Topic: RAWK Round Table. AFC 2-0 LFC

[robgomm]

Henderson's earned more opportunities, though, and Jonjo was hooked and sold on. Allen, the supposed golden boy that couldn't be dropped according to many fans, hasn't walked back into the team. I don't think Rodgers has been unfair in who gets opportunities. He may have misjudged Sahin or whatever but then Sahin's fucking whinging afterwards make me wonder whether it was a personality issue.

[TSC]

About Gerrard, I'm undecided. He still has enough qualities to be a matchwinner. He's a great bonus to have in the side. But if I look ahead, it's obvious that we need to plan for a future without him as a key player. At some point we need to actively promote another player and phase Gerrard out. The question is when. Now? I feel we try and use him as much as possible. He's changed his role in the last couple of years and in return we've used him more minutes. And I wonder if we shouldn't do the opposite. Decide this is his role and then see if/when/how he fits in.

But someone has to "take" his role as well. Force himself into the side, ahead of Gerrard, on merit. And we haven't seen that. So Rodgers is not getting the answers he's searching for. Which, IMO means that the competition isn't good enough. Perhaps the right thing to do then is to keep Gerrard and replace his competitors? Perhaps the real weakness isn't Gerrard, but that he's still the best option we have (and the others aren't good enough)?

See there's no problem with having this discussion re Gerrard and Liverpool without him in a measured way.  What used to be silly were ridiculous posts full of hyperbole in the Gerrard and Lucas thread (now locked thankfully) where some posted nonsense such as 'Gerrard's a physical wreck' and Lucas and Gerrard only have 'negative impacts' on the team.

I'd compare Gerrard being replaced eventually to Bryan Robson situation at UTD.  How did they replace him?  By buying quality in.  Roy Keane came in.  Robson was 36 at the time.  Luckily for UTD (and Robson I guess) his departure came at a time when UTD finally turned a corner with Robson's penultimate season resulting in a title win.

There is no direct replacement in any shape or form at Liverpool at the moment for Steven Gerrard.  If there was, they'd be partnering him in midfield anyway.  We're going to have to buy quality in, and even then you'll probably at best only replace Gerrard as he is now.  You'll never get what he provided in his peak.

[Groundskeeper Willie]

Cannot agree with this. Lucas lack of pace is at least as big a problem as Gerrards. The fact is neither are good enough on current form so we only have Hendo who's skills are questionable but at least he will work harder than the other simply because he is fitter.
Incredibly we have managed to hold onto joint 2nd despite our awful MF.

I´m not agreeing with myself either , couldn´t decide which way it was.

[LiamG]

One thing that might explain the spaces is that, if you look at our past 3-5 games, we've been very right side dominant, leaving our left side exposed. Gerrard plays on the right, Henderson drifts there, Sturridge drifts there, and Suarez drifts there. Arsenal, on the other hand, played the majority of the game on our left, where they found acres of space, as evidenced by both goals. It's also the side of the field where the goals from Cabaye, Giaccherini and Michu largely originated, as well as Arteta's pass, and the pass into Shelvey in the Swansea game. The space is opening up in midfield, as the midfield gets pulled to the right. Given we're playing in a 3-5-2, this effectively isolates the wingback on that side. We have a very unbalanced central midfield, and it seems like we might need to be looking at a natural left-footer as an addition to the central midfield in January if we're to fix that issue. Balance in the midfield is as vital as balance in the back, and it looks like teams might be exploiting the huge gap that we're leaving on that side of the field.

Interesting point that, Do you think we will go for a left footed midfielder in January? and what sort of player? Box to box? controller?  Also who would he replace?

[PhaseOfPlay]

Interesting point that, Do you think we will go for a left footed midfielder in January? and what sort of player? Box to box? controller?  Also who would he replace?

I couldn't tell you, because to be honest, I don't know what Rodgers wants to do with the midfield anymore. While I liked the move to the 3-5-2, I don't know if there is a plan for central midfield that is obvious like there was a plan for central midfield when we played the 4-2-3-1. I think the midfield needs to be a lot different in a counterattacking 3-5-2 than in a possession-based 4-2-3-1, even though we're playing with the same midfield shape.

