LCFC 3-1 Liverpool - Post Match Thread

[ARTY_FOX]

6 minutes ago, shen said:

Who gives a flying Finn about what some fanatics (yes, not fans) splurt out because they cannot deal with adversity?

It's really odd to me that there is so much interest in the reactions of a vocal minority to a football game.

There will be hundreds of balanced Liverpool fans for every overreacting tosser, so maybe this has nothing to do with football, Liverpool or us, but rather a morbid fascination of watching freaks spazz out.

Because, in all honesty, some of it is quite funny. Much like its funny to watch the arsenal meltdowns at any moment they aren't demolishing teams. 

[filbertway]

I'm still not sure why we were trying to pass out from the back against these when they were pressing us to high. The few times we tried a ball over the top it led to some decent chances or winning possession further up the field. Every time we went short we just conceded possession again and again which put the team under an enormous amount of pressure.

 

Can anyone that looks deeper into tactics explain why we would choose to do something like this as I couldn't get my head around it on Saturday at all. *cough* @StriderHiryu *cough*

 

[HighPeakFox]

3 minutes ago, filbertway said:

I'm still not sure why we were trying to pass out from the back against these when they were pressing us to high. The few times we tried a ball over the top it led to some decent chances or winning possession further up the field. Every time we went short we just conceded possession again and again which put the team under an enormous amount of pressure.

 

Can anyone that looks deeper into tactics explain why we would choose to do something like this as I couldn't get my head around it on Saturday at all. *cough* @StriderHiryu *cough*

 

I suspect that when you're pressed that hard, it is very difficult indeed to get the ball out with accuracy. Several times I recall us lumping it just to relieve pressure - I think if you think about the more successful launches players make, they've generally got the time and space to get their head up and (to a degree at the very least) measure it.

 

 

[filbertway]

4 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

I suspect that when you're pressed that hard, it is very difficult indeed to get the ball out with accuracy. Several times I recall us lumping it just to relieve pressure - I think if you think about the more successful launches players make, they've generally got the time and space to get their head up and (to a degree at the very least) measure it.

 

 

The times Schmeichel found the ball at his feet that stuck out. Plenty of time and he's chipping it out to the full backs. I realise that's the usual style, but it just seemed weird that we stuck rigedly to it depsite the fact it clearly wasn't working. 

 

Liverpool man for man are a better team than us, so I understand sitting deeper to help guard against their attacks. You let Salah and Mane have free reign and it'll be 5 or 6. I just can't understand why after excerting all of that effort to keep them out, we then decided to basically just give them the ball back 30-40 yards from our goal

 

[StriderHiryu]

6 minutes ago, filbertway said:

I'm still not sure why we were trying to pass out from the back against these when they were pressing us to high. The few times we tried a ball over the top it led to some decent chances or winning possession further up the field. Every time we went short we just conceded possession again and again which put the team under an enormous amount of pressure.

 

Can anyone that looks deeper into tactics explain why we would choose to do something like this as I couldn't get my head around it on Saturday at all. *cough* @StriderHiryu *cough*

 

Playing out of the first press is the right thing to do, the problem is it's not easy. The few times we did it, we created 2v2 opportunities for Maddison and Vardy to run at Liverpool's centre backs. Playing out of the first press worked really well against Man City and Leeds away earlier in the season for example. If you always go long, it means you don't have any respite in the game as the ball keeps getting recycled by the opposition centre backs unless the ball over the top is perfect, or they make a mistake like they did for our second goal.

 

You do have a point though, if we keep losing the ball trying to play out of the press because we are having a bad day, maybe we should have gone for a long ball more often. Especially as it was working so well! But for the team to improve collectively for the long-term future, becoming a team that can play their way out of a high press is one way we reach the next level.

 

There's a great article on the overall game here:
https://spielverlagerung.com/2021/02/13/lei-3-liv-1/

 

Credit goes to @Dahnsouff for finding it. It talks about our plan to press Liverpool's fullbacks to try to stop Liverpool from building up an attack before it started. However, the way we lined up meant that Liverpool had an easy way to play their way out of the press.

