Topic: The Klopp Template

[Knight]

Be interesting to see his spreadsheet. Given we are comfortably top 4 based on anything you like. I'd suggest probability for us winning any game are around 75percent. If you want to say we draw that specific game, then maybe the number he quoted is more reasonable. If you allow for one draw anywhere that changes things. Moreso if that draw can be a draw or win! Also is the head to head right? I thought that came in after gd , and I think still behind goals for.

Yeah that's wrong. It's a tiebreaker after GD and potentially goals scored.

Very helpful analysis this. xg has a number isn't very valuable given the importance of a goal depends on the context, or 'game state', so very interesting to see this. Statsbomb recently did a podcast where on the basis of xg they said Liverpool should only really be 5-7 points clear. It was so annoying to hear those guys so simplistically appeal to xg. They're usually good too. 

[Chris~]

Yeah that's wrong. It's a tiebreaker after GD and potentially goals scored.

Very helpful analysis this. xg has a number isn't very valuable given the importance of a goal depends on the context, or 'game state', so very interesting to see this. Statsbomb recently did a podcast where on the basis of xg they said Liverpool should only really be 5-7 points clear. It was so annoying to hear those guys so simplistically appeal to xg. They're usually good too.

Even accounting for game state we've benefited from some bad finishing in close games. Dan Kennett went through the video of the best chances conceded/highest xg value: https://twitter.com/DanKennett/status/1225041764488220672?s=19 there are some terrible misses under no real pressure.

It'd be interesting to see a comparison to city 17/18 or any recent juventus/bayern/barca/real dominant sides to see how they compared in game state situations. I also think if they're going to use xg then it's worth bringing up the biggest over performence we have is opppnents missing chances when they trail by one goal. And given how few minutes us and city spend when behind it's such a small smaple size to draw too many conclusions from in that period.

[PoetryInMotion]

Very good article, but he's wrong in saying that H2H is the tie-breaker between teams level on points. It's still GD first. Klopp's realization is not because of the 'rule change', but because teams being level on points happens extremely rarely. If you'd give me the option of toiling an entire season for GD to combat being level on points, or doing just enough in one more game to land 1 point ahead of your chaser, I'd always take the latter option, 100 %. This is why Klopp and his team have not bothered going for GD and it pays so much in the latter half of the season, managing the game states, and conserving the energy when we're leading. City's approach of going full-throttle on the other hand in meaningless game states and in certain games of lesser meaning (like early Cup games, dead rubbers etc.) over a good part of three years is costing them now.

Rest of the points in his article - game states, our dominance and conservation of energy based on game states, injuries etc. are spot on.

[PoetryInMotion]

Even accounting for game state we've benefited from some bad finishing in close games. Dan Kennett went through the video of the best chances conceded/highest xg value: https://twitter.com/DanKennett/status/1225041764488220672?s=19 there are some terrible misses under no real pressure.

It'd be interesting to see a comparison to city 17/18 or any recent juventus/bayern/barca/real dominant sides to see how they compared in game state situations. I also think if they're going to use xg then it's worth bringing up the biggest over performence we have is opppnents missing chances when trailing by one goal. And given how few minutes us and city spend when behind it's such a small smaple size to draw too many conclusions from in that period.

I think every team does at certain occasions. There's always going to be bad finishing against you at some point. However, since the article by Cohen includes xG, it clearly shows we never go 2 goals behind, and we have the upper hand in xG of above 1.3 when we're behind by 1, level or ahead by 1 (the three game states that denote 'close games' as you say), even considering the misses that our opposition have against us. This means, we're clearly creating enough or keeping away the opposition enough to go ahead at every game state. In fact, our highest xG is when we go down by 1 goal. At this point we make sure that we don't go further behind and give us the best chance to get level. Our xG gradually decreases when the game state goes further in our favour. We rest during games when we're more than 1 goal up and this is when we concede a few good chances to the opposition, but it hardly matters does it? When we're more than 1 goal up, and marginally declining/resting, teams are often exhausted by then and have a dent in their confidence, which can explain missed chances.

[Chris~]

It's less than 2 games worth of minutes at a goal down though. It's far too small a sample size to draw sweeping conclusions from. But yeah when it has happened we've responded well this season, it's part of why we're a very good team.

teams are often exhausted by then and have a dent in their confidence, which can explain missed chances

Without speaking to each individual player there is no way of proving this though. Players have missed chances against us, more than you'd normally expect, from just watching video of them or xg. We're very good. Both can be true and to me explains why we've been on such a good run. I don't think it's because we've cracked football like no team before.

