Rodgers In

[RobbieOR]

'Passing for passing sakes'

 

Jesus fucking christ, its like listening to Sam Allardyce.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

'Passing for passing sakes'

 

Jesus fucking christ, its like listening to Sam Allardyce.

 

Funny thing is, it's clear that we're not passing just for the sake if it. We're having more shots than anybody else in the league. They might be shit shots, and we might be shit at shooting, but the passing isn't just for the sake of it. We're passing to create opportunities.

 

Now that we've got Sturridge and Suarez up front, with Coutinho to come in and Borini gaining fitness, I'd wager a fair few of those shots with turn into goals.

[Code]

Sums him up, from the Arsenal match thread -

 

Some idiots who obviously knows fuck all about goalkeeping wanted to blame Reina for the Wallcott goal.

 

Some imbecile sent a tweet to the Norwegial PL studio about this game being a good example of why both Arsenal and Liverpool needed new keepers.

 

Myhre and Thorstvedt with almost 200 games in goal for Norway between and 17 seasons in the PL looked at eachother wondering who is this clown and they said there was no way reina could be blamed ofr any goal this match and that he had been excellent.

 

If by sums me up you mean being right as usual then fine, if not it seems I have been wrong about you as I thought you did not need medication like the one below.

 

He likes to bang on about us playing it aimlessly around in the wrong areas. Yet against City we spent much more time in their third than we did against Arsenal (just 18% compared to their 38%). Plus, they created more chances and had more shots than City. So it really isn't much to do with any of this stuff, or how Rodgers wants us to play.

 

We did not play the ball aimlessly around against Arsenal, we attacked when we had it and we defended well instead of inviting our opponents to hist us on the break, 15 yards outside our own box.

[Code]

So play more like Rafa's Liverpool then?

 

Nothing wrong with the way we played football under Rafa, what was wrong was his distrust in flair players.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

 

We did not play the ball aimlessly around against Arsenal, we attacked when we had it and we defended well instead of inviting our opponents to hist us on the break, 15 yards outside our own box.

 

Yet we had far fewer shots as a result against Arsenal than we did City. We spent FAR less time in their attacking third (18%) against Arsenal than they did in ours (38%). Arsenal had more shots against us than City, too. You might like being under pressure and at risk of conceding with a reduced chance of scoring, but I don't.

 

I think you're pretty much on your own on this one. I'd be surprised if anybody on the forum thought our performance at Arsenal was better than the one against City. The Arsenal performance was about remaining really solid at the back and pinching goals. We did that for 50 minutes, and gave a Houllier style performance. Are City, we controlled the game, and we were the dominant attacking side.

[Code]

Hopeless punters from 25 yards out who end up in row z does not do it for me Numero.

[ChrisM]

If by sums me up you mean being right as usual then fine, if not it seems I have been wrong about you as I thought you did not need medication like the one below.

 

To clarify Code, when I said 'sums you up' I was referring, in this instance, to your overbearing sense of self-importance, which comes across time and time again.

 

You tend to agree with experts, at least if they agree with you (not you agreeing with them, naturally).

 

Get it?

[Whelan]

Even on ignore you can't possibly avoid such crass stupidity!

 

Nobody, at least those who don't shout and scream at pidgeons in their dressing gown and slippers would seriously suggest we were better at Arsenal than City!

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

You've got to get your goals where you can, Code. City's defence is so significantly better than Arsenal's, and so much less prone to errors, the fact we got goals at all was quite impressive, much less bossed them and took the game to them. Their home record is fucking increadible, having won 105 points from 116.

 

We had 10 shots inside the box against Arsenal, we had 10 shots in the box against City. That should make you happen. We had more shots against City, with 9 more than against Arsenal coming from outside the box. Lucky, as we scored both goals from them. But yeah, you prefer the rebound or deflected shot against Arsenal than you do Gerrard or Sturridge's goal against City.

[Bobby Hundreds]

The city game was a pleasure to watch the arsenal game was just horrible. We rode our luck.

[Major Tom]

Even on ignore you can't possibly avoid such crass stupidity!

 

He does it to get a bite and he gets one every time.

 

Logic and reasoning mean nothing to the shifting sands of his arguments.

[ZonkoVille77]

The city game was a pleasure to watch the arsenal game was just horrible. We rode our luck.

