Topic: Round Table Aston Villa 0 - Liverpool 1

[rscanderlech]

I agree with the theory that we only began to sit deep when it was clear that weren't going to be able to continue to dominate the play. My feeling is that we will only be able to dominate away games for a full game once we have a little more quality and depth across the pitch. Suarez's return and the transfer of another top attacking player, plus another central defender that Rodgers actually wants to play, would give us that depth.

However, the leap from past seasons is clearly visible. We are winning games that we would have let slip last season. Our passing seems to be much crisper too, and the preseason had alluded to it. That's what a full preseason with transfers coming in early allows.

Somewhat counterintuitively, it seems that a big difference between our draws and defeats last season and scrappy wins this season seems to me to be a greater number of 'match winners' in the squad. Most might disagree with me, but we had been distinctly lacking in that respect in defence and in goal, whereas Mignolet and Toure have both been saving us points well. Of course, the other big reason is that Rodgers was cautious in the second half, but I wonder whether we would have held out had we been playing with Carrager/Skrtel instead of Toure and Reina instead of Mignolet. Individual match-winning moments shouldn't be ignored.

[Frizzo]

I don't have much by the way of the brilliant tactical analysis provided by some of our more astute scholars, but I do have something to add on the penalty shout for Sturridge.

I have seen so many people debating round in circles and missing the one key, and for me obvious point after watching the replay, and particularly the referee afterwards. The keeper GOT THE BALL! I can't understand how people can't see this. I was jumping up and down screaming that no penalty was given when watching live, but on the very first replay I could see he touched the ball, and calmed down.

If anyone wants to debate that fact, then...well...they can't. Watch a replay again. Slow it down. Watch how the ball touches the goal keepers hand. It's the most basic of basic proof.

If you can honestly watch a slow motion replay and tell me the keeper didn't touch the ball then I'm worried about your eyesight.

[subroc]

Up until the goal, we can have no complaints about how we played - we pinned Villa back with great interceptions and pressing, and intelligently keeping possession of the ball.

However after the goal, you could see the whole team sitting back and easing up on their pass and move and inviting Villa to attack them, which Villa increasingly did for the rest of the half and the entire second half. With Benteke in fine form, that was a dangerous tactic to play but we managed to skin through.

I am surprised though to see the relative lack of concern about our tactics. In the end, Villa had 4 good opportunities to score with two of them repelled by good saves by Mignolet. Of the other two, one was a deflection from weimann that was inches over the bar and the other one was a volley that went the right side of the post with Mignolet rooted. For all the marvellous aproach play of rht efirst half, we only had one real chance and we scored with that chance. Their goalkeeper did not have a single save to make except for the goal.

The point is that we could have easily lost that game to Villa and had we done so, it would have been Rodgers' fault because it did not look to me like Villa was pushing us back so much as it was a conscious decision to defend and sit on that slender lead.

Instead we should have continued playing the way we had in the majority of the first half which had totally stymied Villa. It was working and we were asking for trouble by sitting back.

[Frizzo]

Ok, so, just doubting myself a little considering how many people still think it was a penalty, I just went and watched it again. The goalkeeper touch is even clearer than I remembered.

Sturridge toes the ball upwards, the keeper gets a CLEAR touch to bring the ball back in a downwards direction. Can someone please tell me they can see it as well so that I don't think you're all insane?

[rscanderlech]

Ok, so, just doubting myself a little considering how many people still think it was a penalty, I just went and watched it again. The goalkeeper touch is even clearer than I remembered.

Sturridge toes the ball upwards, the keeper gets a CLEAR touch to bring the ball back in a downwards direction. Can someone please tell me they can see it as well so that I don't think you're all insane?

I agree with you, no penalty.

[GrkStav]

Up until the goal, we can have no complaints about how we played - we pinned Villa back with great interceptions and pressing, and intelligently keeping possession of the ball.

However after the goal, you could see the whole team sitting back and easing up on their pass and move and inviting Villa to attack them, which Villa increasingly did for the rest of the half and the entire second half. With Benteke in fine form, that was a dangerous tactic to play but we managed to skin through.

I am surprised though to see the relative lack of concern about our tactics. In the end, Villa had 4 good opportunities to score with two of them repelled by good saves by Mignolet. Of the other two, one was a deflection from weimann that was inches over the bar and the other one was a volley that went the right side of the post with Mignolet rooted. For all the marvellous aproach play of rht efirst half, we only had one real chance and we scored with that chance. Their goalkeeper did not have a single save to make except for the goal.

The point is that we could have easily lost that game to Villa and had we done so, it would have been Rodgers' fault because it did not look to me like Villa was pushing us back so much as it was a conscious decision to defend and sit on that slender lead.

Instead we should have continued playing the way we had in the majority of the first half which had totally stymied Villa. It was working and we were asking for trouble by sitting back.

Respectfully, I disagree.

There was no such 'easing back' after we scored, nor did we begin the 2nd half thus. Whatever apparent 'backing up' etc. did occur in the first half was caused by AVFC beginning to execute better.

