Liverpool FC Forum

It’s clear that it’s 2 from 3 but which combination would people go with.  For me Sakho is our best centre back and it should be him+1.

Pre-season selection suggests that Rodgers is determined to prove that he was right to bring in Lovren who he apparently handpicked, whereas the transfer of Sakho was supposedly driven by the transfer committee.

It seems to a case of Skrtel+1 but in theory Sakho and Lovren is the more natural partnership as they both like to step up and play high whereas Skrtel default mind set is to drop deep. But Lovren looked terrible least season and hasn’t exactly shone in pre-season.

Personally I would have preferred to have seen us stick with the 3, that way we not only get to field an extra man in the middle of the park (which is an area where we are particularly weak imo) but a back 3 also allows us to shoehorn Can into the starting XI too.
I'm not sure Brendan will pick him ahead of Milner or Henderson as a midfielder so I fear unless we go with a back 3 Emre is going to spend most of this upcoming season on the sidelines and considering he was one of the few positives from last season that would be particularly ironic.
Anyway wether we play with a back 3 or 4, based on form, Lovren shouldn't really be in the team.

Great idea to start a new thread to ask this question

LFC1990 » Fri Jul 31, 2015 2:34 pm wrote:Great idea to start a new thread to ask this question

I think it's a relevant question question myself, it does seem like Brendan is giving Lovren every opportunity to play himself back into form (and back into the starting XI) which is fair enough in itself except that other players like Markovic, Ilorri and Balotelli have seemingly been ostracised just because they were signed by the transfer committee.

Irrelevant whether it is a valid question or not

We have a Stoke V Liverpool thread

We have a Best 11 thread

this question could have gone in any of them and probably a few more

It's a poll.

If only we had a poll section

Get a room lads 

Skrtel and sakho all day    Not that I think they are great or anything but its the best we can do.

I actually went for Sakho and Lovren, but perhaps Illori could be given a chance with Sakho.

Imo, Skrtel is a major issue. His lack of comms with the rest of the players and much more is really bad. He makes others look terrible (Lovren for instance). Watch him next season, you'll see what I mean. He rushes out without thinking and leaves gaps behind,  drops way to deep giving the opposition a chance to get right at goal. Some might argue that he was LFCs best defender last season, but I don't think he was. Lack of communication, watch for it.......

I'd play a centre back pair of Coutinho and an injured Sturridge over any combination involving Lovren. Simply put he's a horrible defender who has been found out. He should have been sold this summer.

His performances would improve if he grew a pair. He needs to take responsibility in situations and want to win the ball. He plays the game like he wants it to be a non contact sport, which for a centre half in the premier league ain't gonna work.

Skrtel and Sakho are our best bet but Sakho's tendency to pick up niggling injuries stops him getting a good run in the side. Reminds me of Agger in that respect.

Unfortunately all our CBs have weaknesses and it's a problem. Skrtel has always been rash. Sakho has a 50p for a head, I've yet to see him head a ball in the direction he intends. Lovren can't defend, which is obviously a slight weakness for a defender. Toure can look class one week and Sunday league the next. His recovery pace is gone now, which was one of his assets in his younger days.

Bloody hell I've just depressed myself. At least we have a solid keeper.......

JC_81 » Fri Jul 31, 2015 9:17 pm wrote:I'd play a centre back pair of Coutinho and an injured Sturridge over any combination involving Lovren. Simply put he's a horrible defender who has been found out. He should have been sold this summer.

His performances would improve if he grew a pair. He needs to take responsibility in situations and want to win the ball. He plays the game like he wants it to be a non contact sport, which for a centre half in the premier league ain't gonna work.

Skrtel and Sakho are our best bet but Sakho's tendency to pick up niggling injuries stops him getting a good run in the side. Reminds me of Agger in that respect.

Unfortunately all our CBs have weaknesses and it's a problem. Skrtel has always been rash. Sakho has a 50p for a head, I've yet to see him head a ball in the direction he intends. Lovren can't defend, which is obviously a slight weakness for a defender. Toure can look class one week and Sunday league the next. His recovery pace is gone now, which was one of his assets in his younger days.

Bloody hell I've just depressed myself. At least we have a solid keeper.......

Hard to argue with any of that. Good post as ever JC 81

If our fullbacks don't spend most of their time up in the opposition half and we play with a dedicated DM or 2 (depending on the opposition), I reckon a centreback pairing of even toure and lovern will look unbeatable.

As long as Rodgers is the head coach...no matter who we line up as our CB pairing....they will struggle.

Skrtel and Agger were the best centreback combination when the king was our manager. Look at what happen when Rodgers took over...

ycsatbjywtbiastkamb » Fri Jul 31, 2015 2:33 pm wrote:Personally I would have preferred to have seen us stick with the 3, that way we not only get to field an extra man in the middle of the park (which is an area where we are particularly weak imo) but a back 3 also allows us to shoehorn Can into the starting XI too.
I'm not sure Brendan will pick him ahead of Milner or Henderson as a midfielder so I fear unless we go with a back 3 Emre is going to spend most of this upcoming season on the sidelines and considering he was one of the few positives from last season that would be particularly ironic.
Anyway wether we play with a back 3 or 4, based on form, Lovren shouldn't really be in the team.

If you play 3 at the back you actually lose a man in midfield, you don't gain one. I remember we played three at the back away to Newcastle last season, or the season before. By having 3 at the back we had no outlet to pass to further up, as Newcastle had enough numbers back to limit our passing. The extra third defender takes away a position from either central midfield or attacking midfield.

Kenny Kan » Sun Aug 02, 2015 12:55 am wrote:

ycsatbjywtbiastkamb » Fri Jul 31, 2015 2:33 pm wrote:Personally I would have preferred to have seen us stick with the 3, that way we not only get to field an extra man in the middle of the park (which is an area where we are particularly weak imo) but a back 3 also allows us to shoehorn Can into the starting XI too.
I'm not sure Brendan will pick him ahead of Milner or Henderson as a midfielder so I fear unless we go with a back 3 Emre is going to spend most of this upcoming season on the sidelines and considering he was one of the few positives from last season that would be particularly ironic.
Anyway wether we play with a back 3 or 4, based on form, Lovren shouldn't really be in the team.

If you play 3 at the back you actually lose a man in midfield, you don't gain one. I remember we played three at the back away to Newcastle last season, or the season before. By having 3 at the back we had no outlet to pass to further up, as Newcastle had enough numbers back to limit our passing. The extra third defender takes away a position from either central midfield or attacking midfield.

If we're playing 3 CB's, we're playing with wingbacks and wingbacks contribute more to the attack than fullbacks. Essentially becoming a 3-4-3 or 3-5-2 depending on how you want to set up up front. That's how we played (3-4-3) for the unbeaten stretch after the Christmas fixtures last season. It wasn't only against Newcastle. And the formation did allow us to field more of the better players we had. But of course some numpties would claim that BR plays wing players out of position as wingbacks.

Lovren is s.*i*e end of.