Topic: RAWK Round Table Liverpool 3-1 Crystal Palace.

[Rohit]

Is my memory failing me, or did Henderson do a decent job as an attacking midfielder in the latter half of last season, during our good run?

He basically played as a forward destroyer there not as a playmaker or an attacking midfielder.

[rednich85]

He basically played as a forward destroyer there not as a playmaker or an attacking midfielder.

A forward destroyer. Also known as attacking midfield.

[Funky_Gibbons]

Really hate the thought of Henderson playing there. His awareness is poor and his touch is nowhere near good enough to play there. Nor does he have the vision to play there to open up defenses. I'd rather Gerrard play there if anyone, atleast he has a killer instinct in the final third and good enough movement to play there.

Henderson certainly has his limitations, but (if I remember correctly) a lot of the thrashings we gave teams last season seemed to coincide with Henderson playing in an advanced midfield role.

I think he gives so much energy up front and can press the opposition in dangerous areas that allows us to win the ball back high up the pitch and much closer to the opposition goal. This for me is one of the reasons Gerrard doesn't play in that role any longer as he can't press high up the pitch.

It is interesting hearing Rodger's talking recently that he likes to try and get as many attackers on the pitch as possible. I think we can see that when selecting his 'number 10' he prefers to select an attacker such as Coutinho, Aspas or Moses rather than a midfielder like Henderson or Gerrard. This perhaps also explains why players like Eriksen weren't pursued in the summer.

[DanA]

Neither Henderson nor Gerrard would work well there. Gerrard has lost the explosive acceleration he would use to find space for himself, and you know if he's not getting on the ball for the first 15 minutes he's going to drop deeper and deeper leaving the front two isolated. Henderson doesn't carry the ball well enough or manipulate it to draw defenders, the opposition would just close down the obvious passes and the ball goes back to midfield.

I agree with the concerns but I think that's only looking at what Henderson doesn't have. Your overlooking what he does bring. He constantly presents as an option, he can win back posession high up the pitch and he's both quick and intelligent with his running off the ball. He may not be able to beat three defenders with the ball at his feet but he can motor past three defenders and get on the end of a pass.

We're about to play Newcastle and IMO there no greater example of what Henderson brings than the last time we played Newcastle. He scored twice and got an assisted to Sturridge with his gut running. He also pressed Ben Arfa into a turn where he conceeded posession again lead to a goal.

He has his limitations but he's not without his own strong points

[DanA]

Henderson certainly has his limitations, but (if I remember correctly) a lot of the thrashings we gave teams last season seemed to coincide with Henderson playing in an advanced midfield role.

I think he gives so much energy up front and can press the opposition in dangerous areas that allows us to win the ball back high up the pitch and much closer to the opposition goal. This for me is one of the reasons Gerrard doesn't play in that role any longer as he can't press high up the pitch.

It is interesting hearing Rodger's talking recently that he likes to try and get as many attackers on the pitch as possible. I think we can see that when selecting his 'number 10' he prefers to select an attacker such as Coutinho, Aspas or Moses rather than a midfielder like Henderson or Gerrard. This perhaps also explains why players like Eriksen weren't pursued in the summer.

Sorry was typing my post when this went up. Needless to say I agree though we did apparently chase Mkhytaryan (though also Costa).

[poseidon]

I agree with the concerns but I think that's only looking at what Henderson doesn't have. Your overlooking what he does bring. He constantly presents as an option, he can win back posession high up the pitch and he's both quick and intelligent with his running off the ball. He may not be able to beat three defenders with the ball at his feet but he can motor past three defenders and get on the end of a pass.

We're about to play Newcastle and IMO there no greater example of what Henderson brings than the last time we played Newcastle. He scored twice and got an assisted to Sturridge with his gut running. He also pressed Ben Arfa into a turn where he conceeded posession again lead to a goal.

He has his limitations but he's not without his own strong points

Totally agree with this.

Hendo brings aggression and forces the other side to play the early ball.

He's one of my 5 favourite players in this liverpool team. The others being Sakho (really, really like him), Suarez, Kolo, and Coutinho.
 

