New Tactics for 2010/2011?

Whatever happened at Anfield last year I don't know fully, but Rafa's system for me was the right one. 

It's worked for United, Chelsea, Spain, Holland, Inter, Barcelona and Bayern Munich and if Roy is to attempt to get us back in to our usual standard of top four then he should be wary about emptying out our midfield.

Just my view though.

I'd have to agree, it seems to be the trend in world football at the moment to play with the variations of 4-2-3-1 and 4-3-3.

I think in certain home games 4-4-2 is still a perfectly reasonable formation to play that way as most teams will surrender possession and come looking for a draw. But i think its foolish to try and play 4-4-2 against better teams.

I think whatever formation we use, it's vital for the midfield to control the game and keep possession. I don't necessarily want us to be like Barcelona or Spain but no one probably keeps possession better than them. When we had Xabi Alonso with us, we kept possession really well and dominated the centre of the field which led us to really good games and results.

This probably means we need someone strong to replace control the centre for us, not Lucas, not Mascherano, IMO. I really think if Gerrard had played centre last season, we could have had a better season. There were times last season where we struggled to keep the ball against bottom half of the table and championship teams.

The 4-5-1 worked well for us when Torres first came because Gerrard and Torres had someone like Xabi Alonso to run the machine behind them - something we lost when he left. I also thought we played more positively when Gerrard and Aquilani were on the field last season.

Pass and Move Baby. Pass and Move.

In my day we lived in't shoebox I'nt road.

Dedicated followers of football will realise that unfortunately Mr A Ramsey changed forever, the wonderful way that we played pre 1966.

Goalkeeper

Right Back    Left Back

Right Half    Centre Half   Left half

Right Wing  Inside Right  Centre Forward  Inside Left  Left wing

Our famous pair of wingers were Ian Callaghan and Peter Thompson.
Magic to watch them flying down the lines towards the Kop.

A centre half needed a head of concrete to knock away a full flight wet case ball... big Ron Yeats beat everyone.




My position?
When I could ... at school on a freezing miserable Prescot afternoon in mid winter?



Left Right Out.



New tactics for 2010? Two strikers PLEASE.

The single striker option only works if you've got a striker that can be relied upon, fitness wise. The biggest downfall though is attracting decent back up in attack. With a 4-4-2 the striker on the bench has twice as much chance of actually getting on the pitch and playing some football, plus one of the 2 main strikers can be rotated - not so easily done when you only play with one.

I'm not sure I buy into this "you can't use 4-4-2 these days" comment which I have only heard used by moronic pundits. Surely it depends on the tactics and quality of the opposition as to how you set your stall out??

You can use 4-4-2 these days however the formation is better suited to technically inferior teams and teams with a poor footballing brain.  That being said this is Roy Hodgson's preferred formation but given the calibre and/or situation of the teams he's been employed to coach that is little surprise.  However, one of Hodgson's best attributes as a manager is how adaptable he is.  I'm hoping if he does stick by the formation we see it employed similarly to how Bayern Munich do it (wingers extremely high up the pitch with one forward dropping back to play of the striker + both central mids play very defensively - however I feel we don't have the personal to do this without investing in some quality wingers) because our best creative outputs are central (Aquilani).

Why are so many people in favour of switching to a 4-4-2?  For a start Torres works best on his own (see: Spain/Liverpool)

Liverpool have high fitness levels and a rotation system in place as a result we have a fluid philosophy employed (eg. fullbacks encouraged to attack/defensive midfielder gets forward/wingers encouraged to cut into the middle if fullbacks providing width/lots of overlapping runs etc).

Traditional 4-4-2 is best played rigid [eg. not the 'move' from 'pass and move'] (no overlapping runs, not too many players move from their position etc) and works alright for teams with limited skill levels.  We're a highly skilled team though and would be wasting our levels of fitness by playing rigid not to mention it would be an entire shift in gameplay and A LOT of our personnel.

"Well then let's play a fluid [fluid = the 'move' from 'pass and move'] 4-4-2?"  It creates massive holes in our defensive game allowing teams a lot of space on the ball.  Our defenders aren't the quickest either, so we're vulnerable on the counter especially against fast teams.  To offset the amount of time they're on the ball, we could play with a high defensive line which works perfectly with Reina in his sweeper-keeper role.  With a 4-2-3-1 you can afford to play with a high defensive line (this is important due to Reina's role-although recently he's actually just been a brilliant traditional GK) with the assurance you will have ample players in defensive positions to track inrushing midfielders on the opponent's counter.

