Topic: Round Table: Crystal Palace 3 Liverpool 3

[Corkboy]

Point of clarification: Is it not the purpose of the Round Table threads, after each game, to focus on that one particular game and analyze IT, as opposed to the entire season, the views of pundits, etc?

When does analysis of a particular game, periods within it, managerial decisions, individual player performances overall or during particular incidents etc transform itself into 'finger-pointing' and 'blaming'?

Usually after a game we haven't won.

[rickardinho1]

Point of clarification: Is it not the purpose of the Round Table threads, after each game, to focus on that one particular game and analyze IT, as opposed to the entire season, the views of pundits, etc?

When does analysis of a particular game, periods within it, managerial decisions, individual player performances overall or during particular incidents etc transform itself into 'finger-pointing' and 'blaming'?

As much as I understand it, I cannot agree with the point of view or opinion that our going from 0-3 vs CPFC to 3-3 in less than 20 minutes is the result of 'regression to the mean', player fatigue, player naivete, etc. Or that it's not appropriate to analyze what happened because some fools in the media have said this, that, or the other about our club, our manager, our players, etc.

Round tables after losses are usually pretty similar to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_l5ntikaU .. with PoP playing the role of the knight obviously, and one of Lucas/Johnson/a CB/Moses that of the witch

[outlaw_nas]

Thought coutinho had a beautiful chance as soon as they scored.couldve killed the game off.

[slipslidin82]

Brendan says the message at halftime was 'forget goal difference, just win the game.'

[killer-heels]

Brendan says the message at halftime was 'forget goal difference, just win the game.'

Yep. The corner at 3-1 though. He should have got his message across to calm down or that should have come from Skrtel or Gerrard.

[Hank Scorpio]

You can understand the players taking the initiative once we went 3-0 with 30 minutes left.  It doesn't matter all that much what was said at HT then because it was very much on to better our GD.

But football is a fluid game.  So when Palace scored their first goal, the players should have reacted.  Just as they took the initiative to chase goals at the beginning of the 2nd half, they should have done something similar with regards to shutting down the game.  Everything was in our favour, in terms of time, 2 goal lead, even fitness as we had given Palace the run around for the whole match.

To be fair to the players, I think part of the reason we put together an 11 game winning run was exactly because we were able to adapt to in-game changes.  When you think Swansea (OG, pen), West Ham (foul on Mig), City (responding to City dominance) & Norwich (seeing out the game in last 10) the players should be credited for their response.  They showed a level of maturity which really should not exist in such a young side or one that has only been together for the last 20 months.  It's just in the last 2 where they haven't shown the appropriate response.  It's been emotionally-driven and you can forgive them for getting caught up in it all.

[Eeyore]

You can understand the players taking the initiative once we went 3-0 with 30 minutes left.  It doesn't matter all that much what was said at HT then because it was very much on to better our GD.

But football is a fluid game.  So when Palace scored their first goal, the players should have reacted.  Just as they took the initiative to chase goals at the beginning of the 2nd half, they should have done something similar with regards to shutting down the game.  Everything was in our favour, in terms of time, 2 goal lead, even fitness as we had given Palace the run around for the whole match.

To be fair to the players, I think part of the reason we put together an 11 game winning run was exactly because we were able to adapt to in-game changes.  When you think Swansea (OG, pen), West Ham (foul on Mig), City (responding to City dominance) & Norwich (seeing out the game in last 10) the players should be credited for their response.  They showed a level of maturity which really should not exist in such a young side or one that has only been together for the last 20 months.  It's just in the last 2 where they haven't shown the appropriate response.  It's been emotionally-driven and you can forgive them for getting caught up in it all.

Yes I have to agree with that. Rafa was a manager who liked to control things but I always remember Kuyt saying he asked Gerrard what we should do when went 1-0 up against Inter at Anfield in 2007 and it was Gerrard who said to go for the second goal. A good example is managers jotting things down on a note pad in the first half in preparation for their half time team talk. Managers would not need to do that if they could micro manage games in real time.

[redtel]

I don't read the papers these days, but if they were saying we cannot win the title playing like that then they are wrong yet again.

The last time we did actually win the bloody thing we had a defence that conceded just 37 goals in 38 games with none other than Jocky and Hysen or Gillespie as our two CB's.

Still we managed to lose to a Crystal Palace team in a Cup semi-final having spanked them 9-0 in the league. ( Aldo's last game)

We conceded 3 goals in normal time and a killer fourth in extra- time.

