Man City 3-0 Liverpool: Hodgson’s 4-4-2 completely outplayed
The starting line-ups
A dominant performance from City, who weren’t flattered by the 3-0 scoreline.
Roberto Mancini made changes on his wings, bringing in James Milner and Adam Johnson for Shaun Wright-Phillips and David Silva. Mario Balotelli wasn’t fit, and Emmanuel Adebayor was omitted. Joleon Lescott played at left-back in the absence of Aleksandar Kolarov.
Roy Hodgson shifted away from the 4-4-1-1 he used against Arsenal, and went 4-4-2, with Fernando Torres and David Ngog starting together for the first time in the Premier League. Javier Mascherano was unavailable with a transfer apparently imminent, so Lucas Leiva played in the centre of midfield.
The two-man strikeforce looked promising for Liverpool when Ngog and Torres combined nicely on the edge of the City penalty area after three minutes, but this was, amazingly, the final time one completed a pass to the either in the entire match. After that, they offered the same option – neither is particularly comfortable dropping deep or to the flanks, and both struggled to become involved in build-up play.
Traditional 4-4-2 v 4-2-3-1 battle
The classic problem for a 4-4-2 against a 4-2-3-1 (or 4-3-3) is that it is outnumbered in the centre of midfield, and that was particularly evident today. City’s three central midfielders were the same three used against Tottenham on the opening day, but they were used differently – Yaya Toure played high up the pitch, generally level with the two wingers (as he has done for the Ivory Coast), whilst Gareth Barry played a box-to-box role, starting alongside Nigel de Jong but also getting into the penalty area. And he did that to good effect on 13 minutes, when he sidefooted James Milner’s cutback into the far corner.
Liverpool’s problems going forward stemmed from the numerical disadvantage in the midfield. As they were 2 v 3 in that area, their wide players were forced to play extremely narrow to help Lucas and Gerrard, with Milan Jovanovic in particular barely getting near the touchline all game. Both he and Kuyt were decent defensively, but the narrowness meant there was never any out-ball when Liverpool regained possesion – and add in the fact that Torres and Ngog weren’t giving enough variation upfront, Liverpool looked clueless in possession.
Their midfield problems were emphasised when Carlos Tevez dropped deep, as he did so often at White Hart Lane. Today, he played a slightly more traditional striking role, but still moved into deep-lying positions that effectively created 4 v 2 in midfield, and allowed City to build up play easily and gradually around Liverpool’s midfielders. His passes are depicted below.
Wingers cut in to dangerous effect
City’s problem against Tottenham was that Wright-Phillips and Silva saw little of the ball, but today in Milner and Johnson they had two wingers playing excellently. As Mancini favoured towards the end of last season, they were inverted, with Johnson on the right, and Milner generally on the left. Johnson caused Daniel Agger no end of problems in Liverpool’s left-back zone – and Agger looked completely uncomfortable dealing with the winger, not simply because he is not naturally a full-back, but also because Johnson was always looking to cut inside onto his left foot, towards Agger’s weaker right foot.
Perhaps the biggest problem with Liverpool playing a 4-4-2 is that it forces Steven Gerrard to play a very deep role, especially if he is playing alongside Lucas (rather than Javier Mascherano, who is much more able to cope by himself in the centre of midfield, as he does for Argentina). Following Liverpool’s disastrous final season under Rafael Benitez, a myth seems to have emerged that Gerrard is somehow better in the centre of midfield than he is playing just off Fernando Torres. Nothing could be further from the truth – Gerrard played the best football of his career at the head of a midfield three, and is much more subdued in a four. In a 4-4-2, he is too far from goal, unable to influence attacking moves, less likely to combine with Torres (a partnership that works well) and too likely to play wasteful diagonal balls that are easily intercepted. He didn’t have a particularly bad game, but he wasn’t in a position to inspire Liverpool.
Surprisingly, Hodgson opted to change nothing at half-time – Liverpool had rallied in the five minutes before the break, maybe convincing their manager to have faith in the 4-4-2. If Hodgson remains committed to that system long-term, then we must have patience with him, and understand that a change in formation rarely has instant results. But in the sole context of this game, Liverpool needed something different.
City continue dominance in second half
City’s second goal came from a corner kick. This was particularly interesting, since Benitez’s insistence on zonal marking was blamed whenever Liverpool conceded a goal from a set-piece. So will pundits point to man-marking as the reason why they conceded such a poor second goal? Probably not, but this element of Liverpool’s tactics is worth keeping an eye on in the next few months.
Liverpool had their best spell of the match just after going 2-0 down, when Joe Hart made an excellent double save, but City sealed the game in the 67th minute. Johnson yet again caused Liverpool problems, dribbling past two players, stumbling under their challenges, before Martin Skrtel came across and wiped him out with a crazy lunge. Tevez converted the penalty, and that was game over.
Conclusion
City won comfortably without ever playing spectacular football, which simply demonstrates how poor Liverpool were. The use of Toure further forward worked reasonably well (although he doesn’t look completely fit) and Mancini’s use of inverted wingers and a false nine was very successful – Tevez had a good game, Milner got two assists, and Johnson v Agger was probably the game’s key battle. With Silva and Balotelli waiting in the wings (literally), personnel might change, but this looks like being City’s first-choice formation this season.
Liverpool’s performance was extremely disappointing, and displayed all the classic failings of a 4-4-2. This is notoriously Hodgson’s favourite formation, but he has shown a willingness to venture towards a 4-2-3-1ish system in Fulham’s Europa League run. That still seems to be Liverpool’s best bet, but with Gerrard in the hole, rather than deep in midfield.
