The myth of our attack

[Oliver Twist]

But this wasn't the point people we're making back in November, it was either/or. You either had a team that spread goals without a bonafide goalscorer, or a prolific striker. They're not mutually exclusive.

I am merely putting forward a counter argument to yours now, Mark. It's a little pointless bringing up arguments made by 'people' in November. The rest of the season panning out like it did may have changed their views on the matter.

Buying a prolific striker doesn't necessarily mean more goals from around the park, it just means you'll (more than likely) get more goals from your...erm...striker.

I'd sooner fix up the defence and bring in a top quality wide player or two, who possibly have the ability to play through the middle.

 

[Hansern]

Do you think? I thought we just scored a few goals with Sturridge starting? The only "issue" was Klopp shoehorning him into the system, the same as he tried to do with Benteke. He adjusted it a bit to get the best of him, and we scored goals again, also it's not really a coincidence that Sturridge performed better when he was actually fully fit.

So we should have changed the system and kept Benteke then?

He wasnt fully fit though. Struggled with the hip injury all through the end of the season. And bar West Ham, he didnt really perform any better either. No coincidence it was in a game were we had more space and time then God knows when.

 

[manwithnoname]

Brendan. I honestly didn't realise how appallingly awful at maths you are. I apologise. Don't worry though, in future I'll remember spell it out REALLY simply for you.

So in this instance .... WTF are you on about !? Two players failed to make it, two fell a goal short but improved their assists by 2 (so combined, a slight gain), one improved slightly and one was a big improvement. So no, not nearly all wrong at all, as any Liverpool fan could tell you. And all that after suffering a horrendous injury list too which most certainly skewed what would have been far better figures.

I really wish you wouldn't be such a lazy cunt and would actually do some real research instead of trawling 6CM for soundbites.

Lallana -1 on goal +2 on assists. Near enough same.
Coutinho +5 on goals, +2 on assists. Win.
Origi -1 on goals +2 on assists. Near enough same.
Mane +2 goals and -1 assists. Small win.
Wijnaldum -5 and +4 on assists. Lose.
Firmino - 5 goals and -4 assists. Lose.

No, sorry, when you say a player will "improve on a total", I'm of the old school maths opinion that that means they'll score more.

Highlighting two players who actually scored less and then claiming "near enough the same" isn't really adhering to those principles. So essentially only Coutinho scored more, the rest scored less, and you actually tried to remove Mane from the equation entirely by banging on about the AFCON absence, but I was always confident Mane would score about 15 anyway.

So overall, you're wrong again. This time using actual maths. You're shit at this.

 

[manwithnoname]

But this wasn't the point people we're making back in November, it was either/or. You either had a team that spread goals without a bonafide goalscorer, or a prolific striker. They're not mutually exclusive.

Absolutely. The amount of blithering fuckwits trying to ret-con what they said based on "how things panned out" is quite risible. It would just be far easier to apologise and compliment the people who actually called it right first time, not those who made outlandish goalscoring claims that in almost every single case, simply didn't fucking happen.

 

[Frogfish]

No, sorry, when you say a player will "improve on a total", I'm of the old school maths opinion that that means they'll score more.

Highlighting two players who actually scored less and then claiming "near enough the same" isn't really adhering to those principles. So essentially only Coutinho scored more, the rest scored less, and you actually tried to remove Mane from the equation entirely by banging on about the AFCON absence, but I was always confident Mane would score about 15 anyway.

So overall, you're wrong again. This time using actual maths. You're shit at this.

2 improved, 2 didn't and 2 had combined totals above those I gave (yes Brendan, that's why I originally gave both goals and assists - even though you'd like to ignore one because it doesn't suit your agenda). So no, not 'nearly all wrong' (clearly you are indeed appallingly pathetic at maths) .. not by a long long way.

And with all of our top players missing big chunks of the season.

So sorry, no Brendan I'm afraid you are the one that is shit at this. Trying to make out there was some massive failure on behalf of our players when, quite clearly to everyone but you, you are splitting hairs to try and save your position. Fail. Again. Like the last time we got into it and I had to destroy you with facts simply because you failed to pull your finger out of your arse and do some basic research. Deja Vu.