[Pie Eyed]

It's less than 2 games worth of minutes at a goal down though. It's far too small a sample size to draw sweeping conclusions from. But yeah when it has happened we've responded well this season, it's part of why we're a very good team.
Without speaking to each individual player there is no way of proving this though. Players have missed chances against us, more than you'd normally expect, from just watching video of them or xg. We're very good. Both can be true and to me explains why we've been on such a good run. I don't think it's because we've cracked football like no team before.

If you did that, though, do you honestly think that any of those players would admit to it?

Personally, after reading that article, it ties in with what I've seen in live games - We relax at 2-goals up, which looks like we might be tiring or "taking our foot off the gas", but when you look at the stats behind it, it explains why - even when we are letting teams get closer in the last 10-20 minutes of a game, I rarely feel nervous.  (I think I've been genuinely nervous just once this season - against Wolves).

It also perfectly explains how we seem to be "lucky" with injuries to the attacking players (whilst being incredibly unlucky with injuries to goalkeeper, defence & midfield players).

[Bob Sacamano]

Yeah that article strikes me as a lot of ad hoc reasoning. I don’t believe for a second that we are “letting up” with 1 goal leads. A manager would be foolish to do so, and Klopp is no fool.

We have been very very fortunate at times this year, and it’s ok to say that. We still get a trophy 

[Chris~]

If you did that, though, do you honestly think that any of those players would admit to it?

I have no idea. Some players talk about the pressure playing at anfield, or Champions League nights, but even then that doesn't mean it caused them to mess up a certain pass or shot. Sometimes players just fuck up. The article does a good job of explaining why our overall xg is lower than City's. We dont push as much to run up scores, we are very good in various ways for example set pieeces. Means we can be 2-0 up from them on lower quality xg chances (chelsea and brighton off the top of my head) and then coast a bit.


It doesnt though go in to why teams have missed easy chances against us at such a high rate, which is whats been a massive plus for us. Basstunedtored has one up on the same site that does this, which is partly behind the subscription. I'd be interested what his overall conclusion was on it so probably will sign up to see.

[royhendo]

We demonstrably are Bob.

Anfield Index have been putting numbers up about this for months saying we’re easing off in our pressing and running based on these game states. And not only that, we change the areas of the pitch in which we press.

To the new year we had by equivalent fixtures apparently done the equivalent of 6 games less high intensity running (sprints) in the squad. So I think it’s 100% right. Amazing but right.

[Bob Sacamano]

We demonstrably are Bob.

Anfield Index have been putting numbers up about this for months saying we’re easing off in our pressing and running based on these game states. And not only that, we change the areas of the pitch in which we press.

To the new year we had by equivalent fixtures apparently done the equivalent of 6 games less high intensity running (sprints) in the squad. So I think it’s 100% right. Amazing but right.

First, I should say the author doesn’t actually say we let up with one goal leads so I need to phrase it differently. By my count our first team has won *16* games by a 1 goal margin. Do you really believe that is by design? If we are truly experts at performing to game states, then we should be winning way more games by 2 goals.

I can buy that the goal differential is somewhat skewed because city run up the score whereas we are content with a 2 goal lead. But we are winning a lot of games by 1 goal, not 2. Eventually some of those wins turn into draws. Which is fine, because we would *still* be a really good team. Just not 22 points better-than-city-good, which is absurd to even consider.

[PoetryInMotion]

It's less than 2 games worth of minutes at a goal down though. It's far too small a sample size to draw sweeping conclusions from. But yeah when it has happened we've responded well this season, it's part of why we're a very good team.
Without speaking to each individual player there is no way of proving this though. Players have missed chances against us, more than you'd normally expect, from just watching video of them or xg. We're very good. Both can be true and to me explains why we've been on such a good run. I don't think it's because we've cracked football like no team before.

Yeah, you would think so, but game state xG literally says that's not the case. We're maintaining great numbers when we're level or 1 goal ahead. It's not as if we concede chance after chance, we still create hell a lot of chances more than the opponent, so when the opponent gets 1 or 2 chances, it happens that they fluff their lines. I'm not saying it's completely due to us denting their confidence, but it surely plays a part. Also, the fact that most of our opposition attackers are not good enough plays part.

Our levels have only dropped a bit when we're ahead by more than 1 goal.

