There is nothing wrong with our midfield

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Precisely.  To take the thread literally and superimpose a thumbnail on it restricting it to the day it was started, like Numero has, and say that I was only ever happy playing Lucas and Gerrard deep as some  double pivot - what absolute nonsense.  

 

The point of the thread was that the players were good enough to take us far and that everyone was overreacting about how poor they were.  You only have to take one look at the transfer window threads to see the clamour for midfielders.  It's a "we must sign two shitkicker DMs" frenzy, almost relentless at times.  Whereas yours truly was happy with the guys we had already.

How many times does it need explaining? I don't give a fuck about the thread, it was your dodgy self-aggrandisement that was the issue.

[Pureblood]

Jose is right, people aren't that far apart in their views.  I'm as guilty of all the agro bullshit as anyone, obviously.  

[Pureblood]

How many times does it need explaining? I don't give a fuck about the thread, it was your dodgy self-aggrandisement that was the issue.

 

Okay man.  I'm sorry (ish). 

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Jose is right, people aren't that far apart in their views.  I'm as guilty of all the agro bullshit as anyone, obviously.

Cunt, etc.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsC06rOYeDg

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Okay man.  I'm sorry (ish).

I am also, kind of, sort of, sorry.

[Pureblood]

. I certainly don't think they deserve to be called hysterical.

 

He only said a "trifle hysterical".  That's okay because it's couched with respect and trifle.  

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

And who doesn't respect trifle. Marvellous.

[Pureblood]

I think what you can conclude from all of this is that:-

 

• lots of people were unhappy with midfield
• despite that the results were excellent
• an adjustment was made recently and results improved further still
• the extent/perception of that adjustment is debatable/different respectively
• new players weren't required to achieve our goals
• there is therefore nothing currently wrong with our midfield
• new midfield players may or may not be required for the Champions League.  It would probably help, but this also applies to other areas of the squad
• we're going to win the league
• trifle

 

That's it. 

[Jose Jones]

I think what you can conclude from all of this is that:-

 

• lots of people were unhappy with midfield
• despite that the results were excellent
• an adjustment was made recently and results improved further still
• the extent/perception of that adjustment is debatable/different respectively
• new players weren't required to achieve our goals
• there is therefore nothing currently wrong with our midfield
• new midfield players may or may not be required for the Champions League.  It would probably help, but this also applies to other areas of the squad
• we're going to win the league
• trifle

 

That's it. 

 

I was at some conference with work last week and this neuroscientist guy was talking about the bionic brain, and comparing the pace of scientific advance in other fields with what we could expect to see in the future.  I.e. took 40 years from between the first manned flight which was a few metres, to the first manned flight to the moon.  We already have bionic ears, bionic eye will be done in about 10 years, within 40 we'll probably have totally bionic brain, etc.

 

It only took just over 1000 posts to get to this point.  Marvellous.

[Pureblood]

I wanna be the first person with a bionic brain. 

[stringvest]

This thread is a little silly.

 

Does it matter who was right or wrong?  Surely what matters is our midfield is now working, be it as a diamond or with a three (with two in front of Gerrard).

 

That's all we should care about.  Point scoring isn't needed, let's just be happy!

Wow. Just wow.

[Guest LFD]

Wow. Just wow.

 

WOW!

[G Richards]

I'm glad to see the tone change on this page. It was getting a little too forceful and possibly verging on abusive in the lead up to this page.

 

Credit to all involved for reeling it back in. 

[mgw100]

That's right Rev. Just imagine if, in a parallel universe, the protagonists in this thread were all to happen across each other in a public house at 1.37 on Sunday. We'd all be sat round the same table, singing the same songs and buying each other drinks.

 

The mood would be convivial and celebratory, particularly when the final whistle records our historic triumph. The singing would go on late into the night and disagreements would be affectionate and short.

 

Just imagine.

[Hand Shandy]

Awwwww, hugs...

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

That's right Rev. Just imagine if, in a parallel universe, the protagonists in this thread were all to happen across each other in a public house at 1.37 on Sunday. We'd all be sat round the same table, singing the same songs and buying each other drinks.

 

The mood would be convivial and celebratory, particularly when the final whistle records our historic triumph. The singing would go on late into the night and disagreements would be affectionate and short.

 

Just imagine.

I'd glass every mother fucker in the building.

 

 

Truth is, I'm a bad person.

