- Admin
- #91
3 - Playing 4-5-1 (and a very defensive 5 at that) invites pressure from the off, the ball spends more time in our box thus giving "World-Class" Gerrard more opportunity to throw himself on the floor and gain penalties. So yes, I think the line-up was partly to blame for the penalties.
First off, given that I have played football, i'd suggest that most formations can be put into practice either defensively or offensively.
Dependant on the style of play, 4-4-2 could be far more defensive than 4-5-1 or vice versa. Its not as simple as saying 4-5-1 is defensive and 4-4-2 is less so.
4-5-1 can often be more attacking than 4-4-2, especially if you play two wingers who like to attack. If this is the case and your two wide players get forward more often its more or less a more flexible 4-3-3. Now I know we started with 2 widemen that you would say are conventionally defenders, but second guessing Warnock i'd suggest the plan was for Del Geary to get forward as much as he possibly could (he's played him as an attacking winger a number of times) and Kozzy to support the midfield and defence.
To say 4-5-1 was at fault it far too simplistic. As for the cause of the penalty, do you think the positioning for the first would have been any different at 4-4-2? given that it came from a corner? It's obviously very short sighted to suggest the events were totally set up by Gerrard and the referee but its going a bit far in saying playing 4-5-1 directly contributed.
The last time we beat Liverpool we played 4-5-1, the last team to do well at Liverpool played 4-5-1 and Chelsea won the title playing more or less 4-5-1.
I'd argue that it is less likely that 4-5-1 means more time will be spent in the defending teams box. The whole point of a defensive 4-5-1 is that the midfield is packed and so the strikers of the opposing team are starved of the ball. Obviously playing this way its more than likely that the defensive/holding midfielder/s will dictate the pace of the game and will often be used as a safety blanket for the rest of the team to move forward and attack.
I'd stray more to the fact that playing Tongey (who had a poor game), Monty and Fathi together in the way in which they performed caused us more problems than the formation itself. I think there was only Monty who had a clear idea what he was there for.
There are far too many things that could be argued contributed to us losing the match, I don't think it can be pinned on anything other than that we were the poorer team (whichever variables combined to ensure this eg. penalty, injury etc etc) and I certainly don't think it can be particularly pinned on the formation alone.