I was going to reply with quotes, because the OP asks some excellent and clear questions. And they need to be asked. I think it is a fair statement for me to make that I am a big believer in BR's work, his methods, and his appointment. I think, long term, it is a good move. But that doesn't mean there aren't some big red flags in the short term. Much like with Hodgson, there are things that happen that just make you do a double-take, because some of the questions to ask are just basics of coaching and tactics. The worry for me is that BR might be overthinking it at times, and second-guesses himself, when the instinctive thing would be the right thing to do. The Stoke game was a perfect example of that for me. I've mentioned it a few times, but in the Premier League, with a large number of teams attacking directly down the middle, the idea of split centrebacks just isn't the safest defensive arrangement for me. We'll see below a comparison of what the instinctive thing to do is, and what is largely ineffective. The issue for me is the simplicity of one idea, and the complexity of another. If BR can focus on the simplicity, he might be better positioned to get the complex football he aspires to.
Liverpool’s System - I think most fans expected the same line-up as against Fulham to be played, although there was a solid case for certain changes to be made - if not to the system, then for the personnel. The 4-2-3-1/4-3-3 system that worked so well against Fulham was in all probability going to be BR's system of choice. Hindsight is 20/20, but as I’ve said before, we leave a great big hole in the defence with the split centrebacks, and against certain teams this becomes a major issue because the hole is in the space that they attack directly. There are two solutions to this – the first one is for the centrebacks to play more like a traditional central defence – approximately 10 yards apart at all times, sliding left and right as a unit to cover the strong side of the opposition’s attack. The other way to cope, which is my preference given the way BR wants to attack, is to play with three defenders, with two defensive mids in front of them. That gives you the flexibility to play with either 2 or 3 forwards (in a 3-5-2 or 3-4-3). We are so sensitive in that area of the field that teams don’t even have to do much in-depth scouting to figure out how to attack us. At half time, the average positions of Agger and Skrtel were practically in the fullback positions. This indicates that both Reina saw a lot of the ball in possession, and that Stoke were getting a lot of balls forward that were picked up by Reina. The final average positions showed that the gap had closed up some, but it was, as we shall see below, still wide open and available for penetration from the other team.
In midfield and attack, though, although we kept our shape, our “2-3-1” changed into a “1-2-3” with Shelvey spending more time behind Gerrard’s position than ahead of it. This has been a problem for a long time with Shelvey, for me – he lacks tactical and positional discipline, and this hurts the shape of the team. As a result, Suarez was isolated again, and when Suarez is isolated, he becomes less effective. His shot total doesn’t go down, but the shots become a little less clinical. Having said that, though, he ran the line pretty well, as always, and never stopped working. But the sooner he gets genuine support up front, the better for both him and the team. Lucas did his usual good job, for what he could do. As we’ll see, Stoke seemed to target the midfield area around Lucas, and with Gerrard being more forward than he should have been, and a largely defensively ineffective Shelvey getting in the way, midfield had a bad day. Downing and Suso did what they could, with Downing being consistent, at least, if not as effective as against Fulham. Overall, though, our system played right into Stoke’s hands.
Stoke’s System – As we can see above, Stoke’s system was unorthodox in some respects, childish in others, and utterly effective against our own plan in total. There are three parts to how Stoke played that are eye opening. The first one is that they clearly targeted Skrtel. Etherington and Jones playing close to him and either side of him was clearly designed to take advantage of his occasional uncertainty on the ball. With the defensive pairing being so far apart, they knew that they could pressure him, hopefully with the idea that he’d pass to Reina or across to Agger, who would complete the switch across to Enrique, on the side where Stoke were strong in the attack. Win the ball there, and they could instantly transition into their main attack patterns (direct balls from the right back to the target with runners supporting behind or breaking forward). The second thing we notice is that they packed – to the extreme – the midfield area, especially around Lucas. This had two effects – it put our possession under pressure when the ball was in midfield, and gave them good start positions from which to press forward; secondly, it meant when the ball was released to their fullbacks and played long, they already had numbers in tight areas to support and penetrate around Jones, who did a good job of being the target man. It left our fullbacks open in space, but they had to drop back so far to get the ball that they were rendered useless as attacking weapons – Johnson did what he could, but the pressure clearly affected Enrique’s game, and his passing was sloppy as a result. The third thing they did, which was so unconventional in some senses that you could see how it might have flummoxed BR, was to play Shawcross and Huth deep and central in the defensive third. For anyone who has ever coached at the U8 and under level, this was the equivalent of putting your defenders on the 18 yard line even though the game was being played in the other team’s box. This positioning achieved a number of things – firstly, it meant we couldn’t counterattack into space. Huth and Shawcross were never going to stray too far forward. Secondly, this kept Suarez under close supervision, which, combined with the midfield congestion, stunted our attack. Add in the general badness of our technical play and we really weren’t going to bother Stoke over the 90 minutes, despite the great start. Overall, Pulis, for all his critics, played this game perfectly – well drilled, asked questions of the Liverpool players and coaching staff, and clearly had a motivated team doing their jobs well. BR needed to pull something special out of the hat at 2-1 down, and sadly, this is where questions had to be asked.
The Big Questions – Like Col, I think there are certain things that need to be asked from this game. Firstly, why do we consistently get punished in the large space between the central defenders when there are at least two obvious solutions – tighter central defence, or a back three? Is there a background reason for the lack of solutions to a glaring flaw in our defensive set-up? Secondly, BR has mentioned in interviews that he favours tactical periodization as his methodology, which involves blocks of training and consistent working of the principles of attack and defence that the manager favours; but it’s clear that the defensive principles are not quite solidified. Against Fulham, we pressed in pairs and gave them no time on the ball. Against Stoke, we didn’t really press at all, and allowed Stoke’s fullbacks to play their preferred game. Is the training cycle stuck in the possession phase? Is this a matter of BR realizing he doesn’t have the quality throughout the team to play the possession game naturally, so it has to be trained? Or is there a gap in his methodology? Ian Holloway is another coach who favours possession and pressing, but he apparently doesn’t do much in the way of defensive training cycles. Is BR stuck with the same approach? I think these are important questions to think about, because there is no need to be as inconsistent as we have been. We have a good system of play, the players have shown they are capable of playing it, but they change from game to game in their application. Is it a player problem? Or does it, ultimately, come down to BR’s approach – is it an inflexible methodology, or is he a slave to the players he has at his disposal?
