Liverpool FC Forum

The main point is, that you can blame the system all you like, you can have the best system in the world, but if the players aren't good enough, you'll win didly squat 

Which is exactly what we'll see if we persist with 3-5-2. 

Your full backs act as support to the midfield allowing you to have five across the midfield... hence the reason its a 3-5-2... Its got nothing to do with drawing someone from your own side into a wide area. If anything thats where you need them as an outlet and to hold the ball up. 

Your wing backs also become the focal point down the flanks, neither Cissoko, Enrique and Johnson at a stretch are good at this (as we saw against Newcastle).

You said previously it's up to Moses (or someone in his position) to help the wing backs in wider areas, you've instantly lost your man in the middle of the park doing this.

Two of your centre halfs are supposed to double up as full backs when you have the ball meaning you have only one centre half as apose to two like in the 4-3-3 which Rodgers preferes. 

Correct. Can you see either Skertel or Sahko doubling up as fullbacks? Toure at a stretch. Also, when this happens one of your central midfielders (Gerrard probably) drops deeper and deputises as a cb alongside the lone cb.

Three in midfield is extremely overated aswell, and is a bit of a fad that has gone round over the last few years. This can be out done by playing down the flanks, drawing two of the midfielders out wide and leaving teams extremely vunerable to a switch of play or a winger who is able to get to the byline. In a few years time the trend will change again to another formation. 

True. But the wide forwards can drop, either making it a 4-5-1 or 4-4-2 to protect their flanks when they don't have the ball. And I think with the personal we have, we are better off with either 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3, 4-5-1 or 4-4-2, basically any formation that begins with a 4. 

Kenny Kan » Tue Oct 22, 2013 4:23 am wrote:

The main point is, that you can blame the system all you like, you can have the best system in the world, but if the players aren't good enough, you'll win didly squat 

Which is exactly what we'll see if we persist with 3-5-2. 

Your full backs act as support to the midfield allowing you to have five across the midfield... hence the reason its a 3-5-2... Its got nothing to do with drawing someone from your own side into a wide area. If anything thats where you need them as an outlet and to hold the ball up. 

Your wing backs also become the focal point down the flanks, neither Cissoko, Enrique and Johnson at a stretch are good at this (as we saw against Newcastle).

You said previously it's up to Moses (or someone in his position) to help the wing backs in wider areas, you've instantly lost your man in the middle of the park doing this.

Two of your centre halfs are supposed to double up as full backs when you have the ball meaning you have only one centre half as apose to two like in the 4-3-3 which Rodgers preferes. 

Correct. Can you see either Skertel or Sahko doubling up as fullbacks? Toure at a stretch. Also, when this happens one of your central midfielders (Gerrard probably) drops deeper and deputises as a cb alongside the lone cb.

Three in midfield is extremely overated aswell, and is a bit of a fad that has gone round over the last few years. This can be out done by playing down the flanks, drawing two of the midfielders out wide and leaving teams extremely vunerable to a switch of play or a winger who is able to get to the byline. In a few years time the trend will change again to another formation. 

True. But the wide forwards can drop, either making it a 4-5-1 or 4-4-2 to protect their flanks when they don't have the ball. And I think with the personal we have, we are better off with either 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3, 4-5-1 or 4-4-2, basically any formation that begins with a 4. 

So had your mate in the media who wrote that article decided to rip into the 4-3-3 after the Swansea game and drew a load of pretty pictures about completely incorrect patterns of play and completely incorrect reasons for failure would we still be having this conversation.

You're clearly talking about a system you don't understand the fundamentals of or how to make work. As I said earlier, no starting formation is rigid. They all move into anything you want them to be, a 3-5-2 used to its full effect can be just as flexible as any variation on the 4-3-3. The difference with the the 3-5-2 is the "2". They're centre forwards... they don't start in wide positions.

Starting your best player out wide to fit someone else in who isn't as good is madness. But then... starting your top scorer out wide to fit your best player in isn't much more sane.

It appears I understand this system more than you do. Try and counter the argument next time - if you can. 

So which team is using 3 at the back currently with sustained success over the last few years - even go back a decade

National teams use 4 at the back - Brazil , Spain , Italy , France etc

All the top teams are using 4 at the back - Bayern , Barce , Madrid etc

I think Napoli at some point used wingbacks but im struggling to remember the last team to be successful with 3 at the back plus wingbacks ?

I remember in 1990 England and Germany had a sweeper playing who boosted numbers in the middle but if 3-5-2 is such a good formation - why don't teams find more success with it ?

It appears the most successful formations currently are a combination of 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 or 4-5-1 plus the odd team with 4-4-2 but not always with wingers

Benny The Noon » Tue Oct 22, 2013 10:08 pm wrote:So which team is using 3 at the back currently with sustained success over the last few years - even go back a decade

National teams use 4 at the back - Brazil , Spain , Italy , France etc

All the top teams are using 4 at the back - Bayern , Barce , Madrid etc

I think Napoli at some point used wingbacks but im struggling to remember the last team to be successful with 3 at the back plus wingbacks ?

I remember in 1990 England and Germany had a sweeper playing who boosted numbers in the middle but if 3-5-2 is such a good formation - why don't teams find more success with it ?