Man City 3-0 Liverpool: Hodgson’s 4-4-2 completely outplayed
Yep, Stevie needs to be further forward, with fewer defensive responsibilities. He shouldn’t be on the losing side in keep away.
Then again, it requires having at least one strong defensive midfielder type — say, a Xavi Alonso or Javier Mascherano. Alas, these useful players always to seem to find the exit door at Anfield.
Dunno why they’reselling Aquilani either…
They’re loaning Aquaman to us with the option for a 15.5 million euro buy if he does well (far cheaper than when Benitez bought him), and we’re more than happy to have him (if he stays fit ofc)… Aquaman simply never got a chance at Anfield, but it wasn’t entirely intelligent of them to buy him INJURED….
Anyway, my one most surprising note of the game was how advanced Y Toure was up the field… I was watching him all game, and many times he was further ahead of the ball than Tevez was (showing that Tevez was very eager to get involved in the play by dropping deep, as you indeed mentioned ZM)…. I wonder if Mancini will stick with playing Yaya this way all season, especially if up against a true destroyer in midfield (e.g. a Mascherano or a Busquets) or if he’ll switch it up and maybe allow a more attacking player to play there (Silva, Balotelli??)
Great write up as always ZM, great to have you here again for this new season =D
with Yaya staying and Tevez dropping, City gain a certain advantage. Tevez’ mobility will be utilised in chasing the ball in midfield, and if successful, Yaya is big, string and technically accomplished enough to hold onto it for until support shows up. being a romantic of classic football, I would love for Silva to play there, but if Mancini meant for such an audacious and innovative approach to take place, hats off!!
I think it was Soccernomics which stated the obvious that an injured player costs a lot less than if he were fully fit. So it was entirely intelligent.
I think it is cultural, climate and football philosophy, tempo shock.
ZM, congrats on your guardian gig…now we know your name. Finally.
Anyway, should Liverpool change to 4-2-3-1, once Cole gets back, will he be on the wing or in the middle? He’s been trying to play a 10 all of his life, however, his best game is probably in Kuyt’s spot on the right, with Gerrard in the middle and Jovanovic on the left. Actually, Kuyt and Jovanovic are really interchangeable, lots of effort and running, but not a whole lot of creativity. I watched only the second half today and Liverpool just seemed so flat and out of ideas, save for the spell you pointed out. Feel bad for Torres – first at Atletico, now at Liverpool, no cups for him for a while (other then wearing spain’s jersey)…
City though just feel like they’ll be ultra tough at home. Unless they get psyched out by expactations, they have the muscle in the middle and speed on the wings to deal with Chelsea. Did not watch the Spurs game, but I felt Liverpool could have played another two hours without creating anything; De Jong, Barry and Yaya were just too much. Did you see the sweet move Milner made on Jovanovic towards the end of the second half? Would Mascherano really made any difference?
Thing is, Cole’s never really played that well in the centre, has he? His best work was under Mourinho when wide in a 4-3-3, so wide in a 4-2-3-1 seems better for him. Kuyt could always go to the left if he’s still around – he played well there during the World Cup…
City can’t afford to play the Barry-De Jong-Toure trio against the weaker teams. They will struggle for creativity. I suspect he’s in love with these three guys. That may be their undoing.
Cole seems to have got it into his head that his best role is one that has largely become obsolete, when in the modern game his skills seem ideally suited to one of the wide forwards in a 4-5-1 variant, as ZM mentions above.
I always thought Liverpool and Tottenham had the same problems, and today’s game goes on to further emphasise my view. Half the world saw the world cup and learned the lesson, 4-2-3-1, with its variations, is the order of the day. Yet somehow, Hodgson failed to see this, and took Liverpool (in my opinion) a few steps back when he opted to go (European) traditional 4-4-2 rather than improve the existing 4-2-3-1, which i thought worked out in everyone’s best interest last season. All it took really was a fit Torres, a solid back 4, improving the understanding between Gerrard and Aquilani, and a pinch of luck for good taste. As you mentioned, Cole is no 10 no matter how hard he wants to be, Aquilani and Gerrard aren’t either, but they’re more comfortable and effective playing that high up. Adding their creativity (Aquilani) and drive (Gerrard) would be the best formula to benefit from Jovanovic and Kuyt’s industry.
I think there’s only one way to say this, Liverpool need to return to their European style rather than convert into a mid-table English side. The Big Four are who they are because they are a step ahead of the pack due tot heir European experience. This (lack of) experience showed when Sours were confused in Switzerland. Anyone watching the Big 4 for a few season’s will identify that they are European sides, and that’s their cutting edge. I hope Hodgson acknowledges this, otherwise City and Spurs have all but guaranteed us another battle for 4th spot
Hodgson has been a devotee of 4-4-2 since his time in Sweden. Whether he tries to adopt it at Liverpool or simply tweak the 4-2-3-1 will, I think, depend on how much time he estimates he has to return them to Top 4 contenders.
If you think back to his early days with Fulham, you’ll remember how long it took for them to start playing Hodgson’s 4-4-2 well, and how dull the training was. It takes a significant period of time (and a lack of egos) to instill such a system on a side – one of the reasons why most managers don’t have a dedication to an absolute method anymore.
I think you are correct, and that expectations will force Hodgson to compromise, and use a 4-2-3-1 for more immediate success.
The Ngog/Torres passing stat reminds me of a James Richardson classic from Football Italia back in the day.
My memory is hazy so I’m paraphrasing:
“Shevchenko and Bierhoff have passed to each other just 6 times this season. Here’s a rare example” – followed by footage of the two strikers taking the kick off to start a match.
Well, I guess you had to be there.
Oh, no…that’s REALLY funny without being there! If I was drinking something at the time it had been said, I would have sprayed all over the room!
