Team shape, tactics and personnel

[OutByEaster?]

Just now, A'Villan said:

So agree with your points, except Traore not being suited. Fully ready I see him thriving on the left.

I guess the issue I see with him is that "on the left" now means Targett - the position we need him to play is much more a central one, sure he can drift wide from there, but the two tens are naturally quite narrow in this formation - if anything, support for the full backs out wide comes from the midfield three playing behind the two tens. It really suits Buendia because he can play quick four and five yard one-twos and little through balls, we need someone sharp and connect enough next to him to help him do that.

Having Watkins next to him has been difficult as Watkin's really isn't a player that plays that way, he's a finisher that doesn't always connect well with others and I think Traore might struggle because in those tight spaces when a player gives him a ball, they need to have some idea what he's going to do with it - I think Traore is so unpredictable that it might be difficult for others to play alongside him in tight spaces.

 

[MaVilla]

On 30/12/2021 at 11:42, OutByEaster? said:

Hopefully, I think he played in a narrower role in Germany so hopefully it's something he can do - I do have concerns though that the wingers we bought for Smith's system aren't going to be the players we need for Gerrard's system. Quality will prove itself though.

i think the winger/no.10 is kind of a moot point.

In reality, i think Gerrard will want a player who can play as a no.10 but is also capable of drifting out wide or inside as required, basically a Buendia type player that can play on the wing but also is capable of coming inside and playing intelligent football.

I see Chelsea are trying to loan out Ziyech, he would be a good loan! (obviously wont happen).

My point is i think we will just want a player capable of drifting to the wing effectively but also capable of playing intricate football inside, rather than a "winger" or a "no.10" in isolation, if the player is good enough they are capable of drifting to wither as required within the game plan.

 

On another point though, im not sure Watkins or Ings are good enough to play the striker position under the Gerrard system, i think ideally we would want a striker who can interlink with the 10's and have good ball control and vision etc, out of the two i think Ings is better at that side of the game, if you have the two 10s playing intelligent and close football, it will break down once they link with Watkins, who seems to have bricks for feet imo.

[Delphinho123]

10 minutes ago, HalfTimePost said:

Watkins loses the ball more than Buendia.

Buendia has been dispossessed 10 times more than Ramsey, but Ramsey has had 7 more unsuccessful touches that have lost the ball. So overall, Buendia has lost the ball 3 times more than Starboy Ramsey.

Watkins is worse than Buendia in both stats. Although tbf has played a lot more football. Ramsey though has only played 30 mins more.

He's a creative, flair player. He's going to lose the ball. But he's not been a disaster.

I think Watkins has been mostly poor too. 

[A'Villan]

13 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

I guess the issue I see with him is that "on the left" now means Targett - the position we need him to play is much more a central one, sure he can drift wide from there, but the two tens are naturally quite narrow in this formation - if anything, support for the full backs out wide comes from the midfield three playing behind the two tens. It really suits Buendia because he can play quick four and five yard one-twos and little through balls, we need someone sharp and connect enough next to him to help him do that.

Having Watkins next to him has been difficult as Watkin's really isn't a player that plays that way, he's a finisher that doesn't always connect well with others and I think Traore might struggle because in those tight spaces when a player gives him a ball, they need to have some idea what he's going to do with it - I think Traore is so unpredictable that it might be difficult for others to play alongside him in tight spaces.

 

Apologies I meant down the right..

I disagree with some of that on Traore.

Traore is a gun on his left boot, and his got an eye for a through ball to play in someone when the opposition defensive line is high. Watkins loves to run into space. I also think that Traore is great in tight situations as his feet are fast and his touch is quite decent. He's quite unpredictable and spontaneous as you say, but with a supporting right back and options in midfield and from our central forward, he's got options as long as he keeps his head up and makes a decent read.