I am 100% certain that BR's Plan A was to execute as we did in the majority of the first half. Possession, passing, circulation, fluid movement, moments of creativity. Plus, resting with the ball. For the entire match. If and when that didn't work, be it because we failed to execute or because AVFC denied us the opportunity to execute, Plan B was, from the start to 'contain' AVFC, not be sucked into an 'open game' type of situation where AVFC's pace and skill up top would hurt us on the counter-attack. BR saw 'enough' in the 2nd half to see the writing on the wall. When he made the Cissokho for Aspas substitution, it became official.

By the way, throughout the entire game (and not just after Cissokho came in) we were never in a 4231 or 43(1-2)3 formation. It was more like a 4222 in attack and a pretty straightforward 442 defending.

[subroc]

Respectfully, I disagree.

There was no such 'easing back' after we scored, nor did we begin the 2nd half thus. Whatever apparent 'backing up' etc. did occur in the first half was caused by AVFC beginning to execute better.

I am 100% certain that BR's Plan A was to execute as we did in the majority of the first half. Possession, passing, circulation, fluid movement, moments of creativity. Plus, resting with the ball. For the entire match. If and when that didn't work, be it because we failed to execute or because AVFC denied us the opportunity to execute, Plan B was, from the start to 'contain' AVFC, not be sucked into an 'open game' type of situation where AVFC's pace and skill up top would hurt us on the counter-attack. BR saw 'enough' in the 2nd half to see the writing on the wall. When he made the Cissokho for Aspas substitution, it became official.

By the way, throughout the entire game (and not just after Cissokho came in) we were never in a 4231 or 43(1-2)3 formation. It was more like a 4222 in attack and a pretty straightforward 442 defending.

I seem to recall some comments from Rodgers or a player to suggest that it was actually the plan to sit back after the goal. I can't locate it at the moment but I found this:-

"It was a terrific win for us. The first half we had good control of the game and scored an excellent goal and in the second half we just needed to defend a bit more deeply today. If we open up too much they can really hurt you. Our aim was to just to keep our lines tight together and deny them many chances. It was a good win for us as this is a difficult team to play against."

http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/matchday/matches/2013-2014/epl.html/aston-villa-vs-liverpool

On the formation issue, I didnt; mention anyting about any particular formation, so were you replying to someone else?

[Juan Loco]

Rodgers definitely used the term "half-pitch" in one of the post-match interviews to describe how they treated the second half. I took from that to mean that we weren't interested in risking stretching the team, or leaving space in behind the defence, for the risk of pushing up and winning the ball high, given we already had the goal. It was a Saachi trait wasn't it, often only looking to press after the opposition only after they crossed the half way line?

I mean, I would have liked a more 'proactive' substitution than Aly Cissokho on the left-wing, but y'know the tactical shift worked for what it was. I just thought it was disappointing that we didn't really have that threat in the second half to really harm them when we broke. We were very well disciplined and I genuinely think we only offered up the one clear cut chance through-out the whole game. But it would have been nice to feel that when we won the ball off Aston Villa we could then hurt them, whereas it looked more like "OK, we've got the ball, let's kill five seconds, but then you can have it back and try and break through us again". The Cissokho substitution very much felt like it played into that. We had the option of maybe looking to Sterling and being able to harm Villa when they lost the ball, to making us slightly more difficult again to play through, and we took the latter.

You'll take it though, won't you? I mean at times it reminded me a bit of Rafa's teams and a bit of Houllier's teams. It's nice to know that option is there just to be really obdurate and difficult to play through. I'm not sure how comfortable I would be watching it against a team that had a Silva or Mata who could pick a lock, but it's nice to feel that if - God forbid - we went down to 10 men and had to spend an hour being bloody hard to play through, we could probably pull it off against a mid-table team.

Last week after the Stoke game I listened to the Anfield Wrap and Sean Rodgers was saying that United were basically just clinical in both boxes against Swansea. That was us yesterday. Everything dropped to a red shirt in defence bar the Agbonlahor chance, which looked more dangerous than it actually was (Toure and Agger have the corners of the goal covered, Mignolet is in the center), and the Benteke chance which was their one real opportunity, and that's why you have a class shot-stopper. There were two big saves (the last one in particular) and one chance. We scored and kept a clean sheet. That's clinical in both penalty areas.

[GrkStav]

I seem to recall some comments from Rodgers or a player to suggest that it was actually the plan to sit back after the goal. I can't locate it at the moment but I found this:-

"It was a terrific win for us. The first half we had good control of the game and scored an excellent goal and in the second half we just needed to defend a bit more deeply today. If we open up too much they can really hurt you. Our aim was to just to keep our lines tight together and deny them many chances. It was a good win for us as this is a difficult team to play against."

http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/matchday/matches/2013-2014/epl.html/aston-villa-vs-liverpool

On the formation issue, I didnt; mention anyting about any particular formation, so were you replying to someone else?

The formation part was independent of your post. Sorry, I should have made that more clear.

If you read the quote, you'll see that it doesn't make sense that our plan would be successfully to control the game and AVFC with one set of tactics (which worked like a charm in the first half) and then, abruptly, upon scoring, to abandon such extremely successful tactics, in line with our main footballing philosophy, and switch to a 'contain' and 'sit back' and 'defend half the pitch' and 'surrender control of the ball/possession' after we scored one goal and without AVFC demonstrating that they could disrupt our main tactics and turn the game into their preferred format.

