Author Topic: 3 at the back?? (Read 1156 times)

AK47 · « **on:** January 27, 2005, 06:45:11 PM »

Just wondered what peoples opinions were on playing a defence of 3 centre halves and wingbacks rather than a flat back four.

What has prompted me to think this is the recent performances of Steve Gerrard. He looks better just behind the strikers rather than playing as a 'traditional' centre midfielder.

Plus a lot of teams now seem to play with a 5 man midfield, so our flat back 4 has only 1 man to mark. Going 3 at the back could give Riise and Finnan both more freedom to get forward and also let us play 2 strikers instead of the 1 that's played with a 451 system.

Here's how I think it could look, with who's fit at the mo:

Dudek

Cara Hyypia Djimi

Finnan Hamman Igor Riise

Gerrard

Baros Nando

SMD · « **Reply #1 on:** January 27, 2005, 06:54:00 PM »

No.

Just, no. We have a system, why change and cause more confusion? We'll get annihilated down the wings and we don't have anyone to take the place of Finnan and Riise as wing backs, so they'll be shattered after a month or so.

The Jackal · « **Reply #2 on:** January 27, 2005, 06:54:46 PM »

Never like 3-5-2 as a formation to be honest. Think you get exposed down the channels when opposition wingers attack - your wide player either have to drop back - leaving room for opposition full-backs to attack - or your 2 defenders on the 'outside' of your three have to push wide - which leaves you exposed down the middle. Guess it would suit JAR and Finnan though, as I've mentioned before on this forum I think they are both better cut out as wing-backs than full-backs or wingers.

I like Gerrard supporting the strikers, but think that there are probably better ways to do this than 3-5-2, although it would mean playing only 1 of either Baros or Morientes.

We do kind of play a 'virtual' back 3 on occasion though - don't think our full backs ever both push forward at the same time, so when one pushes forward the opposite FB comes inside slightly, and the winger on the opposite side drps back into a FB position. Have never seen 3-5-2 work at the highest level - have always associated it with teams like Leicester really. I think celtic's Champion's League experiences have shown that it doesn't work at the highest level, as they often switched to 4-4-2 when in that competition...

SMD · « **Reply #3 on:** January 27, 2005, 07:04:26 PM »

The only times I've seen 3-5-2 work were with West Germany and a bastardised version with Brazil. I think it's safe to say we don't have the defence of the Germans or the attack of the Brazilians.

Chindits · « **Reply #4 on:** January 27, 2005, 07:32:47 PM »

4 4 feckin 2

it always works

Red Squiggle · « **Reply #5 on:** January 27, 2005, 07:54:31 PM »

dont think it would work in reality, but is exactly the formation i use on pro evo + champ man! foreign clubs havent adopted 4-4-2 for nothing though.

Coady · « **Reply #6 on:** January 27, 2005, 08:03:46 PM »

Didnt we play it in the days of Roy Evans? im much more comfortable with a 4-4-2 line up.

jongolding · « **Reply #7 on:** January 27, 2005, 08:13:06 PM »

i reckon a 4-3-3 formation would wrk once we get our team bk to ful strength n no injuries
carson

Something Else · « **Reply #8 on:** January 27, 2005, 08:24:30 PM »

I think loverpool will stick with four at the back, this is due to the fact that with the team defending zonal rather than man mark and it now working i dont think it would benefit us to change it

carragher and hyypia partnership being reunited is hopefully the future for now

Vulmea · « **Reply #9 on:** January 27, 2005, 08:56:14 PM »

With our current personnel 352 makes perfect sense - with regard no cover for Finnan and Riise - warnock is also an ideal wingback and we have no cover on the right whatever formation we play so Nunez is as good in 442 as he would be in 352

everybody is struggling to cope with 451 - 352 counters it perfectly - it provides the goal threat of two strikers, puts gerrard in his best position breaking forward, plays both Riise and Finnan in their natural positions and makes use of Carra and Djimmi who are both comfortable if dragged wide but hopeless as fullbacks

Unless anybody has not been paying attention playing 442 we get crucified - Hamann does not have the legs anymore to cover for gerrards ill discipline which leaves are back four exposed time after time

451 - means we waste either Baros or Morientes (or Cisse) and have created very few chances.

