Topic: Pep Lijnders

[Chalky Boots]

your post brings Rafa and Pako to mind.

I thought we might add a coach or two with Gerrard, Beale and Buvac gone (or seemingly gone)

Pako and Rafa were friends but with Klopp and Buvac you're literally talking about two people who have been best mates for 20 years. I think whatever it is with Buvac Klopp is happy to allow him space away from the club and to let him decide what he wants to do. If he wants to return, I imagine he can, if he wants to try his hand as a first team manager them I'm sure Klopp will be happy to see his good friend take the next step.

The only stuff thats come out that might sound genuine is that it's a family health situation and despite what the great man said football isn't more important than life or death and you'd be shitty friend not to let someone else have time off away to see to things that matter most.

[Dim Glas]

I'll repeat - I wasn't attempting to be be patronising. Text-based conversation is shorn of all context which makes inflection non-existent. If you took my post to be patronising, I apologise. I like your posts too. I thought I was adding to the conversation. Mea Culpa.

no worries PoP!   I would say a lot of what I write in posts like this, is done very quickly as off the cuff replies!

It's all good

[PhaseOfPlay]

no worries PoP!   I would say a lot of what I write in posts like this, is done very quickly as off the cuff replies!

It's all good

Fair play. I'll bear that in mind in future so that I don't immediately act the goat

[paulrazor]

Pako and Rafa were friends but with Klopp and Buvac you're literally talking about two people who have been best mates for 20 years. I think whatever it is with Buvac Klopp is happy to allow him space away from the club and to let him decide what he wants to do. If he wants to return, I imagine he can, if he wants to try his hand as a first team manager them I'm sure Klopp will be happy to see his good friend take the next step.

The only stuff thats come out that might sound genuine is that it's a family health situation and despite what the great man said football isn't more important than life or death and you'd be shitty friend not to let someone else have time off away to see to things that matter most.

yeah i never agreed with that Shankly statement but thats neither here nor there.

i am sure Pako and Rafa did work together for a long time, 12 years i believe. Rafa could come across as quite cold at times. i have stumbled across an interview where pako says they stay in touch but it seemed like it wasnt the case for a long time. oh well

[Nessy76]

yeah i never agreed with that Shankly statement but thats neither here nor there.

i am sure Pako and Rafa did work together for a long time, 12 years i believe. Rafa could come across as quite cold at times. i have stumbled across an interview where pako says they stay in touch but it seemed like it wasnt the case for a long time. oh well

I think Shanks was speaking with tongue in cheek there. He did take the game seriously, but he was playing up to that image of himself when he said that.

[paulrazor]

I think Shanks was speaking with tongue in cheek there. He did take the game seriously, but he was playing up to that image of himself when he said that.

interesting to note i suppose with the same interview that he put everything he could into the game to the point his family life suffered and he admitted he regretted that

here

Shankly later said words to a similar effect in a Granada TV Studio show with prime minister Harold Wilson in April 1981 that ensured the "Life and Death"- quote's longevity. The host was Shelley Rodhe.

RODHE: What have you got out of football all these years?

SHANKLY: Everything I've got I owe to football. You only get out of the game what you put into it, Shelley. So I put in all my heart and soul, to the extent that my family suffered.

RODHE: Do you regret that at at all?

SHANKLY: I regret it very much. Somebody said: 'Football's a matter of life and death to you. I said, 'Listen it's more important than that.' And my family's suffered. They've been neglected.

RODHE: How would you do it now, if you had your time again?

SHANKLY : I don't know really. If I had the same thoughts, I'd possibly do the same again.

RODHE : So what are the qualities of a good footballer?

SHANKLY: Ability and dedication to the game. And giving people their money's worth. The players have got an obligation to the public to do that.

RODHE: You sound as if it's more of an entertainment?

SHANKLY: Well, entertainment comes second for me. Entertainment you can laugh at. I don't laugh at football.

WILSON: It's a religion too, isn't it?

SHANKLY: I think so, yes.

WILSON: A way of life.

SHANKLY: That's a good expression, Sir Harold. It is a way of life. And it's so serious that it's unbelievable. And I wonder what all the rest of the world does.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Love Shanks. He got it. It's a religion, not a sport.

[Uncle Ronnie]

Whenever I read any of his quotes I always do it with his accent playing in my head. Very weird

[clinical]

Surely if Klopp and Buvac had fallen out massively then he would have had his contract terminated by now? Seems like we're still giving him every chance to come back?

