Liverpool FC 2013-14: Pride Restored
- Thread starter SoxFanInCali
- Start date
- Status
This is why I was mad about the media basically declaring Liverpool the title winners this week. 1 slip-up, and it's out of our hands. Maybe Palace and/or Everton can help us out.
The headlines will be that Chelsea is back in the race, but in reality they still need a ton of help. If Liverpool get 4 points in the last 2, they'll finish ahead of Chelsea unless they can make up 8 goals of GD.
The headlines will be that Chelsea is back in the race, but in reality they still need a ton of help. If Liverpool get 4 points in the last 2, they'll finish ahead of Chelsea unless they can make up 8 goals of GD.
It was never gonna be easy but Rogers knew what he was up against, he watched the Athletico match. He knows Jose, he knows Chelsea. it seemed the team didn't execute Plan A well and had no plan B. If a team parks the bus you need to stretch them somehow. There was a lot more 'foot on the ball' today than i've seen recently from Liverpool. Slowed things down when they should have been using their pace. None of the players in red had a great game today and that's criminal at this stage of the league campaign. They seemed afraid. Shame for Gerrard, it really is. he might not get a better chance to win the League and it could be his error that makes the difference.
'Mon the fuckin Palace.
'Mon the fuckin Palace.
In reality, Liverpool looked gassed. While the Reds have played fewer games than other teams, it's been the same 12-13 players playing every game. The last 2 months have been tense, stressful games that take a lot out of you. They commented that Chelsea's starting 11 today, while obviously nowhere near their best 11, was still more expensive than Liverpool's.
And City's already leading...
And City's already leading...
[QUOTE="fletcher]
'Mon the fuckin Palace.
[/QUOTE]
Well, so much for that. Plan B? Rough weekend for Merseyside.
'Mon the fuckin Palace.
[/QUOTE]
Well, so much for that. Plan B? Rough weekend for Merseyside.
I think Mart has it right- Rogers has to know how Jose was going to approach this game and they never were able to solve it.
They would have played defensively regardless, but when you're missing your best offensively creative player, your best CB, and your world class keeper, you're going to shut it down on the road against an attack as scary as Liverpool's. Not to mention they're in the middle of another competition (something Liverpool didn't have to contend with this season) and stretched thin. It was up to LFC to do something about Chelsea, they weren't able to, and it may cost them the title.
Does suck it was Gerrard that boned that one though.
They would have played defensively regardless, but when you're missing your best offensively creative player, your best CB, and your world class keeper, you're going to shut it down on the road against an attack as scary as Liverpool's. Not to mention they're in the middle of another competition (something Liverpool didn't have to contend with this season) and stretched thin. It was up to LFC to do something about Chelsea, they weren't able to, and it may cost them the title.
Does suck it was Gerrard that boned that one though.
jmcc5400 said:
What the hell? Fucking absurd post.
As for the match, the lack of depth we have showed this morning. Aspas was our guy for fresh legs and Chelsea can bring whatever star player off the bench. I'm pretty gutted and I hate losing to that douche Mourinho. Brutal, just brutal.
I love Mourinho. In a WWE Heel kind of way, but I love him.
He's a complete asshole and he's a hypocrite with what he spouts in the media, but damn. The man get results and knows how to stymie any attack.
He's a complete asshole and he's a hypocrite with what he spouts in the media, but damn. The man get results and knows how to stymie any attack.
Well, if he'd gotten the result at home against the team at the bottom of the table last week, he'd be the overwhelming favorite to win the title right now.
I won't deny that the way things turned out today hurts. I could rant endlessly about buses, time-wasting and other matters concerning the dark arts of professional football but I won't.
So we lost a game of football, albeit a very important one, but I'm still immensely proud of my team, their attitude and application and their willingness to continue to try to play football the way I like to see it played.
It's gonna be tough from here on in but who knows what crazy events are still to come.
Chin up, Stevie G, don't let the bastards grind you down as you'll always be a hero to us.
So we lost a game of football, albeit a very important one, but I'm still immensely proud of my team, their attitude and application and their willingness to continue to try to play football the way I like to see it played.
It's gonna be tough from here on in but who knows what crazy events are still to come.
