3 at the back

[llego]

Do you think this formation will stick or will it be used for special occasions?

 

It's highly unusual but it seems to be working well. Unfortunately there are obvious ways to counter it if we start to employ it regularly. For example 1 striker formations or proper 4-3-3s that stay on the defenders' shoulder (Anelka doesn't count).

 

I think with repetition it will lose some of its effectiveness as teams prepare against it.

[ngogswilly]

Do you think this formation will stick or will it be used for special occasions?

 

It's highly unusual but it seems to be working well. Unfortunately there are obvious ways to counter it if we start to employ it regularly. For example 1 striker formations or proper 4-3-3s that stay on the defenders' shoulder (Anelka doesn't count).

 

I think with repetition it will lose some of its effectiveness as teams prepare against it.

 

Reckon it will be for special occasions, when Carroll and Suarez are playing together I'd imagine we'll be going 4-3-3.

 

But the sort of formation we employed today can be put to good use when needed.

[Phoenix]

I reckon its not a fixed formation for us. A plan B for us.

[Delmar]

Two games so far. In both, we have had an advantage of 2 against 1 in the midfield all the time, and we've stopped the other team from playing. Add to that short passes out of defence, increased confidence in the back 3 (which becomes 5 very fast), and we get another clean sheet. I'd continue with it.

[Street Preacher]

Kenny playing this formation also shows what a load of bull all that "He's been out of the game too long" stuff was.

 

Kenny's showing what a good football brain he has and also how brave he is to try three at the back.

[llego]

Two games so far. In both, we have had an advantage of 2 against 1 in the midfield all the time, and we've stopped the other team from playing. Add to that short passes out of defence, increased confidence in the back 3 (which becomes 5 very fast), and we get another clean sheet. I'd continue with it.

 

If Agger continues stepping out of defense so well, into space opened up by having a wing-ish midfielder ahead of him (Aurelio or Maxi), then I can see it working against 1 striker formations.

 

But against an aggressive, wide 4-3-3?

[ODZ]

Three at the back has advantages that could suit our players. Going forward, it could be a way of using Carroll, Suarez and Gerrard in their best positions without undermining our defensive solidity when Gerrard plays CM in a 4-4-2.

 

It has its problems, good wingers can exploit the space between the wing back and the back three. Wingers kill it, something Chelsea didn't have today and it worked to our advantage. It's certainly an interesting option to have though.

[RazorBack]

I like it but we should always keep our opponents guessing what formation we will play.

[llego]

What would you call ours by the way? A 3-4-2-1? Meireles was often level with Gerrard as far as I can recall.

[Coro]

CHILE!

[piscinin]

If Agger continues stepping out of defense so well, into space opened up by having a wing-ish midfielder ahead of him (Aurelio or Maxi), then I can see it working against 1 striker formations.

 

But against an aggressive, wide 4-3-3?

 

The way we played today an aggressive wide 4-3-3 would be starved of service from midfield. Every forward pass would be under pressure.

[piscinin]

What would you call ours by the way? A 3-4-2-1? Meireles was often level with Gerrard as far as I can recall.

 

No wonder Meireles gets subbed every game as he was constantly switching between the midfield bank and up with Kuyt. The amount of running he did just to switch roles was phenomenal.

 

Today at times I saw 541, 361, 3511. Its seems to me that KD and Clarke have set us up functionally rather than on a spatial basis like Benitez would.

[Delmar]

No wonder Meireles gets subbed every game as he was constantly switching between the midfield bank and up with Kuyt. The amount of running he did just to switch roles was phenomenal.

 

Today at times I saw 541, 361, 3511. Its seems to me that KD and Clarke have set us up functionally rather than on a spatial basis like Benitez would.

 

That's exactly it. I'd call it 3-6-1, but it all depends. No wonder Kuyt started talking about total football approach (approach, we're not there yet). I'm loving this, my kind of football. Once we get a couple of more months in, watch out...

[llego]

No wonder Meireles gets subbed every game as he was constantly switching between the midfield bank and up with Kuyt. The amount of running he did just to switch roles was phenomenal.

 

Today at times I saw 541, 361, 3511. Its seems to me that KD and Clarke have set us up functionally rather than on a spatial basis like Benitez would.

 

Yeah I agree.

 

More evidence pointing to this being a utility formation rather than our default.

 

CHILE!

 

It has come to mind recently... never watched them but read good things.

[llego]

I love these, me.

 

http://www.zonalmarking.net/2011/02/06/chelsea-0-1-liverpool-tactics/

 

Two interesting formations produced a tense, tight game which was won by Raul Meireles’ goal.

 

Carlo Ancelotti gave Fernando Torres his debut, fielding the same 4-4-2 diamond system as against Sunderland in midweek, with Nicolas Anelka in the hole behind the front two.