 

For me, I think our tactical approach was the right one as we held off Liverpool for 60 minutes and should have scored through Vardy. But I think the way we executed the plan was not as good as it could have been, whereas in games like the Man City match our execution was brilliant, even though we conceded so early. 

[HighPeakFox]

Just now, filbertway said:

The times Schmeichel found the ball at his feet that stuck out. Plenty of time and he's chipping it out to the full backs. I realise that's the usual style, but it just seemed weird that we stuck rigedly to it depsite the fact it clearly wasn't working. 

 

Liverpool man for man are a better team than us, so I understand sitting deeper to help guard against their attacks. You let Salah and Mane have free reign and it'll be 5 or 6. I just can't understand why after excerting all of that effort to keep them out, we then decided to basically just give them the ball back 30-40 yards from our goal

 

Who decides such a thing? Basically you're relying now on Schmeichel punting it onto the head of the giant Vardy, or more probably directly into the defenders facing the right way. Ultimately, we have to learn to pass our way out of the press.

[filbertway]

2 minutes ago, StriderHiryu said:

Playing out of the first press is the right thing to do, the problem is it's not easy. The few times we did it, we created 2v2 opportunities for Maddison and Vardy to run at Liverpool's centre backs. Playing out of the first press worked really well against Man City and Leeds away earlier in the season for example. If you always go long, it means you don't have any respite in the game as the ball keeps getting recycled by the opposition centre backs unless the ball over the top is perfect, or they make a mistake like they did for our second goal.

 

You do have a point though, if we keep losing the ball trying to play out of the press because we are having a bad day, maybe we should have gone for a long ball more often. Especially as it was working so well! But for the team to improve collectively for the long-term future, becoming a team that can play their way out of a high press is one way we reach the next level.

 

There's a great article on the overall game here:
https://spielverlagerung.com/2021/02/13/lei-3-liv-1/

 

Credit goes to @Dahnsouff for finding it. It talks about our plan to press Liverpool's fullbacks to try to stop Liverpool from building up an attack before it started. However, the way we lined up meant that Liverpool had an easy way to play their way out of the press.

 

For me, I think our tactical approach was the right one as we held off Liverpool for 60 minutes and should have scored through Vardy. But I think the way we executed the plan was not as good as it could have been, whereas in games like the Man City match our execution was brilliant, even though we conceded so early. 

I suppose if we have Fofana in for Evans and Castagne/Justin in for Amartey then it becomes a bit easier. With all due respect to those two, neither of them are particularly good on the ball to play at the level you're describing. I wonder if the personnel isn't suited to that style whether it's the best idea to try it. It was actually reading that article that made me wonder why we were playing that way as I could see no obvious benefit in this particular game. if we lose possession 14 times and it works once to create a chance, I'd argue that the probabilities lie with the opposition benefiting more than we would.

 

One thing I did notice during the game, Liverpool take a really long time to take throw ins. I wonder if that's how they manage to maintain a high tempo while the ball is in play. Each throw in seemed to take 30-60 seconds to take. I wondered if we were putting it out of play on purpose to give ourselves a breather as ell haha.

 

Anyway, appreciate the reply as always, I find articles like that and the posts that focus on tactics quite fascinating so it's good to hear what the reasoning is for playing in a certain way.

 

I would love to see what one of these articles would make of a Newcastle performance before Graeme Jones came in as they seemed to have no discernible game plans

 

[filbertway]

8 minutes ago, HighPeakFox said:

Who decides such a thing? Basically you're relying now on Schmeichel punting it onto the head of the giant Vardy, or more probably directly into the defenders facing the right way. Ultimately, we have to learn to pass our way out of the press.

I'd be quite confident that Schmeichel could hit the channels and have the defenders running towards their own goals. Even if he cleared the ball into touch in the oppositions half it seems better than losing the ball in our own half.

 

@StriderHiryu has given the kind of response I was hoping for anyway, which was basically your point but a bit more elaborate. I'd agree that it's best for us to learn to play that way, I just think most players either have that ability or they don't. We have a fair few players that clearly aren't comfortable playing that way, so my question would be, is it worth changing tactic when the team isn't fully capable of carrying out the instructions?

