Liverpool formation this year?

Dowie isn't a scratch on any top manager in the league, but I'm sure he knows more about football then people on here, myself obviously included.

I don't get it, most people on here dislike that we use 442, yet when someone agrees, you bash them for it?

Yes but some are willing to listen to the likes of Dowie yet criticise our own manager who has a much more successful career in management.

I'm all for listening to opinions but when Iain Dowie is held up as some sort of expert in a debate to criticise the tactics of Kenny Dalglish then that's when I stop listening.

On 4 4 2 I don't necessarily accept the theory that it's a poor system or that it isn't 'working' for us as I don't think the formation is as important as some people think and also I've seen us play some great football both this season and last using the 4 4 2.

I'm not going to complain about formation, said as soon as Kenny took over I expected him to play it and had some quite intresting debates about it, thing is it doesnt atter what we prefer, Kenny sets up the team and we can argue the pro's and cons of formations day in and day out but it aint going to change sweet F**k all.

Ive yet to see a good argument yet on any forum why 4-4-2 is the right system for the players we have other than well Kenny thinks it is so its right. Ill like to hear off people why they think its a good formation for us

I think to get the best out of a 4-4-2 we need two box to box center mids and two creative pacey wingers, just my opinion though.

I think to get the best out of a 4-4-2 we need two box to box center mids and two creative pacey wingers, just my opinion though.

I 2nd that.

4-4-2 can work, but then again so can any formation.  It's all relative because certain managers have a formation and do some "square pegging in round holeing", others will have an idea about the players they want and will work out a formation based on that and some will be different degrees of being in the middle of aforementioned philosophies.

IMHO, if we were to play a 4-4-2 our best team would be:

Reina
Johnson Skrtel Agger Enrique
Gerrard Lucas Spearing Bellamy
Kuyt Suarez

Playing Gerrard in the middle is counter-productive with a two man midfield, not because he can't do it but because he's a much better option to have marauding up the field than he is being disciplined - the wingers are usually expected to provide the majority of creativity in a 4-4-2.  By nature, he's not a disciplined player, he's an instinctive player and one capable of creativity, when that creativity comes from the CM positions it leaves us vulnerable to the counter-attack through the middle.  Play him on the wing.

Lucas and Spearing are our best options at clogging the midfield while still allowing Gerrard a spot in the team.  Bellamy and Downing are very interchangeable, I prefer Bellamy in this system but both are good options to have.  Kuyt and Suarez chosen ahead of Carroll because of their high work rates both offensively and defensively (the 2 in a 4-4-2 must be willing to continuously drop deep into midfield and not allow the opponent a numerical advantage in midfield).  Downing also has the option to come on for Bellamy and Bellamy can replace one of Suarez or Kuyt as the forwards and wingers are doing the majority of the donkey work and will tire the quickest.

For my money, the 4-4-2 is a poor fit for our current roster/team/squad/players/whatever and actually creates more problems than it solves, I can understand national teams using it to an extent as there's no transfer windows but I'm of the opinion it requires far too much effort to execute to the same level as many other systems and has a skill cap unrepresentative of the work you've put in to making it succeed.

See now that is an excellent post outlining the merits of 4-4-2.

See now that is an excellent post outlining the merits of 4-4-2.

Really? How do you work that out?   

For my money, the 4-4-2 is a poor fit for our current roster/team/squad...

In fact, it reads very much like what I 'wrote' in post # 511 and I can assure you; I wasn't praising the merits or 4-4-2

but if we are to insist on playing 4-4-2 we need two box to box central midfielders and two fast, skillful wingers. We do not have that - end of.

We do however have the personnel to play 4-3-3 (or derivatives, thereof).

Vitez hit the nail on the head about the problem of square pegs in round holes and offered a solution but he wasn't extolling the virtues of 4-4-2. Far from it.

Be honest with yourself mate - you saw a 4-4-2 team sheet without Adam and Carroll, thought 'happy days' and all of a sudden: 4-4-2 ain't too bad... Brilliant... 