 

[manwithnoname]

2 improved, 2 didn't and 2 had combined totals above those I gave (yes Brendan, that's why I originally gave both goals and assists - even though you'd like to ignore one because it doesn't suit your agenda). So no, not 'nearly all wrong' (clearly you are indeed appallingly pathetic at maths) .. not by a long long way.

And with all of our top players missing big chunks of the season.

So sorry, no Brendan I'm afraid you are the one that is shit at this. Trying to make out there was some massive failure on behalf of our players when, quite clearly to everyone but you, you are splitting hairs to try and save your position. Fail. Again. Like the last time we got into it and I had to destroy you with facts simply because you failed to pull your finger out of your arse and do some basic research. Deja Vu.

I'm always suspicious of your use of the word assists since you made a post claiming that even though Firmino only had one assist at the time, he'd actually made 25 goal-scoring chances, but nobody had managed to finish them, so it wasn't really a fair reflection.

(Naturally, I found this most chortlesome given it was in a thread in which I bemoaned the lack of a decent finisher)

In this instance, I was clearly only referring to goals scored, given the thread is about signing a new striker and our need to score more goals.

You listed a load of players and listed how many goals you expected them to score. You got most of them wrong (again, as usual) to a net deficit of ten goals, which is impressively wrong, even by your cyclopean standards.

 

[Frogfish]

I'm always suspicious of your use of the word assists since you made a post claiming that even though Firmino only had one assist at the time, he'd actually made 25 goal-scoring chances, but nobody had managed to finish them, so it wasn't really a fair reflection.

(Naturally, I found this most chortlesome given it was in a thread in which I bemoaned the lack of a decent finisher)

In this instance, I was clearly only referring to goals scored, given the thread is about signing a new striker and our need to score more goals.

You listed a load of players and listed how many goals you expected them to score. You got most of them wrong (again, as usual) to a net deficit of ten goals, which is impressively wrong, even by your cyclopean standards.

In that post you quoted I clearly wasn't. Hence the list quoted goals and assists.

Even if we take your myopic view (as against my all-seeing eye that you so generously pointed out) - since naturally it most closely fits your rhetoric - 10 goals isn't in any shape or form a massive deficit (roughly 1 goal every 25 matches per player over the course of a whole season) especially given the numerous mid to long term injuries the team accrued it is hardly any surprise at all is it.

Clearly when compiling a list and making a forecast the potential for injuries taking out players for extended periods is not a real consideration (as opposed to missing the odd match here and there) but then of course I wasn't basing my theory/forecast with the benefit of hindsight, like some. I've no doubt whatsoever that in any 'normal' season we would have hit the total comfortably since we were only 8.5% short as it was.

 

[mom]

Ok so let's say we blow £50 million on a top striker and move Firmino to the left wing as he ain't replacing Mane.
Taking into account that Firmino will be nowhere near as effective out wide, how many extra goals will the new striker provide for the team overall. Bearing in mind how many we scored this season anyway. We outscored most teams this season.
Don't get me wrong, we need a striker, but not because we needed a striker earlier in the season, because we didn't. We were scoring goals for fun.
Besides Firmino we have no real reliable quality up front. We need a striker to fill his boots when he can't play. Or someone so extraordinarily good that he can do what Firmino does and more. But what overall goals scored gain will we get for a huge outlay?

 

[Rosco]

Brendan. I honestly didn't realise how appallingly awful at maths you are. I apologise. Don't worry though, in future I'll remember spell it out REALLY simply for you.

So in this instance .... WTF are you on about !? Two players failed to make it, two fell a goal short but improved their assists by 2 (so combined, a slight gain), one improved slightly and one was a big improvement. So no, not nearly all wrong at all, as any Liverpool fan could tell you. And all that after suffering a horrendous injury list too which most certainly skewed what would have been far better figures.

I really wish you wouldn't be such a lazy cunt and would actually do some real research instead of trawling 6CM for soundbites.

Lallana -1 on goal +2 on assists. Near enough same.
Coutinho +5 on goals, +2 on assists. Win.
Origi -1 on goals +2 on assists. Near enough same.
Mane +2 goals and -1 assists. Small win.
Wijnaldum -5 and +4 on assists. Lose.
Firmino - 5 goals and -4 assists. Lose.