Also, when we're doing things that no team has done in football history, it means we've cracked football like no other. One reason to that is because of attention to detail that Klopp and his staff have brought in like having a throw-in coach (which was laughed at in the mainstream) or getting us to improve game management or set-pieces or general creativity or resting on the ball etc. It is one reason why we score all different types of goals and why we control games like we've never seen before from us (at least in the last 3 decades, if not before). As in the article, we're superior in the ends (two boxes) and in the environment (actions apart from defending, saving or scoring).

[Knight]

I think we've seen our team go 1 up and try to get a 2nd. When that hasn't happened we've shifted the way we've played and been happy to hold what we've got. Some of that is, I think, by design. Of course we've also been fortunate 2/3 times that doing so hasn't resulted in teams equalising. How Spurs didn't for example, I don't know. I do think xg is massively underselling us but undoubtedly 22 points ahead and, especially, 2 points dropped all season, doesn't happen without a slice of luck. There's some analysis floating around on twitter demonstrating high xg chances that we've conceded when being 1-0 up, lots of them quite late. The fact that we haven't once is probably a touch fortunate.

[PoetryInMotion]

First, I should say the author doesn’t actually say we let up with one goal leads so I need to phrase it differently. By my count our first team has won *16* games by a 1 goal margin. Do you really believe that is by design? If we are truly experts at performing to game states, then we should be winning way more games by 2 goals.

I can buy that the goal differential is somewhat skewed because city run up the score whereas we are content with a 2 goal lead. But we are winning a lot of games by 1 goal, not 2. Eventually some of those wins turn into draws. Which is fine, because we would *still* be a really good team. Just not 22 points better-than-city-good, which is absurd to even consider.

Yes, but that doesn't mean we didn't have chances to extend it to more than 1 goal. We're good in terms of xG when we're 1 goal up, so that says we don't want to stay 1 goal up a lot, even if we end up that way in many games. This is from observation - but we genuinely relax in games with 1 goal lead only when we believe the opposition can't breach us, and even then mostly we just rest on the ball and circulate it, without giving a truck load of chances to opposition. But when we're more than 1 goal up, we're definitely preserving energy. That is by design.

[PoetryInMotion]

I think we've seen our team go 1 up and try to get a 2nd. When that hasn't happened we've shifted the way we've played and been happy to hold what we've got. Some of that is, I think, by design. Of course we've also been fortunate 2/3 times that doing so hasn't resulted in teams equalising. How Spurs didn't for example, I don't know. I do think xg is massively underselling us but undoubtedly 22 points ahead and, especially, 2 points dropped all season, doesn't happen without a slice of luck. There's some analysis floating around on twitter demonstrating high xg chances that we've conceded when being 1-0 up, lots of them quite late. The fact that we haven't once is probably a touch fortunate.

Yeah, I think I agree with this. We're clearly playing to game states and as you say, we try to get the 2nd goal, but when we're unable to do that, we rest on the ball & try to manage the game. If even that doesn't work, then we drop deeper and let our organization, defense and goalkeeper do their jobs. Yes, we've had teams miss chances against us, but which club hasn't had chances missed against them? I'd not be surprised to see us being on the lower end for chances missed against. What people think as good chances are not really that good chances at all in terms of xG, but we're quite shocked when we allow a chance & feel relieved when the opposition miss, thus such memories stick out.  Even if we concede a few chances, we create more than our opposition (during -1, 0 or 1 game states). It says we're not concentrating on the chances we miss in these situations, but we instead focus on what we could've conceded. I'd say it's our bias at play there, we're not really conceding that many chances at all per xG, especially in close games.

We may not be 22 points ahead (on the other hand, could've be 24 if not for Atkinson & that horrible decision of allowing Rashford's goal when Origi was fouled), and we're maybe 2-3 games 'lucky' where we could've conceded the equalizer and did not, but that's about it. The Spurs away game was close (we had chances to close the game before), the Wolves away game was close & maybe the Chelsea game was close. That's about it. I wouldn't say the City game was close (even if xG claims that), because we were 2 goals up early and then went 3-0 up, so it's quite logical we drop back and concede chances when we are up so many goals.

[PaulF]

Also, I think we underestimate quite how difficult chances are . Perhaps moreso for opposition players who aren't world class. Huge chances are seen from the comfort of the sofa or stands, not from having bust a gut to get to a goalscoring chance that flashes by in half a second. I think maybe we have been lucky not to concede a few equalisers. But I think it's fair to say that if there was 15 or more minutes left then the oppo would face the full fury.  Maybe opponents choose not to try and hit back from 1 nil down because they fear the wrath of the mighty red machine.

--edit-- if I'd read poetryinmotion's post , I wouldn't have bothered posting this.

