I swear, if I didn't know you as a good poster consistently, I would truly despair.
Lucas lacks variety to his play? Really? Because he's actually done pretty much exactly whatever's been asked of him (except for that one time that he was deployed wide left) to the 't'?
Lucas has limited passing range? Surely you jest. Under Kenny and with Brazil he's demonstrated excellent passing range, without loss of quality.
Then don't despair, assume there's something more to the points than the standard "he's shit".
The points about variety and passing range are relative. Can Lucas hit a ball 40 yards? Sure. That doesn't mean he has the 'passing range' (and all that implies, include weight, spin, vision etc) of Gerrard or Alonso. Can he do more than sit in front of the back four and play simple sideways passes? Of course - but that doesn't mean he's equally adept at intricate one-twos on the edge of the opponents area, bursting into the box and getting goals, or Coutinho-esque through balls.
The point (mine, and a guess at PoP's in whatever thread it was) is that all good football teams evolve, and under Rodgers we are evolving quite rapidly and to dramatic effect. There's an interesting point in an article posted today in the Rodgers thread:
There have been suggestions that Rodgers has shifted from a possession-based game to one of pressing, but this is wide of the target. He has always insisted that intensity 'is an obligation' for his players.
At Swansea, there was much more recycling of the ball as outlets weren't always available. With him unleashing the league's most lethal forward line, Liverpool have no such obstacles, and thus aggression in attack is prized over playing keep-ball.
"My idea is to win the ball higher up the field so you are pressing higher and you are in better positions," he explained at his first Anfield press conference. "You win the ball higher up the pitch so you are closer to goal, and when you do that you need people with good skills. If you win it and you can't attack, you recycle the ball and you then go and play."This suggests (as a number of posters, particularly Juan Loco in an excellent post a few weeks ago) that the supposed 'shift' from possession to counter attacking is false. There is no shift; there is a recognition that possession is a means to an end (with one caveat, to follow) and if you have forwards like Suarez and Sturridge, then there is less need for patient probing. The caveat is that it would still be useful to 'rest on the ball' for spells, which seems likely to be the next development within the team.
This - and what we've been seeing on the pitch - shows a much more dynamic, fluid approach to the game than many seemed to expect from Rodgers. As PoP and others have talked about, it requires (at it's best) players capable of recognising, together, the moments in games to quicken, to press, to attack, to slow, to keep the ball, to rest. In many respects, Lucas fits that very well. But where he
might not is that it also requires midfielders to be more 'complete' players; to be capable of calm, patient, precise passing in one phase of the game, then showing creativity in the opposition half, pace and movement, surging runs and goals from midfield in another. People often talk about a given player being suited to a particular type of game; but this approach needs variety
within games. It's not ice hockey, where we can sub-in an attacking or defensive set of players during defined 'phases'.
Some posters - amusingly, often those who decided Gerrard
couldn't play the deeper role in the first place - assume he's going to retire any minute, or play far fewer games in the quite short term. He might, he might not. I don't know if Gerrard has a year in the role, or five, or whether he'll be Rodgers' equivalent of Giggs, playing for years, but less and less. But I think while it's futile to try and predict Gerrard's longetivity in that role, it's almost equally mistaken to assume that Lucas will remain the primary alternative in that role; or to assume that Lucas (whatever 'plan' he refers to Rodgers having) is going to immediately displace Henderson, or Allen, or Coutinho in the other midfield roles. Equally, it should be said, I think it's flawed to assume (as a number do) that Henderson's improvements, for example, automatically mean he's a fixture in the team and a future captain.
What I think gives the best clue to Rodgers' concept of a midfielder (in range of abilities, if not necessarily absolute quality), is the one (putting Coutinho aside as a more attacking player, though he may increasingly play a 'midfield' role) he actually bought - Joe Allen. We've still perhaps not really seen Allen at his best for a sustained period, but (barring Gerrard, at this stage of his career) he has more variety to his game than our other midfielders. He's almost what you would get if you could combine the best of Henderson and Lucas, at 80-90% of the quality of their attributes; a worthy option for any of the midfield roles, if not quite outstanding at any of them. Energy, pressing, good touch, patient passing, gets into the box and can pick a pass in the final third.
So in the evolution of the squad - this summer, next summer, or later - I suspect we're looking for better Joe Allen's - technical, energetic, versatile. But not so much as an upgrade on Allen, but on players with a less 'rounded' game; Henderson and Lucas. That isn't to say we should, or will, sell those in the immediate future - our first priority this summer will be additional squad depth, not necessarily 'upgrades' - but that it shouldn't be assumed that any additions to our midfield will be for an ageing Gerrard, or whichever player a particular
poster thinks is a weaker link. What is Rodgers looking to do, going forward? Our midfield in three or four years may look very different, in terms of personnel.
(This is all a little academic at the moment, and not intended to detract from a marvellous season, a possible title and performances from players in midfield and elsewhere).