Notices
Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 91 to 112 of 112

Thread: Does how we play matter?

  1. #91  
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    14,660
    Quote Originally Posted by robertretford View Post
    .....in my heels, I forgot to say in my heels.
    Puma Queens?
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  2. #92  
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    22,975
    Quote Originally Posted by -Topper- View Post
    Puma Queens?
    Adidas Stiltz.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  3. #93  
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    402
    ofc I don't know why this is a question. what are you trying to infer or imply by asking that question, ofc results are the most important thing it's what your club is dependant on, but supporters come to watch entertaining football. are you implying we're making a choice with the way we play? (if you are... I don't think I like that)
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  4. #94  
    TheDarknessIsCalling is online now Academy prospect
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    17,842
    Quote Originally Posted by davevietnam View Post
    Or is winning all that matters. What is important to you.

    I occasionally hear comments mainly derogatory when the word entertaining gets mentioned but for me its a vital factor and reason to keep me watching, you also hear comments like I would take 38 1-0 wins, but would you, same as if we had a manager who played really negative anti football but we where still challenging, would it matter to you.
    I doubt you'd be that successful, certainly not consistently, playing "negative anti football" but it is swings and roundabouts. It's being able to play flowing football that brings about goals whilst not opening up too much at the back and conceding lots as well.


    On the one hand I wouldn't want to watch flowing passing football that had no end product, or "pretty football" I think a lot of people refer to it as, but on the flip side I wouldn't want to watch "route one" football either. This is kind of an old hat of a question anyway, loaded question in the main knowing what most people are likely to say. Winning is important, not "at any cost" certainly but ultimately if you have a side that can't play an expansive game that is not unpleasing on the eye you ain't going to be winning that much anyway.

    We need to add a killer instinct to our game, shut out silly goals conceded and make more of possession and chances. People have been going on about Sturridge and Origi quite a bit recently, perhaps the reason our goals and form have dried up is because we have our "front six" as someone put it and they are great when everything is going well, but too easily blunted and maybe not enough "20 a season" goalscorers in among them, not that it isn't possible some will score 20+ but at current rate Mane is only just on 11 with 2/3 of the season gone and Firmino, who several people recently are saying is a striker (not that some weren't before) is on course for another run of the mill double figures but not much more having only ONCE scored 16 in a league campaign but is on course to edge out his next best 10 goals.

    What strikers should do for you is pop up with goals when you need them, not just the volume they bring. Sure you want a Lallana, even a Lovren or anyone in the side to pop up with that winner but a lot of our scorers are great when we're on top in a game, not so visible when it is needed though.


    So to cap off a cliché filled post, winning is the main thing and to win consistently enough when you want to challenge for the title you will need to play a better than scrappy brand of football all the time. Some years ago I came up with a list of the order in which you should aim for things as a team/manager, in some cases you don't start at the bottom, but in a nutshell it goes like this:

    Reduce the amount of goals you are losing by
    Make yourself difficult to beat
    Compete in games
    Go on a run containing a few draws or even wins
    Win a few games
    Go on an unbeaten run
    Win more games than you don't
    Go on a winning run
    Win 20+ games a season = top four challenge
    Win 27+ games a season = title challenge

    You could spin in the style of football into it or even work on a refined list to make maybe a concise 10 steps. We were near the bottom, well technically top of that list, now we're back down to the compete/win a few games kind of ambition/level. At times you need to dig in and scrap to a win or two, but from where we were earlier in the season we ought to be able to win with a little panache, and I don't mean small bra (apparently there's a range of lingerie called Panache! ) Some games in recent times our players were more comparable with the contents of a bra)
    People will believe what they want to believe
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  5. #95  
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    207
    Quote Originally Posted by LW94 View Post
    I think too many people look at this as a black or white thing - Chelsea are considered a defensive side yet they've scored 2 or 3 less league goals than us. Can't imagine Chelsea fans leaving the stadium thinking 'how boring was that?'
    Are they considered defensive or just very solid ?
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  6. #96  
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    23,227
    Quote Originally Posted by RumFizz View Post
    Are they considered defensive or just very solid ?
    I would say solid.
    They are no way as entertaining as us up front, but their overall balance is much better than ours. If we could add a solid defensive base to our current team, not just in defense but in midfield to we would be an excellent team, obviously I'm just stating the obvious here.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  7. #97  
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    22,935
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDarknessIsCalling View Post
    I doubt you'd be that successful, certainly not consistently, playing "negative anti football" but it is swings and roundabouts. It's being able to play flowing football that brings about goals whilst not opening up too much at the back and conceding lots as well.


    On the one hand I wouldn't want to watch flowing passing football that had no end product, or "pretty football" I think a lot of people refer to it as, but on the flip side I wouldn't want to watch "route one" football either. This is kind of an old hat of a question anyway, loaded question in the main knowing what most people are likely to say. Winning is important, not "at any cost" certainly but ultimately if you have a side that can't play an expansive game that is not unpleasing on the eye you ain't going to be winning that much anyway.

