Norwich (H): Build Up

[Exiled_red]

I'm praying its 4-4-2.

[Kenneth]

Ridiculous that we are chopping and changing so much BUT that team and formation should be spot on.

True. We're playing Norwich at home, if that team can't win this one then we're really in trouble.

[G]

Cheers for posting what you do PST but yeah, probably best you keep it to yourself in future. Hope it's the diamond myself.

[Bender]

Anyway....

I'm going to inject a little optimism back into this forum and say we'll win 4-0

Use the prediction thread....Don't make me Ban You

[dww]

I think 3 at the back with Can to play out and a genuine centre forward (or two) would be rather good I think. I'd prefer a 4 obviously but I don't think it would be a bad choice to go to a system similar to that we used last season if we added a goal threat.

[Exiled_red]

I think 3 at the back with Can to play out and a genuine centre forward (or two) would be rather good I think. I'd prefer a 4 obviously but I don't think it would be a bad choice to go to a system similar to that we used last season if we added a goal threat.

If Can is playing out from the back what role will Lucas be playing? he normally drops deep to pick the ball up from the defence. If Can is effectively doing that (which IMO is what we need to do if we play a back 3), I'm not sure what role Lucas will play. If Can isn't doing that and Lucas continues to drop back we are going to be short of bodies further up field. Either way I'm not sure Lucas is needed in there.

[dww]

If Can is playing out from the back what role will Lucas be playing? he normally drops deep to pick the ball up from the defence. If Can is effectively doing that (which IMO is what we need to do if we play a back 3), I'm not sure what role Lucas will play. If Can isn't doing that and Lucas continues to drop back we are going to be short of bodies further up field. Either way I'm not sure Lucas is needed in there.

Lucas shields higher up and Can runs past when the opportunity presents itself - so we always have options to move out from defence. Keeping Lucas focussed on interceptions and moving the ball on quickly is to everyones benefit IMO.

Against United all our good moves came when a defender strode out of defence (which wasn't much of a risk as Lucas was there to cover). Push up the wing backs and have Can, Lucas and Sakho moving the ball out from deep and I think we would potentially have a really strong attacking team unlikely to get bogged down.

[el matador]

I think 3 at the back with Can to play out and a genuine centre forward (or two) would be rather good I think. I'd prefer a 4 obviously but I don't think it would be a bad choice to go to a system similar to that we used last season if we added a goal threat.

Unless its your first choice formation and you play it all the time, playing 3 at the back leaves you short on goal threat.

Its not an easy formation to switch to as a plan b. Its much easier going from 433 to 442 diamond or 4213. But going from your plan a 433 to plan b 352 is tough as they dont share too many common patterns of play so its like starting afresh.

Initially making that switch will cause players in possession to look lost as all their passing options are totally different.

[dww]

Unless its your first choice formation and you play it all the time, playing 3 at the back leaves you short on goal threat.

Its not an easy formation to switch to as a plan b. Its much easier going from 433 to 442 diamond or 4213. But going from your plan a 433 to plan b 352 is tough as they dont share too many common patterns of play so its like starting afresh.

Initially making that switch will cause players in possession to look lost as all their passing options are totally different.

The point about the switch can't be discounted but we managed last season. So many of the players do have experience.

I don't really buy the idea that a back three removes goal threat (certainly compared to to back 4 based systems with big gaps between the defence and midfield and midfield and attack as we have shown so far this season).

Sakho and Can in the back three offer good playmaing/starting ability. In the PL I think that building the game from deep is an undervalued approach.

[Liverpool]

I am going to keep it quiet now.

I am going to spam his Twitter next week asking for he team news though.

Like **** he has his own source.

I don't think it's just this forum he takes info from. He hoovers up all kinds of stuff from different sites then posts on twittter

[el matador]

The point about the switch can't be discounted but we managed last season. So many of the players do have experience.

I don't really buy the idea that a back three removes goal threat (certainly compared to to back 4 based systems with big gaps between the defence and midfield and midfield and attack as we have shown so far this season).

