Liverpool FC Forum

[Leonmc0708]

EVERYONE is a fuc.king pundit AFTER the event.

Had we slotted anotehr chance or maybe Bramble not scored, in fact had Gerrard not mis kicked his clearence, how many would have been questioning tactics/formation ?

[account deleted by request]

EVERYONE is a fuc.king pundit AFTER the event.

Had we slotted anotehr chance or maybe Bramble not scored, in fact had Gerrard not mis kicked his clearence, how many would have been questioning tactics/formation ?

s@int
LFC Elite Member




Group: LFC Premium Members
Posts: 8432
Joined: April 2006  Posted: Dec. 30 2007,09:51 




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote (MilitiaRusher @ Dec. 30 2007,05:40)
As of recent performances, my first team lineup including substitute bench (which would also be our lineup against Man City, provided we decide to risk Agger) would be:

                     Reina

Finnan  Carragher  Agger  Arbeloa

Benayoun  Alonso  Mascherano  Kewell
                 Gerrard
                 Torres

SUBS: Itandje, Riise, Lucas, Voronin, Babel.

Primary reason for employing a 4-4-1-1 is due to the ineffectiveness of our strikers apart from Torres. Gerrard playing in this role can roam freely without needing to worry about defending. Benayou and Kewell should at the moment be our first choice wingers.

I hate that formation , but if I was forced to play it I would maybe try Kewell behind Torres instead.

                   Reina

Finnan  Carragher  Agger  Arbeloa

Gerrard Alonso  Mascherano  Benayoun

                      Kewell
                         Torres

I always feel that we allow our striker to become too isolated when Gerrard plays behind a front striker. Its probably because I prefer 2 forwards supporting, making runs and creating space for each other.

If we played a more patient style of football with the pretty triangles and buildup of say Arsenal , I think the lone striker can work very well, but the way we play, it just doesn't suit our game.
I do think that Kewell has the intelligent game to combine well with Torres and create chances for him, the down side being that we have finally got a left winger again only to lose him, by playing him as support striker.


As you can see its not just hindsight mate.

[Sabre]

You know, you'd get the impression reading this thread that Man U, Arsenal or Chelsea had never, ever played 4-3-3/4-5-1 before.  It's used plenty by the very top teams in the league, folks, and it's not a negative formation just because it only uses one striker.  Hell, it wasn't negative when we stuck four past Arsenal last season, with Crouch up top by himself!

Let's break it down a little.  We went to Man City on Sunday and played 4-4-2 against a team that stuck 10 and at times 11 men behind the ball.  We barely got a whiff of goal all game and came away with only a point.  So, fast forward to last night and Wigan comes to town under Steve Bruce--the same Steve Bruce who knows a thing or two about parking the bus at Anfield and keeping a clean sheet.  Do we just approach the game the same way we did Sunday or do we shake it up? 

Let's look at the personnel.  Scharner and Bramble are big, strong lads who are quite good in the air, whereas their fullbacks consist of a mediocre player past his prime and a converted mediocre midfielder past his prime.  Why not play two out and out wide men in support of Torres?  Ideally, Kewell and Pennant would allow us to stretch the play, pull the fullbacks out to the touchlines and create space for Torres to operate in and for Gerrard to bomb into from a deeper position.  Alonso sits a little deeper and is responsible for switching play and keeping the fullbacks pinned back.  Mascherano mops up, whilst Aurelio and Finnan provide attacking support down the flanks on the overlap to maintain width when the wingers cut in field.  Tactically, it makes a lot of sense and it wasn't working half-bad either.

It wasn't the system that let us down last night--it was poor finishing (again) and a costly defensive mistake late on.

Well I don't care I'm slagged off for this, it's my opinion.

The result against Wigan was not good enough, but you can't blame the formation. It's not negative. Didn't we count several chances in the first half plus a couple of doubtful offsides?