    We need to add a killer instinct to our game, shut out silly goals conceded and make more of possession and chances. People have been going on about Sturridge and Origi quite a bit recently, perhaps the reason our goals and form have dried up is because we have our "front six" as someone put it and they are great when everything is going well, but too easily blunted and maybe not enough "20 a season" goalscorers in among them, not that it isn't possible some will score 20+ but at current rate Mane is only just on 11 with 2/3 of the season gone and Firmino, who several people recently are saying is a striker (not that some weren't before) is on course for another run of the mill double figures but not much more having only ONCE scored 16 in a league campaign but is on course to edge out his next best 10 goals.

    What strikers should do for you is pop up with goals when you need them, not just the volume they bring. Sure you want a Lallana, even a Lovren or anyone in the side to pop up with that winner but a lot of our scorers are great when we're on top in a game, not so visible when it is needed though.


    So to cap off a cliché filled post, winning is the main thing and to win consistently enough when you want to challenge for the title you will need to play a better than scrappy brand of football all the time. Some years ago I came up with a list of the order in which you should aim for things as a team/manager, in some cases you don't start at the bottom, but in a nutshell it goes like this:

    Reduce the amount of goals you are losing by
    Make yourself difficult to beat
    Compete in games
    Go on a run containing a few draws or even wins
    Win a few games
    Go on an unbeaten run
    Win more games than you don't
    Go on a winning run
    Win 20+ games a season = top four challenge
    Win 27+ games a season = title challenge

    You could spin in the style of football into it or even work on a refined list to make maybe a concise 10 steps. We were near the bottom, well technically top of that list, now we're back down to the compete/win a few games kind of ambition/level. At times you need to dig in and scrap to a win or two, but from where we were earlier in the season we ought to be able to win with a little panache, and I don't mean small bra (apparently there's a range of lingerie called Panache! ) Some games in recent times our players were more comparable with the contents of a bra)
    Win 23 games or more and that will get you the title - spot on - thats a win% of about 61 or better - and Klopp's is 48.8
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  8. #98  
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    16,344
    Quote Originally Posted by RumFizz View Post
    Are they considered defensive or just very solid ?
    they're solid, but have always been considered a defensive side, under Mourinho too.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  9. #99  
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    3,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Shriekback View Post
    You would rather see us embarrassed? Rafa did play some good football as well, people just look at a few dull draws here and there and a 1-0 loss and cloud it over everything.

    Rafa's style is nothing like Mourinhos, Simeones or Houlliers, is a well balanced way of play, you attack when you need to you defend when you need to.
    Rafa's style was far was far from balanced. He either went rigid or went full throttle, both worked on occasions and both didn't. Being balanced is a mixture of the two. The most balanced side in the league at the moment are Chelsea, they also have that nastiness about them too that's needed. They can win ugly when required.

    Gary Neville was correct when he said that unless Liverpool are playing at break-neck speed they aren't formidable. That's both a compliment and a constructive criticism. When Liverpool are playing at break-neck speed, nobody can touch them, they are easily the best footballing side in the league. When they are leggy and lethargic, they make Man United look entertaining.

    There needs to be a balance there, a mixture between all out aggressiveness and organisational discipline. In other words on occasions we need to learn how to play like Contes Chelsea.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  10. #100  
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    23,227
    Quote Originally Posted by Coutinhosmagicfeet View Post
    Rafa's style was far was far from balanced. He either went rigid or went full throttle, both worked on occasions and both didn't. Being balanced is a mixture of the two. The most balanced side in the league at the moment are Chelsea, they also have that nastiness about them too that's needed. They can win ugly when required.

    Gary Neville was correct when he said that unless Liverpool are playing at break-neck speed they aren't formidable. That's both a compliment and a constructive criticism. When Liverpool are playing at break-neck speed, nobody can touch them, they are easily the best footballing side in the league. When they are leggy and lethargic, they make Man United look entertaining.

    There needs to be a balance there, a mixture between all out aggressiveness and organisational discipline. In other words on occasions we need to learn how to play like Contes Chelsea.
    We don't need to play like Chelsea at all because our style of football is more entertaining than theirs, what we need to do is learn how to defend better than we currently do.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  11. #101  
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    207
    Quote Originally Posted by grudge View Post
    We don't need to play like Chelsea at all because our style of football is more entertaining than theirs, what we need to do is learn how to defend better than we currently do.
    Agreed our game management is pretty terrible we don't seem to know how to play with a 1 or 2 goal lead.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  12. #102  
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    9,658
    Quote Originally Posted by LW94 View Post
    they're solid, but have always been considered a defensive side, under Mourinho too.
    I think there is a world of difference between Conte's Chelsea and JM's [last time] Chelsea, some of the football played and antics of the latter was just horrible to watch, like when he brought United this season or even worse the Stevie slip game, some of the tactics and tricks played in that game to me where cowardly, I would hate it if we ever had a manager who would stoop to that.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  13. #103  
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    23,227
    Quote Originally Posted by RumFizz View Post
    Agreed our game management is pretty terrible we don't seem to know how to play with a 1 or 2 goal lead.
    That's because we are so geared up to play a more offensive game, Klopp seems to have starting building his team from the front instead of the back in my opinion.

