Our first genuine title challenge in years... - Lessons to be learned?
by NANNY RED » Mon May 11, 2009 7:41 pm
Do you know what ive thougherly enjoyed every minute of this season. the highs an the lows , the pain ive felt an the euphoria i wouldnt of changed it for anything, But thats what supporting this team does to you, an i love it, in my heart i really thought we could do it this season, we have had a good go an i cant wait till next season i really cant,
HE WHO BETRAYS WILL ALWAYS WALK ALONE
-
NANNY RED - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 13334
- Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 12:45 pm
by Sir Roger » Mon May 11, 2009 10:27 pm
john craig wrote:GYBS wrote:Da silva between the both cost them around 8 million - Evans is a great young player but its going forward where the difference is mick - Nani- 18 million - Anderson - 18 million - Tevez- worth 30 million - Hargreaves (when fit) 20 million - Rooney 30 mil - Berbatov - 30 mil - Ronaldo 20 milish Carrick 20 mil they just bought two serb kids at around 15 million (The players you mention Mick are all defenders so they arent going to be big money ). Giggs(20 odd mill in prime),Scholes (30 mil in prime)and Flether all experienced prem performers. yes they have a few other kids ie wellbeck and gibson namely but they played cup as opposed to prem. and Maceda i think will be a flash in the pan .
You know what that post highlights to me? Not that United have more firepower on the bench or that their team is is packed full of 10 mil plus players. It highlights how much money Fergie has flushed down the pan in recent years.
Nani for 18 mil? Anderson for 18 mil? They were supposed to be the long term replacements for Giggs and Scholes, but they're not fit to lace the boots of those players. Carrick and Hargreaves are never 20 mil pound players either although both good premiership players. I think the jury is still out on Berbatov too as far as 30 mil is concerned, although obviously he is a quality player.
Nothing gets said about it now because United are still winning trophies, but the guts of 60 million was spent on Anderson/Nani/Hargreaves a few summers back - none of whom have made a significant contribution to this season (Hargreaves albeit due to injury). No other manager would get away with that without getting slaughtered in the press for it.
I suggested this in the thread "Man for Man" (you got a bit irate if I remember rightly)
I have consistently said that the mancs are not "miles ahead" of us. Neither do they have such "strength and depth" that they can overpower everyone. (The invincibles, ha!)
Turn three of our draws into wins and we would be the champions. Six points is not a resounding defeat or an overwhelming victory.
It is a statement of intent for next season and a warning to all that we are a force to be reckoned with again.
- Sir Roger
- LFC Super Member
- Posts: 1657
- Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:00 am
- Location: liverpool
by stmichael » Tue May 12, 2009 1:09 pm
Tomkins latest:
For some reason, teams in great form wilt and crumble when facing Liverpool. No matter how well they're playing in previous weeks, they roll over and give up the points.
Clearly it has nothing to do with the Reds being a top side who quash the life out of a side before (or whilst) imposing their own attacking will; it's just yet another collective off-day for the team they're playing.
It dates back to the Real Madrid game. Madrid were in superb form – and then Liverpool won at the Bernabeu, before thrashing them at Anfield. Suddenly the double Spanish champions were hailed as the worst Madrid side in eons, and were labelled rubbish in both games.
Then came Sunderland, who in fairness were on a bit of a roll coming to Anfield. But they were seen off with little concern, as the visitors' good run came to an end. Limp Sunderland, etc...
Next, Manchester United were experiencing their best run of home form for donkey's years, with 12 straight wins at Old Trafford and 11 straight league victories, yet were beaten 4-1.
Funnily enough, it was they who, for no good reason, just didn't play well, in the one game where no motivation was necessary and where confidence wasn't an issue. Of course, it had nothing to do with them not being allowed to play well.
Admittedly Aston Villa, still flying high in the league, were on a bit of a decline when coming to Anfield, although, naturally, they were only beaten 5-0 because of their own deficiencies.
Next, Fulham were in the best form of their Premiership lives, and had just put United to the sword at Craven Cottage, but for some reason they just didn't play as well as they could when Rafa Benítez's side visited. Weird.
In fairness, Chelsea were brilliant when visiting Anfield in the Champions League. They got due credit, too. It's fair to say that Liverpool didn't have a great second-half, but Andy Gray, no less, remarked that both sides had been excellent in the first half.
So it's not that Liverpool were rubbish, as seems to be the case with the opposition every time the Reds get a good result. It was Guus Hiddink's brilliance, ably backed by his side.
In the return, much was made of how awful Chelsea were, particularly in the first half. Liverpool did receive a little credit, but yet again, the main emphasis was on Chelsea letting themselves down rather than the Reds' attacking verve. Liverpool got some kudos for guts, but not their fair dues for quality.
In the league, Arsenal had been in sensational form upon making the trip to Merseyside. But for some reason, Liverpool's sublime attacking football was given little credit following a thrilling (if galling) 4-4 draw, the least-just result of the season. Talk about floodlight robbery.
