It is with interest that I’ve read and listened to many people’s thoughts on our current form and position. We’re scoring goals for fun, but also conceding more than anyone else except for Sunderland. So the question is: how do we tighten up in defence? or is that the question? If we go through the season scoring and conceding like we are and finish in the top ten I’m sure we’d all be happy. We don’t want to shore up the defence if we end up compromising the attack.
The obvious answer to the quandary is to return to the formation that served us so well towards the end of last season. This is inevitably what callers to Ian Stringer will demand after every defeat until Ranieri’s does it. There is certainly a very good case for this and I have, at times, called for it myself. An extra CB would ensure that Schlupp would need less positional discipline and it would also solve the perceived RDL problem by potentially removing him from the side altogether. It would also allow Mahrez to slot in behind a front two where some would argue he’s most effective.
There is a point, however, that some people seem to miss when they’re bellowing 3-5-2 across the air waves. It wasn’t 3-5-2 that was successful in itself, but the fact that it suited the personnel within it. This wasn’t always the case. When Pearson first tried it he got it completely wrong and it was more of a 5-3-2. I recall the Aston Villa cup game being perhaps the most depressing team selection of last season. If Ranieri is tempted to try it then I hope it’s a team selection that doesn’t overly restrict our attacking flair. Pearson’s initial instinct was to go defensive and he only changed it just in time.
The more ambitious answer is to make 4-4-2 (or one of its variation s) work. Ranieri obviously favours a back four, which is fine, but it’s his job to evolve the team to make it work. It seems to me that there are short, medium and long terms answers to this.
Long term involves recruitment of better players: a right back, centre back (or 2) and a goal keeper?
Medium term might be to change two or three players in the back four with members of the current squad: Fuchs for Schlupp, Banalouane for Morgan, Wasilewki? I’m not a fan of Simpson, but Ranieri has had him on the bench recently. Is he a contender to replace RDL?
An obvious short term fix is to replace Schlupp at left back with Fuchs. I can see the merits of Schlupp over Fuchs as a wing back, but surely Fuchs has a case for being the better full back in a back four? Personally this is the first change I’d make.
There is a danger in all of this that Ranieri moves too quickly and changes things too much. We’ve made a great start. Mahrez and Vardy top the goal scoring charts. There is no need to panic just yet. Making the wrong choices now could jeopardise what we’ve worked hard to achieve. Imagine if we started the next game with a back three and RDL and Simpson as the wing backs – would we be happy? It will be interesting to see which way Ranieri jumps or whether he jumps at all. Personally I hope it’s evolution rather than revolution.
The Case for the Defence
posted on 2/10/15
Too much agreement guys 😉
I'd only play Ulloa in a 4-4-2 with genuine out and our wingers putting balls in to the box. His hold up play for a big man is poor and he thrives off service.
I personally think Oka does a better hold up job and links the midfield better. Ulloa only in if Albrighton is on the pitch, which is strange because Ranieri seems to think the polar opposite!!!
As for Bena - I missed the West Ham game but he's been hoop and struggling to adapt in every game he's played before that. Before we suggest he's should be a show on for Norgan (our team captain) I suggest we actually wait to see him have a good game in the Premier League.
He was embarrassed by Bury even getting caught the wrong side, fouling and generally lacking discipline. Yes he's good on the ball but that's pointless if he can't defend. Need to see more for me.
Unlike Fuchs. Get him in!!
I'd say if we genuinely want to play 4-4-2, none of Morgan, Huth or RDL are suited and would need to be replaced. That is stupid, therefore I'm with Joby - we shouldn't play 4-4-2.
We have good players that are better utilised in other ways.
posted on 2/10/15
When writing the article I was trying to convey a neutral position between 3-5-2 (and its variations) and 4-4-2 (and its variations). In a way it’s too easy to say that we should be playing 3-5-2 when maybe we should have one eye on the future development of the team and whether we’re capable of breaking into the top ten.
