Liverpool in danger of being one-dimensional?
Liverpool boss Brendan Rodgers has talked at great length during his pre-season preparations about the need for his players to buy into both his footballing ethos and his coaching methods. The results, we are told, have been promising, but doesn’t it all point towards the side becoming somewhat one-dimensional?
It is often said that Rodgers greatest quality is his confidence in his own ability. The way that he prattles on you’d be forgiven for thinking that he loves the sound of his own voice. He has often talked about his ‘philosophy’, although part of me dies inside every single time I hear that word attached to football.
Nevertheless, the way he wants this Liverpool side to play is clear from this statement made while still at Swansea: “I like teams to control and dominate the ball, so the players are hungry for the ball. A lot of our work is around the transition and getting the ball back very quickly. Because I believe if you give a bad player time, he can play. If you give a good player time, he can kill you. So our emphasis is based around our positioning both with and without the ball. And for us, when we press well, we pass well.”
I’m by no means a huge fan of Harry Redknapp and his famed lack of tactics, but when managers start to delve too deeply into talk about philosophies and values, I get very uneasy – it’s a game at the end of the day, let’s not try and over-think it in an attempt to seem more intelligent than everyone else, it just comes across as being self-important. There is no ‘right’ way to win or play the game and aesthetics matter little unless they are backed up by results or silverware, just look at Arsenal under Arsene Wenger.
The talk about Andy Carroll leaving the club on loan has dominated the newspapers over the past week or so, mainly due to a throwaway line by Rodgers at a press conference. Due to the nature of his fee, it was immediately seized upon by the media as a sign that the big Geordie striker was set for the exit door, although the 39 year-old boss has since rubbished these rumours and the club even had to reject a loan offer from former club Newcastle. It’s a welcome step as Carroll really is the current squad’s only plan B – an expensive plan B on huge wages at that – but an alternative method of achieving results nonetheless.
The concern with possession-based football, though, is that not one club has ever been successful in Britain using that solely as a means of an attacking threat. Arsenal’s seven-year trophy-drought coincided with a deliberate attempt to change the club’s style of play to something similar to the much-vaunted tiki-taka, an they lost the blend of power and finesse that made them so feared in the first place.
Manchester United, Chelsea and Manchester City have all been hugely successful in that period since then with what can best be described as a fluid set of principles, which they adapt considering their circumstances, personnel and resources. You wouldn’t protest that those three sides haven’t been capable of playing beautiful passing football at times, but they were capable of mixing it up and playing a bit of the uglier stuff too should the occasion call for it – you need that balance.
If you get too entrenched in one style of play, you limit yourself hugely, there’s no alternative plan when things aren’t going well. The amount of ‘well it works for Barcelona and Spain’ responses that I’ll get for this will surely be loads, but that’s completely missing the point. You don’t judge a style of play by its best exponents, rather the average ones. The greatest international side in history and the best club side for a generation are hardly a fair sample of what your average team can do, are they? Also, I’m sure it helps a bit if you’ve got Lionel Messi, Xavi and Andres Iniesta too.
Instead, we should look to Roma’s underperformance last term in Serie A under former Barcelona player and later B-team coach, Luis Enrique, as an example of when that style of play is applied to mere mortals. They were sometimes brilliant, others not so and they limped to disappointing seventh-place finish, Enrique was sacked and the experiment was over. Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but trying to attempt to copy a style of play without the necessary players to carry it off is just foolish. There’s nothing noble in that.
There were times last season when Swansea were brilliant, most notably against Arsenal, Manchester City and Fulham, but they let in four against Blackburn, three against QPR and a further four against Wolves. The success of the system is hugely dependent on key players down the spine of your side playing well and being in good form, otherwise you can seriously flounder, be ineffective and lack penetration with the ball and look depserate without it.
The training methods behind it and style of play can also be both mentally and physically draining – just look at Barcelona last year, several key players such as Iniesta, Pique and Xavi were far from their best. There’s also the fact that Swansea last term only scored 44 goals in the league, eight fewer than fellow promoted side Norwich and less than relegated duo Blackburn and Bolton.
There is nothing wrong with having a set of ideals about the way in which you want your side to play; having the first idea about what you want to do with a club is more than some Premier League managers do before they take a gig (cough Steve Bruce cough) but it’s when it becomes ingrained to such an extent that you’re unable to adapt that you have to worry.
Rodgers has rather understandably stated that a player worth £35m should be able to adapt to any system of play, and it’s promising that he’s willing to give Carroll a chance, as opposed to ditching him because he believes it compromises his footballing principles. A manager’s job is to make tough choices and work with what you’ve got sometimes, not cut and running at the first sign of trouble. He adds an extra dimension to the side’s play, and without it, I fear what Liverpool may become.
