Liverpool FC Forum

[ycsatbjywtbiastkamb]

Personally I would have preferred to have seen us stick with the 3, that way we not only get to field an extra man in the middle of the park (which is an area where we are particularly weak imo) but a back 3 also allows us to shoehorn Can into the starting XI too.
I'm not sure Brendan will pick him ahead of Milner or Henderson as a midfielder so I fear unless we go with a back 3 Emre is going to spend most of this upcoming season on the sidelines and considering he was one of the few positives from last season that would be particularly ironic.
Anyway wether we play with a back 3 or 4, based on form, Lovren shouldn't really be in the team.

If you play 3 at the back you actually lose a man in midfield, you don't gain one. I remember we played three at the back away to Newcastle last season, or the season before. By having 3 at the back we had no outlet to pass to further up, as Newcastle had enough numbers back to limit our passing. The extra third defender takes away a position from either central midfield or attacking midfield.

If we're playing 3 CB's, we're playing with wingbacks and wingbacks contribute more to the attack than fullbacks. Essentially becoming a 3-4-3 or 3-5-2 depending on how you want to set up up front. That's how we played (3-4-3) for the unbeaten stretch after the Christmas fixtures last season. It wasn't only against Newcastle. And the formation did allow us to field more of the better players we had. But of course some numpties would claim that BR plays wing players out of position as wingbacks.

Yep, spot on mate, 3 at the back allowed us to get more of our better players into the line up and not just further up the field either, it was 3 at the back that turned Can into a regular.
It's not as if shifting to a 3 hurt us defensively either, in fact quite the opposite, we went from a team that had been shipping goals at an alarming rate for the previous 18 months to one that broke a long standing club record for consecutive away games without conceding a goal that had stood since the days of Ron Yeats!
When you play with a back 4 your CM's have to stand on their own two feet, that's okay if you have Souness and McDermott or Alonso and Mascherano in there but we don't, we have Henderson and Milner.

[woof woof !]

Yep, spot on mate, 3 at the back allowed us to get more of our better players into the line up and not just further up the field either, it was 3 at the back that turned Can into a regular.
It's not as if shifting to a 3 hurt us defensively either, in fact quite the opposite, we went from a team that had been shipping goals at an alarming rate for the previous 18 months to one that broke a long standing club record for consecutive away games without conceding a goal that had stood since the days of Ron Yeats!
When you play with a back 4 your CM's have to stand on their own two feet, that's okay if you have Souness and McDermott or Alonso and Mascherano in there but we don't, we have Henderson and Milner.

Mate, we might have initially done well with the back three but once other teams wised up to the fact that with our "wingbacks" bombing up the field there were acres of space to play a counter attacking ball into either side of our back three, we suffered, particularly when balls were played into the space patrolled by an increasingly uncomfortable (played out of position)  Emre Can   

[JC_81]

3 at the back can work well in certain games when the opposition aren't expecting you to set up that way. If they are expecting it then it seems easy to nullify and pick weaknesses in. The longer we played that way last season the less effective it was.

No team has won the premier league playing 3 at the back.

[maguskwt]

3 at the back can work well in certain games when the opposition aren't expecting you to set up that way. If they are expecting it then it seems easy to nullify and pick weaknesses in. The longer we played that way last season the less effective it was.

No team has won the premier league playing 3 at the back.

Maybe not the premier league, but teams have won euros and world cups deploying 3-5-2. Germany was quite well known for using it in the 90's, won the world cup 1990 and euro 96 with this formation. Brazil also used 3-5-2 for the 2002 world cup win. At the end of the day, I think it's about having the correct personnel to play a particular system than the system itself.

[woof woof !]

I think it's about having the correct personnel to play a particular system than the system itself.

  Agreed.

Unfortunately in his wisdom our manager is attempting to play that system with players that aren't equipped for it   

[JC_81]

True mate but the premier league is very different from International football.  Teams press you much higher up the pitch and if they press up on your wing backs then the system is nullified. You're stuck with 5 at the back hemmed in. But you're right in needing players for the system. Moreno and Johnson are not Roberto Carlos and Cafu.

[ycsatbjywtbiastkamb]

I don't think it was any coincidence last year that our great run which saw us top the form table for months started when Gerrard dropped out of the team and ended when he got back in. Steven Gerrard has been the best player I've ever seen play for this club (and I go back a long way) but at 35 you are a liability in the modern game.
Yes teams attacked the spaces behind our fullbacks but when Gerrard was out our midfield got across to help.

