Topic: Rawk round table LFC 4-0 v FFC

[ElstonGunn]

We're second best in the league at creating shots from zones 1, 2 and 3.

[ElstonGunn]

I was being sarcastic

I love that type of data that you put up in that article. But it goes against the common perceptions of what the game actually is, so a lot of people won't buy into the point you made

Ah, got it sorry. Yeah, I love how much more granular data is coming available about shot locations. It tells us so much more than just pure shot numbers.

[GrkStav]

I was being sarcastic

I love that type of data that you put up in that article. But it goes against the common perceptions of what the game actually is, so a lot of people won't buy into the point you made

To be perfectly fair and honest, your own analysis of the Giacherinni goal (off the original shot by Ki, etc) did not do much to dispel the notion that such shots are not exactly the first priority to prevent and/or defend against. 

Good old Lucas was raked over the proverbial hot coals back when Carroll, playing for NUFC, scored that thunderous shot from outside the box, remember?

Reminds me of my own experiences as a basketball player usually tasked with man-marking the opposition's best outside shooter. You bust your ass trying to contain him, force him to take difficult three-pointers etc and you get some general 'plaudits' and 'attaboys'. Then, when your man manages to get a relatively open three-pointer and buries it (because you, correctly, attempted to execute a 'help and recover'), your coach and the fans give you "shit" for not closing him down. :-)

[PhaseOfPlay]

To be perfectly fair and honest, your own analysis of the Giacherinni goal (off the original shot by Ki, etc) did not do much to dispel the notion that such shots are not exactly the first priority to prevent and/or defend against. 

Good old Lucas was raked over the proverbial hot coals back when Carroll, playing for NUFC, scored that thunderous shot from outside the box, remember?

Reminds me of my own experiences as a basketball player usually tasked with man-marking the opposition's best outside shooter. You bust your ass trying to contain him, force him to take difficult three-pointers etc and you get some general 'plaudits' and 'attaboys'. Then, when your man manages to get a relatively open three-pointer and buries it (because you, correctly, attempted to execute a 'help and recover'), your coach and the fans give you "shit" for not closing him down. :-)

Not at all. As I said then, I'll say now - you still have to defend shots, wherever they are from. But the point that you are confusing or haven't remembered, was against those who complained about the AMOUNT of long shots we gave up - to which I countered that they are statistically a poor source of goals, so it's better to force a team to take long shots, then to let them in behind you and get shots off from inside the box.

[GrkStav]

Not at all. As I said then, I'll say now - you still have to defend shots, wherever they are from. But the point that you are confusing or haven't remembered, was against those who complained about the AMOUNT [number] of long shots we gave up - to which I countered that they are statistically a poor source of goals, so it's better to force a team to take long shots, then to let them in behind you and get shots off from inside the box.

I was going to add parenthetically that there was nothing wrong with your analysis, per se. 

A case could be made that the Cabaye goal was from just too far and the defenders and midfielders can be excused tout court.

For the Ki/Giacherinni goal, it is plausible that part of the explanation for allowing the original shot to be taken was the choice to defend against the pass to the man moving "in behind" and potentially getting a shot off from inside the box.

The same applies to the Ramsey goal (see Giroux's run or fake run), although Toure's turning his back to Ramsey was not exactly ideal.

[Number 7]

Thought that was a very entertaining performance with some delightful football. Our play was fluid, attacking, and the link up play was excellent. Fulham were poor, there is no question about. But they didn't just turn up at Anfield and decide to be poor on a whim, we made them look poor. Once we got a foothold in the game we basically nullified any threat whatsoever that they could have potentially posed. With the exception of Enrique that was close to our best side. You could argue that Sakho is in our first choice 11 also, but in a back 4 you can't play all 3 of Agger, Skrtel and Sakho. Thought Agger played well but Fulham hardly caused our defence any problems.

Having Coutinho back helps immensely of course. He's such a talented player and was at the heart of basically all our attacks. They stood off him all game too. He's just makes things happen and is probably a nightmare for opposing teams. Many times as a Fulham player approached him he did that quick sideways shuffle of the ball, like a quick toe-to-toe drag, and they didn't even think twice about going close to him in order to avoid looking silly. He's like that kid on the playground that you just stand off and let them do their thing because you think you've actually got a better chance at defending what he's about to do once the ball is played, but you'd dare not go on an act of bravado.

Johnson makes such a big difference too. No one can do what he does when he's not there. He just offers an outlet every time. He has such a great understanding with Gerrard, Lucas and Henderson that at times they were playing it around Fulham in triangles. He's one of our most important players and I really worry now when he's out of the team. He's just a fabulous footballer who we should just cherish while we're getting the best years out of him.

