Dogged Rafa calls Torres back to front

[Reece]

Birmingham's five-man midfield won the game for them

It was a draw though.

[dww]

How moronic can you get? Do you have any limits?

The 3-5-2 allows you to free you fullbacks and deploy them as wingers and only play with 3 defenders. 3 centrebacks? Drop the acid man. You brain is fried. 3 centrebacks are three defenders fullstop.

A 3-5-2 is

3 defenders
5 midfieldes
2 attackers

Do you understand so far? (Of course you don't)

Against a 4-5-1 such as Brums we suffered through the midfield. On many occasions Mascher and Gerrard were out numbered at CM and didn't manage to win the second ball. We could have pulled Kuyt back and thrown Torres up front. Birmingham's five-man midfield won the game for them. We couldn't break it down. To apply pressure we needed more force through the midfield.

Tell these boards what is the most offensive formation: A 4-4-2 or a 3-5-2.

Tell me again why you can't play a 3-5-2 against Brum because they only play with 1 attacker.

You gotta be ****ing kidding me with this ****e.

I really hate the 3-5-2 formation and while I see your point I actually think it is easier to defend against as a 4-5-1 as both are essentially possession based tactics.

While people say that a 3-5-2 is more attacking in this case I disagree for the following reasons:

1/ If most of the game does take place in midfield you do leave 3 marking one. In a 4-4-2 in this case you can easily release both fullbacks to go forward - they don't have to be nominally midfielders to add with or attacking intent to a team.

2/ In a 3-5-2 what happens more often than not is that if the team playing 4-5-1 has any width at all or ever push fullbacks forward you end up with a 5-3-2 which is obviously defensive.

3/ What is the real difference between a back four with a holding midfielder in front of it and a three with two wingbacks. It is mostly nominal if you allow the fullbacks to push on except for the fact that in all likelyhood a holding midfielder is better at passing etc. than the extra centreback.

4/ When on the defensive if you play a genuine back three you either have to bring your fullbacks back to cover the width of the pitch or leave big gaps or alter organisation. The back 4 is the simplest and thus generally most sensible formation for covering counter attacks imo.

In general you should only play a 3-5-2 formation if a/ your opponents are inept in wide areas and lack organisation or b/ you are aiming to keep possession and keep a 0-0.

I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that the reason that the reason none of the worlds top coaches regularly use a 3-5-2 formation is because it is inflexible and in general inferior. Essentially a modern 4-4-2 with more athletic players and a holding midfielder has made the 3-5-2 and sweepers redundant or at least a tactic to use only on rare occasions.

[Reece]

I think someone should inform the old people's home that Neil has been drinking again

[The_weatherman]

No it doesn't say that he isstarting Torres.

You may notice in my original post I said IF he is starting Torres.

:whatever:

I doubt he will, I hope he won't, but if he does it will be a strange decision.

Erm, my post was not intended to offend you, sorry if it came out that way :whatever:


Just think people are getting a bit carried away with the Rafa bashing. Thank god we are not Tottenham fans - some on here would be on a killing rampage.

[Neil Young]

I think someone should inform the old people's home that Neil has been drinking again

I wish.

I am actually off alcohol all week.

[Reece]

I wish.

I am actually off alcohol all week.

Good luck with that

[Icon]

I think Paco leaving has melted Rafas marbles.
He now has the team we all wanted for sooooooo long and is using it all wrong.

Tonight is a Crouch / Voronin affair.

[Neil Young]

Good luck with that

Thanks but it's not a problem. I went to the pub for dinner last night and stayed off it.

I've got too much work to do to be bothered coping with the after-effects of alcohol and even one pint has a deleterious effect on working performance. Also, it helps to make sure I don't start resembling Pacman/Disco/Kendo/Shaggy, etc.

[Pacman]

How moronic can you get? Do you have any limits?

The 3-5-2 allows you to free you fullbacks and deploy them as wingers and only play with 3 defenders. 3 centrebacks? Drop the acid man. You brain is fried. 3 centrebacks are three defenders fullstop.

