Our style of play

[Buzzo]

Just as a FYI - my point re solid back line is the entire team need to know there positions and responsibilities defensively, not just the back 4. And I don't see that at all.

[dom9]

So, our first goalless game.

I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. I thought we looked a lot more comfortable at the back yesterday, and yes there were fewer individual mistakes too (Reina got aay with one this time). Was the improved defensive performance to the detriment of the attack though? I'm not so sure it was. I think we still created a few chances that might have gone in on another day - 2 more woodworks too. But some of the build up play was more certainly more wasteful than we have seen this season.

[Lecter]

The most interesting thing yesterday was Stoke counter-acting our attempts to play the ball out from the keeper into the back four / midfield

I wondered how long it would be before we saw that done and it looked like it caused us a problem as we have nobody to aim for with kicks down field and equally we are absolutely ****ing hopeless at picking up on second balls

Was also interesting to see that for all Rodgers philosophy about possession Stoke had more than us (52%)

[Fredo]

We are simply not compact enough when we press and leave too many gaps behind, point mentioned by Dave. It's not about our back line at all, it's about how we defend as a team when we don't have the ball. The emphasis of Rodgers' tactics have been at expressing ourselves with the ball and trying to get it back as soon as possible within the area that the ball is lost. When that doesn't work, it leaves gaping holes within our 'lines'.

[Muddled]

It is about our back line Nigey, but I agree there are large voids of space between our lines and agree that we aren't compact enough. I guess it's a bit mix and match; Our defensive line on most ocassions is two split central defenders, a midfielder in the gap and our full-backs advanced. The space teams are exploiting is down either flank - behind the full-backs - thus pulling our centre-backs over to the ball, whilst our midfielders are letting players run off them. This means the opposition can have a pop from either side or put the ball on the penalty spot with our defenders facing the wrong way and on the wrong foot.

We were compact under Rafa (for example) because we didn't allow the ball behind us, I felt confident that for all the ball the opposition may have had, they would struggle to penetrate us. Under Rodgers (so far), our high line is not supported by tracking runners and we look heavily disjointed. Whilst Lucas isn't the only answer, imagine Johnson pushing forward and Lucas dropping off to whatever side Johnson has come from to occupy that space. Allen's natural tendency is to assist the play that is developing infront of him, not look as to what could happen behind him. And that's not a criticism of Allen, but we desperately miss a disciplined player. I also think the wide players could be doing more to help the full-back.

[dom9]

We are simply not compact enough when we press and leave too many gaps behind, point mentioned by Dave. It's not about our back line at all, it's about how we defend as a team when we don't have the ball. The emphasis of Rodgers' tactics have been at expressing ourselves with the ball and trying to get it back as soon as possible within the area that the ball is lost. When that doesn't work, it leaves gaping holes within our 'lines'.

Interestingly, the opposite seemed to happen against Stoke.

We were often careless with the ball and gave it away loads (Gerrard alone gave it away 46 times or something, Allen wasn't his usual composed self). On this occasion, the opposition were not able to exploit any gaping holes because there did not appear to be any.

The question is, was that down to the way that Stoke play (a not very progressive but disruptive tactical aproach), or because Liverpool changed their style a bit after being too open in previous games? Or both? Or something else?

[Neil Young]

More good questions, dom.

[dom9]

Alway.

[Muddled]

Interestingly, the opposite seemed to happen against Stoke.

We were often careless with the ball and gave it away loads (Gerrard alone gave it away 46 times or something, Allen wasn't his usual composed self). On this occasion, the opposition were not able to exploit any gaping holes because there did not appear to be any.

The question is, was that down to the way that Stoke play (a not very progressive but disruptive tactical aproach), or because Liverpool changed their style a bit after being too open in previous games? Or both? Or something else?

I think it was more to do with Stoke not knowing how to use the ball and surrendering possession back to us, only for us to gift it back. I think a team that had been set up to take us on yesterday would have had more luck in front of our goal.

