Topic: Systems - Tactical Flexibility

[Vulmea]

Tactical flexibility

In the UK, probably since the 60’s the majority of sides have fielded a simple 442 formation. Ok there have been dalliances with 433, 451, 4321 and even 352 but for the most part, here we play 442.

Look abroad and it is not so clear. Italy have a variety of styles, so to Spain and Portugal. They show far more flexibility and imagination. They can switch styles between games, even during games. It’s always largely been thus.

Benitez coaching his Valencia side in several defensive tactics is an anecdote which triggered much appreciation on his arrival but in essence was a more common trait abroad than we’d want to appreciate.

442 not only defines our teams though, it defines our players. We create players that fit ‘our system’. Our fullbacks play on the side of their chosen foot, are centre backs are good headers of the ball, not so good with it at their feet, our midfielders industrious, wide players fast, forwards either big target men or fast goal scorers. Those that don’t fit are simply discarded. That has long been the way. It is an incredibly wasteful use of what little talent we produce. Where in there do we see tactical awareness, football intelligence? The likes of Gascoigne, if they make it, are generally seen as luxury players that can be accommodated but rarely enhanced.

Our selection processes mainly focus on results rather than potential. We look at size and fitness over skill and flair. Players are limited as to where they can be used – he’s a big unit he must be a centre back, he’s skinny and fast put him on the wing etc etc.

There is not only a formation but a template for the players that play in it. It means mercurial talents like Hoddle and Le Tissier even where their talent transcends the barriers are left unappreciated, unloved and sidelined for the most part because our tactical knowse just can’t accommodate them.

Maybe you can take the view that so what, the cream will always rise to the top but would the likes of Xavi, Pirlo and Del Piero have survived and made it to the professional game in the UK? Do we have any real evidence to suggest we even breed them like that here?

Having a set style, a set template of player means for the most part football intelligence is not required. You are drilled in how to play, you play that way from the age of 5 to 35 legs permitting. Play your role well and you can get great results……

That approach though as we’ve discovered time and again will only get you so far. Of course if 11 good English players, motivated and confident and playing very well, even playing 442 could win whatever competition it was in, especially if there were a couple of Scousers present but the odds are largely stacked against it. We generally don’t have 11  good enough players,  the good players we do have are often one dimensional and 442 can be predictable and easily counteracted. Add to that the players know all of that so confidence and motivation are lacking……throw in the fact we know we are technically inferior, other teams have better more skilful players, our managers have been pretty dire and all in all we’re lucky to get out of the group.

So we have some inherent problems here in blighty in developing our talent and then utilising it to its maximum.

Now you may ask, what’s that got to do with me, I’m a scouser not English….well part of the problem is we play in the English league and the majority of our developing players, even now, are English not Scouse. It’s our main pool of young players.

Yeah but once we’ve got them we can develop them our way, you cry – maybe but the majority of teams we play against still play an English style, that means our options and education are limited, that means our clever young runts would be demolished week after week and their confidence left in tatters next to their brown shorts.

Don’t get me wrong I loved the hurly burly of the English game. To be honest though it ain't really hurly burly any more. Yes it is still more direct than on the continent. Yes, possession is still viewed as an aside. Maybe there is still a little more aggression allowed but on a daily basis it grows increasingly clinical, sanitised and intellectual. The tactics are gradually switching from 442 to different, less predictable variants. The dominance of foreign players and the increasing number of foreign coaches is changing the landscape. The development of players though is lagging seriously behind. Some academies have laudable intentions, some scouts are switched on but for the most part the development side is a decade behind the actual game and the game itself is still struggling.

Look at our expensive teenage signings at the club – Jordan Ibe, skilful fast, direct, Raheem Sterling, skillful fast, direct……….Sinclair skilful fast direct……erm……..

BR has stated his intent for players with football intelligence - Dan Smith maybe a bit more in that mould but until we start to prize players who understand the game rather than simply participate (whether that’s on an instinctive level like Gascoinge or intellectual level like Alonso) then we are scupered in terms of development. We do though have the chance to lead, to innovate, to get an advantage over the other clubs.

Barca and Arsenal to some extent have moved this one step on. They’ve introduced a model through their club. They play a common structure at all levels that allows players to understand the game. As at Ajax they try developing players in different positions so they understand the different roles and demands of each role. They teach the lads the why they are playing not just the how. Those three clubs have success in different ways, Barca are pre-eminent, Arsenal claim success financially and Ajax regularly produce quality players.

Barca is can be argued have been fortunate to have three of the best players of their generation at one time Xavi, Iniesta , Messi. Is it their golden age like Beckham, Scholes, Giggs at United or is it systematic, probably too early to say. Arsenals financial success is staggering for their level of achievement. No net transfer spends but consistent Champions league football for a decade. Ajax remaining competitive in a league stripped of players and finance.

Clearly there is something in the developing your own option but Liverpool need to take it one step further. Playing a single style achieves major results but each style has its time, each its own weaknesses. The key ability needed is the ability to not only be able to implement a style but be able to switch styles to counter whatever the opposition and probably more importantly the game does.

We look to have a dearth of intelligent centre backs at the moment, defensive intelligence is often portrayed as simply reading the game, organising the defence, we’ll need players capable of doing that and of bringing the ball forward and using it intelligently. We’ve seen Barca use the diminutive Mascherano at the back, Cannavaro showed his worth for Italy maybe we’ll need to break the mould again or think outside the box to achieve the flexibility we need, we can't simply rely on Dagger to be a game changer.

If we do simply try to replicate what the current leading clubs are doing by the time we get there they will have moved on. We need to aim beyond them and get there first.

We know the game moves on, we know any advantage is only ever short lived. So for sustained success, as in any walk of life the key is evolution and adaptation. Barca could be the cockroach of its day, brilliantly evolved to survive but eating shit and concrete all day.

So we need to develop players and a system that go hand in hand. A system that can switch between attack and defence seamlessly but allow individual players to express their full talent.  To do it we’ll need players that can switch to whatever position is needed at the time in a game and with whatever team mates they have around them. Sounds easy enough.

To do that though we need to set realistic goals. We are not going to get there overnight. So we need to spot and develop players that have the intelligence to allow those transitions, as well as the ability to deliver them. There is a balance to be struck. Some players will be superb at delivery but poor on recognition. Some players will be comfortable in several positions others will not. Coaching will help but that’s also were team work and leadership evolve. The team structure will need to evolve along with the team and the squad will be essential as much to maximise our options as provide cover.

It was obvious under Rafa for example, that most of our players couldn’t change the game, they needed to be told how and when, at half time or via a substitution. Under kenny the players were allowed to express themselves too much and consequently often looked lost. Under Hodgson we had a simple plan........ It is often easier from the sidelines or the stands to spot the problems or opposition weaknesses, so management will continue to be important, complete autonomy on the pitch is unlikely. Likewise some transitions between styles may only be possible using different players, so substitutions will continue to be important but effectively to be successful we need to build in flexibility.

I’m not sure how you spot or develop ‘game intelligence’ the level of ability required at the highest level whilst it can be improved by coaching seems to largely be instinctive. It doesn’t naturally come with quick feet or superb balance, the combination seems to be freakishly rare. I’d suggest you’ll get more success training the physical abilities rather than the instinctive ones, so it is that game intelligence we should be on the look out for rather than foot speed or athleticism but neither is going to be useful without the other.

[royhendo]

Over to you guys - the idea is to debate the topic, so please pay Vulmea the courtesy he deserves and respect the work he's put into the original post - there's plenty to debate there.

[Mashy-rawr!nooo]

Great OP Vulmea. Agree with everything you said.

I've always been a firm believer that the failures of English football is a result of the inability to adapt and respond to different footballing systems they face. While we have foreign managers,systems and players in our league,bar the top few, most seem to have one system and one system only. They are drilled to play that system till they understand it and can execute it in perfection, whether it be Long-ball, shove and nudge in the Britannia or passing the ball around with constant movement on and off the ball at Anfield all teams have a single game-plan above others. I cannot of the top of my head think of a team in the BPL's last 5 years that changed its game-plan and tactical approach to the point where it was impossible to say which they were going to play.

We face a results based industry, more importantly money driven. If Rodgers was to adopt an ugly system of football that required long-balls, unintelligent speedy wingers with a lumbering forward who simply headers balls around and draws off defence we'd be unhappy quite clearly. But if we got the 3 points, how many of us can stand here and say you'd complain. This for me is the main reason why we are seeing a lack of diversity and flexibility as such in the league. Teams need to win. To win they need a system which they can understand and exercise on the field of play. To do that they need to drill in a style of play which the team can be identified by. Theres no two ways about it. For many clubs, they simply don't have the finance, time or players to inherit plan b's. The clubs at the bottom cannot risk changing everything so rapidly else the risk it'll fail and they'll be relegated. Likewise at the top, failing to achieve success.

Because of this, unless a new manager comes in and changes things to his ideals or the current manager has a religious experience to try something different, we won't see much difference to what it is now. In England we are taught to win and nothing more. Its exactly as you say Vulmea, direct. Go for goal, put it in the net and get the 3 points. Anything else is largely irrelvant and can be discussed later. While this sounds a somewhat attractive and forward mindset, what happens when you cannot go for goal. When the team, like Stoke, is blocking the goal with everything. High balls don't work, Long shots are unpredictable and the lumbering bigman is outmarked to inefficency. What if you play a team like Barcelona, where you struggle to get possession and instead are constantly dragged around the pitch. When you gain possession, the pressing is incredibly strict that you are forced to pass back and look to exploit the tightness by giving risky passes, be long balls or passes into a direct fray of players, which plays into Barcelona's speedy mindset which they can envelop. The answer is they either become stuck and collapse or simply keep trying until they break through (Manchester united are experts at doing this, but for all the fergie time goals there are countless occassions when pure mental determination will not and cannot succeed, Aka 2011 CL final. Bilbao V United games)

As such, the only way to change this is to implement a whole different way of tactical thinking. Many British players, brought up the way they have, which struggle to adapt and simply will not understand the need for it. Managers who have seen their system fail but yet succeed largely remain ardent in their robust approaches and are somewhat terrified of taking risks to change such approaches else they fail.

For me, it needs to start with the Youth. Its easier said than done. Not all players can be direct, many will struggle and simply lacky confidence to be as direct as they are expected too and as such simply are not considered good footballers. We need to learn that these footballers hold different qualities and that their unique style of play can be utilized elsewhere. Messi is someone who strikes me as a player who would not succeed in a direct British game as he grew up. Possibly because of his stature and size but also because he's a player who can see the game being played out before him as a footballing orchestra rather than being his system against the oppositions. That for me is what creates the truly phenomenal footballers of our age, those who can read a game rather than play it. They can see when things aren't working and change it. British football fails to do that unless we can take a break and be told how to change by our managers.  For many British teams, including our national side, its a case of 'The system we play WILL succeed. If you aren't winning then its simply because you aren't utilizing the system CORRECTLY'. Henceforth in my eyes, many midtable clubs and the National squad are stuck in a constant merry go round of mediocrity and stubborness that breaking out of the mold of how they are currently formed would be somewhat unthinkable and heretic worthy.

