Topic: RAWK Round Table. AFC 2-0 LFC

[rocco]

But with four at the back, you'd have a LM in front of the LB, so it would be harder to get the ball behind the LB, wouldn't it?

What do you make of the build-up to the first goal? I thought it looked like they had so much space to advance in, before the ball was played behind Cissokho. And then they had space again. So the overall impression I have is we were spread out the whole time. Would you say the same? If so, why was that, because it can't be the way we want to be.

imo the first goal was lost due to free run from midfield than Ciss getting the blame .

[na fir dearg]

So, between the previous match vs WBA and the one vs AFC, Lucas once again lost all his fitness, his legs, etc. and became a liability (again)? How can a player go from 'liability' to 'boss' ('almost back to his peak before his injury') to 'liability' again in the space of three weekends?

Depends on the teams you play against doesnt it? Against the top teams this midfield setup will be found out. And properly found out if we get back into the CL.

[Danny_]

Bit unfair singling out Cissokho for that look at your whole defence, when Santi connects with the header everyone stops, its a natural thing to see the outcome of the shot.

I'd be more annoyed at the lack of any attempt to stop the cross.

He was caught out of position so he was never going to stop the cross coming in.  A better decision might have been to move into the center and try to make things more compact.  He wasn't the only one though.  Sakho was just jogging back when he should have been sprinting.  He could have also gotten there in time with more effort.   

[-Daws-]

Bit unfair singling out Cissokho for that look at your whole defence, when Santi connects with the header everyone stops, its a natural thing to see the outcome of the shot.

I'd be more annoyed at the lack of any attempt to stop the cross.

It's both though isn't it? And much, much more around the whole of the team. Cissokho could be deemed the major culprit for making two errors, but there's plenty others who made one as well, some worse than either of Cissokhos. I said earlier in the that this goal was probably the worst goal we've let in this season; when you break it down, there are so many clear errors that you could almost see it coming as it unfolded, especially against a side as good as yours.

Major problems:

1. Lack of pressure on the ball. The gap between midfield and the forwards was massive and Arteta picked up the ball in his own half with our forwards behind him not tracking him. A few times in this game I noticed the forwards cutting off the wrong angles and letting Arsenal get in behind them too easily. It happens here, Arteta can take the ball unchallenged, carry the ball much into our half

2. We fail to close down Arteta until he comes towards Sakho who has a man. Effectively he's walked through our midfield unchallenged without having to play a pass or move at any great speed, anyone of them could have got nearer too him at several different points during the time he carried the ball, but all failed to do so. Unforgivable.

3. Cissokho is badly positioned and ball watching. He hesitates whether to play the ball on the man and it is a fairly easy pass to slip through to Sagna who now has momentum on his side and makes it to the ball easily before Aly. The cross comes in and can't really be blocked, although an attempt would be nice.

4. Skrtel isn't marking anybody but his position is decent for the situation, only the cross is pulled back towards a position he can't get anywhere near.

5. Cazorla has waltzed from fairly deep through our midfield at no great pace untracked. He passes Steven Gerrard who is walking back (this after no closing down in the midfield). This is also a horrific bit of defending from midfield.

6. As the ball comes to the backpost just inside the box, Santi then makes the first header unchallenged because Skrtel was defending zonally near post, Toure is marking Giroud, Sakho caught up field because none of midfielder put any pressure on the ball and Cissokho was poorly positioned for the pass in behind him. The main reason Cazorla gets a free header is because nobody tracked him.

7. Skrtel steps to the left, perhaps anticipating a loose ball from the save, but coming off the post it bounces off the post into the space where Cazorla's momentum is taking him and he finishes it with the technique and style you expect of such a gifted footballer. Lucas in particularly was very slow to react as the ball bounces nearest to him than any other LFC player and yet he makes no attempt for the ball. Cissokho also looked laboured getting back into the box to make up number. In fact, everyone just seem to freeze as soon as Santi headed the ball.

What this gaol was, was a total fundamental breakdown of duties from front to back. The only player who actually didn't make a single error in the build up and finish was Mignolet. As you say, we certainly shouldn't be singling Cissokho out, he made a couple of errors there, but so did everyone else.

[PhaseOfPlay]

But with four at the back, you'd have a LM in front of the LB, so it would be harder to get the ball behind the LB, wouldn't it?

No. It's not the numbers. It's the space. A fullback pushed up still leaves space behind him. In a back four, that means that the covering central defender has to decide whether to go across to cover the fullback, or hold position and not lose numbers in the central area. It's the position of the fullback that creates the space to play in behind. So if we played a back four, with the aggressive fullbacks we played last season, that ball in behind still exists as an option. So it's not a fault of the formation, it's a fault of the player for not closing down better as the cross was being made. He actually tracked Sagna quite well, but once the ball was played, he simply watched Sagna play it. I also think he didn't have to watch the ball so much before it was played out - he could have turned and focused more on Sagna. But the goal was caused by the lack of tracking of Cazorla. He had a free run at it.

