it is strange because it goes against Rodgers' philosophy and against the mentality we've showed in our fantastic games against Arsenal, Everton, Tottenham, United, City (first half) and more than a handful others. It rears its ugly head when we are leading. Did so with Stoke, Cardiff, Swansea, WBA, Hull, Fulham, Sunderland, West Ham, City (2nd half), and now Norwich. On too many an occasion we've adopted it and in all of them we've conceded at least one. What's up with inviting pressure in our defensive third? Norwich apparently outpassed us 151 to 114 in the respective attacking third, whilst we outpassed them 157 to 50 in the defensive third . Oh, yeah and we out-clearanced them 53 to 9 (clearance being the ugly bastard child of tackling and intercepting) We should be fu*king doing that to Norwich, putting them under pressure, not the other way around. Like we did it to Everton, Arsenal, Tottenham and the rest, in a compact combative system. So, why sit back? To conserve energy? So that we may reorganise in attack anew if we concede? How about continue to push up until the end to begin with? We don't have the personnel for it either. For me, from our CBs, only Agger has ice in his veins and inspires me with confidence in that situation. In these situations, we can't keep possession and control the game in the attacking third, as we were supposed to be doing with the diamond system. Gerrard ends up pinning himself way back, the 2 CMs in front of him do the same, and in so doing Coutinho is left isolated up front, the attack marooned. Of our 16 top pass combos, none involved Coutinho as giver or receiver. Stretched in shape and will. Here is to full-fledged balls-to-the-wall performances v Chelski and Palace and not seeing that crooked a*se sh*te no more this season or the next.
The reasons for doing it are perfectly obvious: 1. You retain the ball 2. You take the 'heat' out of the play - don't give them momentum 3. Your attacking mids and forwards can take their defence for a walk - tiring them without expending too much energy yourself 4. You enhance their tension that you may suddenly spring forward in attack 5. You put the crowd and hopefully the minds of their defenders to sleep. There's just a few! Now the tactic is very effective. It lies at the heart of virtually every Liverpool European away performance since the days of Shanks. The risks were made clear today. However, the type of attacks and the number of them we mount is high octaine. Now matter how fit and how conditioned our players are we cannot sustain that level throughout the match.
How can it be 'very effective' if we've always conceded by it and constantly flirted with disaster? And so would've happened on many occasions if it weren't for our attack pulling rabbits out of hats... Your points make sense on paper. I'm sure Arsenal came to Anfield with a similar 5-pointer. But personnel matter, as does philosophy. Our is to attack, we just aren't cut for it. Italians used to do it very well, catennaccio they called it, but then they have the technical as well as psychological nous for it. Tactically as well, Brendan is not a Mourinho, a Trappatoni or a Herrera is he?
I think he's quite good tactically - changing the personnel or system depending on the opponent - but I've also mentioned on the board that our second halves are a completely different style of play to the first half. We do sit back and try to soak up the pressure to hit them on the counter. We're very good at the countering part. When we invite them on, we can exploit the space behind them and often score goals in the second half from it. What we're not too great at is the soaking up the pressure part... Not sure why you're such a staunch defender of Agger, by the way, as I think he's quite an average defender who would offer us nothing else in this style of play. Skrtel and Sakho I like, but not as a pairing. We still need a real leader back there. I would play either one of them with a commanding CB to run that defense. Agger isn't that defender and Toure hasn't turned out to be right either. I would sell Agger in the summer and buy a leader at the back which would help this style of play. It can work very well, as Dave mentioned. Actually, thinking a little more about it, Sturridge is vital to playing in this manner as his hold up play is vastly under rated. He's very good at it meaning we can soak up the attacks and launch a fast ball out to him to be held up and offloaded to Suarez or Sterling. We miss this part of him - he's always an outlet when we're deep.
For me our issue was obviously with 3/4 players 1. Skertl, Allen, Suarez all worked real hard. Flanagan and sahko did ok but they take risks with silly passes. 2 glen Johnson is a lazy fr 3. Lucas couldn't get to the pitch of it at all 4. Coutinho and sterling.... Sorry cos for 20 mins they killed but f me you are in a front 3 why are you so deep and simply not closing and pressing anymore. I felt this was where we lost it. We just dropped off and let them have it and stopped any pressing. We briefly picked it up at 2-1 and dropped off again I didn't get it at all The passing it about is fine... No issue but the total lack of intensity was wrong and you cannot do what we did today... If you play Suarez there you want him coming deep and the other two getting behind. We had NO direct ball and frankly I saw numerous occasions we kept on passing and passing when 4/5 Norwich players are out of the game pressing and no forward pass came to kill them we just needed a few direct longer passes into the inevitable spaces. Anyway intensity is the missing word v city coutinho was sliding in pressing closing down.... Here he wasn't.... He does this an awful lot
No Rodgers is Rodgers. He's seen how the other guys operated and how effective they have been. He's also seen how their tactics have been countered. He's now developing further his own tactics that others will have to try and figure out and then counter. Look back at our results and you'll find that we haven't conceded too often when playing a retentive part of the game. Most goals against us have been scored when our defence has been lefy exposed.