I'm not implying that all is lost for the mindset of Liverpool Football club and that we are destined to be a one-trick pony constantly vying for results over tactical success and security. I'm not. But the pyschological aspect to the game is now more crucial then ever. We no longer live in the days were being 6 foot 2 and having a body of pure muscle will guarentee you a place in defences and instead a world which you can be 5 foot one but have a brain of intelligence and understanding that will reward you a place in any part of the team. Rodgers needs to install this mentality into the Entire club. From our youngest kids to our oldest coaches. The mindset that if something isn't working change it. Don't be afraid to experiment and above all else, be proactive rather than reactive.

Such a task is monumental to say the least. This could take one or two seasons or it could take triple that. But it needs to happen. Football is changing. The football styles in the early 2000's are systematically now outdated and being replaced with more flexible systems. We need to be looking to 2013 onwards, as far as 2018 if we want to adapt a mentality that can allow us to evolve to any game that faces us. FSG and Rodger's might not be thinking this, but they understand that the mentality and system had to change. It was never going to be a season change. Its going to be a long-drawn out ride with many bumps along the way. But as always, you walk a path for the destination not for the sights. We need to adapt a similar attitude in the fanbase and players.

(I'll type more after my lecture, but that is largely what I wanted to type. Great OP once again.)

[Fuzion6]

I think generally formations and their importance is over-blown. I feel in the 442 description above, what has been described has been really a Hodgson style 442 where the tactic is to sit back, soak pressure, full backs play narrow forcing teams to cross where 2 tall centre-backs head away and a counter attack is launched to 2 front men. The irony on the whole 442 debate is that the most successful club in the last 20 years has primarily used a 442 formation - Man U. Sure, you can say that certain players (Rooney) play in between the lines, but fundamentally Fergie has always played a 442 outside of the Tevez years where he went small ball - but even then he typically had Tevez (or Berbatov) and Rooney up front with Ronaldo and Giggs wide.

Is Fergie's 442 the same as a Hodgson 442? Of course not...but it is still fundamentally based on 2 forwards (with positions less fixed then in a Hodgson style), 2 wingers and 2 central midfield players. Similarly, Fergie's teams haven't had just one-footed full backs - Dennis Irwin played left back but was right footed, Rio Ferdinand certainly can pass the ball etc etc.

So for me - formation isn't that important but tactical flexibility and the ability for players to play multiple positions is more important. A 442 with such players works equally as well as a 4231, 433 or whatever else - I just think we all get so caught up with formations. Was Benitez' LFC team really a 4231 or was it a 442? Gerrard hardly did any defensive work so you could easily view it as a 442/4411 especially as our wingers were not so advanced - but we all (including myself) called it a 4231 cos it sounded cooler.

For me the best formation is one which you can't actually pin down as it then becomes harder to defend. The Benitez years, even Kenny's first 6 months in his return...we at times would play a 442 type system but with guys like Mereiles and Maxi playing wide who were equally as comfortable playing centrally - it was great, so much movement, the opposition didn't know who to mark when.

One of the reasons I think "442" is the formation generally taught in the UK is that I believe its the easiest to implement. As a school kid playing 11 a side, it was easy for us to understand 442, what our roles were etc. It was funny though - I remember when I was 18 playing against a team playing a proper 433 and the reality was we had no clue how to defend it and were being dragged all over the place...illustrating that though I don't think formations are that important - clearly being tactically flexible and knowing how to play against different formations is important.

[hassinator]

excellent op vulmea and i will let it process.

one early thought is that barcelona and madrid are uniquely resourced to break the mould.

we are on the way back up and - like spurs 5 years ago - are building a young british/home grown core.

these players can be sold on for minimal loss as we upgrade and while i'm a massive fan of game intelligence is that what we need now?

right now its all about beating brit teams to get into the top four with the hope that a generation ripens simultaneously.

then we can add the personnel required to develop us in europe but for now its about winning games.

ironically we seem to be finally putting away 'the lesser teams' but coming up wanting against strong level 2 sides like stoke.

the latter is symptomatic of a young team coming up against physical giants but they will only develop the nous necessary to win through practice.

in our current squad i think suso is the player who seems best placed to show 'game intelligence' over time.

i also think the general level of game intelligence will rise within the group by playing together.

i'm loath to talk of another five year plan but i think we're going through a reality check at the moment.

we have had to cut back the squad costs to create savings and space for new players to flourish.

how well we're doing will be apparent come the end of the season.

[Nana]

Marcello Lippi: "The best tactical plan or formation is the one that allows each player to maximize his utility for his teammates and the expression of his full potential. The choice of tactical formation is constrained by the qualities of the players available. Selecting the best possible team not only requires finding the right combination of players for the chosen formation, but also finding the right formation for the chosen players."

I have always found this quote from one of the best tacticians in the World as the best definition on the subject.

[Mutton Geoff]

Marcello Lippi: "The best tactical plan or formation is the one that allows each player to maximize his utility for his teammates and the expression of his full potential. The choice of tactical formation is constrained by the qualities of the players available. Selecting the best possible team not only requires finding the right combination of players for the chosen formation, but also finding the right formation for the chosen players."

I have always found this quote from one of the best tacticians in the World as the best definition on the subject.

yes good quote the sort of quote Mac Red used to like as well.

[Vulmea]

I think generally formations and their importance is over-blown. I feel in the 442 description above, what has been described has been really a Hodgson style 442 where the tactic is to sit back, soak pressure, full backs play narrow forcing teams to cross where 2 tall centre-backs head away and a counter attack is launched to 2 front men. The irony on the whole 442 debate is that the most successful club in the last 20 years has primarily used a 442 formation - Man U. Sure, you can say that certain players (Rooney) play in between the lines, but fundamentally Fergie has always played a 442 outside of the Tevez years where he went small ball - but even then he typically had Tevez (or Berbatov) and Rooney up front with Ronaldo and Giggs wide.

Is Fergie's 442 the same as a Hodgson 442? Of course not...but it is still fundamentally based on 2 forwards (with positions less fixed then in a Hodgson style), 2 wingers and 2 central midfield players. Similarly, Fergie's teams haven't had just one-footed full backs - Dennis Irwin played left back but was right footed, Rio Ferdinand certainly can pass the ball etc etc.

So for me - formation isn't that important but tactical flexibility and the ability for players to play multiple positions is more important. A 442 with such players works equally as well as a 4231, 433 or whatever else - I just think we all get so caught up with formations. Was Benitez' LFC team really a 4231 or was it a 442? Gerrard hardly did any defensive work so you could easily view it as a 442/4411 especially as our wingers were not so advanced - but we all (including myself) called it a 4231 cos it sounded cooler.

For me the best formation is one which you can't actually pin down as it then becomes harder to defend. The Benitez years, even Kenny's first 6 months in his return...we at times would play a 442 type system but with guys like Meireles and Maxi playing wide who were equally as comfortable playing centrally - it was great, so much movement, the opposition didn't know who to mark when.

One of the reasons I think "442" is the formation generally taught in the UK is that I believe its the easiest to implement. As a school kid playing 11 a side, it was easy for us to understand 442, what our roles were etc. It was funny though - I remember when I was 18 playing against a team playing a proper 433 and the reality was we had no clue how to defend it and were being dragged all over the place...illustrating that though I don't think formations are that important - clearly being tactically flexible and knowing how to play against different formations is important.

my gut instinct is to agree with you but when we get to the top flight my conviction wobbles.

The United example is good because despite being the dominant team in england since the 90's they've done very little in europe were Ferguson has largely been out thought. Tactically he's poor, he can't argue he hasn't had the money or the players or that his players have lacked the motivation. His two wins were mainly despite his tactics especially the travesty against Bayern not only in winning the final but in getting there in the first place. He succeeds in the prem because he's largely facing sides playing as they have for the last 20 years, he just has players that are better at doing it than the majority..

So tactics can be important - but the game will even out - the tactics will become known - the formnations defined - their weaknesses documented - the players drilled - that should already largely be the case - and thats why football intelligence will become increasingly important because the players will need to react to whats in front of them not what on a chalk board. None of this means that Djibril Cisse wont be able to score 20 goals a season in the french league from a punt over the top or that Stoke can't bully teams by only selecting players 6 foot plus but it should mean that you incresae your chances by having the flexibility to change in game.

One of the advantages Barca have is their intelligent players and a style that allows them a certain latitude in how they position themselves - its also a weakness because it appears they've deiberately denied themselves other options. The other advantage they have is they have harnessed Messi, their basic system can be countered, he can't. Suarez has a similar role for us - when all else fails give him the ball and he'll create something from nothing. It's what successful teams need to do - use those players that can make a difference to ther maximum -it used to be you dropped that player into a number 10/ no 7 role and let them control the final 3rd - so BR will not only be looking at developing an intelligent system, one that adapts but one that can utilise the talents he has available whether thats Suarez or Sturridge or whoever.

[Gnurglan]

Yeah but once we’ve got them we can develop them our way, you cry – maybe but the majority of teams we play against still play an English style, that means our options and education are limited, that means our clever young runts would be demolished week after week and their confidence left in tatters next to their brown shorts.

Don’t get me wrong I loved the hurly burly of the English game. To be honest though it ain't really hurly burly any more. Yes it is still more direct than on the continent. Yes, possession is still viewed as an aside. Maybe there is still a little more aggression allowed but on a daily basis it grows increasingly clinical, sanitised and intellectual. The tactics are gradually switching from 442 to different, less predictable variants. The dominance of foreign players and the increasing number of foreign coaches is changing the landscape. The development of players though is lagging seriously behind. Some academies have laudable intentions, some scouts are switched on but for the most part the development side is a decade behind the actual game and the game itself is still struggling.

Look at our expensive teenage signings at the club – Jordan Ibe, skilful fast, direct, Raheem Sterling, skillful fast, direct……….Sinclair skilful fast direct……erm……..

BR has stated his intent for players with football intelligence - Dan Smith maybe a bit more in that mould but until we start to prize players who understand the game rather than simply participate (whether that’s on an instinctive level like Gascoinge or intellectual level like Alonso) then we are scupered in terms of development. We do though have the chance to lead, to innovate, to get an advantage over the other clubs.

Barca and Arsenal to some extent have moved this one step on. They’ve introduced a model through their club. They play a common structure at all levels that allows players to understand the game. As at Ajax they try developing players in different positions so they understand the different roles and demands of each role. They teach the lads the why they are playing not just the how. Those three clubs have success in different ways, Barca are pre-eminent, Arsenal claim success financially and Ajax regularly produce quality players.

Barca is can be argued have been fortunate to have three of the best players of their generation at one time Xavi, Iniesta , Messi. Is it their golden age like Beckham, Scholes, Giggs at United or is it systematic, probably too early to say. Arsenals financial success is staggering for their level of achievement. No net transfer spends but consistent Champions league football for a decade. Ajax remaining competitive in a league stripped of players and finance.

Clearly there is something in the developing your own option but Liverpool need to take it one step further. Playing a single style achieves major results but each style has its time, each its own weaknesses. The key ability needed is the ability to not only be able to implement a style but be able to switch styles to counter whatever the opposition and probably more importantly the game does.

We look to have a dearth of intelligent centre backs at the moment, defensive intelligence is often portrayed as simply reading the game, organising the defence, we’ll need players capable of doing that and of bringing the ball forward and using it intelligently. We’ve seen Barca use the diminutive Mascherano at the back, Cannavaro showed his worth for Italy maybe we’ll need to break the mould again or think outside the box to achieve the flexibility we need, we can't simply rely on Dagger to be a game changer.

