Chelsea or Liverpool who do you want to win?

[persvenality cult]

I hven't seen a 3 CB formation for years, infact i think Keegan tried it with SWP as RWB.

I haven't seen Liverpool so organised or disciplined for ages either... i enjoyed watching them, it was a very new skool 'European' kind of performance with a very old skool formation.

it's extremely unfashionable. last time I saw was city 6 - pompey 0. It was also mclaren's disastrous last role of the dice, (england 2 croatia 3).

it is easily countered by attacking the flanks. choice becomes; let theIr wingers run riot, or force your wingbacks to play as fullbacks. not good; you probably selected this formation to compensate for their defensive weaknesses. and the 5 in midfield becomes 3, with two narrow forwards. ancelotti wants shooting for playing so narrow for 60 minutes.

once they went behind they threw their own fullbacks forward, and liverpool instantly looked vulnerable, penned in. really, chelsea had to play astonishingly badly not to score. they lack confidence.

 

[Braggster]

I hven't seen a 3 CB formation for years, infact i think Keegan tried it with SWP as RWB.

I haven't seen Liverpool so organised or disciplined for ages either... i enjoyed watching them, it was a very new skool 'European' kind of performance with a very old skool formation.

it's extremely unfashionable. last time I saw was city 6 - pompey 0. It was also mclaren's disastrous last role of the dice, (england 2 croatia 3).

it is easily countered by attacking the flanks. choice becomes; let theIr wingers run riot, or force your wingbacks to play as fullbacks. not good; you probably selected this formation to compensate for their defensive weaknesses. and the 5 in midfield becomes 3, with two narrow forwards. ancelotti wants shooting for playing so narrow for 60 minutes.

once they went behind they threw their own fullbacks forward, and liverpool instantly looked vulnerable, penned in. really, chelsea had to play astonishingly badly not to score. they lack confidence.

It was a good selection by Dalglish in that Chelsea tend to play narrowly (at least their midfield and forwards, anyway) and he knew they would play 2 (I guess 3, with Anelka) forwards - so the extra CB would not be 'wasted'. No coincidence that one of the reasons for the demise of 3-5-2 is the increased tendency for single-striker formations.

But, yes, a dutch style 433 (which Chelsea had the players to implement) would have had a great deal of success you'd have thought.

Interesting how the tactical trend is increasingly 3 at the back when in possession though, with the fullbacks pushing up and a midfielder sitting in with the CBs. That is a far cry from a traditional 3-5-2, though.

 

[juhanni]

Re: Chelski v the dippers

Best scenario for us is a meteor hitting Stamford Bridge.

When United had that planecrash they did get fans all over the world and with
the money they did buy 25 titles so i dont wish that chelsea and liverpool can do the same !