The Woolster

Mila Kunis character in Friends With Benefits

Love her, she's got me into red heads Sooks is great too

Dortmunds top players are only leaving for the big 4 or 5 European teams, we're not there yet. Draxler scored 1 league goal this season

It most certainly is. I often think of this when I have one of these discussions, usually when my wife is having a go at me for coming to bed late.

I think we should clear something up here, am I hypocritical? Hell yeah, every football fan is a hypocrite, those who post of forums or social media probably even more so, anyone who thinks they are not hypocritical in some way, is a bit deluded if you ask me. Was i being hypocritical in situation you are talking about? Not really no. It. Was. A. Joke! There was a couple of posts about people using the stats I sometimes post to fit their agenda, the comments were clearly jokes, and I don't even think they were really aimed at anyone, and if they were it was some genteel wumming at worst, you seemed to take this personally and asked what agenda they were talking about, so I continued with the genteel wumming as it looked like you'd taken the bait by saying that your agenda is to always be right and win the arguement. To show that I wasn't being serious, in my next post, which was pretty soon after, I started it by essentially saying "Now, lets go back to me proving how right I am" with in brackets "(perhaps I have simlar agendas...)". I thought you would notice that by taking the piss out of myself for doing something that I had said that you do, that I wasn't really being critical and that I was just joking around with some forum banter. I actually did the very same thing with my first post back in this thread. I referenced the last para in a piece on TAW by Rory Smith which says I then said "Not having a go at anyone, as we all do it..." And in my next post I bumped my first post in this thread to show just how right I was. You questioned why someone would smugly bump themselves (talking about me), and as I said "I bumped my post as a laugh, to take the piss out of those who've been posting, and to take the piss out of myself, not to be smug." It amuses me how everyone, including myself, argues their point on the internet to the death, and I think it deserves to have the piss taken out of every now and then because it is actually riduclous if you think about it, but if I do take the piss out of someone for doing it, then its probable that I will also have taken the piss out of myself at the same time to show I'm not really being serious. What really seemed to get your goat up at the time, and I presume is the source of the accusation of two faced-ness and being a prick was what I said on Twitter. Well, the thing is. It. Was. A. Joke! You see, I know that you (or at least that you did) follow me on Twitter, and I thought that you would know that I know that you follow me on Twitter seeing that you get a notification every time someone follows you. So when I asked the guy on Twitter for a chart that he was kind enough to supply, and I knew that I was going to say that I got it from Twitter, I was more sure than Lucas' pass percentatge that you was going to check my time line, which you did, so I left a little message for you: "the passing chart might just be the arguement winner! Altho the guy won't admit it" I thought you would realise that was a joke as you would know that I know that you follow me, especailly as its written in a style that I would never write in, at least I'd like to think so anyway. I guess it was a little elaborate though so I can see how that might have been missed, so that was probably my fault. Having said that, I don't really see why it got to you so much. The genteel wumming in the tweet was independent of the genteel wumming in the thread, but as it was only a couple of hours beforehand, it may well have fuelled what I siad in the thread, I may have just been in a wumming mood. But like I said, it was not meant seriously and I thought that would be realised. I dunno, I think (and apologies for the lack of context, although I do think I've set the scene with what I've said above) that the below could be considered condescending and belittling After some introspection, I've come to terms with it though, so don't worry about it. I patronised you because you quoted me without even attributing the quotes to me and did it in a very patronising way. So to have a go at me for patronising you, well, I think thats a touch hypocritical...

I've said in the past that he wasn't really suited to the way Rodger's wants us to play. I hope he keeps proving me wrong.

