Topic: Southampton Round Table

[PhaseOfPlay]

The concern for me is the number of games where we concede 2 or more (16 league games we have done this) and if you are needing 3 or more to win a game in over half of your league games then you have a real problem defensively.

The concern for me is different. The concern for me is that people are making rush judgments based on this season alone. It is clear that Rodgers has focused on the attack and build-up phases of the game. I thought and hoped that we would see some work done in the late stage of the season on the defence, but that hasn't materialised. However, that doesn't mean it won't happen next season. That's my issue. I think we'll see some changes defensively for next season, in personnel and coaching, and if we maintain the attacking side and increase the defensive structure, then we will be a lot further up the table. Too many people are extrapolating from one game, one aspect, and ignoring other factors, such as the progress of the attacking side of the game, and the fact that it's not even 12 months into Rodgers reign. He clearly knows he's not getting fired in the Summer, and he clearly knows there are plans to fix the defensive side. It's like the scene at the end of Snatch, where everyone is frozen in shock at the gunshots, but Brad Pitt is cool and calm, because he knows what's happening. I'm not putting too much stock into this season's defence. If it is the same at this point next season, though, then even I will be asking questions.

[Kop10]

The problem in this game wasn't our defence. It was the Maradona-esque tactics/ personnel employed. Every other problem flowed from that.

I have never been so certain of anything in my life.

[Always_A_Red]

This is where Gerrard being an undroppable club legend is almost a bit of a problem. Thankfully he's been playing very well this season after a slow start (and then with thanks to Lucas and Henderson who freed him up), but I do think Rodgers has his hands tied to a degree in how he deals with him. Gerrard is bigger than Rodgers. Until he's ready to retire or willingly retract into the squad, I don't think Rodgers can plan for a starting XI that doesn't include him. Even if that means we're sticking to a starting XI that has to have his limitations (albeit, of course, he brings great positives too).

Rafa would have had no problem dropping him if he was manager like he had absolutely no problem playing one of the most highly regarded CM's in Europe on the right wing when he thought that 'the team' would be better off.

Now don't get me wrong, I know it'll be a very difficult thing to do and one I think BR is dreading, however if he really believes that we will function better without him 'as a team' then he will have to grow some balls and do it. Otherwise, it'll fall back on his head if he cant get the team/players to perform and win games.

The problem we have is that at the moment, we don't have anyone better and therefore, Gerrard plays

[jeremyh94]

If a manager makes the same 'mistake' two games running, it's likely not a mistake but a new policy. In this case, having two instead of three in midfield worked for 30 minutes against Tottenham but thereafter didn't work and it needed Allen to rescue the game. So do you do the same against a team that has some talent and is struggling to stay up? Well, yes.
So I think 4-2-3-1 is what BR is now working on.
I've no beef with that, but it's going to take a few games to get it right and if we haven't written off our league position this season altogether, we don't have the games to spare.

[DanA]

The problem in this game wasn't our defence. It was the Maradona-esque tactics/ personnel employed. Every other problem flowed from that.

I have never been so certain of anything in my life.

I chuckled when I read this but there is a lot of truth to that. It was a Maradona-esque team selection.

For all the talk of changes to personnel in defence, how much are we actually going to see? Reina, Lucas, Johnson, Enrique & Agger will remain so we're talking about one starting player that will change. Yes we'll get a bit more cover but we've not suffered injuries to any of these players in the back half of the season. My worry is I'm not sure we'll see a massive shift in quality in the defense.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Getting back to the game and the OP, I think for me there are only two ways we can get all of our attackers/goalscorers in the team and maintain some semblance of central stength.

Firstly, we would have to drop Downing, and actually copy what Southampton did, and play a 4-2-3-1 with a tight "3" behind Sturridge:



Henderson would give us the ability to press, Lucas would give us the solidity in the middle, freeing Gerrard up to roam between the two and find his passes. Coutinho and Suarez would have free reign to play as two Number 10's behind Sturridge, so we get the mobility we know is effective but with the added option of the directness to Sturridge. We also maintain our width through the fullbacks. Skrtel and Carragher could be interchangeable.