If your predictions don't take into account the possibility of injury they are worthless.

 

[Kay Age El]

I'd go

.........Gini.............Keita........
Mane......Firmino....Coutinho
..............Dolberg..................

 

[Rosco]

Counterpoint, albeit not a great one when you go into further detail:

Top scorer in England: Harry Kane. Spurs - 2nd place

In Spain: Messi, Barca - 2nd place.

Germany: Aubamayang, Dortmund 2nd place.
France: Cavani, PSG - 2nd place

 

[Hansern]

Italy: Dzeko, Roma - 2nd place

 

[mom]

I'd go

.........Gini.............Keita........
Mane......Firmino....Coutinho
..............Dolberg..................

No way does Klopp not pick Lallana

 

[Frogfish]

If your predictions don't take into account the possibility of injury they are worthless.

Read the other posts. I said serious injury resulting in a relatively long-term absence, I did say it accounted for the odd match missing here and there. No predictions take that into account.

 

[Frogfish]

No way does Klopp not pick Lallana

In that formation there isn't a place fo rhim since he's not superior to any of them in those positions.

IF we were to bring in Keita and Dolberg then 2 have to drop to the bench (ignoring the fact the nowadays it is a squad game) as you'd assume both would start. In that case Lallana and Wijnaldum (for Keita) are most at risk.

 

[Kay Age El]

No way does Klopp not pick Lallana

There'll be loads of game for us this coming season so Lallana, Can, Henderson and Sturridge (should he stay) would also get loads of matches. I'd just like to see that formation and those players utilized like that is all.. (in the very hypothetical scenario that we'd actually sign Keita and Doller).

 

[Kay Age El]

Counterpoint, albeit not a great one when you go into further detail:

Top scorer in England: Harry Kane. Spurs - 2nd place

In Spain: Messi, Barca - 2nd place.

Germany: Aubamayang, Dortmund 2nd place.

France: Cavani, PSG - 2nd place

Ha, this is quite fun actually.

Denmark: Ingvartsen, FCN - 5th place

Holland: Jørgensen, Feyenoord - 1st place

Belgium: Teodorczyk, Anderlecht - 1st place (in their championship round of 6, that follows the normal structure, they hadn't even got a player in top six).

Portugal: Bas Dost, Sporting - 3rd place (the Wolfsburg outcast almost scored twice the amount of goals as number two in Portugal, 1st 34/2nd 19)

 

[manwithnoname]

Read the other posts. I said serious injury resulting in a relatively long-term absence, I did say it accounted for the odd match missing here and there. No predictions take that into account.

So when I said at the time that we wouldn't continue scoring at the rate we are; that Firmino, Lallana and the rest wouldn't get anywhere near the number of goals you and others suggested; Mane was our most important player and best goalscorer and we'd miss him horribly and we duly tumbled down the league and stopped scoring - what made my predictions and worries so accurate and prescient?

 

[Hansern]

Chelsea winning the league but their top scorer is 4th, behind Kane, Lukaku and Sanchez. I didnt realize that was possible.

 

[Frogfish]

So when I said at the time that we wouldn't continue scoring at the rate we are; that Firmino, Lallana and the rest wouldn't get anywhere near the number of goals you and others suggested; Mane was our most important player and best goalscorer and we'd miss him horribly and we duly tumbled down the league and stopped scoring - what made my predictions and worries so accurate and prescient?

You got 'luckier' the 'unluckier' Liverpool became with INJURIES. Clearly that made/makes you very pleased with yourself since you are always more concerned with your ego and crowing, than Liverpool. As others on here have noted too.

 

[mom]

In that formation there isn't a place fo rhim since he's not superior to any of them in those positions.

IF we were to bring in Keita and Dolberg then 2 have to drop to the bench (ignoring the fact the nowadays it is a squad game) as you'd assume both would start. In that case Lallana and Wijnaldum (for Keita) are most at risk.

Klopp loves his press, and there's no better player in the squad at leading it. Forget that formation in that case, because Lallana will always be one of the first names on the sheet. Or, fit Lallana into it somehow. I'm not sayinh it's what I would do, but I'm convinced Its what Klopp will do.