As I argued extensively and repeatedly in the now closed post-game thread, BR's words in their entirety are consistent with my analysis. Strictly speaking, I submit, BR's words do not make much logical sense, unless interpreted as I have tried to interpret them, in light of my own repeated (ad nauseam?) viewing of the match 'on tape'.

My original reaction was almost identical to yours. I was annoyed at BR and our team. Then, I watched the 2nd half over again, and then the entire game over again, as well. It's very different watching a game from the comfort of knowing the final score, being able to focus on details, etc.

The truth of the matter, for me, is that in the first half WE were really good at executing our 'control the game' plan with OUR preferred tactics and they were sloppy, incompetent and unlucky, in roughly equal proportions. Once they got better and we became a bit worse, and we stopped being able to control them and the game, BR, chastized by Arsenal's experience vs AVFC, turned into Rafa in his pragmatism. 

[reds7]

Can't understand people criticising the second half performance - we simply changed our agenda tactics and mentality. Tactics which proved successful. Stoke 0 points, Liverpool 3 points.

[Melbred]

The formation part was independent of your post. Sorry, I should have made that more clear.

If you read the quote, you'll see that it doesn't make sense that our plan would be successfully to control the game and AVFC with one set of tactics (which worked like a charm in the first half) and then, abruptly, upon scoring, to abandon such extremely successful tactics, in line with our main footballing philosophy, and switch to a 'contain' and 'sit back' and 'defend half the pitch' and 'surrender control of the ball/possession' after we scored one goal and without AVFC demonstrating that they could disrupt our main tactics and turn the game into their preferred format.

It does make sense though, doesn't it? Obviously if Villa are chasing a goal, then naturally they are going to push on more and will obviously play much more attacking (in comparison to their relatively negative tactics in the first half). We implemented a plan to stifle them, and the end result was a win for us.

[subroc]

If you read the quote, you'll see that it doesn't make sense that our plan would be successfully to control the game and AVFC with one set of tactics (which worked like a charm in the first half) and then, abruptly, upon scoring, to abandon such extremely successful tactics, in line with our main footballing philosophy, and switch to a 'contain' and 'sit back' and 'defend half the pitch' and 'surrender control of the ball/possession' after we scored one goal and without AVFC demonstrating that they could disrupt our main tactics and turn the game into their preferred format.

Here is a more detailed quote from Rodgers that seems to show that he purporsely instructed the team to sit back in the 2nd half.

http://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/latest-news/143407-br-we-can-t-always-be-globetrotters
“Rodgers told his post-match press conference: "Tactically we had to play differently today, but I was delighted with the players. Aston Villa have shown in their first couple of games the pace they have in the team and they play on the counter attack.

"In the first half we controlled the ball and the spaces well. In the second half, we had to control the zones, defend half a pitch and deny them the space to run into and obviously that means conceding a bit more of the ball.”

[subroc]

Can't understand people criticising the second half performance - we simply changed our agenda tactics and mentality. Tactics which proved successful. Stoke 0 points, Liverpool 3 points.

It worked this time. But it could have just as easily failed and we could have lost - the difference was razor-thin. The weimann shot that was deflected came within inches of going into the net with the keeper rooted to the ground. The volley off Toure's weak clearance that could have gone in as well.

Why change the tactics when we were literally crushing them to death int he first half until we let them back into the game again? Every attack by them was being ruthlessly cut off and broken down before it had much chance to get anywhere. They were all over the place. We had possession scores in excess of 60%. But once we scored, we very perceptibly eased up and stopped pressing high up the pitch. We withdrew into our own half and stopped coming at them.

We were safer during the first half than during the second half whereby they did not have even a single attack to show up for in the first half before the goal. Our defence and defensive discipline is not impregnable nor regimented enough to play catenacchio on such a slender lead.

[subroc]

It does make sense though, doesn't it? Obviously if Villa are chasing a goal, then naturally they are going to push on more and will obviously play much more attacking (in comparison to their relatively negative tactics in the first half). We implemented a plan to stifle them, and the end result was a win for us.

The problem was that they came back into the game not because they were pushing on more, but because we let them back into the game by inviting them to attack. The analogy in MMA is if you haev got your opponent where you want him, passed his guard and you are pummelling him from the top position, and while he is still managing to cover up and deflect most of your punches, you are definitely on top an dhe is in little danger of hurting you. But suddenly you get off him and let him get up again to get back on his feet again, and you cover up and invite him to attack you.

It would not make any sense in that scenario and I would suggest that to change our game when we were having them on the backfoot on only a 1-0 lead makes a similar lack of sense.

[Melbred]

The problem was that they came back into the game not because they were pushing on more, but because we let them back into the game by inviting them to attack. The analogy in MMA is if you haev got your opponent where you want him, passed his guard and you are pummelling him from the top position, and while he is still managing to cover up and deflect most of your punches, you are definitely on top an dhe is in little danger of hurting you. But suddenly you get off him and let him get up again to get back on his feet again, and you cover up and invite him to attack you.

It would not make any sense in that scenario and I would suggest that to change our game when we were having them on the backfoot on only a 1-0 lead makes a similar lack of sense.