[Chris~]

Yeah, you would think so, but game state xG literally says that's not the case. We're maintaining great numbers when we're level or 1 goal ahead.

You can have great numbers and the opposition can still miss chances/you over perform/whatever you want to call it. Splitting by game state doesn't explain this

[PoetryInMotion]

You can have great numbers and the opposition can still miss chances/you over perform/whatever you want to call it. Splitting by game state doesn't explain this

Why not? If game state xG says we're well ahead of the opposition in terms of creating chances when we're 1 goal behind, level or 1 goal ahead combined, what is the proof you got we're overperforming or teams are missing chances more than they should that should cause a significant impact in our total points this season? Our xG only drops when we are ahead by more than 1 goal. This is a fact. Not sure how you're trying to refute that.

As I said, there are 3 legit games where we could've conceded the equalizer. That's about it. In rest of the games, we completely deserve to win irrespective of whether we conceded chances or not. Our own world class forwards have missed plenty of chances over the season. Probably more than the chances missed by opposition forwards against us.

[Gods_Left_Boot]

Also, some of the "big chances" analysed in that post are shots whose XG is hilariously overrated or that are irrelevant in terms of the final score of the match.

Pereira's was considered as over 0.6 XG despite the fact that he lunged at the ball hardly connecting at all. Debatable whether it's a "shot" at all. How that is such a highly valued "shot" is beyond me.
Jota's likewise was a 0.6 XG despite the pull back pass being far from perfect and Jota being off balance and having to strike the ball when it's almost behind him. Again, just from a quick high test 0.6 XG is ludicrous for that shot.
Sarr's was under no pressure and you'd expect him to do better, but Alisson is in position, Robbo covers the near post, VvD the far post and Sarr had to shoot first time with the ball bouncing awkwardly and shin high. Again 0.5 XG probably overrates the quality of the chance.
McBurnie's is a chance in the last minute of stoppage time in a match we won 2-0

[Chris~]

Why not? If game state xG says we're well ahead of the opposition in terms of creating chances when we're 1 goal behind, level or 1 goal ahead combined, what is the proof you got we're overperforming or teams are missing chances more than they should that should cause a significant impact in our total points this season? Our xG only drops when we are ahead by more than 1 goal. This is a fact. Not sure how you're trying to refute that.

Because the game split xg in the article.just gives us a difference figure. It just says what the xg difference is in certain situations. They've used understat which has us +8 i believe on goals conceded in tied or +1 situations. That's not touched on or explained. Being good in those situations and teams missing chances are two things that can both be true.

Saying great chances fell to bad players meaning they miss more might be a better explanation. I still think you need variance to be on your side for that as bad players score easy or even non easy chances every week.

[FlashGordon]

We also miss a crazy amount of chances ourselves lets not forget.  Everyone misses chances, if everyone were to take every chance games would finish 7-3 or 7-4 to us most games.

[PoetryInMotion]

Because the game split xg in the article.just gives us a difference figure. It just says what the xg difference is in certain situations. They've used understat which has us +8 i believe on goals conceded in tied or +1 situations. That's not touched on or explained. Being good in those situations and teams missing chances are two things that can both be true.

Saying great chances fell to bad players meaning they miss more might be a better explanation. I still think you need variance to be on your side for that as bad players score easy or even non easy chances every week.

No, I'm not disagreeing that we've had chances missed against or anything, but I'm just trying to give the logical reason for that in general (leaving aside exceptions). Player shooting ability is one reason, but there should be others. It's worth looking up. What are we doing different to other sides that puts them off when they shoot? It's certainly a thing to look at. But what I'm saying is it's not just luck. People put unknown ideas into a pot called luck. I just think there's a reason behind it.

[royhendo]

First, I should say the author doesn’t actually say we let up with one goal leads so I need to phrase it differently. By my count our first team has won *16* games by a 1 goal margin. Do you really believe that is by design? If we are truly experts at performing to game states, then we should be winning way more games by 2 goals.

I do mate, yeah. Dan Kennett has done a power of work on this, and Anfield Index has plotted the patterns game on game and season on season for a very long time now. Last season showed a change in pressing approach based on game state. This is a decent summary of it here: https://twitter.com/AIUnderPressure/status/1207602981811695616

Their explanation: "Last year you can see real discipline in the zones we are pressing for the first time, and there is a small shift when leading. This year you can see that when level, the press is right across the attacking half with very little in our own half. And there is a clear contrast with when we are winning.

[PRESSING HEAT MAP - SEE THE LINK]

Now consider press volume. This year we are pressing 40% less (FORTY) when leading by 1 goal compared to the previous 2 seasons.