Garcia and Kewell can both play the role behind the striker

Having said all of that Rafa does not play 352 and I always prefer 442 but we do not have the personnel to play it - we don't have good wide players and our central midfield is a recipe for disaster unless we get in a more mobile player than Hamann - that means we are lumbered playing 451 until Rafa gets in better personnel - or we are playing poor teams at home - its a shame Riise is all left foot - he's exactly the type of hardworking player we should have on the right with Kewell or Garcia causing mayhem on the left

Good thinking tho - shame most people can't see it

Gnurglan · « **Reply #10 on:** January 27, 2005, 09:02:53 PM »

No. It's just a way to include an extra defender and that's not the right way to go. Better to find a proper LB and play Kewell on the wing. That'll give us better balance.

lurgankop · « **Reply #11 on:** January 27, 2005, 09:31:33 PM »

We do not have the personnel to play 3-5-2. For this you need people who can go forward and backwards equally well for the whole 90 minutes (e.g. Roberto Carlos) and we don't have this at the moment. Risse and Troare don't have these attributes, getting lost after the half-way line the vast majority of the time.

In my opinion we would be ripped to shreds. Best sticking to a 4-4-2 or 4-5-1.

For Bayern, looking at our injuries and suspensions in midfield, I would tend to go with a 4-4-2 and try to put them on the back foot with a high tempo game. Leverkusen are very strong at home (being told by a knowlegable Luxembourg colleague of mine who watches a lot of German footie) and we will need to go there with a goal or two head start.

Here's hoping

Gnurglan · « **Reply #12 on:** January 27, 2005, 09:48:35 PM »

I believe the 3-5-2 asks too much from the wide players. The benefit is you allow for a real creator and get to play 2 up front. Another thing with the 3-5-2 is that you should have very mobile CBs and they should be good on the ball. They need to survive on their own more. Don't think we have the players for it. Don't think we're even close. If we played the likes of Babbel, Biscan and Carra at the back, it could be alright.

Realdidi · « **Reply #13 on:** January 27, 2005, 10:54:53 PM »

u barely see a 3-5-2 formation now, its out of date

I would say its been replaced by the 4-3-2-1 formation that Chelsea and Barca use, having 2 wide player sna lone striker, no?

BazC · « **Reply #14 on:** January 27, 2005, 11:16:14 PM »

realdidi- i agree. the same formation we employed against arsenal- well ours was a 4-2-3-1, and not a 4-3-2-1- the 4-3-2-1 reminds me of the "flying V" (hello the mighty ducks fans

). the 3 at the back would most certainly not work for us! especially since we have no pace at the back, the width would be easy to exploit- since their wouldn't be any in our defence, and also the numbers of defenders is to low. im sure we've seen it in the past, i'm pretty sure rafa employed a 2-4-4 formation on the latter stages of the olympiacos game- where we needed that goal. 3-5-2 would probably be an option mid-match (in times of us needing goals) but i don't see us starting with that line up.

Gnurglan · « **Reply #15 on:** January 27, 2005, 11:21:49 PM »

The 4-2-3-1/4-3-3/4-4-2/4-5-1 is probably favoured because it's common practise. Everyone knows it, but it's also very flexible. The real trick in the near future is to get the defenders involved. Here the 3-5-2 has an advantage. I believe the 3-5-2 will come back as a popular formation for this reason. Defenders are required to be more involved in the game. THey have to survive on their own.

Hate the idea of wing backs myself. If you play 3 at the back, I think it's better to play it like 3-4-3, where you play a diamond midfield and aim for width high up the pitch. Don't think it's right the wing players should waste so much energy just to get to the dangerous positions. But this 3-4-3 can of course easily be seen as a 3-5-2. (Nobody would admit to playing a 3-6-1.)