[Funky_Gibbons]

Sorry was typing my post when this went up. Needless to say I agree though we did apparently chase Mkhytaryan (though also Costa).

I did consider Mkhytaryan as I was writing that and I think the difference with him is that his scoring record is remarkable from that position so you could see the attraction Rodger's would have in him.

Personally I would like to see Henderson in the AM role away from home especially against the top half teams and a more attacking player at home.

[PhaseOfPlay]

A forward destroyer. Also known as attacking midfield.

Not really, though. An attacking midfielder's job is to receive the ball and either spread it wide, look for an entry pass into the attacking third, drive at the back four and force it back, and long shots. What Henderson did (by default or by design) when he played as the "attacking mid" last season was essentially flip the traditional triangle, where the playmaker now played deep, and the "defensive mid" played further forward. It looked like an excellent mini-innovation of sorts, until Coutinho arrived and showed the benefits of having true playmaking quality that close to the forward.

[desak29]

This analysis is poor. its all driven by fear. concern this might happen? afraid of  dadah dadah? what should each player be doing then??

[DanA]

This analysis is poor. its all driven by fear. concern this might happen? afraid of  dadah dadah? what should each player be doing then??

I don't follow what you mean

[Vulmea]

Clearly Sterling is a work in progress and for me its a lot less complete than for others.

One thing I have wondered about is we have an abundance of young talent at right back, right wing back - Wisdom, Kelly, Flanagan and Mcloughlin can all play there - Mcloughlin is the same age as Sterling the others are older - is the issue just about getting Sterling time on the pitch - just as we used Shelvey at left back at times last year or is it a genuine idea that Sterling has the makings of a right wing back, he played right back against Notts County?

[Sangria]

Clearly Sterling is a work in progress and for me its a lot less complete than for others.

One thing I have wondered about is we have an abundance of young talent at right back, right wing back - Wisdom, Kelly, Flanagan and Mcloughlin can all play there - Mcloughlin is the same age as Sterling the others are older - is the issue just about getting Sterling time on the pitch - just as we used Shelvey at left back at times last year or is it a genuine idea that Sterling has the makings of a right wing back, he played right back against Notts County?

It's more desperation than anything. Rodgers has now learned the same lesson as Dalglish did before him, which is to avoid playing 4 CBs at all costs, whether or not any of them can fill in at FB. With that logic and our abundance of CBs, the answer is to play 3 at the back plus Enrique who is a natural FB, plus someone else at RB who is not a converted CB. When Henderson had to play at CM, it meant a right attacker had to play at RB, which meant Sterling. When Dalglish encountered the same problem, he dipped into the youth ranks to find someone, anyone, who could play RB so he didn't have to play 4 CBs again.

[GrkStav]

So, was BR's idea to avoid using even one converted CB as FB, then, Sangria, with a back 4?

As for the middle, it's not as if our 3412 involved the WB never being ahead of the 2 CM.

At times, our formation going forward could better be described as 3 2 3 2, with the WB both as advanced (if not more) than the advanced central mid (converted forward, in our case, Moses).

[rednich85]

Not really, though. An attacking midfielder's job is to receive the ball and either spread it wide, look for an entry pass into the attacking third, drive at the back four and force it back, and long shots. What Henderson did (by default or by design) when he played as the "attacking mid" last season was essentially flip the traditional triangle, where the playmaker now played deep, and the "defensive mid" played further forward. It looked like an excellent mini-innovation of sorts, until Coutinho arrived and showed the benefits of having true playmaking quality that close to the forward.

So a deep laying playmaker is a defensive creator?

I'm all about making up new niche names for long established roles.

[PhaseOfPlay]

So a deep laying playmaker is a defensive creator?

I'm all about making up new niche names for long established roles.

Explain

[rednich85]

Explain

If a defensive midfielder is played in an advanced role, he's a 'forward desroyer'.

Ergo, if an creative playmaker plays in a more defensive role, wouldn't that make him a 'defensive creator'?

My initial post was a jest at the 'forward destoryer' tag. I'm not a big fan of cool nouveau names.

