Topic: The Klopp Template

[royhendo]

Remember the chat about whether we've suffered a number of blows this season from conceding goals that have a low XG rating (so worldies and flukes basically)? Dan K has continued on that theme ongoing and you can see our issue is that while our performance level is broadly the same as Man City, we've either had bad luck in relation to those goals, or we've not managed the risk in relation to the build up to those goals, or a bit of both.

This is the numbers while leading by 1 goal in games this season. We've conceded 7, Manchester City have conceded 0.



He's consistently excellent is Dan, for me at least. https://twitter.com/DanKennett/with_replies

[redk84]

Remember the chat about whether we've suffered a number of blows this season from conceding goals that have a low XG rating (so worldies and flukes basically)? Dan K has continued on that theme ongoing and you can see our issue is that while our performance level is broadly the same as Man City, we've either had bad luck in relation to those goals, or we've not managed the risk in relation to the build up to those goals, or a bit of both.

This is the numbers while leading by 1 goal in games this season. We've conceded 7, Manchester City have conceded 0.



He's consistently excellent is Dan, for me at least. https://twitter.com/DanKennett/with_replies

I struggle to understand the GA/xGA stuff a bit...does this mean that when leading 1-0, City were "expected" to conede 3 gaols and we are "expected" to concede 4.3 goals...and in reality they conceded nowt and we have conceded 7?

[Charlie Adams fried egg]

Remember the chat about whether we've suffered a number of blows this season from conceding goals that have a low XG rating (so worldies and flukes basically)? Dan K has continued on that theme ongoing and you can see our issue is that while our performance level is broadly the same as Man City, we've either had bad luck in relation to those goals, or we've not managed the risk in relation to the build up to those goals, or a bit of both.

This is the numbers while leading by 1 goal in games this season. We've conceded 7, Manchester City have conceded 0.



He's consistently excellent is Dan, for me at least. https://twitter.com/DanKennett/with_replies

That's really interesting context.
Just from the eye test, and it could be me being naturally more critical of us, but sometimes in the build ups to goals and chances against, it feels a bit loose. Whether it's being a bit half hearted blocking a cross, letting a player beat a few men without a decent challenge, or being slow to challenge second balls or blocked shots.

[redmark]

Remember the chat about whether we've suffered a number of blows this season from conceding goals that have a low XG rating (so worldies and flukes basically)? Dan K has continued on that theme ongoing and you can see our issue is that while our performance level is broadly the same as Man City, we've either had bad luck in relation to those goals, or we've not managed the risk in relation to the build up to those goals, or a bit of both.

This is the numbers while leading by 1 goal in games this season. We've conceded 7, Manchester City have conceded 0.



He's consistently excellent is Dan, for me at least. https://twitter.com/DanKennett/with_replies

Anyone pay attention enough to when City do concede their goals? - a soft consolation when they're 2 or 3 up, or concede first to stir them into life to come from behind and get a win?

Arsenal last week was one of those games where I wanted Arsenal to score (in the 10-15 either side of half time, when we had time to respond); yes, they'd have retreated even further into their shell, but it would have given players and crowd a wake-up call.

We haven't regressed to the backs-to-the-wall nervousness that accompanied a 1-0 lead under previous managers, but we do seem to retreat into a 'control the game, protect the lead' mode a little too early in games at times, when a little more positivity could give us a comfortable cushion and kill off any belief the opposition have.

[Chris~]

I struggle to understand the GA/xGA stuff a bit...does this mean that when leading 1-0, City were "expected" to conede 3 gaols and we are "expected" to concede 4.3 goals...and in reality they conceded nowt and we have conceded 7?

Yeah. I'm not sure what data he's used, guessing understat to get it by game state.

[royhendo]

I struggle to understand the GA/xGA stuff a bit...does this mean that when leading 1-0, City were "expected" to conede 3 gaols and we are "expected" to concede 4.3 goals...and in reality they conceded nowt and we have conceded 7?

Exactly that, based on the chances we allowed and the model applied when the game state is '1 goal in the lead'.

