Liverpool FC Forum

[Rockthekop]

Nothing new there John, we've had the same problem for years.

Tuncay would have been perfect to slot into our midfield.  We have missed out on an opportunity to get a good versatile player for a very modest sum. 

He could have provided cover for three or four positions.

[Octsky]

I think we're also not getting enough bodies in the box, neither Lucas nor Mascherano is going to which is why I favour 4-1-3-2. With Alonso in the side we could play 4-2-3-1 quite comfortably as he is comfortable on the ball. Criticism of Lucas for trying to get rid of the ball makes me laugh as he'd get lambasted if he slowed play down or was caught in possession so either way he's going to get it in the neck. Dropping Gerrard back may reduce his effectiveness, do we really need two men sitting in midfield? Waste of Gerrard's talents, he's not really a great passer of the ball so we'd see 'Hollywood passes' squandering possession, him going in for even more tackles and I'd rather he was relieved of that responsibilty and the cost would be his goalscoring I have little doubt. We won't find out until perhaps too late whether Aquilani will be a hit and how best the team shapes with him in it.

Have to disagreed with you there, Oz.
IMO, any team that controls the midfield controls the game. Just like in basketball, if you can get the rebounds you control the whole game.

Gerrard made his name by being the all-round midfielder, and he does possess the all-range pass but we rarely see it now as he play further up. I'll love to see him running like a mad man in midfield, pressuring the opposition into making mistakes, bombing goalies with 30 yards shots and making pin point passes. Remember the 20-21 yr old shaved head Gerrard?
Mancs in the strongest had Keane, Arsenal had Veira, and we need our Gerrard back.

With Alonso around, Gerrard can play all more attacking role, but now he NEEDS to be back into the engine room, back to his roots.
That why Aquaman needs desperately to be a monster signing for us coz he will be our new Totti. He will be our new playmaker.

[JoeTerp]

controlling the midfield doe not equal winning games.  Scoring more goals equals winning games. We need our best goal scorers/creaters in the positions to create and score the goals, and at the other end, we need to stop gifting goals away.

It is true that we haven't controlled the midfield in our losses IN THE SAME WAY that we were controlling games before, but I wouldn't say that for the majority of either game we were "overrun" at worst, there were spells of nuetrality.  Maybe the last 15 minutes of the first half agaisnt Spurs, but still, the majority of the time we are in control AND if we would have gotten early goals in those games I think we would have dominated the play from then on out.

[LFC2007]

That 'in the same way' line is the most important point because there's control and there's control, and it comes back to the distinction between 'majority of possession' (or in spells, 'periods of neutrality') as opposed to having a genuine sense of authority in our play - which we will need consistently if we intend to challenge for the title. We may have had the vast majority of the possession against Villa, but we certainly didn't have authority in our play, that is, a real sense of knowing how to do damage with our use of the ball. That certainly stems from the midfield. Unless you play like Bolton or the Wimbledon of old in which case you can make very frequent use the long ball, minimising play through the midfield; the best teams don't employ this strategy though.

It's the one element that has to be consistent for long spells if we want to challenge. Even when we go away to Stamford Bridge or Old Trafford, places where possession is and will be thinly divided, we'll still have to show control - a sense of authority - in our play.

[aCe']

That 'in the same way' line is the most important point because there's control and there's control, and it comes back to the distinction between 'majority of possession' (or in spells, 'periods of neutrality') as opposed to having a genuine sense of authority in our play - which we will need consistently if we intend to challenge for the title. We may have had the vast majority of the possession against Villa, but we certainly didn't have authority in our play, that is, a real sense of knowing how to do damage with our use of the ball. That certainly stems from the midfield. Unless you play like Bolton or the Wimbledon of old in which case you can make very frequent use the long ball, minimising play through the midfield; the best teams don't employ this strategy though.

It's the one element that has to be consistent for long spells if we want to challenge. Even when we go away to Stamford Bridge or Old Trafford, places where possession is and will be thinly divided, we'll still have to show control - a sense of authority - in our play.

yep... saved me a post...

[Effes]

It's the one element that has to be consistent for long spells if we want to challenge. Even when we go away to Stamford Bridge or Old Trafford, places where possession is and will be thinly divided, we'll still have to show control - a sense of authority - in our play.

Do you think that was the case in the 4-1 at Old Trafford though?

I think we tended to get the ball upfront quickly than play it through the midfield.