[Sangria]

So, was BR's idea to avoid using even one converted CB as FB, then, Sangria, with a back 4?

As for the middle, it's not as if our 3412 involved the WB never being ahead of the 2 CM.

At times, our formation going forward could better be described as 3 2 3 2, with the WB both as advanced (if not more) than the advanced central mid (converted forward, in our case, Moses).

You can get away with having 3 CBs in a back 4. You can't get away with having 4. CBs tend to be conservative in going forward, even the more technical ballplaying ones. FBs need to look to get forward as a matter of course, especially in a back 3 system. Even supposedly limited but naturalised FBs like Enrique and Flanagan will be more comfortable providing an out ball on the flank. If you're playing a 3 CB system, a wide attacker will be more suited to the WB position than a CB, as the WB's demands are closer to their natural game.

PoP has talked before about how continental teams tend to play a FB as part of a back 3 when they play a back 3 system. I've cited the example of the Euro 96 England team which went to the extreme and played 2 FBs as part of the back 3 (Pearce and Gary Neville), with out and out attackers in the WB positions (Anderton and McManaman). I suspect that extreme would be inconceivable without the guarantee of strong home advantage.

[PhaseOfPlay]

If a defensive midfielder is played in an advanced role, he's a 'forward desroyer'.

Ergo, if an creative playmaker plays in a more defensive role, wouldn't that make him a 'defensive creator'?

My initial post was a jest at the 'forward destoryer' tag. I'm not a big fan of cool nouveau names.

That's as may be, but a player playing a pressing role at the top of a midfield triangle doesn't make him an attacking midfielder, which is the point I made. The tasks define the role, not the field position. So Henderson in that position isn't really an "attacking midfielder" the way he played it last season - no more than Gerrard is a defensive pivot just because he played alongside Lucas. An attacking midfielder has a defined set of tasks that Henderson wasn't apparently expected to fulfil when he played in that area of the field last season. "Forward destroyer" might have been a fanciful tag, but it described Henderson's role better than "attacking midfielder" did.

[PhaseOfPlay]

You can get away with having 3 CBs in a back 4. You can't get away with having 4. CBs tend to be conservative in going forward, even the more technical ballplaying ones. FBs need to look to get forward as a matter of course, especially in a back 3 system. Even supposedly limited but naturalised FBs like Enrique and Flanagan will be more comfortable providing an out ball on the flank. If you're playing a 3 CB system, a wide attacker will be more suited to the WB position than a CB, as the WB's demands are closer to their natural game.

PoP has talked before about how continental teams tend to play a FB as part of a back 3 when they play a back 3 system. I've cited the example of the Euro 96 England team which went to the extreme and played 2 FBs as part of the back 3 (Pearce and Gary Neville), with out and out attackers in the WB positions (Anderton and McManaman). I suspect that extreme would be inconceivable without the guarantee of strong home advantage.

That was actually Juan Loco, I think.

[GrkStav]

Famously, Rafa went with a one FB plus two CBs '3 at the back' in the 2nd half of 'that' glorious match. He'd have preferred Finnan but he ended up having to have Djimi as the 3rd. Right?

[rednich85]

That's as may be, but a player playing a pressing role at the top of a midfield triangle doesn't make him an attacking midfielder, which is the point I made. The tasks define the role, not the field position. So Henderson in that position isn't really an "attacking midfielder" the way he played it last season - no more than Gerrard is a defensive pivot just because he played alongside Lucas. An attacking midfielder has a defined set of tasks that Henderson wasn't apparently expected to fulfil when he played in that area of the field last season. "Forward destroyer" might have been a fanciful tag, but it described Henderson's role better than "attacking midfielder" did.

I'm sorry. I just realised you're trying to have a grown up conversation with me. haha.

Someone playing the pressing role at the top of the triangle has to have some semblance of attacking nous though. Space is at a premium in that area of the pitch. It doesn't make sense to have a destroyer play that role, someone who offers little but breaking up play and pressing, if they cant receive and release the ball effectively.

