Chance for Leicester to establish themselves on European map

However, this article isn’t about the “if”, “but’s” and “maybe’s”, as pressing of an issue that seems to be for the entire Leicester City fan base, instead I want to dissect the tactical decision-making of the final game, specifically looking at Hamza Choudhury’s utilisation and what he facilitated by being another central midfielder.

First and foremost, it should be addressed that Rodgers use of Choudhury was at the expense of playing either Harvey Barnes or Ayoze Pérez in the hole behind the two strikers – Jamie Vardy and Kelechi Iheanacho. This could be seen as a negative change, and I agree that playing without a connecting player did neutralise Youri Tielemans’ impact. But, looking two-dimensionally, the change did have positive implications.

Naturally, the team setup in a 3-5-2. This is similar to the 3-4-1-2 of recent fixtures, but instead of the player in the whole (the 1), Rodgers dropped this player to sit alongside the central midfield duo, to form a triumvirate.

This allowed Leicester City two separate transitional formations; one for attacking and one for defending. In attack, the Foxes personnel facilitated a 4-3-3; Luke Thomas would slot into left-back and James Justin the right-back. The midfield would be composed of the central-midfield trio, and Marc Albrighton would push into an advanced right-wing position supporting Iheanacho and Vardy.

This is supported by Albrighton’s heat-map which was more advanced than his wing-back counterpart, Thomas. This isn’t to say every attack was formulated using the 4-3-3, a turnover in possession may result in Leicester City attacking in their “defensive formation”, but this was definitely a conscious decision from Rodgers – whilst also providing additional support for Wilfred Ndidi in regaining possession.