My point is that for all our soul searching and looking at mistakes made by manager or players even title winning teams have games like this. In the Cup game at Villa Park we may have thought it was going to be easy and last Monday we may have got caught up on improving our goal difference but it should not mean we cannot win the title with this team.

We have shown excellent game management in many games especially at Anfield where we have taken 3-0 H.T. leads and cruised the second half. The failure to gain a point against Chelsea put us in an unusual position as goal difference is never a factor in the majority of games played.I doubt it will occur again but if it does we will be wiser and have cooler heads.

Best if we ignore Moses not coming forth and Crystal's Gayles goals (great lines fellas!) and remember how we jumped over the two parked buses in Evel Knievel fashion after some Melwood practice. Rodger's and his staff did come up with some answers which bodes well for next season.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Yep. The corner at 3-1 though. He should have got his message across to calm down or that should have come from Skrtel or Gerrard.

In situations like that, though, it often comes down to the captain to sort the issue out. The manager/coach can only shout so much. Sometimes the situation/occasion gets the better of the players, and they revert to "instinct". No matter what a coach says or what message they try to get across, once a group of players gets into a rhythm of play, it's hard to get them out of it. Unless, as someone mentioned above, you get a break in play from injury (or "injury"), where you can change momentum and get calmer heads on the field. None of our players were seemingly able to step outside of themselves and see the bigger picture, go down with an "injury", and allow the team to recompose themselves. It comes down to "savvy", ultimately. Next season, in a similar situation, I bet the reaction to conceding that first goal will be different.

[Eeyore]

In situations like that, though, it often comes down to the captain to sort the issue out. The manager/coach can only shout so much. Sometimes the situation/occasion gets the better of the players, and they revert to "instinct". No matter what a coach says or what message they try to get across, once a group of players gets into a rhythm of play, it's hard to get them out of it. Unless, as someone mentioned above, you get a break in play from injury (or "injury"), where you can change momentum and get calmer heads on the field. None of our players were seemingly able to step outside of themselves and see the bigger picture, go down with an "injury", and allow the team to recompose themselves. It comes down to "savvy", ultimately. Next season, in a similar situation, I bet the reaction to conceding that first goal will be different.

The free kick England conceded from against Germany during the 4-1 World Cup defeat in South Africa springs to mind. You would struggle to find a more organised and tactically disciplined Coach than Capello but England were a shambles from that free kick. As you say PoP the players have to have the tactical nous to react to situations and can't rely on the coach once they have crossed the white line.

[killer-heels]

In situations like that, though, it often comes down to the captain to sort the issue out. The manager/coach can only shout so much. Sometimes the situation/occasion gets the better of the players, and they revert to "instinct". No matter what a coach says or what message they try to get across, once a group of players gets into a rhythm of play, it's hard to get them out of it. Unless, as someone mentioned above, you get a break in play from injury (or "injury"), where you can change momentum and get calmer heads on the field. None of our players were seemingly able to step outside of themselves and see the bigger picture, go down with an "injury", and allow the team to recompose themselves. It comes down to "savvy", ultimately. Next season, in a similar situation, I bet the reaction to conceding that first goal will be different.

Maybe, which is why the addition of a centre back who not only happens to be a good defender but a leader may be the most important signing we can make.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Maybe, which is why the addition of a centre back who not only happens to be a good defender but a leader may be the most important signing we can make.

There's no maybe about it. It happens all the time, at every level. For example, I prefer a pressing game, controlling the spaces, and making the other team play the way we want them to so we can win the ball in favourable areas that suit our attack (whatever it may be). No matter how many teams, what level, and how often we drill that defensive strategy, there will be games where the players will drop off into the 18-yard box and proceed to defend like they've never played football before, no matter what I or any assistants shout from the sidelines. If it happens in the first half, you at least have half time to fix it. If it happens in the second half, you are stuck, unless there's a reasonably long break from injury in which the players can reset their mentalities. A vocal defender would help, but you still need that time available to get the players together, sort out what you need to do, and hit the mental "F5" button.

[Broad Spectrum]

One thing I noticed with Skrtel is that once he gets booked he transforms into a different defender.

When he's not on a booking he's always looking to push up and win the ball higher up the pitch, he's the type of defender who likes to kill attacks at the earliest opportunity by intercepting (or clearing) the ball form the attacker, usually when they have their back to goal and are about to receive a pass. Naturally, the remaining defenders will push up with him and can result in our defensive line being higher up the pitch.

