Gen-Gen Depressing

[doctor_mac]

Yeah, I don't buy that we don't have that in our weaponry. We've done it loads through Mane and others. We scored a great goal against Leicester through Mane breaking clear and squaring it to Firmino. Origi did a brilliant dummy and turn to run clear against Spurs last week. Against Spurs in the league, Vorm played the sweeper role to thwart our counter attacks, he came out and made two excellent sliding challenges on Mane, after Mane was sent clear.

Lucas played an excellent though ball last week against Spurs that saw us break their defensive line. We do it, we just don't have a central obvious focal point that is looked for when playing the through ball. Coutinho has loved it this season having Mane runnning off the shoulder.

Ings broke through too towards the end, and could have been much cooler with his finish.

I think particularly towards the end of games we'll see plenty of these sorts of chances (and actually, we have already).

 

[My_Blood_Bleeds_Red]

Fair enough.

I dunno bout you but it's great being a Liverpool fan again. I'm just gonna savor the moment and leave the brainy, analytical stuff to others. There's nothing wrong in that of course. Each to his own.

But come on, Klopp's a breath of fresh air isn't he ?

Even the players are playing with such freedom and joy that haven't been seen a long time.

 

[manwithnoname]

I can obviously see the many benefits of not relying on one player to score all of your goals - even if Vardy and Leicester isn't a great example, because Mahrez also contributed 17 Premiership goals.

I suppose the main thrust of the argument is, that if it is so obvious and beneficial, how come the team that wins the title always has at least one player that scored 20 Premiership goals? Almost as if......there's a really, really obvious pattern.

Leicester - Vardy 24, Mahrez 17
Chelsea - Costa 20
City - Toure 20, Aguero 17
United - RVP 26
City - Aguero 23
United - Berbatov 20
Chelsea - Drogba 29

So, my concern is that we don't appear to have that calibre of striker (on the pitch anyway).

Am I on my own here? Is everyone else quite happy that we'll be the team to buck that trend? Based on what?

 

[mark1975]

Fair enough.

I dunno bout you but it's great being a Liverpool fan again. I'm just gonna savor the moment and leave the brainy, analytical stuff to others. There's nothing wrong in that of course. Each to his own.

But come on, Klopp's a breath of fresh air isn't he ?

Even the players are playing with such freedom and joy that haven't been seen a long time.

We all think that about Klopp and about how we're playing, but some posters on here who can be ultra positive, are always quick to take exception to people asking questions about where we can improve. The old Liverpool ethos was that, if there was a player out there better than what we had, we would go for him. Obviously that was when we existed in a smaller footballing World, but the ideal was correct. We should always strive to improve, because it's how you keep getting better and avoid stagnating. Look at how many teams have won the league and failed to compound that success by thinking about the next step. Chelsea did it a couple of seasons back.

 

[mark1975]

I can obviously see the many benefits of not relying on one player to score all of your goals - even if Vardy and Leicester isn't a great example, because Mahrez also contributed 17 Premiership goals.

I suppose the main thrust of the argument is, that if it is so obvious and beneficial, how come the team that wins the title always has at least one player that scored 20 Premiership goals? Almost as if......there's a really, really obvious pattern.

Leicester - Vardy 24, Mahrez 17
Chelsea - Costa 20
City - Toure 20, Aguero 17
United - RVP 26
City - Aguero 23
United - Berbatov 20
Chelsea - Drogba 29

So, my concern is that we don't appear to have that calibre of striker (on the pitch anyway).

Am I on my own here? Is everyone else quite happy that we'll be the team to buck that trend? Based on what?

I guess the flip side is that not many of our current peers look like they are going to bag that amount of goals from one player either. Aguero has struggled with fitness and favour so far this season, United don't have anyone who will score that many, Kane is struggling for Spurs, maybe Sanchez and Giroud might get in the 15-20 mark. Everton could get 20+ from Lukaku, but will they break into the top four?