"Well, what about our attack?" The 4-4-2 closes down some good passing angles if it's too flat, if it's staggered you may as well split midfield into offensive and defensive units, which is what we've done.  The 4-2-3-1 is a more attack oriented variation of the 4-5-1(which is actually an offset 4-4-2 if attacking down a wing or a 4-3-3 if attacking down the middle) that doesn't rely on a target man for goals but relies on the pace and dynamism of the more advanced players.  It also allows you use a deep lying playmaker in the "Xabi Alonso" role along with a destroyer in the "Mascherano" mould without rigidly tying down either of them into the "Makelele" as is typical of any of the 4-1-X-X based combinations.

Playing a 4-2-3-1 means essentially we don't talk in thirds of the pitch, we talk in quarters of the pitch.  A fluid 4-4-2 would have six to eight players playing in the same third of the pitch but with our 4-2-3-1, there's at least six players in each quarter of the pitch and allows for far smoother roaming.

The 4-4-2 is the most balanced formation that makes good use of the wide areas of the pitch [of which we have no designated wingers] and works quite well when you have 2 fast wingers [we don't] who are also good crossers of the ball it is however conservative [see: hopes of attacking football] and doesn't make allowance for exceptional players [I'd call Torres exceptional] in either defensive or offensive roles for either your team or your opponent and is often useless against a 4-1-X-X based formations where the other team basically refuses to play and put most of their players behind the ball unlike the 4-2-3-1 where players can move around, probe, switch play around and find gaps in the opponent's defensive setup.

edited some notes in there and ask for an answer to this question:

"What strategy can we use to counter the opposition sitting behind the ball and counter-attacking when we lose possession and still commit men forward under this new proposed 4-4-2 with simple pass and move philosophy?"

3-5-2

         Reina
        Agger Skrtel Carra
Johnson Aqua Gerrard Lucas *NEW LB*
          Torres   J.Cole

I'm not sure I buy into this "you can't use 4-4-2 these days" comment which I have only heard used by moronic pundits.

Showing a distinct lack of footballing nous there buddy.  

None of the best teams in the world use 4-4-2 carheex - there IS a reason for this and a reason why they are the best. I would imagine that their coaching staff would take exception to being called moronic.

Listen i've nothing against playing a 4-4-2 when the time is right or personnel demands it - there were times last season i was crying out for it. However with a fully fit squad (on form) we have to work from the basis that a 4-3-3 or 4-5-1 (call it what you want) is the only way to operate against top teams. In my opinion, of course.

i think we should go for 3-5-2 in most games. we need to start taking the game to the other team. so we def need another striker, and a good one too

Showing a distinct lack of footballing nous there buddy. 

None of the best teams in the world use 4-4-2 carheex - there IS a reason for this and a reason why they are the best. I would imagine that their coaching staff would take exception to being called moronic.

Listen I've nothing against playing a 4-4-2 when the time is right or personnel demands it - there were times last season I was crying out for it. However with a fully fit squad (on form) we have to work from the basis that a 4-3-3 or 4-5-1 (call it what you want) is the only way to operate against top teams. In my opinion, of course.

Hmmm, the point I'm trying to make is....what has actually changed which means that 4-4-2 is now rubbish when it has been the standard for so long? Has 4-4-2 always been rubbish but "football" has only recently realised it? If both teams in a game use 4-4-2 I don't see where the argument is - likewise, if both teams use 4-5-1 then why is that suddenly so much better? Can anyone actually explain this without falling back on the world cup pundit's excuses for why england were so sh*te? because that was the first time i have ever heard that 4-4-2 is all of a sudden rubbish!

Hmmm, the point I'm trying to make is....what has actually changed which means that 4-4-2 is now rubbish when it has been the standard for so long? Has 4-4-2 always been rubbish but "football" has only recently realised it? If both teams in a game use 4-4-2 I don't see where the argument is - likewise, if both teams use 4-5-1 then why is that suddenly so much better? Can anyone actually explain this without falling back on the world cup pundit's excuses for why england were so sh*te? because that was the first time I have ever heard that 4-4-2 is all of a sudden rubbish!