Henderson has a defense splitting pass in him. Henderson has the ability to run past the front men. Henderson has the ability to bury chances that comes his way. The destroyer tag is wasted on him. I dont feel thats his game.

You're 100% right. The tasks define the role, not the pitch position.

[PhaseOfPlay]

I'm sorry. I just realised you're trying to have a grown up conversation with me. haha.

Someone playing the pressing role at the top of the triangle has to have some semblance of attacking nous though. Space is at a premium in that area of the pitch. It doesn't make sense to have a destroyer play that role, someone who offers little but breaking up play and pressing, if they cant receive and release the ball effectively.

That's true, but it's also too clear-cut. It depends on what you want to do tactically. I would have no issue playing a truly disruptive player in that role if I identified that the opposition had someone capable off hurting us from deep. Their job would be to press that player, win the ball, and move it safely to another player away from pressure. I wouldn't be expecting that player to also play seam-splitting passes for checking forwards, or curling the ball onto a winger's blindside run (although that would obviously be a nice bonus). Especially more so if I had pretensions to a pressing game. On the other hand, if I played a deeper defensive shell, I'd want the attacking midfielder to be a true playmaker, with less defensive duties and more involvement in creating opportunities, so that would change the nature of the role and who could play there.

Henderson has a defense splitting pass in him. Henderson has the ability to run past the front men. Henderson has the ability to bury chances that comes his way. The destroyer tag is wasted on him. I dont feel thats his game.

You're 100% right. The tasks define the role, not the pitch position.

I agree, to an extent, but I was merely trying to explain the job he did when he played there last season, and why it was different than a traditional "attacking mid". I think, though, what he lacks that holds him back is subtlety and disguise. He telegraphs a lot of what he does, whereas Coutinho can play a lot of no-look passes that catch defenders out. If he could add disguise to his toolkit, he's be a more complete midfielder I think

[Juan Loco]

Famously, Rafa went with a one FB plus two CBs '3 at the back' in the 2nd half of 'that' glorious match. He'd have preferred Finnan but he ended up having to have Djimi as the 3rd. Right?

This seems to happen fairly regularly. Udinese played 3 at the back but it was at a time in his career where you could just as easily have played Zapata at right back as at centerback. I always think it's the ideal position for those kind of 'inbetween' defenders - and we always tend to end up with them. Traore probably would have suited a back 3 better. Someone like Kelly looks built for the right side in one. I always thought Arbeloa would have been fucking brilliant in a back 3 too. We seem to end up with these fullbacks aren't really good enough attackers to be considered top class fullbacks, but for whatever reason (physicality in Arbeloa's case, probably brainfarts in Traore's) never get their go in the center. Micah Richards is another one in this country but seems to compensate for it through sheer athleticism, when he's fit.

[Sangria]

That's as may be, but a player playing a pressing role at the top of a midfield triangle doesn't make him an attacking midfielder, which is the point I made. The tasks define the role, not the field position. So Henderson in that position isn't really an "attacking midfielder" the way he played it last season - no more than Gerrard is a defensive pivot just because he played alongside Lucas. An attacking midfielder has a defined set of tasks that Henderson wasn't apparently expected to fulfil when he played in that area of the field last season. "Forward destroyer" might have been a fanciful tag, but it described Henderson's role better than "attacking midfielder" did.

Attacking marker maybe? Part of Kuyt's and Riera's duties, perhaps even their main duty, was to always be on the look out for chances to harass their FB into trouble, in addition to their duties during the possession phase. Rush was the classical no.9 example of that type of player.

[Robinred]

This seems to happen fairly regularly. Udinese played 3 at the back but it was at a time in his career where you could just as easily have played Zapata at right back as at centerback. I always think it's the ideal position for those kind of 'inbetween' defenders - and we always tend to end up with them. Traore probably would have suited a back 3 better. Someone like Kelly looks built for the right side in one. I always thought Arbeloa would have been fucking brilliant in a back 3 too. We seem to end up with these fullbacks aren't really good enough attackers to be considered top class fullbacks, but for whatever reason (physicality in Arbeloa's case, probably brainfarts in Traore's) never get their go in the center. Micah Richards is another one in this country but seems to compensate for it through sheer athleticism, when he's fit.