Does anyone really think we play a rigid 4 4 2 and if we do start the game this way is it as important as some people think?

We have a back 4 yes but so does 4 2 3 1, 4 4 1 1, 4 3 3, 4 5 1 so we will leave that.

Further up the pitch is where the lines get blurred for me as I've said before I think many of these formations are similar and can look different depending on what players play and how they move around the pitch.

(4-2-3-1)

Carroll

Downing/Bellamy - Suarez - Kuyt/Henderson

Lucas - Adam/Spearing

And hopefully when Gerrard is fit

(4-2-3-1)

Suarez

Downing/Bellamy - Gerrard - Kuyt/Henderson

Lucas - Adam/Spearing

Not picking on JD's post here just using it as an example as he has set out two 4 2 3 1 formations one of which you could easily look at as a 4 4 2 at the start of the game. The other could read as a 4 3 3

The first one could read

Carroll  Suarez

Downing/Bellamy  Lucas - Adam/Spearing  Kuyt/Henderson

The second

Downing/Bellamy   Suarez   Kuyt/Henderson

Adam/Spearing     Gerrard Lucas

Now I know Henderson is never going to play that far up the pitch but if you have Kuyt there then you see what I mean.

This season we have started games with what looks like a 4 4 2 but with Suarez dropping deep it could be looked at as 4 2 3 1 at times and unless we are playing three central midfielders then what we have is four defenders, two players in midfield, two wide players and two forwards.

It is the players that are playing and their movement whcih is more important than the basic formation in my opinion.
 

Does anyone really think we play a rigid 4 4 2 and if we do start the game this way is it as important as some people think?

I can only 'speak' for myself srs and I've never used the word "rigid" to describe the 4-4-2 under Kenny. In answer to your question re: "start" the game - No. No I, personally don't. However I do think it's important (in quite a few instances) that we drop it during the game. I posted the following in another thread - maybe this will give you some insights as to why:

"Folk like to talk of football being a simple game, you pass, you move but you know and I know it's just not that straight forward. It's a given that our strikers aren't being clinical so... to explain my position I'd like to focus on our Anfield draws and what I see as midfield's role in those draws.

In my opinion (and it's only that); we invariably start off well, our 'four' push on, our full-backs join in and the chances seem to come thick and fast (ooh er missus). When we add in your lack of clinical finishing, what we have is a Reds team going in at half-time either only one up or (as Saturday) nil-nil.

What I have been witnessing, (second-half), is us coming out with the attitude "more of the same lads" whilst our opponents, buoyed with hope, change things in the middle. Suddenly "more of the same" (which was producing chances - not goals) becomes harder and the chances fewer.

Our opponents, usually, gain a foothold and as a consequence our attacking display becomes a defensive display out of necessity. Our centre two, instead of dominating possession, are left chasing possession. Our full-backs, instead of joining in attack, are now dropping back to defend. The thing is: if we can't score with loads of possession, naturally (in my opinion), it's more difficult to score with less. As much as we hope that the mantra of "more of the same" will prevail: it hasn't been working.

In the absence of a strike force not scoring freely you're left hoping that either: one goal will do or your midfield take up the slack. With a two in which (let's be honest here) only one is a 'threat' that's going to be hard but if that 'one' is needed to defend; it becomes nigh on impossible to get a goal return.

In summary: what we have is "a game of two halves". First half - a mis-firing strike force, a dominant midfield and attacking full-backs; creating numerous chances. Second half -  a mis-firing strike force, a midfield and full-backs that are now defending instead of creating and the numerous chances become few and far between.

Less possession = less chances to convert and more defending - hardly the formula to succeed when we take into the equation a mis-firing strike force. The solution? Counter our opponents by playing three in the middle with three up front. I've heard the Roy-esque notion that by playing three in the middle you are somehow taking away an additional 'attacking threat' - utter bollocks."

Now, couple that with the fact we don't have two dedicated wingers or two 'box to box' central midfielders and you'll see how I have come to the conclusions I have on 4-4-2. Whether I'm right or wrong is another thing but hey; it's only an opinion so... no big deal if others disagree. 

