Klopp sack watch - Liverpool Edition

srigooner wrote:Might sound stupid, but pressing is off the ball right?

High pressing is only a part of the football style of Klopp at BVB. If I remember right, it is also about fast paced transitions and quick attacks.

None of that should require possession hoarding.

not sure what you mean. I didn't say we should hog the ball. I said maybe we should give the other team more of the ball.

srigooner wrote:Might sound stupid, but pressing is off the ball right?

High pressing is only a part of the football style of Klopp at BVB. If I remember right, it is also about fast paced transitions and quick attacks.

None of that should require possession hoarding.

Sure, the problem is that fast paced attack and direct play when you're being given possession by teams that sit deep and defend with 8 or 9 just looking to hit you on the counter is really, really dangerous. You are essentially just relying on the individual quality of your players to overcome a tactical foil to your style. Forcing a direct attack into a team that is looking to that while also pushing up with a high line leaves you completely vulnerable to counter attacks (as we've seen with the current Liverpool squad).

It also doesn't help that our attack seems to be disconnected from our midfield and defence in the build-up so we're not drawing any of their players back to create openings. Laziness and poor tactical set up against the teams willing to sit back defensively and soak up pressure is killing us in those matches.

Yes, a high pressing style with quick transitions from defence/midfield to attack works really well against teams that play more open football (see Southampton, City, Chelsea, etc.) and I think it will really work well against Arsenal but it just isn't ideal for facing teams that don't really want the ball and are willing to put everything to defence and hit on the counter. I mean, you can still win those games and we have but it just doesn't seem optimal or smart.

Unique wrote:

srigooner wrote:Might sound stupid, but pressing is off the ball right?

High pressing is only a part of the football style of Klopp at BVB. If I remember right, it is also about fast paced transitions and quick attacks.

None of that should require possession hoarding.

not sure what you mean. I didn't say we should hog the ball. I said maybe we should give the other team more of the ball.

My bad. Understood you wrong.

My point was that the signature elements of Klopp's game don't need possession, and I think you are saying the same thing.

Curtinho wrote:

srigooner wrote:Might sound stupid, but pressing is off the ball right?

High pressing is only a part of the football style of Klopp at BVB. If I remember right, it is also about fast paced transitions and quick attacks.

None of that should require possession hoarding.

Sure, the problem is that fast paced attack and direct play when you're being given possession by teams that sit deep and defend with 8 or 9 just looking to hit you on the counter is really, really dangerous. You are essentially just relying on the individual quality of your players to overcome a tactical foil to your style. Forcing a direct attack into a team that is looking to that while also pushing up with a high line leaves you completely vulnerable to counter attacks (as we've seen with the current Liverpool squad).

It also doesn't help that our attack seems to be disconnected from our midfield and defence in the build-up so we're not drawing any of their players back to create openings. Laziness and poor tactical set up against the teams willing to sit back defensively and soak up pressure is killing us in those matches.

Yes, a high pressing style with quick transitions from defence/midfield to attack works really well against teams that play more open football (see Southampton, City, Chelsea, etc.) and I think it will really work well against Arsenal but it just isn't ideal for facing teams that don't really want the ball and are willing to put everything to defence and hit on the counter. I mean, you can still win those games and we have but it just doesn't seem optimal or smart.

Also how I see it.

That's where individual brilliance will make a difference. Unfortunately, there's not enough of it in the Liverpool squad atm.

Right, but with that in mind then the manager/coach is the one that should be adapting to his squad, at least in the interim. Realistically speaking it shouldn't be hard to drill into the team to play differently against a defensive team -- after all it's only really two styles. Rather than just rely on individual brilliance why not just set up tactically to take advantage of the opponent's style...then if you add in superior players your chances of winning should be much higher than even if they had individual brilliance. Instead of being direct and fast while pushing high up the field be a bit more patient, control the ball a bit more in your own half without leaving too much space for the counter -- force the other team to have to build up towards your goal if they have the ball, and have them chasing it otherwise with a more measured approach toward scoring (though still a fan of quick transition and ball rotation in the final third). This will make them uncomfortable IMO because they're not as good at playing with the ball and prefer a direct style, and two even if you consider counters the main threat of attack from Liverpool it provides more openings for this to happen.

srigooner wrote:

Adit wrote:

srigooner wrote:

Nope. His lack of system was why they didn't win the title, despite the brilliance in attack largely driven by SAS.

