Liverpool v Aston Villa Match Thread

PHB

Thing about Rafa improving the club argument is that you have to assume he'll keep improving it for it to make sense. If he has improved the squad massively since his first day [which I think he has], the belief that you think he's the man to take the title to Anfield has to be built on an idea that he's continuing to get better.

But could anyone really say that the squad right now is any better than the squad last year? Could anyone even say that it's much better than it was the start of last season?

Bounty Hunter

orourkeda wrote: »

Away from home it's ideal. Villa drew too many home game though playing a 451 and may need to open up a little

I honestly dont think we are good enough (our current players) to go 442, despite the fact that im sure that was MONs plan 442 at home 451 away.

orourkeda

Bounty Hunter wrote: »

I honestly dont think we are good enough (our current players) to go 442, despite the fact that im sure that was MONs plan 442 at home 451 away.

I just feel 451 at home will result in a similar pattern to last year.

Neil3030

orourkeda wrote: »

I just feel 451 at home will result in a similar pattern to last year.

Agreed. Against teams that park the bus anyway. The 4-5-1 only works when teams come at us, leaving space for counter attacks. So that's most away games and home games against teams with an out and out attacking philosophy. Problem is, most of the attacking minded teams happen to be in the top 4!

Of the players we have at present, I'd favour us giving 4-2-3-1 a shout at home -

---

Petrov

---

NRC

---

-Albrighton---Milner----Young

---

Agbonlahor

---

But when all are fit:

---

Petrov

---

NRC

---

Milner

---

Young----Downing

---

Carew

---

I really can't wait to see if/when we play that 2nd formation.

therecklessone

I'm sure there are better places to discuss Steven Gerrard's future at Liverpool.

LuckyLloyd

The Muppet wrote: »

Rafa has spent £80 million on players in the last two seasons , he has generated most of this money by selling players.

To say he has a zero net spend indicates he has had liile money to spend on players which is totally untrue. If I were to complain about Man Uniteds net spend of (minus) -£26 million in the last two seasons I expect I would be told they had actually spent £60 million on players.

Liverpool took a lot of points from Arsenal Chelsea and United last season, they must do the same this year now given their poor start, that's a big ask IMO.

Sorry for the off topic.

Oh we're talking Liverpool transfers are we?

Read the following please:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59194519&postcount=12168

Now, if there are further comments on the issue, you can continue the conversation in the Liverpool thread.

LuckyLloyd

DenMan wrote: »

I don't know which is fcuking worse, the continued opening of this thread or the Liverpool supporters who want their team to do well while only having one eye opened.

I used to hear stories from both my Grandfather and my Father about the great Liverpool teams of the past. The 60's, 70's and 80's and all the trophies that went along with it in those eras. Liverpool are a phenomenal legend in world football and in England are the gods of the game. I'm an Arsenal fan by the way and grew up watching my team play beautiful football and win trophies.....specifically titles. However as a club we had a barren history really. The 1930's and 1970's were great for Arsenal and that's it. Before we won the league in 1998 it was 9 years previous the last time we won it (on goal difference against Liverpool), and before that it was the early 1970's.

Liverpool fans need to wake up and realise that Man Utd looked at them and built their huge success on Liverpool. They are the benchmark. Liverpool as a club are falling backwards. Last season was brilliant but looking at their over all squad they are struggling and Rafa Benitez is not the man to lead them forward. Any die hard Liverpool fan would say that but they are so used to not winning the league now. What's it been, almost 20 years!!!! wtf the Liverpool of old would never tolerate that. They need to get back to where they should be. The only man who can help them is Mourinho. He is a winner and knows the English game so well. When was the last time Chelsea won the league before he became manager? He had the money yes....but he also had a winning mentality and a ruthlessness about him that turned into success. Benitez is not even close.

I heard that with 10 mins left or so and Liverpool 3-1 down at home he was bringing on Voronin to change the game. Let's be serious about this....Andrei Voronin, a good striker in the Bundesliga but at the highest league in Europe I don't think so. Liverpool seriously need to look at themselves as a club and realise that enough is enough and it's time for a change. Some Liverpool fans said "it's only early...sure we've only lost 2 games (out of 3) and Chelsea haven't dropped any points yet". There is a reason why they haven't and the trend will continue. They take a man who won both two league titles and two European Cups (Champions League) both as a player and as a manager and bring him in as their new manager. That's a winning mentality. Arsenal look strong now, they are back to what they used to do....tracking back, winning the ball, midfielders scoring goals and it is playing dividends for them.

