Topic: Round Table - Liverpool v Zenit St Petersburg

[No666]

Phil Roscoe has just made a similar point, talking about the Academy youngsters who were present, PoP, and his comments add to the general positivity that's been in the ether since Thursday.

When you watch some of the games over the years, you understand how fantastic the Anfield crowd is and how fantastic the supporters are. Through whatever adversity that is put in front of them, the crowd will support the team.

Some of the players who played against Zenit St Petersburg or watched from the stands have never witnessed that sort of emotion and atmosphere. Thursday was a great example for the players, particularly those who are younger, of how great a club this is.

Earlier in the week the manager spoke to Mike Marsh about the potential for some of our younger players at the Academy to be ball boys at the game. I spoke with Marshy and it was agreed this would be a great experience and we would do everything we could at the Academy to support this.

As you can imagine, it was a fantastic environment for the young lads to be in. I spoke to them before they went and I told them: "Enjoy the experience but take on board the noise and the crowd because if you ever reach the level where you are able to play in this arena, these are the things you have to be able to cope with and thrive on."

It was fantastic for our U13s. We have tickets available to our U21s and U18s for them to go to the Anfield games, but through injury and the lads returning late from the game against Sporting over in Lisbon, a lot were unable to attend.

So it meant we were able to allow other players from younger age groups to go which was fantastic for them.

They were able to go and watch a player who plays in their position, see the standard of opposition in European competition and see the style and the philosophy that the manger is implementing in the first team and relate it back to the work that is being done at the Academy.

[Yorkykopite]

The goal is over-explained PoP. All you need to know about it is that Carragher fucked up under no pressure at all. Hulk had actually given the ball up and was going through the motions. He only really became interested in the ball once Jamie had messed up. The really surprising thing about the mistake was that Carragher got so little boot on the ball. In the end it wasn't an under-hit pass that gifted them the goal (Reina might have had a better chance if it had been because he would have had some angles to work with). It was, instead, a perfectly weighted graze of the ball which handed Hulk the keys to the house. Forwards who are moving with the ball at full speed while the goalie is still stationary inside his box are always going to score in one-on-ones (on nice pitches at least).

By the same token Agger is entirely blameless. He was moving reasonably swiftly back to his own goal in readiness to pick the ball off Reina and build again. That was the correct thing to do. To stop Hulk he would have needed to anticipate the fuck up and start moving at lightning speed towards Carragher. That was his only chance. It therefore wasn't a question of being 'caught square' so much as being 'caught on the wrong side of the pitch' (you can see where I'm going here!) Indeed if the back-pass had gone according to plan I suspect we'd have seen Agger get progressively 'squarer' as he drifted across into his customary left-back position to collect the ball (while Lucas retreated to the central spot).

I'm labouring somewhat here. But your still photograph of a 'square Agger' tells us nothing about how the goal was scored or how it could have been prevented. (Still photos in sport are often misleading of course.) Sometimes you just have to say 'that was a horrible mistake and I take 100 per cent of the blame'. I'm pretty sure that's what Jamie would have said to the team after the match was over. If he didn't it's because it was too obvious and simply didn't need saying.

[Prof]

All you need to know about it is that Carragher fucked up under no pressure at all.

I agree Yorky.  To be fair to Carra, he's playing in a system which forces him to play outside his comfort zone, and he's been doing it admirably.  His mistake came from trying to play the right way, shit happens.

The tactical analysis PoP has given is once again excellent.  Thanks PoP for taking the time to do this with such quality.  It really is appreciated.

[Mutton Geoff]

The goal is over-explained PoP. All you need to know about it is that Carragher fucked up under no pressure at all. Hulk had actually given the ball up and was going through the motions. He only really became interested in the ball once Jamie had messed up. The really surprising thing about the mistake was that Carragher got so little boot on the ball. In the end it wasn't an under-hit pass that gifted them the goal (Reina might have had a better chance if it had been because he would have had some angles to work with). It was, instead, a perfectly weighted graze of the ball which handed Hulk the keys to the house. Forwards who are moving with the ball at full speed while the goalie is still stationary inside his box are always going to score in one-on-ones (on nice pitches at least).