[Dim Glas]

Pako and Rafa were friends but with Klopp and Buvac you're literally talking about two people who have been best mates for 20 years. I think whatever it is with Buvac Klopp is happy to allow him space away from the club and to let him decide what he wants to do. If he wants to return, I imagine he can, if he wants to try his hand as a first team manager them I'm sure Klopp will be happy to see his good friend take the next step.

The only stuff thats come out that might sound genuine is that it's a family health situation and despite what the great man said football isn't more important than life or death and you'd be shitty friend not to let someone else have time off away to see to things that matter most.

I think they had / have (hopefully for their sake) an interesting bond, cos they actually where not best mates.  Whereas with Peter Krawietz and Klopp - they are and their families are close friends to the extent they all even go on holiday and socialise together. With Buvac, it's always been different.  Of course, you don't work with someone so long and not be friendly, but it doesn't mean you are necessarily close away from work.  It's probably part of why they did work so well, two very different personalities but with a shared philiosphy, hence Kloppo more than once said that they didn't even need to speak at times, it was just this telepathic undestanding of what they needed. And yes, I'm sure that was a bit tongue in cheek, cos they didn't read minds But it does point to the way they understood each other and how they worked in synch. 

But yeah anyway, just an aside - to point out that I dont think they are massively close friends, is where I was going with that!

[paulrazor]

Whenever I read any of his quotes I always do it with his accent playing in my head. Very weird

no theres nothing weird about that at all

same when i read an autobiography

Love Shanks. He got it. It's a religion, not a sport.

there is a brilliant one i read from Brian Reade about how he once got the chance to spend a day at Melwood with Shankly after he retired. Shanks was going on about one time  there was rugby balls around somewhere when they needed a football. when asked about how he got around the issue Shanks went
"i mashed it intae fitba"

Reade didnt believe him but Shanks kept saying it and saying it to the point where Reade was beginning to wonder

"I mashed it intae fitba"
"is that true"
"what son?"
"that you mashed it into a football?"
"son what school are you in?"
"erm De La Salle (or whatever it was)"
"Can I ask you is it a special school?"

[farawayred]

Surely if Klopp and Buvac had fallen out massively then he would have had his contract terminated by now? Seems like we're still giving him every chance to come back?

Why though? The club could be paying him less (per diem) than if he was here. If he gets another job, the club is due a compensation, whereas if the club terminated the contract, Buvac will be due a compensation. It could be as simple as comparing the pound value for what they are paying for the rest of Buvac’s contract.

[rafathegaffa83]

The influence of Pep Lijnders was clear as the Liverpool players were put through their paces in the searing heat of Charlotte.

The Dutchman, who was brought back to the club by Jurgen Klopp this summer, was in the thick of it, barking orders and ensuring standards remained high.

Lijnders has clearly taken on greater responsibility alongside Peter Krawietz in pre-season in the continued absence of first assistant coach Zeljko Buvac.

Liverpool insist the situation is unchanged with Buvac - he remains a club employee and has been away since April due to 'personal reasons'.

However, the ECHO understands that the Bosnian Serb won't be returning and his 17-year working relationship with Klopp is effectively over. His exit is likely to be confirmed over the coming weeks.

Klopp isn't looking to make any further additions to his backroom staff with Lijnders filling the Buvac void.

Prior to a short stint as a manager in his homeland, Lijnders was the Reds' first-team development coach - the key link between the Academy and Melwood - but this time around he has yet to be given an official job title.
More here:
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/pep-lijnders-steps-up-jurgen-14937907

[sms1986]

I think Lijnders and Krawietz will be able to easily fill the large hole Buvac left if he has gone. Hopefully if he has, he does well with whatever he goes on to do next.

[DG]

Buvac leaving is pretty much the only thing I am worried about going into the season. If he was indeed the brain, as Klopp put it when he arrived, then god knows how important his influence was. Hopefully the void will be filled easily, but I'd be much, much more comfortable if he was still here.

[PhaseOfPlay]

I think Lijnders and Krawietz will be able to easily fill the large hole Buvac left if he has gone. Hopefully if he has, he does well with whatever he goes on to do next.

Depends on how in-depth Buvac was for the tactical side, and if Ljinders can replicate that. He's a technical coach by nature, and that doesn't always translate to tactical ability. Krawietz's job won't change - he's the analyst

[Djozer]

Depends on how in-depth Buvac was for the tactical side, and if Ljinders can replicate that. He's a technical coach by nature, and that doesn't always translate to tactical ability. Krawietz's job won't change - he's the analyst

Do you think Krawietz might be better suited to the tactical side of the assistant manager's job than Lijnders then, given his analytical ability? Guess it's hard to know if you haven't worked with them yourself.