Any Liverpool fan would consider losing 3-1 at home to a team they win against for fun (minus Barry) an insult. Rafa is not the man to lead Liverpool forward. He lost the mental war against Fergie last year. Would Mourinho have taken out a piece of paper during a live press conference and start babbling "facts". I don't think so.

Such tosh. Contains pretty much every negative tabloid stereotype repeated ad nauseum over the past year with respect to Liverpool under Benitez. How can people believe the above type of commentary is intelligent and insightful?

And again, this stuff belongs in the main Liverpool thread.

If we don't get back onto the match itself in the next few posts I'm locking this thread.

Draupnir

90 minutes of essential domination from Liverpool, the game could have been all over after eight or ten minutes (in Liverpool's favour) and then unfortunately a few sloppy mistakes from individuals and they were 2 down at half time with a mountain to climb.

Credit to Villa they broke well, looked well organised in defense and will give every team in the league problems from set pieces. Martin O'Neill will be trying to get Matt Elliot out of retirement to get his head on some of those corners and free kicks next!

Liverpool had one of those nights were the chances just wont go in and the other team gets the rub of the green, it happened United a week ago and happened Chelsea for 3 months last season!

Move on and the next game can't come quick enough really.

thomond2006

How did Glen Johnson do last night?

angel01

Still laughing away to myself about this result.. Cheers Villa

Mitch Connor

thomond2006 wrote: »

How did Glen Johnson do last night?

Looked very good going forward from what I saw of him, had a belter of a shot that he was unlucky with towards the end of the game. I've been impressed with him so far.

Draupnir

One other thing I would say is, in spite of the fact it's a second loss of the season for Liverpool, they've lost to Tottenham and Villa who would be expected to finish top 6/8 in the league.

With the ever closing gap in standard throughout the league, what odds that these two losses might not seem half as unusual come the end of the season. I would expect more of the top 4 teams to lose to the members of the 4th to 8th positions this year.

gucci

Draupnir wrote: »

One other thing I would say is, in spite of the fact it's a second loss of the season for Liverpool, they've lost to Tottenham and Villa who would be expected to finish top 6/8 in the league.

With the ever closing gap in standard throughout the league, what odds that these two losses might not seem half as unusual come the end of the season. I would expect more of the top 4 teams to lose to the members of the 4th to 8th positions this year.

It will be interesting to see how much of it is down to a closing gap in standard and how much is down to early season sloppiness etc.

Also interesting to see how two defeats for Liverpool in quick succession dent moral or kick start or whatever happens.


I know Liverpool lacked aerial threat as opposed to Villa, but when did Mascherano become a corner taker? His passing isnt his best attribute, so i kinda found that one puzzling. (I guess he wouldnt threaten much as an aerial attacker, but he could have stayed back allowing bigger players to mix it up in the box like he normally does)
As a Liverpool fan I would have gladly settled for boring predictability as opposed to the interesting scenarios i have mentioned above.
Maybe it was just him trying to show some leadership or something along those lines.

Mitch Connor

I would agree with this. I don't think any side will find it easy to beat Spurs or Villa (when they hit form) this season.

I think the issues surrounding the two losses is that the one against Spurs was an opening day defeat to a side people would now expect to perform averagely. Spurs have started the season very well, so looking back the loss is not that horrible. With Villa, they have had a terrible start to the season and with the way they were playing it was very hard to see past a liverpool win last night. Even as the game turned out, Liverpool dominated the match completely and were very unlucky in front of goal, with Freidel having one of those games that he seems to always save for United.

herbieflowers

Unlucky Pool. 24 shots to 8. Twice the amount of possession. That's football for ya. And talk of them being out of the title race? 35 games to go...who knows what's going to happen!

Nalz

thomond2006 wrote: »

How did Glen Johnson do last night?

possibly the best full back going forward ever, and possibly one the worst on the backfoot.

Mr Alan

Johnson was very good again last night.

Mitch Connor

Mr Alan wrote: »

Johnson was very good again last night.

has certainly started his career at liverpool very well. I would say we are seeing the best of GJ going forward, certainly.

Mr Alan

has he put a foot wrong defensively yet?

nothing springs to mind for me.

angel01

Going forward Johnson is effective, defensively, I think he isn't up to much. I suppose you could say that for a lot of players who play in his position though.

LuckyLloyd

Mr Alan wrote: »

has he put a foot wrong defensively yet?

nothing springs to mind for me.

