Tactical idiocy against defensive sides

[FuriousFox46]

Can somebody explain to me how we continue to fall in to this trap?

 

Every single time a lowly team sets up defensively against us, we revert to ponderous, mechanical football played at a walking pace.

 

We don’t use pace and width to get them working and instead our contented to play in front of them for as long as it takes for one of our ineffectual wayward passes to leave us open to a counter attack.

 

It’s a cut and paste job for every single one of these types of games under Rodgers. He must know that we have a poor track record in creating against sides that sit in so why the hell have we started with five defenders at home to a side who will do well to finish 19th this season?

 

Obviously supporting Leicester is an absolute pleasure most of the time but the sheer idiocy that causes most of our defeats is so agonisingly infuriating, surely I’m not the only one?

[Heathrow fox]

3 hours ago, FuriousFox46 said:

Can somebody explain to me how we continue to fall in to this trap?

 

Every single time a lowly team sets up defensively against us, we revert to ponderous, mechanical football played at a walking pace.

 

We don’t use pace and width to get them working and instead our contented to play in front of them for as long as it takes for one of our ineffectual wayward passes to leave us open to a counter attack.

 

It’s a cut and paste job for every single one of these types of games under Rodgers. He must know that we have a poor track record in creating against sides that sit in so why the hell have we started with five defenders at home to a side who will do well to finish 19th this season?

 

Obviously supporting Leicester is an absolute pleasure most of the time but the sheer idiocy that causes most of our defeats is so agonisingly infuriating, surely I’m not the only one?

Another case of football managers being to clever for their own good?

[dmayne7]

4 minutes ago, Heathrow fox said:

Another case of football managers being to clever for their own good?

That's exactly what it is sometimes. Sadly Rodgers isn't exactly short on self worth

[Danizen]

You'd think Rodgers would have lots of experience in these type of games from his time at Celtic.

[cruzFOX]

We fell into that old mindset today of 'dropping our standard to match the opposition' instead of believing who we are and playing to that strength and intensity. The irony is Fulham actually upped their game once they realized they had an opportunity and didn't need to fear us if they just simply out muscled us for the ball. If I was so invested as a loyal fan I'd find great humor in watching us today but as it stands it hurts my brain.

[Tom12345]

Unlike at Celtic, all Premier League teams are still way better and so they will punish you if you make mistakes let alone fundamental tactical errors like Rodgers makes in setting up against teams like Fulham. Rodgers likes to draw teams out by passing at the back, but unlike Man City who always want to attack, Fulham and the like are quite happy just to sit back for a draw.

 

I agree with another poster above that it is so infuriating to watch us lose in the manner we lose to these supposedly lowly teams. If we had tried all out like Liverpool or Man City always do in attacking, and lose, I would not feel as bad (I may feel it was unlucky etc). But the fact that we had 5 at the back, plus Mendy and defenders (Thomas and Justin) as our sole source of attacking width, that I just feel cheated by Rodgers and the team. 

 

Strangely, I actually think Rodgers wanted to use the game against Fulham to be adventurous himself: I think he really wanted to test this formation out and try Maddison at the top near Vardy with both Tielemans and Praet as well because he really wants to fit Maddison into the team.  He thought he can still beat lowly Fulham despite this.

Edited 1 December 2020 by Tom12345

[HybridFox]

I don't see this improving and probably the Jekyll/Hyde form we'll come to accept 

[dayday]

You give yourself the best possible chance to win a game and this is why you start with players like Barnes and Under, who can unlock defences.

 

Rodgers has came out and said the young players was at fault, what a load of shit, you cannot expect a starting team like that to cause Fulham problems, rather than blaming others, why don’t he actually come out and say I got it wrong?

 

 

[sdb]

For me it's not as simple as being overly defensive. Yes dropping Barnes for a LB was bizarre and, unsurprisingly in retrospect the wrong decision.

 

But when you play a back 3 with one acting as a LB, one as a RB, you're going to be sliced apart at ease. Add to that, one kept trying to play offside whilst the other kept dropping off. Add to that the pace and intensity of our play was Puel esq. We would lose that game 9 times out of 10 with that set up, to any side. 

 

What makes it all the more laughable is it's the same way we got torn a new one by West ham 

[Jazzy_Jeff]

I’m not defending BR but I do think the players we are missing had a big impact.

 

If Ndidi plays we can have an extra attacker and can afford for our fullbacks to be that bit more forward thinking.

 

Castagne and Ricardo offer so much more than JJ and Fuchs/Thomas. 
 

When playing against a Fulham you want your fullbacks overlapping and the wide forwards cutting in. This wasn’t happening and Barnes (especially) was getting crowded out 

 

I would have liked to see Perez feature in this as has good feet and can find little pockets of space, think he’s been harshly frozen out.

 

Hopefully BR has learnt his lesson by now (3rd time lucky) and on Sunday we go in with a much more attacking starting 11. 

[hejammy]

24 minutes ago, Jazzy_Jeff said:

I’m not defending BR but I do think the players we are missing had a big impact.

 

If Ndidi plays we can have an extra attacker and can afford for our fullbacks to be that bit more forward thinking.

 

Castagne and Ricardo offer so much more than JJ and Fuchs/Thomas. 
 

When playing against a Fulham you want your fullbacks overlapping and the wide forwards cutting in. This wasn’t happening and Barnes (especially) was getting crowded out 

 

I would have liked to see Perez feature in this as has good feet and can find little pockets of space, think he’s been harshly frozen out.

 

Hopefully BR has learnt his lesson by now (3rd time lucky) and on Sunday we go in with a much more attacking starting 11. 

I think he has rightly been frozen out. He offered nothing. Under is a much better option by the looks of it. 

[Jazzy_Jeff]

21 minutes ago, hejammy said:

I think he has rightly been frozen out. He offered nothing. Under is a much better option by the looks of it. 

Under looks good in bursts but not completely convinced by him. Problem with Perez is that he was played wide when he’s not a winger.

 

Id like to see him either up top or just behind to see what he can do there.