 

Kenny Dalglish continued with his three/five at the back formation, with Jamie Carragher in for Sotirios Kyrgiakos and Maxi Rodriguez replacing Fabio Aurelio.

 

Torres threatened to be an instant hero when given the ball by Rodriguez in the opening minutes, but blasted over from the edge of the box. After that, the game settled down into a cagey, static contest in the first half.

 

Basic shapes

 

Torres and Drogba took it in turns to work the right and left flanks, but both stayed central throughout and didn’t really look to stretch Liverpool’s defence. Everything was narrow, and Liverpool coped pretty well. Lucas Leiva stayed goalside of Nicolas Anelka, meaning Liverpool always had a spare man when Anelka moved forward to join the front two.

 

Liverpool’s midfield ’square’ in midweek was effectively tilted to become a diamond here, and as we’ve seen before when two diamonds play each other, the game can be rather stilted. Each midfielder had an obvious opponent to track, with Lucas / Anelka, Steven Gerrard / Frank Lampard, Rodriguez / Michael Essien and Meireles / Jon Obi Mikel the usual battles. There was little creativity from that zone.

 

Liverpool on top

 

Liverpool were the better side even before they went ahead in the second half, however, for two reasons. First, their diamond had much more fluidity. Chelsea’s midfield roles were obvious, with the diamond remaining intact throughout, each player in the same position. Liverpool’s diamond was based around more mutual understanding – Meireles was usually at the head of the four, but sometimes it was Gerrard, sometimes Rodriguez, sometimes Lucas would venture forward and another player would drop in and hold. That kept Chelsea guessing, and though it didn’t produce anything particularly exciting in the final third, did make Liverpool the side more likely to cause the opposition defence problems.

 

The second factor was more a question of formation – with the diamonds cancelling each other out in the centre, it was left to the wide areas for drive and attacking thrust. Here, we had Chelsea’s full-backs (in a four) against Liverpool’s wing-backs (in a five), with the latter given much more license to get forward and support the attack. Glen Johnson and Martin Kelly were often immediately in a position to receive a forward pass in space, and stretched the play. In contrast, Ashley Cole and Jose Bosingwa had to motor forward to move into attacking positions, which made Chelsea’s build-up play more laboured. Johnson becoming free on the left resulted in the best chance of the first half, where Rodriguez somehow missed an open goal from inside the six yard box.

 

On the other hand, this meant that Liverpool had one fewer striker on the pitch, and therefore there was little chance of interplay upfront. Chelsea certainly had that potential, and Drogba playing in Torres created a great chance – only for Jamie Carragher to perform a typical last-ditch block. Overall, however, Liverpool maximised their advantage in wide zones more than Chelsea maximised their advantage in having an extra striker.

 

Second half

 

Little changed until on 66 minutes, when Ancelotti decided his shape wasn’t working, and replaced Torres with Kalou, moving Chelsea to 4-3-3. Before noting the tactical aspect, it’s worth considering the psychological boost Liverpool must have received by seeing Torres depart having barely had a kick in the second half. Tactically, it was potentially a great move from Ancelotti – by playing three forwards stretched across the park, he was going to either subdue Liverpool’s wing-backs, or force their centre-backs out wide.

 

However, within three minutes, Gerrard’s cross found Meireles at the far post, and Liverpool were ahead. Coming so soon after the switch, Chelsea may have confused by the change in formation – after all, they were now 3 v 4 in the centre of the pitch, and Meireles ran in unchecked to finish. The main tactical impact of the goal, however, was that Liverpool didn’t need to worry about the situation at the back – with a 1-0 lead, their wing-backs would happily be subdued, to form a back five and see out the game. They defended well all game – Chelsea only had one shot on target in the match, a Florent Malouda attempt from an impossible angle that Reina blocked easily.

 

 

by Guardian Chalkboards

 

Latter stages

 

As it happened, Ancelotti ended up moving to a 4-2-4ish system that Liverpool’s back five coped with pretty well, maintaining the spare man they’d had at the back for the majority of the game. Ahead of that, Liverpool now had 4 v 2 in the central midfield zone, with the diamond shifting across to shut Chelsea’s full-backs down – though they offered little threat, especially when Branislav Ivanovic moved out there to make room for David Luiz.

 

The final 15 minutes was about good individual performances – most obviously at the back, but also in midfield. Lucas was superb, using the ball well, and dominating the zone in front of the back four without the ball by nipping in ahead of Chelsea players to make interceptions.

 

 

by Guardian Chalkboards

 

Conclusion

 

Ancelotti played into Liverpool’s hands with his narrow formation. The three-man defence coped very well with Chelsea’s two strikers, and it’s likely Chelsea would have had more joy had they played their 4-3-3 earlier in the game. The Kalou-Anelka-Drogba trio has the potential to play in a 4-3-1-2 and a 4-3-3, but by having two central strikers, Torres and Drogba, on the pitch, Chelsea couldn’t change shape without turning to the bench. It would have been interesting to see if Dalglish would have abandoned his three at the back if Chelsea moved to a 4-3-3 earlier.

