Liverpool FC Forum

by **catenacio** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 3:06 am

I am so glad to see a return to the treble winning counter attacking style of play. When will people realise that the personnel are NOT good enough for us to compete in an open manner with the top teams. We hit teams on the break - it works - we get fourth place. Not pretty but pretty-effective.

I feel gerard tried to change our style of play too soon and got his fingers burned. 2 more years of counter attack please monsieur until the 3 french lads mature - then we'll take on the mancs on even terms.

by **simic_ie** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 12:21 pm

Counter attacking is all well and good against the 3 or 4 teams in the league who will attack us but there is still a need for attacking play against the teams who are willing to sit and wait for the draw,

by **Cool Hand Luke** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 3:18 pm

It is not a complete couter attack system, we have the ability to break teams down aswell.

We have adopted a back to basics approach, defend first(Henchoz at right back), and let the creative players do their job, this is the way Houllier knows. He should stick to what he knows.

He gave in to the Media pressure and the influence of Christain Damanio. Do things your own way Houllier, don't listen to these ***** who don't know anything about football.

Also, we transformed into a super defensive team, when Phil Thompson took over, he had an excellent record but it has had long term effects on us.

by **115-1073096938** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 3:26 pm

Agree.

Stick to what you know best and play to your strengths.

Liverpools are defending from deep positions and attacking from deep positions.

by **JBG** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 4:58 pm

And watch the Championships roll in

Stu, I hope I'm wrong, but we are NEVER going to win the league playing counterattcking football.

How are we going to beat Charlton and Leicester at home when they don't want to atatck us unless its on corners and free kicks?

Fair enough, maybe Houllier should revert to basics and play counterattacking football to get him out of the current hole, and it might even get us the 4th spot.

However, by doing this he is admitting that he failed in trying to change his style this season and last, and somehow I don't think Liverpool will have as much success this time around as they had in 2001 and 2002, as football has moved on.

You need to play attacking possession football to win the league. I'd prefer if we'd concentrate on that rather than falling back to old bad habits.

I mean, how many times did we give the ball away against Villa on Saturday? You simply cannot do that week in week out: you'll eventually get found out.

by **greenred** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 5:01 pm

how do we explain last season when we completely fell apart playing this way?Whats changed?We have a worse team if anything.

by **JBG** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 5:08 pm

I knew that as soon as Houllier won a couple of games his supporters would be back here gloating about how we should return to the football of 2001.

I mean, who the hell outside Anfield reckon that Liverpool are good enough to put up any kind of Championship challenge next season, counterattacking or whatever?

by **115-1073096938** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 7:44 pm

With counter attacking football we won a cup treble.

With counter attacking football we finished second, finished above Manchester United, got to the Europian Champions league quarter final were we were beaten by finalists and acheived 80 points in the premier league. Again thats 80 points which is a league winning total most seasons. With Kewell in the side instead of Smicer i am sure that would have been more than 80 points.

Liverpool are good at this type of game. People who think we played this way last season need to wake up. We tried to expand and play a more attacking style playing with a higher defensive line and we didn't have the players to do it so it basically fell apart and made us look stupid.

With the right players it doesn't matter what "style" you play as long as its effective. Liverpool have the quality now to break sides down that want to come and defend. Counter attacking should be the way forward, the main style of play.

But we need to have the adaptability to change during a game, which is something we are starting to get.

by **JBG** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 7:53 pm

We won a cup treble - an excellent achievement by Houllier - but I think every Liverpool fan I know would swap all the cups won since 1990 for a Championship.

It is true Stu that we 80 points in 2002 was an excellent achievement. However, you seem to overlook the fact that we still finished second. I laugh when Houllier said that 80 points would have won Liverpool the league in other years.....the point of the Championship is that you have to adapt to the league and results around you in the given year and still come out on top.

Houllier really is the master of spin.

I know I would prefer to win the league on 71 points than get 81 and come second.

The way we play will not win us the league and never will. Its wasteful in that we give away possession far too easily and don't play to the strengths of some of our best players. Gerrard, Kewell and Owen would relish playing in a side that played good attacking, possession football.

Nobody really believes - other than Houllier and his supporters - that Liverpool are going to win the league this way playing the way we do.

by **catenacio** » Mon Jan 12, 2004 11:37 pm

JBG whilst i agree with you that wastefulness in posession is one of the seven deadly sins, i feel you are missing the point of this thread. Only you are talking about winning the league. The others and myself are endorsing his acceptance that we are NOT GOOD ENOUGH to win the league yet and hence have gone back to the more effective style of counter attacking.