By the same token Agger is entirely blameless. He was moving reasonably swiftly back to his own goal in readiness to pick the ball off Reina and build again. That was the correct thing to do. To stop Hulk he would have needed to anticipate the fuck up and start moving at lightning speed towards Carragher. That was his only chance. It therefore wasn't a question of being 'caught square' so much as being 'caught on the wrong side of the pitch' (you can see where I'm going here!) Indeed if the back-pass had gone according to plan I suspect we'd have seen Agger get progressively 'squarer' as he drifted across into his customary left-back position to collect the ball (while Lucas retreated to the central spot).

I'm labouring somewhat here. But your still photograph of a 'square Agger' tells us nothing about how the goal was scored or how it could have been prevented. (Still photos in sport are often misleading of course.) Sometimes you just have to say 'that was a horrible mistake and I take 100 per cent of the blame'. I'm pretty sure that's what Jamie would have said to the team after the match was over. If he didn't it's because it was too obvious and simply didn't need saying.

I take your point and unless Agger thought the totally reliable Carra might fuck up why would he allow for it, sometimes these things just happen as for Pop post i am beginning to warm to them, i still think playing football is more a thing of beauty Artform than a Science but i can see the value of looking at what we actually saw or think we saw with the immediate passion taken out.

to get back to the goal it was well taken by the Hulk but i think Pepe made his decision easier by not pressuring him quickly enough. In the end though as said above i would call it Shit happens.

[Anywhichwayicant]

I've been critical of Agger several times this season, but how anyone could apportion blame to him, for Hulk's goal at Anfield is a mystery.

[Yorkykopite]

to get back to the goal it was well taken by the Hulk but i think Pepe made his decision easier by not pressuring him quickly enough. In the end though as said above i would call it Shit happens.

Once Hulk makes his first touch of the ball he has the initiative. Normally with underhit back passes from the half-way line the forward gets his first touch after, say 10 yards. That allows the goalie a decent amount of time to start narrowing angles. But Jamie's back pass was so underhit that Hulk had the ball at his feet within one second. Pepe, coming from a standing start, was effectively dead from that moment.

I actually closed my eyes at the time and only opened them when the commentator confirmed it was a goal. There was no point seeing the inevitable happen.

[steveeastend]

Agger playing square to Carragher instead of adding depth to the play

It´s not wrong what you´re saying here but considering the game situation it came pretty much out of the blue as Carra wasn´t under any pressure. It happend 20 yards up the pitch with Zenit sitting back and neither us nor Zenit PRESSING AT ALL. No center back in the world would think of offering triangle cover in a situation like this. In any other game situation it´s not wrong though.

Overall I am with yorky that I don´t think that we have to talk about a single mistake, I would be more worried about other things in regards to this issue but we all know that this wouldn´t end up in a reasonable discussion around here.

[Yorkykopite]

It´s not wrong what you´re saying here but considering the game situation it came pretty much out of the blue as Carra wasn´t under any pressure. It happend 20 yards up the pitch with Zenit sitting back and NOT PRESSING AT ALL. No center back in the world would think of offering triangle cover in a situation like this. In any other game situation it´s not wrong though.

That's true. In the past we've complained - perhaps rightly - that Liverpool don't play with a 'high line'. That's what we were doing here. I don't want to see Agger ten yards behind Carragher when we're camped in the oppo half. Nor do I want to see him - or any other Liverpool player -  coached into believing they should always be in a position to cover for mistakes. 

[steveeastend]

That's true. In the past we've complained - perhaps rightly - that Liverpool don't play with a 'high line'. That's what we were doing here. I don't want to see Agger ten yards behind Carragher when we're camped in the oppo half. Nor do I want to see him - or any other Liverpool player -  coached into believing they should always be in a position to cover for mistakes. 

I overall agree! There are situations where it does make sense though, the counter attack(s) against WB for example, where there was no triangle back up offered at all, maybe just one of those game situations where the organsation between them didn´t work.

[Vulmea]

No center back in the world would think of offering triangle cover in a situation like this. In any other game situation it´s not wrong though.

the idea I thought was you follow good practice regardless -

it was Carra's mistake for the goal though - he just fucked it up -  after that you're just hoping somebody else can bail you out - all of our defenders had a mistake or two in them on Thursday thankfully we only got punished once - Pepe's save second half was superb

if roles were reversed I'm sure Carra would have been blamed for not covering, I've seen Carra blamed when he hasn't even been on the pitch

[steveeastend]

if roles were reversed I'm sure Carra would have been blamed for not covering...

In this situation it´s just the way it is. The chemistry between both of them hasn´t had the desired impact so far, our organisation in defense wasn´t noticable better compared to Skrtel/Agger.

