03 Sep 2015 06:52:43
Can someone explain to me why we would buy a target man for a system where we don't threaten from wide? It's quite obvious that we're not going to see Benteke bursting through defences and running onto through balls, which is exactly why Lambert and Balotelli didn't work out for us last season.
Notice how we've played our best football in recent years when we've had forwards who can make penetrating runs. Torres, Suarez, Sturridge, Sterling. And why Carroll, Lambert, and Balotelli didn't work out.
Not only does our system do Benteke a disservice, but also Coutinho and the other attacking players who have no runners to feed through ball to. This is why we were poor last season, and it's exactly the same this season.
Selling Lambert and Balotelli and buying Benteke hasn't solved anything. It's the same problem, just different personnel.
No matter how good a target man we buy, he won't fit in at Liverpool unless we change the system to compliment that player. However, the transfer window is shut, and were left with only Ibe as the natural wide player. I'd suggest Milner, but did he not sign with promises of a central position?
I'll get shot down for this, but I'd drop Benteke (through no fault of his own) and go with Ings up top. At least then Coutinho will have someone running in behind who he can feed his through balls to. I know most will disagree because of how good Benteke is, and how much he cost, but if he's not going to be able to make an impact then why play him. I really don't understand the thought processes behind the majority of transfers over the last few years.
What's everyone's thoughts?
Red Rum
03 Sep 2015 07:44:08
Its completely down to the manager. I said this all summer, Liverpool FC will not change its style to suit any player except countinho and we would continue to play through the middle. Our game revolves around Countinho no matter who we buy and what we buy.
The one thing I learned in past three year under BR, He relies only and only on individual brilliance.
Suarez
Sterling
Benteke/Countinho
Loaning Markovic proves it clear.
03 Sep 2015 08:21:08
He is a first class idiot if he wasn't planing to get balls into Big Ben from out wide. He was planning on tippy tap football behind him then when get in trouble we can lump it up to him. It's the most painful football to watch and it doesn't even habor results in the long run so what is the point? Why would the man in charge that's on thin ice try what doesn't work?
03 Sep 2015 09:34:29
Well, it seems that Suarez and Ronaldo where not available. I think actually BR would be happy for his players to play wide and have crosses from wider positions, he just may not have the right players to do it and more importantly he is not good neough manager to understand how to actually change our style of play.
03 Sep 2015 09:48:14
You were all fine with Benteke after the first 3 games and one bad game and your all on his bad Brendans back for brining him in. Pathetic
Hrs a great player and once starring or inks get behind him and the other players get used to him we will be fine.
I'm not asking for blind support from use but one bad game which is just the fourth game of the season and your all going mad.
03 Sep 2015 09:58:35
Fanobip
Well that's a stupid excuse of players not available.He had close to 100 mill and 3 months to plan and execute.
Loaning Markovic is a clear signal he has no interest in pace and width. Ibe situation is different as he is under pressure to play the Lad.
03 Sep 2015 10:14:21
Buying Markovic for 20 million and now loaning him out to Fenerbahce.
Sums up the inept management of Liverpool across the board.
'Arry is totally correct.
Worst in years.
03 Sep 2015 10:27:52
Free speech,I think you missed to point completely there pal.I would sit back,grab a cuppa and RE read what Red Rum wrote,OG wrote.
03 Sep 2015 10:28:11
I'm only saying what I've said all along Free_Speech. Lacazette was my choice, I don't know if a deal was ever possible, but if not I'd have liked another striker in that mould. Ie with pace to get in behind. I've got nothing against Benteke (as I said above), but we should have learnt from the last 3 target men that if we want a big man up top we would need to change our system.
My point overall is that we have a very good striker but no players around him that can give him adequate service from the wide positions. The only other way I can see him getting service is if we play Milner and Ibe on the flanks. Or possibly play with wing backs.
