Topic: RAWK Round Table. AFC 2-0 LFC

[PhaseOfPlay]

Flanagan went as cover at right back and as I said, if Rodgers was unwilling to revert to a back 4 should anything happen to Johnson, why did he not take Mclaughlin with the traveling party instead of Flanagan. Would've made a lot more sense and showed greater foresight to the problems any change down the right would cause us.

Foresight for a dental issue?

And Flanagan has been with the first team more than McLaughlin, so why wouldn't he reward Flanagan with his place?

[theMilkman]

Don't really understand this comment that Rodgers needs to decide one way or the other how we are going to play on-going. It seems an awful over reaction given a defeat away the league leaders in a game where we really weren't as bad as some people have made out. Indeed, with a bit of composure and confidence we could easily have taken the lead in that game and we're talking about a whole different game tactically.

The manner in which we are currently playing has got us into the current top four so I don't see the need for any wholesale changes to the style just yet. Arsenal have a good team and have started the season well but I thought we gave a pretty good account of ourselves especially first half. The biggest difference was that Arsenal were more clinical when the chances presented themselves.

We were well in the game before poor defensive play from at least two defenders (Cissokho and Skrtel) allowed them to score against the run of play. After that we would always be chasing the game which plays right into Arsenals hands.

the point is we've been getting away with the way we've been playing because we haven't really played against a team of any proper quality, and essentially we are building a squad with a specific style to take us right back to the very top of european football- at least that's what we'd like to be doing. to do that we need a specific style of play- something we don't have right now.

we don't need to make wholesale changes to our style, but we do need to refine it one way or another. we went for the quick transition game in the first half but that didn't work because we didn't have enough quality in the wingback area and henderson isn't a good enough number 10 for that. given we lost the first goal to them, playing the 3412 and waiting to counter, especially given the poor quality of our wingbacks was never going to get us back in the game.

which ultimately boils down to the fact that we turned up at the emirates playing a formation for which we didn't have the personnel to fully utilise. if that was coutinho instead of henderson we may very well have taken the lead. Enrique instead of Cissokho, Sagna may not have had the run for the goal, and Johnson instead of Flanno and Cazorla's probably not unmarked.

we changed system in the second half, clearly appreciating that we weren't going to win the midfield battle against Arsenal but somehow needed to win the game so tried to bring on some more width and penetration with coutinho, but again he was rusty we didn't have the strength in wide areas to really hurt them in a game where arsenal could sit back, suffocate us in the middle of the pitch - where essentially no matter what we did we could definitely not win- and play on the counter. and against a team that's sitting back, henderson's not the best person to have on the flank since his best asset is his running and Moses never really got into the game when he came on either.

the part about BR having a decision- to my mind at least- relates most pertinently to who we seek to bring in to solve the problem. and who he brings in depends on how he wants us to play. ideally we'd get another no10 and a proper left wingback, so at least we have the option of both because looking at the players we have right now, we don't really have enough quality players to make either style of play work through an entire season. obviously the best teams can do both to an extent, but they're all better at one than the other and the route we need to actively start working towards now is the route we should be looking to have as our stable method of play in the long run. the fact that we've been playing with a fair bit of directness and penetration without ever really dominating possession this season suggests BR thinks we currently have players more suited to a quick buildup than a slow one, and yet by all accounts when he first arrived he was considered a tiki-taka purist. and that is fair enough, because the former means we really only need worry about being more well-stocked in forward and wide areas. the latter involves an overhaul of central midfield, and i get the impression Rodgers would rather jump naked into the mersey in the winter than tell the world Steven Gerrard doesn't have a place in Liverpool's midfield anymore, which he very well may not if we want to press the life out of teams.

simply put: the question is does he keep building us up to be bayern 12-13 type team or look towards switching to a barca 10-12 team.

[Adeemo]

Foresight for a dental issue?

No, foresight that any issue with Johnson would mean Flanagan playing right wing-back, as Brendan didn't want  to abandon his current system.

And Flanagan has been with the first team more than McLaughlin, so why wouldn't he reward Flanagan with his place?

I don't recall him playing much as a wing back, where as that's clearly McLaughlin's best route into the 1st team at the moment as it would allow him to step up and display his great attacking threat without putting as much pressure on his defensive game as playing in a back 4 would. He's clearly a better wing-back than Flanagan, where as Flanagan is probably a more solid fullback in a back 4 at this moment in time.

[PhaseOfPlay]

No, foresight that any issue with Johnson would mean Flanagan playing right wing-back, as Brendan didn't want  to abandon his current system.