Chin up, Stevie G, don't let the bastards grind you down as you'll always be a hero to us.
Don't worry, when we (Everton) beat Manchester City you will be able to celebrate your title. That is, if we don't score on ourselves to lose it.
[SIZE=11.199999809265137px]Um, Mr. Rodgers? I've watched a lot of your team this season and I disagree that "any team" can sit back and defend. Yours cannot. If Liverpool tried to play like Chelsea did today they would be undone by their lack of talent in the back four. [/SIZE]
Defense wins championships, yo.
PedroSpecialK said:
I read today on twitter that after the game he told the journalists to back up because they "didn't want to catch what he had" then he blew at them.
Say what you want about "parking the bus" but he's a defensive mastermind. I get that its not everyone's cup of tea, but his club shut down a very good Liverpool attack (though I feel the press has overrated them a little bit because of the feel good factor) at their place in a game that could define their season. With his second string. Not bad from The Special One.
Times like this I wish Special 1 TV was still around.
For fuck's sake, he played for 0-0 and got lucky that Gerrard slipped. He's an excellent tactical manager, but calling what happened today a masterstroke is a bit much.
In a case of horrible scheduling, the PFA Awards Banquet is tonight. That must have been a fun flight down to London after the game.
Gerrard, Sturridge, and Suarez have been named in the Team of the Year. All 3 are up for Player of the Year, and Sturridge and Sterling are nominees for Young Player of the Year.
In a case of horrible scheduling, the PFA Awards Banquet is tonight. That must have been a fun flight down to London after the game.
Gerrard, Sturridge, and Suarez have been named in the Team of the Year. All 3 are up for Player of the Year, and Sturridge and Sterling are nominees for Young Player of the Year.
No question that Chelsea got lucky to get the victory, but there was nothing really threatening generated by Liverpool aside from Allen's volley that Schwarzer palmed away and Sakho's shot over the net.
To hold fort like that against the league's best attack, with a CB making his debut partnered with a guy who hasn't played CB for a season, is impressive. I can't recall being more frustrated watching a match this year - and Aspas... what a whiff of a signing he was.
To hold fort like that against the league's best attack, with a CB making his debut partnered with a guy who hasn't played CB for a season, is impressive. I can't recall being more frustrated watching a match this year - and Aspas... what a whiff of a signing he was.
To be honest, while Liverpool's first half was subpar, they played the second as well as anyone can play against a good team parking the bus. They could easily have converted one of those chances if they had executed better or if one those shots had fallen in. Luck - which lest we forget was plentiful for Liverpool this season- was for Chelsea this time around and it won on an error. Otherwise it very well may have been a draw.fletcherpost said:
I don't think it's that impressive. Chelsea was one of the few teams who presented Liverpool with a withdrawn line and a closed defense. Liverpool's offense is good but it's always tough to break down a closed defense. And if you compare Liverpool with Atletico you see that Chelsea felt Liverpool's pressure far more than Atletico's.PedroSpecialK said:
Anyway. We now need a break. City are the favorites.
jmcc5400 said:
jmcc5400 isn't the only one coming up with Buckner references for that play. The Guardian did too.
Nick Kaufman said:
You follow soccer more and know the game better than I, but i kind of felt the opposite. I though that Liverpool, especially in the first 15-20, was moving better off the ball and was doing a better job of opening the D (even if they couldn't really finish the plays). I thought they looked stagnant and/or panicked in the second half, either standing around or rushing shots from far out.
I said that the first half was subpar for Liverpool because I don't think that Chelsea felt too much pressure; I certainly didn't feel that Liverpool came close to scoring a goal. Then again, Liverpool didn't need to score a goal that much. A draw was just fine.
In the second half, Chelsea withdrew even more and Liverpool pushed even more. When a team puts 10 men behind the ball, I don't think you can create an classic chance for goal. There has to be a defensive mistake, a moment of brilliance, a good set piece or a moment of chaos in the box from which a shot on goal might be created.
I would certainly agree with you that on many moments in the second half either out of stress either/and because of tiredness, Liverpool was less polished in their play. You had unnecessarily mistaken passes. You had people trying to dribble 3-4 players in order to get face to face on goal which didn't happen and more often than not wasn't advisable. You had people not combining as well as they could.