Besides that, I cannot think of one poster blaming Carra for his mistake in this game, I didn´t as I don´t look at the performance of a players in terms of one game situation. Positive or negative one. It´s a team game and I try to look at players in terms of what they are contributing to the team..

[Vulmea]

In this situation it´s just the way it is. The chemistry between both of them hasn´t had the desired impact so far, our organisation in defense wasn´t noticable better compared to Skrtel/Agger.

Besides that, I cannot think of one poster blaming Carra for his mistake in this game, I didn´t as I don´t look at the performance of a players in terms of one game situation. Positive or negative one. It´s a team game and I try to look at players in terms of what they are contributing to the team..

Steve I didn't say you had mate hopefully I know your style a bit better than that

[itsgunnabebarnes!]

I honestly think some of you lot discuss for the sake of it. Carra fucked up how anyone can blame Agger is beyond me. These individual errors are guaranteed every game at the min due to the players not being up to the grade. You can't move forward with such an error probe back four.

[lfcderek]

What a night. It will soon be forgotten because we're out of the Cup. And that's a shame because Liverpool 3 Zenit 1 ought to be on that famous roster of great European nights, alongside Auxerre and Roma if not quite Inter, St Etienne and Chelsea.

Don't agree with that Yorky. Many, many years ago I was at Anfield on a European night (armchair and TV for Zenit  ) and we were 1-0 down from the first leg. A further 2 goals down early in the second half.

The Kop roared and sang and screamed and roared. I heard it again on the TV on Thursday.

Attack
Attack
Attack, Attack, Attack

I was there that night, all those years ago, and I remember it and am proud. I was proud to hear it on Thurday and the people there will remember it and should be proud of being part of it.

We won 3-2 on the night and got knocked out on the (then new) away goals rule.

 

[redtel]

Don't agree with that Yorky. Many, many years ago I was at Anfield on a European night (armchair and TV for Zenit  ) and we were 1-0 down from the first leg. A further 2 goals down early in the second half.

The Kop roared and sang and screamed and roared. I heard it again on the TV on Thursday.

Attack
Attack
Attack, Attack, Attack

I was there that night, all those years ago, and I remember it and am proud. I was proud to hear it on Thurday and the people there will remember it and should be proud of being part of it.

We won 3-2 on the night and got knocked out on the (then new) away goals rule.

 

That was Vitoria Setubal in UEFA 2nd round 69-70 Derek and you are correct about the crowd and how they reacted to going 3 goals behind.

The atttack attack attack cry was there on both occasions and my spirit was lifted on Thursday as I realised the Kop DNA was still in place passed on as we all hoped it was. It's great to know that no matter who the manager is nor who plays for us the crowd gives it's backing wholeheartedly in the time honoured fashion.

That will have made an impression on all our new staff both on and off the pitch.

Thanks for the diagrams POP on the game and our defensive mistake.

I think many of us would be interested to know if your data or heat maps show how the midfield possession changed in the last 30 mins compared to the first 60. Is it clear that it was our changes that helped them in midfield or some other factors such as us playing down the wings? Did their subs affect the latter stages where they attacked us more than in the first hour?  Is there anything that sticks out.

[Yorkykopite]

Don't agree with that Yorky. Many, many years ago I was at Anfield on a European night (armchair and TV for Zenit  ) and we were 1-0 down from the first leg. A further 2 goals down early in the second half.

The Kop roared and sang and screamed and roared. I heard it again on the TV on Thursday.

Attack
Attack
Attack, Attack, Attack

I was there that night, all those years ago, and I remember it and am proud. I was proud to hear it on Thurday and the people there will remember it and should be proud of being part of it.

We won 3-2 on the night and got knocked out on the (then new) away goals rule.

 

Nice one mate. And it was fantastic hearing 'Attack, Attack...' again.

You've got me wondering now which game that would be? Ferencvaros?

EDIT: Setubal. Good stuff redtel.

[lfcderek]

Nice one mate. And it was fantastic hearing 'Attack, Attack...' again.

You've got me wondering now which game that would be? Ferencvaros?

EDIT: Setubal. Good stuff redtel.

Redtel nailed it - Setubal. Were you at the the Ferencvaros game? The one in the snow?

21 of the 22 players spent most of the game on their arses slipping over. One bloke called Vargas sort of skipped over the top (like Legolas in Lord of the Rings!) and ran rings round us. It was only 0-1 I think but they could have put 5 or 6 past us to be fair. Coming down off the Kop at full time was bloody frightening! Everyone linked arms and there was a mass slide to the bottom. Bloody Hell!