[Kenny Kan]

Personally I would have preferred to have seen us stick with the 3, that way we not only get to field an extra man in the middle of the park (which is an area where we are particularly weak imo) but a back 3 also allows us to shoehorn Can into the starting XI too.
I'm not sure Brendan will pick him ahead of Milner or Henderson as a midfielder so I fear unless we go with a back 3 Emre is going to spend most of this upcoming season on the sidelines and considering he was one of the few positives from last season that would be particularly ironic.
Anyway wether we play with a back 3 or 4, based on form, Lovren shouldn't really be in the team.

If you play 3 at the back you actually lose a man in midfield, you don't gain one. I remember we played three at the back away to Newcastle last season, or the season before. By having 3 at the back we had no outlet to pass to further up, as Newcastle had enough numbers back to limit our passing. The extra third defender takes away a position from either central midfield or attacking midfield.

If we're playing 3 CB's, we're playing with wingbacks and wingbacks contribute more to the attack than fullbacks. Essentially becoming a 3-4-3 or 3-5-2 depending on how you want to set up up front. That's how we played (3-4-3) for the unbeaten stretch after the Christmas fixtures last season. It wasn't only against Newcastle. And the formation did allow us to field more of the better players we had. But of course some numpties would claim that BR plays wing players out of position as wingbacks.

The Newcastle game stuck because playing three at the back hampered our players further up the pitch.

Think of it like this, to see what I mean

3 at the back with two wing backs. A total of 5 players.

4 across the back. You have an extra player straight away who can play anywhere through the middle, to right up behind the striker.

It leaves you a man down in the middle somewhere. Our wing backs that day had no more impact on the game than full backs because equally, they had a lack of options inside. We just couldn't get going because we didn't have the extra man through the middle. Newcastle was the best example of why it didn't work, even if they had (I can't remember) played a 4-4-2. They had four across the midfield with their fullbacks adding some width which allowed the wider midfielders to come in and outnumber and close off all our options in the middle of the park - we could barely get the ball up front that day because we'd been blockaded through the middle due to a lack of bodies, and thus, ideas.

It's a bit of a misnomer to think three at the back gives you more in midfield. It doesn't. It gives you width and more advanced starting positions for your wing backs but effectively it is a 3 man midfield through the middle with two up top. Whereas with 4 at the back, 3 in the middle and 3 up top - diamond, whatever...

[Reg]

'kin'ell Kenny, I thought you'd died! 

[Kenny Kan]

'kin'ell Kenny, I thought you'd died! 

So did I. 

[Kenny Kan]

Yep, spot on mate, 3 at the back allowed us to get more of our better players into the line up and not just further up the field either, it was 3 at the back that turned Can into a regular.
It's not as if shifting to a 3 hurt us defensively either, in fact quite the opposite, we went from a team that had been shipping goals at an alarming rate for the previous 18 months to one that broke a long standing club record for consecutive away games without conceding a goal that had stood since the days of Ron Yeats!
When you play with a back 4 your CM's have to stand on their own two feet, that's okay if you have Souness and McDermott or Alonso and Mascherano in there but we don't, we have Henderson and Milner.

Mate, we might have initially done well with the back three but once other teams wised up to the fact that with our "wingbacks" bombing up the field there were acres of space to play a counter attacking ball into either side of our back three, we suffered, particularly when balls were played into the space patrolled by an increasingly uncomfortable (played out of position)  Emre Can   :kungfu:

Totally agree Woof. After the honey moon period of Can playing CB, he was getting targeted. He's slow on the turn, and was getting turned inside by the likes of United's gimp LB.

I like Can, but he's got to go into midfield for me this season. Not being exposed on the flank by a pacey tricky winger.

[maguskwt]

[quote="Kenny Kan » Mon Aug 03, 2015 1:39 pm"quote]


The Newcastle game stuck because playing three at the back hampered our players further up the pitch.

Think of it like this, to see what I mean

3 at the back with two wing backs. A total of 5 players.

4 across the back. You have an extra player straight away who can play anywhere through the middle, to right up behind the striker.