The team had a couple of disadjustments in defence, but that was due to Arbeloa's lack of compenetration with Carra, you could see that in a couple of balls which they both tried to clear (mistake) and the other disadjustment came in their goal. It was after all a set pieces situation.

The team under this "negative" tactic controlled the midfield, you could see that Gerrard didn't actually play as a second striker because he went deep (own half even) to start some plays when the other midfielders where too watched. The team had mobility, and our goal came in an excellent movement of surprise of Finnan. You could see Mascherano being covered by Alonso, and also Alonso in more advanced positions.

You also played 2 attacking and pure wingers. For me, yesterday's formation was the best to beat Steve Bruce's "Maturana's killing of spaces". They way wigan played, starting the press in their own half, and an advanced space to get small the pitch was brought to europe by the colombian Valderrama.

So yesterday we made mistakes, Kewell had a hard afternoon with Melchot, Pennant paid the lack of games, and we lacked accuracy scoring, but in my book, we played the right tactic, which was not negative but clever. So you're not alone on this.

Consider yourself slagged off. It was LIVERPOOL against Wigan, we could have played 6-2-1-1 and we would still have created chances. The fact is that we only converted one chance, maybe if we had created more chances and had more people on the pitch who haven't forgotten how to score we would have got 3 or 4.

Wigan played 10 men behind the ball, I think its safe to say you would expect us to have plenty possession . As far as I am aware no one has said its a negative tactic playing 4-5-1, just a bad one for Liverpool. It doesn't suit the way we play, our striker ALWAYS GETS ISOLATED. Rafa got it wrong!

As stu would say get a fkn clue, end of.

Right get out of Wigan and watch some football, it has evolved in the last 20 years. End of 

(Take lightly the above please it doesn't mean to start a flame war): Not saying Rafa doesn't make mistakes. Not saying it's a good result, just saying that the formation is not to blame and that formation doesn't mean less attack. You didn't take the 4-1 against Arsenal as a proof that it's not negative (ARSENAL) this game against Wigan doesn't mean anyhthing against that formation

[Redman in wales]

Of the 10 starting outfield players who started the other night, I think I'm right in saying that only two have scored more than 1 goal this year and we all know who those two are. Infact all but three hadn't scored at all.

That's the big problem.

   a scary, scary fact

its almost like 'nulify torres and gerrard = liverpool have no goal threat'

[account deleted by request]

You know, you'd get the impression reading this thread that Man U, Arsenal or Chelsea had never, ever played 4-3-3/4-5-1 before.  It's used plenty by the very top teams in the league, folks, and it's not a negative formation just because it only uses one striker.  Hell, it wasn't negative when we stuck four past Arsenal last season, with Crouch up top by himself!

Let's break it down a little.  We went to Man City on Sunday and played 4-4-2 against a team that stuck 10 and at times 11 men behind the ball.  We barely got a whiff of goal all game and came away with only a point.  So, fast forward to last night and Wigan comes to town under Steve Bruce--the same Steve Bruce who knows a thing or two about parking the bus at Anfield and keeping a clean sheet.  Do we just approach the game the same way we did Sunday or do we shake it up? 

Let's look at the personnel.  Scharner and Bramble are big, strong lads who are quite good in the air, whereas their fullbacks consist of a mediocre player past his prime and a converted mediocre midfielder past his prime.  Why not play two out and out wide men in support of Torres?  Ideally, Kewell and Pennant would allow us to stretch the play, pull the fullbacks out to the touchlines and create space for Torres to operate in and for Gerrard to bomb into from a deeper position.  Alonso sits a little deeper and is responsible for switching play and keeping the fullbacks pinned back.  Mascherano mops up, whilst Aurelio and Finnan provide attacking support down the flanks on the overlap to maintain width when the wingers cut in field.  Tactically, it makes a lot of sense and it wasn't working half-bad either.

It wasn't the system that let us down last night--it was poor finishing (again) and a costly defensive mistake late on.