[Yorkykopite]

Redtel nailed it - Setubal. Were you at the the Ferencvaros game? The one in the snow?

21 of the 22 players spent most of the game on their arses slipping over. One bloke called Vargas sort of skipped over the top (like Legolas in Lord of the Rings!) and ran rings round us. It was only 0-1 I think but they could have put 5 or 6 past us to be fair. Coming down off the Kop at full time was bloody frightening! Everyone linked arms and there was a mass slide to the bottom. Bloody Hell!

I wasn't Derek, but I do remember seeing the great black 'n' white photos of the snow in the papers. 

[robgomm]

Not sure people are getting Phase of Play's post. It isn't about apportioning blame, it's about looking at the reasons the goal happened. Gerrard, Carragher and Agger all made errors of execution or thinking or both. Carragher's error was the most obvious but if you don't look at how the ball reached that position, you're missing part of the reason the goal happened.

[Cohiba]

It is a pleasure to read some of the excellant posters within this thread and particularly the differing views of PoP and Yorky. Being there on Thursday in my humble opinion Agger was definately not positionally incorrect, and Jamie had a unfortunate error. But at the time and I still think the same now if Pepe had come rushing out sweeper style much in the way he did against Aguero would that have been enough to put Hulk of, particularly with Agger tracking back possibly to the goal line?

I also felt the atmosphere in the ground was back to it best. Against Swansea despite being 5 - 0 up for periods the ground was silent, whereas on Thursday the noise was pretty much constant all game reaffirming the importance of Europe both to the supportors and club. We need european nights like that, whatever competition it is and anybody  who does not understand that basic concept is plain daft. I only hope we can maintain our momentum in the league and not crumple in our last few games in the manner that we can be unfortunately prone to do to ensure we are back in Europe next season.

[Adeemo]

But at the time and I still think the same now if Pepe had come rushing out sweeper style much in the way he did against Aguero would that have been enough to put Hulk of, particularly with Agger tracking back possibly to the goal line?

Pepe tried to come out at a decent pace to meet Hulk, stay big and make the forward over think it, we've seen this technique work numerous times down the years for Reina, only this time Hulk remained calm and simply stroked it into the net. As I said, remaining on his feet and making himself big usually works for Pepe in a one on one situation, he's won many more than he should since he's been here. Hulk's laid back style certainly helped him on this occasion.

[Yorkykopite]

Not sure people are getting Phase of Play's post. It isn't about apportioning blame, it's about looking at the reasons the goal happened. Gerrard, Carragher and Agger all made errors of execution or thinking or both. Carragher's error was the most obvious but if you don't look at how the ball reached that position, you're missing part of the reason the goal happened.

I get it and I just happen to think he's wrong. I don't think Agger was in 'error' (if that's the word you prefer) at all.

One might (just about) make a case to say that Agger should have anticipated Jamie messing up and therefore stayed 10 yards behind him, but that would involve a whole different philosophy to the one Rodgers wants us to play - a philosophy with greater 'redundancies' built into the system (as engineers might say). In that system players would not seek to support the man on the ball so much as prepare for the ball being lost. If Agger had been thinking like that then he may well have been standing 10 yards behind Carragher and been in a position to deal with Hulk. There again Hulk may have used the extra space between Carra and Agger as well. 

[steveeastend]

Steve I didn't say you had mate hopefully I know your style a bit better than that

I didn´t take it that way mate, no worries, I was generally speaking

[horne]

You can analyse these things till youre blue in the face and not come up with an answer because of all the variables
I think if carra/ste g /pepe does something differently hulk reacts differently and its hard to define then what would have happened...so it can be pointless apportioning blame because of the unknowns....

however :-))))))

If you look at agger in the clip,he doesnt drop deep because he ,in that split second when carra is trying to bring the ball under control with his favoured right foot,just asssumes that carra is going to turn with the ball towards the touch line/right flank and try to play down the line/inside with  lucas being in the middle forming a nice triangle of potential passes between lucas/carra and agger where they can play it out of hulks reach/or carra also had the option of hitting row 'z' with the chance to regroup....either way....i think the my option would have been to keep it on the stronger foot and away from the goal......ultimately on another day ...he makes contact and pepe clears...thats football!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZuyyc8542M

i think it was more to do what with what hulk did than  than what the others didnt do....he pressed carra brilliantly and quickly on the blind side of carra....and then panicked him at the key moment hes about to make the decision as to which way to go(probably helped by screams of man on by the crowd)...superb from hulk....carras co-ordination goes to pot as the panic kicks in in the split second he realises hulk is on him..he miss hits...chokes....t he fear of failure is overwhelming at that split second..
What happens if hulk isnt breathing down his neck....?...he takes that extra second to calmy bring it under control and makes the pass with his un favoured left foot successfully back to pepe

[PhaseOfPlay]

I get it and I just happen to think he's wrong. I don't think Agger was in 'error' (if that's the word you prefer) at all.