I think we do need a reliable goalscorer, because like I said earlier, there will come a point where we have a dip in form or a major injury and we will need a player to have that individual brilliance to be the difference. We have great individuals but they arguably, historically, don't do it enough. For example, Coutinho has bailed us out with individual brilliance sometimes, but does anyone feel that that can be relied upon? As opposed to say, someone like the aforementioned players - Suarez, Torres, Gerrard, Owen, etc?

 

[manwithnoname]

I guess the flip side is that not many of our current peers look like they are going to bag that amount of goals from one player either. Aguero has struggled with fitness and favour so far this season, United don't have anyone who will score that many, Kane is struggling for Spurs, maybe Sanchez and Giroud might get in the 15-20 mark. Everton could get 20+ from Lukaku, but will they break into the top four?

I think we do need a reliable goalscorer, because like I said earlier, there will come a point where we have a dip in form or a major injury and we will need a player to have that individual brilliance to be the difference. We have great individuals but they arguably, historically, don't do it enough. For example, Coutinho has bailed us out with individual brilliance sometimes, but does any feel that that can be relied upon, as opposed to say, someone like the aforementioned players - Suarez, Torres, Gerrard, Owen, etc?

That's it. The team is always the most important factor, rather than one or two hugely gifted individuals, and there's plenty of evidence to show that sometimes swapping out one ostensibly more talented player for another less obviously gifted can makes the team function better.

But there are times when you need those individuals to rescue a game that is going badly. For the keeper to make a series of blinding saves, or your striker to take a couple of chances and turn defeat into victory. Sometimes the team just isn't functioning, and that's when you need game-changers.

Owen vs Arsenal. For example.

 

[dantes]

I can obviously see the many benefits of not relying on one player to score all of your goals - even if Vardy and Leicester isn't a great example, because Mahrez also contributed 17 Premiership goals.

I suppose the main thrust of the argument is, that if it is so obvious and beneficial, how come the team that wins the title always has at least one player that scored 20 Premiership goals? Almost as if......there's a really, really obvious pattern.

Leicester - Vardy 24, Mahrez 17
Chelsea - Costa 20
City - Toure 20, Aguero 17
United - RVP 26
City - Aguero 23
United - Berbatov 20
Chelsea - Drogba 29

So, my concern is that we don't appear to have that calibre of striker (on the pitch anyway).

Am I on my own here? Is everyone else quite happy that we'll be the team to buck that trend? Based on what?

I would conjecture that those were all good teams, or expensive teams. So they will outplay and score against the majority of their opponents. Hence goals. All of those teams had one-dimensional ways of attacking. It worked, but it is a traditional tactical approach of getting service to a striker, hence those strikers got the chances and put them away. That's why they get over 20 goals. We have a different approach, which results in chances falling to any one of three or four players. Individually, none of them are as likely to finish any given chance as a clinical striker is. But over the course of a season, and over many seasons, they'll be more consistent than a single 20-goal striker.

I can see this mathematically by imagining the probability distributions. Everyone else can see this intuitively and by common sense. You fail to see it because of some sort of deep-rooted pessimism. I would conjecture that Lucas has done this to you.

 

[manwithnoname]

I would conjecture that those were all good teams, or expensive teams. So they will outplay and score against the majority of their opponents. Hence goals. All of those teams had one-dimensional ways of attacking. It worked, but it is a traditional tactical approach of getting service to a striker, hence those strikers got the chances and put them away. That's why they get over 20 goals. We have a different approach, which results in chances falling to any one of three or four players. Individually, none of them are as likely to finish any given chance as a clinical striker is. But over the course of a season, and over many seasons, they'll be more consistent than a single 20-goal striker.

I can see this mathematically by imagining the probability distributions. Everyone else can see this intuitively and by common sense. You fail to see it because of some sort of deep-rooted pessimism. I would conjecture that Lucas has done this to you.

