Topic: Round Table: Swansea 0-0 Liverpool

[PhaseOfPlay]

I'm just going to say, incidentally, no matter whether we all agree, disagree, or budge slightly from our positions, I respect and enjoy the fact that there is some intelligence going into everyone's points. It restores some faith in our support, which has been harsh and simplistic of late. I appreciate we won't all agree, but I also appreciate that everyone is trying to support their point with reason; even if you're all wrong

[BreakfastPercy]

OK I'm happy to step back on that one, my perception was you were misdirecting from holes in your argument rather than challenging phaseofplay's points for the greater good.

By the same token though, are you 'challenging ideas' of your own about stats? Especially as this batch went on to illustrate a counter argument so well?

Do you have any context that does actually challenge what has been drawn from the stats, and the suggestion we did perform to a certain level against Swansea, above posing questions?

And I echo phaseofplay's sentiments on respect and efforts to have a good battle of wits

[Vulmea]

Ignoring the technical professional definition of what penetration in football is, would also be missing the point, no?

I've already said the way you reply makes it difficult to quote you and reply accordingly, so it is disapointing you persist unless it is a deliberate atempt to stifle any response.

In response to your suggesting about reducing things to the absurd, no I dont think so. 

I did not see any stats which supported large parts of the stated goals you give. Was there a stat for possession in the opposition half, about patience in the final 3rd? Was there any stats concerning average time in possession in the final third before a shot and a comparison with other teams in the final third?

Your use of stats particularly in relation to penetration is poor - the idea a sideways pass cannot be penetrating is also wrong, even a backwards pass can be decisive - see Suarez's first against Wigan as a case in point.

I've already given examples of why shots do not equate to 'penetration' even in your defination. In the 66% example quoted I  think you are using stats in entirely the wrong way.

I'm not saying penetration does not lead to chances. Now that is an absurd extraction. I said you get what you measure. You want to measure  'penetration'  thats what you'll get but it does not follow you'll get chances or goals, what you'll get is penetration when what you reallly want is chances and goals. Last season Kenny was accused of buying players to create chances,  what we got was chances, what we did not get was goals. Unless we understand all of the factors which lead to goals and measure all of them we wont get them, simple.

The one to 3 long ball game was a curse of english football for over a decade with many exponents including our national team and one of the reasons I remain very wary of incorrect stats but again I think you miss the point I'm making the problem is not the stat - its the interpretation or misinterpretation of the stat i.e. the lack of conext -

oddly enough the same applies to the definition of penetration - iit does not need the forward movement of the ball or even the ball to move towards the goal or by pass a defender - it simply needs a context.

[Vulmea]

I'm just going to say, incidentally, no matter whether we all agree, disagree, or budge slightly from our positions, I respect and enjoy the fact that there is some intelligence going into everyone's points. It restores some faith in our support, which has been harsh and simplistic of late. I appreciate we won't all agree, but I also appreciate that everyone is trying to support their point with reason; even if you're all wrong

well said - apologies if some of the points made are as blunt as a hammer

[PhaseOfPlay]

I've already said the way you reply makes it difficult to quote you and reply accordingly, so it is disapointing you persist unless it is a deliberate atempt to stifle any response.

In response to your suggesting about reducing things to the absurd, no I dont think so. 

I did not see any stats which supported large parts of the stated goals you give. Was there a stat for possession in the opposition half, about patience in the final 3rd? Was there any stats concerning average time in possession in the final third before a shot and a comparison with other teams in the final third?



Your use of stats particularly in relation to penetration is poor - the idea a sideways pass cannot be penetrating is also wrong, even a backwards pass can be decisive - see Suarez's first against Wigan as a case in point.

A sideways pass is not penetration, though - ever. It is a possession play. It might be considered a part of a penetrating PASSAGE of play, but it is not, in and of itself, penetration. This is not my nebulous interpretation of penetration. It's the professional technical definition of penetration.

I've already given examples of why shots do not equate to 'penetration' even in your defination. In the 66% example quoted I  think you are using stats in entirely the wrong way.