I think we gave Stoke too much respect and instead of testing them on the deck, we played in to their hands with too many long balls and quite a few high which they mopped up easily.

[dom9]

I think it was more to do with Stoke not knowing how to use the ball and surrendering possession back to us, only for us to gift it back. I think a team that had been set up to take us on yesterday would have had more luck in front of our goal.

I think we gave Stoke too much respect and instead of testing them on the deck, we played in to their hands with too many long balls and quite a few high which they mopped up easily.

Perhaps, so that would imply that Rodgers either changed his tactics to a more direct approach for Stoke, or the players ignored their instructions. Or both. Or something else.

[marksared]

Perhaps, so that would imply that Rodgers either changed his tactics to a more direct approach for Stoke, or the players ignored their instructions. Or both. Or something else.

Exactly, because he did, inadvertently i would suggest.

Because our defending has been so bad i felt players wanted to get rid of the ball faster also there wasn't as mush movement(looking for the ball) as there has been in previous games add to that Gerrard forcing the play to often and we where quite simply disjointed.

[Muddled]

Perhaps, so that would imply that Rodgers either changed his tactics to a more direct approach for Stoke, or the players ignored their instructions. Or both. Or something else.

Something else. I think we were intimidated.

Oh, and Stoke pressed high meaning our defence bypassed our midfield and possession was lost again. Was just a bad day at the office.

[Fredo]

Interestingly, the opposite seemed to happen against Stoke.

We were often careless with the ball and gave it away loads (Gerrard alone gave it away 46 times or something, Allen wasn't his usual composed self). On this occasion, the opposition were not able to exploit any gaping holes because there did not appear to be any.

The question is, was that down to the way that Stoke play (a not very progressive but disruptive tactical aproach), or because Liverpool changed their style a bit after being too open in previous games? Or both? Or something else?

We weren't really able to develop our passing game in the first half and that was because Stoke were pressing hard and targeting Allen and disrupting our build up play. So, we resorted to a lot of straight balls forward and I noticed that our forwards, especially Suarez, were trying to make runs behind the defender. Understandable due to Stoke holding a high line. So, I think the tactics, or the way the players approached the problem Stoke posed, was good.

Second half we were all over them because Stoke were never ever going to keep up with that kind of pressing but as you say, we were careless at times and our final ball wasn't the best.

All of that seem to indicate that we're improving game by game and our main issue on Sunday was our carelessness / final ball, which is the most difficult thing to do in football when you're against packed defences.

[el matador]

The most interesting thing yesterday was Stoke counter-acting our attempts to play the ball out from the keeper into the back four / midfield

I wondered how long it would be before we saw that done and it looked like it caused us a problem as we have nobody to aim for with kicks down field and equally we are absolutely ****ing hopeless at picking up on second balls

Was also interesting to see that for all Rodgers philosophy about possession Stoke had more than us (52%)

thats interesting.

Rodgers did say in an interview that teams pushing up on us and pressing us high up the pitch from goal kicks were leaving themselves exposed with so many players behind a potential long pass into either our front man or the wide forward players.

but you're right, at present the midfield isnt stong enough to win second balls. I dont know whether its a player or a system thing. My guess its down to gerrard and sahin to pick up the second balls with allen covering in behind.

Neither of those two look like they want to do that type of dirty work whereas allen infront of lucas would probably be very very good at that.

[Mattshark]

The most interesting thing yesterday was Stoke counter-acting our attempts to play the ball out from the keeper into the back four / midfield

I wondered how long it would be before we saw that done and it looked like it caused us a problem as we have nobody to aim for with kicks down field and equally we are absolutely ****ing hopeless at picking up on second balls

Was also interesting to see that for all Rodgers philosophy about possession Stoke had more than us (52%)

Especially as Sky say we had 63.5% of the possession (as do other sources). Suggesting BBC have got incorrect stats.

Watching the game, we dominated possession.