Red Rum
03 Sep 2015 10:48:16
you guys are the happy go lucky doom sayers that are all to referred to as liverpool fans lots to say and always negative, you voice you opinions loud and your heads are stuck in fantasy manager, what we got realise is that its your opinions and the problem with that is opinions are like assholes everyone has one and they usually spout shit
so instead of coming on here trying to depress us all about how bad rodgers is or how much he has spent or how our youths don't get a chance try saying something positive stop repeating yourselves, you must realise 80% of the fans here or maybe more agree rodgers is the wrong guy for the job
you want to go on about a manager and flops in transfer market go united page and wind them up about 59 million on di maria ( a costlier flop than balowelly) or how he spent roughly over 259 million just over one season, or how he identified a cb and a striker as his main problems and like rodgers keeps buying midfeilders at least we d find that funnier to read than your constant moaning like fishwives
03 Sep 2015 10:50:00
I like Benteke and I do think there is more to his game than just heading, but as I said when we were about to sign him I was worried that we wouldn't utilise his best attribute (heading) like we didn't with Lambert, and low and behold we aren't getting crosses in! How and why doesn't Rodgers see these obvious things?
One thing I can't fathom is what is going to happen when Sturridge is fit? Surely he has to play 2 up front then (Benteke & Sturridge)? If the plan is not to play 2 up top then we will lose Sturridge because he will certainly not hang around as backup to Benteke and he will not be happy not playing up front if that is what Rodgers is thinking (if he's thinking at all). And if the plan is to only play one up front then the question has to be asked what was the point in signing Ings knowing we already had Origi coming in. There is no point having 4 strikers at the club if you are only plying one up top.
Next thing, if plan is/was to play 2 up top when Sturridge is fit then why has he not started the season with 2 up top so that the players are used to playing with 2 strikers again rather than training and playing for a few months with one then changing to two? Surely it would cause less disruption?
03 Sep 2015 11:13:42
Benteke has a lot more than just being a target man, his pace is quick enough to scare defences and he has a nice touch. Problem I see is he has to be up for it to see his use with our system. Even the first games which we won I sat there hoping to see ings get on for the last 20 or so minutes as I think at the moment his style of play would suit coutinho and our style better and give us a different threat in the last 20, holding that as the next few games come to us our team will start to play as a better unit through out the games, we weren't the only team to suffer a defeat last weekend, apart from city what other "top 4 team" is blazing away in front of us.
I'm not happy with a mediocre performance and still unsure if sticking with Rodgers is a good thing but after 1 bad game I'm not going to start throwing rattle out of pram, it's a bloody long season and as I said and as the table shows were not the only team that had a bad weekend.
03 Sep 2015 11:29:31
I think some of you have totally misunderstood what my intentions were by making the post. I probably didn't make myself clear.
So here goes. The squad is what it is, so how do you guys think we should utilise the squad to start being more dangerous on the attack?
Red Rum
03 Sep 2015 11:50:20
Red Rum it was clear enough,don't worry about that.
03 Sep 2015 12:01:21
We don't need width just for benteke - we need width as an option 'period'. When teams park the bus, only a fool (brendan rodgers) would still try and play through the middle - where there is no space.
03 Sep 2015 12:10:37
I think Benteke can play up top on his own, without question.
The key thing is where we set up collectively on the pitch. At the moment, and like last season, we're too deep as a team. We need to push 10 yards up the pitch, and get players around him more quickly.
Our wide men (in what is a narrow system) are pressing from the half-way line. It's too deep, if we move 10 yards up the pitch, the pressing will be much more effective.
I agree Ings needs to play. I really think he'll score a hatful given the chance.
03 Sep 2015 12:56:27
We have a good squad, Rodgers should be able to use our squad for top 4 at least, not saying win league but we should be there or there abouts, apart from Man city perhaps Chelsea the other clubs have no better squad than us. Problem to me is Rodgers has that many midfielders he's concentratin on how to get them all on the pitch at once.