[Dr Stu-Pid]

Remember the chat about whether we've suffered a number of blows this season from conceding goals that have a low XG rating (so worldies and flukes basically)? Dan K has continued on that theme ongoing and you can see our issue is that while our performance level is broadly the same as Man City, we've either had bad luck in relation to those goals, or we've not managed the risk in relation to the build up to those goals, or a bit of both.

This is the numbers while leading by 1 goal in games this season. We've conceded 7, Manchester City have conceded 0.



He's consistently excellent is Dan, for me at least. https://twitter.com/DanKennett/with_replies

Thanks, this is really interesting.  I went back and tried to think which goals these would have been and came up with the list below:

Brentford (away) - goal 2 - XGA 0.50
Brentford (away) - goal 3 - XGA 0.45
Man City (home) - goal 1 - XGA 0.06
Man City (home) - goal 2 - XGA 0.05
Brighton (home) - goal 2 - XGA 0.50
Spurs (away) - goal 2 - XGA 0.31
Chelsea (away) - goal 2 - XGA 0.31

I was surprised that the Foden goal was such a low XGA, but other than that one and De Bruyne's deflected shot the rest of the goals all have reasonably high XGA and so we can't really complain about the actual goals being 'unlucky'.  However digging into them a bit more we have an Alisson mistake for the Spurs goal and some pin ball action for both of the Brentford goals, so maybe there was an element of luck about them, but certainly nothing over the top.

I'd actually say that the 'unlucky' goals we've conceded have been while we were drawing or winning by more than 2 goals, such as the first goals for Brighton, West Ham, and Chelsea (x2), but all still lead to dropped points.

If I look at City at 1-0 I come up with these big chances which didn't lead to goals:

Leicester (away) - Lookman on 75 mins (0.49)
Man Utd (away) - Greenwood on 25 mins (0.53)
Villa (away) - Chukwuemeka on 74 mins (0.41)

I think we can all agree that City were beating Utd that day regardless of whether Greenwood scores, so really there are only 2 games where they could have dropped points in that sample.

With City I would point more to their refereeing luck against Wolves and Arsenal (whereas we had awful luck against West Ham and Spurs), and also some missed chances from teams when the game was level (such as Arsenal at 0-1).

But either way, these small differences are massive in a tight title race, especially one where every dropped point counts.  Just on my finger in the air 'luck meter' I'd definitely say that we would be between -4 and -6 on luck points whereas City are somewhere between +2 and +4.  That's basically the actual gap between the two teams in the table.

[royhendo]

Yup, and it maybe does explain the Pep obsession with controlling transitions. It might make them dull as ditchwater but it does lead to these situations once they hit their groove (if you haven't managed to control them the same way).

Getting that organisation and control right is really the only big issue (other than the higher level squad age and depth thing).

[JP-65]

One of the low xG goals was Havertz at Anfield.  Cost 2 points.

Obviously not in this list of goals as the game state was different

[FLRed67]

Remember the chat about whether we've suffered a number of blows this season from conceding goals that have a low XG rating (so worldies and flukes basically)? Dan K has continued on that theme ongoing and you can see our issue is that while our performance level is broadly the same as Man City, we've either had bad luck in relation to those goals, or we've not managed the risk in relation to the build up to those goals, or a bit of both.

This is the numbers while leading by 1 goal in games this season. We've conceded 7, Manchester City have conceded 0.



He's consistently excellent is Dan, for me at least. https://twitter.com/DanKennett/with_replies

So now way we should be 11 behind, based on that table.

If there's a pattern to these 7 GA's, then coaching staff should be able to fix it. If it's poor game management/tactics at 1-0, same.

Bad luck, for its part, should even out in second half.

So in short, string some W's together and make sure we are within 6 or 7 going into the Etihad. Make that match meaningful, and it becomes interesting.

If they don't win the league from this position, it will break them. We will break them.

We're playing for a cause larger than LFC right now. We are serving humanity. Think Luke in his X-fighter vs. the Deathstar.

[killer-heels]

Again did these low xG goals include Brighton? I made the point at the time that we should have still won that game.

[royhendo]

Again did these low xG goals include Brighton? I made the point at the time that we should have still won that game.

