Topic: The Klopp Template

[MonsLibpool]

We need to stop trying to win every game 10-0. I want our rivals to be turning it off when we go two-nil up.

[BassTunedToRed]

This has been discussed in here before, but the randomness of game state basically explains the gap between City and Liverpool at this point.

Liverpool when leading have allowed a shade over 11 xG, and conceded 11 goals. City's figures are eight and seven respectively. Interestingly, their time spent leading is pretty similar (1,010 and 1,060 minutes) which shows City are clearly better at managing leads (which we obviously know from watching the matches).

However, break it down further and things get interesting. Liverpool have conceded four goals from seven xG when 2+ goals ahead, but seven from 4.4 xG when leading by one.

City have allowed three xG when one goal ahead but haven't conceded a single goal from those chances. No equalisers, in other words, when this is when Liverpool have been overly punished.

FWIW, City have suffered slightly at two goals up (7 goals conceded from 5.3 xG) but that's obviously easier to absorb than when a goal up.

And what we really need, more than anything, is for City to go behind a bit more often. It's to their credit that it doesn't happen often but they really aren't very good when conceding first - 1.07 points per game under Pep, when we're 1.46 in the same period.

This season their xG difference works out at just 0.38 per 90 when a goal down.

Anyway, there's some stats to chew over.

[wige]

This has been discussed in here before, but the randomness of game state basically explains the gap between City and Liverpool at this point.

Liverpool when leading have allowed a shade over 11 xG, and conceded 11 goals. City's figures are eight and seven respectively. Interestingly, their time spent leading is pretty similar (1,010 and 1,060 minutes) which shows City are clearly better at managing leads (which we obviously know from watching the matches).

However, break it down further and things get interesting. Liverpool have conceded four goals from seven xG when 2+ goals ahead, but seven from 4.4 xG when leading by one.

City have allowed three xG when one goal ahead but haven't conceded a single goal from those chances. No equalisers, in other words, when this is when Liverpool have been overly punished.

FWIW, City have suffered slightly at two goals up (7 goals conceded from 5.3 xG) but that's obviously easier to absorb than when a goal up.

And what we really need, more than anything, is for City to go behind a bit more often. It's to their credit that it doesn't happen often but they really aren't very good when conceding first - 1.07 points per game under Pep, when we're 1.46 in the same period.

This season their xG difference works out at just 0.38 per 90 when a goal down.

Anyway, there's some stats to chew over.

The key part bolded for me. As soon as Saints went one up at the weekend I felt that dropped points were on. Your stats backing up what I think has been there to see for a while now, they're not great in that situation.

[BassTunedToRed]

The key part bolded for me. As soon as Saints went one up at the weekend I felt that dropped points were on. Your stats backing up what I think has been there to see for a while now, they're not great in that situation.

The full stats are attached if anyone is interested.

[redk84]

It does worry me slightly the manner of some of the goals that we are conceding given that we have had a good back 4 available for most of the season so far and we are past halfway stage...I am hoping that the break will give us time to work on some things - the attack may not be as prolific as we were scoring at a ridiculous rate for a while there but confidence in ourselves at the back will be important.

AS for city, yeah we want teams to score against them when its not lost already - some shit luck for them would be nice also 

[killer-heels]

City and Guardiola always didn't handle chaos and uncertainty as well as us and Klopp. Klopp almost prices it in. So those stats are not surprising. City have gone out of their way to remove all uncertainty even more since 2020.

[PoetryInMotion]

This has been discussed in here before, but the randomness of game state basically explains the gap between City and Liverpool at this point.

Liverpool when leading have allowed a shade over 11 xG, and conceded 11 goals. City's figures are eight and seven respectively. Interestingly, their time spent leading is pretty similar (1,010 and 1,060 minutes) which shows City are clearly better at managing leads (which we obviously know from watching the matches).

However, break it down further and things get interesting. Liverpool have conceded four goals from seven xG when 2+ goals ahead, but seven from 4.4 xG when leading by one.

City have allowed three xG when one goal ahead but haven't conceded a single goal from those chances. No equalisers, in other words, when this is when Liverpool have been overly punished.

FWIW, City have suffered slightly at two goals up (7 goals conceded from 5.3 xG) but that's obviously easier to absorb than when a goal up.

And what we really need, more than anything, is for City to go behind a bit more often. It's to their credit that it doesn't happen often but they really aren't very good when conceding first - 1.07 points per game under Pep, when we're 1.46 in the same period.

This season their xG difference works out at just 0.38 per 90 when a goal down.

Anyway, there's some stats to chew over.

Interesting. So, if when teams get fast starts against City and score first, there is 2/3 chance of them dropping points. I'll take that. Need more teams going for it early in the game. From what I've observed, City don't like opposition forwards, even 1 or 2 running at their defenders. Instead of trying to play passes through City, which they cut out mostly, I'd say it'd help if more teams just ran at them, at regular intervals to ease pressure on their defense from barrage of City attacks.

[SamLad]

City have gone out of their way to remove all uncertainty spontaneity, interest and emotion even more since 2020.

fixed.

[fowlermagic]

We seem to be on track to have our highest GF tally under Klopp which is amazing considering the dip in form last season. By end of Feb we should have easily scored more goals than all of last season. So in terms of attack we are A++. Defensively we will probably have a similar GA number that we achieved 2 years ago when we won the league, def better than last season but no way near what we had in 2018/19. That might be the difference between us and City right now as they are leaking less goals while still averaging 2 plus goals a game.

Also our control of games is a little off which is apparent to all as while we are winning games 3-1, on paper should have been an easy win but far from that. The lads are working a lot harder than what the score is reflecting and that will surely catch up on us later in the season. Klopp's teams are well known to having a strong finish to the season so lets see what happens as we do a little more leggy than normal.

[redmark]

We seem to be on track to have our highest GF tally under Klopp which is amazing considering the dip in form last season. By end of Feb we should have easily scored more goals than all of last season. So in terms of attack we are A++. Defensively we will probably have a similar GA number that we achieved 2 years ago when we won the league, def better than last season but no way near what we had in 2018/19. That might be the difference between us and City right now as they are leaking less goals while still averaging 2 plus goals a game.

I wouldn't be too concerned about goal difference - we're two behind, with a game in hand. If we are to claw back the points difference, that requires City not winning at least two games (including against us) more than us, which is a further swing to us. If we won every other game by exactly the same score as City, we'd have a better GD. They manage 5+ more than we do, but we've much more consistently hit 3 or 4.