I'm not. In order to get the ball into the box, penetration has to occur. We might be speaking two different languages though. My interpretation is a coaching and tactical definition of penetration. A shot is penetration. Entry into the attacking third is penetration. Beating a player and taking them out of the play is penetration. I'm not sure what your interpretation is, but I don't think it is a technical definition of "penetration", according to the principles of play.

I'm not saying penetration does not lead to chances. Now that is an absurd extraction. I said you get what you measure. You want to measure  'penetration'  thats what you'll get but it does not follow you'll get chances or goals, what you'll get is penetration when what you reallly want is chances and goals. Last season Kenny was accused of buying players to create chances,  what we got was chances, what we did not get was goals. Unless we understand all of the factors which lead to goals and measure all of them we wont get them, simple.

The one to 3 long ball game was a curse of english football for over a decade with many exponents including our national team and one of the reasons I remain very wary of incorrect stats but again I think you miss the point I'm making the problem is not the stat - its the interpretation or misinterpretation of the stat i.e. the lack of conext -

The stats weren't wrong though. Numerous studies of passes before goals have found roughly the exact same results - from Reep to Hughes to Bate to Olsen to Larsen to Pellerud to Reilly et al. It still remains that the majority of goals are scored from 3 passes or less. It doesn't mean you cap every attack at 3 passes, but it does mean you have to press in the opposition half, and you have to eliminate square and back passes to a minimum. As I asked earlier, which team from the last decade used these principles to great effect? The answer is Arsenal. Their entire training curriculum for that 10 years was based on the idea of penetration, pressure, minimal square and back passes, and dribbling. So yes, the data can be interpreted one way (Bassett, Gould, Beck), or another (Perriera, Mourinho, Wenger, Saachi). But the data is objective.

oddly enough the same applies to the definition of penetration - iit does not need the forward movement of the ball or even the ball to move towards the goal or by pass a defender - it simply needs a context.

For your interpretation, perhaps - but I think we might be operating under different definitions? For coaches and players, it needs to eliminate defenders from the play and it needs to move the ball towards the goal. It is the aim of the attack. It ensures that the ball isn't just played in the defensive half for the whole game.

[PhaseOfPlay]

well said - apologies if some of the points made are as blunt as a hammer

Listen, in the end, we're all looking for the same thing - success for Liverpool. We all wear the Red, we all support the team. We're just discussing stuff robustly. I don't think any less of you for being intelligent but blunt. I think more of you for being willing to stick to your guns. Same for anyone, though. I appreciate the well-thought out debate.

[Fat Scouser]

we're all looking for the same thing - success for Liverpool.

Now this is in the twighlight zone, I'll say something I wouldn't say out there... For the first time in my life, I think, well, truly believe, that we are becoming an also ran.

Through out the last couple of decades, no matter how crap we were at the time, I always felt we would regain our perch. I didn't expect us to be the totally dominant force that we once were, but I always believed we'd win the league, consolidate and kick on from there. I honestly can't see how that's going to happen under the present regime.

That's not a sleight on Rodgers. Who knows, he may turn out to be one of the greats. But the days when a great man could grab a club and pull it along in his wake are long gone. People, mainly kids, constantly tell me how the game has changed. They're right, of course, but not for the reasons they think they are. When they come out with that chestnut, they mean fitness levels, pace and so on. Obviously, that's all moved up over the years. And I hate to state the even more obvious but, as we all know, it's all about the money.

Bear with me, I'm not talking simplistic cack, well, I am. But that doesn't mean it's wrong. Being a Liverpudlian, or should I trendily say, being Liverpool, is like watching someone paint the Mona Lisa by numbers and being convinced they are creating great art. Football does not, never has and never will be, played by numbers. Quote all the stats, name the names, tick the boxes, it's all bollocks. But our club is being ran by that theory from the top down... "Oh look, this one goes to 11. It's one higher than 10."

Sorry, but it's got to be said, Rodgers is the perfect manager for the number crunchers of FSG. He fits their money ball bollocks to a T. And he's a wonderful front man for all their meaningless PR.... "Goes to Barcelona to learn, you know. Worked with the great Maureen of the enigmatic smile, you know."