It'll include the 2nd one I'd guess, yeah.  

Dr Stu-Pid had a go at that...

Thanks, this is really interesting.  I went back and tried to think which goals these would have been and came up with the list below:

Brentford (away) - goal 2 - XGA 0.50
Brentford (away) - goal 3 - XGA 0.45
Man City (home) - goal 1 - XGA 0.06
Man City (home) - goal 2 - XGA 0.05
Brighton (home) - goal 2 - XGA 0.50
Spurs (away) - goal 2 - XGA 0.31
Chelsea (away) - goal 2 - XGA 0.31

I was surprised that the Foden goal was such a low XGA, but other than that one and De Bruyne's deflected shot the rest of the goals all have reasonably high XGA and so we can't really complain about the actual goals being 'unlucky'.  However digging into them a bit more we have an Alisson mistake for the Spurs goal and some pin ball action for both of the Brentford goals, so maybe there was an element of luck about them, but certainly nothing over the top.

I'd actually say that the 'unlucky' goals we've conceded have been while we were drawing or winning by more than 2 goals, such as the first goals for Brighton, West Ham, and Chelsea (x2), but all still lead to dropped points.

If I look at City at 1-0 I come up with these big chances which didn't lead to goals:

Leicester (away) - Lookman on 75 mins (0.49)
Man Utd (away) - Greenwood on 25 mins (0.53)
Villa (away) - Chukwuemeka on 74 mins (0.41)

I think we can all agree that City were beating Utd that day regardless of whether Greenwood scores, so really there are only 2 games where they could have dropped points in that sample.

With City I would point more to their refereeing luck against Wolves and Arsenal (whereas we had awful luck against West Ham and Spurs), and also some missed chances from teams when the game was level (such as Arsenal at 0-1).

But either way, these small differences are massive in a tight title race, especially one where every dropped point counts.  Just on my finger in the air 'luck meter' I'd definitely say that we would be between -4 and -6 on luck points whereas City are somewhere between +2 and +4.  That's basically the actual gap between the two teams in the table.

[killer-heels]

On another point, I dont listen to many podcasts around football but i did listen to Redmen TV one and a contributor said that the criticism of Klopp in his time here has been his inability to introduce subs that change a game.

I didnt know that was a Klopp problem at all. Also subs are like set pieces, all fans think their lot are shit at them.

[FLRed67]

Again did these low xG goals include Brighton? I made the point at the time that we should have still won that game.

Brighton were superb in that game. If it had gone on a bit longer, we would have probably lost.

[killer-heels]

Brighton were superb in that game. If it had gone on a bit longer, we would have probably lost.

Indeed they were good and we were awful. But we had this debate before and I felt that maybe the quality of the chances scored against was masking our assessment of the team and it wasnt a luck issue, in that I felt the team between 18-20 seasons go out and win that Brighton game when it gets back to 2-2.

[PoetryInMotion]

Thanks, this is really interesting.  I went back and tried to think which goals these would have been and came up with the list below:

Brentford (away) - goal 2 - XGA 0.50
Brentford (away) - goal 3 - XGA 0.45
Man City (home) - goal 1 - XGA 0.06
Man City (home) - goal 2 - XGA 0.05
Brighton (home) - goal 2 - XGA 0.50
Spurs (away) - goal 2 - XGA 0.31
Chelsea (away) - goal 2 - XGA 0.31

I was surprised that the Foden goal was such a low XGA, but other than that one and De Bruyne's deflected shot the rest of the goals all have reasonably high XGA and so we can't really complain about the actual goals being 'unlucky'.  However digging into them a bit more we have an Alisson mistake for the Spurs goal and some pin ball action for both of the Brentford goals, so maybe there was an element of luck about them, but certainly nothing over the top.

I'd actually say that the 'unlucky' goals we've conceded have been while we were drawing or winning by more than 2 goals, such as the first goals for Brighton, West Ham, and Chelsea (x2), but all still lead to dropped points.