I'll confess to being a touch worried by Buvac's departure. Obviously it might all work out fine, but it seems like a vital cog has been removed from Klopp's system right at the start of what could be a key moment for our club, given the excellent window we've had, and that doesn't strike me as ideal no matter how you look at it. I guess we just have to wait and see what happens.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Do you think Krawietz might be better suited to the tactical side of the assistant manager's job than Lijnders then, given his analytical ability? Guess it's hard to know if you haven't worked with them yourself.

I'll confess to being a touch worried by Buvac's departure. Obviously it might all work out fine, but it seems like a vital cog has been removed from Klopp's system right at the start of what could be a key moment for our club, given the excellent window we've had, and that doesn't strike me as ideal no matter how you look at it. I guess we just have to wait and see what happens.

Depends on how good he is as a coach, and how well he organizes, manages, communicates and runs the drills and games. I don't get the impression that's his strong point though.

[Dim Glas]

Do you think Krawietz might be better suited to the tactical side of the assistant manager's job than Lijnders then, given his analytical ability? Guess it's hard to know if you haven't worked with them yourself.

I'll confess to being a touch worried by Buvac's departure. Obviously it might all work out fine, but it seems like a vital cog has been removed from Klopp's system right at the start of what could be a key moment for our club, given the excellent window we've had, and that doesn't strike me as ideal no matter how you look at it. I guess we just have to wait and see what happens.

exactly. No one here has been privy to how they worked at Liverpool (or BVB and Mainz) to have much idea how it'll go. We can only go on snippets of video and a few interviews and some chapters in a book!

The only positive I'd take now is that they've know about this since last season, so the time has been there to figure out the way to proceed, and the time has been there to explore other coaching posibilities, and have decided on Lijnders, and not gone for another coach to come in.

[classycarra]

I think Lijnders and Krawietz will be able to easily fill the large hole Buvac left if he has gone.

What's that thought based on?

[Dench57]

Since nobody really knows what effect Buvac leaving will have, I'll personally feel very comfortable blaming any defeats on his departure

[Djozer]

Since nobody really knows what effect Buvac leaving will have, I'll personally feel very comfortable blaming any defeats on his departure

I guess it does give us a ready made excuse if we don't sweep all before us, as the papers have decided we should given the money we've spent. Every cloud...

[SerbianScouser]

I share the worries regarding Buvac's exit as only time will tell if we'll be able to tactically compete in any given situation.

I thought we failed to tactically adjust to Madrid's diamond in the final - however there are potential positives from Pep's dutch education especially as it pertains to our build-up play. I felt for the most part we don't insist enough on keeping the ball on the deck while choosing to kick it long instead which is why we where accused of being a long ball team few times. This is where I hope dutch influence may come to the fore with a genuine ball playing keeper, Fabinho who is significantly more courageous on the ball than Hendo and we are already seeing this preseason efforts to change our build-up in the sense of using Fabinho in the same line as our CBs who would split allowing us to advance up the pitch together as a team which I think is how Klopp is tryingl to address the issue of lacking control which is something he mentioned good few times already since the end of the season.

So yeah it's a worry but on the other hand it's a chance for fresh new tactical ideas which may push us  forward and who knows Buvac's departure may be a blessing in disguise as I'm sure  Klopp on his own will know how to coach counter-pressing which we pretty much perfected so now ee can focus on improving in other areas.

[gkmacca]

I share the worries regarding Buvac's exit as only time will tell if we'll be able to tactically compete in any given situation.

I thought we failed to tactically adjust to Madrid's diamond in the final

Until we win something no doubt Buvac's tactical nous will become and remain legendary. It didn't seem to help in the Europa League Final, or the League Cup final, but no doubt the completely empirically unfounded idea that he's the key thinker will remain for a while yet. Personally I prefer to see Lijnders as a fresh tactical advisor in a trio that was gradually getting set in its ways, but that, too, is a view that requires us to wait and see.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Until we win something no doubt Buvac's tactical nous will become and remain legendary. It didn't seem to help in the Europa League Final, or the League Cup final, but no doubt the completely empirically unfounded idea that he's the key thinker will remain for a while yet. Personally I prefer to see Lijnders as a fresh tactical advisor in a trio that was gradually getting set in its ways, but that, too, is a view that requires us to wait and see.

It's not "tactical nous". It's coaching ability.

