Does anyone know what’s happened to Mendy.
I mean, he wouldn’t get in above most of those, but I can’t recall whether he’s injured, left or just in the reserves.
Also, is Matty James still on the books? I recall he wasn’t given a squad place, but would have thought he could drop down a division or two to get some form and fitness back.
In answer to your article KTF I keep banging on about the key being a good balance.
I think we have had issues with 4-2-3-1 because, as you say, a lot of creativity is required from the FBs. Chilwell doesn’t provide much creativity and, if we also have two CDMs as we have in the past, then we can easily isolate Vardy. The other reason I think it’s critical to have some of our creative players in the middle is because Vardy prefers a ball played forward rather than one that comes across him from the wing. He’s not Olivier Giroud or Andy Carroll. That’s also why we have to have Maddison central. It also gets the most out of Maddison’s game.
Once you start putting some of the essential blocks in place you can build the rest of the team around it. For me Hamza and N’didi are an either/or and not both - although I know some disagree on that. I like Hamza coming on to close out a game in the way Mendy also did towards the end of last season. I’m also optimistic that Tielemans and Praet give us some genuine options of more creativity alongside our CDM with Maddison more advanced.
I still look at your squad and think a 4-1-2-1-2 / 4-3-1-2 suits you best tbh. Suits and fits all your best players (I don’t really rate Albrighton)
Ndidi
Praet Tielemans
Maddison
Barnes/Perez Vardy
I still look at your squad and think a 4-1-2-1-2 /
...... is a bit complicated
KTF1 - ami agree we have the squad to play any of those formations.
I still don’t believe we’ve propaly played 4-3-3 - more a weird flexible 4-2-3-1 with Choudhury and Maddison playing strange roles.
I totally agree with both you and Joby on square pegs in square holes.
The biggest question for me currently is Perez. He doesn’t fit in to anything with a 1 up top for me, and Albrighton is better suited to support Vardy.
I don’t see us going 2 up top anytime soon so I don’t believe he should play.
I also don’t believe Maddison should ever play as a wide striker no matter how much Rodgers tells him it’s good for his career. It’s crap for our team so wrong. There are players better suited to that role.
So, I’m happy with the use of any formation really for the right opponents and our flexibility is a real bonus. What I’m not happy about is the use of Ndidi, Maddison, Tielemans, Perez and Choudhury all being under utilised and out of position.
Rodgers needs to make big decisions on players to suit formations. If that means dropping Maddison or Tielemans for the odd game then so be it.
I have a feeling we should not try and defend, so 2 DMs is not for me. There are a few reasons behind this: 1. It stifles our attacking capabilities so we are less likely to score; 2. It confuses N'didi having another DM to contend with; 3. Our fullbacks are better going forward than defending.
So I reckon we'd be better off finding a suitable formation and sticking to it, maybe 4-1-4-1?
I don't like Maddison out on the wing, he should be in the no 10 role. We should try starting with Albrighton and bring Perez on when the other team has tired a bit, he may be able to do a more then.
comment by Nuneaton_fox (U7936)
posted 4 hours ago
I have a feeling we should not try and defend, so 2 DMs is not for me. There are a few reasons behind this: 1. It stifles our attacking capabilities so we are less likely to score; 2. It confuses N'didi having another DM to contend with; 3. Our fullbacks are better going forward than defending.
So I reckon we'd be better off finding a suitable formation and sticking to it, maybe 4-1-4-1?
I don't like Maddison out on the wing, he should be in the no 10 role. We should try starting with Albrighton and bring Perez on when the other team has tired a bit, he may be able to do a more then.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely agree, don't think we should ever play two CDM's because it just doesn't work. We're not more solid and as you said it nullifies our attacking threat. Big clubs don't worry about stopping the opposition, they play their game and make the opposition worry about them and this is something I think we need to start doing. If we want to be a top six/four team then we have to have the mentality of a top six/four team. We have the players now to compete with the best teams, stop their threat and cause our own but it's about being positive. Sure we might lose playing against Liverpool and City because they have better players but playing them and trying to contain them is asking for trouble so have a go and see what happens.
