Liverpool FC Forum

aCe' » Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:53 pm wrote:Lets scrap this 3 at the back nonsense once and for all. We dont defend any better with Can at the back, we dont attack any better because of the setup, I just cant understand why we persist with it. 4-4-2 Diamond, we'll look better going forward and we'll have a better chance of outscoring opposition since we wont be keeping clean sheets anyways.

With regards to the game, I thought Milner and Lucas were outstanding in the middle. Sturridge upfront , oh have we missed him or what.

I don't quite understand your logic mate, as you say we seem to concede roughly the same amount of goals wether we play 3 or 4 at the back so surely the wise move is to go with the 3 and utilise the extra man further up the pitch.

ycsatbjywtbiastkamb » Sat Sep 26, 2015 11:24 pm wrote:

aCe' » Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:53 pm wrote:Lets scrap this 3 at the back nonsense once and for all. We dont defend any better with Can at the back, we dont attack any better because of the setup, I just cant understand why we persist with it. 4-4-2 Diamond, we'll look better going forward and we'll have a better chance of outscoring opposition since we wont be keeping clean sheets anyways.

With regards to the game, I thought Milner and Lucas were outstanding in the middle. Sturridge upfront , oh have we missed him or what.

I don't quite understand your logic mate, as you say we seem to concede roughly the same amount of goals wether we play 3 or 4 at the back so surely the wise move is to go with the 3 and utilise the extra man further up the pitch.

There is no extra man further up yakka. Certainly not if we play both Clyne and Moreno, they'll play the same regardless of whether there's 2 or 3 at the back. If we played someone more attacking instead of Clyne maybe I'd understand but we're not and it makes no sense, the 3rd CB is useless. Seeing Can today was painful, and I'm not talking about his defending. His position had no use, his job was done by either Skrtel, Lucas or Clyne, he wasn't needed in the position he played at all!

With our current players, the 4-4-2 diamond is the way to go.

We have been steadily improving, lost, draw and win. I don't understand why anyone would chop and change the formation. Our team is not particularly filled with experienced tactically gifted players like Barcelona. Like I said the diamond has no width. Who is going to provide width with the diamond formation? Keep to 3-5-2. It's the best formation for us. Tweak it and iron out the defensive mistakes, the individual mistakes. I like Can alot and wanted him to be our DM. But recent performances have shown that he plays better as CB than in midfield. I rated him very low for this game, but it was a one-off. The players need to familiarise with a formation and their roles. I can bet against anyone that if we play 4-4-2 diamond, well be overrun in midfield and defense. Currently, defensive mistakes are costing us, but we were not overrun anywhere.

And I don't understand how anyone can say that 4-4-2 diamond when they haven't seen it with the current set of players.

ycsatbjywtbiastkamb » Sun Sep 27, 2015 1:24 am wrote:

aCe' » Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:53 pm wrote:Lets scrap this 3 at the back nonsense once and for all. We dont defend any better with Can at the back, we dont attack any better because of the setup, I just cant understand why we persist with it. 4-4-2 Diamond, we'll look better going forward and we'll have a better chance of outscoring opposition since we wont be keeping clean sheets anyways.

With regards to the game, I thought Milner and Lucas were outstanding in the middle. Sturridge upfront , oh have we missed him or what.

I don't quite understand your logic mate, as you say we seem to concede roughly the same amount of goals wether we play 3 or 4 at the back so surely the wise move is to go with the 3 and utilise the extra man further up the pitch.

Not sure I quite understand where the extra man you refer to comes from. What I see is an extra body at the back trying too hard to get involved and take on responsibilities that I would call manufactured.

