3 at the back

[AL66GOLF]

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

 

Yes his last game was sometime in 1987 I think

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I think he's working with what he has. In the summer, he'll buy who he wants to fill the formation and the style he wants.

[paddyberger15]

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

 

Brucey Grobbler.

[Mbrownrigg]

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.

 

the key is mobile players who have great engines.

 

Suarez, Meireles, Gerrard, Maxi, possibly Kuyt are all capable of interchanging with each other, when playing in advance positions anyway.

 

What we'll get with Carroll is the focal point.

 

And as we've seen for god knows how long, we have no width at the club, so pushing your full backs higher up the pitch means that isn't such a problem.

 

How great would it be though, if this was how we were going to approach every match?

 

Sending out a team picked to our strengths, for the oppsition to worry about, not a team picked because of the strengths of the oppisition?

[7KingKenny]

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.

 

I think the 3-5-2 is used for several reasons. Think Kenny wants width in our attacking play, and have found that our current midfield players do not offer this width. Think the formation could have looked very different with Ashley Young in the side. Might look different when Carroll is fit as well, with Suarez playing more on the right.

 

Defensively we've seen it work very well against a long ball side like Stoke, and against a 4-4-2 with diamond. Think it would have been much more difficult if Chelsea had played a formation utilising Malouda. Or against another side playing with more width. Kelly and espcially Johnson would then be under pressure all game by wingers and fullbacks. Think Kenny had that in mind though, and it would have been quite easy to shift Johnson form left fullback to right midfielder with the players he had on Sunday.

 

Well done lads! :yes:

[Lee909]

Its a great change.

If we can get a left back like Fábio Coentrão and a winger like Hazard/Young it would allow us to play either formation.Having a focal point at the head of the forward line is a great idea in England,Barcalona tried it with zlatan as they new they needed a plan B at times.As said if you have the right players the fluid movement behind the targetman it is alot harder to defend than a set 4-4-2.

[Mbrownrigg]

Its a great change.

If we can get a left back like Fábio Coentrão and a winger like Hazard/Young it would allow us to play either formation.Having a focal point at the head of the forward line is a great idea in England,Barcalona tried it with zlatan as they new they needed a plan B at times.As said if you have the right players the fluid movement behind the targetman it is alot harder to defend than a set 4-4-2.

 

I just don't see Hazard or Young being the answers out wide.

 

THey both give me the impression they seem to want to play through the middle.

[RedinSweden]

I still favour 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1.

 

 

The Javelin.

[king7]

I think the 3-5-2 is used for several reasons. Think Kenny wants width in our attacking play, and have found that our current midfield players do not offer this width. Think the formation could have looked very different with Ashley Young in the side. Might look different when Carroll is fit as well, with Suarez playing more on the right.

 

Good point. The pundits yesterday was all talking about how Kenny played

3-5-2 to nullify Chelsea's diamond. The sky reporter even suggested that we played the same formation against Stoke as a rehersal! But I think it's clear that this formation is used to get the most out of our own players, not to adapt to the opposition. Proves that Kenny is tactically pragmatic and has the ability to find the strenghts and weaknesses of his players and squad. Like all great managers.

[PaulMcC]

the key is mobile players who have great engines.

 

Suarez, Meireles, Gerrard, Maxi, possibly Kuyt are all capable of interchanging with each other, when playing in advance positions anyway.

 

What we'll get with Carroll is the focal point.

 

And as we've seen for god knows how long, we have no width at the club, so pushing your full backs higher up the pitch means that isn't such a problem.

 

How great would it be though, if this was how we were going to approach every match?

 

Sending out a team picked to our strengths, for the oppsition to worry about, not a team picked because of the strengths of the oppisition?

 

Bit of both IMO. He picks a team that will negate the strengths of the oppostion as well as getting our players playing well.

