AFTER yet another dismal showing last night in front of a foolishly-expectant home crowd at Anfield, Liverpool Football Club remains in relative-crisis mode. The 1-0 defeat to Wolverhampton Wanderers was one that should have been avoided, but now we are subject to more excuses as to why the Merseysiders failed to turn up.
One point argued by Sky Sports pundit Andy Gray last night was that Liverpool looked rusty, having had their last two league games postponed and over a fortnight's rest. Wolves on the other hand, played only three days ago, slumping to a 2-1 home defeat to Wigan Athletic. In Gray’s opinion, Mick McCarthy’s merry men were a whole lot sharper than Roy Hodgson’s Scouse screw-ups.
Gray’s arguments could be seen as perfectly valid if it were not for the fact that throughout the season we are subject to managers complaining about fixture congestion and players underperforming due to too many games in too short a space of time.
Liverpool’s rest period of 17 days would be envied by other teams, but for a team whose best players would seemingly benefit from rest and recuperation from past injury problems, it has not worked out. The recent postponements meant Steven Gerrard was allowed time to return from a hamstring problem and Fernando Torres, if we are to believe what we are constantly subjected to by media sources, was given his first rest since he was 10 years old.
Also within this time period, it seems Glen Johnson has reverted to a Benjamin Button-esque state, now possessing the footballing capabilities of his 12-year-old self. One moment in last night’s first half was of particularly naïve nature, as he needlessly booted the ball out across his own box for a throw-in. Rather than holding his hands-up and admitting the act of travesty, he instead appeared to signal to his forward players that they should have already been in the stands waiting for it. If Liverpool are to miraculously gain a place in Europe by May, expect a 3-year-old nappy-wearing Johnson to be held aloft by Pepe Reina in front of the Kop amidst the celebrations, and then given the opportunity to complete five-yard passes to Martin Skrtel and Jamie Carragher.
The truth is that there is a combination of on-pitch factors which are directly affecting the team’s success. David Ngog is not going to be the next Thierry Henry, and just as it took Sir Alex Ferguson years to realise David Bellion wasn’t either, Liverpool should get rid of the young Frenchman. Any hopes of a possible partnership with Fernando Torres were surely vanquished last night, as both forwards struggled to hold up the ball and allow midfielders to join the attack.
Liverpool’s problems stem from this ability to not keep the ball in the final third. Fernando Torres is not the same player he was two years ago, and it looks often like English defences have him well and truly found out. Those who claim the Spaniard is still unfit must be as tired of their own voices as journalists are. Wolves last night were quick to close down the striker when he was receiving passes, but in reality they didn’t have to try too hard as the Spaniard’s control let him down more as the game went on.
Supporters of Torres who claim the Spaniard has poor support and delivery from teammates should look at the likes of Darren Bent, a player who has never played with a Gerrard, a Beckham or a Bergkamp, yet has consistently scored throughout his career in the Premiership. Torres looks constantly unhappy nowadays, but I’m sure his body language would be even more vitriolic if he were being supplied with through balls by Bent’s current teammates Kieran Richardson and Phil Bardsley.
There is a severe lack of confidence amongst the Liverpool team, but this is not something which the Charlie Chalk-lookalike Hodgson has solely instilled. Rafael Benitez’s Liverpool last season were at times equally awful, bowing out of the FA Cup early to Reading in a pitiful performance, and suffering the same tactical problems as Hodgson faces now.
Tactically, Liverpool’s biggest problem may lie in their reputation. Hodgson may have saved Fulham from relegation and moulded them into a capable outfit, but they were often playing teams who were open and not afraid of going for the jugular. Liverpool however, are still a club that can inspire fear, and with big names likes Gerrard, Torres and Reina, opposing sides often set-up with men behind the ball, frustrating the Merseysiders and limiting their opportunities.
It would be no surprise if at the time this article was published Hodgson had either handed in his resignation or had it terminated. His appointment was generally to be considered as a stop-gap. He was an elderly, experienced coach, who, though often appeared to be going blind, could help guide Liverpool through what was always going to be a transitional period.
The mid-table position comes as no surprise to many who have seen the decline of the team in the last 18 months or so, but many of the Kop faithful have found it hard during this period to accept Hodgson as the bloke responsible for managing their beloved club.