Gerrard was fantastic. Along with Coutinho, just dictated the tempo of the game. Sprayed inch perfect passes across the park and got forward a lot more. The 60 minutes probably helped because he played extremely well for all of them.

Just a solid, attractive and highly efficient performance. Bring on Everton!

[Number 7]

I think it will be the most open derby game in years. And because of that, I think we'll win with a clear margin. If Suarez scores one, he'll score two.

Those words are going to be ringing in my ears come November 23rd

You're probably right of course.

[Number 7]

Sakho is probably the only player who can physically match up to Lukaku. I think he'll play, hopefully with Agger.

The only way I can see both Agger and Sakho playing is if Agger plays in the middle (libero) of a back 3, with Skrtel moved over to the right. Probably the role we are all inching to see from Agger. But in order to do that - I know the the question has been raised on the previous page - we would almost definitely need to revert back to the 3-5-2, to accommodate Johnson and Enrique. And I think both of those players should play in this game, and to me there was never a doubt they would. However, that leaves us with a extra player that would have to get dropped. And you can't really drop any of those outfield players - unless Suarez doesn't start. A dilemma for Rodgers.

He might well therefore stick with the same formation as Fulham, and just take his chances with Lukaku.

[robgomm]

I wasn't sure where to post this, but I thought it was really interesting. If you look at the table at the bottom, we're second in the league at taking shots from good locations (e.g. center of the box). This is in contrast to our general shot numbers, which are fairly mediocre. Whereas in the past, we've often been near the top of shots tables, but had low conversion rates, this year we're taking fewer, but much better shots, and converting at a much higher rate. (Actually, this is very similar to the way Ferguson's United teams played the last couple years.) I also just posted stats in Suarez' thread that show he is personally taking much fewer shots from crazy locations, and generally being more efficient in front of goal. Do people think this is the result of a conscious change in how we play, or simply a by-product of having two strikers in great form?

I like his breakdown, it's more detailed than WhoScored. I've been keeping on eye on our shot locations in a broad way and this confirms we have been getting it right more and more. Don't see as many wild shots or rushed shots. I don't know if this is as a result of coaching or reliance on two strikers, who we expect to take a good chunk of our shots. Sturridge is more economical than Suarez in this regard, another reason they balance out well.

[GrkStav]

Curiously, the official site maintains that we switched to 433 vs FFC. I think that's a bunch of nonsense. Neither defensively, nor in attack were we 433.

[robgomm]

It was defo 4-4-2.

[PhaseOfPlay]

4-4-2 in the first half for sure, with Coutinho having freedom to move in off the left. Lucas sitting, Gerrard box-to-box. Henderson keeping the width:

[robgomm]

I think Henderson narrowed a bit as the game wore on (no evidence bar my eyes here, btw) but we made subs as well. The starting formation as you guys say was definitely 4-4-2 but I think Coutinho's role probably fooled people.

[GrkStav]

4-4-2 in the first half for sure, with Coutinho having freedom to move in off the left. Lucas sitting, Gerrard box-to-box. Henderson keeping the width:

How sad is it that I had to squint in order to be able to identify whose 'activity area' was which?

[PhaseOfPlay]

I think Henderson narrowed a bit as the game wore on (no evidence bar my eyes here, btw) but we made subs as well. The starting formation as you guys say was definitely 4-4-2 but I think Coutinho's role probably fooled people.

Good points

[houkura]

After Joe Allen came on we looked a straight up 433 without the ball and after the initial press. We would fall into a 433. Otherwise we started flat 442 and Brendan switched to a 4231 and back a few times. I even saw him do his little "2-1" finger thing to Gerrard a couple times...

[CHOPPER]

This, with people on. Discuss...





Ting

[PhaseOfPlay]

This, with people on. Discuss...





Ting

Not enough information. It's just a snapshot. How do we know the line isn't wonky the further it goes? What is this, Sunday League? For all we know, that might be the corner arc. We need stats - stat!

[robgomm]

I think I see Glen Johnson's stud prints.

[Jobby]

Pressing.  I didn't see a lot of hunting in packs, but did anyone notice Rodgers during the play immediately after Fulham kicked off following the fourth goal?  Suarez, followed by Henderson, Gerrard and then Johnson all pushed well into the Fulham half, forcing the men they were pressing to move it on quickly.  Fulham did well for once and Rodgers looks up after the ball gets past Johnson and has a wee tantrum at Skrtl for not being on the move towards the next Fulham player receiving the ball.  Skrtl arrives on the slide, just late - missing the ball (and nearly cleaning Brendan off the touchline!).  Henderson had been tracking back hard and cleared up, reducing another Fulham effort to nothing, but I thought Brendan's frustration was interesting - perhaps a sign that he's trying to instil a more active pressing game?

