Liverpool FC Forum

by **stmichael** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:38 am

i actually thought we played quite well, especially in the second half which we dominated for long spells. arsenal were essentially playing on the counter attack in the second half as the game got more and more stretched.

positives for me were ngog in the first half who played exceptionally well i thought, the goal from insua obviously and degen (who makes glen johnson look defensive at times).

negatives once again for me were babel and voronin. the number of times those two players either lose possession or take the wrong option is frightening.

by **algymoon** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:22 pm

Owzat wrote:Not a bad performance overall, but a defeat at a time when even going out on penalties might have been something. Poor keeping imho for all three goals, quite why we paid £3m for a keeper to play SIX games in two seasons when we could have simply used Martin, a youth keeper or signed one of the keepers going cheap or on frees in the summer.

Again there are question marks over Rafa substitutions, just taking the SEVEN defeats there is a distinct pattern

L1-2 vs Arsenal (a) 74, 76, 88 - last goal scored in 50th minute
L1-2 vs Lyon (h) 25 (enforced), 74, 86 - last goal scored in 72nd minute
L0-1 vs Sunderland (a) 72, 73, 81 - beachball scored in the 5th minute
L0-2 vs Chelsea (a) 67, 76, 83 - Anelka scored in the 60th minute, the second came very late
L0-2 vs Fiorentina (a) 72, 80 - both goals scored before half-time, second in the 37th minute
L1-3 vs Aston Villa (h) 66, 76 - 0-2 down after 45
L1-2 vs Tottenham (a) 67, 75, 79 - last goal scored in the 59th minute.

So in those defeats, regardless of situation and too often unwilling to make double or triple substitutions :

1st substitution (7) - average 63rd minute, 70th if you exclude the enforced substitution
2nd substitution (7) - average 75th minute
3rd substitution (5) - average 83rd minute

In three of those games he waited until the 72nd minute or later to change things, technically it's four given the 25th minute change was not tactical and shouldn't really count. Maybe later changes can be forgiven when the side is winning, even not losing, but when you're losing and not playing that well, it is when changes are generally made. The last change is more or less token if you make it as late as Rafa does, five of the 19 subs came on with less than 10 minutes to make an impression. Maybe Rafa is worried about injuries being a factor late on with no subs left, but when you're losing that is a risk you have to take. There's no law saying you can't score with 10 men, in fact didn't we play 10 man Arsenal last season and they looked the better side............................?

I May add on few words, well on yesterday’s showing does clearly indicates that our so called strong squad, is not really the case, with seven defeats so early in the season, it will be ringing the alarm bells for what we are going to expect of this season, that we are having under Rafa, well on these recent showing, I think the outcome is bleak!!!!, if we do not win at Lyon next week, we will be out of the champion league, so by early November we are already out of two cups, way behind in the League, with securing a fourth spot might prove very difficult, so I may ask what Rafa is going to win this season! Probably NIL. Is what you call a progress under Rafa?
On contrast you can really admire the promising talents that Arsenal is continue to producing season after season, it was really an embarrassment to see Arsenal’s kids play our expensive Rafa’s second team off the park. Since Houiler & Rafa, LFC has stopped producing any talented youngsters that worth mention, spending monies on unknown International stars (in Rafa’s eyes only) whom they do not come near half of Arsenal’s kids, it is really a crime, and a shameful chapter in our beloved club’s history, it is hurtful.

by **Benny The Noon** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:49 pm

algymoon wrote:
Owzat wrote:Not a bad performance overall, but a defeat at a time when even going out on penalties might have been something. Poor keeping imho for all three goals, quite why we paid £3m for a keeper to play SIX games in two seasons when we could have simply used Martin, a youth keeper or signed one of the keepers going cheap or on frees in the summer.