It's fair to say that neither Blackburn nor Newcastle were in great shape when coming to Anfield, and but for the crossbar Liverpool could have racked up double figures in these two fixtures. Of course, as Liverpool confirmed themselves as the league's top scorers, the poor play of the opposition was the main story. (Oh, and some nonsense about semaphore.)
If Sam Allardyce's sides are anything, they are dogged. Detractors find his football rudimentary, but his sides rarely crumble. Except that's what they did.
Ah, because they had no fit strikers? Maybe, although Benni Mcarthy, left on the bench, is by far and away their top scorer this season. No-one asked them to play a centre-back up front, after all. It's like Rafa leaving out Jamie Carragher and playing Torres at centre-back due to an injury crisis.
And then most recently, West Ham. There had been nothing but praise for Gianfranco Zola's side of late, who have a very good recent home record, beyond hard-fought 1-0 defeats to Manchester United and Chelsea. Coincidentally for Benítez and his side, once again, the opposition just didn't get into their stride.
(And despite being no relation, it was weird for me watching Tomkins trying to stop Torres.)
I feel compelled to point out that if certain other teams were the top league scorers, we'd never hear the last about their attacking talents.
Part of me actually likes it when Liverpool go under the radar; it can be advantageous having the world against you, or ignoring your strengths. But another part of me finds the inequality irritating, and feels that credit should go only where it's due.
Liverpool's only two top-class attacking players (according to sundry short-sighted pundits) have started just one-third of all 2008-09 league games in the same side, and yet the Reds have scored the most goals.
And apparently Liverpool are 'cautious', with two 'holding' midfielders.
Something's not right with this picture, is it?
No change of formation has occurred in recent months, but as I argued earlier in the season, this is an excellent attacking side, and far from negative in its approach. If the stats didn't back me up at the time (often due to lax finishing), the figures now do.
Similarly, at the time Robbie Keane was sold, I argued that it was the right decision. Plenty disagreed, but it seems to have proved the case.
His place on the bench was becoming distracting (quite literally at times: the TV director for the Newcastle away game spent more time showing him than the action), and it was a chance to get in a good fee (and save on wages) in order to reinvest this summer.
This was my gut instinct. When Liverpool's goals dried up later in the winter, I admit to wobbling a little. But yet again, my first instincts were right.
And I also never lost sight of the fact that Keane hadn't been pulling up trees before he was sold; it's not like he'd banged in 15 or so. And he's also only scored three since returning to Spurs, and with time not on his side (he's 30 this summer), I felt it was a good time to cut the losses, for a very good player who wasn't fitting in (as happens now and again).
However, my fear was less about selling Keane, and more that no replacement was sought.
I never doubted the potential of David Ngog, who had been excelling at international youth level for a top nation, but feared that it would be next season before he found his feet in the fast-paced Premiership.
Thankfully, despite only playing a few minutes here and there, he appeared to find that vital strength needed to survive as a striker in England almost as soon as I'd claimed this season looked too soon for him.
And his record of minutes-per-goal (187) is now far better than Keane's was (at 255), and only marginally behind those of Torres (165) and Gerrard (145).
In my defence, in the same blog, written at the end of January, I also touted Yossi Benayoun as someone who could do as well as Keane in the role behind the main striker; in truth, he's done even better, albeit often from a wide starting point, but with licence to roam into similar areas.
So despite a little uneasiness on my part (there was of course some risk involved in selling Keane), I feel that my optimism in January was not misplaced. The goals scored recently, even in the absence of Torres and/or Gerrard, show that the ability was in the squad all along.
If anything, I feel pleasantly surprised at seeing the Reds as the Premiership's top scorers, not to mention having thumped four past Madrid, Chelsea, Arsenal and Manchester United in the main competitions. I didn't see that coming. And this all came after Keane left.
Then there's Krisztian Nemeth, whose quality I've never doubted since I first saw him play for the reserves, but for whom injuries have ruined this season; he's another option that didn't pan out this spring in Keane's absence – particularly after a brief loan spell at Blackpool, designed to get him match-sharp, ended with a broken cheekbone sustained within a minute of his debut. That's just plain bad luck.
But players like Ngog and Nemeth can only improve, as can Daniel Pacheco, so it's not like Liverpool are peaking this season; indeed, it's still a very young first-team squad, with an average age about to be further lowered with the exit of the evergreen Sami Hyypia (more on the great Finn next week).
Otherwise I'd expect all of the main players to still be around, and benefiting from one more year spent together.
Take into account the handicap of injuries to Torres, Gerrard and, when it came to winning more games at Anfield, Daniel Agger, and there's every reason to think that a fit squad next season (fingers crossed) will be significantly superior to this. And that's before any additions.
Despite lower resources, Liverpool need to try and match that little extra depth that United possess; after all, that's what will see them crowned champions, if they get four points from their next three games.
They've certainly not played better football than Liverpool this season (and it's been well over a decade since I've been able to say that), but eeked out the extra point here and there, often with 1-0 wins.