However once he's been booked he's more prone to sitting deep, possibly because he's worried about a potential second yellow. On Monday, he was booked in the 63rd minute and all of a sudden our back line dropped and we invited pressure from Palace. Their persistent pressure paid off when they scored the equaliser.

A similar situation occurred in the Norwich match, where again Skrtel was booked in the 65th minute. Sterling had just scored, and we were leading 3-1. Our back line then decided to drop deeper and deeper (and combined with our inability to keep possession of the ball) this invited pressure and encouraged Norwich, who eventually scored their second through Snodgrass and very nearly resulted in the team dropping two points.

Carra touched on it after the match on Sky, and I've discussed this with other Reds as well, but I think he's right that Sakho needs to act like the leader we all know he is. Maybe the language barrier is an issue, maybe the fact he's playing in Gerrards shadow and is often in earshot of Gerrard  he feels he has no place to bark orders to the team Gerrard has led for over a decade, maybe it's a combination of the two. Whichever way you look at it, we need him to develop into the leader our defence needs. Our defensive leader for the last decade has left (in Carra) and he desperately needs to be replaced.

[Greebo62]

In situations like that, though, it often comes down to the captain to sort the issue out. The manager/coach can only shout so much. Sometimes the situation/occasion gets the better of the players, and they revert to "instinct". No matter what a coach says or what message they try to get across, once a group of players gets into a rhythm of play, it's hard to get them out of it. Unless, as someone mentioned above, you get a break in play from injury (or "injury"), where you can change momentum and get calmer heads on the field. None of our players were seemingly able to step outside of themselves and see the bigger picture, go down with an "injury", and allow the team to recompose themselves. It comes down to "savvy", ultimately. Next season, in a similar situation, I bet the reaction to conceding that first goal will be different.

For me you've hit the nail on the head.  At 3-1, we should have been looking to take the sting out of the game, but it was our captain who effectively set the tone.  Just prior to their second, I was asking my old fella why Stevie was trying to play one-twos into the box instead of occupying the DM spaces.  It was with a terribly sinking feeling that I saw the desparation to score again coming from our skipper, and I'm afraid to say that I would have preferred if Stevie had dropped back and marshalled the defence better at 3-1.  That would have set a more cautious tone, and I don't think they'd have had as moch joy as they did of we had.

I would also have preferred to see Agger coming on instead of Moses, but perhaps thats with the twenty twnety focus of hindsight.  I just wouldn't have brought Moses on at all if it had been my decision.  He's contributed very little this season, and continued that at Palace.

[Chakan]

There's no maybe about it. It happens all the time, at every level. For example, I prefer a pressing game, controlling the spaces, and making the other team play the way we want them to so we can win the ball in favourable areas that suit our attack (whatever it may be). No matter how many teams, what level, and how often we drill that defensive strategy, there will be games where the players will drop off into the 18-yard box and proceed to defend like they've never played football before, no matter what I or any assistants shout from the sidelines. If it happens in the first half, you at least have half time to fix it. If it happens in the second half, you are stuck, unless there's a reasonably long break from injury in which the players can reset their mentalities. A vocal defender would help, but you still need that time available to get the players together, sort out what you need to do, and hit the mental "F5" button.

Quick question though, if Rodgers was failing to get his message across when the first goal came in why not bring Agger on instead of Moses? Surely another defender on to cover the backline would have put another man back there and Agger seems to be a vocal sort who can at least come and try get the team playing the way Rodgers wanted, and possible have a word with everyone on the way?

[GrkStav]

Thought coutinho had a beautiful chance as soon as they scored.couldve killed the game off.

Given his excellent ball control, I would argue that he had a beautiful chance for an assist to Suarez.

Why he went for glory (and failed) is probably due to his youth and enthusiasm.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Quick question though, if Rodgers was failing to get his message across when the first goal came in why not bring Agger on instead of Moses? Surely another defender on to cover the backline would have put another man back there and Agger seems to be a vocal sort who can at least come and try get the team playing the way Rodgers wanted, and possible have a word with everyone on the way?

I couldn't answer that. I'm as befuddled as you are on that one.