4 at the back with Lallana for example coming in for Can, now that would be an extra man further up the pitch.

maguskwt » Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:26 am wrote:We have been steadily improving, lost, draw and win. I don't understand why anyone would chop and change the formation. Our team is not particularly filled with experienced tactically gifted players like Barcelona. Like I said the diamond has no width. Who is going to provide width with the diamond formation? Keep to 3-5-2. It's the best formation for us. Tweak it and iron out the defensive mistakes, the individual mistakes. I like Can alot and wanted him to be our DM. But recent performances have shown that he plays better as CB than in midfield. I rated him very low for this game, but it was a one-off. The players need to familiarise with a formation and their roles. I can bet against anyone that if we play 4-4-2 diamond, well be overrun in midfield and defense. Currently, defensive mistakes are costing us, but we were not overrun anywhere.

And I don't understand how anyone can say that 4-4-2 diamond when they haven't seen it with the current set of players.

Any time you go with 2 upfront you risk getting overrun in midfield. With the 3-5-2, you have 2 wide players, 2 CMs with defensive duties, and an attacking midfielder who has that extra bit of freedom when we are not on the ball. For the opposition, it means more freedom in the middle of the park and down the flanks but a harder job breaking sides inside the box. Unfortunately for us, Can is a poor CB, Skrtel is prone to lapses of concentration, and Sakho is often dragged wide to cover for the confused Moreno who doesnt seem to know whether to track the fullback or the winger.

If you have 2 CBs you dont trust, sometimes you decide to add a 3rd to make your side harder to break. We arent doing that, and if we are, it is not working.

With the diamond, you essentially have 3 midfielders matching up with the opposition. The biggest issue remains covering out wide. You push the side up and become more compact and while that doesnt necessarily make you defend better, it should hypothetically make you more dangerous going forward.

It sure fits the players we have much much better than the 3-5-2

The build up play seemed to be alot quicker yesterday. Ings, Sturridge and Coutinho were playing some slick one two's with each that created room for chances. I think it's been too slow with just Benteke upfront and it's been frustrating for the players. I'd continue to play Studge and Ings to see if they can build a strong partnership and build from there.

damjan193 » Sat Sep 26, 2015 11:05 pm wrote:

ycsatbjywtbiastkamb » Sat Sep 26, 2015 11:24 pm wrote:

aCe' » Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:53 pm wrote:Lets scrap this 3 at the back nonsense once and for all. We dont defend any better with Can at the back, we dont attack any better because of the setup, I just cant understand why we persist with it. 4-4-2 Diamond, we'll look better going forward and we'll have a better chance of outscoring opposition since we wont be keeping clean sheets anyways.

With regards to the game, I thought Milner and Lucas were outstanding in the middle. Sturridge upfront , oh have we missed him or what.

I don't quite understand your logic mate, as you say we seem to concede roughly the same amount of goals wether we play 3 or 4 at the back so surely the wise move is to go with the 3 and utilise the extra man further up the pitch.

There is no extra man further up yakka. Certainly not if we play both Clyne and Moreno, they'll play the same regardless of whether there's 2 or 3 at the back. If we played someone more attacking instead of Clyne maybe I'd understand but we're not and it makes no sense, the 3rd CB is useless. Seeing Can today was painful, and I'm not talking about his defending. His position had no use, his job was done by either Skrtel, Lucas or Clyne, he wasn't needed in the position he played at all!

With our current players, the 4-4-2 diamond is the way to go.

I disagree mate, one thing a back 3 does is allow us to get better ball players into our defence, I'm not a fan of Skrtel's and Clyne's ability on the ball and I think whenever we play a back 4 our attempts at building from the back always end up back at Mingolets feet.
For me the solution is obvious - drop Clyne and play someone more progressive. Imo he is the right footed version of Jose Enrique, he is quick, strong, good in one v one situations but not a natural footballer.

Am i the only one getting frustrated with Can?...Looked very promising at start with his ability to push forward quickly and aggressively but the more time passes i only see donkey runs with no end product, makes a lot of holes on defense and most his end product is no product. Should really stop and concentrate on delivering quality or maybe benched a bit. I would rather give his chances to Lallana.

only me » Sun Sep 27, 2015 10:52 am wrote:Am i the only one getting frustrated with Can?...Looked very promising at start with his ability to push forward quickly and aggressively but the more time passes i only see donkey runs with no end product, makes a lot of holes on defense and most his end product is no product. Should really stop and concentrate on delivering quality or maybe benched a bit. I would rather give his chances to Lallana.