A very thoughtful post

I llike the fact that this thread hasn't been zapped by the mods for going off-topic.

Because the level of debate about the subtleties of formation-building - that is, what strengths and weaknesses players have, and how they are harnessed within a strategy - has been really thought-provoking. It will be fascinating to see in due course whether BR decides that 3 at the back is for keeps or only so long as SAS are both match fit.

[Sangria]

I agree, to an extent, but I was merely trying to explain the job he did when he played there last season, and why it was different than a traditional "attacking mid". I think, though, what he lacks that holds him back is subtlety and disguise. He telegraphs a lot of what he does, whereas Coutinho can play a lot of no-look passes that catch defenders out. If he could add disguise to his toolkit, he's be a more complete midfielder I think

Lucas has the technical skill for the forward playmaking role (Voronin was an old fashioned lazy arse example of that role), but his reposition to the rear end of the midfield has given his passing game an extremely conservative bent. He's a player for whom the cliche "take the hackles off" would fit in that role.

[DanA]

Lucas has the technical skill for the forward playmaking role (Voronin was an old fashioned lazy arse example of that role), but his reposition to the rear end of the midfield has given his passing game an extremely conservative bent. He's a player for whom the cliche "take the hackles off" would fit in that role.

It was discussed a fair ibit at the time but Henderson used as a playmaker last season on a per minute basis was one of the most productive midfielders in the league in terms of goals and assists. I think only Mata, Bale and Coutinho had better stats. Lampard I think was similar.

[zero zero]

That's true, but it's also too clear-cut. It depends on what you want to do tactically. I would have no issue playing a truly disruptive player in that role if I identified that the opposition had someone capable off hurting us from deep. Their job would be to press that player, win the ball, and move it safely to another player away from pressure. I wouldn't be expecting that player to also play seam-splitting passes for checking forwards, or curling the ball onto a winger's blindside run (although that would obviously be a nice bonus). Especially more so if I had pretensions to a pressing game. On the other hand, if I played a deeper defensive shell, I'd want the attacking midfielder to be a true playmaker, with less defensive duties and more involvement in creating opportunities, so that would change the nature of the role and who could play there.

Isn't this the role that Momo Sissoko played for us? Alonso played deeper and was the one who did the sweeping in front of the back four (and would be their first outlet too). Momo would play further forward and break up attacks before they got a chance to get going. A good example would be the Community Shield game (06/07) where he Momo'd the entire Chelsea midfield and especially Ballack on debut.

[freddwarf]

It was discussed a fair ibit at the time but Henderson used as a playmaker last season on a per minute basis was one of the most productive midfielders in the league in terms of goals and assists. I think only Mata, Bale and Coutinho had better stats. Lampard I think was similar.

I don't think Hendo has the ability to be playmaker, nor is he up to it as an attacking midfielder. He is a destroyer/spoiler, a high energy utility player. a good honest pro.

His relatively poor balance and average passing game hold him back in any creative capacity, at this level. But he does bring a lot, as I say in terms of energy.

So we all know what Hendo brings to the team. But the really big question is how to get the balance right in midfield. Idealy  you need a good holding player, a top draw playmaker and a top quality attacking player. One of the best in recent years has been Lampard.

As it stands now we have Lucas as the holder, Gerrard as the playmaker, but Gerrard is now limited in terms of mobility, that put extra pressure on Lucas and any potential attacking midfielder as Gerrard cannot really pull his weight.

Henderson's energy is masking the problem of Gerrards lack of mobility. Play a more creative player in place of Henderson who doesn't cover the way Hendo does could cause problems.

It's almost as if Hendo is played as Gerrard's porter - he carries Gerrards bags.