 

Liverpool’s players played their roles very well – the centre-backs won individual battles, the midfielders rotated well, the wing-backs got forward, and Kuyt scrapped upfront. In all, Dalglish won the tactical battle here.

[ChicagoRed]

Three at the back implies a static strategy. There was a time when full backs just defended and it was largely LFC that changed that notion, notably with a certain Chris Lawler. The same is true of "centre backs". The advantage of playing Agger, Skrtel and Carragher lies in the fact that Agger has the skills to bring the ball out of a defensive position at his feet, or make attacking passes as opposed to defensive clearances. "Three at the back" is the wrong term - it's a dynamic formation that requires at least one of the three to be a ball player. It worked in the past because players like Hansen and Lawrenson had the skills.

I'm sure we'll see more of it at L4 and probably picked up by other teams. but it's players that make it work, not scratches on a blackboard.

[silverlining]

Kenny playing this formation also shows what a load of bull all that "He's been out of the game too long" stuff was.

 

Kenny's showing what a good football brain he has and also how brave he is to try three at the back.

 

Could be argued it's proof of how long he's been out of the game, given that it's considered prehistoric and hardly any team plays it.

 

I'm not sure, really. You can't argue with the results.

 

Did he play 3 at the back at Liverpool? I know Roy did for some time, but I thought Kenny was 4-4-2, roughly speaking.

[lucozade]

Actually Kenny was asked about what formation he was using after the match and explained it was a 1-10

[silverlining]

 

"Three at the back" is the wrong term - it's a dynamic formation that requires at least one of the three to be a ball player. It worked in the past because players like Hansen and Lawrenson had the skills.

 

 

 

So who was the third CB in this fabled back three with Hansen and Lawrenson?

[Mbrownrigg]

So who was the third CB in this fabled back three with Hansen and Lawrenson?

 

Molby used to be a spare man quite regualrly back in the day.

 

I only started going the season after the double though, but from what I remember Lawrenson was never a regular under Kenny.

 

In fact I seem to remeber him playing Full back quite often

[Lee909]

I think alot will depend on who we get in the summer

 

If we struggle to get a top class winger at the right price and can bring in a very good left wing back we may play it more,if we get a winger maybe 4-3-3

What ever it turns out to be its better options than we have had in a while.

3-5-2,4-3-3,4-3-2-1 are all pretty interchangable.

At least we will have a plan B thats not chavski throw every striker on we have,and throw Mongo up top and hoof in the box,or Arsenals general if plan A doesnt work try plan A

[AL66GOLF]

Three at the back implies a static strategy. There was a time when full backs just defended and it was largely LFC that changed that notion, notably with a certain Chris Lawler. The same is true of "centre backs". The advantage of playing Agger, Skrtel and Carragher lies in the fact that Agger has the skills to bring the ball out of a defensive position at his feet, or make attacking passes as opposed to defensive clearances. "Three at the back" is the wrong term - it's a dynamic formation that requires at least one of the three to be a ball player. It worked in the past because players like Hansen and Lawrenson had the skills.I'm sure we'll see more of it at L4 and probably picked up by other teams. but it's players that make it work, not scratches on a blackboard.

 

I don't ever remember us playing 3 at the back when Hansen and Lawrenson were playing?

[Mbrownrigg]

I don't ever remember us playing 3 at the back when Hansen and Lawrenson were playing?

 

Didn't he pick up an injury quite early on under Kenny?

 

If my memory is right it was Gillespie who was Hansen's main partner back at the start of Kenny's managerial career

[silverlining]

Molby used to be a spare man quite regualrly back in the day.

 

I only started going the season after the double though, but from what I remember Lawrenson was never a regular under Kenny.

 

In fact I seem to remeber him playing Full back quite often

 

I think he only played maybe two seasons under Kenny, and even then Gillespie was comng through.

[Lee909]

Could be argued it's proof of how long he's been out of the game, given that it's considered prehistoric and hardly any team plays it.

 

I'm not sure, really. You can't argue with the results.

 

Did he play 3 at the back at Liverpool? I know Roy did for some time, but I thought Kenny was 4-4-2, roughly speaking.

 

I think thats tacticly English football is so far behind.

For years it was 4-4-2 and set formations.

Look at the stick Rafa got for the 4-2-3-1 he played,when you have the correct players its a great formation.There is little suprise that old whiskey nose found success in europe again after swapping his rigid 4-4-2 into a

4-2-3-1/4-3-3 with Rooney/Ronaldo/Tevez swapping positions.