July 22nd, 2012
horrible aricle
July 22nd, 2012
nah fair article. gotta put the ball in the back of the net to win games. doesnt matter how well you play. grinding out results is our issue… buy a striker please.
July 22nd, 2012
Say whatever you want but i really liked swansea’s game last season. And swans was my 2nd fav team in epl, which was for many people i guess. Secondly, yesterday reds pressed really well in opposition half which i didn’t see reds do for a long time now. Another thing younsters performed really well and were very confident, which is also very rare for liverpool. Example, 16yr old jordan ibe and 17 yr old sterling. pacheco is good we all know but before he lacked that confidence. And yesterday suddenly you saw pacheco get confidence to take on defenders. I can only see positive vibes from Brendan for now. Whatever happpens later we’ll see later. We’ll cross bridge when we come to it.
July 22nd, 2012
This article is one-dimensional.
July 22nd, 2012
Pleas i just need lfc to come back to top 4 this embaressment is 2 much
July 22nd, 2012
Sounds like TACTICS are more important? Bring back RAFA!
July 22nd, 2012
Several things that are inconsistent and sometimes blatantly wrong in this article. Ill go through them and explain why.
1. ‘it’s a game at the end of the day, let’s not try and over-think it in an attempt to seem more intelligent than everyone else, it just comes across as being self-important. There is no ‘right’ way to win or play the game’
Whats so bad about trying to be self important? If a club has a clear objective in how it will play then it is only good and this ‘obnoxious’ argument doesn’t make sense. Who are you trying to please? Furthermore, you state that there is ‘no right way to play’, but that doesnt contribute in any way to your argument. Of course there is no right way, but there are some ways of playing football which are better than others, and deliver better results. In any case, playing with a clear objective is much better football wise in enabling you to build the foundations for seasons come.
2. ‘Arsenal’s seven-year trophy-drought coincided with a deliberate attempt to change the club’s style of play to something similar to the much-vaunted tiki-taka, an they lost the blend of power and finess that made them so feared as a result.’
This is blatantly wrong. Arsenals demise resulted due to them selling their better players, plus Wenger’s insistence to not spend but develop a strong grassroots ability throughout the club. In fact, Wenger always played tiki taka with arsenal – possession football was integral to the success of the invincibles. The fact that arsenal can still compete and be in the top 3 while losing key players every season speaks volumes of how tiki taka works. Any lesser team would have regressed significantly.
3. ‘You don’t judge a style of play by its best exponents, rather the average ones. The greatest international side in history and the best club side for a generation are hardly a fair sample of what your average team can do, are they?’
Ok then, if we should judge a style of play by its ‘average’ exponents, then we can look at Swansea city primarily over the past 2-3 years. from div 1, they have progressed to the premier league and done quite well. But even more than that, we can look at the La liga, and not at barcelona. Valencia have played possession football for quite a long time, and while they have not had the success (due to the power of madrid and barca), they have always maintained a top 3 position. But i go even further than that. Ajax have played such football for decades, and even with selling their better players, they have never faltered in the eredivise. So when you say ‘average exponents’, you conveniently ignore the multitude of teams that do play possession football and have had success.
4. ‘There were times last season when Swansea were brilliant, most notably against Arsenal, Manchester City and Fulham, but they let in four against Blackburn, three against QPR and a further four against Wolves. The success of the system is hugely dependent on key players down the spine of your side playing well and being in good form, otherwise you can seriously flounder, be ineffective and lack penetration with the ball and look depserate without it.’
That doesnt help your argument in any fashion. The fact that swansea had success against the likes of man city, arsenal, etc, against the ‘fluid’ football you espouse, with limited players, only weakens your argument. Yes, they lost against blackburn etc, but then that analogy fails because you cant simply blame the type of play on the result. If you could, then I could say man united’s loss to blackburn at home means that man united should stop playing wide men and pacy, overlapping and dynamic football. Imagine what Rodgers can do with better players such as suarez, gerrard and lucas?
5. ‘The training methods behind it and style of play can also be both mentally and physically draining – just look at Barcelona last year, several key players such as Iniesta, Pique and Xavi were far from their best. There’s also the fact that Swansea last term only scored 44 goals in the league, eight fewer than fellow promoted side Norwich and less than relegated duo Blackburn and Bolton.’
