Liverpool - The Verdict

AlGard said:
Putting this one down to incredible bad luck against the best team in Europe.

It really is a repeat of the 89-90 season when the injuries just kept coming, and that
ended in relegation.

Positives are, we are unlikely to sell a crocked Ake in January, or Wilson for that matter.

God knows what team we can put out next week. We might have to dip in to our
"Prince Andrew" squad.....The Under 18's.
Click to expand...

In 1990, the injuries came later in the season, along with the sale of Paul Moulden, IIRC. We were 12th at the end of January having had a so-so season up to that point.

This time, I hope we can start getting our key players back in Jan, though by then we will most likely have a bottom 3 position to fight ourselves out of.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Apparently Howe has said that he doesn't like three in the middle because you need a box to box midfielder to pull it off correctly and he doesn't think we have one. Gosling being the closest to that type of player.
Click to expand...
If Eddie has genuinely said that it’s one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard. He himself has bigged up Lerma as having more box to box qualities than a standard DM. And what about Billing? He can’t seriously be suggesting that a player with his athleticism is incapable of playing a box to box role.
 
In the circumstances playing perhaps the best squad in Europe and losing 2 players to what looks like hamstring injuries yet again the result was not too bad.

Still concerned that after Wolves and Palace Eddie places faith in the back tracking Francis over Jack Stacy. What message does that send out . Also Billing in preference to Lewis Cook albeit he may not be fully match fit. As for Solanke yet again I don't get him one bit but on paper now our only recognised striker continuing the tradition of a non scoring centre forward.

We had to chase the game as of late and the team looks jaded and totally out of confidence.

Plan B with 3 in midfield, Lerma Cook L and Gosling, to protect the back 4 if works for other teams?
 
Tinpot Club said:
If Eddie has genuinely said that it’s one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard. He himself has bigged up Lerma as having more box to box qualities than a standard DM. And what about Billing? He can’t seriously be suggesting that a player with his athleticism is incapable of playing a box to box role.
Click to expand...

It was said by Peter Rutzler in a discussion on The Athletic site. Tbf Howe only said the first bit, the rest is Rutzler's opinion albeit possibly informed by the discussion with Howe:

"I asked Howe on Monday about playing a midfield three, and he said in order to play that way you need a proper number 8 (box to box creative but also dominant midfielder). At the moment Bournemouth don't really have that. I'm not sure Cook could play there, he is more of a deep lying creator and also has strong defensive attributes. Billing and Lerma are certainly more defensive. Dan Gosling is perhaps the closest example."
 
SlowDownDerek said:
It was said by Peter Rutzler in a discussion on The Athletic site. Tbf Howe only said the first bit, the rest is Rutzler's opinion albeit possibly informed by the discussion with Howe:

"I asked Howe on Monday about playing a midfield three, and he said in order to play that way you need a proper number 8 (box to box creative but also dominant midfielder). At the moment Bournemouth don't really have that. I'm not sure Cook could play there, he is more of a deep lying creator and also has strong defensive attributes. Billing and Lerma are certainly more defensive. Dan Gosling is perhaps the closest example."
Click to expand...
That’s one way of playing three in midfield (a flat three with one breaking) the other way is you leave two sitting and have a number ten, which we do have in Wilson. That to me would seem the best option.
 
The quality of the opposition gets Howe through this one, and injuries will be a good smokescreen from now on - but we've been poor for a while.

This is no easy league and we're going to need something special to turn it around with a combination of injuries, form and players than clearly don't want to be here along with a history of signing 1 player that really enhances the squad for every 4 transfers we make.

Rose tints on here have been complacent thinking we'll turn it around, and maybe we will - but now with these injures we'll be drawing when we should be winning, and losing when we would have scraped a point and that puts us in severe danger.

Those games where we could/should have done better yet passed off as 'one of those days' now look to have been crucial.
 
Tinpot Club said:
If Eddie has genuinely said that it’s one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever heard. He himself has bigged up Lerma as having more box to box qualities than a standard DM. And what about Billing? He can’t seriously be suggesting that a player with his athleticism is incapable of playing a box to box role.
Click to expand...

Billings is def a box 2 box when he can be bothered. I think lerma and Billings with brooks slightly ahead as a 10 will be more creative and add the 3 up top.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
It was said by Peter Rutzler in a discussion on The Athletic site. Tbf Howe only said the first bit, the rest is Rutzler's opinion albeit possibly informed by the discussion with Howe:

"I asked Howe on Monday about playing a midfield three, and he said in order to play that way you need a proper number 8 (box to box creative but also dominant midfielder). At the moment Bournemouth don't really have that. I'm not sure Cook could play there, he is more of a deep lying creator and also has strong defensive attributes. Billing and Lerma are certainly more defensive. Dan Gosling is perhaps the closest example."
Click to expand...

Ok makes a little more sense in context. But if Howe or Peter Rutzler are referring to more of a creative no. 8 than a traditional box to box midfielder, I’d like to mention Harry Wilson or David Brooks. Especially if played alongside the “certainly more defensive” Lerma and Billing.
 
Team who ended the game...

