Yeah. That's why we're 2nd and you're what ... 6th.They give the running around alot awards out in May I think.
Headless chickens come to mind.
Well done on running around alot and placing above United.Yeah. That's why we're 2nd and you're what ... 6th.
That's an interesting point to make, but I think it's more of an English problem than problem of their respective clubs.Problem for Spurs and Pool is Alli and Henderson have zero marketability.
Their fans can harp on about Pogba's value but he'll return that figure to the club tenfold and some more.
He really had got it all.
Not even halfway through the season yet. You actually think all this pressing won't affect you lot in the second half of the season? There have even been times already this season when you lot looked leggy and that is with 1 game/week.Liverpool not burned out yet with all this running stuff? It's as if Klopp knows what he's doing.
I haven't been following Can's career só fair play if he is doing well but at those Euros he looked atrocious and a very limitated player when we embarassed the germans. Tbf when i saw Fuchs live at our stadium for the Champions League, he looked like one of the worst players i saw playing at our stadium, an amateur type performance and now he's an english Premier league champion.The opening Can thread. .
Soon followed by. .
They never learn
Wait, has the season finished? Bugger.Yeah. That's why we're 2nd and you're what ... 6th.
Leggy? Hardly. Playing poorly at times can't simply be attributed to being tired. Look at last three games - dominated the second half each time. It's been opponents that have looked pooped.Not even halfway through the season yet. You actually think all this pressing won't affect you lot in the second half of the season? There have even been times already this season when you lot looked leggy and that is with 1 game/week.
It's not just the pressing. It's about the constant movement which will take its toll. A case in point was our 2006-07 season when we just ran out of steam the last month or so. Although it was also because we were involved in multiple competitions but it did affect us and our squad was bigger than yours is now. Will be interesting to see if you can maintain this. Fair dues if you can but I won't be surprised to see the affects of this all action style taking its toll in the second half of the season.Leggy? Hardly. Playing poorly at times can't simply be attributed to being tired. Look at last three games - dominated the second half each time. It's been opponents that have looked pooped.
As for pressing, I don't think it's dominating Liverpool's style of play. Not necessary when possession is so high.
I'd be delighted if that happens but to be honest we would need to perform very well in our three big matches over the next month to do that (H - City, A - United, H - Chelsea), we could but it's a very tall order with Mane away for the later two, hopefully Coutinho will be back and maybe some reinforcements will arrive - we will need them to stay the course.Wait, has the season finished? Bugger.
To be fair, I think you and Chelsea will pull away and it'll be 2 horse race.
Scholes certainly wasn't the first who could play as a creative goal scoring number 10 and later in his career play as a deep lying playmaker who could retain possession and create for others. Guardiola as a player was a technical DLP long before Scholes, although didn't have quite the attacking quality.I mean in modern era, he was probably the first type of midfielder who would do an infinite number of short passes and control matches. Then after him came the others like Pirlo, Deco or Xavi, but back then it was more fashionable for midfielders to either be box to box types (like Keano or Vieira) or kind of No.10 like Zidane or type of destroyers like Davids or Makelele.
Interestingly it has been our opponents that have shown tiredness, Everton and Stoke (and it can be argued that is maybe what happened in the United match too) all showed intense athletic ability and pressing in the first half and all fell away in the second, sitting deeper and giving up half the pitch to us. Two paid the price, one hung on.Leggy? Hardly. Playing poorly at times can't simply be attributed to being tired. Look at last three games - dominated the second half each time. It's been opponents that have looked pooped.
As for pressing, I don't think it's dominating Liverpool's style of play. Not necessary when possession is so high.
Yeah, it's a big month coming up for you. Let's see what happens there. But Klopp has got something special brewing. He's a class act and I just see you remaining a really strong outfit as the season concludes.I'd be delighted if that happens but to be honest we would need to perform very well in our three big matches over the next month to do that (H - City, A - United, H - Chelsea), we could but it's a very tall order with Mane away for the later two, hopefully Coutinho will be back and maybe some reinforcements will arrive - we will need them to stay the course.
Scholes certainly wasn't the first who could play as a creative goal scoring number 10 and later in his career play as a deep lying playmaker who could retain possession and create for others. Guardiola as a player was a technical DLP long before Scholes, although didn't have quite the attacking quality.
Attacking possession sides have had these type of players in all my time watching mate (born 1980). In the 80s Whelan, Houghton and Barnes were sublime playmakers for Liverpool. The 1 touch passing football they showed from 87-90 was technically a higher level than any United side and better than Milan of the period imo, not that I'll outright argue they'd have beat Milan, but they might have.