So what? you look to one season where pique and xavi werent ‘their best’ and somehow attribute that to ‘physically draining training’? And you conveniently forget the other 5 years where they gained success without metaphorically breaking a sweat? And so what if swansea scored 44 goals? Liverpool scored an obscenely low amount of goals, and they werent playing tiki taka. Also, that goal argument also fails because again, as you say yourself, swansea had ‘limited players’, so imagine if liverpool did buy a dempsey or a falcao that could convert the chances, that would significantly impact the goal tally, wouldnt it? And I dont know if you have been reading the interviews, but many liverpool players say that the training is much more enjoyable, with ‘less energy sapping long distance workouts’ that dalglish applied. So thats a blatant contradiction.
6. ‘There is nothing wrong with having a set of ideals about the way in which you want your side to play; having the first idea about what you want to do with a club is more than some Premier League managers do before they take a gig (cough Steve Bruce cough) but it’s when it becomes ingrained to such an extent that you’re unable to adapt that you have to worry.’
Youre one dimensional argument is a valid argument. But i think that your argument is only really applicable in situations where the club is actually failing to win and gets owned even when they play tiki taka. I dont think that it will happen with liverpool, and if it does, i dont think you can legitimately present a ‘one dimension’ argument.
Plus, I think what rodgers is trying to do is get the players that can fully fit the system. There is no point in keeping bit part players and then moaning and groaning about how the players cant adapt to the tiki taka. If you get the right team, like valencia and barca, then one dimension is not a problem but a boon.
July 22nd, 2012
simon nice article… better than at up..
July 22nd, 2012
Nice explanation Simon; agree with most of your thoughts. However, I think, James point here is related to off-loading Carroll & becoming an only pass & possession team. He also has some valid points though.
I think, Tiki-taka & pass-possession are not exactly synonymous. Tiki-taka is more of keeping possession, pressing the opponents & keep possession with lots of passes. While the Spanish side have some of the all time best ball-players, they can play perfect Tiki-taka, but the LFC side of 70s & 80s also were devastating with their quick, short passing game, but at the same time, they had one of the greatest target man in Rush.
I don’t think James is saying Tiki-taka is not good or LFC can’t implement that with current squad, rather he is questioning if in a match, Rogers’ style fail to break the opposition, or somehow LFC is down to 10 men, there is no back up plan.
I myself is a great Barca & Juve fan (Of course after LFC), but this season, I felt Real was far better than Barca for their flexibility & adaptation. I can recall in ’94 WC, Italy lost their keeper & conceded a penalty within first quarter of the match against Mexico (I guess), who were also very good ball playing side. 0-1 & 1 man down in a must win game, as a boy, I was surprised to see master tactician Arigo Sacchi taking off Baggio & bringing on a target man (AC Milan man, forgot the name) & Italy went on to win the game from 2 very un-Italy like “Long Ball” goals.
I think we need to keep AC, though too expensive, but against stubborn packed defense, we might need a power man in last quarter against the tired back line.
Spain surprisingly lost to England & failed to break similar ball playing Portuguese back line in 120 min, while Barca could never beat a Chelsea side with Drogba up front. Think about it.
July 22nd, 2012
you must be a united supporter or something! dont use tactics? and yet barcelona, real madrid and united are dominating world football and their managers are all world class tacticians. And you dont like the word “philosophy”, a managers philosophy on football is what defines him as a manager. Tika taka football takes time as Rodgers has pointed out countless times and last nights match we were basically playing with a second team and our youngsters and you making statements like we could become one dimensional. Articles like this irritate me as we are one game into pre season and missing a lot of key names and you already jumping on our clubs back. This article is completely downheartening and negative when there were a lot of positives to take from yesterdays game, things are looking up at Liverpool, i suggest you start to take notice.
July 22nd, 2012
I’ll run through your point Simon, and expose your own one-dimensional vein of thinking.
1. “Whats so bad about trying to be self important?”
Are you serious? Jesus H. Christ.
“In any case, playing with a clear objective is much better football wise in enabling you to build the foundations for seasons come.”
There are only 10 boss in the entire football league that have been at their clubs for 3 years or more, don’t delude yourself.
2. “Arsenals demise resulted due to them selling their better players, plus Wenger’s insistence to not spend but develop a strong grassroots ability throughout the club.”
Talk about spinning an argument to suit the facts. Why do these players leave? Because they’re not winning things. Why are they not winning things? Because the style of play isn’t condusive to consistency in the British game.
“possession football was integral to the success of the invincibles.”
Again, to quote you “just to blatantly wrong.” – it worked because it was a blend of possession-based football and a powerful approach.
3. “Valencia have played possession football for quite a long time, and while they have not had the success (due to the power of madrid and barca), they have always maintained a top 3 position.”