Having said that, the issue wasn't the "defence" per se, but the gap between midfield and defence. That's where we were getting hurt by Palace, and that is more a matter of discipline in the midfield than anything in the backline (although going to three backs would have at least given us numbers to balance the width of the field)

[Miltonred]

The manager had the opportunity to changes things using his substitutions. Palaces first goal came a minute after Coutinho came on. I question Brendans version of events when he tries to assert that he was focused on the three points, because Coutinho for Sterling is a very attacking substitution.

Once they scored one we didn't make another substitution until it was 3-2. We brought on Moses for Sturridge.

I get that huge tactical changes are hard to communicate when players are in the zone, but you can alter the set-up with a substitution and players imo often "wake up" from their focus when they see an unusual change coming from the bench. For me we had Kolo and Daniel who could have come in for an attacker, and forced Gerrard et al to listen to a message from the manager, about shutting Palace down. As far as I can see it never happened.

Watch what Pellegrini did on Wednesday with the Jovetic for Milner, the City formation changed, numerous players reacted to instruction and a goal came within 4 minutes as Villa struggled to get to grips with the extra movement and shape that an additional forward brought.

[PhaseOfPlay]

The manager had the opportunity to changes things using his substitutions. Palaces first goal came a minute after Coutinho came on. I question Brendans version of events when he tries to assert that he was focused on the three points, because Coutinho for Sterling is a very attacking substitution.

Once they scored one we didn't make another substitution until it was 3-2. We brought on Moses for Sturridge.

I get that huge tactical changes are hard to communicate when players are in the zone, but you can alter the set-up with a substitution and players imo often "wake up" from their focus when they see an unusual change coming from the bench. For me we had Kolo and Daniel who could have come in for an attacker, and forced Gerrard et al to listen to a message from the manager, about shutting Palace down. As far as I can see it never happened.

Watch what Pellegrini did on Wednesday with the Jovetic for Milner, the City formation changed, numerous players reacted to instruction and a goal came within 4 minutes as Villa struggled to get to grips with the extra movement and shape that an additional forward brought.

Was Agger not ready to come on when they got their second?

[GrkStav]

For me you've hit the nail on the head.  At 3-1, we should have been looking to take the sting out of the game, but it was our captain who effectively set the tone.  Just prior to their second, I was asking my old fella why Stevie was trying to play one-twos into the box instead of occupying the DM spaces.  It was with a terribly sinking feeling that I saw the desperation to score again coming from our skipper, and I'm afraid to say that I would have preferred if Stevie had dropped back and marshaled the defence better at 3-1.  That would have set a more cautious tone, and I don't think they'd have had as much joy as they did if we had.

I would also have preferred to see Agger coming on instead of Moses, but perhaps thats with the twenty twenty focus of hindsight.  I just wouldn't have brought Moses on at all if it had been my decision.  He's contributed very little this season, and continued that at Palace.

I have been arguing on twatter that certain "moves" or "deployments" appear to have become "unthinkables" for BR, and certainly for most supporters. For example, the notion that perhaps, especially at 1-3, Lucas should have been moved to DM, and either partner Gerrard in a 2-1 midfield, or switched with Gerrard in his earlier 'RM' position, seems (in retrospect) not to have even been entertained. I say this because I would bet the proverbial family farm that if Lucas were instructed by BR to 'fall back'/go to DM etc he would do so, no ifs, ands, or buts.

The question as to why Suarez was not substituted for by e.g. the 70th minute (for either an extra CB or, horror of horrors apparently, Aspas - fresh legs, etc) is also a telling one, for me. He was already booked for dissent. He was clearly not 100% anymore. If one relies on Suarez to call for his own substitution, then one will wait till the end of time. Together with the choice to have Coutinho come in at 0-3 in lieu of Sterling, the failure to substitute Suarez tells me, at least, that BR, whatever he claims to have said to the players at HT or from the sideline, had NO intention of 'consolidating' the win and 3 points.

What PoP has said is, in all likelihood, absolutely correct in general. I just don't think it applies to this particular game. Personally, I saw no evidence whatsoever of BR directing his players, those on the pitch or those he was bringing in as substitutes, to 'consolidate' the win and 3 points. I'm afraid BR was taken in by the traveling supporters' enthusiasm and the players inclination was to "attack, attack, attack" as well.

A bit of Rafa Benitez would not have hurt, I submit.