BazC · « **Reply #16 on:** January 27, 2005, 11:27:38 PM »

good points gnruglan. but i think that our best formations this season have been 4-2-3-1. formiddable whilst attacking- where 6 players can be brought into attack, or in times of defence they are hard to break down- arsenal only had 2 shots on goal- one was the goal, the other was henrys shot from the half way line! i'm surprised it hasn't been employed more actually- but with alonso out (him and didi holding as the 2- with alonso spraying passes upto 50-60 yards ACCURATELY- because he can

) it makes it harder to play that formation effectively. i suppose we tried it against watford, but that was more of a 4-5-1- it worked well defensively, but not so well attack-wise.

Vulmea · « **Reply #17 on:** January 27, 2005, 11:52:50 PM »

I repeat I do not like 352 but if 352 is not the answer to 451 then what is? When we play 442 against it, we get over run in midfield and mullered. When we match up with 451 you get a very stale game with few chances and either side can win depending on luck. 433 is just a variation on a theme with more creative or faster wide men which we don't have.

I'm not suggesting going back to the 1970's and employing a sweeper. I'm talking about our current personnel and combating the 451 tactic everybody is using against us now because it works so well.

I believe 442 is the best formation but not with our current players.

I like Riise but he is not a winger and he is not a defender, he's ok at both and has the engine to get up and down all day and so has Warnock, same with Finnan all are natural wingbacks. Roberto Carlos is a good example - a poor defender in my book and a poor winger but ideal as a cross between the two

Traore has the pace at the back and Carra is no slouch. Hyppia is needed for his aerial ability and positioning - Whitbread, Josemi, and Raven have all been employed as both fullbacks and centrebacks so are ideal for a back three.

Don't get me wrong I don't think we'd use it but I think it utilises all of our players to their maximum

Three in the centre midfield limits the need for Hamanns to get about the pitch and thereby reduces the problem of his lack of mobility, it also allows Gerrard to maraud forward which is all he is currently interested in and it provides an additional body to protect the defence (or in alonso's case, allows us to play the best passer in the prem)

We then get to play 2 strikers, our main advantage over other teams is that we now have better strikers - playing only one limits that advantage.

All the players are playing where they are comfortable and in positions which compliment their natural abilities.

rather than deploying an extra defender as suggested above in a 532 formation it actually overloads midfield and effectively deploys a 3412 formation overloading the midfield - and allows Gerrard, Morientes and Baros licence to cause mayhem against the opposing back four and given our absence of quality wide players makes perfect sense

never happen tho but an interesting intellectual exercise

SMD · « **Reply #18 on:** January 28, 2005, 05:56:04 AM »

Quote from: gaz3787 on January 27, 2005, 08:24:30 PM

hopefully the future for now

Si-long (Nob) · « **Reply #19 on:** January 28, 2005, 08:05:49 AM »

I like 3-5-2, as it gives us plenty of width and a stronger link between midfield and the forwards.

At the moment, though, we don't need to use it as Risse and Finnan are already attack minded and like to overlap the midfield, and we have Moro dropping deep to link up.

Red Hell · « **Reply #20 on:** January 28, 2005, 09:51:22 AM »

Can't see Rafa deploying this system... don't see a problem with it though...

Defensively: DH plays so deep most of the time we'd still be strong in this position...

Offensively: we'd be a much greater attacking threat... also be able to control the midfield with more bodies in there (should have more possession) resulting in more goals...

Fuck all wrong with 4-4-2 though... both systems would work fine IMO... just lets giving possession away cheaply especially from the back (long balls over the top) and fight more when the opposition have it...

Paul Tomkins · « **Reply #21 on:** January 28, 2005, 10:30:37 AM »

No top team plays 3-5-2 now. There are too many problems and limitations with it, not least that you end up with one too many centre backs, who ends up doing nothing.