I think, rightly or wrongly, Rodgers was trying to rectify the mistakes made in previous games against this sort of opposition. The approach adopted in the second half was much more rigid than we've previously seen. His concern was that with Aston Villa chasing a goal, if we were to remain "open" and less compact than we were, there was a risk to be exploited like we have been in the past. It's clear from his comments, that he took a proactive approach in trying to stifle them, rather than waiting for them to inevitably start attacking more.

It's true that we let them back into the game to a certain extent, but it's clear that this was a deliberate tactic, and a consequence of us trying to play the way Rodgers wanted us to play in the second half. As Juan Loco as posted, by adopting this approach, we severely limited their chances, and although a better balance could have served us better in terms of creating our own chances, it worked. We deliberately stifled their main strengths, while compromising our attacking play.

I'm sure, if we were to adopt the same approach against certain sides in the future, Rodgers will have tweaked our plan to be a bit more balanced than we saw against Villa. To be honest, I stated before the game, that I wanted to see if Rodgers had learnt anything about playing the sort of opposition that plays to our very weaknesses, and it was clear that he had a plan.

If anything, I was encouraged by his pragmatism, even though it may not have been executed perfectly.

[DanA]

I would have said 4-2-2-2 was the best way to describe the formation we've played both against Stoke and Villa. The way Villa initailly setup was interesting but we handled it very well. Villa's fullbacks were sitting very compact leaving no space for Sturridge and Asaps to operate in. It made sense as both Coutinho and Henderson cut inside and neither are genuine wingers. However it left too much room for Johnson and Enrique who IMO were both very dangerous in that first 30 minutes. Therefore it was no suprise to see Enrique set up the goal. Villa were still trying to press but got nothing for it, conversely when Villa attacked they had no width and Lucas/Gerrard shut down everything. Despite not getting a lot of goal scoring opportunities it was a near perfect perfromance for 30 minutes IMO.

Then Villa changed. They shifted to more of a 4-3-3 and their fullbacks pushed forward more. The shift meant Gerrard and Lucas had to cover a lot more ground and I don't think our fullbacks adjusted to the change seemly caught out a little bit. It took some great work from Mignolet and Toure to bail us out of trouble and for that 15 minute period they definately go the better of us.

In the second half we responded by dropping further back. It took away some of teeth in Villa's attack but we were now playing the games on their terms. I think this was a classic example of when it would have been nice to have a quality winger to help with counter-attacks of our own and stretch the play. Still think we defended quite well though our fullbacks weren't fantastic and Lucas looked to tire.

Thoughts I took from this game was:
1. We're definately more resiliant.  Huge step forward in that regard
2. Mignolet is exceptional but can't play like Reina.  Still the trade off appears worth it. He's won us 4 point already.
3. Kolo Toure; could he be in the league team of the season?
4. We'll struggle to break down teams the pack the middle of the pitch. Perhaps Suarez is the answer though.
5. We need a goal scoring winger. Would have been perfect to bring on for Aspas in the second half when we switched to a more counter attacking game style.

[Severely]

I think the arrivals of Coutinho and Sturridge in January and the subsequent goal-fest onslaughts we had led to a lot of people forgetting that Rodgers showed himself to be fairly tactically astute earlier in the season, and what we're seeing now is a reminder of that. If I remember correctly, Rodgers changed up the shape of the side very frequently early on, and made lots of early substitutions and formation changes when required. We've obviously moved on from that need to experiment, but it's been clear that Brendan will change the side according to the opposition. Villa have one of the most dangerous counter-attacking sides in the country - with Agbonlahor, Weimann and Benteke, they have the pace, the power, and the finishing to wreak havoc on unprepared sides. It seems Rodgers felt that if he could take out their ability to break quickly by sitting deep and letting them try to break us down, we would be able to see out the game in relative comfort because patient probing requires a skill set that they just don't have, and it worked.

The other thing I'd like to remark on is the team ethic. Seeing Sturridge come as far as our own penalty box to help out Johnson, and then to flick the ball out off of the Villa player was my favourite moment of the match - it really showcases the hunger of the team and the fact that right now, we're a unit; not dependent on one player, all for one and one for all, hunting in packs, etc. etc. Really makes me optimistic for the future.

[DanA]

The problem was that they came back into the game not because they were pushing on more, but because we let them back into the game by inviting them to attack. The analogy in MMA is if you haev got your opponent where you want him, passed his guard and you are pummelling him from the top position, and while he is still managing to cover up and deflect most of your punches, you are definitely on top an dhe is in little danger of hurting you. But suddenly you get off him and let him get up again to get back on his feet again, and you cover up and invite him to attack you.

It would not make any sense in that scenario and I would suggest that to change our game when we were having them on the backfoot on only a 1-0 lead makes a similar lack of sense.

I disagree I think Villa changed it at about hte 30 minute mark and for that last 10-15 minutes of the first half we were well and truely on the back foot.

[Kersy Aus]

It worked this time. But it could have just as easily failed and we could have lost - the difference was razor-thin.

I think it comes down to probability. I agree we could have played the same and possibly scored more and controlled more possession, however that also could have failed. I think when you look at Villa they are most likely to score on a rebound fast break. By becoming wider and more defensive we lessened our own scoring chances, but to a greater degree limited Villas chance of scoring. Ugly but effective

[Juan Loco]

Just to add a bit of additional information to this, but as of Saturday evening Gerrard had made the most passes in the oppositions half in the league with a 109. Someone from City or possibly Spurs may have overtaken this now, but I thought it was fairly telling, particularly in relation to how he played in the Stoke game.

