Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours 2016/2017

5starpool

Charlie19 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/AntoGriezmann/status/774654345577103360

It's been a long time since I done French in school but to me that looks like Anto wants to play along side Sturridge.

Pretty nailed on that we'll sign Griezmann. I'd say it's just a matter of time before we sign him for 120m and 400k a week.

Yep, pretty likely indeedy.

Harry Palmr

klose

To be in garth crooks team of the week (despite the game week not being over), is there no greater honour in football?

Turtyturd

Couldn't see Atletico taking a gamble on Sturridge. Simeone would literally murder him first time he lost the ball and decided to lie on the ground rather than try win it back.

BorneTobyWilde

Harry Palmr wrote: »

What has Clyne to do.
Maybe save a baby from a burning building.

BorneTobyWilde

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Great pics the view of the pitch looks awesome.

http://www.magnifyingaids.com/2.8X_Sports_Glasses?zenid=830dd89a252338dfd37e000cb1e154d9

All you need is a pair of these

BorneTobyWilde

''Former Liverpool striker El-Hadji Diouf has told L'Equipe he warned Mario Balotelli his career at Anfield would not work out because of Steven Gerrard.

Diouf said: "I told him not to go to Liverpool. It wasn't made for him, that things couldn't go well with Gerrard, who has never had his talent.
"Gerrard is a jealous man who doesn't like men of character. ''

gimli2112

No-one could ever accuse Diouf of having character

Utopia Parkway

After Friday we'll have already gotten away games against Arsenal, Chelsea and Spurs out of the way.

murpho999

Utopia Parkway wrote: »

After Friday we'll have already gotten away games against Arsenal, Chelsea and Spurs out of the way.

..and Burnley!

BorneTobyWilde

Utopia Parkway wrote: »

After Friday we'll have already gotten away games against Arsenal, Chelsea and Spurs out of the way.

Hull City away and Bournemouth away is the fear unfortunately

5starpool

out of the following away games I wouldn't be surprised to see us lose around 5 of them.

Hull
Middlesboro
West Brom
Stoke
Bournemouth
Sunderland
Swansea
Watford
.
.
.
Everton

Demosthenese

Looking at the Chelsea game. Will they be more worried about us or us about them? Their backline surely will be having a few restless nights thinking of Mane running at them! I was watching them play the Swans yesterday thinking we should get great joy from Terry/Cahill/Ivanovich at best - there's no pace there... obviously Costa is the worry for us.

How you think we'll fair?

mormank

5starpool wrote: »

Sure you could say that about any season. If we had lost another couple of games and finished 3rd people would have been saying it was a decent season.

It's like people saying that we blew it by losing that 3 goals lead vs Palace in 13/14 when it was ultimately blown before that.

Agreed. The revisionism on here as a wonder to behold sometimes. We blew it against Chelsea plain and simple. All we needed was to draw at Anfield against Chelsea but Rodger's team at the time knew only 1 way to play and that was to try and blow away the opposition and Mourinho is a dab hand and combating that style. That draw left us needing to beat Palace by 7 clear goals to have the title back in our own hands or we would have lost the title on goal difference, which personally I think would have been even more heartbreaking.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Demosthenese wrote: »

Looking at the Chelsea game. Will they be more worried about us or us about them? Their backline surely will be having a few restless nights thinking of Mane running at them! I was watching them play the Swans yesterday thinking we should get great joy from Terry/Cahill/Ivanovich at best - there's no pace there... obviously Costa is the worry for us.

How you think we'll fair?

Lose by the odd goal in 5 with Costs scoring the winner having broken three people's legs and shot Karius.

Agent Coulson

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Lose by the odd goal in 5 with Costs scoring the winner having broken three people's legs and shot Karius.

And only picking up a yellow card as usual.

mormank

Demosthenese wrote: »

Looking at the Chelsea game. Will they be more worried about us or us about them? Their backline surely will be having a few restless nights thinking of Mane running at them! I was watching them play the Swans yesterday thinking we should get great joy from Terry/Cahill/Ivanovich at best - there's no pace there... obviously Costa is the worry for us.

How you think we'll fair?