But overall, I think that the way Liverpool pressed for 20-30 minutes, it felt as if a goal could come at any time during one of their attacks. And a couple of times, they came semi-close.
In the second half, Chelsea withdrew even more and Liverpool pushed even more. When a team puts 10 men behind the ball, I don't think you can create an classic chance for goal. There has to be a defensive mistake, a moment of brilliance, a good set piece or a moment of chaos in the box from which a shot on goal might be created.
I would certainly agree with you that on many moments in the second half either out of stress either/and because of tiredness, Liverpool was less polished in their play. You had unnecessarily mistaken passes. You had people trying to dribble 3-4 players in order to get face to face on goal which didn't happen and more often than not wasn't advisable. You had people not combining as well as they could.
But overall, I think that the way Liverpool pressed for 20-30 minutes, it felt as if a goal could come at any time during one of their attacks. And a couple of times, they came semi-close.
Btw, I do believe that God the Spagheti Monster punished Dlew for posting the Terry-slipping gif the other day.
To help alleviate my poor mood, I took myself off today down to the English south-coast and the seaside town of Brighton for a couple of days.
One of the first people I saw as I got off the train this morning was a fat fucker wearing a Chelsea shirt. Just what I needed...felt like throwing myself off the pier but then thought better of it...and threw him off instead *
*One of these things isn't true.
I'm pleased I haven't taken this loss as badly as I thought I might...maybe I'm finally growing up (says CJD, age 53)
One of the first people I saw as I got off the train this morning was a fat fucker wearing a Chelsea shirt. Just what I needed...felt like throwing myself off the pier but then thought better of it...and threw him off instead *
*One of these things isn't true.
I'm pleased I haven't taken this loss as badly as I thought I might...maybe I'm finally growing up (says CJD, age 53)
Yeah, I've been trying to remind myself that if you would have told me at the beginning of the season that we would have a top 3 finish wrapped up with 3 games to go, I would have been ecstatic.
It's not really working.
It's not really working.
cjdmadcow said:
Side note: If Brighton gets promoted (probably not this year, though they still have a very slim shot, but in any event it's coming soon) and stays up you'd hopefully see a lot fewer Chelsea shirts around town. When I was there in the late 90s the Albion were basically teetering on the edge of existence, and pre-Abramovich Chelsea was the default club for a lot of people. There is still plenty of that left I'm sure.
SoxFanInCali said:
That is the same feeling I have about Everton right now and the Champions League........
Having thought about the game for 48 hours, the whole thing was just so bizarre.
I remember when there was all the agitation about time wasting in the first half thinking Liverpool should be overjoyed with time wasting. Let them kick the ball around for 90 minutes or roll around on the floor with every ticky tack touch. Everyone was so up in arms about it all, when I was thinking Liverpool should love a game where time flies by and Chelsea play the entire game with 9 outfield players within 20 yards of their own goal. They were throwing around stats during the game about Liverpool scoring in however many consecutive first halves, and so I guess the thinking was just to keep pressing forward, but once it was clear that Mourinho was trying to use Liverpool's aggressiveness against them, the strategy would have seemed to be to kick the ball around, keep possession, and keep men back. It would have been interesting if it had gone to 75 minutes or so, whether Chelsea would have changed tactics -- perhaps Liverpool could have tried to poach one.
This was a game where the team that needed one point played like a team that needed three and the team that needed three points played for a draw.
All hindsight, obviously. I guess the response would be "Liverpool only play one way," but I think that's nonsense. I think it was just impatience.
I remember when there was all the agitation about time wasting in the first half thinking Liverpool should be overjoyed with time wasting. Let them kick the ball around for 90 minutes or roll around on the floor with every ticky tack touch. Everyone was so up in arms about it all, when I was thinking Liverpool should love a game where time flies by and Chelsea play the entire game with 9 outfield players within 20 yards of their own goal. They were throwing around stats during the game about Liverpool scoring in however many consecutive first halves, and so I guess the thinking was just to keep pressing forward, but once it was clear that Mourinho was trying to use Liverpool's aggressiveness against them, the strategy would have seemed to be to kick the ball around, keep possession, and keep men back. It would have been interesting if it had gone to 75 minutes or so, whether Chelsea would have changed tactics -- perhaps Liverpool could have tried to poach one.
