Topic: Southampton v Liverpool 1-2 '45+1 Mane '70 Si Senor '83 Ings

[BobPaisley3]

There are loads of quotes out there from Kante that as soon as Chelsea came in for him that he wanted out.

Wanted a London club too so he could nip backwards and forwards to Paris on the train in his free time.

[PoetryInMotion]

You're absolutely right about that. Plus Gini's song is one of the most popular chants among Liverpool fans. Did you see that clip on LFC TV where Gini and Coutinho played with about 30 of the Under-9 kids? (BTW I was shit-scared one of the players was gonna get injured, but fair play to them for doing it). It was the most joyous thing I've ever seen or heard when the kids started doing the Gini chant. You just can't imagine that London lot doing that from Drogba or Essien or Kanté even in the stadium during a match, despite the fact they might not win a game this season when Kante doesn't play. I do feel justified in saying Kanté gets overlooked for awards and journalist accolades because he was a massive part of France winning the WC and he barely gets a mention among the Griezmanns, Pogbas and MBappes...  Granted, that's more likely based on his personality rather than any unconscious bias or Colourism.

Mate, you're way of the mark here. You've fixed it's because of something and is trying to twist everything towards that. Kante was universally recognized as PL's best player a few seasons ago (See PFA Player of the Year, Premier League Player of the Season and FWA Player of the Year). Also, aren't Pogba and Mbappe coloured?

And it's not personality as much as DMs not being recognized that much in general in terms of awards (although managers, analytics men and some fans know their value). You've taken literally one player and you've been trying to paint it into a scenario you've decided out of nowhere.

Weah won the Ballon d'Or by the way. It's just that more African (or African based) players have to show what they got in the Big Leagues. And even if they have done, winning a Ballon d'Or is not easy even if one is a great player. It's a selection of 3 players out 1000s of players in the Top Leagues of the world, plenty of World Class players, coloured or not have not made Ballon d'Or Top 3. And plenty of coloured South Americans have been in the Ballon d'Or Top 3. Your premise is more than flawed. It falls like a pack of cards, one assumption after another.

[afc tukrish]

Midfield

Not compact enough, vertically and horizontally, and playing too far from the defenders in general.

Too easy to play through us...

[Kenny's Jacket]

Also, he said that these players were overlooked for awards, but wasn't Kante acknowledged universally as PL's best player in 2016-17? It's probably an year later than one would've liked, but DMs are not often recognized in these awards in general, how many Ballon d'Or winners have been DMs? They're extremely rare.

That post is way way off the mark.

Sammer the only one. 

[PoetryInMotion]

DMs don’t get as many awards for the same reason defenders don’t - attackers are more important. It’s the same reason the transfer record for an attacker is 3X a defender or dm
That’s just how the sport is set up at a base level; scoring goals is the currency and what drives winning stuff.

DMs and defenders have to be other worldly to get individual recognition and rightly so they’re just not as important

Fcuk all to do with race .... Busquets in his prime is probably the best dm I’ve ever seen ... don’t think he’s won a single individual international award or even come that close

I agree that it's the position and not what the poster has suggested in this circumstance of Kante, but if defenders and defensive actions are not important (or not as important), we could have 11 attackers on the pitch and get on with it. I don't think managers will agree to it. More and more managers want their attacking players to also do defensive work.

Yes, goals win games, but if you're a good defender, you can stop a goal, and that is also worth a goal. You don't have to do a last ditch tackle to stop a goal, you can stop a goal before by making a good decision 'off the ball'. The problem is that there aren't enough metrics to measure defensive effectiveness, that of defenders and midfielders. Tackles, Interceptions etc. don't help. You can be effective without actually making many actions of such nature. If you're an attacker, one can simply measure the players' end product and know who is good and who is not. The 2nd reason why an attacker is more popular, thereby cost more and also win more accolades is because of what people want to see - they want to see skills on the ball, they want to see actions on the ball more than they want to see what is off the ball.

Zidane once said that Makelele was their most important player. He knew. Managers know. There were days when football was played with ridiculously attacking formations like 2-3-5 etc. Football started from reverse and then came to now (started with formations like 1-1-8, which would be crazy now, and then moved towards stability, to what it is now - balanced with equal players doing attacking and defensive actions), because the game itself cannot be stable without defenders. I know that teams who score more goals usually win Leagues, but I would argue that this happens because there aren't enough good defenders with the lesser sides to stop the rot, and that affects this stat more than who is more important over whom. If lesser sides don't have good attackers, the GF will likely remain 0 for them, there won't be any change there but if they don't have good defenders, the GA column is going to keep on increasing, thereby increasing the GF column of the stronger side (which results in the stat that the teams who score more win leagues).

