Topic: RAWK Round Table: Sunderland 1-3 Liverpool

[JackWard33]

To be fair, I did say "pressure" and "close down", rather than "charge", so we might be talking about two different things. You say 5 yards is fine, I say 1-3 yards is better. The problem is, they scored from a clear and open shot that rebounded out to an untracked midfielder. Ki had time and space to make that shot, and my contention is that he could and should have been closed down better. 5 yards at that level is nothing. I failed my first UEFA licence the first time on 5 yards. The topic was pressing in the defending 1/3. I had it just as you did, but it was wrong. 1-3 yards was the answer, in much the same situation. The bonus of three at the back is you have the spare man for precisely those situations, and if Skrtel doesn't slip, Giaccherini ceases to be an option for the pass. Without Skrtel there, you'd be right, because then Toure has to step off his own man to take care of Giaccherini. But that pass that you say is on was the lesser of two evils. The greater was the shot, which Ki took, and which ultimately caused the goal. 

See I thought we had an agree to disagree situation but clearly not

Watch the footage and pause the action as the ball is moving to Ki - you'll see the Sunderland player in space away from Henderson and nowhere near our centre backs. I can't believe you think Lucas shouldn't be hedging between the two; he can't close down Ki he'll be bypassed

By the time Ki takes the shot (pause it again) Lucas shift has worked, Gerrard has followed him and we're in good shape with Lucas and SG in front of the centre backs and between Ki and the goal
You could definitely argue that as he takes a touch one or both of them should be closing him down at that point but I can't see how it would happen before


The shot is a fucking ridiculous option for him to take by the way and I'm certain Rodgers would be happy for him to take it with two banks of players in front of him and I'm guessing him being 27/28 yards out
That is almost never resulting in a goal and very often resulting in us having the ball back. It's the kind of shot thinking managers have been drilling into players not to take for years

[Melbred]

You just don't allow a player time and space to make a free shot without anyone at least trying to close it down.

[DanA]

You just don't allow a player time and space to make a free shot without anyone at least trying to close it down.

Well that's just not true. Sometimes you get caught between a rock and a hard place and have to concede the least bad option. Jack is saying the least bad option for Lucas was to delay closing down briefly and risk the 30 yard shot. I don't know if that's correct, I don't have an opinion as i've only watched it once live but there are definitely times when you can't close down a player because it opens up a more unpalatable option. 

[Melbred]

Well that's just not true. Sometimes you get caught between a rock and a hard place and have to concede the least bad option. Jack is saying the least bad option for Lucas was to delay closing down briefly and risk the 30 yard shot. I don't know if that's correct, I don't have an opinion as i've only watched it once live but there are definitely times when you can't close down a player because it opens up a more unpalatable option.

Well I was talking about that specific incident, and I agree with PoP that Lucas should have been closing him down. He watches the ball, backs off and lets Ki get a free shot without any pressure away.

[PhaseOfPlay]

See I thought we had an agree to disagree situation but clearly not!

Watch the footage and pause the action as the ball is moving to Ki - you'll see the Sunderland player in space away from Henderson and nowhere near our centre backs. I can't believe you think Lucas shouldn't be hedging between the two; he can't close down Ki he'll be bypassed

We have a spare man in central defence. Ki's passing option is not as viable as you think.

By the time Ki takes the shot (pause it again) Lucas shift has worked, Gerrard has followed him and we're in good shape with Lucas and SG in front of the centre backs.

So why does the shot get through the gap between both of them?

The shot is a fucking ridiculous option for him to take and I'm certain Rodgers would be happy for him to take it with two banks of players in front of him and I'm guessing him being 27/28 yards out
That is almost never resulting in a goal and very often resulting in us having the ball back. It's the kind of shot thinking managers have been drilling into players not to take for years

Ridiculous option, and yet they scored from it. And they scored from it because it was a free shot, less than 30 yards from goal, and probably about, as you say, 25-28 yards. The average pass length is about 20 yards. A professional player at that level taking a free shot within 30 yards is always a danger. We work specifically on this distance and the follow-up shots when we work with professional forwards, because we can guarantee consistent quality, power and accuracy. When Ki receives the ball. he is 40 yards from goal. When he shoots, he is 28 yards from goal. He moved forward unimpeded for 12 yards, then had a free shot between two central midfield players, while and unmarked team-mate was making a follow-up run. The shot was powerful enough and had enough swerve to go through Skrtel's legs, and deceive a largely unsighted Mignolet. Now, if Lucas pressures Ki more aggressively, he doesn't get the shot, and even if he slips Giaccherini in with the pass, Skrtel is there to pressure THAT pass, with Sakho and Toure covering him in behind. Mignolet is then more sighted on the ball, and that situation gets dealt with in a different way. But the fact is - they got a free shot. Not a snap shot, not a speculative shot, not a shot under pressure - Ki received the ball nearly half a field away from goal, was able to move forward unperturbed, and took a shot through a huge gap between our two central midfielders without a single one of them pressuring him. Ideally, if Lucas doesn't step up, then Gerrard communicates with him to focus on Giaccherini and Gerrard presses. But Lucas was the nearest man first, and it was his job. He contained rather than pressured, in a situation where he was amply covered, and we had a spare man too, and we conceded a shot and a rebound goal.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Well that's just not true. Sometimes you get caught between a rock and a hard place and have to concede the least bad option. Jack is saying the least bad option for Lucas was to delay closing down briefly and risk the 30 yard shot. I don't know if that's correct, I don't have an opinion as i've only watched it once live but there are definitely times when you can't close down a player because it opens up a more unpalatable option.