One might (just about) make a case to say that Agger should have anticipated Jamie messing up and therefore stayed 10 yards behind him, but that would involve a whole different philosophy to the one Rodgers wants us to play - a philosophy with greater 'redundancies' built into the system (as engineers might say). In that system players would not seek to support the man on the ball so much as prepare for the ball being lost. If Agger had been thinking like that then he may well have been standing 10 yards behind Carragher and been in a position to deal with Hulk. There again Hulk may have used the extra space between Carra and Agger as well.

One of the principles of attack is depth, though, so it would have totally fit the Rodgers philosophy. The man on the ball needs support behind and options in front. Carragher facing his own goal is a clear trigger to support from behind. Carragher facing his own goal with Hulk bearing down on him (I don't see where he gave up on the ball at all, as you stated. Watch it again, he runs at a fair pace and then accelerates as soon as Carragher takes a bad first touch, which is basically Hulk recognising two of the triggers for pressing the ball - bad first touch, facing own goal) is an even bigger visual cue for the actions of the players around him. Hulk is also in Agger's eyeline so dropping ten yards would have been both precautionary and apt for a possession team that requires depth and support. There all sorts of wrong with the situation as soon as Gerrard hit the ball off the Zenit player's legs, and I knew we were in trouble as soon as the ball was bouncing towards Carragher because there were a number of potential positional gaps/situations that could hurt us, and that is how it played out. We might have to agree to disagree, but if that was on a training ground, that was three coaching points right there in a row. Not something to blame players for, but to show them the different options available to them (which is what coaching is). It was a perfect storm of errors in a key area of the field at a key point in the game. I certainly wouldn't "blame" anyone for the goal, and certainly not Carragher - but if all the players were to look at the game again I'm sure they would all say they would have done things differently, because there were clear triggers for different actions present in that moment, based on the level of pressure Carragher was under by the time the ball came to him.

[PhaseOfPlay]

It is a pleasure to read some of the excellant posters within this thread and particularly the differing views of PoP and Yorky. Being there on Thursday in my humble opinion Agger was definately not positionally incorrect, and Jamie had a unfortunate error. But at the time and I still think the same now if Pepe had come rushing out sweeper style much in the way he did against Aguero would that have been enough to put Hulk of, particularly with Agger tracking back possibly to the goal line?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think he was positionally incorrect in a general sense, but for that specific set of circumstances, he maybe should have dropped at an angle to help Carragher out as he was receiving a fairly difficult ball under pressure. When we say about players "reading the game", a lot of it is reading the level of pressure on the ball (because less space = less time = the need for sharper and quicker decision-making), and Hulk was going at Carragher without pause. Carragher made a technical mistake, and not just with the execution of the pass (he had other options - see where Hulk was before the ball came to him, and use disguise to turn Hulk and gain 2 yards of space to play; trap and shield the ball and take touches to work his way out of the pressure; settle the ball on his 2nd touch and shield it and maybe play the pass on his 3rd or 4th touch, etc). But the goal overall was avoidable, and a different set of decisions nullifies the threat before it happens.

I also felt the atmosphere in the ground was back to it best. Against Swansea despite being 5 - 0 up for periods the ground was silent, whereas on Thursday the noise was pretty much constant all game reaffirming the importance of Europe both to the supportors and club. We need european nights like that, whatever competition it is and anybody  who does not understand that basic concept is plain daft. I only hope we can maintain our momentum in the league and not crumple in our last few games in the manner that we can be unfortunately prone to do to ensure we are back in Europe next season.

[Yorkykopite]

One of the principles of attack is depth, though, so it would have totally fit the Rodgers philosophy. The man on the ball needs support behind and options in front. Carragher facing his own goal is a clear trigger to support from behind.

He has clear support from behind. Pepe Reina. Reina is an integral part of the way we recycle the ball at the back.

