Liverpool FC Forum

[laza]

well to be honest, arsenal won the league with attacking football and so did man utd to be fair

but i can see your point that they had the players to play that way, we dont really, not yet anyway

and hamann isn't quality, hes past it, i never thought he much good to begin with to be honest, and anelka well since he left arsenal hasnt been the same player imo

The thing about Hamann is you wont realise what he brought to the team until he has left

[azriahmad]

mrcool, Anelka is not quite the same player like he was at Arsenal all those years ago - I agree. There are several factors.

For Anelka, it is mostly in the mind. Just look at his scoring record while playing in a mediocre team like Man City. He is still better at scoring than all of our present strikers - Baros, Cisse and Garcia.

[jim_morrison_supported_liverpool]

yes but did you not see the other part of my post? i said if you have no pace you have to defend deep. thats what Everton certainly do. they know theycant win the league like that, and we wont win the league if we have to do it.

JBG that's in Italy mate. like Spain, totally different ball game (pardon the pun).

i assume we dont want o see our team defending deep, i assume we wanted to see the brighter side of playing which by the looks of it Rafa is instilling slowly.

i insist we need at least 1 pacey centre half at the back if we are gonna play the way Benitez intends us to, because we're in the prem, not on the continent.

Thats rubbish.

Absoloute rubbish.

We got 80 points playing that way with one world class player, 3 top class players and 2 quality players.

Owen, Hamann, Anelka, Hyypia, Gerrard and Riise. In order.

If that side would have had Duff in for Smicer we would have had enough to gain that extra 7 points.

Playing to your strengths wins games whatever they are. Don't give me ****** about playing a certain way wins you trophies because it doesn't. You do what your personel allows you too do. You get the best out of you're best players.

Simple as that.

who has EVER  won the prem playing like that?

and Duff would be nowhere near as effective in a Houllier team. it didnt cater for attacking  mids as they had no support, and whenever they received the ball, we'd been fannying around with it that much that the other team had alltheir players back behind the ball, and the attacking mids would have nowhere tot go, with no attacking momentum, thats why all our attcking mids have always looked poo. Smicer would have been good at a team like Arsenal. this is also why people like Kewell lost their form, and Litmanen never looked as effevtive as we knew he was.

you've said before "look at Greece at Euro 2004. one off man, totally. we dont want a one off team. playing like that gets you so far. cant you see thats why we went stale? we'd reached our peak and there was nowhere else left to go.

[JBG]

Leeds won the very first Premiership playing like Houllier's Liverpool! 

However, I agree Jim, times have changed, and even though we did extremely well in 2002, we all knew that we had to develop the side and play a more expansive game were we to go the extra few yards and actually won it. The statistics of that season are extremely misleading: we did really well and finished second, but the truth is, Arsenal were far better than us that year and we were fortunate to overtake Man UTD, who had an extremely poor season by their standards.

Houllier knew this as well and he then tried to add to the side with Diouff and Cheyrou, but it is well catalogued how bad these signings were.

As for defences and pace: yes we certainly do need a bit of pace in there. My point is that occasionally, if the players are good enough and are extremely well organised, then SOMETIMES this organisation can overcome deficiences such as a lack of pace. Unfortunately, our defence doesn't have that organisation.

As for Stu's point as to Chelsea's lack of pace: he names Gallas and Bridge as being pacy (er, that's two players out of four  ). I wasn't aware that Carvahello was slow (he's actually a bit faster than average for a centre half) and Ferreira has spent the last three of four years overlapping with flair and pace in the Champions League. There's also Glenn Johnson. The only one you could term as "slow" is John Terry, but I don't think he's slow (except maybe in a sprint with SWP or Cisse) and he's hardly as immobile as Hyppia. 

[Leonmc0708]

It wasnt the first Premeirship, it was the final first division.

[JBG]

It wasnt the first Premeirship, it was the final first division.

I digress Leon, you are correct. The Scum won the first Premiership, but whats the difference in a name?

[jim_morrison_supported_liverpool]

Leeds won the very first Premiership playing like Houllier's Liverpool! 