I am very tempted to swap out Hazard for mane in my FF team for this game and beyond if that answers your question. Mane destroyed Chelsea at their place last season.

murpho999

mormank wrote: »

Agreed. The revisionism on here as a wonder to behold sometimes. We blew it against Chelsea plain and simple. All we needed was to draw at Anfield against Chelsea but Rodger's team at the time knew only 1 way to play and that was to try and blow away the opposition and Mourinho is a dab hand and combating that style. That draw left us needing to beat Palace by 7 clear goals to have the title back in our own hands or we would have lost the title on goal difference, which personally I think would have been even more heartbreaking.

It's the one result that I still can't forgive Rodgers for. He went out gung ho and tried to win instead of setting up more cautiously and just play for the draw. It would have been enough and it was that decision of how to play against Chelsea that cost us the title not the Palace match.

Turtyturd

I would expect similar to the preseason game against Chelsea. Anti football is their thing no matter who is in charge so I can see them parking the bus and trying to catch us on the break. Unfortunately they'll be better than Burnley at it.

Hopefully nobody falls for their sh!t Suarez's antics and some gets a little unseen payback for Fabregas' attempted leg breaker.

Harry Palmr

Breakdown of goalscorers under Klopp (Lallana has more than I thought!)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Just reaslied, we only have four players injured at the moment - I think that's the lowest it's been in about a year.

(Grabs a handful of wood)

OwaynOTT

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Just reaslied, we only have four players injured at the moment - I think that's the lowest it's been in about a year.

(Grabs a handful of wood)

Strange turn on but whatever keeps you happy.

citytillidie

klose wrote: »

To be in garth crooks team of the week (despite the game week not being over), is there no greater honour in football?

Has he still Liverpool down to be relegated ?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

OwaynOTT wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Just reaslied, we only have four players injured at the moment - I think that's the lowest it's been in about a year.

(Grabs a handful of wood)

Strange turn on but whatever keeps you happy.

The idea of potentially seeing a clean sheet does that to me...

jcsoulinger

murpho999 wrote: »

It's the one result that I still can't forgive Rodgers for. He went out gung ho and tried to win instead of setting up more cautiously and just play for the draw. It would have been enough and it was that decision of how to play against Chelsea that cost us the title not the Palace match.

Hear this all the time, it's easy to say this with the benefit of hindsight, had we stood off them defended and tried to hit them on the break it's lightly they would have scored anyway given our woeful defending that year, and then everyone would say Rodgers bottled it and should have kept his attacking plan which had been blowing teams away, and was working that day to until Gerard slipped on his arse.

That's my 2 sense on it and won't discuss it further as It's been rung out enough tbh.

daithijjj

Demosthenese wrote: »

Looking at the Chelsea game. Will they be more worried about us or us about them? Their backline surely will be having a few restless nights thinking of Mane running at them! I was watching them play the Swans yesterday thinking we should get great joy from Terry/Cahill/Ivanovich at best - there's no pace there... obviously Costa is the worry for us.

How you think we'll fair?

It will be the same for us all season, attackers will love the chance to get at us and their compatriots at the back will not be looking forward to handling our attackers.

Chelsea mauled Swansea, that game ending up 2-2 was a complete freak result.

We will have to score at least 2 to get something from the game imho.

mormank

murpho999 wrote: »

It's the one result that I still can't forgive Rodgers for. He went out gung ho and tried to win instead of setting up more cautiously and just play for the draw. It would have been enough and it was that decision of how to play against Chelsea that cost us the title not the Palace match.

Couldn't agree more. We didn't just want to win that game, we wanted to blow Chelsea away. Crazy approach to take against a Mourinho side really. He thrives off of nullifying teams that try to play football. The palace game was almost irrelevant after losing to Chelsea and yet it still gets thrown about as the game where we threw it away but it really really wasn't. We needed to beat them by 7 or more to win the title, hence why we kept attacking like our lives depended on it against Palace. All people see is that we were 3-0 up and drew the game. Context is always left out.

mormank

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Breakdown of goalscorers under Klopp (Lallana has more than I thought!)

I expect Mane to be 2nd or 3rd in that list by season's end.

kfallon

Monday Memories - on this day in '89

Grayditch

1989, young Grayditch arrives in Glenmalure on a family trip.