Its practically criminal that the BBC chose Colin ‘don’t know much about football’ Murray over James Richardson to host MOTD2.
442 has little to do with it in truth. I’d be more worried about Liverpool’s complete lack of tempo and pressure on the ball.
City pressed and attacked as a unit, Liverpool did neither. These are things more to do with mindset than where a player is theoretically told to stand on the pitch.
Spurs played 442 and outplayed City for most of the game only last week. But then Spurs attack and defend with conviction, with understanding, with confidence. Liverpool are lacking in all these things, and i don’t think Roy Hodgson is capable of even steadying this ship let alone steering it back on course.
I felt at the time he was the wrong choice. Liverpool needed a manager with new ideas, a breath of fresh air, someone to rejuvenate the squad. What they’ve got now is Rafa-lite.
It didn’t help that they were playing two natural strikers as wingers. And a CB at LB.
Agreed. Liverpool’s pressure was so lacking today that Yaya Toure looked like Xavi on the ball. He had ludicrous amounts of time to pick out passes. This Liverpool central midfield is such a far cry from the one that dominated Madrid 4-0 just 18 months ago, with Alonso, Mascherano and Gerrard.
Judging from the first two games, the opponent needs to take the game to City, play very high tempo and direct football, like Tottenham did. That way, the lack of technique from City’s midfield three can be exposed, and the less than steller Jolean Lescott can be attacked by a true dribbler. I still think this Man City team will struggle mightily against the likes of ManU, Arsenal and Chelsea.
But the 4-4-2 does have some blame here. Torres and Ngog surely have no real defensive responsibility as a front 2. For the 4-4-2 to work you need two CMs who are each 60% defensive and 40% offensive and Gerrard simply does not fill this role. Certainly neither Modric nor Huddlestone for Spurs play as high on the pitch as Gerrard.
Once City won the possession battle it was hard for Liverpool to attack with conviction. Johnson, Lucas and to a degree Kuyt were not able to attack with full pace due to the defensive shifts they needed to put in due to the passing and possession imbalance.
I actually felt that playing Gerrard in the center of the midfield wasn’t the worst thing. Most of Liverpool’s problems in their build-up play came down to a lack of any sort of attacking invention from both wingers and both strikers. I thought Gerrard coming from deep worked well during Liverpool’s few spells were they looked like doing anything because it put Gerrard in the exact positions where so many of the “classic gerrard” goals have come from. If they played a 4-2-3-1 with aquilani (who for some reason they are loaning out) playing behind Torres and with joe cole on the wing (to provide more creativity in that position) they would be fine. I feel like gerrard playing as the number 8 (which happens to actually be his number) can still work as long as they play the 4-2-3-1 with a different number 10.
I agree with you in saying that playing Gerrard further back might not be a bad thing, because last season Liverpool suffered with Masch and Lucas playing sideways mostly. However, having just bought Poulsen, I don’t think Gerrard is needed that far back. Poulsen is a pretty damn good player, underrated and undervauled from his mediocre spell with Juventus. Unlike Mascherano or Lucas, he is not afraid to play the ball into a little bit of pressure to help build attacks. I think if he is played together with Lucas deeper, Gerrard in the furthest tip of a 3, and Cole on the left, that is not such a bad team at all. Gerrard is much better on the half-turn than Cole, and Cole’s decent bag of tricks would be better suited to the wing. For the sake of the fans, hopefully Hodgson can sort out these problems.
oh yeah poulsen. I was thinking about him more as a straight replacement for mascherano meaning that playing him and lucas wouldn’t work for the same reason mascherano and lucas didn’t work (as you pointed out). i didn’t realize that poulsen was able to play more of a role going forward. in that case a 4-2-3-1 with those players would work. their main problem is that even with poulsen they haven’t adequately replaced alonso.
agree on the Alonso point. He was basically the brain of their team and dictated the tempo/direction of play. Poulsen will not get forward and chip in with goals, but his first touch, passing range, and vision are above average. I think he will sit in basically the same area that Alonso did as well. Hopefully he can make an impact in English football.
It’s curious that they’re now loaning Aquilani out (and let’s face it, he’s not coming back), rather than testing him as a deeper lying playmaker in that two, alongside Mascherano/Lucas/Poulsen.
Hi, one question about the formation. I had the strange feeling, that City played with one forward on the side, with Johnson. All the other city players seem to crowd the midfield, including Tevez, and after winning the ball ether Tevez, Milner, Toure and on a few occasions barry try to burst forward with speed. Also in defense it seems to me that they build a band of six in front of the goal and three players before that. (Thanks to your education, i started to watch football matches more closely.) I hope you can bring some light into it, why I could have seen it that way.
I believe this is down to the personnel in this particular game having a slant on the formation and how it looks on paper. Rarely is a formation perfectly symmetrical nowadays, b/c different players will have different qualities while maybe fulfilling similar roles. The Tevez-Johnson combination is a good choice for me b/c when Tevez vacates his “area”, Johnson looks to exploit that space, which he did quite a bit; and it also allows Tevez some time on the ball, and for him to combine with midfielders in build up play.
Having Milner on the left completely nullified any chance of Liverpool building any semblance of a fluid attack down that area of the pitch. N’Gog hung out on the right side mostly, but IMO he should have switched to Liverpool’s left where he could have overwhelmed Richards who had a pretty easy task dealing with the tired and subdued Jovanovic. Kuyt was woeful, but to be fair to him his first touch was usually met with at least 2 opposition players in his area immediately. As the game went on, every Liverpool player got more tired and more overwhelmed which just exacerbated the problems they had, which stemmed from them getting a grasp on central midfield.