It's too easy to blame Lucas

 

[Avmenon]

I would conjecture that those were all good teams, or expensive teams. So they will outplay and score against the majority of their opponents. Hence goals. All of those teams had one-dimensional ways of attacking. It worked, but it is a traditional tactical approach of getting service to a striker, hence those strikers got the chances and put them away. That's why they get over 20 goals. We have a different approach, which results in chances falling to any one of three or four players. Individually, none of them are as likely to finish any given chance as a clinical striker is. But over the course of a season, and over many seasons, they'll be more consistent than a single 20-goal striker.

I can see this mathematically by imagining the probability distributions. Everyone else can see this intuitively and by common sense. You fail to see it because of some sort of deep-rooted pessimism. I would conjecture that Lucas has done this to you.

This isn't really difficult; I like Klopp's style of having multiple forwards creating space and chipping in with goals.
But we also clearly need to have quality striking options when we're up against extremely strong defences, for example.

Quick movement and space aren't going to be much use against the shite that is happy to give us 90% possession and put 11 men behind the ball.
Why can't we have both types of attack? And I for one don't want to go back to the old days with one striker leading the line in every game.
One striker is good when it's Suarez, not Baros.

 

[TSD]

So, my concern is that we don't appear to have that calibre of striker (on the pitch anyway).

We have one on the bench though. For me, it's also about getting Sturridge on the same page and harnessing his obvious ability, just as a Plan B. That's all down to Klopp and could be a crucial factor as our rivals don't have that level of Plan B, imo.

 

[FreshRed]

Regarding the impact of a few of our starters missing a game through injury - this season I think is when Klopp reestablishes a true identity and personality in the club again. The performance dropped without Gino & Lallana because a) they're both very good players in good form; and b) they are among the small group of players whom Klopp trusts to shape the team in his image.

It's been a while since such a clear and cohesive identity could be detected in our play. I reckon next summer he'll add a handful of players who will understand and fit that identity, who will give us some much needed depth.

I suspect most of that "handful" will come from within - youngsters who have been with the first team and U23s and understands the demands. I expect most of the outside help to continue to improve our defensive side. I could see us going for that one unique forward that occasionally is available - Tevez, Suarez, Aguero. That is the type of forward that will fit.

 

[mark1975]

We have one on the bench though. For me, it's also about getting Sturridge on the same page and harnessing his obvious ability, just as a Plan B. That's all down to Klopp and could be a crucial factor as our rivals don't have that level of Plan B, imo.

True, but we're kidding ourselves if we think Sturridge will ever be content with being anyones plan B.

 

[dantes]

This isn't really difficult; I like Klopp's style of having multiple forwards creating space and chipping in with goals.
But we also clearly need to have quality striking options when we're up against extremely strong defences, for example.

Quick movement and space aren't going to be much use against the shite that is happy to give us 90% possession and put 11 men behind the ball.
Why can't we have both types of attack? And I for one don't want to go back to the old days with one striker leading the line in every game.
One striker is good when it's Suarez, not Baros.

See above. We can have both types, but just not at the same time. Klopp needs to work on it as an extra option.

 

[Avmenon]

See above. We can have both types, but just not at the same time. Klopp needs to work on it as an extra option.

Obviously.

But that's not answering the question, is it?
We can have both, and not at the same time.
The point is that some think one is better than the other, which isnt always the case.

 

[dantes]

True, but we're kidding ourselves if we think Sturridge will ever be content with being anyones plan B.

He can easily be lied to, especially with him being a man of faith. Klopp should keep telling him all sorts of shit to keep him happy until we get into Europe again, then use that to get him to sign a new contract. Its easy.

 

[ctlovesred]

So if no team has a 20 goal scorer, will the premier league just call it all off?

 

[Hansern]

I can obviously see the many benefits of not relying on one player to score all of your goals - even if Vardy and Leicester isn't a great example, because Mahrez also contributed 17 Premiership goals.