 

I realise we also won 3-1 so it'll be vindicated, but I've never been a fan of win == good performance and loss == bad performance. 

 

Maybe I'm greedy

 

[shen]

24 minutes ago, filbertway said:

I suppose if we have Fofana in for Evans and Castagne/Justin in for Amartey then it becomes a bit easier. With all due respect to those two, neither of them are particularly good on the ball to play at the level you're describing. I wonder if the personnel isn't suited to that style whether it's the best idea to try it. It was actually reading that article that made me wonder why we were playing that way as I could see no obvious benefit in this particular game. if we lose possession 14 times and it works once to create a chance, I'd argue that the probabilities lie with the opposition benefiting more than we would.

 

One thing I did notice during the game, Liverpool take a really long time to take throw ins. I wonder if that's how they manage to maintain a high tempo while the ball is in play. Each throw in seemed to take 30-60 seconds to take. I wondered if we were putting it out of play on purpose to give ourselves a breather as ell haha.

 

Anyway, appreciate the reply as always, I find articles like that and the posts that focus on tactics quite fascinating so it's good to hear what the reasoning is for playing in a certain way.

 

I would love to see what one of these articles would make of a Newcastle performance before Graeme Jones came in as they seemed to have no discernible game plans

 

It might be a very conscious tactic employed by them, yes. A lot was made of that throw-in specialist they hired, so we know they're paying attention to throw-ins and appreciate their tactical value.

Edited 16 February 2021 by shen

[Dahnsouff]

1 hour ago, StriderHiryu said:

Playing out of the first press is the right thing to do, the problem is it's not easy. The few times we did it, we created 2v2 opportunities for Maddison and Vardy to run at Liverpool's centre backs. Playing out of the first press worked really well against Man City and Leeds away earlier in the season for example. If you always go long, it means you don't have any respite in the game as the ball keeps getting recycled by the opposition centre backs unless the ball over the top is perfect, or they make a mistake like they did for our second goal.

 

You do have a point though, if we keep losing the ball trying to play out of the press because we are having a bad day, maybe we should have gone for a long ball more often. Especially as it was working so well! But for the team to improve collectively for the long-term future, becoming a team that can play their way out of a high press is one way we reach the next level.

 

There's a great article on the overall game here:
https://spielverlagerung.com/2021/02/13/lei-3-liv-1/

 

Credit goes to @Dahnsouff for finding it. It talks about our plan to press Liverpool's fullbacks to try to stop Liverpool from building up an attack before it started. However, the way we lined up meant that Liverpool had an easy way to play their way out of the press.

 

For me, I think our tactical approach was the right one as we held off Liverpool for 60 minutes and should have scored through Vardy. But I think the way we executed the plan was not as good as it could have been, whereas in games like the Man City match our execution was brilliant, even though we conceded so early. 

Would love to claim this unearned credit, but shout out to @LC/FC for the original link from which I found that specific article. 

[Tom12345]

On 14/02/2021 at 19:21, StanSP said:

I know he is going through a lot of shit and is under a lot of pressure on/off the pitch, but I just re-watched MOTD and specifically his post-match interview. I don't know what he's trying to get at regarding the Maddison goal.

 

His comments:

 

'The first goal - for me it's offside' - incorrect.

 

'I know, in the end, refs are always right' - correct

 

'But the difference is, we think it's an objective thing, but it's not' - incorrect. It is objective. The lines are correct. The VAR worked correctly. I haven't heard him say it's not an objective thing when a decision goes his way?

 

'Somebody makes a decision when they start judging the situation, and I saw the situation, when Bobby's foot might have been slightly closer to the goal' - this is where I get confused. What does he mean? VAR's role is to review the incident. If Bobby's foot is closer to the goal, that eradicates his first comment of 'for me it's offside'.

 

'a millisecond later, three players are offside'. Well, a millisecond later is too late for when the incident needs to be reviewed. 

 

'but Mr Attwell deciding to take another point, another moment in the game' - no. He took the correct one. Just because he didn't take the moment you wanted him to, doesn't make it the incorrect one.