Not to forget Kuyt has the first touch of a rapist
hahaha well put
It doesn’t hurt that Agger is not experienced at left back. I would assume that Mancini probably told Johnson to run at Agger because Agger sometimes dropped further back like a central defender instead of pressing up to meet his man. This was one of the clear mismatches.
Spot on article and comments, this game was like watching a lion toying with captured prey. Outnumbered as well as outclassed in the center of the pitch. Torres dropping deeper to lose the ball did not help either, as the wingers and midfielders would rush forward to join him only to have to track back immediately. Even though Toure did not have a huge role in the game, the quickness in which he touches and then passes the ball to the right areas of the pitch made for comical entertainment in watching Liverpool midfielders try to get near Man City.
To say this was a blunder by Hodgson would be an understatement, they were chasing the ball for 90 minutes. How can a top level manager not rectify this situation? Simply shocking, this happened on Sunday as well at St. James, how do these people in football not realize that going out and trying to outplay quality technical opposition that have a numerical advantage in the center of the pitch, away from home, is not going to happen? This is stuff you can expect from youth managers, not top flight managers with European experience.
Agree. I’m puzzled why Roy didn’t change Agger with Aurelio. What’s the point of putting Aurelio on bench if you don’t use him?
By the way, it seems like Santa Cruz is not likely to gain any BPL minutes, probably only will be playing in domestic cup tournaments. Any thoughts?
Needs a loan. I’m sure Hughes would take him, yet again, at Fulham?
Hi there,
more general comments:
We’ve read so many times here that a 4-4-2 will struggle against a 4-5-1 in midfield, and I guess managers are aware of that? So there must be something they hope for when playing with two strikers. I assume two strikers do make sense as it is the striker formation a back four is least suited to. But as far as I can judge this seems to be a lesser threat against a team that keeps possession well.
And I stumbled across a roundup of a Wigan drubbing of 0-5 against at the hands of ManUtd. The commentator told us Wigan played in an original (I don’t remember the exact words, however) formation, with two holding midfielders and three midfielders behind a lone striker (i.e. our 4-2-3-1). So it seems to me that a) this formation appeared (regularly) quite late or b) commentators don’t always follow tactical trends as thoroughly as they might.
Because the 4-2-3-1/4-5-1/4-3-3 trend is relatively modern, most footballers )especially in england) are built to play in a 4-4-2, and because of this, sometimes the attacking mid-fielders don’t support the lone striker as much as they should. Most often it isn’t a matter of the manager understanding these nuances, but the players who care much less about these things. Personally I hate 2 strikers system because it seems like if a single player (except perhaps a fullback) vacates there space then the system falls apart, whereas a lone striker system (whether it is 4-2-3-1, 4-5-1, or 4-3-3) allows players to move about much more fluidly which is far harder to defend.
The real advantages to a 4-4-2 system are related to the positioning of the players instead of controlling possession. This, at the top level, may be why the system is redundant (since, as ZM and Wilson have pointed out, top level football seems to be moving towards the ‘Spanish’ model).
That said, here’s what a 4-4-2 does best:
Firstly, you have the two man strike-force. The crucial factor here is that, unlike a single striker system, when one striker receives a long ball he has immediate support. No need to hold up the ball for midfield runners or inverted wingers. Obviously the main problem with this is the shortfall in midfield, but this is often negated when the 4-4-2 playing team moves the ball very quickly from defence to the forward line.
When out of possession a 4-4-2 can be just as effective at controlling the space and pressing as any system, assuming that the players are well drilled by the manager/coach(s).
That said, 4-4-2 has one unique quality as a defensive shape which was showcased by Uruguay and Paraguay (if I recall correctly) at the World Cup: namely, the ‘two banks of four’ dropping deep and shutting down the available space for a possession-based team to pass into – with the added bonus of simultaneously leaving two players operating in close support high up the pitch.
Looking at the 4-4-2 shape it is easy to pick out ‘pairs’ of players that can help each other (up front, left wing & left back, right wing & right back, midfield, central defence) depending on where the ball is on the pitch. This, in combination with the ‘two banks of four’ can make 4-4-2 (in theory) very hard to break down.
So there you have it. 4-4-2 remains (in my humble opinion) a viable tactic but perhaps not so much at the very highest level of the game (i.e. Champions League), evidenced by the beating Spurs took from Young Boys, where teams have sufficient guile and technique to deal with balls played quickly into the front two and can retain possession for long enough to find an opening in the 4-4-2 defence.
442 4231 433 451 4321 4411 is all about the players youve got what suits there needs ie chelsea tried 4 daimond 2 then chagned to 433 because that suits those players best finding a formation that suits what youve got is called coaching players make formations work not the other way round the better players you have the better chance you have of blending a team in any formation put simply players are the key not numbers on a chalk bord simples …
Maybe that is down to personel. If you know that you have less quality in midfield it doesn’t really make sense to put there as many players as the opposition manager does, when you are about to loose the midfield balttle anyway. So Hogson developed another gameplan (which obviously didn’t work out; and you could expect that a top class manager to change his gameplan during the game). I would like to mention the Bayern-Wolfsburg game, that ZM also covered two days ago. Wolfburg came into the game after changing to a 442, while the direct challange of 4231 against 4231 failed completely in the first half.
Good article.
I was suprised that the game finished 3-0 to City, I was expecting a close fought draw, with maybe Liverpool nicking a win, clearly I was wrong!
Looking at it now, Roy got the tactics wrong. 4-4-2 just doesn’t work against 4-5-1, because as the article mentions, 4-4-2 will be outnumbered in midfield, and Liverpool were outnumbered in midfield.
