Liverpool FC Forum

by **kopite_1232002** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:21 am

i read that report before,,, does my fuc kin nut in tellin ye, we havnt conceded a goal in how long, and were boring, we were second last week what more do u want, proper bell end, must be a bell end iv he likes that blue nose :censored:

ahhhhhhh

by **dawson99** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 11:37 am

pundits have a go at all teams, we just notice it more with liverpool as thats the games we are most aware of.
so saynig that, we do seem to get a slightly harder time than other teams but im taknig that as a compliment and to be honest i couldnt give a monkeys what mark lawrensen thinks as long as we keep clean sheets and 3 points on the board

by **Sabre** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:39 pm

I had a few rows on here about a year ago with one or two posters who were dead against the zonal defence system.

What?!?!?! they defended man to man defence rather than zonal defence? have they noticed that we are in 2005?. IMHO, zonal defence is the most used one (at least, here), and man to man defence is used in very determined moments, or to defend very especific players in very specific set pieces situations, which must be trained.

by **AussieKopite** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:43 pm

Just look at our defending of corners. This style has been used in the AFL (a style of Gaelic football) in Australia, known as flooding. Every man gets back to defend the corner. Even Cisse when he's on the field.

by **bigmick** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 4:02 pm

It's official. We have the luckiest goalkeeper in the Premiership. There's me thinking that Pepe Reina made two good saves but according to Andy Gray he "rode his luck" on both occasions. I suppose he's right when you think about it, just lucky really.
It's like Morientes's second goal. There's me thinking that as the original through ball was hit to another bloke who was standing about 40 yards to the right of him, it wouldn't make any difference that Nando was standing a couple of yards offside. I would've thought that he would be inactive, in a similar way to the "wily and cunning" Van Nistelroy when he stands offside at free-kicks. Seems I called that one wrong aswell. It matters not a jot that Quedrue headed it into the strikers path, he was offside and Middlesboro have "every right to feel aggrieved". When I watch coverage of Liverpool these days, I never cease to be amazed. We are just lucky, simple as.

by **mighty mo** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:27 pm

the zonal system was proved a shambles when alien head silvestre scored "twice"with his head against us last year at old trafford

by **bigmick** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:23 pm

mighty mo wrote:the zonal system was proved a shambles when alien head silvestre scored "twice"with his head against us last year at old trafford

Thats the whole point really Mo. The pundits had us believe that Rafa was a fool for employing such a ridiculous system. The reality is of course that the system is used throughout Europe and it is far from being a shambles. The problem was the players weren't playing it properly either through not understanding WTF was going on, or not having had enough time to learn what must have been an alien way of doing things at the time.
The probalem in the game you've highlighted was not the fact that we played zonal defence, it was that none of the defenders attacked the ball and contested the headers. It doesn't really matter which system you employ, you must compete once the ball comes accross your penalty area.
I apologise for repeating myself but we still defend zonally now, but with a slight modification.

by **azriahmad** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:07 am

Here in my parts of the world, ESPN had Steve McMahon as a guest pundit in the Singapore studio who game his comments before and after the match (also for the Chelsea match which followed out match last nite). He gave fair comments but he mentioned that El Morro got lucky with the non-offside position for the second goal but overall it is just because Boro did not show any ambitions at all.

Steve McMahon speaks quite well and not having a thick Scottish accent (sorry, no intnetion to slag any Scots here) like Andy Gray, is far easier to understand. They should ditch that bluenose...his favourite word when co-commentating on Liverpool matches in "lucky".

by **Santa** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:16 am

azriahmad wrote:That's why they are pundits, bigmick - quick to start or join the bandwagon of criticism and would utterly forget to give praise or go back and admit that they were wrong in the past and give credit where it is due. Pundits are there only to make a name for themselves so that they will have longevity in their careers.

That's why they are so quick to make headlines for themselves to maintain/gain popularity. They are mainly not cut out to be football managers - due to a lack of ability or simply whimping out of having to endure constant pressure.

Mark Lawrenson is clearly the former as he failed miserably as a manager of a tiny team.

I remembered that Alan Hansen said that he does not want the hassle of constant pressure which is called football management. He said that in 1991 or 1992 after he retired and became a football pundit. At that time, I was residing in England and I remembered him as a breath of fresh air back then with direct and no-nonsense views, although I don't know how his punditry style has changed now as in my parts of the world, we don't get BBC sports coverage, if any we get Sky covered CL games but not EPL. EPL matches are covered by a team in Singapore who would have ex-players or regional based football people who are English with Gerry Armstrong giving his views live from the UK.

some of the ESPN pundits really talk loads of b0ll0cks...might as well all wear Chelsea's jersey on TV next time :bump

by **Santa** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 9:23 am

cisses_gona_get_ya wrote:The best compliment I can give them is that they are starting to remind me of George Graham under Arsenal. They know if teams have a go at them they are well-organised and hard to break down and they know they can catch them on the break. Whereas Liverpool sides of old have always been about attacking, I am not convinced by the current way.

he should know...this sh1thead played under George Graham (I think). How he must have wished their system then won him a league medal :no

it's becoming too common nowadays...when we win one-nil, we played boring, unenterprised football and lucky to get away with murder...when the likes of Chelsea won by the same score, they are resilient and showed grit of a true champion...sigh! :veryangry

by **Espionage** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 11:18 am

Zonal marking is the best possible system over all sports (soccer, basketball, hockey etc), it requires more teamwork and communication.
The problem is you see many teams across many sports getting slated for playing a zone because they don’t use it right. You pick up the closest player to where you are supposed to be standing, but it completely falls apart when one player decides that "there is nobody in my area so i dont have to defend anyone."
With zones you must have more communication with almost no switching of players when the ball is in midflight (once again looks very bad when even one player is out of sync).

In the end it is a question of coaching style, in the end zonal marking will always win in the long-run. You just need the patience to stick with it.
Look at Liverpool now

Liverpool FC Forum

Tv pundits - How can they get away with it?

Who is online