[Rawkybalboa]

We had a free midweek for this one. So we had a full week to prepare.
Also no European football. This is great 2 wins out of 2 for exactly that reason.
If we carry on winning like this, then I personally dont want no European football but just to win the league full stop

Why? because if we had come back from a wednesday night champs league game or a thursday europa crap
we would have more than likely lost this game.
I am sure most would agree with that.

[DanA]

We had a free midweek for this one. So we had a full week to prepare.
Also no European football. This is great 2 wins out of 2 for exactly that reason.
If we carry on winning like this, then I personally dont want no European football but just to win the league full stop

Why? because if we had come back from a wednesday night champs league game or a thursday europa crap
we would have more than likely lost this game.
I am sure most would agree with that.

I can understand the sentiment, still I like European nights even if they are only Europa league.

I think we're probably only a DM and CB away from putting out a quality side completely made up of full internationals without using a first eleven player.

It's my opinion that the squad should be big enough to handle European football now and it's good for getting game time into those that need it.

[AK47]

I like the idea that we 'parked the bus' and defended deep to nullify their counter attacking game. It's good to know that the team can adapt to a Plan B (or C or D) to suite opponents and grounds.

[JackWard33]

There's no problem with us going into a defensive shell; we've quietly become very adept at it since Rodgers came (our stats on preventing opponents taking good shots / creating clear chances are excellent)

However as I posted earlier our weakness against Villa was that we couldn't break out and counter attack effectively ... if we can add that we'll be a formidable away team

[Mutton Geoff]

There's no problem with us going into a defensive shell; we've quietly become very adept at it since Rodgers came (our stats on preventing opponents taking good shots / creating clear chances are excellent)

However as I posted earlier our weakness against Villa was that we couldn't break out and counter attack effectively ... if we can add that we'll be a formidable away team

Not sure you are right about the counter attacks, Sturridge possible pen, Aspas marginally given offside, Aspas glorious dummy and Glen blasts a shot over with two guys waiting for a pass, that three of the top of my head there maybe more, only when we took off Aspas we switched to just locking down the game.
Defensively they had one decent chance in each half, both for Benteke the first he made for himself much like his Chelsea goal where he spins the defender and cracks it. The second one Toure closed him down and Mignolet did the rest, other than that i thought we were under pressure perhaps but comfortably dealing with it.
It was never like defending the Alamo was it.

In fact watching the defending of Manchester City yesterday put our display in sharp contrast to that shambles.

[Yorkykopite]

The best thing you can say about that performance is that we discovered that the new Liverpool is resilient. I thought we rather played into Villa's hands in the last half hour allowing them time to get men into wide positions 30 yards out where they could comfortably aim for Benteke's head. We dealt with the aerial assault reasonably well although Agbonlahor missed an easy chance when he shinned a second ball wide - and a couple of times badly mistimed leaps by Agger and Toure produced a bit of self-induced penalty-box chaos. And of course Mignolet came up with another save at the death to increase his own points tally to 4 this season.

For forty minutes we were supreme. Almost every player looked smart and quick on the ball and the passing was crisp and rational, if not quite as inspired as last week. Lucas and Gerrard, who both had fine games, pretty much had it their own way in the centre of the park. It was Lucas's trademark steal (steel?) that set us rolling for the goal too. And not once did the pitch open up down the centre for Benteke to collect, turn and forage. Whenever he went deep in search of the ball in the first half Lucas went with him. Whenever he pushed into the box to invite a long ball Toure was there nudging his shoulder.

Let's hope Kolo Toure's body matches the challenge of a long season. He's a big all-round improvement on Jamie - in the air, with the ball, with his strength and above all with his pace. There was a moment in the second half where Delph - Villa's Man of the Match - chased down a long ball to the by-line. He was favourite to get it until he glimpsed Toure hurtling at him like a lost Eurostar. Delph simply quit. We surely have the quickest back-4 in the league right now, something that Cissokho will not detract from should he replace Enrique.

Our biggest problem on Saturday (oddly) was the pressure we put on ourselves by hoofing in the second half. Mignolet is, on the evidence so far, not in the same class as Pepe Reina when it comes to recycling the ball.  But it was notable that even Agger decided twenty minutes before the end that he was no longer going to bring the ball down. It was messy. I don't think one of our hoofs found a Liverpool forward and Villa were consequently allowed to dominate the ball and large areas of the pitch too while the forwards began to tire themselves out in futile chases.

Sturridge put in a herculean performance I thought. Twice he cropped up at right back to cover for Johnson and every time the ball cstuck to his footy Villa knew they had a fight on their hands. Is he match fit even? It's frightening to think what he might achieve if he isn't. The way he took his goal was pure class. In a weekend when forwards failed to convert with the keeper already beaten Sturridge showed the way. Defenders on the line? Hit the top corners - even if it means chipping the ball with the outside of the boot. That was an instinctive centre-forward's goal.   

What wasn't so smart was the way he fought to stay on his feet after he was felled in the box by the Villa keeper. That's twice now in the opening two games that Sturridge has nicked the ball away from the keeper and decided to ride a late challenge rather than accept he's been hit and fallen. I'm not asking him to stick out a trailing leg like Danny Welbeck or Pires. But I'll get seriously annoyed if he keeps on jumping over keepers and losing his balance and momentum (and the opportunity to score) as a result. 

