Topic: The System is the King

[PhaseOfPlay]

Just a small addendum to the thread:


Earlier I posted that Graham Souness had introduced "modern" training regimes that vastly updated what the club was doing with it's players. Twenty years later, we obviously know much more about fitness and physiology - just as many of the ideas we have now will have developed in 20 years time. The point is that we will never know the full answer about anything but it is important to keep up with the latest developments in sports science.

In that light, however,  it's interesting to note a bit about the training regime at Borussia Dortmund. Presumably they "understand" a thing or two about fitness:

http://footballspeak.com/post/2013/05/16/The-German-Football.aspx

“Pressing opponents relentlessly throughout a game requires players to be as fit as is physically and technically possible. Klopp has trained his players to develop incredible stamina, as evidenced by their Bundesliga and Champions League running distance statistics. Dortmund certainly work tirelessly with and without the ball.”

http://espnfc.com/blog/_/name/espnfcunited/id/5343?cc=5739

Dortmund's fitness level is one of the best in Europe despite lacking the depth on the bench as rivals Bayern. The ability to not tire easily is vital because it directly improves his players' concentration.

Jurgen Klopp: "Stamina cannot be practiced with the ball but with running, running and running. And the better the stamina, the more players can concentrate on their roles ... at our level you have to be exceptionally trained so that you can stay awake mentally."


So even with the benefit of twenty years hindsight maybe Souness knew a bit more than he was given credit for at the time.

EDIT: just seen the little tag under my name - i love it!

Klopp is wrong. It's his personal taste, of course, but scientifically he is wrong. The DFB have long relied on physical traits and preparation as a huge part of their coaching methodology. However, they changed that in the early to mid 2000's to reflect the newer approaches using small-sided games to achieve the same effect. Stamina is a function of intensity and duration. It doesn't matter whether you run on hills or whether you play 3v3's. You gain stamina by the intensity, duration, frequency, time and type of exercise (Aerobic vs. Anaerobic). It's easier to do it without the ball because you can manage the work to rest ratios easier, but Klopp is categorically incorrect in saying that you can't develop stamina with the ball. Like Souness before him, he has his preferences, but that statement is so far from the truth it's not even funny. In fact, it has been scientifically proven that the greatest load a player experiences is when they have the ball at their feet. Therefore, working with the ball develops MORE stamina than without, due to the added resistance which creates an overload - one of the principles of fitness training.

[Jizzinho]

But surely PoP it's a bit much to say Souness failed because he didn't understand fitness - yet also to say the same thing about Klopp when he has so patently succeeded?

In the end, the point of competition is to win - and to win with the reosurces available to Klopp means he achieved a very high level of success.

Therefore he can't be "wrong" as such can he? Surely there must be something worthwhile in his methods (and by extension Souness's).

If in 20 years time the majority of clubs are following Borussia's formula and laughing at the way things used to be done in 2013 (when people didn't "understand" fitness) then where would you be left?


Graham Souness was in many ways 5-10 years ahead of his time as a manager. Given the benefit of another 5-10 years, developments in sports science showed why he was "wrong". But now, thanks to Klopp, maybe in another 10 years he will have proven to have been right all along!

I go back to the original point - trends, techniques, knowledge and the state of the art about any subject change and at every juncture we are arrogant enough to think we finally know the final answer but, as history has proven, we don't. The reforms you dismissed as obvious (with the benefit of twenty years hindsight) were not so easy to enact at the time due to the inertia of prevailing wisdom.

[PhaseOfPlay]

But surely PoP it's a bit much to say Souness failed because he didn't understand fitness - yet also to say the same thing about Klopp when he has so patently succeeded?

In the end, the point of competition is to win - and to win with the reosurces available to Klopp means he achieved a very high level of success.

Therefore he can't be "wrong" as such can he? Surely there must be something worthwhile in his methods (and by extension Souness's).

If in 20 years time the majority of clubs are following Borussia's formula and laughing at the way things used to be done in 2013 (when people didn't "understand" fitness) then where would you be left?


Graham Souness was in many ways 5-10 years ahead of his time as a manager. Given the benefit of another 5-10 years, developments in sports science showed why he was "wrong". But now, thanks to Klopp, maybe in another 10 years he will have proven to have been right all along!

I go back to the original point - trends, techniques, knowledge and the state of the art about any subject change and at every juncture we are arrogant enough to think we finally know the final answer but, as history has proven, we don't. The reforms you dismissed as obvious (with the benefit of twenty years hindsight) were not so easy to enact at the time due to the inertia of prevailing wisdom.