What do you make of the build-up to the first goal? I thought it looked like they had so much space to advance in, before the ball was played behind Cissokho. And then they had space again. So the overall impression I have is we were spread out the whole time. Would you say the same? If so, why was that, because it can't be the way we want to be.

Yep - You could have turned an 18-wheeler in the gaps between our players. Our midfield was largely non-existent. Regardless of where any other Arsenal player was, failure to put pressure on the ball carrier is a fundamental error that leads to goals. Arteta picked out his pass with ease. Cazorla got both the first header and the rebound with ease. All because of a lack of pressure. Consolidation and compression helps to prevent this by making the space between levels of pressure smaller - something Southampton are excellent at, and Spurs too. We were far too open, but that situation exists whether we play a 4-2-3-1 or a 3-4-1-2. It's a condition of our midfield set-up and our overall attacking posture more than it is a formation issue.

If we look at the goal in stages -

Stage 1:

Ball is played into Arteta. Cissokho begins tracking Sagna's run. This is the correct thing to do:



Arteta is in acres of space, Gerrard is in a forward's position, nowhere near the middle.

Stage 2:

Arteta then drives forward, and Sakho steps out to press, while Cissokho continues to track Sagna. We're 2v1 at the back on Giroud, but Cazorla has started his run from the centre circle, 10 yards from Gerrard, who is still in Arsenal's half:



Stage 3:

Sagna gets his cross in, but Gerrard is still trailing him by about 8 yards. Lucas has stopped tracking back. Technically, we're 3v2 in the box in our favour at this point:



Stage 4:

Once the rebound occurs, Skrtel does his best to get across, but the whole defence looks like it expected the ball to go dead - either through a save, goal, or miss. They collectively switch off for a second, but that's all Cazorla needs as he correctly follows up his header to net the goal:



Gerrard, meanwhile, stops running at the edge of the box.

The whole goal was well worked by Arsenal, but apart from the massive spaces we presented to them, we also made it easy for them by once again failing to track the runner from midfield. Cissokho actually does well in the entire sequence, and the only thing he is guilty of is not being as fast as Sagna. Sakho had to step out to Arteta because nobody else did, and there wasn't much Skrtel or Toure could do against Cazorla given that he had as free a run on the cross as he'll get all season.

Once again, our goals - as it is with most goals - could have been prevented with better midfield play. And for me, it would be a hugely disappointing thing if Rodgers becomes a "nearly-man" because he didn't solve what is a simple midfield issue.

[PhaseOfPlay]

He was caught out of position so he was never going to stop the cross coming in.  A better decision might have been to move into the center and try to make things more compact.  He wasn't the only one though.  Sakho was just jogging back when he should have been sprinting.  He could have also gotten there in time with more effort.

He wasn't caught out of position. He went to close down Sagna, then backed up and tracked Sagna all the way back. Sagna was just a yard faster.

[steveeastend]

The rebound was impossible to defend, it´s all about luck if a situation comes to this point. There was a possibility to prevent this situation early and in my opinion, as PoP pointed out correctly, it was about getting back the ball in time and tracking runs from midfielders. The issue remains the same for quite a while now and we conceded almost exclusively from mistakes in that zone in this season so far.

It´s exactly like illustrated from PoP in this picture Stage 2 where all our problems come from: Lucas busy trying to get behind the ball and creating a triangle on the wing and an attacking midfielder from our opponent making a run in the zone right in front of our defending line with Gerrard or Henderson or both jogging behind. We had these sort of situations countless times, against teams like Palace it didn´t  matter but teams like Arsenal benefit from this.

[-Daws-]

Bit unfair singling out Cissokho for that look at your whole defence, when Santi connects with the header everyone stops, its a natural thing to see the outcome of the shot.

I'd be more annoyed at the lack of any attempt to stop the cross.

It's both though isn't it? And much, much more around the whole of the team. Cissokho could be deemed the major culprit for making two errors, but there's plenty others who made one as well, some worse than either of Cissokhos. I said earlier in the that this goal was probably the worst goal we've let in this season; when you break it down, there are so many clear errors that you could almost see it coming as it unfolded, especially against a side as good as yours.

Major problems from my perspective:

1. Lack of pressure on the ball. The gap between midfield and the forwards was massive and Arteta picked up the ball in his own half with our forwards behind him not tracking him. A few times in this game I noticed the forwards cutting off the wrong angles and letting Arsenal get in behind them too easily. It happens here, Arteta can take the ball unchallenged, carry the ball much into our half

2. We fail to close down Arteta until he comes towards Sakho who has a man. Effectively he's walked through our midfield unchallenged without having to play a pass or move at any great speed, anyone of them could have got nearer too him at several different points during the time he carried the ball, but all failed to do so. Unforgivable.

3. Cissokho is badly positioned and ball watching. He hesitates whether to play the ball on the man and it is a fairly easy pass to slip through to Sagna who now has momentum on his side and makes it to the ball easily before Aly. The cross comes in and can't really be blocked, although an attempt would be nice.

4. Skrtel isn't marking anybody but his position is decent for the situation, only the cross is pulled back towards a position he can't get anywhere near.