If we do simply try to replicate what the current leading clubs are doing by the time we get there they will have moved on. We need to aim beyond them and get there first.

We know the game moves on, we know any advantage is only ever short lived. So for sustained success, as in any walk of life the key is evolution and adaptation. Barca could be the cockroach of its day, brilliantly evolved to survive but eating shit and concrete all day.

So we need to develop players and a system that go hand in hand. A system that can switch between attack and defence seamlessly but allow individual players to express their full talent.  To do it we’ll need players that can switch to whatever position is needed at the time in a game and with whatever team mates they have around them. Sounds easy enough.

To do that though we need to set realistic goals. We are not going to get there overnight. So we need to spot and develop players that have the intelligence to allow those transitions, as well as the ability to deliver them. There is a balance to be struck. Some players will be superb at delivery but poor on recognition. Some players will be comfortable in several positions others will not. Coaching will help but that’s also were team work and leadership evolve. The team structure will need to evolve along with the team and the squad will be essential as much to maximise our options as provide cover.

It was obvious under Rafa for example, that most of our players couldn’t change the game, they needed to be told how and when, at half time or via a substitution. Under kenny the players were allowed to express themselves too much and consequently often looked lost. Under Hodgson we had a simple plan........ It is often easier from the sidelines or the stands to spot the problems or opposition weaknesses, so management will continue to be important, complete autonomy on the pitch is unlikely. Likewise some transitions between styles may only be possible using different players, so substitutions will continue to be important but effectively to be successful we need to build in flexibility.

I’m not sure how you spot or develop ‘game intelligence’ the level of ability required at the highest level whilst it can be improved by coaching seems to largely be instinctive. It doesn’t naturally come with quick feet or superb balance, the combination seems to be freakishly rare. I’d suggest you’ll get more success training the physical abilities rather than the instinctive ones, so it is that game intelligence we should be on the look out for rather than foot speed or athleticism but neither is going to be useful without the other.

Lots of good stuff there in the OP. Don't quite know where to start.

For me, the key to tactical flexibility is stability in the organisation. It doesn't matter if it's Ajax, Man U or Barca. Or LFC. That stability allows us to think long term, to develop players and we can make adjustments to our way of working. As opposed to making U-turns or revolutions.

I think you highlight something important too. That we should look for players with game intelligence. Put someone on the right diet, add some discipline, send them to the gym and have them run a few miles every so often and they'll get in shape. Game intelligence? Not so easy. If it was, then we'd produce a ZZ or Xavi every other year.

I do believe it's possible to train game intelligence, at least to a certain level. One part of it would come with the stability in the organisation. When we were at our best in the 70s and 80s, we had a clear system. We trained everyone to be rounded players. We trained them to pass and move, to make the right decisions. This was a system we developed over many years. And I'll never forget the comment that when foreign journalists came to watch training session, they thought everything was so basic. That they had seen it all before. But the coaches then said in response that they never got to see all the corrections, all the work that was done every day. Things looked simple, but that's the case when the real pros are in action. So stability will be key. And when we have that stability, we can work on details and we can develop players. From that we get flexibility. That's the player part of it.

The other part is the system ín terms of formation and squad set up. I find that easier to understand than how to find players with game intelligence and how to develop it more specifically. If we approach things from this side, the easiest platform to have is 4-4-2. With small changes, you can get to so many different formations and the roles for each player, at least defensively, will not change too much. You go from 4-4-2 to 4-4-1-1 and it's easy to see what's happened. Now you push the wide midfielders upfield and it's a 4-2-3-1. Push them even higher up and it's a 4-3-3. Rotate the triangle in CM and it's still a 4-3-3, but when you pull back the wide midfielders it's a 4-1-4-1. Etc. Almost all variation is with the support striker and the wide midfielders. The tough part here is that we need players to understand what their task is and how it changes when we go from one set of numbers to another. But still, if we just play with those formation numbers and expect players to act pretty much the same, it gives us some flexibility. Which I'd expect to be good enough even for a side at a fairly high level (although not our level). Just add that you keep different types of players in the squad (who fit against different kinds of opponents) and already there's a great deal of options available for the manager.

I also believe that this aspect of the game is something which we should train. If my memory is correct, Rafa used to have the team change (defensive) shape when he moved around with the ball, just to make sure everyone understood how to adapt and what they were supposed to do when the ball entered a certain area. It sounds very mechanical, but for me as an outsider, I'd think this is basic stuff that everyone should know at a top level club. It should be simple enough to train. Not simple, but it's about positions on the field, it's not about instinctive decisions in the penalty box. Should be easier to teach and learn. How much should we focus on it? I guess that's the tough part to answer.

The final part I want to add is our squad. If we sign intelligent players, they'll be able to adapt to different roles. We'd need an army if each player can only do one specific job. We can prepare ourselves and while it may take some time, it's not too difficult to fix. The right way, at first team level, is to keep a smaller squad. If we keep too many players, we don't need players to be too intelligent. We just use them for what they're good at and leave it there. Keep a smaller squad and we'll be forced to use players for different tasks. Which will help them develop their game intelligence (at least in theory). So we can force ourselves to be more flexible. We can build it right into the system.

[Vulmea]

Marcello Lippi: "The best tactical plan or formation is the one that allows each player to maximize his utility for his teammates and the expression of his full potential. The choice of tactical formation is constrained by the qualities of the players available. Selecting the best possible team not only requires finding the right combination of players for the chosen formation, but also finding the right formation for the chosen players."

I have always found this quote from one of the best tacticians in the World as the best definition on the subject.

I agree with that in context  but the quote implies a static approach - the issue is within a game those things change and if you have players that can recognise that and adapt to that then increasingly that will give you an advantage - it also suggests that the oppoistion tactics dont really feature I'm not sure thats true either.

Sacchi famously drilled his players to breaking point - if the ball was at x,  player 1 had to be at y, player 2 had to be at z etc etc - they were drilled and drilled until it was second nature. Lobonovsky the same ...............the issue is you can either try to control it to the nth degree or you can recognise you can't control everything and give the players the freedom to act - many of the top coaches say the small details are important - I think thats right at the top level -   some take this ton mean they have to try and control everything - its a normal human thing to do - coaches can help players recognise those details, train them to cope but ultimately those split second decisons and marginal positioning fall down to the instinct and intelligence of the players - would it be better to try and 2nd guess every eventuality or have players who can recognise the details

give a man a fish and he can eat for a day, give him a fishing rod and he can sell it and buy steak..........

[Vulmea]

Lots of good stuff there in the OP. Don't quite know where to start.

The final part I want to add is our squad. If we sign intelligent players, they'll be able to adapt to different roles. We'd need an army if each player can only do one specific job. We can prepare ourselves and while it may take some time, it's not too difficult to fix. The right way, at first team level, is to keep a smaller squad. If we keep too many players, we don't need players to be too intelligent. We just use them for what they're good at and leave it there. Keep a smaller squad and we'll be forced to use players for different tasks. Which will help them develop their game intelligence (at least in theory). So we can force ourselves to be more flexible. We can build it right into the system.

a couple of issues with smaller squads though - utility players can often end up being ok in several positions and never excelling in any - one of the aims has to be beng able to switch without any drop in quality - that the formations allow the players to still play at their maximum - it probably would mean that certain positions would need specialist players and thats were quality cover and rotation would be important - for all his intelligence Xabi aint a winger, for all his ability Messi isn't a full back or keeper - there will always be some specialisation and there will always be some players who's excellence means you at least partially build your team around those abilities.

Rafa's famous line about the formation only being a starting position is spot on for me - thats how it should be the issue is it should n't atke rafa to tell the players where they next need to be the players should be able to work it out themselves - part of that is leadereship, part team work- we've seen since the introduction of Lucas our pressing game has started to take shape again - its better coordinated because the players are more trusting they can push on as cover will be in place

the nature and nurture argument is a valid one too - although there are plenty of instinctive things in football it is possible to train and learn different things, different reactions whether they stand up in times of stress or can be as fluid is another matter.

[Mashy-rawr!nooo]

a couple of issues with smaller squads though - utility players can often end up being ok in several positions and never excelling in any - one of the aims has to be beng able to switch without any drop in quality - that the formations allow the players to still play at their maximum - it probably would mean that certain positions would need specialist players and thats were quality cover and rotation would be important - for all his intelligence Xabi aint a winger, for all his ability Messi isn't a full back or keeper - there will always be some specialisation and there will always be some players who's excellence means you at least partially build your team around those abilities.

Such is why in my belief you'd implant a system which could accomodate players into several similar positions. Barcelona is the prime example of course. Messi could play along the front 3 or even play in the hole if the formation was to change. Well Messi is an undoubted unique rarity, we should also look at the same approach. Gerrard can play in the hole, RM,DM and CM. While he excels at some more than other, its vital for any teams success in my eyes to have players that can fill slot into more than one playing position. Every player will always have his speciality positions, its a given in a teamwork based game. But the need to have players who can take up roles whether it be temporary (For 45 minutes of a game or for even 1 game in the league) or permanently (Suarez was never the line-leading striker he is with us at this moment in time). We shouldn't be filling our squad with handymen or hybrid players however, merely players who can slot into another position to benefit the team. Like LM-LB or CAM-CM.

[sattapaartridge]

Good post vulmea.

The first time i saw a tactical plan was when roy evans went 3 at the back and no one else did it. often, teams had to match our formation to get a result, but we had great players offensively to implement whatever we wanted. that 3-5-2 with the pace of mcmanaman, collymore and the wingbacks provided a lot of width and directness. Barnes was using his left foot like Alonso, Robbie was finding spaces galore with mcmanaman wreaking havoc down the middle.

If we didnt do that, and we stuck to a 4-4-2 how would we line up?

                                    James

Jones            Scales             Ruddock            Babb?

Mcmanaman    Barnes   Redknapp      McAteer

                   Fowler
                                   Collymore
               
If you analyse the strengths of this team you will also find that the weaknesses are very evident too.

Jones, for me, the only weakness was his height, complete as a fullback, lacks goals
Scales, good to average, good on the deck defender, injury and prone to mistakes.
Ruddock, dominant in the air, strong no nonsense arrogant defender. no pace.
Babb, pacey player, decent all-rounder, good on the deck, not good going forward, but good reader of the game.
McManaman, can run all day, great movement, commits defenders, runs at them at pace, can use either foot but prominantly right. good goal scorer. Restricting his movement to the left or right would require the CM's to "go between". and link the strikers. defensively poor, but would try.
Barnes, recovered from achilles injury and lost a lot of pace, but very skilful. Strong on the ball but weak defensively (no tackle) (although aware and always fought).
Redknapp, weak on the ball, good vision, rarely burst into the opposition pen box, good shooting from distance, like barnes, him tackling always would lead to an opposition free-kick.
McAteer, average fullback, decent engine, could tackle, good going forward but never really got in the box and scored.
Fowler, instinctive, good all-round striker, lacks height but good with his head, shooting with right and left was accurate. Lacks genuine pace, great anticipation and movement.
Collymore, powerful pacey player, good height, decent in the air, dangerous with any foot. Mentally inconsistent, world class on his day. (I was little, let me dream).