I am not one for fads. I believe in credit where it is due. Rodgers can't hide behind the pretense of one good season, which wasn't even down to him.

Why isn't down to him? Why is the managers credits taken away in this specific case?

If Arsenal win the league it is because of Ozil right? Nothing to do with Wenger as per your logic. Because using the same logic Wenger's lack of system is the reason Arsenal didn't win it for almost a decade.

Arsenal winning the league, in the unlikely scenario that it happens, will not be because of one player alone. True, Özil is racking up the numbers - but you've barely watched us play if you assume that's the only reason we're on top. Like I posted elsewhere, it is because the rest of the teams are worse - a happy coincidence at best.

Also, not winning for a decade? I can't even get started on how wrong that argument is. Arsenal's lean years, the economic reasons behind them, the struggle to stay in the top 4 to have the CL money to pay off the stadium debt - none of that has anything to do with a system. Wenger being a relatively smart bloke, on the contrary, was the reason why Arsenal didn't slip into oblivion in that period.

Anyway, we are talking about Rodgers. Don't see why we have to bring up a comparison to anyone else, the longest serving PL managers even less so.

Back on the topic:
If I have to credit Rodgers, it is for not tinkering when he stumbled on a working 'system'. Oh, it was the same 'system' which shipped what 50 goals at the back? Which was the reason why Liverpool slipped up in the title race? (No pun intended).

So many contradictions. You brings Arsenal's barren years are down to economic difficulties but doesnt gives the same excuse to Rodgers? Liverpool were almost liquefied 2 seasons before Rodgers took over.Much worse financial situations than it is in Arsenal. Not to say Liverpool never had better squad than Arsenal for past few years yet they finished higher than them in that season. So spare me that financial excuse.

Liverpool shipped in goals? so what ? they have skrtel and 35 year old Kolo toure as center backs not Koscienley and Mertasacker. What did you expect? turn those players into good players ? Who was their midfielder? Joe Allen. You see that squad and you are telling me Rodgers is the reason they were shipping in goals ? seriously. Not even looking at the squad.

srigooner wrote:

Adit wrote:I remember Suarez under Daglish.

He had average end Product, wasn't even close to the finisher he is now either.

It's about finding the best system to get the maximum out of the special players. Ancelotti did it with Modric, Enrique did it with MSN , having special players make it alot easier but the manager still has to put a system in place.

May well be the case that Rodgers did as good a job as Ancelotti or Enrique did respectively.

If he was so good at having a system and implementing it, what happen in the subsequent seasons? The man forgot his own tricks of the trade?

Or didn't he have the right players anymore? In which case, it begs the question, who called the shots on all the money Liverpool has spent over the last 2 summers on average squad additions.

Or did Balotelli fit the famed 'system'? Or did Benteke and Firmino in the same team make sense to the 'system' Rodgers used, before getting sacked?

Don't get me wrong. My point is not to antagonize you or any other Liverpool fan. However, I find it disconcerting that Rodgers is hailed as a genius for a formula he simply seems to have stumbled upon in one season, while his shortcomings have been severely exposed after that.

And that brings me back to this thread. After all the time, money, and patience that FSG and Liverpool fans afforded Rodgers (even if on the basis of his exploits in that one season), it makes no sense whatsoever to be talking of Klopp being given the sack.

what happened in the next season? Suareaz left and Sturridge got injured and Liverpool didnt replace them properly. Which team would not struggle losing tow of their best players last season? tell me.

srigooner wrote:

Adit wrote:

srigooner wrote:Doubt Rodgers had much of a clue about any 'system'

His system got them to second. The best that have reached in 8 years.

I know it's the new fashion to discredit managers and change history.

Nope. His lack of system was why they didn't win the title, despite the brilliance in attack largely driven by SAS.

I am not one for fads. I believe in credit where it is due. Rodgers can't hide behind the pretense of one good season, which wasn't even down to him.

This is what you wrote. Dont twist. You said Rodgers is the reason they didnt win the league. You werent giving any credit to Rodgers , infact you were ridiculing him so i find it bit ironic that you later agrees to Artmorte's post that starts with Rodgers deserving praise. Contradiction galore.