Maradona, Gascoigne, Platani, Gullit and Zidane weren't simply number 10s any more than Scholes. All dictated play like few others from behind 2 strikers. Their range of passing is breath taking while being midfield generals controlling the game. Then you have the likes of Mattheus, Hassler and Rijkaard who were all great technical midfield generals. Then there's Guardiola himself and the Barce boys from the 90s era, who I won't pretend I'm an expert on but they had a similar style of play to the Barce of today.
I believe Vieira and Keane are better playmakers than you give them credit for. Neither would have the same passing range as Scholes but both kept possession well except for that time Vieira passed to Giggs before you remind me. Keane would start your attacks, Vieira would completely dictate play and Arsenal suffered when he was unavailable and ofcourse he had fantastic close control and could dribble the length of the field at pace, offering a team another dimension, while being the best tacklers I've ever seen.
So my point is the playmaker didn't start with Scholes, maybe you could argue it started with 70s Ajax and Bayern as they were playing tactical systems beyond the pre 70s sides that I've seen. But it's before my time to really comment on that.
I consider Scholes very good but not in the same bracket as Zidane, Gascoigne, Platini, Xavi or Pirlo. He simply doesn't have the skill set of those players, neither is he better as a midfield general than some of them as many seem to be implying.Correct, but if I have to go back to football coaches teaching football to kids, they like to show Scholes passing because Beckham often required the receiver to have a sublime first touch to benefit the pass and use it. While again, Scholes was making sure the receiver could focus on the next action, and make it offensive, instead of the first touch. That's why he's rated higher in that regard.
I agree that Xavi probably learned a lot from Scholes and went ahead of him. But nevertheless, that doesn't change the fact that Scholes is up there with the best footballers of his generation at his peek. And don't even compare him to Xavi Alonso... for Pirlo, I still don't think he was better than Scholes but mostly because he's a different kind of player who bonified when going deeper in the midfield. Pirlo changed football perceived perceptions of the 6, and that's certainly not Scholes.
I am not just an United fan glorifying Scholes, before that, I'm a football fan. If you want to underrate Scholes, it's your problem. But he's the one player that's getting analyzed for space and passes by football coaches.
I agree. It's like when bunch of Barca fans went to Marca webpage and voted Modric for the worst signing of the season just two months after he signed for Madrid and it never went away.The best way to judge a player is by what his fellow professionals think of him. Awards are all politically driven and also driven by the appetite for that player wanting an award (which Scholes never actively wanted).
Thats the point. Why should anyone use Pogba's fee to beat him with? It is irrelevant.Why should supporters give a shit about marketability? Leave that to the accountants and marketing departments of the clubs.
United will get their money back through the Adidas links and what-not. But that means bugger-all to me. Pogba will pay his fee back when in 10 years time we've witnessed another glowing chapter in the club's history of which he was a key part of.
Some of our great(est) players had little marketing charm to them. Playing for United gave them a something of a platform but only Beckham, Ronaldo and Rooney took it on seriously at the peak of their powers. And there's no surprise 2 of the 3 left for the most "glamorous" club and built their brand to transcend football.
United hung on?Interestingly it has been our opponents that have shown tiredness, Everton and Stoke (and it can be argued that is maybe what happened in the United match too) all showed intense athletic ability and pressing in the first half and all fell away in the second, sitting deeper and giving up half the pitch to us. Two paid the price, one hung on.
I think you need to do a search of my Xavi posts if you think I'm knocking him. Being objective and dissecting these players down to what they are at their core is a necessity as that's where we get a clear assessment of them in and out of their speciality and comfort zone. People do not hesitate to do this to Scholes, but when it comes to Xavi, he should be beyond reproach just because he was excellent at a very specific set of aspects in a pair of midfields literally optimised to get the absolute best out of him?You'd be forgiven for thinking that that barca side was not one of the most dominant and successful of all time reading that description. Same goes for Spain where he was also the fulcrum. Neither have been able to replicate that dominant style of play without him.
Xavi more than anyone defined the most dominant club and international side in more than 25 years with unparalleled consistency throughout that period. You'd need to go back to Matthaus before you start finding midfield peers.