Absolutely correct, but this wasn't one of those times. We had three defenders marking two forwards, and two players marking nobody. The times when you contain and delay are when you are outnumbered. But we were numbers up, by more than one player. In fact, we were numbers up by three two players. In that situation, the nearest defender should be pressing tight, not backing off.

[PhaseOfPlay]

The shot is a fucking ridiculous option for him to take by the way and I'm certain Rodgers would be happy for him to take it with two banks of players in front of him and I'm guessing him being 27/28 yards out
That is almost never resulting in a goal and very often resulting in us having the ball back. It's the kind of shot thinking managers have been drilling into players not to take for years

Are you sure about that?

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/GWcQa9dqRZU" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/GWcQa9dqRZU</a>

[DanA]

Again I haven't seen it but 27 yards out I'd not want Gerrard or Bale getting free shots. Is Ki known for these?

[JackWard33]

Are you sure about that?

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/GWcQa9dqRZU" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/GWcQa9dqRZU</a>

Fun to watch - but yeah I am sure as it goes

Shooting from distance (22+ yards) is statistically horrible and shooting from distance with players in the way is even worse.
You're basically just giving up possession and also have the opportunity cost of the better, closer option that could have been created

You can't 'play results' when you rationalise back from one outcome because it'll lead you to all sorts of fallacies - sure it led to a goal this time but it was extremely unlikely to and would be extremely unlikely to if he did it again (in fact I think he did it several times in the match so there's a decent chance he's just a horrible decision maker). Should Sturridge always attempt to shoulder balls into the net because it led to a goal this time?

Look having an absolutist conversation on this is dumb
Clearly you want to close down shots when you can but giving up 28 yard shots with two banks of players between the shooter and the ball is almost always a good thing (if the start point is that your opponent has the ball in your final third)  because you'd much rather your opponent took the shot than kept possession and created a real chance

[PhaseOfPlay]

Again I haven't seen it but 27 yards out I'd not want Gerrard or Bale getting free shots. Is Ki known for these?

He can definitely hit them (4:53 - almost identical position)

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/H9bie8miWgQ" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/H9bie8miWgQ</a>

[JackWard33]

He can definitely hit them (4:53 - almost identical position)

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/H9bie8miWgQ" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/H9bie8miWgQ</a>

 it's also almost certainly the only one he's ever scored from there despite numerous tries because ... you know.... it almost never happens... to anyone

This is the problem with football analysis its a game with a ton of one off events which people then use to justify arguments
Shooting from distance is a horrible use of the ball and I don't care if you've got a fucking traction engine in your foot

It's the Roberto Carlos phenomena... he once bent in a free kick vs England from 30+ yards or whatever... cue a career of blasting it into row Z in a desperate attempt to recreate lightning in a bottle

[PhaseOfPlay]

Fun to watch - but yeah I am sure as it goes

Shooting from distance (22+ yards) is statistically horrible and shooting from distance with players in the way is even worse.
You're basically just giving up possession and also have the opportunity cost of the better, closer option that could have been created

You can't 'play results' when you rationalise back from one outcome because it'll lead you to all sorts of fallacies - sure it led to a goal this time but it was extremely unlikely to and would be extremely unlikely to if he did it again (in fact I think he did it several times in the match so there's a decent chance he's just a horrible decision maker). Should Sturridge always attempt to shoulder balls into the net because it led to a goal this time?