I don't recall him playing much as a wing back, where as that's clearly McLaughlin's best route into the 1st team at the moment as it would allow him to step up and display his great attacking threat without putting as much pressure on his defensive game as playing in a back 4 would. He's clearly a better wing-back than Flanagan, where as Flanagan is probably a more solid fullback in a back 4 at this moment in time.

Rodgers saw it differently.

[MobileBayRed]

Some random thoughts:

1) Nobody in the PL, other than Arsenal, has that midfield.  I think we need to continue to make some adjustments, but making radical changes based on this result is too reactionary.  Don't think we will face that kind of control in midfield until Arsenal come to Anfield. 

2) Shocked by our lack of depth at FB/Wing.  Thought Flannagan played well, but there is a severe drop off from Johnson.  In the second half we had a CB and CM playing our wingbacks.  How did we end up so thin here?

3) We have to find a place for Coutinho.  Our play is so much more fluid when he is on the pitch.

4) Skrtel in the middle of the back three is not working for me.  Yesterday there were huge portions of the game screaming out for him to step up into the midfield and yet he wouldnt/couldnt do it.  If you are going to play 3 at the back, the middle of the three has to be willing to step forward and play in the midfield from time to time, something Skrtel just wont do.  Move Sakho over and put Agger to his left.

5) Liked our response at the beginning of the second half.  Thought we came out strong and looked to worry Arsenal a bit.  A goal in the first 10 minutes might have made a different afternoon.  When people say we werent dominated, I think this is what they mean.  Up until Ramsey's goal, I always felt like we were right there.  Maybe having Suarez and Sturridge will always make me feel like we are one goal away.  Arsenal were certainly the better side, but I never felt like we were out of it or couldnt get back in it.

6) Thought the disparity in accelleration was evident.  Arsenal were just quicker to everything.  We seemed to be running in tar most of the day. 

7) Disppointing day for Cissokho.  Hope he bounces back quickly.

[Billy Blaze]

Anyone else a little worried about our fitness. Arsenal have had more injuries and games than us, and yet they seemed fresher. Maybe it was because they were that much better on the ball, but i didnt feel like we had the energy(or ability?) to get stuck in and make this game hard. Sometimes it felt like we only gave 80% or didnt have the energy to make this a fight. Get in their faces and all that.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Anyone else a little worried about our fitness. Arsenal have had more injuries and games than us, and yet they seemed fresher. Maybe it was because they were that much better on the ball, but i didnt feel like we had the energy(or ability?) to get stuck in and make this game hard. Sometimes it felt like we only gave 80% or didnt have the energy to make this a fight. Get in their faces and all that.

There were some concerns earlier in the season with the conditioning and injuries, but you also have to take into account that our entire fitness plan under Rodgers is designed to peak at Christmas, not October. That way we're not chasing our tails like some other teams in the second half of the season because our players are tired. Much like last season, I expect that from January onwards we will look like one of the fitter teams in the league.

[No666]

Do we need to engineer a late fitness surge given that we are out of Europe, PoP? Are we not better placed to maintain fitness levels than those others competing for the top four? We have a smaller squad than some, certainly, but there's a chance to reinforce in January.

[ArchieC]

"You have a choice once you get the injury, change the structure of the side or bring a young player in," Rodgers told Sky Sports News.

"[Flanagan] hasn't had many chances, but his attitude has been second to none. Of course, quality is important, but it's also about having the right attitude.

"We only found out [Johnson] was injured today, we're disappointed he's got the illness as he travelled with the squad."


Clearly Brendan sees that Flanagan isn't the most technically gifted but praises his attitude.  I do feel even if McLaughlin did travel he still wouldn't have been picked ahead of Flano.  Apart from attitude, reasons probably being working with the other defenders and having a good understanding between them for instance Flano and Toure have probably worked together more at training and have a better understanding with each other, I don't know i could be wrong, but Rodgers definately praises young Flanagans' attitude.

It could even be, because Flanagan has played in bigger games that he had an understanding of playing against high quality and of premier league standard.

Only Rodgers could tell you why, but I didn't see anything really wrong with Flanagan's performance, he might have been more rigid as a wing back but that's understandable against such high quality opposition away from home.

[GrkStav]

No I don't think we did either. We can beat Arsenal and Wenger knows it. But on the day they can undo any defence. Mayby as I and many others suggested. we should have snarled up midfield by playing two banks of 4, sat deep and swamped them out, hit them on the break hoping SAS would come up with a bit of magic.

One worrying aspect for me was that once we went two down we looked disjointed and dishevelled. We didn't look like a team that could fight back. Sturridge took a massive hump with Suarez when he shot accross the keeper when if he had squared it Sturridge would have had a tap in.