[fin-bat]

I personally prefer the pussy formation, 2-2-2-2-1-1

 

 

--------------Reina--------------

---------Carra------Skrtle--------

-------Kelly----------Johnson----

------Gerrard---------Lucas------

--------Maxi---------Meirales----

------------Suarez--------------

----------------Carroll-----------

[silverlining]

I personally prefer the pussy formation, 2-2-2-2-1-1

 

 

--------------Reina--------------

---------Carra------Skrtle--------

-------Kelly----------Johnson----

------Gerrard---------Lucas------

--------Maxi---------Meirales----

------------Suarez--------------

----------------Carroll-----------

 

If I were you I'd spend less time on the internet and more time trying to lose your virginity

[llego]

Good point. The pundits yesterday was all talking about how Kenny played

3-5-2 to nullify Chelsea's diamond. The sky reporter even suggested that we played the same formation against Stoke as a rehersal! But I think it's clear that this formation is used to get the most out of our own players, not to adapt to the opposition. Proves that Kenny is tactically pragmatic and has the ability to find the strenghts and weaknesses of his players and squad. Like all great managers.

 

This thought just occurred to me before I read your post, and the more I think about it the more likely it seems. Read Torres' comments about how the formation caught Chelsea completely by surprise. What a brilliant move if true... under the guise of using Soto to defend Stoke long balls, he slipped in a dress rehearsal for a new formation to counter Chelsea with and nobody noticed...

[Kozel9]

i think it will only be for special occasions, or maybe until we get some players who can bring some width to this team. But i would like to see a 4-3-3 with Suarez - Carroll - Cole in the front line. I think that trio could do some serious damage.

[Paco]

CHILE!

 

I was thinking about that earlier. Was it Biesla who managed them and he employed a 3331 formation.

 

I don't think our formation at the minute is far off that.

 

I'd keep it going for a while because it seems to be working.

 

don't think it's here to stay but could be wrong

[llego]

BOOM.

 

The Question: Is three at the back the way forward for Liverpool? | Sport | guardian.co.uk

 

It was a strangely retro weekend in the Premier League' date=' with scorelines from the 1950s and tactics from the 1990s. Three at the back has rather gone out of fashion over the past decade, but it has returned with a startling suddenness and effectiveness over the past week. Liverpool played with three at the back (by which I mean a system with three centre-backs, irrespective of the positioning of the full-backs) against Stoke last Wednesday, Sunderland used it against Stoke on Saturday, and then Liverpool used it against Chelsea on Sunday.

 

It was that use at Stamford Bridge that was most successful, although whether it would have been had Chelsea stuck to the way they have been playing for most of the past seven years and fielded a 4-3-3 rather than a diamond is debatable – then again, Kenny Dalglish probably would not have fielded his 3-5-1-1 against a 4-3-3.

 

The reason the deployment of three central defenders has largely fallen out of use is that it is set up to deal with two central strikers. Two of the centre-backs mark, with the other as a spare man to provide cover. Facing a lone central striker formation (most commonly 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1), one of the centre-backs marks, there is a spare man, and then there is a redundant player. Worse, the wing-backs who are supposed to provide attacking width end up pinned back, dealing with a wide forward.

 

Of course, there are circumstances in which having two spare men is desirable. If a team have little intention of attacking and are looking for a 0-0 draw, then it makes a lot of sense to have two extra players plugging gaps. That was how, for instance, Estudiantes played at Velez Sarsfield in October, when they successfully got the draw they wanted to preserve their lead at the top of the Apertura. Uruguay did something similar against France at the World Cup, as did Algeria against England (although Wayne Rooney played so high, England were approaching a 4-4-2) and, slightly less successfully, North Korea did it against Brazil.

 

Liverpool's outlook against Chelsea was cautious, but it was not that negative. Its use, in fact, was little different to how the formation was employed in the 90s; it was there to combat an old-fashioned variant on 4-4-2. On Sunday, Chelsea played, as they had at Sunderland last Tuesday, with two central strikers and Nicolas Anelka tucked behind at the point of a midfield diamond. Anelka was superb at the Stadium of Light, but Sunderland's midfield – especially in the absence of Lee Cattermole – has a tendency to be very open.