I am sick and tired of hearing such utter bollocks. But I haven't picked that particular bollocks for no reason. What the fuck do Guardiola's Barcelona and any of Maureens Galaticos have in common? Day and night, good and evil, complete opposites that would probably explode like matter and anti matter if ever the twain did meet. And the utter black is white, flip-flopping bollocks constantly coming out of Anfield is making me sick.

The old lawyer's lips moving joke, when any of them open their mouths, I feel like I'm listening to some condescending politician or banker, talking complete and utter bollocks, thinking I'm too thick to understand it's real content and so I'll fall for it. It's not even good old fashioned tub thumping. It's Legalese 101 For Dummies, kept simple, because of course, footy is a simple game for simple people. Fair play, I am thick. But I'm no one's chump, and I'm sick and tired of being condescended to.

Like I said, sorry to say it, but Brendan is the perfect front man for FSG, sitting there with his ever so sincere, Shanklyesque spread sheets.... "Here's three envelopes." Dear God, what the fuck was the man thinking, doing that in front of TV Cameras?

But anyway, back to my original point, why I fear we are going to be nothing but an also ran under the present regime... We're being ran on also ran money. We're being ran by an also ran mentality. 4th is the new title, and we have no one that will put an end to that.

We have someone who will nod, cuddle enemy faces on the touchlines in front of the cameras, scapegoat his own, make grand statements, take it up the arse on transfer day and make excuses for his rapists. We are being conned. There is no intention of putting Liverpool FC back on it's perch. We aren't going to nose dive like Leeds or Forest, not while there's a shop window to stay in. But we are going to become a bigger, shinier, more prestigious Tottingham or Evertoon. That's it. Which means today's Arsenal, as FSG have already stated. And that's why this bollocks isn't just my own warped opinion. Every now and again, the forked tongues let the truth slip. Top four, wonderful success... but is Brendan the man to deliver it by numbers?

Fair enough, it's only 13. But from what I've seen he's only got 1. Treachery on my part. Well, take it how you want. But truth, I've already buckled up, ready for the slide into mid-table mediocrity. No big deal to me. I might even start going the match again, when the camera clickers move onto pastures new. Funny enough, they think they're quoting Shankly when they tell me, "LFC only exists to win trophies." It was actually David Moores, and the day he sold us was the day this slide started and we ain't pulling out of it any time soon.

Oh and am I contradicting myself over Rodgers, well, no. He may well become one of the modern day greats, but, if he does, today's Liverpool will only be a stepping stone along the way.

[Vulmea]

So, lets discuss penetration then. I'm using the ambiguous and inprecise english language definition.

Is a cross 'penetration' if it goes sideways? Or does it only count if it has some forward trajectory?  It can bypass defenders, it could already be beyond those defenders and have no one to bypass? In the most extreme case even the keeper could be out of his goal and unable to influence the play.

Is getting to the byline and cutting the ball backwards 'penetration' the ball is actually going backwards and further away from goal. It does not necessarily by pass defenders but creates a better angle of shot for the attacking player?

If you breakdown the sideline ahead of the defenders whip the ball across to the striker who's outstripped the defenders is that penetration. The initial pass or dribble which played the lad in on the wing fits the description - the strikers run and the cross presumably dont but without either its no goal.
The run without the ball is every bit as much 'penetrative' play as the ball to the winger and the ball is nowhere near. The striker makes the same run 10 times and only gets the ball once how do you measure our penetrative play?

Suarez jinks his way into the box, his shot is blocked but he gets the rebound passes it sideways across the blocking defender to Gerrard who thunders the ball
 into the net - the sideways element means this is not 'penetration' its simply keeping possession? the same if the ball goes backwards. The issue with the definition as you describe it is it lacks context its trying to describe in a few words a complex issue. It fails.

The same with stats, without the full context you can't know or place any certainty on the conclusions. When you suggest that we had 21 shots, 66% inside the 18 yard box this proves that...... unless you know all of the relevant facts it doesn't prove anything - it's simply an interpretation. Another hypothetical would be a chunk of those shots come from a single passage of play were the ball rebounds around the box - multiple shots in a limited period, this would slant any interpretation - it could for example explain why one period had so many more shots than another (I'm not saying this was the case just it could be). On the face of it it would imply we were more dominant for that period when in reality we weren't.