5. Cazorla has waltzed from fairly deep through our midfield at no great pace untracked. He passes Steven Gerrard who is walking back (this after no closing down in the midfield). This is also a horrific bit of defending from midfield.

6. As the ball comes to the backpost just inside the box, Santi then makes the first header unchallenged because Skrtel was defending zonally near post, Toure is marking Giroud, Sakho caught up field because none of midfielder put any pressure on the ball and Cissokho was poorly positioned for the pass in behind him. The main reason Cazorla gets a free header is because nobody tracked him.

7. Skrtel steps to the left, perhaps anticipating a loose ball from the save, but coming off the post it bounces off the post into the space where Cazorla's momentum is taking him and he finishes it with the technique and style you expect of such a gifted footballer. Lucas in particularly was very slow to react as the ball bounces nearest to him than any other LFC player and yet he makes no attempt for the ball. Cissokho also looked laboured getting back into the box to make up number. In fact, everyone just seem to freeze as soon as Santi headed the ball.

What this gaol was, was a total fundamental breakdown of duties from front to back. The only player who actually didn't make a single error in the build up and finish was Mignolet. As you say, we certainly shouldn't be singling Cissokho out, he made a couple of errors there, but so did everyone else.

[-Daws-]

Fuck knows why I felt the need to post that twice

[Danny_]

He wasn't caught out of position. He went to close down Sagna, then backed up and tracked Sagna all the way back. Sagna was just a yard faster.

He's actually faster than Sagna (which is normal because the player without the ball is normally faster) but has given him too much space.  The other thing he does wrong is that when the cross goes in, he should have sprinted into the box but he just stops.  But I'm not going to argue with you over nitpicking stuff when you could just look at the tape (which incidentally I posted a link to earlier). 

You have your opinion and I have mine.  Lets just leave it there.

[robgomm]

I agree Cissokho wasn't caught out of position, he started the move ahead of Sagna. But he barely looks to his right the whole run back and I think he should be looking to get closer on the tracking run to Sagna so he's in a position to stop the cross or even the pass to Sagna. I honestly think you can argue he was just running backwards rather than actually tracking Sagna. That harsh?

[Trendisnotdestiny]

Two reasons for me why he should have changed the formation beforehand.

Firstly, neither Cissoko or Flanagan will give you the width you need to play this system - they may be able take up the position but won't be effective enough when they get possession. No slight on the two players for this, its just they are not suited to wing back play imo. We would get away with it against lesser opposition but less likely to, away to Arsenal. Incidentally this would also have been a problem if we had played a flat back four with any of the players available in the full-back positions in that Brendan likes his full backs to provide width anyhow. However 4-2-3-1 would have got us width from two of the three playing behind the striker and hopefully crowded the middle at times also, if thats not too much of a contradiction. Having said all this I understand Brendan's reluctance - if he changed the system and we lost, which we most likely still would have, he would be getting some stick I expect.

My second reason is quite simple, he would of been able to start Couthinio without leaving out Henderson. Players like Couthinio shouldn't be on the bench, for matches like this, if they are even remotely fit.

I think these are two really good points and difficult to argue with really.  However, I might counter with the idea that he had a strong bench, the team knows the tactics and players should be expected to implement them regardless of injury.  Now, the Flanagan sub does change things, but Flanagan was not the issue on the first goal. 

It was the Sakho-Cissokho partnership which would have started irregardless. Sakho gives up his space behind but does not get enough pressure on Arteta who slots in Sagna (and a recovering Cissokho does not get there in time).  In fact, most goals at this level include 5 mistakes.  So, if we count losing the ball as the first, and these as the second, there are a few other factors that supersede formation like

1. Gerrard & Lucas tracking back to find Cazorla instead of ball watching
2. Toure should have been ball side of Giroud
3. Cissokho not making an attempt to prevent the cross from Sagna
4. Mignolet - needed to get up and down more in the field of play (not a huge expectation there really)
5. Sakho's non-existent recovery run

My second response is that Coutinho was never going to start this game being cleared to play on Tuesday.  Injured players coming back are handled well by Rogers ----> how many reoccurring injuries has he caused?

[Trendisnotdestiny]

As ever, the ground’s been covered one way or another with some fine posts. Just like to add a slightly different angle which has occurred to me during this inevitable initial grieving process so I may as well air it.

I doubt there’s a single Reds fan who prior to kick off didn’t harbour a reasonably strong notion we could go down to The Emirates, take them on head to head and bring home the three points after watching those four amazing goals and the two woodwork efforts against West Brom.

You could then, given that scenario, think it somewhat churlish to question why the management should have viewed the situation any differently.

However, the harsh fact is we’re fans and they’re management.

Hindsight now tells us as fans that Arsenal were not weakened one jot by their absentees. Wenger and the Arsenal management seem to have known this.

It also tells us that we were. Quite noticeably. And that it’s probably fair to say we need to be at our full strength technical best [by which I mean a team containing Agger, Coutinho, Johnson, Enrique and possibly Allen] to take on one of the top teams on their own midden in a head to head contest. Even then I’m not sure we’re strong enough – though perhaps, and hopefully, we are.