On the other hand, we could drop both Henderson and Downing, and play a 3-4-2-1:



This would give us the solidity in the central defence where we are vulnerable, and retain the mobility and the direct option up front, but it means we play with a midfield two. The alternative is to play Suarez and Sturridge as a front two, and Coutinho as part of the central midfield (3-4-1-2) and maintain the 3 in the middle that suits us, but means we can only get our width from the wingbacks, which could make our possession somewhat predictable.

There are solutions there, but I'm not sure Rodgers will look in that direction?

[Kop10]

I think people are talking too much about playing two midfielders and not enough about how we weren't compact or organised enough. We needed Downing and Coutinho, when he was playing on the left, to drop into the space and control the space around Allen and Gerrard better.

When people are lamenting about our playing 2 in midfield, it's implicit in that that they didn't think we were compact enough. Isn't it the manager's duty to make sure we were more organised though? The dangers of starting with such an attacking personnel was obvious even before kick-off amongst lay fans. If you value compactness, start Henderson in place of Coutinho/ Sturidge.

[PhaseOfPlay]

When people are lamenting about our playing 2 in midfield, it's implicit in that that they didn't think we were compact enough. Isn't it the manager's duty to make sure we were more organised though? The dangers of starting with such an attacking personnel was obvious even before kick-off amongst lay fans. If you value compactness, start Henderson in place of Coutinho/ Sturidge.

If you value compactness, your defensive line has to push up to meet your forward line and midfield. Skrtel's average position was actually incredibly deep against Southampton, whereas Agger's was where he normally is. There was a huge gap between Skrtel's position and Gerrard's - a gap Southampton could exploit.

It's important to understand the principles of play in order to comment on them. Compactness is either led from the front or the back. Spurs lead from the front, and play a high and compact line. It catches them out at times, but it also allows them to dominate both territory and attacks. The difference is that Dawson, Gallas and Vertonghen are not naturally conservative defenders, and all fancy themselves as attacking players playing in defensive positions. This is an important mentality to have when defending in a high line.

[Eeyore]

Recall Arsenal at home this season, the ball bounced off Gerrard in the CAM role leading to instant transition. Since then, BR, quite rightly has been reluctant to play him there. Of course it could of been a one off, a bad day at the office. He has been brilliant for us this season, perhaps his best form since peaking under Rafa. Even an in-form Stevie could not have rescued us at St. Mary's, too many other players had off days.

If you are playing the attacking midfield role for me as long as you have a double pivot behind the cam then teams shouldn't be able to counter. What summed it up for me was ironically our goal. We played with four out and out attackers yet our cm who has to play with discipline in that formation is popping up on the left wing heading the ball back across goal.

The closest I have seen to what Rodgers is trying to do at the moment is United when Queiroz was coaching and they played with Rooney, Ronaldo, Tevez and Nani or Park switching positions. The crucial thing was that Carrick and Scholes played with incredible discipline and just sat in front of the back four for 90 minutes. They also only ever attacked with one full back so it was at most 5 attacking players and five players defending. At times we attack with 7 or 8 players and leave the centre backs to fend for themselves.

In the last three games we have conceded 18 shots against Southampton, 16 against Spurs and 14 against Fulham which is Keeganesque. We need to be more patient more solid and allow our attackers to work their magic without going gungho all the time.

[Twelfth Man]

snip/

walshys_mullet discussed three at the back earlier the the thread. The 1st option, 4-2-3-1, to be used at home and when we are confident, the second (slightly less attacking) 3-4-2-1 away and against tough opposition with a direct and aerial threat? Option one is all about giving Gerrard a free role, and give him the dues he deserves he has been immense this season, the second option feels more balanced to me, plus it allows Johnson and Enrique to get forward. VdM's OP asked the question about accommodating both Coutinho and Sturridge in the same side without leaving us open to direct counters and high energy pressing. Either of the two options are preferable to what we witnessed on Saturday.

[mtred1984]

The problem wasn't the two in the middle. You can play 4-4-2/4-2-4 and make adjustments to cope with a 5 in midfield. The problem wasn't Rodgers not changing things in the middle of the first half, because you can only do that once or twice before players will lose faith in you. The problem wasn't starting Lucas and bringing him off, because if he felt a twinge in the warm-up, without the medical staff monitoring it, it could have been much worse. Rodgers made a mistake of emphasis in this game, and he is certainly not blameless. Some people are talking like it's been every game, though, rather than a small handful. The team and players that made City look like chumps in their own home ground should be able to attack a Southampton side facing relegation until recently. There was a serious loss of intelligence and effort in key areas of the team. There was a clear delineation between who considered themselves attackers and who considered themselves defenders. And Gerrard showed in the 3rd goal the worst side of his game, not seen since Arsenal at home - failure to track back when the ball goes by him.

