to do a lot of work.

 

it is not true that opposition full backs have space to attack as they have two forwards to consider and a five man midfield to break through.

 

Having three defenders marking a lone striker seems preferable to four,

 

In practise, if you have the players, one of the three can play a sweeper/libero role, Agger could easily do that, if fit and in form. i well recall Hoddle playing that role for Swindon in the Championship and he was lethal.

 

i agree with you that our optimum midfield combination has yet to emerge, but that has nothing to do with 352

[Jairzinho]

They don't play as whatever a "sitting" fullback is in a back four.

 

The current formation is making the job of what is a pretty ordinary midfield even more difficult. I can't wait until we fuck it off.

[Code]

The availability of those players is what makes our playing a 352  a potent option.

 

Both are excellent footballers, neither are specialist sitting full backs.

 

An interesting debate which will always be subjective.

 

Neither are excellent footballers, Enrique is really limited and the only thing he has going for him is pace, so he is totally dependent on others to create space for him and to play the right balls through for him.

 

Johnson never goes past a player on the outside and always drifts in, with no midfielder infront of him to create the space he neeeds to do this he is a bit lost.

 

It is totally different to have a starting position as a fullback and then come up and support a midfielder who will create space for you by either going wide or inside than to be this player with no one supporting you.

[xerxes]

Code, we disagree on the merits of Johnson and  Enrique and the merits and drawbacks of 352, but at least the arguments are clear.

 

The first casualty of war tends to be  the plan, any system is so vulnerable to extraneous forces. Most times any manager has to do what he can, with what he has, where he is.

 

I am just pleased that we have a manager who is prepared to experiment, and to date, he hasn't done too badly.

[Rotpeter]

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.

Cleary, we're no Barca, but by the same token this is clearly no bold offensive move either.

 

And, yes, 4 or 5 is too few games to reach a judgment, but it's not too few to say what you see and point out what is working and what is not. If people claim to see a fall from lofty heights and weekly batternings (can't say I've noticed that), I'd put it down to hyperbole borne on the wings of emotional over-reaction and discount accordingly. But I'd be careful not to ignore the legitimate issues: the midfield acreage, the ease with which CMs are isolated one on one, etc and asking, "how does this help?"

 

I do understand the role of the wing backs in a 352 BTW but the evidence we've seen so far is that Enrique and Johnson are not wing backs, they are full backs. Their instinct is to overlap (a winger), play combinations (with a winger), cut inside a fair bit (relying on a winger to distract a defender). This is very different from a wing back who is expected to be able to do all those things on their own. Until Cissokho made some inroads later in the game, we had no width at all, because the wing backs were playing as full backs. So while some see an advantage, I see yet another two players having to adapt to a different, unfamiliar role. Will they adapt? In time maybe; instantaneously, certainly not. So why handicap yourself? So you can have 3 CBs defending in a line? While pardew plays 0 up front?

 

And none of these tweaks address the key issue of the defense and midfield playing different systems in the same game.

[Dr. J]

We'll probably see it tomorrow now Lucas is back. The only promising thing I've seen in this formation was against Palace when Lucas got forward (relatively) and was involved in attack, at least until he got his yellow.

[xerxes]

They don't play as whatever a "sitting" fullback is in a back four.

I agree, and we have been exposed when they have been caught out of position with just two centre backs for cover.

[Gnasher]

I agree, and we have been exposed when they have been caught out of position with just two centre backs for cover.

We played two centre half's against the mancs and i can't remember our keeper having to make a save.

[Jairzinho]

I agree, and we have been exposed when they have been caught out of position with just two centre backs for cover.

 

They'd probably get even more protection if we played with four centrebacks.

[xerxes]

In brendan we trust. ;)

[Jennings]

I just wanted to make a point on the "three at the back issue". I haven't read all posts in detail so apologies if anyone has already covered this point.

 

The point I wanted to make is that I don't see it as three-at-the-back. I see it as five.

 

When we are defending and under pressure we end up with five defenders...and it isn't necessarily the more the better in this situation. People have looked confused to their positioning, and this has been exacerbated when Lucas drops deep, as he tends to.

 

When we are attacking we end up with two defenders in midfield.

 

I suppose it could be argued that with the right personnel then the two full backs could be midfielders. But personally I like full backs who can first and foremost defend. Cissokho is definitely not suited to this formation. However I don't think it constructive to turn the thread into a Cissokho one.

 

Football can be a simple game. Five defenders is too many especially at home.

[xerxes]

Football can be a simple game. Five defenders is too many especially at home.

A good post in full.

 

Most of the time I think that contributors to this thread are talking at cross purposes about what they mean by three at the back.

 

Four defenders can be too many against lone strikers, let alone five.