This comes up regularly, and I just say it's so 1995

deadgoon · « **Reply #22 on:** January 28, 2005, 11:51:54 AM »

Fools, we should play 1-1-2-1-3-1-1;

Hyppia
Carragher
Finnan Traore

Hamman
Louie G Gerrard Riise
Baros
Morienties

With zonal marking defending, man marking attacking and....wait a minute shouldn't we play the daiblo thing on champ manager. I always win using it.

Carra Who-pee-ai Tray-or-Ray

Harthia blah etc.

Three at the back my arse. Just make one of the full-backs get forward when attacking.

Vulmea · « **Reply #23 on:** January 28, 2005, 11:53:26 AM »

it comes up regularly because the game evolves it does not stagnate unlike some peoples opinions

if it is not a solution to 451 as most people rooted in the 70's don't appear to think it is, what is the solution? Better players or non injured players using 442 would be nice but we don't have them and we lose midfield when we play it, against 451 and the game is a sterile lottery - how do we defeat 451 ?

♠Dirty Harry♠ · « **Reply #24 on:** January 28, 2005, 07:13:08 PM »

Maybe we should play 10 upfront

50 Pence · « **Reply #25 on:** January 28, 2005, 07:24:09 PM »

I know Chelsea is a dirty word, but I like the system they play, sort of a 4-3-3, allows for 2 central midfielders and a holding player. Means that unlike when we played @ southampton you don't get over run in central mid. Then your flair players can cause havoc with a central striker there to get on the end of things. Full backs (Due to cover of holding midfielder) can join in attacks to provide width.

Of course helps if you have rock solid defenders & keeper, and people like Duff & Robben up top!!

The Jackal · « **Reply #26 on:** January 28, 2005, 08:17:34 PM »

Quote from: DirtyHarry on January 28, 2005, 07:13:08 PM

Maybe we should play 10 upfront

Gnurglan · « **Reply #27 on:** January 28, 2005, 11:37:51 PM »

Quote from: Saint on January 28, 2005, 11:53:26 AM

it comes up regularly because the game evolves it does not stagnate unlike some peoples opinions

if it is not a solution to 451 as most people rooted in the 70's don't appear to think it is, what is the solution? Better players or non injured players using 442 would be nice but we don't have them and we lose midfield when we play it, against 451 and the game is a sterile lottery - how do we defeat 451 ?

Total football. That's the solution for you. You need players who can play football and you need them in every position. Today it's almost taken for granted both fullbacks should contribute in attack. It's only a matter of time before at least one of your CBs is supposed to bring the ball forward when the opportunity is there. It's all about getting an advantage, somewhere on the pitch, no matter what the formation. It doesn't mean the CB should raid forward like a winger, but if he can go past the opponents' attackers, he'll have gained an advantage. That could be all that's needed.

In our case, I believe it's a linked problem. Baros-Morientes with Kewell-Alonso-Gerrard in midfield is a very nice combination. Include Nunez and we have a team that makes sense from midfield and forward. The trouble is we don't have the best LBs and we're pretty static at CB. If we then play Riise instead of Kewell at LM and Hamann instead of Alonso, we lose options and we lose them fast. Then the attacking burden is placed on our strikers, Gerrard and Nunez and that just doesn't work. In particular not if we play a guy like Traore at LB behind JAR, because that kills our whole left flank. And it also places even more burden on Nunez and Gerrard. Now take Garcia instead of Nunez and our right flank is in danger of dying too (because LG moves to the center all the time). It's not just a problem against the 4-5-1, it's a problem against any formation.

Vulmea · « **Reply #28 on:** January 29, 2005, 12:39:17 AM »

So Gnurg the implication is that we don't have the players to defeat 451?

Thats a bit of a blow given every team is going to play it against us and quite right seeing we can't beat it.

I agree with the centreback idea - a CB who can bring the ball out, can unbalance the play and give us an advantage - we don't have one of them although Carra is trying, under instructions from Rafa no doubt

Still leaves us the problem of 442 without the right players or 451 and hope we get the breaks.