 

Against Liverpool, Anelka found himself up against the perpetually under-rated Lucas Leiva and was negated, while the three of Jamie Carragher, Martin Skrtel and Daniel Agger neutered Didier Drogba and Fernando Torres so successfully that they managed only one meaningful shot between them (and that a chance bestowed not created as Maxi Rodríguez squandered possession). Torres, in fact, had only 29 touches of the ball in the 66 minutes before he was substituted.

 

Where Liverpool really won the battle, though, was in midfield. Against Stoke, Dalglish had played a 3-4-2-1, with a square of midfielders in the middle – two in defensive positions and two attacking. Against Chelsea, he tilted the square to become a diamond, matching Chelsea's midfield shape exactly, so as well as Lucas picking up Anelka, Steven Gerrard dealt with Frank Lampard, Maxi matched up to Michael Essien and Raul Meireles faced Mikel John Obi. Only Maxi could be said not to have won his individual duel decisively.

 

At the same time, Chelsea faced the problem the diamond will always have against a side playing with three centre-backs plus wing-backs. The great flaw of the diamond is that it lacks attacking width; the full-backs have to get forward and if they do not, everything becomes funnelled through the player at the diamond's tip.

 

José Bosingwa and Ashley Cole are ideally equipped to offer that attacking threat wide, but on Sunday they weren't able to get forward. Rather than meeting a conventional full-back 30 or 40 yards from the opponents' goal, they were engaging with Martin Kelly and Glen Johnson on halfway, and so only rarely got into areas to offer a creative outlet.

 

That problem for diamonds is even worse against a 4-3-3 or a 4-2-3-1, or even a 4-4-2 with wide midfielders who play high up the pitch, as the full-back is left with a choice of pushing on, hoping his side retain possession long enough that his absences from defensive duties do not matter, or sitting back offering no attacking width. The diamond tends to prosper only as a defensive formation, or in a culture where so many teams field a diamond that the lack of width does not matter because everybody has the same weakness. It is notable, for instance, that in Serie A this season, where 4-3-1-2, a variant of the diamond, predominates, Milan's three defeats have come against Cesena and Juventus, sides with attacking width, and Roma, who had Jérémy Menez pull wide from his usual central trequartista role.

 

Other teams may see Liverpool's success and decide to copy that against Chelsea. Even when they played a 4-3-3, it had been apparent for a while that blocking in Cole (something Kieran Richardson did superbly in Sunderland's 3-0 win at Stamford Bridge) severely restricted their attacking options. It may also be that, following the examples of Liverpool and Sunderland, opposing sides opt for three centre-backs against Stoke City.

 

Both Liverpool and Sunderland presumably made the decision to try to add height to the side. Liverpool could have come unstuck with Stoke fielding a lone central striker in John Carew, and the need for Agger to step up and become an auxiliary midfielder perhaps explains why they were significantly less fluent against Stoke than they have been in probably every other game since Dalglish's return.

 

The Sunderland centre-back pairing of Anton Ferdinand and Titus Bramble, meanwhile, have been bullied at times in the air this season, a situation not helped by Craig Gordon's lack of command of his box. The addition of John Mensah – who would surely be a first choice were he ever fit for more than a game at a time – was designed to give Sunderland an additional solidity and, set-plays aside (a fairly big aside, admittedly), the tactic worked, combating not merely Sunderland's relative aerial weakness but also the lack of a ball-winner in midfield, with both Cattermole and David Meyler injured. Sunderland's problem was that they conceded too many free-kicks in dangerous areas, and then got too deep in defending them, meaning Gordon, never the most commanding goalkeeper for all his shot-stopping abilities, was too often hemmed in (and, of course, they got the rough end of offside decisions for Stoke's first two goals).