It is perfectly clear now is that our own absentees left us seriously weakened, most especially in arguably the two most vital wing back areas for the successful deployment of a 3-5-2 system against a top side. Whilst our performance was nowhere near as poor as some have said in their understandable frustration and we actually still could have snatched the goals to achieve a positive result, surely nobody would argue that we were anything other than second best and at times comprehensively outplayed especially in those midfield areas..

So should Rodgers, Pascoe and Marsh have been aware of all this without the hindsight we now all have? Should the absentees not have told our management that in order to stand the best chance of a positive result we needed to adopt a formation that could work best within the personnel limitations forced upon us to allow us to stifle/negate Arsenal’s midfield strengths rather than actually allow them to prosper with a player deficit in that area of the pitch? Should our most technically gifted and attack minded centre back not have been included to lend a more positive balance to the back line and possibly the area in front of the back line.

Are the management aware of all this now?

I’m unsure of the answer to the questions I’m posing. It’s far too early days to know. However, they are questions that are perfectly valid if you ask me.

Down the years, I’ve witnessed the various guises of Liverpool management adopt a ‘horses for courses’ approach to suit a particular match and more pertinently to suit the personnel we had available. Such a pragmatic approach was adopted to yield a positive result in a particular game. I’m not convinced this is the case now.

Don’t get me wrong. I like Brendan Rodgers. I’ve liked an awful lot of what I’ve seen and heard from him. I support him. I want him to succeed and I think in time he will. As I say it’s still early days. But the fact remains these are massive shoes he has to fill and I’d have been a whole lot more convinced had he shown he possesses a hell of a lot more insight into what was about to transpire on Saturday night than us lot. And I’m not sure what we saw unfold down at The Emirates tells us that he did.

Raise your game Brendan lad. It’s a must for a successful Liverpool manager.        

This is a great post!

[Danny_]

I agree Cissokho wasn't caught out of position, he started the move ahead of Sagna. But he barely looks to his right the whole run back and I think he should be looking to get closer on the tracking run to Sagna so he's in a position to stop the cross or even the pass to Sagna. I honestly think you can argue he was just running backwards rather than actually tracking Sagna. That harsh?

Look.  If he was just running backwards without tracking Sagna, he shouldn't have been.  His job is to stop the cross coming in or if it does get past him, to get back into the box and try to defend.  He didn't do it and it wasn't because he couldn't run fast.  He is at a minimum as fast as Sagna - looks to me like he's a bit faster actually but that is nitpicking.  He didn't do his job and then he didn't make enough of an effort to make up for it by getting into the box.  I don't care if people think it's harsh.  It's no coincidence that we are leaking a lot of goals from attacks down our left flank by the opposition.  He was at fault for the NewCastle goal also - they got in behind him while he was ball watching.  I wouldn't be surprised if teams aren't targeting this area.

[stockdam]

I didn't see all of the game so I'll apologise if I have misread the game.

What I did see was a fluid Arsenal midfield who were pressing us when we had the ball and were passing the ball around at speed when they had the ball. I saw our two wing backs who looked as if the game was passing them by and they neither were effective going forward or could get into a position to pressurise the Arsenal midfield. All that changed at half-time but I haven't seen the 2nd half yet.

I'll discuss what I saw.

We had Henderson who is full of energy but who I think lacks the ability to pass quickly and to keep the ball under control when under pressure. At the top level he just isn't sharp enough. That doesn't mean that he is not effective in a lot of games; just not this one. Gerrard.........I'm sorry but in this type of game we need somebody who can track back and is effective both at attacking and defending. The Arsenal players at times were leaving him behind........I don't like saying it but at the highest level SG has lost his legs. He's very effective when given time and space but in this game he needed to be constantly on the move. Lucas played ok but at times he wasn't sharp enough (which applied to all of our defence).

So in a nutshell we had three midfielders who just weren't good enough and two wing backs who were uncomfortable in their role.

Arsenal played good football just in front of our defence. We didn't put nearly enough pressure on them.

Once we got the ball we didn't pass quickly or accurately enough.

All over the pitch we were just a fraction too slow. We did well to contain Arsenal but we just didn't get into the game enough. A goal would have changed things.

I think one of the problems was Johnson having to pull out at short notice. He's the best wing back we have and I don't think the two that played looked comfortable there.

We needed a fit Coutinho to feed balls to Sturridge and Suarez. Henderson is not that type of player; Lucas is a good passer but he's a bit too slow to be pushed too far forward. SG looked shot.

We are improving and we will show that against the lower teams but against a slick passing Arsenal side we just were out of our depth in midfield. We need a couple of players who can ping the ball around and who are quick in thought.

We miss playing in the CL. At that level you can see your weaknesses and what to work on. At the lower level you paper over the cracks a bit. Hopefully the loss will tell the manager what needs to be worked on.

