Liverpool FC Forum

Bad Bob wrote:

s@int wrote:

Bad Bob wrote:

s@int wrote:

Sabre wrote:

s@int wrote:

Sabre wrote:

Bad Bob wrote: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.

Fair enough S@int, but change your profile of poster, if you read it you can read location: wigan

Bad Bob wrote:

s@int wrote:

Bad Bob wrote:I say midfielder, you say "creative second striker" mate?

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

If it had been Gerrard playing behind Baros I would agree, but it was Kewell and then Garcia (I can't remember either of them being renound for their tackling or tracking back mate.

             Dudek

Finnan   Carra   Hyypia   Traore

Garcia  Gerrard  Alonso  Riise

              Kewell
                  Baros

Once Kewell went off :-
          Dudek

Finnan   Carra   Hyypia   Traore

Smicer Gerrard    Alonso     Riise

                Garcia
                        Baros

Until halftime, when we went to 3 at the back.  So, one half of nominal 4-4-2 whilst conceding three goals...hardly a strong case for the link you're trying to draw between 4-4-2 and one of our biggest successes in recent decades!