Adit wrote:
So many contradictions. You brings Arsenal's barren years are down to economic difficulties but doesnt gives the same excuse to Rodgers? Liverpool were almost liquefied 2 seasons before Rodgers took over.Much worse financial situations than it is in Arsenal. Not to say Liverpool never had better squad than Arsenal for past few years yet they finished higher than them in that season. So spare me that financial excuse.

Liverpool shipped in goals? so what ? they have skrtel and 35 year old Kolo toure as center backs not Koscienley and Mertasacker. What did you expect? turn those players into good players ?  Who was their midfielder? Joe Allen. You see that squad and you are telling me Rodgers is the reason they were shipping in goals ?  seriously. Not even looking at the squad.

Correction. You brought up a poor comparative example to make your point. I only tried to explain why it was a poor comparison. The finances are reality, not an excuse. And the point still stands that Wenger's system helped maintain consistence - something Rodgers couldn't do.

Rodgers gets all the credit for Liverpool finishing second and doesn't have to take any blame for leaking goals and not fixing that? Hypocrisy much?

And what's this about Liverpool's situation before that season? We are talking about that season and after - a period when Liverpool have spent A LOT OF MONEY on VERY AVERAGE PLAYERS - fact. This was the work of a transfer committee, of which Rodgers was also a part. I understand that they didn't always get him his top choices - but the line of argument about Klopp in this very thread is that he isn't adapting his game to the squad at his disposal - clearly something which Rodgers did even worse.

And don't tell me that Rodgers could not have done anything about the defense or midfield in the winter window.

Adit wrote:
what happened in the next season?  Suareaz left and Sturridge got injured and Liverpool didnt replace them properly. Which team would not struggle losing tow of their best players last season? tell me.

Sounds to me like a certain someone didn't find the right replacements for his 'system', and failed to adapt his 'system' to the squad he ended up with eventually. So much for dominance of the 'system' and brilliance of the manager. Thanks for emphasizing my point.

Adit wrote:

srigooner wrote:

Adit wrote:

His system got them to second. The best that have reached in 8 years.

I know it's the new fashion to discredit managers and change history.

Nope. His lack of system was why they didn't win the title, despite the brilliance in attack largely driven by SAS.

I am not one for fads. I believe in credit where it is due. Rodgers can't hide behind the pretense of one good season, which wasn't even down to him.  

This is what you wrote. Dont twist. You said Rodgers is the reason they didnt win the league.  You werent giving any credit to Rodgers , infact you were ridiculing him so i find it bit ironic that you later agrees to Artmorte's post that starts with Rodgers deserving praise. Contradiction galore.

Stick by what I said. Rodgers stumbled upon a 'system', failed to fix the problems at the back, and second was an overachievement largely enabled by SAS. Credit, if any, is for not tinkering with the attack when it clicked.

If Morty thinks Rodgers deserves 50% credit, that is his PoV. However, that was not the only thing he said in his post.
What I found more agreeable was his line of argument, compared to yours. Let me mark it up for you:

srigooner wrote:

Art Morte wrote:Rodgers deserves some credit for the '14 season, at least when things started to click he kept them clicking. But it's not like we were a success all season long, we were 5th at the half-way point in 19th gameweek and had that crazy 11 game win-streak in the second-half of the season.

But thinking about it in hindsight and seeing what a player Suarez continues to be, you gotta say that putting Suarez in any of the current top teams and they should be challenging for the title. The credit for that season should be 50-50 between Suarez (and Sturridge) and Rodgers.

I find this a much more agreeable line of argument.

If I understood your earlier posts right, you gave me the impression that Rodgers deserves 100% credit for that season - that is what I can not agree with. Correct me if I understood you wrong. In that case, my apologies will be in order.

I don't see why you see contradictions in my posts. Anyway, here's hoping I did a bit more to elucidate my PoV. Feel free to ask if you still want me to explain.

Oh and the part that you picked out:

srigooner wrote:

Adit wrote:

srigooner wrote:Doubt Rodgers had much of a clue about any 'system'

His system got them to second. The best that have reached in 8 years.

I know it's the new fashion to discredit managers and change history.

Nope. His lack of system was why they didn't win the title, despite the brilliance in attack largely driven by SAS.

I am not one for fads. I believe in credit where it is due. Rodgers can't hide behind the pretense of one good season, which wasn't even down to him.