I believe we are thinking along the same lines bad boy, although I might be wrong.

It's just that many criticise the 4 4 2 and then post formations with the team in a 4 2 3 1 with basically the same players ie Carroll up front with Suarez behind, two in midfield with two wide players which to me is essentially the same.

The three in midfield is an important point as this where you see the real difference in the formations as a midfield three with two wide players and a centre forward is a different formation not just a variation on the 4 4 2.

Again I feel it's the players and their movement during a game dictates the formation particularly in an attacking sense.

 ANo bad boy i saw an excellent posts about the tactical merits doesn't mean i agree with playing4-4-2 because i think you should be well aware by now i hate the formation. But it was an excellent tactical analysis by vitez and beats 90%of the because Kenny says so sh*te you read.   I agree with a lot of your sentiment s on this thread bb sorry if you feel left out because i didn't say excellent post didn't realise you held me in such high esteem.  I will make sure i give you an excellent post next time

I agree with a lot of your sentiment s on this thread bb sorry if you feel left out because i didn't say excellent post didn't realise you held me in such high esteem

As a wise man once said - you really have become a caricature of yourself corbally but... that ^^^ was funny, I'll give you that. 

Don't get me wrong mate I am often flattered when you latch onto what I say, dumb it down, a notch or three, and repackage it as your own (I'm sure the others are too). It's only when you miss the point completely I tend to 'pull' you. The point in this case is that Vitez wasn't offering a defence of 4-4-2 ergo: your sycophantic praise was mis-placed - it was a good post alright: just not for the reason you said.
 

I believe we are thinking along the same lines bad boy, although I might be wrong.

It's just that many criticise the 4 4 2 and then post formations with the team in a 4 2 3 1 with basically the same players ie Carroll up front with Suarez behind, two in midfield with two wide players which to me is essentially the same.

The three in midfield is an important point as this where you see the real difference in the formations as a midfield three with two wide players and a centre forward is a different formation not just a variation on the 4 4 2.

Again I feel it's the players and their movement during a game dictates the formation particularly in an attacking sense.

I appreciate what you are saying mate; in particular when posters name a team which has the same two central midfielders and same two 'wide' men. When Kenny took over what I saw was a lot of flexibility and variety in formation: very often we set up; not only to play to the strengths of available players but often to counter the threat of our opponents. I'm not seeing that now.

It can be argued, very successfully, that the 4-4-2 we are playing now is delivering in terms of chances created. It's when we come under a bit of pressure that it doesn't (for me) deliver - given how our opponents gain encouragement from possession.

This season we seem to persevere with the original formation when we shouldn't. I outlined why I believe we shouldn't in my earlier post.

To my mind we haven't got the personnel or depth to play 4-4-2 for either, a full ninety or a full season. If we put away our chances we could, maybe, afford ourselves the luxury of soaking up pressure - but we don't.

Listen; I don't like 4-4-2, we all know that but I truly believe that 4-3-3 (with the players we have) offers us much more both going forward and in defence. We will games (and plenty of them) playing 4-4-2 against teams that line up and stay 4-4-2 - it's only my opinion that we'd win more with three in the middle and three up front.

To be honest (and I may be wrong) I believe a fit Gerrard sees us play 4-3-3 - Gerrard right, Adam left and Lucas behind (a nice balance about that). I guess we'll just have to wait-see. 

Formations are no longer rigid. 4-4-2 becomes 2-3-5 when the wing backs get up front or 3-5-2. Our wingers often swap or we will only play with one winger and he will swap wings from time to time.The only time it is rigid is when the opposition have the ball. We are creating chances and not conceeding many chances if we had put away but a few more of them its unlikely we would even comment.

Formations are no longer rigid. 4-4-2 becomes 2-3-5 when the wing backs get up front or 3-5-2.

Aye and 8-1-1 when we are defending corners.