AGAINST CERTAIN TYPES OF TEAMS! Particularly a team that presses high up the pitch, but as most teams play with a medium or low block and drop back on losing the ball, I don't think there are actually many teams where this is an issue. I think we still get exposed, and Gerrard's positive traits come to fore regardless of where or who he playes with because he is a world class player. There are pages and pages of thoughtful knowledgable fans saying we will struggle to finish top 4 this season, saying that Henderson/Allen/Borini (delete as appropriate) are useless, saying that Downing/Carroll will be outstanding players for us (I may have been one of those). Thoughtful and knowledgble people are not always right. I don't think there has been a massive shift, so yes, I am reluctant to say there was one. My position for a very long time now is that we are a very good team who are not only good enough for the top 4, but could challenge for the league with a little bit of luck. I posted this the other day on the MF, and I agree with it, we've been this good for a long time. http://liverpooloffside.sbnation.com/2014/4/5/5582432/the-statistics-that-explain-liverpools-2013-2014-season They weren't poor and they weren't less than the sum of their parts, if they were we wouldn't have been top at Xmas. You should believe that when I repeatedly say I think us scoring more goals and playing better is mainly due to other reasons, that I believe its mainly due to other reasons. You haven't quoted everything I've said either, should I take it that means you are in tacit agreement? Of course not. You said that it is Gerrard and Lucas as a defensive pair that you have a problem with, they did not play as a defensive pair against Stoke as Lucas was one of the 2 alongside Henderson. Even excluding Stoke, seeing that Lucas came on against Villa after we had conceded 2, and only for 20 minutes, from then to the end of the season, I make it 14 goals conceded in 12, thats 1.16 per game, still more than the 1.15 up to the Stoke game.

I would like to point out though, whilst I am having my lunch, that having gone back to get some of the context, this discussion was mainly with LFD, and I was saying that I think that Rodgers would prefer to play with a high line, but hasn't been able to due to the players at his disposal. However, at this moment in time, I don't think Rodgers does want to play with a high line as he wants there to be space for our attackers to get on 1v1s with defenders, and reducing the space, which would happen with a high line stepping up, would not help that. As I don't think he wants it now, its also plausable that he didn't want it before, so I'm open to changing my mind on that one, but still not convinced.

Exactly right

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'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 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. Hopefully covered this in my other posts. 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. 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.

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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. And hopefully I've put myself across clearer.

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. 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. 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

No sure in what way you mean, but thanks!

Haha, are they the most negative things you could find me saying about Lucas and Gerrard playing together? I don't see how those comnents are different from me saying that the change has been positive as its allowed us to press higher and better a couple of times over the last day or so in this thread? But yes, some more excellent contextless selective quoting, well done.

Don't think there is a new prevailing logic. Everyone thinks what they thought before, those who think similar to some of the others probably think that those others are putting up a good arguement, whilst those who think differently think those others must be watching different games. Beats doing work though, which I must get back to!

They aren't stats, they are pretty pictures. My opinion without the pictures is that Gerrard is playing a bit deeper, getting on the ball more often, but is playing similar types of passes that he has done over the last year or so.

I was quoting NV I'm seismically shifting the blame...

Gerrards passes in his last full game before he got injured before Xmas, he played in a double pivot with Allen http://www.fourfourtwo.com/statszone/8-2013/matches/695033/player-stats/1814/1_PASS_01#tabs-wrapper-anchor And his passes aginst West Hame as a single pivot http://www.fourfourtwo.com/statszone/8-2013/matches/695230/player-stats/1814/1_PASS_01#tabs-wrapper-anchor Apart from playing more of his passes from a central position, as you might expect, and getting on the ball marginally more often, on these 2 occasions there doesn't look like too much of a difference in his passing profile to me. Each game is different though, and I haven't checked the others as I've got some actual work to do now unfortunately, so perhaps they aren't the best examples and ideally you'd want a bigger sample, so if someone else wants to have a play around on that site please go ahead.