Again there are question marks over Rafa substitutions, just taking the SEVEN defeats there is a distinct pattern

L1-2 vs Arsenal (a) 74, 76, 88 - last goal scored in 50th minute
L1-2 vs Lyon (h) 25 (enforced), 74, 86 - last goal scored in 72nd minute
L0-1 vs Sunderland (a) 72, 73, 81 - beachball scored in the 5th minute
L0-2 vs Chelsea (a) 67, 76, 83 - Anelka scored in the 60th minute, the second came very late
L0-2 vs Fiorentina (a) 72, 80 - both goals scored before half-time, second in the 37th minute
L1-3 vs Aston Villa (h) 66, 76 - 0-2 down after 45
L1-2 vs Tottenham (a) 67, 75, 79 - last goal scored in the 59th minute.

So in those defeats, regardless of situation and too often unwilling to make double or triple substitutions :

1st substitution (7) - average 63rd minute, 70th if you exclude the enforced substitution
2nd substitution (7) - average 75th minute
3rd substitution (5) - average 83rd minute

In three of those games he waited until the 72nd minute or later to change things, technically it's four given the 25th minute change was not tactical and shouldn't really count. Maybe later changes can be forgiven when the side is winning, even not losing, but when you're losing and not playing that well, it is when changes are generally made. The last change is more or less token if you make it as late as Rafa does, five of the 19 subs came on with less than 10 minutes to make an impression. Maybe Rafa is worried about injuries being a factor late on with no subs left, but when you're losing that is a risk you have to take. There's no law saying you can't score with 10 men, in fact didn't we play 10 man Arsenal last season and they looked the better side............................?

I May add on few words, well on yesterday’s showing does clearly indicates that our so called strong squad, is not really the case, with seven defeats so early in the season, it will be ringing the alarm bells for what we are going to expect of this season, that we are having under Rafa, well on these recent showing, I think the outcome is bleak!!!!, if we do not win at Lyon next week, we will be out of the champion league, so by early November we are already out of two cups, way behind in the League, with securing a fourth spot might prove very difficult, so I may ask what Rafa is going to win this season! Probably NIL. Is what you call a progress under Rafa?
On contrast you can really admire the promising talents that Arsenal is continue to producing season after season, it was really an embarrassment to see Arsenal’s kids play our expensive Rafa’s second team off the park. Since Houiler & Rafa, LFC has stopped producing any talented youngsters that worth mention, spending monies on unknown International stars (in Rafa’s eyes only) whom they do not come near half of Arsenal’s kids, it is really a crime, and a shameful chapter in our beloved club’s history, it is hurtful.

Do you mean kids like Silvestre ,Nasri,Eduardo,Senderos,Bendtner all of who are first team players and have lots of experience in the prem some like Nasri and Eduardo cost more than are whole team we played last night . Add in kids like Ramsey who cost 5 million on his own .

Expensive second team ?!? Think you will prob find the arsenal team was 1.More expensive 2.More Experienced and 3. Not as young as some suggest .

You admire Arsenals kids etc who have won f.cuk all for 5 years now.

by **Owzat** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:53 pm

Benny The Noon wrote:Poor Keeping - Utter Cr@p- Why not give the credit to the goalscorers and just say they were fantastic strikes of which there isnt many keepers in the world which would of saved them .

You say my point is "utter cr@p" then come out with utter cr@p. The shots were decently hit, but the first was inside the near post and keeper's shouldn't really be beaten at their near post by a shot that far out. The Insua goal was well struck, but caught the keeper off his line. The winner was hit over the keeper and I reckon most keepers would hope to have done better. I'm not saying they weren't good strikes, just the keepers might and should have done better with at least two of them between them - arguably all three

Benny The Noon wrote:As for Sub times pretty much every manager in the world makes changes from the 65th ish min onwards depending on the game - on the odd occasion you get a change at half time or in the 50th min ish but it is normally from the 65th min onwards . Last night they scored in the 50th so the team then gets another 10 -20 mins to tryand get a goal back and they nearly did when that isnt working then you change things for the last 20 mins to try and get a winner or equaliser .