He was trying to say that they froze the wrong moment to assess whether there was offline, and when they freeze the frame is a subjective decision of the VAR. He did say that he thought the frame they froze was incorrect because Maddison had not touched the ball - I don’t know how he came to that conclusion though.

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour ago, filbertway said:

I'd be quite confident that Schmeichel could hit the channels and have the defenders running towards their own goals. Even if he cleared the ball into touch in the oppositions half it seems better than losing the ball in our own half.

 

@StriderHiryu has given the kind of response I was hoping for anyway, which was basically your point but a bit more elaborate. I'd agree that it's best for us to learn to play that way, I just think most players either have that ability or they don't. We have a fair few players that clearly aren't comfortable playing that way, so my question would be, is it worth changing tactic when the team isn't fully capable of carrying out the instructions?

 

I realise we also won 3-1 so it'll be vindicated, but I've never been a fan of win == good performance and loss == bad performance. 

 

Maybe I'm greedy

 

You kinda hit on it in your penultimate sentence there, it worked ultimately.  With the tactics we used Liverpool were restricted in the quality of the chances they could carve out and despite not having as much of the ball or as many shots we actually faired better than them in this respect, this was reflected in the xG stats too (2.07 vs 1.68 - I appreciate this is probably skewed a bit by the Allison/Kovac incident leading to a freak open goal).    As a team we don't really have the height to reliably punt the ball halfway down the pitch and get the knock-on, so there's definitely an argument that going more route 1 would have seen us develop even less momentum.

[HighPeakFox]

1 hour ago, filbertway said:

I've never been a fan of win == good performance and loss == bad performance. 

I'm with you on this.

[Leeds Fox]

2 hours ago, filbertway said:

I'm still not sure why we were trying to pass out from the back against these when they were pressing us to high. The few times we tried a ball over the top it led to some decent chances or winning possession further up the field. Every time we went short we just conceded possession again and again which put the team under an enormous amount of pressure.

 

Can anyone that looks deeper into tactics explain why we would choose to do something like this as I couldn't get my head around it on Saturday at all. *cough* @StriderHiryu *cough*

 

Because they press so high, if you manage to break that press, you have a real chance. 
 

It’s difficult but we did manage to beat it a few times. This mixed with a few long balls can work (and it did). 
 

Although it is dangerous to attempt to soak up that kind of pressure for 90mins. 

[StriderHiryu]

2 hours ago, filbertway said:

I suppose if we have Fofana in for Evans and Castagne/Justin in for Amartey then it becomes a bit easier. With all due respect to those two, neither of them are particularly good on the ball to play at the level you're describing. I wonder if the personnel isn't suited to that style whether it's the best idea to try it. It was actually reading that article that made me wonder why we were playing that way as I could see no obvious benefit in this particular game. if we lose possession 14 times and it works once to create a chance, I'd argue that the probabilities lie with the opposition benefiting more than we would.

 

 

It's a fair point to make, which ultimately comes down to a coaching philosophy. Spurs lost to Chelsea in Tuchel's 3rd game where they changed their tactics to try to stifle their opponent's gameplan. Rodgers is more of a proactive coach who gets his teams to play a certain style, even if the tactical system and shape may vary from match to match. Our turnover on player wages is the 8th highest in the division, yet we sit 3rd after the halfway point. So Rodgers might not be perfect, but he's showing what a great coach he is with our team again this season. We are a better overall team now than when we won the title, despite playing a totally different way because of said coaching. 

 

2 hours ago, filbertway said:

 

One thing I did notice during the game, Liverpool take a really long time to take throw ins. I wonder if that's how they manage to maintain a high tempo while the ball is in play. Each throw in seemed to take 30-60 seconds to take. I wondered if we were putting it out of play on purpose to give ourselves a breather as ell haha.

 

 

Statistically in football, most goals are scored within 12 seconds of losing the ball, IE from a mistake. Statistically you are also likely to lose possession something like 56% of the time from your own throw-ins. If there was one team in the league you probably don't want to lose possession to from a throw-in, it would be Leicester City with Jamie Vardy and Harvey Barnes in the team. So my theory is they were extra careful on throw-ins to prevent this from happening, but it might also have been to rest their own players. As tiring as the high press is on the opposition, it's also tiring for the team executing it!