The truth is, playing the team above was too open. the lack of pace and tackle of barnes, redknapp and ruddock leaves us so open to counter attacks so defensively we needed someone who can get stuck in, or a dedicated pacey DM, like say, a Paul Ince, which to be fair was that Thomas? I dont think so. Playing Babb at left back instead of centreback could help this, but we'd have needed a good attacking left back or left winger.

Going 3-5-2 was genius in this case.

It was ironic when Houllier went 4-4-2, because we passed the ball less, went "traditional" english counterattack team.

Rafa I think he came in playing 4-5-1, crouch, gerrard, alonso, hamann. then sissoko came in and gerrard went right hand side (in a 4-4-2! with luis garcia in the hole). Babel, kewell, gonzalez or pennant playing bit part roles. then kuyt came in and we were forced to go into 4231, because, for me Kuyt was a problem. Torres/crouch were good upfont, but kuyts lack of pace and ability meant he was ruining possession high up the pitch and often getting in gerrard's way.

Overall, I think formation systems are very important. Starting positions give players a sense of belonging and it develops habits on the pitch as tactically aware players will know "okay, i've gone forward, i've left a space open behind me".

But its the idea's behind some of the tactics. I dont believe Rafa was a stern believer in pass and move. But Roy Evans, Kenny, and I'd say even Rodgers are all believers in movement and ball retention, movement, pace and ability. Rafa had his own idea's. He placed a lot of onus on Game Intelligence, Second Balls (winning the ball high up the pitch), playing "Between The Lines". How important was technical skills to Rafa? Players like Voronin/Kuyt were supposedly excellent between the lines, but was this just movement, technically bad players? Is this an ideology that simply was already there? McManaman, was great between the lines. Suarez/Luis Garcia also masters in that area. They could all run with the ball, commit defenders and do something in the final third.

As a supporter, I think I have learnt more tactically because of Rafa, its not only just him speaking about tactics, but because of the magnitude of the games; which screamed to me what our weaknesses are and how we tried to paper over those cracks. Later on, we kept buying centre backs and defensive midfielders instead of fixing that wide problem we had.

Against the bigger teams, your strengths and weaknesses are highlighted by the goals you've conceded and scored IMO. I think I just wrote a whole load of shit. Oh well.

[redmark]

I’m not sure how you spot or develop ‘game intelligence’ the level of ability required at the highest level whilst it can be improved by coaching seems to largely be instinctive. It doesn’t naturally come with quick feet or superb balance, the combination seems to be freakishly rare. I’d suggest you’ll get more success training the physical abilities rather than the instinctive ones, so it is that game intelligence we should be on the look out for rather than foot speed or athleticism but neither is going to be useful without the other.

While I recognise and appreciate the general drift of the argument, I think to some degree on this specific point and others (though significantly, not all), I take the almost opposite view.

Standing on the kop during the Paisley-Fagan-Dalglish years, I believed the crucial attribute that separated us from other English teams was intelligence (and what separated us from European clubs, allying this intelligence with a 'British' tempo). We didn't have a team entirely full of the best players. They weren't the quickest, the biggest, the strongest. Equally, we didn't have tricky skilful wingers or players like Hoddle and Le Tissier, either. We kept possession, we worked openings, we took our chances and prevented the opposition, largely, from doing the same. If not superior skill, power or speed, what else? Intelligence.

It probably took a decade and a half before I began to challenge my own conclusion based on watching, reading and listening to the players of that era in other contexts. Phil Neal, uttering 'yes boss' nonsense on the sideline as Graham Taylor's assistant. Mark Lawrenson... enough said. Even Hansen's comments on MOTD, despite the initial acclamation of his 'expert' analysis, are essentially cliched and banal; an expert on poor defending, an appreciator of individual skill, but tactically silent, if not naive. Jim Beglin is indistinguishable in his insights as co-commentator from the likes of Alan Smith and Mark Bright. Graeme Souness was a disaster in his biggest managerial role, and (despite the occasional insightful comment) unremarkable as a pundit. Ronnie Whelan - as seemingly 'intelligent' a footballer as any in those teams - tarnished that image with insular, simplistic criticism of Rafa as manager equalling the most dire journalists. Gary Gillespie on LFC TV is dreadful. Steve Nicol was famously regarded as something of a team idiot.

Reading the autobiographies of that era, one is struck by how 'ordinary' they are - the discussion is of commitment, personality, man management and confidence, rather than tactical insight. Read the sparse 'tactical' aspects from four or five of them in quick succession and you'd question whether they actually played on the same team or not, such are the differences and gaps in understanding between them - with one illuminating exception, discussed below (*). The one real exception to this is Dalglish; but as we've seen in the last two years, even he succumbs to British footballing stereotypes at times in player signing and selection.

Perhaps some of this is 'intelligence' rather than 'game intelligence'; but the almost total lack of tactical understanding displayed by the array of ex-Liverpool stars employed in the media - and football itself - suggests not, or not entirely. So if it wasn't intelligence (individual player game intelligence) - or superior skill, size, power or speed - that separated us from the chaff in the 70s and 80s, what?

The collective intelligence of the tactical framework.

An illustration of this is to accept Vulmea and Mashy's argument that the vast majority of British players were, and are, schooled from an early age in a physical, direct, low-intelligence style of football. Ok. So how many of Paisley's great side were products of a carefully planned and long established youth system designed to counter that failing - the conclusion reached for our modern predicament? Virtually none. We signed players from Scunthorpe, Northampton, Brighton, Partick Thistle, Newcastle, Home Farm, Middlesbrough, Arsenal (more Don Howe than Arsene Wenger), Celtic, Chester City, Sunderland. With one or two possible exceptions, hardly oases of revolutionary tactical thinking, and plenty of them relatively low level coaching setups. Yet these players fitted seamlessly - with perhaps a year in the reserves, though not always - into the most dominant English club side of the 20th century.

(*) One - the only, perhaps - reasonably common theme in the autobiographies of ex-Liverpool players is precisely how little tactical work was done - consciously, at least. Most famously perhaps, Joe Fagan's instructions to Jan Molby before his debut: "Listen, we've signed you because you're a good player, just go and show us what a good player you are, whatever you want to do." Molby himself is an interesting case study of this issue - one of the most 'skilful' players (certainly in central midfield) of the latter half of the Paisley-Fagan-Dalglish era and judging by his punditry, one of the most 'intelligent'. But ultimately, one of the least critical to the system and frequently disposed of; displaced by the Whelan/McMahon partnership, ultimately averaging only 25 or so games per season (all competitions) over his Liverpool career, playing a nearly-full league season only twice, and more than half a season less than half the time he was at the club (injuries and jail time also factors, of course).

The footballing intelligence of those sides, I believe, was inherent in the system (and training techniques) and imparted to the players almost subconsciously. We've discussed this once before, but the key for an individual player at a specific moment during a game is not to be able to consider every possible option open to him and choose the best - indeed, it is almost to NOT consider every possible option: it is for the right option to be instinctive and first nature - generally, to pass the ball. To a team mate in space, in the direction he's facing, on the floor, with good 'zip' on the pass. That requires good 'basic' technique perhaps more than anything else - the ability to control a ball and be in a position to pass simply with the second (if not the first) touch. The technique and passing tempo is critical, for momentary weaknesses (as and when they appear) in the opposition's defensive shape to be exploited.

In terms of adjusting to opponents shape or style or strengths and weaknesses, this again should be inherent in the system. It shouldn't require a 'plan B', so much as flexibility. That flexibility is twofold: firstly, the ability of players to do different things in a game; to pass or run, to pass short or long. Certainly there's some decision making invovled there, but it's less a question of 'game intelligence' as recognising the nature of a situation and responding appropriately; which is the sort of thing we test animal intelligence with. A rat or a monkey learns that pressing the red button gives food while the blue button gives nothing. Most footballers can manage trained rat or monkey level intelligence; the key is being able to recognise and execute instinctively. Again, that requires basic technique and a degree of physical attributes, as well as a training regime which replicates those situations repeatedly, rewarding the correct response and penalising the incorrect one. Secondly, the overall tactical responsibility is with the manager and coaches. The players are busy playing during the game: it is a management responsibility to identify and address, if necessary, overall problems in the system, whether under-performance of particular players or where significant advantage can be gained from relatively minor tweaks (in tempo, shape, pressing, passing distance or depth of the defensive line, for example).

While I dislike the popular notion that football has changed utterly in the last 20-30 years, the one area it has changed is in the physical pace of the game, due to fitness levels, the back pass law, pitch quality, boots etc. So to come back to your quoted point, I think you do have to select players primarily for technique and pace (in all but perhaps a couple of positions). As long as the player isn't entirely dense - unfortunately, Ryan Babel springs to mind - or indecisive (Jordan Henderson at times), he and the system can be successful if technical quality and a degree of physical quality is present. A truly 'intelligent' footballer - and it's good to have a couple - then becomes a great player and a leader on the pitch. But it's not necessary - it's not feasible, or perhaps desirable - in every player.

[owens_2k]

Marcello Lippi: "The best tactical plan or formation is the one that allows each player to maximize his utility for his teammates and the expression of his full potential. The choice of tactical formation is constrained by the qualities of the players available. Selecting the best possible team not only requires finding the right combination of players for the chosen formation, but also finding the right formation for the chosen players."

I have always found this quote from one of the best tacticians in the World as the best definition on the subject.

This is why we shouldnt be expected to play the kind of football Rodgers wants straight away. We don't have the players to do it.

[Gnurglan]

a couple of issues with smaller squads though - utility players can often end up being ok in several positions and never excelling in any - one of the aims has to be beng able to switch without any drop in quality - that the formations allow the players to still play at their maximum - it probably would mean that certain positions would need specialist players and thats were quality cover and rotation would be important - for all his intelligence Xabi aint a winger, for all his ability Messi isn't a full back or keeper - there will always be some specialisation and there will always be some players who's excellence means you at least partially build your team around those abilities.

Rafa's famous line about the formation only being a starting position is spot on for me - thats how it should be the issue is it should n't atke rafa to tell the players where they next need to be the players should be able to work it out themselves - part of that is leadereship, part team work- we've seen since the introduction of Lucas our pressing game has started to take shape again - its better coordinated because the players are more trusting they can push on as cover will be in place

the nature and nurture argument is a valid one too - although there are plenty of instinctive things in football it is possible to train and learn different things, different reactions whether they stand up in times of stress or can be as fluid is another matter.

Sure, there's a limit to how small you can keep your squad before it becomes a problem. But I think all these things are linked. If we keep a small squad, we'll know every player's qualities and we'll see them all in action. Makes it easier to know where to change/improve next. And with a smaller squad, there will be room to buy a new player if there's a need for it. Just as long as we also make sure we sell those who don't fit the bill. The squad needs to have players who are flexible. That's the only way to get by.

A lot of this comes back to stability. We've gone from Rafa to Hodgson to Kenny to Rodgers. We've changed the medical team, scouts, owners, systems and God knows what else in a short space of time. The result is we still have a core team from Rafa's days, a few players who no longer fit the needs they were bought for and we're adding plenty of players from our Academy to this mix. Youngsters who are the types of players we want them to be (or so I'd imagine...). If we are to get to our own way of tactical flexibility, where we shape the team we want, we need to have that stability. The first thing in the act to get stability though, is action. Clean out the players we don't have use for.

