I read everything. Gerrez - don't read the last few paragraph's as they're all about Skrtel. They just praise him in this 3 man system, pretty much stating he's good in it, because it allows him to stand in the middle and kick/head away the ball.
3-5-2 can work, but it's tactically very different from a flat back 4 in terms of picking up runners, covering space and marking. Our players are very comfortable in a back 4 but not so as a 3. Until you get a good 15-20 games against different opposition, you're going to be confronted with different scenarios and need to learn how to react and adjust. Offensively, it suits us. Defensively, we just need more practice.
So, they've just copied what I've said then? He's **** in a four but very good as the central efender in a three where he has no marking responsibility and can apply his gang-ho attack the ball at all costs style as a "sort of" sweeper.
But if we have Agger, who is just as comfortable on the ball as Sakho and Kolo, Skrtel is basically a sitting duck until he makes a mistake. They focus on his strengths, but Agger is also great at that but can also play with the ball. 3-5-2 will be much better when Skrtel is out.
when were socks and sandals ever out? and skittles and the rest of em better turn up because i am going to the pub to watch this today, the drink should help the nerves
this is stupid. it ignores the obvious. one set of three players playing to each others strengths while the other areas of the pitch are compromised. The tactis is far too easy to be got at. and competent manager should see a 4-5-1 will kill us all day. steve clarke should be ashamed frankly.
Was it Man City who tried to implement 3-5-2 in to their team a year or so back? They got a few results but ultimately they ended up reverting back. My question is, what is wrong with the formation we were playing before? It's not like it wasn't working and we weren't getting results, why change the entire structure of the team to shoehorn in a striker who can arguably play anywhere across the front 3 anyway? It was the same formation that got points against Arsenal, City, Everton and Spurs towards the end of last season. We were scoring for fun, it just doesn't make that much sense to me. Unless BR feels like he can't drop inform defenders? I'd like to know his thinking behind it.
And Suarez drifts in and out of these front 3 positions during the game anyway Cant he just have a free license? And lets go back to 4 3 3
2 ways to look at it: 1) We've not kept a clean sheet since we reverted to the back 3. 2) We've created more chances and look more threatening since. #Catch22
i don't accept this we scored more malarcy. there are too many circumstances at play to give those goals to formation. 1. suarez back... i would content that in a 4-3-3 with him wide... or 4-2-3-1 he would have got goals. 2. who did we play? lost to southampton before the change. lost to utd in the league cup after never looked like getting one, played the woeful sunderland, only 3 goals, played the woeful palace, only 3 goals... played nwekie v 10 men and got lucky with the pen, played awful. beat west brom 4-1... in fact the only game where it worked (as i feel clarke got it utterly wrong) was west brom!!!! 3. its easy to compare 3 1-0 wins at the start v utd (top 4) villa away, stoke at home to a run of much easier games and say we scored more goals. so for me the fact is we are absolutely chucking them in at the back since skertl came back and are at 6s and 7s. we dropped agger. we put skertl and shako in. we brought back toure and tried him RB then move him in. It is rather obvious to me that we need a reset here. Either skertl can pass or he can't. if he can't then out he goes and in comes agger. If we need toure fine... keep him in. if sahko can't play lb fine...... harsh? maybe... the right thing most definitely.