It was test, bit of a wake up call. Getting a top 4 spot as we all knew is not going to be easy, yesterday just confirmed it.

Sturridge behaved like a petulant, sophomoric teenager on that occasion. I don't know what it is with professional footballers who must (be made to) watch video of matches (or segments thereof) over and over again and still can't figure out that where a player ends up after the ball has already traveled quite a bit of distance and 'missed' is NOT where they were when the shot was released and when a pass to them could have been attempted instead.

The pass to Sturridge was not really on. Mertesacker was covering it. Furthermore, even if it has been on, what good does it do anyone or anything for Sturridge to stand there like an exasperated, frustrated supporter with his arms extended to the side? Is that going to motivate Suarez next time to pass to Sturridge instead of taking a shot from a good position? Nonsense.

I disagree that we didn't look like we could score after we went down 2-0. We created, directly or indirectly, decent goal-scoring chances which we failed to convert primarily because we experienced the obverse of the good luck we had previously had. "Luck" evens out over a number of matches.

On the general issue of the central midfield: with THREE at the back, the one or two most withdrawn central midfielders do not have to 'bust a gut' every time there's a quick break by the opposition. While I wasn't enamored of Lucas's performance, it was obvious that he expected 3 seasoned centerbacks to be able to deal with Giroud and one more player (e.g. Cazorla) as a cross from the flank came in. Sometimes, the three CBs, as well as Henderson and Cissokho operated on a "I am here, it must count for something" principle, akin to showing up for church and not expecting to pray, to sign along, to listen to the liturgy etc. It's not enough to just be there, you gotta DO your job, especially against players who are both good one-on-one AND have good control and are adept at passing and moving.

In retrospect, 3412 with Henderson as the 1 and Flanagan at RWB (although he didn't do anything embarrassing or anything) was not a good decision. Henderson at RWB and Allan in his place would have given us options (3142 or 3412), even without Coutinho.

Why Moses was chosen to come in in the 2nd half after Arsenal scored their 2nd as opposed to Sterling is also a mystery.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Do we need to engineer a late fitness surge given that we are out of Europe, PoP? Are we not better placed to maintain fitness levels than those others competing for the top four? We have a smaller squad than some, certainly, but there's a chance to reinforce in January.

It's not so much to do with the frequency of games, as it is with injury prevention and stepping up the pace in the run-in. If we take the view that the league only settles down after 12 games or so, we can look at the whole campaign in three stages - the warm-up, the pace-setting, and the sprint finish. Almost exactly like the three stages of a marathon. The traditional fitness model has always been to have a sprint start, keep the pace in the middle, and then find the energy for the sprint finish. The periodization model that Rodgers favours (but which I suspect he tampered with this season), follows a true "marathon" pattern - Have a good start but rely on technique more than out and out fitness; then keep up with the pace at least, for the middle 12 games; then be fresh and fit to sprint better than everyone else for the final 12 or so games. This means not having the desire to be at peak performance for the first 12-14 games. 80% is perfectly acceptable. This means that you can hit 100% in the middle 12-14 games. And because you eased into 100% capacity, you can then maintain this as much as possible for the last 12 games or so, putting you at a good pace to finish as high as possible and go as hard as possible with less risk of muscular injury to key players. Not having Europe doesn't alter this - all it means is that the weekly cycle of training can be planned much, much better (more high intensity days for more players). So the plan is a good one. My worry is that Rodgers compromised it this season in order to have a better start. If so, we may suffer for it after January.

[redan]

It was a very 'meh' performace in a very 'meh' game,

The first 20 minutes or so flattered to deceive as both sides came out of the blocks at a high tempo but the remaining 70 minutes really were poor

I've read some real doom and gloom posts on here but I'm not in that boat, we were beaten by a better side on the day thats it; it's not a crisis,

Arsenal have a very clear way a playing and every player in the Arsenal side suits their current system. Both Liverpool's strikers are better than Giroud but that doesn't matter, he does a job so that they can get the best out of Cazorla, Ozil and Ramsey behind (all of which are playing phemominally well). Arsene doesn't change his system for anyone, yet our 3-5-2 seems to be an after thought brought on by having too many CB's and no wingers!

It's obvious to everyone (except BR) that our Midfield needs looking at above everything else. Allen's ready to come back and I think some of our performances have needed him but should Henderson be the fall guy? He probably will be, but he certainly doesn't deserve to be.