There is still a lot to sort out. But one game doesn't define the season, or Rodgers as a manager, or the team's progress as a whole. Those who seem to think it does, should be very upfront about their experiences in football management, because it's easy to say what you would have done from the comfort of your computer without the experience to back it up. It's clear on these threads the past day or so who has experience in the game and who hasn't. There's more to football than pressing "X" or "Triangle button", and a few posters would do well to understand that before slating the manager after every loss.

Think that's a bit harsh that to be honest mate.

[StrikingMidfield]

Must admit I was salivating looking at Dembele last week. His ball control reminds me of a couple of French Algerian footballers past and present in the way he glides with the ball. Gerrard use to provide a central thrust through the middle and we have been missing it for a while. The thing about Dembele is that he possibly is better defensively than what Gerrard was in his pomp. I felt at the time, Spurs have a number of qualities, in defence and midfield particularly that we need to address next summer. The problem with getting a Diame/Dembele type player is what do you do with Lucas/Gerrard? There are so many issues to consider when addressing this one position.

I wouldn't say Gerrard/Lucas pose problems for bring Diame/Dembele type players in. You'd simply rotate them in my opinion. I think that BR can't be scared to make a starting line that doesn't include Gerrard or Lucas. As much as I like both of them (Gerrard especially) neither are bigger than the team. Gerrard is a legend, sure, but you can make many examples of legends that don't always start for the team. The thing is though, no one on the current team is better than Gerrard, but if i heard that we didn't bring someone in because BR didn't want to not start Gerrard, it'd be ridicules.

[mtred1984]

Getting back to the game and the OP, I think for me there are only two ways we can get all of our attackers/goalscorers in the team and maintain some semblance of central stength.

Firstly, we would have to drop Downing, and actually copy what Southampton did, and play a 4-2-3-1 with a tight "3" behind Sturridge:



Henderson would give us the ability to press, Lucas would give us the solidity in the middle, freeing Gerrard up to roam between the two and find his passes. Coutinho and Sturridge would have free reign to play as two Number 10's behind Sturridge, so we get the mobility we know is effective but with the added option of the directness to Sturridge. We also maintain our width through the fullbacks. Skrtel and Carragher could be interchangeable.

On the other hand, we could drop both Henderson and Downing, and play a 3-4-2-1:



This would give us the solidity in the central defence where we are vulnerable, and retain the mobility and the direct option up front, but it means we play with a midfield two. The alternative is to play Suarez and Sturridge as a front two, and Coutinho as part of the central midfield (3-4-1-2) and maintain the 3 in the middle that suits us, but means we can only get our width from the wingbacks, which could make our possession somewhat predictable.

There are solutions there, but I'm not sure Rodgers will look in that direction?

Id like to see Gerrard pushed up again behind the striker in a 4-2-3-1 formation, as you highlighted in your earlier posts, Gerrard has a tendency when playing alongside ie Lucas in a two to push forward and leave Lucas on his bill with to much ground to cover, ie Southampton's 3rd goal

Henderson, for me would be perfect alongside Lucas and has got the legs and discipline to do the job br wants Gerrard to do currently.

[Always_A_Red]

Think that's a bit harsh that to be honest mate.

I don't think it is. People should think about what they post before they start spouting nonsense from their computer.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Think that's a bit harsh that to be honest mate.

It probably was, mate. But it was really aimed at those posters who seeingly couldn't wait for a bad game to tell us all of their distrust of Rodgers from the beginning. The Round Table threads are meant to be for constructive debate around the issues of the game, and not what anyone's personal feelings on the manager/player are. I thought that this week, as with the post-match thread, there was less exposition and a bit more "I told you so".

It wasn't aimed at anyone who puts a constructive post on the forum.

[Eeyore]

If you value compactness, your defensive line has to push up to meet your forward line and midfield. Skrtel's average position was actually incredibly deep against Southampton, whereas Agger's was where he normally is. There was a huge gap between Skrtel's position and Gerrard's - a gap Southampton could exploit.