Added to that he's a threat from the byline, can cutback and has a lethal left foot strike. His crosses aren't world class but he gets himself into a good enough position that the end ball doesn't need to be pin point in order to land in position for a team mate to score.

Edited January 1, 2022 by A'Villan

[OutByEaster?]

1 minute ago, A'Villan said:

Apologies I meant down the right..

Same thing anyway - attacking width will come from Cash - he's the nominal 'winger' in this system - and I think Gerrard is keener on getting him support from McGinn than having the number ten drift out - I might well be wrong on that last bit though.

[A'Villan]

9 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Same thing anyway - attacking width will come from Cash - he's the nominal 'winger' in this system - and I think Gerrard is keener on getting him support from McGinn than having the number ten drift out - I might well be wrong on that last bit though.

I don't have any insight into Gerrards system or plans, but it would make sense that the right sided midfield player come over to be an outlet option and support our attacks down the right flank as it allows us to keep positional balance while occupying threatening territory both centrally and if we opt to switch sides. 

I'm not sure what's in the plans for us going forward but my thoughts are when we opt for a 4-3-3 which has been more common than playing a ten in the hole, but perhaps I'm mistaken. 

[A'Villan]

Does anyone think Buendia has the traits to play on the left side of the central midfield three?

Watkins has a good eye for a one two move and Buendia and him could wreak havoc together, allowing Targett or the LB of the day to remain more defensive or at least have the responsibility and onus to get forward lessened.

[OutByEaster?]

1 hour ago, A'Villan said:

Does anyone think Buendia has the traits to play on the left side of the central midfield three?

Perhaps, but I don't think it really suits him as well as being in a more advanced role - it'd also be moving a player into an area that's already very competitive with McGinn, Luiz, Ramsey, Sanson and Nakamba all competing for three positions and moving him away from a position where we don't have the same natural depth and where we've been playing a striker out of position.

 

[A'Villan]

3 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Perhaps, but I don't think it really suits him as well as being in a more advanced role - it'd also be moving a player into an area that's already very competitive with McGinn, Luiz, Ramsey, Sanson and Nakamba all competing for three positions and moving him away from a position where we don't have the same natural depth and where we've been playing a striker out of position.

 

Which striker is that? Watkins? 

I was entertaining this line-up or close to:

McGinn - Sanson - Buendia

Traore - Ings - Watkins

Edited January 1, 2022 by A'Villan

[OutByEaster?]

4 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

Which striker is that? Watkins? 

Watkins yes, he's played next to Buendia as a number ten and looked poor - it's not his game, he's perfectly set up for the lone front man role but he's not enough of a linking player to play as a ten. 

If we go with three lines of players, I think the deepest line is looking pretty decent at the moment and would be even more so if it weren't for Nakamba's injury.

McGinn, Luiz, Ramsey, Sanson and Nakamba give us some decent quality and cover for three spots.

The front line is also well covered with Ings or Watkins more than capable of leading the line.

It's that middle line - Buendia fits perfectly in the scheme - but we're struggling next to him, Chukwuemeka fits there nicely but he's very raw, Ramsey can do it and would probably be my preference at the moment - Traore I'm not sure is enough of a team man for the role in terms of linking the play from the three to the striker and playing lots of clever one-twos with Buendia - when you give Traore the ball, you aren't sure what you're getting next - it's his strength and his weakness, Bailey might be a shout but he's better coming from wide spots and that's not something we need him to do, same goes for El Ghazi and Philogene-Bidace - and for me, Watkins has been very poor there - he's not a link man in a million years, he's a striker.

In this scheme, we need to hold the ball in the middle in front of the opposition back four, play short, clever passes and try to draw the full backs into narrow positions - we can then get the ball out wide to Cash and Targett who should have a load of space or work a clever through ball to the striker. 

I think we need to put someone in next to Buendia that can play that short passing, bounce a ball off a midfielder or the front man, move the defence about and draw fouls - when we get that right it'll bring the best out of Buendia and I think the best out of whichever of the forwards plays. For me at the moment, our best option for that is Ramsey, Chukwuemeka could grow into it and we might need to go out to the market to get someone.