[PhaseOfPlay]

I have been arguing on twatter that certain "moves" or "deployments" appear to have become "unthinkables" for BR, and certainly for most supporters. For example, the notion that perhaps, especially at 1-3, Lucas should have been moved to DM, and either partner Gerrard in a 2-1 midfield, or switched with Gerrard in his earlier 'RM' position, seems (in retrospect) not to have even been entertained. I say this because I would bet the proverbial family farm that if Lucas were instructed by BR to 'fall back'/go to DM etc he would do so, no ifs, ands, or buts.

The question as to why Suarez was not substituted for by e.g. the 70th minute (for either an extra CB or, horror of horrors apparently, Aspas - fresh legs, etc) is also a telling one, for me. He was already booked for dissent. He was clearly not 100% anymore. If one relies on Suarez to call for his own substitution, then one will wait till the end of time. Together with the choice to have Coutinho come in at 0-3 in lieu of Sterling, the failure to substitute Suarez tells me, at least, that BR, whatever he claims to have said to the players at HT or from the sideline, had NO intention of 'consolidating' the win and 3 points.

What PoP has said is, in all likelihood, absolutely correct in general. I just don't think it applies to this particular game. Personally, I saw no evidence whatsoever of BR directing his players, those on the pitch or those he was bringing in as substitutes, to 'consolidate' the win and 3 points. I'm afraid BR was taken in by the traveling supporters' enthusiasm and the players inclination was to "attack, attack, attack" as well.

A bit of Rafa Benitez would not have hurt, I submit.

Unless the camera was on him every second, how do you know he wasn't trying to get any message across? Just because he isn't gesticulating like a teen raver on his first "E", doesn't mean he wasn't communicating. "Shouting" doesn't equal "better communication" or "more communication".

The substitution options can be legitimately questioned. I don't think Rodgers was as clinical as he could have been. But I disagree that he is being evasive about his intent to the players and the communication of that intent. We had a captain who is the controlling midfielder. When that player starts to go off-script, the only way to solve it is to take them off the field. But then, if he'd taken Gerrard and Suarez off the field, and we ended up drawing 3-3 anyway, people would have question why he took off our captain and our top scorer. Making effective substitutions isn't easy. If it were, we would talk more about managers who get it wrong, rather than dissect the ones who get it right. If they work out, they look great. If they don't, the manager looks clueless. Either way, though, most managers make subs from the same tactical view of the game, week to week, game to game. Rodgers made his subs because of how he was seeing the game, not because of what the fans were thinking. He happened to get these ones more wrong than right, and the only person who can truly explain why those subs were made, is Rodgers. And the only point of view that was important was the one he had on the touchline, where everything looks a lot different to when you are in the stands or sitting in front of a TV.

[GrkStav]

Was Agger not ready to come on when they got their second?

It looks like he was.

Can you address the possible rationale for the Coutinho for Sterling substitution at 0-3, PoP?

I cannot see it as an even "as you were, but with fresher legs" substitution. Certainly NOT a 'consolidate the win and 3 points' substitution. But what I can 'see' and what is the case are often too different things.

[Miltonred]

Was Agger not ready to come on when they got their second?

If he was then why didn't he?
At 3-2, was Brendans thought to try and get to 6-2? 

He ditches the defensive substitution when its even more important, (in the context of an entire season) to bring on Moses? I submit that if he had dug up the actual Moses and sent the ancient corpse on to the field it would have been a more effective effort to turn the tide than that useless piece of equine faeces.

[PhaseOfPlay]

If he was then why didn't he?
At 3-2, was Brendans thought to try and get to 6-2? 

He ditches the defensive substitution when its even more important, (in the context of an entire season) to bring on Moses? I submit that if he had dug up the actual Moses and sent the ancient corpse on to the field it would have been a more effective effort to turn the tide than that useless piece of equine faeces.

As I said, only Rodgers knows why he changed that sub. But at 3-2, with them getting some momentum, you can only do one of three things - leave things as they are and hope to ride it out; send on a defender and hope to keep it at 3-2; or send on an attacker and stretch the game to draw some of their midfielders away from their attack. Rodgers chose the latter. Sending Agger on was no guarantee that we wouldn't have conceded the third goal. Sending Moses on was no guarantee that we would have scored a 4th. Leaving things as they are was no guarantee that the players on the pitch could weather the storm. In other words, the impacts of tactical substitutions are often random.

[L666KOP]

I thought Stevie was the 'third' centre back ?

Would it not have made sense to bring Sakho and Skrtel in a touch and drop the fullbacks back into a more defensive position ?