[Gnurglan]

While I dislike the popular notion that football has changed utterly in the last 20-30 years, the one area it has changed is in the physical pace of the game, due to fitness levels, the back pass law, pitch quality, boots etc. So to come back to your quoted point, I think you do have to select players primarily for technique and pace (in all but perhaps a couple of positions). As long as the player isn't entirely dense - unfortunately, Ryan Babel springs to mind - or indecisive (Jordan Henderson at times), he and the system can be successful if technical quality and a degree of physical quality is present. A truly 'intelligent' footballer - and it's good to have a couple - then becomes a great player and a leader on the pitch. But it's not necessary - it's not feasible, or perhaps desirable - in every player.

I'm the same. Dislike the idea that everything is so much harder. It's still a game with 11 vs 11. People sometimes talk about these days as completely different, but I don't think so. If it was so different, then maybe things are too easy these days. How could Messi score 80-90 goals in a season if things are so difficult now? Didn't happen 20 years ago, did it? In 10 years time, let alone 50 years time, people will say he mainly played against ale house players.

Things change - yes. The ball is different, the rules are slightly different etc. I have no doubt Shankly and Paisley would create a superb side if given a chance today. They'd look at all the new tools and all information available and use it. They'd find a way to gain an advantage. Because they knew how to piece everything together. They knew what's important and what's not. And they got by with fewer players in their squad. Had to, maybe because they were not allowed to use more than 1 or 2 subs. So they had to have flexible players. I think we could still use some of the basic methods they used to get where we want to be. Because it is a lot easier to be flexible with 3 subs and 7 players on the bench, with a squad of 25 (or so) players than it is to be flexible with 1-2 subs, 2-3 on the bench and a squad of 15-20 players.

[Hank Scorpio]

Nice stuff Vulmea.  I always had you down as someone that thinks tactics are overrated etc but must just have been me.  Agree with you completely on Rafa's system where decision making was limited and system required a lot of Rafa's attention.  It's probably why we suffered most when you removed flexible thinkers like Alonso and Hyypia from the squad and Rafa was off trying to fix the club from top to bottom during 2009-10.  Also agree that we need to build our own system and not replicate.  We will be left behind if we pursue another clubs blueprint.  We must develop our own plan, no harm in learning from the established side, but ultimately we have to integrate the system with the identity of the club.  That's when you'll get results.  And it's not easy because a lot of people would have done it otherwise.  It will take time.  I am curious to see where these 'superclubs' like City and Chelsea end up in 10 years time.  If they do not organically establish systems, routines, practices which match their identity then they will always have to buy that expertise.

That's a great post, Mark.

[Gnurglan]

Nice stuff Vulmea.  I always had you down as someone that thinks tactics are overrated etc but must just have been me.  Agree with you completely on Rafa's system where decision making was limited and system required a lot of Rafa's attention.  It's probably why we suffered most when you removed flexible thinkers like Alonso and Hyypia from the squad and Rafa was off trying to fix the club from top to bottom during 2009-10. 

Rafa set up a really good system. It took time, but it was a very good platform. The best was our CM, where we had Mascherano, Alonso, Gerrard and then Lucas behind them and Spearing as 5th pick. Quality right through, with a younger, potentially good player as backup. The problem with a tigher squad is that if we remove for example Alonso, someome will have to fill that gap. Soon there were too many gaps to fill. The only void we managed to fill with equal quality was Johnson (for Arbeloa), but it cost us a lot of money. At CB we also had a good setup. When Sami was eased out, we had Carra, Skrtel and Agger. Next in line to be phased out was Carra and we saw that we could make that transition last year. So the platform was very good. Very well thought out. Sensitive, but we used our resources very well.

I don't think decision making was limited. We were well-drilled and had our patterns of play. But while some would say that's restricting the players, I don't think so. For example, we gave Gerrard more of a free role. We used Mascherano, Alonso and Lucas in more defensive and restricted roles so it could happen. That too gave Benayoun space to be creative. We pulled Kuyt further back which also gave Johnson room to attack more. Things like that. We found ways to use players' strengths to complement each other. It worked because we had intelligent players who could adapt. I think Mascherano is a good example. He's managed to adapt from CM to RB and now he's a CB in the best team in the world.

What we didn't do was replace players with equal quality. Mainly Hodgson failed to understand the basics with how our squad was built. Stuff that people in the pubs could see. (Konchesky and Aurelio in and Insua out?) We also addressed areas with the wrong players (Cole, Poulsen, Konchesky,... and later on Carroll etc).

Edit:
I don't want it to turn into a Rafa vs everyone thing. Just posted the above to stress the need for intelligent players. If we get them and set up our own system, we can get by with a rather small squad. We can be competitive, even if we don't have lots of players to choose from. It requires players to fit the system though. Whatever system we choose to set up. And right now, we have players for many systems. It's something we need to address. It sounds like a good thing, but it's more like we have players for many systems, but not for one specific system.

[Hank Scorpio]

Rafa set up a really good system. It took time, but it was a very good platform. The best was our CM, where we had Mascherano, Alonso, Gerrard and then Lucas behind them and Spearing as 5th pick. Quality right through, with a younger, potentially good player as backup. The problem with a tigher squad is that if we remove for example Alonso, someome will have to fill that gap. Soon there were too many gaps to fill. The only void we managed to fill with equal quality was Johnson (for Arbeloa), but it cost us a lot of money. At CB we also had a good setup. When Sami was eased out, we had Carra, Skrtel and Agger. Next in line to be phased out was Carra and we saw that we could make that transition last year. So the platform was very good. Very well thought out. Sensitive, but we used our resources very well.

I don't think decision making was limited. We were well-drilled and had our patterns of play. But while some would say that's restricting the players, I don't think so. For example, we gave Gerrard more of a free role. We used Mascherano, Alonso and Lucas in more defensive and restricted roles so it could happen. That too gave Benayoun space to be creative. We pulled Kuyt further back which also gave Johnson room to attack more. Things like that. We found ways to use players' strengths to complement each other. It worked because we had intelligent players who could adapt. I think Mascherano is a good example. He's managed to adapt from CM to RB and now he's a CB in the best team in the world.

Rafa had an excellent system.  He also had a plan.  As you say he used resources very well.  That's a manager for me.  He traded up very well i.e. Sissoko -> Mascherano, Crouch -> Torres.  He maintained progress in the backdrop of building a team.  Sometimes you only truly appreciate a job through hindsight.

But I do think that he took his eye off the ball at a time when the house was still very much made of cards.  Call it complacency but there's a lot more to it than that.  The system required Rafa as I don't think he had the calibre of player or squad culture to maintain progress without his thorough input.  Maybe he was only 1 more season away from granting the squad that level of autonomy and also as players like Insua, Lucas etc came through.  This may sound like a criticism but it is far from it.  The man managed this club very well and we did a lot better than we would have under another manager.  Evidence of this is Hodgson's reign.  Hodgson is by no means a bad manager.  But he struggled in that environment.  Not only that but he tried to reinvent the wheel.  I genuinely thought that if he took the successful elements of Rafa's system and granted a bit of freedom then we could be on to a winner.  But it was also a difficult time for Hodgson because he was losing players like Mascherano not to mention the sale of the club in the early months of his tenure. 

My point is that we almost made that transition to a semi-autonomous side under Rafa.  One where decisions were made in the dugout and out on the pitch.  And people were making good decisions.  For me this game is a collection of decisions.  If you make more good decisions than your opponent, the likelihood is that you'll win.  It is so frustrating it all broke down when it did.

[robgomm]

I do think it's worth defending the merit of 4-4-2 in how it covers space defensively. You still see often defence in banks of four and the flat back four has survived well amidst all the tactical change of recent years.

[SweetSilverSevens]

Good post.

But your comment about Sterling/Ibe/Sinclar all being quick, skillful, direct.... there is nothing wrong with that, if they can at least fit into your system of play. You can't just pass, pass, pass, all the time, you need sometime need to something a little bit different. Barca's forward options like Messi, Alexis, Pedro, Tello, Villa...ect, they are technically gifted, but have a direct style too, in the manner at which they try to run at players, and get in beyond defenses.

Physical attributes are a major part of player. Messi's speed and balance, Ronaldo's power/pace, Alonso's lack of pace dictates that he best fits into a holding role (obviously, it also correlates with his talent).

Brendan Rodgers WANTS pacy/skillful/direct wide players..... which is why Sterling has adapted so well, which is why he has brought in Sturridge, which is why he's been interested in the likes of Ince, Walcott and Tello (if rumours are to be believed). So if we produce players like that at the accademy for the manager, perfect! But we've also got to produce the right types of midfielders, defenders, centre forwards too....

When you listen to Alex Ingelthorpe, that is clearly what we're trying to do.

[alvaro]

 This is just a thought because its not something that I have actually studied or anything, but nowadays with Champions League money being so important it could that its not in the best intrest of teams to change their football philosophy, the short term costs are so high that perhaps they are not worth it. I mean is a  fluid total football team better than a rigid 4-4-2 team that had 30 extra million pounds to invest in players? This is why Liverpool are in such a good spot to make a philosophy change because given our current situation we can allow ourselves to drop from 6th to 10th. The marginal cost we have to pay short term is very low in this part of the table compared to the top spots or the bottom ones. Teams like Aston Villa cant give young manager a chance to change the football philosophy because they have to stay in the top flight.

[Hank Scorpio]

This is just a thought because its not something that I have actually studied or anything, but nowadays with Champions League money being so important it could that its not in the best intrest of teams to change their football philosophy, the short term costs are so high that perhaps they are not worth it. I mean is a  fluid total football team better than a rigid 4-4-2 team that had 30 extra million pounds to invest in players? This is why Liverpool are in such a good spot to make a philosophy change because given our current situation we can allow ourselves to drop from 6th to 10th. The marginal cost we have to pay short term is very low in this part of the table compared to the top spots or the bottom ones. Teams like Aston Villa cant give young manager a chance to change the football philosophy because they have to stay in the top flight.

Completely agree.  It's why Rodgers should be given this season to experiment, tweak his system and integrate young players.  Results should be a secondary focus. 

It's rare that clubs get this opportunity.  But it's one we must not waste because if we get it right we will see the benefits for years to come.  But this will all depend on Rodgers building on the work of Benitez while blending the parts of his system that he sees vital.  It will require a manager of great talent to make it all work even if he has been given a rare opportunity.

[Not A Scouser]

A couple of points, just for informational purposes that may be relevant.  Soccernomics is a book about broad trends in football (things like football starting in working class, industrial cities but probably the powerhouses moving to capital cities because on average they have more money).  Right in the title they examine why England lose.  They examine wealth, population size, number of people playing in the country, and length of tradition.  Their conclusion was that England are remarkably consistent in winning right around where you would expect them to from those factors.

Man Utd. also have a system throughout the club (which apparently involves 10,000 wingers and strikers on the squad).

Brendan Rodgers talks about how the system (formation) doesn't matter much, you adjust it to the players but the style matters to him.  Quick, passing, possession etc.. So we have seen a bunch of different formations in half a year, but only a couple of style changes (packing the box and counter-attacking versus Everton and Chelsea).