[Grobbelrevell]

Interesting point that, Do you think we will go for a left footed midfielder in January?

Sahin 

[wah00ey]

Sahin 

Wasn't he a little on the pedestrian side when he was with us - I can't see that he'll have got any quicker...

[csgreen]

I think we'll see the change from Fulham onwards. Rodgers clearly wants to keep as settled a team as possible, but any loss will make him change something to keep things fresh. I think if we stick with a back three versus Fulham, Agger will come in, and probably for Toure, with Skrtel moving across to the right side. If we go to a back four, we might see Sakho and Agger, or Agger and Skrtel with Sakho as left back. I would be surprised if Rodgers DOESN'T change it for this game. I think he's fairly consistent in that respect - as long as things are going well, changes are minimal. If we lose, then something gets examined more closely, and probably altered, too.

I'm pretty interested in this statement.  I've consistently argued that Rodgers using "fairness" to decide the squad or his deciding to "keep selecting a team that's on form" isn't what I would consider reasonable decision making.  And in response you've argued that there's more to team selection than simply picking your best team.  Players need to be motivated to perform, expectations need to be clear, etc (noting that I'm still not sure I buy this, but I do at least see your point of view  ). 

So it seems that you think that Rodgers will make changes following the Arsenal game.  My question then is whether you think that's "right" given the way you think about team selection.  To some extent none of the CBs did anything in the last game that really "warranted dropping" (certainly no more than the complete brain farts against Newscastle).  Does swapping the back line after the Arsenal game accomplish the goals of motivation, etc?  Or is it a matter of having what amounts to a "fall guy"?  And does that set up an expectation that if the team loses, then someone has to be swapped out?  Because if I'm Skrtel and I'm sent to the bench after I had pretty much the same game as I had for the past 6 games, then I'm definitely expecting that I'll be coming back in for someone somehow the next time the team loses...   

[Juan Loco]

I couldn't tell you, because to be honest, I don't know what Rodgers wants to do with the midfield anymore. While I liked the move to the 3-5-2, I don't know if there is a plan for central midfield that is obvious like there was a plan for central midfield when we played the 4-2-3-1. I think the midfield needs to be a lot different in a counterattacking 3-5-2 than in a possession-based 4-2-3-1, even though we're playing with the same midfield shape.

He said his idea for the midfield was to be a 1-2, even with 3 at the back, didn't he? That's what he was working towards over the weeks leading up to the West Brom game. Couldn't he play a possession based game using 3-5-2 (Roy Evans managed it pretty well).

[666]

Wasn't he a little on the pedestrian side when he was with us - I can't see that he'll have got any quicker...

He's a deep lying midfielder, said so himself, yet BR played him at 10

[PhaseOfPlay]

I'm pretty interested in this statement.  I've consistently argued that Rodgers using "fairness" to decide the squad or his deciding to "keep selecting a team that's on form" isn't what I would consider reasonable decision making.  And in response you've argued that there's more to team selection than simply picking your best team.  Players need to be motivated to perform, expectations need to be clear, etc (noting that I'm still not sure I buy this, but I do at least see your point of view  ). 

So it seems that you think that Rodgers will make changes following the Arsenal game.  My question then is whether you think that's "right" given the way you think about team selection.  To some extent none of the CBs did anything in the last game that really "warranted dropping" (certainly no more than the complete brain farts against Newscastle).  Does swapping the back line after the Arsenal game accomplish the goals of motivation, etc?  Or is it a matter of having what amounts to a "fall guy"?  And does that set up an expectation that if the team loses, then someone has to be swapped out?  Because if I'm Skrtel and I'm sent to the bench after I had pretty much the same game as I had for the past 6 games, then I'm definitely expecting that I'll be coming back in for someone somehow the next time the team loses...

You're misunderstanding the whole situation.

Our original discussion was about us disagreeing about the notion of form, mainly because you see it as something that needs to be empirically provable, and because I see it as much a psychological state as a performance state.

