Attacking shape in the 4-3-3: Chelsea vs Liverpool vs Manchester City.

Why do we get exposed in defensive transition so frequently? [THREAD]

RT’s Appreciated.

Notice how Liverpool and Man City have this sort of 5 forward, 5 back rule. This keeps them organised and less vulnerable to being exposed on the counter and results in a more structured and effective counter-press.

Chelsea on the other hand have 7 outfield players up the pitch and in and around the final third leaving our DM and CBs exposed. This possibly wouldn’t be such a big problem if our counter-press was as good or effective as Liverpool or City’s.

City and Liverpool both attack in a 2-3-5 shape though their rotations are different. Generally, Liverpool’s FBs hold the width the CMs covering and City’s wingers hold width with FBs covering. City’s rotations have been slightly different this season however.

Over-committing bodies forward leaves gaps in wide areas, which is the one area of the pitch you don’t want to leave exposed. When you compare our average positions to City’s and Liverpool’s you don’t see such gaps in the latters as they have 4/5 players staying back.

We’ve recently moved back to playing a 3-4-3 which is more structured and balanced for Lampard. Attacking in a 2-3-5/3-2-5 similar to City and Liverpool (depending on Azpilicueta) he has his players b/w the lines, wing backs holding the width and cover for defensive transition.

This has definitely been a massive learning curve for Lampard. He’s been very naive at times this season but has also had us playing good football. Hopefully next season after he gets his signings and builds the team he wants we won’t see these same problems next season.