I was thinking the same thing yesterday mate. He is a young lad and still developing but for me he lacks athleticism and looks flat footed at times. If he can work on his positioning and game IQ and generally just become sharper in the head, things which come with experience,  there is a player there.

Not a CB for me but then the lack of athleticism makes it difficult for him to run, hound and chase in midfield.  That can be countered with good positioning and know how somewhat so maybe in a season or two  we will see him develop and push on.

ycsatbjywtbiastkamb » Sun Sep 27, 2015 12:40 pm wrote:

damjan193 » Sat Sep 26, 2015 11:05 pm wrote:

ycsatbjywtbiastkamb » Sat Sep 26, 2015 11:24 pm wrote:
I don't quite understand your logic mate, as you say we seem to concede roughly the same amount of goals wether we play 3 or 4 at the back so surely the wise move is to go with the 3 and utilise the extra man further up the pitch.

There is no extra man further up yakka. Certainly not if we play both Clyne and Moreno, they'll play the same regardless of whether there's 2 or 3 at the back. If we played someone more attacking instead of Clyne maybe I'd understand but we're not and it makes no sense, the 3rd CB is useless. Seeing Can today was painful, and I'm not talking about his defending. His position had no use, his job was done by either Skrtel, Lucas or Clyne, he wasn't needed in the position he played at all!

With our current players, the 4-4-2 diamond is the way to go.

I disagree mate, one thing a back 3 does is allow us to get better ball players into our defence, I'm not a fan of Skrtel's and Clyne's ability on the ball and I think whenever we play a back 4 our attempts at building from the back always end up back at Mingolets feet.
For me the solution is obvious - drop Clyne and play someone more progressive. Imo he is the right footed version of Jose Enrique, he is quick, strong, good in one v one situations but not a natural footballer.

Yakka mate, I think you are giving Can way too much credit regarding his contribution to our attacking play all while selling Clyne's contribution to the side a bit short. Defensively, I think Clyne has been our star man so far; which isnt saying much I'll grant you that much. He should be doing more/better going forward but I wouldnt say replacing him with an Ibe or Lallana would make us a better outift in any shape or form.

My main issue with Clyne at the moment is his final ball. In terms of positioning and joining in on the attacking play he has done okay. His link up play could be better but the same could be said about Ibe (who I assume would be your replacement). If we continue with the 3 at the back, and I dont think we should, then perhaps Ibe for Clyne could happen in some of the easier games -if that is even a thing for us atm- when we play at home.

Back to the 4 at the back, at the moment, Henderson is injured and that makes the midfield selection a bit easier for Rodgers. When he comes back, we'll need to find a setup that integrates our best players in the starting 11. I'd only play the 3 at the back in specific games to counter specific opposition. Outside that, 4 at the back allows us to get 4 of Lucas, Milner, Henderson, Coutinho, Firmino, Lallana in the side which I think is a good idea. 

Our main priority should be getting the ball to Coutinho, Sturridge, and Benteke/Ings/Firmino in advanced positions. Playing 2 upfront forces us to do that, playing 4 behind them helps the cause quite a bit more.

Add to that the fact that:

-Lucas would sit in front of the back 4. Arguably a better position for him than 1 of 2 alongside Milner
-Milner and Henderson can play the box to box role while having a bit of cover behind them and a playmaker ahead of them to allow them to make runs off the ball.
-Clyne is a better fullback than wingback, Moreno's game is largely unchanged since his final ball isnt great anyways. His role defensively becomes better defined.
-Can at CB is a liability. He'll be competing for a midfield spot (his best position) instead.
-Coutinho has more attacking players around him and less defensive responsibilities from deep.

Good post Ace.