Dont forget that he bought the majority of our players with that system in mind.

by **115-1073096938** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 12:42 am

The way we play will not win us the league and never will. Its wasteful in that we give away possession far too easily and don't play to the strengths of some of our best players. Gerrard, Kewell and Owen would relish playing in a side that played good attacking, possession football.

Right the players. Ok, i'll explain one or two things and point out that playing to the strengths of the team is not playing fancy dan passing at all times.

The back 4 or Carragher, Hyypia, Henchoz, Finnan are suited to playing a deep line. NONE of these players have natural pace or natural recovering pace like Traore or for want of a better example Sol Campbell. These players are ALL good positionally, good in the air, good at reading the game, good at marking and good at stopping players going past them. If they push up towards the halfway line this leaves space in behind which teams can simply knock a ball into and pacey fowards can run onto and get clear cut chances.

The midfield. The pace of Gerrard and Kewell, the intelligence of Murphy and Hamann, the way Hamann protects the back four again suits this style. Hamann is a natural ball winner, as is Steven Gerrard (altho a different kind more of a box to box midfielder). Both of these are hard working industrious type players with good stamina and work rates. Murphy also has good stamina and a good work ethic. Murphy, Kewell and Gerrard are capable of playing through balls from which pacey forwards run onto. Murphy and Gerrard are not techniquely superb. Murphy is the better of the two in this small area but neither are upto the standard required to play fast flowing one touch football. Hamann is also not an attacking player as such. He starts most of the attacks and is superb in possession hardly ever giving the ball away however he lacks the movement and athletisism to play an attacking style.

So to play attacking football, Hamann lacks the movement and athletisism as does Murphy, Gerrard lacks the technical ability, Kewell could play this way but has other strengths aswell which suit a counter attacking game.

The attack - Owen, Pace, Movement, Finishing one on one with the keeper, his decision making, ability to read the pass and defensive positioning which allow him to spring beyond defenders.

Baros - Pace, Movement, Dribbling and Enthusiasm.

Heskey - Pace, Power, Unselfishness

Pongolle - Pace, Movement.

All the strikers are suited to this style more than any other. Owen, Heskey, Baros and Pongolle are going to score goals off through balls more so than crosses into the box. The counter attacking style is designed for quick players with good movement and defensive capabilities.

Gerrard and Hamann are both defensive midfielders, Owen hold his position excellently, Heskey defends well, Hyypia, Henchoz and Carragher are all defensive players.

If we had a team of say...

Chris Kirkland

Steve Finnan
Boumsong
Sami Hyypia
Ashley Cole

Steed Malbranque
Joe Cole
Steven Gerrard
Harry Kewell

Michael Owen
Gujonsson then maybe i'd agree with the attacking style as that side "TECHNICALLY" is far superior and also has alot more movement and athletisism.

by **catenacio** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:54 am

Stu, whilst in essence i agree with your general appreciation of counter attacking, i must point one thing out to you. Dietmar Hamann is an attacking player. He is, i concede, also an exceptional defensive player.

Cast your mind back to the reason why we bought him....... remember that goal scoring attacking centre mid ?[I]

by **115-1073096938** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 2:21 am

Obviously that wasn't why he was signed or he would have been played like this from day 1. To me an attacking player is Zidane, Owen, Henry, Giggs. Players with pace, flair, creativety, goalscoring ability, the ability to dribble and be direct.

Hamann's strengths are his Tackling, Ball winning, Passing, Decision making, Positional play, Anticipation, Break up play, Link play, Tenacity and Work rate. He certainly isn't going to win you alot of games with individual brilliance and he's not at all direct. so therefore he is a defensive player.

Yes or No?

Not meant to sound patronising just asking if u'd agree with what i say

by **catenacio** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 2:29 am

No offence taken stu - i like direct english!

Dietmar was bought on the strength of his excellent work in newcastles midfield. Much of this was attacking - OK.

I have previously implied that he is better defensively (possibly due to houllier exclusively playing him there!) but i will shout it if u like :;):

by **115-1073096938** » Tue Jan 13, 2004 4:55 am

Yes i agree his best work at Newcastle was attacking play.

But his strengths are defensive play. He is a great player that was wrongly utilised at Newcastle. Yes he scored goals but alot more to his game comes out in this particular system.

Its like with Stevey Gerrard, i think he should be given a free role. Told to chase the ball, win tackles, drive forward, have a shot, play a through ball or long ball if the opportunity arises.

If you play him soley in a defensive role you lose the drive and attacking power he adds to the team, if you use him as an attacking midfielder you lose the slightly stronger defensive side to his game.

Its all about playing players to there strengths.

Basically i agree with what you're saying end of argument.

lol

Liverpool FC Forum

Counter attack please monsieur

Who is online