I’m fairly convinced that 3-5-2 suits our current set of players best at this point in time. The questions in my mind are: do we need to gradually evolve the squad to play with a back 4? Is that what Ranieri is trying to do? How far can 3-5-2 take us?
Considering your responses it seems that Dunge and johngee think we should be moving towards a back 4 (apologies if I’ve misrepresented you guys) and part of me is inclined to agree. A 4-2-3-1 along the lines that arro suggested works for me in midfield and attack, but sadly not with the current squad in terms of the defence. The imponderable for me is whether the 3-5-2 was/is a short term fix and whether we should be, or need to be, working towards a long term plan with a back 4.
posted on 2/10/15
I think moving towards a back four is fine if you have the players that suit it.
posted on 2/10/15
Wow. Loads of great thoughts. I'm a 3 at the back person at present as it suits our players. Arguably we could have had an even better start with that formation. I can also see that four at the back has potential for improvement, but we need better players to make it work.
I'm happy though as Claudio has made it work apart from Arsenal, and we've harvested 12 points so thus far.
posted on 2/10/15
I'm all for the best winning formation.
I genuinely think no formation is fool proof or guaranteed success.
I don't buy the argument 3-5-2 can't be a long term or successful formation if deployed well and with the right level of change and variation. Any formation or style becomes easy to play against of everyone knows exactly how you're going to set up.
You need to be able to change.
What Pearson was willing to do was move from a back 3/5 to 4 in a game. Ranieri never seems willing to change the back 4 mid match, he always opts for midfield changes.
Therefore I just don't think he's willing to consider a back 3. This is think is naive as utilising it at key times or in key games could help us.
That said, I'm still happy to see 4-2-3-1 with Dyer back after it was so impressive against Villa. We need to be careful though as that could have been a one off 20 minute thing!!
What I will say is that Ranieri is not really setting the bench up to change the defence mid game for tactical reasons. He does that more in midfield.
Think we need to accept the 4.
posted on 2/10/15
comment by The_Dungeon_Master (U4830)
posted 4 hours, 8 minutes ago
..........................One big reason I'm happier with playing 4 at the back is because of the options it gives the manager through the match: 4-4-2, 4-4-1-1, 4-2-3-1, 4-1-4-1, we even played something resembling a diamond for a while against Arsenal............
Yeah Dunge, that worked well didn't it !
posted on 2/10/15
happier with playing 4 at the back is because of the options it gives the manager through the match: 4-4-2, 4-4-1-1, 4-2-3-1, 4-1-4-1, we even played something resembling a diamond for a while against Arsenal............
But why can't we move to any of these formations from a back 3 by removing a centre back for a midfielder or a right back? We've already seen De Laet playing in a centre 3.
Pearson did it many times when playing 3/5 at the back.
posted on 2/10/15
comment by Merseysidefox (U4842)
posted 10 minutes ago
happier with playing 4 at the back is because of the options it gives the manager through the match: 4-4-2, 4-4-1-1, 4-2-3-1, 4-1-4-1, we even played something resembling a diamond for a while against Arsenal............
But why can't we move to any of these formations from a back 3 by removing a centre back for a midfielder or a right back? We've already seen De Laet playing in a centre 3.
Pearson did it many times when playing 3/5 at the back.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The obvious answer to that is Claudio unfortunately is too rigid in his tactical thinking, and is lacking Pearson's astuteness with the potential defensive formations.
posted on 2/10/15
Arrogant even!
posted on 2/10/15
Merseyside - because you have to make a substitution to do it. And there's another problem: A good attack can work on fluidity despit the formation, but a good defence not so. You need to know where your teammates are and rely on them to fill the holes. 4 at the back offers consistency in defence throughout a range of formations, and we know Ranieri likes to alter those regularly. If you play three at the back then there's only really one formation you can play.
As I say, it suits Pearson more than Ranieri.