It's important to understand the principles of play in order to comment on them. Compactness is either led from the front or the back. Spurs lead from the front, and play a high and compact line. It catches them out at times, but it also allows them to dominate both territory and attacks. The difference is that Dawson, Gallas and Vertonghen are not naturally conservative defenders, and all fancy themselves as attacking players playing in defensive positions. This is an important mentality to have when defending in a high line.

The problem for me is that unlike say Barca who hold the ball for long periods in the front six Rodgers likes to hold the ball in the back six. That means you cannot play like Spurs who play very very high. To keep the ball in the back six you have to have space in between players which means you have to split your centre backs and they have to drop off to provide passing angles.

Swansea last season had the lowest percentage of passes of in the final third. They looked to provoke teams with the ball and then pass with pace through the gaps. If you do that then you need to drop off to create those gaps. The difference between us and Swansea is that they had a physical presence in Graham up front who gave them an out ball of teams pressed the way Southampton did and they had two small mobile CMs adept at receiving the ball with their back to goal in tight positions. Allen hasn't been the same player since the Swansea Carling Cup game when he was continually caught in possession and Gerrard has always hated receiving the ball with his back to goal under pressure.

A confident Allen and a fully fit Lucas and you might have the ability to keep the ball in the back six but we have neither and no out ball asca backup plan if teams press intelligently.

[JackWard33]

Can someone explain to me the sudden need to have 'all of our attackers on the pitch'

I can't see a functional side which has Coutinho, Sturridge, Downing, Suarez and Gerrard in it I  really can't - doesn't matter how you set them up the bottom line is that's half the outfield team with little or no 'off the ball' defensive ability; just don't see it

[GrkStav]

The decision to go with only two central midfield players, and to go with Suarez in the old Gerrard role in a 4231 (of sorts) was doomed. Suarez is a great footballer, but a CAM he is not.

Not including Henderson (given Lucas's apparent niggle) from the start, either as the 1.5 wide-central further forward midfielder or, in a 1-2 midfield 3 with Allen in the Lucas spot and Henderson and Gerrard in the two, was simply wrong. And it's not just hindsight.

I don't know if it was by design or simply lack of player effort and persistence, but we didn't play "our game" building from the back until some time in the early second half.

Johnson needs to be benched. Period. It's not just my negative bias (obsession, really) against him.

[The Playmaker]

After our recent run of results, I sense that Rodgers was confident of us turning over Southampton - which would suggest as to why he started Suarez, Coutinho, Sturridge and Downing. He did mention that the front four didn’t press effectively enough. I think that the biggest disappointment was our failure to act and to adapt to what was happening. We weren’t very compact and the space between the midfield and the attacking players was far too much.

As we all saw, we were a bit exposed throughout the first half and the failure to adapt hit us hard. Yet, at half-time, we went in 2-1 down and we should have had a better response in the second half. It really didn’t happen. It wasn’t just that the performance was poor; it was the fact that there was little effort or desire to grab the game by the scruff of the neck and turn it around. I sensed that most of the players didn’t really want to be there, which is ridiculous to think at this level.

Sometimes you have to hold your hands up and say that we deserved it, and that was very much the case against Southampton. If you look back at the game, they had some really good chances that they wasted, but their general play was far better than ours and they were obviously more clinical. I thought that they pressed far better than we did and they had more control in their play. They are fighting to keep themselves in the division and our hope is to finish in the top six.

Having read the other posts, I can see that I’m not the only person who feels that we may have struggled even had we started with Henderson and Lucas in midfield, along with Gerrard. Sometimes you can get away with one or two having off days but pretty much the entire team looked disinterested in the cause.

Teams will always create chances against you and it would be fair to say that Wigan had some good chances against us in our 4-0 win. I’m worried that we allow the opposition so many chances during a match to break through. I'm sure that Rodgers has obviously focused on the defensive side of our team but there is a lot of room for improvement.

[GrkStav]

Getting back to the game and the OP, I think for me there are only two ways we can get all of our attackers/goalscorers in the team and maintain some semblance of central stength.

Firstly, we would have to drop Downing, and actually copy what Southampton did, and play a 4-2-3-1 with a tight "3" behind Sturridge:



Henderson would give us the ability to press, Lucas would give us the solidity in the middle, freeing Gerrard up to roam between the two and find his passes. Coutinho and Sturridge would have free reign to play as two Number 10's behind Sturridge, so we get the mobility we know is effective but with the added option of the directness to Sturridge. We also maintain our width through the fullbacks. Skrtel and Carragher could be interchangeable.