Klopp has a diploma in Sport Science. Souness doesn't. Klopp knows why he does the things he does, and knows how to manage it. I saw another interview somewhere with Klopp where he extols the psychological virtues of doing stamina work off the ball rather than the physical ones. So my point remains. Souness did things because he saw them and copied them. Klopp does things because he has spent the time learning and being tested on them. Comparing him to Souness in terms of exercise science knowledge is comparing apples to oranges. It's the difference between dumb luck and planned intention. Don't get me wrong - what Souness wanted to do was the right thing to do, certainly. But he didn't have the knowledge to know what to do in the details. It's much the same thing as managers after Herrera trying to play Catenaccio without knowing the details to do so. It becomes more random and less insightful. Souness wanted to modernise Liverpool, and for that he should be applauded. But he didn't know how to read the fitness regimes, and instead ended up undoing work that was actually "ahead of its time" at the time, and replacing it with aerobic runs that lasted 45 minutes. There is no point in the game of football where a player has to run for 45 minutes straight. It might have been an exaggeration on Molby's part when he mentioned that, but I would bet it wasn't far off. Football is a stop-start game that actually contains more walking, interspersed with sprints, and with some jogging in between. Training should reflect that. Klopp may train without the ball, but he uses interval training rather than steady state cardio - short sharp runs repeated with small rest ratios to replicate the game. Repeated Sprint Ability. Long, steady runs don't get players fit to play football, and it's no surprise that there was a rash of soft-tissue injuries from early on in his reign.

[-Daws-]

Klopp has a diploma in Sport Science. Souness doesn't. Klopp knows why he does the things he does, and knows how to manage it. I saw another interview somewhere with Klopp where he extols the psychological virtues of doing stamina work off the ball rather than the physical ones. So my point remains. Souness did things because he saw them and copied them. Klopp does things because he has spent the time learning and being tested on them. Comparing him to Souness in terms of exercise science knowledge is comparing apples to oranges. It's the difference between dumb luck and planned intention. Don't get me wrong - what Souness wanted to do was the right thing to do, certainly. But he didn't have the knowledge to know what to do in the details. It's much the same thing as managers after Herrera trying to play Catenaccio without knowing the details to do so. It becomes more random and less insightful. Souness wanted to modernise Liverpool, and for that he should be applauded. But he didn't know how to read the fitness regimes, and instead ended up undoing work that was actually "ahead of its time" at the time, and replacing it with aerobic runs that lasted 45 minutes. There is no point in the game of football where a player has to run for 45 minutes straight. It might have been an exaggeration on Molby's part when he mentioned that, but I would bet it wasn't far off. Football is a stop-start game that actually contains more walking, interspersed with sprints, and with some jogging in between. Training should reflect that. Klopp may train without the ball, but he uses interval training rather than steady state cardio - short sharp runs repeated with small rest ratios to replicate the game. Repeated Sprint Ability. Long, steady runs don't get players fit to play football, and it's no surprise that there was a rash of soft-tissue injuries from early on in his reign.

Exactly right in terms of the conditioning of the squad; I've been made to do it myself as a player - long distance runs, endless sit ups, press ups, piggy backs, another run. Hate it, don't coach that way myself.

There will always be the need for physical qualities in players and therefore the work will take place on the training ground, gym and kitchen menus. If your’e talking about youngsters then I think there should be continuity within the regimes so that each child is being put under the same physical pressure to perform and the same requirements are expected because there has to be an air of neutralism in regards to each player for psychological and teaching benefits. In every case however, particularly during the technical and tactical development phases of a young players career (between the ages of 7 and 12 as you know) I think a football should always be incorporated to keep the children engaged in what it is they are doing and to help relieve the mind of the issue it is having in terms of physical performance and concentrate it on their technical performance. That switch in focus allows the player to actually push themselves further and also prepares them for being technically efficient when fatigued as well as, generally.

Obviously there is a difference not only in the intensity of an adult professionals fitness programme to that of a child's, but the overall shape of it. As you say a footballer should always be conditioned to deal with the high/low/mediocre intensity levels that the game demands, but it can be more structured to suit an individual player and their position or current fitness levels. For instance, Raheem Sterling may do a series of sprinting drills with sharp turns, obstacles with longer rest periods than say Steven Gerrard, who may focus on over cardiac ability with a lower intensity such as light jogs and sidesteps, smoother turning and shorter rest periods to suit his needs as a midfielder rather than winger as well as his age and injury history. It's something that I think should (and does) run throughout the squad with each player (or small groups of players) with particular fitness programmes and regimes tailored for their needs both as athletes and skilled individuals where age, position, and injury history are all taken into consideration when the drills and regimes are designed.