This was a game where the team that needed one point played like a team that needed three and the team that needed three points played for a draw.
All hindsight, obviously. I guess the response would be "Liverpool only play one way," but I think that's nonsense. I think it was just impatience.
DennyDoyle'sBoil said:
After re-watching it, I'm falling into the "Liverpool only plays one way" camp, which I know will earn SFiC's wrath but I gotta be honest. I think Rodgers got the tactics wrong from the start and then really had no Plan B when it became apparent that Mourinho was playing for the draw/counter. Using Liverpool's aggressiveness against them was the correct tactical decision. Gerrard having no defensive support on the stumble gave Chelsea the goal they needed, but Schurrle had a better opportunity than anything Liverpool could muster from its attack, attack, attack drill.
That said, I don't know that Rodgers had much of a choice. I don't think Liverpool's defense could hold up in a game where they were playing for the draw. Not enough talent or not enough healthy talent to make it work. Liverpool attacks relentlessly because they can't play defense. Anyone who watched the Stoke classico (with a bit of objectivity) knew this.
Considering Liverpool's and City's respective fixture lists, I'm not sure playing for the draw was the smart play. It's generally been understood that Liverpool needed to win all of its fixtures.
If Liverpool had played defensively for a draw, conceded one late and lost, people would be crucifying Rodgers for abandoning what had been working so well. I think SF121 is basically right that Rodgers didn't have many choices and he chose the obvious one, which was to stay with the strategy that had blitzed everybody else off the field.
Liverpool were completely comfortable in the first half, going forward but being patient, controlling the ball while looking for an opportunity. They could have done that all game and Chelsea would have only been a threat to score off a set piece or a mistake. They got the mistake, and took advantage of it. Obviously the second half was very different with Liverpool needing to score, and Chelsea did a very good job of keeping their shape, but if not for Gerrard's slip Liverpool could have played that way all 90 minutes, taken the 0-0 if Chelsea never broke down or came out of their shell, and maybe gotten a goal and all 3 points if they did.
Liverpool had a few close calls during the winning streak but got the 3 points each time, this time a couple of bounces went against them. There is a reason nobody has ever won 14 Premier League games in a row, because it's really, really hard to go that long without something happening that costs you points, no matter how good you are.
Liverpool had a few close calls during the winning streak but got the 3 points each time, this time a couple of bounces went against them. There is a reason nobody has ever won 14 Premier League games in a row, because it's really, really hard to go that long without something happening that costs you points, no matter how good you are.
Is it correct to assume that Liverpool need to win out, AND need a mistake from City to win the title? That seems like a bridge too far.
You aren't assuming...thats what actually needs to happen.
Though I guess it depends on if you think City not taking 3 points from Everton would be a mistake.
Though I guess it depends on if you think City not taking 3 points from Everton would be a mistake.
A win and a draw would do it if City lose a game, as long as Chelsea don't make up 8 goals in GD.
JayMags71 said:
A draw with Chelsea and wins over Palace and Newcastle would've given Liverpool the title, no matter what City did. Granted, that doesn't necessarily mean that playing for the draw would've been the right play. But even a draw with Chelsea would've ensured that they controlled their own destiny going into the final two matches, albeit without any margin for error.
I'll add that while I am still a relative neophyte when it comes to soccer, I think you have to play to win there. I have a hard time playing for a draw with two matches left when you know you can only get away with one draw and two wins, minimum. Even though Chelsea is by far the toughest opponent of the three. You just leave yourself so little margin for error in that scenario, even if you could guarantee the draw, which you can't. You're at home, you've won 11 in a row. I think you have to keep doing what's worked so well.
Liverpool don't play Palace until Monday, so we will already know the result of Saturday's Everton-City game. That's probably the best chance for them to drop points, I am not counting on either Villa or West Ham to get anything at the Emirates.
A City draw in three games and Liverpool winning a couple is a definite possibility. I wouldn't say it's the most probable scenario, but a ton of strangest things have happened.
- Status