Our style of play

[fah-q]

Also we let in **** loads of goals with a flat back four.

[Buzzo]

Without wishing to sound all Hodgson about this... its just positions on a field.

It isn't as if we're playing three technically limited centre-halves which I associate with the traditional and old fashioned 3-5-2 or 5-3-2, instead you've got the debonair Can who has all the traits of a midfielder, just sitting deeper. By having that ball player further back it is actually giving us more room to play attacking football. Then there's Sakho who is also not afraid to play progressive stuff. As others have pointed out it isn't dissimilar to last season in that Gerrard (the ball player) would drop back and split the centre-halves and attempt to launch attacks that way.

Unless we get taken to the cleaners consistently then we need to stick with this formation; and for those saying we've conceded when playing against strong opposition would appear to be forgetting the two legs against Chelsea; when we matched them in just about all departments and only our finishing let us down. Defensively we were very strong.

I think also think the problem in previous seasons has been the fact that the full backs push so far forward meant that if the ball went quickly back to our CB's after we had been on the attack (say to Skrtel) he had limited ball playing options as the full back was caught up field, given that we don't launch it this meant potentially a challenging pass into midfield, or to the other CB. 3 at the back provides options for Skrtel where he has ball players in attendance pretty much all the time.

This is leaving him to do the bit he is decent at defending, and this reassurance has given him positional discipline which he has also lacked without a leader.

In short this formation not only sorts out the back three, it gives more cover for when our full backs (now wing backs) are caught upfield, which is where a lot of our mistakes came from and highlighted weaknesses in both our left and right backs.

Oh - and Hodgson

[fah-q]

Shudders

[The_weatherman]

Likewise. Everyone I've spoken to (IRL) has assumed we'll soon be reverting to a back four. I just don't see why we would.

One argument for switching to a back 4 is we've played only two of the top sides with this back 3 (United and Spurs) and we've let in 5 goals. Granted, we've leaked far fewer goals against lesser sides. Anyway I hope we keep it. It gets the best out of Coutinho, Lucas, Skrtel, Sakho, Can, Henderson. Half a team at least, why change it?

It could be argued that we leaked those goals because we didn't have Lucas/ a DM in the team.

[The Birdman]

It's a really fluid system, at times we've 3 at the back, at times it's 4 (WB tucked in one side, wide CB playing FB on t'other) and on other occasions certainly against Chelsea we had 5 at the back with a CB prepared to go out and engage their 10 when required.

So we're capable of playing any way we chose which is the impressive bit, can press high, do a mid block (half and half with the 4 at the back) or we can sit in a deep block (5 at the back, 4 across in front) and then wait to counter.

That takes some coaching, it's the reason most sides don't play it because their managers aren't capable of teaching it and most British players are brought up with 4 at the back and aren't flexible enough to change during the game.

[baitman]

some great posts discussing the merits of the back three and formation.

it might just get lost in the mire of the skrtel thread. it probably would be more relevant to have it in the style of play thread.

instead of being reliant of gerrard to start the play off we can now play the ball across the back line to swap wings with ease, and we have lads who can comfortably play [hoof] the ball to the wing backs or across field.

with can coming into the middle we keep our shape and are not so easy to play through. at times our midfield has looked like a vast wilderness.

[G]

I don't think we should change it either but the temptation might be there now to start Balotelli and Sturridge, best way to do that is back to the diamond.

[The Birdman]

some great posts discussing the merits of the back three and formation.

it might just get lost in the mire of the skrtel thread. it probably would be more relevant to have it in the style of play thread.

instead of being reliant of gerrard to start the play off we can now play the ball across the back line to swap wings with ease, and we have lads who can comfortably play [hoof] the ball to the wing backs or across field.

with can coming into the middle we keep our shape and are not so easy to play through. at times our midfield has looked like a vast wilderness.

Good point that, remember how easy we were to play against when teams sat someone on Gerrard. and stopped him playing out.
Now we have Can and Sakho who can both start attacks from either side as well as Hendo and the other CM

[captainfog]

We went to a back three because Rodgers was incapable of organising a back 4. The only way he's been able to keep it tight at the back is by having 3 centre backs and a defensive midfielder. He's basically just thrown a load of bodies at the problem and to an extent it has worked, however, it seems to have stunted our attacking play.

A properly organised team in a diamond or a 4231 is the way forward.

[BigChief]

I don't think we should change it either but the temptation might be there now to start Balotelli and Sturridge, best way to do that is back to the diamond.

Do we need the diamond? We already play a 3-4-2-1. Why not just change it to 3-4-1-2 and start both strikers.

One or both like dropping deep anyway so shouldn't affect the rest of the team too much.

[G]

Do we need the diamond? We already play a 3-4-2-1. Why not just change it to 3-4-1-2 and start both strikers.

One or both like dropping deep anyway so shouldn't affect the rest of the team too much.

Yeah possible alright but I'll be honest, theres no way I'd drop anyone in favour of Balotelli so I hope we stay as we are.

[~LFCHistory~]

Juventus. Won the last 3 Serie A in a row playing 3-5-2 under Conte.

I don't watch Serie A so I didn't know that (obviously), well then perhaps we will stick with that formation long term I don't see why not because we've mostly been playing very well since we started using it.

[baitman]

Dan Perkins, come on down

[danperkins]

[dww]

Without wishing to sound all Hodgson about this... its just positions on a field.

It isn't as if we're playing three technically limited centre-halves which I associate with the traditional and old fashioned 3-5-2 or 5-3-2, instead you've got the debonair Can who has all the traits of a midfielder, just sitting deeper. By having that ball player further back it is actually giving us more room to play attacking football. Then there's Sakho who is also not afraid to play progressive stuff. As others have pointed out it isn't dissimilar to last season in that Gerrard (the ball player) would drop back and split the centre-halves and attempt to launch attacks that way.

Unless we get taken to the cleaners consistently then we need to stick with this formation; and for those saying we've conceded when playing against strong opposition would appear to be forgetting the two legs against Chelsea; when we matched them in just about all departments and only our finishing let us down. Defensively we were very strong.

I think the middle paragraph is the key - we can play this way because we have the personnel. Not just in terms of ball playing but also the ability to move out wide and defend there (hence why I think Johnson has been used as a CB from the bench at times).

One thing we haven't done regularly for a while is close a game out under pressure. I think we need to find a way to do that either with a back 3 or 4. My suspicion is that it is easier to cover space with a back 4.

Additionally, a back four is generally easier to find players to fit.

Through accident or design we appear to have a squad that can play well in a back three based formation. The question is whether we believe it is a long term solution and recruit/develop for it in future. I can see us looking to go for a more fluid flexible approach, a la Guardiola's Barcelona.

An interesting point was raised by Red Polo about Flannagan and his future position. It will be interesting to see if anything progresses in that regard.