Gerrard is 33 and worked harder than anyone to ensure success for LFC but unfortunately as a result he looks at times more like he's in his late 30's at times. He has the vision, the touch and the ability but not the mobility to play 90 mins in the CM. Add to this that Lucas hasn't been the same since his injury and the question needs to be asked if he ever will (it's been over a year now). When we are playing weaker teams at home it's fine, because we control the tempo and Stevie can do what Stevie does best, dictate play. Also Lucas can still have mid-tier AM in his back pocket but when it comes to Arsenal (and I unfortuantely predict Chelsea and City) their movement and ability in the final third passes them by and they get overrun.

I do not know what the solution is but we need to try something. Allen and Henderson have hardly played together and despite the constant Team Allen vs Team Hendo debate they are very different players and could compliment each other tremendously. Also we spent 7m on another midfield who in his brief appearances has looked neat and tidy and with added confidence and experience could also have a bigger part to play.

Now I'm not saying drop Gerrard and Lucas immediately and start with a trio of Allen-Henderson-Alberto because it could backfire spectuclaly but next we have Fulham at home (warning curse coming) we shouldn't have a much easier game this season so I can't think of a better time to try something new (especially as it's a shame we do not have any Europa league this season).

We cannot go all through this season thinking this set-up is the way forward because it quite simply isn't and I haven't even touched on Coutinho yet and where he fits in with this 3-5-2 because with him part of the CM 3 with Gerrard and Lucas behind isn't the way to go, it'd be a massacre against a top side 

[Danny_]

Lets analyze the first goal.  Here's a description of what I saw:

When the ball was played to Arteta, he was about half way between the half-way line and the Arsenal goal.  We let him run with it for about 40 yards.  WTF - where was our midfield?  When he got to about half way between our goal and the half way line, Sakho was pulled out to attack the man with the ball so now, we only have 2 at the back.  Incidentally, isn't that supposed to be Lucas's job? Where was he?

At the point when Arteta plays the pass to the wing, Cissokho is running backwards with his head turned to the left rather than the right.  He is about 5 yards or more away from Sagna who he should have been marking or at least closer to.  End result is that he is not able to cut out the cross.  At this point, it's actually 2 vs 2 in the box, seriously bad odds for the CBs.  Sagna plays a good cross in and Cazorla heads the ball against the post and follows it up with a very good finish.

So what's wrong with this picture?
1. The massive amount of space in the centre that Arteta was able to run into. 
2. Poor positioning from our left back that allowed them to get the killer ball into the box
3. 2 vs 2 in the box once the cross came in - that is just asking for it
4. No protection for the back 3 from the midfield.

There is no question that Arsenal are better than us.  The speed and accuracy of their passing was a step up on what we do - we were chasing shadows for much of the first half.  But, we were also the architects of our own destruction to a large extent.  I don't know if it is the system we are playing or just poor defending but our defensive frailties were very much on show.  We get away with it against the lesser teams.  We get punished when we face sides that can exploit the space we give them in central areas.

The second goal was similar.  Lucas was pulled towards the man with the ball and there was zero protection for the back 3 so when Ramsey made a run to the edge of the box, he had the space to shoot.  Admittedly, about 8 or 9 times out of 10, we would have gotten away with this - it was a spectacular finish.  But it highlights the problem again - we have a soft underbelly in the centre and good teams are going to take advantage.

It's not all bad - we are still a potent attacking force and once Enrique and Johnson get back (especially Enrique), I think we will be much less vulnerable in defense.  But the fact is that we haven't kept a clean sheet in (I think it is) 7 games now?  That is not a good stat.  It feels very like the Evans era again. 

[PhaseOfPlay]

It's a good post, Danny, but I'm puzzled by this:

3. 2 vs 2 in the box once the cross came in - that is just asking for it

What is it asking for?

2 attackers versus ONE defender is bad. But 2v2 is perfectly acceptable. Where do you see the problem?

[theMilkman]

Some random thoughts:

1) Nobody in the PL, other than Arsenal, has that midfield.  I think we need to continue to make some adjustments, but making radical changes based on this result is too reactionary.  Don't think we will face that kind of control in midfield until Arsenal come to Anfield. 

2) Shocked by our lack of depth at FB/Wing.  Thought Flannagan played well, but there is a severe drop off from Johnson.  In the second half we had a CB and CM playing our wingbacks.  How did we end up so thin here?

3) We have to find a place for Coutinho.  Our play is so much more fluid when he is on the pitch.

4) Skrtel in the middle of the back three is not working for me.  Yesterday there were huge portions of the game screaming out for him to step up into the midfield and yet he wouldnt/couldnt do it.  If you are going to play 3 at the back, the middle of the three has to be willing to step forward and play in the midfield from time to time, something Skrtel just wont do.  Move Sakho over and put Agger to his left.