I did look at the goal again, as you suggested, and I agree that Hulk didn't give up on the ball. He moves exactly the way you describe him moving. Running at a decent lick and then accelerating as soon as Carragher messes up.

But watching Hulk's quick movement also made me feel that you are being unrealistic in calling on Agger to be in a position to receive the ball behind Jamie. When a forward is running towards the ball at such a pace the last thing you want your defender to do is to pass the ball back 10 yards instead of 30 yards (all the way back to the goalie). If Carragher had had a shorter option (ie Agger behind him) and gone for that he would simply have invited a fast-travelling Hulk on to his stationary colleague. Bad defending. The sensible thing for Carragher to do was to use Reina who (I'm guessing now) was probably back-tracking to provide depth as soon as the the ricochet happened. Jamie tried to do it. It ought to have been easy. He somehow failed. It's really as simple as that.

I certainly wouldn't "blame" anyone for the goal, and certainly not Carragher

Really? I can see the sense in not blaming anyone for the goal because it's pointless. Pointless in the sense that the culprit is obvious and there's no gain tobe had from pointing out what everyone knows. But I can't see any sense in spreading the 'blame' so wide that a basic individual cock-up becomes a team failure. And mabe it's just careless language on your part here but the "certainly not Carragher" does imply you would - at a stretch - blame some other individual.   

[PhaseOfPlay]

He has clear support from behind. Pepe Reina. Reina is an integral part of the way we recycle the ball at the back.

You want more than one support option though. A single option makes play predictable for the defence, which is exactly what defenders want. Agreed about Reina, though.

I did look at the goal again, as you suggested, and I agree that Hulk didn't give up on the ball. He moves exactly the way you describe him moving. Running at a decent lick and then accelerating as soon as Carragher messes up.

But watching Hulk's quick movement also made me feel that you are being unrealistic in calling on Agger to be in a position to receive the ball behind Jamie. When a forward is running towards the ball at such a pace the last thing you want your defender to do is to pass the ball back 10 yards instead of 30 yards (all the way back to the goalie). If Carragher had had a shorter option (ie Agger behind him) and gone for that he would simply have invited a fast-travelling Hulk on to his stationary colleague. Bad defending. The sensible thing for Carragher to do was to use Reina who (I'm guessing now) was probably back-tracking to provide depth as soon as the the ricochet happened. Jamie tried to do it. It ought to have been easy. He somehow failed. It's really as simple as that.

No I agree about what Carragher tried to do, and I am hopeful that I was able to express that my ultimate view of the actual moment was that it was a simple mistake, and one he wouldn't have made in any other situation. As I said, I'm looking at the situation purely mechanically. I disagree about Agger though - Reina was the correct pass, but Agger dropped 10 yards at an angle is a harder man for Hulk to press than Carragher was. The angle creates space but also provides defensive support. Support behind the man on the ball at the angle has two purposes - to give the option to switch, and to provide immediate pressure should the ball be lost. But it might be a matter of preference. If it is my player, I want them to drop at the angle regardless, because it gives options.

Really? I can see the sense in not blaming anyone for the goal because it's pointless. Pointless in the sense that the culprit is obvious and there's no gain tobe had from pointing out what everyone knows. But I can't see any sense in spreading the 'blame' so wide that a basic individual cock-up becomes a team failure. And mabe it's just careless language on your part here but the "certainly not Carragher" does imply you would - at a stretch - blame some other individual.   

Well the culprit isn't obvious, though. The finger is pointing at Carragher. But he didn't create the situation. The goal was lost elsewhere, if we want to be picky.

[steveeastend]

I disagree about Agger though - Reina was the correct pass, but Agger dropped 10 yards at an angle is a harder man for Hulk to press than Carragher was. Well the culprit isn't obvious, though. The finger is pointing at Carragher. But he didn't create the situation. The goal was lost elsewhere, if we want to be picky.

Are you serious here? Do we talk about the same situation?

And who is fingerpointing? Are there two ways of fingerpointing? With some players it´s called valid observation and with others scapegoating?

I am really suprised, but wait, actually I am not, how the twisting of similar game situations is going on around here for quite some while now. Skrtel has to be benched because we were shite defensively (facts?) and at the same time there are arguments pulled out for the sake of it just in order to make some players (Agger and Skrtel) look worse than others for whatever reason. But I know enough about football and been around long enough to know what is going on on the pitch.