We have the best two strikers but they need a strong midfield behind them. We just don't have the quality that we need and so against the stronger teams we may have to leave Sturridge or Suarez on the bench and strengthen midfield.

[DonkeyWan]

Personally, as I mentioned elsewhere,  I felt 3-5-2 was the wrong formation for this game. Essentially after all the hurly burly died down Arsenal took control of and dominated the midfield. They pressed high and forced the wingbacks to sit deep, allowing their fullbacks to push into midfield. What ended up happening was 5-3-2 with 5 players sitting deep to pick up 1 man, while the rest of the Arsenal team moved the midfield about at will. It was essentially Liverpool's 3 versus the rest of the Arsenal side.

3-5-2 works fine at home against sides set up to defend (in fact its ideal for breaking down 'park-the-bus' teams. Its far less effective against a high pressing team flooding midfield as the 3 CBs become narrow and crowd the box. The drops deep and the the two attackers get nullified as they are cut adrift from the team, hence the frustration of Suarez and Sturridge.

That's not to excuse the performances of the midfield 3 (although they were horribly put upon), Gerrard was pedestriana nd slow, Henderson and Lucas lost. It needed more drive and snap, but that's hard when you are out-numbered I guess.

For my money, it was a bad decision to start 3-5-2, perhaps over-confidence after a good run of results. A more cautious 4-5-1, with Coutinhio and Moses wide, with Sturridge off the bench as an impact sub would have been better, pinning down the Arsenal midfield and letting Sturridge run riot for the last 20 when the opposition are tired. Some will no doubt say 'why Sturridge?' Well, I think Suarez is better for a start, but more to the point you have to be pragmatic in these top of the table clashes, I feel.

The Arsenal goals came at good times, absolutely, and the stats are favourable to Liverpool, but how many times have an inferior side to Liverpool, turned up at Anfield and gave it a go.... but ended up losing to the better side, as the result was never in doubt. That's how it felt, a good, solid 2-0 beating, the better side winning comfortably.

The big question is, is it indicative of a fatal flaw in the side? I would say no. Chastening yes. Highlights weaknesses in the side yes. Exposed 3-5-2's limitations, yes. But overall, lets call it a C for Liverpool; problems but obvious improvement and rectifiable areas for consideration. The most obvious area that needs work is the midfield, Gerrard's replacement is imminent, as is possibly one of Lucas and Henderson. All three could ultimately end up as very useful squad players, but it wouldn't surprise me to see all three phased out of the first team over the next 18 months.

[007.lankyguy]

I did a review for The Anfield Index if anyone's interested http://anfieldindex.com/5929/arsenal-2-0-liverpool-detailed-review.html

[stockdam]

I did a review for The Anfield Index if anyone's interested http://anfieldindex.com/5929/arsenal-2-0-liverpool-detailed-review.html

Good read. What I most took out of it was our lack of quality in our wing backs when attacking. These two often were in space but lacked the quality to exploit it. We also had Sturridge and Suarez watching the game when Arsenal had the ball. As mentioned it may have been better to put Sturridge on the bench and then bring him on later when his pace may have been a handful for the tiring defenders.

[JonnyBlaze]

I am I think BR's biggest fan from our circle, I have huge faith in him. Having said that, I put a lot of our shortcomings at his door for the Emirates performance.

I observed at the WBA game that this is the first time for a long time that we had 14 first team players - even in 2008/9, although our first 11 (or first 9) were much better than this current one, we had no depth (e.g. it went Torres to Ngog if memory serves). On top of the WBA first 11, we have Agger, Allen, Coutinho and Moses  who, personal preference aside, can play at a similar operating level to those that started (Enrique also, but he's off set by Cissokho, who I don't think can), and a heartening blast of young exciting players to ad into the squad day mele.

The thing with Arsenal is they have what is described above, but just juiced a bit, for example if I'm picking their first 11 when they're all fit - Wiltshire, Flamini, Rosicky, Poldoski and Oxlaide-Chamberlaine all miss out. I already had Arsenal as my favourites for the title before Saturday, so there's no shame in losing to them; what is imperative though is that we get the best possible 11 on the pitch, especially with the aforementioned quality options we now have. I can't quite get my head round how BR thought our best bet was to field a side with Flannagan (who good lad etc. but is not even in our top 25, let alone 14 IMO) and Cissikho, particularly if they are your wingbacks in a 352. 352 is a formation that can only work if you have very strong wing backs, Carlos and Cafu for example (Johnson and Enrique may be acceptable, Flanagan and Cissokho are not).

What is particularly doing my head in is, in his pre match chat with Sky, BR basically insinuated that Flanagans inclusion was  the result of 'a tremndous attitude in training', inferring that what he lacked in 'quality' could be made up for in attitude. That is what the Carling cup is for, not our biggets league game for 4 years.

I have always thought of BR as incredibly ambition, I've admired his restraint in not coming out with a 'knock them off their perch' type quote as I've felt it's something he has wanted to say with every fibre of his being since he got here; I still do think he has this ambition, but yesterdays picks, combined with the pre match interview, it makes me question that ambition a little bit. Flannagan didn't have a mare, but we could not use him nor Cissokho to get us up the thirds and take some control of the game. I'm still a big admire of BR's but I think he needs to take a massive share of the respinsibility for Saturday.