5) Liked our response at the beginning of the second half.  Thought we came out strong and looked to worry Arsenal a bit.  A goal in the first 10 minutes might have made a different afternoon.  When people say we werent dominated, I think this is what they mean.  Up until Ramsey's goal, I always felt like we were right there.  Maybe having Suarez and Sturridge will always make me feel like we are one goal away.  Arsenal were certainly the better side, but I never felt like we were out of it or couldnt get back in it.

6) Thought the disparity in accelleration was evident.  Arsenal were just quicker to everything.  We seemed to be running in tar most of the day. 

7) Disppointing day for Cissokho.  Hope he bounces back quickly.

agree mostly, but other teams will have other strengths and you have to wonder how we plan on playing teams like chelsea, tottenham and city away from home- city and tottenham also press very well and chelsea's home record under mourinho is impeccable. we've played three good pressing teams this season- Arsenal, Southampton and Swansea and have one point to show for it. you don't want to read too much into one result but it's clearly a problem we'll want to sort out and sort out quick.

if our first choice eleven is fit for all three of those games then i honestly believe we may get something out of them, quite possibly playing a 3412. but what worries me is likely we will not. especially in the fullback area and up front.

which is implicitly a pretty sad admission that our midfield isn't capable of overpowering top teams anymore and there's nothing we can do about it.

[emk06]

agree mostly, but other teams will have other strengths and you have to wonder how we plan on playing teams like chelsea, tottenham and city away from home- city and tottenham also press very well and chelsea's home record under mourinho is impeccable. if our first choice eleven is fit for all three of those games then i honestly believe we may get something out of them, quite possibly playing a 3412. but what worries me is likely we will not. especially in the fullback area and up front.

which is implicitly a pretty sad admission that our midfield isn't capable of overpowering top teams anymore and there's nothing we can do about it.

yea agreed. its obvious our midfield problem is a massive issue but not sure what the correct answer is, maybe only playing one of lucas and gerrard? either way its dissapointing to watch spurs vs everton yesterday and know that spurs had three midfielders on their bench who would be playing for us. but on the bright side we have two goal scorers who would walk into their team. hopefuly two more good buys in january can help us. onto fulham ynwa!

[na fir dearg]

Yeah it wasnt as bad as some are making out - just probably a reaction to the fact that we thought we could go down there and win ( as i thought we could), the disappointment of coming away with nothing - we pressed well until their goal, which of course changed everything

Midfield is a big problem. It will continue to be exposed when playing the top teams.

I think Gerrard should be further up the pitch - i remember against united last season at OT, we needed a goal and Gerrard forced the issue, with the ball eventually ending up with Sturridge and in the net. I know hes not the player of old but i still think he can do damage up there.
Let him stroll back if he wants to but keep him up there with a potential goal threat.

That leaves the problem of defensive midfield - Lucas is way off the pace, lost nearly every 50/50 on saturday. Maybe try Henderson in that role and bring in Allen??

Its hard to know - we really miss a pre-injury Lucas

p.s. i dont think Rosicky gets the credit he deserves, thought he was quality.

[Danny_]

It's a good post, Danny, but I'm puzzled by this:

What is it asking for?

2 attackers versus ONE defender is bad. But 2v2 is perfectly acceptable. Where do you see the problem?

2 vs 2 in the box is not acceptable or at least, I don't think it is (at least not against top class opposition).    Let me put it to you this way - had it been 3 vs 2, Cazorla probably would not have gotten the rebound off the post.  2 vs 2 cost us the goal. And if it is 2 vs 2, the midfield should be busting a gut to get back to the box and help out.  I didn't see that happen.   If we play 3 at the back, we have to give them more protection than that.  Otherwise, it's going to be the Evans era all over again.  We'll score two goals and draw games that we should have won or lose 3-2 etc.  I'm all for an attacking formation - I think it's mandatory in the modern era.  But, if you don't have the players to do it, then a more compact and less risky formation might be a better choice.  We looked a lot less vulnerable in the second half when we changed our formation.

[GrkStav]

Yeah it wasnt as bad as some are making out - just probably a reaction to the fact that we thought we could go down there and win ( as i thought we could), the disappointment of coming away with nothing - we pressed well until their goal, which of course changed everything

Midfield is a big problem. It will continue to be exposed when playing the top teams.

I think Gerrard should be further up the pitch - i remember against united last season at OT, we needed a goal and Gerrard forced the issue, with the ball eventually ending up with Sturridge and in the net. I know hes not the player of old but i still think he can do damage up there.
Let him stroll back if he wants to but keep him up there with a potential goal threat.