If I look at City at 1-0 I come up with these big chances which didn't lead to goals:

Leicester (away) - Lookman on 75 mins (0.49)
Man Utd (away) - Greenwood on 25 mins (0.53)
Villa (away) - Chukwuemeka on 74 mins (0.41)

I think we can all agree that City were beating Utd that day regardless of whether Greenwood scores, so really there are only 2 games where they could have dropped points in that sample.

With City I would point more to their refereeing luck against Wolves and Arsenal (whereas we had awful luck against West Ham and Spurs), and also some missed chances from teams when the game was level (such as Arsenal at 0-1).

But either way, these small differences are massive in a tight title race, especially one where every dropped point counts.  Just on my finger in the air 'luck meter' I'd definitely say that we would be between -4 and -6 on luck points whereas City are somewhere between +2 and +4.  That's basically the actual gap between the two teams in the table.

Agree with this. I think we were unlucky with the Mwepu and Kovacic long rangers, which probably don't go in 9/10 times if those two players took those shots again. If those don't go in, there is no chance that Brighton and Chelsea go at us, it would probably have been damage limitation in the second half for them. That's 4 points right there. Still, our game management could've been better.

Brentford, I can make peace as we were actually poor in defending (even if Salah should've scored before we conceded the 3rd). Leicester and West Ham, we were sluggish a bit, but we were good enough to take at least 2 points out of those games, considering the referee error against West Ham and the missed chances against Leicester. Add them up and it amounts to 6 points. And then Spurs refereeing debacle that cost us another 2 points.

Man City got lucky against Wolves and Arsenal (didn't look like they were scoring in open play until they scored the respective penalties).

These fine margins and absentees in the recent month have cost us more than anything.

But think of the margins when we lost two titles to City before in the H2H games.

In 2013-14, Sterling was wrongly ruled offside for his goal at the Etihad, which had we scored and drawn the game, it would have resulted in a 3 point swing, enough to win the League.

In 2018-19, that clearance from Stones, before the ball could bobble in (I think there was just cms or mms in that) again at the Etihad, cost us dearly. Had we drawn that game, it's another 3 point swing and that would've been enough to win the League.

[Dr Stu-Pid]

It'll include the 2nd one I'd guess, yeah.  

Dr Stu-Pid had a go at that...

This post covered the very low XGA goals we've conceded this season (although I actually missed the Foden goal which was only 0.06):

Another thing to note around our goals conceded compared to XG- this season is the number of extremely low level XG goals that we have conceded, for example:

Chelsea - 0.02 (Havertz header from corner)
Man City - 0.05 (De Bruyne deflected shot)
Brighton - 0.01 (Mwepu shot from distance)
West Ham - 0.00 (Alisson OG from corner)
Newcastle - 0.02 (Shelvey shot from distance)
Leicester - 0.07 (Lookman)
Chelsea - 0.02 (Kovacic volley)

We dropped points in 6 of those 7 games including 2 losses by a single goal.

[Komic]

Anyone pay attention enough to when City do concede their goals? - a soft consolation when they're 2 or 3 up, or concede first to stir them into life to come from behind and get a win?

Arsenal last week was one of those games where I wanted Arsenal to score (in the 10-15 either side of half time, when we had time to respond); yes, they'd have retreated even further into their shell, but it would have given players and crowd a wake-up call.

We haven't regressed to the backs-to-the-wall nervousness that accompanied a 1-0 lead under previous managers, but we do seem to retreat into a 'control the game, protect the lead' mode a little too early in games at times, when a little more positivity could give us a comfortable cushion and kill off any belief the opposition have.

I think there were stats from the season we won the league about our xG vs City depending on game state. City had a much a higher xG, but we were never behind for long and killed games off defensively once ahead. So I dont think we've changed too much in that regard

[PoetryInMotion]

I think there were stats from the season we won the league about our xG vs City depending on game state. City had a much a higher xG, but we were never behind for long and killed games off defensively once ahead. So I dont think we've changed too much in that regard

I think we have lost a bit of the game management that we had from 2018-20, but it's understandable since many of these players were injured, some long term last season and our rhythm was disrupted. Just hope they grow into a it a bit more as they play together in the upcoming months.