That's 10 league games now unbeaten. Most, I guess, without Suarez. Do we need him? Not as much as you might have thought. Although it will be interesting to see what one of the best players in the world can do to a team that's already playing such good footy. 

[fowlermagic]

A game of two halves where we had a lot of the ball, strung some lovely moves together but still had to rely on some brilliance from Sturridge to score. I was very surprised to see the lack of shots on goal from us as after all that possession I was convinced we had battered them...we had not. Odd.

Second half was a great example of ...us getting the run around basically. We defended well but rarely looked like hitting them on the counter attack until Sturridge's penalty shout. SG was all over the place getting last gasp tackles in, Toure was doing a fine job in the center and what a couple of stops from Mignolet. One moment where SG turned around after making a tackle and screaming at others to get a finger out highlighted we were just hanging on. You never think Villa were the team playing 3 games in a week while we had it off as we just looked knackered.

Still 2 games in 6 points and we grounded out a win where many wont this season. Definitely a game where you can see where we will excel this season but also Brendan Im sure will have made some notes on our issues as after that second half I would have been on the phone looking to get a couple of more players in to help out. I would hate to see SG throwing himself about all season as his legs wont be up for that for much longer.       

[Eeyore]

There's no problem with us going into a defensive shell; we've quietly become very adept at it since Rodgers came (our stats on preventing opponents taking good shots / creating clear chances are excellent)

However as I posted earlier our weakness against Villa was that we couldn't break out and counter attack effectively ... if we can add that we'll be a formidable away team

Have we got the personnel to do that though, we have a very fluid attacking interchanging front line whose main quality is their ability to combine and to move opposition players around. What we don't really have is individuals who can hold the ball up for three or four seconds to allow us to get players forward. When our front players become isolated we give possession up to easily. For me that's why we brought Cissokho on, someone with the pace and power to push Villa backwards and offer us an out ball.

Especially away from home a forward with the pace and power of Benteke would be a brilliant option. Someone with the athleticism and power to occupy defenders, hold the ball up and offer us the ability to launch one man attacks from deep. Villa's confidence grew each time we failed to hold the ball up and that confidence allowed them to push on with abandon. There was no fear factor they knew we weren't going to attack in numbers and knew we didn't have the individuals to really hurt them.

[JackWard33]

^^ I think Sturridge has shown he can do this and did it a couple if times against Villa in the second half however his fitness isn't quite there yet
He was very isolated though and you can see why we were linked with Costa for this
It's pretty clear we need at least one more 'dynamic' attacking player in addition to Suarez coming back

[exiledinyorkshire]

I think it's half full mate. I spoke to a guy I hadn't seen in years tonight - he used to be my centre back partner - massive Red - knows his football and reads the game.

His summary was that we look a lot like that Swansea side at times, and if we can address a couple more of that side's textbook weaknesses, we will be dark horses.

I suppose it comes down to whether we get it now or get it later.

For me, the first half was a complete joy. We won't see many sides go to Villa Park and do something like that this season. It just lacked finishing touches. People talk about it highlighting a need for penetration, but that Villa side is phenomenal on the break on its game, and as you say our sitting 2 and for the most part the four in front of them managed those attempts at counters beautifully.

That was our one big problem last season. Not a lack of any particular player, in any particular position - a tactical problem and a collective one. I found that really heartening, given Villa's form. Reserving the free flowing penetrative stuff is wise in games like that for me. One or two clear chances with sterile domination feels right... but it didn't feel that sterile.

We drew them on to us didn't we? It was almost Hodgeball in the 2nd half at times. But I dunno - a habit of being able to dog it is a great thing to develop, and exactly what that Swansea team lacked (think it was QPR away for them that saw them dominate the first half 0-0, and lose the game 3-0 to sharp counters. We look less vulnerable; albeit we do still look a little vulnerable.
 
The new signings look great. I still thought Aspas was grand yesterday - he's an edgy wee bugger and he pressures defenders. The quality will come - it shows in flashes (the duck under the ball 2nd half was sublime).

Toure is perfect for us, but we need another one like him.

Mignolet looks perfect when his distribution settles.

Cissokho looks, well, like a runaway train.

Obvious areas for upgrade, but Sturridge was brilliant. He's not fully fit either. Eventually we'll have depth to play the full 90, but it's nice to see the side mix it up tactically when the situation calls for it.

Enjoyed the op señor.

Last week I wrote a piece about perception and decision making and how these two related attributes were of a high value in our system of playing.

That first half was a glimpse of what a cohesive team can achieve.  I honestly couldn't identify a key performer.  Everyone did their job within the system.

The second half didn't go as well, and I think Villa need some credit here.  They changed their attacking angles and bypassed our midfield more effectively.  The worry was we didn't keep the ball as well, but I'm not sure why, we got pick-pocketed a number of times.

What we did really well in the first half, was 'kill' the ball at turnovers.  When our play broke down, the ball wasn't in a position for a quick counter from Villa, either because it was out of play, or the Villa man with the ball had no outlet.  We controlled these angles excellently.