May finale
Remarkably, under Rafa Benítez, a Liverpool season has never 'finished' before May (with the narrowest of exceptions last year).
I don't mean the desperate charge to finish in the Champions League positions, but genuinely contesting trophies until the final month of the campaign.
May 2005 saw the Reds win the Champions League. May 2006 saw Liverpool win the FA Cup. May 2007 saw a better performance in the Champions League Final in a rematch with Milan, but a worse result (c’est la vie).
And last year the Reds were still in the Champions League until just a few minutes before the start of May, when getting the game back to 3-2 at Stamford Bridge in extra-time left them one away goal from yet another final. (And to shamelessly sneak it in, technically it was May 1st in some parts of the world.)
The cup success of the previous four seasons has diminished, only to be replaced with a serious title challenge: one that is still just about alive and kicking as we head towards mid-May.
However, to my mind, Liverpool were always unlikely to win their first league title in almost two decades while simultaneously excelling in Europe; if the 'first' title is universally regarded as the hardest to win, additional tough games in the run-in could hinder that, even if progress is naturally sought in all competitions.
With the title theirs to wrap up this week, United fans will rightly take heart if they win the league without playing their best football. It's a nice luxury.
But Liverpool will have pushed them down to the wire without the manager being able to field anything like his best side for two-thirds of all league games (and that's ignoring other key absences in the 12 games that Torres and Gerrard were fit to start together).
Maybe that's an even better sign.
It also seems that there are some itchy feet at United, with Ronaldo and Tevez linked with exits. It would be dangerous to assume that losing top attacking talent will see them falter; when Liverpool lost Kevin Keegan and Ian Rush, the team actually improved with reinforcements. But there's always a risk of it not quite working out, or taking time to gel.
By contrast, at Liverpool there seems to be a hunger to stick together and keep improving.
With Arsenal at times brilliant but brittle as balsa, and ageing Chelsea on the verge of serious transition (new manager and culling of some 30-somethings seem inevitable), this could be just the start of Liverpool's quest to knock United off their perch.
The race to #19 could be the big one.
http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/NG164357090512-1211.htm
For some reason, teams in great form wilt and crumble when facing Liverpool. No matter how well they're playing in previous weeks, they roll over and give up the points.
Clearly it has nothing to do with the Reds being a top side who quash the life out of a side before (or whilst) imposing their own attacking will; it's just yet another collective off-day for the team they're playing.
It dates back to the Real Madrid game. Madrid were in superb form – and then Liverpool won at the Bernabeu, before thrashing them at Anfield. Suddenly the double Spanish champions were hailed as the worst Madrid side in eons, and were labelled rubbish in both games.
Then came Sunderland, who in fairness were on a bit of a roll coming to Anfield. But they were seen off with little concern, as the visitors' good run came to an end. Limp Sunderland, etc...
Next, Manchester United were experiencing their best run of home form for donkey's years, with 12 straight wins at Old Trafford and 11 straight league victories, yet were beaten 4-1.
Funnily enough, it was they who, for no good reason, just didn't play well, in the one game where no motivation was necessary and where confidence wasn't an issue. Of course, it had nothing to do with them not being allowed to play well.
Admittedly Aston Villa, still flying high in the league, were on a bit of a decline when coming to Anfield, although, naturally, they were only beaten 5-0 because of their own deficiencies.
Next, Fulham were in the best form of their Premiership lives, and had just put United to the sword at Craven Cottage, but for some reason they just didn't play as well as they could when Rafa Benítez's side visited. Weird.
In fairness, Chelsea were brilliant when visiting Anfield in the Champions League. They got due credit, too. It's fair to say that Liverpool didn't have a great second-half, but Andy Gray, no less, remarked that both sides had been excellent in the first half.
So it's not that Liverpool were rubbish, as seems to be the case with the opposition every time the Reds get a good result. It was Guus Hiddink's brilliance, ably backed by his side.
In the return, much was made of how awful Chelsea were, particularly in the first half. Liverpool did receive a little credit, but yet again, the main emphasis was on Chelsea letting themselves down rather than the Reds' attacking verve. Liverpool got some kudos for guts, but not their fair dues for quality.
In the league, Arsenal had been in sensational form upon making the trip to Merseyside. But for some reason, Liverpool's sublime attacking football was given little credit following a thrilling (if galling) 4-4 draw, the least-just result of the season. Talk about floodlight robbery.
It's fair to say that neither Blackburn nor Newcastle were in great shape when coming to Anfield, and but for the crossbar Liverpool could have racked up double figures in these two fixtures. Of course, as Liverpool confirmed themselves as the league's top scorers, the poor play of the opposition was the main story. (Oh, and some nonsense about semaphore.)
If Sam Allardyce's sides are anything, they are dogged. Detractors find his football rudimentary, but his sides rarely crumble. Except that's what they did.
Ah, because they had no fit strikers? Maybe, although Benni Mcarthy, left on the bench, is by far and away their top scorer this season. No-one asked them to play a centre-back up front, after all. It's like Rafa leaving out Jamie Carragher and playing Torres at centre-back due to an injury crisis.