Then, I explained where I thought RODGERS was coming from, as I do with everything else. My point of view is not always what I believe Rodgers thinks. I'm actually more on the Horses for Courses side of the coin. My main "contribution" is to try to explain the possible thinking behind certain things, whether I agree with them or not. For example, last season there were discussions where people were up in arms because Rodgers was building his team from the front, contrary to received wisdom about building your team from the back. That doesn't mean I follow what Rodgers is doing - I prefer the traditional way - but it doesn't mean I can't try to give an objective explanation for what I believe is behind the decision. Same with every other aspect. What I believe should happen, and what I try to explain are the reasons behind what RODGERS thinks should happen, are not always one and the same thing.

[PhaseOfPlay]

He said his idea for the midfield was to be a 1-2, even with 3 at the back, didn't he? That's what he was working towards over the weeks leading up to the West Brom game. Couldn't he play a possession based game using 3-5-2 (Roy Evans managed it pretty well).

He could, but he also said "if you can't get back, don't get forward", and this is becoming a fatal flaw in our midfield, especially with Gerrard. So if the "1-2" is his ideal midfield shape, then he needs to be making tougher decisions about the "2", because they are not absolved of defensive duties just because they get to go forward. So as much as he might want to play a possession based 3-5-2, he needs to accept that without legs in central midfield, it will always default to counter-attacking, because we will never consistently create the overloads required to open up space in the attacking half, or to close down space in the defending half, if we can't get the central midfield up and down the field in step with the transitions. If we play a "1-2" central midfield with Lucas as the "1", then we have to think of him more as a central defender than a midfielder, meaning that if both Henderson and Gerrard go forward and don't get back, then it's just as bad as if both central midfielders go forward in a flat 4-4-2, leaving the huge space in "Zone 6" exposed to the counter.

[ChaChaMooMoo]

Interesting point that, Do you think we will go for a left footed midfielder in January? and what sort of player? Box to box? controller?  Also who would he replace?

Actually our very own Suso is a predominantly left footed player. And started playing as a deep lying midfielder.

[L666KOP]

He could, but he also said "if you can't get back, don't get forward", and this is becoming a fatal flaw in our midfield, especially with Gerrard. So if the "1-2" is his ideal midfield shape, then he needs to be making tougher decisions about the "2", because they are not absolved of defensive duties just because they get to go forward. So as much as he might want to play a possession based 3-5-2, he needs to accept that without legs in central midfield, it will always default to counter-attacking, because we will never consistently create the overloads required to open up space in the attacking half, or to close down space in the defending half, if we can't get the central midfield up and down the field in step with the transitions. If we play a "1-2" central midfield with Lucas as the "1", then we have to think of him more as a central defender than a midfielder, meaning that if both Henderson and Gerrard go forward and don't get back, then it's just as bad as if both central midfielders go forward in a flat 4-4-2, leaving the huge space in "Zone 6" exposed to the counter.

Would I be correct in thinking this is how Arsenal 'beat' us last season at Anfield.

[Eeyore]

See there's no problem with having this discussion re Gerrard and Liverpool without him in a measured way.  What used to be silly were ridiculous posts full of hyperbole in the Gerrard and Lucas thread (now locked thankfully) where some posted nonsense such as 'Gerrard's a physical wreck' and Lucas and Gerrard only have 'negative impacts' on the team.

I'd compare Gerrard being replaced eventually to Bryan Robson situation at UTD.  How did they replace him?  By buying quality in.  Roy Keane came in.  Robson was 36 at the time.  Luckily for UTD (and Robson I guess) his departure came at a time when UTD finally turned a corner with Robson's penultimate season resulting in a title win.

There is no direct replacement in any shape or form at Liverpool at the moment for Steven Gerrard.  If there was, they'd be partnering him in midfield anyway.  We're going to have to buy quality in, and even then you'll probably at best only replace Gerrard as he is now.  You'll never get what he provided in his peak.

The point for me is that Ferguson never attempted to replace Robson. For me Robson was even then a dying breed, the old fashioned box to box midfield player who was throwing in tackles one minute, getting the team passing and then get on the end of things at the other end the next. Ferguson followed the trend and went for a combination of defensive and attacking midfield players who complimented each others games. Keane never replaced Robson he just replaced part of what Robson did with players of the ilk of Scholes completing the other half of the Robson role.