 

[Oliver Twist]

Chelsea winning the league but their top scorer is 4th, behind Kane, Lukaku and Sanchez. I didnt realize that was possible.

In binary world, it isn't.

 

[manwithnoname]

Chelsea winning the league but their top scorer is 4th, behind Kane, Lukaku and Sanchez. I didnt realize that was possible.

No, the usual formula is that the team that wins the title has at least one player who scores about 20 league goals, with a statistical probability of about 80%.
Chelsea of course had Costa, and also Hazard who went close

Of course there will be some variance, and nobody would claim that having such a player guarantees a title, that would be fucking retarded. But it's very rare for a team to win the title without one player getting 20 goals or so. And, of course, it's no coincidence that all the teams who finished above Liverpool also scored more goals than us and also had a player capable of 20 (or more) league goals.

It's pretty obvious stuff. Surprised some find it so confusing.

 

[manwithnoname]

You got 'luckier' the 'unluckier' Liverpool became with INJURIES. Clearly that made/makes you very pleased with yourself since you are always more concerned with your ego and crowing, than Liverpool. As others on here have noted too.

I seem to get lucky quite a lot. Must be all the practise.

 

[Kay Age El]

Something I believe is a bit overlooked when talking about the importance of a reliable +20 goals a season player, is, that such player will often poach even when the rest of the team doesn't perform or fails to supply people to the attack. Find that important goal when everything else is in a deadlock, securing vital points during the course of a season.

If you don't have such player you'd have to rely on a number of potential goal scorers more, meaning you'd often have to commit more players when you attack, get players from further back into scoring positions.

As we don't have that player in the squad right now that 'promises' goals we have been reliant of about 5-6 players as I see it to score the goals. Lallana, Mane, Coutinho, Firmino, Origi and Sturridge.

This, in my opinion, also means that we are exposing the defensive part of our game more than say a team like Spurs that are only reliant on 3-4 players with Kane being their stand-out candidate. Our goals FOR wasn't abysmal compared to Spurs or Chelsea however our goals AGAINST was a right mess - and apart from perhaps the obvious lack of an imperious defensive leader I believe our lack of a potent striker also have had its say on this.

The best teams around have 11 players with the right balance of personnel and tactics, and while I like our tactics (more often than not at least) the personnel is lacking a few upgrades - not many - but a few.

 

[manwithnoname]

Something I believe is a bit overlooked when talking about the importance of a reliable +20 goals a season player, is, that such player will often poach even when the rest of the team doesn't perform or fails to supply people to the attack. Find that important goal when everything else is in a deadlock, securing vital points during the course of a season.

If you don't have such player you'd have to rely on a number of potential goal scorers more, meaning you'd often have to commit more players when you attack, get players from further back into scoring positions.

Why would anyone overlook that very obvious fucking point?

Well articulated though, for anyone who has overlooked it.

 

[Hansern]

Something I believe is a bit overlooked when talking about the importance of a reliable +20 goals a season player, is, that such player will often poach even when the rest of the team doesn't perform or fails to supply people to the attack. Find that important goal when everything else is in a deadlock, securing vital points during the course of a season.

If you don't have such player you'd have to rely on a number of potential goal scorers more, meaning you'd often have to commit more players when you attack, get players from further back into scoring positions.

As we don't have that player in the squad right now that 'promises' goals we have been reliant of about 5-6 players as I see it to score the goals. Lallana, Mane, Coutinho, Firmino, Origi and Sturridge.

This, in my opinion, also means that we are exposing the defensive part of our game more than say a team like Spurs that are only reliant on 3-4 players with Kane being their stand-out candidate. Our goals FOR wasn't abysmal compared to Spurs or Chelsea however our goals against was a right mess - and apart from perhaps the obvious lack of an imperious defensive leader I believe our lack of a potent striker also have had its say on this.

The best teams around have 11 players with the right balance of personnel and tactics, and while I like our tactics (more often than not at least) the personnel is lacking a few upgrades - not many - but a few.

Some interesting points but I dont think we commit more players in attack based on our lack of a 20 goals a season striker. Thats more our playing style and tactical set up.
If Sturridge could perform in a 4-3-3 and scored 20 league goals this season, I dont think you'd find us playing any diffrently regarding the forward runs of Lallana and Gini.