Another thing I was thinking, there's no need to limit the creative/attacking players to only 3 (i.e. Coutinho Sturridge and Benteke). Something that was noticable yesterday, was that Coutinho didn't play in the number 10 role and was actually playing a bit deeper, often receiving the ball straight from the defenders. So it made me think, if at some point we switch to the 4-4-2 diamond, we could make Coutinho our third midfielder while Frimino could play the number 10 role (effectively adding the extra man in attack everyone's talking about). I was thinking about something like this:

                                                             Mignolet

                                             Clyne    Skrtel   Sakho   Moreno

                                                              Lucas
                                                 Henderson     Coutinho

                                                            Frimino

                                                  Sturridge    Benteke


Coutinho won't have to do a lot of the defensive duties that are required from midfield players since we'll already have Lucas and Hendo doing that, he'll just have to concentrate on the creative part.

There is one problem with this formation, and of course that is the lack of protection on the flanks. Clyne won't have too many problems on his side I think, because this formation will suit him best (unlike the formation we're playing now), plus he'll have Henderson if needed. The problem will be Moreno, who will have to do a lot more defending than he is doing now and defending isn't exactly his best quality.

damjan193 » Sun Sep 27, 2015 12:42 pm wrote:Good post Ace.

Another thing I was thinking, there's no need to limit the creative/attacking players to only 3 (i.e. Coutinho Sturridge and Benteke). Something that was noticable yesterday, was that Coutinho didn't play in the number 10 role and was actually playing a bit deeper, often receiving the ball straight from the defenders. So it made me think, if at some point we switch to the 4-4-2 diamond, we could make Coutinho our third midfielder while Frimino could play the number 10 role (effectively adding the extra man in attack everyone's talking about). I was thinking about something like this:

                                                             Mignolet

                                             Clyne    Skrtel   Sakho   Moreno

                                                              Lucas
                                                 Henderson     Coutinho

                                                            Frimino

                                                  Sturridge    Benteke


Coutinho won't have to do a lot of the defensive duties that are required from midfield players since we'll already have Lucas and Hendo doing that, he'll just have to concentrate on the creative part.

There is one problem with this formation, and of course that is the lack of protection on the flanks. Clyne won't have too many problems on his side I think, because this formation will suit him best (unlike the formation we're playing now), plus he'll have Henderson if needed. The problem will be Moreno, who will have to do a lot more defending than he is doing now and defending isn't exactly his best quality.

I'm sorry but that formation's going to be stopped like water against a concrete wall by park-the-bus teams. The 4-4-2 diamond worked 2 seasons ago because:
1. The mobility of Suarez and Sturridge - I haven't seen a player who can cause mayhem in close quarters like Suarez before
2. The playmaking ability of Coutinho - Coutinho played at the head of the diamond if I remember correctly and was feeding Suarez and Sturridge left and right, who also knows how to feed off of Coutinho's passes. The key position of the daimond formation is this position.
3. As the 'wide' players in a daimond formation, we had Sterling who is fast and can go naturally go wide. I can't remember who the other wide player was, maybe Henderson? which was not very ideal.

In your formation, you have 3 players playing out of position or not ideal positions. Coutinho, Henderson and Firmino. Coutinho is wasted out 'wide' there. Henderson's position in that diamond was never an ideal position for him. 2 of them will not provide natural width. Coutinho is more suitable to play at the head of the diamond than Firmino, who can play wider than Coutinho. If Coutinho and Firmino were to be swapped, it'll look better. Even then, you don't have Suarez and Sturridge up front. You have Sturridge and Benteke. Benteke is a totally different player from Suarez, Benteke likes high balls and crosses. He is not as mobile as Suarez, and he can never cause mayhem in close quarters as Suarez. I'm sorry but this formation is doomed to fail from the beginning. If you criticize that in the current 3-5-2, Can is playing out of formation, your formation has 4 players playing out of position and/ or not ideal strategy; Coutinho, Firmino, Henderson and Benteke. And that is without arguing about Moreno and Clyne, whom I feel are more of wingbacks than full backs.

