The above conclusion by the author is disproven by our home form, where we attack with zest and yet we don't concede. We assert a psychological dominance from the start in most of the home games, except Villa recently. Against quick, aggressive, defensive setups however we often struggle throughout the pitch. Why?? How to address it?? These are the questions that nick at me most these days. This type of opponent doesn't allow us spaces to exploit, absorbs our momentum, asks tougher questions of our attack, makes us lose the ball, wears us down, gets us on the break... The analogy is we know how to break iron locks with a hammer, but steel locks... we don't know yet how to pick them.
can anything account for these... eg man city goal... the chance came from everyone chasing up the pitch attacking lucas included leaving two cbs exposed in transition. ming could have saved it.... but didn't. but it is a point that if lucas plays he might be ok with two cbs but they need gerrard and henderson and two full backs sprinting back. at the start gerrard would walk back so now coutinho is chasing. do we think its errors then?
this would be where cbs have it pass it forward into midfield, we lose it and cbs and gerrard are exposed as the are far apart....? i think pressing hurts us as we don't have the out ball to make some think?
We had the best defence in the league for 2 seasons on the trot under Rafa and zonal marking if I remember correctly, there was a period when the players were learning it that we looked bad but that system Rafa put in was superb and worked really well, I think your wrong here.
I think that in our winning form we are much more mobile as a team up and down the field. When we struggle, we stagnate forward and thus stagnate backward as well.
you mean there are not good runs made to pass to so we end up lumping it from keeper or making risky passes out to men who are marked?
Right, plus other offences that come from insisting in twisting plan A in order to fit an unsuitable situation B. How about develop a plan B instead... When we're killing it, we find space easily without stretching for too long a time, as we ping-pong the ball at a superior gear to our opponent. Hence, we're rarely on the backfoot even if we lose the ball. When we bluster, I find our frustration in attack gets the better of us and we lose our effective 'springy' shape, stretching for too long. We lose the ball more often due to having to think out our passes slower in less space, and furthermore we are in a less ideal shape to retrieve the ball i.e. on the backfoot. Barcelona, Bayern, Madrid, City handle the fussy patient defence best. They keep possession, their midfielders take on their marker, pivot, look patiently to pick out a smart pass. It can't be all zappy ping-pong when a team sits back (not even for Barca at their apex). You're bound to make plenty of errors that way and find yourself on the backfoot.
It's pretty simple... the more you attack, the more chance you have of conceding on the counter. That's why getting the balance is so important between attack and defence but is easier said than done. I do think that if we had a settled back 4, or even settled central pairing over the course of the season then the number of individual mistakes would reduce as you'd grow to be confident in your partner and know each others games. It was slightly annoying that when we had all 4 CB's fit, BR would still rotate trying to find a partnership or experimented with 3 at the back.
You really do after to laugh at some comments PS...sorry Flaps, but that bit is just plain ridiculous
I've actually thought we've been alright from set pieces this season? I know Mig is a bit flappy (and I'm being kind to him) but from a pure stats perspective, I'm sure we've probably conceded less from set pieces this year than in previous ones. One things for certain, we've looked far more dangerous from them ourselves this year than normal.
I think its more to do with the fact corners are much harder to defend than throw ins. Its a bit like saying a player that couldn't control the ball so he kicked the ball out for a throw in to stop it going out for a goal kick did it because they are terrified of the opposition goal kicks.
Prior to this season, I remember thinking we were the worst team when it came to attacking set pieces. This season, Gerrard's set pieces have been world class - before, he would struggle to get the ball past the first man and if it ever did, we had no one to attack it! For all of my criticism of Skrtel, he can at least attack the ball and he's a great asset in that sense.
Just found this to back up what you say - http://www.rafabenitez.com/web/in/blog/the-truth-about-marking-set-pieces/32/ "As Rafa said ..... it shows that it should not be the system that is blamed for conceding goals at set pieces but it will always depend on the determination, concentration and ability in the air of the players at the moment of delivery of the set piece." It was nice to see Jones so convincing in his punches out. And we need a few tall players who are good in the air!
I thought I was right, I remember us haing a good defensive record under Rafa and him proving a lot wrong with zonal marking not that they ever admitted it. I love zonal marking and think it is much better than man to man.
rafa's defensive record was good generally. he got savaged for being a tinkerer and bad at set piece cos the media wanted to have a go. it was not the truth the truth about rafa was only one full back going forward at a time, two holding midfielders and a tactical straight jacket leading to lower goals scored if rodgers want's the regista plus attacking full backs... you have to watch the transitions between defense and attack cos that's where the gaps teams play through come from. goals from set piece are honestly an issue. skertl holds, others let guys run. i'd rather a skrtel type defense than an agger or johnson loosy goosey fair play type defence.