Or was the plan do you think to drop Agger in as the third CB and push Stevie forward to try and get a grip in midfield ?

[GrkStav]

[1.] Unless the camera was on him every second, how do you know he wasn't trying to get any message across? Just because he isn't gesticulating like a teen raver on his first "E", doesn't mean he wasn't communicating. "Shouting" doesn't equal "better communication" or "more communication".

The substitution options can be legitimately questioned. I don't think Rodgers was as clinical as he could have been.[2.] But I disagree that he is being evasive about his intent to the players and the communication of that intent. We had a captain who is the controlling midfielder. When that player starts to go off-script, the only way to solve it is to take them off the field. But then, [3.]if he'd taken Gerrard and Suarez off the field, and we ended up drawing 3-3 anyway, people would have question why he took off our captain and our top scorer. Making effective substitutions isn't easy. If it were, we would talk more about managers who get it wrong, rather than dissect the ones who get it right. If they work out, they look great. If they don't, the manager looks clueless. Either way, though, most managers make subs from the same tactical view of the game, week to week, game to game. [4.]Rodgers made his subs because of how he was seeing the game, not because of what the fans were thinking. He happened to get these ones more wrong than right, and the only person who can truly explain why those subs were made, is Rodgers. [5.]And the only point of view that was important was the one he had on the touchline, where everything looks a lot different to when you are in the stands or sitting in front of a TV.

1. Awesome analogy; humorous, too. Yes, I wasn't at the game. The T.V. version of the game did show me (us) that on a couple of occasions (at the very least) BR called Lucas over and spoke to him. I can only go by the evidence that I have access to and whatever I can plausibly conjecture.

2. Yes, taking SG off the field, if he indeed had gone off script (that's your conjecture, as much as mine was that there was no such script provided by BR), is one of those 'unthinkables' I wrote about. Not for Rafa it wasn't, obviously. For BR, while not definitive, evidence suggest that it has been.

3. What supporters/pundits might say afterwards about a manager's substitutions given the eventual outcome is irrelevant. That's why he's the manager. As you say later, that is immaterial. He did not make substitutions with an eye to how they might be second-guessed later if they do not come off.

4. See #3. It appears we agree 100%.

5. As we have no way to access that, nor direct access to what he was thinking and/or what his staff were telling him and how, we can only (hopefully rationally) speculate.

[Miltonred]

As I said, only Rodgers knows why he changed that sub. But at 3-2, with them getting some momentum, you can only do one of three things - leave things as they are and hope to ride it out; send on a defender and hope to keep it at 3-2; or send on an attacker and stretch the game to draw some of their midfielders away from their attack. Rodgers chose the latter. Sending Agger on was no guarantee that we wouldn't have conceded the third goal. Sending Moses on was no guarantee that we would have scored a 4th. Leaving things as they are was no guarantee that the players on the pitch could weather the storm. In other words, the impacts of tactical substitutions are often random.

Momentum. There was no question that Palace would be pushing for a third they had zero to lose and everything to gain. The idea that the right answer was an extra attacker is anathema to me. Nobody on that Palace team was thinking "oh an extra Liverpool forward, I need to drop back a bit".

Anyway the result is there for all to see and remember doubtless for a long time. I take no joy from 20/20 hindsight. I just hope that we (as in Brendan) learns something from this (and the Chelsea loss)  that helps us be more successful next season.

[L666KOP]

Momentum. There was no question that Palace would be pushing for a third they had zero to lose and everything to gain. The idea that the right answer was an extra attacker is anathema to me. Nobody on that Palace team was thinking "oh an extra Liverpool forward, I need to drop back a bit".

Anyway the result is there for all to see and remember doubtless for a long time. I take no joy from 20/20 hindsight. I just hope that we (as in Brendan) learns something from this (and the Chelsea loss)  that helps us be more successful next season.

And yet Ferguson won countless trophies doing exactly that ?

It wasn't so much the personnel, it was the fact they seemed to drop back ten yards as a unit once we went to 3-2.

From a layman, we should have dropped the FB's back in line with the CB's to make a 5, but the CB's dropped deeper, and the FB's stayed pretty much where they were.

[PhaseOfPlay]

1. Awesome analogy; humorous, too. Yes, I wasn't at the game. The T.V. version of the game did show me (us) that on a couple of occasions (at the very least) BR called Lucas over and spoke to him. I can only go by the evidence that I have access to and whatever I can plausibly conjecture.