No. That said, over the long haul I'm not expecting him to be as good defensively as Arbeloa. That said, I expect that it will be a comfortable net gain for us in terms of improvement in that position.

gucci

In fairnenss Arebeloa was decent defensively, but prone to the odd mistake. I would expect Johnson to be similar sort of player, decent but making the odd mistake. One thing I have been impressed by Johnson before with Portsmouth is his discipline, he does not concede alot of frees (I dont think!) and is physically good enough to bump players etc to stay just the right side of the law!

~Rebel~

DenMan wrote: »

Any Liverpool fan Alan will tell you that Liverpool do have a right to win the league.

I think "a right to win the league" is the wrong choice of phrase, i'd go with an obligation.

Bandit12

DenMan wrote: »

Any Liverpool fan Alan will tell you that Liverpool do have a right to win the league. Steven Gerrard talks about this all the time as he grew up in the barren years. And let's be honest about this, looking at Liverpool's trophy cabinet they are a club that demands success and that other clubs should be so envious. They were the benchmark for the future dynasites of Man Utd and Arsenal to a lesser degree.

Liverpool don't have "a right" to win the league. They have to earn it. History means nothing as far as winning goes.

~Rebel~

Article from F365

Only Fools Write Off Liverpool Now...

All reports of Liverpool's defeat to Aston Villa have two things in common - all mention Xabi Alonso and all make Brad Friedel the man of the match. Come on fellas, you can't have it both ways. Either Liverpool were missing a creative presence in midfield or they were thwarted by a goalkeeper in ridiculously good fettle.

The truth is that the Xabi stick is a very convenient weapon to wield at Rafa Benitez, but this particular defeat to Aston Villa owed nothing to the Spaniard's absence. Liverpool had 68% possession and 19 attempts on goal (11 of them on target) - this is not a side struggling to create chances, but a team who either scuffed those chances or saw them clawed away by the inspired Friedel.

Neither can this defeat be laid at the door of negative tactics because Liverpool were on the front foot from the opening whistle and Villa barely left their own half in the opening 15 minutes. Had that goalmouth scramble ended in the goal their early endeavours deserved then it could easily have been a repeat of the 5-0 drubbing of last season.

'Liverpool were woeful and Villa wonderful,' writes Phil Thomas in The Sun. Absolute piffle, Phil. Villa set themselves up to defend for their lives but were breached time and time again, only for Friedel to save them. With a different goalkeeper, Liverpool would have been out of sight long before they decided to gift them three goals.

And they were gifts - Lucas can barely take the blame for scoring the own goal (anyone who has never scored an own goal or at least notched a near-miss has not defended enough set-pieces) but he can take the blame for giving away a needless free-kick.

Slack defending at a corner cost them the second, sending pundits into incandescent 'zonal marking' related rage. It was nothing to do with zonal (Liverpool's defensive record tells you that's not the problem), but everything to do with really rubbish defending. We saw similar from Everton against Arsenal and that was man-to-man marking.

The third gift was the most generous. At 2-1 and in the ascendance, Liverpool looked nailed on for at least a point. Quite what Steven Gerrard thought he was doing with a ridiculous slide through Nigel Reo-Coker only he will know, but the penalty ended the game as a contest.

That's the story of the game - missed chances and three individual errors. Against Tottenham on the opening weekend of the season, Liverpool were outplayed. They were not even close to being outplayed by Villa, who were understandably happy to be handed victory on a platter.

'Reds have now lost as many games as they did in WHOLE of last season' screams the headline in the Daily Mirror. And? We all agreed at the end of last season that drawn games were the problem for Liverpool. Turn just three of those 11 draws into wins and that's six points right there. It's hardly ideal to start with two defeats out of three games, but neither is it a crisis.

Have we learned nothing in the last 12 months? Man United started last season with four points from their first three games and we all know how that story ends. This is not to say that Liverpool will do the same - I didn't tip them at the start of the season and I'm not tipping them now - but to write them off now with just a point less is plain daft.

http://football365.com/story/0,17033,13320_5512476,00.html

Mr Alan

the most surprising thing about that article, apart from the fact that it makes sense and is reasoned in a world where every result has to mean something massive to sell papers, is that it was written by a woman! :eek:

quarryman

Mr Alan wrote: »

the most surprising thing about that article, apart from the fact that it makes sense and is reasoned in a world where every result has to mean something massive to sell papers, is that it was written by a woman! :eek:

*shudders*

Boggles

Can't actually remember Friedel making any outstanding saves.

To say Liverpool would have been out of sight if there was a different keeper in the sticks is a bit of a cop out, put any premiership keep between the sticks last night and result would have been the same IMO.

JPA

They'll be driving and voting next.