[GRAPH ON PRESS VOLUME PER MINUTE BY GAME STATE YEAR ON YEAR - SEE THE LINK]

Now consider how much of the time we spend winning.  There are clear strategic decisions in evidence here."

[WE NOW SPEND MOST OF OUR TIME WINNING - SEE THE LINK]

So yeah - it's quite stark in the numbers.

I can buy that the goal differential is somewhat skewed because city run up the score whereas we are content with a 2 goal lead. But we are winning a lot of games by 1 goal, not 2. Eventually some of those wins turn into draws. Which is fine, because we would *still* be a really good team. Just not 22 points better-than-city-good, which is absurd to even consider.

We'd still be winning the league, yeah. But also, while our key players have large numbers on appearances and minutes, their effort/load numbers are comparatively low versus previous seasons. (Simon Brundish has those numbers and again Anfield Index does a Fatigue Index show running through them, and related info.)

We're also performing better than any other squad in the top five European leagues in resilience to preventable injury - that's another sharp change for us.

I think we're winning the league but also figuring out other ways to eke more out of our resources. 

[Bob Sacamano]

I do mate, yeah. Dan Kennett has done a power of work on this, and Anfield Index has plotted the patterns game on game and season on season for a very long time now. Last season showed a change in pressing approach based on game state. This is a decent summary of it here: https://twitter.com/AIUnderPressure/status/1207602981811695616

Their explanation: "Last year you can see real discipline in the zones we are pressing for the first time, and there is a small shift when leading. This year you can see that when level, the press is right across the attacking half with very little in our own half. And there is a clear contrast with when we are winning.

[PRESSING HEAT MAP - SEE THE LINK]

Now consider press volume. This year we are pressing 40% less (FORTY) when leading by 1 goal compared to the previous 2 seasons.

[GRAPH ON PRESS VOLUME PER MINUTE BY GAME STATE YEAR ON YEAR - SEE THE LINK]

Now consider how much of the time we spend winning.  There are clear strategic decisions in evidence here."

[WE NOW SPEND MOST OF OUR TIME WINNING - SEE THE LINK]

So yeah - it's quite stark in the numbers.

We'd still be winning the league, yeah. But also, while our key players have large numbers on appearances and minutes, their effort/load numbers are comparatively low versus previous seasons. (Simon Brundish has those numbers and again Anfield Index does a Fatigue Index show running through them, and related info.)

We're also performing better than any other squad in the top five European leagues in resilience to preventable injury - that's another sharp change for us.

I think we're winning the league but also figuring out other ways to eke more out of our resources. 

Things I think are true:

1. We are excelling "at the margins" and doing all of the little things (throw-ins, fitness, mentality, tactical tweaks etc.) to gain every slight edge we can get.

2. Management almost certainly possesses proprietary data that makes us look better than the publicly available "underlying" numbers such as xG differential would suggest.

3. Our set piece dominance is the single biggest reason we are *incredibly* good as opposed to just really good.

4. We alter our tactics depending on the game state


Things I do not believe are true:

1. That good fortune has little or nothing to do with our current points total.

2. That any team can consistently and reliably grind out 1-goal victories in top level football

3. That we are significantly better than City, let alone a preposterous 22 points better after 25 matches. 

[Angelius]

Things I think are true:

1. We are excelling "at the margins" and doing all of the little things (throw-ins, fitness, mentality, tactical tweaks etc.) to gain every slight edge we can get.

2. Management almost certainly possesses proprietary data that makes us look better than the publicly available "underlying" numbers such as xG differential would suggest.

3. Our set piece dominance is the single biggest reason we are *incredibly* good as opposed to just really good.

4. We alter our tactics depending on the game state


Things I do not believe are true:

1. That good fortune has little or nothing to do with our current points total.

2. That any team can consistently and reliably grind out 1-goal victories in top level football

3. That we are significantly better than City, let alone a preposterous 22 points better after 25 matches. 

Did any of what Roy's post necessarily counter or conflict with what you consider to be "not true" though?

If I'm reading it correctly, Roy is stating, and more importantly, backing up with actual evidence from the analysis of Dan Kennett and Anfield Index, that there IS a change in our strategy once we go even one goal up in games. This doesn't mean that we don't go for a second goal in games. However, it does mean that we go about trying to get a second goal in a different way than we go after the first. It can also be implied that because there's a change in the strategy that's centered around energy management and a focus on controlling/stifling the game, the associated probability of getting the second goal lowers.