I suppose the main thrust of the argument is, that if it is so obvious and beneficial, how come the team that wins the title always has at least one player that scored 20 Premiership goals? Almost as if......there's a really, really obvious pattern.

Leicester - Vardy 24, Mahrez 17
Chelsea - Costa 20
City - Toure 20, Aguero 17
United - RVP 26
City - Aguero 23
United - Berbatov 20
Chelsea - Drogba 29

So, my concern is that we don't appear to have that calibre of striker (on the pitch anyway).

Am I on my own here? Is everyone else quite happy that we'll be the team to buck that trend? Based on what?

Its also really really obvious that it doesnt make that much of a difference. Last season it was Vardy 24, Mahrez 17, Kane 25 and Aguero 24 while our top scorer was Firmino with 10.

Guess with how many goals they outscored us in the league over the course of the season 15/16:
Leicester 5 goals
Spurs 6 goals
City 9 goals
Arsenal 2 goals

We all agree that last season was a bit meh for us but we still finished with nearly the same amount of goals scored as the top 4. Our problem was obviously the defence and inconsistency.

"But 20+ goalscorers win you games". Well, Spurs and City won a grand total of 3 more games than us over 38 games.

We're scoring 2,4 goals per game now. Last season top 4 finished the season with Leicester 1.78, Arsenal 1.71, Spurs 1.81 and City 1.86.
We obviously wont continue to score the amount of goals we are now over an entire season but will we be around 1,78 -1.86? Very likely.

Can Firmino score 16-20 goals this season? Yeah, he probably can if he stays fit.

Going forward we should look at how Sturridge fits into this team and if we need to replace him with a striker that can contribute with more goals if he cant.
But there arent any proof or facts yet that says we cant be successful with the current set up.

Need to sort out the defence though. That will be the key to where we finish in the end.

 

[FreshRed]

I can obviously see the many benefits of not relying on one player to score all of your goals - even if Vardy and Leicester isn't a great example, because Mahrez also contributed 17 Premiership goals.

I suppose the main thrust of the argument is, that if it is so obvious and beneficial, how come the team that wins the title always has at least one player that scored 20 Premiership goals? Almost as if......there's a really, really obvious pattern.

Leicester - Vardy 24, Mahrez 17
Chelsea - Costa 20
City - Toure 20, Aguero 17
United - RVP 26
City - Aguero 23
United - Berbatov 20
Chelsea - Drogba 29

So, my concern is that we don't appear to have that calibre of striker (on the pitch anyway).

Am I on my own here? Is everyone else quite happy that we'll be the team to buck that trend? Based on what?

It would be good to add the assists to the striker totals. The number of goals the striker scores is not the key datapoint, but the total number that they participate in. Even assists sometimes aren't enough to capture, but are closer.

I would rather have a striker that participates in 30 than scores 20. But, I understand the desire for a great finisher/goal scorer.

But, I do like how we spread the responsibility right now. I still remember the awful Chelsea game three years ago and it became clear that Suarez was not going to score no matter how hard he tried and I knew our title was gone. It is dangerous to be so reliant on one player (either because of injury or a Mourinho snuffing out that one player).

 

[Mystic]

I can obviously see the many benefits of not relying on one player to score all of your goals - even if Vardy and Leicester isn't a great example, because Mahrez also contributed 17 Premiership goals.

I suppose the main thrust of the argument is, that if it is so obvious and beneficial, how come the team that wins the title always has at least one player that scored 20 Premiership goals? Almost as if......there's a really, really obvious pattern.

Leicester - Vardy 24, Mahrez 17
Chelsea - Costa 20
City - Toure 20, Aguero 17
United - RVP 26
City - Aguero 23
United - Berbatov 20
Chelsea - Drogba 29

So, my concern is that we don't appear to have that calibre of striker (on the pitch anyway).

