Dom’s Comms: Week 10— Differences
Just nine days after the EURO 2024 final, Leicester City’s season was underway, well…at least the public pre-season element of it was.
Fortunately, I was able to watch the first game of Steve Cooper’s reign, in front of the fans, by joining BBC Radio Leicester’s team for the trip to Shrewsbury Town.
Amongst the buzz, excitement, and unknown entities of a new season, there was one key area I wanted to focus on. After a season of clear tactical ideologies under Enzo Maresca, how was Cooper going to set up his Foxes’ side to mitigate the qualities of the upcoming Premier League season?
Before kick-off, I wasn’t sure what to expect. All his previous managerial roles have shown different elements of his tactical arsenal, a somewhat chameleon-like figure adapting to the personnel in his squad.
How would he acclimatise his ideals to this iteration of the Leicester City squad, which was successful in playing a possession-based style in the Championship last season?
Or more importantly, what would be different?
I conducted an assessment on BBCRL, alongside Jack Rafferty and former City-forward, Matty Fryatt; which I will link below if people want to listen — the conversation shortly followed the full-time whistle…
This article will cross-examine structural patterns from last season, both in-possession (IP) and out-of-possession (OOP) with the patterns from Tuesday night’s game, to highlight how Cooper could set up the Foxes next season.
In Possession
Under Maresca, Leicester would start games in a 4–3–3 but it would quickly become a 3–2–4–1 in reality. For this to happen, there were a lot of rotations between the positions, with the idea always being to create two blocks of five, the first of those being the players set to build up and defend transitions.
This is also known as the rest defence; set in a 3–2 shape. The (3) are the centre-backs, which required the LB (OOP) to become the LCB in possession, and the RB (Ricardo Pereira) to join the single pivot, Harry Winks to create the (2).
The other adjustment is the more advanced midfielders in the 4–(3) — 3, becoming two high #8s (or #10s) to support the wingers, playing slightly behind a single forward — they become an overall front five.
Intriguingly, due to how elite football is trending tactically, Cooper also created a front and back five in the game vs. Shrewsbury Town but did so in a few different ways.
The starting shape, a 4–2–3–1 is comparable to the previous 4–3–3, the only difference being the role(s) of the midfielders. If you play with two deep-lying anchors (known as #6s) with a single, more advanced player (often depicted as a #10) then you’re in the former; if the roles are more fluid, or offer just a single pivot — like Maresca’s, then it tends to be the latter.
Firstly, there isn’t the need for an inverted full-back. With a double pivot, you can re-create the central box shape with two more advanced midfielders, negating the need for one of the full-backs to step inside. Instead, RB (Ricardo Pereira) became a de facto RW — while Winks and Wilfred Ndidi sat.
The forming of the back-three was identical, LB adjusted to an LCB role, with the natural CBs occupying the central and right-side roles. Without Mads Hermansen in the net, it’s difficult to suggest whether the back-four could be created like with Maresca, as the GK steps into a CB role for certain sequences. In the Premier League, this seems less likely.
For me, the most interesting tweak was within the left half-space, where without Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall, Stephy Mavididi became the inside creator. This is a complex role, and it’s early stages for Mavididi, he noted in his post-match interview that Cooper almost threw him into the role with little preparation.
While this newfound, inverted role maximises his profile; he’s technically proficient, has good acceleration to burst into space, and can combine interior/exterior via passes to create, it did nullify Abdul Fatawu — who replaced him as the LW.
This can be reflected in the number of touches, passes, and “target” recipients from the pass map I’ve made below, utilising annotation data to create a somewhat accurate depiction of the passes attempted in the game.
You can see that Mavididi was involved in the game a lot more than Fatawu, simply by playing a central role.
Fatawu, as a left-footed winger is limited in the final third if played from the left side. Off the right, he can invert, either cross or shoot — to fairly good impact, averaging 2.4 shots p/game, scoring 6 goals and also gaining 13 assists during the Championship season.
It was the unpredictability in his following action that made him difficult to cover as a defender; would he take a defender to the byline and create via a cross (mostly ending with a right-footed action), or would he cut inside to either create or shoot (using his left-foot).
As the LW, he’s much more predictable.
Yes, he can still invert and create or shoot, but the final action will fall to his weaker right foot. To score, this will require a precise technical action that is much harder than simply crossing into a zone/area with a weaker foot. For this reason, as the LW he’ll revert to hitting the width and crossing on his left.
I hope that Leicester secure a right-footed wide player to provide either a strong-footed crosser (off the right) or an inverted option (for the left), which could then rotate both Stephy and Abdul into either flank, whilst placing one of the three as an interior.
