Utd - Liverpool post match

[danperkins]

The thing that we have lost with Mascherano that we need to replace is the fact that he would be straight in the face of the opposition right from kick off. He would niggle all day, not give anyone more than 2 seconds on the ball hunting down play - a NIGHTMARE to play against.

Mascherano also managed to foul quite a lot without picking up as many yellows as he deserved (I always thought he'd get booked about 20 mins before he evenyually did). I don't see who we have who will get ripped into the opposition and let them know they can't dictate play... Unless we clone Gerrard - who we seem to need in about 4 positions as usual.

I think Poulsen looks an ok aquisition, but I am not sure he is perfect for us just now.

However I am yet to understand quite how Roy wants us to play so this point is very much moot just now.

Masch in undoubtedly the best at what he does, he is a destroyer but a destroyer is not essential in todays game. With Poulsen its early days, people are looking for scapegoats and answers as we've been **** so far. Combination of bad luck, new players, lack or urgency, poxy fixtures list amoung others have added to our misery.

I think Poulsen has done quite well, i was very sceptical about his signing but have been pleasantly surprised thus far and he is nowhere near fully bedded in yet, he is still adapting.

My point about him being better for us at the moment than Masch in our current squad is because at the moment we have no width, there is zero productivity coming form wide areas, we are relying on the creativity to come centrally in Gerrard and Merieles etc with Poulsen in there (who is much better technically on the ball than Masch and more composed) it gives us another option centrally being so sparce on the wings, hence my point about why he is better option for us with current team, i think its a very valid point.

I mean if it was a case where we had 2 out and out wingers, on either side and a ball player centrally Masch would be fantastic to sit on clean up, but that just isn't the case at LFC at the moment.

Anyways I think in a month or so we'll see how Liverpool play under Roy Hodgson, at the moment its very difficult to assess as there as so many factors involved in why we aren't winning and playing well. There will be zero excuses come a months times or so.

[Craig_H]

How about playing Cole behind Torres and Gerrard on the Right?!?

Gerrard and Cole could then swap places as and when they wanted to hopefully leading to opposition teams unsure how to or who should mark either of them.

We would have Poulsen and Meireles in the middle and would only have to decide who to play on the left.

I dont see the reasoning of why to do that. Plus Kuyt is as good a wide option that we have, Cole/Gerrard aside, and he obviously plays on the right.

As someone else mentioned, Gerrard is proven to get goals from playing off Torres - Cole hasnt. Gerrard will largely get 20 goals a season, i dont think Cole would. Plus, Gerrard is better at linking up with Torres and finding the killer ball through to him, whilst Cole is a better dribbler - and you get more dribbling space out wide, than you do through the middle.

[SimonNo7]

Agree totally. The problem hasnt been the playing of Gerrard off Torres, it's been getting the ball from deeper positions, upto Gerrard and Torres - Alonso used to do it, we now need Meireles to do that job.

The key points for me:

Gerrard & Torres works well.
We are weak in wide areas.
Joe Cole is quality and can strengthen our wide areas.

No brainer for me.

How about playing Cole behind Torres and Gerrard on the Right?!?

Gerrard and Cole could then swap places as and when they wanted to hopefully leading to opposition teams unsure how to or who should mark either of them.

We would have Poulsen and Meireles in the middle and would only have to decide who to play on the left.

[Shaggy]

I'm not sure I agree with that. I think Mascherano was somewhat underrated on the ball, because he tended to just give short passes. But every now and then he'd pull of a nice long pass, and he even produced the odd dribble.

Very underrated on the ball if you ask me. Obviously he's no Alonso but by the same token he's also no Sissoko. Seems to be a fair bit of revisionism going on here. Now he's gone Mascherano is suddenly a black hole for the ball. I think that's garbage.

[Neil Young]

I'm not sure I agree with that. I think Mascherano was somewhat underrated on the ball, because he tended to just give short passes. But every now and then he'd pull of a nice long pass, and he even produced the odd dribble.

He also didn't hang on to it for 25 seconds before passing it square.

[Reece]

Surely most sensible people knew Insua was better than Konchesky and would only improve further?
As for Mascherano v Poulson they are different in terms of Poulson is less frenetic and probably better on the ball but everyone accepts Mascherano is one of the best at what he does.

I'm not sure I agree with that. I think Mascherano was somewhat underrated on the ball, because he tended to just give short passes. But every now and then he'd pull of a nice long pass, and he even produced the odd dribble.

[Buzzo]

Insua is average as is Konchesky, would perfer Aurelio to both. Whether he can get fit any time this century who knows.

In our current team with so few ball players, complete lack of creativity and genuinely uncomfortable nervousness on the ball, Poulsen is much better suited to us than Masch, he is not as good as Masch for breaking up play, and doesn't have Maschs dogged and energetic style but in a midfield that is lacking guile,creativty and smarts Masch didn't give us anything in that department. Different story with Alonso there pulling the strings, Masch could just sit a clean house. All changed now IMO and with our current personel Poulsen fits in nicely and gives more to the team overall than Masch would.

