I think there is crossed wires here in what we’re trying to say.
My point is that we want Trent to be in midfield when we lose the ball. Not because he’s Trent, but because it gives an extra body there to help us win the ball back better. Readjusting other players’ position to fill in for a missing FB defeats the point of that switch.
Someone needs to handle the right flank if we lose the ball till trent comes back to shape. Who does that ? It has to be one of the existing midfielders coming into slot there.
I see a lot of managers focusing on the right side with a quick winger on the side to catch our defenders out. If this has to be a viable tactic , It should involve Trent in a more permanent midfield role imo.
It’s Konate. We are making the conscious decision to flood the midfield at the expense of leaving the defense 1 man short on the first phase after losing the ball. Its a trade off we have decided we want to make. But that is only for the first phase. What you will see is that if we dont win it back quickly is Trent himself getting back into an orthodox RB position for the next defensive phase.
Looking at Fulham’s play just before the final whistle where they nearly scored a goal , That’s exactly going to be happening more and more. I’m not sure it’s a viable option. I agree with Trent playing a more central role. But what I fail to see is why the trade off is needed. It destabilizes the entire defensive line and also limits the left backs from making those runs forward as well.
Have you seen how much better we’ve wont he ball back and looked more like our proper selves the past few games?
Effective pressing cannot ever be done by keeping an orthdox shape. It always requires a total football like adjustment in the position of various defensive players to close off the passing angles. Even with Trent as an orthodox RB of years past we typically end up with 3 at the back in the first phase because of how high we typically need the FB to push up on the side where the ball is. This is just a different starting shape to get us to the same end point.
Everything in football is a trade off.
refer to Perisic setup to Kane on Spurs goal on the weekend. perfect example.
With the opposition playing 433 I think this is generally how our system would work in possession - forcing their midfield to be less compact by the spacing of Jones and Henderson - which has essentially created a flat 4 man midfield but forces them away from Trent and Fabinho. I definitely agree that the difficulty is the 3vs3 situation we tend to create with our defenders.
This is in danger of looking too complex so he’s a cleaned up version of the counter attack.
In this example Trent concedes possession to the opposition midfielder, triggering a press by Jones and Gakpo while Fabinho moves to intercept a passing lane to the other midfielder. However you can see the issue defensively as Trent tries to get back and the wingers pin themselves to the touchline, there are some simple passes open if the midfielders break our press. We are taking a big risk that the press will win the ball back more often than not and banking on our CBs winning individual battles.
It’s very risky but we are not risk adverse under Klopp and probably never will be. No doubt it is going to leave holes though and we will rely on the individual quality of our players to make up for that.
Yes and the stats (and eye test) back this up, Trent’s possession regains are hitting double figures.
One of our biggest weaknesses was the loss of possession, turning to a quick fast ball through the midfield. As you say we now basically have a double pivot so that ball is much easier to stop.
I think when we get a left centre back we’ll be much more secure it’s basically a back three with double pivot ahead, compared to our old 3 man diamond.
I think that chance is actually close to what we ‘want’. I’ve just watched it back and this is how the move developed…
We are overloaded on the left. 4 (Trent) goes with the runner (white 5) while Fabinho comes over to the ball. Decordova-Reid has moved into a good position but Trent cut out the passing lane as he closed out to the winger.
Trent isn’t able to stop the cross and Konate is out of position (he won the header that gave the ball to White 4 in the last image). Van Dijk responds by coming across against White 3 - who eventually gets the shot off.
Van Dijk sticks tight as the ball arrives and does very well. He forces a first time shot and takes BDR off balance. Not entirely sure but he may have actually got a foot on the ball as well. After the shot he celebrates his own effort because he knows he did well. I think this is an example of us trusting our defenders to win individual battles. Interestingly the opportunity also came around while Trent was in at RB for the whole time.
Yes I found the tactics board creator and love it, so what? 
I think our general game in itself is pretty risky which I would not mind. Creating an added layer of risk however is something that can backfire.
This is the piece fans need to come to terms with. Yes, sometimes it does get exposed. But most of the time these balls into the wide open channels is the concession we make for being able better able to win the ball back high up the pitch and make their balls into the channels mostly hopeful punts we’re in control of. Konate being forced to sprint down the line and put a ball out for a throw is not us getting stretched, but what we expect of how most teams will respond to our set up.
Also we aren’t city where we do cynical fouls to break up the play and concede a cheap free kick with absolutely no yellow cards given.