[PhaseOfPlay]

Pressing.  I didn't see a lot of hunting in packs, but did anyone notice Rodgers during the play immediately after Fulham kicked off following the fourth goal?  Suarez, followed by Henderson, Gerrard and then Johnson all pushed well into the Fulham half, forcing the men they were pressing to move it on quickly.  Fulham did well for once and Rodgers looks up after the ball gets past Johnson and has a wee tantrum at Skrtl for not being on the move towards the next Fulham player receiving the ball.  Skrtl arrives on the slide, just late - missing the ball (and nearly cleaning Brendan off the touchline!).  Henderson had been tracking back hard and cleared up, reducing another Fulham effort to nothing, but I thought Brendan's frustration was interesting - perhaps a sign that he's trying to instil a more active pressing game?

That is interesting. It might point to the lack of pressing being a function of the backline than a lack of a strategy? It would explain, partly, the purchases of Ilori and Sakho.

[Juan Loco]

That is interesting. It might point to the lack of pressing being a function of the backline than a lack of a strategy? It would explain, partly, the purchases of Ilori and Sakho.

Willingness of the players in the back line to push up and close the space when we lose the ball you mean?

[PhaseOfPlay]

Willingness of the players in the back line to push up and close the space when we lose the ball you mean?

Yep. Without fear of getting turned, or fear of the space behind them

[Juan Loco]

Yep. Without fear of getting turned, or fear of the space behind them

Supposedly that's one of the weaker aspects of Sakho's game though? I'm not sure why, 'cos athletically he looks like he should be able to cover space in behind him, but maybe he's really slow on the turn?

If Rodgers had planned to play a really aggressive high line, don't you think he'd have gone for a different sort of 'keeper to Mignolet?

[PhaseOfPlay]

Supposedly that's one of the weaker aspects of Sakho's game though? I'm not sure why, 'cos athletically he looks like he should be able to cover space in behind him, but maybe he's really slow on the turn?

If Rodgers had planned to play a really aggressive high line, don't you think he'd have gone for a different sort of 'keeper to Mignolet?

We don't have to play a really aggressive high line. An elastic defensive line is preferable, much like Rafa often had - a back four that can get up, get back, and read the play in an organised manner.

Haven't heard of that Sakho thing, though. He seems athletically capable to me, in terms of speed on the turn.

[Prof]

These images show the tackles attempted by both teams in the match.  All attacks are left to right.

Liverpool broken down into the two halves of the match:



Fulham for 90 minutes:



It shows that the pressing by Liverpool in the second half led to more tackles in the attacking half of the pitch.

Fulham's graphic provides a good comparison of a team dropping back to defend deep.

[Jobby]

That is interesting. It might point to the lack of pressing being a function of the backline than a lack of a strategy? It would explain, partly, the purchases of Ilori and Sakho.

Or perhaps just that he's planning a gradual return from this season's pragmatism to the principles he talked about when he first arrived - pressing possibly being one of the next aspects of the strategy to start being brought out of the parking bay, at least against poor teams at Anfield?

Its probably been done to death here, but the Mignolet move still confuses me, especially as it came at the expense of a sweeper as good as Pepe.  Assume he reckons he can draw more of that out of Mignolet over time.

[PaulF]

Or perhaps just that he's planning a gradual return from this season's pragmatism to the principles he talked about when he first arrived - pressing possibly being one of the next aspects of the strategy to start being brought out of the parking bay, at least against poor teams at Anfield?

Its probably been done to death here, but the Mignolet move still confuses me, especially as it came at the expense of a sweeper as good as Pepe.  Assume he reckons he can draw more of that out of Mignolet over time.

Wasn't Mignolet purchased when Pepe was 'certainly' off to Real though? Maybe he isn't the best sweeper around, but maybe he's the best compromise that was available?

[robgomm]

I think they are looking to develop Mignolet. His distribution seem to be improving a bit and you'll probably see other aspects improve. He's certainly a very promising keeper, I think ahead of Reina in terms of shot stopping but behind in the obvious ways.

[Draex]

That is interesting. It might point to the lack of pressing being a function of the backline than a lack of a strategy? It would explain, partly, the purchases of Ilori and Sakho.

It's one of the major points why Skrtel whilst playing excellently currently doesn't fit the system.

[Gnurglan]

Wasn't Mignolet purchased when Pepe was 'certainly' off to Real though? Maybe he isn't the best sweeper around, but maybe he's the best compromise that was available?

That's how I see it. As someone said:

You can't always get what you want, but you can get what you need...

[Bobinhood]

This, with people on. Discuss...

Are we going right to left or left to right on the radio dial?

[koolkamal]

That's how I see it. As someone said:

You can't always get what you want, but you can get what you need...