Becasue I don't think the changes in the constituent parts were particularly big, and whilst the whole can be bigger than the sum of its parts, in this case I think its more of a case of 2+2=5 rather than 2+2=8 so to speak. Yet there we were after 20 games, admitedly in only 4th spot, but having been very unlucky not to take points from both the City and Chelsea game. During that time Suarez had missed 5 of our games, Gerrard had missed 4 of our games and Sturridge had missed 8 of our games, and 4 of those were the same games that Gerrard missed. Our 3 most important players, in my opinion, missed a decent chunk of our games, that is bound to have an effect on how we play and the outcomes of our games. A midfield that was being dominated and cut through like a knife with butter, yet were only conceding 1.15 goals a game. Yes, the switch to a 1 and a 2 or diamond has helped us press form the front, that has been a positive. Yet in the games since Gerrard returned from injury, we've conceded more goals per game at 1.31. Yeah, it also helps when your 3 best players, 2 of which are your top scorers, plays every game together. It makes for a fantastic narrative, but there was no seismic shift. We are a team that has been improving since about December of last season and, in my opinion, what we are seeing is the culmination of a number of factors: More time spent on the training ground so that movement, runs, and knowing where team mates will be becomes instinctive A young team becoming more experienced, which improves consistency, and in turn improves confidence. The increasing effect of Steve Peters on our mentality. Our periodisation training which sees us get fitter relative to most other teams as the season goes on (at the start of next season I will not be surprised to hear about how sluggish we are in the 2nd half of matches, for the 3rd season in a row). The lack of European football and midweek games. A nice dose of luck. However those things are intangible, they are hard to measure or see and their effects are gradual. I think that the change in our play happened soon after Suarez came back, around the time we went 3 at the back, since then we have been circulating the ball in our own half more, triyng to pull the oppo defence up the pitch and then breaking quickly either with a ball in behind the defence or trying to get our attackers in 1v1 situations. We've been taking fewer shots but creating chances of higher quality. Although I don't think it was a massive change, I do think it was something that needed time to work on, and as much of Rodgers work is about patterns of play, I think it took a while, as well as our 3 best players all being available, before we saw it at its full effect. And all that has been helped by the fact we've managed to score goals and take the lead so early in matches.

Although, to be honest, a lot of that might be down to spending so much more time in the lead, that has a massive influence on games

Do I think a switch from a 2 and a 1 to a 1 and a 2 as a massive change? No Do I think a switch from Lucas to Coutinho/Allen as a massive change? No I think the main change was in how we attempt to create space and get our attackers 1v1 with their defenders, and I think that change happened soon after Suarez came back in the team. I do think the midfield switch has allowed us to press higher though, so that was a positive

Im on my phone now, so I'm not breaking your post up, but on the first part, I'm confused as I'm not actually sure what im meant to read, but its prob best to just leave it. I bumped my post as a laugh, to take the piss out of those who've been posting, and to take the piss out of myself, not to be smug. You responded about the midfield changing, but we obv have different views on what we mean when we say midfield. But no, I don't think it was a massive change in the midfield. I don't think it's about the formation, and our core squad is so good, it's not about the personnel, it's about the phases of play, transitions, movement and circulation, and i think that may well have been tweaked, altho my memory has turned to shit, prior to Lucas injury. but those tweaks takes work on the training ground to get it right. I think people get too het up about formations tho, so the fact hundreds of people thought that our midfield had a fuck load wrong with it and I didn't, I'm pretty comfortable with, because we are looking at things differently

Do you mean the parts quoted where TK says stuff along the lines of how good he thinks Lucas is? That is exactly what I nean by out of context, I'm sure those quotes (I have no clue if they were full posts) were not said in isolation, they were in response to something, so me simply reading misses that context. So TKA saying those things, quite possibly in response to someone 'yanking his chain' does not mean thats what he meant when he started the thread

Some 1 line quotes taken out of context in a tit for tat pissing contest? No thanks, id have to read the whole thread again and cayching up on the last few months on one go was bad enough as it is.

Hmmm, if I heard someone say "Liverpool have the best attack in the world", I think they would mean Suarez, Sturridge, Coutinho and Sterling, despite the fact that not all 4 will play at the same time. Its a squad game now and has been for a long time. People used to say Utd had the best attack back when they had Cole, Yorke, Sheringham and Solskjaer, but in the main it was Cole and Yorke who played the most if memory serves me correctly. And that is how I took TKs comments at the time. In fact I just went back and looked at the first page, and his repsponse to someone saying we need to buy someone else was essentially why buy someone when we have Allen, I presume that was because he includes him as part of our midfield.