On the subject of Gerrard, personally, I disagree with you’re comment. I think his best position is in the centre, as I don’t think he has the positional sense, the awareness or the football brain to play successfully just off of the striker. I think the media overhype his ability to play this position, alot of the time in this position, the game just passes him by. Playing in the centre, he can both get forward and support the attacks, but also get back and make tackles and help the defence. Gerrard has a good all round game, I think of him as a good box to box midfielder, and playing direct centre, his all round game can be utilised.
Liverpool will without doubt miss Javier Mascherano, should he leave. Lucas in my opinion isn’t as bad as people say, that said, he’s not as good as Mascherano. If Liverpool had kept Mascherano, I genuinely think it wouldn’t have been beyond them to have challenged for the title. Kuyt, Masch, Gerrard, Cole, Jovanovic is a very strong midfield, Torres up front. That is without doubt as strong as Chelsea and United, although there defence isn’t great, and Glen Johnson is one of the most overated players in World Football.
You may be overstating Gerrard’s defensive ability here. There were a few times during the game where Gerrard did not fall back into the two banks of four and it caused real problems as the three or four city players grouping near the center circle would be able to jog past Lucas who was hopelessly outnumbered. Defense isn’t just about being able to make highlight clip slide tackles, it is also about positional sense and Gerrard tends to play a more free roaming role going forward which hurts his defensive ability.
Good points, however, I can’t see Gerrard playing the role just behind the striker this season, as I think this is where Cole will be playing. If Gerrard does play the role of just behind the striker, where is Cole going to play? I don’t think he’s going to be put out on the wing again, the free role just behind the striker is his best position, and this is where he’ll play, meaning Gerrard will occupy another of the midfield positions.
I’m not saying Gerrard’s main strength is his defending, but he does a decent job, his determination, work rate and tackling are all useful attributes in helping him carry out his defensive duties, but similar to what Hansen was saying about Walcott on MOTD on Saturday night, does Gerrard have a football brain? The term ‘positional sense’ certainly falls into the category of having a ‘football brain’, and as good a player Gerrard is, some in the past have questioned his football brain, and I believe there is an article about it on ZM, with quotes from Arrigo Sacchi I belive.
In my mind Cole and Gerrard are largely redundant. In his best seasons, Gerrard was a central midfielder with Alonzo as a deep lying play-maker and Masch as the destroyer. When forming two banks of four, it would be these two who would form the central midfield. This allowed Gerrard to make the through runs and help Torres.
Looking at United’s 4-4-2, Fletcher and Scholes hang out near the 22 yard circle and let Nani, Valencia and Berbatov do a lot of the runs and buildup work that Gerrard would do at Liverpool. This way if they lose possession these two players are waiting to pick up opposing midfielders breaking out of the box. Gerrard is much more likely to find himself near the goal line or out wide than the Manchester midfielders.
Credit to Mancini for recognizing one of the weaknesses from last week and pushing Yaya Toure further up the pitch, staggering the midfielders and giving them more space. Toure looks very good as a reverse pivot, and his ability to switch play, retain possession and he can play a killer ball (the ball over the top for SWP to miscontrol-shock, horror-last weekend). I do still think there are weaknesses in this City side (I, as a typical City supporter, remain pessimistic), particularly at fullback and the fact that Kolo Toure gets dragged out of position and turned too easily. But, Johnson and Milner looked excellent, and it’s scary to think that this is only the beginning.
As we have seen the game, liverpool had lack of creative player as well as defensive mid-field player. I think they shouldn’t have been sale a player like benayuon, who is much technicaly gifted than Cole. It was overt at the game that the liverpool strickers did not received the dead balls,which they could have been scored it.
ZM, did you notice that often Yaya Toure was the furthest forward similar to the role Fabregas had last year?
Yeah. Seems to be increasingly common in 4-2-3-1s, teams essentially defend with two bans of four, and have what amounts to a support striker. See Sneijder and Oezil at the World Cup…
Maybe switching Glen Johnson and Agger could have worked,but it would mean that Johnson would be doing only his defensive duties!
Did anyone notice milner popping up on the right from time to time to help out johnson.Thats what happened with the first city goal
Gerrard and Lucas vs. De Jong, Barry and Yaya! Surely Hodgson had an idea from the Spurs match that City could adopt this shape? Ngog AND Torres? I actually thought Hodgson would make changes in the FIRST half at least, but his first change was after the 70th minute, like for like. How this was supposed to alter the match only Hodgson knows. Did he learn anything from the WC at all? I despaired the moment I saw the team sheet. Everyone will be talking about a convincing City win, but all I saw was a Liverpool surrender from the very beginning.
City’s midfield looks like it could be the best in the league, and when Tevez holds the ball as well as he did today, they are always going to have a lot of the ball. I’d prefer to see Yaya play De Jong’s role, and have a more natural attacker play where Yaya played. Thats part due to the fact that it would more attacking, and part due to the fact that I really don’t rate De Jong too highly. But its hard to argue with todays lineup if City continue to play like that. Regardless, I think Mancini has found a system that works very well.
it looked good mainly because of how poor liverpool were. city didn’t actually create too many chances. the second goal was from a corner and the third a penalty from a stupid tackle. this system looked good mainly because liverpool played it in just about the worst way possible. the other traditional “big 4″ sides should rip it to shreds if it doesn’t change.
442 can actually work against a 451(and its variants) so long as the midfield four are either technically superior or a compact unit
…a compact unit.
This is a good point. At Fulham, the 442/4411 *was* a very compact unit, as Hodgson drilled positioning and spatial concepts into them at length. He hasn’t really had time to do so at Liverpool (and maybe never will), so you saw the standard weakness of the 442.
