Topic: RAWK Round Table LFC 4-1 WHFC

[Trendisnotdestiny]

its lucas that gives the ball away.

he gives it away on the edge of our defensive third when the majority of our players are springing to attacking positions.

the time from that point or the number of passes from that point are irrelevant. The ball does not go out of play, it does not transition from one team to the other again so the goal occurs in the next WHU attacking phase.

other players do not make the correct defensive decisions in the build up to the goal, but only one player actually make an unforced mistake and it is Lucas.

Its fucking poor.

First, Lucas would be the first person to out himself to staff and players for mistakes
Second, the loss of the ball was a manageable attack to overcome and a goal was not necessarily imminent
Third, defending as a team includes losing possession in one's own attacking third
Fourth, no one is protecting Lucas --- instead many here focus on the larger picture with has many parts and avoids simplistic blame
Fifth, the energy spent blaming Lucas is wasted as this is not a definitive pattern for Lucas - he plays quickly
Sixth, we are LFC --- YNWA (blame is the opposite of this).

[007.lankyguy]

I'm not absorbing Lucas of any blame by the way. I think we actually looked more coherent with Gerrard and Allen in midfield against Norwich and West Ham.

I obviously meant absolving by the way

[Trendisnotdestiny]

But it's not. It's like asking whether one should the blame the skipper of the Titanic or the bloke who dropped his spanner into the bilge at Harland and Wolff.

And yet the ship still sank killing both.  Last time I will make this point.  Most goals have multiple mistakes and participants in those mistakes.  To call out one of them as the central reason why is to lose sight that we defend as a team and all of the players on the pitch have responsibility for solving errors.  Some errors are solved after the game, some during and some are preventative.  However, as a former coach, it does very little good calling out single players unless it is an egregious mistake.   Prioritizing blame is waste of time.

[exiledinyorkshire]

fair enough what do I know.

we are excellent as a group at making things seem utterly different to what that actually are. I should imagine this will be papered over and written out of history like many other poor moments in Lucas' career.

I have fully changed my mind that goal is nothing to do with Lucas, he was superb as he always is.

fucking bollocks the lot of ya.

[Yorkykopite]

Last time I will make this point.  Most goals have multiple mistakes and participants in those mistakes. 

Captain Obvious speaks! But there's a difference between spreading the blame equally and apportioning it. The catastrophic error in this particular goal - the one nobody could recover from or mitigate - was Skrtel's pathetic mis-kick.

[Yorkykopite]

And yet the ship still sank killing both. 

So on that principle I blame the Irish in steerage.

[Twelfth Man]

its lucas that gives the ball away.

he gives it away on the edge of our defensive third when the majority of our players are springing to attacking positions.

the time from that point or the number of passes from that point are irrelevant. The ball does not go out of play, it does not transition from one team to the other again so the goal occurs in the next WHU attacking phase.

other players do not make the correct defensive decisions in the build up to the goal, but only one player actually make an unforced mistake and it is Lucas.

Its fucking poor.

It was poor and for him at was akin to Moses trying to do a Pele in his own half versus Hull. But unlike Moses, this is a rare brain fart from Lucas. Others after that point consistently make poor decisions.

[Trendisnotdestiny]

fair enough what do I know.

we are excellent as a group at making things seem utterly different to what that actually are. I should imagine this will be papered over and written out of history like many other poor moments in Lucas' career.

I have fully changed my mind that goal is nothing to do with Lucas, he was superb as he always is.

fucking bollocks the lot of ya.

You know enough to be pissed at Lucas as well as you should be!  You do have a point about him losing possession there.  And I would also agree I am bit "bollocked" 

[exiledinyorkshire]

You know enough to be pissed at Lucas as well as you should be!  You do have a point about him losing possession there.  And I would also agree I am bit "bollocked" 

it didn't even cost us in the end.

but it did lead to there best spell in the game. It was poor, and i'll leave it there.

I have no wish to heap blame on him or anyone. but I know where I would be looking in the changing room if that had cost us points. And anybody that would simply have brushed it under the carpet as "well we still should have defended better after" (which we probably should have) is off their heads.

[Trendisnotdestiny]

it didn't even cost us in the end.

but it did lead to there best spell in the game. It was poor, and i'll leave it there.

I have no wish to heap blame on him or anyone. but I know where I would be looking in the changing room if that had cost us points. And anybody that would simply have brushed it under the carpet as "well we still should have defended better after" (which we probably should have) is off their heads.

Except what about shutting down service, goal keeper communication, 50-50 air ball and Skrtel's ill-timed clearance?  None of these were done very well and also led to the goal.  Why privilege Lucas' fuck up over all the others? Explain how at each step we made errors, but we should point to Lucas only.  If we should point, we should be more comprehensive. 