We need to start from the back, strong back 4 including sakho if I had my way then let lovren and skrtle fight to play next to him, Luca has to start just in front of them, Milner and Henderson just in front of Lucas left and right central, which leaves the 3 front spots to be fought over, I'd start with firmino and Coutinho either side of bent eke to start with, then during the second half use lallana ibe and ings to change pace, shape and another dimension depending on team.
We have good players who can create, good experience and a lot of power and pace. But too many midfielders playing at once. Our players should be made to earn their place, we have cover all over the pitch so if ANY player is not performing change him.
Just my opinion
03 Sep 2015 12:56:59
Starting from the back I would play a high line which requires pacey CBs who are good on the ball. Pacey to catch the opposition attackers trying to beat the offside trap and good on the ball so as to invite pressure and stretch the opposition team. That would most likely mean Sakho, Ilori, Gomez.
I'd change our LB to Moreno who carries an attacking threat and the high line would mean he would have less ground to cover when tracking back. I'd also have the full backs overlapping so as to add more options in attack. So Clyne and Moreno there.
The midfield three would be either Lucas or Rossiter as deep lying, Hendo or Milner or Can as box to box and Couts or Texeira or Lallana as advanced playmakers.
In attack I'd keep Benteke because he is good at winning the first ball but I would place wingers/inside forwards playing off the shoulder to give him and our midfield some runners. So that would be three attackers, with the wide ones contributing defensively, mainly by pressing high. For me that would be three of Benteke, Firmino, Ings, Ibe and Lallana. I would add Milner as well but I doubt he'd be happy with that after being promised a central role.
In the summer I'd bring in a sweeper keeper who's fast at coming of his line and has a good, quick distribution to start counter attacks.
03 Sep 2015 13:37:31
Red my problem is your comments are based on one game, the West hame defeat
Before that Benteke was absolutely fantastic all round
Hold up play
Winning the first ball
Running in behind to which him an continuo linked up well
Chasing and pressing even in the final minutes
He had a game where all the space was restricted because of how deep west ham played. We also had continuo to far away from him, unlike the arsenal game were he played more central.
So I think bob and red you need to understand why I an others will have a problem with what you have said
There are positives all over the place, West hame was a cock up granted but even ed001 I mean ED001 who loathes br said there were positives from the arsenal game. It's going to take abit of time, lovren has to go for sakho (personally would of loved ilori but will settle for mama), once he get the middle 3 right with a good balance and firmino settles in we will be soundo.
{Ed001's Note - I do not loathe anyone, let alone Rodgers. I dislike the way he is destroying the football club I love, but I do not loathe him.}
03 Sep 2015 14:46:35
But freesp it was a problem in the first three games too tbh. Yes we didn't concede but it was not the free flowing stuff you are trying to make out it was. As far as i could tell plan b was to lump it up to benteke who generally had no one within ten yards of him to knock it down to.
The team needs to mix up playing through the middle with playing wide to stretch opposing teams and yes a bit of long ball play. But at the moment without a bit of magic from our only creative player or shed losds of luck we are devoid of cohesion going forward.
Lots of fans today telling people they should not have an opinion on how the team should play on a banter site. sigh. No one tells you lot to stop being super fans.
03 Sep 2015 14:50:14
And again it was not a post by rr to criticise benteke but on how as a team we are not playing to his strenghs or players of his type. I swear some people cannot process the english language when they read it.
03 Sep 2015 14:55:32
Anyway lads, there's more important things happening this month far more important than football. Google bible prophecy September 2015. We all need to get right with God.
Red Rum
03 Sep 2015 15:06:08
I think the problem might be the presumption there was a plan at all. Really ever since BR came in our signings seem to be made more by dart board rather than meticulously planning out what positions we are weak in, how we want to play, and then getting the best possible candidates in for those positions.
04 Sep 2015 03:18:31
RDL, I totally agree with you on your point. It is management by trial and error which will only breed incompetence
04 Sep 2015 03:17:24
I think it is very childish or immature to label someone a BR hater or loather just because you disagree with their views on the manager's job. It just shows your level of intelligence or lack thereof.