So it's not that Liverpool are trying to consistently grind out 1-goal victories but there's a conscious and directed strategy that comes in even after we go one goal up. This has affected our underlying numbers like xG and might indicate that we are tremendously lucky or others have been tremendously unlucky. But this can be countered or at least mitigated to a large extent with Roy's and AI/Dan's work.

Again, I don't think you'll find anyone arguing with you that good fortune has nothing to do with our run or the fact that we're 22 points better than City after 25 matches reflects a similar gap in quality. The fact that there's conversations around breaking all sorts of records this season shows how special and rare it is. That's a given. However, the difference between what xG shows and where we are is not just because of luck. It's also because of conscious strategic decisions that have been made and refined over the past few seasons to eke out the most amount possible from this squad.

[royhendo]

Things I think are true:

1. We are excelling "at the margins" and doing all of the little things (throw-ins, fitness, mentality, tactical tweaks etc.) to gain every slight edge we can get.

2. Management almost certainly possesses proprietary data that makes us look better than the publicly available "underlying" numbers such as xG differential would suggest.

3. Our set piece dominance is the single biggest reason we are *incredibly* good as opposed to just really good.

4. We alter our tactics depending on the game state


Things I do not believe are true:

1. That good fortune has little or nothing to do with our current points total.

2. That any team can consistently and reliably grind out 1-goal victories in top level football

3. That we are significantly better than City, let alone a preposterous 22 points better after 25 matches.

So I'd agree with your list of four there. I don't think any of what's said elsewhere contradicts them. I think '2' relates a great deal to decision making and game management (the best example is the way we now seem to allow shots in ways we didn't used to).

On the list of three, there's nobody could deny point 1.

2 and 3, however, I think are up for grabs. 2's been a workable game plan since catenaccio. Sacchi... Rafa's Valencia... One nil, to the Ar-sen-al... all that gubbins.

On 3 - they're significantly poorer than we are due to their lack of defensive cover and their lack of depth in defensive midfield. It's all very well scoring, but if you can't prevent big chances you're on a tightrope.

[royhendo]

Did any of what Roy's post necessarily counter or conflict with what you consider to be "not true" though?

If I'm reading it correctly, Roy is stating, and more importantly, backing up with actual evidence from the analysis of Dan Kennett and Anfield Index, that there IS a change in our strategy once we go even one goal up in games. This doesn't mean that we don't go for a second goal in games. However, it does mean that we go about trying to get a second goal in a different way than we go after the first. It can also be implied that because there's a change in the strategy that's centered around energy management and a focus on controlling/stifling the game, the associated probability of getting the second goal lowers.

So it's not that Liverpool are trying to consistently grind out 1-goal victories but there's a conscious and directed strategy that comes in even after we go one goal up. This has affected our underlying numbers like xG and might indicate that we are tremendously lucky or others have been tremendously unlucky. But this can be countered or at least mitigated to a large extent with Roy's and AI/Dan's work.

Again, I don't think you'll find anyone arguing with you that good fortune has nothing to do with our run or the fact that we're 22 points better than City after 25 matches reflects a similar gap in quality. The fact that there's conversations around breaking all sorts of records this season shows how special and rare it is. That's a given. However, the difference between what xG shows and where we are is not just because of luck. It's also because of conscious strategic decisions that have been made and refined over the past few seasons to eke out the most amount possible from this squad.

Yeah!

[Bjornar]

Things I do not believe are true:

1. That good fortune has little or nothing to do with our current points total.

2. That any team can consistently and reliably grind out 1-goal victories in top level football

3. That we are significantly better than City, let alone a preposterous 22 points better after 25 matches. 

It's good to not get too partisan when evaluating Liverpool's performances, but it's not exactly earth-shattering insight that we could have lost some more points and that City are a great side that could have gained some more, if not for some fine margins. Would see why you felt the need to emphasize that if noone else was saying it, but it's already a well-trodden narrative in the media and among fans of other clubs.

[Bob Sacamano]

So I'd agree with your list of four there. I don't think any of what's said elsewhere contradicts them. I think '2' relates a great deal to decision making and game management (the best example is the way we now seem to allow shots in ways we didn't used to).

On the list of three, there's nobody could deny point 1.

2 and 3, however, I think are up for grabs. 2's been a workable game plan since catenaccio. Sacchi... Rafa's Valencia... One nil, to the Ar-sen-al... all that gubbins.

On 3 - they're significantly poorer than we are due to their lack of defensive cover and their lack of depth in defensive midfield. It's all very well scoring, but if you can't prevent big chances you're on a tightrope.