So if he called Lucas over to him, then he must have been communicating, yes?

2. Yes, taking SG off the field, if he indeed had gone off script (that's your conjecture, as much as mine was that there was no such script provided by BR), is one of those 'unthinkables' I wrote about. Not for Rafa it wasn't, obviously. For BR, while not definitive, evidence suggest that it has been.

Our script under Rodgers has always been to have someone step in front of the back four. But there's a discipline in terms of the distances that this player can travel forward. In the moments before the first goal, to the end of the game, Gerrard spent more time in an attacking position than in the controlling one - effectively playing the box-to-box role he is no longer physically suited to, not least of all in a high intensity game in the last 15 minutes of the 37th game of the season. So he did, in fact, go off-script

5. As we have no way to access that, not direct access to what he was thinking and/or what his staff were telling him and how, we can only (hopefully rationally) speculate.

Well I don't have direct access to Rodgers' thoughts, but I do have access to experience of how a game looks from the touchline as the person in charge of the team's fortunes, as well as being up in the stands in charge of a team's fortunes (only time I've ever been sent off ), and also in the stands as a spectator. I've been in charge on the touchline with 500 fans screaming behind me, and I've been an assistant with 1500 fans screaming behind me. You tend to tune it all out, but in the cauldron of emotion and intensity and the flow of a high-speed game, it's easy if you're relatively inexperienced in such occasions, to lose the run of your thoughts, and react to the moment rather than the plan. That's what I think happened to Rodgers. Next year, if we're in the same position, I bet he makes a much smarter tactical choice.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Momentum. There was no question that Palace would be pushing for a third they had zero to lose and everything to gain. The idea that the right answer was an extra attacker is anathema to me. Nobody on that Palace team was thinking "oh an extra Liverpool forward, I need to drop back a bit".

Anyway the result is there for all to see and remember doubtless for a long time. I take no joy from 20/20 hindsight. I just hope that we (as in Brendan) learns something from this (and the Chelsea loss)  that helps us be more successful next season.

But not to Rodgers. And that's the only key point.

[GrkStav]

And yet Ferguson won countless trophies doing exactly that ?

It wasn't so much the personnel, it was the fact they seemed to drop back ten yards as a unit once we went to 3-2.

From a layman, we should have dropped the FB's back in line with the CB's to make a 5, but the CB's dropped deeper, and the FB's stayed pretty much where they were.

So, we're back to assigning responsibility and blame to the players, and (forgive me) in ad hoc manner, as well. The CBs decided to drop too deep, the FBs decided to stay pretty much where they were. All on their own, and remarkably (diabolically), in just the 'right' way for CP to go one more goal.

At 0-3 BR took out Sterling (who, to me, had shown no signs of tiring, no more than Suarez or Sturridge) and brought on Coutinho. The rest is (bad) history.

[PhaseOfPlay]

So, we're back to assigning responsibility and blame to the players, and (forgive me) in ad hoc manner, as well. The CBs decided to drop too deep, the FBs decided to stay pretty much where they were. All on their own, and remarkably (diabolically), in just the 'right' way for CP to go one more goal.

At 0-3 BR took out Sterling (who, to me, had shown no signs of tiring, no more than Suarez or Sturridge) and brought on Coutinho. The rest is (bad) history.

Are you saying we lost the lead because Rodgers took Sterling off?

[L666KOP]

So, we're back to assigning responsibility and blame to the players, and (forgive me) in ad hoc manner, as well. The CBs decided to drop too deep, the FBs decided to stay pretty much where they were. All on their own, and remarkably (diabolically), in just the 'right' way for CP to go one more goal.

At 0-3 BR took out Sterling (who, to me, had shown no signs of tiring, no more than Suarez or Sturridge) and brought on Coutinho. The rest is (bad) history.

Unless you are 100% disciplined the natural reaction will be to drop deeper to 'protect' your goal, especially to protect the goal against a potentially title threatening equaliser.

It's not blame I'm trying to explain away, it's a reason, I fully understand why they did it, it's human nature to 'close in' around what you want to protect, not move away from.

[GrkStav]

So if he called Lucas over to him, then he must have been communicating, yes?

YES. And knowing Lucas, HE at least did EXACTLY as he was instructed. He did not retreat, he did not put himself next to Stevie to make it a 2 DM setup, he did not switch with Gerrard to become the less adventurous DM, with Stevie where Lucas had been. The way I (probably erroneously) see it, the fact that there WAS communication (better, visible to all evidence that there was) and to LUCAS specifically, and what subsequently transpired, indicates that the communication was NOT to 'consolidate', etc.