Generally, 442 can still compete if its either a) very fluid, in which case 442 is only a nominal description anyway, or b) exceptionally organised, in which two narrow bands of four are still one of the best means of controlling the space.
I would describe Fulham’s 442/4411 as both compact and fluid. Compact because the two CMs typically hold and provide good cover in front of the back four, while the outside midfielders and typically one of the forwards gets backs to help defend as well. They are fluid because the outside midfielders and the forward alongside Zamora are interchangeable and clevers players. Dempsey, Davies, Duff, and Gera make a wide array of runs in support of Zamora.
I agree with that final statement, but I think that stems from the type of player rather than a ‘fluid’ tactical system as I would define it.
All the players seemed to have very specific positional briefs, in attack as well as defence. I would define a more fluid system as one where all the players are involved in all the phases from defense -> transition -> attack, as opposed to a rigid one in which they perform very defined, specific roles (I’m not talking about attacking vs defensive here). As an example, Etuhu played a very defined, limited role under Hodgson, which made his relative freedom in this game such a shock (see OP). I think that argues against the system as being fluid. Hope you can see the point I’m trying to make.
Hi all,first of all the website is wonderful and sorry for long post.
I think that Liverpool are stuck in their illustrious past and do not want to acknowledge the present and future of their club in current competition. This coupled with the fact that most of England pundits, managers are naive on tactical side of game and rarely want to improve on tactical aspect. Add to it an average media ( worldwide phenomena), which resent every individual challenging British way ( Arsene Wenger, Capello).
This leads to following results:-
1. Rafa was idiot. :- Sure he spent a lot of money, but he was instrumental in making them European power. He came to club in a time when the pressure to succeed was intense, both from fan point ( see above) and owner’s point (more trophies, higher marketability, easy debt payment).
With pundits in media hounding Rafa (like Steve McMahon) over zonal marking, squad rotation, player interaction he was always fighting losing battle.
2. Mancini is idiot :- Again a perception from media for a manager who managed a top level side in Inter and is trying a lot of variation in tactics.
Hughes is a good manager for mid-table team, because most of opposing team attacks them and space is available for counter attacks. But when the team is viewed as top class team, the space available is limited and variety of tactics are used to break the opposition.
Following on from a few comments above, I don’t understand why very experienced, well paid coaches don’t seem to change tactics that the punters can clearly see aren’t working.
This website is great and ZM obviously has a lot of tactical understanding – but guys like Hodgson have been involved in professional coaching for decades. He’ll have been on numerous tactics coaches, every single day of the week he’ll be talking to other professional people about football – surely the 4-4-2’s weakness against a 3 man midfield has come up at some point in a conversation with Roy Hodgson? The guy is clearly not daft but last night he seemed not to see what a lot of ordinary punters have seen for a while.
I’m a Celtic fan and this situation has happened with us a few times recently. I remember Martin O’Neill’s 3-5-2 being very successful in the early years of his time here but when McLeish went to Rangers he spotted that the Celtic back three were often found out in Europe when they came up against the 4-3-3 formation and he changed to a 4-3-3 formation that Celtic struggled against. On the terraces, in the pubs and online you could hear ordinary punters saying “our back 3 isn’t working any more; we need to move to a back 4″ but a very experienced and successful manager, Martin O’Neill, didn’t seem to see it. In later years Gordon Strachan’s rigid 4-4-2 was often found out away from home in Europe but he was either unwilling to change or couldn’t see the need to change.
Anyway, this is a very long winded way of saying – why is it that some guys who are paid loads of money, have eaten, slept and breathed football all their lives, do pretty much nothing else all day other than coach footballers or watch football on DVD, attend football tactic seminars regularly…..why is it that these guys can’t seem to see what loads of punters who watch a couple of games a week and post on Internet sites can see?
*”He’ll have been on numerous tactics coaches” should read “He’ll have been on numerous tactics courses”
Just for the sake of any libel issues – I have absolutely no evidence that suggests Roy Hodgson has been found on top of another coach
Because it can be hard to change the way a team plays, particularly in England, where players learn a particular position from a very young age, and are rarely versatile.
This doesn’t apply in this case, because Liverpool know well how to play a 4-2-3-1, and could and should have switched, but here’s an example: Steve McClaren. When he shifted to a 3-5-2 to play Croatia, this was theoretically the right decision – with Croatia playing with two true strikers at the time he wanted to control the midfield. However, England’s players weren’t up to the change, didn’t have enough time to practice, and were taken apart, despite have the supposedly advantageous shape.
Why?? I guess that’s the question, lubo. Hodgson didn’t look particularly experienced or knowledgeable last night, twitching and all, and the poor players looked like lambs to the slaughter. Unbelievable.
For those interested in Roy Hodgson’s thoughts on formations search the for following in Youtube: they are each about 5-6 minutes long.
uefa com – 4-3-3 Training
uefa com – 4-4-2 Training
uefa com – 3-5-2 Training
I am very sceptical about 4-4-2 but in Roy’s defense it should be recognised that the late Mascherano withdrawal forced him to make a change in shape.
Damn! I never see Yaya Toure that damn good when deployed high up. He can be City’s best signing of the season.
please bring back RAFA instead of this loser manager we have at the moment.
Most of managers are ex-players and therefore prioritize physical activity or mental activity. They are usually surrounded by current players and staff, all of whom will be prioritizing physical activity as well.
Add to it media barring Jonathan Wilson, who are on hunt for each minor development to criticize and fill the newspapers with stories. So if the manager have luck in initial years ( domestic tiles or European places) the media will worship him like Sir Alex Ferguson up to 1999 and this gradually sets in manager’s mind and he is resistant to changing his mentality.