[Sammy5IsAlive]

It's not "tactical nous". It's coaching ability.

There is a difference between the two though? I'd say that the skill of being able to 'read' a game (whether that be during the match or watching the replay) and identifying tactical issues/patterns is separate from the skill of coaching to address those observations. I think we'll just have to wait and see how Buvac's departure will fit with that model.

FWIW I don't see Klopp as a manager who is particularly 'tactics-focused'. I think he has an idea of how he wants his team to play with and without the ball and works to ingrain that on the training pitch. I think for him successful performances are achieved through getting the players to hit their optimum performance levels in a tactical framework that has been set down over the long term. Sometimes you see him make pragmatic tactical decisions (eg switching Mane to the right side in the second leg vs City last season) but for me these occasions are the exception rather than the rule - compared for example with how Benitez used to manage us.

[MolbyLovesGravlax]

My take on Buvac being the brain, was more that he would be involved in tweaking our setup prior to games against certain sides rather than any in game genius.
That said, anytime we get a game plan wrong there will be the same people who are sure it is Achterberg fault any time a keeper misses a punch telling us it is all because he isn't here anymore.

[Charlie Adams fried egg]

I'd love to know what's gone on here and like others I have had a few concerns because we just can't quantify the contribution made by Buvac.
I just wonder though, perhaps the demands of the game in this country - the extra games, the physicality, more "big" rivals, lesser clubs that don't just roll over, the amount of games when the other team just doesn't engage etc. - has led to Klopp refining his approach, and in doing so finding he needs less of what Buvac brings?

I know he's brought back Ljinders, but Klopp strikes me as the type of person that knows his own limitations and the areas he needs help with, and if he felt that Buvac being unavailable would weaken us, he would have done something about it.

The ferocious counterpressing works against the top 6 and in Europe, because those sides (United apart) will play. Which means that for 28 league games, counterpressing can't be relied on and a bit more guile is needed?

[dirks digglers]

It's not "tactical nous". It's coaching ability.

Interesting...

I think a lot of people (I certainly do) would associate tactical analysis/nous with looking at an upcoming opponent and analysing their strengths/weaknesses/style and then finding ways to impose your strengths on their weaknesses or mitigate their weaknesses by minor adjustments to your own team's style of play, and that this would be relayed to the players in the week before the game, both inside and out on the training pitch. Also, reacting in-game with rational and smart decisions on the same basis.

Whereas coaching is probably perceived perhaps more as technical teaching of players, most likely because when we play sport as kids the coach is the person who ingrains certain techniques and hopefully good habits in you.

If I'm reading you correctly, you'd consider coaching an all encompassing ongoing education in all departments with no separation from a tactical element?

[PhaseOfPlay]

Interesting...

I think a lot of people (I certainly do) would associate tactical analysis/nous with looking at an upcoming opponent and analysing their strengths/weaknesses/style and then finding ways to impose your strengths on their weaknesses or mitigate their weaknesses by minor adjustments to your own team's style of play, and that this would be relayed to the players in the week before the game, both inside and out on the training pitch. Also, reacting in-game with rational and smart decisions on the same basis.

Whereas coaching is probably perceived perhaps more as technical teaching of players, most likely because when we play sport as kids the coach is the person who ingrains certain techniques and hopefully good habits in you.

If I'm reading you correctly, you'd consider coaching an all encompassing ongoing education in all departments with no separation from a tactical element?

That's exactly what it is. Coaching is Communication. It's not just knowing what to do, but also how to distill that into the most economical and repetitive form in such a way that it transfers from the training ground to the game. Ask any experienced coach, and they'll say that getting players to do the things they've worked on in training, in the actual game, is one of the hardest parts of the job. Especially when it comes to attacking topics and ideas, because there's a lot of individuality that comes into the picture with attacking, that doesn't really occur in defending.

Krawietz is the "Eye" because he's good at the video analysis. That doesn't mean he's good at bringing that analysis into an action plan that is perfectly run in the game.

Buvac was the "Brain" - that means he was the one who could take the ideas that Klopp and the staff had come up with, and then transfer them into the next game, by way of coaching methods, conditioned games, exercises, drills and coaching in the game.

Pep is a great technical coach - honing the technical side of things (which also involves some of the tactical - it's not just a matter of passing, but where, when and why?). But he might not be as good at putting an overall tactical or strategic plan into a training scenario, working on the details, and then bringing it into the big game. I'm not saying he ISN'T good at it - just that he might not be as good as Buvac might have been, or maybe he doesn't "get" Klopp's ideas as intuitively. I don't know, it remains to be seen, but he's an excellent coach in his own right, so perhaps a new perspective will be good for Klopp in any case.