[mgw100]

We were born to love and taught to hate NV. You can unlearn that shit.

[stringvest]

That's right Rev. Just imagine if, in a parallel universe, the protagonists in this thread were all to happen across each other in a public house at 1.37 on Sunday. We'd all be sat round the same table, singing the same songs and buying each other drinks.

The mood would be convivial and celebratory, particularly when the final whistle records our historic triumph. The singing would go on late into the night and disagreements would be affectionate and short.

Just imagine.

Some will be doing precisely that.

[Section_31]

I like Woolster, he's old school.

[The Woolster]

I like Woolster, he's old school.

 

No sure in what way you mean, but thanks!

[Bjornebye]

Lucas is fucking shit

 

 

 

Discuss. 

[The Woolster]

I'm not even sure why this needs saying really, but when you add all the constituent parts together, then that's the size of the change. The size of the bricks in the Great Wall of China don't make the wall any smaller. This is quite an annoying obfuscation, to be be honest. Actually, quite a lot of your reply to me is just an obfuscation. The point I've made is that the midfield wasn't working before, and it's working very well now. That's the polar opposite in comparison. Yes, youth, Sturridge, etc, etc. They're all valid points. It's just nothing to do with what I said.

Writing isn't really one of my strong points, so I always try to make myself as clear as possible. I don't know if other people think I obfuscate (I had to look that one up), but I've never got that impression in others responses to me, however I have found quite often with our debates that you often completely miss the point I was trying to make, and I don't know if that is down to you or down to me.

 

So I'll try and break it down as I see it to see if that helps

 

Your point: the midfield wasn't working before, and it's working very well now

My point: Our midfield was not doing badly before, in fact, it was pretty decent. There were some changes, I don't think they were big changes, but they did improve it, however I don't think is the main reason for our overall improved performance.

My 2nd point: I then give what I think are the reasons for our improvement. Those reasons don't have to have anything to do with what you said, because my point is that it is wider than the just the midfield.

 

I really wasn't trying to obfuscate anything.

 

 

Before Lucas stopped being in the midfield, as you can read in the links I gave on the previous page, this forum - many credible, intelligent posters - were ripping the midfield to shreds. I can quote a hundred different people reacting to it in the same way, as they watched it, and I probably would if I thought it'd even scratch the surface, but it won't.

 

There being many credible intelligent people having the same view about something does not validate an arguement. I often disagree with people who I hold in high regard and agree with on many other subjects, such as yourself.

 

Personally, I'd say that the credible people put well thought out views on the midfield, however just because they were well thought out, it does not mean they were right. Those ripping the midfield to shreds I think were exagerating and using hyperbole, which in my opinion loses the credibility of their arguement, although I will say if those types of things were said in a match thread then that does not mean that the person saying them is not credible, because people are rightly emotional while the match is going on, and its not always the best place to get the most sensible discussion.

 

 

The sum wasn't 2+2=5, it was 2+1= -5.

 

This is precisely the point I was making about you misunderstanding me. Perhaps I just shouldn't use metaphors, but what I was trying to say was, in my view:

 

Midfield as it was: It was ok, it was 2+2=4

Midfield after the change: It became better, it was 2+2=5, but it was not a massive improvement, it did not become 2+2=8

[The Woolster]

 

The funny thing is, despite your reluctance to do so now, you seemed to agree that the midfield was exposed when you said, 'The thing that is leaving the midifeld exposed in my opinion is the midfielders themselves, I think that Gerard-Lucas would be exposed whatever the formation against certain types of teams' and that a 'midfield of Lucas and Gerrard together are not able to press hard and recover their position quickly'. So you knew there were problems with that set up because we were all watching it week after week with our own eyes. Why the reluctance now?

You are picking up on my using "exposed", but you've ignored the 2 caveats, I actually said they "would be exposed whatever the formation against certain types of teams" - so 2 and a 1, or 1 and a 2, either way I think they would be exposed because of their speed and fitness or lack thereof. We changed from one to the other, and I still think Gerrard can be exposed due to his lack of speed. He is fitter now though, relatively speaking.

 

I also said "would be exposed whatever the formation against certain types of teams" - I didn't and don't think it is a big issue, I think it can sometimes be an issue against teams that press high or who play very quick through midfield.

 

But one solution to that would be in those games to not play Lucas because

What I have thought for a long time now is that we have 4 very good midfielders, 3 of which could play in a number of different roles

Because I didn't then think of our midfield as simply Gerrard, Lucas and Henderson, and some of those issues were solvable by simply playing Allen rather than buying another player.