I maintain that Rodgers wasn't good with any 'system'. I have sustained that line of argument and explained the reasons why I personally believe that to be the case. I also credit SAS for the attack being as good as it was.

You, in that post, assumed that I was being fashionable in discrediting the manager and attempting to change history. My sense of fashion was never the core of the debate. The fact that you felt it necessary to comment on it is why I had to explain that I am not one for fads.

I have tried not make overarching assumptions regarding you as a person, or what you find fashionable, or passing judgments. If I did do so inadvertently, my sincere apologies. I would like it if we kept this impersonal, in the spirit of having a rational debate.

So does Pep only gain credit for his team because of Messi, Iniesta, (various elite strikers), Xavi and Busquets? Or now because of Lewa, Robben, Muller, etc. or Ancelotti because of Ronaldo, Benzema, Bale or...

I think it's silly to say Rodgers had no hand in 13/14 just because he had some very good players up top. Every team that scores a lot of goals tends to have elite attacking players. Getting that team to play as they did was down to Rodgers, IMO. They didn't see that kind of success before, and look what Klopp is doing with the same personnel (actually, better players than what Rodgers had post Suarez IMO).

I mean it's insanity to say Liverpool had 8 defenders and Suarez/Sturridge...Gerrard? An attacking midfielder playing as a DM who provided no cover for the defence. Johnson? Coutinho/Sterling? Henderson (great pressure player, tactically adept at defending but definitely more of an attack minded midfielder)?

Then look at who Rodgers had to rely on as defenders. Johnson? Skrtel? Kolo? Rookie Flanagan? Cissokho?

Rodgers was not a bad tactical manager he just didn't have the right people in place for player purchases (or bad talent evaluation on his own part/scouts part and issues with the transfer committee). Although, to be honest, I can only imagine how different things would be for Liverpool and among this board in terms of opinion if Sanchez had agreed to come to Liverpool in that deal and Sturridge wasn't so injury prone. A huge part of his downfall was the falling out with Sterling (who is a punk) and the circus surrounding Gerrard, Balotelli and Sterling as well as the loss of Suarez and Sturridge. It was just a bad situation made worse by Rodgers' hubris.

I think Rodgers was very good at getting the team playing good football and scoring goals. made suarez a super star and turned sterling from a youth team player into a 50mil player. but he never had a clue when it came to defending.

I don't think that's necessarily true. I think he just tried to play to the team's strengths. Who did we have that was actually a strong defender? Sakho when healthy? Lucas when on form and healthy? Henderson, but is better in attack and is a b2b player anyway? Other than that most of our players were attack oriented and it showed. He implemented a system eventually that saw Mignolet get the most clean-sheets (rofl) in the league to cover up our defensive deficiencies but at the end of the day we didn't have the attacking talent at that point to score goals (and people hated the brand of football at times).

Again, Rodgers showed plenty of tactical acumen in his time here (aside from a few stinkers). If not for some unfortunate individual errors he had no control over we would have won the title. I think Rodgers definitely had his shortcomings in different areas but I think he was more unlucky than he was a poor manager.

Curtinho wrote:So does Pep only gain credit for his team because of Messi, Iniesta, (various elite strikers), Xavi and Busquets? Or now because of Lewa, Robben, Muller, etc. or Ancelotti because of Ronaldo, Benzema, Bale or...

I think it's silly to say Rodgers had no hand in 13/14 just because he had some very good players up top. Every team that scores a lot of goals tends to have elite attacking players. Getting that team to play as they did was down to Rodgers, IMO. They didn't see that kind of success before, and look what Klopp is doing with the same personnel (actually, better players than what Rodgers had post Suarez IMO).

I mean it's insanity to say Liverpool had 8 defenders and Suarez/Sturridge...Gerrard? An attacking midfielder playing as a DM who provided no cover for the defence. Johnson? Coutinho/Sterling? Henderson (great pressure player, tactically adept at defending but definitely more of an attack minded midfielder)?

Then look at who Rodgers had to rely on as defenders. Johnson? Skrtel? Kolo? Rookie Flanagan? Cissokho?

