Here's one plausible theory: Rodgers did not take Swansea too seriously and did not go for the vintage gameplan used in our previous home games because he had in mind testing a new type of setup especially made for our travels. He thought the experimental Plan B would prove valuable on (or at least provide valuable info for) our away fixtures. He probably thought that in our away games against tight opposition, (as Soton, Norwich, WestHam, Crystal Palace will probabaly be) we haven't been expressing our attacking flair forcefully enough, whilst the pressing, closing down and defence hasn't provided a good springboard forward anyway. So why not change it up for the road, go all out on attack and hope for last ditch defending. If it is too loose and wobbly, throw in Allen to reinforce... A scary proposition esp at home imo, and I hope I never see it again (at least in its pre-allen form) at anfield as we were already very effective playing a different way. I really don't think (i hope) we'll play like that against Spurs, City, Chelsea at home - as we'll hopefully go back to our vintage "rip'em strip'em" show. But on the road... the new strategy may come through better for us than the rigid predictable stuff we've been serving up at Fulham and WBA. Also, maybe Rodgers has been studying City and sought to emulate their deploying of Toure, centrally in a galloping free more advanced role, very similar to Hendo's on Sunday... Thus amplifying our flux forward. Unshackling Hendo and Sterling from some of their defensive duties on the road could prove effective, or disastrous. Imo, it cant' work without Allen, but BR may elect to see how we do with Sterling in the first half before contemplating change. We'll see if he sticks with it. The theory is interesting I believe.
We were excellent in the off the ball game, pressing, closing down, tackling, intercepting, against Arsenal and Everton. As you say, every player WAS then a defender. Sterling, Coutinho and Henderson especially harassed them out of the park, like hungry seagulls a toddler at the beach innocently muching on his crumpet. Cut to the Swansea game. A total change, little pressing, little tracking back, defence exposed. 'Why?' asks this fan. The theory offers an explanation.
You cant beat the good old "You score 3 we'll score 4!" philosphy! I love watching your style of football it is really refreshing and long may it continue.
I don't think BR changed too much of his usual game plan. If you look at the goals they scored -- penalty, deflected header, and edge of box screamer -- there wasn't too much we could have done defensively (skrtel was always going to give away a penalty, and it was a weak one, admittedly). I think he just wanted us to start explosively and continue to play with a high intensity as he has in other games. The fact that Suarez looked extremely tired towards the latter stages is a decent indicator of this.
I beg to differ, CCC. I think we adopted a very different approach from the compact springy counterattack scheme of the Arse and Bitter games. The game facts show it clearly. The CBs and Gerrards exposure and their total lack of tackles, the hole in the middle left by Hendo's and Sterling's foraying with less tracking back, Sterling total lack of tackles and advanced position, Hendo's central free role he's never enjoyed without Allen.... It was a distinctly different system, no question about it.
I can see why you think that but is that not just an artifact, a side-effect, of the side we played? BR knows the Swansea side inside out and I think his tactics reflected this inside knowledge. The lack of tackles by Gerrard and the centrebacks was, I think, out of BR's respect for the speed and fleetfootedness of the Swansea attackers. It's no shock that the lowest number of tackles were made by our slowest players. Stand off and don't commit yourself. If they had done they wouldn't have the speed to catch the attacker. The amount of times Swansea have had joy this way with the quickness and fast feet of Routledge and Dyer.
Rodgers had to adapt because all we had was Gerrard and Henderson in midfield. That team is set up to counter - it is incapable of controlling and dominating a game. That's why it looked so good against teams like Everton and Arsenal who left spaces to exploit, and it's why we struggled against West Brom, Villa, Fulham and Swansea. It's a temporary solution until the summer IMO - but Rodgers must start Allen in the next game else we'll be overrun in the midfield.
Could it not just have been a game where we just couldnt get tackles in? Im not sure BR for all his brilliance can decide how many tackles a player is going to do
Interesting theory that. I don't buy it was because he paid Swansea too much respect, while Arsenal and Everton none. I believe it was the opposite. He wanted to use Swansea as the guinea pig (not much respect there) to test this new gameplan for the road.
But Jimmy, knowing what you said (which I agree with) why didn't Brendan allow Swansea to entice us whilst we held compact lurking ready for the pounce? Why didn't he let Swansea do an Arsenal or Everton and shoot themselves in the foot? It was us who did. Swansea was not going to be Fulham or WBA - they do not sit deep and tight.
I think had we not concede a penalty, or got unlucky with a deflection, the game would've looked totally different and you probably wouldn't be saying that BR gave them too much respect. They didn't really score by carving us apart as we did to them, IMO. However, you might be right about the game plan for away games. We'll no doubt see if the same statistics are evident in our next away game.
Swansea have a different style now - they used to control possession but under Laudrup, he made them more direct and counter attacking therefore, we had to be the aggressors and it worked after we scored 2 early goals. But any real pressure on our midfield or defence and we still tend to crumble. Whilst we thrashed Arsenal and Everton by playing counter attacking football at it's finest, I maintain that our game against Spurs was our best performance because that was a game we truly controlled for 90 mins.
and that was a game with 3 CMs (Lucas, Allen, Hendo) at the expense of a forward (Sturridge injured). I wonder though why our counterattacking scheme (with 2 CMs) can't be morphed into an effective suffocating high-up blitzkrieg against teams that sit tight & back. If Rodgers just pushes the centre of gravity 15 yards ahead and played with a high line at the back... I understand that it would create spaces behind our defence for the opponent to exploit, but we have been exceptional and fast as hell off-the-ball with that system and wouldn't see our opponent getting much grip on the counter. Maybe Rodgers is not comfortable with implementing the high line offside trap?
That's another (welcome) headache for Brendan... Start Lucas? Maybe. Hence, drop Gerrard? No. Advance Gerrard? Maybe. Hence, drop Sterling? Uhmmm, maybe