Grayditch: Here John what was the score of the match?
John: Liverpool won 9-0.
Grayditch: Whatever you sap, I'll ask someone else.

corwill

mormank wrote: »

We didn't just want to win that game, we wanted to blow Chelsea away. Crazy approach to take against a Mourinho side really. He thrives off of nullifying teams that try to play football.

That's not how I remember it at all. Up until Ba's goal, it was tight, tense but relatively controlled by us, I thought. The game turned on an individual error. Had to get forward in the second half, yet another individual error let us down.

~Rebel~

corwill wrote: »

That's not how I remember it at all. Up until Ba's goal, it was tight, tense but relatively controlled by us, I thought. The game turned on an individual error. Had to get forward in the second half, yet another individual error let us down.

Yes it was still a tight contest, but our whole team was pushed forward. Our most defensive players were right by the halfway line, and rarely deeper than the edge of the centre circle. We weren't breaking through, but the bulk of the game up till Ba's goal was being played in their half.

razorblunt

corwill wrote: »

That's not how I remember it at all. Up until Ba's goal, it was tight, tense but relatively controlled by us, I thought. The game turned on an individual error. Had to get forward in the second half, yet another individual error let us down.

And Sahko missed a bloody good chance from a corner just before that too.
Chelsea started time wasting from their first kick out, still can't believe the ref just let them at it. Schwarzer (it wasn't Cech right?) got booked eventually.

~Rebel~

razorblunt wrote: »

And Sahko missed a bloody good chance from a corner just before that too.
Chelsea started time wasting from their first kick out, still can't believe the ref just let them at it. Schwarzer (it wasn't Cech right?) got booked eventually.

We should have been delighted with that though, and been doing the same. If they were happy with a draw, why leave yourself open?

corwill

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Yes it was still a tight contest, but our whole team was pushed forward. Our most defensive players were right by the halfway line, and rarely deeper than the edge of the centre circle. We weren't breaking through, but the bulk of the game up till Ba's goal was being played in their half.

We probably had been sucked forward a little more than was strictly ideal at the point of, well, you know, but we had been a long, long way from the free wheeling anarchy typical of our run up to that day. I really don't feel we had the personnel to set up for a complete shut out and just invite them on to us that day.

NukaCola

A lot of people to this day complain about our "approach" in that Chelsea game, but I have no idea why. Chelsea sat back a lot, never really threatened, it wasn't as if they were countering our attacking play and catching us out......our approach was fine as Chelsea weren't hurting us anywhere, that may have changed 2nd half but an individual error was our undoing, our approach wasn't the biggest issue.....

Our strongest asset was our attack, we conceded 50+ goals that season, it would not have been wise to sit back and do something we were unable to do effectively, we had trouble defending but we were electric in attack........personally it's a no win situation.....play defensively, something we never done under Rodgers, and lose you'll have lads annoyed we didn't just "go for it", play our normal game and attack ad lads will complain why didn't we just sit back.....just one of those things.....

~Rebel~

NukaCola wrote: »

A lot of people to this day complain about our "approach" in that Chelsea game, but I have no idea why. Chelsea sat back a lot, never really threatened, it wasn't as if they were countering our attacking play and catching us out......our approach was fine as Chelsea weren't hurting us anywhere, that may have changed 2nd half but an individual error was our undoing, our approach wasn't the biggest issue.....

Our strongest asset was our attack, we conceded 50+ goals that season, it would not have been wise to sit back and do something we were unable to do effectively, we had trouble defending but we were electric in attack........personally it's a no win situation.....play defensively, something we never done under Rodgers, and lose you'll have lads annoyed we didn't just "go for it", play our normal game and attack ad lads will complain why didn't we just sit back.....just one of those things.....

corwill wrote: »

We probably had been sucked forward a little more than was strictly ideal at the point of, well, you know, but we had been a long, long way from the free wheeling anarchy typical of our run up to that day. I really don't feel we had the personnel to set up for a complete shut out and just invite them on to us that day.

I definitely don't think we needed to be sitting back, but we could have been just a bit more measured, so we wouldn't be hit on the break quite so easily.
I always come back to this, but the position Gerrard is in when he loses the ball, that area of the field shouldn't be your last line of defence. If the split CB's were just a little deeper and a little closer to him, someone could have gotten across. But we were all pushed forward like it was the last 10 minutes of a must win game. Could have certainly been more contained while still being the team on the front foot - there's a balance to it.