And then most recently, West Ham. There had been nothing but praise for Gianfranco Zola's side of late, who have a very good recent home record, beyond hard-fought 1-0 defeats to Manchester United and Chelsea. Coincidentally for Benítez and his side, once again, the opposition just didn't get into their stride.
(And despite being no relation, it was weird for me watching Tomkins trying to stop Torres.)
I feel compelled to point out that if certain other teams were the top league scorers, we'd never hear the last about their attacking talents.
Part of me actually likes it when Liverpool go under the radar; it can be advantageous having the world against you, or ignoring your strengths. But another part of me finds the inequality irritating, and feels that credit should go only where it's due.
Liverpool's only two top-class attacking players (according to sundry short-sighted pundits) have started just one-third of all 2008-09 league games in the same side, and yet the Reds have scored the most goals.
And apparently Liverpool are 'cautious', with two 'holding' midfielders.
Something's not right with this picture, is it?
No change of formation has occurred in recent months, but as I argued earlier in the season, this is an excellent attacking side, and far from negative in its approach. If the stats didn't back me up at the time (often due to lax finishing), the figures now do.
Similarly, at the time Robbie Keane was sold, I argued that it was the right decision. Plenty disagreed, but it seems to have proved the case.
His place on the bench was becoming distracting (quite literally at times: the TV director for the Newcastle away game spent more time showing him than the action), and it was a chance to get in a good fee (and save on wages) in order to reinvest this summer.
This was my gut instinct. When Liverpool's goals dried up later in the winter, I admit to wobbling a little. But yet again, my first instincts were right.
And I also never lost sight of the fact that Keane hadn't been pulling up trees before he was sold; it's not like he'd banged in 15 or so. And he's also only scored three since returning to Spurs, and with time not on his side (he's 30 this summer), I felt it was a good time to cut the losses, for a very good player who wasn't fitting in (as happens now and again).
However, my fear was less about selling Keane, and more that no replacement was sought.
I never doubted the potential of David Ngog, who had been excelling at international youth level for a top nation, but feared that it would be next season before he found his feet in the fast-paced Premiership.
Thankfully, despite only playing a few minutes here and there, he appeared to find that vital strength needed to survive as a striker in England almost as soon as I'd claimed this season looked too soon for him.
And his record of minutes-per-goal (187) is now far better than Keane's was (at 255), and only marginally behind those of Torres (165) and Gerrard (145).
In my defence, in the same blog, written at the end of January, I also touted Yossi Benayoun as someone who could do as well as Keane in the role behind the main striker; in truth, he's done even better, albeit often from a wide starting point, but with licence to roam into similar areas.
So despite a little uneasiness on my part (there was of course some risk involved in selling Keane), I feel that my optimism in January was not misplaced. The goals scored recently, even in the absence of Torres and/or Gerrard, show that the ability was in the squad all along.
If anything, I feel pleasantly surprised at seeing the Reds as the Premiership's top scorers, not to mention having thumped four past Madrid, Chelsea, Arsenal and Manchester United in the main competitions. I didn't see that coming. And this all came after Keane left.
Then there's Krisztian Nemeth, whose quality I've never doubted since I first saw him play for the reserves, but for whom injuries have ruined this season; he's another option that didn't pan out this spring in Keane's absence – particularly after a brief loan spell at Blackpool, designed to get him match-sharp, ended with a broken cheekbone sustained within a minute of his debut. That's just plain bad luck.
But players like Ngog and Nemeth can only improve, as can Daniel Pacheco, so it's not like Liverpool are peaking this season; indeed, it's still a very young first-team squad, with an average age about to be further lowered with the exit of the evergreen Sami Hyypia (more on the great Finn next week).
Otherwise I'd expect all of the main players to still be around, and benefiting from one more year spent together.
Take into account the handicap of injuries to Torres, Gerrard and, when it came to winning more games at Anfield, Daniel Agger, and there's every reason to think that a fit squad next season (fingers crossed) will be significantly superior to this. And that's before any additions.
Despite lower resources, Liverpool need to try and match that little extra depth that United possess; after all, that's what will see them crowned champions, if they get four points from their next three games.
They've certainly not played better football than Liverpool this season (and it's been well over a decade since I've been able to say that), but eeked out the extra point here and there, often with 1-0 wins.
May finale
Remarkably, under Rafa Benítez, a Liverpool season has never 'finished' before May (with the narrowest of exceptions last year).
I don't mean the desperate charge to finish in the Champions League positions, but genuinely contesting trophies until the final month of the campaign.
May 2005 saw the Reds win the Champions League. May 2006 saw Liverpool win the FA Cup. May 2007 saw a better performance in the Champions League Final in a rematch with Milan, but a worse result (c’est la vie).
And last year the Reds were still in the Champions League until just a few minutes before the start of May, when getting the game back to 3-2 at Stamford Bridge in extra-time left them one away goal from yet another final. (And to shamelessly sneak it in, technically it was May 1st in some parts of the world.)