 

For both Liverpool and Sunderland, it seems likely the switch to three centre-backs was a temporary measure undertaken in specific circumstances. It would be a major surprise if Sunderland were to use a similar tactic against Tottenham, or Liverpool against Wigan, on Saturday. That said, given Liverpool's lack of attacking width – and glut of good centre-backs – it is perhaps something to which Dalglish will be more open than other managers.

 

If nothing else, though, Liverpool and Sunderland have shown in the past week that there is still a place for three centre-backs in certain circumstances, and that it's often a good idea to set opponents a puzzle they have forgotten how to solve. It may, in a strange way, be that Dalglish's time away from day-to-day management, far from restricting his tactical options, has actually broadened them.[/quote']

[AussieRed]

Just a point on our three man defence. It seems to be a different variety to the old 352. As the article suggests the point of the 352 was that you could account for two forwards and then have a spare or sweeper in defence. While the sweeper played in the middle the other 2 CBs were still in a largely central position. What happened over time, is that the sweeper essentially became the defensive midfielder. Brazil used this tactic to great effect at the 94 world cup. They deployed Mauro Silva as cover for the back four. this allowed the fullbacks(Jorginho & Leonardo) to play as wingbacks. So you had two attackers against two defenders and a defensive midfielder that could either stop supply, or fill a gap if a CB was dragged wide.

 

However, the 442 is only rarely used and most top clubs play a form of 4231 or 433. The idea, is to pack the centre of midfield to either control possession or to launch quick counter attacks by breaking up play higher up the pitch.

 

Dalglish's formation seems to be quite different, and I have seen it once before. Guus Hiddink employed a similar formation when Australia played Uruguay in a knockout world cup qualifier in Sydney. Australia played a 4231 with two holding midfielders and two attacking fullbacks. As soon as he spotted that Uruguay were playing with one up front he sustituted a CB for another attacking midfielder (this was less than halfway through the first half). The fullbacks still played as fullbacks when Australia had the ball. When Australia was defending they tucked in only a bit more. Because Uruguay had only one up front, the CB marked him, and midfield plugged any holes and tracked the opposition that went forward from a deeper position.

 

I think this is what Kenny is doing. Agger has played much further up the field than a CB normally would and from a very wide position. While it was noticable that everytime we defended the first thing that Lucas would do was to suck back into the defence. This has also allowed our wingbacks to start from a far more advanced position.

 

If you think back to the old German 352s, it was always the sweeper that surged forward, leaving the two man marker behind. This formation means that the middle defender always stays back, while the defenders either side of him can venture forward as required.

 

For this reason I think that the formation would work fine against a 433 or 4231.

[llego]

Just a point on our three man defence. It seems to be a different variety to the old 352. As the article suggests the point of the 352 was that you could account for two forwards and then have a spare or sweeper in defence. While the sweeper played in the middle the other 2 CBs were still in a largely central position. What happened over time, is that the sweeper essentially became the defensive midfielder. Brazil used this tactic to great effect at the 94 world cup. They deployed Mauro Silva as cover for the back four. this allowed the fullbacks(Jorginho & Leonardo) to play as wingbacks. So you had two attackers against two defenders and a defensive midfielder that could either stop supply, or fill a gap if a CB was dragged wide.

 

However, the 442 is only rarely used and most top clubs play a form of 4231 or 433. The idea, is to pack the centre of midfield to either control possession or to launch quick counter attacks by breaking up play higher up the pitch.

 

Dalglish's formation seems to be quite different, and I have seen it once before. Guus Hiddink employed a similar formation when Australia played Uruguay in a knockout world cup qualifier in Sydney. Australia played a 4231 with two holding midfielders and two attacking fullbacks. As soon as he spotted that Uruguay were playing with one up front he sustituted a CB for another attacking midfielder (this was less than halfway through the first half). The fullbacks still played as fullbacks when Australia had the ball. When Australia was defending they tucked in only a bit more. Because Uruguay had only one up front, the CB marked him, and midfield plugged any holes and tracked the opposition that went forward from a deeper position.