NukaCola

NukaCola wrote: »

............

Our strongest asset was our attack, we conceded 50+ goals that season, it would not have been wise to sit back and do something we were unable to do effectively, we had trouble defending but we were electric in attack........personally it's a no win situation.....play defensively, something we never done under Rodgers, and lose you'll have lads annoyed we didn't just "go for it", play our normal game and attack ad lads will complain why didn't we just sit back.....just one of those things.....

Live by the sword & die by the sword

It was gutting to not win the PL that season but the finishing position was still a fair tad of an overachievement.

That accepted, Gerrard as more or less last man back and and miscontrolling the ball passed back to him was the stuff of nightmares. The slip exacerbated it.

With all our attacking strength we never really threatened Chelsea's goal in the first half and they had some lad at centre back that I'd never heard of and don't think I've seen him since, I thought going into that game even if they parked the bus we'd have too much for them but they weren't that far off ourselves in the table iirc. That's football.

~Rebel~

~Rebel~ wrote: »

........that area of the field shouldn't be your last line of defence. ......

100% agree.

If you were coaching under 9s you'd go spare if they did that. Well they all just follow the ball anyway so maybe u11s :pac:

NukaCola

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I definitely don't think we needed to be sitting back, but we could have been just a bit more measured, so we wouldn't be hit on the break quite so easily.
I always come back to this, but the position Gerrard is in when he loses the ball, that area of the field shouldn't be your last line of defence. If the split CB's were just a little deeper and a little closer to him, someone could have gotten across. But we were all pushed forward like it was the last 10 minutes of a must win game. Could have certainly been more contained while still being the team on the front foot - there's a balance to it.

We weren't being hit on the break though, and I'm open for correction here but when Gerrard received the ball, Ba was the only opposing player in 30+ yards.....we pushed up because Chelsea were so deep for that play, Gerrard was going to take it and spray it forward but slipped, yea it should probably never have happened but I dont remember us being gung-ho and irresponsible, unfortunately you cannot plan for mistakes, CB pushing up after a ball is squared accurately to a player while no-one was being pressed is not some crazy kamikaze play IMO....

dogbert27

Always remember Gerrard rushing up to Mourinho to try and get the ball back quickly for a throw in at 0-0. I was thinking wtf are you doing?

It's 0-0, it's perfect, if they want to waste time fantastic!!

As Rebel said, they played the first half from kick off as if it was the last ten minutes of a must win game.

NukaCola

Every one of those games was must win though......yea we could afford one draw but there's nothing to say had we drawn against Chelsea we would have won the remaining games......and as for "playing from kick off as if it was the last ten minutes of a must win game" that was pretty much how we played every game in fairness.....

~Rebel~

NukaCola wrote: »

We weren't being hit on the break though, and I'm open for correction here but when Gerrard received the ball, Ba was the only opposing player in 30+ yards.....we pushed up because Chelsea were so deep for that play, Gerrard was going to take it and spray it forward but slipped, yea it should probably never have happened but I dont remember us being gung-ho and irresponsible, unfortunately you cannot plan for mistakes, CB pushing up after a ball is squared accurately to a player while no-one was being pressed is not some crazy kamikaze play IMO....

Far as im concerned, defence is all about managing risk. There should always be a redunancy in place to account for the unexpected. If, in your half, at any time of the game, it only takes one guy to be beaten, then you've failed utterly.

You can't set up under the expectation that noone will **** up, ever. I mean, just between the liverpool game and the Manchester derby this weekend we have half a dozen glaring events of human error. But you can legislate for that by positioning your players so that a backup has time to have an effect. Maybe he'll get done too, but at least it's an obstacle.

Having Gerrard in a position right in the centre of the field, with the other CB's too far wide to be able to help completely negates their existance. In that moment, they're utterly pointless on the field. They're not offering a better out-ball than they would offer if they were 5 yards closer and 5 yards deeper, and they're not offering any defensive help whatsoever. Any way you look at it, it was poor positioning, with no benefit coming from it.

