For a team who has possession, what are the best ways to break down a good defense?

I just don't get why he was trying to go for the kill when a draw would have perfectly put them in the driving seat for the title. That was a bit naive imo. But I guess he wanted to stick to his philosophy of trying to win every game, which is fine, but sometimes you have to adapt to situations.

The Franchise wrote:Suarez while having some good games isnt finding the net vs the best teams and these defensive teams will frustrate Pools style and the time wasting I think did effect them more than you expect.

He's only had three "bad" games against the "top" sides this season; them being Chelsea twice (where he was man marked by 2-3 players and had no time/space on the ball, and not one person offering support) and Arsenal at the Emirates back in October?, where again, he had it all to to do because we were playing with 9 men behind the ball trying to play 3 at the back...

(This is more at the having "some" good games remark; maybe he should be scoring more, but he has more better games than poor ones against the top sides.)

Agree with the rest.

Blue Barrett wrote:I just don't get why he was trying to go for the kill when a draw would have perfectly put them in the driving seat for the title. That was a bit naive imo. But I guess he wanted to stick to his philosophy of trying to win every game, which is fine, but sometimes you have to adapt to situations.

We only went "for the kill" to rescue a draw but? lol

Sturidge was clearly unfit is the reason he didn't start. You could see that when he came on, he wasn't making runs, sloppy on the ball, slow tempo'd. I fear we've rushed him back.

Well I think they did play with some degree of safety.

I will quote zonalmarking because its easier than me saying it and I mostly agree.

Playing against a such a defensive-minded side continues to frustrate the best sides in Europe, regardless of their approach, but Liverpool were surprisingly unconvincing in their efforts to create chances. They started with a 4-1-4-1 / 4-3-3 system, in contrast from their approach at Norwich where Raheem Sterling and Coutinho were in the centre of the pitch. Here, these players started on the flanks, but then increasingly drifted inside into the congested midfield zone.

"Liverpool seemed unsure whether they were attempting to go around the Chelsea defence with width, or playing through the centre. The former seemed the more obvious approach – even if they lacked a big central striker, they could have worked the ball into good positions and played cut-backs. The problem with going through the middle was that they lacked genuine incision from the central midfield trio. Without Henderson and Sturridge, Coutinho has to play in the front three, with Joe Allen and Lucas Leiva in midfield – there was a lack of midfield runners breaking forward to join Suarez, with Lucas’ sporadic efforts unconvincing.

Perhaps this was why Coutinho and Sterling moved centrally, but in those situations the full-backs need to overlap, to prevent the play becoming too predictable. Glen Johnson and Jon Flanagan didn’t do that much, presumably for fear of leaving the defence exposed to counter-attacks, which is perfectly natural in a game where Liverpool would have taken a draw. However, it meant Liverpool rarely looked likely to break down the Chelsea defence, which stayed narrow and seemed quite comfortable. The home side didn’t record a first-half shot on target."


I mostly agree, fullbacks were quite cautious in their display and a midfield of Lucas and Allen doesnt scream adventure either.

Red Alert wrote:

The Franchise wrote:Suarez while having some good games isnt finding the net vs the best teams and these defensive teams will frustrate Pools style and the time wasting I think did effect them more than you expect.

He's only had three "bad" games against the "top" sides this season; them being Chelsea twice (where he was man marked by 2-3 players and had no time/space on the ball, and not one person offering support) and Arsenal at the Emirates back in October?, where again, he had it all to to do because we were playing with 9 men behind the ball trying to play 3 at the back...

(This is more at the having "some" good games remark; maybe he should be scoring more, but he has more better games than poor ones against the top sides.)  

Agree with the rest.

Sure, but 0 goals in 6 games vs the top 4 will always leave you with a debt. Someone has to replace the goals, even if he plays well.

In some games that has happened, in some it has not. Thats normal.

But when you play in the CL, go again for the title next season, I feel like you require the best players to do what you usually get from them. That doesnt mean its Suarez fault if you do not, not at all...but the change in norm may become a problem.

Red Alert wrote:

Blue Barrett wrote:I just don't get why he was trying to go for the kill when a draw would have perfectly put them in the driving seat for the title. That was a bit naive imo. But I guess he wanted to stick to his philosophy of trying to win every game, which is fine, but sometimes you have to adapt to situations.

We only went "for the kill" to rescue a draw but? lol

Sturidge was clearly unfit is the reason he didn't start. You could see that when he came on, he wasn't making runs, sloppy on the ball, slow tempo'd. I fear we've rushed him back.

