Of course, but it was watching the game and reading the play that prompted me to question the description of Downing as 'tucked in' and check the stats/average position information. Any wide player - particularly an inverted one - will cut in on some specific passages of play, but I think that is somewhat different from a 'tucked in' player, which is more like what Henderson had been doing in previous games (or Houghton did in the 80s). Indeed the second graphic shows that almost twice as many touches are 'outside right' than 'inside right'. Similarly watching the game and looking at Johnson's positions indicates that he 'underlaps' (if that word makes sense for cutting inside the wide player rather than only going down the line beyond him) as often as he overlaps. It's quite flexible and they work pretty well together. As mentioned on the Downing thread though, I'd love to see how Suso looks with Sturridge ahead of him to benefit from him cutting inside and playing those little through balls.
You make a great point, and I probably would have been more accurate to call Downing an "inverted winger" or something more precise than saying "tucked in" for sure. Also, good points about Johnson. It begs a question, though, which is a topic all by itself, but I'll go over it a little here - what actually is our system? It started off in August being 2-3-2-3, as traditional and as rigid as you can get; then it morphed through a few Back 3 experiments into a 4-2-3-1, and then with the form of Henderson and the introduction of Sturridge into a lopsided 4-4-2. Now with Coutinho available, and a lot more mobility, it's like we've settled on mobility rather than a set attacking shape and positions. With this in mind, I think it's easier to break the team down into roles, and for that I think we have two key factors - the shape and roles of the team, and the spine and reference points.
The shape and roles of the team could probably be broken up into 4 units - the Keeper, The back 5, Gerrard, and the front 4. The back 5 always play in a 2-3 formation, with the fullbacks pushing up, and Lucas holding the central space. Then we have the front four, which takes on various guises, but if Sturridge and Coutinho (and by extension, Assaidi) are any indicators of future buys, then mobility rather than position is the key to the front 4, and Sturridge will be the main reference point. This makes positioning of the players less static and harder to track (for both the opposition defenders and the Opta boffins
). Then there is Gerrard, who knits the two units together (and why it is important to manage his successor). So essentially we play a 5-1-4 shape, even if the formation is written differently, and where the "4" move according to the flow of attack, but they move from their position/zone, so it's not all chaotic:
However, in order for the fluidity of the team to be effective, it needs to be structured (just like Jazz improvisation needs a chord progression to "hold onto"). The structure for that mobility seems to be the spine of the team, with three clear reference points - Reina (to recycle the ball), Lucas (to hold the midfield together) and Sturridge (to give a target to play to, and to offer penetration and a breakout pass option). This is the spine of the team, and we can see the effect that is created when one of these reference points is missing (Jones is a good traditional goalkeeper, but our possession suffers as he's not as good with the ball at his feet and he can't switch the play as well as Reina can); Lucas protects the central area and offers a midfield out ball, and when he doesn't play, the midfield is a lot less solid and we suffer in the gaps created. Sturridge we all know changes our attack completely, and holds up play, plays off the shoulder, has quick little touches, and gives the midfield an option to play to when the short pass is pressured.
It is no surprise then that some of our better performances have come when all three players have been on the field, maintaining that solid spine. When one or more are missing, there are clear gaps in the way we play (although we have also played well without them, for sure).
So I think that you are correct that average positions can be skewed, but I also think we are starting to play a new way, and a more mobile way, and we may have to reduce talk of attacking positions with this Liverpool team when they get in full swing, because I think it will be as good, if not better, as any good performance we had under the first 6 months of Kenny's second reign. In that case, movement, rather than position, will be the main talking point, I think? If so, then we will all be clearly able to see what kinds of attackers we should be looking at, and who might be surplus to requirements?