Our script under Rodgers has always been to have someone step in front of the back four. But there's a discipline in terms of the distances that this player can travel forward. In the moments before the first goal, to the end of the game, Gerrard spent more time in an attacking position than in the controlling one - effectively playing the box-to-box role he is no longer physically suited to, not least of all in a high intensity game in the last 15 minutes of the 37th game of the season. So he did, in fact, go off-script

I agree that this is the 'by the book' script, in light of what we all know about Rodgers 'general' script, or script of scripts. Whether it was actually the case in this case is not established. Anyway, your analysis puts my mind at ease that I am not entirely crazy when I think that Gerrard in DM/controller is not always and necessarily ideal.

Well I don't have direct access to Rodgers' thoughts, but I do have access to experience of how a game looks from the touchline as the person in charge of the team's fortunes, as well as being up in the stands in charge of a team's fortunes (only time I've ever been sent off ), and also in the stands as a spectator. I've been in charge on the touchline with 500 fans screaming behind me, and I've been an assistant with 1500 fans screaming behind me. You tend to tune it all out, but in the cauldron of emotion and intensity and the flow of a high-speed game, it's easy if you're relatively inexperienced in such occasions, to lose the run of your thoughts, and react to the moment rather than the plan. That's what I think happened to Rodgers. Next year, if we're in the same position, I bet he makes a much smarter tactical choice.

I can see that. Thank you.

[rocco]

Are you saying we lost the lead because Rodgers took Sterling off?

Personally I though it was a turning point , thought once Sterling went off they seemed to push on a lot more as less to worry about down that side ?

[L666KOP]

Personally I though it was a turning point , thought once Sterling went off they seemed to push on a lot more as less to worry about down that side ?

I thought it was a good move personally, it gave the Palace back 6 a different kind of threat to think about.

Hindsight though, eh ?

[PhaseOfPlay]

Personally I though it was a turning point , thought once Sterling went off they seemed to push on a lot more as less to worry about down that side ?

It's coincidence though. 2 minutes is not enough time for that kind of tactical shift to have an impact. We subbed Sterling off at 77 minutes, and they scored their first on 79. It was their goal that was the turning point. Panic seemed to set in, and they got the second two minutes after that. Nothing to do with Sterling/Coutinho, and everything to do with mentality.

To me, it's no surprise that despite all of the good work he's done, both of Steve Peters' "star pupils" faced monumental collapse on the same night. Because when it is all said and done, mental fitness is like physical fitness - it is a slave to any deep internal flaws that might already exist. In physical fitness, it's usually a structural flaw that prevents maximum performance at critical times. In mental fitness, it's a deep psychological flaw that existed long before the person became a top professional athlete. You can work around these flaws, but you won't know how to do that until they present themselves. We won't score as many goals next season, but I think we'll get more "results" than we have this season (which is saying something).

[rocco]

I thought it was a good move personally, it gave the Palace back 6 a different kind of threat to think about.

Hindsight though, eh ?

Thought sterling was offering plenty to keep their full back and midfield to worry about , found it strange at the time  , especially as Coutinho was carrying a injury

[rocco]

It's coincidence though. 2 minutes is not enough time for that kind of tactical shift to have an impact. We subbed Sterling off at 77 minutes, and they scored their first on 79. It was their goal that was the turning point. Panic seemed to set in, and they got the second two minutes after that. Nothing to do with Sterling/Coutinho, and everything to do with mentality.

To me, it's no surprise that despite all of the good work he's done, both of Steve Peters' "start pupils" faced monumental collapse on the same night. Because when it is all said and done, mental fitness is like physical fitness - it is a slave to any deep internal flaws that might already exist. In physical fitness, it's usually a structural flaw that prevents maximum performance at critical times. In mental fitness, it's a deep psychological flaw that existed long before the person became a top professional athlete. You can work around these flaws, but you won't know how to do that until they present themselves. We won't score as many goals next season, but I think we'll get more "results" than we have this season (which is saying something).

Interesting read , but still feel Sterling staying was better than a swap for Phil

[BabuYagu]

Unless the camera was on him every second, how do you know he wasn't trying to get any message across?

Did you see Rodgers and Pascoe doing this?



Then they weren´t trying hard enough!