IMO if you're splitting your CB's, with the fullbacks high, and your CM dropping between, the CB's should still never be wider than lines marking the edge of the box. Too far wide, and they might as well not exist.

Again, I'm not saying we shouldn't have gone on the front foot to win, but in any game, at any time, that defensive positioning is the wrong way to setup. We should been attacking, but with our defence set up to actually be able to help each other out.

dogbert27

NukaCola wrote: »

Every one of those games was must win though......yea we could afford one draw but there's nothing to say had we drawn against Chelsea we would have won the remaining games......and as for "playing from kick off as if it was the last ten minutes of a must win game" that was pretty much how we played every game in fairness.....

We had three games where we could afford one draw. It was about game management.

If you draw the game with Chelsea the probability was that you would win the remaining games.

We only drew with Palace because we kept pushing at 3-0 up for more goals as we needed 7 for a better goal difference.

We beat Newcastle at home in the last game as expected.

I'm sure Mourinho took great satisfaction in teaching his pupil a lesson.

jcsoulinger

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Far as im concerned, defence is all about managing risk. There should always be a redunancy in place to account for the unexpected. If, in your half, at any time of the game, it only takes one guy to be beaten, then you've failed utterly.
.

In this scenario the deepest out field player can never have the ball? Sounds logical

NukaCola

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Far as im concerned, defence is all about managing risk. There should always be a redunancy in place to account for the unexpected. If, in your half, at any time of the game, it only takes one guy to be beaten, then you've failed utterly.

You can't set up under the expectation that noone will **** up, ever.

Ok, lets manage risk here. Sakho has the ball, no-ones pressing. Sakho looks up and see's Gerrard and squares the ball perfectly. Ba's not really close to hurt Gerrard.

In this context all that could have happened was a slip or mis-control. It wasn't a common thing to be that high up and it wasn't a risky pass.

So yes, theres a risk, not huge risk being honest and yes you cant set up under the expectation that noone will **** up, but I dont think you can cover for every possible mistake either. You could make the same pass to Gerrard for the next 10 years and he'll never slip.......

I agree it should never happen, but sometimes they do, one of our CB's should be a bit deeper but they see a simple pass to Gerrard and think nothing of it......

NukaCola

dogbert27 wrote: »

We had three games where we could afford one draw. It was about game management.

If you draw the game with Chelsea the probability was that you would win the remaining games.

We only drew with Palace because we kept pushing at 3-0 up for more goals as we needed 7 for a better goal difference.

We beat Newcastle at home in the last game as expected.

I'm sure Mourinho took great satisfaction in teaching his pupil a lesson.

Gerrard doesn't slip and we get at least a point against Chelsea IMO, and that has nothing to do with our approach.

~Rebel~

jcsoulinger wrote: »

In this scenario the deepest out field player can never have the ball? Sounds logical

No, thats not what im saying. Your deepest player (when in posession) should be wider so if they have the ball, they're a lower risk, meaning the higher up player can still get back to block the path to goal.

---

*
-*

---

*

---

----Our Goal

*'s are players. If either wide guy loses the ball, the CM has a chance to cut out the chance by running in an interception line. But if those positions are inverted, with the split CB's higher or equal, we're ****ed. Basically, try to have the direct line from you to goal be generally equal for all 3, so there's a chance to do something if one of those 3 ****s up. Soon as one of them starts to look in trouble, the redundancy can already be on the move.

dogbert27

Re-watching the game from Saturday. Mane has incredible energy. Really missed him for the Burnley game.

NukaCola

~Rebel~ wrote: »

No, thats not what im saying. Your deepest player should be wider so if they have the ball, they're a lower risk, meaning the higher up player can still get back to block the path to goal.

---

*
-*

---

*

---

----Our Goal

*'s are players. If either wide guy loses the ball, the CM has a chance to cut out the chance by running in an interception line. But if those positions are inverted, with the split CB's higher or equal, we're ****ed. Basically, try to have the direct line from you to goal be generally equal for all 3, so there's a chance to do something if one of those 3 ****s up. Soon as one of them starts to look in trouble, the redundancy can already be on the move.

Yea, Gerrard was actually level with our CB's, he was more central though which killed us.....