http://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/talking-reds/analysis-a-case-for-the-defence In this week's Talking Reds, Daniel Rhodes offers a statistical breakdown of Liverpool's defensive duties so far this season... Brendan Rodgers' Liverpool side has received a lot of praise recently for their performance levels, their results and, more often than not, for their attacking prowess. If you want to see goals, then Liverpool is the team to watch. If you want cagey, tactical chess matches, with very few chances, but defensive solidity and a heart rate lower than 200 beats per minute, Liverpool is the team to avoid. Commentators and analysts are salivating over the free-flowing football, the movement, the number of chances and the volume of goals we score; they are, however, also just as predictable when it comes to our defence - our weak link. Note the word 'defence' rather than 'defending'. I think there is a subtle, but crucial, difference. One area of football is often just a consequence of the other. The debate seems to want to isolate the three areas of the team into single units of footballing currency: defence, midfield, attack. While the attack can dine out on the lavish adjectives being thrown at them, the defenders need to scrimp and save before they can even dream of sitting at the same table of excellence. But is this fair? Not really. It is harsh. And it ignores the crucial dynamics that exist within teams. The key point is exposure: our defence is exposed far more often than other teams, because we commit so many players forward in attack. This doesn't make the individual component parts weak, it just means their jobs are harder than that of a centre-back or full-back playing in a team that insists on two banks of four players protecting the goal. In attack Only Manchester City (68) have scored more goals than this Liverpool side so far this season (66). The drop off to third is also fairly significant (18), with Arsenal and Chelsea having scored 48. The same two sides top the chart for the number of goals scored inside the penalty area: MCFC (54); Liverpool (50); AFC (43); CFC (38). Again, with goals from outside the area, the trend continues: LFC (16); MCFC (14); EFC (12). Shots on target (SOT) involve the same two teams, but this time Liverpool top the chart with (175) from 26 games or 6.7 attempts hitting the target per game; Manchester City have recorded (154) from 25 games or 6.16 per game. There's also a subjective metric called 'clear cut' or 'big chances'; Liverpool top that table by some margin: LFC (76); MCFC (61); AFC (56); THFC (52); MUFC (43). In defence At the back we have conceded 1.23 goals per game this season, which ranks eighth in the division. Not good enough if you want to be up there with the best, challenging for the title; however, the overall picture changes when you look at the home and away split. At home, we have the second best defence in the league: having conceded 0.69 goals per game. Away from Anfield, we're down in 15th place, after conceding 1.77 goals per game. This figure is slightly skewed by fixture difficulty at this point in the season. We have played all the big sides (Man City, Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs and Everton) away from home, and most of them still have to visit Anfield. Another way of measuring goals scored and conceded is 'goals supremacy' (the net goals we have scored and conceded). This is where it starts to emerge about the open nature of games involving Rodgers' Liverpool. We rank second in the league with +1.31 goals per game (+2.23 at home (2nd) and +0.38 away (5th). The crucial aspect of this argument, however, is the total goals per game: Liverpool matches average a total of 3.77 goals; at home, perhaps surprisingly, that drops slightly to 3.62 but rises away from home to 3.92. This is highest goals-per-game rate in the whole league, and suggests to me at least, that it is deliberate. Rodgers wants matches involving Liverpool to be as open as possible, with more chances, more end-to-end football, and hopefully, more goals. But a direct consequence of this will be the exposure this approach puts on the individual defenders. When you commit players forward in attack, once you lose the ball in transition, defensive players can find themselves in situations where opposition attackers are running at them in 1 v 1, or even, 1 v 2 overloads. This is a very different context, and exposes the individual a lot more, than if they're part of a defensive unit that sits deep in numbers. One way to try and measure this is the amount of defensive errors a team makes. Manchester City, Stoke, Spurs and Norwich top the 'errors leading to a goal' table with nine each; followed by Liverpool and Villa with eight. It is interesting to note that the best teams in terms of making the fewest errors are Crystal Palace with one and Hull City, who are the only team not to make an error leading to a goal all season. Does this indicate that their defences are less exposed than maybe Manchester City or Liverpool? A similar pattern emerges when looking at 'errors leading to a shot', where again Liverpool (31), Arsenal (26) and Man City (20) occupy three of the 'top' four places in this unwanted league table. Again, the bottom two sides are Crystal Palace (six) and Hull City (with just three defensive errors all season). Conclusion Is this cast iron evidence that attacking teams will commit more defensive errors because their defences are more exposed? No. But it is an area that requires further investigation. One reason is