But you miss the point entirely, there's no flexibility in the approach/timing even though every game is different. Last night the subs got 16+ mins maximum, you can always HOPE the existing players on the pitch will somehow pull back one goal deficits. And if someone has played poorly for 55+ minutes, who is to say they will improve and it is a good idea to replace poor performers when it is clear they are performing poorly.

One of the better cricket tacticians was Arjuna Ranatunga. Why? Because he never let a game drift along, changing the bowlers. You could say a bowler needs a long spell and give them 6-8 overs, but then the batsmen can get used to their pace, bounce, tactics etc. Sometimes mixing it up can just pose different problems, the same players for 65+ mins can become predictable and ineffective. How much influence could Aquilani exert in 15 mins? Give him 30 mins and he might have had enough chance to create.

Benny The Noon wrote:I noticed you havent posted stats for when we have brought subs on and they have scored or won the game for us .

Nothing stopping you doing so, perhaps you're one of those who's genial at criticising someone else's work but not clever enough to DIY.

As it happens it is when we need the subs most that it matters, I doubt the times are that different for wins but when you're losing is when the timing can make all the difference ie when you need the subs the most. A few examples of sub differences being inconsequential in victory -

- N'Gog scored the winner against Leeds, he started.
- Liverpool were 4-1 up against Hull before Babel came on
- Kuyt scored the winner over Debrecen on 45 mins
- we were 3-0 up against Burnley before the 1st sub
- both subs vs the mancs were well after Torres' 65th minute opener
- we were 2-0 up over Stoke by half-time, won 4-0

So your point is predominantly drivel aimed at trying to undermine a point rather than actually contesting the content. I could suggest you didn't do the stats because you feared they'd prove my point not your's, but I doubt you're that 'clever'

by **Benny The Noon** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 1:59 pm

Actually Owzat i prefer to look at the actual game and what is going on as opposed to focusing my whole football opinion based on stats .

I will use this quote again which i think is pretty apt for you

Statistics are like a lampost to a drunken man - more for leaning on than illumination.

Ie Stats are stats at the end of the day and are something that has arisen from the Sky Prem Domination of football . They can be manipulated in many ways to try and back up peoples argument or disprove peoples argument but stats on their own are just meaningless numbers - unless its points won , trophies won . Stats on subs - whatever next - stats on when a player uses his left foot or right foot or squeezes out a fart.

by **Owzat** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:01 pm

s@int wrote:Edit your post mate. not worth getting a card mate

What did you get your's for? Are you that bothered about cards, unless you mouth off like some of the aggressive little gobsh'tes on here then you're unlikely to be banned? Even then some of the gobsh'tes on here get away with it

by **account deleted by request** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:04 pm

Benny The Noon wrote:some like Nasri and Eduardo cost more than are whole team we played last night .

Have you forgotten that Babel who cost £11.5million played for us mate ? add in Kuyt £10million, Skrtel £6.5million and Cavalieri £3.5million and I think you are badly mistaken mate.

by **Owzat** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:05 pm

Benny The Noon wrote:Actually Owzat i prefer to look at the actual game and what is going on as opposed to focusing my whole football opinion based on stats .

I prefer to mix it up, looking at the "actual game" is good in some respects but some people can overvalue it

Benny The Noon wrote:I will use this quote again which i think is pretty apt for you

Statistics are like a lampost to a drunken man - more for leaning on than illumination.

Ie Stats are stats at the end of the day and are something that has arisen from the Sky Prem Domination of football . They can be manipulated in many ways to try and back up peoples argument or disprove peoples argument but stats on their own are just meaningless numbers - unless its points won , trophies won . Stats on subs - whatever next - stats on when a player uses his left foot or right foot or squeezes out a fart.

