4132 aka 442 17.3

cragswfc

Member
Nov 21, 2008
3,039
7
38
Why Leicester City's seemingly simple tactics work so well

The reason so few sides have been able to deal with their tactics is not because they do not know how to cope with counter-attacks and an old-fashioned 4-4-2 formation, more that not many of them have even tried.

By that, I mean when teams have played the Foxes, they have believed they could beat them playing their way - and paid the price.

Foxes' formation is a perfect fit

Some people think the 4-4-2 formation Leicester use is a bit prehistoric but they are showing it is a great system when your players know how to play it perfectly.


View attachment 1106830

That is mostly down to coaching and the work they have done as a team in training, but it also relies on the intelligence of individuals to know they are all defending when they have not got the ball - which is a lot of the time.

Unlike the rest of the top teams, they are not bothered about possession - Leicester's passing statistics are among the worst in the top flight

Instead, they defend well, do not over-play at the back and get the ball upfield quickly, using the pace and efficiency of their forward players to punish teams.

They give the ball away a lot because they play a lot of quick, long passes forward into final third of the pitch.

It is not always pretty, and is totally different to the way the rest of the leading teams play.

Those sides expect to dominate possession because, in most matches, they have the better players and they trust in their attacking quality and strength.
 

Atarin

Member
Feb 11, 2009
69
0
0
I'm confused by some of these TI's.

Mentality = Control?
Tempo = Lower?
Defensive Line = Higher?
Use Offside Trap = Yes?
Play Out of Defence = Yes?
Passing = Shorter?
Roam From Positions = Yes?

This doesn't sound anything like what Leicester did, or what you've described in your posts.

I'm also confused about Drinkwater being played as a Roaming Playmaker.
I don't recall Simpson cutting in from fullback.
I don't think Fuchs played as a wingback.
The two wide lads are being pushed very far forward leaving gaping holes behind them.
Was Okazaki a false 9? He seemed more of a DF(d) to me. He seemed to spend more time closing down than playmaking.

I think as result of playing such a high line you've got Schmiechal playing as a SK but in reality he was nothing of the sort. He has a natural inclination to rush out but he always positioned himself very, very deep to start with.

No disrespect intended. Just some genuine questions.
 
Last edited:
Top