Its more about balance and making correct decisions in crucial parts of the game.

Regarding goals scored. It was pretty similar all through the season but a couple of very skewed results for Spurs saw them add +12 goals in the last two games.
You could say the same about our 4-0 over WH and City's 5-0 away to Watford.
But over the course of the season it was quite similar, and not this gigantic difference that some seem to believe.

Our biggest priority has to be to get the balance right and improve defensively. That is key.
We can easily challenge next season with the same amount of goals scored, which should be helped by replacing Sturridge and adding Ings and a new goalscoring winger.

 

[Kay Age El]

Some interesting points but I dont think we commit more players in attack based on our lack of a 20 goals a season striker. Thats more our playing style and tactical set up.
If Sturridge could perform in a 4-3-3 and scored 20 league goals this season, I dont think you'd find us playing any diffrently regarding the forward runs of Lallana and Gini.

Its more about balance and making correct decisions in crucial parts of the game.

Regarding goals scored. It was pretty similar all through the season but a couple of very skewed results for Spurs saw them add +12 goals in the last two games.
You could say the same about our 4-0 over WH and City's 5-0 away to Watford.
But over the course of the season it was quite similar, and not this gigantic difference that some seem to believe.

Our biggest priority has to be to get the balance right and improve defensively. That is key.
We can easily challenge next season with the same amount of goals scored, which should be helped by replacing Sturridge and adding Ings and a new goalscoring winger.

Indeed so - where we seemingly have to disagree however is how we achieve that balance.

I believe very much so that a +20 goals striker would be a rather vital cog in that equation as it would make us able to keep a better shape for longer parts of 90 minutes - more often that not at least. It's simple really, if you KNOW that you have a player that will convert chances into goals like Torres or Suarez or Kane, you also know that you perhaps don't have to push both wingers as well as two attacking-minded midfielders - perhaps even a central midfielder as well - into the mix each time you go on the attack.

Whenever we played a team that came out to play (top 6) we were awesome, whenever we faced a brick wall we shat ourselves dropping points right, left and centre. Why is that? Because we had to attack in large numbers against the Burnley's and Hull's creating loads of chances for one our many goal scoring-options. It helped when Mane played, otherwise we could waste tons of chances or even struggle to get into scoring positons. Something a real striker does for a living and knows how to.

I think people also tend to forget how well Klopp's tactics worked with Dortmund and his +20 goal a season striker in Lewandowski.

 

[Hansern]

Indeed so - where we seemingly have to disagree however is how we achieve that balance.

I believe very much so that a +20 goals striker would be a rather vital cog in that equation as it would make us able to keep a better shape for longer parts of 90 minutes - more often that not at least. It's simple really, if you KNOW that you have a player that will convert chances into goals like Torres or Suarez or Kane, you also know that you perhaps don't have to push both wingers as well as two attacking-minded midfielders - perhaps even a central midfielder as well - into the mix each time you go on the attack.

Whenever we played a team that came out to play (top 6) we were awesome, whenever we faced a brick wall we shat ourselves dropping points right, left and centre. Why is that? Because we had to attack in large numbers against the Burnley's and Hull's creating loads of chances for one our many goal scoring-options. It helped when Mane played, otherwise we could waste tons of chances or even struggle to get into scoring positons. Something a real striker does for a living and knows how to.

I think people also tend to forget how well Klopp's tactics worked with Dortmund and his +20 goal a season striker in Lewandowski.

I dont disagree with you mate. I hope to God our new striker is a 20 goal a season one. I'm just want him to suit our style of play, so that we dont have to adapt our approach to much to get the best out of him.

Regarding the Hull and Burnely games, if you are referring to the away games, we conceded first in both. That usually ends up with the approach you describe. Against Burnley we conceded after a few minutes as well.

We were destroying teams at home when Coutinho, Mane, Firmino were fit. It highlighted that we dont have enough quality in depth mind you. A 20 goals striker wouldnt neccessarily replace the direct running and pace from the wing we lost with Mane. Just sayin.

 

[StevieM]

How have we faired when we've had that 20+ goals a season striker over the last 20 years?

I seem to remember the most common complaint was that we were too reliant on goals from one player.