PODCAST: Chelsea 1 Liverpool 1 - Match Reaction & Caicedo discussion

Listened to most of it. May have missed it if you guys addressed it, but do any of you have a theory as to why we had so little of the ball? We had 35% possession which I saw is like the 4th least in a game ever under Klopp, and I think the games where we had so little in the past are all against Guardiola.

I have my opinion on the why and I posted it in the match thread, but I'm interested in what you guys think because it made this game particular.

On Nunez, I disagree. Him not playing is absolutely about defending. There is not a chance in a time when we are so vulnerable to the counter, that Klopp will favour a player that is worse at pressing/off ball than the other centre forward options, and crucially, that is way more prone to losing the ball and misplacing passes than the others. And that's a continuation of last year as well, it's not just since we switched to this inverted full back formation. I think Klopp thinks he just can't afford to play him often, too much of a tradeoff. 

In some ways, it's not his fault. If we had a wall of 4 CB's, plus Rodri, like City, plus had their ball conservation, this wouldn't be so much an issue, but we don't have this sort of security. Something will have to give there. Either he drastically improves or the setup does and we can insert him in there.

Loved Jules trying to rile Dave buy just gently dropping in ‘he’s no better than Suarez’. 
 

Gutted Dave didn’t bite. 

Think that's quite harsh on Trent for the goal. He's watching konate stepping out and they get lucky with the window of the offside trap on that one occasion. If he steps back to try and challenge and it still goes in, Trent would be crucified for playing him on.

@3 Stacks we set up deeper to try and nullify the wide overloads and it left the middle of the park too spread out. There was very little chance for interplay between our minds so we either gave it up or tried to kick it into wide channels to isolated players.

Until we made the subs we didn't have the legs and after it wasn't much better, although Nunez (and more obviously Elliott) helped.

7 minutes ago, Pidge said:

Think that's quite harsh on Trent for the goal. He's watching konate stepping out and they get lucky with the window of the offside trap on that one occasion. If he steps back to try and challenge and it still goes in, Trent would be crucified for playing him on.

That’s not the problem I had with it, I understand his positioning. As the ball drops though, he shows no desire to want to stop the lad from getting to the ball first, he leaves it to Alisson.

I want my right back diving in to at least try to stop the shot.

2 minutes ago, Brownie said:

That’s not the problem I had with it, I understand his positioning. As the ball drops though, he shows no desire to want to stop the lad from getting to the ball first, he leaves it to Alisson.

 

I want my right back diving in to at least try to stop the shot.

Tiny reaction window between "he's not off" and him getting the ball though. He still moved, he didn't stand and watch he went back to the line. If the ball clips Ali or slows up he'd have been in position to clear it.

6 minutes ago, Pidge said:

Tiny reaction window between "he's not off" and him getting the ball though. He still moved, he didn't stand and watch he went back to the line. If the ball clips Ali or slows up he'd have been in position to clear it.

It just proves to me that he doesn’t have the defensive instinct in those particular situations. I’m not saying he should have blocked the shot but he should have at least tried to.

Players put their bodies on the line to block shots, it’s part of the game, especially when you play in the back four. 
 

That’s one of the problems for us though, we don’t do it enough and it’s partly why we concede shit goals.

Fine, I just think that's a really harsh line to take with that particular one. Would be looking at whether konate should have been up quicker or why we're not challenging second balls on the edge of our own area.

We remind me of Cool runnings,we are trying to be something we can't. Klopp and Ljinders are overly complicating what we need to do to win especially with the players we have stop trying to be fucking Pep and start being Jamaican.

We are acting like a precision cutting knife that has another knife for a handle, its the dumbest shit unless we magically found the solution in what's left of the window.

24 minutes ago, Pidge said:

Fine, I just think that's a really harsh line to take with that particular one. Would be looking at whether konate should have been up quicker or why we're not challenging second balls on the edge of our own area.

The second ball one is definitely fair mate.

I’m only 15 mins in but Brownie has absolutely nailed it.  It’s his attitude to defending.  It stinks and has stunk for years.  The interview tells you all you need to know.  We’ve made someone the vice captain who is literally willing to burn the team down to force the manager to move his position.  I don’t even think the hybrid position is the problem defensively.  Most of the problems come when he’s in position.  There’s so many times when the ball or the player goes past him and he just goes into can’t be arsed mode.

There was one occasion where someone got behind him and Konate sprinted his arse off to get back.  At that point you can clearly see Trent completely turn off tracking back getting slower and slower.  He 100% takes the view of oh well if they score now there’s nothing I could have done and if Konate makes the tackle then great.  What happens is Konate makes the tackle but the ball spills out back to Chelsea where Trent then should have been but wasn’t because he couldn’t be arsed.  Chelsea then fuck it up and goes for a corner and Trent runs off giving Konate a high 10.  There’s absolutely no way he isn’t getting slagged off by the other players.  They will all be fully on to him.  It feels like a war of wills between Trent and Klopp at the moment and we are the losers.

I thought Trent's answer was a disgrace. He'd not be disciplined enough to be a pure 6, and he's not good enough to be a pure 10. So I'm not sure what midfield role he wants to play but he needs to get in line behind Klopps tactics.

Whether he was off guard as he was with Sturridge or caught by the question but you'd expect your vice captain to straight bat that back 

So, is Klopp failing in getting the message across? Is Klopp wrong with the system and these players? Or are we simply missing pieces of the puzzle?

All three I'd say.

And if the third one applies it's hard to get the first two right.