To get the ball into width, for Fatawu, all three centre-backs opted to bypass the midfield and play direct long passes into wingers, or behind the defensive line for runners. A stark difference from Maresca, as this presented frequent turnovers of possession, as opposed to his methodical, controlling sequences.
Cooper suggested that the Foxes didn’t play to the level “he wanted” in certain moments, and it would be in this area that I found the most issues. Turning possession over, or passing into the front five without support, provided Shrewsbury with plenty of chances to reclaim possession, and they were dangerous in doing so.
Out of Possession (OOP)
As I just stated, Leicester struggled to minimise threats in transition. This was, in part, due to the rotations from the IP shape to the OOP shape, combined with a more direct approach that created more transition moments in between phases.
The validity to this is that when they adjusted to their OOP shape; which is the same 4–4–2 they utilised under both Enzo Maresca and Brendan Rodgers, required the re-shaping into a back-four to cover the width of the pitch. In transition, this is difficult to do quickly with opposition players still threatening in central areas.
Not only is it the same 4–4–2 shape, the way in which the Foxes create the shape boasts a lot of similarities. We spoke earlier about Mavididi subsidising KDH’s role IP, playing as a de facto left #8 (or inverted winger/somewhat of a #10), but he also replicated his OOP role — stepping into the first line with the striker to create the 4–4–2…
The two full-backs also revert to traditional OOP roles, and the central pivot stays in the centre; which is a slight discrepancy and is noticeable with the right-side interior, played by Kasey McAteer vs. Shrewsbury Town.
Because there isn’t an inverted full-back moving into the pivot, there isn’t a need for one of the attacking #8s to drop alongside Winks; like Ndidi did last season. The space, with Pereira functioning as the RW IP, is now to fill the width in the second line of the 4–4–2, which McAteer did OOP.
It’s not surprising that Cooper wants to continue the 4–4–2 OOP shape, for most elite coaches it’s the most flexible way of defending. It provides a platform to high press (with two players capable of matching a CB duo), offers balance to sit in a mid-block, but can be pinched to create a compact low block if required.
On that note, I’d anticipate a mid-block into pressing trap OOP style next season. There were only a few high-pressing moments in the game, albeit fitness plays an integral role in that, I still don’t see City opting to press high unless they fix a few player profile(s) in the first two pressing lines.
Question(s), option(s), and possible solution(s)
When pressing, speed and structure are crucial components. There are a few forward candidates who can offer the correct solutions, but I anticipate Jamie Vardy still deserves minutes as the starting #9; he maybe isn’t fast enough to squeeze the space and initiate high presses.
You’re also instructing Mavididi to jump with the #9, stylistically his defensive involvement has tended to be in width, doubling up with his full-back in the last third (95th percentile) to stop crosses into the box, not as an initiator, central, or in the first line (42nd percentile).
For the second line, Ndidi is combative enough to play aggressively, but Winks could easily get caught high. Most coaches have asked him to sit and anchor the midfield, simply due to his inferior mobility — once bypassed, he’s likely to remain out of sequence.
In width, I’d suggest the Foxes are awaiting a solution to their current RW dynamic. With Fatawu (LW) you have a player with raw athleticism capable of pressing high (79th percentile), who may play as the right-sided option, but that leaves one winger still to sign.
As reports keep suggesting, Matías Soulé appears to be staying in Italy with a move to AS Roma slowly finalising…
But, as one door closes another opens. Fabrizio Romano (whose credibility is dwindling with each transfer window), and Sky Sports have stated that Reiss Nelson is high on the list of players Leicester City is monitoring…
As a data profile, he ranks highly for tackles made in the attacking third (86th percentile), which could aid a side looking to press high, with ample games played on both wings and is importantly right-footed. Versatile, creative, homegrown, and a sizeable skill ceiling.
That said, I’m still hesitant about whether he’s the right player for this season, for purely financial reasons.
His rumoured £100,000 p/week salary is heavily inflated, and even if the club could negotiate a wage split (%) with Arsenal of 50/50, is not possible under the current limitations. Or if it is, shouldn’t be utilised on a fairly unproven 24-year-old.
Away from the financial predicament, it’s a profile that not only fixes the OOP structure, and the potential of a higher press but also a solution to the winger composition in-possession.
There are still a lot of unanswered questions going into the Premier League season, but it was a lot of fun to watch and analyse Leicester City’s first game (in front of fans) under Steve Cooper and hopefully has outlined the structural similarities, even if the ideologies have changed.
For the Palermo game on Friday night, I will be keeping a keen eye on the structural patterns I’ve highlighted in this article, to see if that’s the approach the club will be taking. Because, at this stage of pre-season, anything can happen.