That leaves the problem of defensive midfield - Lucas is way off the pace, lost nearly every 50/50 on saturday. Maybe try Henderson in that role and bring in Allen??

Its hard to know - we really miss a pre-injury Lucas

p.s. i dont think Rosicky gets the credit he deserves, thought he was quality.

So, between the previous match vs WBA and the one vs AFC, Lucas once again lost all his fitness, his legs, etc. and became a liability (again)? How can a player go from 'liability' to 'boss' ('almost back to his peak before his injury') to 'liability' again in the space of three weekends?

[Gnurglan]

It's a good post, Danny, but I'm puzzled by this:

What is it asking for?

2 attackers versus ONE defender is bad. But 2v2 is perfectly acceptable. Where do you see the problem?

I think it gives too much space for the attackers. The first goal, it's the kind of fear most had would happen. Ball wide behind the wing-back, CB pulled wide to cover, ball in and it's that 2v2.

[redtel]

Arsenal played well but they didn't play us off the park. They are clearly ahead of us,as they should be, having added Cazorla for £13mill in 2012 and Ozil this year for £42 mill to a midfield choice of Arteta,Wilshere,Ramsey,Rosicky and Flamini. Compare our outlay and options to that.

The decision to retain a back three against a slick passing team was always debatable and Johnson's late withdrawal should have tipped the balance to go with Flanagan at RB in a four. Very brave to stick with the three and we saw how Arsenal exploited the space on the wings especially down our right behind Flanagan who did as well as we could expect.

The first goal is vital and I thought Cazorla showed great technique to screw his shot into goal but to be honest that rebound came right into the path he was running in,diagonally across goal, when it could have gone anywhere. Our defenders were not slow to react, as Cazorla could not just stop but continued his momentum after heading the ball.

We could have been 1-0 up with another referee but last season showed that Arsenal are good enough to come back and score two against us, so we need to strengthen our squad if we are to compete at the top of the table. The midfield needs more options and Rodgers will have to find a replacement for Gerrard soon.
Surely he could make subs to the midfield when we have a decent lead against lower teams and see how they perform.

I'm glad to hear that POP say that he suspects we are building fitness up so that we are not at our peak for the first third of the season. We are slow to the ball in many areas compared to other teams and our 2nd half drop off is well known this season.

SAS were well held by their defence but you know it's not your day when the Arsenal keeper kicks it directly at Sturridge and promptly gets it back! If we were to have our best 11 or 12 available for the return at Anfield I would fancy us to win but as our squad is so lacking cover I doubt we will have them all available for the big games. If BR could sign an Ozil for £42 mill what a difference it would make.

We are making do with a LB on loan as cover for Enrique neither of whom would get in a decent top four team. The cover at RB or wing back is equally sparse and yet these are crucial positions in Rodgers preferred system. He is doing the best he can and credit to him that we are camped up in the top three, but silk purses and sow's ears loom large.

[sparrowred]

I think I have a very different take on the game as everyone else. Firstly I don't think Gerrard and Lucas we're the primary concern. I think Rodgers set the team up wrong and it created a number of systemic issues.

1) The Back Three
I've quite liked the back three but in this game Giroud was the perfect striker to combat our defence. He's not looking to get in beat our defence or get in behind them. He just presents an option, holds up the ball and gets Arsenal's midfield into the game. He did an excellent job of this. The one striker system pretty much meant one of our CB's was twiddling his thumbs while Gerrard and Lucas were run ragged in midfield.

/snip

Do you think Agger for Skrtel would've made the difference? It may have exposed Mignolet's weaknesses with a higher line, but would allow a CB to help out an overrun midfield.

[spider-neil]

If BR could sign an Ozil for £42 mill what a difference it would make.

He has, he's called Coutinho.
We have a front 3 of Coutinho, Suarez and Sturridge, all they need is plenty of the ball and a solid foundation to attack.

[GrkStav]

2 vs 2 in the box is not acceptable or at least, I don't think it is (at least not against top class opposition).    Let me put it to you this way - had it been 3 vs 2, Cazorla probably would not have gotten the rebound off the post.  2 vs 2 cost us the goal. And if it is 2 vs 2, the midfield should be busting a gut to get back to the box and help out.  I didn't see that happen.   If we play 3 at the back, we have to give them more protection than that.  Otherwise, it's going to be the Evans era all over again.  We'll score two goals and draw games that we should have won or lose 3-2 etc.  I'm all for an attacking formation - I think it's mandatory in the modern era.  But, if you don't have the players to do it, then a more compact and less risky formation might be a better choice.  We looked a lot less vulnerable in the second half when we changed our formation.