[GrkStav]

So for me - formation isn't that important but tactical flexibility and the ability for players to play multiple positions is more important. A 442 with such players works equally as well as a 4231, 433 or whatever else - I just think we all get so caught up with formations. Was Benitez' LFC team really a 4231 or was it a 442? Gerrard hardly did any defensive work so you could easily view it as a 442/4411 especially as our wingers were not so advanced - but we all (including myself) called it a 4231 cos it sounded cooler.

For me the best formation is one which you can't actually pin down as it then becomes harder to defend. The Benitez years, even Kenny's first 6 months in his return...we at times would play a 442 type system but with guys like Meireles and Maxi playing wide who were equally as comfortable playing centrally - it was great, so much movement, the opposition didn't know who to mark when.

One of the reasons I think "442" is the formation generally taught in the UK is that I believe its the easiest to implement. As a school kid playing 11 a side, it was easy for us to understand 442, what our roles were etc. It was funny though - I remember when I was 18 playing against a team playing a proper 433 and the reality was we had no clue how to defend it and were being dragged all over the place...illustrating that though I don't think formations are that important - clearly being tactically flexible and knowing how to play against different formations is important.

Speak for yourself, with all due respect. At best, once the switch to the 4231 as the primary formation was made, the only legitimate alternatives to calling it that, as we deployed it sometimes, were a 4-5-1 or a 424.  It was never a 442/4411 in attack. We almost never had two banks of four whilst attacking.

By the way, what is a "proper 433" if formations aren't that important?

[Not A Scouser]

How about collective intelligence?  We all know that some players play particularly well together, they are "in synch" or some such.  This to me is different than simply the game intelligence of a player.  The best example for me at the moment is Suarez and Enrique.  There's no doubt that Suarez is brilliantly intelligent in his play (except when I plead for him to pass the ball!) but I don't think many would say that about Enrique yet they have worked some of the most intelligent, incisive play this year.

If you know where on the pitch  teammate is going to run in certain situations you can make what looks like a brilliant ball without much going on in your head.  Pick out an acre of space for your winger to run onto that would open up the defence while your winger is turning to face you for possession is not a stupid decision, it is a wrong decision based on a lack of understanding.

There is innate intelligence that can be brought to the pitch. However, a well drilled system with simple components (as described above with the great Liverpool teams) can make a pretty decent facsimile of that intelligence in a team that if you told them to "just pass it to someone in a red shirt" would run around like headless chickens. 

[PhaseOfPlay]

Tactical flexibility

In the UK, probably since the 60’s the majority of sides have fielded a simple 442 formation. Ok there have been dalliances with 433, 451, 4321 and even 352 but for the most part, here we play 442.

Look abroad and it is not so clear. Italy have a variety of styles, so to Spain and Portugal. They show far more flexibility and imagination. They can switch styles between games, even during games. It’s always largely been thus.

Benitez coaching his Valencia side in several defensive tactics is an anecdote which triggered much appreciation on his arrival but in essence was a more common trait abroad than we’d want to appreciate.

442 not only defines our teams though, it defines our players. We create players that fit ‘our system’. Our fullbacks play on the side of their chosen foot, are centre backs are good headers of the ball, not so good with it at their feet, our midfielders industrious, wide players fast, forwards either big target men or fast goal scorers. Those that don’t fit are simply discarded. That has long been the way. It is an incredibly wasteful use of what little talent we produce. Where in there do we see tactical awareness, football intelligence? The likes of Gascoigne, if they make it, are generally seen as luxury players that can be accommodated but rarely enhanced.

Our selection processes mainly focus on results rather than potential. We look at size and fitness over skill and flair. Players are limited as to where they can be used – he’s a big unit he must be a centre back, he’s skinny and fast put him on the wing etc etc.

There is not only a formation but a template for the players that play in it. It means mercurial talents like Hoddle and Le Tissier even where their talent transcends the barriers are left unappreciated, unloved and sidelined for the most part because our tactical knowse just can’t accommodate them.

Maybe you can take the view that so what, the cream will always rise to the top but would the likes of Xavi, Pirlo and Del Piero have survived and made it to the professional game in the UK? Do we have any real evidence to suggest we even breed them like that here?

Having a set style, a set template of player means for the most part football intelligence is not required. You are drilled in how to play, you play that way from the age of 5 to 35 legs permitting. Play your role well and you can get great results……


I agree with this, and it is as good a description of English coaching culture for the past 40 years or more as any. However, I think the emphasis is wrong - all national associations have a "template" of what they want their typical player to be; for Germany, it was always strong and technically great, for Holland it was always players who understand space and movement, for Spain now it is players who can receive and play in tight spaces comfortably, for Russia it used to be speed and technical mastery, etc. So having a template was never the issue. The issue was the design of that template, largely based - consciously or unconsciously - on the big number 9 and the strapping centre half. That was the English game, from the WM through to the 4-2-4 through to the 4-4-2 and 4-3-3. Wenger once said that the biggest influence on the national style is climate, and there is some merit in that - anyone playing a non-league level and below who has run on a boggy field in the middle of December trying to play a fluid passing style will know why this is important - when it's cold and wet and the field is a mess, your best bet to get enjoyment out of the game is to play it long, run after it, and keep running. To do that, you need a big number 9. To combat the big number 9 you need a strapping centre-half. And so the cycle continues down to youth level, which then permeates back up the levels over time as the strapping centre-halves and big number 9's become the new professional level players. This partly explains the impact of "foreign" players on the English game in the 90's, as players who were brought up in warmer climates or better field conditions and could play a more technical game throughout the year were forced to work on their technique more than their physical strengths. In this sense, it is easy to see why Liverpool were so successful for so long. Rather than copy what everyone else was doing, they frequently bucked the trend and went for skill over strength, and short passing over aimless lumps. When you look at a team like Newcastle and their tradition of the big number 9 (Jackie Milburn, Malcolm MacDonald, Shearer, Carroll) and compare it to Liverpool's emphasis on the number 7 (and thus usually more creative player) position, you can see where Liverpool were an outlier in English football for decades. This is, of course, changing, and it is changing at the youth level more than the professional level - sure, every club talks about the Barcelona model, but it has been the academy coaches and grassroots coaches who have largely decided that there IS a way to develop more technical English players, and it doesn't need to be as it always was. You can see that in our own club with Rodgers background, Borrell, and latterly Inglethorpe, who is one of the most innovative youth coaches at Academy level in the country.

That approach though as we’ve discovered time and again will only get you so far. Of course if 11 good English players, motivated and confident and playing very well, even playing 442 could win whatever competition it was in, especially if there were a couple of Scousers present but the odds are largely stacked against it. We generally don’t have 11  good enough players,  the good players we do have are often one dimensional and 442 can be predictable and easily counteracted. Add to that the players know all of that so confidence and motivation are lacking……throw in the fact we know we are technically inferior, other teams have better more skilful players, our managers have been pretty dire and all in all we’re lucky to get out of the group.

Another good assessment, but here's an interesting take on it - remember back to when Kenny initially took over as caretaker manager. Remember, also, that we mixed up personnel and formations over the course of a few games. Remember also the quality of the football played, and the form in that 6 month period. A key factor in this is the fact that players had to get used to new formations pretty quickly (3-5-2, 4-2-3-1, 3-4-2-1) and Kenny isn't one to go over formations in a training session on the field, so it was largely more talked about than trained. For a player, this presents a challenge on the day - Am I doing my job right? Should be here or there? When do I join the attack? Do I mark tight now or do I leave it a few yards? Will be boss pick me again for this formation? All of these intensely motivate a good player to do their best, which leads to more enjoyment, which leads to more effort. When we went back to the 4-4-2 the subsequent season, though, motivation levels went down a little, and the players got themselves into a rut as the pattern of play never really changed. Compare this to Rafa, and his tactical changes from game to game. He didn't always change formation, but he did change emphasis in areas of the field, and that, to a player, is exciting. It says to them "this man is willing to do anything to win the game". Recall Bellamy's "genius" comment after the Chelsea game. Of course, Rafa was a genius, but from a player's perspective, you can't help but be motivated to play for a manager who will change the game up to keep things fresh. There's a fine balance, of course, between changing things for a reason and constantly tinkering, but even Ranieri got Chelsea into second place! The main point is, though, that even subtle changes can rekindle motivation in players who might be hitting a rut. It is one criticism of Houllier that he didn't stick with his more attacking policy of early 2003 when he hit a few bumps. Up until November we hadn't lost a game, playing an atypical fast passing game. However, a tricky November turned into a disastrous December, at which point Houllier and the team went back into a counterattacking shell, increasingly dependent on the long ball forward rather than the fast-break attacks of the 2001 and 2002 seasons. Clearly, the team's motivation went down, and probably never recovered. Had he took the bull by the horns, though, and went back to the attacking 4-4-2 or even changed formation to a 4-3-3 or something similar, he may have rekindled the player's attentions and pulled out of the slump a lot faster than he did. So you make a good point. I think that's why Rodgers so far has kept the team motivated despite less than optinal results - he can and will change things, he is offering a challenge to the players, and the players are motivated by the challenge.

So we have some inherent problems here in blighty in developing our talent and then utilising it to its maximum.

Now you may ask, what’s that got to do with me, I’m a scouser not English….well part of the problem is we play in the English league and the majority of our developing players, even now, are English not Scouse. It’s our main pool of young players.

Yeah but once we’ve got them we can develop them our way, you cry – maybe but the majority of teams we play against still play an English style, that means our options and education are limited, that means our clever young runts would be demolished week after week and their confidence left in tatters next to their brown shorts.

I'm not sure this is true. I've coached teams from a more direct game to a possession game and suffered bad results in the process. The belief that gets instilled in the players though is not from the scoreboard, but from little passages of play that say "bloody hell, if we get this right there will be no stopping us!" Although the same could be said for a very good direct team (like Stoke), most English direct play is mere "lump it long and fight for it" football. When a coach comes in and challenges the players to raise their game on a technical level, sure, there will be times when you get hammered; ultimately, though, if the players are ambitious, they will see little patterns emerging that will raise their confidence, will encourage them to try things, will increase their motivation, and will make them more effective. Prime examples are Enrique and Downing. Downing has certainly played his best Liverpool football under Rodgers than he did under Kenny; and if we want evidence of his development, we only have to look at his cross-field run to open up space for Suarez for THAT pass and goal. This would have been an unthinkable move for him to make last season. But now he is being challenged. Last season, his job was to get the ball and make crosses - this season he is being challenged by Rodgers; Rodgers has effectively said "Steward, you can do more than that if you want to", and he has responded. This isn't great man-management more than it is understanding that top players want to be constantly challenged. It is an adrenaline rush. It is why players move on to bigger clubs or accept new challenges even when they've won everything. People say it is because they are winners, but it's more than that - it is an addiction to challenging their comfort zones and moving into new ones. Having the challenge of playing an almost-exclusive possession game against the rough and ready sides of the Premier League will mean short-term pain, but ultimately, it will develop strengths in these young players who will bring the new solidity to a possession game which will walk over 8 out of 10 teams in the future.