[robgomm]

I think it's OK to pick Flanno on attitude assuming a base level of being good enough for the first team. If he didn't think he was good enough, he'd not be near the first team surely?

[steveeastend]

I think it's OK to pick Flanno on attitude assuming a base level of being good enough for the first team. If he didn't think he was good enough, he'd not be near the first team surely?

I think with Johnson out there could be a debate wether it would have been better to go back to 4 at the back with Toure covering for Johnson and Moses instead of Flanno. Probably the better option in hindsight..

Playing a youngster in his first game for ages against a side like Arsenal is a big risky in general but on the other hand that´s what  Rodgers is all about, taking risks.

[robgomm]

I was really surprised when the team came up on TV, I'd not been checking it beforehand. Probably would've gone 4 at the back too but to be honest I don't think we looked very good defensively when we did. Pretty clear a full-back needs to be high on the list in January.

[steveeastend]

I was really surprised when the team came up on TV, I'd not been checking it beforehand. Probably would've gone 4 at the back too but to be honest I don't think we looked very good defensively when we did. Pretty clear a full-back needs to be high on the list in January.

Agreed. But overall I don´t think it´s been so much of an tactical issue, Arsenal was lucky that it was Coutinhos first game..

[Corkboy]

He's actually faster than Sagna (which is normal because the player without the ball is normally faster) but has given him too much space.  The other thing he does wrong is that when the cross goes in, he should have sprinted into the box but he just stops.  But I'm not going to argue with you over nitpicking stuff when you could just look at the tape (which incidentally I posted a link to earlier). 

He tracked his man, his man crossed. That happens. David Beckham made a very good living out of crossing the ball without beating his man.

[rossipersempre]

Was playing Flanagan, who's with good reason not had a sniff of the first team in 18 months, more of a risk than putting in a recovering Kelly? Yes, his WBA performance was shocking by all accounts, but in the absence of other options (and a midweek runout), getting him back in the saddle would surely take precedence over giving another Spearing-level "great attitude" player a rare memory to tell his grandkids about. Not that it would have made much difference to the outcome but still.

As for the rest, not wanting to reiterate what has already been said, I think what has most of us scratching our heads is that we didn't appear to set out to win, or even to draw with that lineup. The latter was certainly very much a realistic option within our control, and was all things considered the preferred pragmatic approach to a game against this lot, particularly with our absentees. No, it just seemed as Rodgers set out to accept the inevitable. Either that or it was plain naivety, disappointing but perhaps to be expected given his relative inexperience at this level.

Sure, we made a decent show of it for the first half hour, but after that there was very much an air of resignation, almost apathy about the rest of the proceedings. It felt as though we gave Arsenal too much respect - we may as well have rolled out a red carpet in the centre circle. Even on here now, there's posters sweeping elephants under the carpet saying "well, they ARE the league leaders" as if we were Stoke or Sunderland.

And as for leadership out there, well as per usual it was non-existent. We've become accustomed to feeling that absence on the pitch (now married to an absence of influence sadly due to age and refusal to adapt his game), but it's particularly disheartening when it also emanates from the dugout. And I include Pascoe in that.

I just really hope that's the nadir of our season out of the way.

[Gnurglan]

Stage 2:

Arteta then drives forward, and Sakho steps out to press, while Cissokho continues to track Sagna. We're 2v1 at the back on Giroud, but Cazorla has started his run from the centre circle, 10 yards from Gerrard, who is still in Arsenal's half:

Cheers for the explanation.
I don't like the look of those pictures. How come we were so spread out to begin with? It's like we (Gerrard) were more interested in preventing the ball from going wide, so we opened up the center.

In the picture above, Lucas is surrounded by Arsenal players. This has to be a red alert moment. I'd like to think that our players understood that. That's something they just have to know. I'd also like to think that they had the legs to get back in time. It's a sprint, but it's one of those you just have to make. But even as we're behind from the start, it's still like we didn't work all the way through the situation. It's like we assumed the ball wouldn't reach its target and later that it would go dead or at least away from the danger area.

When Rodgers shows this, we'll have a few players feeling guilty.

[L666KOP]

Our midfield pairing yet again let a runner score.

Fucking schoolboy errors, or laziness.

I distinctly remember watching Brendan explain the 2-1, 1-2 formation to the team, and the message was "Don't go if you can't get back"

A mobile midfield yet again showed Gerrard up.

[Gnurglan]

I did a review for The Anfield Index if anyone's interested http://anfieldindex.com/5929/arsenal-2-0-liverpool-detailed-review.html

Cheers!
I like reading these analysis. Helps me improve my tactical knowledge. And you chose a good title for it. Outperformed being a key word. It looks like we had the space and the opportunities to hurt them, but they were better at executing their game plan.

So, what do we do about our CM?

[Penfold78]

I'm not going to comment on the match as I'm still waiting to see it.

What I would like to comment on is our reaction to the defeat. It's great to see we're taking this one on the chin. Most comments acknowledge that Arsenal have the athleticism, technical depth and style we want to have. We seem to be aware of and comfortable (for now) with the fact that we are not there yet. Apart from a few well thought through critiques of  our current midfield capabilities we seem to be saying "okay, fair game, we're still building".

I'm pleased we're not calling for heads to roll. I'm pleased no one is declaring that the wheels have come off our season. I'm pleased we're looking ahead to the next game.

I'm pleased to be a LFC supporter right now.

[Alf Garnett!]

After having time to reflect after the game,my thoughts when i saw the team selected to face Arsenal came through.

Having doubts about the formation for a few games i really thought a change would come at the Emirates.

I'm sure a few will disagree but my thoughts were for us to have started the game with a 4-5-1 in place,i would have benched Sturridge & packed the midfield where Arsenal dominate.

[CHOPPER]

After having time to reflect after the game,my thoughts when i saw the team selected to face Arsenal came through.

Having doubts about the formation for a few games i really thought a change would come at the Emirates.

I'm sure a few will disagree but my thoughts were for us to have started the game with a 4-5-1 in place,i would have benched Sturridge & packed the midfield where Arsenal dominate.

Let me be the first to congratulate you on gaining a first in Hindsight.


I hope you enjoy your future years as a scribe and writer on RAWK.

[csgreen]

This thread has had a lot of really outstandingly interesting reads on the merits of starting 3-5-2 versus starting in some other formation.  I'd like to pose a slightly different question - which is - assuming 3-5-2 was the way to go - was there a different set of player selections that wouldn't have resulted in such an ugly lineup if it needed to be changed?  I mean, you really haven't left yourself good options when your Plan B consists of playing your worst CB pairing (I realize this is debatable, but honestly, given all the possible pairings of our 4 senior CBs how many of us would pick Toure/Skrtel?), moving your only really energetic midfielder back to play as a makeshift RB, playing a CB at LB (and a CB who isn't making anyone forget that he's a CB - I'm sorry, but Sakho is a crappy LB in the exact same way that Agger is a crappy LB), increasing the responsibility on Lucas/Gerrard in a way that they haven't exactly risen to this year, etc.  It was always likely BR would want to bring on Coutinho, but the initial lineup sort of left him with nothing but not great options for how to do so...       

[Jorgen]

I did a review for The Anfield Index if anyone's interested http://anfieldindex.com/5929/arsenal-2-0-liverpool-detailed-review.html

Great read, thanks.

[L666KOP]

After having time to reflect after the game,my thoughts when i saw the team selected to face Arsenal came through.

Having doubts about the formation for a few games i really thought a change would come at the Emirates.

I'm sure a few will disagree but my thoughts were for us to have started the game with a 4-5-1 in place,i would have benched Sturridge & packed the midfield where Arsenal dominate.

It's not flooding the mifield that's needed, although it would have helped.

Pop shows it brilliantly up the page mate, the Arsenal midfield turn and attack very quickly, isolating Gerrard up field, Lucas is pretty much surrounded by three players, and probably doesn't know what to do for the best in all honesty, rendering him pretty much useless.

Gerrard doesn't bust a gut to recover, whether he knows he ain't got the legs to, or doesn't anticipate the danger I don't know.

But get turned over high up the pitch against such a mobile midfield and that's what happens.

Incidentally, I'd like to hear PoP's take on Gerrard, and why he's often reluctant to chase back ?

[GrkStav]

Yep - You could have turned an 18-wheeler in the gaps between our players. Our midfield was largely non-existent. Regardless of where any other Arsenal player was, failure to put pressure on the ball carrier is a fundamental error that leads to goals. Arteta picked out his pass with ease. Cazorla got both the first header and the rebound with ease. All because of a lack of pressure. Consolidation and compression helps to prevent this by making the space between levels of pressure smaller - something Southampton are excellent at, and Spurs too. We were far too open, but that situation exists whether we play a 4-2-3-1 or a 3-4-1-2. It's a condition of our midfield set-up and our overall attacking posture more than it is a formation issue.

I just re-watched the first half and still can't remember where Henderson was. Lucas is the most withdrawn as the buildup begins.

If we look at the goal in stages -

Stage 1:

Ball is played into Arteta. Cissokho begins tracking Sagna's run. This is the correct thing to do:



Arteta is in acres of space, Gerrard is in a forward's position, nowhere near the middle.

Where is Henderson and what do you make of Lucas's relative position?

Stage 2:

Arteta then drives forward, and Sakho steps out to press, while Cissokho continues to track Sagna. We're 2v1 at the back on Giroud, but Cazorla has started his run from the centre circle, 10 yards from Gerrard, who is still in Arsenal's half:

At some point in the buildup I thought I detected a swivel of Lucas's head back toward where Cazorla was making his run. It was on T.V. and I was going frame-by-frame so I am not 100% sure. Forgetting what transpired afterwards, what is the indicated thing for Lucas to do in this scenario as it's developing? Arteta has moved in the direction of his right full-back who's breaking at pace. In that area are Cissokho and Sakho already. Toure and Skrtel and central. Behind Lucas is Rosicky and further centrally is Cazorla. Where Lucas runs, he's sort of cutting off the direct pass from the flank to Rosicky and Cazorla. Even if Lucas plays it perfectly, whom does he cover or block the pass path to?