 

The modern game frequently revolves around hybrids of a midfield five. Sometimes that means the two wide men supporting a lone striker, sometimes with a front two, it becomes 334 in attack.

 

Rodger's football is about fluid football, and an archaic two centre backs and two defensive full backs is not what he isabout, nor will it win the big trophies anymore.

[Guest LFD]

A good post in full.

 

This should be your sig.

[Baltar]

I'm pretty unhappy with the 3 at the back system. If we're using it occasionally for certain games where BR thinks there 's a tactical use for it, then it's fine. But we're using it in every game now and it's shit. We were playing a lot better with a back 4. 

[Guest LFD]

We were playing a lot better with a back 4. 

 

Were we?

 

Southampton and Swansea games weren't exactly good with four at the back.

[LFC64]

I just wanted to make a point on the "three at the back issue". I haven't read all posts in detail so apologies if anyone has already covered this point.

 

The point I wanted to make is that I don't see it as three-at-the-back. I see it as five.

 

When we are defending and under pressure we end up with five defenders...and it isn't necessarily the more the better in this situation. People have looked confused to their positioning, and this has been exacerbated when Lucas drops deep, as he tends to.

 

When we are attacking we end up with two defenders in midfield.

 

I suppose it could be argued that with the right personnel then the two full backs could be midfielders. But personally I like full backs who can first and foremost defend. Cissokho is definitely not suited to this formation. However I don't think it constructive to turn the thread into a Cissokho one.

 

Football can be a simple game. Five defenders is too many especially at home.

 

Agree and on saturday with Johnson and Enrique not playing we didn't have the best personnel available to us for this system to be at it's most effective. And away at Arsenal we just didn't get away with it.

Still think if we play 3 then Agger must be one of them.

[Guest LFD]

Still think if we play 3 then Agger must be one of them.

 

That's fine and he would help in possession.  Just hope he isn't marking one of the oppositions threats at set plays.

[Tony Moanero]

It should be left in the nineties.

[Ranxerox]

no

[Gym Beglin]

I like 352, I like the idea of freeing up Johnson and Enrique to attack at will.

 

However, in the middle of the park they just don't move the ball quickly enough and they don't move forward enough.

 

Now, there are reasons for this:

 

1) We don't push up enough as a defence. Also, upon pushing up, we don't retain the ball for long enough periods to push them back. 50 yard raking balls across the field are unnecessary, if you're going to hit a long ball then put it over the top of the defence for christs sake.

 

2) The central midfielders aren't 'dangerous' to the opposition from open play. So the opposition don't mind them having the ball. Now, Coutinho with the ball, that's concerning to them. But Henderson, Lucas and Gerrard with the ball, not a concern for them.

 

3) We don't utilise the wingbacks very well. Again, it's a bit of a midfield issue. If the wingbacks are held up by the full back, then how about a midfielder take the initiative and make a run on the outside to drag that full back away? But no, the midfielders stay central and offer almost zero movement.

 

 

Put it this way, look around at the central midfields of some of our PL friends: (not attacking midfield)

 

Arsenal: Arteta, Wilshire, Ramsey, Rosicky, Diaby, Flamini

Chelsea: Essien, Ramires, Obi Mikel, Lampard

Everton: Gibson, Barry, McCarthy, Barkley, Gueye, Osman

M City : Milner, Garcia, Rodwell, Fernandinho, Yaya Toure

M United: Anderson, Carrick, Fletcher, Fellaini

Newcastle: Cabaye, Sissoko, Anita, Tiote

Southampton: Schneiderlin, Wanyama, Ward-Prowse, Davis

Spurs: Paulinho, Capoue, Dembele, Sandro

 

 

And then look at us:

 

Gerrard, Henderson, Allen, Lucas

 

 

I think if we swapped our midfield with any from the above clubs then we'd be top of the league and we'd remain there.

 

Imagine the possibilities:

 

 

--------------Mig--------------

---Toure-----Agger------Sakho---

Johnson------------------Enrique

-----------Lucas--------------

------Ramsey------Coutinho-------

----Suarez----------Sturridge----

 

Or

 

--------------Mig--------------

---Toure-----Agger------Sakho---

Johnson------------------Enrique

-------------Lucas--------------

------Barkley-----Coutinho-------

----Suarez----------Sturridge----

 

 

Don't go telling me 352 is the problem, it's not. You cannot ignore the dysfunctional central midfield set-up we have, it's frustrating as fuck to watch, we're top of the league 'despite' of our midfield, not because of it, that's the stark truth here that a lot of you don't want to hear.

 

I'll tell you this as well, you'll never prove me wrong. Next year Gerrard will be 34 and Henderson will still be Henderson. I fancy my odds thanks.