It leaves you a man down in the middle somewhere. Our wing backs that day had no more impact on the game than full backs because equally, they had a lack of options inside. We just couldn't get going because we didn't have the extra man through the middle. Newcastle was the best example of why it didn't work, even if they had (I can't remember) played a 4-4-2. They had four across the midfield with their fullbacks adding some width which allowed the wider midfielders to come in and outnumber and close off all our options in the middle of the park - we could barely get the ball up front that day because we'd been blockaded through the middle due to a lack of bodies, and thus, ideas.

It's a bit of a misnomer to think three at the back gives you more in midfield. It doesn't. It gives you width and more advanced starting positions for your wing backs but effectively it is a 3 man midfield through the middle with two up top. Whereas with 4 at the back, 3 in the middle and 3 up top - diamond, whatever...[/quote]

The argument of whether 3 at the back gives you more or less midfield is useless IMO. Because it's like saying the glass is half full or empty. But I'm just curious which Newcastle game you are referring to because I don't think at St Jame's Park we have deployed the 3-4-3 yet. It was only against the Mancs before X'mas that we deployed the 3-4-3 and even though we lost that game 3-0, everyone could see that we played a lot better and didn't deserve the score line. If it wasn't for de Gea we would've score 3-4 goals ourselves. The 13 game unbeaten streak or so while using that formation shows that it worked with the players we had. It was only when Lucas was injured and after we lost consecutive games to the mancs and arsenal that we abandoned that formation at the later part of the season. IMO it was a bad move by BR, abandoning the 3-4-3, and abit of a knee-jerk reaction. Abandoning that formation led to the debacles against Palace and Stoke. For what its worth though it showed that Lucas was crucial to that formation. When Gerrard came back in, we couldn't control the midfield at all...

[Kenny Kan]

The argument of whether 3 at the back gives you more or less midfield is useless IMO. Because it's like saying the glass is half full or empty. But I'm just curious which Newcastle game you are referring to because I don't think at St Jame's Park we have deployed the 3-4-3 yet. It was only against the Mancs before X'mas that we deployed the 3-4-3 and even though we lost that game 3-0, everyone could see that we played a lot better and didn't deserve the score line. If it wasn't for de Gea we would've score 3-4 goals ourselves. The 13 game unbeaten streak or so while using that formation shows that it worked with the players we had. It was only when Lucas was injured and after we lost consecutive games to the mancs and arsenal that we abandoned that formation at the later part of the season. IMO it was a bad move by BR, abandoning the 3-4-3, and abit of a knee-jerk reaction. Abandoning that formation led to the debacles against Palace and Stoke. For what its worth though it showed that Lucas was crucial to that formation. When Gerrard came back in, we couldn't control the midfield at all...

The game I was talking about is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6BF23IY4Yw

This only shows their goal. And doesn't show the fact we could barely muster a shot on target that day due to the system we played which left us without enough numbers up top to create space. It does show however, Can in trouble; though at the very beginning of the clip with two wingers coming at him, and two further midfielders inside with both Henderson and Gerrard 'tracking back'. Our wingback on the right was nowhere to be seen and there was effectively 4 Newcastle players bombing forward with Can, Gerrard and Henderson tracking the players and ball - until Skertel comes into sight. And even though Moreno gifted Newcastle the goal, it doesn't deter from the fact that the system we played that day hampered us.

As somebody else stated, it appears the 3-5-2 is a good system to bamboozle the opposition of a weekend. But to play it consistently, without adapting it will get you into trouble - like playing Can at RCB for long periods. If the system was to be played consistently, IMHO it would need the third (central) CB to come out from defense and go into deep midfield, allowing another midfielder to move forward more and give us options. Can would be the best player to do this, but I don't think he's a great CB to start with.

[ycsatbjywtbiastkamb]

Can didn't play in that game Ken, he was an unused sub, and as Maguskwt pointed out we were still using a back 4 at that time.

Liverpool team v Newcastle 01/11/2014

Mingolet, Johnson, Skrtel, Lovren, Moreno, Gerrard, Henderson, Allen (Borini 66), Coutinho (Lambert 80), Sterling, Balotelli

Unused subs - Jones, Toure, Can, Lallana, Manquillo

It wasn't until mid December (around the time we played Bournemouth in the cup and United in the league) that we started to use a back 3.

[Kopite-Jud]

IMO

We need a pairing that play consistantly togerther.  There was far too much chopping and changing between centre backs last season.  Whether it be DeludedBrendan or Injuries, we need a pair that are together every week.