P.S. Nobody is saying Poulsen is better than Masch

The thing that we have lost with Mascherano that we need to replace is the fact that he would be straight in the face of the opposition right from kick off. He would niggle all day, not give anyone more than 2 seconds on the ball hunting down play - a NIGHTMARE to play against.

Mascherano also managed to foul quite a lot without picking up as many yellows as he deserved (I always thought he'd get booked about 20 mins before he evenyually did). I don't see who we have who will get ripped into the opposition and let them know they can't dictate play... Unless we clone Gerrard - who we seem to need in about 4 positions as usual.

I think Poulsen looks an ok aquisition, but I am not sure he is perfect for us just now.

However I am yet to understand quite how Roy wants us to play so this point is very much moot just now.

[danperkins]

Surely most sensible people knew Insua was better than Konchesky and would only improve further?
As for Mascherano v Poulson they are different in terms of Poulson is less frenetic and probably better on the ball but everyone accepts Mascherano is one of the best at what he does.

What I will say though is regardless of the quality of the player I would always want someone who actually wants to be playing for Liverpool over someone who doesn't.

Mascherano and maybe to a lesser degree Insua (we don't really know if he was forced out or chose to go) didn't want to be here

[Fredo]

Insua is average as is Konchesky, would perfer Aurelio to both. Whether he can get fit any time this century who knows.

In our current team with so few ball players, complete lack of creativity and genuinely uncomfortable nervousness on the ball, Poulsen is much better suited to us than Masch, he is not as good as Masch for breaking up play, and doesn't have Maschs dogged and energetic style but in a midfield that is lacking guile,creativty and smarts Masch didn't give us anything in that department. Different story with Alonso there pulling the strings, Masch could just sit a clean house. All changed now IMO and with our current personel Poulsen fits in nicely and gives more to the team overall than Masch would.

P.S. Nobody is saying Poulsen is better than Masch just better all rounder

How could you say that Poulsen gives us more than Macherano? He's played a handful of games for us and you've seen that he's 'fitting in nicely'? From what I've seen he gives nothing to this team. He can't get forward, he just sits there and for every ball he receives, he's one pass close to giving it away. He did improve after his woeful start to the game on Sunday though, but it's absolutely ludicrous to say that he'll be a better player than Mascher.

[The Birdman]

Still early days though, although having seen him play for years I don't expect it to change.

And talk of Poulsen being "better for us" than Mascherano was is absolutely laughable

Agreed

Konchesky is appalling hes no better than Insua

Cant believe we shelled out over £5 million for him

Agreed regarding Poulsen

Surely most sensible people knew Insua was better than Konchesky and would only improve further?
As for Mascherano v Poulson they are different in terms of Poulson is less frenetic and probably better on the ball but everyone accepts Mascherano is one of the best at what he does.

What I will say though is regardless of the quality of the player I would always want someone who actually wants to be playing for Liverpool over someone who doesn't.

Mascherano and maybe to a lesser degree Insua (we don't really know if he was forced out or chose to go) didn't want to be here

[danperkins]

One thing I noticed Konchesky did on Sunday which I thought at the time Insua wouldn't have done was head the ball away from one of the United strikers at the far post.

Other than that, he looks as poor as I expected. There is a reason he isn't challenging Leighton Baines and Stephen Warnock for the England reserve left back spot and it's not because those two have masses of European experience because they don't.

Konchesky looked like he had lead in his arse on Sunday but can you imagine Insua trying to mark Nani too? Insua always looked like he'd taken a **** in his pants. What i would give for pace the likes of Cole,Evra,Clichy etc

[Neil Young]

One thing I noticed Konchesky did on Sunday which I thought at the time Insua wouldn't have done was head the ball away from one of the United strikers at the far post.

Other than that, he looks as poor as I expected. There is a reason he isn't challenging Leighton Baines and Stephen Warnock for the England reserve left back spot and it's not because those two have masses of European experience because they don't.

[danperkins]

Insua is average as is Konchesky, would perfer Aurelio to both. Whether he can get fit any time this century who knows.

In our current team with so few ball players, complete lack of creativity and genuinely uncomfortable nervousness on the ball, Poulsen is much better suited to us than Masch, he is not as good as Masch for breaking up play, and doesn't have Maschs dogged and energetic style but in a midfield that is lacking guile,creativty and smarts Masch didn't give us anything in that department. Different story with Alonso there pulling the strings, Masch could just sit a clean house. All changed now IMO and with our current personel Poulsen fits in nicely and gives more to the team overall than Masch would.

P.S. Nobody is saying Poulsen is better than Masch just better all rounder

[Buzzo]

I've seen nothing of Konchesky to convince me he's any better than Insua so far. In fact I think we've lost something going forward if anything.

If anything Konchesky has been even worse than I imagined so far. Yes, yes, early days etc. etc. give him a chance etc. etc. - but watching him play you can see he is giving it his all, he looks just out of his depth. Watch Sundays game back and look at him trying to block some of Nani's crosses. Woeful.

[Lecter]

Still early days though, although having seen him play for years I don't expect it to change.

And talk of Poulsen being "better for us" than Mascherano was is absolutely laughable

Agreed regarding Poulsen