Tony Barret confirmed that we were looking at Mignolet from last season, so he was someone that we 'wanted'

[houkura]

A lot of talk about Mignolet and his distribution....recent numbers have him as the top keeper in the Premier League for pass completion. Seems his distribution is getting better?

[Redstafarian]

This, with people on. Discuss...

From this its pretty obvious that Gerrard is past it, Lucas is useless, and Henderson was a waste of money. And the manager is crap.

[ElstonGunn]

That's how I see it. As someone said:

You can't always get what you want, but you can get what you need...

I  don't see much evidence that Brendan particularly values having a sweeper keeper or playing an exceptionally high line. He values ability with the ball, definitely, but I think he'd probably pick Mignolet (the superior shot stopper) over Lloris (the superior sweeper). Even at the start of last year, when we were really playing tiki-taka, our line wasn't that high, was it?

I wonder sometimes if the "Swanselona" style Rodgers had at Swansea had more to do with the players at his disposal than some undying commitment to Spanish-style football. Swansea's players were suited to (and primed for) that type of football, and Swansea's style was actually extremely defensive--it just defended with the ball. Now he's got better players, he needs to give them more opportunities to take risks.

It's clear to me that Rodgers values quality (and especially "courage") on the ball above all else, which is why players whose best attributes lie elsewhere have had to work so hard to convince him, and  Gerrard won't be dropped. But that doesn't mean he values Barca-type players above all else.

In fact, I'm starting to think he has more in common with Ferguson than Guardiola (or, say, Klopp at the other extreme). Ferguson's recent teams at least were completely built around their attackers, selection the best technical players available, and taking high quality shots. Despite the conventional wisdom that Ferguson was a counter attacking manager, Man United, after Barcelona, actually took the longest to get a shot off of all the elite teams in Europe. His teams didn't have an extreme press, they didn't have a very high line, they didn't keep the ball with short passes. And yet they won the league running away.

Since the Sturridge and Coutinho signings, many have branded us a counter attacking side, as well. But that's not actually true. We attack quickly when space is available, but we're also happy to wait for the right opening when it's not. Like Ferguson's teams, we don't rely on taking exceptionally quick shots (like a true counter attacking side, e.g. Dortmund) or on taking a huge volume of shots (Villas Boas teams fall in this category). Instead, we rely on giving our attackers space to work on and only taking exceptionally good shots, and forcing our opponents to take lots of bad shots (e.g. long shots against our brilliant shot stopping, non-sweeper keeper).

That was all a big ramble, but my main point is I'm not so sure we're building toward our version of Guardiola's Barca at all. I'd say the Ronaldo-Tevez-Rooney Man United is much more the ideal template. And so I don't think we need a sweeper behind the defense. Mignolet is just fine (although keep practicing that footwork!).

[007.lankyguy]

Just a quick question because I'm interested as to what people think; do you think we played a 4-4-2 against Fulham or a 4-2-2-2 (or indeed any other shape if you think so)?

It's just I've been writing a little piece for AnfieldIndex talking a little bit about the defensive issues v Arsenal and Fulham with what I definitely perceive to be a 4-4-2 (although a lot more fluid than the traditional idea of a 4-4-2) but the guy editing reckons we played a 4-2-2-2. Now I'm sure about my opinion on it for a number of reasons but I'm interested as to what other people think we played.

[Funky_Gibbons]

I thought it was more 4-1-3-2.

But there were times when Henderson would be wide right getting chalk on his boots whereas Coutinho seemed to be playing a free role and drifted inside a lot more. Don't know if this was to compliment their respective full-backs though.

[007.lankyguy]

I thought it was more 4-1-3-2.

But there were times when Henderson would be wide right getting chalk on his boots whereas Coutinho seemed to be playing a free role and drifted inside a lot more. Don't know if this was to compliment their respective full-backs though.

Yeah I think if you concentrate on the general positions taken up in possession then 4-1-3-2 is a pretty good summary of it. Because of the mixture of the shape we tried to take up in defence though I think the best overall summary of it was 4-4-2.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Just a quick question because I'm interested as to what people think; do you think we played a 4-4-2 against Fulham or a 4-2-2-2 (or indeed any other shape if you think so)?

It's just I've been writing a little piece for AnfieldIndex talking a little bit about the defensive issues v Arsenal and Fulham with what I definitely perceive to be a 4-4-2 (although a lot more fluid than the traditional idea of a 4-4-2) but the guy editing reckons we played a 4-2-2-2. Now I'm sure about my opinion on it for a number of reasons but I'm interested as to what other people think we played.

I put the heat maps up somewhere. Henderson stayed wide right, so it would be a very unbalanced 4-2-2-2. Gerrard pushed up and Coutinho cut in. It would almost be a 4-1-1-2-2 in that sense, but that gets too granular. Coutinho's tackles, though, were in the wide left position. So 4-4-2 makes more sense.