Discussion in 'Football Forum' started by Klopper76, Jul 15, 2019.
Better tell Alexander-Arnold to watch out for Mata's press now he's apparently our LW
and despite him scoring winning goals at Utd in every season of the first half of the 2000's -
City are gonna drop more points with that Laporte-less defence & KDB out - every team misses its key players
He was a good footballer. A rich man's Jesse Lingard.
Making the world a worse place since he retired though.
Ah, back to my favourite Liverpool supporter on FB...literally every day he talks about United then if anyone replies he says 'it's great that we're living rent free in your head'.
Also mentions how Alisson is the best keeper in the world every post.
I don’t think we’ll lose at old Trafford, but I’d very surprised if we steamrollered them. It’ll be a tight and tough game, and we’ll have to be wary as they’re deadly on the counter with space which we provide a lot of this season. The boys and Mane especially look really up for it though so far so I think we have as good a chance as we’ve had in years but I thought the same last season.
The same cnut, along with the same fellow cnutearer, that said Calvert Lewin had every right to go down when Lovren had a sneeze near him last season. If you can't stick to the same story how can anything else you say be worth listening to?
It was a 7 point lead
Klopp's first XI for his first Liverpool game in charge
That's fecking dreadful and I'd argue our first XI is currently stronger (when fit, which it never is). Just goes to show what you can do if you make the right signings and the right structure in place, and how quickly you can improve.
Once he'd had his first summer with the club he'd bought in Mane, Wijnaldum & Matip to the starting XI & established a regular front three of Coutinho, Mane & Firmino as well. The following summer he brought in Salah & Robertson, and made TAA a regular in the side. He's done well to gradually shape his side into what he wants it to be. Some managers need that time.
You could argue that Solskjaer has tried to do that with Maguire & AWB but I think the big difference is style of play. At the start of Klopp's first full season you could see that we had a clear style of play we were aiming for. That's yet to develop for Solskjaer, and I think that if you could see a clear 'philosophy' on the pitch you'd all be a bit happier with what's happening.
Losing a few games and not competing at the top isn't so bad for a couple of years if the team is getting you off of your feet every week. For the most part I've always enjoyed watching us play with Klopp in charge and you could see his style of play being implemented more and more as time went on.
Yeah my major gripe at the moment is a lack of any progress in terms of a style of play. It's like we just turn up on a Sunday or a Thursday without having done any training during the week. And that is on Ole after nearly a year in charge. Ultimately I like the 3 signings he has brought in and I think they'll be successful for us, but I no longer think he is good enough to take us forward. But at this point I think the whole club is rotten from top to bottom so I don't harbour much hope.
As you say, with Klopp it was evident fairly quickly what he wanted to have his team playing like, and it is now reaping its rewards. I couldn't care less about trophies at the moment, my team has played turgid football for 6 fecking years, I just want to enjoy watching us play!
You're similar to Chelsea in that regard. Chelsea fans won't care if they end up 6th and without a trophy this season. They've got a club legend in charge playing young players and an exciting brand of football.
The only difference between Chelsea & United is that Lampard has Chelsea playing well. If you were in Chelsea's position I think you'd be enjoying football a lot more right now.
Big Sam has a point re recruitment. Mind you it is blindingly obvious. Players are a manager's tools to get his job done. United has spent hundreds of millions only to regress. Chopping and changing managers at the rate United have since 2013 is not conducive to success. In the 4 years Jurgen Klopp has been manager United are now on their third manager in that time. Different managers have different philosophies which require different players etc so it really leads to a high turnover of players.
Solksjaer needs to be given time. His first batch of signings look very promising. Hard to argue with those who have left both permanently and on loan. This season is likely to be his hardest if the board have the cojones to stick with him and let him rebuild the side and the squad it should get easier after this season. These things take time
What's going on with their Coutinho money? How much do Barca owe them?
70 million I think. Not sure what’s going on there.
Well it seems like that is not true as football365 reports that we have actually been paid 105m upfront, and that 37m was to be paid over some years. It seems The Mirror was stretching the truth a little.
The big difference is that Klopp was a manager with a proven track record and one of the most sought after managers in Europe. Plus also the club and the fans were prepared to give him time to build his team and knew it would take at least 2 seasons before we'd see a real Klopp team.
Solksjaer looks like he's already lost the team and the fans! You could argue that his last chance is to get a win against us then go on a bit of a run and turn it around?
xG just refers to a specific implementation of a class of finite-variant statistic machine learning models that necessarily rely on extrapolation. They're intended to estimate what you claim they measure but to suggest that they can do it precisely is misleading.
Of the three classes of football stats - counted, like shots on target, calculated, like goals per game, and derived/analytical, like xG - derived stats are by far the weakest, being the only ones that don't and, from a tractability perspective, probably never will perfectly reflect reality.
I'm posting this as a general reminder to anyone reading not to take xG numbers as gospel. The models have advanced sufficiently and received enough training input to be pretty accurate nowadays but to say "x team should've scored y goals" is still incorrect.
 It's trivial to prove that precise xG is currently intractable using the fact that one or more of the input variables is a continuous measurement (e.g. distance from goal); current computers have to be crowbarred into doing basic fixed-point full precision maths so working with uncountably infinite real numbers is practically sci-fi.
With Ole or without Ole, Liverpool are not winning this match.
A vintage Jose classic, a hard fought nil nil.
