Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chalkboard Reflections

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Chalkboard Reflections

    I've been playing about on the Guardian Chalkboards analysing yesterday's game.

    A couple of things strike me when it comes to the centre backs.

    The first is that Skrtel lost an awful lot of duels in the air. Yet what was curious is that Soto wasn't actually involved in many.

    This is odd because I'd have expected that Soto was in there to deal with the aerial threat, yet Skrtel was left to deal with two thirds of the aerial battle.

    I've not watched the full game back on LFCtv yet so I'll have to watch out for this, but would I be right in thinking that Skrtel was matched up with Kenwyne Jones and losing out? It was certainly Jones providing their aerial threat, not Fuller. So why wasn't Soto sent to mark Jones.

    Soto was only involved in 4 aerial battles compared to Skrtel's eight and Skrtel lost out on half of them. Soto won three of the four of his, but why wasn't he involved more?

    Was he asked to mark the wrong man? I'll be interested to view these aerial duels when I see the game, but you may have some thoughts yourself.

    The other really noticeable point from the Chalkboard is that in the entire 90 mins Liverpool failed to produce a single successful cross. This could be a comment on poor delivery or a commentary on lack of men in the box. It's hard to see from here, but it's a shocking stat.

    On the left pretty much all the responsibility for crossing into the box was Konchesky's. Rodriguez didn't deliver a single cross all game whether successful or not. Only Babel on the left delivered anything, one ball delivered from deep that was cut out by Collins.

    On the right hand side, there was little width either, as central players such as Kuyt, Gerrard and Ngog were the only ones delivering from wide areas, and even then not often.

    The right sided midfielder (on the day) Meireles only made one contribution and that was a ball in from a central area that was cut out by Wilkinson.

    As such our two wide players contributed just one attempted cross between them in the whole game and even then it wasn't successful and even then came from a pretty central area (two if you add Babel's deep, failed cross later on).

    Any thoughts?

    #2
    Maybe Stoke targeted Skrtel with the high ball, made sure Jones got himself close to him, etc.
    .
    Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.



    May the Lord bless this post.

    Comment


      #3
      Perhaps Neil, it raises a question on the lad's ability in the air though doesn't it, and you'd still think that we could have made sure that Soto was the one to deal with Jones' aerial threat and Skrtel's job to deal with Fuller.

      Comment


        #4
        Yes, I agree with you there. The thing is Skrtel has never looked dominant in the air (then again neither has Carragher or Agger) so that marking scheme seems so illogical I can only assume it's at least partly down to Stoke's tactics rather than just Hodgson's decision.

        Of course my argument is weakened by the fact that illogical decisions and Hodgson go together like flies and ****.
        .
        Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.



        May the Lord bless this post.

        Comment


          #5
          Yup true. You'd think too that if that was Stoke's tactic that we could have responded to deal with the danger rather than leaving Skrtel to keep getting beat in the air.

          Is there only you and I discussing the finer tactical points then Neil? Makes me wish I had a pipe and a glass of brandy.

          Comment


            #6
            if it were me managing liverpool in its current state away to stoke, i'd tell the players not to bother too much with crossing, as our forward line is never going to get on the end of anything against 5 guys all over 6 feet tall. i remember yelling as much at the telebox.

            maybe roy had a similar idea, although i'd hate to think he could be anything like me.
            dave of mutilation

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by alunevans View Post
              Yup true. You'd think too that if that was Stoke's tactic that we could have responded to deal with the danger rather than leaving Skrtel to keep getting beat in the air.

              Is there only you and I discussing the finer tactical points then Neil? Makes me wish I had a pipe and a glass of brandy.


              If you you want a good tactical conversation then you really need dww to be online but he's probably locked himself in his lab again this weekend.

              I notice that as soon as you mention brandy then Hedgehog suddenly shows up with an empty glass.
              .
              Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.



              May the Lord bless this post.

              Comment


                #8
                come on, don't be stingy. fill it all the way up, and let's talk about that ambassadorial gala next month.
                dave of mutilation

                Comment


                  #9
                  .
                  Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.



                  May the Lord bless this post.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    baron von chuddanduff did invite you didn't he? his daughter will be coming out that night.
                    dave of mutilation

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X