JPA

Boggles wrote: »

Can't actually remember Friedel making any outstanding saves.

To say Liverpool would have been out of sight if there was a different keeper in the sticks is a bit of a cop out, put any premiership keep between the sticks last night and result would have been the same IMO.

He made some really good saves, although none too spectacular. Perhaps most keepers would have been expected to do the same.

orourkeda

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Article from F365



http://football365.com/story/0,17033,13320_5512476,00.html

Liverpool started the first half well. After the first 15 minutes and for the remainder of the first half Villa were the better side. The concession of the penalty was the end of the game as a contest.

For Aston Villa this was a deserved victory and any argument to the contrary is futile in my opinion.

While it would be foolish to make any rash judgements on Liverpools title prospects, Its unlikely that Chelsea, Manchester United or Arsenal will lose many more than 4 league games over the course of the coming season. If this proves to be the case then it's uphill all the way for Liverpool if they consider themselves title contenders.

Mr Alan

he made some great saves in fairness, the torres shot, the gerrard shot he saved with a nick of his foot at the start as well as a few others.

ah well, time to move on, Bolton at the weekend.

orourkeda

JPA wrote: »

He made some really good saves, although none too spectacular. Perhaps most keepers would have been expected to do the same.

I agree. 11 attempts on target paints something of a false picture given that 3 came within about 10 seconds in the first half when it was scoreless. It would appear that Liverpool dominated which they didnt for long periods.Brad Friedel was a solid performer and made no mistakes. I think even he'd admit that he would have been disappointed to have conceded any more that the 1 goal.

Villa were at least as good as if not better than Liverpool over the course of th e90 minutes and deserved their 3 points.

elshambo

Mr Alan wrote: »

has he put a foot wrong defensively yet?

nothing springs to mind for me.

I like Johnson
but
2nd spurs goal
Player ran off him, he didnt go with
looks like JamieC is at fault but isnt

And no this isnt a zonal thing, he tried to catch up but damage was done

Brad played well but alonso was and will be missed
villa could play tight becasue Alonso wasnt there to open up the game quickly
enough

BUT wanted to go, got a good price, move on!

Boggles

Mr Alan wrote: »

he made some great saves in fairness, the torres shot, the gerrard shot he saved with a nick of his foot at the start as well as a few others.

The only one I can really think of was the Gerrard shot, but that was straight at him.

Point is the lady that wrote the article is wrong, Freidel did nothing special, he was solid, but you would expect the other 19 keepers in the league to do the same.

ntlbell

Mr Alan wrote: »

he made some great saves in fairness, the torres shot, the gerrard shot he saved with a nick of his foot at the start as well as a few others.

ah well, time to move on, Bolton at the weekend.

to pull out an aul cliche they were saves you would expect him to make

He's one of the best keepers around.

there was nothing outstanding really.

Mr Alan

orourkeda wrote: »

Villa were at least as good as if not better than Liverpool over the course of th e90 minutes and deserved their 3 points.

I congratulated Villa last night as you's were due a result and am not pissed off about the game last night, sometimes games like that just happen.

But to say Villa were as good or better over the 90mins is ridiculous.

Fair enough you won, not complaining about that in the slightest, but Liverpool were the far better team and dominated virtually the whole match.

Boggles

Mr Alan wrote: »

I congratulated Villa last night as you's were due a result and am not pissed off about the game last night, sometimes games like that just happen.

But to say Villa were as good or better over the 90mins is ridiculous.

Fair enough you won, not complaining about that in the slightest, but Liverpool were the far better team and dominated virtually the whole match.

Balls Alan, Liverpool dominated nothing, Villa were tactical superior and came into the match with a better game plan, Liverpool did not create one clear cut chance apart from the goal, to say they dominated is false.

They dominated possession but did very little with it, that does not mean they dominated the game, Villa were the better team on the night, every time they broke they looked like they were going create something.

noodler

Boggles wrote: »

Balls Alan, Liverpool dominated nothing, Villa were tactical superior and came into the match with a better game plan, Liverpool did not create one clear cut chance apart from the goal, to say they dominated is false.

They dominated possession but did very little with it, that does not mean they dominated the game, Villa were the better team on the night, every time they broke they looked like they were going create something.

Was it just last night people were falling over themselves to make the point that Hull weren't unlucky against Chelsea becasue Chelsea had been laying seige to them for alot of the game?

ntlbell

Boggles wrote: »

Balls Alan, Liverpool dominated nothing, Villa were tactical superior and came into the match with a better game plan, Liverpool did not create one clear cut chance apart from the goal, to say they dominated is false.