The cup success of the previous four seasons has diminished, only to be replaced with a serious title challenge: one that is still just about alive and kicking as we head towards mid-May.
However, to my mind, Liverpool were always unlikely to win their first league title in almost two decades while simultaneously excelling in Europe; if the 'first' title is universally regarded as the hardest to win, additional tough games in the run-in could hinder that, even if progress is naturally sought in all competitions.
With the title theirs to wrap up this week, United fans will rightly take heart if they win the league without playing their best football. It's a nice luxury.
But Liverpool will have pushed them down to the wire without the manager being able to field anything like his best side for two-thirds of all league games (and that's ignoring other key absences in the 12 games that Torres and Gerrard were fit to start together).
Maybe that's an even better sign.
It also seems that there are some itchy feet at United, with Ronaldo and Tevez linked with exits. It would be dangerous to assume that losing top attacking talent will see them falter; when Liverpool lost Kevin Keegan and Ian Rush, the team actually improved with reinforcements. But there's always a risk of it not quite working out, or taking time to gel.
By contrast, at Liverpool there seems to be a hunger to stick together and keep improving.
With Arsenal at times brilliant but brittle as balsa, and ageing Chelsea on the verge of serious transition (new manager and culling of some 30-somethings seem inevitable), this could be just the start of Liverpool's quest to knock United off their perch.
The race to #19 could be the big one.
http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/NG164357090512-1211.htm
-
stmichael - Forum Moderator
- Posts: 22644
- Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 3:06 pm
- Location: Middlesbrough
by Kharhaz » Wed May 13, 2009 1:54 am
That was painful reading in parts. He started off about right, with regards to the club, its never about Liverpool playing well, its about the opposition having an off day. This is as obvious as the nose on your face. But he lost me when he went into his me, Me, MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE, phase. The I told you so bit. And yet, no mention of the club playing negative football until rafa signed his contract and since then developed a more attacking philosophy.
We were. He is taking a quote from when we were drawing against poor teams, and implementing it now. Like I said he got off to a good start. Its now getting to be a bit of desperate journalism from himself. He is using a quote from when we were negative and replying now we are positive in our play.
Lax finishing or not, the figures should be high for shots at least should they not? Also, recent months vs earlier in the season, can anyone else smell that journalistic hypocrisy?
By christ almighty, this is bottom of the barrel stuff. Theres happy clappy, and theres this.
Eh? So he had Yossi down as doing a better job than Keane, and lately Yossi has been awesome, but as a wide player but he is claiming credit for his insight into a player that could fill the position better than Keane, and has done so in a different position ! AGAIN, EH?
He is not so much insightful, more... confusing.
And apparently Liverpool are 'cautious', with two 'holding' midfielders.
We were. He is taking a quote from when we were drawing against poor teams, and implementing it now. Like I said he got off to a good start. Its now getting to be a bit of desperate journalism from himself. He is using a quote from when we were negative and replying now we are positive in our play.
No change of formation has occurred in recent months, but as I argued earlier in the season, this is an excellent attacking side, and far from negative in its approach. If the stats didn't back me up at the time (often due to lax finishing), the figures now do.
Lax finishing or not, the figures should be high for shots at least should they not? Also, recent months vs earlier in the season, can anyone else smell that journalistic hypocrisy?
I never doubted the potential of David Ngog, who had been excelling at international youth level for a top nation, but feared that it would be next season before he found his feet in the fast-paced Premiership.
Thankfully, despite only playing a few minutes here and there, he appeared to find that vital strength needed to survive as a striker in England almost as soon as I'd claimed this season looked too soon for him.
And his record of minutes-per-goal (187) is now far better than Keane's was (at 255), and only marginally behind those of Torres (165) and Gerrard (145).
By christ almighty, this is bottom of the barrel stuff. Theres happy clappy, and theres this.
In my defence, in the same blog, written at the end of January, I also touted Yossi Benayoun as someone who could do as well as Keane in the role behind the main striker; in truth, he's done even better, albeit often from a wide starting point, but with licence to roam into similar areas.
Eh? So he had Yossi down as doing a better job than Keane, and lately Yossi has been awesome, but as a wide player but he is claiming credit for his insight into a player that could fill the position better than Keane, and has done so in a different position ! AGAIN, EH?
He is not so much insightful, more... confusing.
Bill Shankly: “I was the best manager in Britain because I was never devious or cheated anyone. I’d break my wife’s legs if I played against her, but I’d never cheat her.”
-
Kharhaz - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 6380
- Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:18 am
by Sabre » Wed May 13, 2009 8:30 am
Tomkins is right in many accounts, but I don't like the bits where he precisely says so. It's a bit strange that for being a journalism work. Sometimes he seems more a poster than a journo!
However he's right in some things
Sorry Karhaz, but the negative label was applied to Alonso-Mascherano couple not this season, but the season before. It was said as soon as Gerrard was given his new role, the role in which he has excelled and is doing a lethal partnership like the one that led to the first goal.