that this particular metric is flawed because it only measures errors made with the ball; and highlights the difficulty in assessing defenders and defending. It's easy to heap praise on attacking players, especially when they play within a system that places its focus on going forward in numbers, and we can measure their progress with goals, shots, assists, through balls and key passes. And of course, if we can reduce the number of individual errors - both on and off the ball - that will only improve our away form (we can't really improve at Anfield, as we're close to perfection). Nevertheless, the debate isn't as simple as: our is attack is superb, our defence is suspect. Our defence is suspect, because of the way we attack. One is a consequence of the other, and not only that, but if we enjoy creating so many good quality chances, then we might have to deal with our defence looking exposed from time to time. The whole sport is a mixture of risk versus reward: some teams, like Crystal Palace and Hull City, don't commit many players forward, thus reducing their potential risk of conceding because they remain compact and defend as a unit (rather than two centre-backs and a full-back up against two strikers and an advanced midfielder). Conversely, teams like Manchester City and Liverpool regularly try and overload the opposition, taking far more risk in the hope of greater rewards - more goals. Not only that, but once we're winning 1-0 or 2-0, ultra-attacking teams don't let up, they try and score again and again. This can only be a positive mindset to develop long-term, as the game against Fulham demonstrated; even though we made one or two individual errors, the team knew it had goals in it. Against Arsenal at home, we could easily have sat back once we went 2-0 up, but rather than try and keep it compact, tight, defending as a unit and reducing our risk, we went for the jugular, ignoring the potential of losing a clean sheet, in the search for more goals. It worked, brilliantly. It will continue to work; however, it will also continue to leave the defenders exposed to tougher situations than many defenders experience, and for that, they deserve credit and appreciation, rather than any criticism.
I think we do over emphasise how bad we are at the back. I think we underestimate how bad we are on the road. We play differently home and away and i think personally the next step is to improve our toughness on the road more than anything (assuming we maintain home form)
One thing this article misses out on is set pieces. How many goals have we conceded and how many individual errors have we made following set pieces? I do think work on defending set pieces will help out a lot. We concede a lot of goals in second half's of games when we are already 3, 4 or 5 goals up. If we keep the ball better as the game goes on and take more control in general we will concede less and avoid some stress.
need a goalie who commands his area, may help defenders out in making better decisions,as not excusing them but half the time they are in situations where they think goalie will come for that. we was quite good doing zonal marking under rafa, but they only highlighted when the ****er didn't work, not when it did lol, option? they vocal enough at the back as well?
We were a disaster with zonal marking under Rafa. I remember one of our players sprinting a serious distance and sliding to put the ball out for a throw in by the corner flag instead of a corner because our players obviously feared corners. I dont think our center backs are the issue at all. Our full backs (Cissokho and Johnson) do not close down crosses well enough leaving us to exposed from crosses. I think mainly we just need to make sure every one does their bit defensively, and if any players dont we say goodbye to them.
I thought we were pretty good at zonal marking. The English media were quick to devalue it because they simply didn't understand it. When a goal is conceded by man marking, it's easier to blame someone. When the same happens with zonal marking, everyone attacks the system because they don't understand which man should be marking. Carragher made the same point in that we could spot who is at fault in zonal marking but regular fans and "pundits" wouldn't. Cissokho has been very good defensively in my opinion. Full backs are a problem even when Johnson and Enrique return. Silly individual errors are costing us which is down to the personnel but isn't helped by the lack of protection in front of us.
this is a good point. here is a thought. LFC have 3 phases of play (in theory) LFC in possession and attacking... split CB's.. gerrard as regista... attacking full backs LFC in transition. the 3 guys at the back needs to stop goals until others sprint back. this is gerrard skertl and a.n.other LFC in defense... everyone is in position. full backs stop crosses, midfielders shield. etc etc. so.. where do we concede the goals? are we really conceding goals in the transition phase or are we conceding in the third category? I think a lot of goals are going in in the defense phase. everyone is back and defending but the goal still goes in. be it a set piece or a cross not cut out etc. am i right in this? What examples of goals conceded are there in transition and are any down to gerrard? (i can think of two where players jumped out of his way) The goals i can think of we conceed are in transition form winning the ball and transitioning to attack... ie. playing it about, passing into midfield where its lost and too many players have rushed forward prematurely.