Look having an absolutist conversation on this is dumb
Clearly you want to close down shots when you can but giving up 28 yard shots with two banks of players between the shooter and the ball is almost always a good thing (if the start point is that your opponent has the ball in your final third)  because you'd much rather your opponent took the shot than kept possession and created a real chance

Shooting in general is statistically horrible - the 10 shots to 1 goal figure has been remarkably robust throughout the decades and every statistical study since Reep first spotted it. So any shot is potentially a goal, so you can't just give free shots to players from distance and say "that has no chance of going in, it's too far out". That's why we have principles of defence - to limit and control the effectiveness of shots. An unpressured shot has more chance of going in than a pressured one. No pressure means time and space to line it up. Power and placement takes care of the rest. As you know, football is a low scoring game, and shots are terribly inefficient. So the more ineffective you can make them - or the more obstacles you put in their way - the more chance you have of not conceding, and the more the other team has to rely on random chance rather than design and skill to score. The fact is, Sunderland scored, not from a brilliant piece of play, but from a failure to apply basic footballing principles from 3 players. The game is about time and space, and if you afford a player who is capable of scoring from distance the right time and space, then you shouldn't be surprised when he hurts you because of it. That's like complaining about Bale scoring with his left foot when you didn't even try to put him on his right.

[woof]

Not to step on your toes Hinesy, as you are the official roundtable questioner, but I was curious to get people's thoughts on our pressing in the opposition half.  Last season that was a staple of Rodgers' team.  Yesterday, there was ZERO pressing of Sunderland's back four.  Is that systematic, i.e. playing 3 at the back does not allow pressing so high up the pitch, or is that a personnel problem? 

We haven't been pressing a lot since the start of the season. I think it's a tactic Rodgers will employ against the top teams only. That's what I'm guessing but I may be wrong. Also gone is the tiki taka football but I'm not complaining if we're winning. One thing I'm concerned with is the way we linger on the ball by the frequent back passing. We're just inviting trouble. Fortunately, no one has punished us. We just need to move the ball quicker to front 4.

I don't see us playing 3 CBs all the time, especially at home. I've said it and I'll say it again. It's time we find a proper replacement for Gerrard. He's still good value but we can't expect him to dominate over 38 matches in the long season. If he's injured, who do we have? Allen? Is Alberto ready? I would like to see Alberto playing in the hole with Suarez or Sturridge in the central striking position.

[JackWard33]

Shooting in general is statistically horrible - the 10 shots to 1 goal figure has been remarkably robust throughout the decades and every statistical study since Reep first spotted it. So any shot is potentially a goal, so you can't just give free shots to players from distance and say "that has no chance of going in, it's too far out". That's why we have principles of defence - to limit and control the effectiveness of shots. An unpressured shot has more chance of going in than a pressured one. No pressure means time and space to line it up. Power and placement takes care of the rest. As you know, football is a low scoring game, and shots are terribly inefficient. So the more ineffective you can make them - or the more obstacles you put in their way - the more chance you have of not conceding, and the more the other team has to rely on random chance rather than design and skill to score. The fact is, Sunderland scored, not from a brilliant piece of play, but from a failure to apply basic footballing principles from 3 players. The game is about time and space, and if you afford a player who is capable of scoring from distance the right time and space, then you shouldn't be surprised when he hurts you because of it. That's like complaining about Bale scoring with his left foot when you didn't even try to put him on his right.

Yeah but ... of course. Why would I or anyone else disagree with this?
(btw it should be pointed out 1 in 10 is an average - not all shots are created equal and the further out you go the lower the chance
It's about 33 to 1 from outside the box and even higher from where Ki hit the ball

Like I said you want to close down shots when possible
But that's not the context of this situation. When Ki receives the ball he isn't a threat to score or even shoot.
If I wasn't so tired / lazy I'd post a screen grab of the position as the ball is coming to Ki - like I said he's 35 yards out with a man free centrally above our D

Now there may have been an opportunity for Lucas or Gerrard to close him down better after he took a touch its tough to say but the idea which started all this (posted by Cpt Reina) that Lucas got 'played' and was directly culpable for the goal is just bollocks

[PhaseOfPlay]

Yeah but ... of course. Why would I or anyone else disagree with this?
(btw it should be pointed out 1 in 10 is an average - not all shots are created equal and the further out you go the lower the chance)

Like I said you want to close down shots when possible that's pretty obvious

But that's not the context of this situation. When Ki receives the ball he isn't a threat to score or even shoot.
If I wasn't so tired / lazy I'd post a screen grab of the position as the ball is coming to Ki - like I said he's 35 yards out with a man free centrally above our D

Now there may have been an opportunity for Lucas or Gerrard to close him down better after he took a touch its tough to say but the idea which started all this (posted by Cpt Reina) that Lucas got 'played' and was directly culpable for the goal is just bollocks

We may be talking across each other then, because I didn't even see Cpt. Reina's post. Lucas wasn't directly culpable for the goal in my book. In the Lucas and Gerrard thread, I showed how it was just a perfect storm of three things happening that - if even one thing had changed - the goal might not have occurred at all. Lucas pressing tighter to make the shot more difficult, Gerrard should have covered in behind rather than square, even if Lucas didn't get closer than 5 yards, and Henderson should have picked up Giaccherini's run. Instead, none of these three things happened, and together they led to the goal. There might even be a case for Moses being in the mix there a bit more given Ki's starting position was 40 yards out. One player didn't cost the goal - three or four errors in tandem did.