Am I on my own here? Is everyone else quite happy that we'll be the team to buck that trend? Based on what?

Everyone would be happy if Firmino, Coutinho or Mane made 20 goals, but I think what we're all saying is that it's healthier having three players all looking like they can score, in a team that's scoring for fun, than it is having a dependence on one player. If we weren't joint top scorers in the league we'd probably be saying the same as you are, but whilst we are, it seems like a silly thing to worry about.

Whilst what you say is true, that more often than not the winning side in the league will have a 20+ goal player, it's not always the case, United 09, 07, 01, Chelsea 06, 05, are all examples of when the league has been won with less than a 20 goal player, in one case the top scorer only had 13. Obviously they're the outliers, but with the way we're scoring there's no reason why we couldn't be one (if you ignore our defence that is).

 

[dantes]

Obviously.

But that's not answering the question, is it?
We can have both, and not at the same time.
The point is that some think one is better than the other, which isnt always the case.

They're wrong. Having three 'strikers' is better relying upon one real striker. That will prove to be the case over many games. But it's not to say that in a game where you are sat there and can see it obviously isn't working, that you just do nothing and write stupid notes into your diary. That is the time you should intervene and switch to Sturridge or Origi. Or even from the start in games you think they'll be the better option.

So you're generally picking the more consistent way of playing. But going further and adding-value based on your understanding of particular games.

 

[Hansern]

Everyone would be happy if Firmino, Coutinho or Mane made 20 goals, but I think what we're all saying is that it's healthier having three players all looking like they can score, in a team that's scoring for fun, than it is having a dependence on one player. If we weren't joint top scorers in the league we'd probably be saying the same as you are, but whilst we are, it seems like a silly thing to worry about.

Whilst what you say is true, that more often than not the winning side in the league will have a 20+ goal player, it's not always the case, United 09, 07, 01, Chelsea 06, 05, are all examples of when the league has been won with less than a 20 goal player, in one case the top scorer only had 13. Obviously they're the outliers, but with the way we're scoring there's no reason why we couldn't be one (if you ignore our defence that is).

Sturridge and Suarez scored 52 goals between them in 13/14 and we still came 2nd.

 

[manwithnoname]

Sturridge and Suarez scored 52 goals between them in 13/14 and we still came 2nd.

That's because we had a shit defence

So at least that bit hasn't changed

 

[TSD]

True, but we're kidding ourselves if we think Sturridge will ever be content with being anyones plan B.

This is where Klopp will earn his paycheck I suppose. Keep Sturridge maybe not so much content, but pissed and hungry enough to want to prove him wrong at every starring opportunity. Won't probably make it to another season on this balance. Unless we do something crazy like winning the league.

 

[Avmenon]

They're wrong. Having three 'strikers' is better relying upon one real striker. That will prove to be the case over many games. But it's not to say that in a game where you are sat there and can see it obviously isn't working, that you just do nothing and write stupid notes into your diary. That is the time you should intervene and switch to Sturridge or Origi. Or even from the start in games you think they'll be the better option.

So you're generally picking the more consistent way of playing. But going further and adding-value based on your understanding of particular games.

Agreed.

 

[My_Blood_Bleeds_Red]

We all think that about Klopp and about how we're playing, but some posters on here who can be ultra positive, are always quick to take exception to people asking questions about where we can improve. The old Liverpool ethos was that, if there was a player out there better than what we had, we would go for him. Obviously that was when we existed in a smaller footballing World, but the ideal was correct. We should always strive to improve, because it's how you keep getting better and avoid stagnating. Look at how many teams have won the league and failed to compound that success by thinking about the next step. Chelsea did it a couple of seasons back.

Can't say I disagree with you on that point though.

It's true that probably the greatest enemy of good is perfection. And yes we must always strive for excellence, no matter how good we are.

So please carry on and don't mind me.