They dominated possession but did very little with it, that does not mean they dominated the game, Villa were the better team on the night, every time they broke they looked like they were going create something.

Absolutely,

But wait for Alan to pull out the stats of the match.

Boggles

noodler wrote: »

Was it just last night people were falling over themselves to make the point that Hull weren't unlucky against Chelsea becasue Chelsea had been laying seige to them for alot of the game?

WTF are you talking about, there is a difference to laying seige to a team and still winning, than laying seige to a team and them scoring 3. :eek:

ntlbell

Boggles wrote: »

WTF are you talking about, there is a difference to laying seige to a team and still winning, than laying seige to a team and them scoring 3. :eek:

Liverpool just got unlucky last night...

3 times....:rolleyes:

SlickRic

bUILDERtHEbOB wrote: »

I don't think it was that bad a performance tbh, they scored 3 goals from set pieces, two of which were caused by individual errors and they had only one decent chance from open play, we completely dominated the game and had enough chances to score at least a second.

Our attacking 4 were absolutely woeful though.

this is the right answer (apart from 'completely dominated' maybe).

football is a funny old game. two set-pieces and a penalty undid us.

the set piece issue MUST be sorted by the way.

villa were dogged, disciplined and performed admirably. the restricted us to bitty chances, not helped by our apparent toothlessness.

roll on bolton.

i'm not dismissing this result, but i truly believe it's a bit of a freak one. if i'm proved wrong in the next while so be it.

but on a sad note, i think it's time to phase carra out soon. a season or so's time maybe. i just don't trust him like i used to

ntlbell

bUILDERtHEbOB wrote: »

I don't think it was that bad a performance tbh, they scored 3 goals from set pieces, two of which were caused by individual errors and they had only one decent chance from open play, we completely dominated the game and had enough chances to score at least a second.

Our attacking 4 were absolutely woeful though.

as people always remind me aren't the vast majority of goals caused by one error or another?

the simple fact is they defended very badly and conceded 3 goals.

and vila taking advantage of zonal marking was either villa were tactically astute or liverpool were terrible defensively

it's one or the other, you can't have it both ways.

noodler

Boggles wrote: »

WTF are you talking about, there is a difference to laying seige to a team and still winning, than laying seige to a team and them scoring 3. :eek:

ntlbell wrote: »

Liverpool just got unlucky last night...

3 times....:rolleyes:

Theres a difference in the result.

Now when you two finish jerking each other off, you will probably agree that Liverpool fans are going to be more worried if they hadn't been creating anything or at least giving it a go.

The logic was Hull got what they deserved when a flukey Drogba goal goes in but when Villa win by playing counterattack all night (at least one of their goals was pure fluke by the way Ntl) they are somehow portrayed as having played us off the park?

orourkeda

Mr Alan wrote: »

I congratulated Villa last night as you's were due a result and am not pissed off about the game last night, sometimes games like that just happen.

But to say Villa were as good or better over the 90mins is ridiculous.

Fair enough you won, not complaining about that in the slightest, but Liverpool were the far better team and dominated virtually the whole match.

Are you suggesting that it was a fluke or undeserved?

whatawaster

Just off the top of my head

- the crazy goalmouth scramble early in the first half (which was about 3 clear chances rolled into one)
- free Torres header in second half
- Kuyt’s volley just wide of post

I’m sure there were more I can’t remember.

ntlbell

noodler wrote: »

T

The logic was Hull got what they deserved when a flukey Drogba goal goes in

That's not the way I saw the hull game at all.

orourkeda

ntlbell wrote: »

Liverpool just got unlucky last night...

3 times....:rolleyes:

They were unlucky once. The first goal was a touch unlucky in that it was deflected. However, Lucas should never have given away the free kick in the first place.

How on earth you can say that the second goal was unlucky is a mystery to me. It was a corner. It can be seen that the ball hit martin skrtel and was a corner. The goal was poorly defended but was not unlucky.

The third goal was a penalty. No question.

ntlbell

orourkeda wrote: »

They were unlucky once. The first goal was a touch unlucky in that it was deflected. However, Lucas should never have given away the free kick in the first place.

How on earth you can say that the second goal was unlucky is a mystery to me. It was a corner. It can be seen that the ball hit martin skrtel and was a corner. The goal was poorly defended but was not unlucky.

The third goal was a penalty. No question.

so a liverpool player made a mistake gave away a free kick he made a mistake he was punished. goal.

gerrard no need to give away a peno made a mistake. goal.

I'm not saying they were unlucky, it was sarcasm I'll turn up the dial