Didn't mean to suggest all my points contradicted you. Just wanted to list them out clearly in case we were talking past each other.

That we agree on everything there except 2 and 3 is enough for me. There's been a (understandable) backlash against the "Lucky Liverpool" narrative and it almost seemed like people were arguing that good fortune has had *nothing* to do with it, and that the so-called "over-performance" vs. underlying numbers can be explained entirely or almost entirely by our game-state management or some variant of that. That, to me, is clearly ad hoc poppycock.

We can reasonably argue over precisely how much of this is luck vs. game state management (and I confess I generally believe the former to be a bigger factor than most on here will allow), but I don't believe it's reasonable to say we haven't been lucky at all. You'd have to be watching our games through some rather powerful red-tinted specs to believe that! 

[Samie]

Dom King on his column tonight saying we've informed Borussia Dortmund that we want Jadon Sancho. 

[PoetryInMotion]

Things I think are true:

1. We are excelling "at the margins" and doing all of the little things (throw-ins, fitness, mentality, tactical tweaks etc.) to gain every slight edge we can get.

2. Management almost certainly possesses proprietary data that makes us look better than the publicly available "underlying" numbers such as xG differential would suggest.

3. Our set piece dominance is the single biggest reason we are *incredibly* good as opposed to just really good.

4. We alter our tactics depending on the game state

Okay, sounds good.

Things I do not believe are true:

1. That good fortune has little or nothing to do with our current points total.

2. That any team can consistently and reliably grind out 1-goal victories in top level football

3. That we are significantly better than City, let alone a preposterous 22 points better after 25 matches.

1. Fortune is not quantifiable. People put unknown ideas into 'ghosts', 'luck', 'fortune'. When you said that the club is privy to data not in the mainstream, it is very much possible that the club's data scientists team can quantify what is happening with us. We can't attest a theory for every missed shot ('luck'?) from the opposition, but if there's a pattern in that, I'm sure our club's data scientists can explain (not that they will, since it's clear that we are breaking rules with this one).

2. Not any team. But teams that are better than the opposition & have enough data, nous & experience over games by practice can design when to push on & when not to. If you see Chelsea under Conte when they won the title, people blamed them of the very same thing. Winning many games by 1 goal. Roy has mentioned a few examples too.

3. We ARE significantly better than City. On paper is a completely different concept to what is played on the pitch. I'm least interested in what is on paper. I'm talking about what has gone on, on the pitch. City have been naïve, trying to blow teams away right from the start, they haven't balanced their energies at all & when they've gone a goal down, they've lost their heads. Now these are things you cannot quantify how much we are better at, it's just clear that we are much better at these than them. Their defense is also struggling, so if you aren't good at one end of the pitch, you get punished. 22 points sounds big, but if you make that into 7 games and ask someone if we have done better in 7 more games than City have, it's quite clearly possible. City were poor against Norwich, poor against Wolves (twice), poor against us (went 3-0 down to us), poor against Man United (how many counters did they allow them?), not good enough against Newcastle, not good against Southampton (they won 2-1 after 80 mins). It was only really the Spurs games where they were 'robbed'. 

[PoetryInMotion]

Did any of what Roy's post necessarily counter or conflict with what you consider to be "not true" though?

If I'm reading it correctly, Roy is stating, and more importantly, backing up with actual evidence from the analysis of Dan Kennett and Anfield Index, that there IS a change in our strategy once we go even one goal up in games. This doesn't mean that we don't go for a second goal in games. However, it does mean that we go about trying to get a second goal in a different way than we go after the first. It can also be implied that because there's a change in the strategy that's centered around energy management and a focus on controlling/stifling the game, the associated probability of getting the second goal lowers.

So it's not that Liverpool are trying to consistently grind out 1-goal victories but there's a conscious and directed strategy that comes in even after we go one goal up. This has affected our underlying numbers like xG and might indicate that we are tremendously lucky or others have been tremendously unlucky. But this can be countered or at least mitigated to a large extent with Roy's and AI/Dan's work.

Again, I don't think you'll find anyone arguing with you that good fortune has nothing to do with our run or the fact that we're 22 points better than City after 25 matches reflects a similar gap in quality. The fact that there's conversations around breaking all sorts of records this season shows how special and rare it is. That's a given. However, the difference between what xG shows and where we are is not just because of luck. It's also because of conscious strategic decisions that have been made and refined over the past few seasons to eke out the most amount possible from this squad.

Cracking post!