I'd rather we were in control of our own destiny - my personal preference is 442 with a wide left player who can go past people (Thompson, Heighway, Barnes, Giggs, Pires, Kewell?) and a wide right player who works their nuts off (Callaghan, Lee, Hall, Case, Johnstone, Houghton, Beckham, Ljundberg), helps the central midfielders and provides a threat up front just by virtue of their work rate. In the modern game SWP, Malbranque and Owen Hargreaves could all do this job imo.

And left wing that Vicente bloke at Valencia would do for me. The problem is we don't have either type of player available now.

The closest we have is Riise hardworking on the left and Kewell or Garcia on the right. To get technical this does not work as well - right footed players play the ball more quickly and more acurately to the left than the right - this means a quick left winger receives the ball quicker, it also means the right footed forward get the ball coming onto the right foot - these might just be fractional advantages but its why LFC have always done best with this formation imo. Hope you've followed this nonesense and not dozed off.

So if we don't have the players and nobody likes the formations I'm still no wiser as to what the **** Rafa is supposed to do to make it better.

Gnurglan · « **Reply #29 on:** January 29, 2005, 01:31:20 AM »

Well, I believe we have the players. There's more than one way to win a match. But I think we are limited as a team when we play Riise, Hamann and Traore in the same side. The pieces don't fit. It's alright to have one of them, at most two (Didi at CM, JAR at LB) in the side. Three and we'll get stuck.

Definitely agree about Carra. Him being prepared to take the ball forward is one of the positives this season.

As for the formation, it really depends on so many things. I want a midfield triangle (Alonso-Gerrard behind a creator/supporting striker) by default. Now that we have Morientes-Baros up front, we're better off if we go for width from midfield. But it's all linked. If we play Garcia at RM, we need to include an attacking RB. If we play Nunez, it's not as necessary. JAR's hard work down the left should be combined with a player who has a good left foot. If we play Baros on his own up front, I think we need a "brain" behind him in the supporting role. Morientes up front on his own and we're better off with a direct player like Kewell behind him. Etc.

The best team that we have (when fit) is IMO

Baros Morientes
Kewell Alonso Gerrard Nunez
Riise Sami Carra Finnan
Dudek

There the pieces fit. You can change one player and it still works. But if you play

Baros Morientes
Riise Didi Gerrard Garcia
Traore Sami Carra Finnan
Dudek

then the left flank is practically dead. The pressure on Finnan to provide width and support down the right grows. And with Didi instead of Alonso, we lose passing range. The combination of JAR-Didi forces Gerrard to take on a larger attacking responsibility. That second team is much more limited and it's just 3 changes. Somewhere in between these two formations is the difference between a quality side and one that is bordering to acceptable.

Fitz. · « **Reply #30 on:** January 29, 2005, 03:38:07 PM »

not a good idea, no

BigDave · « **Reply #31 on:** January 29, 2005, 04:08:28 PM »

I THINK THAT 3 AT THE BACK IS A VERY GOOD IDEA

THE IDEA OF HAVING 3 CENTRE HALVES IS APPEALING TO ME.

WING BACKS SUCH AS FINNAN AN RIISE CAN BOTH ATTACK AND DEFEND AND ARE RELIABLE AT THAT.

I THINK ANYTHIN IS WORTH A SHOT, AS WE NEED TO BEEF UP IN CENTRE MIDFIELD.

18-4 · « **Reply #32 on:** January 29, 2005, 04:29:55 PM »

4-4-2 has proved itself to be the best formation for Liverpool and most other sides over the years. I hate 4-5-1, it is negative and wastes at least one striker (what's the point of paying big money for Cisse or Morientes and not playing them?).

Occasionally 3-5-2 is a good choice, especially against teams playing with only one up front and not having much pace on the wings. It's also ok when chasing a result in the second half (with Gerrard pushing up to support the strikers). But to have just 3 at the back is a big risk if you don't have confidence in the keeper. For this reason alone I prefer us to start with 4 in defence and that must include Carra and Hyypia as centre backs.