Rodgers was not a bad tactical manager he just didn't have the right people in place for player purchases (or bad talent evaluation on his own part/scouts part and issues with the transfer committee). Although, to be honest, I can only imagine how different things would be for Liverpool and among this board in terms of opinion if Sanchez had agreed to come to Liverpool in that deal and Sturridge wasn't so injury prone. A huge part of his downfall was the falling out with Sterling (who is a punk) and the circus surrounding Gerrard, Balotelli and Sterling as well as the loss of Suarez and Sturridge. It was just a bad situation made worse by Rodgers' hubris.

My point was never that Rodgers gets 0% credit. My point is that he doesn't deserve 100% credit. They are two different things. Again, this is why I found Morty's reasoning more agreeable.

Rodgers may not be bad with tactics, but he is not the genius many make him out to be. Again, different things.

The fact that he couldn't find a way to contain the goals at the back is as much down to him as to the players. Or his 'system', which was the point of contention for me originally.

I completely agree that the transfers played their role in hindering what he wanted to do. However, a genius tactician would find a 'system' to get the best out of the squad at his disposal - something Rodgers did not do. And that, really, is what I am picking at.

Also, I don't have a cogent understanding of how buying both Benteke and Firmino made sense. Or the game time of Markovic. Or buying Balotelli. These are all issues that land at the door of the manager, and his decision making, imho. My knowledge on these matters is more limited, as I am but a casual outside observer of these events - you guys would definitely have more perspective here and I am happy to read about it.

Curtinho wrote:I don't think that's necessarily true. I think he just tried to play to the team's strengths. Who did we have that was actually a strong defender? Sakho when healthy? Lucas when on form and healthy? Henderson, but is better in attack and is a b2b player anyway? Other than that most of our players were attack oriented and it showed. He implemented a system eventually that saw Mignolet get the most clean-sheets (rofl) in the league to cover up our defensive deficiencies but at the end of the day we didn't have the attacking talent at that point to score goals (and people hated the brand of football at times).

Again, Rodgers showed plenty of tactical acumen in his time here (aside from a few stinkers). If not for some unfortunate individual errors he had no control over we would have won the title. I think Rodgers definitely had his shortcomings in different areas but I think he was more unlucky than he was a poor manager.

I wouldent read to much into the clean sheet stat. he either seems to keep a clean sheet or ship 2-3 goals. its better to let in a goal per game then one clean sheet in one game and ship 3 goals in the other

Goals aren't only down to the GK though. And Szczesny won the Golden Glove tied on CSs with Cech in that season, while we were trashed by City, Liverpool and Chelsea scoring 5+ goals each.

srigooner wrote:I completely agree that the transfers played their role in hindering what he wanted to do. However, a genius tactician would find a 'system' to get the best out of the squad at his disposal - something Rodgers did not do. And that, really, is what I am picking at.

This is the misconception though. People consider Klopp a 'genius tactician' and how is he doing with what I would consider to be a slightly better squad than what Rodgers had available? Not any better.

Anyway sri, we can agree to disagree. Rodgers had the team set up to play to their strengths and to play more defensively or conservatively would have taken away from their strengths and made the team perform worse. Realistically speaking he should have been less brash against Chelsea (which was what stole the title, IMO) but he couldn't account for that major slip from Gerrard that essentially doomed them -- it was a fluke. It happens. Just like the red card from Henderson.

Enough about Rodgers though. Hopefully Klopp can work better on the personnel side and bring the team into the fold at the top.

Unique wrote:I wouldent read to much into the clean sheet stat. he either seems to keep a clean sheet or ship 2-3 goals. its better to let in a goal per game then one clean sheet in one game and ship 3 goals in the other

Liverpool had the best defensive record in the league IIRC when Rodgers decided to play a more conservative style. They didn't have the goals though.

Curtinho wrote:So does Pep only gain credit for his team because of Messi, Iniesta, (various elite strikers), Xavi and Busquets? Or now because of Lewa, Robben, Muller, etc. or Ancelotti because of Ronaldo, Benzema, Bale or...

You have to put it in context. Rodgers had an excellent half a season, but was underachieving for the rest of his Liverpool tenure (2.5 seasons plus the start of this season). When you're underachieving as a football manager for some 83% of the time, it's hard to give you a lot of credit for being great for 17% of the time.

But how was he underachieving? Where had they finished previous to Rodgers? What about how they are doing now that he is gone?