Keane would of never of been caught up the pitch letting opponents run past him and the attacking midfield players wouldn't of tread on keane's toes and tried to drop in and cut him out of the build up of play between defence and attack. That is what Rodgers was trying to do pre-xmas last season, for me in Rodgers system you have a Britton type who links defence and midfield and you have a couple of midfield players with a license to get forward whilst maintaining the shape Rodgers wants.

What has happened is that Gerrard has recreated the box to box superman role and is trying to do everything himself. We have left behind the clearly defined roles and now have a situation where Gerrard's team mates have to guess what Gerrard is going to do and fill in the holes he leaves. If he decides he fancies a game of Pirlo against Newcastle then they have to move forward and play in front of him, if he fancies a game of fox in the box then they have to drop in and do his running and covering for him.

The consequence is that far too often we lose shape and organisation and even worse we end up with defensive midfield players like Sahin and Meireles playing as a ten and the likes of Lucas and Allen ending up in front of probably the best attacking midfield player this country has ever produced.

[L666KOP]

The point for me is that Ferguson never attempted to replace Robson. For me Robson was even then a dying breed, the old fashioned box to box midfield player who was throwing in tackles one minute, getting the team passing and then get on the end of things at the other end the next. Ferguson followed the trend and went for a combination of defensive and attacking midfield players who complimented each others games. Keane never replaced Robson he just replaced part of what Robson did with players of the ilk of Scholes completing the other half of the Robson role.

Keane would of never of been caught up the pitch letting opponents run past him and the attacking midfield players wouldn't of tread on keane's toes and tried to drop in and cut him out of the build up of play between defence and attack. That is what Rodgers was trying to do pre-xmas last season, for me in Rodgers system you have a Britton type who links defence and midfield and you have a couple of midfield players with a license to get forward whilst maintaining the shape Rodgers wants.

What has happened is that Gerrard has recreated the box to box superman role and is trying to do everything himself. We have left behind the clearly defined roles and now have a situation where Gerrard's team mates have to guess what Gerrard is going to do and fill in the holes he leaves. If he decides he fancies a game of Pirlo against Newcastle then they have to move forward and play in front of him, if he fancies a game of fox in the box then they have to drop in and do his running and covering for him.

The consequence is that far too often we lose shape and organisation and even worse we end up with defensive midfield players like Sahin and Meireles playing as a ten and the likes of Lucas and Allen ending up in front of probably the best attacking midfield player this country has ever produced.

Post of the thread Al.
 

Gerrard needs telling what to do, and when to do it.
Rafa got the best out of him, in clearly defined, structured roles.
If he has to 'think' what to do you lose half the player, he's like a clockwork bunny, wind him up, point him in the right direction, and watch him go.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Would I be correct in thinking this is how Arsenal 'beat' us last season at Anfield.

That was my interpretation of it, I think. we were exposed in the space in front of the defence, especially for the first goal (?) when Gerrard loses the ball.

[csgreen]

You're misunderstanding the whole situation.

Our original discussion was about us disagreeing about the notion of form, mainly because you see it as something that needs to be empirically provable, and because I see it as much a psychological state as a performance state.

Then, I explained where I thought RODGERS was coming from, as I do with everything else. My point of view is not always what I believe Rodgers thinks. I'm actually more on the Horses for Courses side of the coin. My main "contribution" is to try to explain the possible thinking behind certain things, whether I agree with them or not. For example, last season there were discussions where people were up in arms because Rodgers was building his team from the front, contrary to received wisdom about building your team from the back. That doesn't mean I follow what Rodgers is doing - I prefer the traditional way - but it doesn't mean I can't try to give an objective explanation for what I believe is behind the decision. Same with every other aspect. What I believe should happen, and what I try to explain are the reasons behind what RODGERS thinks should happen, are not always one and the same thing.