 

[A'Villan]

19 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Watkins yes, he's played next to Buendia as a number ten and looked poor - it's not his game, he's perfectly set up for the lone front man role but he's not enough of a linking player to play as a ten. 

If we go with three lines of players, I think the deepest line is looking pretty decent at the moment and would be even more so if it weren't for Nakamba's injury.

McGinn, Luiz, Ramsey, Sanson and Nakamba give us some decent quality and cover for three spots.

The front line is also well covered with Ings or Watkins more than capable of leading the line.

It's that middle line - Buendia fits perfectly in the scheme - but we're struggling next to him, Chukwuemeka fits there nicely but he's very raw, Ramsey can do it and would probably be my preference at the moment - Traore I'm not sure is enough of a team man for the role in terms of linking the play from the three to the striker and playing lots of clever one-twos with Buendia - when you give Traore the ball, you aren't sure what you're getting next - it's his strength and his weakness, Bailey might be a shout but he's better coming from wide spots and that's not something we need him to do, same goes for El Ghazi and Philogene-Bidace - and for me, Watkins has been very poor there - he's not a link man in a million years, he's a striker.

In this scheme, we need to hold the ball in the middle in front of the opposition back four, play short, clever passes and try to draw the full backs into narrow positions - we can then get the ball out wide to Cash and Targett who should have a load of space or work a clever through ball to the striker. 

I think we need to put someone in next to Buendia that can play that short passing, bounce a ball off a midfielder or the front man, move the defence about and draw fouls - when we get that right it'll bring the best out of Buendia and I think the best out of whichever of the forwards plays. For me at the moment, our best option for that is Ramsey, Chukwuemeka could grow into it and we might need to go out to the market to get someone.

 

I like the analysis but I think Watkins is actually quite clever with one two passing sequences when he wants to be. Very capable at that. I have noticed that he's been a bit more head down, solo efforts, and look to shoot first in his play recently, however that's not all there is to his game. Remember him and Grealish linking up and causing headaches together? There were too many combinations as to how they might link up once the ball entered the final third and the edge of the box. Nightmare combination and Traore grew into his own on the opposite flank and provided a different sort of attack.

Remember Ollie played as a wide forward under Smith at Brentford I believe? Could be butchering that but I do recall him playing wide forward before he came here. He would receive the ball wide at times too in his first season despite being our central option. Grealish would play him in on the left side then make a run centrally. 

I think it worth noting though that you seem to be setting up with a number ten playing behind a front two, whereas for me it's a 4-3-3. Completely different approaches to build up passages in the attacking half and final third.

Edited January 1, 2022 by A'Villan

[OutByEaster?]

59 minutes ago, A'Villan said:

I think it worth noting though that you seem to be setting up with a number ten playing behind a front two, whereas for me it's a 4-3-3. Completely different approaches to build up passages in the attacking half and final third.

4-3-2-1 is Gerrard's preferred formation and what we've been playing.

 

[MaVilla]

19 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

4-3-2-1 is Gerrard's preferred formation and what we've been playing.

 

isnt it more of a 4231 defensively, then either a 4231 or 433 going forward (or a 235 or 2323).

Interesting to look at the formation tbh.

[OutByEaster?]

Here's my take on how we play. I've had to do drawings. I don't know why Tyrone Mings' initials are smaller than everyone else's. Sorry Skipper. 

This is our basic shape - I've picked Ramsey in the second ten position and Sanson in midfield - but we've had Watkins start where Ramsey is and Ings up front.

It's your basic Christmas tree, with a back four, then a line of three midfielders whose primary role is control, two tens and a lone striker.

Defensively we use that shape to force teams to attack us down the flanks, the three will sit in front of the back four, the two tens chase the deep lying midfielders of the opposition and we make you try to beat us with crosses.