Mostly the mirror journos being drunk at work. They literally contradict themselves two or three times in the article.
Think what's actually happened is that barca still owe the financing company they took a loan from to buy him.
The worrying thing for me with Liverpool approaching, is that they aren't necessarily playing their best and they are unbeaten. When City have gone on similar runs they've been playing their best and blowing teams away, Liverpool haven't been but are still winning games. Now a lot of people will say that the luck will run out but I'm on the other side of the coin, at some stage they're going to find their best form and I'm just praying it's not against us.
Ah fairs, as long as you guys got your money...sick and tired of Barca and Real acting like they can do what they want
Interesting concept, moving TAA to midfield.
There's no chance he plays further up the field instead of Salah for example. Right now he is the best right back in the league possibly Europe so no need to move him...
No need, agreed, but it wouldn't be the first time. Lahm played in midfield under Pep I think
I can see it some day. It was only when he went into the first team that he moved from midfield to fullback. Think it's still 3-5 years away though.
Well, no, since salah is not a midfielder either
Don't entirely agree about the point in the article that TAA gets more crosses with fewer dribbles because he is in space so much. He has a crossing technique that allows him to cross it in front of his marker and then curl it where he wants it anyway. Doesn't need to beat his man to put them in.
Liverpool had also signed worse players in the past like Adams, Carrol, Sakho & etc. However, was that because the manager's fault or was that because your scout's fault? Did you fire your scouting team and Klopp replaced some of them? Or Did your director the ones who made the changes? You used to make so many poor signings and now you started signing the right ones.
TAA had always been a midfielder at LFC youth level. A dribbling, skilful one. So England youth coaches decided to play him at DM for the matches I watched. Typical clueless England.
He was moved to RB to hone his defensive side, as a lot of youngsters are. The rest is history (in the making).
Adam, Carroll, Henderson, downing, Suarez where Comolli and Dalglish.
When they were both fired, it was replaced by Rodgers (who rejected a sporting director model after LVG had been lined up for the job) + a transfer committee.
That period was a bad one as there was a lot of wrestling between the two. Rodgers didn't want Sturridge as the committee did, and had them push for Clint fecking dempsey. Six months later, we sign Sturridge after all. Generally, there was a clash of philosophy - Rodgers seemed convinced he could build a title winning side with purchases from the Premier league (Allen, dempsey, borini, Lallana, Toure, Lovren, lambert, Ings, Milner, Clyne, Benteke) . The committee was committed to a 'moneyball' philosophy of buying young talented players from with growth potential and sell on value (Sturridge, Can, markovic, Alberto, Assaidi, aspas, Coutinho, Ilori, Origi, Firmino and most infamously Balotelli)
Neither was really a winning philosophy and certainly not as competing philosophies.
Didn't help that Rodgers generally treated committee signings like the sons he never wanted. They got very few chances to prove themselves and often out of position (Luis Alberto is probably the best example of this. But Can, Firmino and Origi were all given similar treatment).
The only good thing that came of that period transferwise was that FSG continued to develop and refine their own statistical approach irrespective of Rodgers' transfer philosophy and eventually began to realise that the 'bargain investment' policy didn't yield enough sporting value for the first team.
When Klopp joined, he was completely on board with FSG's general approach and had them promote Edwards from head of analysis (he also had a seat on the committee in that role) to sporting director.
A big change from the Rodgers years has been alignment. The players we sign now are all players the manager genuinely wants to work with. Probably helps that Klopp doesn't maintain his private shortlist of targets independently of the analysis team but works with their criteria to identify the right players (both brandt and salah were on the shortlist two years ago and Klopp preferred brandt, but was convinced to go with salah. Similar story with Alisson).
Besides this, the major development that has happened during Klopp's time has been basically abandoning sell on value as a transfer criteria for the first team (it's sky high as a priority for youth and backup players where turnover is higher though) and transitioning from a 'plenty of fish in the sea' approach to a strong focus on getting exactly the right player into the first team, to the point of rather going without if the right fit is not available right now.
As for type of targets, hunger is seen as a big one,which basically means steering clear of players that are too established or have generally lived feted lives as super talents from day one (so no longer Dembele and I reckon we'd be hesitant on someone like Sancho as well for that reason, unless his mental profile really came through). Robertson and VVD are the obvious examples of players that started small and became stars. But generally, players whose biggest breakthroughs are still in yet to happen and who have a history of having worked hard to get where they are now. In addition to a truckload of statistical analysis of course and all the 101 stuff.
It's a better argued case in there than what we've often heard to date from the pundits, usually ex-defenders from the 1990s and schooled in the 1980s, who are used to the right-back being the worst player in the team deployed in a position where they can do the least damage. And who can't fathom such a great player operating in such a low-reputation position. Yet 10 of the last 20 Champions League winning teams have had hugely influential full-backs operating to all intent and purposes as one-man flanks (Real Madrid's Carlos x 3 from 1998-2002, Barcelona's Alves x 3 from 2009-2015, and Real Madrid's Marcelo x 4 from 2014-2018).
Still, it depends what the future holds for Liverpool's midfield. Currently their full-backs, individually, are more influential than each of their three central midfielders, who while acknowledging their work rate and overall game, are broadly interchangeable to some degree. It depends really if Klopp wants to move from that system to a more creative City-esque midfield.
That explains a lot.
Separate names with a comma.