 

[leftpeg]

But there are times when you need those individuals to rescue a game that is going badly. For the keeper to make a series of blinding saves, or your striker to take a couple of chances and turn defeat into victory. Sometimes the team just isn't functioning, and that's when you need game-changers.

Owen vs Arsenal. For example.

This is exactly the point. And in those situations, one on one with the keeper or faced with a shot at goal in a crowded penalty box, I'd want Sturridge to be our guy on the spot.

 

[Frogfish]

I can obviously see the many benefits of not relying on one player to score all of your goals - even if Vardy and Leicester isn't a great example, because Mahrez also contributed 17 Premiership goals.

I suppose the main thrust of the argument is, that if it is so obvious and beneficial, how come the team that wins the title always has at least one player that scored 20 Premiership goals? Almost as if......there's a really, really obvious pattern.

Leicester - Vardy 24, Mahrez 17
Chelsea - Costa 20
City - Toure 20, Aguero 17
United - RVP 26
City - Aguero 23
United - Berbatov 20
Chelsea - Drogba 29

So, my concern is that we don't appear to have that calibre of striker (on the pitch anyway).

Am I on my own here? Is everyone else quite happy that we'll be the team to buck that trend? Based on what?

In 3 of those seasons the top scorers barely reached your minimum requirement, 20 goals. Let's take City's 37 from (Aguero and Toure, that same season Suarez and Sturridge had 53 and we still didn't win the damn thing) or Chelsea's 34 from Costa+Hazard, they aren't exactly high totals, likewise City in 14/15 had Aguero (26) and next highest was Toure (10).

In 2010/11 United won it with their top 4 scorers having 20, 13, 11 & 9 (53 goals or just over 13 per player).
In 2008/09 United won it by 4 points ahead of us with their top scorers only having 18 (Ronaldo), 12 (Rooney), 9 (Berbatov) and 4 (Vidic) (43 goals or just under 11 from each of their top 4 goal-scorers)!

If our top scorer finished with 16, for example, the difference could easily be made up by having a number of relatively high scorers throughout the team, let's say 14, 12, 10, 8 especially with the way the goals are being spread around and our style of play.

Considering that in just 10 matches 3 of our players have 4 goals (and Lallana 3) already it wouldn't surprise me to see 6 players with 8 or more goals (Firmino, Coutinho, Mane, Milner, Sturridge & Lallana) and 5-6 more from players like Origi and Wijnaldum with over double figures in more goals scattered around the team. Easily matching the totals of some recent league winning teams. All conjecture but perfectly feasible the way we are going.

In fact looking back at say the top 4 scorers in the PL winning team in recent years it is roughly 45-55 goals between their top 4 scorers, translating to an average of just over 11 up to 13-14 a piece. We are well on track for that now and Sturridge and Origi haven't even chipped in yet (they surely will).

City have 16 goals from 4 players so far : 7, 4, 3, 3
Liverpool 15 goals from 4 players so far : 4, 4, 4, 3
Chelsea 15 goals from 4 players so far : 8, 5, 1, 1
Arsenal 15 goals from 4 players so far : 6, 5, 3, 1
Spurs 10 goals from 4 players so far : 4, 3, 2, 1

 

[mark1975]

Looking at those stats Froggy. Chelsea(8) and City's(7) top scorer has scored more or less double what our top scorer(4) has scored.

 

[Frogfish]

Looking at those stats Froggy. Chelsea(8) and City's(7) top scorer has scored more or less double what our top scorer(4) has scored.

How could you miss my point Mark ?! Small picture. Look at the bigger picture .. the goals from the top four scorers from each of the Top 4 teams are almost identical.

 

[ctlovesred]

Isn't it just a little bit more important whether the goals are players score end up winning games, rather than just being goals tallied up for statistics? I mean we can banter about numbers all day but doesn't matter how many you score if they're not scored at the proper time. When they are needed most. And so far, this team has been able to score the right amount of goals at the right time.