Doeboy » Sun Sep 27, 2015 12:24 pm wrote:

only me » Sun Sep 27, 2015 10:52 am wrote:Am i the only one getting frustrated with Can?...Looked very promising at start with his ability to push forward quickly and aggressively but the more time passes i only see donkey runs with no end product, makes a lot of holes on defense and most his end product is no product. Should really stop and concentrate on delivering quality or maybe benched a bit. I would rather give his chances to Lallana.

I was thinking the same thing yesterday mate. He is a young lad and still developing but for me he lacks athleticism and looks flat footed at times. If he can work on his positioning and game IQ and generally just become sharper in the head, things which come with experience,  there is a player there.

Not a CB for me but then the lack of athleticism makes it difficult for him to run, hound and chase in midfield.  That can be countered with good positioning and know how somewhat so maybe in a season or two  we will see him develop and push on.

Must admit like you guys I'm also beginning to have concerns about Can.

I still believe he has some quality but we are still struggling to discover his best position/role for us.

I certainly wouldn't include him in our back line (whether it be three or four).

I'm no longer even sure if I'd play him as a DM, good on the ball he may be but so many times his decision making and overall awareness of what's around him has created major problems for the team and great opportunities for the oppo.

If I were too pick him (and I still have some belief in the fella) I'd play him on the right side of a 4-1-2-1-2 formation filling in for the absent Henderson.

I wouldn't expect him to be as dynamic as Hendo but do believe  (still hope) that given a run in that position he has the quality to do a job for us.

Looking at what's available to us atm my preferred formation/team sheet would be.


.                                                     Mignolet

.                Clyne                Skrtl                      Sakho              Moreno

.                                                      Lucas

.                          Can/Milner                                          Lalanna/Origi

.                                                    Coutinho             

.                                    Sturridge                  Ings/Benteke

Can is only 20/21 so there will be games where he struggles but if we stick with him it will pay off in the long run. I'd actually like to see Gomez gradually integrated into our back 3 in place of Skrtel as well. Imo 3 CB's who are athletic and comfortable on the ball is the way forward, we need to look at the keeper as well.
I quite like Damjan's idea of doing a 'Ray Kennedy' with Coutinho (or another player like Lallana for that matter), the idea is to integrate as many quality offensive players as possible into a line up without losing your work ethic, dropping Lallana back into CM might be an inspired move.

                                           Bogdan

                         Can.          Gomez.        Sakho

                                     Lucas.       Lallana

                     Ibe.              Coutinho.          Milner

                                  Ings.          Sturridge

I wouldn't mind us fielding that sort of side midweek in the EL, obviously it's not an all out gung ho side but it is a halfway house to see how Lallana copes in the deeper role, plus Milner plays in a position where he was quite effective for city.

ycsatbjywtbiastkamb » Sun Sep 27, 2015 4:25 pm wrote:Can is only 20/21 so there will be games where he struggles but if we stick with him it will pay off in the long run. I'd actually like to see Gomez gradually integrated into our back 3 in place of Skrtel as well. Imo 3 CB's who are athletic and comfortable on the ball is the way forward, we need to look at the keeper as well.
I quite like Damjan's idea of doing a 'Ray Kennedy' with Coutinho (or another player like Lallana for that matter), the idea is to integrate as many quality offensive players as possible into a line up without losing your work ethic, dropping Lallana back into CM might be an inspired move.

                                           Bogdan

                         Can.          Gomez.        Sakho

                                     Lucas.       Lallana

                     Ibe.              Coutinho.          Milner

                                  Ings.          Sturridge

I wouldn't mind us fielding that sort of side midweek in the EL, obviously it's not an all out gung ho side but it is a halfway house to see how Lallana copes in the deeper role, plus Milner plays in a position where he was quite effective for city.

Christs sake Yakka, I'm never sure if your serious or just courting controversy !

I know you've been championing Can as the right side of a back three since day one BUT come on mate give it up, TIME and Time again the fella's been found out in that position, a fking accident waiting to happen !

As for Gomez at our prime CB      , surely your kidding us ?

The lad needs at least another 4-5 years top flight experience under his belt before he's given such responsibility to step into that role !