Well I don't care I'm slagged off for this, it's my opinion.

The result against Wigan was not good enough, but you can't blame the formation. It's not negative. Didn't we count several chances in the first half plus a couple of doubtful offsides?

The team had a couple of disadjustments in defence, but that was due to Arbeloa's lack of compenetration with Carra, you could see that in a couple of balls which they both tried to clear (mistake) and the other disadjustment came in their goal. It was after all a set pieces situation.

The team under this "negative" tactic controlled the midfield, you could see that Gerrard didn't actually play as a second striker because he went deep (own half even) to start some plays when the other midfielders where too watched. The team had mobility, and our goal came in an excellent movement of surprise of Finnan. You could see Mascherano being covered by Alonso, and also Alonso in more advanced positions.

You also played 2 attacking and pure wingers. For me, yesterday's formation was the best to beat Steve Bruce's "Maturana's killing of spaces". They way wigan played, starting the press in their own half, and an advanced space to get small the pitch was brought to europe by the colombian Valderrama.

So yesterday we made mistakes, Kewell had a hard afternoon with Melchot, Pennant paid the lack of games, and we lacked accuracy scoring, but in my book, we played the right tactic, which was not negative but clever. So you're not alone on this.

Consider yourself slagged off. It was LIVERPOOL against Wigan, we could have played 6-2-1-1 and we would still have created chances. The fact is that we only converted one chance, maybe if we had created more chances and had more people on the pitch who haven't forgotten how to score we would have got 3 or 4.

Wigan played 10 men behind the ball, I think its safe to say you would expect us to have plenty possession . As far as I am aware no one has said its a negative tactic playing 4-5-1, just a bad one for Liverpool. It doesn't suit the way we play, our striker ALWAYS GETS ISOLATED. Rafa got it wrong!

As stu would say get a fkn clue, end of.

Right get out of Wigan and watch some football, it has evolved in the last 20 years. End of 

If I lived in Wigan I would have got out by now mate.I DON'T LIVE IN WIGAN never have never will.  I didn't realise that football had evolved so much that when a manager fks up its really a masterstroke of tactical planning. Come back when we have won something playing 4-5-1 and I will stick with my league titles , CL WINS and League and FAcup victories ALL WON PLAYING 4 -4-2 

[Leonmc0708]

EVERYONE is a fuc.king pundit AFTER the event.

Had we slotted anotehr chance or maybe Bramble not scored, in fact had Gerrard not mis kicked his clearence, how many would have been questioning tactics/formation ?

s@int
LFC Elite Member




Group: LFC Premium Members
Posts: 8432
Joined: April 2006  Posted: Dec. 30 2007,09:51 




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote (MilitiaRusher @ Dec. 30 2007,05:40)
As of recent performances, my first team lineup including substitute bench (which would also be our lineup against Man City, provided we decide to risk Agger) would be:

                     Reina

Finnan  Carragher  Agger  Arbeloa

Benayoun  Alonso  Mascherano  Kewell
                 Gerrard
                 Torres

SUBS: Itandje, Riise, Lucas, Voronin, Babel.

Primary reason for employing a 4-4-1-1 is due to the ineffectiveness of our strikers apart from Torres. Gerrard playing in this role can roam freely without needing to worry about defending. Benayou and Kewell should at the moment be our first choice wingers.

I hate that formation , but if I was forced to play it I would maybe try Kewell behind Torres instead.

                   Reina

Finnan  Carragher  Agger  Arbeloa

Gerrard Alonso  Mascherano  Benayoun

                      Kewell
                         Torres

I always feel that we allow our striker to become too isolated when Gerrard plays behind a front striker. Its probably because I prefer 2 forwards supporting, making runs and creating space for each other.

If we played a more patient style of football with the pretty triangles and buildup of say Arsenal , I think the lone striker can work very well, but the way we play, it just doesn't suit our game.
I do think that Kewell has the intelligent game to combine well with Torres and create chances for him, the down side being that we have finally got a left winger again only to lose him, by playing him as support striker.