When we've got the ball, we turn that tree upside down.

Cash and Targett get right up the field to provide width and give us overloads on the flanks - the two tens stay narrow, with the striker occupying the two centrebacks, the hope is that Buendia and Ramsey draw the full backs into narrow positions - if the opponents midfield drops deep, our three follow them and we can push them in. If the full backs get drawn inside there should be lots of room out wide for Cash and Targett and if not, then we have enough decent ball players with our tens and the support of the three in the middle to make things happen.

In terms of width, the key triangles are the ones where you have Buendia, McGinn and Cash - McGinn comes out wider and backs Cash up, with Buendia staying narrow to play one twos or make things happen centrally. We saw a lot of this when Nakamba was playing and Luiz started appearing down the left hand side behind Targett and making things happen.

I think it's a system that really suits our midfielders - none of them can hold on their own, but now none of them have to, there are three doing the work - we have some decent ball players and midfielders that can make things happen and the numbers we're able to keep in there means they have the freedom to do that. I think it suits Cash, who is by nature someone who wants to run into the spaces in the opposition corners of the pitch, it suits Targett a lot less.

I think it has to be one or the other of Watkins and Ings - I think putting Watkins in the position I've got Ramsey in really doesn't work - Watkins isn't great there and it takes away from our ability to create for Ings. Personally I'd have Watkins up top and Ings as the option.

It doesn't work so well for the wingers that Smith bought in for his 4-3-3. 

Of those, I'm not sure any can play as wing backs, so it'll be about whether they can adjust to a role that is based around them remaining in central positions and playing a clever short passing game - there's plenty of talent in Traore and Bailey, but I don't think there's a natural role for them in this shape - there's scope for either to make the adjustment though, although I think Bailey is the more likely to make it work, with Traore a maverick sub.

Anyway, that's my two pence worth, I'm not 100% and I'm sure there's room for interpretation, but it's what I'm seeing - I'm also sure that Gerrard and his team have at least a plan B and plenty of flexibility, but based on what I've seen so far, this is Gerrardball.

 

 

[Tomaszk]

13 minutes ago, MaVilla said:

isnt it more of a 4231 defensively, then either a 4231 or 433 going forward (or a 235 or 2323).

Interesting to look at the formation tbh.

Out of possession it's very much a rigid 4321.

In possession it goes all over the place. Gets into a messy, out of order 541 bit too often with the central midfielders stuck at full back and the full backs up ahead of them.

The 10s need to be more proactive in getting us out when we're building from the back. They must find space and give easier passes up the pitch to Doug or whoever has it at the back.

[Steero113]

3 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Here's my take on how we play. I've had to do drawings. I don't know why Tyrone Mings' initials are smaller than everyone else's. Sorry Skipper. 

This is our basic shape - I've picked Ramsey in the second ten position and Sanson in midfield - but we've had Watkins start where Ramsey is and Ings up front.

It's your basic Christmas tree, with a back four, then a line of three midfielders whose primary role is control, two tens and a lone striker.

Defensively we use that shape to force teams to attack us down the flanks, the three will sit in front of the back four, the two tens chase the deep lying midfielders of the opposition and we make you try to beat us with crosses.

When we've got the ball, we turn that tree upside down.

Cash and Targett get right up the field to provide width and give us overloads on the flanks - the two tens stay narrow, with the striker occupying the two centrebacks, the hope is that Buendia and Ramsey draw the full backs into narrow positions - if the opponents midfield drops deep, our three follow them and we can push them in. If the full backs get drawn inside there should be lots of room out wide for Cash and Targett and if not, then we have enough decent ball players with our tens and the support of the three in the middle to make things happen.

In terms of width, the key triangles are the ones where you have Buendia, McGinn and Cash - McGinn comes out wider and backs Cash up, with Buendia staying narrow to play one twos or make things happen centrally. We saw a lot of this when Nakamba was playing and Luiz started appearing down the left hand side behind Targett and making things happen.