No, we don't. That's the idea. If you have THREE at the back, you have three dedicated defenders back and two aggressive, attack-minded wide defenders.

[GrkStav]

I think it gives too much space for the attackers. The first goal, it's the kind of fear most had would happen. Ball wide behind the wing-back, CB pulled wide to cover, ball in and it's that 2v2.

And being 2v2 it's a disaster for two seasoned, experienced center-backs?

Something went wrong in the training sessions. Based on what PoP has written, having one CB aggressively marking or closing in on a flank player on one side ought not be a 'foreign' concept for the remaining two CBs.

[spider-neil]

For the first goal I think Cissokho could have done more to prevent the cross coming in. Cissokho pretty much gave us nothing offensively or defensively.

[Danny_]

No, we don't. That's the idea. If you have THREE at the back, you have three dedicated defenders back and two aggressive, attack-minded wide defenders.

  If one of those defenders is pulled out to meet the man with the ball, someone from midfield needs to get back to cover for him, especially if the opposition are breaking with numbers.   The fact is that Cazorla got the rebound because it was 2 vs 2.  How many times did you see us have 2 vs 2 in the Arsenal penalty area?

[redtel]

He has, he's called Coutinho.
We have a front 3 of Coutinho, Suarez and Sturridge, all they need is plenty of the ball and a solid foundation to attack.

Coutinho will become an Ozil but not at present. He has 1 cap compared to Ozil playing 51 times for a top European country not to mention over 200 senior games in the top leagues.

Also, you fail to see that our spending power is not on a par. We are still buliding a squad.

[spider-neil]

  If one of those defenders is pulled out to meet the man with the ball, someone from midfield needs to get back to cover for him, especially if the opposition are breaking with numbers.   The fact is that Cazorla got the rebound because it was 2 vs 2.  How many times did you see us have 2 vs 2 in the Arsenal penalty area?

When Henderson 'scored'. To be fair the Arsenal players had stopped running.

[spider-neil]

Coutinho will become an Ozil but not at present. He has 1 cap compared to Ozil playing 51 times for a top European country not to mention over 200 senior games in the top leagues.

Also, you fail to see that our spending power is not on a par. We are still buliding a squad.

Coutinho's lack of caps is more to do with Brazil's options than the player himself.

[Danny_]

In case anyone wants to look at the highlights, here there are again:

http://www.soccer-blogger.com/2013/11/02/arsenal-vs-liverpool-2-0-highlights-2013-cazorla-ramsey-goals-video/

No argument with Spider Neil's point.  Fwd to about 2 minutes and watch Cissokho walking slowly towards the box once he fails to stop the cross.  If he had run into the six yard box like he should have, he could have gotten there to stop Cazorla getting the rebound and made up the 3rd man. 

[rocco]

For the first goal I think Cissokho could have done more to prevent the cross coming in. Cissokho pretty much gave us nothing offensively or defensively.

What  about the free run from midfield to get the first shot in ?

Even the second goal came from Toure backing off and making Ranseys mind up to shoot

At the moment I'm not all gun ho about ditching the 3412 , without Glen and Enrique I would have but with Glen and Enrique I wouldn't give up on it yet

Add we need better at LWB and better cover at RWB

[Gnurglan]

And being 2v2 it's a disaster for two seasoned, experienced center-backs?

Something went wrong in the training sessions. Based on what PoP has written, having one CB aggressively marking or closing in on a flank player on one side ought not be a 'foreign' concept for the remaining two CBs.

No, it's not a disaster. We need to trust players to handle the odd occasion when they are 1v1 or 2v2. But there was a debate about this last week, before the game. Possibly in the 3-4-1-2 thread. The situation was just like the one that happened for 1-0. Not saying we need to ditch the formation or such, just that the goal is the type of goal I feared. It was also discussed that to avoid this, the wing-back (Flanagan) would need to help out. Given the situation for the goal, I think Flanagan, as well as our CMs, looked far away from where we needed them. And hence I think the danger with the whole situation is the 2v2 and lots of space.

[timbucktoo]

Jose Enrique and Glen Johnson (I think we would have won if these two were playing)

We were getting nothing from the wings going forward and were not able to spread the play. Cissoko is not good enough. It was a bit unfair to play Flanagan in that formation.

The 5-3-2 heavily relies on the strength of the wingbacks. Enrique and Glen have to start

[redtel]

Coutinho's lack of caps is more to do with Brazil's options than the player himself.

Give the lad a chance. he only turned 21 this summer.