Barcelona came along at a time when there were few teams with a culmination of brilliance individually and collectively to contest them and they still didn't assert total dominance by going back-to-back in the CL. In the CL-winning 7-year span of the Xavi era, they were in 3 finals, with no runners-up spots. That doesn't paint the same narrative of complete dominance. Aesthetically, and in any open game of football of the era, everyone knew they were the best, by a distance, but at the same time, the teams with the right components to shut them down, did so. The question here is: can you be dominant if you are given the ball and asked to break down a side whilst failing to do so? In terms of statistics, sure, you're miles ahead, but in reality? You've been given a clear and outlined scenario and not managed to best it. Have you then dictated the game?I agree that the Chelsea/Inter ties are the best or arguably only examples of a peak Xavi-led midfield not dictating the biggest games. Yet that forms a fairly small part of a portfolio of league, European and international dominance that outstrips what almost any of those midfield peers have produced. The other central midfielders who I would place in his bracket, Matthaus and Rijkaard, will have a similar or possibly longer list of big games that they did not boss. That's notwithstanding the likes of Bozsik and Didi who, from what we know, could claim to have been as dominant within their era but it's difficult to assess with the same lens we're applying here. Inevitably he has benefited from being a part of the superclub era and from a concentration of talent and style that enabled him to maximise his own talent. But it's important too to acknowledge that he didn't just benefit from the system, he became the system. So much so that his career peak and performance trajectory either side of that mirrored the success of Barcelona and Spain (and their relative falls when he started to fade).
Zzzzzz you again.United hung on?
It was as comfortable game as I've seen at Anfield. 2 shots on target, one being from over 20 yards away, is hanging on?
Don't make things up.
He's right though.Zzzzzz you again.
BBC
Mourinho's limited attacking ambitions ensured chances were at a premium.
The Portuguese was still grateful for two fine second-half saves from goalkeeper David de Gea, who dived low to stop Emre Can and saved athletically from Philippe Coutinho's 25-yard effort. (That was a world class save - De Gea saved your asses again).
United's best chance also came in the second half, but the unmarked Zlatan Ibrahimovic directed Paul Pogba's cross off target. (Your one and only serious effort the whole game.)
The visitors had just 35% of possession - their lowest in a Premier League match since Opta began recording the data in 2003-04.
Whats that waffle? You trying to say United hung on?Zzzzzz you again.
BBC
Mourinho's limited attacking ambitions ensured chances were at a premium.
The Portuguese was still grateful for two fine second-half saves from goalkeeper David de Gea, who dived low to stop Emre Can and saved athletically from Philippe Coutinho's 25-yard effort. (That was a world class save - De Gea saved your asses again).
United's best chance also came in the second half, but the unmarked Zlatan Ibrahimovic directed Paul Pogba's cross off target. (Your one and only serious effort the whole game.)
The visitors had just 35% of possession - their lowest in a Premier League match since Opta began recording the data in 2003-04.
I don't think he understands things very well."BBC match report"
Nice cherry picking of quotes there:
"Jurgen Klopp's Liverpool would have drawn level on points with leaders Manchester City with a fifth successive Premier League victory, but were subdued by a classic Jose Mourinho performance of defensive organisation and discipline. United did not allow Liverpool to build the momentum and intensity that has characterised their game this season..."
Headline: Mourinho turns tables on Liverpool
But United were hanging on for their dear lives...
He's really not@Rafateria come on mate, you're better than that!
Great post.I think you need to do a search of my Xavi posts if you think I'm knocking him. Being objective and dissecting these players down to what they are at their core is a necessity as that's where we get a clear assessment of them in and out of their speciality and comfort zone. People do not hesitate to do this to Scholes, but when it comes to Xavi, he should be beyond reproach just because he was excellent at a very specific set of aspects in a pair of midfields literally optimised to get the absolute best out of him?
About peerage, it depends on what you want from your midfield and who he is going to be combining with, because he is not going to prosper if you put him in less than optimal conditions like others did. I don't consider Xavi a peer of Matthaus - one could go up against Maradona and best him for a whole game and be a one-man army, the other hasn't a hope in hell of doing the same. Xavi's ball retention via passing and recycling of the ball is practically unparalleled, but then, who else has used Tiki-Taka as a complete style of play? It's an oft ignored caveat that lauds this team whilst nary a thought is put towards it being a concept foreign to other truly dominant sides of the past. There is more to midfield play than that, especially so when going up to the level of a Matthaus, Neeskens or the like.
Another seamlessly unquestioned factor is how Xavi would fare in a system that was not perfectly optimised for his game; a 4-4-2 with two CM's as an example. Where Scholes stands or does not, as the case may be, there can't be any doubt that he had worse team-mates in a formation not catered to him; scored more goals and proved himself in a host of systems and positions throughout midfield. His international career is an extension of how a midfielder like him or Xavi would be treated in a hustle and bustle national team, and yet, it's used against him in these discussions. I'm mentioning this because he was not afforded the luxuries Xavi had at club or international level so comparing them as if they did is a false equivalency that needs to be rounded out one way or the other. He's not the first name I'd pick out of the hat for an all-time team playing a 4-4-2, but then, neither is Xavi, whereas Matthaus is getting in, or having a very close run of it to do so, in any system, such is the difference between them as all-rounders.