Arro - I’m not sure I agree that it doesn’t work, more we haven’t made it work by playing players out of position. Maddison being the prime example.
I think it ‘could’ work with the personnel we have. It doesn’t have to be a purely defensive formation of done correctly and it should ask questions of the opposition.
I agree Ndidi isn’t at his best in a 2. So again, maybe Rodgers needs to make a tough decision and if we play that, Ndidi is dropped for the rare game. Maybe Choudhury and Praet could do that job better?
I’m in total agreement with you that 4-1-4-1 should be our preferred approach against most teams. I just think there is the odd occasion where other formations could help. Saturday being one.
comment by Merseysidefox (U4842)
posted 31 minutes ago
Arro - I’m not sure I agree that it doesn’t work, more we haven’t made it work by playing players out of position. Maddison being the prime example.
I think it ‘could’ work with the personnel we have. It doesn’t have to be a purely defensive formation of done correctly and it should ask questions of the opposition.
I agree Ndidi isn’t at his best in a 2. So again, maybe Rodgers needs to make a tough decision and if we play that, Ndidi is dropped for the rare game. Maybe Choudhury and Praet could do that job better?
I’m in total agreement with you that 4-1-4-1 should be our preferred approach against most teams. I just think there is the odd occasion where other formations could help. Saturday being one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well Chelsea were all over us and scored in the 16th minute or around there and United were all over us and won a penalty in the 7th minute so it doesn't make us more solid, all it does is make us look a shambles and nullifies our attacking play.
Choudhury and Ndidi don't work together and there is no way of playing Maddison unless Tielemans is dropped. Playing with Ndidi and Praet with Tielemans ahead works and Ndidi and Tielemans with Maddison ahead works, or Choudhury instead of Ndidi but that's madness, why on Earth would we drop Ndidi for Choudhury? We can't have Ndidi, Choudhury, Tielemans and Maddison in the team. No matter how we look at it two CDM's doesn't work because it means one of our more creative players ends up out of the team or out of position.
We can't have Ndidi, Choudhury, Tielemans and Maddison in the team.
————
I totally agree.
comment by ArroinLestah (U22188)
posted 1 hour, 23 minutes ago
comment by Merseysidefox (U4842)
posted 31 minutes ago
Arro - I’m not sure I agree that it doesn’t work, more we haven’t made it work by playing players out of position. Maddison being the prime example.
I think it ‘could’ work with the personnel we have. It doesn’t have to be a purely defensive formation of done correctly and it should ask questions of the opposition.
I agree Ndidi isn’t at his best in a 2. So again, maybe Rodgers needs to make a tough decision and if we play that, Ndidi is dropped for the rare game. Maybe Choudhury and Praet could do that job better?
I’m in total agreement with you that 4-1-4-1 should be our preferred approach against most teams. I just think there is the odd occasion where other formations could help. Saturday being one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well Chelsea were all over us and scored in the 16th minute or around there and United were all over us and won a penalty in the 7th minute so it doesn't make us more solid, all it does is make us look a shambles and nullifies our attacking play.
Choudhury and Ndidi don't work together and there is no way of playing Maddison unless Tielemans is dropped. Playing with Ndidi and Praet with Tielemans ahead works and Ndidi and Tielemans with Maddison ahead works, or Choudhury instead of Ndidi but that's madness, why on Earth would we drop Ndidi for Choudhury? We can't have Ndidi, Choudhury, Tielemans and Maddison in the team. No matter how we look at it two CDM's doesn't work because it means one of our more creative players ends up out of the team or out of position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is where I'm at.
I hope we've stapled this 4-1-4-1 as ours now, it is by far the best approach to most games, and it helps with options from the bench to continue or tweak the team as and when required. Winning, losing or drawing
"We can't have Ndidi, Choudhury, Tielemans and Maddison in the team."
--------
You can with a diamond.