 

Agreed. All the way through the first half I was thinking to myself how lucky we were not to be well behind. We sat back and did defend well to a certain extent but there was always a feeling they'd get one at any chance. We let them dictate the pace of the game.

 

The City game was totally different. We were comfortable in all areas and played some great stuff. Totally taking the game to them.

 

Chalk and cheese performance but maybe necessary given the oppo in each circumstance. Horses for courses and all that.

[Whelan]

He does it to get a bite and he gets one every time.

 

Logic and reasoning mean nothing to the shifting sands of his arguments.

 

I certainly think he deliberately goes out of his way to get people wound up, but, I also think he genuinely believes most of what he writes.

 

I have had him on ignore for a couple of months - and if people stopped quoting him I wouldn't have to endure the snippets of madness that I do, which still manages to infuriate!

[Major Tom]

I certainly think he deliberately goes out of his way to get people wound up, but, I also think he genuinely believes most of what he writes.

 

 

The first bit is definitely true and he's getting worse as people clearly egg him on.

[KopOut]

I do still think we are 'stilted' at the back when passing the ball out of defense. I also think that the better attacking teams know exactly how to counter our deep possession, and that's to get numbers up on us very quickly; in a more flexible system, we'd counter that with quick ball played longer, but, the system is the system.

 

That's really the only thing that's changed from last season - Steve Clarke allowed more flexibility with the backline play - apart from a drop in consistancy with the central defenders, I think this the main reason why we're shipping more goals - all other things being equal, like set piece defending being atrocious for the last er ... decade.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

in a more flexible system, we'd counter that with quick ball played longer, but, the system is the system.

 

We've played more accurate long balls than any other team.

[The Woolster]

We have used a few different formations this seasons, lets see how we have done with the different ones.

 

4-3-3: 13 games, 4 wins, 4 draws, 5 losses, goal diff 18-20

 

4-2-3-1: 10 games, 5 wins, 3 draws, 2 losses, goal diff 23-9

 

3-4-1-2: 1 game, 0 wins, 1 draw, 0 losses, goal diff 1-1

 

4-4-1-1: 1 game, 0 wins, 1 draw, 0 losses, goal diff 2-2

 

Its pretty obvious what suits us best, so the question is why have we played 4-3-3 so many times?

 

Over to you Numero.

 

I presume you are getting them from WhoScored? the problem with that is I think that they are simply starting positions, so won't include us changing shape/formation mid game, which we have done often. Rodgers system is also very fluid and changes when transitioning from defence to attack.

 

They are also squeezed into a common and easy to understand format, I think if you look at our average position on the pitch, we were generally playing more of a 2332/2323, at least prior to Sturridge joining.

[The Woolster]

Why Can't Liverpool Win Against The Top Ten?

Liverpool have still not beaten a team currently in the top half of the Premier League this season. WhoScored.com's Ali Tweedale looks at why that may be the case...

 

...Hold on. Aren't Liverpool supposed to be having a terrible season? Aren't they supposed to be worse than they have been in recent memory? Isn't Steven Gerrard supposed to be past it, over the hill and on the way out? And yet the Merseyside club are climbing the table after impressive performances and draws against Arsenal and Manchester City in their last two games, while captain Gerrard remains one of only 12 players and the only midfielder or attacker to be ever-present in the Premier League this season.

 

After a disastrous start to life under Brendan Rodgers saw Liverpool lose three and draw two of their opening five league games, this youthful team seem to be settling in together with performances and results both improving. The hard-fought loss at Old Trafford is their only defeat in the last six matches, and things are looking up for the Reds. But questions remain as to whether they are as good as recent form suggests.

 

An astounding statistic sticks in the mind. Liverpool are one of only two teams - along with Southampton - yet to win a single game against a side currently in the top half of the Premier League table and it is plain to see that this is a serious problem. Even though they led at both the Emirates and the Etihad in their last two games and were good value for those leads, the Reds eventually succumbed to pressure to throw away what could have been a pair of fantastic results.