[JackWard33]

We may be talking across each other then, because I didn't even see Cpt. Reina's post. Lucas wasn't directly culpable for the goal in my book. In the Lucas and Gerrard thread, I showed how it was just a perfect storm of three things happening that - if even one thing had changed - the goal might not have occurred at all. Lucas pressing tighter to make the shot more difficult, Gerrard should have covered in behind rather than square, even if Lucas didn't get closer than 5 yards, and Henderson should have picked up Giaccherini's run. Instead, none of these three things happened, and together they led to the goal. There might even be a case for Moses being in the mix there a bit more given Ki's starting position was 40 yards out. One player didn't cost the goal - three or four errors in tandem did.

yeah we are talking across each other because I agree with everything you've just written so that's good

you might find this interesting it show the basic futility of long range shooting

http://www.statsbomb.com/2013/08/shooooot-a-paradigm-shift-in-how-we-watch-football/

[PhaseOfPlay]

yeah we are talking across each other because I agree with everything you've just written so that's good

you might find this interesting it show the basic futility of long range shooting

http://www.statsbomb.com/2013/08/shooooot-a-paradigm-shift-in-how-we-watch-football/

Good article. And as correct as it is, it doesn't mean we can, as a team, not defend long shots just because they are inefficient, in much the same way that we still have to defend corners even though statistically they are a poor source of goals. On that note, too, a lot of time is spent working on give-and-go passes and how to defend them, but they play a very rare part in goals scored - but we still have to pay them respect because the one time we don't worry about them might be the time they score from them.

[slimbo]

Questions:
This 'new' formation:
Is it viable? How long do we give it to see if the double S's can accommodated?

I like the formation but think there are a couple of glaring gaps which others have mentioned. They are Johnson and Couthino. Moses isn't a number 10 and Johnsons attacking instinct creates a lot more for us.

My big concerns have been in the last 3 matches and I'm not really sure as to the reasons it's happening. We have always that I can remember been quick starters. First 10-15min with high pressure, crisp passing, trying to overwhelm our opponents and generally doing a good job of it. I noticed right from the kick off against Swansea that urgency wasn't there. The trend continued with Southampton and last weekend with Sunderland. We were also behind on the shots stats against Sunderland of all teams, not sure in the other two games I mentioned.

I am really happy we won the Sunderland game but we do seem to  be a bit underwhelming in our overall performances at the moment. For me, we will need something more in midfield in the window as it seems BR doesn't feel Alberto is up to it yet with PC out injured. I know Allen is there but not sure he is what we need, maybe he is. I just don't think Gerrard and Lucas have the energy to help bridge the gap between our midfield and attack with the efficiency we need, and having PC out we need a quality replacement.

On a positive note Suarez added some real spark. Hopefully, with a lighter match schedule we can keep winning over the next month and run into some red hot form as we go towards Christmas.

[lachesis]

I think the 3-5-2 is working to get our attacking game going but our defensive problems run deeper than a quick system change. It works because like under Rafa, we have more options out wide. That is usually Enrique on the overlap or Henderson pulling out. Then we have Suarez and Sturridge working the channels. This gives Gerrard the long diagonal that he is so fond of and can be delivered from deep positions where he is finding himself too often (in my opinion).

Moses is being used in place of Coutinho in that little role. Coutinho despite his size is really good at holding the ball up. Play then catches up which is why we look better with him in the side. He has a low centre of gravity and keeps the ball moving. He doesn't hold it up in the traditional sense associated with English football like say Chris Sutton for example. But he retains possession and waits for support.

I think we're experimenting with Moses here, hoping he can hold the ball up (albeit a different way) and give us time for play for catch up (specifically the midfield. He has the strength, but in my opinion lacks the skill. He's a product of the system, and although he has some nice skills now and again, he is still at his core a powerful 'kick-and-run' player that heads straight for goal. A more productive version of Ashley Young and players of that ilk. At the moment I don't think he is delivering that function, but he is still providing a good attacking threat when let loose - just needs to work on that facet of his game.

There is a video of Carragher and Neville discussing some of United's problems at the moment:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x15dl77_rec066_videogames?start=402 [Some ads come up but only last a few secs]

It's a really interesting watch as I can definitely see parallels with the problems Neville is describing and our deep defensive woes. Carragher also makes an interesting point regarding Carrick and Anderson and how it's a lot of ground for them to cover, sort of putting their lack of influence into context. Funnily enough, our midfield has also been struggling recently and you can't help but see similarities here. Particularly the comments at:

2:25 about backing off and playing deep;
3:20 about picking the second ball up when it is cleared;
4:00 Carragher discusses is it the back four or midfield problem;
4:25 Carragher says the deepness means there is a lot of space for Carrick/Anderson to cover.