Also helps if you receive the third-most TV money in the entire league, thus making it easier to maintain your position.
“Ajax have played such football for decades, and even with selling their better players, they have never faltered in the eredivise.”
So let’s just forget about that six-year title drought then from 2004-10 when the richest team in the country couldn’t win a thing. Talk about conveniently ignoring things.
4. “The fact that swansea had success against the likes of man city, arsenal, etc, against the ‘fluid’ football you espouse, with limited players, only weakens your argument.”
In fact it does, because it links back to this point: “The success of the system is hugely dependent on key players down the spine of your side playing well and being in good form.”
It works well in one-off games, but over the course of a long 38-game season, unless everyone is ‘on it’ so to speak, then you get rubbish results against poor teams. It reinforces the point entirely, maybe you just didn’t read it properly or get it.
5. “So what? you look to one season where pique and xavi werent ‘their best’ and somehow attribute that to ‘physically draining training’?”
Well, to put it mildly, THAT’S WHAT IT’S ON ABOUT! It drains you over time, hence and the accumulation of mental and physical preparation can mean it tires the players out, even the best of their generation. Jonathan Wilson talks about football in three-year cycles, Barca have had theirs because that level of information and preparation will only lead to fatigue over a long period of time. Man alive.
“So imagine if liverpool did buy a dempsey or a falcao that could convert the chances.”
There is so much wrong with that casual statement I don’t even know where to begin. Dempsey has scored the level of goals he did last year once, Falcao will not sign for Liverpool – completely ignoring the tactical and realistic ambitions and state of the club. Ugh!
Critique is fine, you’ve clearly thought yours through, but you’ve clearly got an agenda to push. Faith is one thing, blind faith another entirely.
July 23rd, 2012
Hi carl.
I like your points, and i think you know what youre on about (unlike james mcmanus). But id like to just point out a few little things that maybe you didnt understand, but also admit some of my own assumptions.
Youre right in saying that there have been 10 bosses that have stayed for more than three years, but what you are doing there is interpreting causation with corellation. Football foundations often transcend the reign of managers. I point to shankly and paisley. Shankly set the foundations of ‘pass and move’ that would be an inherent factor in the club’s play for the next few decades, a style replicated by paisley and the likes. But even more, if we look at swansea, the original possession football was already in its adolescence by the time rodgers replaced martinez. Hence, rodgers could apply the same principles he achieved in watford successfully to swansea, because the foundations were there. Footballing basics and ‘foundations’ dont just simply die out with the manager. Sometimes they do, eg AVB, but most of the time the foundations are conserved.
You also raise the point that ajax havent won anything for 6 years, and ive conveniently ingored something. Ok, so what id like to say in this case is that when you say something like that, it leaves you open to a damaging rebuttal. I can similarly say that since man city did not win the title and the champs league (which they still havent won) for 4 years, even with significant investment, their fluid play did not work. I know that statement i just said is a fallacy, but i use it to point out why you leave yourself vulnerable to counters when you refer to tangential analogies about teams not winning things.
I dont understand your counter to my argument about swanseas success against arsenal and man city (point 4) so i wont address it.
Counter 5 is an ever worse argument than the original by james mcmanus. Again, once you use an explanation like that, i can simply say that every single club, and i mean every single club, has training schedules that tires their players out. United had a terrible injury crisis last year, but they werent playing tiki taka; everton also had a similar injury crisis mid season last year with tiredness affecting them, but they dont play tiki-taka… Irrespective of tiki taka or not, every player in every club will experience fatigue and tiredness. Thats a fact.
When i mentioned dempsey and falcao, i was simply saying ‘A dempsey, A falcao’, i was not implying that we have a chance of getting them or that we should buy them. When i say ‘A dempsey, i refer to a younger version of him who could efficiently link attacks and contribute to goals. When i mentioned A falcao, i was implying what would happen if we bought a quick, powerful, and clinical striker, a la torres.
So while i might have assumed things in my rebut, i dont believe i have an agenda to push. I was simply pointing out necessary flaws which need to be addressed, because whenever you present an argument like this, you need to address all your weak points.
July 22nd, 2012
Great article, hit the nail right on the head for me.
Us Liverpool fans always like to pretend that everything is all hunky dory when we’ve got a new manager at the helm, but Rodgers is a massive gamble.
I’m looking forward to seeing if he uses the kids a bit more and the change in style is a good thing, but that doesn’t mean we should all just pretend that we don’t have concerns.
I didn’t want Rodgers as boss, I’m willing to give him a fair crack of the whip and he’ll get 100% of my support, but we should always be allowed to analyse our concerns ffs.