Most of the teams that had good campaigns in the world cup used the 4-2-3-1 system.
Those who used 4-4-2 or an overly attack minded 4-3-3 found themselves over run in midfield.
I think 4-2-3-1 worked well for us in 08-09. Last year was a disaster on a lot of levels but we don't have to jump back to a 4-4-2 to be successful.

Hmmm, the point I'm trying to make is....what has actually changed which means that 4-4-2 is now rubbish when it has been the standard for so long? Has 4-4-2 always been rubbish but "football" has only recently realised it? If both teams in a game use 4-4-2 I don't see where the argument is

...and therein lies the rub carheex - none of the better teams use it. Line up with a 4-4-2 against them and your midfield will be over-run, you become susceptible to the counter attack, your two forwards are easily marked and your back four is pulled all over the shop.

Times change; i was 'reared' on a 3 (LB, RB & CH) - 4 (LH, RH, IL & IR) - 3 (LW, RW & CF) it worked and worked well up until the late 60's when the concept of 4-4-2 became widespread - all of a sudden two Centre Halves were needed to counter the 'twin striker' threat.

I've no doubt some manager/coach will, in time, develop a new formation or revisit the old (3-4-3) and it'll work and therefore be adopted by others. Like i say, times change.

3-5-2 it is so

                   Reina

       Carra    Skrtel    Agger

Johnson        Lucas            Kuyt
       Gerrard           Aquilani
                 
             Maxi
                    Torres


I put this in another thread but it probably belongs in here

I'd say we should go with a 4-4-2 diamond, but we probably couldn't afford it.

3-5-2 it is so

                   Reina

       Carra    Skrtel    Agger

Johnson        Lucas            Kuyt
       Gerrard           Aquilani
                 
             Maxi
                    Torres


I put this in another thread but it probably belongs in here

Bit of a Football Manager tactic there mate that looks very interesting on my laptop screen but doubt it would work

4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3, whatever you want to call it, causes much more trouble for the defence.   Against 4-4-2 the two central defenders probably know before the game which striker they are marking.

But in the other system one CB may have the striker but the attacking centre mid can go where he wants, pulling the other centre back to anywhere in the defence.  This tends to leave a gaping hole in the defence.

This is precisely the reason why you see most modern football teams have midfielders who tend to score far more goals than they did in years gone by - think of your Iniesta's. your Lampard's, Gerrard's etc.

If you go back to one of Liverpool's glory periods, Dalglish and Rush, you can argue that we were the best side in the world because they did not operate as a traditional 4-4-2.  Rush was up top, ala Torres and Dalglish marauded just behind him, like a Gerrard.

Maybe Paisley was the original proponent of the whole system?

Bit of a Football Manager tactic there mate that looks very interesting on my laptop screen but doubt it would work

It was only a p!ss take as we have no senior left back.
I would still prefer 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3.

I'd say we should go with a 4-4-2 diamond, but we probably couldn't afford it.

I agree Res to be honest depending on signings it would be possible.

For instance if we got Figueroa and Cole as an example, we'd line up like this.

                              Reina     

Johnson         Carra            Agger         Figueroa

                               Masch/Lucas

                  Gerrard              Cole

                               Aquilani

                   Torres            Kuyt/Jovanovich

                                 

At the moment play 3 6 1. Just stick ngog up front with 6 midfielders behind him. Im sure it would work fine right?

Better find a way of fitting Joe Cole in now!!

I think 4-2-3-1 isn't a formation to be used in Premier League or any other league. Its more suitable for use in a cup competition (Champions League or World Cup) when you play less games and direct elimination games and you can destroy your opponents with counter attacks. That is     what Germany did and killed England hopes with two counter-attacks. That is what Rafa used to do and for me that is why he was succesful in cup competitions. I support 4-4-2, but not with 2 central midfielders. I prefer a defensive one and  Stevie G, two creative wingers and with Torres and Kuyt up front.

At this present moment our line up could be (Masch basically gone.)
 
                          REINA
JOHNSON CARRAGHER  SKRTEL   AGGER

               
               GERRARD   AQUILANI
MAXI/KUYT                         JOVANOVICH
                         COLE
                   TORRES

At this present moment our line up could be (Masch basically gone.)
 
                          REINA
JOHNSON CARRAGHER  SKRTEL   AGGER

              
               GERRARD   AQUILANI
MAXI/KUYT                         JOVANOVICH
                         COLE
                   TORRES

As much as it looks good on paper, with that team, I'd be worried about trying to score more goals than we concede.