You would have a good point bb about me taking your posts and then dumbing them down if it wasn't me that originally around last April brought up the concerns about 4-4-2. It is actually flattering to think you think im copying your posts.  Im not shows though you agree with me a lot more than you let on

Aye and 8-1-1 when we are defending corners.

I prefer 1-1-8

Given the players we've got, we can adapt to any formation that we want. We've got more than enough quality to play with two, three or even four central midfielders if we wanted to. We've got plenty of options on both wings to adapt to any formation. We've got quality right across the back if we want to start pissing about with new systems that don't include the traditional back four. And we've got more than enough players capable of playing up top to work different systems.

Whatever system we start with, however, will not be the system we play a full 90 minutes for. As has been pointed out, our system can be very interchangeable during games.

From a team that sets up as;

Kuyt Gerrard Lucas Adam Downing
Suarez

Can easily become;
Lucas Adam
Kuyt Gerrard Downing
Suarez

Or alternatively;

Gerrard Lucas Adam Downing
Kuyt Suarez

Or alternatively;

Suarez Gerrard Lucas Adam Downing
Kuyt

Or alternatively; (well you get the point)

A basic 4-4-2 will not be a 4-4-2 throughout, nor will any formation that we start with. I personally like the 4-4-2, always have. But due to the flexibility of systems these days, it's not as highly important as to what system you play. If you've got the players, you can play any system which we've proven this season because the only game, thus far, where I think we've been played off the park was Spurs where we ended up with 9 men. Now I can't be certain but I'd say it's a safe bet every other game we've played we haven't used the same system and come up against the same system. So obviously it's not the formation we're playing that's the problem - it's something else.

Now ideally my system would be

Reina
Kelly Carra Agger Enrique
Gerrard, Lucas, Spearing, Henderson (not in any particular position other than midfieldish)
Kuyt Suarez.

What that enables us to do is change to five across the middle by shifting either Kuyt or Suarez down the left. It enables us to shift into a much celebrated diamond with Lucas holding, Jay and Jordan in the middle and Stevie supporting as well as giving our full backs plenty of space to bomb up the wings.

But given that we're going to change systems anyway during the game, it's all irrelevant.

You would have a good point bb about me taking your posts and then dumbing them down if it wasn't me that originally around last April brought up the concerns about 4-4-2.

Brilliant mate. 

Although, to be fair to you, I don't think you understand what I was 'saying'. I certainly would never claim that I'm the first to have thought of anything (football or otherwise) much less 'original' concerns about the 4-4-2 system. If you are happy to think that you were the first; who am I to burst your bubble?

What I was suggesting, very clearly, is that you latch on to a post (which you deem relevant), use close imitation (reword it) and pass it off as your own... but 'we' really don't want to go down that path; do 'we'? It's no big deal, to be honest mate and I'm sorry if I've upset you.

Anyhows... I've said all I can regarding my opinion on 'formation' and I'm starting to bore myself (never mind you lot) so... it's goodnight from me. 

Formations are no longer rigid. 4-4-2 becomes 2-3-5 when the wing backs get up front or 3-5-2. Our wingers often swap or we will only play with one winger and he will swap wings from time to time.The only time it is rigid is when the opposition have the ball. We are creating chances and not conceeding many chances if we had put away but a few more of them its unlikely we would even comment.

Spot on is that post. If Suarez drops off Carroll it becomes a 4-4-1-1. If the wide men push on and Suarez drops back it becomes a 4-2-3-1. The combinations are endless.

waltonl4 also makes an excellent point regarding how we are creating chances and hardly giving the opposition many clear cut chances. What's not to like?.

It's no secret that i love 4-4-2 and it can still work in today's modern game. No reason why we can't make it work. The only problem area i see at the moment is the right side. I'd remedy this problem by putting Kelly at right back and Bellamy out wide.