In the second half, a number of our possessions fizzled out, and we couldn't play our way out of tight areas.  It was like we had sacrificed the options on the ball in order to stay more secure if/when play broke down, which in turn  made this happen more.  I also felt we attacked too quickly on a few occasions, when we really needed to just keep possession.

As it turned out, this worked, and a huge factor in this was the save by Mignolet.  If I'm honest, Villa probably deserved a point, but I won't complain.  The first half was a demonstration of it working, the second a demostration of what we can do when we need to.

I think we tried to keep playing the same way as the first half, and I think credit needs to go to villa for essentially destroying our possession in the second 45. And then credit to Rodgers for seeing it fall apart and acting to protect the lead.

I think he'll be concerned that it did unravel a bit from the interval, but in all fairness to villa they are up for a scrap this year. Their work rate made it ugly imo. They are a very strong unit with a tough mentality this year. The pleasing thing for me is that we are too.

[sturridginho]

Ok, so, just doubting myself a little considering how many people still think it was a penalty, I just went and watched it again. The goalkeeper touch is even clearer than I remembered.

Sturridge toes the ball upwards, the keeper gets a CLEAR touch to bring the ball back in a downwards direction. Can someone please tell me they can see it as well so that I don't think you're all insane?

Honest question, does the keeper only have to touch the ball for the challenge to be ok? He doesn't knock the ball away from the danger just gets a finger to it and trips Sturridge over in the process, is that acceptable contact?

Either way awesome analyses of the game as usual. 3pts on to Notts County

[DanA]

It's definitely a different Liverpool this season.

I agree with Yorky Kopite our back four is fast as fuck, certainly I don't see a lot of guys hurting us with their pace. Walcott, Agbonlahor and Bale, maybe, but short of the elite few not much looks like it will concern us.  In that respect we've struck what looks a good balance.

The other area I was quite pleased with was set pieces. It was a point to look out for after Stoke but I thought we defended them quite well and i'm inclined to think that over the course of the season our record will be reasonably good. In terms of the aerial ball a few headers in general play weren't cleared well have to watch but certainly it's less worrisome then it initially looked against Stoke.


I do think we're going to have to accept Mignolet's weakness playing the ball out of the back. Love him, glad to have him and think while it was a brave decision to ship Reina out it's already proven to be the right one. Mignolet though is a stark contrast to Reina, take the weekend for example:
Reina: 23 passes, 96% pass accuracy, 3 out of 4 long ball accurate
Mignolet: 15 passes, 33% pass accuracy, 1 out of 11 long balls accurate

Reina is the guy that bet his manager he can hit the crossbar from the half way line and promptly does! As far as distribution goes Mignolet simply isn't Reina level and it's unfair to ask him to try to be.  IMO Rodgers needs to recognise this and find a better solution, we can still play back to the keeper but we need to find ways for him to play the ball that doesn't involve low percentage punt up the field. 33% pass completion is not desirable for a possession based team.

[ryan125]

A remorseless crushing machine churning out 1-0 wins to the chagrin of brand "Premier League - we're exciting because we're tactically inept".

Fantastic post Degs. This may be the finest sentence ever written.

[Nessy76]

My cup overfloweth, never mind half full! 6 point from 2 games, perfect form, no goals conceded, what more could you want?

There are areas for improvment, obviously. First half we dominated so much that it was disappointing not to get the second goal. A certain Uruguayan springs to mind. Aspas still settling to the English game and Coutinho playing out wide - all things that time should mend.

We played an obvious strategy in terms of giving them all the possession they wanted in their own half and pressing when they crossed the line. First half it was effective, but it made me wonder - by doing this, we ensure that when they do get the ball past one of our players, it's a fairly short sprint to the goal, and Villa have some pacy forwards. Second half this seemed to cause us problems.

Mignolet impressed with some lovely saves, my concern about him has always been his distribution, and while it wasn't terrible, I did feel that second half a lot of the problems we had stemmed from our inability to keep the ball, and much of this was due to Mignolet spraying long balls over the halfway line. It wasn't like David Seaman for England, when the ball would cycle endlessly into the box to be hoofed up and allow another attack to build, but there were times when I felt Reina would have found a man in space and instead it was pressured or went into touch, providing another attacking chance rather than an opportunity to regroup. Again, we can only expect improvement, and we have been spoiled by the best in the world for the last eight years there.

Interesting that Cissokho was introduced to add to the midfield, by then Coutinho and Henderson had been largely shut out of the game and it was all about the back line, Lucas and Gerrard, all of whom were virtually flawless.

I was surprised by the dominance of the first half, I'm actually a bit of a fan of Lambert, and Villa do have some very good players, they could do very well this season, and if they can find a way to make the best of their talents at home Villa Park is going to be a banana skin for a few contenders this year.

Penalty? It was a 50/50, don't think they'd have much to complain about if it was given - I don't think it matters if the keeper touches the ball if he brings down the player, didn't that rule go out with the ark?

[Frizzo]

Honest question, does the keeper only have to touch the ball for the challenge to be ok? He doesn't knock the ball away from the danger just gets a finger to it and trips Sturridge over in the process, is that acceptable contact?

Either way awesome analyses of the game as usual. 3pts on to Notts County

I see it like a defender making a tackle and getting a toe on the ball.