[royhendo]

Do you reckon it's the 8 on the right hand side as a rule? (I've gotten sucked into Klopp speak big time, but someone who stays behind the ball predominately and snuffs out the counter the way Gini did, and retains the ball when pressed?)

[Dr Stu-Pid]

Do you reckon it's the 8 on the right hand side as a rule? (I've gotten sucked into Klopp speak big time, but someone who stays behind the ball predominately and snuffs out the counter the way Gini did, and retains the ball when pressed?)

I think this is what some people miss when we discuss the midfield and them saying that letting Gini go was a mistake.  Ultimately last season we massively struggled to break teams down and score goals, and that was with a midfield which contained Gini 90% of the time.  This season we have seen a huge increase in XG and goals scored due to the team being reshaped both in and out of possession and different personnel being used.  Now admittedly that has come at the cost of the midfield looking less controlled and teams having more space on the counter, but that is not due to Gini being missing, that is due our shape change.  And for all that lack of control, we still have a good record in terms of XGA and goals conceded, and the gap between our XG and XGA is far higher than it was even during our title winning season.  This is all by design, not by serendipity.

Now the question that would be great to be able to answer is how much better would this team have looked and faired in terms of results if we would have had Thiago available for more games, Elliot available for more games, and Jones available for more games?  Would those midfield issues still be there, or would we have been able to have looked a bit more controlled in games while still maintaining the XG gains.  How nice would it be if we'd have had Gini still available for the games against bigger teams to help bolster the midfield while unleashing the more attacking line-up against the smaller teams?  But that would be a hell of a luxury player at the salary that he was looking for, especially as his game time would have been massively reduced.

We're definitely seeing the next evolution in the Klopp template, but frustratingly due to the 'luck' factors that we have spoken about in previous posts we are discussing the short comings of those changes rather than seeing a team on pace for another 90+ point finish and celebrating the changes.

[redmark]

Do you reckon it's the 8 on the right hand side as a rule? (I've gotten sucked into Klopp speak big time, but someone who stays behind the ball predominately and snuffs out the counter the way Gini did, and retains the ball when pressed?)

I think it's difficult to make that case with any certainty. We defend as a team and the responsibilities and interventions of individuals depend on others also doing their jobs just right. Position for position, we're better defensively on the left than the right; at CB, in how our FBs position and recover, in how the wide forward tracks back and holds a player up. That's not to say the 14 - sorry, right sided 8 - doesn't make errors in terms of defensive duties, but so do other players - even Wijnaldum did; even Fabinho occasionally. If there is a tendency for those to be more common or costly from the right, we have to consider the balance as a whole; Matip vs van Dijk, Trent vs Robertson, etc.  Do opponents target our right more because of perceived weaknesses?

[royhendo]

I just think it's where we're not quite integrated as a unit this year - it's hard to articulate isn't it but Trent's interview definitely made me think of it - the way they're encouraged to fill that space.

Whoops - this one: https://theathletic.com/3062103/2022/01/14/my-game-in-my-words-trent-alexander-arnold-liverpool/

“It always comes from the manager,” he says. “He has set up a system to allow the players to move with fluidity to help the team create moments that win games. He has allowed me to have that freedom to drift inside a little bit more. It helps offensively and defensively.

“If we lose the ball, there is an extra number in the middle of the park to go and win it back. And when I am getting on the ball, I am in more dangerous areas than just standing out wide.

“There has been a lot of focus this season on the two triangles out wide — so, we have the No 8 in midfield, the full-backs and the wingers on each side. It is about making sure, at all times, there should be someone occupying the width, someone high up on the last line and someone in a half-space or in a midfield eight.

“The manager says it is not too important who it is, just as long as we are occupying those three spaces. With that flexibility, you can do what you want — just make sure that there is someone in those positions. That’s why at times you will see me in between a centre-back and full-back making channel runs, because the No 8 has dropped in at right-back and Mo (Mohamed Salah) is out wide. There’s flexibility and also an understanding of movement and patterns.”

“It is all about communication, really. It is about having an understanding with the players you are playing with. But you can only have full confidence in your position. It helps if you know people are there backing you up. We have played with each other for a long enough time as a team to understand where we need to be when certain things are happening.”