I think it's a system that really suits our midfielders - none of them can hold on their own, but now none of them have to, there are three doing the work - we have some decent ball players and midfielders that can make things happen and the numbers we're able to keep in there means they have the freedom to do that. I think it suits Cash, who is by nature someone who wants to run into the spaces in the opposition corners of the pitch, it suits Targett a lot less.

I think it has to be one or the other of Watkins and Ings - I think putting Watkins in the position I've got Ramsey in really doesn't work - Watkins isn't great there and it takes away from our ability to create for Ings. Personally I'd have Watkins up top and Ings as the option.

It doesn't work so well for the wingers that Smith bought in for his 4-3-3. 

Of those, I'm not sure any can play as wing backs, so it'll be about whether they can adjust to a role that is based around them remaining in central positions and playing a clever short passing game - there's plenty of talent in Traore and Bailey, but I don't think there's a natural role for them in this shape - there's scope for either to make the adjustment though, although I think Bailey is the more likely to make it work, with Traore a maverick sub.

Anyway, that's my top pence worth, I'm not 100% and I'm sure there's room for interpretation, but it's what I'm seeing - I'm also sure that Gerrard and his team have at least a plan B and plenty of flexibility, but based on what I've seen so far, this is Gerrardball.

 

 

Massive promotion for Aaron Ramsey. Nice. 

Ps: Really nice analysis.  

Edited January 1, 2022 by Steero113

[OutByEaster?]

1 minute ago, Steero113 said:

Massive promotion for Aaron Ramsey. Nice. 

Ps: Really nice analysis.  

Bugger!

Jacob obvs. 

[A'Villan]

2 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Here's my take on how we play. I've had to do drawings. I don't know why Tyrone Mings' initials are smaller than everyone else's. Sorry Skipper. 

This is our basic shape - I've picked Ramsey in the second ten position and Sanson in midfield - but we've had Watkins start where Ramsey is and Ings up front.

It's your basic Christmas tree, with a back four, then a line of three midfielders whose primary role is control, two tens and a lone striker.

Defensively we use that shape to force teams to attack us down the flanks, the three will sit in front of the back four, the two tens chase the deep lying midfielders of the opposition and we make you try to beat us with crosses.

When we've got the ball, we turn that tree upside down.

Cash and Targett get right up the field to provide width and give us overloads on the flanks - the two tens stay narrow, with the striker occupying the two centrebacks, the hope is that Buendia and Ramsey draw the full backs into narrow positions - if the opponents midfield drops deep, our three follow them and we can push them in. If the full backs get drawn inside there should be lots of room out wide for Cash and Targett and if not, then we have enough decent ball players with our tens and the support of the three in the middle to make things happen.

In terms of width, the key triangles are the ones where you have Buendia, McGinn and Cash - McGinn comes out wider and backs Cash up, with Buendia staying narrow to play one twos or make things happen centrally. We saw a lot of this when Nakamba was playing and Luiz started appearing down the left hand side behind Targett and making things happen.

I think it's a system that really suits our midfielders - none of them can hold on their own, but now none of them have to, there are three doing the work - we have some decent ball players and midfielders that can make things happen and the numbers we're able to keep in there means they have the freedom to do that. I think it suits Cash, who is by nature someone who wants to run into the spaces in the opposition corners of the pitch, it suits Targett a lot less.

I think it has to be one or the other of Watkins and Ings - I think putting Watkins in the position I've got Ramsey in really doesn't work - Watkins isn't great there and it takes away from our ability to create for Ings. Personally I'd have Watkins up top and Ings as the option.

It doesn't work so well for the wingers that Smith bought in for his 4-3-3. 