It appears the most successful formations currently are a combination of 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 or 4-5-1 plus the odd team with 4-4-2 but not always with wingers

Juventus and the Italian national team.

Italy won the World Cup playing 4 at the back - the last match against Armenia ( I think ) they played for at the back

Juve against Fiorentina played 4 at the back with a midfielder filling in at right back ( it was on BT Sport )

Do they play it in CL ? Is that why the Italian clubs have done poorly in recent years ?

Benny The Noon » Tue Oct 22, 2013 11:32 pm wrote:Italy won the World Cup playing 4 at the back - the last match against Armenia ( I think ) they played for at the back

Juve against Fiorentina played 4 at the back with a midfielder filling in at right back ( it was on BT Sport )

Do they play it in CL ? Is that why the Italian clubs have done poorly in recent years ?

Italy won the world cup in 2006 mate, I'm talking about more recent times. Like the Euro 2012, when they reached the finals, they played with 3 at the back (based on the philosophy of Napoli and Juventus). During the Confederation Cup they used to switch the formation between 4-5-1 and 3-5-2 depending on the game and they did the same during the qualifications for the 2014 World Cup.

As for Juventus, since Antonio Conte arrived in 2011, they have been using the 3-5-2 formation (I explained the way they play in my previous post). It has brought them much success. Juve have won the title in Seria A twice in a row since then (without losing a single game the first time they won it). Napoli was also using this formation prior to the arrival of Benitez.

So it is a bit silly to suggest that this kind of approach won't bring you success. If used right, it might be the best formation there is, especially for the way that we want to play. If we want to continue using this formation and base our philosophy on it, we should try to replicate (to an extent) the Juventus model. But I think that Rodgers sees this formation only as a short term solution.

whatever the formation we need to bring in at least one (hopefully two) CM`s in january. preferrably someone with a bit of presence about them.
we need the finished article too, not someone who will be a top player in 3 years time.

ycsatbjywtbiastkamb » Wed Oct 23, 2013 4:59 pm wrote:whatever the formation we need to bring in at least one (hopefully two) CM`s in january. preferrably someone with a bit of presence about them.
we need the finished article too, not someone who will be a top player in 3 years time.

What are you on about? We clearly have a great midfield with Lucas and Henderson...

We also have Allen in back up.

Lucas and Henderson runs lots and do stuff and stuff like that.

They're amazing. They play for Liverpool for gods sake, how can they be *****?

That happy clappy enough for you?

Wouldn't surprise me if Will Hughes arrived

I think in the summer Rodgers never wanted a strong CM as his tactic was 4-3-3 free flowing football etc

now with the 3-5-2 he is trying to adopt i wouldnt be surprised to see a bit of steel come in just a shame Waynama was snapped up although Diame should be available attheright price.

I agree benjamin i reckon Hughes will come in also think the Wisdom loan will have some bearings on it

hughes looks very good but would he come into the side and improve us straight away? i wouldnt mind signing him but we need someone for the here and now as well.
if we dont get 4th suarez will be gone and in that case we`ll need a hell of a lot more than will hughes

ycsatbjywtbiastkamb » Thu Oct 24, 2013 11:01 am wrote:hughes looks very good but would he come into the side and improve us straight away? i wouldnt mind signing him but we need someone for the here and now as well.
if we dont get 4th suarez will be gone and in that case we`ll need a hell of a lot more than will hughes

The point is if he's "one for the future" then for me he's not worth bothering with full stop as its not very often these players ever turn out to be any good. (see your favourate player Lucas) To be honest, I've heard nothing but positive stuff but I've never seen the lad play.

I do agree that whoever is brought in needs to add something straight away. If Hughes has the ability to easily displace Henderson and Lucas then snap him up, if not, we need to be looking elsewhere.

Signing the likes of Alberto and Aspas has got to stop, especially when we're letting kids go out on loan who are better players.

Seriously, when was the last time when a "one for the future" turned out?

damjan193 » Thu Oct 24, 2013 10:11 pm wrote:Seriously, when was the last time when a "one for the future" turned out?

I don't know whether that was meant as sarcasm... but thats exactly my point.

The only time I've ever heard that and seen a player become a success after being labelled that was when Wenger signed Vieira... and to be quite honest, the first time I seen that lad play he absolutely oozed class and looked an absolute world beater. Sure enough, thats what he turned out to be. If Hughes is half as good as Vieira I'll go and pick the lad up from Derby myself and even stop at the services on the way back and buy the lad a KFC.

Its another one of these cliche sayings though, that always gets found out. That would be one of the main worries. A bit like the, he'll be class in six months comments.... or the... wait till he's experienced comments. They all amount to the same things, which are making excuses for players who aren't upto it.

The main question I'd have of Will Hughes, is if he is "that good" IE top bracket, like Gerrard or the likes... then why hasn't he been snapped up earlier, their was clear interest from alot of clubs in the premier league so it would suggest he's certainly able to play at this level. My suspicions are (bearing in mind I haven't seen the lad play so I'm not stating this as fact ) he's probably a decent premier league standard player, but not the type who'll improve a top 10 side and certainly not a top 4 side.