I believe our best midfield like a few of you have mentioned is 3 consisting of Adam, Lucas and Gerrard. That there is a perfect balance - Adam plays better in a 3 man midfield, it places Lucas in his best position and Gerrard can roam around alot more than with 2. It takes Hendo out of the starting line up but Gerrard should take priority ATM and when Hendo is in that's his better position than out on the right. I think our strikers that we have (including the forwards) would suit having 3 up front more than Suarez and Carroll up there alone. Bellamy, Maxi, Suarez, Kuyt or even A'Moo would enjoy it more and get more rotation going. I do however like that Kenny is persisting with his young players and I think in the long run it is going to pay off, maybe just not as quick some people would like. I know I just contradicted myself but I'm just saying I'd like to some of that change that we had when Kenny took over and 4-3-3 is my fav system.

Also I was thinking it would be interesting to see Agger with Kelly next to him and Johnson at RB, Skrtel has done great but personally I like Kelly more and feel he has more to offer the team, maybe he's not ready for CB just yet?? Or if we were to keep 4-4-2 ATM then I'd like to see Johnson at RM.

Johnson--Kelly--Agger--Enrique
---------------------------------
-------------Lucas--------------
-----Gerrard------Adam--------
---------------------------------
---Suarez--Carroll---Bellas-----

To me that looks awesome, I'd love to see that line up!

A lot of criticisms about Kenny and his formation/selection choices of late.

Personally, I've been very stoked with the intent even if we've not made it work and I can't help but shake the feeling people are constantly making the correlation that if we win, the tactics and/or selection were spot on (I understand the idea but I don't agree with it entirely) and if we lose/draw, the tactics/selection were the 'wrong' ones.

Some examples I've noticed recently:

- Completely neutering Man City at their home ground and the subsequent 'negative' diatribe that followed it.  That was a F***ing superb tactical master stroke and even if that game finished as 0:0, Kenny should be F***ing lauded for a brilliant showing.

- The switch to 3 (or 5, depending on how you look at it) at the back against Stoke, I was pretty happy with it.  Was just massively unfortunate that it didn't work as we hoped.

Obvious examples from the past few weeks.  Anyways, before I go off on a rant just wanted to point out that I've been incredibly impressed with what we've tried to do, it's only the actual outcome I've been disappointed with.

Long story short, I'd like to touch on the subject of correlation between desired result and tactical performance, or to be more accurate that there shouldn't necessarily be a correlation between the two.

Also, I get at the very least a semi when talking about tactics - so just bumping for some insight from people who have awesome things to add to this thread.

Just going to throw some of my thoughts out there, some relevant, some perhaps not:

I personally felt that the 3-5-2 formation against Stoke last weekend was a poor tactical move from Kenny. It seemed to me he was trying to nullify a threat from Stoke that was never going to come.

At the Britannia, it certainly has its merits because they get into wide areas and cross balls into the box, they are dangerous from throw ins, and set pieces. Therefore it is good to have 3 commanding defenders.

However, at Anfield, Stoke were never interested in attacking, they haven't been in their other visits to Anfield in the premier league either. They are a very different away side to their home performances.

This was one of Kenny's first real errors IMO this season.

Then this weekend, he made another IMO. A 4-4-2 with Adam and Gerrard was doomed to fail. Neither of them are great at reading the game defensively, Gerrard has always switched off, and Adam is exactly the same, but also unable to chase back and tackle effectively. Kenny spoke about the players not showing Bolton respect, but I thought he underestimated them with that midfield pairing.

Also, I pointed out before kick off that Carroll was going to struggle against Wheater and Knight because they are both championship standard 6 foot 5 defenders. They are able to deal with cross into the box quite easily, but not so good at dealing with clever footballers. They were there for the taking if we had a more intelligent forward on the field. I would have started Dirk Kuyt.

We are missing Lucas and Suarez. When Suarez returns, I would guess that we will not see much of Carroll and the issue of a quicker, more intelligent player will be solved, but it will not be until next season we see Lucas. In the mean time, Kenny must play Spearing (when fit) in a holding midfield role, alongside Gerrard and Henderson (which means I would drop the 4-4-2 going forwards.)

A couple of signings to address key areas of concern would not go amiss, either.