Don’t get me wrong I loved the hurly burly of the English game. To be honest though it ain't really hurly burly any more. Yes it is still more direct than on the continent. Yes, possession is still viewed as an aside. Maybe there is still a little more aggression allowed but on a daily basis it grows increasingly clinical, sanitised and intellectual. The tactics are gradually switching from 442 to different, less predictable variants. The dominance of foreign players and the increasing number of foreign coaches is changing the landscape. The development of players though is lagging seriously behind. Some academies have laudable intentions, some scouts are switched on but for the most part the development side is a decade behind the actual game and the game itself is still struggling.

This is true. The change has been happening at the grassroots level for a while though, so it will soon filter into the higher levels of youth football. Grassroots is where it's at. Academies know there is a benefit in reaching out to local communities because they know that almost all players formative learning will come from someone not involved in the professional game. The more people at this level exposed to what good football is, the better the grassroots becomes, which trickles upwards into the academies, which eventually will trickle upwards to the professional game. It is by no means standardized yet, though, and a lot get it wrong at the early ages, but there are enough good grassroots coaches out there effecting change that within two generations the make-up of the English player will be dramatically changed.

Look at our expensive teenage signings at the club – Jordan Ibe, skilful fast, direct, Raheem Sterling, skillful fast, direct……….Sinclair skilful fast direct……erm……..

BR has stated his intent for players with football intelligence - Dan Smith maybe a bit more in that mould but until we start to prize players who understand the game rather than simply participate (whether that’s on an instinctive level like Gascoinge or intellectual level like Alonso) then we are scupered in terms of development. We do though have the chance to lead, to innovate, to get an advantage over the other clubs.

Barca and Arsenal to some extent have moved this one step on. They’ve introduced a model through their club. They play a common structure at all levels that allows players to understand the game. As at Ajax they try developing players in different positions so they understand the different roles and demands of each role. They teach the lads the why they are playing not just the how. Those three clubs have success in different ways, Barca are pre-eminent, Arsenal claim success financially and Ajax regularly produce quality players.

Barca is can be argued have been fortunate to have three of the best players of their generation at one time Xavi, Iniesta , Messi. Is it their golden age like Beckham, Scholes, Giggs at United or is it systematic, probably too early to say. Arsenals financial success is staggering for their level of achievement. No net transfer spends but consistent Champions league football for a decade. Ajax remaining competitive in a league stripped of players and finance.

Clearly there is something in the developing your own option but Liverpool need to take it one step further. Playing a single style achieves major results but each style has its time, each its own weaknesses. The key ability needed is the ability to not only be able to implement a style but be able to switch styles to counter whatever the opposition and probably more importantly the game does.

We look to have a dearth of intelligent centre backs at the moment, defensive intelligence is often portrayed as simply reading the game, organising the defence, we’ll need players capable of doing that and of bringing the ball forward and using it intelligently. We’ve seen Barca use the diminutive Mascherano at the back, Cannavaro showed his worth for Italy maybe we’ll need to break the mould again or think outside the box to achieve the flexibility we need, we can't simply rely on Dagger to be a game changer.

Rodgers is already a believer in this, and I think we'll see a different type of central defender coming in over the yeas, different even to Agger. I wouldn't be surprised if, at some point, the central defence is Agger and a smaller more technical defender.

If we do simply try to replicate what the current leading clubs are doing by the time we get there they will have moved on. We need to aim beyond them and get there first.

I'm not sure this is true. Neither Barca or Ajax have changed their model, they have simply worked on perfecting it. Ajax's board famously stated their belief that success comes in waves, so the philosophy has to be consistent, because even if it lacks success, at some point it will become relevant again and you don't need to reinvent the wheel. We can look at Barca and our own current team to see that the ideals and philosophy Van Gaal developed at Ajax in 95 are now making a comeback in the modern game. The thing is, Barca took his lessons on board, which were a progression of Cruyff, and built their style year by year. They have a great team now, but they didn't really change anything they were doing. They happened to obtain youth players that fit their model, and brought them through the model. Other clubs chop and change constantly. United, for all that we might think of them, have the same basis. Their forwards are fast and have a good first touch and dribbling ability. Their backs have to be able to pass. Their academy looks for dribblers and technical defenders. They buy players, for sure, but they also save a lot of money in the process by not having to buy the "Water-carriers" so to speak. This is because their foundation has been the same, even if the formations have changed a bit. So it is important to HAVE a model, first of all. Then to find the raw materials for the model. Then to perfect the model with patience and foresight. Then long-term success comes.

We know the game moves on, we know any advantage is only ever short lived. So for sustained success, as in any walk of life the key is evolution and adaptation. Barca could be the cockroach of its day, brilliantly evolved to survive but eating shit and concrete all day.

So we need to develop players and a system that go hand in hand. A system that can switch between attack and defence seamlessly but allow individual players to express their full talent.  To do it we’ll need players that can switch to whatever position is needed at the time in a game and with whatever team mates they have around them. Sounds easy enough.

To do that though we need to set realistic goals. We are not going to get there overnight. So we need to spot and develop players that have the intelligence to allow those transitions, as well as the ability to deliver them. There is a balance to be struck. Some players will be superb at delivery but poor on recognition. Some players will be comfortable in several positions others will not. Coaching will help but that’s also were team work and leadership evolve. The team structure will need to evolve along with the team and the squad will be essential as much to maximise our options as provide cover.

Brilliantly put

It was obvious under Rafa for example, that most of our players couldn’t change the game, they needed to be told how and when, at half time or via a substitution. Under kenny the players were allowed to express themselves too much and consequently often looked lost. Under Hodgson we had a simple plan........ It is often easier from the sidelines or the stands to spot the problems or opposition weaknesses, so management will continue to be important, complete autonomy on the pitch is unlikely. Likewise some transitions between styles may only be possible using different players, so substitutions will continue to be important but effectively to be successful we need to build in flexibility.

I’m not sure how you spot or develop ‘game intelligence’ the level of ability required at the highest level whilst it can be improved by coaching seems to largely be instinctive. It doesn’t naturally come with quick feet or superb balance, the combination seems to be freakishly rare. I’d suggest you’ll get more success training the physical abilities rather than the instinctive ones, so it is that game intelligence we should be on the look out for rather than foot speed or athleticism but neither is going to be useful without the other.

It is largely instinctive, but the type of work done at youth level goes a LONG way to developing it in players who might otherwise be functional. It involves challenging the players to think, setting constraints in games that force certain decisions to be considered, and it involves reducing the "noise" of a game so that solution are easier to see. For example, if you play a 9v9 game in training with the objective of working on when and where to make a wall pass and when and where to use the wall pass as a decoy, then there will be too many other possibilities going on that will confuse the issue. If you reduce it to a 3v3 game, then there is much less "tactical noise" to contend with, and the possibilities become clearer, repetitions greater, and rate of retention increases. So the type of training is important, which is why Inglethorpe is a great appointment - he understands these ideas and works to them, and as a consequence his players learn faster and retain more, thus increasing their intelligence. When you look at these things, I think you can see that the make-up of the Liverpool team in the future will be a lot different than it has been over the past few years, and there will come a point where we will be able to look at a player in a game without knowing who he plays for and we'll be able to say "that is a Liverpool player". Intelligence, speed, and technique will be the main keys to this. All three keys will lead to a team and system that displays greater tactical flexibility.

[PhaseOfPlay]

How about collective intelligence?  We all know that some players play particularly well together, they are "in synch" or some such.  This to me is different than simply the game intelligence of a player.  The best example for me at the moment is Suarez and Enrique.  There's no doubt that Suarez is brilliantly intelligent in his play (except when I plead for him to pass the ball!) but I don't think many would say that about Enrique yet they have worked some of the most intelligent, incisive play this year.

If you know where on the pitch  teammate is going to run in certain situations you can make what looks like a brilliant ball without much going on in your head.  Pick out an acre of space for your winger to run onto that would open up the defence while your winger is turning to face you for possession is not a stupid decision, it is a wrong decision based on a lack of understanding.

There is innate intelligence that can be brought to the pitch. However, a well drilled system with simple components (as described above with the great Liverpool teams) can make a pretty decent facsimile of that intelligence in a team that if you told them to "just pass it to someone in a red shirt" would run around like headless chickens.

It is all about repetition. Mostly, repetition between team-mates of patterns of play on the training ground that translate to the game. But sometimes repetitions of certain cues and triggers through youth development that are similar to another player's, which creates the appearance of an innate "telepathy" but which is actually just a product of similar coaching. Enrique developed in the Spanish system which is heavily influenced by the Ajax and Dutch system and 4v4 training methodology. Suarez played for Ajax. They clearly, though separately, have worked on similar patterns of movement of the left winger and left-back, so they weren't unfamiliar with each other's style of play and mobility.

[Red Genius]

It is all about repetition. Mostly, repetition between team-mates of patterns of play on the training ground that translate to the game. But sometimes repetitions of certain cues and triggers through youth development that are similar to another player's, which creates the appearance of an innate "telepathy" but which is actually just a product of similar coaching. Enrique developed in the Spanish system which is heavily influenced by the Ajax and Dutch system and 4v4 training methodology. Suarez played for Ajax. They clearly, though separately, have worked on similar patterns of movement of the left winger and left-back, so they weren't unfamiliar with each other's style of play and mobility.

Which goes a long way to explaining why our recent academy products have come through and done on the whole fairly successful jobs, because the systems have been in place for a number of years, like the rest they are learning the patterns of play Rodgers wishes to install, but having set up a philosophy for a handful of years in our youth team not too distant from what we expect when reaching the first team has allowed a smoother transition.

But at the moment we do have a mish mash of first team players, all educated in different styles.... i'm actually quite impressed with how quickly many have adapted. Many see the results this season overall as not entirely acceptable, but the actual benchmark is not purely in the results but understanding how we perform, and our performances have come some way in a very short space of time, we still have lots of work in both defensive and offensive areas of our game... but the basic principle is obvious and the application is also obvious.

Keep posting mate, i enjoy reading your knowledge - you'd have been a fantastic contributor to the famous 'Level 3 thread'

[DanA]

Playing devils advocate a bit I think for a club to be successful it needs to have a certain level of rigidity.

Anecdotally, to me it seems that, teams that do have a clearly defined identity are far more successful. The actually identity can vary greatly from Westham, Napoli, Stoke, Swansea, Man Utd or Barcelona and some systems and formations work better than others but the approach to success seems a similar formula. Develop a clear identity, source the players to compliment that style and then perfect it. I think we had that under Rafa, a clear approach with a relatively good balance of player (we never quite got the left side sorted) but since then have been a little aimless. Only now under Rodgers are we starting to see the green shoots of a clearly defined system again.

As to tactical flexibility. I think there needs to be some level of acknowledgement of the opposition. In the words of Tolkien “It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him.”

To be too dogmatic with a formation and system is not acknowledging the opposition. We still have to play to our strengths which is in the system but in a way that negates the opposition as much as possible (without negating our own). I think Rodgers has sometimes got that right and sometime got it wrong. Two clear example of that I can think of can be seen in two losses. Against Man Utd when down to 10 men we switched to a diamond midfield with instant impact allowing us to maintain the press without an easy way out. The opposite was true against Stoke. I felt the setup failed to acknowledge there aerial threat and counter trusting style.

We have to find the right balance and must remember Rodgers is still learning in his first year managing a big club.