[Trendisnotdestiny]

Captain Obvious speaks! But there's a difference between spreading the blame equally and apportioning it. The catastrophic error in this particular goal - the one nobody could recover from or mitigate - was Skrtel's pathetic mis-kick.

That is "General"ly Obvious to you. 

It was a 4-1 win, one might hope for spreading and apportioning stellar play at the same rates of blame.  Please explain "the difference" there.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Sorry mate, is there any chance you could explain these last two switches?

Switch through a target forward:

Let's say the opposition attack down our left hand side. They attempt an overlap in the attacking third, but our left back intercepts the ball. He carries it forward until their defensive mid slides across. The left back then plays into the target forward's feet. As the ball is travelling, our right winger is already running on the other side, and as got in behind their aggressive left back. Target forward uses a reverse pass to play the right winger in on the opposite side to where the ball was won. It's usually a counter-attacking switch.

Switch through defensive mid/central defenders:

Same scenario continued - the right winger receives the ball, but the opposition have got into defensive position faster than we could counter. The right winger now has the option to cross into the flooded box, or maintain possession. He opts to maintain possession. Their defenders, defensive mids and wide mids are all back in front of their box. Our forwards and attacking mids are pushed up, fullbacks are aggressively wide and pushed up. A 3v2 triangle exists around their two forwards, with our DM and two CB's surrounding their two forwards. The right winger waits on the right back to overlap, but the run is tracked well by their left mid. The right winger then plays into the checking and supporting DM, who opens their body out and plays a long pass to the opposite side left back. OR - one of their forwards goes with the DM's checking run, so the right winger plays to the nearest CB, who plays to his partner opening out wide, who plays to the opposite side left back. That's the switch through the depth.

[007.lankyguy]

Cool, thanks mate.

[Boer_War]

Off topic a bit, but can anyone else here a rattle on the audio every time a Liverpool match is on tv?

What is it? Is it just someone with a 1950's style fans rattle?

[Gnurglan]

Didn't something like a minute elapse between Lucas losing the ball and the goal being scored? Blame Lucas if you like, but following that principle maybe Adam n Eve should take same of the blame too.

The goal was Skrtel's fault. That's obvious. It was a mis-kick. He tried to hook the ball over his shoulder and was too early on it. Consequently the only contact he made was with his toe. It went the wrong way.

You should know Adam doesn't play for us anymore.

[Yorkykopite]

You should know Adam doesn't play for us anymore.

  Of course now you've got me wondering who Eve is.

[GrkStav]

Deadly serious mate, all of that is the very next phase of play to them winning the ball off Lucas. There isn't another transition.

That goal was his fault. It came directly from his mistake. A really, really sloppy mistake. They regained possession kept the ball and scored. All in our half of the pitch.

Its not a dig at him its just a fact. And it may be things like this that lead some people to view him as not the be all and end all.

Just saying like.

Yes, just saying like.

You can repeat "it's just a fact" till you're blue in the face. As you can repeat "that goal was his fault" and that "it came directly from his mistake". And those statements would continue to be untrue.

It is absurd to claim that the Skrtel OG WHU goal was "his (Lucas's) fault". It strains credulity, at the very least.

The goal did not come "directly from his mistake". It is beyond absurd to claim that it did. It is, with all due respect, moronic to do so.

If putting forth such ridiculous 'arguments' is what it takes for some of you to justify not thinking highly of Lucas then so be it. You may also enjoy a career in creative fiction writing.

[GrkStav]

And that's you defending a player from criticism. Criticism that is absolutely justified and not rabid or knee jerk. think about why you are defending a Liverpool player getting mugged mid way in his own half knowing full well that daudling on the ball is going to lead to pressure. Its a pretty basic unintelligent piece of football. Its indefensible. But you crack on. I would be having words with him if I was one of our back 5.

Naïve? this is a professional footballer. He will have been blamed behind closed doors mate.

I don't know who's convinced you that your criticism is "absolutely justified" but, whoever it was, he/she lied to you.

This is criticism with negative animus. Trust me, I know whereof I speak. I used to do it (and sometimes, lamentably still do) against Glen Johnson. I've recognized my negative bias and tried to steer clear of putting my 'inside thoughts' down. Perhaps you should do likewise re Lucas.

[Halcyon Lissome]

Huh? So what if Lucas lost the ball. What is the solution? To never lose a ball? That's not going to happen. I fail to see why it is directly his fault.

They had the ball just past the halfway line; crossed it in; got it fortuitously to the wing; put a half-decent cross in; Jarvis heads it back across goal; Skrtel tries to volley it clear and it goes in.

That's a bloody stretch to blame it on Lucas.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Huh? So what if Lucas lost the ball. What is the solution? To never lose a ball? That's not going to happen. I fail to see why it is directly his fault.