As you can see its not just hindsight mate.

Just looked through this thread, and you where the only one who mentioned the formation at the time, but ut was PEnnants inclusion you bemoaned.

That formation you talked about and quoted above was from after City was it not ?

[Sabre]

Look I'll grant something.

Rotating the formation after a lot of games in a crucial game, might be perfectly an error. An error of Rafa.

He should have tested this before and more often, and that sudden change didn't help. I'm not defending Rafa, I'm defending the system in this post.

Chelsea at our home played 2 clear strikers? And arsenal? Note that the problem is not the initial formation, the thing that matters is how they deploy with and without the ball. You can play 2 strikers and be as defensive as fúck. But FFS, Saint, bar the back four and Mascha and Alonso, all of our players were attacking players. Playing one striker removes the companion for Torres (companion that haven't helped much so far) but it allows you to play with an attacking mid and two very attacking wingers. What you lose somewhere, you gain somewhere else. That game should have been won with whatever formation, because as you say it's Wigan, but I'm just saying the main mistake is not the formation. Isolated? may be on paper, but Torres did have his service yesterday and I've seen games in which he participated less than yesterday

[account deleted by request]

Just looked through this thread, and you where the only one who mentioned the formation at the time, but ut was PEnnants inclusion you bemoaned.

That formation you talked about and quoted above was from after City was it not ?

No mate it was before City, was in the preferred lineup thread LINK

[Judge]

Im not a slack jawwed Irish Yokal

just not slack jawwed eh ? 

[Leonmc0708]

Just looked through this thread, and you where the only one who mentioned the formation at the time, but ut was PEnnants inclusion you bemoaned.

That formation you talked about and quoted above was from after City was it not ?

No mate it was before City, was in the preferred lineup thread LINK

Fu.ck me, so you can predict our line ups two games in advance ?

[Bad Bob]

You know, you'd get the impression reading this thread that Man U, Arsenal or Chelsea had never, ever played 4-3-3/4-5-1 before.  It's used plenty by the very top teams in the league, folks, and it's not a negative formation just because it only uses one striker.  Hell, it wasn't negative when we stuck four past Arsenal last season, with Crouch up top by himself!

Let's break it down a little.  We went to Man City on Sunday and played 4-4-2 against a team that stuck 10 and at times 11 men behind the ball.  We barely got a whiff of goal all game and came away with only a point.  So, fast forward to last night and Wigan comes to town under Steve Bruce--the same Steve Bruce who knows a thing or two about parking the bus at Anfield and keeping a clean sheet.  Do we just approach the game the same way we did Sunday or do we shake it up? 

Let's look at the personnel.  Scharner and Bramble are big, strong lads who are quite good in the air, whereas their fullbacks consist of a mediocre player past his prime and a converted mediocre midfielder past his prime.  Why not play two out and out wide men in support of Torres?  Ideally, Kewell and Pennant would allow us to stretch the play, pull the fullbacks out to the touchlines and create space for Torres to operate in and for Gerrard to bomb into from a deeper position.  Alonso sits a little deeper and is responsible for switching play and keeping the fullbacks pinned back.  Mascherano mops up, whilst Aurelio and Finnan provide attacking support down the flanks on the overlap to maintain width when the wingers cut in field.  Tactically, it makes a lot of sense and it wasn't working half-bad either.

It wasn't the system that let us down last night--it was poor finishing (again) and a costly defensive mistake late on.

Well I don't care I'm slagged off for this, it's my opinion.

The result against Wigan was not good enough, but you can't blame the formation. It's not negative. Didn't we count several chances in the first half plus a couple of doubtful offsides?

The team had a couple of disadjustments in defence, but that was due to Arbeloa's lack of compenetration with Carra, you could see that in a couple of balls which they both tried to clear (mistake) and the other disadjustment came in their goal. It was after all a set pieces situation.

