ycsatbjywtbiastkamb » Sun Sep 27, 2015 12:40 pm wrote:damjan193 » Sat Sep 26, 2015 11:05 pm wrote:ycsatbjywtbiastkamb » Sat Sep 26, 2015 11:24 pm wrote:I don't quite understand your logic mate, as you say we seem to concede roughly the same amount of goals wether we play 3 or 4 at the back so surely the wise move is to go with the 3 and utilise the extra man further up the pitch.
There is no extra man further up yakka. Certainly not if we play both Clyne and Moreno, they'll play the same regardless of whether there's 2 or 3 at the back. If we played someone more attacking instead of Clyne maybe I'd understand but we're not and it makes no sense, the 3rd CB is useless. Seeing Can today was painful, and I'm not talking about his defending. His position had no use, his job was done by either Skrtel, Lucas or Clyne, he wasn't needed in the position he played at all!
With our current players, the 4-4-2 diamond is the way to go.
I disagree mate, one thing a back 3 does is allow us to get better ball players into our defence, I'm not a fan of Skrtel's and Clyne's ability on the ball and I think whenever we play a back 4 our attempts at building from the back always end up back at Mingolets feet.
For me the solution is obvious - drop Clyne and play someone more progressive. Imo he is the right footed version of Jose Enrique, he is quick, strong, good in one v one situations but not a natural footballer.
Yakka mate, I think you are giving Can way too much credit regarding his contribution to our attacking play all while selling Clyne's contribution to the side a bit short. Defensively, I think Clyne has been our star man so far; which isnt saying much I'll grant you that much. He should be doing more/better going forward but I wouldnt say replacing him with an Ibe or Lallana would make us a better outift in any shape or form.
My main issue with Clyne at the moment is his final ball. In terms of positioning and joining in on the attacking play he has done okay. His link up play could be better but the same could be said about Ibe (who I assume would be your replacement). If we continue with the 3 at the back, and I dont think we should, then perhaps Ibe for Clyne could happen in some of the easier games -if that is even a thing for us atm- when we play at home.
Back to the 4 at the back, at the moment, Henderson is injured and that makes the midfield selection a bit easier for Rodgers. When he comes back, we'll need to find a setup that integrates our best players in the starting 11. I'd only play the 3 at the back in specific games to counter specific opposition. Outside that, 4 at the back allows us to get 4 of Lucas, Milner, Henderson, Coutinho, Firmino, Lallana in the side which I think is a good idea.
Our main priority should be getting the ball to Coutinho, Sturridge, and Benteke/Ings/Firmino in advanced positions. Playing 2 upfront forces us to do that, playing 4 behind them helps the cause quite a bit more.
Add to that the fact that:
-Lucas would sit in front of the back 4. Arguably a better position for him than 1 of 2 alongside Milner
-Milner and Henderson can play the box to box role while having a bit of cover behind them and a playmaker ahead of them to allow them to make runs off the ball.
-Clyne is a better fullback than wingback, Moreno's game is largely unchanged since his final ball isnt great anyways. His role defensively becomes better defined.
-Can at CB is a liability. He'll be competing for a midfield spot (his best position) instead.
-Coutinho has more attacking players around him and less defensive responsibilities from deep.