We know by experience that having a great attack helps a lot (under Brendan), but having a great attack and a great defense makes even more of a difference (under Klopp), so who is to say what's important and what's not?

[PoetryInMotion]

Sammer the only one.

And I think, even he played Sweeper in the season he won 

It's not that DMs are not important, they just go under the radar, because so much of what they do is off the ball, which is tactically very important, but not so important to a fan watching the game. Awards also play to some extent to what fans want to see.

[JackWard33]

Less important is not equal to not important though

[PoetryInMotion]

Less important is not equal to not important though

So, stopping a goal is less important than scoring a goal? How do you measure this?

If it comes to a tie in GD, then maybe yes. But teams don't play their games based on what would be if points and GD is the same, they play to what helps them most. Teams who have a better defense give importance to their defense first and then counter-attack, while teams who have a better attack give importance to their attack and try to score more than they concede.

Ultimately, teams that find a balance between the two are often the best and better than the first two.

[PhaseOfPlay]

I agree that it's the position and not what the poster has suggested in this circumstance of Kante, but if defenders and defensive actions are not important (or not as important), we could have 11 attackers on the pitch and get on with it. I don't think managers will agree to it. More and more managers want their attacking players to also do defensive work.

Also known as "The Ajax Way"

[PhaseOfPlay]

So, stopping a goal is less important than scoring a goal? How do you measure this?

If it comes to a tie in GD, then maybe yes. But teams don't play their games based on what would be if points and GD is the same, they play to what helps them most. Teams who have a better defense give importance to their defense first and then counter-attack, while teams who have a better attack give importance to their attack and try to score more than they concede.

Ultimately, teams that find a balance between the two are often the best and better than the first two.

Easy The best attacks have won more leagues than the best defences have

1 goal=1 point.

(Caveat - only under 3-points-for-a-win. Under 2-points-for-a-win, defence and attack were equally important)

[JackWard33]

So, stopping a goal is less important than scoring a goal? How do you measure this?

If it comes to a tie in GD, then maybe yes. But teams don't play their games based on what would be if points and GD is the same, they play to what helps them most. Teams who have a better defense give importance to their defense first and then counter-attack, while teams who have a better attack give importance to their attack and try to score more than they concede.

Ultimately, teams that find a balance between the two are often the best and better than the first two.

What PoP said
..... but also the role of the individual is less pronounced or important in stopping goals than creating or scoring them
Less good teams can use defensive organization with lesser players to stop stronger teams - attacking is far more reliant on individual ability

[Ravishing Rick Dude]

I can't work out if it's solely a personnel issue, or if it's a training issue. I think, though, that we could maybe put three more conservative midfielders in there to regain our compactness (Fabinho, Gini, Oxlade?), and let the three attackers do their thing. Milner isn't playing with any discipline, nor is Henderson, and that's been exposing Fabinho. In fact, as blasphemous as it is to say, Milner might actually be a big part of the problem. He's trying to cover every blade of grass, but he tends to drift out wide. Here are some comparisons. Spot the difference:

Yesterdays shape at half time:



Salah isolated, but you couldn't pick out who our defensive mid is there, and there's quite a noticeable gap in the middle, and we lost a lot of second balls in there. Here is the shape at full time:



Mane and Firmino pushed up to support Salah, giving us better attacking options, but the same midfield gap, and the same non-specific role for anyone in  midfield to play as the holding mid. It was supposed to be Gini. It looks like it was Milner. Neither one is in the right areas over the course of the game.

Now compare to the game against Brighton away last season:



And against Bayern (home):



Against Palace in January:




There was better shape in midfield last season. This season, we're looking a bit open, and that's exposing the defence, and that's creating problems that we'll need to fix sooner rather than later.

Cheers for that. It looks exactly like i thought it would look. A mess.

[PoetryInMotion]

Easy The best attacks have won more leagues than the best defences have

1 goal=1 point.

(Caveat - only under 3-points-for-a-win. Under 2-points-for-a-win, defence and attack were equally important)

Yep, I did mention that in my previous post. But it's also the result of the opponents having a lesser defense. Improve their defense and the stat will start dissolving. Let me explain.

Take a bottom, or a bottom mid-table side that neither has a good defense nor a good attack. When they don't have a good attack, they don't threaten a bigger side, so the bigger side's GA is not threatened (whether they have a good defense or not). But when they don't have a good defense, the GF column of the bigger side keeps increasing. This goes on to return the stat that gives an illusion of attack is more important than defense. When there is a big disparity between the top sides and lesser sides, this will feel more.

You don't need to get all tactical and organized and defensively strong when you're playing the likes of Brighton and Bournemouth where you can easily hope that your superior attack can take you through regardless. In Leagues, you play most of the sides of this kind. 

In Big Tournaments with less disparity between teams like the CL or World Cup for example, where there is not a lot of difference between the top side and the bottom side, I don't really think this will hold true  That's why games at that level become more tactical than ever

[PoetryInMotion]

What PoP said
..... but also the role of the individual is less pronounced or important in stopping goals than creating or scoring them
Less good teams can use defensive organization with lesser players to stop stronger teams - attacking is far more reliant on individual ability

Caveat - At the cost of restricting their attack - see Hodgson. If you don't have a good defense, you have to put 10 men behind the ball, you have to put numbers to compensate. That means you leave nothing for your attack.

If your defense is good, you can have 4 men in defense as it is while everyone else defends in their zone. You can push your line high and you can give your attackers the freedom.

If we don't need individual quality in defense, I don't know why the hell we had to wait for Van Dijk when we could have got Titus Bramble. We could've stopped stronger teams with just defensive organization.

[Bergersrightwingviews]

Zidane once said that Makelele was their most important player. He knew. Managers know. There were days when football was played with ridiculously attacking formations like 2-3-5 etc. Football started from reverse and then came to now (started with formations like 1-1-8, which would be crazy now, and then moved towards stability, to what it is now - balanced with equal players doing attacking and defensive actions), because the game itself cannot be stable without defenders. I know that teams who score more goals usually win Leagues, but I would argue that this happens because there aren't enough good defenders with the lesser sides to stop the rot, and that affects this stat more than who is more important over whom. If lesser sides don't have good attackers, the GF will likely remain 0 for them, there won't be any change there but if they don't have good defenders, the GA column is going to keep on increasing, thereby increasing the GF column of the stronger side (which results in the stat that the teams who score more win leagues).

[/quote]

Your posts are always worth reading, but this para in particular is an astoundingly insightful and original one. Going to be pondering this for the rest of the day.

[JackWard33]

Caveat - At the cost of restricting their attack - see Hodgson. If you don't have a good defense, you have to put 10 men behind the ball, you have to put numbers to compensate. That means you leave nothing for your attack.

If your defense is good, you can have 4 men in defense as it is while everyone else defends in their zone. You can push your line high and you can give your attackers the freedom.

If we don't need individual quality in defense, I don't know why the hell we had to wait for Van Dijk when we could have got Titus Bramble. We could've stopped stronger teams with just defensive organization.

Youre arguing with something I haven't said here mate. I haven't said quality defensive personnel is irrelevant or anything close to that
None of this is binary - its about RELATIVE importance of attackers and defenders.
Anyway you know my POV I think the evidence of the market backs up this view.... if you have a different one then thats cool lets just agree to differ

[Roger Federer]

Caveat - At the cost of restricting their attack - see Hodgson. If you don't have a good defense, you have to put 10 men behind the ball, you have to put numbers to compensate. That means you leave nothing for your attack.

If your defense is good, you can have 4 men in defense as it is while everyone else defends in their zone. You can push your line high and you can give your attackers the freedom.

If we don't need individual quality in defense, I don't know why the hell we had to wait for Van Dijk when we could have got Titus Bramble. We could've stopped stronger teams with just defensive organization.

Who said that you don't need individual quality in defense? But arguably, not to the same extent that you do in attack if you want to be a team competing at the very top. Not a very controversial point, I'd would say. As good as Laporte and Kompany are, it's the quality of De Bruyne, Silvax2, Sterling and Aguero that has won City the league.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Yep, I did mention that in my previous post. But it's also the result of the opponents having a lesser defense. Improve their defense and the stat will start dissolving. Let me explain.

Take a bottom, or a bottom mid-table side that neither has a good defense nor a good attack. When they don't have a good attack, they don't threaten a bigger side, so the bigger side's GA is not threatened (whether they have a good defense or not). But when they don't have a good defense, the GF column of the bigger side keeps increasing. This goes on to return the stat that gives an illusion of attack is more important than defense. When there is a big disparity between the top sides and lesser sides, this will feel more.

You don't need to get all tactical and organized and defensively strong when you're playing the likes of Brighton and Bournemouth where you can easily hope that your superior attack can take you through regardless. In Leagues, you play most of the sides of this kind. 

In Big Tournaments with less disparity between teams like the CL or World Cup for example, where there is not a lot of difference between the top side and the bottom side, I don't really think this will hold true  That's why games at that level become more tactical than ever

Attack is more important than defence because of a few other factors though - firstly, goals are rare, so the better the quality of your attackers, the more chances you have of scoring goals. On the other hand, defending doesn't always rely on individual quality - as you mention, numbers-up at the back can be a great tactical equalizer, which is why teams park the bus. Secondly, goals are rare because the target it small. Taking shots from outside the box, even without defenders or a keeper, even in a training situation, from a dead ball, doesn't create a 100% accuracy. Anecdotally, the accuracy is about 33%, without defenders. Adapt that statistic to a moving ball, with competing defenders, a keeper, element of chance, environmental conditions, footedness, angle, distance, and time, and the accuracy rate goes right down to 10% of all shots. On the other hand, defending involves only one main element - stopping the forward movement of the ball. So it is easier to defend than it is to score. Therefore the rarity of goals makes scoring more important than defending. Thirdly, at the start of any game, both teams begin with a draw. So the team that wins, is the team that scores more. If both teams defend from the first to last whistle, and neither scores, then the result is stalemate. So goals are important for game state. Therefore, attack is again more important than defence

[El Lobo]

I think it’s a pretty fair argument that in the current climate, in this league, you need to be pretty much elite at both ends of the pitch to win trophies no?

[PhaseOfPlay]

I think it’s a pretty fair argument that in the current climate, in this league, you need to be pretty much elite at both ends of the pitch to win trophies no?

It's more important to be more elite in the front end than the back end, is the point being made. You can challenge for the league with an average defence and an elite attack. It's very difficult to do it the other way around.

[Clayton Bigsby]

It's more important to be more elite in the front end than the back end, is the point being made. You can challenge for the league with an average defence and an elite attack. It's very difficult to do it the other way around.

Would possibly have been easier when it was 2 points for a win I imagine

[PhaseOfPlay]

Would possibly have been easier when it was 2 points for a win I imagine

Yep. 2 points for a win, it was fairly even between best defence and best attack. Although having said that, defences in that era weren't as stingy as they are now, in general.

[daggerdoo]

It's why it's the most exciting part of a game, when you're team scores. Goals are one of the most important parts of the game. I can't stress enough, though, how important playing out from the back is nowadays. We couldn't play like we do without Virge, for instance. Not just his work on the ball, but the job he does of talking players through games. The gap between attack and defense and their importance overall is shortening.

[PhaseOfPlay]

It's why it's the most exciting part of a game, when you're team scores. Goals are one of the most important parts of the game. I can't stress enough, though, how important playing out from the back is nowadays. We couldn't play like we do without Virge, for instance. Not just his work on the ball, but the job he does of talking players through games. The gap between attack and defense and their importance overall is shortening.

How do you mean?

[daggerdoo]

I think the importance of a decent defensive unit and defense minded individuals is at an all time high. Especially the way we like to play. Look at the front three constantly chasing back when we're under pressure. I'm thinking defense is the best way of attacking, I guess.

[PhaseOfPlay]

I think the importance of a decent defensive unit and defense minded individuals is at an all time high. Especially the way we like to play. Look at the front three constantly chasing back when we're under pressure. I'm thinking defense is the best way of attacking, I guess.

Pressing is, for sure. But defence is the same importance it always has been. It's just that attack will always be more important

[CHOPPER]

Virg wins the Balloon Door, defending is the new attacking.

[El Lobo]

It's more important to be more elite in the front end than the back end, is the point being made. You can challenge for the league with an average defence and an elite attack. It's very difficult to do it the other way around.

You could in the past, it doesn’t seem likely at the moment.

[daggerdoo]

Pressing is, for sure. But defence is the same importance it always has been. It's just that attack will always be more important

Yeah I think we're agreeing here, you word it better.

[Ciara (with a capital "C")]

My issue is with the ''better sides'' will punish us. We've played better sides. We are not playing the best sides in the world every match. We need to progress obviously. But given that we have done so, expecting us to be the same as we were last year, immediately 4 games in, is a bit daft.

I feel like that is directed at me!

I can see what you're saying, and you're right - we need time to settle into the season and off the back of Wednesday, they should definitely be afforded some leeway given the energy we would have exerted and the lack of time to recover/prepare.

My concern is that the chances we are giving up - City, Norwich, Chelsea and Southampton. Is it a decent sample size? Every competitive game we have played so far this season it feels like we are giving up easier chances. Hopefully it is just a case of needing time to settle down and getting up to peak fitness. I think the drop off in quality of keeper is making a difference too - we are less assured at the back, we look a little bit rattled at time. The comment around better teams punishing us is just going back to the type of chances the opposition are getting - if Arsenal are presented with the chances Chelsea and Norwich and Southampton were presented with, there is a good chance they will take more of them. And all it takes is for the attackers to have an off day and suddenly you're facing the prospect of dropping points. Last season, when the forwards weren't on form (not often) we always had the safety net of the defence winning us points. That just feels a little less stable at the minute.

But as I said, hopefully it's just a case of finding fitness, getting back up to speed, getting that line 100% again and we will see a similar level of performance defensively as we did last season.

I was a bit annoyed with the goal conceded yesterday, not just the unnecessary pressure it invited and putting 3 points at stake but it feels like a clean sheet would have done a lot for everyone's confidence.

But 1-2 away to Southampton, we take that before the game without doubt. And the second half performance was largely fantastic and a throwback to the controlled performances we saw so many of last season. We have a week now to rest and prepare for Arsenal, a week of Klopp being able to get them on the training pitch and hopefully working on these issues ahead of Arsenal. The margins are so fine, had Ings stuck that 2nd away we would have been furious after City dropped points. Small, small margins!

[PhaseOfPlay]

I feel like that is directed at me!

I can see what you're saying, and you're right - we need time to settle into the season and off the back of Wednesday, they should definitely be afforded some leeway given the energy we would have exerted and the lack of time to recover/prepare.

My concern is that the chances we are giving up - City, Norwich, Chelsea and Southampton. Is it a decent sample size? Every competitive game we have played so far this season it feels like we are giving up easier chances.

We're conceding almost double the shots per game as we did last season.

We're also conceding 4 shots on target per game so far. Compared to 2.48 last season per game.

We're more open, and it seems some posters either don't see it or don't think it's a problem.

But it is. The more open you are, the more you rely on your keeper to bail you out.

[Ocean Red]

Great to get another 3 points on the board. It was always going to be a difficult match away to Southampton. Especially on a Saturday 3pm kick off time, after playing 120 mins and winning on penalties on the Wednesday in the uefa super cup final in Istanbul against Chelsea. Also a bonus that man city dropped 2 points at home to spurs. But what is worrying is the amount of chances we are giving teams in every match this season. Hope this is just a mini problem and can be rectified soon though.

[Roady]

At this stage three points is all that matters. Our defence will become more solid in time. it’s a great win after the Istanbul extra time. 2 wins 6 points. Onwards.

[El Lobo]

We're conceding almost double the shots per game as we did last season.

We're also conceding 4 shots on target per game so far. Compared to 2.48 last season per game.

We're more open, and it seems some posters either don't see it or don't think it's a problem.

But it is. The more open you are, the more you rely on your keeper to bail you out.

We’re averaging more shots on target too though, and some say attack is more important than defence.

[Nick110581]

Still amazed at the negativity in this thread.

[newterp]

We’re averaging more shots on target too though, and some say attack is more important than defence.

some say that 1 goal = 1 point

[PhaseOfPlay]

We’re averaging more shots on target too though, and some say attack is more important than defence.

I have to say, you've been a bit snide the past few days, Lobo. I don't really recall you being that kind of poster.

Edit -

I'm an oversensitive prat
I'm an oversensitive prat
I'm an oversensitive prat
I'm an oversensitive prat

[PhaseOfPlay]

some say that 1 goal = 1 point

And you too. Snideness. But I know who to ignore now, though

Edit -

I'm an oversensitive prat
I'm an oversensitive prat
I'm an oversensitive prat
I'm an oversensitive prat

[Ciara (with a capital "C")]

Still amazed at the negativity in this thread.

I feel like I am coming across quite negative but it’s more of a case of focusing on one discussion point that is a mild concern from the opening 4 competitive games.

However, the reality is that I am absolutely chuffed to have a trophy and 6/6 points on the board whilst City dropped points too.

It’s absolutely fine to feel chuffed at where we are and still chat about some mild concerns/frustrations some of us feel. No-one is fearing a crisis!

[newterp]

And you too. Snideness. But I know who to ignore now, though

Lol - really that's weird as I never attack you. I just noticed this was something you've been harping on all summer - so I thought it was innocuous enough of a joke.