If you want a metronomic midfield with exceptional rates of ball retention, Xavi is one of, if not the first name down on the team-sheet. If you want a dynamic and rounded midfield that is not beholden to a style of play, he isn't.
If you want to match Xavi with others, you'll have to give me your definition of what kind of player he is because comparing him to Matthaus, outside of trophy haul, doesn't make sense to me.
Barcelona came along at a time when there were few teams with a culmination of brilliance individually and collectively to contest them and they still didn't assert total dominance by going back-to-back in the CL. In the CL-winning 7-year span of the Xavi era, they were in 3 finals, with no runners-up spots. That doesn't paint the same narrative of complete dominance. Aesthetically, and in any open game of football of the era, everyone knew they were the best, by a distance, but at the same time, the teams with the right components to shut them down, did so. The question here is: can you be dominant if you are given the ball and asked to break down a side whilst failing to do so? In terms of statistics, sure, you're miles ahead, but in reality? You've been given a clear and outlined scenario and not managed to best it. Have you then dictated the game?
You'll get no argument from me about the international side of things, but I think it skews the total picture and paints a narrative, in combination, that didn't actually happen in the same way it did for a Bayern/West Germany or Ajax/Holland to a lesser extent.
On what basis are you bracketing Matthaus and Rijkaard with Xavi? Trophies? As I said above, I don't really consider the former peers with the latter. He is a specialist in a unique, almost unprecedented level optimal conditions for club and country - in terms of combination games played with a midfield of two other people, I would be astonished if any other midfield great has had such a perfect run.
I don't dispute what Xavi is, and have no bone of contention about him becoming the system, but at the same time, he, Busquets, Iniesta and Messi are so watertight within it, that it's unique and unparalleled throughout the history of the game, as far as I know. It has to be a caveat... Rijkaard and Matthaus spanned countries, differing systems and philosophies and were imperious as individuals independent of opposition, system or supporting cast. You put Xavi in a team with poorer passers and his influence is going to wane because he needed flawless synergy to play his game where others did not.
If the overall game of these players is opened up to scrutiny, Xavi's passing and retention of the ball may be through the roof, but in other aspects of the game compared to this calibre of player, he doesn't fare well, imo. You put him in a midfield and you have to cater to him specifically and put the other pieces in around him to enable his game, which is not necessary with any of the others.
Completely agree with this. And I also think that we are well poised now to beat them at Old Trafford in a few weeks.I really enjoy the high stance scousers take regarding the match at Anfield. Mourinho played a tactical blinder in a period where you guys were red-hot and we were still finding our feet, one of his vintage Dortmund teams would have cut us apart in that outing, but you just weren't good enough.
Mourinho had a few months with a damaged team before that outing, Klopp had a settled team with plenty of time to put his mark on it.
You just weren't good enough, something the heat maps from the match will tell you. Some of you present it like we were nailed to the wall but the fact is that we pressed high and didn't let you establish your game, the game was won in midfield really (which is a miracle considering we have mediocre players like Pogba and Herrera there vs world beaters like Hendo la' and Can), and not in a backs against the walls defensive match like you love to present it.
The game was a drab game, can't really argue for any side having great domination.I really enjoy the high stance scousers take regarding the match at Anfield. Mourinho played a tactical blinder in a period where you guys were red-hot and we were still finding our feet, one of his vintage Dortmund teams would have cut us apart in that outing, but you just weren't good enough.
Mourinho had a few months with a damaged team before that outing, Klopp had a settled team with plenty of time to put his mark on it.
You just weren't good enough, something the heat maps from the match will tell you. Some of you present it like we were nailed to the wall but the fact is that we pressed high and didn't let you establish your game, the game was won in midfield really (which is a miracle considering we have mediocre players like Pogba and Herrera there vs world beaters like Hendo la' and Can), and not in a backs against the walls defensive match like you love to present it.
That is exactly the point. None of the teams dominated the other and rather neutralized each other instead of dominate each other. Some of the revisionism going on about the game where it is presented as an affair of us hanging on the ropes with the backs against our wall is straight up wrong though.The game was a drab game, can't really argue for any side having great domination.
And neither midfield dominated..
Christmas has come and gone and I saw no DVD of that majestic performance. Woodward is losing his business edge."BBC match report"
Nice cherry picking of quotes there:
"Jurgen Klopp's Liverpool would have drawn level on points with leaders Manchester City with a fifth successive Premier League victory, but were subdued by a classic Jose Mourinho performance of defensive organisation and discipline. United did not allow Liverpool to build the momentum and intensity that has characterised their game this season..."
Headline: Mourinho turns tables on Liverpool
But United were hanging on for their dear lives...