Coutinho's role today was AM again, as Gerrard Allen and Lucas were supposed to do the tackling, so no fault of Coutinho on that - he was occupying the right spaces according to the game plan, but with no reward. I agree though, the game plan should entail pressing from all, and for that the formation must be fielded in more compact fashion, be it 433 or diamond. Can't agree about the passing it around in the back non-stop. Done for killing time, I guess, right, but we lose rhythm that way and give the opponent a good grip of the turf imo.
Our passing at the back didn't result in mingolet dropping a clanger not Johnson standing off hiding and allowing a cross in while Flanagan failed to jump for resulting header.... Nope passing it didn't cause those issues Surrendering midfield and defending too deep to allow so many balls to come in caused it . Frankly aside from a few instances that players put bad balls back to sahko like Flanagan back pass or that ball in the air to him.... Really our issue was a break down in our game than us being somehow found out No intensity
So why were we string 5 across midfield and not pressing with the two young lads then? Cos they didn't, they occupied space but didn't push, we need the intensity
I like Agger because he's an elegant defender, calm, genuinely good on the ball, and intelligent. I recognise his weaknesses, his too-minimalistic defending, but he's done quite well this year. Counterattacking from a platform of defensive-third tiki-taka - I'm aversive to it, but I kinda get the exploration of space behind the high pressing opponent. A curious case of becoming a victim of our own poison there. I bet many a team we smashed with that aggressive high-pressing sought to exploit our spaces pre-match. But there were no spaces for them to exploit, as our pressing was all in sync and the formation was fielded tight. But counterattacking from a platform of last-ditch panicked clearances - that, I cannot begin to accept as LFC tactics.
The retentive game (nice name btw, coinciding with my bladder's feelings when we play like that) has resulted in us conceding plenty of goals, Dave. We're stronger defensively when we have control of the midfield. That's my impression. Maybe I get arsed to tally the goals for you tomorrow.
Passing where we do is fine.... If you've an attacking motive. We had no pass most of the time but look at Suarez goal sterling made the run that Flanagan found. We need more out ball and intent, passing it to see out a game after 20 mins is not right
Sure, agree. Sakho passed to Flano, Flano to Sterling, on to Suarez, a flowing direct vertical move. I applaud Flano for not tikitaking it back to defence, but finding Sterling.
Oh yes and btw, if Rodgers is learning from the legends of the game in developing the 'retentive' tactics of 'relaxed' passing it about at the back... let's remember one key thing: Only in 1993 did FIFA enact the rule whereby a goalkeeper can't handle a backpass.
Now I know I'm old (comparatively) and getting older but I think your wrong. Most of the goals scored against us have not been as a result of trying to retain the ball. Those that have are due to the failure of an individual player.
You are sounding more like Kenny. Attack from minute 1 until the final whistle blows. It just doesn't work!! It looks good and excites the crowd but ultimately you run out of puff.
If maintaining an attacking gameplan throughout a match is physically impossible (not so, we've done many a time this season), it still doesn't mean we'll have to revert to closing ourselves in our defensive third.
The nearest that Liverpool have ever come to an all out attacking style since 1966 was under Kenny's 2nd spell. Under Rodgers we play sustained sessions of attack. On a seperate issues. What's the Soca scene loke in Toronto. I know you have a big Trini and Bajan population so I imagine it should be good Played some Soca on the Music Thread tonight!
Roy Evans was quite attacking, in fact I'd say the football then was more attack minded than under Kenny in his second spell.
Attacking football without discipline is another headache in its own right. Under Kenny, we were too direct and frantic (no wonder we thumped the woodwork 30 odd times). Fortunately we saw only glimpses of attacking chaos this season, e.g. when we were taking 433 on the road, Fulham, WBA etc. Then, BR asserted the diamond system for the away games and gave structure to the midfield. To your question: certainly, Caribbeans and Trinis esp have a large presence. That's a main reason why Toronto black ain't the same as Cleveland or Detroit black. The Caribbean folk here also have their own annual carnival and festival which is quite well-followed in addition to plenty of clubs and venues.
