Maybe because that's what we used to be like?
Dortmund vs Liverpool post-match thread
- Thread starter rurikbird
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Maybe because that's what we used to be like?
It's usually the opposition fans who will decry our performance saying the reason we got the result we did was down to their failure / poor performance. Dortmund didn't perform to their expected level because we didn't allow them to. The pressing by both sides was pretty phenomenal last night. I think we shocked them and they will be very nervous about the return fixture now.
Win a league title and we'll be back at it again. Oh and lower the ticket prices.
From Klopp's answer in one of the interviews I read, it looked like having Lallana defend one of their CBs (in this case Hummels) was his plan. It's plausible, since for the past few games, we've had a short full back defend a tall striker. To be fair, I thought we've defended direct setpieces pretty well lately. We're still missing the trick when dealing with short corners though, as seen yesterday.
Now that sounds like a dreadful idea at first glance, could someone tell me why it's not? Do they trip over the midgets or something?
I don't know, but surely I'm not the only one who has noticed that?
Nuri Sahin: "The media said we were favourites. I knew from the start that we wouldn't beat Liverpool as easily as Tottenham."
Haha! Burn!
Haha! Burn!
I don't think he said Lallana was to mark Hummels. He said that was Lallana's space to defend.
Oh yeah you're right; re-read it and he said it was his idea to have Lallana defending the position rather than Origi.
Putting a weak, short lad to mark Hummels is a mistake no matter how we look at it though.
Exactly what he said : "“In the second half, a set-piece, and how it is in football that’s a fault of all of us. I decided to have Adam Lallana in this position instead of Divock Origi, sorry for this. "
That makes more sense.
No, in the same way that the arguments to that effect in 2005 ("it was GH's team" etc.) made no sense. It isn't just the team that counts, it's also what you do with it, as HC says.
If Klopps last game this season is to lift a European trophy with Rodgers team, whos last game last season was a 6-1 trashing by Stoke, I would definately give credit to Klopp.
Given Rodgers European record with us even asking posing the question that he would be due some credit is a bit out there.
We proved in 2005 that a relatively shit team and win even the biggest European trophy with a combination of hard work, and excellent tactics and a bit of luck and skill. Klopp winning this trophy would be hugely impressive statement and the credit would all be his.
We proved in 2005 that a relatively shit team and win even the biggest European trophy with a combination of hard work, and excellent tactics and a bit of luck and skill. Klopp winning this trophy would be hugely impressive statement and the credit would all be his.
There's a big difference between Adam Lallana marking him, and 6 foot 1 inch Origi
...because, as so often with you, that was a sweeping generalisation which went far beyond the evidence. He was poor in Europe but often a lot better in domestic football.
I think, that despite the season we gave up the league title, there are more evidence of him being tactically inept than tactically adept.
He couldn't even sort out our defence in the 4 years.
Which was the underlying reason we lost the title.. His tactical nouse in setting up a team to defend, just wasn't all that..
Football was great.. Sensational at times, but you where never gong to win a league title conceding 50 goals +.. It is incredibly Nieve for anyone to think so... Our attacking threat papered over the cracks..
So when the attacking threat was all but diminished the following season.. The real problem in Rodgers reign was heavily exposed...
Pretty much.
- Status
Similar threads