On the other hand, we could drop both Henderson and Downing, and play a 3-4-2-1:



This would give us the solidity in the central defence where we are vulnerable, and retain the mobility and the direct option up front, but it means we play with a midfield two. The alternative is to play Suarez and Sturridge as a front two, and Coutinho as part of the central midfield (3-4-1-2) and maintain the 3 in the middle that suits us, but means we can only get our width from the wingbacks, which could make our possession somewhat predictable.

There are solutions there, but I'm not sure Rodgers will look in that direction?

Yes, indeed, there are solutions there. Why would he not look in that direction when he HAS looked in that direction in the past? Is it that he absolutely needs to have both Downing and Sturridge in at the same time? Is it that he needs to have Coutinho and Downing and Sturridge in at the same time, along with Suarez? Why?

I don't know, there are many things I like about BR as a manager, but I still prefer the Rafa approach to managing (the "Stratego" approach, I suppose).

[Eeyore]

Can someone explain to me the sudden need to have 'all of our attackers on the pitch'

I can't see a functional side which has Coutinho, Sturridge, Downing, Suarez and Gerrard in it I  really can't - doesn't matter how you set them up the bottom line is that's half the outfield team with little or no 'off the ball' defensive ability; just don't see it

Even more so when you look at the bench where we had a keeper a full back and 5 midfield players. It seems crazy to me not to have a recognised centre back or a Striker on the bench.

[Kop10]

If you value compactness, your defensive line has to push up to meet your forward line and midfield. Skrtel's average position was actually incredibly deep against Southampton, whereas Agger's was where he normally is. There was a huge gap between Skrtel's position and Gerrard's - a gap Southampton could exploit.

It's important to understand the principles of play in order to comment on them. Compactness is either led from the front or the back. Spurs lead from the front, and play a high and compact line. It catches them out at times, but it also allows them to dominate both territory and attacks. The difference is that Dawson, Gallas and Vertonghen are not naturally conservative defenders, and all fancy themselves as attacking players playing in defensive positions. This is an important mentality to have when defending in a high line.

Maybe compactness was not the right word for what I meant but depth. I think it's fair to say Henderson would have added depth to our sparse midfield by dropping in when we lose the ball. He's certainly more naturally inclined to do so than Coutinho.

[Vulmea]

Having read the other posts, I can see that I’m not the only person who feels that we may have struggled even had we started with Henderson and Lucas in midfield, along with Gerrard. Sometimes you can get away with one or two having off days but pretty much the entire team looked disinterested in the cause.

disintersted?

if your attitude is wrong you will lose but the whole 'feel' may have been different if those guys had played. Maybe the loss of Lucas gave us doubts put us on the back foot before kick off  maybe Skrtels inclusion gave everybody doubts because of his form -  maybe its been a poor week in training - there are many reasons why we may not have fancied it but they are all guess work.

Saints played well lets not forget and that can make you look like you aren't trying and also get into your pysche and drain your belief anyway

then of course the goals - how many games do we say an early goal and it will make it easier - we were on the receiving end and it clearly had an effect

one of the most disapointing things for me - was even when we got back into it at 2- 1 we didn't really show enough and then gifted them a third - two bites at the cherry and neither one taken

we play better on the front foot and with a high tempo and we did neither from kick off - we've seen it before after half time when we lead - if we let the tempo drop we look the poorer for it and too often we take our foot off the gas when we've been told to keep possession rather than playing with intent - it makes us look aimless/disintersted - we lose focus  - however on saturday we made it harder for ourselves with the formation allowing too much pressure on the ball and not enough on theirs

[Mutton Geoff]

Think that's a bit harsh that to be honest mate.

But Pop is right anyone who has coached at team at any level knows you do not get the luxury of hindsight, you have to go on what you see at the training ground gut instinct and luck, but people discussing it knowing the outcome have a huge advantage that Brendan or any coach has not available to them.
For example had we beat Southampton would playing two in the mid be even mentioned?
Personally like many I looked at it and thought no, but on twitter Roy and I both thought Allen was the wrong choice in the spurs game but we were wrong. In hindsight what a luxury Henderson should have been on the pitch however he might have had a shit game who is to know hey.

