25 Sep 2015 22:11:42
Ed1 what is your opinion on the 3 at the back the Rodgers has reverted to again this season? I know it worked for a time last season but why has it suddenly gone so wrong when it turned our season around last season? It can't just be that teams have worked it out can it?
{Ed001's Note - it didn't work, as such. It caught people by surprise initially, then it was figured out and we were over run time and time again trying to use it. It is a lack of tactical insight to return to it. Rodgers doesn't understand what exactly went wrong with it as he would tweak it otherwise. It is the same mistakes he made when he initially came in that he is returning to now. Though he played a back four then, it is those mistakes. The full/wing backs rushing straight up to stand right on the opponents back line leaving no movement. They have to stand still or go back, as any forward movement, before the ball is played, immediately puts them in an offside position. It is this imbecilic notion he has of controling the space. It is just utter cack. The idea of football is to score more goals than the opposition, to do that you need to create chances, you don't create by standing still. Movement is the key. Though, conversely, if the movement is good you can create a pocket of space by standing still for a moment, what we are instead doing is setting up with everyone standing still and then dropping back in little circles to pick up the ball. All the movement is backwards and then they return to their place. This is a team that is being over coached and is still constantly looking to the sidelines for instructions, instead of just going out there and playing. The full backs need to take up a deeper starting position, then they can attack the space in front of them on the run. The ball to them should be being played just as they get level with the backline, so they are moving onto it, while the defence is static. The movement should not be little circles in front of the opposition, from the strikers, while everyone else is stood still. If a forward does drop off to receive a ball, then the midfield should be charging into the space left, and into the space behind the opponents' defence, to receive through balls. Then the opponents have to start worrying about the space behind them, whereas right now everything is played in front of them. Football is a very simple game being overcomplicated by an idiot in charge of our football club.}
26 Sep 2015 06:25:12
Cack is probably the best word to describe it. Ed1 prediction for today mate?
{Ed001's Note - I don't do predictions as they are unlucky mate.}
26 Sep 2015 06:50:19
3 at the back leaves space behind your wings backs for the opposition to exploit. A team who has pacy wingers will hit you through that space and will cost a lot of trouble. This in turns push the team to play 5 at the back.
It wouldn't work in England due the pace of the game.
It also means you are adding an extra defender at the expense of an attacker.
If you intend to play 3 at the back you would need 2 extra ordinary B2B midfielders to close the flanks down.
Your CB ( either side ) should always push high.
{Ed001's Note - that is why you play a defensive midfielder, to allow the centre backs to push out wide to cover wingers. Makes no sense, when you could just tell the full backs to not push forward at the same time, so one is always covering, if you need to keep 3 back.}
26 Sep 2015 07:30:58
A defensive midfielder or someone who is positionally astute making challenges is a must no matter what you play.
We did not had one against Carslisle and the goal was a resultant of it.
{Ed001's Note - depends on how you play your system, the defensive midfielder became needed because of the fullback metamorphising into a wingback. If you returned to fullbacks, then you would not need one as such.}
26 Sep 2015 07:31:39
He's got his thoughts on how to play, does BR! During a short Q&A session when they came here for the tour, I asked him why does he persist with his system?
In my humble opinion (Ed001, do correct me if I'm wrong!) his first and third seasons were a tactical disaster. In those seasons he played one striker which for me puts the onus for goals on the attacking midfielders. If they don't score then we're stuck!
He firmly believes in a Continental style where they play one out and out striker. We can all see that this works in other European leagues and maybe even for teams like Chelsea and Arsenal.
Why doesn't this work for BR?
{Ed001's Note - because he doesn't give freedom for enough bodies to get in the box, allied to a lack of movement around the edge of it. It makes us easy to defend against.}
26 Sep 2015 07:40:15
Bob Paisley used to call it "The Buffallo Horns" it is a classic set up and one that is never outdated."Football is a simple game complicated by fools" Bill Shankly
26 Sep 2015 08:06:35
Nice one Pipscreamer. Best post and thread on here for ages. Totally agree with your analysis. We need a different approach.
26 Sep 2015 08:54:38
Thanks for that Ed1 what you say makes sense and explains how static we look. I think 'over coached' is a great way to describe us at the moment. To a point where they look like they haven't been coached because they're not sure what they have to do! Then he'll change system on them half way through the game to further confuse. Good luck to the boys today we need the 3 points. COME ON LIVERPOOL! YNWA
{Ed001's Note - it is frustrating watching them after every substitution needing to hold a conference to figure out how they are meant to play now. It should be natural.}
26 Sep 2015 09:12:07
Rafa had defensive midfielders with static full backs, So does Jose.
Chelsea don't rely on their full back strength.
Given you play a flat back 4 and ask your full back to hold a might tighter line, you would still need someone to break up the opposition.
But as the time progressed Defensive midfielders have evolved and improved their style and attributes. There are some who have become a play-maker in themselves. Matic is one such. Good on the ball, neat passing and excellent positioning skills. Schniderlin the other one.
{Ed001's Note - do you ever watch football before making these idiotic comments? Jose and Rafa both liked attacking fullbacks. The reason Chelsea look awful this season is in large part down to the fact that Ivanovic has lost form and offers them nothing. You have not a clue what you are talking about.
As for a flat back four breaking up the opposition, you play with a spare man held back to do that, to step up from the back line. That is why you hold a spare man back, rather than just go man for man.
As for your final point, Schneiderlin is not a defensive midfielder anyway, so why keep on with this nonsense? There is little point in this conversation, you just don't understand what you are talking about and it becomes frustrating banging your head against a brick wall trying to explain why your latest obsession is just idiotic.}
26 Sep 2015 09:12:18
ed1 I remember an analysis on Sky I think by Carra at the start of the season showing that we played 4 at the back but just as you say we always left 3 at the back as only 1 full back went forward at a time. We did look more solid at the start of the season due to this but was it the lack of a defensive midfielder that ultimately was our downfall? I personally don't rate Lucas all that much when compared to holding midfielders of other sides but at least when he plays he does offer some support to the centre backs.
{Ed001's Note - it was more because we were so static we were creating nothing, which meant the opposition could feel safe committing more forward, overloading the back line.}
26 Sep 2015 10:04:05
Cheers ed let's hope he sorts it for today although I won't hold my breath