Yeah but we didn't score the first goal until injury time in the first half yet from the very first minute, Liverpool were trying to overwhelm Chelsea and run the score up. I knew Jose would prepare for that early onslaught and I knew if we could withstand the first 10-20 mins, we might come away with a draw in the end knowing that we would have gotten Liverpool's best wave and that they struggle in 2nd halves generally.

I thought Sturridge not doing much was a result of the defence and that he looked okay physically but I've just learnt that he didn't even train with the squad prior to the match so I guess you're right. Still, I think it would have been wise to have Sturridge in there for that early kill they were going for and then if they got a goal, take him off at halftime or something.

Yes, but he was MOTM against City for us both home and away, did well against Arsenal at home, I think he got 2 assists that day in a SS role behind Sturridge, it's just we (as a TEAM) didn't offer him enough support in the other games. It's not solely on him. He has a fairly good game to goal ratio (I think it's 1 in 2) against the top sides, too.

We really do need to improve for the CL (believe me, I know, I've been screaming it in the Liverpool section since 2013), but that will come naturally with more experience playing against sides like this. We haven't had to deal with too many "CL games" this season, it's only really been Mourinho under Chelsea who have made the culture of the game into a European one. The games against Arsenal / City (the other "CL" teams in England, and let's be honest, aren't European threats anyway) just played their natural free flowing game and hence it was a 50/50 game.

Blue Barrett wrote:

Red Alert wrote:

Blue Barrett wrote:I just don't get why he was trying to go for the kill when a draw would have perfectly put them in the driving seat for the title. That was a bit naive imo. But I guess he wanted to stick to his philosophy of trying to win every game, which is fine, but sometimes you have to adapt to situations.

We only went "for the kill" to rescue a draw but? lol

Sturidge was clearly unfit is the reason he didn't start. You could see that when he came on, he wasn't making runs, sloppy on the ball, slow tempo'd. I fear we've rushed him back.

Yeah but we didn't score the first goal until injury time in the first half yet from the very first minute, Liverpool were trying to overwhelm Chelsea and run the score up. I knew Jose would prepare for that early onslaught and I knew if we could withstand the first 10-20 mins, we might come away with a draw in the end knowing that we would have gotten Liverpool's best wave and that they struggle in 2nd halves generally.

I thought Sturridge not doing much was a result of the defence and that he looked okay physically but I've just learnt that he didn't even train with the squad prior to the match so I guess you're right. Still, I think it would have been wise to have Sturridge in there for that early kill they were going for and then if they got a goal, take him off at halftime or something.

That's not what you said earlier though, is it?

You said we were "going for the kill" when it was quite clear we were playing a cautious attacking game as the game went on.

We only over commited players forward to get a goal back after you took the lead. We wouldn't have done that if it was 0-0 at half time.

Oh what I meant earlier and in my last post(see my reference to the early onslaught) was that they were playing to win no matter what. So they went for the kill from the first minute trying to speed the game up and what not.

No issue, however, with chasing the game in the 2nd half but going for the kill from the start of the game in the first place was what put them 1-0 behind imo.

Red Alert wrote:Yes, but he was MOTM against City for us both home and away, did well against Arsenal at home, I think he got 2 assists that day in a SS role behind Sturridge, it's just we (as a TEAM) didn't offer him enough support in the other games. It's not solely on him. He has a fairly good game to goal ratio (I think it's 1 in 2) against the top sides, too.

We really do need to improve for the CL (believe me, I know, I've been screaming it in the Liverpool section since 2013), but that will come naturally with more experience playing against sides like this. We haven't had to deal with too many "CL games" this season, it's only really been Mourinho under Chelsea who have made the culture of the game into a European one. The games against Arsenal / City (the other "CL" teams in England, and let's be honest, aren't European threats anyway) just played their natural free flowing game and hence it was a 50/50 game.

But both City and Arsenal play open football. I am not concerned about you playing against teams who wan to attack too.

Its the defensive ones which are a problem. So I think we have similar opinions.

Blue Barrett wrote:

harhar11 wrote:Be patient, never lose the composure, don't cross the ball, don't take shot from unrealistic position, trying to force the 1 vs 1 by breaking the wall. I most admit that I chuckle a little bit hearing what Neville said. For all this time, Barça has been criticized for not having a tall player, someone who they can cross the ball to, and for not shooting more, basically for not having a plan B against a deep defence. But now hearing Neville's analyse, he is basically saying that Barça have been spot on with their approach against a deep defence.

