It's called playing 3 centre backs
Three ways to play such a backline: 3-4-3 will only be attempted by a formerly sane person now mind raped by the Great Old Ones themselves. 3-5-2 is far more of a viable option, but because RDM is no bloody fool, such an orthodox game plan could have a chance in backfiring upon the two wingbacks committing forward due to Chelsea having two screening midfielders just in front of the back four. The final, and some might say the most absurd option is 5-3-2 with two fullbacks zoning the defence on both flanks. In a somewhat footballing parallel to H.P Lovecraft's works themselves, Brendan Rodgers was outed to be Cthulhu's 007. Simply put, it would be totally absurd to say that one point apiece is the right result. And just to set the record straight, we're pretty much riding our luck against Ipswich at home back when Paul Jewell was on a payroll of carrots. Yes, Mogga played a 5-3-2 and had things not gone our way, I suspect either the Northern Echo or Evening Gazette would be going berserk mode again. >.<
And 5-3-2 is anti-football
Something that Rodgers himself will NEVER do. On paper that is. So imagine the mind rape dealt to Stamford Bridge itself when Rodgers laid down his cards. A hand of jokers and RDM got thrown aback. Simply put, a lot has been said on Chelsea having more shots on goal, but I'm not too sure if people actually noticed that 3 shots per side on target stat.
Onus on 5-3-2
In my last blog post on the Chelsea vs Liverpool pre-match talk, I actually mentioned that Liverpool needs to stifle the midfield because the greatest threat from Chelsea has never been from Fernando Torres, but rather the Stamford Trinity of Oscar, Juan Mata and Eden Hazard. Mata in particularly is arguably the ace compared to the other two Kings in RDM's hand. Not so much due to any perceived difference in quality, but rather his all rounder play. Case in point: Terry's goal was started by Mata from a set piece corner and none can ever doubt his prolific goal scoring form atm.
But yet, that would mean the other two can time their own decoy runs given time and space. And by swallowing his pride, Rodgers' strategy was extremely simple. Deprive all three of the space needed and the only way is to create a five man zonal defence NOT just in the middle third, but their defensive third as well. Hence, the reason why Rodgers became a mad man for the sake of that match due an anti-football plan.
But Rodgers, you have a problem
And it's called Nuri Sahin. Who were the centre 3 starting in an extremely unorthodox approach? Steven Gerrard, Joe Allen and Nuri Sahin. I don't have any problems in having either Sahin or Allen, but definitely NOT both. This a a formation suicide because if you want to stifle a talented midfield quartet, then why plonked two ball players instead of two dynamic midfielders and ONE ball player? Unless Rodgers' decision to convert was one down to a last minute decision, if not it wouldn't make any sense.
Case in point: I have no problem understanding Liverpool hogging possession for nothing going forward and I have no problem understanding why only JT's goal popped up during the 1st half. But when you have a good number of missed shots, it means your own 5-3-2 could and should have been better.
And Liverpool got lucky...
Because people will be asking what if Juan Mata never missed that shot blazing over the skies otherwise. To me I suspect the key lies in Juan Mata NOT knowing how to cope with such a stifling situation. Yes, he and the other two amigos did have their moments of breaking through the defensive line, but if there's anything to go by, pressure and stress made their presence known. If Brendan Rodgers was banking his savings money on toying around with the three amigos' mentality, he got that right. But allow me to say that it's a 50-50 gamble, that one miscalculated step would mean disaster. Again, why putting Nuri Sahin and Joe Allen in the same midfield 3 is still beyond me.
Inversely speaking, there's a John Terry
I'm pretty much convinced that Liverpool won't be getting even a point had JT not gone off injured. JT is basically what Roy Keane had been doing in the red Manchester shirt. He's the only fella who can lead from the pitch and his lack of commanding presence showed throughout the game. Granted Agger's lapse of concentration should be seen along the same scale of Mata's miss, but let's not take anything away from RDM's decision to retain JT's armband.
[And lastly, but not least, RDM should retain JT's armband. Yes, I know people will go wtf over this view especially those hailing from the Loftus Road end. But here's the catch: it won't do RDM any good if he decides to do the exact opposite. Andre Villas-Boas got sacked for a very good reason. He wasn't betrayed by Roman "Ruthless Roubles" Abramovich. He was betrayed by a dressing room who TOTALLY disagreed with the fact that AVB was out to do a total revamp rather than a mere case of modifying and strengthening. I don't have a good opinion on that rich Roman, but I'll have to be fair to say my own piece: that I believe the media tabloids are just out to hype up the duel underway now. Simply put, it's for the team stability above a perceived lesser evil. Fullstop.] ~ Source
Final kill: From 5-3-2 to 4-2-3-1
Without any doubt, Liverpool played far better upon the tactical switch. Rodgers was right in saying that this very change brought forth the point so as to speak. People who think he's bullshitting quite obviously don't understand football. At least while the players have to take credit on the field, let's not take anything from the fact that it will always be that someone outside the touchline making the decision. If anyone still disagree with me, it only shows that he/she really needs some serious rehabilitation from media addiction.
Man of the Match?
I don't really remember whether TNP did state forth who was the MotM. But for whoever doing the match report at Sky Sports, the call went to Jose Enrique. And rightfully so if you're to ask me. He's a leftback by trade, so upon being shifted upfront on the inward left behind Suarez, the tactical key was very simple. By make him running back and forth, Rodgers was using his natural defensive instincts to cover additional ground in helping out with the defence.
Fullbacks by nature are the fittest players on the most basic standard due to the requirement in supporting the attack and tracking back to defend throughout the 90 minutes plus stoppage. However, such players don't have the gift in cutting inside from the wide, hence the need to keep Raheem Sterling on the field despite his less than desirable outing as Suarez's strike partner in the 5-3-2.
But it's okay for me, okay for Sterling by my guess. Because this is actually how players beyond the English culture hone their match versatility. If you don't know how to fall, you'll never know how to soar.
And Suarez pushed Ramires?
Counter argument from the other camp: Ramires was tugging onto Suarez's before challenging for the ball. Simply put, both involved not guilty.
(A/N: This is an argument not coming from me.)
So who should Rodgers buy next transfer window?
My call goes to Mathieu Debuchy. What Brendan Rodgers needs right now is someone who can up the defensive lines effectively and the current back 4, no matter who are not capable of that. Debuchy is a player who can attack high up, but yet being defensively rigorous with a much added air of confidence. Simply put, it means that his physical stamina is even better than the above average fullback and it's pretty a no-brainer to imagine him pairing up with Jose "MotM" Enrique. Alternatively of course, Rodgers can play him as a deep lying playmaker since Debuchy started off in that position, which is indeed a rarity even in French football. Hey, Laurent Blanc played him in that position back during France's quarter final defeat against Spain during the Euro 2012 ala some funny 4-1-4-1 formation.
Yes, me a certified neutral just to set the record straight.
 |
| Fact: I'm now getting trolled by my shitty Internet connection and my dad's noisy gadget. -.-; |
No comments:
Post a Comment