[Jizzinho]

/snip/

I accept the general point you're making. But I'm not saying that Souness is more of a sports scientist than Klopp - you cant do that in any case because you're comparing completely different eras. It would be as unfair as comparing Jesse Owens with Usain Bolt.

The resources, knowledge, techniques and budgets available to the managers nowadays are light years ahead of what previous managers had access to.

Souness was managing at a time when the players would be chowing down on fish and chips and getting wasted to celebrate a victory. Klopp isn't. In 20 years time the top manager in europe will probably have an appreciation of sports science that will make Klopp look like an amateur.

The point is to compare a manager with his peers. Compared to those times, Souness was a forward thinking manger in many many respects - if he was starting his managerial career today it's likely he would be doing many of the things Klopp is doing.

But even then half the things employed would eventually be shown to be useless or even counterproductive. The problem is that we don't know which half 

That applies almost as much now as it did in 1991. That was my deeper point. You write very certainly about the right way to go about training or playing football (and I greatly admire reading your posts) yet the things that needed changing then weren't as "obvious" as you claim for exactly the same reason you don't think there's anything obviously wrong with your analysis now.

And this ties back to the point of the thread. Currently there's a strong argument that the system is king. But in some years when the technology and resources are available to clubs to maximise the utility of their systemic training, it could easily become the case that the players will once again become the dominant factor. The obvious corollary of two systems being matched means the one that succeeds will be the one that best adapts. And the rate-limiting factor for that will be the intelligence of the players on the pitch - just as it used to be after everyone got used to playing 442.

[GrkStav]

PoP, and others, does it make a difference for the manager of an adult team if the players have been, or have been selected because they have been, properly trained (with the ball almost at all times) in their earlier years?

Meaning, if ball control, etc. are now basically 'built-in', embodied learned attributes that 'manifest' themselves as innate talents, can a manager indulge in high-level, challenging 'interval training' without the ball, without much loss of, and with a possibly very high gain of, football-specific fitness?

[Nessy76]

Klopp has a diploma in Sport Science. Souness doesn't. Klopp knows why he does the things he does, and knows how to manage it. I saw another interview somewhere with Klopp where he extols the psychological virtues of doing stamina work off the ball rather than the physical ones. So my point remains. Souness did things because he saw them and copied them. Klopp does things because he has spent the time learning and being tested on them. Comparing him to Souness in terms of exercise science knowledge is comparing apples to oranges. It's the difference between dumb luck and planned intention. Don't get me wrong - what Souness wanted to do was the right thing to do, certainly. But he didn't have the knowledge to know what to do in the details. It's much the same thing as managers after Herrera trying to play Catenaccio without knowing the details to do so. It becomes more random and less insightful. Souness wanted to modernise Liverpool, and for that he should be applauded. But he didn't know how to read the fitness regimes, and instead ended up undoing work that was actually "ahead of its time" at the time, and replacing it with aerobic runs that lasted 45 minutes. There is no point in the game of football where a player has to run for 45 minutes straight. It might have been an exaggeration on Molby's part when he mentioned that, but I would bet it wasn't far off. Football is a stop-start game that actually contains more walking, interspersed with sprints, and with some jogging in between. Training should reflect that. Klopp may train without the ball, but he uses interval training rather than steady state cardio - short sharp runs repeated with small rest ratios to replicate the game. Repeated Sprint Ability. Long, steady runs don't get players fit to play football, and it's no surprise that there was a rash of soft-tissue injuries from early on in his reign.

To be fair, it might have still been quite a short run, it just took Molby 45 minutes. If I was Liverpool manager at the time, I'd have certainly sent him on a long run now and then. 

[Jizzinho]

Update from Brendan in the pre-palace press conference:

"The style never changes..but that can be in whatever system...the sytem is irrelevant..the system is usually based on the characteristics of your players."

So it looks like we have our answer.

[PaulF]

Update from Brendan in the pre-palace press conference:

"The style never changes..but that can be in whatever system...the sytem is irrelevant..the system is usually based on the characteristics of your players."

So it looks like we have our answer.

Maybe I'm reading this too much at face value. But surely what we have being calling the system, is what Brendan is calling the style?  The formation is not as important as the retention of the ball, the use of the ball to tire opponents and while we take a rest.  Picking the formation to best suit the available players doesn't sacrifice the style.  Gerrard, Suarez, our next £40m+ player won't make the team, the style will?


I've just been reading the interesting stuff about Klopp.  It doesn't look that revolutionary does it? Faster transitions were identified as a key about a decade ago.  Defending from the front goes back at least as far as Ian Rush. Pressing all over the pitch and hunting packs is hardly new.  I'm not sure gengenpressing is anything more than a marketing update in the same way tika taka is the new name for pass and move!  As clubs we're just repeating the same tactic and counter tactic, but performing it better and better with each generation of players and every now and then finding groups of players that really fit . I'm sure there are far more subtle things going on than are being exposed by through the media!

[Durlmints]

The System is King...

The King Has Returned...

Does that mean we shall see 4-3-3 at the weekend?

 

[Prof]

Maybe I'm reading this too much at face value. But surely what we have being calling the system, is what Brendan is calling the style?  The formation is not as important as the retention of the ball, the use of the ball to tire opponents and while we take a rest.  Picking the formation to best suit the available players doesn't sacrifice the style.  Gerrard, Suarez, our next £40m+ player won't make the team, the style will?

That's how I see it too.  Well put.

If it wasn't about the system (or style) we wouldn't have seen Moses or Sterling playing where they were.  They played where they did as they had the best skill sets from the players available to provide the relevant components of the system.  Swap them for players with a better profile for the role (Coutinho and Johnson) and the team is better.

It doesn't mean making big money signings is the antithesis of the system being king, it means you spend money on players whose attributes fit the system.  (The opposite approach to this is to buy big names because they are good players, then try to create a way of playing for these players).

We will still have star players, but we might also find gems whose attributes don't fit their current environment and are therefore undervalued.  The challenge is finding them.

[sckma]

This was one of my favourite threads, really enjoyed reading this. I was kinda hoping there would be some updated thoughts on the system, and how we seem to playing together.

From my very untrained eye, it seems we have segments of the team, think of it as 3 or 4 mini teams doing a specific thing.... that is Suarez and Sturridge up top pressing together and then moving around using only each other as a reference point. Then we have the midfield, generally Lucas and Gerrard as a unit, winning the ball and looking to move the ball on to the attacking unit. Lastly the defensive unit, whether it is a back 3, or the back 4 we're using now. Their main job is zonal marking, winning the ball and moving it to the midfield unit. Of course, you might've noticed that I missed a couple, those I'd call the interconnectors, the wingbacks/RB,LB are used to move the ball up the field and assist the midfield unit, and the third midfielder (Coutinho) used to link midfield and attack.

What I'm getting at, is that instead of the whole team moving around in response to each other and connecting, it seems more that each mini team does it's job and relies on a couple interconnectors to move it up the chain, until we get to the attacking unit, who to this point at least, are scoring/creating through their brilliance and innovation as opposed to anything the midfield has offered (barring a couple goals here and there, gerrard to suarez at fulham comes to mind).

I could also be very wrong, but atm not seeing the signs that we really are playing as a cohesive unit with all players involved in attack/defense. Or maybe what I described is that exactly... I'll let you more experienced guys fill me in!

[PaulF]

I'd suggest that there are other mini teams too, and that BR is working on their interaction, until it becomes one big team.

[Prof]

As we are approaching the start of the new season, I thought revisiting this thread worthwhile.

My views on the transfers:

We have lost a player who, for all his incredible talent, never struck me as being completely compatible with the system.  Plus, we have added a number of players who fit the template we discussed last year.

It's encouraging that we were able to bring so many of our acquisitions in at the start of preseason.  This has allowed them the longest time possible to develop the necessary cohesion.  I do think though that we will see the attacking positions filled by last season's players at the start of the season, with the new blood gradually blending into the team.

As defensive cohesion is more easily coached, we are more likely to see new players involved at the back a bit earlier.

I'm really looking forward to seeing the next stage in the careers of Sterling, Coutinho and Henderson in particular.

[McSquared]

Looking forward to seeing kono

[trembles97]

As long as Sturridge gives us 30 league games, I don't think that we will miss Suarez too much. Without him we tend to lack a focal point up top, and Lambert hasn't looked the part as of yet. Probably a big reason we are looking for a striker for cover.

The most important part regarding the system this season will undoubtedly be the defence. We're probably looking at having 3 new starters in our back four, and how they gel together within the first few weeks will be crucial to our success this season. Lovren in particular is a huge asset, as it gives us a real leader from the back, which we really lacked last season.

[Floydy]

11 components working together intuitively can have a devastating effect. The system is king, flexibility is key

[PhaseOfPlay]

11 components working together intuitively can have a devastating effect. The system is king, flexibility is key

Synergy!

[rscanderlech]

The big negative of this season is the loss of Suarez. I think that whether we sustain last season's standards in attack or even surpass them depends to a great extent on the ability of the brilliant young attacking players that we already had, to raise their games. From pre-season, it already looks as though Sterling, Coutinho and Henderson are each on a mission to take their games to the next level, by improving their consistency and their end product.

If they can do that, then I really see no reason that our attack can't be as deadly as it was last season, except one: the fitness of Sturridge. Because while the System is the King, you need the appropriate cogs, especially when that system is designed to allow players to express themselves. The system assumes that the players have certain attributes which makes the self-expression acceptable. I think that we have appropriate cogs for all positions except the person who leads up front, where, apart from Sturridge, none of the existing players have convinced.

So, to me, if we manage to get the right striker - Remy would have been great, and Bony would be good as well -  then we can be as good in attack as last year. And our defence will almost definitely be better, given that we now have two CBs who fit the system and whom the system fits, and likewise two new FBs who also fit the system and whom the system fits. Our build-up play ought to improve given the seeming improvements of Coutinho and Henderson, the addition of Can and the arrival of full backs who can pass and move, so that we get closer to the desired system. So all in all, if we get the striker, we should be better than last year, from a system point of view.

[Gnurglan]

As we are approaching the start of the new season, I thought revisiting this thread worthwhile.

My views on the transfers:

We have lost a player who, for all his incredible talent, never struck me as being completely compatible with the system.  Plus, we have added a number of players who fit the template we discussed last year.

It's encouraging that we were able to bring so many of our acquisitions in at the start of preseason.  This has allowed them the longest time possible to develop the necessary cohesion.  I do think though that we will see the attacking positions filled by last season's players at the start of the season, with the new blood gradually blending into the team.

As defensive cohesion is more easily coached, we are more likely to see new players involved at the back a bit earlier.

I'm really looking forward to seeing the next stage in the careers of Sterling, Coutinho and Henderson in particular.

That's what I expect too, that we go with last season's team early on. In particular in midfield and attack. We have too many new players to put them all in the team.

Not sure I agree about Suarez. My view is we found a way to get the most from him. Rodgers did a terrific job there. I'm really impressed how he tweaked the team and got both Suarez and Sturridge on 20+ goals. But it was also positive for the team. Many players became better and the team functioned. So I think Rodgers created a system to suit his players. Now he will have to do the same, but will have to rely on many players to improve.

The only realistic way to replace Suarez was to spread the duties around on multiple players. It's what we have done, but it was the only way it could be done. I reckon Coutinho, Sterling, Lallana and Markovic, but mainly the first three, to be the ones who have to take on real attacking duties. They will have to score and assist plenty. And here is a possibility that follows from Suarez' departure. It may be easier for them to grow now that they have to. I'm not concerned with Rodgers ability to find a system for them. My concern is if they have the mentality to deliver every week, now that they are becoming key players for us.

[MJL]

Enjoyed that, I think leaders are important but agree that 'star' players are not, and I feel that Rodgers is already creating a team of many leaders.

[007.lankyguy]

As we are approaching the start of the new season, I thought revisiting this thread worthwhile.

My views on the transfers:

We have lost a player who, for all his incredible talent, never struck me as being completely compatible with the system.  Plus, we have added a number of players who fit the template we discussed last year.

Why do you think that, out of interest?

[The Mule]

Why do you think that, out of interest?

Maybe holding on to the ball for too long occasionally? Sometimes when we were struggling to come up with things to break teams down, he'd try to force/rush things and at other times do everything himself instead of sticking to the plan?

I remember when Rodgers first came in him talking about some of our players "rushing" things, and needing to realise that we can't score from every attack. It was clear who he was talking about (Stebie and Luis).

Just my view obviously (not trying to put words into Prof's mouth)

[Prof]

Why do you think that, out of interest?

Don't get me wrong. He is probably the best player I've seen in a Liverpool shirt (I'm too young to fairly judge Dalglish and Barnes in his first career with us).  Only Gerrard could be considered as being on his level.

I think Rodgers had to compromise his favoured approach to acccomodate him.  He isn't a 9 and he isn't a 10.  As Rodgers said, he's a 9 and a half.  I think now he's gone, Sturridge will play as a 9 on his own more, like he did when Suarez was out at the beginning of last season.

Suarez was so good, Rodgers was happy to bend his system and make it work.  That's something that really impresses me about Rodgers.  However now Suarez has gone, the system will be the king and we'll see it move to a higher level.  I'm really excited by what this season holds in store from a football perspective.  It probably won't click every time from the off, but we could be about to see some special moments of really high paced, team combination attacks.

[007.lankyguy]

Don't get me wrong. He is probably the best player I've seen in a Liverpool shirt (I'm too young to fairly judge Dalglish and Barnes in his first career with us).  Only Gerrard could be considered as being on his level.

I think Rodgers had to compromise his favoured approach to acccomodate him.  He isn't a 9 and he isn't a 10.  As Rodgers said, he's a 9 and a half.  I think now he's gone, Sturridge will play as a 9 on his own more, like he did when Suarez was out at the beginning of last season.

Suarez was so good, Rodgers was happy to bend his system and make it work.  That's something that really impresses me about Rodgers.  However now Suarez has gone, the system will be the king and we'll see it move to a higher level.  I'm really excited by what this season holds in store from a football perspective.  It probably won't click every time from the off, but we could be about to see some special moments of really high paced, team combination attacks.

I'm still a bit unclear on why you think he wasn't completely compatible with the system. I guess it depends on what you describe as the system. If you're talking about formation then maybe you're right. But I don't think Rodgers changed his system of play or favoured approach that much for Suarez nor do I think there'll be too much change in approach this season in terms of what he wants us to do each game. Formations will change - in Sunday's game against Dortmund we were fairly close to a 4-2-3-1 (though we certainly didn't play it in the standard way that it's usually played) but the principles will be the same. I think this season will be about other players continuing to step up rather than us becoming more collective tactically

[Prof]

I wrote this last year:

I think Luis is the wild-card.  He combines brilliantly when he wants to, and a lot of this is to do with trust.  He has read and played some exceptional passes to set up team mates and combined well in passing moves, but other times he 'chooses' not to play in team mates.  He is also on a different page althogether  sometimes.

My view is that he is better suited to being the final part of a move rather than being the play-maker.  If he plays the killer pass, or gets on the end of the final pass, his unpredictability is only the oppositions problem.  As his team mate, you'd need to accept that you'll miss out on service sometimes, but on other occasions, you'll make a run, and Luis will do something amazing to find you, just expect the miraculous  .

It isn't about formation in my mind, it's about the core principles and individual roles.  I've thought for some time he's a player you accommodate because of his quality.  The thing with a system being the most important thing is a player will add value to it but not be irreplaceable.  I don't think anyone could play the role Suarez did other than Suarez, so if he doesn't play, the roles of others change.

As you say, other players will take on key functions that were Suarez's before.  Then overall the output of the team could be higher.  It also means we are less dependent on the single player's attributes as there are others who can step in.

[Funky_Gibbons]

I wrote this last year:
It isn't about formation in my mind, it's about the core principles and individual roles.  I've thought for some time he's a player you accommodate because of his quality.  The thing with a system being the most important thing is a player will add value to it but not be irreplaceable.  I don't think anyone could play the role Suarez did other than Suarez, so if he doesn't play, the roles of others change.

As you say, other players will take on key functions that were Suarez's before.  Then overall the output of the team could be higher.  It also means we are less dependent on the single player's attributes as there are others who can step in.

Totally agree. That's why I don't believe we're not looking to replace Suarez "man for man"  but rather change the system to be more balanced and less reliant on individuals.

[stockdam]

I don't agree that a system is the be all and end all. A system helps to get the most out of the team but without great players a system will only go so far.

The system needs to support the players rather than the other way round. For example if you have lots of pace up front then playing slowly out from the back is not as effective as quickly counter attacking. What you want to do is to draw the opposition into your half and leave space for your quick players to break into.

I believe that in key areas, class cannot be compensated for by systems. A well organised defence with pace will be hard to play against. On the other hand the likes of Suarez makes his own chances out of his ability and "average" players will not be as effective no matter what system is used.

So in short talking about systems masks the fact that we will hugely miss the class of Suarez up at the cutting edge. Yes use the system to compliment the players but without a Dalglish, Rush, Fowler, Souness etc. The system will only go so far.

[PhaseOfPlay]

I don't agree that a system is the be all and end all. A system helps to get the most out of the team but without great players a system will only go so far.

The system needs to support the players rather than the other way round. For example if you have lots of pace up front then playing slowly out from the back is not as effective as quickly counter attacking. What you want to do is to draw the opposition into your half and leave space for your quick players to break into.

I believe that in key areas, class cannot be compensated for by systems. A well organised defence with pace will be hard to play against. On the other hand the likes of Suarez makes his own chances out of his ability and "average" players will not be as effective no matter what system is used.

So in short talking about systems masks the fact that we will hugely miss the class of Suarez up at the cutting edge. Yes use the system to compliment the players but without a Dalglish, Rush, Fowler, Souness etc. The system will only go so far.

Derby 72
Nottingham Forest 79
Wimbledon 88
Watford 80-84
Greece 04
Liverpool 2001
Liverpool 2005
and etc.

Systems are very important. Great players make systems great, but if you don't have a system, you're often in trouble, even if you have excellent players. There has to be an organisation, and often a poor team with a great organisation can do very good things, while a merely good team with great organisation can do great things. We shouldn't dismiss system at all, ever. Almost every revolution in football has been system-driven, not player driven. Everyone can point to 4-4-2, Total Football, Sweeper Systems, Tiki-Taka, etc, as developments in the evolution of football. But very few can point to revolutions in player development to show the same leaps in progress on the players side. We can't dismiss talent, but we also must respect systems. They both feed off each other. However, system trumps talent more often than talent trumps systems.

[Prof]

I don't agree that a system is the be all and end all. A system helps to get the most out of the team but without great players a system will only go so far.

The system needs to support the players rather than the other way round. For example if you have lots of pace up front then playing slowly out from the back is not as effective as quickly counter attacking. What you want to do is to draw the opposition into your half and leave space for your quick players to break into.

I believe that in key areas, class cannot be compensated for by systems. A well organised defence with pace will be hard to play against. On the other hand the likes of Suarez makes his own chances out of his ability and "average" players will not be as effective no matter what system is used.

So in short talking about systems masks the fact that we will hugely miss the class of Suarez up at the cutting edge. Yes use the system to compliment the players but without a Dalglish, Rush, Fowler, Souness etc. The system will only go so far.

One of the key points of the OP was to look at the impact of a system on recruitment.  We will only buy players who fit the system.  And sell players who don't (Carroll).

We won't buy players just because they're good.  We will buy players who will fit our system and be better for it..

[swordfishtrombone]

What does that say about Borini I wonder? One of Brendan's first signings and a player he had worked with before, presumably signed because he was right for our style of play. Has the 'system' changed significantly since that first season so much so that a player hand picked by the manager is redundant after a couple of seasons? Is it just the case that injuries have affected Borini's development, or is it simply that we can attract a higher qualify of player given our progression over the last couple of season?

[stockdam]

Well I do think PoP and Prof are kinda closer to my thoughts than may first appear. Yes we had some great sides that weren't full of exceptional players but then again we did have good players so the two go hand in hand. I think what you are really getting at is that we need good (not necessarily star) players in all positions who all play well together and all make themselves available for the player on the ball. But one thing that I believe sets great teams above the rest is a great finisher and I think we are one player short. Yes we have Sturridge and Sterling and I believe Ibe will show some good form but I would like to see one more attacker who is in the class of Suarez to enable us to once again go for first place. I think we are improving as a team but the missing link this year is still a top class striker who can compliment Sturridge.

[BrandoLFC]

What does that say about Borini I wonder? One of Brendan's first signings and a player he had worked with before, presumably signed because he was right for our style of play. Has the 'system' changed significantly since that first season so much so that a player hand picked by the manager is redundant after a couple of seasons? Is it just the case that injuries have affected Borini's development, or is it simply that we can attract a higher qualify of player given our progression over the last couple of season?

Borini in theory wouldn't be a bad option on the bench as a wide forward as he makes excellent runs.  He may fit the system better than we think, just 14m pounds is a lot of money.

[PhaseOfPlay]

What does that say about Borini I wonder? One of Brendan's first signings and a player he had worked with before, presumably signed because he was right for our style of play. Has the 'system' changed significantly since that first season so much so that a player hand picked by the manager is redundant after a couple of seasons? Is it just the case that injuries have affected Borini's development, or is it simply that we can attract a higher qualify of player given our progression over the last couple of season?

All players have their level. Unfortunately you don't find out that level until you push them to the highest one they can get to. Borini is a good player, but as an attacker his goalscoring talents don't match his work-rate. He's not a difference-maker on this team, because the speed of play is a little too fast for him, I think. Hard worker, good pressure forward, but you also need goals, and he doesn't seem to have the knack of scoring them in tight situations that need that little bit of footwork or creativity. He would probably be a brilliant forward for, say Everton. But not for a team with title ambitions. If I were coaching him, I'd be looking to change his position to defensive mid or fullback, because he has the work-rate and tenacity for those positions. He doesn't have the quality to be a challenger for Sturridge or (formerly) a Suarez.

[trembles97]

Anytime I see this thread I always say it my head like the "Weasley is Our King" song from Harry Potter.

But yeah, carry on. Great thread with great points! 

[GrkStav]

Between defensive mid and fullback, I'd lean towards fullback as an alternative for Borini.

Especially for a club like LFC.

[rickardinho1]

All players have their level. Unfortunately you don't find out that level until you push them to the highest one they can get to. Borini is a good player, but as an attacker his goalscoring talents don't match his work-rate. He's not a difference-maker on this team, because the speed of play is a little too fast for him, I think. Hard worker, good pressure forward, but you also need goals, and he doesn't seem to have the knack of scoring them in tight situations that need that little bit of footwork or creativity. He would probably be a brilliant forward for, say Everton. But not for a team with title ambitions. If I were coaching him, I'd be looking to change his position to defensive mid or fullback, because he has the work-rate and tenacity for those positions. He doesn't have the quality to be a challenger for Sturridge or (formerly) a Suarez.

Interesting point actually. Do you think he has the physical frame to play in midfield in the PL? I know Allen is pretty slight in size but he's also deceptively quick-footed and good at shielding the ball with his body and works angles really well. I can see him being a fullback more than I can a DM, but I'm not sure he's quick or dynamic enough to be a modern PL fullback. Looking at the up and coming fullbacks that teams are targeting now like Coleman, Shaw, Moreno, Manquillo, Clyne, Bertrand, Kolarov, Zabaleta, Clichy, Yedlin, Davies, etc... its pretty clear that they're all very quick and expansive players with good to great ball control. I'm not so sure Borini has the ball control required to be a good fullback in a good attacking side. What he does is make great well-timed runs to get in the right positions, but once there his poor touch lets him down. I've mentioned it before but I think he also really needs to work on using his body to block off defenders to give him time and space to get shots off without giving the defender an opportunity to get a fair tackle in. (eg. the through-ball from Coutinho is preseason against Brondby first half, and also a chance in the LC final at 1-0 up where he was clean through on goal but let Kompany get round him to make a tackle rather than blocking him off to give himself an easy opportunity to score).

[groove]

If I compare Borini to our first/second choice forward options (Sturridge, Sterling, Coutino, Lallana, Markovic, Ibe, Suso) the first thing I notice is Borini can not beat a man at anywhere near the level the others can. Sturridge and Sterling, especially, in full flow take defenders out of the game with their dribbling ability at pace. Suso and Coutinho mightn't be as quick but still have incredible technical ability to unbalance defenders and push the ball past them.

I think that's the most unique thing about Liverpool's attacking options: they're all incredibly good 1v1. And, Lallana aside, they're all under 25 and have this cockiness about them that makes them want to skin their man every time. You need to be offering a lot in other areas to get games for us if you're not offering the kind of penetration that the other players provide. And I don't think Borini does.

[exiledinyorkshire]

If I compare Borini to our first/second choice forward options (Sturridge, Sterling, Coutino, Lallana, Markovic, Ibe, Suso) the first thing I notice is Borini can not beat a man at anywhere near the level the others can. Sturridge and Sterling, especially, in full flow take defenders out of the game with their dribbling ability at pace. Suso and Coutinho mightn't be as quick but still have incredible technical ability to unbalance defenders and push the ball past them.

I think that's the most unique thing about Liverpool's attacking options: they're all incredibly good 1v1. And, Lallana aside, they're all under 25 and have this cockiness about them that makes them want to skin their man every time. You need to be offering a lot in other areas to get games for us if you're not offering the kind of penetration that the other players provide. And I don't think Borini does.

good post.

front four positions, we now have 6  genuinely very good 1v1 players. Lambert is about as much of a straight man as we have now, the rest are all tricky wee fuckers. And a good thing too. None of them are quite as good as Suarez, but they are all that way inclined.

Couthino, Sterling, Sturridge, Markovic, lallana, and Suso

Henderson seems to be able to watch the chaos that this little lot should be able to produce, and thrive on it. He times his runs very well these days.
Such a big big loss for us at the end of last season bless him.