[royhendo]

Has anyone been onto the fallout from the Ken Early article in the Irish Times the other week about Guardiola's approach to football? It's led to 2nd Captains revisiting it following various responses, the first wave being the obvious Abu Dhabi 'Influencer' and Stu Brennan stuff, but the 2nd wave being genuinely interesting in light of this thread and previous discussion on this very forum, especially the stuff that JP65 brought to the Level 3 thread about 6 Sigma and continuous improvement, and the stuff we touched upon about squad depth and replaceability/fungibility of players and positions, and the trend towards multi-functional players in the more 'total football' variants of the game.

Anyway, the current week's podcast from about 15 minutes in (I think) is a very interesting listen. Long story short, it talks about how Pep, with limitless investment, is able to play with his industrial system, which is reminiscent of a car production line in the removal of uncertainty of risk (Toyota saw the humans involved as the key risk factor, Pep sees the other side's possession, and his own players' mistakes/off script moments the same way)... then briefly contrasts Klopp as someone who embraces and routinises chaos in his system (players often needing time to learn the demands of the system before breaking through, but in a system built to play the chaos), versus Pep, who takes out the idea of a specialist number 9, takes a unique player like Grealish and tries to coach all of the unpredictability out of him, playing his system by the book, being another interchangeable part... 

The main article on Pep and City that he effectively reads out makes the point that the interchangeability means they 'have no spine' - a term that used to be an insult, but that in their case makes them like an invertebrate, octopine, able to adapt their shape to whatever they're presented with... and that it makes them only possible to enjoy in a chin stroking intellectual 'modern art' type way.

Interesting

[newterp]

Has anyone been onto the fallout from the Ken Early article in the Irish Times the other week about Guardiola's approach to football? It's led to 2nd Captains revisiting it following various responses, the first wave being the obvious Abu Dhabi 'Influencer' and Stu Brennan stuff, but the 2nd wave being genuinely interesting in light of this thread and previous discussion on this very forum, especially the stuff that JP65 brought to the Level 3 thread about 6 Sigma and continuous improvement, and the stuff we touched upon about squad depth and replaceability/fungibility of players and positions, and the trend towards multi-functional players in the more 'total football' variants of the game.

Anyway, the current week's podcast from about 15 minutes in (I think) is a very interesting listen. Long story short, it talks about how Pep, with limitless investment, is able to play with his industrial system, which is reminiscent of a car production line in the removal of uncertainty of risk (Toyota saw the humans involved as the key risk factor, Pep sees the other side's possession, and his own players' mistakes/off script moments the same way)... then briefly contrasts Klopp as someone who embraces and routinises chaos in his system (players often needing time to learn the demands of the system before breaking through, but in a system built to play the chaos), versus Pep, who takes out the idea of a specialist number 9, takes a unique player like Grealish and tries to coach all of the unpredictability out of him, playing his system by the book, being another interchangeable part... 

The main article on Pep and City that he effectively reads out makes the point that the interchangeability means they 'have no spine' - a term that used to be an insult, but that in their case makes them like an invertebrate, octopine, able to adapt their shape to whatever they're presented with... and that it makes them only possible to enjoy in a chin stroking intellectual 'modern art' type way.

Interesting

Sounds like the newer versions of terminators - post-Arnold.

[Suareznumber7]

Has anyone been onto the fallout from the Ken Early article in the Irish Times the other week about Guardiola's approach to football? It's led to 2nd Captains revisiting it following various responses, the first wave being the obvious Abu Dhabi 'Influencer' and Stu Brennan stuff, but the 2nd wave being genuinely interesting in light of this thread and previous discussion on this very forum, especially the stuff that JP65 brought to the Level 3 thread about 6 Sigma and continuous improvement, and the stuff we touched upon about squad depth and replaceability/fungibility of players and positions, and the trend towards multi-functional players in the more 'total football' variants of the game.

Anyway, the current week's podcast from about 15 minutes in (I think) is a very interesting listen. Long story short, it talks about how Pep, with limitless investment, is able to play with his industrial system, which is reminiscent of a car production line in the removal of uncertainty of risk (Toyota saw the humans involved as the key risk factor, Pep sees the other side's possession, and his own players' mistakes/off script moments the same way)... then briefly contrasts Klopp as someone who embraces and routinises chaos in his system (players often needing time to learn the demands of the system before breaking through, but in a system built to play the chaos), versus Pep, who takes out the idea of a specialist number 9, takes a unique player like Grealish and tries to coach all of the unpredictability out of him, playing his system by the book, being another interchangeable part... 

The main article on Pep and City that he effectively reads out makes the point that the interchangeability means they 'have no spine' - a term that used to be an insult, but that in their case makes them like an invertebrate, octopine, able to adapt their shape to whatever they're presented with... and that it makes them only possible to enjoy in a chin stroking intellectual 'modern art' type way.

Interesting

Do you mind sharing the links to those articles?

[keyop]

The full stats are attached if anyone is interested.

Interesting stats, which back up what many have been saying for a long time - over the last 5 years, this City team struggle when going a goal down.

In basic terms, a team has a roughly 50% chance of beating them if they score first, and a roughly 25% chance of getting a point.

Compare that to a 90% chance of losing if City score first, and only a 4% chance of getting a draw.

Given these stats, and the fact that City score so many goals (and very rarely have a 0-0), I'm surprised teams aren't braver against them instead of sitting back for 90 minutes trying to keep the score down.

Despite the money spent, I don't think the mentality at City (players or manager) is anywhere near as strong as many other teams when under pressure. Once they go a goal or two up, they just dominate. Once they go a goal down (or the longer they fail to score), the more vulnerable they become.

Because Pep has spent so much money and time getting them to win, they don't know what to do when things aren't going to plan. Therefore, the opposition are far better off having a go at them, as the chances are if they don't, they'll just lose anyway.

[redmark]

Because Pep has spent so much money and time getting them to win, they don't know what to do when things aren't going to plan. Therefore, the opposition are far better off having a go at them, as the chances are if they don't, they'll just lose anyway.

I suspect often the difference between a team that 'has a go' at City and one that appears to just sit in and hope for the best comes down to some very fine margins and a slice of luck. If you're only getting 25-30% possession and are being smothered when you do get it, you need several things to fall into place just to get close to a position where you can have a go. A City player slightly late in closing down, perfect execution of the out ball, good first touches and hold up play. Also when in the game do those moments arise; if it's after a long spell of hard work defensively, the first instinct is going to be boot the ball clear and get a breather.