Of those, I'm not sure any can play as wing backs, so it'll be about whether they can adjust to a role that is based around them remaining in central positions and playing a clever short passing game - there's plenty of talent in Traore and Bailey, but I don't think there's a natural role for them in this shape - there's scope for either to make the adjustment though, although I think Bailey is the more likely to make it work, with Traore a maverick sub.

Anyway, that's my top pence worth, I'm not 100% and I'm sure there's room for interpretation, but it's what I'm seeing - I'm also sure that Gerrard and his team have at least a plan B and plenty of flexibility, but based on what I've seen so far, this is Gerrardball.

 

 

I haven't seen a live performance or one in full since the disastrous Wolves comeback, as I said in another thread I've seen every match but mostly only in 9, 24, or 45 minute highlight reels. Which doesn't really depict the game as it flows and unravels. 

I guess I'm still living in Smith's era.  Probably a good reminder to tune in for a full ninety minutes and get up to speed with what Gerrard is bringing to the table for his seat.

Thanks for the in depth portrait of how we go about it.

[gwi1890]

3 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Here's my take on how we play. I've had to do drawings. I don't know why Tyrone Mings' initials are smaller than everyone else's. Sorry Skipper. 

This is our basic shape - I've picked Ramsey in the second ten position and Sanson in midfield - but we've had Watkins start where Ramsey is and Ings up front.

It's your basic Christmas tree, with a back four, then a line of three midfielders whose primary role is control, two tens and a lone striker.

Defensively we use that shape to force teams to attack us down the flanks, the three will sit in front of the back four, the two tens chase the deep lying midfielders of the opposition and we make you try to beat us with crosses.

When we've got the ball, we turn that tree upside down.

Cash and Targett get right up the field to provide width and give us overloads on the flanks - the two tens stay narrow, with the striker occupying the two centrebacks, the hope is that Buendia and Ramsey draw the full backs into narrow positions - if the opponents midfield drops deep, our three follow them and we can push them in. If the full backs get drawn inside there should be lots of room out wide for Cash and Targett and if not, then we have enough decent ball players with our tens and the support of the three in the middle to make things happen.

In terms of width, the key triangles are the ones where you have Buendia, McGinn and Cash - McGinn comes out wider and backs Cash up, with Buendia staying narrow to play one twos or make things happen centrally. We saw a lot of this when Nakamba was playing and Luiz started appearing down the left hand side behind Targett and making things happen.

I think it's a system that really suits our midfielders - none of them can hold on their own, but now none of them have to, there are three doing the work - we have some decent ball players and midfielders that can make things happen and the numbers we're able to keep in there means they have the freedom to do that. I think it suits Cash, who is by nature someone who wants to run into the spaces in the opposition corners of the pitch, it suits Targett a lot less.

I think it has to be one or the other of Watkins and Ings - I think putting Watkins in the position I've got Ramsey in really doesn't work - Watkins isn't great there and it takes away from our ability to create for Ings. Personally I'd have Watkins up top and Ings as the option.

It doesn't work so well for the wingers that Smith bought in for his 4-3-3. 

Of those, I'm not sure any can play as wing backs, so it'll be about whether they can adjust to a role that is based around them remaining in central positions and playing a clever short passing game - there's plenty of talent in Traore and Bailey, but I don't think there's a natural role for them in this shape - there's scope for either to make the adjustment though, although I think Bailey is the more likely to make it work, with Traore a maverick sub.

Anyway, that's my two pence worth, I'm not 100% and I'm sure there's room for interpretation, but it's what I'm seeing - I'm also sure that Gerrard and his team have at least a plan B and plenty of flexibility, but based on what I've seen so far, this is Gerrardball.

 

 

Against Chelsea we played a diamond formation in possession, and the Christmas tree out of possession , hopefully we revert to our usual shape tomorrow with either Ollie or Ings up top.

Edited January 1, 2022 by gwi1890

[CVByrne]

17 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Here's my take on how we play. I've had to do drawings. I don't know why Tyrone Mings' initials are smaller than everyone else's. Sorry Skipper. 