I think maybe I phrased the question poorly - because my ultimate question is whether you think changing the back line is consistent with how Rodgers has viewed team selection thus far (rather than do you personally think it's a good idea).  If we take what BR has said about team selection -  he's used "fairness" a number of times, motivation, confidence, run of good play, etc - do you then think that he's going to make changes at the back despite the fact that none of the back line really screwed anything up too badly?  In my opinion dropping Skrtel or Toure for Agger would be inconsistent with his previous statements about team selection (even though I personally think it's the right thing to do).  I know if I'm Skrtel and I've heard what the manager has said previously and I know how I played against Arsenal, then I'm going to be super pissed if I'm dropped for the next game.  I'm also going to be expecting to be recalled after the next loss even if, again, none of the CBs were remotely responsible for that loss...

[PhaseOfPlay]

I think maybe I phrased the question poorly - because my ultimate question is whether you think changing the back line is consistent with how Rodgers has viewed team selection thus far (rather than do you personally think it's a good idea).  If we take what BR has said about team selection -  he's used "fairness" a number of times, motivation, confidence, run of good play, etc - do you then think that he's going to make changes at the back despite the fact that none of the back line really screwed anything up too badly?  In my opinion dropping Skrtel or Toure for Agger would be inconsistent with his previous statements about team selection (even though I personally think it's the right thing to do).  I know if I'm Skrtel and I've heard what the manager has said previously and I know how I played against Arsenal, then I'm going to be super pissed if I'm dropped for the next game.  I'm also going to be expecting to be recalled after the next loss even if, again, none of the CBs were remotely responsible for that loss...

I see. I think it's entirely possible he'll use a change to a back four as a way of making changes. It would be unfair on Skrtel, so I don't think he'll be the one to make way, but it's possible he'll move Sakho out to left back (given the absence of Enrique and the physical shape of Cissokho), and rest Toure (who hasn't been bad at all, but is still 32 and - like Gerrard - should be rested now and again). And there would also be the argument that we haven't kept a clean sheet since United, so he has ample reason to change something in the back line. But thinking back over the Arsenal game, it's entirely possible Sakho might be the surprise exclusion. "Fairness" doesn't mean "equality", so the standards for one player don't necessarily exist for another. Each player would be held to their own standard, not the standard of another. So I suppose the question he would ask would be which defender didn't live up to their own standards? For me, Skrtel has done what he has been asked to do. That leaves Sakho and Toure. And Sakho definitely had some culpability in both goals, to varying degrees. He might be the most likely candidate.

[robgomm]

Post of the thread Al.
 

Gerrard needs telling what to do, and when to do it.
Rafa got the best out of him, in clearly defined, structured roles.
If he has to 'think' what to do you lose half the player, he's like a clockwork bunny, wind him up, point him in the right direction, and watch him go.

I think that vastly underestimates him frankly, in terms of his whole career. A brainless bunny? Nah. The issue now is less his role than his physical ability to carry out. The two are linked of course but it isn't a lack of structure per se that's the problem for Gerrard it's that he can't get up and down like he used to. Go back to his physical peak and he could've played centre midfield and been great (Rafa said, direct quote "he could play anywhere" but he put him on the right because he felt it balanced the team. He also made it plain Gerrard wasn't a right winger, his role was to come inside from that position).

The role needs to change, sure, and I'd see him see deeper to make the most of his passing and give him more time on the ball (or you could go the opposite way from the Pirlo role and think Riquelme, who was never quick but whose eye for a pass was a joy to behold - but that role is not really part of the game now). But let's not make him out to be some kind of halfwit.

[PhaseOfPlay]

I think that vastly underestimates him frankly, in terms of his whole career. A brainless bunny? Nah. The issue now is less his role than his physical ability to carry out. The two are linked of course but it isn't a lack of structure per se that's the problem for Gerrard it's that he can't get up and down like he used to. Go back to his physical peak and he could've played centre midfield and been great (Rafa said, direct quote "he could play anywhere" but he put him on the right because he felt it balanced the team. He also made it plain Gerrard wasn't a right winger, his role was to come inside from that position).

The role needs to change, sure, and I'd see him see deeper to make the most of his passing and give him more time on the ball (or you could go the opposite way from the Pirlo role and think Riquelme, who was never quick but whose eye for a pass was a joy to behold - but that role is not really part of the game now). But let's not make him out to be some kind of halfwit.