 

 

[Alan Frost]

11 hours ago, StriderHiryu said:

It's a fair point to make, which ultimately comes down to a coaching philosophy. Spurs lost to Chelsea in Tuchel's 3rd game where they changed their tactics to try to stifle their opponent's gameplan. Rodgers is more of a proactive coach who gets his teams to play a certain style, even if the tactical system and shape may vary from match to match. Our turnover on player wages is the 8th highest in the division, yet we sit 3rd after the halfway point. So Rodgers might not be perfect, but he's showing what a great coach he is with our team again this season. We are a better overall team now than when we won the title, despite playing a totally different way because of said coaching. 

 

 

Statistically in football, most goals are scored within 12 seconds of losing the ball, IE from a mistake. Statistically you are also likely to lose possession something like 56% of the time from your own throw-ins. If there was one team in the league you probably don't want to lose possession to from a throw-in, it would be Leicester City with Jamie Vardy and Harvey Barnes in the team. So my theory is they were extra careful on throw-ins to prevent this from happening, but it might also have been to rest their own players. As tiring as the high press is on the opposition, it's also tiring for the team executing it!

 

 

Can't argue with any of this, although I'm just a fan. I do think maybe the most important sentence for us is the one about player wages. which was probably even more true (by quite a lot ) in 2015/6.  Its very important for LCFC. I suspect it gives a lot of fan satisfaction. It certainly does me. Nothing as good as passing a Ferrari in my 2005, £2000 Skoda Superbe. I'm also pleased Vardy and Barnes now seem to be being grouped together at last. I now know Barnes is n't a "striker ". I've been corrected on that so many times by forum members (he's listed as midfield in our first team list) which is how i got fooled ; but it appears that his imitations of one are now so good that the PL are not automatically ruling out his goals. Has anyone thought yet of playing him up front with Vardy ? I think Vardy would welcome it , they seem to enjoy the chances they are creating for each other, and as I pointed out long ago it could save us an awful lot of money and risk.

 

Replacng strikers from outwith the club is imo one of the most expensive and biggest risks in the game , and often totally unnecessary to the best managers. I quoted a club up the road as an example who had to replace as they improved O'Hare with Woodcock with Withe with Birtles. All very cheaply, all not really strikers,all England international forwards  many times. They also found time to buy Francis , more expensive but by then they were into European Cup cash. Francis of course repaid his cost or most of it , almost immediately. The guys in question tended to ignore labels and tried to sign Footballers. Most Footballers are very versatile with most of their skills applicable and useful in many roles. For instance i understand we currently have as arguably our most effective defender an ex -striker, still quite young who seems to me to have retained his pace and "striker" skills (not counting JJ who is injured). He might surprise a few ,I think, given a couple of games refresher course. if we got desperate it would n't be risking a lot, maybe a goal lost balanced with a goal gained.

 

I have worked out that Barnes can't be a winger and what most call a striker ( an insult imo to Vardy and Barnes as it groups them with Andy Carroll ).He can do both together but its not very fair or snnsible, but we have the answer to that in house, in fact two of them, and both fit and uninjured. ( I had to put that carefully, its quite important it was n' t misunderstood. I think most forum members will understand). Apart from those two we have four defenders who can imitate being a winger excellently. Some would say three , I think 4.   (Didyalairk that "with Withe with" bit). For "all very cheaply " read "we made lots of money for the club". I seem to vaguely remember phrases like " bought for £50k later sold for £250k." I'm not a linguist but in modern English a rough

translation would be "bought for 50m sold for 250m " I think that one went to a German club (just looked him up -(he went to Koln for a modern equivalent of £300 0m."all very cheaply") He was s a remarkably nice and intelligent guy and would never have been mistaken for a "striker' but he could impersonate one perfectly for match after match. and do lots of other good things in the in, between moments.He's worth looking up . I'd quite forgotten what he did for Arsenal.before they got interested in "strikers" and boring.. Fot the younger guys Wenger got them back to unboring.again.. Prior to Woodcock they had had decades of being boring (and lucky) a sort of early man U.

Edited 17 February 2021 by Alan Frost