They had the ball just past the halfway line; crossed it in; got it fortuitously to the wing; put a half-decent cross in; Jarvis heads it back across goal; Skrtel tries to volley it clear and it goes in.

That's a bloody stretch to blame it on Lucas.

Steering away from the argument of whether Lucas was the "most to blame" for the goal - it's not the fact that he lost the ball; it's the way he lost it. Mistakes like that shouldn't be happening for professional footballers. I think that part of it is a fair criticism.

[Halcyon Lissome]

Steering away from the argument of whether Lucas was the "most to blame" for the goal - it's not the fact that he lost the ball; it's the way he lost it. Mistakes like that shouldn't be happening for professional footballers. I think that part of it is a fair criticism.

That's fine, no arguments. Just as Lucas shouldn't make that mistake, Allen shouldn't miss that shot, etc, shit like that happens though. That they shouldn't make that mistake is fair criticism, but stretching that to blame the goal on him, however, is a bit ludicrous and smacks of someone with an agenda.

[robgomm]

This debate seems a bit mad. One can say Lucas was to blame for the goal without saying he's entirely to blame. PoP said that. He lost the ball and the goal wouldn't have happened without that bad error. But it also could've been prevented afterwards with better defending.

[PhaseOfPlay]

That's fine, no arguments. Just as Lucas shouldn't make that mistake, Allen shouldn't miss that shot, etc, shit like that happens though. That they shouldn't make that mistake is fair criticism, but stretching that to blame the goal on him, however, is a bit ludicrous and smacks of someone with an agenda.

Especially when Johnson was the one with the biggest fault

[GrkStav]

Steering away from the argument of whether Lucas was the "most to blame" for the goal - it's not the fact that he lost the ball; it's the way he lost it. Mistakes like that shouldn't be happening for professional footballers. I think that part of it is a fair criticism.

Indeed they shouldn't. And to note that he got dispossessed from behind with a simple toe-poke, and to criticize him for it would be both fair and accurate.

A few others and I immediately stated that.

Now, has Lucas had many of those in the last 2 or 3 seasons? I think not. Did he use to have a few too many of those too often 'back in the day'? Yes, yes he did.

Is Lucas "mentally slow" as "evidenced" by his "habit" of being caught in possession? No. In fact, hell no.

Did Lucas cost us WHU's goal? No, he did not.

Did Lucas's mistake "lead directly" to WHU's goal. No. Hell no!

Now, having established that Lucas made a major mistake, and that he should see to it that he doesn't do it again, one can then move to consideration of similar (even worse, in fact) gratuitous possession-losing-mistakes by other players.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Indeed they shouldn't. And to note that he got dispossessed from behind with a simple toe-poke, and to criticize him for it would be both fair and accurate.

A few others and I immediately stated that.

Now, has Lucas had many of those in the last 2 or 3 seasons? I think not. Did he use to have a few too many of those too often 'back in the day'? Yes, yes he did.

Is Lucas "mentally slow" as "evidenced" by his "habit" of being caught in possession? No. In fact, hell no.

Did Lucas cost us WHU's goal? No, he did not.

Did Lucas's mistake "lead directly" to WHU's goal. No. Hell no!

Now, having established that Lucas made a major mistake, and that he should see to it that he doesn't do it again, one can then move to consideration of similar (even worse, in fact) gratuitous possession-losing-mistakes by other players.

Possibly. One would need to find similar examples, though, of a player under no pressure at all, with multiple options, losing the ball because he failed to execute a fundamental part of a technique, no?

[GrkStav]

This debate seems a bit mad. One can say Lucas was to blame for the goal without saying he's entirely to blame. PoP said that. He lost the ball and the goal wouldn't have happened without that bad error. But it also could've been prevented afterwards with better defending.

Who has not said that?

[GrkStav]

Possibly. One would need to find similar examples, though, of a player under no pressure at all, with multiple options, losing the ball because he failed to execute a fundamental part of a technique, no?

I refer the honorable gentleman to a post of mine a few pages ago. 

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=310469.msg12236543#msg12236543

As for the part in bold above, how do you figure Lucas was "under no pressure at all"?

[robgomm]

Who has not said that?

Whoever said he was directly responsible seemed to be implying nobody else had any role to play.

[GrkStav]

Whoever said he was directly responsible seemed to be implying nobody else had any role to play.

Exactly. Those of us who are apparently "blinkered" or 'blinded by love" or who "think Lucas is the Messiah" etc stated that Lucas deserved a share of the "blame" for the WHU goal or that he clearly made a mistake in allowing Maiga to get close enough to him and to toe-poke the ball off him from behind.

[PhaseOfPlay]

I refer the honorable gentleman to a post of mine a few pages ago. 