It was said that two holding mids was a negative approach to the game. And that was blatantly wrong. That midfield axis, triangle or whatever you call it was a good idea, and perfectly compatible. So it might not be "elegant" that Tomkins says he was right, but he was right nevertheless.
Of course in some of your criticism about the article I have to agree. I too find too happy clappy that he talks so positively about Ngog, when he's shown nothing especial.
However he's right in some things
We were. He is taking a quote from when we were drawing against poor teams, and implementing it now. Like I said he got off to a good start. Its now getting to be a bit of desperate journalism from himself. He is using a quote from when we were negative and replying now we are positive in our play.
Sorry Karhaz, but the negative label was applied to Alonso-Mascherano couple not this season, but the season before. It was said as soon as Gerrard was given his new role, the role in which he has excelled and is doing a lethal partnership like the one that led to the first goal.
It was said that two holding mids was a negative approach to the game. And that was blatantly wrong. That midfield axis, triangle or whatever you call it was a good idea, and perfectly compatible. So it might not be "elegant" that Tomkins says he was right, but he was right nevertheless.
Of course in some of your criticism about the article I have to agree. I too find too happy clappy that he talks so positively about Ngog, when he's shown nothing especial.
SOS member #1499
Drummerphil, never forgotten.
-
Sabre - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 13178
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:10 am
- Location: San Sebastian (Spain)
by bigmick » Wed May 13, 2009 9:03 am
I think in respect of Alonso and Masherano being defensive, he was wrong. You can't really claim now that you were right all along about these two when you take into account they are now playing the game very differently to how they were when you first claimed it. It's a bit like the Kuyt situation in some respects. He was playing awful, those who stuck up for him and advocated sticking with him have been proven right (and by definition those like me who advocated giving him the elbow wrong). That said, those who said at the time he wasn't playing rubbish were wrong, simple.
The way Alonso and Masherano were set up WAS defensive as neither of them got beyond the half way line very often, and they sat in front of the back four. Both sat in the pocket, and both had very little influence on games from an offensive viewpoint. As of now, both of them are marauding like loonies, we're scoring goals for fun and it's like watching Roy of the Rovers every week. I note that some people are claiming that we haven't changed our approach at all, but I can only assume in that case my telly must be on the blink, either that or they are stark raving bonkers.
So IMHO it is right to say we were set up defensively, and the roles given to Alonso and Masherano (or the roles which both of them decided themselves to fill, I guess we'll never really know which is/was true) was the major reason for it. It was WRONG however to say that were incapable of playing as part of an attacking unit, as we are now seeing.
The way Alonso and Masherano were set up WAS defensive as neither of them got beyond the half way line very often, and they sat in front of the back four. Both sat in the pocket, and both had very little influence on games from an offensive viewpoint. As of now, both of them are marauding like loonies, we're scoring goals for fun and it's like watching Roy of the Rovers every week. I note that some people are claiming that we haven't changed our approach at all, but I can only assume in that case my telly must be on the blink, either that or they are stark raving bonkers.
So IMHO it is right to say we were set up defensively, and the roles given to Alonso and Masherano (or the roles which both of them decided themselves to fill, I guess we'll never really know which is/was true) was the major reason for it. It was WRONG however to say that were incapable of playing as part of an attacking unit, as we are now seeing.
Last edited by bigmick on Wed May 13, 2009 9:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
"se e in una bottigla ed e bianco, e latte".
-
bigmick - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 12166
- Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 3:19 pm
- Location: Wimbledon, London.
by Owzat » Wed May 13, 2009 9:53 am
A texter to teletext (ITV, p416) claims we should be top scorers since we "play a quarter of our games against 10 men"
This is true in the sense 10 of our 36 games have seen our opponents have a man sent off, but they have spent a grand total of 190 mins plus stoppage time off the pitch. We've scored 60 goals against 11 men and only 12 against 10 men - in most instances we ended with the result (won, lost or drawn) that we were heading for before the red card.
Before Red : P36 W20 D12 L4 PTS 72 (60 goals for)
After Red : P36 W22 D11 L2 PTS 80 (72 goals for)
Not nearly as dramatic as the texter was attempting to portray, besides which it isn't our fault the opposition have ill discipline against us. The red cards for Man City and Wigan early in the season came while we were behind, but also came because we were pressuring their defences. The red card for Chelsea in our 2-0 win came long before the goals, and both goals were individual errors (goalkeeping positioning, Cashley error in position)
We did win nine of the ten games in which an opponent was sent off, the one we didn't was the draw at the Emirates in which Arsenal played around half an hour with only 10 men and as I recall they looked more likely to score.
This is true in the sense 10 of our 36 games have seen our opponents have a man sent off, but they have spent a grand total of 190 mins plus stoppage time off the pitch. We've scored 60 goals against 11 men and only 12 against 10 men - in most instances we ended with the result (won, lost or drawn) that we were heading for before the red card.
Before Red : P36 W20 D12 L4 PTS 72 (60 goals for)
After Red : P36 W22 D11 L2 PTS 80 (72 goals for)
Not nearly as dramatic as the texter was attempting to portray, besides which it isn't our fault the opposition have ill discipline against us. The red cards for Man City and Wigan early in the season came while we were behind, but also came because we were pressuring their defences. The red card for Chelsea in our 2-0 win came long before the goals, and both goals were individual errors (goalkeeping positioning, Cashley error in position)
We did win nine of the ten games in which an opponent was sent off, the one we didn't was the draw at the Emirates in which Arsenal played around half an hour with only 10 men and as I recall they looked more likely to score.
Never buy from PC World, product quality is poor and their 'customer service' is even poorer
-
Owzat - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 7487
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 8:55 am
- Location: England
by DrPepe » Wed May 13, 2009 10:39 am
Owzat wrote:A texter to teletext (ITV, p416) claims we should be top scorers since we "play a quarter of our games against 10 men"
This is true in the sense 10 of our 36 games have seen our opponents have a man sent off, but they have spent a grand total of 190 mins plus stoppage time off the pitch. We've scored 60 goals against 11 men and only 12 against 10 men - in most instances we ended with the result (won, lost or drawn) that we were heading for before the red card.
Before Red : P36 W20 D12 L4 PTS 72 (60 goals for)
After Red : P36 W22 D11 L2 PTS 80 (72 goals for)
Not nearly as dramatic as the texter was attempting to portray, besides which it isn't our fault the opposition have ill discipline against us. The red cards for Man City and Wigan early in the season came while we were behind, but also came because we were pressuring their defences. The red card for Chelsea in our 2-0 win came long before the goals, and both goals were individual errors (goalkeeping positioning, Cashley error in position)
We did win nine of the ten games in which an opponent was sent off, the one we didn't was the draw at the Emirates in which Arsenal played around half an hour with only 10 men and as I recall they looked more likely to score.
Another "defense" against the 10-man argument is that the Mancs also had players red-carded in exactly ten of their games last season.
A nice bit of symmetry, and I don't see anyone arguing that their title or dominance should be de-valued becuase of it
Also it hasn't done the other teams with high red-card counts much good this season - Citeh & Spurs hardly tearing up trees...
Liverpool 10
Manchester City 7
Tottenham Hotspur 6
Hull City 4
Sunderland 4
Blackburn Rovers 3
Stoke City 3
West Bromwich Albion 3
West Ham United 3
Wigan Athletic 3
Arsenal 2
Aston Villa 2
Everton 2
Fulham 2
Manchester United 2
Middlesbrough 1
Newcastle United 1
Portsmouth 1
Bolton Wanderers 0
Chelsea 0
"If I put a player in another position, suddenly 20 experts are going on about it. Experts of what, though? I don't know." - Rafa
-
DrPepe - LFC Super Member
- Posts: 828
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:41 pm
- Location: Bristol
by heimdall » Wed May 13, 2009 11:58 am
NANNY RED wrote:Do you know what ive thougherly enjoyed every minute of this season. the highs an the lows , the pain ive felt an the euphoria i wouldnt of changed it for anything, But thats what supporting this team does to you, an i love it, in my heart i really thought we could do it this season, we have had a good go an i cant wait till next season i really cant,
Even in January
For me I've enjoyed it since the Middelsborough loss, not because we've been winning, although that's been nice, but because Rafa has taken the shackles off the players and they are playing really great free-flowing football which I always knew they were capable of.
-
heimdall - Posts: 4971
- Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 1:51 pm
- Location: London
by Sabre » Wed May 13, 2009 12:00 pm
bigmick wrote:I think in respect of Alonso and Masherano being defensive, he was wrong. You can't really claim now that you were right all along about these two when you take into account they are now playing the game very differently to how they were when you first claimed it. It's a bit like the Kuyt situation in some respects. He was playing awful, those who stuck up for him and advocated sticking with him have been proven right (and by definition those like me who advocated giving him the elbow wrong). That said, those who said at the time he wasn't playing rubbish were wrong, simple.
The way Alonso and Masherano were set up WAS defensive as neither of them got beyond the half way line very often, and they sat in front of the back four. Both sat in the pocket, and both had very little influence on games from an offensive viewpoint. As of now, both of them are marauding like loonies, we're scoring goals for fun and it's like watching Roy of the Rovers every week. I note that some people are claiming that we haven't changed our approach at all, but I can only assume in that case my telly must be on the blink, either that or they are stark raving bonkers.
So IMHO it is right to say we were set up defensively, and the roles given to Alonso and Masherano (or the roles which both of them decided themselves to fill, I guess we'll never really know which is/was true) was the major reason for it. It was WRONG however to say that were incapable of playing as part of an attacking unit, as we are now seeing.
I think it's very important to distinguish a couple of concepts, to know exactly why I disagree with your view.