[Sangria]

disintersted?

if your attitude is wrong you will lose but the whole 'feel' may have been different if those guys had played. Maybe the loss of Lucas gave us doubts put us on the back foot before kick off

We still suffer from Alonso syndrome, except nowadays it's transferred to Lucas. It was probably justified against Southampton, mind you.

[Sangria]

But Pop is right anyone who has coached at team at any level knows you do not get the luxury of hindsight, you have to go on what you see at the training ground gut instinct and luck, but people discussing it knowing the outcome have a huge advantage that Brendan or any coach has not available to them.
For example had we beat Southampton would playing two in the mid be even mentioned?
Personally like many I looked at it and thought no, but on twitter Roy and I both thought Allen was the wrong choice in the spurs game but we were wrong. In hindsight what a luxury Henderson should have been on the pitch however he might have had a shit game who is to know hey.

You can never be certain about anything except in hindsight. However, you can give yourself the best chance possible given what you know. As you're probably (over)familiar with, I've gone on and on about midfield fundamentals until everyone's sick of me, and from my earliest days here I've set out what I think they are, and how to go about it. That was back in 2009, before anyone had heard of Charlie Adam, Jordan Henderson or Joe Allen. Going by the definitions I gave back then, different members of the squad offer different qualities, and if you go by my logic, if you pick one, then you'll be looking to balance that by looking to fill out a different area. Players can change (I reckoned Lucas could do 60% of what Mascherano could do, but at his peak it was more like 80%, while Gerrard has physically declined), but the need to attend to the fundamentals remains constant, and if you're going to deny that, you need to have a pretty convincing argument. I personally favour a combative midfield as the first priority (energy as I called it), while judging from this season Rodgers favours a passing midfield as the first priority (glue as I called it). These are the different emphases, and if the balance is wrong, different things happen. Not enough glue and your midfield game is scrappy. Not enough energy and your midfield gets pressed into oblivion. I see the former as the lesser evil, so I err towards energy over glue.

[PhaseOfPlay]

I don't know if we could make it work (Suarez would have to be very disciplined, I don't know about Downing in the middle, Henderson would work and I think Carra could get some extra years out of that role), but I do know this:

If Rodgers every played an Ajax 3-4-3, though, you would probably have to peel me from the ceiling

[PhaseOfPlay]

You can never be certain about anything except in hindsight. However, you can give yourself the best chance possible given what you know. As you're probably (over)familiar with, I've gone on and on about midfield fundamentals until everyone's sick of me, and from my earliest days here I've set out what I think they are, and how to go about it. That was back in 2009, before anyone had heard of Charlie Adam, Jordan Henderson or Joe Allen. Going by the definitions I gave back then, different members of the squad offer different qualities, and if you go by my logic, if you pick one, then you'll be looking to balance that by looking to fill out a different area. Players can change (I reckoned Lucas could do 60% of what Mascherano could do, but at his peak it was more like 80%, while Gerrard has physically declined), but the need to attend to the fundamentals remains constant, and if you're going to deny that, you need to have a pretty convincing argument. I personally favour a combative midfield as the first priority (energy as I called it), while judging from this season Rodgers favours a passing midfield as the first priority (glue as I called it). These are the different emphases, and if the balance is wrong, different things happen. Not enough glue and your midfield game is scrappy. Not enough energy and your midfield gets pressed into oblivion. I see the former as the lesser evil, so I err towards energy over glue.

I like those analogies. Mind if I steal them?

[Sangria]

I like those analogies. Mind if I steal them?

Feel free. Note that I see the game as a mixture of elements rather than a question of positions, so it may be difficult to translate.

[The Playmaker]

disintersted?

if your attitude is wrong you will lose but the whole 'feel' may have been different if those guys had played. Maybe the loss of Lucas gave us doubts put us on the back foot before kick off  maybe Skrtels inclusion gave everybody doubts because of his form -  maybe its been a poor week in training - there are many reasons why we may not have fancied it but they are all guess work.