But to the question at hand - it's not just a mere matter of "ah the other coaches can just fill in for what Buvac did" as if all coaches are the same, as if coaching is "easy", and as if all methods are general and transferable from coach to coach.

[PhaseOfPlay]

There is a difference between the two though? I'd say that the skill of being able to 'read' a game (whether that be during the match or watching the replay) and identifying tactical issues/patterns is separate from the skill of coaching to address those observations. I think we'll just have to wait and see how Buvac's departure will fit with that model.

It is different, which is what I said

But identifying the problems/issues, and then training that into 23 players in preparation for the next game, in a short space of time, and making sure it transfers into the game - that's the hard part.

FWIW I don't see Klopp as a manager who is particularly 'tactics-focused'. I think he has an idea of how he wants his team to play with and without the ball and works to ingrain that on the training pitch. I think for him successful performances are achieved through getting the players to hit their optimum performance levels in a tactical framework that has been set down over the long term. Sometimes you see him make pragmatic tactical decisions (eg switching Mane to the right side in the second leg vs City last season) but for me these occasions are the exception rather than the rule - compared for example with how Benitez used to manage us.

There's a difference between "Tactics" and "Strategy". Tactics are based around your principles, sub-principles and sub-sub-principles (as they're now called), and are the general framework all of your players need to know and operate.

"Strategy" is when you change parts of those tactics around - switching wingers, dropping a forward into midfield, playing a lower offside line than usual, etc.

Rafa was a strategist. Klopp is a tactician.

[Charlie Adams fried egg]

That's exactly what it is. Coaching is Communication. It's not just knowing what to do, but also how to distill that into the most economical and repetitive form in such a way that it transfers from the training ground to the game. Ask any experienced coach, and they'll say that getting players to do the things they've worked on in training, in the actual game, is one of the hardest parts of the job. Especially when it comes to attacking topics and ideas, because there's a lot of individuality that comes into the picture with attacking, that doesn't really occur in defending.

Krawietz is the "Eye" because he's good at the video analysis. That doesn't mean he's good at bringing that analysis into an action plan that is perfectly run in the game.

Buvac was the "Brain" - that means he was the one who could take the ideas that Klopp and the staff had come up with, and then transfer them into the next game, by way of coaching methods, conditioned games, exercises, drills and coaching in the game.

Pep is a great technical coach - honing the technical side of things (which also involves some of the tactical - it's not just a matter of passing, but where, when and why?). But he might not be as good at putting an overall tactical or strategic plan into a training scenario, working on the details, and then bringing it into the big game. I'm not saying he ISN'T good at it - just that he might not be as good as Buvac might have been, or maybe he doesn't "get" Klopp's ideas as intuitively. I don't know, it remains to be seen, but he's an excellent coach in his own right, so perhaps a new perspective will be good for Klopp in any case.

But to the question at hand - it's not just a mere matter of "ah the other coaches can just fill in for what Buvac did" as if all coaches are the same, as if coaching is "easy", and as if all methods are general and transferable from coach to coach.

Klopp alluded to this in some comments he made about Keita. He said something along the lines of "I don't want to give him 500,000 instructions".
This is part of what makes great coaches great - the ability to impart sometimes quite complex messages in a simplified way that the individual understands.

[wheresnemeth]

It is different, which is what I said

But identifying the problems/issues, and then training that into 23 players in preparation for the next game, in a short space of time, and making sure it transfers into the game - that's the hard part.

There's a difference between "Tactics" and "Strategy". Tactics are based around your principles, sub-principles and sub-sub-principles (as they're now called), and are the general framework all of your players need to know and operate.

"Strategy" is when you change parts of those tactics around - switching wingers, dropping a forward into midfield, playing a lower offside line than usual, etc.

Rafa was a strategist. Klopp is a tactician.

I'm not sure that I fully understand the difference. Would a tactitian also not change parts of his tactics around during the game if the situation required? 

[Not that Gareth]

There's a difference between "Tactics" and "Strategy". Tactics are based around your principles, sub-principles and sub-sub-principles (as they're now called), and are the general framework all of your players need to know and operate.

"Strategy" is when you change parts of those tactics around - switching wingers, dropping a forward into midfield, playing a lower offside line than usual, etc.

Rafa was a strategist. Klopp is a tactician.