[redmark]

Speak for yourself, with all due respect. At best, once the switch to the 4231 as the primary formation was made, the only legitimate alternatives to calling it that, as we deployed it sometimes, were a 4-5-1 or a 424.  It was never a 442/4411 in attack. We almost never had two banks of four whilst attacking.

By the way, what is a "proper 433" if formations aren't that important?

Who does? Our most successful sides played 4411 (though often referred to as 442) for more than a decade, but we didn't attack with two banks of four. That would be silly (and ineffective). Fullbacks overlap, midfielders sit or support, wide players push on or cut inside, forwards move constantly (or should). Formation notation (if a single, simple reference is retained) is only really meaningful as a base defensive shape. The modern use of '4231' attempts to blend defensive and offensive shape into a single notation, but would you argue that it rigidly suggests we attack with a flat back four at all times? Of course not. It's shorthand.

[007.lankyguy]

Good OP

Agree with what's been said about how the mentality in England about the result has a consequence on the playing style. It's all about the result, the three points and so kicking it long, fighting for the second ball, putting crosses into the box is how lots of teams have played in the past. It's changing now, teams are passing it more but the general mentality has often led to a style of play that is not flexible enough

However I think a number of the problems teams have had in England is that they don't know how to control a game. The end to end, high tempo game, although overstated sometimes, is often seen as the utopia of football here. However there are few teams I've seen in the Premier League that genuinely appear to have full control of a game. In football you either control the ball or the space. Most teams are unable to control the ball significantly enough to control a game. So then you have to concentrate on how you control the space. It seems to me that there really aren't any teams in England at the moment who control games. And that's very much a bad thing.

For example, Rafa and Jose Mourinho knew how to control space. Very often they were labelled as cautious, defensive managers. Yet they realised that to have success, you need to control a game as much as possible. They created systems that enabled their teams to be solid, compact and to then attack intelligently. The 04/05 Chelsea conceded just 15 goals in the league. Alright they had the best squad. But they were incredibly efficient. Under Rafa, we were similar. From 05/06 forward, we had the physical strength and tactical organisation to control space and make it as difficult as possible for the opponent to get into games. Even when if we conceded goals, it was often down to one or two individual errors. Watch the 4-4 vs Arsenal in 2009. Most people would say we defended poorly that game. Yet actually, it was individual errors. We pretty much always defended well as a team. Compact, good pressing, organised, coordinated. Even in games where we conceded four goals.

It seems to me that Benitez and Mourinho laid a template down that hasn't been followed since. People go on about how the quality of defending in the PL has deteriorated in the last couple of years. I actually think it's a lot to do with the collective approach to games. Neither individual players nor the teams as a whole know how to control space and work collectively. Stoke are possibly the only team who do. Teams like Spurs and us have the managers in charge who have the potential to also control as a team, albeit in quite a different way to Stoke.

Under Rafa we were one step away from reaching a point where we could both control space and have the quality of player to have fluidity of system. One mistake I thought Rafa made was that we were overly specialised in midfield. To be honest, although I've said it was a mistake, if you at the attacking players, particularly in midfield that he wanted over his years here, I think it might just have been that he was slightly too restricted in the transfer market. By 2009, we were the best organised team in the league but just needed the extra attacking quality and fluidity in midfield to make that step to the title. That is why for me, the sale of Alonso in itself was not catastrophic more the fact that we weren't given the funds to make up for it.

The signings of Johnson and Aquilani were the signal of intent for a slightly different emphasis to the team. The problem was that funds were then withdrawn for the key signing, Jovetic. According to Rafa the idea had been to use Jovetic between the lines behind Torres, with two of Aquilani, Gerrard, Mascherano and Lucas in midfield. That would have taken away the problem of having a too specialised midfield and instead would have given us the quality to challenge for the title again. Instead we didn't sign Jovetic or Sylvain Distin, the target for CB in place of Hyypia, Aquilani was injured and didn't settle into the team, we lost confidence because of results and we went downhill.

However the build up of that plan, the control of space matched with attacking quality was a perfect example of how to create a team. It's why I'm so positive about Rodgers - because we have clear ideas to build on and progress. Too few teams have that. If you build up a team of players with a style and system of play to control games, it allows you to adapt your game to the opposition. Guardiola changed the system or emphasis on certain areas all the time. Barca constantly adapted to the game in order to give them the best chance of winning. Yet the fundamental style, patterns of play were always there, so much so that most people watching them wouldn't have realised the differences.

I think everything comes from laying down a system of play, not necessarily a formation, and one that allows you to control a game in as best a way as possible. If you coach and train your players well enough in this idea, then you have the capacity to be flexible in your tactics every game without losing your style.

Hope that makes some sense.

[royhendo]

What I would say here is two-fold.

First, I think the modern British game does boast players to fit all systems. It's having the imagination to find and nurture them that's been lacking. I think maybe the o.p. describes a perceived situation that's a few years past. I think also it underestimates the boys we've developed (some of who are mentioned). Inglethorpe and Borrell are, we've now seen, aligning it all with the first team set up. It's happening.

Second, on the formation. Formations are, for me, numbers on bits of paper for the most part - the different combos come baked with different connotations, but it's the capacity to be fluid enough to create space, and then to spring back into organised shape quickly that sets a good formation aside. And of course, you either select players to fit your formation, or you build your formation around your available players. Ideally you combine the two.

Later posts in the series will look at that capacity to spring back into shape, and to disrupt the opposing side's shape, in more detail. Some formations are nicer for that balance in transition - that tension.

Anyway, that's just my thoughts - a very interesting debate this. And I agree with the broad thrust that we have to value the football brain first. I think we're now starting to see that.

[DanA]

The signings of Johnson and Aquilani were the signal of intent for a slightly different emphasis to the team. The problem was that funds were then withdrawn for the key signing, Jovetic. According to Rafa the idea had been to use Jovetic between the lines behind Torres, with two of Aquilani, Gerrard, Mascherano and Lucas in midfield. That would have taken away the problem of having a too specialised midfield and instead would have given us the quality to challenge for the title again. Instead we didn't sign Jovetic or Sylvain Distin, the target for CB in place of Hyypia, Aquilani was injured and didn't settle into the team, we lost confidence because of results and we went downhill.

I think we're pretty much in agreement across the board but I just don't buy this paragraph. We bought Keane, Reira and Dossena that window on top of a unfit Aquilani and relatively expensive Johnson. 30m+ of players that were shit on top of an injured player bought for 18m and the most expensive fullback in our clubs history. It should have plenty enough to keep us competitive. Rafa just got it wrong that year,

[ryan125]

Fantastic OP. I am very excited about the direction we are headed because Rodgers quite clearly believes in these same things. Even just looking at the front three you can see that Rodgers wants players who have the ability to, beat a player, good movement, and are goal scorers...much harder to defend against. 

Barca have taken this even further. I was watching Barcelona vs Espanol the other day and Pique was upfront for ages at one stage almost playing as a forward. Playing players incredibly comfortable on the ball at the back (Mach, Pique, Puyol, Song, etc.) Just gives the team that much more confidence that should they chose, they can stop other team from getting the ball for 10-20 minutes.

This is why it was frustrating watching the combination of Carra, and Jones panicking (against bloody 5th division Mansfield!) and desperately smashing it up field...but I fear I am getting off track. People have eluded to playing Gerrard at CB, and although ATM he is more useful to us more centrally, this kind of thing isn't ridiculous. Just depends how much you value controlling possession (as was eluded to above) over space.

[robgomm]

Formations on paper are really defensive positions from which you might start an attack. Attacking formation seems less clear.

[sempi]

There is another element that I think we may have missed, is the tactics used within the formations. Forgive me if someone covered this.
Under Shankly and Paisley we had utility players, someone who could play anywhere in the team. They usually took up a midfield place and allowed another player to assist the attack, ie: Chris Lawler, by slotting into their position. Holland employed this to great success for many years, a system known as Total Foootball, believing  that any one should be able to play in any position.  Of course it did not last ,now the Dutch reference our English style. These days for example, the winger is expected to provide defensive cover for the marrauding fullback, ignoring the fact that the winger may blow over in the wind.  Souness tried to introduce a style of 442 was undone by outside events and overpaid injury prone stars.
Roy Evans , bless him, went bold with a 352 even getting players to fit the system, just lacking that last piece of the jigsawand betrayed by forces within the club.   Houllier introduced counter attacking within his system, which only actually worked if the other team attacked.
Benitez had a different plan for different teams and again betrayed from within, forced to find lesser players, simply because of The DEBT.
The Hodge, regimented style, everyone back in the box when the ball is lost, players drilled to stay in position, hope the free kick somehow results in a goal. Also, he was buying players to fit his system.
Kenny tried a touch of total football but the choice of players were incapable of carrying this out. Maybe this because the man buying the players did not have clue...
The most successful systems Liverpool employed were generally a fliud system be it 4-4-2, 4-3-3, or even 9-1, I don't like the counter attack, but it works.To me, the key is what you do within that , pressing high up pitch, offside traps or what ever, but a defensive midfielder also needs to support the attack, the fulbacks don't just launch the ball into the box, giving the ball to Suarez may be a good tactic but him dragging 2 men with him, creating space for another player is another option.
The English game with its reliance on athletiscism  and brute strength policy has only one thing going for it, they get lucky.

[Gnurglan]

I think we're pretty much in agreement across the board but I just don't buy this paragraph. We bought Keane, Riera and Dossena that window on top of a unfit Aquilani and relatively expensive Johnson. 30m+ of players that were shit on top of an injured player bought for 18m and the most expensive fullback in our clubs history. It should have plenty enough to keep us competitive. Rafa just got it wrong that year,

Yes, we got things wrong. There was talk about us only being allowed to buy from clubs that owed us money, but in the end, we got it wrong in the transfer market. However, we still had the core of the team intact. Had we replaced Dossena and Aquilani with better players and kept the rest, we could have been right back up there. It was crucial that we bounced back with quality transfers the following transfer window(s). That's when we signed Konchesky, Cole, Poulsen and lost Mascherano and later Torres. We lost first pick players and replaced them all with bench players. So we didn't correct things, we made them worse.

Because our incompetent upper management didn't know the basics. When they sacked Rafa, the best thing would have been to bring in a manager similar in style to him. Instead we went with the direct opposite. So we made sure from the start that we wouldn't be able to use the resources we had to the maximum. Looking back (and it wasn't too hard to see it then either) the right thing would have been to try and keep as much as we could on our limited budget. And we shipped out young players for free, bought old, over the hill players etc. It was like we tried to destroy things on purpose.

As for tactical stability, we threw away what we had there too when we went for a new style of play. Fortunately, it seems the Academy was untouched. And now it appears we have a manager whose thoughts are similar to those taught at the Academy. So finally we're back on our track. I think this shows the importance of making the right decisions at the top. One mistake can be crucial and it can cost years (let alone tens of millions).

[007.lankyguy]

I think we're pretty much in agreement across the board but I just don't buy this paragraph. We bought Keane, Riera and Dossena that window on top of a unfit Aquilani and relatively expensive Johnson. 30m+ of players that were shit on top of an injured player bought for 18m and the most expensive fullback in our clubs history. It should have plenty enough to keep us competitive. Rafa just got it wrong that year,

Dossena, Keane and Riera was the previous summer.