Sakho and Can in the back three offer good playmaing/starting ability. In the PL I think that building the game from deep is an undervalued approach.

I don't think its undervalued at all. Were just **** at it and continuously give the ball away in dreadful positions. Teams don't have to beat us, we beat ourselves. Even guardiola when he was at Barcelona thought that building from deep - playing the barca style may not have been straight forward due to the high intensity and the aggressive pressing in our league.

As for the back 3 point, when you're defending, the back 3 becomes the back 5 plus all the midfielders. You have far too many people too deep. So when you do manage to get the ball back quick counter attacks become very difficult because too many people are behind the ball.

The biggest problem is the width. The 352 is totally reliant on the fullbacks for any width. If they're always too deep, the team doesn't have any.

If anyone's unsure about this all they need to do is look at Jordan ibes starting position v Bordeaux. He was far too deep and always played infront of his fullback, he never played off his shoulder as he could in a 433. We had nobody threatening in behind.

[dww]

I don't think its undervalued at all. Were just **** at it and continuously give the ball away in dreadful positions. Teams don't have to beat us, we beat ourselves. Even guardiola when he was at Barcelona thought that building from deep - playing the barca style may not have been straight forward due to the high intensity and the aggressive pressing in our league.

As for the back 3 point, when you're defending, the back 3 becomes the back 5 plus all the midfielders. You have far too many people too deep. So when you do manage to get the ball back quick counter attacks become very difficult because too many people are behind the ball.

The biggest problem is the width. The 352 is totally reliant on the fullbacks for any width. If they're always too deep, the team doesn't have any.

If anyone's unsure about this all they need to do is look at Jordan ibes starting position v Bordeaux. He was far too deep and always played infront of his fullback, he never played off his shoulder as he could in a 433. We had nobody threatening in behind.

You seem to suggest that fullbacks being pushed back is an inevitability. You have to impose your plan on the opposition - then it becomes an attacking formation - Rafa used a 3-4-3 at times for exactly that reason.

It is easy to go playing badly in a formation results in x,y,z. Very few things are inherent in a formation (arguably space covering is more natural in a back 4 than three but when you dominate a team you tend to defend with fewer players anyway). We have seen our flanks exposed in a 4-3-3 with defensive and attacking cohesion both lacking.

[Bender]

I'm not sure starting Sturridge when he's had no football for so long is a good thing, I would have brought him back slowly 20-30mins and given Ings a start

it's a Gamble from Rodgers a panic decision....he's under pressure
...hopefully it pays off

[el matador]

You seem to suggest that fullbacks being pushed back is an inevitability. You have to impose your plan on the opposition - then it becomes an attacking formation - Rafa used a 3-4-3 at times for exactly that reason.

It is easy to go playing badly in a formation results in x,y,z. Very few things are inherent in a formation (arguably space covering is more natural in a back 4 than three but when you dominate a team you tend to defend with fewer players anyway). We have seen our flanks exposed in a 4-3-3 with defensive and attacking cohesion both lacking.

I think the lack of cohesion is down to the manager. The tactics he has picked have been cautious or at the very least appeared that way. What I have seen is that once teams figure out you have little attacking threat or that they have figured out your gameplan then they will build from that.

West ham forced us to play down our non existent left hand side, it played right into their hands and they launched their attacks once ours broke down. That was amongst the worst I have seen us play - there was no threat and we couldn't stop their counters. The managers obsession with Lovren upset the whole balance of our team.

In the games we have played this season we haven't imposed our game on the opposition. Not even once. We have been on the back foot and our whole team structure shifts too deep. We lose the ball and then **** ourselves.

Its not the sort of game you would expect from a top 4 challenger imo, and that's why I'm not keen on 3 at the back. Its a reactive formation as opposed to be proactive - especially since we don't have the personnel to play it and it has very little in common with the managers preferred 433. Its a case of we cant defend so lets put another defender in the back and lets see what happens.

[marcus50bucks]

Perhaps the guy has his own source now. He gave his word after all:

Clearly he's pinching stuff from here.