Mark Lawrenson: How Liverpool rise is built on defence Former Liverpool defender Mark Lawrenson expands on his TV analysis of how the Reds' improvement at the back is behind their rise up the Premier League table after they beat Southampton on Sunday to continue their push for a top-four place. People have spent a large part of this season waiting for Liverpool's new-look attack to click but it is their defence that has played a big part in the Reds' return to form. The 3-4-2-1 formation that manager Brendan Rodgers has adopted since the end of last year suits their fast attacking players but has given them solidity at the back too. please log in to view this image Liverpool have not become a defensive-minded team but that has given them a different way of winning games, compared to last season when their tactic was 'attack or bust' and they would concede goals but just look to outscore the opposition. They showed it against Southampton on Sunday in a game where they were not free-flowing going forward - they only had one shot at goal in the first 70 minutes - and came under a lot of pressure. They rode their luck a bit at St Mary's, especially with some of the decisions that went in their favour because Saints could have had at least one penalty. But their 2-0 win was their sixth clean sheet in a 10-game unbeaten run in the Premier League, and it is clear Rodgers can rely on his defence to win him points now too. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/31579588
I don't think we're playing too dissimilar to last season. We still get exposed and countered but we're better placed to deal with it. Instead of a back four that sit and defend, we only have three. Its means there are more legs in midfield to do the chasing and harassing. It also means that the exposed two plus HM (Gerrard) as become and exposed two plus a sweeper (Skrtel). The latter part is key IMO. A HM is the lead in that defensive setup, they react first and the others follow. That's not a good setup for how we were being countered. Having the sweeper rather than HM as changed the pro-activeness of the defence. Now, the two CBs react to how the game is going and the swepper is able to react to the other twos movement and cover the gaps. The defence is working almost like a midfield three that includes a DM.
Hmmm so our defence has been crucial in our recent up turn in form ... Who would have thought it ... But in all seriousness - the system suits us because it gets the best out of the players. Sakho and Can are the best defenders and they are able to attack with more intent and purpose. Skrtel is a liability in a back 2 but he's protected which allows him to attack balls with little risk. And he's been very good. Ibe and Markovic have done excellent jobs at wing backs - they've been solid defensively but it's their ability to carry the ball 30 odd yards at pace which is key to our attacks. Lucas and Allen have done solid jobs as the DM's as well. Credit to Rodgers for changing the system to improve us defensively but it doesn't mean that he doesn't need a defensive coach. The coaching element is still poor - look how poor we were without Sakho yday, which would suggest that using the right personnel is more beneficial than the system.
the fact is that last season we had say a 4-1-2-1-2 formation so the extra man was higher up the pitch and we had gerrard stnading between two CBs who were split apart and gerrard is a ball watcher and not a good tracker. This year we have plonked can at RCB to play the ball and have 3 men standing at the back. as a result when we have the ball we have 3 guys who will track and run back... if they do it right (saints cut the back 3 up early on yesterday) With 3-4-2-1 just say.... the "wing backs" are not wing backs but actually more wide midfielders (not the same as wingers) they are not quite as far forward as wingers in attack unless ball is on their side so the midfield has 4 strung across. In short its not just defense but the fact that we have had for a while (except for leciester game when gerrard played for lucas?) 11 men who can run and 11 men who do run and track runs and play honestly. Add to that the fact without a squarez we have moved from out and out stiker to at least a wide forward (stelring/coutinho... AND when defending both wide men fill in at the wings. In effect when we don't have it we have a 5-4-1 set up which is very defensive. My view would be LFc's biggest dnager right now is the transition period between attack and defense and where we lose the ball. If we have players being fancy in our own half we get in trouble. If we lose it high up we are most of the time funneling back fast enough to make it quite hard to get past. 5-4-1 was what Southampton came up against. when we attack its very much a case that both sterling and coutinho (if sturridge is up front) can move about and be hard to pick up. Coutinho in particular is very hard to mark without fouling. their movement allows the wide players get up there and allows the team get up the pitch as a whole. In general can and sahko have been close enough to skerlt to cover him and they are both fast players (sahko faster?) so they have been getting higher up the pitch when we have it so this also allows the gaps between our lines to be less and allow players to support each other. the contrast to before this system is the fact that our defensive line was way way too deep out of fear and players like jonhson, gerrard, and indeed baloetlli don't track back so a guy like coutinho gives up and doesn't either. 1. 11 men working 2. tighter lines 3. more pace at the back It all adds up to better performances.