He will get the caps, it's just a fact that he isn't the finished midfielder yet. You know that I'm sure.

[GG8]

In case anyone wants to look at the highlights, here there are again:

http://www.soccer-blogger.com/2013/11/02/arsenal-vs-liverpool-2-0-highlights-2013-cazorla-ramsey-goals-video/

No argument with Spider Neil's point.  Fwd to about 2 minutes and watch Cissokho walking slowly towards the box once he fails to stop the cross.  If he had run into the six yard box like he should have, he could have gotten there to stop Cazorla getting the rebound and made up the 3rd man.

Bit unfair singling out Cissokho for that look at your whole defence, when Santi connects with the header everyone stops, its a natural thing to see the outcome of the shot.

I'd be more annoyed at the lack of any attempt to stop the cross.

[PhaseOfPlay]

I think it gives too much space for the attackers. The first goal, it's the kind of fear most had would happen. Ball wide behind the wing-back, CB pulled wide to cover, ball in and it's that 2v2.

In a back four, though, the ball behind the fullback, the centre back goes across to cover, and it becomes 2v1. If he doesn't, it's still 2v2. The 2v2 wasn't the issue. The lack of tracking of Cazorla in the first place was the first problem as the ball entered the box, and the second problem was the flat-footedness of everyone in the area, with Cazorla quickest to react to the rebound. If a midfielder makes a penetrating run, a midfielder has to go with him. And this is not the first time this season we have conceded a goal because of a lack of tracking from midfield - off the top of my head, I can recall Shelvey's run and the Giaccherini goal. So the 2v2 wasn't the problem. The problem was no midfield tracking (again), and the slow reactions of the defenders to the rebound.

[DanA]

Do you think Agger for Skrtel would've made the difference? It may have exposed Mignolet's weaknesses with a higher line, but would allow a CB to help out an overrun midfield.

Not really, I rate Agger's ability on the ball but he's still very much a traditional CB and against a single striker system and Arsenal's midfield I think we'd still struggle. Sergio Busquets and Javi Martinez really are the modern day prototype for this type of role and there aren't many good ones. They have the ability to seamlessly drop between the CB's and play as a third defender but also push into midfield and control possession. Neither Lucas nor Agger/Skrtel are versatile enough IMO.

I think that's a problem we might have to accept for the time being. For me the bigger problem is at wingback. Backup options aren't cutting the mustered, I think both LWB & RWB would be my priority in January if I were Rodgers. Lack of options in these wingback positions for my money has been detrimental to our season so far.

[DanA]

In a back four, though, the ball behind the fullback, the centre back goes across to cover, and it becomes 2v1. If he doesn't, it's still 2v2. The 2v2 wasn't the issue. The lack of tracking of Cazorla in the first place was the first problem as the ball entered the box, and the second problem was the flat-footedness of everyone in the area, with Cazorla quickest to react to the rebound. If a midfielder makes a penetrating run, a midfielder has to go with him. And this is not the first time this season we have conceded a goal because of a lack of tracking from midfield - off the top of my head, I can recall Shelvey's run and the Giaccherini goal. So the 2v2 wasn't the problem. The problem was no midfield tracking (again), and the slow reactions of the defenders to the rebound.

Where was Cazorla starting from though? I haven't rewatched the game but I had him as their widest midfielder and it's difficult for Gerrard/Lucas to track Ramsey and Ozil and then also be responsible for Cazorla drifting in from the left. And it wasn't just Cazorla it was Rosicky on the other side too. At some point others needed to help Gerrard/Lucas out and I didn't think we did a good job of that.

[Gnurglan]

In a back four, though, the ball behind the fullback, the centre back goes across to cover, and it becomes 2v1. If he doesn't, it's still 2v2. The 2v2 wasn't the issue. The lack of tracking of Cazorla in the first place was the first problem as the ball entered the box, and the second problem was the flat-footedness of everyone in the area, with Cazorla quickest to react to the rebound. If a midfielder makes a penetrating run, a midfielder has to go with him. And this is not the first time this season we have conceded a goal because of a lack of tracking from midfield - off the top of my head, I can recall Shelvey's run and the Giaccherini goal. So the 2v2 wasn't the problem. The problem was no midfield tracking (again), and the slow reactions of the defenders to the rebound.

But with four at the back, you'd have a LM in front of the LB, so it would be harder to get the ball behind the LB, wouldn't it?

What do you make of the build-up to the first goal? I thought it looked like they had so much space to advance in, before the ball was played behind Cissokho. And then they had space again. So the overall impression I have is we were spread out the whole time. Would you say the same? If so, why was that, because it can't be the way we want to be.