 

As for "midfield of Lucas and Gerrard together are not able to press hard and recover their position quickly" is completely in line with what I've said in this thread "I do think the midfield switch has allowed us to press higher though, so that was a positive", so I don't see how I am contradicting myself.

 

 

You're going to have to explain to me what relevance this has? It's a great argument an' all, and I'm sure it's very convincing to some, but it has the square root of fuck all to do with anything I've said. I'm comparing performance of the midfield with Lucas and Gerrard as the two deep players in midfield - the one that was roundly berated and extensively talked about until the switch up - to the one that is now performing very well. I'm not comparing league positions (I mean, I could... 1st is better than 4th after all, but it'd be dishonest because there are other parts of the team performing in different ways).

Think I've covered this above, I think the improvement in the team has a lot more to do with the other reasons I've given than the change in midfield, which did also help.

 

This is where I've got to try my best to have some restraint. Whether you want to phrase it as 'a knife through butter' like I did, or 'exposed' as you did, there was something wrong with the way the midfield was operating. It's just annoying for you to make this argument now after admitting that it's exposed through the Gerrard/Lucas partnership.

You didn't simply phrase it as " a knife through butter" though, the part I quoted you also said they were dominated by average midfielders, didn't press and lacked any tempo or attacking intent from deep. It some of that exageration and hyperbole that I think can lessen an arguement. Even the best midifled in the world can be dominated occasionally, they did press, but not as often or as well, and Gerrard was still providing attacking intent from deep, because that is the type of player he is, whether playing as a single pivot or a double pivot.

 

And all that is very differnt from me saying that they could be occasionally exposed in certain situations.

 

It wasn't just the 1 to a 2, was it? As you said yourself, Lucas and Gerrard couldn't press and recover the position. Why? Because of the lack of pace and energy. What we've got now is a pairing of Allen and Hendo (or Coutinho, if that's what's called for) who can close space brilliantly. I can't stress how much of an impact this is having on our

No, having Allen over Lucas also certainly helped with that.

 

But as I've also pointed out, I think we lacked some pace and energy as a team compared to other teams due to how they are trained. Gerrard and/or Lucas won't be able to do it as well as the other members of our midifeld, because they don't have the same physiology, but I do think they will be able to do it now better than they could earlier in the season.

 

So what are you saying? The midfield is worse than before? More exposed? What are you actually saying with this?

You think that the midfield now "shields the defence, closes the space, protects the fullbacks" and that we are "conceding fewer" , I was pointing out that we are not actually conceding fewer, we're conceding more. I don't think the defence is being shielded more than it was before, and that is part of the reason that we are conceding more goals.

 

But we are scoring goals at an even higher rate, so I'm not massively concerned.

 

It seems to me you're holding back because you know that the midfield is working much better, but you don't want to just admit that so you're putting up stats that include performances from defenders, etc. Look, is the midfield better and more dominant now than it was, or isn't it? That's something we can actually waste time debating.

Covered above, I think the change in midfield improved things. I think the team as a whole is more dominant now, not because of the midfield change, although that helped, but because of the reasons I gave, and the big difference being that we changed tactics soon after Suarez came back, which took time to click, as well as the fact that we have had our best 3 players all available for every single game.

 

This is the exact obfuscation I'm talking about. Yes, we're a young team improving. I've said it myself, but it doesn't have much to do with how the midfield was performing two weeks before Christmas to how it was performing two weeks after. Well, unless you think Steve Peters said something so mind altering at the Crimbo party that everything changed, and it didn't actually have anything to do with the changed made in midfield. What experience did we gain in the fortnight? Come on, this is farcical.

Covered above.

 

What we gained in a fortnight, in fact in only 1 match, was both Gerrard coming back to the team after 4 games out, and Sturridge coming back to the team after 8 games out against Stoke. Que surprise, we start playing better and scoring more goals. I think having those 2 back was far more important than the midfield change.

 

Like I said at the beginning, we're miles apart. We're not going to agree on that. From my perspective, I watched things happening before Christmas that are not happening any more; I read page after page, week after week about how badly our midfield was performing and how badly exposed it was, and now it isn't any of those things; the performances in midfield have changed massively, the performances of the Captain have improved dramatically, the pressing, the results, the goals... they've all gone through the roof. Rather than losing to top teams we're smashing them. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems big to me.

