This weekend

If NP had been a little more defensive, and not tried to combat Chelsea's incredibly strong 4-3-3 with a weak, mismash 4-4-2 we might not have conceded 5 in the first place! Chelsea's biggest weakness is pace in behind the back 4, and we did nothing to exploit this yesterday. A good attacking performance but far too weak and naive in defence and midfield.

Pearson saw we were getting over-run in midfield and put pelts on for gallagher. using pelts as a defensive midfielder. I personally believe we starting playing better with pelts as defensive midfielder than before the substitution. Fair play nige

We really need 3 in centre midfield from the start, ideally a Bamba or Peltier type player in front of the back 4 with Danns and Wellens advanced either side. Our 2 against their 3 was never going to work and was naive in the extreme.

...and then he would have been accused of not being attacking enough.

Tactics had little to do with it on Sunday. Chelsea were in a strong and professional mood, so their quality shone through and they would have beaten us whatever we did. The match really shouldn't be overanalysed.

“The match really shouldn't be overanalysed.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t really agree with that DM.
I accept that it was Chelsea and that they were always going to win on the form they are showing recently, but the manner of our defeat is still quite revealing. Pearson has been grappling with the problem of finding the balance between midfield solidity and midfield creativity and width since the last time he was here and the problem fails to go away.
Chelsea exposed our common frailties in midfield and, subsequently, induced errors in defence that could just as easily be exploited by Blackpool and Hull. We may be able to write this one off as: “well it was Chelsea”, but it’s the same lessons we need to learn if we’re ever going to challenge the likes of West Ham or Southampton for consistency.

I commend our positive approach but, as I posted on another thread, I think that there is a fine line between positivity and naivety and I think we crossed that. If you look at the second goal, the way we emptied the midfield and left far too much space for the counter was foolish. Especially when you go away to a team like Chelsea, I feel the best way to get a result is to keep it tight in defence and we didn't do that.

But on a more general note, I do agree and have said for a while that we seem to be playing a lot more 'football' in NP's second tenure and that is good to see because I think it suits the players we have and I like to watch it. We actually kept possession of the ball quite well yesterday and attacked quite well.

There were two real reasons we conceded five. The first is we wanted championship time on the ball and obviously didn't get it. The second is we were hit on the break when we were trying to peg them back, 4-2 would have been a fair score merieles goal was a result of us being hit on the break all in all I thought we did well against a team who to be fair to them are in the CL.

"...and then he would have been accused of not being attacking enough."

I disagree Dunge, I think the game required a more defensive minded approach due to 1) being away from home, 2) their quality and strength and 3) them playing with 3 in midfield.

For me, having Wellens and Danns against their strong 3 man midfield was never going to work and we needed to go man for man in midfield. Also, with Gallagher doing nothing for the whole game and seemingly deciding not to bother playing, it meant we were heavily exposed particularly on our right, and also in the midfield. A three of Danns, Wellens and Bamba or Peltier would have stood more chance of containing their midfield. Instead, they simply broke through it at every opportunity and this left our slow defensive partnership heavily isolated and heavily exposed to their speed and agility. 4-4-2 is very poor against most 3 man midfields, and it was the case on Sunday.

Blackpool play in a very similar way to Chelsea, with 3 in midfield, and if we try to play 4-4-2 there I imagine they will exploit our fragilities much the same as Chelsea did. Pearson must change his formation for tomorrow and show that he can judge when a 4-4-2 formation simply will not be good enough.

4-3-3, 4-4-2, 4-5-1? To be honest I’ve always been of the view that you pick systems to match the players you have at your disposal rather than players to fit a system. I really think that rigid systems are overrated and it’s all about the players understanding their role.
I remember reading an analysis of the Spain team saying that it is difficult to assess what formation they are playing in as it’s so flexible. It doesn’t really matter what you do in attack as long as you’re organised and disciplined in defence.
I only partially support the view that Leicester continually struggle to control the midfield area because we are playing 4-4-2 and not 4-3-3. For me it’s more about the individuals: Wellens hasn’t the pace and energy over 90 mins, Danns (although he’s improved a great deal recently) has spent much of his time running around without the ball, Dyer is an old fashioned winger who stays out wide, Gallagher and King have a tendency to go missing, Marshall and Drinkwater are still learning the game etc..
In my opinion a simple switch to 4-3-3 (or 4-5-1) would not necessarily solve our problems for Blackpool. It’s just as likely that we’ll lose some width and creativity and fail to feed the forwards effectively. It’s this balance that has been our problem for a few seasons now. NP tried playing Oakley as the extra midfielder, Sven has tried one up front, the diamond and 4-3-3 and we haven’t been consistent with any of them. It’s all right if you’re Chelsea and the players have an all round ability to attack and defend as well as having pace and stamina, but it’s still a big challenge for Nigel with the players he has (or hasn’t) got at his disposal to find a formation that works.