Pointless quotation first time around, and still equally pointless. I can tell you prefer hot air to hard facts, your last two or three posts PROVE that. As for the "manipulation" bullsh 1t, I'll refer you to one of my quotes - people will believe what they want to believe. VERY apt to people like you who set out to undermine the value of stats because they don't like what they show :rasp

by **Benny The Noon** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:05 pm

by **Owzat** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:06 pm

s@int wrote:
Benny The Noon wrote:some like Nasri and Eduardo cost more than are whole team we played last night .

Have you forgotten that Babel who cost £11.5million played for us mate ? add in Kuyt £10million, Skrtel £6.5million and Cavalieri £3.5million and I think you are badly mistaken mate.

It's pretty close, Nasri cost £15.8m and Eduardo £7.5m. But all in all only a handful of their players cost a fee, and of course it depends whether you include Aquilani (and what fee you can get anyone to agree he cost)

by **Benny The Noon** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:07 pm

s@int wrote:
Benny The Noon wrote:some like Nasri and Eduardo cost more than are whole team we played last night .

Have you forgotten that Babel who cost £11.5million played for us mate ? add in Kuyt £10million, Skrtel £6.5million and Cavalieri £3.5million and I think you are badly mistaken mate.

Ah i forgot Kuyt mate -

but still think overall i expect their team was more expensive.

by **Benny The Noon** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:08 pm

Wasnt Fabianski 5 mil , Ramsey 5 mil , Senderos 4 mil , Silvestre 3 mil Bendtner 3 mil ?!

by **account deleted by request** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:09 pm

Owzat wrote:
s@int wrote:Edit your post mate. not worth getting a card mate

What did you get your's for? Are you that bothered about cards, unless you mouth off like some of the aggressive little gobsh'tes on here then you're unlikely to be banned? Even then some of the gobsh'tes on here get away with it

I got mine for posting on behalf of someone mate.

I just thought it was better for him to edit his post than get a card for nothing. Better to save them for when you really need them

by **account deleted by request** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:17 pm

Benny The Noon wrote:Wasnt Fabianski 5 mil , Ramsey 5 mil , Senderos 4 mil , Silvestre 3 mil Bendtner 3 mil ?!

Fabianski was £2.5million Senderos £2.5million Silvester was undisclosed fee (probably about £1million if I remember right) and Bendtner was a freebie.

by **LFC2007** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:35 pm

Owzat wrote:...there's no flexibility in the approach/timing even though every game is different. Last night the subs got 16+ mins maximum, you can always HOPE the existing players on the pitch will somehow pull back one goal deficits. And if someone has played poorly for 55+ minutes, who is to say they will improve and it is a good idea to replace poor performers when it is clear they are performing poorly.

Teams and players often do improve during the course of a game though. The real questions are; what level has our performance been on the whole, if it's gone wrong - how wrong and if so, where it might be going wrong, and to what extent a substitution might remedy the problem and whether there are other ways of effecting a better performance; e.g. switching the formation or giving a player new instruction (or even just a kick up the backside). If it's going badly wrong and you're three goals down, you'd probably make a substitution or two or three at half-time as well as other changes; if you're down a goal but have been performing well, you might keep it as it is and instruct the players to stick at it. If it's 0-0 but you're getting dominated in the midfield and look likely to concede if it continues, you might not make a sub - you might just switch it around (e.g. Gerrard dropping back into midfield) and so on and so forth. Generally, because there are other options open to the manager other than simply making a substitution and because the players who've started are generally (certainly in our case) likely to be of poorer quality and consistency than those who started the game, more sub's are made after twenty minutes than they are ten. If it's going badly, that allows the instruction handed out and any other changes made to take effect. It's not sufficient to say that a substitution made was either right or wrong because it was made in a particular time interval. It must be a very tricky judgment to make at times, but exercising patience by giving the team enough time to turn it around is not by definition ill-advised. It can be as sensible or as ridiculous as making one too early.

Liverpool FC Forum

ARSENAL VS LIVERPOOL- carling cup - Wednesday 28 october 2009 19:45

Who is online