What other system could we play with the players we have available?  We're so geared towards three up front it feels like we'd struggle to find the players for most other formations. 442 possibly with Trent RM and someone else filling in at RB, i.e. Gomez.

3 hours ago, Moo said:

And if the third one applies it's hard to get the first two right.

What other system could we play with the players we have available?  We're so geared towards three up front it feels like we'd struggle to find the players for most other formations. 442 possibly with Trent RM and someone else filling in at RB, i.e. Gomez.

We went 4231 after the subs with Doak Elliot Szoboszlai behind Nunez.  I quite liked the look of it, and it might be worth going with it (depending on who we can get extra in midfield).

It would mean getting Trent back to a normal attacking right back role - very little inverting.  Put Curtis and Mac Allister as the two sitters for now.

Salah, Doak or Elliot can play the right of the 3, Szoboszlai, Elliot or Gakpo the 10, then Szoboszlai or Diaz on the left.

Nunez or Jota up front.  The most attacking version would be Salah, Szoboszlai/Gakpo, Diaz behind Nunez.  

I think it would work to make us a bit more solid, allow the front 4 to be pressers, with two behind making it harder to play through the lines.  Trent would need to be told to get his fucking act in gear.

3 hours ago, Jose Jones said:

We went 4231 after the subs with Doak Elliot Szoboszlai behind Nunez.  I quite liked the look of it, and it might be worth going with it (depending on who we can get extra in midfield).

It would mean getting Trent back to a normal attacking right back role - very little inverting.  Put Curtis and Mac Allister as the two sitters for now.

Salah, Doak or Elliot can play the right of the 3, Szoboszlai, Elliot or Gakpo the 10, then Szoboszlai or Diaz on the left.

Nunez or Jota up front.  The most attacking version would be Salah, Szoboszlai/Gakpo, Diaz behind Nunez.  

 

I think it would work to make us a bit more solid, allow the front 4 to be pressers, with two behind making it harder to play through the lines.  Trent would need to be told to get his fucking act in gear.

We can play those same players in the "old" 433, and various other formations, the problem is we still only have two CMs who should be starting.

26 minutes ago, Moo said:

 

We can play those same players in the "old" 433, and various other formations, the problem is we still only have two CMs who should be starting.

Yeah, I just think two sitters would make us harder to play through, plus would work better than 433 if we want to play Nunez at centre forward.

4 hours ago, Jose Jones said:

We went 4231 after the subs with Doak Elliot Szoboszlai behind Nunez.  I quite liked the look of it, and it might be worth going with it (depending on who we can get extra in midfield).

It would mean getting Trent back to a normal attacking right back role - very little inverting.  Put Curtis and Mac Allister as the two sitters for now.

Salah, Doak or Elliot can play the right of the 3, Szoboszlai, Elliot or Gakpo the 10, then Szoboszlai or Diaz on the left.

Nunez or Jota up front.  The most attacking version would be Salah, Szoboszlai/Gakpo, Diaz behind Nunez.  

 

I think it would work to make us a bit more solid, allow the front 4 to be pressers, with two behind making it harder to play through the lines.  Trent would need to be told to get his fucking act in gear.

I think Nunez and Salah love playing together and I’d like to see more of it.

If you play the system we're playing you can't be so gung ho when you have the ball. Needs to be more possession based and less risky. We're still doing that heavy metal "win the ball and try to score straight away" stuff but we're losing the ball when players aren't in position to defend it.

Arsenal and City play this way and don't get exposed the way we do. If we stick with this then it needs a lot of work as it was a mess on Sunday and Chelsea were just playing through us far too easily.

We can all talk about how we should play 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 or whatever, but it's all moot as I think this is here to stay now. Certainly for the next six months at least. My fear is we end up like last season where we keep flogging a dead horse until eventually they realise it's not working and they'll need to come up with something else. If that happens we've wasted another season so let's hope they can figure it out on the training ground.

Jota, Nunez and Trent himself don't look after the ball well enough to play this way. The thought process always seems to be about scoring a goal, little thought given to what happens if the ball is turned over.

It's a handy tactic to have but it isn't necessary against half the league. Why leave yourself wide open at the back against Palace or Wolves when you don't have to? We have enough ability to break down these teams without going kamikaze on it.

Plus Mo loses it constantly as its the nature of how he plays, plus the fact he's often sloppy as fuck.

We aren't set up to play tippy tappy possession footy. But if we do play that way then Curtis should be the first name on the teamsheet.

1 hour ago, dave u said:

Plus Mo loses it constantly as its the nature of how he plays, plus the fact he's often sloppy as fuck.

 

We aren't set up to play tippy tappy possession footy. But if we do play that way then Curtis should be the first name on the teamsheet.

Mo very rarely loses the ball in positions that expose us and when he does he hooers after it to get it back. 

I agree he protects it very well in his own half and he always tries to win it back. He gives it away loads though because that's how he's always been expected to play, to try and make things happen. He loses it loads and losing it in any position exposes us at the moment, that's my point. 

It didn't used to matter because the three midfield workers were always there putting out fires behind. It matters now, because any time we lose the ball it can be danger. It's not even a criticism of Mo as such, more an observation on how we play now compared to when we were good.

8 minutes ago, dave u said:

I agree he protects it very well in his own half and he always tries to win it back. He gives it away loads though because that's how he's always been expected to play, to try and make things happen. He loses it loads and losing it in any position exposes us at the moment, that's my point. 

 

It didn't used to matter because the three midfield workers were always there putting out fires behind. It matters now, because any time we lose the ball it can be danger. It's not even a criticism of Mo as such, more an observation on how we play now compared to when we were good.

I thought Stu had hacked your account for a sec