[Roger Federer]

This seems to happen fairly regularly. Udinese played 3 at the back but it was at a time in his career where you could just as easily have played Zapata at right back as at centerback. I always think it's the ideal position for those kind of 'inbetween' defenders - and we always tend to end up with them. Traore probably would have suited a back 3 better. Someone like Kelly looks built for the right side in one. I always thought Arbeloa would have been fucking brilliant in a back 3 too. We seem to end up with these fullbacks aren't really good enough attackers to be considered top class fullbacks, but for whatever reason (physicality in Arbeloa's case, probably brainfarts in Traore's) never get their go in the center. Micah Richards is another one in this country but seems to compensate for it through sheer athleticism, when he's fit.

Would you say that Jack Robinson is another one of those 'inbetween' defenders? Back when I used to watch the youth teams more regularly, I always liked what I saw from him, but if there was one weakness in his game, maybe it was that he isn't a natural attacker. He's got composure on the ball, and good passing, but isn't at his best on the overlap and his main strenght is when defending. Think I remember Bigbear talking about him ending up at CB eventually, but perhaps he'd fit into a back three even better?

Anyone have an idea how he's doing out on loan right now, by the way?

[freddwarf]

Isn't this the role that Momo Sissoko played for us? Alonso played deeper and was the one who did the sweeping in front of the back four (and would be their first outlet too). Momo would play further forward and break up attacks before they got a chance to get going. A good example would be the Community Shield game (06/07) where he Momo'd the entire Chelsea midfield and especially Ballack on debut.

Momo was indeed a classic snarl-up man. he could ruin any decent attack, but obviously had to lay it off quickly as his skills as a footballer were not that good. But now with the play being more about passing the snarl-up man needs to be able to play as well.

This is what frustrates with Hendo, he can play the destroyer/snarl-up role but he is just that tiny bit short of that extra bit of quality required. Agreed he makes up for it with energy but he has to pop up now and again with a bit of quality, but when he gets in those positions to hurt, as he did in the second half V S'land he created very little.

Not going to be easy for Rodgers in this and next season to get it right in midfield as Gerrard comes toward the end of his time.

[spider-neil]

In an ideal world you'd combine Henderson's energy with Gerrard's ability and Lucas' defensive qualities with Allen's ability to turn with the ball under pressure to counter teams that press us.

[zero zero]

Momo was indeed a classic snarl-up man. he could ruin any decent attack, but obviously had to lay it off quickly as his skills as a footballer were not that good. But now with the play being more about passing the snarl-up man needs to be able to play as well.

Including ours, bless him.

This is what frustrates with Hendo, he can play the destroyer/snarl-up role but he is just that tiny bit short of that extra bit of quality required. Agreed he makes up for it with energy but he has to pop up now and again with a bit of quality, but when he gets in those positions to hurt, as he did in the second half V S'land he created very little.

Henderson does strike me as more of a 'jockeyer' than someone who'll actually go and win the ball. He'll be content to block off angles. So, he'll play the role differently than Mascherano (out and out destroyer and quick on the counter) or Leiva who'll nip in at the last minute or just ease people off the ball. He's played a wide variety of roles in just these first seven games; a tribute to his versatility and energy which he can bring anywhere he plays, so it's probably not a surprise he's not displaying the finer points of any position as yet.

[Acapulco]

It's almost as if Hendo is played as Gerrard's porter - he carries Gerrards bags.
__________________________________________________________________---

This was the first time they had played together in these roles and it worked so I do not see a problem

I think he played with the attitude " this is my role , I want this position for my own" and I certainly think he should get another crack at it. I am not the biggest fan of Stats but people are always quoting them to defend Lucas. Look at Hendos for this game , and he did not give away a single free kick.

[Yorkykopite]

It's almost as if Hendo is played as Gerrard's porter - he carries Gerrards bags.
__________________________________________________________________---

It's funny how we view these things isn't it? I thought, if anything, it was the other way round.

[PaulF]

If we're using labeling, I think the "defensive playmaker" has already been identified as the quarterback role?

Also I think the Pearce/Neville combo worked well at the back because they were, first and foremost, top top quality defenders.

And if we're calling a spade a spade Henderson's, attacking destroyer role is simply defending from the front.

