Just to help things along with this thread and keep it on the front page
The first game I managed to see of the Liverpool Ladies, and while the technical standard was impossible to get to a high level on an icy pitch, it was a game that was reasonably exciting, tactically interesting, and also very encouraging for the future. Matt Beard was clearly brought in to do a job and he looks like he will do a very good one on this showing. The only disappointing thing in this game, apart from the early injury to Bronze, is that it probably deserved more goals on each side that would have capped off what was an encouraging performance from the Reds, and bodes well for the future.
Everton’s System – Everton played a lot like the Men’s first team, with a nominal 4-3-3 that was effectively a 4-1-4-1 formation, with Kane (18) holding in front of the back four, and Hinnigan and Scott playing in front and tracking back. This allowed the fullbacks, Jones and Greenwood (2 and 3) to get forward without sacrificing coverage in the back. They didn’t push both fullbacks on simultaneously, though, and instead played more traditionally, leaving Kane a simple covering job on the strong side of the ball. Duggan played the target role up front, with Parris and Chaplen flanking (17 and 12), with Parris especially mobile in her defensive duties and also pushing forward in support of Duggan. There was a lot of mobility on the right side of the field for Everton, and some good combinations, with Chaplen balancing out the opposite side with good width and directness in attack. Of the two central defenders, Johnson tended to sweep back more than Nelson.
Liverpool’s System – Liverpool played a more dedicated 4-3-3 than Everton, although it did end up more like a 4-2-3-1 most of the time, such was the attrition in the midfield battle for both teams. The midfield played in a “2-1” formation, with Omarsdottir and Williams holding the middle and DaCosta playing in front, supporting the forward line. Fors played as the target, with Dowie on the left and Rolser on the right. Schroder as left back was able to get forward in support o the attacks, while Bronze, being subbed out early due to injury, didn’t get a chance to really display her attacking qualities, although Easton did a very solid job when she came on, repelling and redirecting attacks in an unfussy manner. Bonner and Engen held the centre well, but if there is a drive to make the club philosophy a One-Club philosophy, then the Liverpool central defenders didn’t display the same tendency to split in key situations on possession as the men’s defenders do, although this might be based on the tendencies of the womens game rather than anything related to the overall philosophy. Quantrill did a good job in goal, but again, distribution-wise, there was less of a connection between how the womens team distribute the ball from the keeper and how the men’s team do the same. In the second half, DaCosta’s positioning seemed to change to bring her more to the right of the field, but overall she reacted to the space that was created and had a good game looking for the ball and trying to create patterns of attack. Williams was solid in the middle and Fors and Dowie were quite effective in their ability to drive forward.
The Midfield Battle – The game was quite a slow game, and at times was a bit of a slog, but there are a few reasons why that was so – firstly, the conditions were terrible for any team to attempt to play any kind of decent football on. Secondly, the womens game has a natural tendency to be more direct than the men’s game, with the ability to strike fast and early important to the tactical plan of any womens team (see University of North Carolina under Dorrance for the epitome of skilful direct play in the womens game as an example – also the US Women’s team throughout their history). However, what also held back any kind of fluidity in the attacking game of both teams was that their midfield shape essentially cancelled each other out. Everton’s “1-2” was in direct opposition to Liverpool’s “2-1”, and without the sure footing to be able to play around the players, or to beat the central midfielders 1v1 (a skill DaCosta is quite adept at), it became somewhat of a stalemate in the middle of the field:
This midfield stalemate also led to stalemate elsewhere, with the back four of each team able to outnumber their attackers by one player, giving them adequate cover. It is no surprise that a set play or restart was going to be important in the search for the first goal, and so it was with the penalty. That Everton went on to equalise from a free kick was again just symptomatic of the difficulty to get any flowing football from either team in quite bad conditions for any sort of technical play. That both teams managed to make a god spectacle of it regardless, is to both of their credits.
Outlook – From this showing, it would be hard to predict anything for the Liverpool Ladies team, based on the conditions and the hype surrounding any derby game. On the other hand, though, there was clear evidence that the team and players mean business, and they have something of a plan to get to where they want to go. More players like DaCosta, Engen, Dowie and Fors, to name but a few, and they will do quite well in the WSL – but they are up against established teams with greater chemistry, and expecting too much, too soon, would not be advisable. Progress will be steady, but it will be palpable. This team in a year’s time is capable of playing some really good attacking football, and it will be as much a pleasure to watch as the men’s team is.
