The teething period of using 3 defenders at Leicester City

It seems bewildering to play a system that allows your two most valuable players, in a progressive sense, a respectively large amount of outcomes that require them to make a pass using their weaker-foot. This wasn’t intentional, and it might have been forced by Arsenal’s 3-4-3, regardless it caused the Foxes issues.

Another potential issue with the formation is how fragile it can be defensively. Your three centre backs need to have an awareness of where to position themselves in any given scenario, this was Söyüncü’s downfall. His inability to read danger as the left-sided centre back and Marc Albrighton inefficiency at covering as a left wing-back, was the reason Leicester City went behind.

When playing in a back four, if Söyüncü commits to a challenge and mistimes it, there’s Ben Chilwell ready to cover – as he’s positioned alongside him as a left-back. Even if Chilwell’s caught in transition, Jonny Evans is normally ready to provide additional defensive support. This isn’t as forthcoming in a back-three, especially when playing against a front three where every centre-back has a respective forward to deal with.

Overall, the “gamble” nearly paid off. Had Leicester City closed the game with a little more intensity and put the 10-men of Arsenal under additional pressure, Rodgers and the Foxes could have left The Emirates with three points. That wasn’t necessarily deserved, I feel a point was a fair reflection of the game. If Manchester United beat Aston Villa on Thursday evening, the Foxes will only have a one point safety net from fifth place.