[Bammo]

It's horses for courses though. We played more direct against Utd at OT because Vidic turns like a container ship and Torres could do him for pace. Against teams that play further back, the park-the-bus teams, there isn't the space behind to play like that. Instead we need to passit through the midfield in a more controlled build up.

One think I've thought of during this thread is how Gerrard's positioning affects Lucas' game. Alonso wasable to ping the ball accurately into Gerrard from 30/40 yards away. This meant that Gerrard could stay further upfield and not track back as much. Now, Lucas isn't capable of quick, accurate long-range passing. If he were to play further forwards, or Gerrard drop back 10 yards, it may make our attacks more fluid and speedy.

Right now, Lucas gets the ball, can't reach Gerrard and so goes sideways/backwards. If Gerrard was closer and so more easily found then Lucas would be more inclined to pass forwards.

[Effes]

Right now, Lucas gets the ball, can't reach Gerrard and so goes sideways/backwards. If Gerrard was closer and so more easily found then Lucas would be more inclined to pass forwards.

That's why I think we should go 4-4-2, if Gerrard is back in the middle the ball can be played out wide
but then he can join the attack aswell.

[LFC2007]

It's the one element that has to be consistent for long spells if we want to challenge. Even when we go away to Stamford Bridge or Old Trafford, places where possession is and will be thinly divided, we'll still have to show control - a sense of authority - in our play.

Do you think that was the case in the 4-1 at Old Trafford though?

I think we tended to get the ball upfront quickly than play it through the midfield.

Good point.

In almost every game away to one of the other top four, we'll be more counter-attacking in style i.e. more compact and looking for Torres or Gerrard to produce on the break. We go about controlling these types of games in two stages; first by ensuring we have a solid shape that is hard to penetrate - in this respect the midfield's primary role is to shield and press as a unit to protect the back four. The second stage is, when we win the ball, to use it well - pick the sensible option and generally play with patience and discipline - that's how we gradually nullify the opposition and also create opportunities to win the match for ourselves. The midfield is key here too in picking the right option - it gives us breathing space in these games. Textbook example being the Chelsea game at the Bridge last season. Alonso and Riera in particular were excellent in their use of the ball.

That's generally what we need to do in those sorts of fixtures, so though we may have an equal or lesser share of possession we essentially retain control of the game because we nullify the opposition with a shrewd, well-executed plan; contain and counter. The 4-1 game was rather unconventional though in that the Manc's had quite an off-day in midfield (in their defensive duties especially) and defense, whereas by contrast Gerrard and Torres were on-fire and it was primarily this that allowed us to score the goals that won us the game. In the main, the win was a consequence of solid defense work, a very shakey utd defense and some sublime play by Gerrard and Torres. Our defensive unit held out for long enough to allow Gerrard and Torres to work their magic on the break - our midfield wasn't often in possession of the ball, despite their good defensive work. On most days though, Gerrard and Torres won't be allowed so much freedom, Vidic, Ferdinand and Evra won't be so rusty, and better in-possession football will be required of the midfield. That's why it was a bit of a one-off (I hope not).

[Octsky]

It's the one element that has to be consistent for long spells if we want to challenge. Even when we go away to Stamford Bridge or Old Trafford, places where possession is and will be thinly divided, we'll still have to show control - a sense of authority - in our play.

Do you think that was the case in the 4-1 at Old Trafford though?

I think we tended to get the ball upfront quickly than play it through the midfield.

Good point.

In almost every game away to one of the other top four, we'll be more counter-attacking in style i.e. more compact and looking for Torres or Gerrard to produce on the break. We go about controlling these types of games in two stages; first by ensuring we have a solid shape that is hard to penetrate - in this respect the midfield's primary role is to shield and press as a unit to protect the back four. The second stage is, when we win the ball, to use it well - pick the sensible option and generally play with patience and discipline - that's how we gradually nullify the opposition and also create opportunities to win the match for ourselves. The midfield is key here too in picking the right option - it gives us breathing space in these games. Textbook example being the Chelsea game at the Bridge last season. Alonso and Riera in particular were excellent in their use of the ball.