Except that's not what Barca do. Barca are VERY slow with moving the ball. Before they move the ball from one part of the pitch to the other, the defence is already in place and waiting for their next move. No, that's not what Barca do. Most times, Barca just pass for the sake of it. Bayern are beginning to do this too these days, thanks to Guardiola. Barca are not that direct, sir.

Neville isnt really talking about direct football. Infact, he was saying that Liverpool should have played mpre indirect i.e take less shot and less crosses..

Oh, and its only recently that barça has become slow on the ball. Before we used to be quite fast on the ball..
(ignore the red circle)

This is what Neville is talkin about, right? But even then, Real Madrid still managed to react fast enough to have 2 defenders on Alexis, so that he would miss.

@BB:

We tried to play the same football we've had that got us 12 consecutive wins.

We have had fast starts (and got control of the game early to play it on our terms) in those 12 games. Mourinho saw this, and that eliminated any chance of us playing that way again.

After 5 minutes or so, we went forward, but we weren't going for the "kill".

So we DID change the way we normally played, and that was to play in a slower tempo'd game, more possession based, attack but don't leave holes behind, so if anything we were content with the draw and did alter (and quite early in the game) from "playing to win no matter what".

Unfortunately for us after that, we didn't have a clue on how to attack when a team actually knows how to defend, and then the frustration got to the players and they lost their heads.

The Franchise wrote:

Red Alert wrote:Yes, but he was MOTM against City for us both home and away, did well against Arsenal at home, I think he got 2 assists that day in a SS role behind Sturridge, it's just we (as a TEAM) didn't offer him enough support in the other games. It's not solely on him. He has a fairly good game to goal ratio (I think it's 1 in 2) against the top sides, too.

We really do need to improve for the CL (believe me, I know, I've been screaming it in the Liverpool section since 2013), but that will come naturally with more experience playing against sides like this. We haven't had to deal with too many "CL games" this season, it's only really been Mourinho under Chelsea who have made the culture of the game into a European one. The games against Arsenal / City (the other "CL" teams in England, and let's be honest, aren't European threats anyway) just played their natural free flowing game and hence it was a 50/50 game.

But both City and Arsenal play open football. I am not concerned about you playing against teams who wan to attack too.

Its the defensive ones which are a problem. So I think we have similar opinions.

I was agreeing with you lol. I was just stating why we struggle to play against that "anti football" way.

harhar11 wrote:

Blue Barrett wrote:

harhar11 wrote:Be patient, never lose the composure, don't cross the ball, don't take shot from unrealistic position, trying to force the 1 vs 1 by breaking the wall. I most admit that I chuckle a little bit hearing what Neville said. For all this time, Barça has been criticized for not having a tall player, someone who they can cross the ball to, and for not shooting more, basically for not having a plan B against a deep defence. But now hearing Neville's analyse, he is basically saying that Barça have been spot on with their approach against a deep defence.

Except that's not what Barca do. Barca are VERY slow with moving the ball. Before they move the ball from one part of the pitch to the other, the defence is already in place and waiting for their next move. No, that's not what Barca do. Most times, Barca just pass for the sake of it. Bayern are beginning to do this too these days, thanks to Guardiola. Barca are not that direct, sir.

Neville isnt really talking about direct football. Infact, he was saying that Liverpool should have played mpre indirect i.e take less shot and less crosses..

Oh, and its only recently that barça has become slow on the ball. Before we used to be quite fast on the ball..

Apologies, "direct" wasn't the word I should have used. To quote Dani's post from zonalmarking, "incisive" is what they should have been.

And I think Barca have had moments where they've been slow on the ball tbh. Three examples come to mind even during the Guardiola era. Against Chelsea in 09(took a last minute Iniesta cracker to score), against Inter in 2010 and against Chelsea again in 2012(especially in the 2nd leg).

(ignore the red circle)

This is what Neville is talkin about, right? But even then, Real Madrid still managed to react fast enough to have 2 defenders on Alexis, so that he would miss.

Even though that sequence of passing was quite fast, I think the mistake there came from the 2nd pass(was that Messi? Or Cesc? Whoever it was). He had acres of space to drive forward a little, possible draw a CB to himself and be able to play an chip pass for the forward man to run into. But he chose to pass backwards again.

Red Alert wrote:@BB:

We tried to play the same football we've had that got us 12 consecutive wins.