    It looks great when it works, but when it doesn't we see the same old frailties exposed.
    Last edited by grudge; 18-2-17 at 13:29.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  14. #104  
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    24,227
    Quote Originally Posted by grudge View Post
    That's because we are so geared up to play a more offensive game, Klopp seems to have starting building his team from the front instead of the back in my opinion.
    Yes, indeed.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  15. #105  
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    207
    Quote Originally Posted by grudge View Post
    That's because we are so geared up to play a more offensive game, Klopp seems to have starting building his team from the front instead of the back in my opinion.
    It looks that way and i love the style of football we play it wont take much to shore us up a bit and when that happens we will be some force.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  16. #106  
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,989
    Quote Originally Posted by RumFizz View Post
    Are they considered defensive or just very solid ?
    Chelsea are far more entertaining under conte than under maureen.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  17. #107  
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    207
    Id settle for a slightly less attacking style to be better defensively.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  18. #108  
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    16,344
    Quote Originally Posted by davevietnam View Post
    I think there is a world of difference between Conte's Chelsea and JM's [last time] Chelsea, some of the football played and antics of the latter was just horrible to watch, like when he brought United this season or even worse the Stevie slip game, some of the tactics and tricks played in that game to me where cowardly, I would hate it if we ever had a manager who would stoop to that.
    win by any means necessary...

    To us they were horrible tactics from JM but he got a win at Anfield out of it... fair play to him.
    It was our players that lost their heads and stopped playing how we had been previously.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  19. #109  
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    3,522
    It's certainly interesting, I mean have you watched any United games while they've been on that unbeaten run?

    I mean they've won and drew games. But they weren't great to watch. Pretty boring stuff.

    But hey, their best run of form since whenever. So they won't complain much
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  20. #110  
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    3,487
    Quote Originally Posted by grudge View Post
    We don't need to play like Chelsea at all because our style of football is more entertaining than theirs, what we need to do is learn how to defend better than we currently do.
    Chelsea's ability to manage games is the bar we need to reach. They are the best side in the league this season at doing so, that's the reason they are top. Not in a million years would they have folded like a bad poker player like we did at Bournemouth. That was putting it mildly a car crash on our behalf. They were dreadful against Burnley and still collected a point, as they were against us at Anfield and collected a point.

    Fair enough they got a dubious free-kick and some other dubious decisions went in their favour. That's including us being deemed offside from a throw in which is dreadful officiating. Justice was done when Mis saved the pen from the elephant man, it was never a penalty.

    You're right that we don't need to 'play like Chelsea' as they on occasions can be turgid and extremely unattractive. However we need to match their game management and organisational discipline.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  21. #111  
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    3,487
    Quote Originally Posted by IFC View Post
    It's certainly interesting, I mean have you watched any United games while they've been on that unbeaten run?

    I mean they've won and drew games. But they weren't great to watch. Pretty boring stuff.

    But hey, their best run of form since whenever. So they won't complain much
    Yeah they've managed to from 6th to 6th despite this. There was a forecast made that come the last game of the season we may only need to draw against Middlesbrough to finish in the top 4. The reason is there isn't a hope of Man United winning their final game 12 -0 to finish above us.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   

  22. #112  
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    1,694
    Quote Originally Posted by grudge View Post
    That's because we are so geared up to play a more offensive game, Klopp seems to have starting building his team from the front instead of the back in my opinion.

    It looks great when it works, but when it doesn't we see the same old frailties exposed.
    A big part of this is what he started with. The attack was already pretty strong last season (most league goals after Jan 1 wasn't it?) but adding pace with Mane and finding a formation where the front 6 click makes it seriously scary. Yes, Wijnaldum was also added but I think Milner or Henderson could easily slot in his spot if they weren't busy shoring up other areas instead. Obviously there's still a concern with lack of quality replacements but the first team is certainly highly effective.

    On the other hand, the defense he inherited was a shambles with only one player generally considered "good enough" (Clyne). He brought in Klavan, Matip, and Karius and looked long and hard at long-term answers at LB and DM before balking at price. With the recent trend of the club over-paying for dross, I'm ok with him drawing a line and saying no. With just those changes and training the defense has improved and really only been poor in the Arsenal and Bournemouth matches. Other than those we've only allowed 1 goal/game in the league; a record only 3 teams currently surpass. It's still a work in progress but progress has been made, it just needed a lot more than the attack.
    Reply With Quote   Quick reply to this message   Report Post   



Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •