Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours 2016/2017

corwill · 12-09-2016 08:22PM

mormank wrote: »

We didn't just want to win that game, we wanted to blow Chelsea away. Crazy approach to take against a Mourinho side really. He thrives off of nullifying teams that try to play football.

That's not how I remember it at all. Up until Ba's goal, it was tight, tense but relatively controlled by us, I thought. The game turned on an individual error. Had to get forward in the second half, yet another individual error let us down.

~Rebel~ · 12-09-2016 08:26PM

corwill wrote: »

That's not how I remember it at all. Up until Ba's goal, it was tight, tense but relatively controlled by us, I thought. The game turned on an individual error. Had to get forward in the second half, yet another individual error let us down.

Yes it was still a tight contest, but our whole team was pushed forward. Our most defensive players were right by the halfway line, and rarely deeper than the edge of the centre circle. We weren't breaking through, but the bulk of the game up till Ba's goal was being played in their half.

razorblunt · 12-09-2016 08:31PM

corwill wrote: »

That's not how I remember it at all. Up until Ba's goal, it was tight, tense but relatively controlled by us, I thought. The game turned on an individual error. Had to get forward in the second half, yet another individual error let us down.

And Sahko missed a bloody good chance from a corner just before that too.
Chelsea started time wasting from their first kick out, still can't believe the ref just let them at it. Schwarzer (it wasn't Cech right?) got booked eventually.

~Rebel~ · 12-09-2016 08:35PM

razorblunt wrote: »

And Sahko missed a bloody good chance from a corner just before that too.
Chelsea started time wasting from their first kick out, still can't believe the ref just let them at it. Schwarzer (it wasn't Cech right?) got booked eventually.

We should have been delighted with that though, and been doing the same. If they were happy with a draw, why leave yourself open?

corwill · 12-09-2016 09:20PM

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Yes it was still a tight contest, but our whole team was pushed forward. Our most defensive players were right by the halfway line, and rarely deeper than the edge of the centre circle. We weren't breaking through, but the bulk of the game up till Ba's goal was being played in their half.

We probably had been sucked forward a little more than was strictly ideal at the point of, well, you know, but we had been a long, long way from the free wheeling anarchy typical of our run up to that day. I really don't feel we had the personnel to set up for a complete shut out and just invite them on to us that day.

NukaCola · 12-09-2016 09:23PM

A lot of people to this day complain about our "approach" in that Chelsea game, but I have no idea why. Chelsea sat back a lot, never really threatened, it wasn't as if they were countering our attacking play and catching us out......our approach was fine as Chelsea weren't hurting us anywhere, that may have changed 2nd half but an individual error was our undoing, our approach wasn't the biggest issue.....

Our strongest asset was our attack, we conceded 50+ goals that season, it would not have been wise to sit back and do something we were unable to do effectively, we had trouble defending but we were electric in attack........personally it's a no win situation.....play defensively, something we never done under Rodgers, and lose you'll have lads annoyed we didn't just "go for it", play our normal game and attack ad lads will complain why didn't we just sit back.....just one of those things.....

~Rebel~ · 12-09-2016 09:33PM

NukaCola wrote: »

A lot of people to this day complain about our "approach" in that Chelsea game, but I have no idea why. Chelsea sat back a lot, never really threatened, it wasn't as if they were countering our attacking play and catching us out......our approach was fine as Chelsea weren't hurting us anywhere, that may have changed 2nd half but an individual error was our undoing, our approach wasn't the biggest issue.....

Our strongest asset was our attack, we conceded 50+ goals that season, it would not have been wise to sit back and do something we were unable to do effectively, we had trouble defending but we were electric in attack........personally it's a no win situation.....play defensively, something we never done under Rodgers, and lose you'll have lads annoyed we didn't just "go for it", play our normal game and attack ad lads will complain why didn't we just sit back.....just one of those things.....

corwill wrote: »

We probably had been sucked forward a little more than was strictly ideal at the point of, well, you know, but we had been a long, long way from the free wheeling anarchy typical of our run up to that day. I really don't feel we had the personnel to set up for a complete shut out and just invite them on to us that day.

I definitely don't think we needed to be sitting back, but we could have been just a bit more measured, so we wouldn't be hit on the break quite so easily.
I always come back to this, but the position Gerrard is in when he loses the ball, that area of the field shouldn't be your last line of defence. If the split CB's were just a little deeper and a little closer to him, someone could have gotten across. But we were all pushed forward like it was the last 10 minutes of a must win game. Could have certainly been more contained while still being the team on the front foot - there's a balance to it.

12-09-2016 09:36PM

NukaCola wrote: »

............

Our strongest asset was our attack, we conceded 50+ goals that season, it would not have been wise to sit back and do something we were unable to do effectively, we had trouble defending but we were electric in attack........personally it's a no win situation.....play defensively, something we never done under Rodgers, and lose you'll have lads annoyed we didn't just "go for it", play our normal game and attack ad lads will complain why didn't we just sit back.....just one of those things.....

Live by the sword & die by the sword

It was gutting to not win the PL that season but the finishing position was still a fair tad of an overachievement.

That accepted, Gerrard as more or less last man back and and miscontrolling the ball passed back to him was the stuff of nightmares. The slip exacerbated it.

With all our attacking strength we never really threatened Chelsea's goal in the first half and they had some lad at centre back that I'd never heard of and don't think I've seen him since, I thought going into that game even if they parked the bus we'd have too much for them but they weren't that far off ourselves in the table iirc. That's football.

12-09-2016 09:38PM

~Rebel~ wrote: »

........that area of the field shouldn't be your last line of defence. ......

100% agree.

If you were coaching under 9s you'd go spare if they did that. Well they all just follow the ball anyway so maybe u11s :pac:

NukaCola · 12-09-2016 09:43PM

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I definitely don't think we needed to be sitting back, but we could have been just a bit more measured, so we wouldn't be hit on the break quite so easily.
I always come back to this, but the position Gerrard is in when he loses the ball, that area of the field shouldn't be your last line of defence. If the split CB's were just a little deeper and a little closer to him, someone could have gotten across. But we were all pushed forward like it was the last 10 minutes of a must win game. Could have certainly been more contained while still being the team on the front foot - there's a balance to it.

We weren't being hit on the break though, and I'm open for correction here but when Gerrard received the ball, Ba was the only opposing player in 30+ yards.....we pushed up because Chelsea were so deep for that play, Gerrard was going to take it and spray it forward but slipped, yea it should probably never have happened but I dont remember us being gung-ho and irresponsible, unfortunately you cannot plan for mistakes, CB pushing up after a ball is squared accurately to a player while no-one was being pressed is not some crazy kamikaze play IMO....

dogbert27 · 12-09-2016 09:44PM

Always remember Gerrard rushing up to Mourinho to try and get the ball back quickly for a throw in at 0-0. I was thinking wtf are you doing?

It's 0-0, it's perfect, if they want to waste time fantastic!!

As Rebel said, they played the first half from kick off as if it was the last ten minutes of a must win game.

NukaCola · 12-09-2016 09:50PM

Every one of those games was must win though......yea we could afford one draw but there's nothing to say had we drawn against Chelsea we would have won the remaining games......and as for "playing from kick off as if it was the last ten minutes of a must win game" that was pretty much how we played every game in fairness.....

~Rebel~ · 12-09-2016 09:51PM

NukaCola wrote: »

We weren't being hit on the break though, and I'm open for correction here but when Gerrard received the ball, Ba was the only opposing player in 30+ yards.....we pushed up because Chelsea were so deep for that play, Gerrard was going to take it and spray it forward but slipped, yea it should probably never have happened but I dont remember us being gung-ho and irresponsible, unfortunately you cannot plan for mistakes, CB pushing up after a ball is squared accurately to a player while no-one was being pressed is not some crazy kamikaze play IMO....

Far as im concerned, defence is all about managing risk. There should always be a redunancy in place to account for the unexpected. If, in your half, at any time of the game, it only takes one guy to be beaten, then you've failed utterly.

You can't set up under the expectation that noone will **** up, ever. I mean, just between the liverpool game and the Manchester derby this weekend we have half a dozen glaring events of human error. But you can legislate for that by positioning your players so that a backup has time to have an effect. Maybe he'll get done too, but at least it's an obstacle.

Having Gerrard in a position right in the centre of the field, with the other CB's too far wide to be able to help completely negates their existance. In that moment, they're utterly pointless on the field. They're not offering a better out-ball than they would offer if they were 5 yards closer and 5 yards deeper, and they're not offering any defensive help whatsoever. Any way you look at it, it was poor positioning, with no benefit coming from it.

IMO if you're splitting your CB's, with the fullbacks high, and your CM dropping between, the CB's should still never be wider than lines marking the edge of the box. Too far wide, and they might as well not exist.

Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't have gone on the front foot to win, but in any game, at any time, that defensive positioning is the wrong way to setup. We should been attacking, but with our defence set up to actually be able to help each other out.

dogbert27 · 12-09-2016 09:56PM

NukaCola wrote: »

Every one of those games was must win though......yea we could afford one draw but there's nothing to say had we drawn against Chelsea we would have won the remaining games......and as for "playing from kick off as if it was the last ten minutes of a must win game" that was pretty much how we played every game in fairness.....

We had three games where we could afford one draw. It was about game management.

If you draw the game with Chelsea the probability was that you would win the remaining games.

We only drew with Palace because we kept pushing at 3-0 up for more goals as we needed 7 for a better goal difference.

We beat Newcastle at home in the last game as expected.

I'm sure Mourinho took great satisfaction in teaching his pupil a lesson.

jcsoulinger · 12-09-2016 10:01PM

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Far as im concerned, defence is all about managing risk. There should always be a redunancy in place to account for the unexpected. If, in your half, at any time of the game, it only takes one guy to be beaten, then you've failed utterly.
.

In this scenario the deepest out field player can never have the ball? Sounds logical

NukaCola · 12-09-2016 10:03PM

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Far as im concerned, defence is all about managing risk. There should always be a redunancy in place to account for the unexpected. If, in your half, at any time of the game, it only takes one guy to be beaten, then you've failed utterly.

You can't set up under the expectation that noone will **** up, ever.

Ok, lets manage risk here. Sakho has the ball, no-ones pressing. Sakho looks up and see's Gerrard and squares the ball perfectly. Ba's not really close to hurt Gerrard.

In this context all that could have happened was a slip or mis-control. It wasn't a common thing to be that high up and it wasn't a risky pass.

So yes, theres a risk, not huge risk being honest and yes you cant set up under the expectation that noone will **** up, but I dont think you can cover for every possible mistake either. You could make the same pass to Gerrard for the next 10 years and he'll never slip.......

I agree it should never happen, but sometimes they do, one of our CB's should be a bit deeper but they see a simple pass to Gerrard and think nothing of it......

NukaCola · 12-09-2016 10:06PM

dogbert27 wrote: »

We had three games where we could afford one draw. It was about game management.

If you draw the game with Chelsea the probability was that you would win the remaining games.

We only drew with Palace because we kept pushing at 3-0 up for more goals as we needed 7 for a better goal difference.

We beat Newcastle at home in the last game as expected.

I'm sure Mourinho took great satisfaction in teaching his pupil a lesson.

Gerrard doesn't slip and we get at least a point against Chelsea IMO, and that has nothing to do with our approach.

~Rebel~ · 12-09-2016 10:06PM

jcsoulinger wrote: »

In this scenario the deepest out field player can never have the ball? Sounds logical

No, thats not what im saying. Your deepest player (when in posession) should be wider so if they have the ball, they're a lower risk, meaning the higher up player can still get back to block the path to goal.

*
-*

*

----Our Goal

*'s are players. If either wide guy loses the ball, the CM has a chance to cut out the chance by running in an interception line. But if those positions are inverted, with the split CB's higher or equal, we're ****ed. Basically, try to have the direct line from you to goal be generally equal for all 3, so there's a chance to do something if one of those 3 ****s up. Soon as one of them starts to look in trouble, the redundancy can already be on the move.

dogbert27 · 12-09-2016 10:07PM

Re-watching the game from Saturday. Mane has incredible energy. Really missed him for the Burnley game.

NukaCola · 12-09-2016 10:09PM

~Rebel~ wrote: »

No, thats not what im saying. Your deepest player should be wider so if they have the ball, they're a lower risk, meaning the higher up player can still get back to block the path to goal.

*
-*
*
----Our Goal

*'s are players. If either wide guy loses the ball, the CM has a chance to cut out the chance by running in an interception line. But if those positions are inverted, with the split CB's higher or equal, we're ****ed. Basically, try to have the direct line from you to goal be generally equal for all 3, so there's a chance to do something if one of those 3 ****s up. Soon as one of them starts to look in trouble, the redundancy can already be on the move.

Yea, Gerrard was actually level with our CB's, he was more central though which killed us.....

~Rebel~ · 12-09-2016 10:10PM

NukaCola wrote: »

Ok, lets manage risk here. Sakho has the ball, no-ones pressing. Sakho looks up and see's Gerrard and squares the ball perfectly. Ba's not really close to hurt Gerrard.

In this context all that could have happened was a slip or mis-control. It wasn't a common thing to be that high up and it wasn't a risky pass.

So yes, theres a risk, not huge risk being honest and yes you cant set up under the expectation that noone will **** up, but I dont think you can cover for every possible mistake either. You could make the same pass to Gerrard for the next 10 years and he'll never slip.......

I agree it should never happen, but sometimes they do, one of our CB's should be a bit deeper but they see a simple pass to Gerrard and think nothing of it......

See you're looking at this specific incident as something to be predicted - i'm talking about all defending in football in general. Sure you can't expect that particular incident to occur, but if you set up to to expect one of those 3 to get into trouble at some stage, ever, you can be prepared. Change your scenario to Sakho not needing to square it to Gerrard - make it so he has to pass forward and across, and now suddenly Sakho is an option to come across and cover.

Even in general, a squared pass is always the one that gives trouble when a striker is sprinting and able to nip in, because they beat both men at once. Staggered positioning stops this happening.

NukaCola wrote: »

Yea, Gerrard was actually level with our CB's, he was more central though which killed us.....

Exactly. Had Gerrard been higher than the CB's like in my crude wee diagram, we have an option. but when they're in line, you're toast.

dogbert27 · 12-09-2016 10:15PM

~Rebel~ wrote: »

See you're looking at this specific incident as something to be predicted - i'm talking about all defending in football in general. Sure you can't expect that particular incident to occur, but if you set up to to expect one of those 3 to get into trouble at some stage, ever, you can be prepared. Change your scenario to Sakho not needing to square it to Gerrard - make it so he has to pass forward and across, and now suddenly Sakho is an option to come across and cover.

Even in general, a squared pass is always the one that gives trouble when a striker is sprinting and able to nip in, because they beat both men at once. Staggered positioning stops this happening.

Exactly. Had Gerrard been higher than the CB's like in my crude wee diagram, we have an option. but when they're in line, you're toast.

Yeah, it was the squared pass across the box from Lucas that allowed Vardy nip in on Saturday

Harry Palmr · 12-09-2016 10:49PM

Can't believe two and a quarter years later this is being discussed!

BorneTobyWilde · 12-09-2016 10:54PM

Klopp wants to be 1st unlike a lot of people here who want to be 4th .
It's great to have a manager who aims to be no 1 . If we fail then we get Champion league anyway by coming 2nd .

amber69 · 12-09-2016 10:55PM

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Can't believe two and a quarter years later this is being discussed!

Worst supporters in the world any others would be still celebrating Saturdays performance.

J Mysterio · 12-09-2016 10:58PM

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Can't believe two and a quarter years later this is being discussed!

That title run was some of the best football ive ever seen.

brevity · 12-09-2016 10:58PM

Thought it was an interesting discussion myself.

~Rebel~ · 12-09-2016 10:58PM

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Can't believe two and a quarter years later this is being discussed!

Ha, just be glad we're not talking about the facts speech!

12-09-2016 11:04PM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

It's great to have a manager who aims to be no 1 . If we fail then we get Champion league anyway by coming 2nd .

.... flawed concept.

Harry Palmr · 12-09-2016 11:05PM

Let's talk about Adam A Lama - Paul Joyce says he's going to get a new long term contract so he'll be worth about 50m by the end of the season when he goes to Man City.

Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours 2016/2017

Comments