For me, we are far too deep and the above are things I am definitely associating more and more with our play as of late. Particularly picking the second ball up and the midfield having too much to cover.

We're in a really good position at the moment but we need to address the problems we do have. Right now wins and losses have a very thin line between them. We need to stamp our authority on the game. One thing I do remember from a couple of years ago was that Skrtel was actually playing deeper than Carragher most times - point for debate since his return? It hasn't helped that the back four/three has been shuffled quite a lot in defence of our problem though.

[PaulF]

It's the Roberto Carlos phenomena... he once bent in a free kick vs England from 30+ yards or whatever... cue a career of blasting it into row Z in a desperate attempt to recreate lightning in a bottle

It's like winning with 4-2off suit. You sure as hell remember it, but you'd be nuts to worry about it.

Incidentally, what's statistcally the best way to attack goal. Try to dribble from around 10 yards outside the box, one pass and tap-in. Also known as the Arsenal way?

And for the life of me, who was it that analysed the stats back in about the 60s and decided that most goals come from one pass, and started a generation of long ball football for English teams?

[LFCDynamic]

Shooting in general is statistically horrible - the 10 shots to 1 goal figure has been remarkably robust throughout the decades and every statistical study since Reep first spotted it. So any shot is potentially a goal, so you can't just give free shots to players from distance and say "that has no chance of going in, it's too far out". That's why we have principles of defence - to limit and control the effectiveness of shots. An unpressured shot has more chance of going in than a pressured one. No pressure means time and space to line it up. Power and placement takes care of the rest. As you know, football is a low scoring game, and shots are terribly inefficient. So the more ineffective you can make them - or the more obstacles you put in their way - the more chance you have of not conceding, and the more the other team has to rely on random chance rather than design and skill to score. The fact is, Sunderland scored, not from a brilliant piece of play, but from a failure to apply basic footballing principles from 3 players. The game is about time and space, and if you afford a player who is capable of scoring from distance the right time and space, then you shouldn't be surprised when he hurts you because of it. That's like complaining about Bale scoring with his left foot when you didn't even try to put him on his right.

Spot on

[dnkw]

It's like winning with 4-2off suit. You sure as hell remember it, but you'd be nuts to worry about it.

Incidentally, what's statistcally the best way to attack goal. Try to dribble from around 10 yards outside the box, one pass and tap-in. Also known as the Arsenal way?

And for the life of me, who was it that analysed the stats back in about the 60s and decided that most goals come from one pass, and started a generation of long ball football for English teams?

Charlie Hughes.

[sattapaartridge]

First and foremost, WE WON! We're 2nd in the league and that needs to be applauded. Lots.

We must reflect on what we have rather than what we dont have.

What we have is a decent team, with lots of potential STILL to be seen. The Suarez and Sturridge show was very nice too watch. You feel that Sturridge is trying to prove a point to Suarez. He IS that good, we are good enough for the champions league and you dont need to leave.

3 at the back is starting to settle. Sahko in particular seems to be a bit more calmer on the ball than previously, this could be to do with Sunderland werent much of a threat. We're playing well, you'd imagine that Agger instead of Skrtel makes this 3 at the back more balanced and adds leadership. Toure is a coup. He is showing good game inteligence, using himself as the extra man to drive forward, through midfield and into the final third. He had a good shot saved by westwood. But at least he did it!

Midfield 4, thought Henderson listened to his instructions well, he played higher up the pitch than against Southampton and was decent in the position against Mancs. Enrique continues to be himself, and sometimes thats not so bad, but most times, he just doesnt fill me with confidence playing the ball back to the keeper and defenders. I think he's playing a bit more wildly because Suarez is back in the team, and he is capable of making nothing balls from Enrique look like world class through-pass.

Centre Midfield, a lot has been made of the Gerrard and Lucas partnership. The fact is, they are our best 2 midfielders, they simply must play. But what I think, is that they dont know their roles properly. If one is deep, the other should be forward and vice versa. Maybe just maybe, Henderson and Enrique should have come more narrow to make up the numbers for outballs. Deep midfield? I dont like this one bit. This time last year, Allen was playing and his position was mainly in the centre circle. We need to start dominating in the centre of the pitch. Hopefully Allen and Henderson can do that when we have a fully fit squad.

Depth wise, I thought before the season ended last year that we needed a DM and a Left Back for this season. Cissokho being injured so early was a big blow, but DM is a position that we're in danger of not filling. Against Sunderland, we were lucky we didnt come up against a colossus. 

It really is early days for this team, we have Aspas, Luis Alberto, Cissokho to come in, as well as other fringe players like Sterling and Kelly. Depth wise we're really just lacking that DM.

Apart from Central Midfield, I'm not so concerned about the rest of the team, its capable of playing a lot better and I'm sure it will play better in the coming games starting against Crystal Palace.