I also reckon Guardiola's most hated moment in a season must be the first goal City concede, that prevents the perfect season; not only winning every game, but never conceding a goal. If you strive for perfect control, you should never have to. He's going to be managing richer and richer clubs until he's 100, desperately seeking the validation of perfect control (and boredom) for an entire season.

[PoetryInMotion]

I suspect often the difference between a team that 'has a go' at City and one that appears to just sit in and hope for the best comes down to some very fine margins and a slice of luck. If you're only getting 25-30% possession and are being smothered when you do get it, you need several things to fall into place just to get close to a position where you can have a go. A City player slightly late in closing down, perfect execution of the out ball, good first touches and hold up play. Also when in the game do those moments arise; if it's after a long spell of hard work defensively, the first instinct is going to be boot the ball clear and get a breather.

I also reckon Guardiola's most hated moment in a season must be the first goal City concede, that prevents the perfect season; not only winning every game, but never conceding a goal. If you strive for perfect control, you should never have to. He's going to be managing richer and richer clubs until he's 100, desperately seeking the validation of perfect control (and boredom) for an entire season.

It reminds me of some kind of a virtual game - say FIFA or PES, where you can take over a big team, and the more you win, the more unlimited your budget can become and then you are at a place where you have 2 great players for every position with promising youngsters coming through, and eventually you start trying to win all the trophies available and after you do that, you want to win 38 games in the league, conceding as little goals as possible.

I feel sorry for the friend watching this bollocks though, that's how opposition and neutrals should feel watching City. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen, as there is too much tribalism in football, where it's all about you vs me, that some are relieved that City are eating up the trophies that their actual footballing rivals can win.

[keyop]

I suspect often the difference between a team that 'has a go' at City and one that appears to just sit in and hope for the best comes down to some very fine margins and a slice of luck. If you're only getting 25-30% possession and are being smothered when you do get it, you need several things to fall into place just to get close to a position where you can have a go. A City player slightly late in closing down, perfect execution of the out ball, good first touches and hold up play. Also when in the game do those moments arise; if it's after a long spell of hard work defensively, the first instinct is going to be boot the ball clear and get a breather.

I also reckon Guardiola's most hated moment in a season must be the first goal City concede, that prevents the perfect season; not only winning every game, but never conceding a goal. If you strive for perfect control, you should never have to. He's going to be managing richer and richer clubs until he's 100, desperately seeking the validation of perfect control (and boredom) for an entire season.

I agree, but the reason most opposition only get 25-30% possession is because they sit back and let City have the ball, which judging by the stats equals a defeat most of the time. City can stroke the ball around waiting for an opening because the opposition let them. Too many teams seem to go into games thinking 'Ok, so City will have most of the ball, so we'll have to keep our shape, drop deep with two banks of four, and hope to hit them on the break'. Rinse and repeat. Where's the innovation, the bravery, the audacity to try and get a goal first instead of sitting back hoping there might be a rare opening?

When the odds are stacked against you (like they were with us when Klopp joined), teams need to find alternative ways to win - whether that is being stronger, fitter, working harder, pressing more, or playing different formations or systems. I'm not convinced that their dominance in games is a done deal as many seem to think it is - especially a side (and a manager) that have a weak mentality under pressure and have such a poor record of coming back from a goal down to win.

I can partly understand bottom 6 clubs not wanting to get spanked and lose another -5 goal difference, but seriously, whats the point in even turning up if you're not going to show some bravery and try something different? Even the teams who are far better equipped to have a go at them seem to roll over on a regular basis and rarely take any risks - even though the stats clearly show its a risk that can get rewards.

I can understand there's a gulf in both footballing skill and game intelligence, but teams need to drag city down to their level more often and beat them with strength, aggression, pressure, shithousery, and making the City players work harder to get the ball back. Get the home fans behind them and sow some doubt into Pep and his players heads, which we've seen is often their undoing. If you can't beat them with skill, then run more than them, press more than them, tackle harder, jump higher, be more aggressive - anything other than roll over and settle for damage limitation. We see it in cup competitions all the time - that gulf can be bridged. I know its not as simple as I'm making it sound, but I'd much rather see a team go for it and get beat 5-0, than sit back and do virtually nothing, and get beat 5-0 anyway.

[PoetryInMotion]

I get your point, but for most teams, City is a free-hit. Very few teams in the League have it in them to go at City, many of them just go through the motions and concentrate on the next game.

The teams that go at them, have a counter-threat, and try to get their clearance/pass right to their counter-threat to run at the City defenders. But, those are very few teams.

Here are the teams that City dropped points to

2017-18

Everton (draw)
Crystal Palace (draw)
Liverpool (loss)
Burnley (draw)
Man United (loss)
Huddersfield (draw)

2018-19

Wolves (draw)
Liverpool (draw)
Chelsea (loss)
Crystal Palace (loss)
Leicester (loss)
Newcastle (loss)

2019-20

Spurs (draw)
Norwich (loss)
Wolves (loss)
Liverpool (loss)
Newcastle (draw)
Man United (loss)
Wolves (loss)
Crystal Palace (draw)
Spurs (loss)
Man United (loss)
Chelsea (loss)
Southampton (loss)

2020-21

Leicester (loss)
Leeds (draw)
West Ham (draw)
Liverpool (draw)
Spurs (loss)
Man United (draw)
West Brom (draw)
Man United (loss)
Leeds (loss)
Chelsea (loss)
Brighton (loss)

2021-22 (so far)

Spurs (loss)
Southampton (draw)
Liverpool (draw)
Crystal Palace (loss)
Southampton (draw)

So if I count the number of times different teams have taken points off them since 2017-18 season till now, we have

Liverpool - 5 (exactly once every season - is our quota over for this season?  )
Crystal Palace - 4
Man United - 4
Spurs - 4
Southampton - 3
Wolves - 3
Chelsea - 3
Leicester - 2
Newcastle - 2
Leeds - 2

Other teams only did it once, so they probably only managed a fluke their draw or win.