There's no discussion that nowadays approach is more attacking than it used to be, we've taken some risks, and by the looks of it, the results were better so well taken risks.
However, when describing back then why the team was "too defensive" it was explained directly looking at the Mascherano-Alonso, like if it was impossible to play attacking football with these two. And that notion was plain wrong as we have seen this year.
SOS member #1499
Drummerphil, never forgotten.
-
Sabre - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 13178
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:10 am
- Location: San Sebastian (Spain)
by simolonge » Wed May 13, 2009 12:48 pm
heimdall wrote:NANNY RED wrote:Do you know what ive thougherly enjoyed every minute of this season. the highs an the lows , the pain ive felt an the euphoria i wouldnt of changed it for anything, But thats what supporting this team does to you, an i love it, in my heart i really thought we could do it this season, we have had a good go an i cant wait till next season i really cant,
Even in January
For me I've enjoyed it since the Middelsborough loss, not because we've been winning, although that's been nice, but because Rafa has taken the shackles off the players and they are playing really great free-flowing football which I always knew they were capable of.
If only you where at the helm and not that La Liga and European Cup winning Buffoon.
-
simolonge - Posts: 260
- Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2004 10:40 am
by Ace Ventura » Wed May 13, 2009 1:56 pm
Just a short post.
The lesson to be learned for alot of fans (including myself) is enjoy the ride.
Looks like we will fall just short this season, but its been a thriller and i think too many fans havent enjoyed this season as much as they could and probably should have.
That is all.
The lesson to be learned for alot of fans (including myself) is enjoy the ride.
Looks like we will fall just short this season, but its been a thriller and i think too many fans havent enjoyed this season as much as they could and probably should have.
That is all.
ALLLRIGHTY THEN !!
-
Ace Ventura - >> LFC Elite Member <<
- Posts: 3952
- Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2003 1:29 pm
- Location: Birkenhead
by bunglemark2 » Wed May 13, 2009 2:08 pm
Lessons to be learned....hmmmmm....on a personal note, I didn't make nearly enough trips to Anfield.
Didn't put me foot down often enough and tell the missus "I'm off for a game next month...".
Didn't book ElasticAir (a.k.a. Ryanair) or Aer Lingus flights well enough in advance so that even if on the occasions that Sly Sports or Setanta changed the fixture date, I wouldn't be out of pocket too much.
Didn't book cheap-ish (but clean !) hotels long enough in advance, so that I could cancel if needs be (see previous point !)
Didn't put the chiseller straight shen first she said she wanted to be a Manc Scum fan-ette (well, she is still my beautiful princess, and I have time....either that or I'll disown her !).
Gonna put it ALL right next year though !
GWAN DA 'POOL !!
Didn't put me foot down often enough and tell the missus "I'm off for a game next month...".
Didn't book ElasticAir (a.k.a. Ryanair) or Aer Lingus flights well enough in advance so that even if on the occasions that Sly Sports or Setanta changed the fixture date, I wouldn't be out of pocket too much.
Didn't book cheap-ish (but clean !) hotels long enough in advance, so that I could cancel if needs be (see previous point !)
Didn't put the chiseller straight shen first she said she wanted to be a Manc Scum fan-ette (well, she is still my beautiful princess, and I have time....either that or I'll disown her !).
Gonna put it ALL right next year though !
GWAN DA 'POOL !!
http://s2.tinypic.com/30ldif7_th.jpg
See yooo, Judas. Yoo're gettin' on mah titz !
See yooo, Judas. Yoo're gettin' on mah titz !
-
bunglemark2 - Posts: 7473
- Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 4:05 pm
- Location: Dublin, Ireland
Return to Liverpool FC - General Discussion
-
- Related topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- Lessons to be learned
1, 2by banana » Sat Oct 16, 2004 5:57 pm - 22 Replies
- 2076 Views
- Last post by laza
Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:10 am
- Lessons to be learned
-
- Rafa - Time to show lessons have been learned
1, 2by account deleted by request » Wed Sep 03, 2008 3:34 am - 18 Replies
- 2783 Views
- Last post by Almighty Red
Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:38 pm
- Rafa - Time to show lessons have been learned
-
- How do we challenge for the title?
by Eazy-E » Wed Jun 01, 2005 11:36 am
- 13 Replies
- 1506 Views
- Last post by Eazy-E
Wed Jun 01, 2005 6:24 pm
- How do we challenge for the title?
-
- Our title challenge - How do you feel right now?
1 ... 5, 6, 7by Owzat » Thu Jan 29, 2009 1:50 pm - 102 Replies
- 8626 Views
- Last post by Rorschach26
Sat Feb 07, 2009 2:46 pm
- Our title challenge - How do you feel right now?
-
- Other teams impact.... - ..on are title challenge
1, 2, 3by Garymac » Thu Jul 14, 2005 9:16 pm - 35 Replies
- 4220 Views
- Last post by El Nino_#9
Fri Jul 15, 2005 5:15 pm
- Other teams impact.... - ..on are title challenge
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 60 guests
-
- Advertisement