I thought Guzan's touch caused a pretty clear deflection, clear enough for the ref to see it from 30 yards away.

Anyway, like you said, smashing analysis in this thread so I won't go on about this any more will just enjoy the good reading.

[RedHopper]

I think the most satisfying part of that game was the result. The path back to the top four is one of continually turning draws into narrow wins, and we did exactly that. we ground out a clean sheet, we managed to find a goal from somewhere, we played well in long patches, we clung on a bit, but showed a bit of resiliance. Two 1-0 wins is one less than last season in total, and if we can keep turning our five 0-0 draws last season into gritty 1-0 wins then we'll eat up the ground on fourth place. 

We were great for 40 minutes, and I wonder how much of subsequent change was through choice, as much as was forced on us by villa just playing a hell of a lot better. In the second half the ref was pretty relaxed and lucas and coutinho got a serious buffeting. I was wondering how we would have gotten on if villa hadn't played against chelsea and arsenal. It took them a long time to get it together, and even then they didn't play quite as well. Now some of that is down to us, and you can only play what is in front of you.

I'm eyeing mignolet a little nervously. He's made two matchwinning saves so far, but he doesn't seem to judge the flight of corners very well. He's come for crosses a couple of times now and not exactly covered himself in glory. Maybe he's trying to add something to his game over and above what he was doing at sunderland, and that this situation will improve with practice, rather than just something we didn't notice.

All in all it looks like we're seeing the benefits of another summers coaching, some decent new signings. So far so good.

[GrkStav]

Here is a more detailed quote from Rodgers that seems to show that he purporsely instructed the team to sit back in the 2nd half.

http://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/latest-news/143407-br-we-can-t-always-be-globetrotters
“Rodgers told his post-match press conference: "Tactically we had to play differently today, but I was delighted with the players. Aston Villa have shown in their first couple of games the pace they have in the team and they play on the counter attack.

"In the first half we controlled the ball and the spaces well. In the second half, we had to control the zones, defend half a pitch and deny them the space to run into and obviously that means conceding a bit more of the ball.”

"We had to" to me means "we were forced to". In the first half, we weren't forced to play thus. We forced THEM not to play the way they prefer, and they were not good at imposing their style on the game. When they began asserting themselves, in part BECAUSE we conceded a bit more of the ball (in fact, a lot more of the ball compared to the first half), we (correctly) switched to the alternative plan of attempting to control the zones, defending half a pitch and denying them the space to run into.

If BR is actually saying that we deliberately changed our tactics without any change in their tactics and effectiveness in deploying them, after the success we had had with a 'control the game through possession, passing, clever movement, etc.' then, to me, he is lying both to himself and to the press/us.

There was about a 10-15 minute period in the first half where Lucas had something like 5 sharp 'vertical' mid-range passes to advanced midfielders and strikers which they perfectly "wall-passed" right back to him. In the process, their shape was being mangled out of recognition, and we maintained possession all the while. That period was after we had scored our goal. I guarantee that BR did not see THAT and think to himself, 'wait, let's change our style, and go into defending half a pitch etc" in anticipation of them eventually being able to assert their preferred style of play on us and thwarting us. It was only AFTER our efficiency declined and theirs improved that the switch was made.

[No666]

There are some posts on here which are a real Bank Holiday treat - cold glass, re-reading Daws, reading Yorky. Thanks, gents.

[longtimered]

You have to be satisfied with the result and work ethic.
Concerned with the lack of fitness in the second half(its only the 2nd game) and the lack of alternatives in defensive midfield where Lucas's limited mobility is an issue.I struggle to understand the over defensive mentality after the goal-if we are playing compact and seeking to counter attack then the substitutions made didn't offer pace or any option but to try and win 1-0.We lack physical prescence in midfield and composure as the game progressed.
In short there are more questions than answers for me.

[Motty]

"We had to" to me means "we were forced to". In the first half, we weren't forced to play thus. We forced THEM not to play the way they prefer, and they were not good at imposing their style on the game. When they began asserting themselves, in part BECAUSE we conceded a bit more of the ball (in fact, a lot more of the ball compared to the first half), we (correctly) switched to the alternative plan of attempting to control the zones, defending half a pitch and denying them the space to run into.

If BR is actually saying that we deliberately changed our tactics without any change in their tactics and effectiveness in deploying them, after the success we had had with a 'control the game through possession, passing, clever movement, etc. then, to me, he is lying both to himself and to the press/us.

There was about a 10-15 minute period in the first half where Lucas had something like 5 sharp 'vertical' mid-range passes to advanced midfielders and strikers which they perfectly "wall-passed" right back to him. In the process, their shape was being mangled out of recognition, and we maintained possession all the while. That period was after we had scored our goal. I guarantee that BR did not see THAT and think to himself, 'wait, let's change our style, and go into defending half a pitch etc" in anticipation of them eventually being able to assert their preferred style of play on us and thwarting us. It was only AFTER our efficiency declined and theirs improved that the switch was made.

I agree with that , I think our possession game started to slow down a bit and Villa took advantage with their pressing especially Delph who I thought had a brilliant game, and then Rodgers changed it from there
But for all of the switch in dominance we weren't really under that much pressure which is to the team's credit, and if we win a lot of games away from home like this I'll be happy as it's a good trait to have in a team