Any chance of 3-4-3 or 3-5-2?

[Maldini]

Pie in the sky stuff here but he has said before when discussing tactics that ideally he'd go 3 at the back and we now have an abundance of CBs. Reckon we'll see 3 at the back at all? Even as an experiment? Not sure we'd have the CM strength to pull off 3-4-3 but 3-5-2 might work.

[Earl Hafler]

Yes.

 

And it's not pie in the sky. Think it's a natural progression from how he's set us up in certain games.

[JonShar]

Was thinking about this today. Think 3-5-2 is a distinct possibility - Johnson and Enrique as wingbacks, Gerrard/Lucas middle 2, Coutinho just behind Suarez/Sturridge.

[Red Yoda]

I know we set up a little different from the suggestion at the minute , but , when we get on the attack , I think our formation could quite easily be seen as what you are describing .

[StevieC]

CB of MS, DA and KT with Agger as a sort of Matias Sammer libero?

 

Sort of role an aging Gerrard could play like Lothar Matthaus did.

[Earl Hafler]

Agger would seem to be ideal for that role. Be nice to see it at some point this season.

[The La]

I do. I also think having centre halves who can do a passable job at fullback means we can change formation mid-game without necessarily making any subs

[abc]

I was thinking this as well. Did Rodgers once say in an interview that his ideal formation is actually a 3-4-3, or did I imagine that?

 

Not sure how good Sakho is on the ball, but I can see Agger and Toure being very good as the wider CB's. Johnson and Enrique as wing-backs seem like natural fits on paper. At a stretch you could even push Johnson out to the left and use Henderson out on the right.

 

As some have pointed out, that would allow Gerrard and Lucas to pivot. I'd have Coutinho and Suarez playing in free roles off Sturridge.

[Clay Davis]

I do. I also think having centre halves who can do a passable job at fullback means we can change formation mid-game without necessarily making any subs

Good point this.

 

I've always been fond of 3-5-2. Think we have the players to make it work too.

 

Henderson could also do a job at right wing back I think. In fact, it may be preferable to push GloJo over to the left and have Hendo maraud that side.

[goodrobotusses]

Don't think it'll happen because most teams in the PL play with one striker.

[Stevie H]

Don't think it'll happen because most teams in the PL play with one striker.

yes. so three at the back means wasting a centre back and losing a midfielder. not to mention that opponents get to double up their own wide players and fullbacks on your wingbacks.

[John am Rhein]

yes. so three at the back means wasting a centre back and losing a midfielder. not to mention that opponents get to double up their own wide players and fullbacks on your wingbacks.

 

do 3-at-the-back advocates work in jobs like construction and seriously entertain ideas like "if we take some of the foundations out, we can add a couple more floors to the roof"?

[Kvarme Ate My Food]

Was thinking about this today. Think 3-5-2 is a distinct possibility - Johnson and Enrique as wingbacks, Gerrard/Lucas middle 2, Coutinho just behind Suarez/Sturridge.

 

This is basically dropping Henderson in order to accommodate an extra centre- half. So I'm out.

[Swan Red]

do 3-at-the-back advocates work in jobs like construction and seriously entertain ideas like "if we take some of the foundations out, we can add a couple more floors to the roof"?

 

[Woodsyla]

yes. so three at the back means wasting a centre back and losing a midfielder. not to mention that opponents get to double up their own wide players and fullbacks on your wingbacks.

When that centre back is Daniel Agger it isn't a waste. Teams are far more vulnerable to a probing run from a centre back as players get drawn into the wrong position. Agger wreaks havoc with his forward runs. More licence for him is good

 

KT DA MS

GJ SG LL JE

LS PC

DS

 

All the width coming from the fullbacks and LS and PC given free roles. I've seen worse formations.

[Swan Red]

This is basically dropping Henderson in order to accommodate an extra centre- half. So I'm out.

 

I'd consider Henderson on the right in a 4/5 while Johnson's injured. I prefer a back 4 though

 

how quick is Toure btw because I think you need pace across the entire defence if you're playing a 3

[Stevie H]

When that centre back is Daniel Agger it isn't a waste. Teams are far more vulnerable to a probing run from a centre back as players get drawn into the wrong position. Agger wreaks havoc with his forward runs. More licence for him is good

 

KT DA MS

GJ SG LL JE

LS PC

DS

 

All the width coming from the fullbacks and LS and PC given free roles. I've seen worse formations.