Saints played well lets not forget and that can make you look like you aren't trying and also get into your pysche and drain your belief anyway

then of course the goals - how many games do we say an early goal and it will make it easier - we were on the receiving end and it clearly had an effect

one of the most disapointing things for me - was even when we got back into it at 2- 1 we didn't really show enough and then gifted them a third - two bites at the cherry and neither one taken

we play better on the front foot and with a high tempo and we did neither from kick off - we've seen it before after half time when we lead - if we let the tempo drop we look the poorer for it and too often we take our foot off the gas when we've been told to keep possession rather than playing with intent - it makes us look aimless/disintersted - we lose focus  - however on saturday we made it harder for ourselves with the formation allowing too much pressure on the ball and not enough on theirs

I agree that the attitude was wrong from the offset and you raised some interesting points, for all we know, it could have been a bad week at training for the lads. We were asking to be beaten in my opinion. Lucas not starting may have placed some doubts in the defensive side of our game and like you said, Skrtel starting may have just placed further doubts.

But it is all guess work. We can speculate on what might have happened had we started with so and so but we didn't and the game is finished.They wanted it more, they're fighting to keep themselves safe this season and when we turn up they are always like to raise their game. They made it difficult for us.

An early goal tends to work well in your favour more often than not. It calms the team down and the opposition has to come at you more. The fact that we didn’t show enough attacking intent did hurt us. Sometimes, it is easy for the opposition to just sit back and allow us to have the possession of the ball. If we’re not doing anything purposeful with it then we can’t hurt them.

That was my major disappointment too. We got it back to 2-1, we went in at half-time, but we didn’t show enough to get it to 2-2 and then look to win the game. Regardless, what’s done is done. Well done to Southampton. It’s back to the drawing board.

[keyo]

If you value compactness, your defensive line has to push up to meet your forward line and midfield. Skrtel's average position was actually incredibly deep against Southampton, whereas Agger's was where he normally is. There was a huge gap between Skrtel's position and Gerrard's - a gap Southampton could exploit.

It's important to understand the principles of play in order to comment on them. Compactness is either led from the front or the back. Spurs lead from the front, and play a high and compact line. It catches them out at times, but it also allows them to dominate both territory and attacks. The difference is that Dawson, Gallas and Vertonghen are not naturally conservative defenders, and all fancy themselves as attacking players playing in defensive positions. This is an important mentality to have when defending in a high line.

Interesting reading through the thread and the various theories, complaints, summaries, etc about what went wrong against Southampton, what we are doing right and wrong this season and what we need or do not need to do. The points about the team selection being the problem or not the problem show the issues are not straight forward. Lack of Compactness is one area that I think has lead to our downfall more than once this season. It was our biggest issue at the start of the season. Our set up against Southampton made it difficult to press effectively. And we then failed to press cohesively and were left with holes throughout the pitch.

In terms of where we are at, I think whilst we may be suffering from a lack of the personnel Rodgers may want, we are still some way from being able to apply his plans and tactics....consequently when we get on top of teams our attacking strengths are fully exploited.....but when we are pressured effectively we sometimesfail to get into our stride and apply our own pressure effectively....against Southampton they applied a greater tempo to the game, pressed us higher up the pitch, pressed effectively and played a swift effective passing game...we were unable to press effectively, and keep possession effectively, and consequently were always on the back foot

As we get better at applying Rodgers' tactics and plans, and as Rodgers gets better at applying them with the resources at hand, we should see more consistency in the performance....in addition, we will improve the quality of the squad over time as players develop and we get some additions.....these types of performances will get further apart ( and they are already from the start of the season).....then we can see how much potential we have in Rodgers and the squad....for now, we have some promise but remain difficult to assess given our inconsistency

[PhaseOfPlay]

Feel free. Note that I see the game as a mixture of elements rather than a question of positions, so it may be difficult to translate.

I understand exactly what you mean. I see the game as a holistic mixture of space, time, positions, and flow of play. Glue and Energy fit that thinking exactly.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Downing? Johnson mate. I figure if Urby Emmanuelson could play that exact role, Johnson can too. Didn't Johnson play in about that position in MF under the King in a couple of games (I could swear Aurelio did as well)?

Yeah, don't know why I said Downing. Aurelio definitely played that role, and Johnson moved inside on the diagonal when we played the 3-4-2-1 under Kenny in that first 6 months. I can definitely see it. It would be a brave move though.

[Sangria]

Yeah, don't know why I said Downing. Aurelio definitely played that role, and Johnson moved inside on the diagonal when we played the 3-4-2-1 under Kenny in that first 6 months. I can definitely see it. It would be a brave move though.