This is our basic shape - I've picked Ramsey in the second ten position and Sanson in midfield - but we've had Watkins start where Ramsey is and Ings up front.

It's your basic Christmas tree, with a back four, then a line of three midfielders whose primary role is control, two tens and a lone striker.

Defensively we use that shape to force teams to attack us down the flanks, the three will sit in front of the back four, the two tens chase the deep lying midfielders of the opposition and we make you try to beat us with crosses.

When we've got the ball, we turn that tree upside down.

Cash and Targett get right up the field to provide width and give us overloads on the flanks - the two tens stay narrow, with the striker occupying the two centrebacks, the hope is that Buendia and Ramsey draw the full backs into narrow positions - if the opponents midfield drops deep, our three follow them and we can push them in. If the full backs get drawn inside there should be lots of room out wide for Cash and Targett and if not, then we have enough decent ball players with our tens and the support of the three in the middle to make things happen.

In terms of width, the key triangles are the ones where you have Buendia, McGinn and Cash - McGinn comes out wider and backs Cash up, with Buendia staying narrow to play one twos or make things happen centrally. We saw a lot of this when Nakamba was playing and Luiz started appearing down the left hand side behind Targett and making things happen.

I think it's a system that really suits our midfielders - none of them can hold on their own, but now none of them have to, there are three doing the work - we have some decent ball players and midfielders that can make things happen and the numbers we're able to keep in there means they have the freedom to do that. I think it suits Cash, who is by nature someone who wants to run into the spaces in the opposition corners of the pitch, it suits Targett a lot less.

I think it has to be one or the other of Watkins and Ings - I think putting Watkins in the position I've got Ramsey in really doesn't work - Watkins isn't great there and it takes away from our ability to create for Ings. Personally I'd have Watkins up top and Ings as the option.

It doesn't work so well for the wingers that Smith bought in for his 4-3-3. 

Of those, I'm not sure any can play as wing backs, so it'll be about whether they can adjust to a role that is based around them remaining in central positions and playing a clever short passing game - there's plenty of talent in Traore and Bailey, but I don't think there's a natural role for them in this shape - there's scope for either to make the adjustment though, although I think Bailey is the more likely to make it work, with Traore a maverick sub.

Anyway, that's my two pence worth, I'm not 100% and I'm sure there's room for interpretation, but it's what I'm seeing - I'm also sure that Gerrard and his team have at least a plan B and plenty of flexibility, but based on what I've seen so far, this is GerrardBall

 

 

Excellent post and I think what you have said about Ings / Watkins is spot on. It's one or the other unless we go with a 1 2 instead of a 2 1. Gerrard did play 2 CFs in this formation though at Rangers and it worked due to player movement. I'm not writing an Ings / Watkins / Buendia three based on movement just yet as attacking play takes longer to develop than defensive structures.

The other worry is around what happens with our wide players. Mainly Bailey / Traore / JPB who I think will be around next season. Bailey will work in a central position if he learns to play without the ball. The defensive responsibility in this position is far more than he had in Germany and his work rate without the ball is non existent. Traore has improved in this department and I feel is suited to one of the 10 roles a bit more than Bailey at present. 

Left back is a key area we need to improve as the role is now more an attacking role than defensive as the midfielders cover the positions in a defensive transition after the full backs are up in the attacking 5. 

The other area I am worried about is Martinez / Mings / Konsa and their ability to play from the back and comfort on the ball with opposition press. The first half against Man City is etched in my mind. I think of those three we need an option for one to be very comfortable on the ball and that will be one of the CBs a role we needed to fill anyway with Axel gone. 

I think Gerrard knows he has to assess this season where we need to improve. He will know that a large outlay on attacking players was made and this season is a free swing trying to get those players playing his system. So with the questions outlined above, we will need to see how that goes. With Trez/AEG both going by summer at least he might have an option to bring one in.