 

Liverpool scored four goals against Arsenal and City, yet only Daniel Sturridge's wonder-strike at the Etihad had a string of more than one pass preceding it and even then it was as simple as Stewart Downing finding Gerrard, who passed for Sturridge to hit from distance. It was hardly what could be described as a great team goal and only came after Javi Garcia failed to clear his lines on the edge of his own area. Gerrard's goal in that game was fantastic, and highlighted his continued importance to the team. The captain's strike came directly from a weak clearance, and both of Liverpool's goals against Arsenal were the result of the opposition's failure to clear the ball.

 

What does this show? Firstly, that Liverpool are doing well to get into positions high up the pitch from which goalscoring chances can fall. Secondly, that they are very good at winning possession high up the pitch - only Arsenal (94) and Southampton (85) have won the ball in the attacking third of the pitch more times in the Premier League this season than Liverpool (84), with Suarez unsurprisingly leading the individual charts (22).

 

However, despite Liverpool's impressive passing statistics - third most possession (58.3%) and fourth best pass success rate (85.3%) in the top flight this season - which can be seen on WhoScored's statistics page - the Reds tend not to be scoring goals as a direct result of their passing game, particularly against the bigger teams. And that might be why results against the other teams in the top ten haven't been up to scratch.

 

In fact, in Liverpool's 13 games against those nine teams this season, the longest series of passes they have registered directly in the lead up to a goal is four - in the 2-2 draw against Everton at Goodison Park. Even then, the build up to that goal consisted of a Jose Enrique cross that evaded everyone, Suarez firing the ball back towards to goalmouth, only to be finished courtesy of a Leighton Baines own goal. The Reds' second-longest passing move leading to a goal against a top ten side is the two passes prior to Sturridge's long range strike against City on Sunday.

 

The fact of the matter is that while Brendan Rodgers' commitment to a short passing game is commendable and seems to be something that the Liverpool squad are beginning to enjoy some success with, it is not working against the better teams.

 

Of course, when you have the likes of Steven Gerrard and Luis Suarez in your team, and now Sturridge too, goals from range are certainly something that you can come to expect. Along with Chelsea, Liverpool have scored the most goals from range in the Premier League this season, with nine, already surpassing their tally of seven from last term. Again Suarez leads the individual rankings with four - the joint most with Juan Mata - whilst Gerrard has bagged two long-range goals in his last three Premier League appearances.

 

Expecting goals of individual brilliance is one thing, relying on them is quite another. So while Liverpool are keeping the ball well, they need to work on the transition from retaining possession in midfield to creating goalscoring chances. With Suarez moving into an attacking-midfield role since Sturridge's arrival, that may well come in due course. For the time being, though, Liverpool's high pressing game - and Suarez's in particular - is working to some extent, and that may just have to be enough for now.

 

Why Can't Liverpool Win Against The Top Ten? | Mediawatch, Mailbox, Ref365, John Nicholson, Spanish Thing | Football365

 

Knew you'd be all over it... but as I said, it lacks any context or comparisons

[FrenchEyeGlass]

I find it odd that people keep conversing with the mental guy on here and then are utterly dumbfounded when he says something mental.

[ngogswilly]

I've always had a strange admiration for Code.

 

Hes forever like a mad fisherman sailing into the eye of the storm.

 

Sail on you crazy guy, sail on.

[tobycatz]

Being caught on the break because of aimless posession is a problem, our best away game this season was away to Arsenal and we had the least posession we have had this season.

 

We sat back more than we have used to do, we defended well even if Arsenal scored two goals and we hit them on the break when we had the opportunity.

 

If we had used this pragmatic approach a bit more away from home we would have more than 3 away wins this season.

 

What a load of shit.

[MLB]

This beaut Code is going on ignore. Total WUM.

[KopOut]

We've played more accurate long balls than any other team.

 

That's in spite of the system, not because of it. Its frowned on by the coaches of 'the system'. In the first half of the season, we did less of it, but eventually, I suspect the system has had to adapt to the players collective will.

[stringvest]

 

That's in spite of the system' date=' not because of it. Its frowned on by the coaches of 'the system'. In the first half of the season, we did less of it, but eventually, I suspect the system has had to adapt to the players collective will.[/quote']

 

just like 2008-2009. Off the leash!

[s(k)aturation]

That's in spite of the system, not because of it. Its frowned on by the coaches of 'the system'. In the first half of the season, we did less of it, but eventually, I suspect the system has had to adapt to the players collective will.

 

Players making decisions themselves about what might be best?

Outrageous!