PannickAtTheDisco
Well-Known Member
Excellent analysis, can't argue with much. But in your conclusions, at 2, you have Kolarov failing to track Mahrez.
For me, this is where the system can be questioned.
If Kolarov does track Mahrez, if he follows him out wide, that leaves Slimani & Vardy 2 on 2. So we have a problem.
Either way Kolarov stays or goes we are out numbered.
The question is then asked, is Mahrez cheating? By cheating I mean not working for his team and just left in our space. Or was he left in a space too wide for the left sided centre back and too deep for a wingback to pick up tactically? He stood in a near identical position for 2 of their goals. So I'd say he was positioned there on purpose. He'll expose his own full back but always be in yards of space.
Leicester are just about the only team along with Watford to play 2 out and out strikers. If you have a back three against a front two, one of the back three simply can't cover the 'channel' as it was traditionally called.
Mahrez used our system against us.
If Chelsea apply their three at the back Alonso will cover Mahrez, not Azpilicueta.
Mahrez took up a space similar to De Bruyne vs the rags & Chelsea, between the lines, between the full/wing back, the centre back and holding midfielder player.
The rest of what you say is bob on though. There are merits to a back three, as Shaelum is saying. Hard working rapid wing backs are one way, we haven't got them, Pep has tried a slight different approach with the holding 2 centre mids expected to cover the channels. Fernando and Zabaleta simply didn't have the legs or the acumen to cover. Fernandinho & Gundogan just may. They did it exceptionally for an hour vs Chelsea.
Regarding 2, the problem with Mahrez is actually the fact Kolarov created the situation in 1. Nonetheless, Kolarov didn't get back up the pitch quickly enough, and for me in that scenario it was 3 on 3, and whilst people hate it what Otamendi can do very well is either pinch the ball, put pressure on or at least give away a tactical foul. Kolarov has no appetite for conflict, but he was the best placed to put pressure on Mahrez in the 3 on 3, which even if Mahrez plays it off, leads us to a different situation, because Vardy's run may have been different, but ultimately once Kolarov failed to deal with Mahrez, he was redundant in the rest of the play, he was wrong side and could have no influence.
In that particular 3-on-3, he was the most appropriate player to push up and make Mahrez's life more difficult. His own error in 1 took the protection in front of him out of play, and he did nothing to address that. If he'd held the line with Stones to salvage #3 instead, and they'd played Vardy offside, then fair-dos, but he did neither, and either way I think that call would have been on Stones as the deepest man to step up on Vardy.
So for me in that scenario Kolarov had left his team in no-man's land and then occupied no man's land himself when I feel, given the lack of input he could have once Mahrez played the ball, that his best option was to prevent Mahrez playing that pass in whatever way necessary, and allowing the team to reset. To put it simply, he couldn't have been anymore ineffectual or out of place than how he ended up anyway, and I feel that in certain situations one of the three can step out, but they have to make a firm impact on the play, not miss the play or be taken out of it by opposition play.
I'm not asking Kolarov to go wide with Mahrez, but when he comes in or into a pocket in front of Kolarov that should be blocked off, then Kolarov should at least be putting Mahrez on his arse. If you're not going to play proper wing-backs, and are going to rely on 2 DMs who can't physically cover that space, then you have to surrender the wide areas and say that you will be compact, really well organised and play your defensive line perfectly. Within the first 2 minutes the back 3 are playing 3 different defensive lines and that's where it all falls apart really quickly.
It's just a lack of leadership.