The team under this "negative" tactic controlled the midfield, you could see that Gerrard didn't actually play as a second striker because he went deep (own half even) to start some plays when the other midfielders where too watched. The team had mobility, and our goal came in an excellent movement of surprise of Finnan. You could see Mascherano being covered by Alonso, and also Alonso in more advanced positions.

You also played 2 attacking and pure wingers. For me, yesterday's formation was the best to beat Steve Bruce's "Maturana's killing of spaces". They way wigan played, starting the press in their own half, and an advanced space to get small the pitch was brought to europe by the colombian Valderrama.

So yesterday we made mistakes, Kewell had a hard afternoon with Melchot, Pennant paid the lack of games, and we lacked accuracy scoring, but in my book, we played the right tactic, which was not negative but clever. So you're not alone on this.

Consider yourself slagged off. It was LIVERPOOL against Wigan, we could have played 6-2-1-1 and we would still have created chances. The fact is that we only converted one chance, maybe if we had created more chances and had more people on the pitch who haven't forgotten how to score we would have got 3 or 4.

Wigan played 10 men behind the ball, I think its safe to say you would expect us to have plenty possession . As far as I am aware no one has said its a negative tactic playing 4-5-1, just a bad one for Liverpool. It doesn't suit the way we play, our striker ALWAYS GETS ISOLATED. Rafa got it wrong!

As stu would say get a fkn clue, end of.

Right get out of Wigan and watch some football, it has evolved in the last 20 years. End of 

If I lived in Wigan I would have got out by now mate.I DON'T LIVE IN WIGAN never have never will.  I didn't realise that football had evolved so much that when a manager fks up its really a masterstroke of tactical planning. Come back when we have won something playing 4-5-1 and I will stick with my league titles , CL WINS and League and FAcup victories ALL WON PLAYING 4 -4-2 

Would that CL win be the one where Baros played as a lone striker, mate?

[account deleted by request]

You know, you'd get the impression reading this thread that Man U, Arsenal or Chelsea had never, ever played 4-3-3/4-5-1 before.  It's used plenty by the very top teams in the league, folks, and it's not a negative formation just because it only uses one striker.  Hell, it wasn't negative when we stuck four past Arsenal last season, with Crouch up top by himself!

Let's break it down a little.  We went to Man City on Sunday and played 4-4-2 against a team that stuck 10 and at times 11 men behind the ball.  We barely got a whiff of goal all game and came away with only a point.  So, fast forward to last night and Wigan comes to town under Steve Bruce--the same Steve Bruce who knows a thing or two about parking the bus at Anfield and keeping a clean sheet.  Do we just approach the game the same way we did Sunday or do we shake it up? 

Let's look at the personnel.  Scharner and Bramble are big, strong lads who are quite good in the air, whereas their fullbacks consist of a mediocre player past his prime and a converted mediocre midfielder past his prime.  Why not play two out and out wide men in support of Torres?  Ideally, Kewell and Pennant would allow us to stretch the play, pull the fullbacks out to the touchlines and create space for Torres to operate in and for Gerrard to bomb into from a deeper position.  Alonso sits a little deeper and is responsible for switching play and keeping the fullbacks pinned back.  Mascherano mops up, whilst Aurelio and Finnan provide attacking support down the flanks on the overlap to maintain width when the wingers cut in field.  Tactically, it makes a lot of sense and it wasn't working half-bad either.

It wasn't the system that let us down last night--it was poor finishing (again) and a costly defensive mistake late on.

Well I don't care I'm slagged off for this, it's my opinion.

The result against Wigan was not good enough, but you can't blame the formation. It's not negative. Didn't we count several chances in the first half plus a couple of doubtful offsides?

The team had a couple of disadjustments in defence, but that was due to Arbeloa's lack of compenetration with Carra, you could see that in a couple of balls which they both tried to clear (mistake) and the other disadjustment came in their goal. It was after all a set pieces situation.