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=310469.msg12236543#msg12236543

As for the part in bold above, how do you figure Lucas was "under no pressure at all"?

Because when he received it he was unmarked. Maiga ran towards him from about 10-12 yards away. That's more than enough space to be considered "under no pressure" at that level.

[robgomm]

He put himself under pressure with indecision. For what's it worth, Lucas never looks great off the bench to me. I don't know if there's any logical reason for that but he seems to not click with the pace of the game unless he's starting.

[DanA]

I think we're debating something that's pretty black and white.

Lucas received the ball, players created options for him yet for whatever reason he had a lapse in concentration and was disposed by a player he should have been aware of. No-one is arguing otherwise I don't think, it was unequivocally an error on his part and not one a footballer at Liverpoool's level can afford to make too often. He'll know that but everyone makes mistakes and I think that's a once in a season type occurrence for him, certainly very uncharacteristic of him IMO.

[PhaseOfPlay]

I refer the honorable gentleman to a post of mine a few pages ago. 

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=310469.msg12236543#msg12236543

As for the part in bold above, how do you figure Lucas was "under no pressure at all"?

Completely different type of scenario, but no less an error. Diame got the ball from Allen because Allen's first touch was bad. Diame was also about 6 yards away, so it was a lot tighter for Joe Allen (being also along the sideline so having less directions to play in) than it was for Lucas

[blert596]

Completely different type of scenario, but no less an error. Diame got the ball from Allen because Allen's first touch was bad. Diame was also about 6 yards away, so it was a lot tighter for Joe Allen (being also along the sideline so having less directions to play in) than it was for Lucas

So we have two instances where the (initial) result was the same - a turning over of posession to the opposition. One not commented on by anyone (apart from you PoP, and the other one hammered because the turnover EVENTUALLY led to a goal.

One was through poor concentration/awareness.
The other was through poor technique.

To me it doesn't matter if it was 12 yards or 6 yards to the nearest player. Better technique, or better concentration/awareness and the following turnovers don't happen.

Both of these are uncharacteristic for both players but are (mostly) part and parcel of a normal game. We lose posession lots of times throughout the game for these very reasons.

Mountains out of molehills

[GrkStav]

He put himself under pressure with indecision. For what's it worth, Lucas never looks great off the bench to me. I don't know if there's any logical reason for that but he seems to not click with the pace of the game unless he's starting.

But he had looked excellent for the preceding period, between the time he came in and the mistake.

I know I am anoraking the crap out of this, but it's still true.

[GrkStav]

Completely different type of scenario, but no less an error. Diame got the ball from Allen because Allen's first touch was bad. Diame was also about 6 yards away, so it was a lot tighter for Joe Allen (being also along the sideline so having less directions to play in) than it was for Lucas

If you say so.

Allen is another one of my favorites. I do not want to belabor the point. So be it, the above is "good enough" for me.

[Gifted Right Foot]

I love round table threads but come on lads this has been 3 pages of debating over who was at fault for the goal or even previous instances when we've won the game 4-1.  Not sure about everyone else but it's a lot more enjoyable/interesting when it's more of a general discussion of the game in these threads.  Plus GrkStav lad i respect the detail and effort you put into analysing things but go out for a walk or something and don't take comments about Lucas so personal.  I'm not gonna lie i get worked up when people slate Gerrard but i know when to stand down so to speak and let it be (well sometimes ).  Just enjoy the 4-1 win  .

[DanA]

Moving on...there were definately a lot of positives from this game. Coutinho finding form, Sterling's movement and I think increasing confidence and you've got to be pretty happy with Lucas and Allen's ability to control the game. Sakho and Skrtel won a lot of their contest too, the only player I thought threatened for them was Jarvis.

[GrkStav]

Re Sterling, upon 2nd and 3rd viewing of the match, while the frustrating bits were still evident, I came away with renewed enthusiasm about him and his prospects. A slight improvement in his decision making and an extra bit of confidence in his shooting (perhaps with an early 'screamer') and he'll be "good to go" for us.

[GrkStav]

I love round table threads but come on lads this has been 3 pages of debating over who was at fault for the goal or even previous instances when we've won the game 4-1.  Not sure about everyone else but it's a lot more enjoyable/interesting when it's more of a general discussion of the game in these threads.  Plus GrkStav lad i respect the detail and effort you put into analysing things but go out for a walk or something and don't take comments about Lucas so personal.  I'm not gonna lie i get worked up when people slate Gerrard but i know when to stand down so to speak and let it be (well sometimes ).  Just enjoy the 4-1 win  .

Cue "Lucas, I am your father" scene, with my deepest voice! 

Fair enough, mate. Added bonus, I picked up a new English expression. That was worth a bit of tedium for everyone, wouldn't you say?