Then to define 'objective' you have to agree a non contentious definition of 'shot' and thats after you've determined whether shot or chance (with a suitable definaition)  is a more appropriate metric for determining what it is you are trying to measure.

You could dominate a game have umpteen chances and not one shot.

With regards truth thats an even wider topic.........

[Vulmea]

Now this is in the twighlight zone, I'll say something I wouldn't say out there... For the first time in my life, I think, well, truly believe, that we are becoming an also ran.

I tend to agree - the lack of pain and anger when we get beat - is similar to what I endured with Hodgson - a basic acceptance, no real expectation. I was back to punching walls and screaming in an empty room under Kenny. Its probably better for my blood pressure but I haven't given up with Rodgers. Despite the sound bites and PR nonsense I do think the lad has intergrity and a genuine belief and desire to get us back to the top.

I dont like the dumbing down of expectations, I understand he feels it necessary because to get the job done he has to be here to do it, not kicked out after 6 months.

The Arsenal board announced that last season was a great success. Wenger stated that the 4th 'trophy 'of the season is finishing 4th. I'm surprised the prem dont hand out medals to be honest, its a missed PR opportunity that. Arsenal have won nothing for 6 years. I believe Arsenal are the model for FSG thankfully that does not mean we have to end up the same.

All the screams for massive investment ignore Arsenals astounding figures in the transfer market. FSG are clearly bargain hunting but their approach is to get the best bargain hunters they can find in,  invest heavily in youth and youth coaching. Arsenal are still trying to find the right blend I think we are trying to learn their lessons and get ahead of them and we are not Arsenal, we are still despite 20 years of under achieving one of the worlds biggest clubs and its still there to be fought for.

Wenger transformed the image of Arsenal from the dour days of george graham to a vibrant, attractive team but they remain Arsenal. A big city club with passionaless limited support.

Chelsea are a joke, City a scam , United about to hit the buffers and Spurs are souless wannabe's - no worries. We'll be coming up the hill soon enough, we just need to keep believing and burn the rest away - one thing working class stiffs can do is endure..........

[Yorkykopite]

It's surprising this discussion is still going on. Those who say that there's inevitable subjectivity in any assessment of a team's performance are right. It would cease to be interesting as a sport if this were not so. It's also correct to say that there's no exactitude when it comes to computing the amount of possession a team has - which is why quoted percentages can vary wildly for a single game. 

At the same time it's absurd to say that you can prove anything with statistics and that you can apply no objective criteria (short of goals) to evaluate a team's performance. In this particular match it was said by some posters that Liverpool had no 'penetration' and presented no threat to the Swansea goal. On reading things like that my subjective response - based simply on watching the match - was that it couldn't be right. We looked dangerous throughout the game, at least until the closing 10 minutes which were poor. We certainly looked more threatening than Swansea. It was interesting therefore to discover that the statistics broadly supported that subjective view. The number of shots on the Swansea goal was considerable. It's a kind of madness to deny that in the face of evidence, whether you picked it up subjectively in the game or not.

[Vulmea]

It's surprising this discussion is still going on. Those who say that there's inevitable subjectivity in any assessment of a team's performance are right. It would cease to be interesting as a sport if this were not so. It's also correct to say that there's no exactitude when it comes to computing the amount of possession a team has - which is why quoted percentages can vary wildly for a single game. 

At the same time it's absurd to say that you can prove anything with statistics and that you can apply no objective criteria (short of goals) to evaluate a team's performance. In this particular match it was said by some posters that Liverpool had no 'penetration' and presented no threat to the Swansea goal. On reading things like that my subjective response - based simply on watching the match - was that it couldn't be right. We looked dangerous throughout the game, at least until the closing 10 minutes which were poor. We certainly looked more threatening than Swansea. It was interesting therefore to discover that the statistics broadly supported that subjective view. The number of shots on the Swansea goal was considerable. It's a kind of madness to deny that in the face of evidence, whether you picked it up subjectively in the game or not.