We have had fast starts (and got control of the game early to play it on our terms) in those 12 games. Mourinho saw this, and that eliminated any chance of us playing that way again.

After 5 minutes or so, we went forward, but we weren't going for the "kill".

So we DID change the way we normally played, and that was to play in a slower tempo'd game, more possession based, attack but don't leave holes behind, so if anything we were content with the draw and did alter (and quite early in the game) from "playing to win no matter what".

Unfortunately for us after that, we didn't have a clue on how to attack when a team actually knows how to defend, and then the frustration got to the players and they lost their heads.

Fair enough, I think you're right.

Blue Barrett wrote:

harhar11 wrote:

Blue Barrett wrote:
Except that's not what Barca do. Barca are VERY slow with moving the ball. Before they move the ball from one part of the pitch to the other, the defence is already in place and waiting for their next move. No, that's not what Barca do. Most times, Barca just pass for the sake of it. Bayern are beginning to do this too these days, thanks to Guardiola. Barca are not that direct, sir.

Neville isnt really talking about direct football. Infact, he was saying that Liverpool should have played mpre indirect i.e take less shot and less crosses..

Oh, and its only recently that barça has become slow on the ball. Before we used to be quite fast on the ball..

Apologies, "direct" wasn't the word I should have used. To quote Dani's post from zonalmarking, "incisive" is what they should have been.

And I think Barca have had moments where they've been slow on the ball tbh. Three examples come to mind even during the Guardiola era. Against Chelsea in 09(took a last minute Iniesta cracker to score), against Inter in 2010 and against Chelsea again in 2012(especially in the 2nd leg).

(ignore the red circle)

This is what Neville is talkin about, right? But even then, Real Madrid still managed to react fast enough to have 2 defenders on Alexis, so that he would miss.

Even though that sequence of passing was quite fast, I think the mistake there came from the 2nd pass(was that Messi? Or Cesc? Whoever it was). He had acres of space to drive forward a little, possible draw a CB to himself and be able to play an chip pass for the forward man to run into. But he chose to pass backwards again.

Actually it wasn't really a mistake seeing as Xavi in the end of that .gif made a brilliant pass to create a chance for Alexis. Here's the video, at 0:25



The only problem was that the defenders even then reacted fast enough to have 2 players press Alexis..

Ah okay that seems fair enough. Still, Barca tend to get dulled into passing slowly these days with such defenses. Persistence with quick passing(and there's no other team in the world who can continuously pass very quickly and as accurately as Barca - will create good chances at least. Only takes a millisecond of mental lapse by one defender and you have a good shot.

Blue Barrett wrote:Ah okay that seems fair enough. Still, Barca tend to get dulled into passing slowly these days with such defenses. Persistence with quick passing(and there's no other team in the world who can continuously pass very quickly and as accurately as Barca - will create good chances at least. Only takes a millisecond of mental lapse by one defender and you have a good shot.

Like I said, that's something that started thanks to the decline of the team, but it was not always like that. But even then, Barça has always had problem with a deep defence, even though they were really fast on the ball and used to play the way Neville describe in the video.

harhar11 wrote:Be patient, never lose the composure, don't cross the ball, don't take shot from unrealistic position, trying to force the 1 vs 1 by breaking the wall. I most admit that I chuckle a little bit hearing what Neville said. For all this time, Barça has been criticized for not having a tall player, someone who they can cross the ball to, and for not shooting more, basically for not having a plan B against a deep defence. But now hearing Neville's analyse, he is basically saying that Barça have been spot on with their approach against a deep defence.

lol very true.

You never hear the opposite btw, imagine a team with a big man up top and frequently shoot the ball. You never actually hear anyone say that they need a plan B which is a short man in midfield to pass it around a bit.

Zealous wrote:

harhar11 wrote:Be patient, never lose the composure, don't cross the ball, don't take shot from unrealistic position, trying to force the 1 vs 1 by breaking the wall. I most admit that I chuckle a little bit hearing what Neville said. For all this time, Barça has been criticized for not having a tall player, someone who they can cross the ball to, and for not shooting more, basically for not having a plan B against a deep defence. But now hearing Neville's analyse, he is basically saying that Barça have been spot on with their approach against a deep defence.

lol very true.

You never hear the opposite btw, imagine a team with a big man up top and frequently shoot the ball. You never actually hear anyone say that they need a plan B which is a short man in midfield to pass it around a bit.

I have also taken notice of that, and I always wondered why..