This is probably a case where the majority of protagonists in this conversation agree much more than can come across in a forum debate. I'm guessing there are some who think we'd be much better off with Chelsea's midfield or City's midfield, but that's a minority, and frankly stupid, opinion. City's midfield wouldn't have everything that Klopp wants from his midfield, including physicality, tactical awareness in terms of space and ability to run, and run and run. Chelsea's midfield is the midfield of a team who couldn't beat an arsenal team who played most of the game with 10 men.
However, to my knowledge that isn't what AL (as far as I know) and I have been saying over the past page. I think in a Liverpool midfield we need what Fabinho/Henderson offer in the 6 position. Protect the space in front of the CBs, keep the ball moving and recycle possession, mop up, press intelligently without leaving holes, progress the ball up the pitch to a certain extent. Before Fabinho's injury I'd have said Fabinho is the better 6 but Henderson is the incumbent of that role currently on merit and keeps that spot imo. You don't even need to dip into the intangibles in terms of leadership that Henderson offers to argue that he keeps the 6 spot but those things are an additional bonus. I think we need an 8 like Gini, who is tactically astute and able to cover gaps and fill holes, as well as being press resistant, physically top notch and very good at keeping hold of the ball. I don't think Guardiola would want Gini as an 8 (or at least not as an 8 in the way he plays the role for Klopp, he's so flexible he could probably go and be a Guardiola 8 without too much trouble) but Klopp does and that's great. I suspect Keita could probably play this role and as long as the injuries clear up will probably be the replacement for Gini, although the lack of physicality compared to Gini is a a concern. And then Klopp often wants to play another 8 who is slightly more progressive - Milner, Keita, Ox, Lallana, Henderson have all fulfilled this role for Klopp and each of them have different strengths and weaknesses. I would say, and so would others, that the midfield balance is as it's strongest when the final 8 is a player comfortable receiving the ball in the half space, is comfortable in tight spaces and is able to either dribble or pass progressively (or both preferably). However, when we play a midfield of Fab, Gini, Henderson we compensate in other ways, as seen in the period where they started more often than not at the start of this season. And that midfield offers more of other things which is really great. But has the midfield, and thus the team, looked slightly better with a midfield of Hendo, Gini + Lallana/Ox/Keita? I think so. Now others will want to major on the physicality, aggressiveness, tactical discipline and astuteness, ball recovery ability, possessions recycling e.t.c. e.t.c e.t.c. that Fab, Gini and Henderson offer and focus on the positives which is great. They're rightly recognising the huge importance of that to a Klopp midfield and we need that to happen because some might be tempted to accuse the Liverpool midfield of being very average and just workmanlike whilst not understanding what's happening. And folk might be tempted to look at Guardiola's midfield and think the grass is greener, which just isn't true. I just don't think that those who talk up the value of the 'progressive' element as one thing to prize in a Klopp midfield should be accused of disrespecting the team.