However, Hodgson should surely have not been expected to win titles and trophies. He was hardly achieving such feats at Fulham during his reign at Craven Cottage; instead he was battling against the odds and achieving commendable results and performances on a shoe-string budget. Indeed many Liverpool fans that were aware of financial restraints in the summer saw Hodgson as the perfect replacement to deal with such circumstances, due to his Fulham record.
Inheriting a Liverpool team in decline, Hodgson’s role was to steady the Liverpool ship and rebuild for the future, possibly for another manager to take charge when the team looks like it can win big trophies again, and consequently win all the plaudits. Rather like when former-boss Benitez took over Gerard Houlier's side in 2004.
There is nothing wrong with replacing Hodgson mid-season, and replacing him with someone like the heavily respected but equally-dour Kenny Dalglish. Most Liverpool fans would most probably desire a manager who isn't making decisions like playing Ngog and Torres up front together, employing Raul Meireles in a wide position, or simply playing Paul Konchesky.
Indeed, if something is not working and you don’t intend to continue with the set-up in a few years time anyway, then by all means cut your losses. However, as other teams get richer and rivals improve, Liverpool cannot afford to slip too far away. The club lacks a direction and a plan of attack – on and off the field. A short-term replacement for Hodgson however, is unlikely to have the galvanising effect that most Liverpool fans would like.
Finally, for those of you who wish to see old Roy first step on the shores of Liverpool docks back in the summer, please look at this rare clip...
Showing posts with label Darren Bent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Darren Bent. Show all posts
Thursday, 30 December 2010
Sunday, 19 September 2010
Refreshingly Direct?
The never-say-die attitude of the Premiership again came to the fore yesterday, this time at the Stadium of Light, as Darren Bent’s late, late goal denied Arsenal of what would have been an excellent three points against Sunderland. Arsene Wenger was perhaps justified in his complaints about how much stoppage time was played, but he must be cursing the slack defending that again cost his side a valuable win. As Bent punished yet another sloppy clearance by Gael Clichy, Wenger must have had flashbacks to St Andrews two seasons ago, when Clichy gave a ball away in his own area then proceeded to concede a penalty against Birmingham. The penalty, duly converted by James McFadden, was a dagger in what was a realistic Arsenal title challenge back in 2009. It also prompted a hilariously childish rage by William Gallas, who showed such apparent passion for the Gunners as an Arsenal captain that day, that he now plays for rivals Tottenham.
Although Arsenal ended the game with 10 men, and thus can point to utter misfortune that they conceded the goal when they did, they never really seemed comfortable with what was being thrown at them. Steve Bruce favours directness in his tactics, with two strikers being supplied by two wide men. Indeed, it is perhaps this attacking set-up which explains Sunderland’s success in home fixtures, whilst their success on their travels is sporadic at best. When the Stadium of Light is at full-volume, the directness of Bruce’s tactics seem to work in tandem with a crowd that try to suck the ball into the opposition’s goal, encouraged by their side’s eagerness to move forward. You do get the feeling however, that some Sunderland fans are just relieved to see the ball as far away from the bumbling defensive partnership of Titus Bramble and Anton Ferdinand as possible.
Such is the fashion in the modern game to set up with a five-man midfield and build play slowly through possession, it was somewhat refreshing to see a team achieve success in direct play, turning defence into attack quickly and efficiently. However, this set up has attracted criticism from football purists, especially when clubs like Arsenal, Manchester United and Barcelona have proved you can play pretty football and be successful.
Thus it is rare when tactics that are completely the opposite are employed in the Premier League. Whereas clubs like Wigan and Blackpool have attempted to try and play a passing style, other clubs have adopted a hugely contrasting approach. Stoke City in particular play a style reminiscent of many team in the 1980’s, a decade which saw teams like Wimbledon punt long balls up to their centre forwards. Even Arsenal, a team who easily play the best football in the Premiership in the modern era, were advocates of the long ball approach under George Graham way back in the late 80’s and early 90’s.
Such a strategy was hated by fans and critics alike, but it gave particular problems to centre-backs, who had to deal with aerially-dominant forwards like Mick Harford, John Fashanu and Andy Gray. Everton in their defence played some great football and were highly successful in the 80’s, but then again Fashanu and long-ball merchants Wimbledon were also successful, beating ‘Pass and Move’ Liverpool in the 1988 FA Cup final. Only Gary Mabbutt would be one to not praise Fashanu’s footballing career, as the former Spurs defender was on the end of a nasty elbow by the former Gladiators presenter in the early 90’s.