But when the manager acknowledge need to change for higher goals, he has to be patient and is often crucified by media ( Man U sold RVN and played CRonaldo and went trophy less for 3 seasons, including gp stage exit at 4th place).
That is why coaches like Mourinho, Wenger who were not great players are great managers and in tune with current needs.
I think this is unfair on managers in the Premier League, not to mention a simplistic analysis. Don’t forget, someone always has to lose, and just because we can post-hoc analyse the tactical reasons why doesn’t mean we could have done better at the time.
Managers who don’t have at least a decent tactical knowledge get found out almost immediately (see MacDonald, Villa v Newcastle). The problem is, in the modern game, almost all of them understand systems (some to a greater degree than others), so you’re back to a point where money and player quality are the major determinants of success.
It’s fair to point out that Mourinho, Wenger et al were never great players, but that doesn’t make poor player=good manager a trend – to a significant degree they are self selecting, because an individual with no history of football is going to have to prove him/herself every step of the way by being successful. Unlike the footballers who are given a chance based on reputation, we never get to see the failed Mourinhos, because they are translators, scouts or journalists.
Speaking of journalists, you do make a good point about the media, but expecting them not to be full of crap is like expecting milk not to sour.
Now most of what i would have said has already been addressed by Richard above me but did you just seriously suggest that ferguson is worshipped because “luck” has led him to be a successful manager . Now it has to be acknowedged that it plays a part but that applies to all top all managers including the ones you mention. well that must be some sort of luck over a 25 year period if only all of us were so lucky
Hodgson obviously watched the Tottenham Mancity game and observed that Man city mf was over-run that day. the mfs kept running into each other.But Mancini changed personnels by bringing A Johnson for SWP, Milner for Silva, Lescott for Kolarov (injured). Each of substitute had different attributes and were able to influence the game.
Liverpool have not got winger like Bale who would have kept Richards on Back foot and the new City shape improved both offense and defense.
I would be interested to see how Mancini’s tactics now compare with his tactics while managing Inter. The uses of central midfielders central midfielders certainly look similar. Will David Villa be playing the same role as Luis Figo? His first game seems to indicate so.
Wow. I’m stunned.
A website offering genuine tactical analysis. I’m fed up of media sources treating football fans like idiots.
Keep up the good work and thanks!
I completely mistyped the word – luck for success. So sry to SAF fans and he has been at club for so long now. After his departure and in current escalated competition Man U will have to install some extremely talented manager.
The point I was making that even short term success have to be sacrificed for long term gains like Man U being in cl final twice in row.
There are great player managers Ancelotti, Capello, Guardiola in modern game. But the like of non-player managers are few and far between.
MacDonald(Villa manager) is wrongly criticized. He led them to victory against W.Ham, against a more renowned manager, Grant.
I think after the departure of Milner maybe the squad were unsettled and unfocused on match.
Lucas Leiva was at the heart of another Liverpool midfield to get completely murdered. It is amazing to me that people do not see how essential he is to these bad performances, and how awful his impact on the team is. Whenever he plays, they are completely over-run in midfield. Whenever he’s dropped, they succeed in dominating midfield, controlling possession, running the game and can win comfortably.
The best illustration of this is Liverpool’s record last season with and without Lucas. In the six games Lucas didn’t start, Liverpool comfortably won 5 and drew 1, in the process they scored 15 goals and conceded 2. In the 32 games in which he started, they won 13, drew 9 and lost 11, scoring 46 goals and conceding 33.
To compare the averages:
Without Lucas With Lucas
PTS 2.67 1.5
GF 2.5 1.4
GA .33 1.03
These are huge differences that cannot possibly be explained away without Lucas taking a share of the blame.
If one were to dig behind the data and look closely at the games Lucas didn’t play, the conclusion is even starker, particularly when compared to the reverse fixtures when Lucas played. Liverpool’s demolition of Sunderland 3-0 was probably their best performance of last season, which could’ve ended 9-0, but with Lucas in the side they lost 1-0 and were utterly useless. Liverpool demolished Portsmouth 4-1 without him, but lost 2-0 with him.
Liverpool comfortably dominated and beat Wigan 2-1 with Lucas only coming on late, but they lost 1-0 to them when he played. The comfortably beat Bolton 2-0 without him, having struggled and come from behind to beat them 3-2 with him. The only draw without Lucas was against Fulham when Torres was missing, but Liverpool nonetheless completely dominated the game and could’ve scored many goals; with him in the side, Fulham won 3-1. With Burnley, however, Liverpool beat them 4-0 both with and without him.
I firmly believe Lucas is the biggest problem Liverpool have. He is a useless midfielder who cannot perform any of the basic tasks required from a footballer with any competence. He can’t pass, shoot, dribble, tackle or head the ball properly. His long passes are abysmal, and his seemingly impressive passing statistics are only a testament to how many short useless passes he plays back to the defenders or to Mascherano as he is too afraid to take the ball forward or do anything useful with it. His only competence is in making fouls and somehow not getting booked as often as he should.
Pretty damning statistics…
Not necessarily – see below.
That’s a preposterously selective use of the statistics, and I’m slightly alarmed that they’ve been uncritically accepted as “damning” by the editor/writer of this site, despite the fact that most of Saifedean’s criticisms are so tenuous as to include “short useless passes” to deride Lucas’ role in the team – a notion seemingly debunked by this site’s own piece on central midfielders a few weeks ago.
What Saifedean overlooks (or deliberately omits) is that the games he has cited to demonstrate how Lucas’ presence ostensibly contributed to a defeat were played away from home, whereas the corresponding fixtures in which Lucas’ absence has putatively led to a win were home games for Liverpool.