What´s wrong with this club? Obviously it´s not only within the club that there are endless politics going on and it looks at it has swapped over on this forum as well for quite some time now although the mods doing a tremendous job to put the emphasis towards football again. But I remember that there was a time when it was without a question to know that any poster taking part in a debate being all about voicing their honest opinion. Now you have to think twice when reading or posting which is a pitty a think.

At the moment, LFC seems to be the sort of family where you better watch your back before saying or writing anything, at the club and around here.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Are you serious?

Who is fingerpointing? Are there two ways of fingerpointing? With some players it´s called valid observation and with others scapegoating?

I am really suprised, but wait, actually I am not, how the twisting of similar game situations is going on around here for quite some while now. Skrtel has to be benched because we were shite defensively (facts?) and at the same time there are arguments pulled out for the sake of it just in order to make some players look worse than others for whatever reason. But I know enough about football and been around long enough to know what is going on on the pitch.

What´s wrong with this club? Obviously it´s not only within the club that there are endless politics going on and it looks at it has swapped over on this forum as well for quite some time now although the mods doing a tremendous job to put the emphasis towards football again. But I remember that there was a time when it was without a question to know that any poster taking part in a debate being all about voicing their honest opinion. Now you have to think twice when reading or posting which is a pitty a think.

At the moment, LFC seems to be the sort of family where you better watch your back before saying or writing anything, at the club and around here.

I think you're reading that sentence differently to how I intended it. I'm not pointing the finger at Carragher, but there are some who have.

I actually tried to show that there was a catalogue of errors involved in the goal and that no single player could be faulted for it, and that it was a perfect set of circumstances that, give or take 2 or 3 seconds, wouldn't have happened at all. A combination of errors that won't be repeated any time soon.

[robgomm]

I get it and I just happen to think he's wrong. I don't think Agger was in 'error' (if that's the word you prefer) at all.

One might (just about) make a case to say that Agger should have anticipated Jamie messing up and therefore stayed 10 yards behind him, but that would involve a whole different philosophy to the one Rodgers wants us to play - a philosophy with greater 'redundancies' built into the system (as engineers might say). In that system players would not seek to support the man on the ball so much as prepare for the ball being lost. If Agger had been thinking like that then he may well have been standing 10 yards behind Carragher and been in a position to deal with Hulk. There again Hulk may have used the extra space between Carra and Agger as well.

Carragher was under pressure, back to goal and with the option to either turn or knock it back. Agger didn't react at all the situation, but merely watched it. That they were in bother at all was because the ball had been carelessly given away and that they were so far up the pitch was because we were playing a high line - a tactical thing.

Agger didn't need to be ten yards further back, he just needed to be looking to cover the space between Reina and Carragher. When that situation started, Hulk had four men near him. When it ended it, he'd scored. It was a general failure in which more than one player made mistakes - you can say Carragher made the biggest mistake but I'm not sure how that helps anything (actually the biggest error was carelessly losing possession, in my opinion, and improvement there will prevent any such goals in future).

[Yorkykopite]

You want more than one support option though. A single option makes play predictable for the defence, which is exactly what defenders want.

As a general principle I wouldn't argue with that. But I'm still certain that Agger could not have reasonably offered a second option. Any pass to Agger would have been loaded with unnecessary risk. I'm a great fan of doing things in stages unless you're looking for the killer ball. The stages were clearly marked in this case. Carra had to pass back a nice long distance to Reina and Agger had to retreat to a left-back position to get the ball off Reina. That was the only sensible thing to do given Hulk's pace and the fact that he was racing towards the Liverpool goal - ie make the pitch as big as possible for him. Passing to Agger would have made it smaller and increased the risk for the sake of what? Two seconds?

And to be fair to Jamie that's what he tried to do. It wasn't hard to accomplish. But he failed. 

[steveeastend]

I think you're reading that sentence differently to how I intended it. I'm not pointing the finger at Carragher, but there are some who have.

I actually tried to show that there was a catalogue of errors involved in the goal and that no single player could be faulted for it, and that it was a perfect set of circumstances that, give or take 2 or 3 seconds, wouldn't have happened at all. A combination of errors that won't be repeated any time soon.

I think you did read my post the wrong way. I am suprised how you try to make look the situation different than it actually was and bring Agger in all this while accousing yorky of fingerpointing.

I fact nobody, and no "others", have been fingerpointing. They just gave a valid observation of the situation. Agger was in no way to blame for NOT creating an angle.