In the modern game you could almost compare Stoke’s success at avoiding relegation to the feats of ‘The Crazy Gang’, such is the power and finance of the Premier League’s top clubs. Of course, there are other clubs that have done well to stay up over recent seasons, but none have achieved the success with such an extreme direct style of play. The simple art of dealing with a long ball into the area was natural to the defenders of 30 years ago, but foreign defenders used to playing against neat and tidy opposition, who keep the ball on the floor, are not used to deep, high deliveries coming into their penalty area. One couldn’t imagine the youth coaches of Real Madrid and Barcelona spending hours on the training ground instructing young defenders to head balls away from inside their six-yard box.
Premiership audiences have seen football evolve into a more technical game since the league re-launched itself in 1992. Thus when Stoke, (or anyone who La Liga-bound Sam Allardyce manages) do launch long balls into the oppostion's penalty area, from positions where most clubs would take a quick, short free-kick, the result is refreshingly enthralling. Clubs who find success with this tactic may develop this strategy further if they remain open to inventiveness. Why not increase the height of a long free-kick pumped into the penalty area, making it drop down into the danger area like an atom bomb? Attacking centre-backs will be then be competing against the centre backs from the defence – an equal tussle that could easily result in the type of confusion already seen at the Britannia Stadium most Saturday afternoons thanks to deliveries from Matthew Etherington and ridiculously long throw-in's by Rory Delap. There’s no doubt utilising the unique qualities of Delap have been relatively successful since Stoke were promoted, thus if team’s don’t have a Cesc Fabregas or a Mikel Arteta, why not bypass the midfield and instead launch long balls into a set of giant 6 ft 7 strikers? Deal with that Wenger.
Critics of course may point to the successful clubs of recent years playing with totally different tactics. The likes of Arsenal and Manchester United have played some scintillating football and won many, many games. Tony Pulis however, not only realises that he doesn’t have the cash at Stoke to buy players like Fabregas, but is innovative enough to know that there can be another way to play and compete against Premiership opposition. Allardyce was the first to show signs of complete innovation when rules regarding off-sides were amended five years or so ago. He consequently positioned two players standing way off-side during free kicks, who were allowed to remain onside as long as they didn’t touch the first ball played into the box. Indeed see here for such a goal that caused so much bedlam, that it caused Ian Walker to score a calamitous own goal.
You only have to look at Chris Samba’s goal for Blackburn yesterday against Fulham to see a goalkeeper and defence struggle against an unusual tactic, in this case Paul Robinson’s giant punt. Of course, many referees would have seen the blatant foul by El Hadji Diouf, but it’s not the fault of Diouf or the much-maligned Allardyce that the goal was allowed to stand.
In open play, the danger of the long ball is that you run the risk of losing possession quickly and consistently, and if you are up against top quality opposition you may not see the ball again for 2 to 3 minutes. However, in set piece situations, even a harmless-looking free kick 80-90 yards from goal, there is no reason not to send up the big men, as you would a corner kick. It might not be pretty, and fans may have something to say when they are forking out 50 quid for a match ticket, but if winning is all-important, then as long as it stays within the legalities of the game, then surely any tactic to win is as justifiable as the next tactic. Create the chaos, anything could happen.
Although Arsenal ended the game with 10 men, and thus can point to utter misfortune that they conceded the goal when they did, they never really seemed comfortable with what was being thrown at them. Steve Bruce favours directness in his tactics, with two strikers being supplied by two wide men. Indeed, it is perhaps this attacking set-up which explains Sunderland’s success in home fixtures, whilst their success on their travels is sporadic at best. When the Stadium of Light is at full-volume, the directness of Bruce’s tactics seem to work in tandem with a crowd that try to suck the ball into the opposition’s goal, encouraged by their side’s eagerness to move forward. You do get the feeling however, that some Sunderland fans are just relieved to see the ball as far away from the bumbling defensive partnership of Titus Bramble and Anton Ferdinand as possible.
Such is the fashion in the modern game to set up with a five-man midfield and build play slowly through possession, it was somewhat refreshing to see a team achieve success in direct play, turning defence into attack quickly and efficiently. However, this set up has attracted criticism from football purists, especially when clubs like Arsenal, Manchester United and Barcelona have proved you can play pretty football and be successful.