The team under this "negative" tactic controlled the midfield, you could see that Gerrard didn't actually play as a second striker because he went deep (own half even) to start some plays when the other midfielders where too watched. The team had mobility, and our goal came in an excellent movement of surprise of Finnan. You could see Mascherano being covered by Alonso, and also Alonso in more advanced positions.

You also played 2 attacking and pure wingers. For me, yesterday's formation was the best to beat Steve Bruce's "Maturana's killing of spaces". They way wigan played, starting the press in their own half, and an advanced space to get small the pitch was brought to europe by the colombian Valderrama.

So yesterday we made mistakes, Kewell had a hard afternoon with Melchot, Pennant paid the lack of games, and we lacked accuracy scoring, but in my book, we played the right tactic, which was not negative but clever. So you're not alone on this.

Consider yourself slagged off. It was LIVERPOOL against Wigan, we could have played 6-2-1-1 and we would still have created chances. The fact is that we only converted one chance, maybe if we had created more chances and had more people on the pitch who haven't forgotten how to score we would have got 3 or 4.

Wigan played 10 men behind the ball, I think its safe to say you would expect us to have plenty possession . As far as I am aware no one has said its a negative tactic playing 4-5-1, just a bad one for Liverpool. It doesn't suit the way we play, our striker ALWAYS GETS ISOLATED. Rafa got it wrong!

As stu would say get a fkn clue, end of.

Right get out of Wigan and watch some football, it has evolved in the last 20 years. End of 

If I lived in Wigan I would have got out by now mate.I DON'T LIVE IN WIGAN never have never will.  I didn't realise that football had evolved so much that when a manager fks up its really a masterstroke of tactical planning. Come back when we have won something playing 4-5-1 and I will stick with my league titles , CL WINS and League and FAcup victories ALL WON PLAYING 4 -4-2 

Would that CL win be the one where Baros played as a lone striker, mate?

No that would be the one where he started with Baros and Kewell, and then moved Garcia inside mate 

[burjennio]

Judge
LFC Elite Member




Group: LFC Premium Members
Posts: 13287
Joined: Jan. 2005  Posted: Jan. 04 2008,14:58 




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote (burjennio @ Jan. 03 2008,16:54)
Im not a slack jawwed Irish Yokal

just not slack jawwed eh ?   

not slack jawwed but I do have 6 toes

[Bad Bob]

You know, you'd get the impression reading this thread that Man U, Arsenal or Chelsea had never, ever played 4-3-3/4-5-1 before.  It's used plenty by the very top teams in the league, folks, and it's not a negative formation just because it only uses one striker.  Hell, it wasn't negative when we stuck four past Arsenal last season, with Crouch up top by himself!

Let's break it down a little.  We went to Man City on Sunday and played 4-4-2 against a team that stuck 10 and at times 11 men behind the ball.  We barely got a whiff of goal all game and came away with only a point.  So, fast forward to last night and Wigan comes to town under Steve Bruce--the same Steve Bruce who knows a thing or two about parking the bus at Anfield and keeping a clean sheet.  Do we just approach the game the same way we did Sunday or do we shake it up? 

Let's look at the personnel.  Scharner and Bramble are big, strong lads who are quite good in the air, whereas their fullbacks consist of a mediocre player past his prime and a converted mediocre midfielder past his prime.  Why not play two out and out wide men in support of Torres?  Ideally, Kewell and Pennant would allow us to stretch the play, pull the fullbacks out to the touchlines and create space for Torres to operate in and for Gerrard to bomb into from a deeper position.  Alonso sits a little deeper and is responsible for switching play and keeping the fullbacks pinned back.  Mascherano mops up, whilst Aurelio and Finnan provide attacking support down the flanks on the overlap to maintain width when the wingers cut in field.  Tactically, it makes a lot of sense and it wasn't working half-bad either.