May i suggest that sahko got injured on thursday and so lovern came in so I would say the three guys had only 48 hours to prepare at most for this game... prob only 24 really. Thats not to say tht obviously no plan b was ready for an injury However........ lets give them a bit of credit. its not just sahko out = mayhem.. its a lack of preparation time to get it right.... if we see utter chaos next Thursday then you can make the point about its all sahko more vociferously IMO. I saw the team get it down pretty quick v saints and by the end they were comfortable. who's t say v besiktas sahko won't be missed (all that much)
Think we looked awful defensively in the first half. Lovren obviously under huge pressure and Can moving to the left didn't help. Markovic was also poor and Rodgers made the correct call bringing Moreno on at HT. Think yeaterday we got lucky and if we were facing a Southampton of 3 months ago I think we'd have lost. Still, no coincidence that our defence has improved with Sakho in and allowing Skrtel to be the free man to win headers and cover rather than mark a player and get drawn out. Also no coincidence that with 2proper CMs and not just Gerard (an attacking midfielder) trying to defend we put the defence under less pressure each game.
Agreed - comment was merely tongue in cheek however it does still hold merit. Lovren was awful - not sure why we put him as RCB and moved Can to an unfamiliar LCB position. Lovren has played most of his career at LCB...? Strange. But we cannot have Skrtel and Lovren playing in the same defence - I know we were up against a high pressing team but the number of times we passed back to Migs brought back painful memories from earlier on the season. Lovren's pass completion was less than 70%.
Thats quite simple and logical if we STOP BEING BIASED AGAINST THE GUY. some facts. 1. Lovern has come on at RCB in last couple of gmaes and can has moved 2. Back in decement lovern was put at LCB v utd and got ripped up. 3. toure has barely kicked a ball since he came back form ANC. It is obvious to me that rodgers has thought about it and out Lovern in as his RCB (not johnson, you should be grateful guys) and asked can to play LCB as he's more mobile. Lovern for me is only really going to compete with skertl for that central role of the attacker of the ball. I cannot see him at RCB permenantly anyway. However.... he did "ok" he was not "awful2 but he was under pressure for his every move. Nobody is lambasting can for not having a great day but they are lovern.... thats bias. I AM NOT ADVOCATING ATTACKING CAN.... Think about it lads... just cos lovern was poor doesn't mean you write him off or whe'd have a very long list Markoivc... took his chance after being totally anonymous first half of year.. also sent off in cl and cost us. Can.. two injuries set him back... alot. sterling... big dip in form in first year... written of my many who then said ibe was it after one game and was far ahead of sterling Ibe.. written off for not being instant hit and suddenly stelring is light years ahead.. of a boy 2 years younger... now he's best thing since sliced bread Skertl.. can't defend Joe allne.. we all hate him yeah... well we do but as a reserve he's coming in and doing ok. Moreno... bloody awful in irst half of year at lb... so much so he was unpickable by rodgers who benched him for markovic at LWB. and the list would go on. we need to give lovern just a small slice of support and see if he can get it right... All i'm looking for is a decent solid display this thursday and looking up for the challenge of displacing someone for a place
I'm not happy that Lovren is failing and I'm certainly not wanting him to fail. But he's sh*t and always has been - nothing in career has suggested that he can make it at the top level. £20m for him is one of the worst signings this club has made, compounded by the fact that Rodgers wanted him to replace Sakho. Can at 20 years old has shown far more in his career than Lovren, which is why I will cut him some slack.
