Let's talk about the 3-4-3

Red Alert wrote:Again, we created so many "chances" in the other games because we were PRESSING; it had nothing to do with this change formation to 343 crap.

It leaves so many holes in our midfield and down the flanks, not sure what you people see that's so special about it. It's so easy to play against, and it's the reason why NO ONE is successful with it in the Premier League.

iftikhar wrote:I believe the rationality of 343 stems from the fact that it can accommodate all of Markovic, Coutinho, Lallana & Raheem (which gives our attack some potency) while retaining both Gerrard & Lucas (in hope of some solidity in front of the back-line).

We have struggled with mediocre teams like Bournemouth & Burnley while succumbed against ManU & Arsenal. So the 343 isn't any solution (if consider top-four as still our objective) even with more clinical finishing.

I think the following are more viable long-term options/strategies:

--------Lucas--------
Henderson-Coutinho
--------Lallana------
-Raheem-Sturridge-

Emre can fill-in for Lucas or Henderson, Coutinho & Lallana can swap places and Markovic can fill-in for AM or Raheem.

------------Lucas------------
----Henderson-Coutinho----
Raheem-Sturridge-Markovic

Emre can fill-in for Lucas or Henderson while Lallana can fill-in for either of Coutinho, Raheem & Markovic.

Art Morte wrote:
Well, I agree that it leaves holes in our midfield - or gives the opponent at least one man advantage in midfield. However, I don't think it's a hopeless formation, but any formation that has Gerrard & Lucas playing together in midfield is bound to be vulnerable against man advantage and pressing from the opposition. So, I would like to see what would happen with a Henderson - Can partnership, leave both Gerrard and Lucas out or at least play only one of them.

Even then, though, it's a valid point to point out that the 3-4-3 isn't used almost at all and probably for a reason. Yet I think it suits our players and style better than the 4-3-3, for example.

mr-r34 wrote:I still want to see a diamond again.

          GK
Man Skr Sahk Moren
         Can
     Hendo Cou
       Sterling
     Balo
       Lambert/Borini

Red Alert wrote:^ Is Sturridge going to solve our defensive issues as well?

Rodgers starting to show his flexibility but people are still not happy.

mr-r34 wrote:That's why it's baffled me as to why we haven't used it much more often, there is so much versatility available in this formation which is something Rodgers has demanded from players ,yet he uses 343, which makes it difficult to shake it up a bit.

Will faith in the 3-4-2-1 waver?
It was a roadblock to what was supposed to be a juggernaut beginning to rev its engine. The 3-4-2-1 that had disposed of Bournemouth and bettered Arsenal – in performance, if not goals – rolled towards Turf Moor and Burnley.

But the swashbuckling nature of the previous two performances was missing. This was a display without the swagger of Bournemouth or intensity of Arsenal. It was a grim reminder of how Liverpool, at times, have struggled this season.

The end result was positive against the Clarets, but more had been expected of the away side – unreasonably so, perhaps.

The 3-4-2-1 didn't work for large parts of the game. With Burnley's wide men, George Boyd and Scott Arfield, tucking inside, the Reds were outnumbered in the middle with six Burnley players taking on Liverpool's two central midfielders and three centre backs.

It also negated wide midfielders Jordan Henderson and Lazar Markovic, who were pinned back and had to help their team-mates instead of troubling the opposition further up the pitch.

Now, at home to Swansea, Rodgers must decide whether to keep faith in it after a slight setback - in performance, if not result - or look to tweak the system once more.

In theory, Swansea are a side who should struggle with the 3-4-2-1. Their wide men stay wide and employ a lone striker up front - the opposite game-plan Burnley adopt. In addition, Rodgers has, throughout his time at Anfield, been a manager who rarely loses belief in a system after one bad showing.

But it's something to think about, nevertheless. Daniel Sturridge edges nearer to fitness; how that affects the side, both in the run-up to his return, and when he is back in the side, remains to be seen. For now, 3-4-2-1 should remain – but it needs to work, and work well against Swansea, to feature as a long-term option.

Don't call me James wrote:3-4-3 implies Coutinho and Lallana playing as forwards like Sterling which they really don't.

I would appreciate if people started calling it properly 3-4-2-1.

Don't call me James wrote:Defensively it gets ripped apart by teams with good attacking players. Look at the United match. They created like 3 chances all game and scored from all of them.

If your defense isn't good, which ours isn't, this formation gets found out very quickly. Teams learn how to play against it. Heck Burnley already showed how to play against it. I don't know why Swansea and Arsenal just sat back letting our midfield get the ball and no press us as Burnley showed this system could be disrupted very quickly.

Last season we had a little spell using 3-5-2 and did well at the beginning until teams found the formation out.

It's not sustainable mate.

It is my personal favorite formation as I play it all the time on FIFA because it allows for most attacking players on the pitch at once, but just not ideal in the long run.

When I mean long run, I mean we won't be winning shit with this formation. Like EL for example. Can't play like this in Europe and expect to progress far imo unless you have both the CM's spot occupied by expert defensive midfielders and much better keeper and defenders with defensively oriented fullbacks.