Aurelio in midfield was where I formulated the glue and energy theory from. Aurelio who offered no combativeness, partnered by Lucas who at the time didn't offer enough to compensate, and Fiorentina pressed our midfield to our 18 yard box, with Aurelio's passing ability unable to show itself. Benitez used him in that role with some success in Alonso's absence, when we needed to replace Alonso's glue while Mascherano partnering him offered more than enough energy. After the Fiorentina debacle, I don't think Benitez used him in that role again.

[RedinExile]

That's my issue. I think we'll see some changes defensively for next season, in personnel and coaching, and if we maintain the attacking side and increase the defensive structure, then we will be a lot further up the table.

How much is a lot further up the table do you think we'll be?

[KopThat]

We were mostly 4-2-4 because Coutinho and Downing were fairly advanced.

Which led to Gerrard and Allen being swamped in the midfield.
Allen had probably his worst game in a Liverpool shirt, and Gerrard had an off day along with Johnson.

We looked a lot more balanced against Spurs with Sturridge out, so when he is playing Suarez should be on one of the wings

Southampton played well and have some decent players, we weren't at the races.

[kevin87]

Just give him a yelling horn and plant him in the seats behind the goal. We'll be golden

can just see him sitting in a deck chair behind the goals giving young wisdom an earfull   ,  but seriously, I think that appointment would be really really good for the club. wouldnt mind seeing him sitting next to Pascoe on gameday giving his defensive 2 cents

[barbudo]

Aurelio in midfield was where I formulated the glue and energy theory from. Aurelio who offered no combativeness, partnered by Lucas who at the time didn't offer enough to compensate, and Fiorentina pressed our midfield to our 18 yard box, with Aurelio's passing ability unable to show itself. Benitez used him in that role with some success in Alonso's absence, when we needed to replace Alonso's glue while Mascherano partnering him offered more than enough energy. After the Fiorentina debacle, I don't think Benitez used him in that role again.

The reason that Aurelio and Lucas got overrun in that game was because none of the three players upfront (Torres, Gerrard and Benayoun) could hold onto the ball. The midfielders kept delivering inch-perfect passes to the forwards' feet, then moved upfield to support, only to be overrun a few seconds later by a Fiorentina counterattack. The missing glue was on the forwards' boots.

Last Saturday we witnessed a midfield overrun, not as a result of  the forwards' inability to hold onto the ball and combine, but the collective inability of the defence and midfield to deliver the ball to them (for reasons that have been exhaustively examined in previous posts).

[professorj]

Already a lot of intelligent comment in this thread, much more sane and balanced than the post-match as per usual.  I just want to throw my weight behind the very simple (but not simplistic I think) idea that we didn't play very well and they did. Also that Southampton can really play football, despite a leaky defence which is why they are so low in the table.  I have been admiring Lambert for years and Lallana and Schneiderlin since the start of the season, they are class acts, and two of them are Reds!  Schneiderlin in particular could do a job with a Liverbird on his chest I'd say.

All this using a single game to demonise a player (Allen or Downing) who is 'not' the player of your choice (Lucas, Henderson yadda yadda) is very distasteful.  5th Benitle said the other day they might stop player threads, I totally agree, but I also think the post-match thread should come with the tagline 'bellends post here, proper reds wait for Round Table'

[Sangria]

The reason that Aurelio and Lucas got overrun in that game was because none of the three players upfront (Torres, Gerrard and Benayoun) could hold onto the ball. The midfielders kept delivering inch-perfect passes to the forwards' feet, then moved upfield to support, only to be overrun a few seconds later by a Fiorentina counterattack. The missing glue was on the forwards' boots.

Last Saturday we witnessed a midfield overrun, not as a result of  the forwards' inability to hold onto the ball and combine, but the collective inability of the defence and midfield to deliver the ball to them (for reasons that have been exhaustively examined in previous posts).

Even though the forwards couldn't hold on to the ball, Lucas-Mascherano would never have allowed them the comfort in midfield that they found. In the game against Chelsea not long after, that pair came up against the vaunted Chelsea midfield. Despite being outnumbered, they made the midfield area sterile as Chelsea couldn't find any fluency there either (if you can't pass out from midfield, you're not likely to push as far out as you're exposing yourself to a counter). They eventually took the lead from a Mascherano mistake, but before that they looked toothless (as did we, but this was Stamford Bridge).