[PaulF]

Charlie Hughes.

Cheers dnkw, that's the git.

[John C]

This 'new' formation: Is it viable?
I know BR switched to it last season (was it against Everton) so it’s a formation he’s definitely prepared to consider but I’m not sure if its one we should be building our future around. The modern game can cause three CB’s to be marking a single striker unless you have a genuine applied tactic of one of the CB’s coming out and getting involved.
Having said that, I use to love Roy Evan’s variation of it despite us not having great cb’s or effective wingbacks but simply to see McMannaman roam in his free role. I don’t think I’ve seen a more suitable candidate to slot in to the system.
I think this is a quick fix although conversely it could be argued Johnson & Enrique are ideal ‘wingbacks’. Having 3 cbs in good form before we even factor Agger in increases the temptation to play it but I think I’d prefer one of them on the bench as back-up to a pairing.

How secure is Simon in goal? He reminds me a bit of Sander and Dracula. Terrified of crosses
Is he as bad at crosses as SG is at corners or Enrique is with his right foot or Henderson is at crossing. I’d say no to all 3 and the problem lye’s in the accentuation of the negative, particularly by football commentators. I stress this because it’s become more than a pet-hate of mine, I’m becoming infuriated by a commentator remarking on any goalkeeper in any game that makes an imperfect punch – it doesn’t have to be an error – just an imperfect punch and the observation is “he looks nervous”  or “he flapped at that”. I’ve seen goalies clear their box and still be criticised. I’m content with Simon providing I don’t fret over his distribution too much.

I said after the Man U game when we hadn’t beaten a second-string manc team that we lacked a bit of quality all over the pitch, that Sunderland game proved how much quality counts. The quality in the pass to Sturridge, his ball control and then his ability to create space easily for the pass to Suarez makes the difference in getting 3 points or not. Despite his early goals in the season he hadn’t showed anything like that in his last two games. He is a lad with quality and when applied this team has a better chance of staying high up the league. The return of Suarez with any standard of form also adds quality and an edge.

I’m pleased to see Moses growing in to his red shirt, like the rest of the team he’s probably only in a low gear currently and as the season unfolds there’ll be more to his game and less of the Babelesque brick-wall outcome.

Henderson has been a major contributor this season but something didn't suit him on Sunday, I kept thinking he needed to be overlapped and his attempted crosses were one dimensional. It will be interesting to see what role he plays against Palace.

A good away win for the lads, a second half goal and continuity of genius for our magician.

[JackWard33]

It's like winning with 4-2off suit. You sure as hell remember it, but you'd be nuts to worry about it.

Incidentally, what's statistcally the best way to attack goal. Try to dribble from around 10 yards outside the box, one pass and tap-in. Also known as the Arsenal way?

Yeah this analogy is perfect - except not enough people play poker to know what you're saying - it is that rare phenomena that is striking when it happens so it sticks in your brain but in reality it very rarely happens

I don't think analytics has got to the point where it can define 'the best way to attack' however it does know some stuff
for example - and this stands to reason - a huge majority of goals are scored from the central area in the penalty box so your attacks and your shooting should be geared around generating chances in this area
there's a big correleation between the team that has more shots from meaningful areas and that wins games
there's also a correlation between having the most posession and winning games - although this is weaker than shot dominance

[PhaseOfPlay]

Yeah this analogy is perfect - except not enough people play poker to know what you're saying - it is that rare phenomena that is striking when it happens so it sticks in your brain but in reality it very rarely happens

Statistically, though, goals are drastically reduced for passing moves that exceed 5 passes, and the greatest number of goals are scored from 3 passes or less. So should we dispense with passing the ball more than 3 times, due to the inefficiency of longer passing moves? If the other team are passing the ball and get over the 5 pass mark, should we abandon defending and take up attacking positions safe in the knowledge that their chances of scoring are very small?

[mrantarctica]

Goals that occur as a result of very poor defending, and failing to do basic things are a dime a dozen. My recollection it's that nearly ALL our conceded goals have been from very poor/soft defending. The fact remains that we give away goals from sloppy defending and poor concentration. Until we rectify this, all our wins will look a it dicey.

[Vulmea]

Statistically, though, goals are drastically reduced for passing moves that exceed 5 passes, and the greatest number of goals are scored from 3 passes or less. So should we dispense with passing the ball more than 3 times, due to the inefficiency of longer passing moves? If the other team are passing the ball and get over the 5 pass mark, should we abandon defending and take up attacking positions safe in the knowledge that their chances of scoring are very small?

what do you make of our style of play at the moment?

is there a discernable pattern?

is it a Heath Robinson patched together approach or a deliberate plan? should the formation dramatically impact the 'philosophy'.

have we trained for a slow start to the season looking to benefit later on?

are we missing key pieces for how Rodgers wants to play? if so, why? If not - what is not currently working?

am I failing to see something glaringly obvious (not unusual)?

where Sunderlands 20+ attempts all aberrations of my paranoid mind or are we  allowing too many chances in this and other games?