Against Sunderland (the now infamous “beach ball” game), Lucas was partnered by one Jay Spearing in midfield – he of vast Premier League experience. Surely that was a factor? The 2-0 loss to Portsmouth was characterised by glaring mistakes from Glen Johnson, which led to the first, if not both, Pompey goals.
It is an ineluctable fact of Rafa’s reign that in some seasons (2005/2006, 2008/2009, for example), Liverpool’s away record was good and in others (2004/2005, 2009/2010) the away record was abysmal.
Granted, Lucas’ presence alongside Mascherano in certain games may have served to exacerbate Liverpool’s problems at times last season, and he is certainly no Alonso with respect to dictating the tempo of games or distribution, but to ascribe the entire team’s woeful performances to one single player is risible at best; myopic at worst.
Let us remember that this is the same Lucas Leiva that played in Liverpool’s 2-0 home win against United, a 2-0 away win against Everton and the excellent home victory against Benfica in the Europa League, amongst other games.
I am not suggesting that Lucas is the complete player – far from it. But to suggest that he “can’t pass, shoot, dribble, tackle or head the ball properly” is ineffably absurd.
This is what Florentino Pérez got to say when he sold Makelele to Chelsea. “We will not miss Makelele. His technique is average, he lacks the speed and skill to take the ball past opponents, and 90% of his distribution either goes backwards or sideways.” Lucas may never be as good as Makelele, but having someone say, “he can’t pass, shoot, dribble, tackle or head the ball properly” is probably a good omen.
That table didn’t work out in the previous post, but will look clearer here:
———-Without Lucas————With Lucas
PTS——–2.67————————-1.5
GF———2.5————————–1.4
GA———0.33————————-1.03
@saifedean
The problem with Lucas was that he played with Mascherano in mf most of time last season. Now Mascherano was a guaranteed first teamer. So It was Lucas + MAscherano in mf. Both of them are poor passers of ball, unable to dictate tempo. So goal opportunities were less.
When Lucas was absent, then it was Mascherano + Gerrard in Mf. If Lucas played with Gerrard , then results would have been different.
Yesterday was an exception bcoz Gerrard was at fault for first goal, 2nd goal was a set piece, 3rd goal was a penalty and Skrtel is not a world class defender.
So criticism of him is harsh. He is not world best, but there are deficiencies in Liverpool team all around.
Gotta agree with you.Lucas is limited but he’s is a case of being wrongly paired.
Skertel has the football intelligence of Obinna Nsofor(Inter and Nigeria player)
A small note: I thought Hodgson’s decision to play Jovanovic so narrow gave A. Johnson more space on the wing, particularly in the first half.
Milner’s movement off the ball was fantastic last night. Man of the match performance. People have questioned the money they paid for him but I think he could become a very important player for City this year.
well its going to be a hard job for hodgson trying to clean up the mess benitez left behind as benitez bought alot of mediocre players and this is what you get,
i think liverpools massive problem is in midfield, they cant retain possession so they can never dominate matches agaisnt the better teams,
gerrard gives the ball away far too much for my liking, he plays far too many low percentage passes, do people notice this flaw in his game?, kuyt & lucas & jovanovic are not good enough players to challenge for the league as they are severely lacking in technique & awareness,
i dont like picking on players but you will not win a premier league with kuyt & lucas & skrtel in your team
Damn benitez if he does, damn benitez if he doesn’t… Get some perspective will you? Hodgson’s tactics were naive to say the least. That’s the issue here.
“gerrard gives the ball away far too much for my liking, he plays far too many low percentage passes”
- Are you effing serious mate? Most Gerrard’s passes are pretty good. What the heck is “low percentage passes” anyway? You got stats to back yourself up?
“kuyt & lucas & jovanovic are not good enough players to challenge for the league as they are severely lacking in technique & awareness,
i dont like picking on players but you will not win a premier league with kuyt & lucas & skrtel in your team”
- WTF? Kuyt, Skrtel and Milan were in the recent World Cup! Lucas almost made it too, I don’t really fancy Lucas but to blame on these players are just ignorant.
Not going to touch the players not being good enough. Clearly that is pure opinion.
However Gerrard did have 14 unsuccessful passes out of 63 opportunities (a 22% failure rate) which is poor for a center mid. Lucas missed 4 of 43 passes (8%). This is according to Guardian Chalkboard. By contrast Yaya Toure attempted 37 passes and only 1 was was intercepted (3%), Barry missed 5 passes out of 53 (9%) and De Jong was unsuccessful on 2 passes out of 43 (5%). As you can see Gerrard was a much less successful passer than any of the City central midfielders and this is part of what led Liverpool to lose the possession battle.
Hodgson should have changed the formation to 4-2-3-1 after watching Liverpool’s abysmal performance in the first half.
————Torres————
–Babel—–Gerrard——-Kuyt
——-Lucas—–Poulsen——
———–BACK FOUR———-
This line up would have helped Liverpool retain some possession @ half time when the game was still retrievable but we don’t know why he kept on with his much favoured 4-4-2.
Apart from the formation, the attitude of some of the Liverpool players was nothing to write home about. There was only a short spell when Gerrard hit the post and there was no fight afterwards.
Liverpool are a great side but they need to put Benitez and the shenanigans of their owners behind them and concentrate on the pitch. The season is too young to start writing Liverpool off.
couldn’t agree wit you more!!
your 4-2-3-1 + Liverpool standard may give Liverpool a comfortable 1-0 win game after game
because time to time all you need is don’t make any mistake and wait till the opponent make one.
BAMM!!
(sorry about my English)
@comment above me
well spoken!
thanks I appreaciated the article
Cheap Flights