A 3-5-2 is

3 defenders
5 midfieldes
2 attackers

Do you understand so far? (Of course you don't)

Against a 4-5-1 such as Brums we suffered through the midfield. On many occasions Mascher and Gerrard were out numbered at CM and didn't manage to win the second ball. We could have pulled Kuyt back and thrown Torres up front. Birmingham's five-man midfield won the game for them. We couldn't break it down. To apply pressure we needed more force through the midfield.

Tell these boards what is the most offensive formation: A 4-4-2 or a 3-5-2.

Tell me again why you can't play a 3-5-2 against Brum because they only play with 1 attacker.

You gotta be ****ing kidding me with this ****e.

I really hate the 3-5-2 formation and while I see your point I actually think it is easier to defend against as a 4-5-1 as both are essentially possession based tactics.

While people say that a 3-5-3 is more attacking in this case I disagree for the following reasons:

1/ If most of the game does take place in midfield you do leave 3 marking one. In a 4-4-2 in this case you can easily release both fullbacks to go forward - they don't have to be nominally midfielders to add with or attacking intent to a team.

2/ In a 3-5-2 what happens more often than not is that if the team playing 4-5-1 has any width at all or ever push fullbacks forward you end up with a 5-3-2 which is obviously defensive.

3/ What is the real difference between a back four with a holding midfielder in front of it and a three with two wingbacks. It is mostly nominal if you allow the fullbacks to push on except for the fact that in all likelyhood a holding midfielder is better at passing etc. than the extra centreback.

4/ When on the defensive if you play a genuine back three you either have to bring your fullbacks back to cover the width of the pitch or leave big gaps or alter organisation. The back 4 is the simplest and thus generally most sensible formation for covering counter attacks imo.

In general you should only play a 3-5-2 formation if a/ your opponents are inept in wide areas and lack organisation or b/ you are aiming to keep possession and keep a 0-0.

I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that the reason that the reason none of the worlds top coaches regularly use a 3-5-2 formation is because it is inflexible and in general inferior. Essentially a modern 4-4-2 with more athletic players and a holding midfielder has made the 3-5-2 and sweepers redundant or at least a tactic to use only on rare occasions.

DWW put it into words better than I ever could.

Why on earth you would want to play 3 players against 1 is beyond me.

[The Erectile Banana]

Erm, my post was not intended to offend you, sorry if it came out that way :whatever:


Just think people are getting a bit carried away with the Rafa bashing. Thank god we are not Tottenham fans - some on here would be on a killing rampage.

Fair enough, no offence taken mate.

People are too quick to jump on the Rafa bashing bandwagon at times but I think that people will be entitled to be irritated if Torres starts tonight after we rested him in our last two EPL games and dropped vital points.

The fact that this is getting such a reaction just goes to show how desperate we are to win the league, which is not a bad thing.

We all hunger for success just as Rafa does.

[Joe Le Toff]

I think that people will be entitled to be irritated if Torres starts tonight after we rested him in our last two EPL games and dropped vital points.

[Red Chilli]

Lest we forget....

[The Glove]

This a "worhless" cup game. Torres is our only quality striker. Torres should play in the league, not in the CC. There is a chance that he will get injured every time he plays so why take that risk in a "worthless" cup game?

Tell the thousands of fans that make the trip to the finals and those going from Liverpool and behond to Reading tonight that its a worthless game.

I dont see it as "worthless" at all. Its a trophy. Liverpool FC exists to win trophies.

Amen.

Its so worthless thats why we have won it more than any other ****.

[Chris]

We have some ****ing spoilt ***** following us thats for sure.

Yes it's 4th on the list of priorities but worthless? **** off.

Some of the aways in this are among the best days, 7000 fans at Blackburn winning 4-3, winning 4-3 at Villa Park with a stoppage time winner from Murphy infront of 5000 travelling fans, beating Brum on pens in Cardiff, beating Utd 2-0 in Cardiff. These moments are "worthless" are they?

[Craig_H]

I dont see it as "worthless" at all. Its a trophy. Liverpool FC exists to win trophies.

We will have a chance to win the league if Torres gets injured, it would just be more difficult. He does NOT win games all on his own believe it or not.

In your opinion, is Rafa ever wrong about anything?