Is this definition of strategy and tactics specific to football coaching? Normally strategy supercedes tactics in that specific tactics are employed to execute a strategy aimed at achieving some objective. Maybe im just misreading what you're saying.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Is this definition of strategy and tactics specific to football coaching? Normally strategy supercedes tactics in that specific tactics are employed to execute a strategy aimed at achieving some objective. Maybe im just misreading what you're saying.

Yeah it gets confusing. And then even more confusing depending on which federation is doing the defining

But "Tactics" in football is based around the principles of attack and defence - penetration, depth, width, mobility, improvisation and surprise vs pressure, cover, balance, compactness, consolidation and communication.

Game strategy then, is game-to-game or in-game tweaks.

It's not the dictionary definition, but it makes it more clear that one thing is the overall plan, and the other thing is the plan for the individual event.

It's probably better to call it "Macro tactics, meso tactics and micro tactics". But that's WAY too mealy-mouthed and needlessly complex

[PhaseOfPlay]

I'm not sure that I fully understand the difference. Would a tactitian also not change parts of his tactics around during the game if the situation required?

Here's a better example, then, hopefully.

Klopp has an overall plan, and if he doesn't have to change it, he won't. The overall plan is the key for him. Worry about your own team, don't worry about the opposition, and (usually), keep subs like-for-like to maintain the overall plan. Training each week is based around the overall plan, perfecting it, and repeating it so that it is second nature. It'll often follow the same format, with little variation, and probably a lot of physical effort and repetition.

Rafa has an overall plan, but it's more general, and he'll change it game-to-game, and even within 5 minutes of a game starting, if needed. Rafa worries about the other team, and constantly shifts and moves players on his own team around to close up perceived gaps. Training each week reflects the next game, and will change according to what Rafa thinks the game plan should be, and who will be playing in it. So one week's training will look radically different to the next, depending on what the game strategy is for that next game. In one week it might be focused on attacking the wings to take advantage of a narrow opposition back four with little height in the box; in another week, it might focus on sitting back and absorbing attacks and countering through the middle with speed. This is why that quote came out from Inter (I think? Or was it Valencia?) when the new manager asked the players to defend the way Rafa had them defend, and they said "but we had five different ways".

[wheresnemeth]

Here's a better example, then, hopefully.

Klopp has an overall plan, and if he doesn't have to change it, he won't. The overall plan is the key for him. Worry about your own team, don't worry about the opposition, and (usually), keep subs like-for-like to maintain the overall plan. Training each week is based around the overall plan, perfecting it, and repeating it so that it is second nature. It'll often follow the same format, with little variation, and probably a lot of physical effort and repetition.

Rafa has an overall plan, but it's more general, and he'll change it game-to-game, and even within 5 minutes of a game starting, if needed. Rafa worries about the other team, and constantly shifts and moves players on his own team around to close up perceived gaps. Training each week reflects the next game, and will change according to what Rafa thinks the game plan should be, and who will be playing in it. So one week's training will look radically different to the next, depending on what the game strategy is for that next game. In one week it might be focused on attacking the wings to take advantage of a narrow opposition back four with little height in the box; in another week, it might focus on sitting back and absorbing attacks and countering through the middle with speed. This is why that quote came out from Inter (I think? Or was it Valencia?) when the new manager asked the players to defend the way Rafa had them defend, and they said "but we had five different ways".

Thanks for the explanation , that makes the differences between the two much clearer.

[dirks digglers]

Klopp alluded to this in some comments he made about Keita. He said something along the lines of "I don't want to give him 500,000 instructions".
This is part of what makes great coaches great - the ability to impart sometimes quite complex messages in a simplified way that the individual understands.

Yeah I thought that was interesting, his comments on Keita. The message seemed to be pretty much that this guy is fully formed, he can adapt quickly and work it out. On the other side, it was interesting that he fairly quickly sends out a patience message with other players who’ll need to adapt from previous experience into his way of playing, if memory serves he did this with Ox, Robertson and Fabinho recently. You can actually read between the lines of what Klopp says and have a good picture of what’s going on, where we’re going and what needs to happen to move is forward. You can see how that clarity makes him good to work with as a player.

[Not that Gareth]

Snip

Thanks for the explaination and I guess this makes sense but i still feel it's a little arse ways but who am i to question the wisdom of the footballing fraternity.

I'm still sticking with Sun Tzu's definition though 

[PhaseOfPlay]

Thanks for the explaination and I guess this makes sense but i still feel it's a little arse ways but who am i to question the wisdom of the footballing fraternity.

I'm still sticking with Sun Tzu's definition though 

That's yer first mistake