If we talk about the situation then tell it like it is. Nobody is saying that he, Carra, had a bad game for that or is to blame for the exit. But to twist the situation doesn´t look right to me as it´s just not true.

[Timbo's Goals]

Were you at the the Ferencvaros game? The one in the snow?

We played them twice back then i seem to recall.

Was it Florian albert or Zoltan varga in the snow game?

Wheoever it was it was pretty amazing. Wish it was on a video.

 

[TSC]

Why all the ott detailed analysis of a defensive mistake?  I'm one of Carra's biggest defenders but it was an individual mistake.  No need to hang the guy like.  Yes there are always incidents leading up to the key mistake, but ultimately you got to trust your fellow team mates.  Unrealistic to expect players to constantly assume team mates will make a mistake when in possession.

Skrtel earlier this season hit a woeful back pass blind to Reina and cost us 2 points v City.  Now obviously there was a period of play which led to Skrtel being in possession.  But the individual mistake was his.  Same with Carra.  It happens.

[PhaseOfPlay]

I think you did read my post the wrong way. I am suprised how you try to make look the situation different than it actually was and bring Agger in all this while accousing yorky of fingerpointing.

There were no "others" who have been fingerpointing. They just gave a valid observation of the situation. That Agger was in no way to blame for NOT creating an angle.

If we talk about the situation then tell it like it is. Nobody is saying that he, Carra, had a bad game for that or is to blame for the exit. But to twist the situation doesn´t look right to me as it´s just not true.

Yeah I think you're misunderstanding what I was actually saying. There was no blame laid at anybody's feet by me. I merely showed the situations as I saw them, and gave the reasoning behind my thinking. People are free to agree or disagree.

Secondly, I haven't (intentionally, at least) accused any one individual of fingerpointing, and certainly not Yorkykopite - a poster I admire and am in slight awe of in terms of writing talent (I'm not a writer). I don't know how it came across that way at all, and I think my post history shows that I don't attack individual posters, and have no desires to do so. I think I'm fairly open to other poster's opinions and enjoy debating with them. I certainly don't accuse anyone of anything. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and I respect that (more so if their opinion is backed up with reason, whether I agree with it or not).

So apologies to Yorkykopite if he thought I was accusing him of fingerpointing. Never my intention at all. But clearly I have to look at how I write these things that take a lot of time and energy, if I'm not getting my point across correctly. Especially when it opens my posts up to accusations of unfairness.

Time for a bit of a RAWK break I think.

[steveeastend]

Yeah I think you're misunderstanding what I was actually saying. There was no blame laid at anybody's feet by me. I merely showed the situations as I saw them, and gave the reasoning behind my thinking. People are free to agree or disagree.

Secondly, I haven't (intentionally, at least) accused any one individual of fingerpointing, and certainly not Yorkykopite - a poster I admire and am in slight awe of in terms of writing talent (I'm not a writer). I don't know how it came across that way at all, and I think my post history shows that I don't attack individual posters, and have no desires to do so. I think I'm fairly open to other poster's opinions and enjoy debating with them. I certainly don't accuse anyone of anything. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and I respect that (more so if their opinion is backed up with reason, whether I agree with it or not).

So apologies to Yorkykopite if he thought I was accusing him of fingerpointing. Never my intention at all. But clearly I have to look at how I write these things that take a lot of time and energy, if I'm not getting my point across correctly. Especially when it opens my posts up to accusations of unfairness.

Time for a bit of a RAWK break I think.

Apologies if I took it the wrong way mate. Sorry!

[Prof]

PoP, I got where you were coming from.

Steve, don't read too much into things people like PoP write.  He knows so much about the game, and tries to be positive all the time.  Him saying don't point fingers at individuals isn't an attack.  He just likes to educate the fan base (which he has been doing brilliantly), so just take it for what it is... some people like to look at the big picture.

[Yorkykopite]

So apologies to Yorkykopite if he thought I was accusing him of fingerpointing. Never my intention at all.

Totally unnecessary. I understood what you were getting at.

These things can be done to death I guess. But it's often by focussing on particular mistakes (or triumphs) in a match that interesting differences about how best to play the game come out. That's what the debate's been about isn't it? Not looking for scapegoats to slaughter. 

[the 92A]

Interesting discussion with both sides arguing their case well. Surely this is how we learn, from debating with each  other. A slight misunderstanding temporary allowed a bit of heat into the debate but It's obvious all sides respect each other and there's no hidden agendas so can we draw a line under the misunderstanding.