Stage 3:

Sagna gets his cross in, but Gerrard is still trailing him by about 8 yards. Lucas has stopped tracking back. Technically, we're 3v2 in the box in our favour at this point:

As opposed to Lucas doing what? Giroud effectively unbalanced Toure. Skrtel has no chance to react to Cazorla. Sakho had taken himself out by attempting to press Arteta (which by your description was the correct thing to do). So, Skrtel is kind of marking space, possibly making himself available as the next line of defense were Sangia to dribble past Cissokho.

Stage 4:

Once the rebound occurs, Skrtel does his best to get across, but the whole defence looks like it expected the ball to go dead - either through a save, goal, or miss. They collectively switch off for a second, but that's all Cazorla needs as he correctly follows up his header to net the goal:



Gerrard, meanwhile, stops running at the edge of the box.

Well described. In fact, Skrtel did a little hop and a skip to his left while facing Mignolet. Had the ball gone straight in from Cazorla's header it would've been a wonder-goal, a la Suarez's last week. As it happened, the rebound could not have fallen more kindly for him (Cazorla did nothing other than allow his momentum to carry him forward, btw) and Cazorla could not have volleyed the ball any better (notwithstanding Lee Dixon's claim, Cazorla is right-footed, not left-footed).

The whole goal was well worked by Arsenal, but apart from the massive spaces we presented to them, we also made it easy for them by once again failing to track the runner from midfield. Cissokho actually does well in the entire sequence, and the only thing he is guilty of is not being as fast as Sagna. Sakho had to step out to Arteta because nobody else did, and there wasn't much Skrtel or Toure could do against Cazorla given that he had as free a run on the cross as he'll get all season.

Once again, our goals - as it is with most goals - could have been prevented with better midfield play. And for me, it would be a hugely disappointing thing if Rodgers becomes a "nearly-man" because he didn't solve what is a simple midfield issue.

What "massive spaces" did we present to them? Who (name names) presented these massive spaces to them? Who could possibly have 'closed down' Arteta? What did Sakho really accomplish by closing Arteta down? Why is Cissokho facing Sakho at one point before turning around to really track Sagnia?

[GrkStav]

What did Henderson, with his undeniably great engine do for Arsenal's first goal? It's all fine and good pointing to Gerrard who's the farthest away to begin with, and to Lucas who's the most withdrawn and ends up not doing much positively. But where's Henderson? Did he cover Ramsey or Cazorla? Did he end up covering Arteta after he had released the ball to Sagnia? How was the ball lost to begin with such that it ended up with Arteta?

[L666KOP]

What did Henderson, with his undeniably great engine do for Arsenal's first goal? It's all fine and good pointing to Gerrard who's the farthest away to begin with, and to Lucas who's the most withdrawn and ends up not doing much positively. But where's Henderson? Did he cover Ramsey or Cazorla? Did he end up covering Arteta after he had released the ball to Sagnia? How was the ball lost to begin with such that it ended up with Arteta?

Stage 1, nearest to the ball, stage 2, halfway line, stages 3 and 4 he's impersonating the invisible man.

Does Gerrard not let Cazorla run though, is he not his man ?

And to be fair to Lucas he probably doesn't have a clue what to do for the best, I suspect he backs off whilst trying to slow the attack in the hope Gerrard and Henderson can recover their positions ?

[Gnurglan]

Benched our top goalscorer?

Crazy.

I think I would have liked us to try that towards the end. Sturridge off, Sterling on. 4-2-3-1. Moses, Coutinho, Sterling behind Suarez. Either that or Sturridge off, Allen on. Gerrard, Coutinho, Moses behind Suarez. This is an effect of us not having alternatives to SAS. One of them off means we need to change things around, and we probably need to make two subs to find our new shape.

[PhaseOfPlay]

He's actually faster than Sagna (which is normal because the player without the ball is normally faster) but has given him too much space.  The other thing he does wrong is that when the cross goes in, he should have sprinted into the box but he just stops.  But I'm not going to argue with you over nitpicking stuff when you could just look at the tape (which incidentally I posted a link to earlier). 

You have your opinion and I have mine.  Lets just leave it there.

[L666KOP]

I think I would have liked us to try that towards the end. Sturridge off, Sterling on. 4-2-3-1. Moses, Coutinho, Sterling behind Suarez. Either that or Sturridge off, Allen on. Gerrard, Coutinho, Moses behind Suarez. This is an effect of us not having alternatives to SAS. One of them off means we need to change things around, and we probably need to make two subs to find our new shape.

Their success demands they play does it not ?
Perhaps if they misfire for a game or two we might see a variation along the lines in your post, but I suspect Brendan would like to keep them together given their goal return ?