He wasn't a half-wit, but he also wasn't a "thinking" player either. His game was built on his physical prowess - power over poise - and now that he doesn't have the physical side, he can't perform to his previously accepted high standards. Gerrard was always one of those players who could make a mistake and then get back to recover it because of his pace and energy. Alonso was a much smarter player in terms of how he thought about the game. Gerrard's game was pace and power, and without those two qualities, a large portion of what made him effective is gone.

[L666KOP]

I think that vastly underestimates him frankly, in terms of his whole career. A brainless bunny? Nah. The issue now is less his role than his physical ability to carry out. The two are linked of course but it isn't a lack of structure per se that's the problem for Gerrard it's that he can't get up and down like he used to. Go back to his physical peak and he could've played centre midfield and been great (Rafa said, direct quote "he could play anywhere" but he put him on the right because he felt it balanced the team. He also made it plain Gerrard wasn't a right winger, his role was to come inside from that position).

The role needs to change, sure, and I'd see him see deeper to make the most of his passing and give him more time on the ball (or you could go the opposite way from the Pirlo role and think Riquelme, who was never quick but whose eye for a pass was a joy to behold - but that role is not really part of the game now). But let's not make him out to be some kind of halfwit.

I'm not doing him downin anyway shape or form.

I'm just saying that he performs at a higher level when being told what to do, how to do it, and when. I reckon he thinks he can do more than he actually can, but he's far removed from 2008/9 Gerrard.

Anyway, PoP has done a much more eloquent version above.
 

[robgomm]

For me that's a refusal on Gerrard's part to accept his body. I think if he played deep and passed from deep his vision for a pass would be so much better served than it is by the half and half role he's playing now. He needs to be the 1 in the 1-2.

[L666KOP]

For me that's a refusal on Gerrard's part to accept his body. I think if he played deep and passed from deep his vision for a pass would be so much better served than it is by the half and half role he's playing now. He needs to be the 1 in the 1-2.

 

[PhaseOfPlay]

For me that's a refusal on Gerrard's part to accept his body. I think if he played deep and passed from deep his vision for a pass would be so much better served than it is by the half and half role he's playing now. He needs to be the 1 in the 1-2.

Sounds about right. But not in every game, either. Some games he should be rested - as much to allow the other players to learn to play without him as it would be to let his body recover. 

[Sangria]

He wasn't a half-wit, but he also wasn't a "thinking" player either. His game was built on his physical prowess - power over poise - and now that he doesn't have the physical side, he can't perform to his previously accepted high standards. Gerrard was always one of those players who could make a mistake and then get back to recover it because of his pace and energy. Alonso was a much smarter player in terms of how he thought about the game. Gerrard's game was pace and power, and without those two qualities, a large portion of what made him effective is gone.

We can still use his qualities as a 30 player though, at a stage when the other team aren't quite so apt to exploit his physical weaknesses and when his qualities up front or from deep would be able to exploit their growing tiredness. The problem with that is the 60 player is seen as the top dog while the 30 player is seen as an auxiliary supersub, rather than the two being seen as complementary parts of a tactical whole.

[TSC]

The point for me is that Ferguson never attempted to replace Robson. For me Robson was even then a dying breed, the old fashioned box to box midfield player who was throwing in tackles one minute, getting the team passing and then get on the end of things at the other end the next. Ferguson followed the trend and went for a combination of defensive and attacking midfield players who complimented each others games. Keane never replaced Robson he just replaced part of what Robson did with players of the ilk of Scholes completing the other half of the Robson role.

Keane would of never of been caught up the pitch letting opponents run past him and the attacking midfield players wouldn't of tread on keane's toes and tried to drop in and cut him out of the build up of play between defence and attack. That is what Rodgers was trying to do pre-xmas last season, for me in Rodgers system you have a Britton type who links defence and midfield and you have a couple of midfield players with a license to get forward whilst maintaining the shape Rodgers wants.

What has happened is that Gerrard has recreated the box to box superman role and is trying to do everything himself. We have left behind the clearly defined roles and now have a situation where Gerrard's team mates have to guess what Gerrard is going to do and fill in the holes he leaves. If he decides he fancies a game of Pirlo against Newcastle then they have to move forward and play in front of him, if he fancies a game of fox in the box then they have to drop in and do his running and covering for him.