 

We can go through this for hours, but I can't un-see those things. Because they happened. And they're happening.

And hopefully I've put myself across clearer.

[The Woolster]

 

Do you want the entire thread? You either meant what you said or you didn't? You either thought they were exposed or you didn't? Feel free to add context, or show what I've heartlessly ripped out in order to change the meaning of what you said?

I think that when someone posts something on the forum the majority of the time, unless its an OP or a WUM, they are responing to a post or even a number of posts over a number of pages, so to take that post, or even to quote only a small part of a post misses out the context of what went before it. I can only speak for myself when I say that if I see some quote pulled up from the past, that I tend to ignore it because it lacks the context and I really can't be bothered to go back and see in what context it was said in, however I think many others may be simialr to me.

 

Last night I didn't even remember saying what I said, let alone what context it was said in, and as I was on my phone, I wasn't going to check. I knew I said it though because that is often your style.

 

But I've gone back and checked now, the first quote was taken form a post in a discussion about playing with 3 at the back, here is what I said in full

 

I don't think its a midfielder for a central defender, but infact a wide forward for a central defender.

 

Whether its a 4231 or 433, Rodgers has stated he likes to play with a 1-2, 2-1 in midfield, and that is exactly what we've had in this formation, whether its Gerard and Lucas behind Moses, or Lucas behind Gerard and Henderson. Either way, the midfield is the same, so its not more exposed, if anyhting, it should be less exposed as they have the extra protection behind them. What we have lost is an extra layer of width that the wide forwards/wingers would provide.

 

The thing that is leaving the midifeld exposed in my opinion is the midfielders themselves, I think that Gerard-Lucas would be exposed whatever the formation against certain types of teams.

 

I've bolded the part which, in my opinion, is not very different from some of the stuff I've said in this thread about the formation not being relevant and the "midfield" being the group and not just certain players, so yeah, I think you missed out a load of context.

 

Perhaps, you didn't read that bit, perhaps you just ignored it, or perhaps you didn't post that part as well because it didn't go along with the point you making, whatever, not really bothered about that, because even quoting the post in full still misses the context.

 

My other quote was from a discussion about whether Rodgers wants the defence to play with a high line or not, it was taken from the following sentence

 

I think we haven't played with a high line because there has hardly been a game where one of Skrtel, Carra or Coates hasn't played in the middle, but also because a midfield of Lucas and Gerrard together are not able to press hard and recover their position quickly.

So again, it doesn't have the context that I am talking about a different subject entirely and not lambasting our midfield. I'm pointing out a particular issue I see with that particular pairing, one which had played the vast majority of games when both available at that point, that does not mean that I had a problem with our midfield.

 

I don't have a problem with our midfield of Henderson and Allen ahead of Gerrard, but I do think think they have an issue of not scoring enough goals from open play. You see, it is possible to see an issue a certain set up, but still be happy with it overall.

 

Maybe you'd like to add a bit of context to what you said? Things like 'yet in the games since Gerrard returned from injury, we've conceded more goals per game at 1.31'. Right? Where's the context then? What about the defence? What about the rest of the team? What sort of goals did we concede? Where they results of Gerrard being in the team? Where any of the goals conceded when we were playing a 2-1? Where's all that context? Hell, what are you even saying by putting it in? Are you saying the midfield is worse now? That it's now contributing to us leaking goals? That the 'exposed' partnership was better than how we're playing now. I mean, what is it you're actually saying when you throw up numbers?

Hopefully covered this in my other posts.

 

Nah, don't bother with that context. Just bleat on about contextless quotes because they're a touch inconvenient. Whatever you do, don't spend time actually refuting them or adding context. Just dismiss and ignore them. Again

I was on my phone, I was going to bed, apologies that I didn't spend the time refuting it, but in this day of mobile internet, don't be surprised if people don't always put in the time you do to respond to things, because a lot of people post from their phone and that can make it difficult to reply in full.

 

Thanks for that. I went out of my way to show you a bit of respect by expounding on my views a while back on the MF, even when you were being hypocritical, two-faced and a bit of a prick, I didn't condescend or belittle, I instead wrote a considered reply. Yet, what, because I've quoted something you didn't like you feel the need to patronise me? Nice one.

And I'll try and respond to this later, but I've got work I need to get done and I haven't had any lunch yet.