Linking it up with another thread, a coach suggested the key to stopping Real Madrid was to stop the supply from Alonso.  Henderson would be great at that.  You can see Henderson's role staying the same, but his position changing when we face Arsenal.  Keep Ozil quiet and watch them struggle to contain Suarez

[SamAteTheRedAcid]

Also I think the Pearce/Neville combo worked well at the back because they were, first and foremost, top top quality defenders.

Pearce was, first and foremost, an absolute shithouse. Despise the prick.


sorry, carry on...

[SamAteTheRedAcid]

It's funny how we view these things isn't it? I thought, if anything, it was the other way round.

no, Gerrard just launches his bags 40 yards on to the flanks where Sherpa Enrique does his best.

[dumaten]

I agree with the concerns but I think that's only looking at what Henderson doesn't have. Your overlooking what he does bring. He constantly presents as an option, he can win back posession high up the pitch and he's both quick and intelligent with his running off the ball. He may not be able to beat three defenders with the ball at his feet but he can motor past three defenders and get on the end of a pass.

We're about to play Newcastle and IMO there no greater example of what Henderson brings than the last time we played Newcastle. He scored twice and got an assisted to Sturridge with his gut running. He also pressed Ben Arfa into a turn where he conceeded posession again lead to a goal.

He has his limitations but he's not without his own strong points

Absolutely, I very much like him as a player, and that performance against newcastle was fantastic. I think it's the 4th goal where he wins  the ball in midfield off Tiote, passes it to Gerrard and gets on the end of Gerrard's ball forward. I'd have him in a forward midfield position every game if we're playing a 4-2-3-1 or similar, and he works very well in tandem with Coutinho in advanced midfield. I just don't like the idea of a primarily midfield player as the "1" in the 3-4-1-2, I'd rather it was an attacker.

I think 3 at the back necessarily involves surrendering some midfield "control" just as a matter of numbers. If we're going to play 3 outright midfielders to control that area and prevent opposition midfielders getting at our backline we might as well play a standard back four. 3 at the back allows the midfield to some extent take the risk of getting caught ahead of the ball and still having 3 players behind. Rather than two centre halves and a screening/holding players its now 3 centre halves: there's not really any point in having 3 centre halves there if we're not going to ask them to do some defending.

For me, that's one of the advantages of the formation in that it covers for the fact we only have one player who really is any good at playing the holding role, as it allows us to play without a true holding midfielder. If Lucas is left out, injured or rested I think it allows us to play a midfield two of Henderson and Gerrard, Henderson and Allen or maybe even Allen and Gerrard. Also it might allow Lucas to snap into tackles higher up the pitch.

[BazC]

If we're using labeling, I think the "defensive playmaker" has already been identified as the quarterback role?

Also I think the Pearce/Neville combo worked well at the back because they were, first and foremost, top top quality defenders.

And if we're calling a spade a spade Henderson's, attacking destroyer role is simply defending from the front.

Linking it up with another thread, a coach suggested the key to stopping Real Madrid was to stop the supply from Alonso.  Henderson would be great at that.  You can see Henderson's role staying the same, but his position changing when we face Arsenal.  Keep Ozil quiet and watch them struggle to contain Suarez

Containing Arsenal would be a massive test for the system I think. They play so well between the lines with Ramsey, Ozil and potentially Cazorla back by then, that we'll see just how well the team have become used to it. They're also very good at attacking down the flanks - moving the ball quickly to stretch play.

A team used to playing in the 3-5-2 would have the defensive duties in those situations nailed - which CB steps into midfield to make up the numbers and how are the wider areas defended. And as importantly, how do we counter attack from it.

I wouldn't be surprised to see us 4-4-2 in that game though. Similar to the Man Utd game at Anfield - just choke their game, restrict them to long range shots and look for the counter attack (although in that game we reverted to just defending it early on because of the goal, so didn't attack with as much conviction). In that case it'd be Johnson and Henderson down the right, with Henderson more compact, width from Johnson, with Enrique and Coutinho down the left. Pretty much a 4-4-2/4-3-3, as you'd expect Coutinho to be the more attacking player in midfield and join the attackers with more aggression as opposed to being a conservative attacking role (which Henderson's would be).