The four teams that they dropped points this season to (Spurs, Southampton, Liverpool and Crystal Palace) are teams to which they dropped points previously since 2017-18, so it's clear that there's a pattern to the teams that Man City drop points to. Rest of the teams don't bother. It's also likely that these are the games (the list from Liverpool to Leeds) we can expect them to drop points to (not guaranteed though), and for other teams (new teams, or teams who have only done it once before) have to manage to fluke it.

Edit: Not intended to mean that teams don't try anything against City, of course they have to try, but many of them don't have the right tactics/nor the tools to trouble City, so they try what they usually do, sit back, try to soak up the pressure, and keep the scoreline respective as possible (hence the reference to going through motions). The teams who do know how to approach their games against City are the few that do indeed take points off them every now and then - we are one, United are the other (although the change in management this season is a variable), Spurs are another, Chelsea have given them some trouble and among lower sides, Palace, Southampton and Wolves have been able to trouble them. Other sides have to first train tactically to approach this game, which would be a different approach than their usual games, and then have to execute it on the pitch, and you have no margin for error for 90 minutes, which means they have to concentrate for 90 minutes. That's the reality of how hard it is for the other teams to take points off City. And you can't concede any penalty, and a red card will just be curtains.

[keyop]

I get your point, but for most teams, City is a free-hit. Very few teams in the League have it in them to go at City, many of them just go through the motions and concentrate on the next game.

The teams that go at them, have a counter-threat, and try to get their clearance/pass right to their counter-threat to run at the City defenders. But, those are very few teams.

Thanks - that's an interesting list and good to see the patterns emerging. Perhaps I'm being too optimistic to expect more teams to be braver, but I can't help think that statistic where 50% of teams beat them if they score first should surely be a motivator more often than it actually is. Instead of seeing City as a free hit, they could see it as an opportunity to take points in a game where many of their rivals won't even try.

I guess it's more frustration than anything, and the fact that other teams could be giving us a bit more 'help' in our pursuit of titles during such a distorted financial landscape.

[PoetryInMotion]

Thanks - that's an interesting list and good to see the patterns emerging. Perhaps I'm being too optimistic to expect more teams to be braver, but I can't help think that statistic where 50% of teams beat them if they score first should surely be a motivator more often than it actually is. Instead of seeing City as a free hit, they could see it as an opportunity to take points in a game where many of their rivals won't even try.

I guess it's more frustration than anything, and the fact that other teams could be giving us a bit more 'help' in our pursuit of titles during such a distorted financial landscape.

Yes, I get your sentiment, mate.

[Dave McCoy]

I'm sorry but it's just delusional to think that teams aren't even trying when they play ManC. There's too much money at stake for both the clubs, managers and players involved these days where any matches can be taken for granted and just thrown away. They may know that the odds are against them and at a certain point in the match there may be no further point but that's not the same thing as just not even trying to begin with. We, LFC, are fine margins away from being just as good and at times are yet I don't see anywhere else people lamenting that games involving us are a joke as the other team doesn't turn up, why is that? As the odds of getting points off of LFC are just as bad as it is against ManC so why wouldn't the same premise apply?

The answer is that it's just not true. What is true is the PL is not an even playing field and the resources available to one club can completely dwarf another so that it's not even a contest to begin with. For ManC that has manifesting itself by using that advantage to build a club and squad with a style of play, in conjunction with Covid, that makes it very, very hard to get the ball off them and then do anything with it while they carefully create chance after chance. It's so successful you wonder why other teams don't copy this style and use it against other teams? Because it's completely impossible to do so without a maniac of a manager and £1bn spent on a squad and facilities to implement it. So you're asking these teams without similar resources to combat a style of play that they will only ever see twice in a season and be effective at doing so? What to one person may seem to be not even trying can be to another the best that's possible with the resources at their disposal.

The more pertinent question as it relates to this thread is how does LFC and Klopp combat this? Unless it's just hoping for Pep to retire or Abu Dhabi to decide this sportswashing gig isn't for them anymore then there isn't any reason to expect this to change in the near future. We talk about game state and the variance there but just in looking at the general stats again we've given up 5 more goals and 7 more expected goals so far. Has our greater attacking output been worth the defensive fragility that we are seeing? Is there possibly a more happier medium to be found? Or is this all a personal issue again which will be rectified once everybody is available?

I didn't want to respond further in the Crystal Palace thread as it gets tedious discussing this but for me at least I think our high line is probably the biggest culprit here or maybe it would be better to say the "staticness" of our high line in certain situations. When you look at the stats between ManC and LFC as far as what our opponents are able to do with the ball we're generally 2nd to their 1st or vice-versa in most categories. Where there seems to be a decent sized gap is we allow more passes to be completed into our penalty area and we also allow more dribbles into our penalty area. Why is this? Could it be that when the opponent has one of those rare times entering our final 3rd it's because they have successfully beaten our off-side trap and have an unsettled defense to play against? I would hazard it is as the only other explanation would be that our players are worse (not for me) or that we're tactically worse (again I don't think that's the case). Klopp keeps alluding to this as well when we run into issues in that the spacing isn't correct and then the line is easily broken. That's not the say the high line should be disposed of, just that the way we're using it seemingly needs to be adjusted.

[keyop]

I'm sorry but it's just delusional to think that teams aren't even trying when they play ManC. There's too much money at stake for both the clubs, managers and players involved these days where any matches can be taken for granted and just thrown away.

I don't think anyone is saying teams are not trying against them or that they are throwing matches away.

But there's a big difference between trying to win and trying not to lose. The statistics show that City rarely have a 0-0. They also show you're pretty much doomed when they go a goal up. So the best approach is to try and get the first goal (difficult, but possible), which isn't going to be achieved by camping in your own half for 90 minutes whilst City just search for an opening.

I've watched games this season where teams look like they've given up all hope after 10 minutes, even with the score at 0-0. If Torquay Utd were playing them in the FA cup, they'd put up more of a fight than many of the premier league teams.

[redk84]

So if I count the number of times different teams have taken points off them since 2017-18 season till now, we have

Liverpool - 5 (exactly once every season - is our quota over for this season?  )
Crystal Palace - 4
Man United - 4
Spurs - 4
Southampton - 3
Wolves - 3
Chelsea - 3
Leicester - 2
Newcastle - 2
Leeds - 2

Other teams only did it once, so they probably only managed a fluke their draw or win.

Good post...this list is interesting as City have to play most of those teams again.

[spider-neil]

There is still half a season to play but for 22/23 it will be interesting to see if we continue the path of a more progressive midfield or we revert back to the more rigid midfield that effectively won us the league in 20/21.

[Dave McCoy]

I don't think anyone is saying teams are not trying against them or that they are throwing matches away.

But there's a big difference between trying to win and trying not to lose. The statistics show that City rarely have a 0-0. They also show you're pretty much doomed when they go a goal up. So the best approach is to try and get the first goal (difficult, but possible), which isn't going to be achieved by camping in your own half for 90 minutes whilst City just search for an opening.

I've watched games this season where teams look like they've given up all hope after 10 minutes, even with the score at 0-0. If Torquay Utd were playing them in the FA cup, they'd put up more of a fight than many of the premier league teams.

I've watched LFC games this season where it looked like we were gone and out of sight by halftime and somehow in the end didn't get 3 points. Was the other team trying to win or trying not to lose? I'd say this has more to do with the performance of the superior team and not the opponent. There have been games this season where we make the opponent look just as helpless as ManC do but we just haven't matched the consistency in which they do it. Is that down to us or the opponent? I don't watch every ManC game so I honestly can't say in regards to ManC but for LFC in which I do watch basically every minute I'd say any variance has been due to our performance more than the opponent.

I think we keep forgetting with each passing year just how much further the gap grows between the haves and have nots. Even for LFC if we take the most recent game for example, we probably had a team on the field with at least £150m more in wages than what Crystal Palace was putting out there. An amount that might exceed their entire revenue for the year. We played them off the park for 40 minutes and then did we lose our way or did Crystal Palace start trying to win? On top of that a lot of the outrage over the referee calls is because we are the Behemoth in this example, they are the Minnow and if the calls had gone the other way nobody would care as it was just the underdog getting one over the overwhelming favorite. This dynamic affects us as well is what I'm getting at. Having teams "try harder" against ManC isn't going to change this without actually changing the underlying financial disparity at it's heart.

So for me it's more about how do we use our also overwhelming financial advantage to tilt the field just as much as ManC does? As we do have an overwhelming financial advantage against all but basically 3 teams now regardless of the bluster in the transfer forum about spending.

[PoetryInMotion]

I've watched LFC games this season where it looked like we were gone and out of sight by halftime and somehow in the end didn't get 3 points. Was the other team trying to win or trying not to lose? I'd say this has more to do with the performance of the superior team and not the opponent. There have been games this season where we make the opponent look just as helpless as ManC do but we just haven't matched the consistency in which they do it. Is that down to us or the opponent? I don't watch every ManC game so I honestly can't say in regards to ManC but for LFC in which I do watch basically every minute I'd say any variance has been due to our performance more than the opponent.

I think we keep forgetting with each passing year just how much further the gap grows between the haves and have nots. Even for LFC if we take the most recent game for example, we probably had a team on the field with at least £150m more in wages than what Crystal Palace was putting out there. An amount that might exceed their entire revenue for the year. We played them off the park for 40 minutes and then did we lose our way or did Crystal Palace start trying to win? On top of that a lot of the outrage over the referee calls is because we are the Behemoth in this example, they are the Minnow and if the calls had gone the other way nobody would care as it was just the underdog getting one over the overwhelming favorite. This dynamic affects us as well is what I'm getting at. Having teams "try harder" against ManC isn't going to change this without actually changing the underlying financial disparity at it's heart.

So for me it's more about how do we use our also overwhelming financial advantage to tilt the field just as much as ManC does? As we do have an overwhelming financial advantage against all but basically 3 teams now regardless of the bluster in the transfer forum about spending.

The money difference is not significant in individual games in isolation. It's a rubbish argument, and will remain a rubbish argument to use in a single game, as in a single game in isolation, it's still 11 men vs 11 men at the Top flight, and any Premier League team is still a team at the Top end of football. The difference is not huge enough as if it's a non-league team vs a top end PL team. There is always a chance of teams upsetting the other, or playing better in an isolated game. That is why there has always been a chance of an upset by the 20th placed team to beat the 1st placed team. If that is the driving factor in individual games, then technically, every team in the league should lose comfortably to City, it will be 38 wins to City.

The money difference between us and Crystal Palace (and the players and the manager) reflects in the actual Premier League table (it reflects in most cases), and us competing in multiple competitions, especially in the top end of the Champions League, which teams like Crystal Palace do not and cannot do. Of course, there will variance in that as well, as teams can under-perform or over-perform over longer spells as well, but that is much rarer than under-performing or over-performing in a single game in isolation. The words "form is temporary, class is permanent" will echo that.

The fact that we're close to City in the longer run, and across 3 seasons at least (barring one most injury ravaged season), which is extremely hard to do considering the difference in money spent and wages, is because we have a fantastic manager and support staff who've been able to recruit top class players for the amount we can spend.

The irony of you talking about money difference between us and Palace and then ignoring the same difference between us and City is interesting. And then you are expecting us to match the levels of City over long periods, and even though we have managed to do that for a good amount of time, you are still expecting more, just to get above them in the table. I'm sorry mate, the standards you are using to find faults with us is not realistic.

Our wage bill is probably the 4th highest in the League (someone can confirm, I only did a quick google), and our net spend of the last few years has been lower than some mid-table clubs. But, we are still comfortably in 2nd aren't we? Does that suggest under-performance or over-performance in terms of using our supposed financial advantage over other sides? You decide.

[Dave McCoy]

The money difference is not significant in individual games in isolation. It's a rubbish argument, and will remain a rubbish argument to use in a single game, as in a single game in isolation, it's still 11 men vs 11 men at the Top flight, and any Premier League team is still a team at the Top end of football. The difference is not huge enough as if it's a non-league team vs a top end PL team. There is always a chance of teams upsetting the other, or playing better in an isolated game. That is why there has always been a chance of an upset by the 20th placed team to beat the 1st placed team. If that is the driving factor in individual games, then technically, every team in the league should lose comfortably to City, it will be 38 wins to City.

The money difference between us and Crystal Palace (and the players and the manager) reflects in the actual Premier League table (it reflects in most cases), and us competing in multiple competitions, especially in the top end of the Champions League, which teams like Crystal Palace do not and cannot do. Of course, there will variance in that as well, as teams can under-perform or over-perform over longer spells as well, but that is much rarer than under-performing or over-performing in a single game in isolation. The words "form is temporary, class is permanent" will echo that.

The fact that we're close to City in the longer run, and across 3 seasons at least (barring one most injury ravaged season), which is extremely hard to do considering the difference in money spent and wages, is because we have a fantastic manager and support staff who've been able to recruit top class players for the amount we can spend.

The irony of you talking about money difference between us and Palace and then ignoring the same difference between us and City is interesting. And then you are expecting us to match the levels of City over long periods, and even though we have managed to do that for a good amount of time, you are still expecting more, just to get above them in the table. I'm sorry mate, the standards you are using to find faults with us is not realistic.

Our wage bill is probably the 4th highest in the League (someone can confirm, I only did a quick google), and our net spend of the last few years has been lower than some mid-table clubs. But, we are still comfortably in 2nd aren't we? Does that suggest under-performance or over-performance in terms of using our supposed financial advantage over other sides? You decide.

Yeah, this is just wrong and just makes the rest of your point completely moot. Almost every team does lose comfortably to ManC. Even Chelsea could manage only 1 shot on target over 180 minutes. If the other 19 teams had the same wage bill and same level of talent on the field then this wouldn't be possible but since that isn't true then here we are. This applies to LFC as well against 16 other teams and our results reflect that when we don't lose every CB to injuries at one time.

[Eeyore]

I agree, but the reason most opposition only get 25-30% possession is because they sit back and let City have the ball, which judging by the stats equals a defeat most of the time. City can stroke the ball around waiting for an opening because the opposition let them. Too many teams seem to go into games thinking 'Ok, so City will have most of the ball, so we'll have to keep our shape, drop deep with two banks of four, and hope to hit them on the break'. Rinse and repeat. Where's the innovation, the bravery, the audacity to try and get a goal first instead of sitting back hoping there might be a rare opening?

That completely ignores the fact that City are extremely adept at playing through the press and extremely adept at pressing you and winning the ball back high up the pitch. The teams that tend to get results against City are the teams that play their natural game.

That is either the likes of a Southampton that play a high intensity pressing game or the likes of United who like to counter-attack teams.

You seem to be missing the point, that counter attacking City when they have pushed so many bodies forward is a legitimate tactic. The toughest part is usually avoiding the tactical fouls of Rodri and Fernandinho. 

[PoetryInMotion]

Yeah, this is just wrong and just makes the rest of your point completely moot. Almost every team does lose comfortably to ManC. Even Chelsea could manage only 1 shot on target over 180 minutes. If the other 19 teams had the same wage bill and same level of talent on the field then this wouldn't be possible but since that isn't true then here we are. This applies to LFC as well against 16 other teams and our results reflect that when we don't lose every CB to injuries at one time.

What?

Money is a bigger factor in a longer run of games than a single game in isolation and this is because the possibility of over-performance/under-performance in a single game is more frequent than the possibility of over-performance/under-performance in a long run of games or seasons put together. This is why most teams are expected to regress to mean. How is this difficult to understand?

In either way, it's not the absolute and only factor, but the factor becomes bigger and bigger over a run of games. You were using the Palace game in isolation to show the money difference between the two sides, but looking at the Premier League table, I see only one team near the Top of the Table, which is expected, isn't it? This completely validates my theory, not make it moot.

Also, City lost to Palace at the Etihad earlier in the season, conceding 2 goals and scoring none, I'm sure they didn't begin to question their attack, defense, footballing philosophy and their financial advantage after that game in isolation.

Over long periods, there are multiple other factors in it, the more money spent is likely to reflect in more consistency over a longer period of time, and having a squad where players can replace the other without drop-off is another factor. Compared to us, City's overall squad strength is better (not talking about numbers btw) and they can afford to lose their first team players and still produce dominating games.

City can rotate their front 5 players with almost equal level of performance, because their system is closer to total football than ours is. De Bruyne can easily slot wide or play in their false 9 positions and they would still manage to beat teams, but we cannot play Hendo/Thiago out wide/false 9. Bernardo can do the same. Gindogan can easily slot in instead of De Bruyne or Bernardo. Sterling can play across the front 3, so can Mahrez, Grealish, Foden and Jesus. Not saying they are all versatile players, but in their system, they are versatile. Any player who can dribble and pass can play in their front 5 positions. However, we need system players. We need players that fulfill specific roles in their respective position, if their bench/second team replacements cannot fulfill those roles in the same manner, we suffer.

So, rather than looking at from the surface and saying our team is good enough, our manager is good enough, and still we are 2nd, you have to also look at their squad depth and the respective style of play we both have.

In individual games in isolation, there are also some teams who prefer to play against certain styles of play and tactics, there are certain bogey teams for every team out there. City's bogey teams are Liverpool, Spurs, Wolves, Palace, Southampton and even Chelsea - you can look into the last five years and see that these teams have taken the most points off City.

Chelsea couldn't manage to trouble City because they probably didn't play well against City this season and they were also in a horrible run of form when they met City the 2nd time around. Last season however, Chelsea did beat City in the biggest game in the history of City as a club so far (Champions League final), and they also beat them in the League last season.

So, what are your complaints again?

[PoetryInMotion]

That completely ignores the fact that City are extremely adept at playing through the press and extremely adept at pressing you and winning the ball back high up the pitch. The teams that tend to get results against City are the teams that play their natural game.

That is either the likes of a Southampton that play a high intensity pressing game or the likes of United who like to counter-attack teams.

You seem to be missing the point, that counter attacking City when they have pushed so many bodies forward is a legitimate tactic. The toughest part is usually avoiding the tactical fouls of Rodri and Fernandinho.

Counter-attacking City is a legitimate tactic, that has worked for a few teams, the thing is that most teams in the league don't have the tools to counter-attack against City, one because of the inferior players, and two because they get tired of all the defending they have to do, I think this what keyop means, he can clarify. When the opposition gets the ball, they are too tired to get the ball up quickly to their forwards, who can counter-attack City at pace, instead they boot the ball and City come again and again relentlessly.

The other teams who can press well have caused City well, and this has reflected more in the Champions League than in the Premier League, because few teams in the League have been trained to press as a team. The other teams who do try to press, don't press as a team, they just apply pressure, then City exploit the gaps, and boom, they are smashed.

Lyon have a record of 2 wins and a draw against City in the last 3-4 years. I watched their games against City and what they did effectively was press really well early in the game, and counter-attacked every-time they got the ball and then scored the goal(s), and then they dropped deep, putting every man in and around the box and eating up most of City's attacks, but they still retained that counter-threat for the rest of the game. So, City, when pushing numbers forward, had to be careful at the back. I think this was the theme as well in our wins against City.

The only thing is that, very few teams can do this in the League.

[Eeyore]

Counter-attacking City is a legitimate tactic, that has worked for a few teams, the thing is that most teams in the league don't have the tools to counter-attack against City, one because of the inferior players, and two because they get tired of all the defending they have to do, I think this what keyop means, he can clarify. When the opposition gets the ball, they are too tired to get the ball up quickly to their forwards, who can counter-attack City at pace, instead they boot the ball and City come again and again relentlessly.

The other teams who can press well have caused City well, and this has reflected more in the Champions League than in the Premier League, because few teams in the League have been trained to press as a team. The other teams who do try to press, don't press as a team, they just apply pressure, then City exploit the gaps, and boom, they are smashed.

Lyon have a record of 2 wins and a draw against City in the last 3-4 years. I watched their games against City and what they did effectively was press really well early in the game, and counter-attacked every-time they got the ball and then scored the goal(s), and then they dropped deep, putting every man in and around the box and eating up most of City's attacks, but they still retained that counter-threat for the rest of the game. So, City, when pushing numbers forward, had to be careful at the back. I think this was the theme as well in our wins against City.

The only thing is that, very few teams can do this in the League.

I agree.

I don't think it is a lack of ambition as Keyop is saying though. As you say, you need the tools to be able to hurt City. There are teams though that have been ultra defensive against City and got results. I remember Newcastle nicking points from City.

[Dave McCoy]

What?

Money is a bigger factor in a longer run of games than a single game in isolation and this is because the possibility of over-performance/under-performance in a single game is more frequent than the possibility of over-performance/under-performance in a long run of games or seasons put together. This is why most teams are expected to regress to mean. How is this difficult to understand?

In either way, it's not the absolute and only factor, but the factor becomes bigger and bigger over a run of games. You were using the Palace game in isolation to show the money difference between the two sides, but looking at the Premier League table, I see only one team near the Top of the Table, which is expected, isn't it? This completely validates my theory, not make it moot.

Also, City lost to Palace at the Etihad earlier in the season, conceding 2 goals and scoring none, I'm sure they didn't begin to question their attack, defense, footballing philosophy and their financial advantage after that game in isolation.

Over long periods, there are multiple other factors in it, the more money spent is likely to reflect in more consistency over a longer period of time, and having a squad where players can replace the other without drop-off is another factor. Compared to us, City's overall squad strength is better (not talking about numbers btw) and they can afford to lose their first team players and still produce dominating games.

City can rotate their front 5 players with almost equal level of performance, because their system is closer to total football than ours is. De Bruyne can easily slot wide or play in their false 9 positions and they would still manage to beat teams, but we cannot play Hendo/Thiago out wide/false 9. Bernardo can do the same. Gindogan can easily slot in instead of De Bruyne or Bernardo. Sterling can play across the front 3, so can Mahrez, Grealish, Foden and Jesus. Not saying they are all versatile players, but in their system, they are versatile. Any player who can dribble and pass can play in their front 5 positions. However, we need system players. We need players that fulfill specific roles in their respective position, if their bench/second team replacements cannot fulfill those roles in the same manner, we suffer.

So, rather than looking at from the surface and saying our team is good enough, our manager is good enough, and still we are 2nd, you have to also look at their squad depth and the respective style of play we both have.

In individual games in isolation, there are also some teams who prefer to play against certain styles of play and tactics, there are certain bogey teams for every team out there. City's bogey teams are Liverpool, Spurs, Wolves, Palace, Southampton and even Chelsea - you can look into the last five years and see that these teams have taken the most points off City.

Chelsea couldn't manage to trouble City because they probably didn't play well against City this season and they were also in a horrible run of form when they met City the 2nd time around. Last season however, Chelsea did beat City in the biggest game in the history of City as a club so far (Champions League final), and they also beat them in the League last season.

So, what are your complaints again?

My complaint? You're the one with the complaint that in a single game money means nothing because of what I said. I'm just making a simple statement in response that you're wrong. Yes, over 90 minutes variance can happen to where ManC doesn't win when favored same as for LFC. But that doesn't mean that they don't enter every game as a clear favorite because of their huge talent imbalance via the large money disparity. This then builds into a long term imbalance because in every game they are favored to win and usually do win which is not the case for those other teams. This also applies to LFC in games vs. everybody not named ManC, ManU and CFC. We have more money, we therefore have more talent and it gets reflected on the field.

[mercurial]

Most teams in the league cannot transition from a very low block defence to a counter attack easily. It’s primarily why teams cannot counter the possession football. If you press high like we do then that negates the possession itself as city needs ball to recycle in the middle third to probe the opposition defense. Few teams can press like we do. So they are forced to choose to either mid block or low block.

Mid block is playing into city’s style as they will hurt you on transitions. They can counter the counter very well. They are great at tactical fouls. City with their dribbles and triangles are designed for such a game.  It’s in the architecture or philosophy so as to say. Just like the gegen is sort of designed to break any tactical system where ball is being recycled.
A low block is difficult to turn into offense anyways. You need to practice and prepare for such a style. Simeone uses that very effectively but it’s not easy. You need to trap and have right players positionally to spring the counter attack. Else it turns into a hoof and hope for the best.

[PoetryInMotion]

My complaint? You're the one with the complaint that in a single game money means nothing because of what I said. I'm just making a simple statement in response that you're wrong. Yes, over 90 minutes variance can happen to where ManC doesn't win when favored same as for LFC. But that doesn't mean that they don't enter every game as a clear favorite because of their huge talent imbalance via the large money disparity. This then builds into a long term imbalance because in every game they are favored to win and usually do win which is not the case for those other teams. This also applies to LFC in games vs. everybody not named ManC, ManU and CFC. We have more money, we therefore have more talent and it gets reflected on the field.

You did post this

So for me it's more about how do we use our also overwhelming financial advantage to tilt the field just as much as ManC does? As we do have an overwhelming financial advantage against all but basically 3 teams now regardless of the bluster in the transfer forum about spending.

You're questioning our usage of our financial advantage over other teams (which is 4th only in terms of wages, in terms of net spend - plenty of other teams are outspending us), without acknowledging the fact that the financial advantage is already reflecting in the Premier League table for the last 6 seasons (from Klopp's 1st full season?), where we have been finishing 4th, 4th, 2nd, 1st, 3rd and are currently 2nd in the table.