[stockdam]

Injuries forced Rodgers to try a different formation and he probably learnt a lot from it.......would he play that way if Johnston was fit?

The back three all looked fairly comfortable especially Skrtel who I thought had a good game.

Sunderland were up for the game and pressed us all over the pitch. I didn't think we ever looked comfortable when on the ball. Cattermole played well for them. Our passing and decision making under pressure doesn't look great.

Mignolet looks like he's going to have a poor game one of these days. He's good at saving shots but he doesn't look great at times with crosses.

Lucas and Gerrard didn't have the energy that their midfield had so we gave away a lot of possession.

Sunderland shaded the game apart from one very important area. We had the quality upfront and Sturridge and Suarez played well together.......there's no better partnership in the league at present and they will get even better.

Although Gerrard's legs seem to have gone he is still one of the best passers of the ball (he can also be one of the worst on a bad day). The ball he played out to Sturridge for the 2nd goal was the pass of the match.

3-1 may have flattered us with our general play but when you have two players like Sturridge and Suarez then the game can be over in a flash. The third goal was simple but deadly. Mignolet throws to Suarez who plays a good ball to Sturridge who effortlessly passes his man and lays the return ball to Suarez to smash into the net. Not many teams would have scored that goal.

We can play better but we've done that before and drawn or lost. The key thing in this game were the goals (even though the first could have been ruled out). Being clinical in front of goal is much better than looking great outside of the box. We've outplayed many teams before and hit the woodwork many times but in this game we were tight at the back and effective up-front. Hence it looked like we won whilst not firing on all cylinders. That's what SAS can bring to the team and with them playing we'll win far more than we lose.

Games are won by goals and let's keep that run going.........I don't mind leaving the 30 shots and no goals behind.

[PaulF]

Statistically, though, goals are drastically reduced for passing moves that exceed 5 passes, and the greatest number of goals are scored from 3 passes or less. So should we dispense with passing the ball more than 3 times, due to the inefficiency of longer passing moves? If the other team are passing the ball and get over the 5 pass mark, should we abandon defending and take up attacking positions safe in the knowledge that their chances of scoring are very small?

You don't fool us PoP, we know that you know the difference between cause and effect
I presume the five passes stat has arisen because,
 a) by 5 passes a defence has had time to reorganise
 b) to be allowed to play 5 passes you've probably made a fair number of those in your own half.

And now I'm just remembering the goal we scored a couple of seasons ago, Europa I think , where we passed the ball about 13 times before slotting it into the net

[Hank Scorpio]

I'm hornswaggled by our approach to games to be honest this game didn't help

I agree.  I understand that the manager is adapting but I'm not entirely convinced.  I just think there are more issues from changing formations than meets the eye at first.  I'm actually not a fan of 3 at the back but I can't really say why.  So maybe I should just shush.  Results normally justify any change.  Let's see how it goes. 

[SamAteTheRedAcid]

.......would he play that way if Johnston was fit?

Not being funny but he's probably past it at 53. 

[Sangria]

I agree.  I understand that the manager is adapting but I'm not entirely convinced.  I just think there are more issues from changing formations than meets the eye at first.  I'm actually not a fan of 3 at the back but I can't really say why.  So maybe I should just shush.  Results normally justify any change.  Let's see how it goes. 

I'm not a fan of packing the middle at the back. A back 3 formation will, especially with our squad, have 3 CBs by default, who are not used to the mentality of playing on the flanks. As rednich has pointed out, a back 4 formation with 2 CBs will also have 3 at the back, but one of those will be an FB filling in, usually at the least threatened edge of the back 3. While it slightly weakens our defence in the centre, it gives us more scope for fluency in possession, as there will be a more natural out ball to the flanks, the importance of which we've see recently. If we can build naturally via the flanks and not have top rely on the middle or the lump ball, it forces the opposition to have to cover these areas too, relieving the pressure on the middle pair. I think PoP has pointed out that those continental teams that have played a back 3 have usually included an FB as one of those 3, which makes the 3 more of a lopsided back 4. To go even more in that direction, when Venables played a back 3 in Euro 96, it included 2 FBs and only one specialist CB, with McManaman and Anderton as the WBs. Although he had Ince at the height of his powers to help block up the centre.

[kasperoff]

Well that's just not true. Sometimes you get caught between a rock and a hard place and have to concede the least bad option. Jack is saying the least bad option for Lucas was to delay closing down briefly and risk the 30 yard shot. I don't know if that's correct, I don't have an opinion as i've only watched it once live but there are definitely times when you can't close down a player because it opens up a more unpalatable option. 