That's generally what we need to do in those sorts of fixtures, so though we may have an equal or lesser share of possession we essentially retain control of the game because we nullify the opposition with a shrewd, well-executed plan; contain and counter. The 4-1 game was rather unconventional though in that the Manc's had quite an off-day in midfield (in their defensive duties especially) and defense, whereas by contrast Gerrard and Torres were on-fire and it was primarily this that allowed us to score the goals that won us the game. In the main, the win was a consequence of solid defense work, a very shakey utd defense and some sublime play by Gerrard and Torres. Our defensive unit held out for long enough to allow Gerrard and Torres to work their magic on the break - our midfield wasn't often in possession of the ball, despite their good defensive work. On most days though, Gerrard and Torres won't be allowed so much freedom, Vidic, Ferdinand and Evra won't be so rusty, and better in-possession football will be required of the midfield. That's why it was a bit of a one-off (I hope not).

Great post. Midfielders are the link between defense and attack, they are the shortest route to both and can influence the balance.

I believe what we are missing now in midfield is an all round passer like Gerrard or Alonso. Perhaps Lucas needs to have more confidence in passing the ball up-field instead of left and right. Similarly for Masch. Actually Masch is a good passer too. The worst passer in midfield i have to admit is Hamann, his passing was shocking, never had i seen him pass the ball upfield once. What he did is passing the ball left, right or back towards defenders, and under pressure defenders have to punt the ball up-field thus giving the ball back to opposition.

It isnt as difficult to replicate what Alonso does for the team as I consider Gerrard to be a more complete footballer. If you noticed, what Alonso does best is passing 30-35 yards to someone open on the flanks. This is different from passing a through ball for a team mate to run on. Alonso passes are more "long", whilst Gerrard's are more "direct", more "assist-based". And the ball winning are usually done by Masch. With Gerrard back in the middle, we have basically 2 world class ball winner.

Hopefully with Aquaman coming back, we can improve our ball sense in the final third.

[maguskwt]

Has Gerrard lost the discipline needed to play purely as a CM though? His role in support of Torres is more reckless and attacking than the CM role. And he thrives on it because of his energy and athleticism. We all know that Gerrard is prone to comitting one or two reckless challenges in a game. Playing up front he doesn't need to worry too much about that. But when he's playing as a CM he needs to be much more disciplined and tactical. We have seen Rafa fustrated with Gerrard's performances sometimes because the latter was too passionate and not tactical enough eg against everton a couple of seasons back.

[metalhead]

just shows how vital Gerrard is in the middle of the park. He was out of depth in the first half, but then in the 2nd he dropped a bit deep, saw more the ball and played really well. Lets drop him back to midfield with mascherano.

[Madmax]

Rafa won't do that mate if he was going to im sure he would have shifted gerrard back in central today. Rafa will stick with lucas - macha pairing. We all know how stubborn he is a maybe he sees something working that we can't see. For me anyhow i would love gerrard to play back in central mid and shify lucas off the side for a bit.

[Bad Bob]

just shows how vital Gerrard is in the middle of the park. He was out of depth in the first half, but then in the 2nd he dropped a bit deep, saw more the ball and played really well. Lets drop him back to midfield with mascherano.

Couple of things, though, mate:

1) Muamba was shadow-marking him throughout the entire first half and he had limited opportunities to get on the ball

2) the sending off created more space and, to exploit it and shake off Muamba, it looked like Gerrard decided or was instructed to drop deeper

So, while you may be correct to say that this is something to be considered in future I don't think we can discount what impact the sending off had.

[bigmick]

I've just watched the game and in terms of the midfield, for me there were still more questions than answers. The Masherano/Lucas axis was once again poor in terms of contribution to our flow and rhythm, and I thought the Brazillian in particular was bitterly disappointing. That his main contribution to the game was waving an imaginary card at the referee to get Davis sent off says it all really, and it was no surprise that on the hour mark the decision was taken to switch him and Gerrard.

Wider, I thought Riera made a huge difference on the left, and aside from the obvious questions about why he didn't play in the previous three matches (aside from a cameo as sub), it was great to see him back.

Kuyt continues to worry me, even more than normal. It was a good chest down for Torres's goal, but other than that I thought he was very poor other than the inevitable running around a lot. I'm fairly sure he had a significant role in both goals we conceded, and the excellent save which Reina made in the first half from Matt Taylors free kick summed up the problems perfectly. We clear a set piece (for once) and it gets thrown back in. Kuyt has an easy clearance under no challenge, but completely miscues it straight up int he air. Lucas gets the wrong side and hauls Taylor to the ground three yards outside the box. OK Reina saved it, but such ridiculousness will cost us points and wins.

The difference once Gerrard was moved back was absolutely glaring, and surely was enough evidence already that this is the way we should play.