He continues: “The main principle we have is, no matter what system the opposition play, we always have two centre-backs around the halfway line and Fabinho should always be screening that. If they (Liverpool’s opponents) play two up front, we will leave it as three vs two. It is like when the ball is on the left-hand side, we all know Mo is getting in the box. It is then between me and the No 8, say that’s Jordan Henderson, on who gets into the box and backs him up. It should always be one or the other.

“Mo has got no responsibility in staying back defending, that’s not where the team needs him. We need him in the box to go and score goals. You see with Hendo against Everton getting into the box, they are the areas we need to occupy. It is about numbers in the box. If the ball is on a certain side, then that winger is not getting in there, so it is up to the midfielder or the opposite full-back to. You see Robbo (left-back Andrew Robertson) and I in there a lot at the back post. But for that to happen, it is about the protection and that comes from the communication between the centre-backs and Fabinho.”

[Dr Stu-Pid]

Agreed, but to me that reads like they are placing more emphasis on attacking positions and winning the ball back quickly than what happens if they break the press or go long on the counter.  It's basically a case of us being happy to go man for man on the counters whereas previously it always felt like either Henderson or Gini (depending on the side) would drop a little deeper to add that additional layer of protection.  That means that we are going to see more incidence of dangerous looking counter attacks and big gaps in midfield.  But the fact that we are keeping XGA low obviously means that we are not being punished that often and that the trade off is more than worth it.  Of course that is mainly down to just how good Fabinho and our CBs are (and Alisson), and most other players in their positions would be having heart attacks and screaming for midfielders and full-backs to drop and give them more protection.  In fact the only way for us to play this system and for it to work is for the CBs to push up as far as possible to essentially become additional holding midfielders, and it was the fact that they dropped a little deeper in the first half against City that caused us so many problems, which Klopp pointed out at half-time and we addressed in the second half.  But to most pundits and fans it will just look like we are far too open in midfield and that we are playing our famous 'dangerous high line'.

[royhendo]

Exactly mate - it feels like either a set up or a personnel tweak that’s needed (or I guess to continue with this approach and rely on the luck reverting to the mean over the course of the season again).

[RedG13]

Do you reckon it's the 8 on the right hand side as a rule? (I've gotten sucked into Klopp speak big time, but someone who stays behind the ball predominately and snuffs out the counter the way Gini did, and retains the ball when pressed?)

It didnt seem an issue in the early game with Elliott and Henderson has not been has good at winning duels or being able to get back. Feels like more comes from not winning high up on the right side then the left side dont know if there is public data to back up or not.

[lionel_messias]

The Klopp template now, in short:

---Integrate talented youngsters into a really fluid system

---Minimal transfers in but very carefully done (see: almost everyone, Jota, Konate recently)


Hard to criticise given that we won't buy many players at the top end of the market and won't stock up like Oil money merchants.

[royhendo]

I worked in North London 2010 to 2012 and got spares for Arsenal's CL group games in late 2011,including the visit from Klopp's Dortmund side the year after their first league win, and while Arsenal managed to somehow conjure up a win through the sheer force of will of Robin Van Persie, they were comprehensively outplayed, and the patterns of play were so similar to ours last night - the home side trying to impose themselves, and the away side persistently looking to spring from the press in formation and slice through them - just the impression of a side that's incredibly well coached and structured. The selection of Gordon was great - it's nice when he reverts to putting the system first isn't it?

[Funky_Gibbons]

Exactly mate - it feels like either a set up or a personnel tweak that’s needed (or I guess to continue with this approach and rely on the luck reverting to the mean over the course of the season again).

Interesting that since you've posted this regarding the number of goals we've conceded when 1-0 up, both Brentford and arsenal have had 'decent' opportunities and haven't taken them when losing 1-0.

Maybe the luck is riverting.

[royhendo]

Haha, when Dan Kennett names the Devil, Dan Kennett tames the Devil.