You close the ball every time, or at least put yourself between the ball and the goal. It's where the danger is. The theoretical pass may never be made. The passer might overhit or shank the pass. The receiving player my fuck up his first touch. You simply cannot let a professional footballer have pot shots from 25 yards. It'll end in tears.

We were far too happy to let them shoot from distance. If it was the game plan, then it's not one I'm particularly fond of. It certainly wasn't really that effective, as we conceded from it.

[Red number seven]

To go even more in that direction, when Venables played a back 3 in Euro 96, it included 2 FBs and only one specialist CB, with McManaman and Anderton as the WBs. Although he had Ince at the height of his powers to help block up the centre.

I agree with that, although Venables often played an Adams and Southgate too, so it wasn't always 2 fullbacks in cantre back positions. I think the model of having a fullback who can play as a non-specialist centre back like Gary Neville/Stuart Pearce for England (or vice versa like Toure or Agger) is the correct one for the left and right of your 3 at the back. It means you have a player who is comfortable going out wide to the side where the ball is and marking/closing whilst the other two hold their positions centrally - f the ball switches, you have the same the other way.

 In Wisdom, Kelly, Toure, Agger and Sakho we have 5 players who could be considered specialists in one area of the defence but have played a fair bit in the other. Are we not, then, well set up for a 3 at the back?

[GrkStav]

Yeah but ... of course. Why would I or anyone else disagree with this?
(btw it should be pointed out 1 in 10 is an average - not all shots are created equal and the further out you go the lower the chance
It's about 33 to 1 from outside the box and even higher from where Ki hit the ball

Like I said you want to close down shots when possible
But that's not the context of this situation. When Ki receives the ball he isn't a threat to score or even shoot.
If I wasn't so tired / lazy I'd post a screen grab of the position as the ball is coming to Ki - like I said he's 35 yards out with a man free centrally above our D

Now there may have been an opportunity for Lucas or Gerrard to close him down better after he took a touch its tough to say but the idea which started all this (posted by Cpt Reina) that Lucas got 'played' and was directly culpable for the goal is just bollocks

Exactly! THIS! It is sheer nonsense, that's what it is. According to some, Lucas ought to have foreseen that Gerrard would NOT pick up (faster, he did move towards him) Ki when he moved to his (Ki's) right, that Henderson would not track Giaccherini. etc and thus aggressively and immediately closed down Ki. If he failed or got dribbled past or Ki executed a pass to Giaccherini instead, it would STILL be Lucas's fault. The notion that what he did was not the wisest, percentage-wise, ex ante move,  GIVEN our overall set-up, given Gerrard's tendencies, GIVEN Henderson's tendencies, given everything known to Lucas ex ante, is bizarre, preposterous.

[GrkStav]

To be fair, I did say "pressure" and "close down", rather than "charge", so we might be talking about two different things. You say 5 yards is fine, I say 1-3 yards is better. The problem is, they scored from a clear and open shot that rebounded out to an untracked midfielder. Ki had time and space to make that shot, and my contention is that he could and should have been closed down better. 5 yards at that level is nothing. I failed my first UEFA licence the first time on 5 yards. The topic was pressing in the defending 1/3. I had it just as you did, but it was wrong. 1-3 yards was the answer, in much the same situation. The bonus of three at the back is you have the spare man for precisely those situations, and if Skrtel doesn't slip, Giaccherini ceases to be an option for the pass. Without Skrtel there, you'd be right, because then Toure has to step off his own man to take care of Giaccherini. But that pass that you say is on was the lesser of two evils. The greater was the shot, which Ki took, and which ultimately caused the goal.

I think you're, with all due respect, presenting your ex post facto analysis as reality. What happens next is NOT what each player knows at the time he makes a decision.

All in all, I believe you're unfairly and inaccurately assigning fault or causal significance to Lucas's decision in that instance for Sunderland's goal. And, to put it bluntly, it is irrelevant what the 'correct' answer is theoretically or abstractly regarding how many yards off a 'defender' should be when 'pressing in the defending third. In context, and without foreknowledge of what would transpire later, but knowledge of the tendencies of his team-mates, Lucas did, ex ante, basically the right thing.

[didi shamone]

Not being funny but he's probably past it at 53. 

And now we know where he came up with the name predator. Another mystery solved on RAWK by gum.

[PhaseOfPlay]

So, whether you intended to or not, you're agreeing with Cpt. Reina's 'analysis' that puts a whole lot of the onus for their goal on Lucas not playing properly. You cannot claim you didn't know Cpt. Reina's point. JackWard33 quoted it.

See, I lose respect for people when they put words in my mouth. So I will reassert my claim that I didn't know Cpt. Reina's point, because whether JW33 quoted it or not - I DIDN'T SEE IT.

Hope that clears things up.