Ramsdale £800,000

Francis Free
Mepham £12,000,000
Simpson Free
Rico £11,000,000

Fraser £400,000
Lerma £21,000,000
Cook £6,000,000
Gosling Free
Danjuma £13,000,000

Solanke £14,000,000

£78,2000,000

Thats a lot of money. That one whole Liverpool player ;)
 
Some of the piss-taking on this thread is not helpful.

Key issues: Eddie’s obsession with two in midfield is completely baffling. Play two against Henderson, Milner and Keita??? Ake or no Ake you get stuffed - and we were lucky to get away with 0-3.

Some of our squad players are way off the PL level required. Mepham - slow and error-prone; Simpson - all left foot. Scary to think they might be our CB pairing in coming weeks.

Solutions? Eddie constantly says problems will be put right on the training pitch but it’s not happening. For me the key issue is midfield where we MUST play a three. There’s a case for trying Kilkenny AND we should recruit next month for a creative midfielder - whatever we spend will be an investment in PL survival. Defence? I’d risk Francis at CB and play Stacey.

Eddie - take a break for a few days and have a serious think about strategy and tactics. We love you mate - but it’s time to change before so much of your good work is undone.
 
When we played with the greater possession in nearly all our games.. guess what..it meant that. guess what ..the other team didny have the ball Jimmy ...therefore could not damage us beyond fightbacks!
Now then ...the popular buzz is that Possession does not necessarily Win you games. fair comment, but neither is it in any way suicidal over the 90 minutes....and surely is better placed to avoid drubbings by Salahs and Sons and Sterlingaldos!
Possession also enabled build ups for creating openings .. thinking time!
Counter attacking is Ok in limited games when strikers are hot in form and the opposition gets on top of the possession early on.
 
Good news from Callum. Said afterwards he's ok. King did a bit of a sprint to his car so could be ok for Chelsea.

Unfortunately Cookie says he has to have an operation on his wrist so won't be back 'til sometime in January.
 
Jim_AFCB said:
In 1990, the injuries came later in the season, along with the sale of Paul Moulden, IIRC. We were 12th at the end of January having had a so-so season up to that point.

This time, I hope we can start getting our key players back in Jan, though by then we will most likely have a bottom 3 position to fight ourselves out of.
Click to expand...

Fixtures in January and February look more favourable. But then so did Norwich, Watford and Wolves at home!
 
AlGard said:
Putting this one down to incredible bad luck against the best team in Europe.

It really is a repeat of the 89-90 season when the injuries just kept coming, and that
ended in relegation.

Positives are, we are unlikely to sell a crocked Ake in January, or Wilson for that matter.

God knows what team we can put out next week. We might have to dip in to our
"Prince Andrew" squad.....The Under 18's.
Click to expand...
Thats naughty!

Fair assessment. I'm confident/hopeful we will turn it around. It may be the narrowest of escapes but I'm hanging in there.
 
Neil Dawson said:
Our squad is premier league quality. We kept all of our players and added good players to it. It wasn’t that long ago that the wisdom on here was it was the best squad we ever had.
Click to expand...

Talent wise I believe it is the strongest team ever. But not all parts fit together. Wilson plays wing when he is better inside. Two defensive midfielders are our ONLY midfielders. Frano instead of better faster options. Bad tactics, bad formations, frustrated players. It’s a lethal combination.
 
Neil Dawson said:
We used to regularly have 60% possession. We now regularly have 35- 40% possession this is a well recognised fact CB. It’s harder work chasing the ball than it is playing with it. This leads to tiredness and tired bodies get injured.

Fair enough to disagree with this but it’s not drivel it’s logic! What do you put our injuries down to In the two seasons since we changed to counter attacking football? Coincidence? Luck?
Click to expand...

Possession, as per the stats online, is determined by passing.

Thus, should we kick off and pass the ball upfield to Josh King who runs up and down 'the channel' with the ball for 9 minutes, then loses the ball to the opposition, who pass the ball 10 times in the next 60 seconds, it will be deemed that we have had 10 percent possesion and the other team, 90 percent possession.
 
rgb said:
Possession, as per the stats online, is determined by passing.

Thus, should we kick off and pass the ball upfield to Josh King who runs up and down 'the channel' with the ball for 9 minutes, then loses the ball to the opposition, who pass the ball 10 times in the next 60 seconds, it will be deemed that we have had 10 percent possesion and the other team, 90 percent possession.
Click to expand...
And rightly so. For a stat to be accurate it has to be meaningful. King dribbling up and down the channel for 9 mins would be such an improbable event, any stat which measures such play as constructive to the team would be absurd.
 
All pedantry aside with the calculation of possession stats, our lack of possession is a real worry. We know retaining the ball is going to be difficult for us since, Spurs game aside, we play in straight lines rather than triangles.

The main worry is our completely non existent pressing. If it’s a tactical choice it’s not working. And if it’s not a tactical choice then I can’t see how it can be anything other than being set up poorly to attempt a press or simply laziness.
 
Oh at least Callums ok, we would've missed his goals and performances otherwise. Shrek & Donkey upfront rejoice, be scared Chelsea
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;