 

when your opponents have the ball you've got three centrebacks marking their one striker. which means fewer players in your own midfield to press the opposition and win the ball back. it's a waste of a player and a redundant formation.

 

and agger already makes probing runs from within a back four. so why drop henderson who is playing really well in a formation that is working?

[The Hitman]

When that centre back is Daniel Agger it isn't a waste. Teams are far more vulnerable to a probing run from a centre back as players get drawn into the wrong position. Agger wreaks havoc with his forward runs. More licence for him is good

 

KT DA MS

GJ SG LL JE

LS PC

DS

 

All the width coming from the fullbacks and LS and PC given free roles. I've seen worse formations.

I like Agger, but to be honest I'd say that he makes these forward runs only once in about every 4 games and that even then he only causes them mild discomfort, certainly not wreaking havoc.

 

He's a good footballer, but his ability to bring it out from the back is exaggerated,for me. I'd rather he was able to head the ball consistently away from the danger areas.

[Woodsyla]

how quick is Toure btw because I think you need pace across the entire defence if you're playing a 3

He used to be very very quick, he was still no slouch from what I've seen.

[David Hodgson]

Pie in the sky stuff here but he has said before when discussing tactics that ideally he'd go 3 at the back and we now have an abundance of CBs. Reckon we'll see 3 at the back at all? Even as an experiment? Not sure we'd have the CM strength to pull off 3-4-3 but 3-5-2 might work.

 

I don't see him doing that. He's toyed with 3 at the back, but I think if he wanted to start defaulting to those kinds of systems that we'd have seen quite a bit of it in pre-season.

 

Having said this, I could see him tactically shifting, to a system that rather than pushing both full backs forward with gay abandon (as per the current system) one of them goes (Johnson) and one stays (Sahko?). This slightly more defensive approach then gives the manager license to select a more attacking version of 4231, with effectively 4 lads (Moses, Coutinho, Suarez, Sturridge) allowed to attack at will. I'm contrasting this with his usual 433 whereby you have 3 forwards who are joined by a midfielder (Henderson) who seems to be at least as defensive as he is attacking.

 

The net effect of this is that when we're caught on the counter, rather than possibly have both our full backs legging it to get back in defensive position, one is already there (Sahko) effectively forming a central defensive trio with the other two centre backs. It's kind of how Ancelottis 442 diamond midfield Chelsea side functioned. Cole would be virtually a midfielder, whilst Ivanovic (I think it was) on the other side would be much more defensive.

[Woodsyla]

it's a waste of a player and a redundant formation.

 

Ok Grandad, it's not in the Roy Hodgson tactic book I will give you that.

[cymrococh]

Having said this, I could see him tactically shifting, to a system that rather than pushing both full backs forward with gay abandon (as per the current system) one of them goes (Johnson) and one stays (Sahko?). This slightly more defensive approach then gives the manager license to select a more attacking version of 4231, with effectively 4 lads (Moses, Coutinho, Suarez, Sturridge) allowed to attack at will. I'm contrasting this with his usual 433 whereby you have 3 forwards who are joined by a midfielder (Henderson) who seems to be at least as defensive as he is attacking.

I can see that, and I like it.

[Stevie H]

I don't see him doing that. He's toyed with 3 at the back, but I think if he wanted to start defaulting to those kinds of systems that we'd have seen quite a bit of it in pre-season.

 

Having said this, I could see him tactically shifting, to a system that rather than pushing both full backs forward with gay abandon (as per the current system) one of them goes (Johnson) and one stays (Sahko?). This slightly more defensive approach then gives the manager license to select a more attacking version of 4231, with effectively 4 lads (Moses, Coutinho, Suarez, Sturridge) allowed to attack at will. I'm contrasting this with his usual 433 whereby you have 3 forwards who are joined by a midfielder (Henderson) who seems to be at least as defensive as he is attacking.

 

The net effect of this is that when we're caught on the counter, rather than possibly have both our full backs legging it to get back in defensive position, one is already there (Sahko) effectively forming a central defensive trio with the other two centre backs. It's kind of how Ancelottis 442 diamond midfield Chelsea side functioned. Cole would be virtually a midfielder, whilst Ivanovic (I think it was) on the other side would be much more defensive.

 

you're expecting sakho to be played at left-back rob? don't see that happening at all myself.

[Kvarme Ate My Food]

Current tactics are working. Put Sakho in for Agger and Suarez in for Aspas and we should be really boss.

[Stevie H]

Current tactics are working. Put Sakho in for Agger and Suarez in for Aspas and we should be really boss.

word.