If anything he overachieved and it brought on unrealistic expectations based on the squad available to him. That was part of his downfall after losing Suarez (among other things) and being unable to adequately replace him.

Curtinho wrote:But how was he underachieving? Where had they finished previous to Rodgers? What about how they are doing now that he is gone?

2013:
PL 7th
FA Cup 4th round
League Cup 4th round
EL round-of-32

2014:
PL 2nd
FA Cup 5th round
League Cup 3rd round

2015:
PL 6th
FA Cup semi-finals
League Cup semi-finals
CL group stage
EL round-of-32

and a lot of money spent on players.

That's underachieving. Dalglish got sacked for underachieving (although personally I wouldn't have sacked him) and if Klopp underachieves, he'll be canned. But Rodgers certainly underachieved. You can disagree if you want, but I'm sure you know if there was a poll among football pundits or Liverpool fans, the majority would say Rodgers underachieved.

Of course but that's because of Liverpool's name and the entitled belief system among the fans. They think, regardless of our personnel, that we should be challenging for top 4.

Klopp is doing no better with the team than what Rodgers was doing. The previous managers, including Rafa, were doing no better.

One thing that Klopp might bring is that he takes the cup competitions more seriously and in that sense we may get some silverware earlier, but again he has a bit of a better and deeper squad to do it with.

Rodgers definitely has to take some blame for the way money was spent, but also a lot of his first choice targets were just taken out from under him. Imagine if we had Sanchez and Costa instead of Lallana and Balotelli for example (though IIRC Costa was tapped up as a Suarez replacement previously).

Again, the problem is with the expectations and entitlement as well as personnel not with Rodgers as a coach, IMO. Klopp will meet the same fate if better players are not brought in and money isn't spent more wisely. Not because he's a bad coach necessarily.

srigooner wrote:
If I understood your earlier posts right, you gave me the impression that Rodgers deserves 100% credit for that season - that is what I can not agree with. Correct me if I understood you wrong. In that case, my apologies will be in order.

I don't see why you see contradictions in my posts. Anyway, here's hoping I did a bit more to elucidate my PoV. Feel free to ask if you still want me to explain.

There is no such thing as 100% credit to manager. Football after all is played by players but the credit goes to manager when he actually gets the best from those.

Ancelotti completely depended on modric and every time he got injured his team was in shambles. Now one can say modric carried Madrid but I choose to say that Ancelotti got the best out of modric. To me Rodgers deserves credit for getting the best out of SAS. I don't believe some players put together randomly will win games there has to be some work by manager.

Adit wrote:

srigooner wrote:
If I understood your earlier posts right, you gave me the impression that Rodgers deserves 100% credit for that season - that is what I can not agree with. Correct me if I understood you wrong. In that case, my apologies will be in order.

I don't see why you see contradictions in my posts. Anyway, here's hoping I did a bit more to elucidate my PoV. Feel free to ask if you still want me to explain.

There is no such thing as 100% credit to manager. Football after all is played by players but the credit goes to manager when he actually gets the best from those.

Ancelotti completely depended on modric and every time he got injured his team was in shambles. Now one can say modric carried Madrid but I choose to say that Ancelotti got the best out of modric. To me Rodgers deserves credit for getting the best out of SAS. I don't believe some players put together randomly will win games there has to be some work by manager.

Fair enough. Guess I misinterpreted your earlier posts. Thanks for the clarification!

By that same coin, the manager also foots the blame for bad results. And here, I subscribe to Morty's view above that Rodgers largely underachieved.

srigooner wrote:By that same coin, the manager also foots the blame for bad results. And here, I subscribe to Morty's view above that Rodgers largely underachieved.

put Rodgers incharge of attack and pulis incharge of defence and boom Liverpool for the title

Unique wrote:

srigooner wrote:By that same coin, the manager also foots the blame for bad results. And here, I subscribe to Morty's view above that Rodgers largely underachieved.

put Rodgers incharge of attack and pulis incharge of defence and boom Liverpool for the title

lol, just lol

Neutropin wrote:

Unique wrote:

srigooner wrote:By that same coin, the manager also foots the blame for bad results. And here, I subscribe to Morty's view above that Rodgers largely underachieved.

put Rodgers incharge of attack and pulis incharge of defence and boom Liverpool for the title

lol, just lol

.