GK
RB/CB/CB/LB
Ndidi
Choudhury/Tielemans
Maddison
CF/CF
Rodgers has adjusted us to a diamond before, and he was willing for Choudhury to be on one side of it. That in itself was interesting, because I've heard many people say that the side points of a midfield diamond is one of the most difficult tactical positions in the game. Tielemans and Praet would be the obvious ones to try in that because of their know-how, so for Choudhury to be given a side-point diamond role was quite the vote of confidence in his tactical understanding of the game.
The diamond is far from my favourite formation - I find it a bit of a trap where you think you can fit in the central midfielders that you want to while both making life difficult for them and ultimately lacking width. But the personnel we have right now - intelligent midfielders, flying full backs and no wing player like Mahrez that is so good he demands finding a place for - does at least make it an option.
I would never play Choudhury in a diamond u less in the defensive position.
Praet looks far more suited to that role and I’d even take Albrighton over him. I also think the diamond nullifies Teilemans and maks his inclusion debatable.
What I would say is this discussion only proves KTF1’s original point, we have such flexibility to play pretty much any formation now which in itself is a strength.
I just worry Rodgers will go halfway house again and play 4-3-3 on Saturday with perez and Choudhury. We’ll lose and half us us will blame the formation and half the player selection.
Let’s hope he either goes 4-1-4-1 or 4-3-3 without Perez and Choudhury, or 4-2-3-1. That way some of us can at least be smug on Saturday and say I told you so...
... unless it’s 0-0 of course 🙃
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 59 minutes ago
"We can't have Ndidi, Choudhury, Tielemans and Maddison in the team."
--------
You can with a diamond.
GK
RB/CB/CB/LB
Ndidi
Choudhury/Tielemans
Maddison
CF/CF
Rodgers has adjusted us to a diamond before, and he was willing for Choudhury to be on one side of it. That in itself was interesting, because I've heard many people say that the side points of a midfield diamond is one of the most difficult tactical positions in the game. Tielemans and Praet would be the obvious ones to try in that because of their know-how, so for Choudhury to be given a side-point diamond role was quite the vote of confidence in his tactical understanding of the game.
The diamond is far from my favourite formation - I find it a bit of a trap where you think you can fit in the central midfielders that you want to while both making life difficult for them and ultimately lacking width. But the personnel we have right now - intelligent midfielders, flying full backs and no wing player like Mahrez that is so good he demands finding a place for - does at least make it an option.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Playing a diamond means the two wider players essentially take up the role of inside left and right midfielders, meaning they would be expected to possess attacking qualities which Choudhury doesn't possess. You couldn't play him there and expect any kind of success, much like playing Maddison on the left of a front three. Again square pegs in round holes.
Well, regardless - I'm going to be miserable and say I want us to set up with two defensive midfielders on Saturday, keep it tight and try to nick a goal on the counter. If we're behind at half time or beyond, then we can try to step it up. But not until then.
Most games, I'm happy with the attacking approach. Liverpool and Man City away? I believe they're too good for that.
I couldn’t agree with Arro more on this.
The Puel era was characterised by the defensive approach, which was usually torn up within the first 15 minutes of every game when we conceded early.
Every time we’ve started with the two CDM set up this season we’ve looked awful
Every time we’ve started with a good balance across midfield we’ve looked pretty good
We could start either way against Liverpool and still be beaten. That’s because they’re a better side than us - but I’d much rather give ourselves a puncher’s chance than die wondering.
"Hold the front page"
I'm with Dung start the game with too CDM's and then later in the game move it up.
This is not going to be popular but i would not start Maddison.
^
Neither would I. Perez and Albrighton to start for me for energy in closing down and denying Liverpool's dangerous full backs space.
Maddison, Barnes, Praet, Gray/Iheanacho - a bench that can be used to switch things up in the second half.
Of course, the problem here is that whichever of us Brendan goes with is likely to be proved wrong anyway.
Twice in one day Dung........Result !
comment by Jobyfox (U4183)
posted 4 hours, 13 minutes ago
I couldn’t agree with Arro more on this.
The Puel era was characterised by the defensive approach, which was usually torn up within the first 15 minutes of every game when we conceded early.
Every time we’ve started with the two CDM set up this season we’ve looked awful
Every time we’ve started with a good balance across midfield we’ve looked pretty good
We could start either way against Liverpool and still be beaten. That’s because they’re a better side than us - but I’d much rather give ourselves a puncher’s chance than die wondering.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I, I can’t believe this. I disagree with Joby.
Has the world just imploded? Are we all still alive? Is this just a dream.
Everything I knew and trusted in this world has been pulled from under me.
I’m off to lie down.
I agree with DM also...I don’t actually see 4231 in the same way as some, particularly after Rodgers’ confirmation of how he wanted to play the two DCM. I think it will give us licence to attack down the flanks whilst sill being relatively conservative in a very tough away match. I’d possibly play Maddison, Tielemans and Albrighton in front of it as well.
This match just screams for MA's work rate, not too worries about the rest of it, Liverpool are head and shoulders above us and every one else bar Man City.
Like to see us give them a game like Sheffield Utd did but can perfectly understand keeping it tight and try and knick one like so many teams have against us in the past.
Those proposing a narrow formation because we have “flying full backs” seem to forget that Chilwell actually provides very little creativity in the final 3rd. Also, Ricardo’s qualities don’t revolve around creative passing, but carrying the ball. He’s better with a wide player who helps him create an overlap or takes his position when he cuts inside.
If you want to nick a goal on the counter attack you’ve got to actually get the ball to your forward players at some point. Otherwise you’ll break up the opposition’s play, but the ball will just keep coming back.
And Mersey, don’t worry at some point you’ll see that I was right. Just as one day I might also recognise that Benkovic is the new messiah
Sign in if you want to comment
Formation set ups & competition for places
Page 1 of 2
posted on 1/10/19
Does anyone know what’s happened to Mendy.
I mean, he wouldn’t get in above most of those, but I can’t recall whether he’s injured, left or just in the reserves.
Also, is Matty James still on the books? I recall he wasn’t given a squad place, but would have thought he could drop down a division or two to get some form and fitness back.
posted on 1/10/19
In answer to your article KTF I keep banging on about the key being a good balance.
I think we have had issues with 4-2-3-1 because, as you say, a lot of creativity is required from the FBs. Chilwell doesn’t provide much creativity and, if we also have two CDMs as we have in the past, then we can easily isolate Vardy. The other reason I think it’s critical to have some of our creative players in the middle is because Vardy prefers a ball played forward rather than one that comes across him from the wing. He’s not Olivier Giroud or Andy Carroll. That’s also why we have to have Maddison central. It also gets the most out of Maddison’s game.
Once you start putting some of the essential blocks in place you can build the rest of the team around it. For me Hamza and N’didi are an either/or and not both - although I know some disagree on that. I like Hamza coming on to close out a game in the way Mendy also did towards the end of last season. I’m also optimistic that Tielemans and Praet give us some genuine options of more creativity alongside our CDM with Maddison more advanced.
posted on 1/10/19
I still look at your squad and think a 4-1-2-1-2 / 4-3-1-2 suits you best tbh. Suits and fits all your best players (I don’t really rate Albrighton)
Ndidi
Praet Tielemans
Maddison
Barnes/Perez Vardy
posted on 1/10/19
I still look at your squad and think a 4-1-2-1-2 /
...... is a bit complicated
posted on 1/10/19
KTF1 - ami agree we have the squad to play any of those formations.
I still don’t believe we’ve propaly played 4-3-3 - more a weird flexible 4-2-3-1 with Choudhury and Maddison playing strange roles.
I totally agree with both you and Joby on square pegs in square holes.
The biggest question for me currently is Perez. He doesn’t fit in to anything with a 1 up top for me, and Albrighton is better suited to support Vardy.
I don’t see us going 2 up top anytime soon so I don’t believe he should play.
I also don’t believe Maddison should ever play as a wide striker no matter how much Rodgers tells him it’s good for his career. It’s crap for our team so wrong. There are players better suited to that role.
So, I’m happy with the use of any formation really for the right opponents and our flexibility is a real bonus. What I’m not happy about is the use of Ndidi, Maddison, Tielemans, Perez and Choudhury all being under utilised and out of position.
Rodgers needs to make big decisions on players to suit formations. If that means dropping Maddison or Tielemans for the odd game then so be it.
posted on 1/10/19
I have a feeling we should not try and defend, so 2 DMs is not for me. There are a few reasons behind this: 1. It stifles our attacking capabilities so we are less likely to score; 2. It confuses N'didi having another DM to contend with; 3. Our fullbacks are better going forward than defending.
So I reckon we'd be better off finding a suitable formation and sticking to it, maybe 4-1-4-1?
I don't like Maddison out on the wing, he should be in the no 10 role. We should try starting with Albrighton and bring Perez on when the other team has tired a bit, he may be able to do a more then.
posted on 2/10/19
comment by Nuneaton_fox (U7936)
posted 4 hours ago
I have a feeling we should not try and defend, so 2 DMs is not for me. There are a few reasons behind this: 1. It stifles our attacking capabilities so we are less likely to score; 2. It confuses N'didi having another DM to contend with; 3. Our fullbacks are better going forward than defending.
So I reckon we'd be better off finding a suitable formation and sticking to it, maybe 4-1-4-1?
I don't like Maddison out on the wing, he should be in the no 10 role. We should try starting with Albrighton and bring Perez on when the other team has tired a bit, he may be able to do a more then.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolutely agree, don't think we should ever play two CDM's because it just doesn't work. We're not more solid and as you said it nullifies our attacking threat. Big clubs don't worry about stopping the opposition, they play their game and make the opposition worry about them and this is something I think we need to start doing. If we want to be a top six/four team then we have to have the mentality of a top six/four team. We have the players now to compete with the best teams, stop their threat and cause our own but it's about being positive. Sure we might lose playing against Liverpool and City because they have better players but playing them and trying to contain them is asking for trouble so have a go and see what happens.
posted on 2/10/19
Arro - I’m not sure I agree that it doesn’t work, more we haven’t made it work by playing players out of position. Maddison being the prime example.
I think it ‘could’ work with the personnel we have. It doesn’t have to be a purely defensive formation of done correctly and it should ask questions of the opposition.
I agree Ndidi isn’t at his best in a 2. So again, maybe Rodgers needs to make a tough decision and if we play that, Ndidi is dropped for the rare game. Maybe Choudhury and Praet could do that job better?
I’m in total agreement with you that 4-1-4-1 should be our preferred approach against most teams. I just think there is the odd occasion where other formations could help. Saturday being one.
posted on 2/10/19
comment by Merseysidefox (U4842)
posted 31 minutes ago
Arro - I’m not sure I agree that it doesn’t work, more we haven’t made it work by playing players out of position. Maddison being the prime example.
I think it ‘could’ work with the personnel we have. It doesn’t have to be a purely defensive formation of done correctly and it should ask questions of the opposition.
I agree Ndidi isn’t at his best in a 2. So again, maybe Rodgers needs to make a tough decision and if we play that, Ndidi is dropped for the rare game. Maybe Choudhury and Praet could do that job better?
I’m in total agreement with you that 4-1-4-1 should be our preferred approach against most teams. I just think there is the odd occasion where other formations could help. Saturday being one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well Chelsea were all over us and scored in the 16th minute or around there and United were all over us and won a penalty in the 7th minute so it doesn't make us more solid, all it does is make us look a shambles and nullifies our attacking play.
Choudhury and Ndidi don't work together and there is no way of playing Maddison unless Tielemans is dropped. Playing with Ndidi and Praet with Tielemans ahead works and Ndidi and Tielemans with Maddison ahead works, or Choudhury instead of Ndidi but that's madness, why on Earth would we drop Ndidi for Choudhury? We can't have Ndidi, Choudhury, Tielemans and Maddison in the team. No matter how we look at it two CDM's doesn't work because it means one of our more creative players ends up out of the team or out of position.
posted on 2/10/19
We can't have Ndidi, Choudhury, Tielemans and Maddison in the team.
————
I totally agree.
posted on 2/10/19
comment by ArroinLestah (U22188)
posted 1 hour, 23 minutes ago
comment by Merseysidefox (U4842)
posted 31 minutes ago
Arro - I’m not sure I agree that it doesn’t work, more we haven’t made it work by playing players out of position. Maddison being the prime example.
I think it ‘could’ work with the personnel we have. It doesn’t have to be a purely defensive formation of done correctly and it should ask questions of the opposition.
I agree Ndidi isn’t at his best in a 2. So again, maybe Rodgers needs to make a tough decision and if we play that, Ndidi is dropped for the rare game. Maybe Choudhury and Praet could do that job better?
I’m in total agreement with you that 4-1-4-1 should be our preferred approach against most teams. I just think there is the odd occasion where other formations could help. Saturday being one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well Chelsea were all over us and scored in the 16th minute or around there and United were all over us and won a penalty in the 7th minute so it doesn't make us more solid, all it does is make us look a shambles and nullifies our attacking play.
Choudhury and Ndidi don't work together and there is no way of playing Maddison unless Tielemans is dropped. Playing with Ndidi and Praet with Tielemans ahead works and Ndidi and Tielemans with Maddison ahead works, or Choudhury instead of Ndidi but that's madness, why on Earth would we drop Ndidi for Choudhury? We can't have Ndidi, Choudhury, Tielemans and Maddison in the team. No matter how we look at it two CDM's doesn't work because it means one of our more creative players ends up out of the team or out of position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is where I'm at.
I hope we've stapled this 4-1-4-1 as ours now, it is by far the best approach to most games, and it helps with options from the bench to continue or tweak the team as and when required. Winning, losing or drawing
posted on 2/10/19
"We can't have Ndidi, Choudhury, Tielemans and Maddison in the team."
--------
You can with a diamond.
GK
RB/CB/CB/LB
Ndidi
Choudhury/Tielemans
Maddison
CF/CF
Rodgers has adjusted us to a diamond before, and he was willing for Choudhury to be on one side of it. That in itself was interesting, because I've heard many people say that the side points of a midfield diamond is one of the most difficult tactical positions in the game. Tielemans and Praet would be the obvious ones to try in that because of their know-how, so for Choudhury to be given a side-point diamond role was quite the vote of confidence in his tactical understanding of the game.
The diamond is far from my favourite formation - I find it a bit of a trap where you think you can fit in the central midfielders that you want to while both making life difficult for them and ultimately lacking width. But the personnel we have right now - intelligent midfielders, flying full backs and no wing player like Mahrez that is so good he demands finding a place for - does at least make it an option.
posted on 2/10/19
I would never play Choudhury in a diamond u less in the defensive position.
Praet looks far more suited to that role and I’d even take Albrighton over him. I also think the diamond nullifies Teilemans and maks his inclusion debatable.
What I would say is this discussion only proves KTF1’s original point, we have such flexibility to play pretty much any formation now which in itself is a strength.
I just worry Rodgers will go halfway house again and play 4-3-3 on Saturday with perez and Choudhury. We’ll lose and half us us will blame the formation and half the player selection.
Let’s hope he either goes 4-1-4-1 or 4-3-3 without Perez and Choudhury, or 4-2-3-1. That way some of us can at least be smug on Saturday and say I told you so...
... unless it’s 0-0 of course 🙃
posted on 2/10/19
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 59 minutes ago
"We can't have Ndidi, Choudhury, Tielemans and Maddison in the team."
--------
You can with a diamond.
GK
RB/CB/CB/LB
Ndidi
Choudhury/Tielemans
Maddison
CF/CF
Rodgers has adjusted us to a diamond before, and he was willing for Choudhury to be on one side of it. That in itself was interesting, because I've heard many people say that the side points of a midfield diamond is one of the most difficult tactical positions in the game. Tielemans and Praet would be the obvious ones to try in that because of their know-how, so for Choudhury to be given a side-point diamond role was quite the vote of confidence in his tactical understanding of the game.