The consequence is that far too often we lose shape and organisation and even worse we end up with defensive midfield players like Sahin and Meireles playing as a ten and the likes of Lucas and Allen ending up in front of probably the best attacking midfield player this country has ever produced.

Well whether it was superb planning on Ferguson's part or whether he simply got lucky is irrelevant, Keane came in and Robson exited.  Prior to Keane Ince partnered Robson.  But then as you mention Keane then joined a midfield and was surrounded by better players all over.  UTD at that time no longer needed a 'superman' type in the form of Robson as all of the midfield created and provided a goalscoring threat.  We don't have that.  If for example we had a 24 year old Scholes instead of 24 year old Henderson in midfield then I've no doubt Gerrard would quite happily sit deep much more often.

Ultimately what we lack, and what we've lacked for a while certainly since Gerrard was in his pomp, is an attacking midfielder who can provide a goal threat.  This is probably a compliment to Gerrard, as he fulfilled it sometimes single handedly over a period of years.  Maybe it's even taken the manager a bit of time to realise this.  It's less evident or problematic when Coutinho is on his game of course.  But against the better sides when there's no link between midfield and attack (as on Saturday) it's obvious.

[Garcepticon]

You have to take the game by the scruff of the neck, bend it according to your own will, and make the manager pick you in the next available game. That is, unfortunately for Alberto, what you have to do to get in ahead of the club captain, as well as the mainstay holding midfielder.

You have to make the manager pick you, and that means scoring more than one goal, making more than one assist, making numerous key passes, or physically dominating your direct opponent on defence, if you're a defender.

I understand your argument, but completely disagree with it. If a midfielder is an effective part of a unit then he by virtue he is helping the team. Goals and tackles are all well and good, but the role of a central midfielder has moved on, hasn't it?

Who earlier made the argument about the midfield being about function and not finesse?

[PhaseOfPlay]

I understand your argument, but completely disagree with it. If a midfielder is an effective part of a unit then he by virtue he is helping the team. Goals and tackles are all well and good, but the role of a central midfielder has moved on, hasn't it?

Who earlier made the argument about the midfield being about function and not finesse?

You've completely missed the context of what I said.

[TSC]

I understand your argument, but completely disagree with it. If a midfielder is an effective part of a unit then he by virtue he is helping the team. Goals and tackles are all well and good, but the role of a central midfielder has moved on, hasn't it?

Who earlier made the argument about the midfield being about function and not finesse?

I think the point is that as a team we don't have the luxury of allowing a player to come in and effectively have a load of games on the bounce to get up to speed.  Therefore when a player comes in he has to grab the chance by the scruff and make it impossible for the manager to drop him.  None of the fringe players or those sitting on the bench have done that to be fair on occasions when they've made appearances.

And offering some sort of a goal threat and being able to tackle are fundamentals in any midfield.  If a midfielder is not offering anything re these two areas, what exactly is he offering?

[csgreen]

It's okay being tidy and technical - it is a desirable thing, certainly. But that's for the purists. for the manager, who needs results as well as performances, any player staking a claim to a position has to offer something better than their ordinary game that he sees in training every day...Get on the pitch and do your day-to-day stuff that he sees in training, and then it's not really going to make him change his mind about Gerrard or Lucas.

At some point though Gerrard and Lucas will make him change his mind about Gerrard and Lucas though, right?  I totally agree that tidy and technical wouldn't be nearly sufficient to displace Gerrard/Lucas from 2/3 years ago.  But the recent versions?  I'd take tidy and technical over totally uninvolved, late, and wasteful any day...  Obviously things would be better if someone would force BR's hand, rather than backing into a position, but things are what they are...

[GrkStav]

A bit off-topic in light of the preceding posts but still:

For AFC's second goal, was it right for Lucas to attempt to compress space while Gerrard was already on our left (AFC's right) flank? Once he did, was it right for him to move as he did to his right to attempt to anticipate and intercept the pass that ended up getting to an unmarked Ramsey?

Henderson, by the way, needs to watch some film of that goal. I am not saying he ought to have predicted that the ball would get to Ramsey, but he ought to have been a bit more alert to the possibility and may be taken a couple of steps back and to his left as Lucas moved towards where the ball was.