It wasn't the system that let us down last night--it was poor finishing (again) and a costly defensive mistake late on.

Well I don't care I'm slagged off for this, it's my opinion.

The result against Wigan was not good enough, but you can't blame the formation. It's not negative. Didn't we count several chances in the first half plus a couple of doubtful offsides?

The team had a couple of disadjustments in defence, but that was due to Arbeloa's lack of compenetration with Carra, you could see that in a couple of balls which they both tried to clear (mistake) and the other disadjustment came in their goal. It was after all a set pieces situation.

The team under this "negative" tactic controlled the midfield, you could see that Gerrard didn't actually play as a second striker because he went deep (own half even) to start some plays when the other midfielders where too watched. The team had mobility, and our goal came in an excellent movement of surprise of Finnan. You could see Mascherano being covered by Alonso, and also Alonso in more advanced positions.

You also played 2 attacking and pure wingers. For me, yesterday's formation was the best to beat Steve Bruce's "Maturana's killing of spaces". They way wigan played, starting the press in their own half, and an advanced space to get small the pitch was brought to europe by the colombian Valderrama.

So yesterday we made mistakes, Kewell had a hard afternoon with Melchot, Pennant paid the lack of games, and we lacked accuracy scoring, but in my book, we played the right tactic, which was not negative but clever. So you're not alone on this.

Consider yourself slagged off. It was LIVERPOOL against Wigan, we could have played 6-2-1-1 and we would still have created chances. The fact is that we only converted one chance, maybe if we had created more chances and had more people on the pitch who haven't forgotten how to score we would have got 3 or 4.

Wigan played 10 men behind the ball, I think its safe to say you would expect us to have plenty possession . As far as I am aware no one has said its a negative tactic playing 4-5-1, just a bad one for Liverpool. It doesn't suit the way we play, our striker ALWAYS GETS ISOLATED. Rafa got it wrong!

As stu would say get a fkn clue, end of.

Right get out of Wigan and watch some football, it has evolved in the last 20 years. End of 

If I lived in Wigan I would have got out by now mate.I DON'T LIVE IN WIGAN never have never will.  I didn't realise that football had evolved so much that when a manager fks up its really a masterstroke of tactical planning. Come back when we have won something playing 4-5-1 and I will stick with my league titles , CL WINS and League and FAcup victories ALL WON PLAYING 4 -4-2 

Would that CL win be the one where Baros played as a lone striker, mate?

No that would be the one where he started with Baros and Kewell, and then moved Garcia inside mate 

I say midfielder, you say "creative second striker" mate?

Call it what you want but it was not 4-4-2 in Istanbul.

[account deleted by request]

(Take lightly the above please it doesn't mean to start a flame war): Not saying Rafa doesn't make mistakes. Not saying it's a good result, just saying that the formation is not to blame and that formation doesn't mean less attack. You didn't take the 4-1 against Arsenal as a proof that it's not negative (ARSENAL) this game against Wigan doesn't mean anyhthing against that formation 

I have never said its a defensive formation Sabre, you can play 6-3-1 and still play attacking football. Its just it doesn't and has never suite our style of play. We dont play pretty triangles football, like Arsenal. We play more like the mancs, always looking to play the ball forward quickly.Even when we are trying to kill time and play possession football we tend to just pass it square across the back rather than in elaborate triangles.

As I said to Bob we changed things just after half time against Arsenal and went back to 4-4-2 mainly because the team was struggling to come to terms with playing 4-5-1 (even though we were 2-0 up.)
We won 4-1 but played much better once we revrted to 4-4-2. We probably started with 4-5-1 against Arsenal because we didn't want to be over run in midfield. I don't think there was any danger of that against Wigan!

I didn't take an offence (maybe if I was a pie-eater I would have   ) I took it as a joke same as my stu comments.

I come from Leigh, I have lived in Leigh all my life Sabre, not Wigan, we hate Wigganers with a passion mate