[Dave McCoy]

It's just another example of how xG and variance can describe what happened but can't explain why it happened.  Dan Kennett can point out that there was a variance in a certain game state which is how there is an 11 point gap between ManC and LFC when statistically the gap shouldn't be that big. Great, now we know how this happened. To then pinpoint why this happened in a low event sport such as Football is really problematic and probably not possible with the info at our disposal. Did our RCM not cover the space properly that led to Chelsea getting a corner or did Havartz just comb his hair a certain way which in combination with a random gust of wind just carried the ball perfectly into the corner?  Who's to say? More than likely random chance is the best explainer for why this has happened.

[Eeyore]

I worked in North London 2010 to 2012 and got spares for Arsenal's CL group games in late 2011,including the visit from Klopp's Dortmund side the year after their first league win, and while Arsenal managed to somehow conjure up a win through the sheer force of will of Robin Van Persie, they were comprehensively outplayed, and the patterns of play were so similar to ours last night - the home side trying to impose themselves, and the away side persistently looking to spring from the press in formation and slice through them - just the impression of a side that's incredibly well coached and structured. The selection of Gordon was great - it's nice when he reverts to putting the system first isn't it?

The point I would make Roy is that the system is so important to us. That we should have enough squad depth to ensure that the system never needs to be sacrificed.

I think the time has come for us to clear out the players that don't have the qualities required for the system to work and bring in players who do fit with our patterns of play.

[redmark]

The Klopp template now, in short:

---Integrate talented youngsters into a really fluid system

---Minimal transfers in but very carefully done (see: almost everyone, Jota, Konate recently)


Hard to criticise given that we won't buy many players at the top end of the market and won't stock up like Oil money merchants.

Succession planning and the flow of youngsters coming through is something I can sometimes get too worried about, but it's promising to see some of the real youngsters we've picked up are progressing, in a period when we haven't been able (for various reasons) to pick up as many 20-24 year olds squad-ready in the last two or three years as we might have liked. With the age profile of our squad it's still something we need to focus on, though - and try and keep hold of some of those occasionally linked with moves (like Gomez, say) at the younger end who are (currently) struggling to get (re-)established in the side. There's still a fair amount of natural churn - and just maybe, a financially sensible high profile older player sale or two - to manage in this squad which we need to get right.

[royhendo]

The point I would make Roy is that the system is so important to us. That we should have enough squad depth to ensure that the system never needs to be sacrificed.

I think the time has come for us to clear out the players that don't have the qualities required for the system to work and bring in players who do fit with our patterns of play.

One by one I guess that happens eh?

It kind of did for Wenger when that point arrived but I think the system is more robust in Klopp’s version…

[royhendo]

From https://mobile.twitter.com/DanKennett/status/1485385559103188999

We play offside and we play it well. Pressure football relies on it.

[killer-heels]

Quite high there compared to City. We press of course but it seems to feel like we press in a different way to City. City’s seems very rushed and full pelt almost as if their main reason to press is not to win the ball back but to stop an attack being sprung by the opposition. Probably part of Guardiola’s plan to ensure his defence is never got at.

[Knight]

It’s clever from Guardiola. Against the ‘dross’ the least technically gifted players, who are least capable of dribbling/passing through a press, are the defenders and GK. Meanwhile your defenders are at least partly bought and selected because of their ability to pass/ dribble through a press which perhaps makes them slightly less brilliant as pure defenders, at least in relative terms to the rest of their teammates and their overall ability. So what do you do? Have forwards who will sprint like crazy to shut down attacks before they can even start. Yes he’s got unlimited resources, but he’s also got a way of playing against the dross of the league which is extraordinarily efficient. Liverpool do too of course - and we’d have just as many points as them in total since 18/19 of injuries hadn’t killed us. But there’s definitely differences in the way we’re seeking to shut down the dross compared to City.

[royhendo]

Dan K also pointed out the numbers we’ve generated from our backup strikers. Pretty phenomenal.
https://mobile.twitter.com/DanKennett/status/1485405302078021634

[Chris~]

Isn't the big difference that we're trying to counter press to create chances so probably commit more people and take more chnaces where as City use it to protect their defence/regain the ball and reset so players are going to be set up different for that.

[royhendo]

City have even more of the ball than we do too.