However, I agree Jim, times have changed, and even though we did extremely well in 2002, we all knew that we had to develop the side and play a more expansive game were we to go the extra few yards and actually won it. The statistics of that season are extremely misleading: we did really well and finished second, but the truth is, Arsenal were far better than us that year and we were fortunate to overtake Man UTD, who had an extremely poor season by their standards.

Houllier knew this as well and he then tried to add to the side with Diouff and Cheyrou, but it is well catalogued how bad these signings were.

As for defences and pace: yes we certainly do need a bit of pace in there. My point is that occasionally, if the players are good enough and are extremely well organised, then SOMETIMES this organisation can overcome deficiences such as a lack of pace. Unfortunately, our defence doesn't have that organisation.

As for Stu's point as to Chelsea's lack of pace: he names Gallas and Bridge as being pacy (er, that's two players out of four  ). I wasn't aware that Carvahello was slow (he's actually a bit faster than average for a centre half) and Ferreira has spent the last three of four years overlapping with flair and pace in the Champions League. There's also Glenn Johnson. The only one you could term as "slow" is John Terry, but I don't think he's slow (except maybe in a sprint with SWP or Cisse) and he's hardly as immobile as Hyppia. 

totally totally agree there JBG.

yes you need to be supremely organised in defence if there's no pace. yes Chelsea HAVE got pace.

Do you ever wonder how our attcking mids would have fared over the years if we played more attacking football. sorry thats too general. i mean more varied football.

it seems to be all up to them to attack and score when it should be the whole of the midfield and maybe help from the fullbacks (as well as strikers of course), in terms of creating things. HOullier put the emphasis on SMICER. you could see his thinking  ..."yes well we have ze superb defensive unit zat will not let in ze goals, yes, ze 7 man defence, all defending, if i buy ze Smicer, he can set ze goals up."  bit of a burden dont you think??

[jim_morrison_supported_liverpool]

It wasnt the first Premeirship, it was the final first division.

I digress Leon, you are correct. The Scum won the first Premiership, but whats the difference in a name?

yaaaaaaaaaay i was right!!!  (Thank F*ck i said Prem!!!)

[XSD]

Infact, looking back on the first post, I change what I said.
What I meant was: this isn't championship manager!!

[JBG]

Infact, looking back on the first post, I change what I said.
What I meant was: this isn't championship manager!!

No it isn't Championship Manager!

Man UTD have loads of money, looked at Robben last year and said: we fancy him, we'll invite him to a nice tour of Old Trafford, we can afford him, we'll buy him, we'll replace Ryan Giggs with him and that will be left midfield sorted for the next ten years.

Yet Robben snubbed UTD and went to Chelsea.

We could sell Gerrard, we could fancy, say for example, Duff, we could then afford him, and chances are, he would probably sort us out at left midfield for the next 8 years, but could we get him even if we had the money? Our chances would be less than 50/50.

[jim_morrison_supported_liverpool]

sometimes people dont see the complications in signing a player. you cant just "sign someone."  the manager will have his targets and they're probably all different to what we all suggest on here, cos he will know who's available, at what prices, what the chances are of getting them etc.

[adayinthelife]

We could sell Gerrard, we could fancy, say for example, Duff, we could then afford him, and chances are, he would probably sort us out at left midfield for the next 8 years, but could we get him even if we had the money? Our chances would be less than 50/50.

Unless we got Duff as part of a swap deal.

[jim_morrison_supported_liverpool]

We could sell Gerrard, we could fancy, say for example, Duff, we could then afford him, and chances are, he would probably sort us out at left midfield for the next 8 years, but could we get him even if we had the money? Our chances would be less than 50/50.

Unless we got Duff as part of a swap deal.

still wouldnt make the chances any more than 50/50. chelsea mightnt want to.

[adayinthelife]

We could sell Gerrard, we could fancy, say for example, Duff, we could then afford him, and chances are, he would probably sort us out at left midfield for the next 8 years, but could we get him even if we had the money? Our chances would be less than 50/50.

Unless we got Duff as part of a swap deal.

still wouldnt make the chances any more than 50/50. chelsea mightnt want to.

To get Gerrard IMO they would sacrifice Duff as Mourinho prefers Robben.

[dawson99]

IF we ever sold gerrard, and thats amassive IF, then it would NEVER be to a fellow prem club, that would just be champion suicide