The diamond is far from my favourite formation - I find it a bit of a trap where you think you can fit in the central midfielders that you want to while both making life difficult for them and ultimately lacking width. But the personnel we have right now - intelligent midfielders, flying full backs and no wing player like Mahrez that is so good he demands finding a place for - does at least make it an option.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Playing a diamond means the two wider players essentially take up the role of inside left and right midfielders, meaning they would be expected to possess attacking qualities which Choudhury doesn't possess. You couldn't play him there and expect any kind of success, much like playing Maddison on the left of a front three. Again square pegs in round holes.
posted on 2/10/19
Well, regardless - I'm going to be miserable and say I want us to set up with two defensive midfielders on Saturday, keep it tight and try to nick a goal on the counter. If we're behind at half time or beyond, then we can try to step it up. But not until then.
Most games, I'm happy with the attacking approach. Liverpool and Man City away? I believe they're too good for that.
posted on 2/10/19
I couldn’t agree with Arro more on this.
The Puel era was characterised by the defensive approach, which was usually torn up within the first 15 minutes of every game when we conceded early.
Every time we’ve started with the two CDM set up this season we’ve looked awful
Every time we’ve started with a good balance across midfield we’ve looked pretty good
We could start either way against Liverpool and still be beaten. That’s because they’re a better side than us - but I’d much rather give ourselves a puncher’s chance than die wondering.
posted on 2/10/19
"Hold the front page"
I'm with Dung start the game with too CDM's and then later in the game move it up.
This is not going to be popular but i would not start Maddison.
posted on 2/10/19
^
Neither would I. Perez and Albrighton to start for me for energy in closing down and denying Liverpool's dangerous full backs space.
Maddison, Barnes, Praet, Gray/Iheanacho - a bench that can be used to switch things up in the second half.
posted on 2/10/19
Of course, the problem here is that whichever of us Brendan goes with is likely to be proved wrong anyway.
posted on 2/10/19
Twice in one day Dung........Result !
posted on 2/10/19
It's like buses, Nev.
posted on 2/10/19
comment by Jobyfox (U4183)
posted 4 hours, 13 minutes ago
I couldn’t agree with Arro more on this.
The Puel era was characterised by the defensive approach, which was usually torn up within the first 15 minutes of every game when we conceded early.
Every time we’ve started with the two CDM set up this season we’ve looked awful
Every time we’ve started with a good balance across midfield we’ve looked pretty good
We could start either way against Liverpool and still be beaten. That’s because they’re a better side than us - but I’d much rather give ourselves a puncher’s chance than die wondering.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I, I can’t believe this. I disagree with Joby.
Has the world just imploded? Are we all still alive? Is this just a dream.
Everything I knew and trusted in this world has been pulled from under me.
I’m off to lie down.
posted on 2/10/19
I agree with DM also...I don’t actually see 4231 in the same way as some, particularly after Rodgers’ confirmation of how he wanted to play the two DCM. I think it will give us licence to attack down the flanks whilst sill being relatively conservative in a very tough away match. I’d possibly play Maddison, Tielemans and Albrighton in front of it as well.
posted on 2/10/19
This match just screams for MA's work rate, not too worries about the rest of it, Liverpool are head and shoulders above us and every one else bar Man City.
Like to see us give them a game like Sheffield Utd did but can perfectly understand keeping it tight and try and knick one like so many teams have against us in the past.
posted on 2/10/19
Those proposing a narrow formation because we have “flying full backs” seem to forget that Chilwell actually provides very little creativity in the final 3rd. Also, Ricardo’s qualities don’t revolve around creative passing, but carrying the ball. He’s better with a wide player who helps him create an overlap or takes his position when he cuts inside.
If you want to nick a goal on the counter attack you’ve got to actually get the ball to your forward players at some point. Otherwise you’ll break up the opposition’s play, but the ball will just keep coming back.
And Mersey, don’t worry at some point you’ll see that I was right. Just as one day I might also recognise that Benkovic is the new messiah
Page 1 of 2