We are doing better than Chelsea during that period of seasons (who have finished 1st, 5th, 3rd, 4th, 4th and currently 3rd this season) who have even more of a financial advantage than us.

Hence, my question of how much more should we try to 'use' our supposed financial advantage, without being able to close the financial gap to City.

[Eeyore]

Most teams in the league cannot transition from a very low block defence to a counter attack easily. It’s primarily why teams cannot counter the possession football. If you press high like we do then that negates the possession itself as city needs ball to recycle in the middle third to probe the opposition defense. Few teams can press like we do. So they are forced to choose to either mid block or low block.

Mid block is playing into city’s style as they will hurt you on transitions. They can counter the counter very well. They are great at tactical fouls. City with their dribbles and triangles are designed for such a game.  It’s in the architecture or philosophy so as to say. Just like the gegen is sort of designed to break any tactical system where ball is being recycled.
A low block is difficult to turn into offense anyways. You need to practice and prepare for such a style. Simeone uses that very effectively but it’s not easy. You need to trap and have right players positionally to spring the counter attack. Else it turns into a hoof and hope for the best.

I think that sums it up perfectly.

The only thing I would add is that it has been years since any team has really been successful in this league playing a low block. So there aren't really any teams with the quality of player to beat City who play with a low block.

[Dave McCoy]

You did post this

You're questioning our usage of our financial advantage over other teams (which is 4th only in terms of wages, in terms of net spend - plenty of other teams are outspending us), without acknowledging the fact that the financial advantage is already reflecting in the Premier League table for the last 6 seasons (from Klopp's 1st full season?), where we have been finishing 4th, 4th, 2nd, 1st, 3rd and are currently 2nd in the table.

We are doing better than Chelsea during that period of seasons (who have finished 1st, 5th, 3rd, 4th, 4th and currently 3rd this season) who have even more of a financial advantage than us.

Hence, my question of how much more should we try to 'use' our supposed financial advantage, without being able to close the financial gap to City.

I'm not questioning our past use. I'm stating that for me that's the biggest thing we can focus on in going forward. Our financial might has grown during Klopp's reign, it has not been consistent throughout. We've made astute choices at almost all facets of the club to get into this position to where our revenue growth due to consistent CL and PL performances has basically caught us up to almost everybody where when Klopp took over there was a £200m a year gap to ManU at the top.


vs.


We won't know for sure in regards to our wage bill standing until our accounts are released but if it's 4th this season it's not far off 1st and has been there or thereabouts the last couple of seasons.



We cannot match ManC pound for pound but we can certainly find ways to utilize our money better to make sure that when and if they do falter we're there just as we have been doing. For me at least the current point gap is not reflective of a huge pay difference but more our wage bill isn't getting the most out of it.

The only thing Chelsea have that we don't is an owner willing to turn losses into shareholder loans for murky Oligarchy reasons. They make less money than us and only this season have caught back up to us from a wage bill standpoint.

[Eeyore]

I'm not questioning our past use. I'm stating that for me that's the biggest thing we can focus on in going forward. Our financial might has grown during Klopp's reign, it has not been consistent throughout. We've made astute choices at almost all facets of the club to get into this position to where our revenue growth due to consistent CL and PL performances has basically caught us up to almost everybody where when Klopp took over there was a £200m a year gap to ManU at the top.


vs.


We won't know for sure in regards to our wage bill standing until our accounts are released but if it's 4th this season it's not far off 1st and has been there or thereabouts the last couple of seasons.



We cannot match ManC pound for pound but we can certainly find ways to utilize our money better to make sure that when and if they do falter we're there just as we have been doing. For me at least the current point gap is not reflective of a huge pay difference but more our wage bill isn't getting the most out of it.

The only thing Chelsea have that we don't is an owner willing to turn losses into shareholder loans for murky Oligarchy reasons. They make less money than us and only this season have caught back up to us from a wage bill standpoint.

Are you seriously basing your argument on City and Chelsea's accounts being a true and accurate reflection of how much money they are spending ?

[Dave McCoy]

Are you seriously basing your argument on City and Chelsea's accounts being a true and accurate reflection of how much money they are spending ?

I don't have to. Unless you want to make the argument that everybody from Arsenal on down are also cooking the books then this is more about our advantage vis-a-vis the lesser teams.

Edit: Is there accusations of Chelsea cooking their books? I'm not aware of any related sponsorship deals either. Just that Roman, for geo-political reasons, didn't give a shit how much money he lost and how that upended the football pyramid in the mid-early 2000's. FFP was a bit of an issue but by the time it went into effect they had the loan army setup to generate profit.

[PoetryInMotion]

Are you seriously basing your argument on City and Chelsea's accounts being a true and accurate reflection of how much money they are spending ?

True, that is questionable.

How are we having a higher wage bill than Man United (who sign players to ridiculous contracts and have Ronaldo in their books?), let alone close to Chelsea and City? That is just ridiculous.

Increase in match-day revenue alone cannot close the gap between the other three. They have plenty of other means of pumping in money.

And that is just the wage bill, we've not even factored the transfer spending (where those three outspend us to a large extent, and I'm sure the likes of Villa, Arsenal and Everton have also outspent us in recent seasons), which also is a huge factor that is completely missed in that post.

We might have a few minor issues on the pitch to sort, but making the most of the available finances is not one of them. We've been running a tight ship for a top club and have been the 2nd best Premier League club in terms of League finishes and CL successes combined in the last 5 seasons.

[Eeyore]

I don't have to. Unless you want to make the argument that everybody from Arsenal on down are also cooking the books then this is more about our advantage vis-a-vis the lesser teams.

Edit: Is there accusations of Chelsea cooking their books? I'm not aware of any related sponsorship deals either. Just that Roman, for geo-political reasons, didn't give a shit how much money he lost and how that upended the football pyramid in the mid-early 2000's. FFP was a bit of an issue but by the time it went into effect they had the loan army setup to generate profit.

Just have a look at some of the fees they have sold players for. David Luiz £50m to PSG, Moratta £58m, Tammy Abraham £38m, Diego Costa £58m and the best of all £60m for Oscar.

Do you really think they were legit ?

Then you have them signing huge numbers of youth players that they loan out and then sell for big fees. Do you really think the inducements to those players and their families go through the books.