Our ideal defence this season would have been something like Johnson - Skrtel/Toure - Sakho/Agger - Enrique Lucas We started the season with this and kept clean sheets in 1-0 wins against Stoke, Villa and Man Utd Then we lost Johnson which messed us up a bit (Wisdom in or 3 CBs) Then we lost Enrique Then we lost Lucas Then we lost Agger The we lost Sakho Cissokho and Johnson need replacements, plus recplacement/competition for Lucas. Our CBs are ok if fit Overall we only had our best defensive line up for about 3 games so we've done well with the score more goals than you tactic
Actually I remember us having one of the best defensive records from set pieces under Rafa after the initial wobbly phase of getting used to zonal marking. The flaws of zonal marking and squad rotation were two things Sky, The S*n and The Daily Mail used to perpetuate constantly until they became the norm in English football. Don't fall for the myth, zonal marking makes sense when used correctly.
I don't think our defence is as bad as people make out. We have suffered from injuries meaning a inconsistent back four (in terms of personnel, not form) as well as a lack of protection from midfield. Sure, a couple of defensive positions could be stronger but I'm happy with the CB's we have ATM including Toure despite his couple of recent howlers. The FB positions could be stronger but I don't think we have conceded that many as a result of poor players in these positions, its more a positional thing which is directed by the manager; push high up the pitch, CB's pull wide and HM drops into the space.
At the beginning of the season, many of our conceded goals where from your transition phase: where we were easily ghosted past in midfield by counter attacks. Lucas and Gerrard in particular were too easy to bypass and therefore knocked out of the transition phase. You will notice that now with better understanding and discipline in his position, Gerrard isn't as easy to bypass, although he does tend to get caught out occasionally. With Coutinho now playing central and working hard in defensive duties too, we have seen this less. Also with Sterling as a regular starter now, we benefit from his brilliant defensive work ethic (his tracking back is very good). Your 3 phases however doesn't consider variables such as flukes: deflections nor individual errors: a Mignolet flap, an out of position player, Toure, etc. It is mainly through individual errors that we have been conceding of late.
Set pieces bug me. The main reason for swapping Reina for Migs as far as I can see is for his aerial presence. In effect, him being in goal can relieve the pressure on the defenders by claiming or clearing the ball from in and around the six yard box but we seem to be conceding more.
We're guilty of making the most errors which lead to a goal or shot (in the league). This is down to personnel in my opinion - not enough ability or concentration levels.
Not disagreeing with you for the fun of it (although it may seem like it!) but surely it should be the other way around. The defence should be relieving pressure off of the keeper. Migs probs has zero confidence in his back line who can't defend a high ball to save their lives. Cannot wait for Sakho to get back and get a partner alongside him.
That'll be stats, I use my eyes I think the style we play (keep ball at all costs) will result in us having more "most errors which lead to a goal or shot" anyway.
At set-pieces you don't get much choice where the ball is going The keepers as a clear height advantage because he can use his hands so why would you not want you keeper to claim the ball?
We look very poor at the back when Toure and Cissokho are both playing but for me Mignolet is not very convincing either, he flaps at nearly every cross that comes near him and I think hes very slow sometimes to come out.
If it reaches the keeper then sure. But if not, we need players who can actually defend and I have lost faith in Skrtel and Agger in that respect. But at least with Agger, he can still play with intelligence and bring the ball out of defence, and we have a ready made replacement for him.
The dodgy pass backs and Skrtel's attempted clearance against Fulham are examples of unforced errors that we make and nothing to do with the style - just poor decision making and lack of intelligence.
