Liverpool FC Forum

[Thommo's perm]

Rafa was obsessed with his formation
If only hed have sussed that you need suitable players to play in a chosen formation

[Big Niall]

Germany were very attacking and a joy to watch. It is the attitude more than the formation.

[Thommo's perm]

Germany were very attacking and a joy to watch. It is the attitude more than the formation.

And playing to their strengths and not out of position...?

[red_guy]

Germany were very attacking and a joy to watch. It is the attitude more than the formation.

  agree.

[mighty mo]

the system wasnt to good for us last season because we didnt have top notch wide players to play at the side of the lone striker and make it succesful.... we need to step up from the kuyt babel riera's of the world

[devaney]

Just to mention Germany played the same system..... they didn't look dull in the slightest. I suppose it comes down to the qualities of the players involved and how you approach it.

There's nothing wrong with any "system" in football, it all depends on the players who play in it. two defensive midfielders isn't the way I interpreted Germany playing FWIW, but it doesn't matter.

Whichever way you looked at it and whichever system anybody thought we were playing last season, I can't get away from my absolute certainty that the Lucas/Masherano axis was a disaster. Now if you played with defensive midfielders and it was Gerrard/Alonso, or Alonso/Sissoko then obviously it looks ery different, as would Gerrard/Masherano.   

We lost 19 matches last season, and there must be a reason for it. You can't be unlucky 19 times, there was a reason why we were rubbish. My feeling is that it doesn't really matter as much how you set up, as to who you actually put in each slot. If  for instance we had played with 1 holder and pushed Lucas on, it would probably have been better (it could hardly have been any worse lets be honest).

One of the reasons has gone! two of them are still there!

[Emerald Red]

Rafa was obsessed with his formation
If only hed have sussed that you need suitable players to play in a chosen formation

Yeah, he should have asked you for tips.

[neil]

The league is completely different from the league.

now I'm afraid I'm going to have to take issue here. How so? surely its very similar?

[tubby]

Just to mention Germany played the same system..... they didn't look dull in the slightest. I suppose it comes down to the qualities of the players involved and how you approach it.

There's nothing wrong with any "system" in football, it all depends on the players who play in it. two defensive midfielders isn't the way I interpreted Germany playing FWIW, but it doesn't matter.

Whichever way you looked at it and whichever system anybody thought we were playing last season, I can't get away from my absolute certainty that the Lucas/Masherano axis was a disaster. Now if you played with defensive midfielders and it was Gerrard/Alonso, or Alonso/Sissoko then obviously it looks ery different, as would Gerrard/Masherano.   

We lost 19 matches last season, and there must be a reason for it. You can't be unlucky 19 times, there was a reason why we were rubbish. My feeling is that it doesn't really matter as much how you set up, as to who you actually put in each slot. If  for instance we had played with 1 holder and pushed Lucas on, it would probably have been better (it could hardly have been any worse lets be honest).

Well fwif Germany do play with 2 holding midfielders. Schweinsteiger is the more offensive of the and Khedira tends to stay back more.

It's all about having 1 more conservative player to break up play and 1 deep lying playmaker.

This was their formation for most of the game against Argentina.



Spain are another team who play with this sort of formation but for them you can even argue there are not really many teams they need to play 2 DM's against but hey they won so who cares.

Lucas and Masch don't work because 1) Mash is only really good at breaking up play and that's it and 2) Lucas is a fish out of water no matter where he plays. At the end of the day no matter how organised you are if the personel are not right for the job then cracks will start to show.

Also just to add in 2006 three of the four semi-finalists (Spain, Germany and the Netherlands) played in a 4-2-3-1.

[bigmick]

Well fwif Germany do play with 2 holding midfielders. Schweinsteiger is the more offensive of the and Khedira tends to stay back more.

Bav whatever diagrams you put up (and it's a good post I enjoyed it) the point of the thread was that most of the teams in the World Cup were playing a very similar system to ours, and that by definition then ours was right too.

Now you call Shweinsteiger a "holding midfielder" and he may well be in the sense he tracks back, but he's hardly playing the game in a similar way to either Lucas or Masherano in our axis is he? He was arguably one of the best players in the tournament, and I've no doubt if we had him playing in Lucas's spot we wouldn't have come seventh or anywhere near it.

Surely the point of any system though is to maximise the resources at your disposal, and I'll never believe that last season we managed to do that.

[tubby]

No we didn't maximise it at all but we played but it worked for us the year before. We had a good balance then and that balance was upset when Alonso left. Im not sure right now what the best system is for us. Hopefully Roy has an idea or 2.

[Thommo's perm]

Rafa was obsessed with his formation
If only hed have sussed that you need suitable players to play in a chosen formation

Yeah, he should have asked you for tips.

Weally?

Why would he ask me for tips when he wouldnt even listen to his staff?

[LFC2007]

The only system I have a particular dislike for is any one that has a backline of three. You're relying on the wing backs to track back with a vengeance or the holder to drop back in as auxiliary CB, and that isn't easy to coordinate. The defence is usually too easily split as they find it difficult to cover the full width of the pitch. One-offs you can get away with it, or I suppose if you're incredibly well-drilled but the game has become a lot faster than it used to be and I think that makes the system even more difficult to master. For me four at the back is a golden rule.

[Sabre]

There's nothing wrong with any "system" in football, it all depends on the players who play in it.

I'd agree the idea generally, but I wouldn't put that "any".

I would find a bit wonkers if someone recovered the sweeper position in the english football these days!

[Sabre]

The defence is usually too easily split as they find it difficult to cover the full width of the pitch.

I'm not a fan of systems with 3 in the back but I don't agree that (but I'm not sure if I understand you correctly so correct me if I'm wrong mate)

When a keeper receives and wants to play in short you'll see how the CB precisely split to the positions of LB or RB to give him an option of starting the play and try to make more uneffective the pressing of the opposition.

When you have the ball there's not really a problem of being able to cover all the width. The problem with that system IMHO when you have the ball is that if all your 3 CB are cráp with the ball or nervous, you can't expect to watch your team with any fluidity.

When you haven't the ball it's about packing all the lines together, and the full backs are expected to be  occupying that back line ASAP, so it's not a problem about width there neither.

I think we have used twice or thrice a system with 3 in the back, and it's a decent option (not my fav) provided you have the right men for that. With a man like Agger you can afford that, but with the wing men we have, we don't, IMHO.