 

I think this is what Kenny is doing. Agger has played much further up the field than a CB normally would and from a very wide position. While it was noticable that everytime we defended the first thing that Lucas would do was to suck back into the defence. This has also allowed our wingbacks to start from a far more advanced position.

 

If you think back to the old German 352s, it was always the sweeper that surged forward, leaving the two man marker behind. This formation means that the middle defender always stays back, while the defenders either side of him can venture forward as required.

 

For this reason I think that the formation would work fine against a 433 or 4231.

 

Here's our average position diagram from Chelsea.

 

 

Your observations are definitely correct. However, I dont quite follow your conclusion that it will work fine against 1 striker or 3 forward formations. A 4-3-3 would pin the outside centerbacks wide, forcing Lucas back into the middle, and matching us in midfield. More than likely this would result in our wingbacks being pushed back into defense, killing our width and sacrificing ground to their fullbacks.

 

A 4-2-3-1 would allow Agger to step up into a semi-fullback/DM position to help with possession at the back. This is roughly what we say against Stoke where for much of the game they had Carew up front on their own. However real width, especially on Agger's side, would still hurt us in the same way. I don't think Johnson would leave Agger alone with a winger on the touchline. Perhaps we saw this to some extent with Pennant- who got dangerous crosses in on several occasions.

 

Basically it is critical for our wingbacks to stay as far up on the pitch as we see in that diagram. And both classic counters to a 3-at-the-back formation have the potential to thwart that.

[Guest TK-421]

I like the Tie Fighter formation, 2-6-2:

 

---------------------Reina------------

Kelly------------------------------------Johnson

Kuyt--Gerrard--Poulsen--Leiva--Meireles--Aurelio

Suarez-----------------------------------Carroll

 

 

S5_svSADYks&autoplay=1

[Fugitive]

I really like the formation. It allows Agger to break from Defence and carry the ball, allows Johnson and Kelly to get up as afton as possible, gives us good numbers in midfield and also allows us to have a lot of players breaking forward when attacking. The flexability is seriously good and it works well with the passing game we are currently playing.

[llego]

I like the Tie Fighter formation, 2-6-2:

 

---------------------Reina------------

Kelly------------------------------------Johnson

Kuyt--Gerrard--Poulsen--Leiva--Meireles--Aurelio

Suarez-----------------------------------Carroll

 

 

S5_svSADYks

 

I had my headphones on. And the volume was up. Youre lucky I like you because I really really want to neg you.

[AussieRed]

Here's our average position diagram from Chelsea.

 

 

Your observations are definitely correct. However, I dont quite follow your conclusion that it will work fine against 1 striker or 3 forward formations. A 4-3-3 would pin the outside centerbacks wide, forcing Lucas back into the middle, and matching us in midfield. More than likely this would result in our wingbacks being pushed back into defense, killing our width and sacrificing ground to their fullbacks.

 

The fact is, modern 433 teams don't play with much width up front. Barcelona purposefully play with a left footer on the right and vice versa. Their width is generated from the fullback position (particularly Alves).

 

The real battle would be in midfield. Whoever wins the possession game will dictate who gets the upper hand. I think that the 352s advantage is that the wingbacks are in a more advanced position as they are covered by the CBs. This is advantageous against the 433 that relies on the fullbacks bombing forward.

[Major Tom]

Top conversation, Llego and AusseRed. Great to read.

[Razoray]

I said in the Chelsea thread before the game that the last time we played an Ancelotti team that played a diamond in midfield was in Istanbul and Rafa changed to a 3-6-1 at ht and matched them in midfield, put a runner (Gerrard) on Pirlo and they could not handle it. It was not until Ancelotti brought on Serginho for a bit of width that they got back on top with us having to move Stevie back to RB to mark him.

3 at the back is ideal to play against a diamond but we'll have to see how it will do against 3 up top.

[RedinSweden]

Top conversation, Llego and AusseRed. Great to read.

 

Too many words. I'm waiting for the film.