As a final point, I am a big Toure fan but he didn't cover himself in glory and manliness with that attempt belatedly to close down and block Ramsey's shot. Kudos to Giroud for, once again, making the right mini-run to disrupt the defenders. He did likewise for their first goal.

[Bobinhood]

Gerrard is a truly magnificent passer of the ball, amongst many other things. From the sounds of it people think we should just trade him for Mikel or Tiote at this point because the lack of energy is killing us.

I disagree completely. I think his role should be re-examined esp the defensive aspect and his minutes managed a bit more carefully but I don't think hes done yet. Far from it.

These aging guys, a lot of them tend to start a season kinda slowly, hit stride part way through and then and finish very strong ie as good as ever. Then, they start the next year even slower, take a bit longer to find the form, and finish strong again. and so on and so on until eventually an up and comer crowds them out or they break down and they have to quit.

Gerrard is just starting that process not finishing it yet. He's one of the best passers around and with that arrow alone he can be a key player for several more years.  Against Arsenal he hit a number of excellent passes that nobody I've read has passed comment on, but also his running was quite pedestrian and that's been very well broadcast from every available pulpit. Its not balanced reporting imo.

The re-invention is a bit bumpy at this point but don't be surprised if he is playing some truly excellent football in the dead of winter.


 

[GrkStav]

Would you say that Gerrard's passing performance vs AFC "made up" for his pedestrian running?

[Bobinhood]

 

No he was fairly poor esp by his own mighty standards.

But im just saying don't write him off yet. I would suspect he was poor because he needed rest and or a less demanding running role, not because he cant do it anymore at all. Especially as an attacking force.

[Twelfth Man]

...

Not seen much evidence of Gerrard trying to play box to box for a couple of seasons now. I must be missing something. The only time he ventures forward these days is when teams decide to sit back and play the low block. Against poor teams he will occaisionally try and get in the box, but even then perhaps once over 90 minutes. Gerrard and Lucas just can't cope with teams that press high and energetically, that is the issue and has been for sometime.

[GrkStav]

To 'write off' Gerrard would be foolish, I agree.

Personally, I think Gerrard just had an off day. He just didn't seem up for it. On a couple of occassions, he seemed reluctant to do what we all know he prefers to do and is expert at doing. 1. Choosing to head the ball blind and backwards, instead of taking it on his chest and putting it 'on the floor' (as you all say). 2. Choosing not to turn ('get turned') with the ball onto three or four 'juicy' options and instead passing the ball back to e.g. Toure.

On the other hand, that little exchange of headers near the end of the game was pure Gerrard.

[GrkStav]

Not seen much evidence of Gerrard trying to play box to box for a couple of seasons now. I must be missing something. The only time he ventures forward these days is when teams decide to sit back and play the low block. Against poor teams he will occaisionally try and get in the box, but even then perhaps once over 90 minutes. Gerrard and Lucas just can't cope with teams that press high and energetically, that is the issue and has been for sometime.

No, it's not. This is what has been repeated ad nauseam and has now become accepted as fact.

[Twelfth Man]

No, it's not. This is what has been repeated ad nauseam and has now become accepted as fact.

OK how about, the team can't cope with teams that press high and energetically, that okay?

[DanA]

Not seen much evidence of Gerrard trying to play box to box for a couple of seasons now. I must be missing something. The only time he ventures forward these days is when teams decide to sit back and play the low block. Against poor teams he will occaisionally try and get in the box, but even then perhaps once over 90 minutes. Gerrard and Lucas just can't cope with teams that press high and energetically, that is the issue and has been for sometime.

I don't believe this is true. In all three of our loses this season we've had to make major concessions to our line ups which have significantly effected our ability to control possession. I'd argue it's playing Cissokho, Flanagan or a CB as wingback along with Moses as a no.10 that's costing us more so than our central midfield. We might be able to get away with Cissokho when Johnson's the other wingback because he's quality on the ball and we can play through that right side, Cissokho offering width but that's not going to hold up with Flanagan there.

They're not perfect but I think it's made to look much worse than it is by their team mates.