[lionel_messias]

Dom King on his column tonight saying we've informed Borussia Dortmund that we want Jadon Sancho. 

Saw that. We've had a lot of arguments on here with people saying things like "We'll never pay that money for Sancho etc".
It's fairly clear though, Klopp likes to work with good young footballers, who have the desire and the ability to learn. Sancho at 20 is probably the best and most likely of those in World Football that we could conceivably sign.

With an eye on the future and purchasing at least one player good enough to appear in our frontline, Jadon Sancho will be a wicked smart way to continue our domination.

Fingers crossed. He's friends with all the England lads in our team.

[Knight]

Outrageous numbers, English and home grown (if we get him this summer), young enough to not be demanding as many minutes as Salah or Mane get and will still be in his very early 20s when they both hit 30. It's a no brainer in so many ways. Just a cost issue. We're can't stop being very careful with recruitment now and so far we've paid what players are worth even when the figures have been very high. You only have to look at Barcelona to see the huge mess you get into if you start spending big money on players that aren't worth it. The opportunity cost is colossal. But if he's worth it to us at the price Dortmund want brilliant. Jurgen and his team will be best placed to answer that. If they answer yes, the actual cost isn't really relevant, apart from the danger of the figure resting heavily on Sancho's shoulders I guess, and the danger that we load him up with massive expectations too quickly. After all, if his path follows that of other players Klopp integrates he might struggle to make the match day squad for the first few weeks/ months of the season.

[Gutzon Borglum]

Having Reddy and Pearce emphasize publically that we wont pay over the odds only to break that we've initiated contact with Dortmund through Dom King right when the Werner release clause news is breaking in Germany smacks of a calculated negotiating strategy. Meanwhile all these Sancho to United stories are filling the tabloids.

We want Sancho to commit and bring the price down, if we end up getting him for £75-80 million this will be why. Edwards is the Lionel Messi of Sporting Directors.

Imagine if we get Sancho AND Werner though. I just might cream myself.

[disgraced cake]

Sancho looks brilliant, cost as people say is the thing, if we could tie him up for less than 100 million it'd probably be by modern terms be a really good deal financially. Only thing that scares me about paying big money on young players is the chance of an injury, I have no doubt he'd be a success here as a player if not. Suppose now though clubs have much more knowledge about fitness and potential injuries in the medical stage, you only have to look at Fekir and the demise of his transfer.

I could definitely see the Werner transfer going through, if I was him, the chance to join Liverpool would be a no-brainer. Going to the prem would suit him a lot better than playing in La Liga, and he'd get a lot of football and goals in our team. He offers something different to what Firmino/Divock offer, being a hard working clinical goalscorer. Would be very excited to see him sign.

[Redcap]

I don't think we will get both of them. If we do we should probably sell one of the front 3. I don't think we can accommodate 5 world class forwards with Minamino and Origi too.

[Trump's tiny tiny hands]

I don't think we will get both of them. If we do we should probably sell one of the front 3. I don't think we can accommodate 5 world class forwards with Minamino and Origi too.

A 4-2-3-1 gets four of those five on the pitch. Then there is the chance we don't see Mo and Mane for large parts of next season. Do we really think Origi stays after this summer? He has done enough to get a good transfer for him and us.

[s_andrews89]

I don't think we will get both of them. If we do we should probably sell one of the front 3. I don't think we can accommodate 5 world class forwards with Minamino and Origi too.

I can definitely see us cashing in on Mo or Sadio next summer ('21) but not this year. With the Olympics, AFCON etc. There are definitely enough games to have 5 very good players for 3 positions.

It would almost certainly mean the end of Origi here. But think most would be happy with origi out, Sancho in! But, that being said, I can't see it. I think it's one or the other, and to be honest, I don't care which!

[royhendo]

Statsbomb are more coy than the fella on TTT re the management of game state question.

https://statsbomb.com/2020/02/being-lucky-and-good-liverpool/

[Redcap]

Statsbomb are more coy than the fella on TTT re the management of game state question.

https://statsbomb.com/2020/02/being-lucky-and-good-liverpool/

It's hard, and IMO pointless to argue that there's no element of luck to our success. We're clearly outperforming our underlying numbers by a great deal. A lot of that is probably down to some things that confound the xG, like our set pieces (don't really buy that our set pieces are just good crosses - just because there's not a fancy elaborate routine, it doesn't mean a lot of analysis and training hasn't gone into it), Alisson, our togetherness and mentality. That doesn't mean we haven't had some luck as well. And there's no shame in that.

Grace Robertson is also a red.