Skrtel

[dww]

Why doesn't Rafa play 3 at the back when agger gets fit again

Skrtel Carra Agger


Agger and Skrtel are very very good on the ball from what i can see.... and they would be good at linking play from the back

It would mean Alonso mash and gerrard could all play in the same team.

Riise and Pennant as wing backs.

Torres and crouch up front.

Please God no.

A back three inevitably puts extra strain on the wingbacks to both attack and defend. The nett effect is that you end up as a very defensive unit or with gapping holes down the wings in defense. There are reasons that no top teams play that way on a consistent basis. It can work on specific occasions but generally it is a formation to play when you want a draw. Our problem has been not winning enough rather than loosing too many.

When Agger is back we will have strength in depth and options which is a good thing. Changing to an inferior tactical setup to accommodate all our players is a retrograde step of the worth kind IMO.

[bobbyfallon]

Please God no.

A back three inevitably puts extra strain on the wingbacks to both attack and defend. The nett effect is that you end up as a very defensive unit or with gapping holes down the wings in defense. There are reasons that no top teams play that way on a consistent basis. It can work on specific occasions but generally it is a formation to play when you want a draw. Our problem has been not winning enough rather than loosing too many.

When Agger is back we will have strength in depth and options which is a good thing. Changing to an inferior tactical setup to accommodate all our players is a retrograde step of the worth kind IMO.

both bits i have highlighted i agree with you on. top teams do not use it consistantly but my opinion is it could be effective against weaker teams who do not attack at pace or indeed often..

------------ carra ---- skittles -----agger
decent RW ------------------------------decent LW
----------- steve macher babel
------------ torres new ST

think this could be effective as an attacking formation to get out there get ahead, change it up after going goal or 2 up for example and close the gameout.

piece of piss

[Rich]

I actually think as a team we rarely take risks, unless we're losing and getting desperate.

The "easiest" way to score (or create good chances) is men in forward positions, it doesn't matter if you're playing 442, 433, or 352 - getting men higher up the pitch is key, otherwise you're reliant on the spectacular, or individual piece of brilliance.

Obviously, the downside is it leaves you drafty at the back...

[dww]

both bits i have highlighted i agree with you on. top teams do not use it consistantly but my opinion is it could be effective against weaker teams who do not attack at pace or indeed often..

------------ carra ---- skittles -----agger
decent RW ------------------------------decent LW
----------- steve macher babel
------------ torres new ST

think this could be effective as an attacking formation to get out there get ahead, change it up after going goal or 2 up for example and close the gameout.

piece of piss

Ultimately I can see your point but unless the opposition is exceptionally weak the benefits for an individual game do not, for me, outweigh the long term benefits of stability in the team.

I don't think you necessarily need to keep the attacking players the same game in game out but the more you do this for the defensive players the better they operate as a unit IMO. This provides a strong foundation upon which to build a team and potentially a formation.

[dww]

I actually think as a team we rarely take risks, unless we're losing and getting desperate.

The "easiest" way to score (or create good chances) is men in forward positions, it doesn't matter if you're playing 442, 433, or 352 - getting men higher up the pitch is key, otherwise you're reliant on the spectacular, or individual piece of brilliance.

Obviously, the downside is it leaves you drafty at the back...

For me though the formation particularly in defense has an impact on the decision making of players. In particular I think the 3-5-2 formation for me gives too much importance to how well the wingbacks judge risks, they are given too much responsibility to add width in attack and to defend wide areas.

For me the back 4 gives a good balance in terms of each players area of responsibility. The addition of a deep lying midfield sweeper in the Mascher mould can help to make the balance change if you want to allow the fullbacks to attack more.

[bobbyfallon]

Ultimately I can see your point but unless the opposition is exceptionally weak the benefits for an individual game do not, for me, outweigh the long term benefits of stability in the team.

I don't think you necessarily need to keep the attacking players the same game in game out but the more you do this for the defensive players the better they operate as a unit IMO. This provides a strong foundation upon which to build a team and potentially a formation.

good point

[Craig_H]

Ultimately I can see your point but unless the opposition is exceptionally weak the benefits for an individual game do not, for me, outweigh the long term benefits of stability in the team.

I don't think you necessarily need to keep the attacking players the same game in game out but the more you do this for the defensive players the better they operate as a unit IMO. This provides a strong foundation upon which to build a team and potentially a formation.

Problem is dww, due to obscene amounts of chopping and changing, there's not much stability in the team anyway.

[dww]

That is sadly true but I think that in terms of the defense this has largely been enforced to one degree or another. In previous seasons in large parts the defense has become pretty stable over the course of a season.

[Craig_H]

I know what you mean about keeping the defensive unit as consistent as possible, for the purposes of stability and of course you're right in that. Mistakes at the back are obviously the most costly and a stable unit that's used to being together should minimise risk. I also concur that he's had little choice in terms of injuries forcing changes. Now that Skrtel's settling, hopefully it'll be a fairly consistent selection at the back.