Think one issue that contributes to the subjective belief in a lack of penetration is the 'sterility' (wrong word but cant think of a better one clinical? composed? detached?) of the play. The lack of atmosphere has been discussed many times but  the lack of exitement amongst the crowd is palpable.  However this season it is different again. The crowd traditionally feeds off the team and vice versa, if the team is playing a less direct game does that disipate the engagement of the crowd? Especially a crowd reared on attacking, direct play, where the opposition are pinned and momentum builds.

I'm struggling to explain it but even when there is a shot, it's as though there is no crowd engagement, no threat and therefore a feeling that perhaps the play is less effective than the stats suggest. I dont think this all of the time but certainly in large periods of the game - happy for you to call this bollocks because I'm unsure what it is I'm trying to describe but its particularly true when we play with a slow tempo there's just no connection between crowd and team and if we lose that we genuinely will be an also ran club. Harps back to Rodgers needing to devise an approach that suits LFC, we used to be more patient than other crowds but that was aided by us winning a lot..........

[Yorkykopite]

That maybe so (about the crowd). But there must be plenty of other reasons why there's less passion in Anfield these days. I suspect that the lack of atmosphere is less to do with how Liverpool are playing at the moment and more to do with the nature of modern fandom. Certainly Anfield was no more passionate last season, or the season before that. It's been pretty soporific for a while now. Equally, Old Trafford for all Man Utd's much vaunted attacking flair, is even more desolate than Anfield. I'm not sure what would get the Kopites out of their seats and bellowing, 70's style, in mass frenzy. Kick and rush probably wouldn't do it (although, true enough, it seems to work at Stoke!)

[Fat Scouser]

I honestly didn't read all the posts, discussing stats, penetration and so on. I gave my opinion on the over all state of the club. I don't think I'm far wrong.

[youll never walk alone it]

Got to agree with fs, lets face we as a club need  a  large slice of luck  or some messiah to get back to the days  of rafa let alone back to the  80s early 90s....it aint  looking good.

[tomred]

I tend to agree - the lack of pain and anger when we get beat - is similar to what I endured with Hodgson - a basic acceptance, no real expectation.

This is the real concern for me. It's a kind of moral hazard. The players are doing exceptionally well for themselves just by being at the club and earning their wage. There is a need to instill that sense of pain and anger when we get beat--or even when we draw. That comes from the manager. And unless we do that our downward slide is inevitable.

[Fat Scouser]

Got to agree with fs, lets face we as a club need  a  large slice of luck  or some messiah to get back to the days  of rafa let alone back to the  80s early 90s....it aint  looking good.

It hurts me to say it, but I think it's true. I just can't see Brendan dragging us back to the top while FSG are the owners and the other top clubs are pulling away. Even if he had an endless trough of money and the other clubs stood still, it wouldn't be an easy task. But with our board, "We can compete with any club in the transfer market, but there won't be major investment and we need to get the wages down," I just don't see how possession football is going to topple City, Chelsea and Man U.

[Vulmea]

It hurts me to say it, but I think it's true. I just can't see Brendan dragging us back to the top while FSG are the owners and the other top clubs are pulling away. Even if he had an endless trough of money and the other clubs stood still, it wouldn't be an easy task. But with our board, "We can compete with any club in the transfer market, but there won't be major investment and we need to get the wages down," I just don't see how possession football is going to topple City, Chelsea and Man U.

the hope has to be that City, Chelsea and United topple themselves - just as we did 20 years ago.

[steveeastend]

Maybe the passion of the owners isn´t there, or maybe that´s for sure.

But the point is that it´s more important to be there within the squad and the manager. There never should be a laissez faire policy of the club owners which usually damages the motivation of the players. But this isn´t the case here either as Rodgers turned the "no money"-issue into a "we only want full commited players here identifying with the club".

I can´t see why it shouldn´t work as the likes of ManU, Chelsea, Arsenal suffer from the intensity of the game making it impossible to dominate two games a week.

So to me, it´s not impossible to close the gap in the league in the next couple of years. If FSG then decides to raise the investment for being a CL regular I cannot see major problems coming up.

The most important position is the one of the manager at the moment. If Rodgers fails, it will set us back even more than all this mismanagement of the recent years already has.