Thus it is rare when tactics that are completely the opposite are employed in the Premier League. Whereas clubs like Wigan and Blackpool have attempted to try and play a passing style, other clubs have adopted a hugely contrasting approach. Stoke City in particular play a style reminiscent of many team in the 1980’s, a decade which saw teams like Wimbledon punt long balls up to their centre forwards. Even Arsenal, a team who easily play the best football in the Premiership in the modern era, were advocates of the long ball approach under George Graham way back in the late 80’s and early 90’s.
Such a strategy was hated by fans and critics alike, but it gave particular problems to centre-backs, who had to deal with aerially-dominant forwards like Mick Harford, John Fashanu and Andy Gray. Everton in their defence played some great football and were highly successful in the 80’s, but then again Fashanu and long-ball merchants Wimbledon were also successful, beating ‘Pass and Move’ Liverpool in the 1988 FA Cup final. Only Gary Mabbutt would be one to not praise Fashanu’s footballing career, as the former Spurs defender was on the end of a nasty elbow by the former Gladiators presenter in the early 90’s.
In the modern game you could almost compare Stoke’s success at avoiding relegation to the feats of ‘The Crazy Gang’, such is the power and finance of the Premier League’s top clubs. Of course, there are other clubs that have done well to stay up over recent seasons, but none have achieved the success with such an extreme direct style of play. The simple art of dealing with a long ball into the area was natural to the defenders of 30 years ago, but foreign defenders used to playing against neat and tidy opposition, who keep the ball on the floor, are not used to deep, high deliveries coming into their penalty area. One couldn’t imagine the youth coaches of Real Madrid and Barcelona spending hours on the training ground instructing young defenders to head balls away from inside their six-yard box.
Premiership audiences have seen football evolve into a more technical game since the league re-launched itself in 1992. Thus when Stoke, (or anyone who La Liga-bound Sam Allardyce manages) do launch long balls into the oppostion's penalty area, from positions where most clubs would take a quick, short free-kick, the result is refreshingly enthralling. Clubs who find success with this tactic may develop this strategy further if they remain open to inventiveness. Why not increase the height of a long free-kick pumped into the penalty area, making it drop down into the danger area like an atom bomb? Attacking centre-backs will be then be competing against the centre backs from the defence – an equal tussle that could easily result in the type of confusion already seen at the Britannia Stadium most Saturday afternoons thanks to deliveries from Matthew Etherington and ridiculously long throw-in's by Rory Delap. There’s no doubt utilising the unique qualities of Delap have been relatively successful since Stoke were promoted, thus if team’s don’t have a Cesc Fabregas or a Mikel Arteta, why not bypass the midfield and instead launch long balls into a set of giant 6 ft 7 strikers? Deal with that Wenger.
Critics of course may point to the successful clubs of recent years playing with totally different tactics. The likes of Arsenal and Manchester United have played some scintillating football and won many, many games. Tony Pulis however, not only realises that he doesn’t have the cash at Stoke to buy players like Fabregas, but is innovative enough to know that there can be another way to play and compete against Premiership opposition. Allardyce was the first to show signs of complete innovation when rules regarding off-sides were amended five years or so ago. He consequently positioned two players standing way off-side during free kicks, who were allowed to remain onside as long as they didn’t touch the first ball played into the box. Indeed see here for such a goal that caused so much bedlam, that it caused Ian Walker to score a calamitous own goal.
You only have to look at Chris Samba’s goal for Blackburn yesterday against Fulham to see a goalkeeper and defence struggle against an unusual tactic, in this case Paul Robinson’s giant punt. Of course, many referees would have seen the blatant foul by El Hadji Diouf, but it’s not the fault of Diouf or the much-maligned Allardyce that the goal was allowed to stand.
In open play, the danger of the long ball is that you run the risk of losing possession quickly and consistently, and if you are up against top quality opposition you may not see the ball again for 2 to 3 minutes. However, in set piece situations, even a harmless-looking free kick 80-90 yards from goal, there is no reason not to send up the big men, as you would a corner kick. It might not be pretty, and fans may have something to say when they are forking out 50 quid for a match ticket, but if winning is all-important, then as long as it stays within the legalities of the game, then surely any tactic to win is as justifiable as the next tactic. Create the chaos, anything could happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)