• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Pre Match - Man City (a) - PL - Sun 1630

Status
Not open for further replies.
Having spent time on the fume, they’re furious about their chances. They scored a deflection and their second was because we didn’t push up quick enough.

Yes, we looked ragging at the back but don’t really remember them missing sitters.

xG 1.2 for each side shows the quality of chances. Even though I hate xG.
 
I pinned my hopes on Biscan, Vlad and Djimi Traore when we were 3 down at half time in CL final against an amazing Milan side, so why not ?
Poor Biscan with the weight of expectations on his shoulders while not even being on the pitch.
 
After recovering from a heart attack scare, I’ve had more time to think about the game today.

It’s clear that we were crying out for a KDB type playmaker yesterday to run at City and push them back. Someone who could link our forward line and midfield. They dominated and tore our midfield apart during the first half.

I guess that’s also why Keita was brought on but he was pretty anonymous too.
 
After recovering from a heart attack scare, I’ve had more time to think about the game today.

It’s clear that we were crying out for a KDB type playmaker yesterday to run at City and push them back. Someone who could link our forward line and midfield. They dominated and tore our midfield apart during the first half.

I guess that’s also why Keita was brought on but he was pretty anonymous too.
Not just that though. We lost the ball / gave away possession way before a De Bruyna type player would have been able to have the ball to feet. Understandable with all that pressing City did, but we could have been a little better there. If we had been, our attackers would have flourished far more I feel.
 
From the guardian.

[article]
With 67 minutes gone at a breezy Etihad Stadium, on an afternoon that seesawed like a listing ship on a spring tide, Trent Alexander-Arnold could be seen twirling and jinking high up the pitch on the Liverpool right flank, a place he occupied for much of the afternoon.

Eventually his cross was cut out by a City foot. Kevin De Bruyne, who produced the perfect through pass for Raheem Sterling to skitter away upfield.

Sterling ran the length of Liverpool’s right flank, then stopped, twirled, stopped again, crowded out now by two red shirts. One of these was Alexander-Arnold himself, loping back in that dogged style, with the air even at top speed of a man trotting along the beach with a surf board under one arm. As the ball trickled out of play Alexander-Arnold bent double and clutched his knees, chest heaving, the end of just another instalment in his own thrillingly high-stakes game of risk and reward.


By the end of this 2-2 draw Liverpool’s right-sided defensive playmaker had made a goal, almost made quite a few others, passed the ball with wonderful elan, and resembled at other times an open wound on the right, isolated by a well-executed plan from Pep Guardiola.


No doubt the entire Alexander-Arnold methodology will be pored over once again. It has become a truism to mutter darkly about his defending, as though in allowing this monster, this defensive refusenik to even take the field Jürgen Klopp is somehow revealing to the world his blindness, his tactical illiteracy.


The internet says Alexander‑Arnold can’t defend – and not just that he can’t defend, that his defending is a kind of outrage, a societal toxin. The truth is not just in the middle, but a great deal more interesting. How do you solve a problem like Trent? The answer to this is a blank look, a shrug. What problem, exactly, are we talking about?


Better, perhaps, to imagine a Liverpool team where the right‑back sits, covers and blocks up the space. Because the current one, that era-forging Klopp machine, is built to a startling degree around that balance of risk and creativity on the right. It was all on show here in a beautifully open, beautifully flawed game of elite club football, which seemed to centre in so many ways around Liverpool’s right-back.


Guardiola deserves credit for taking the game that way. Here City’s manager was up in the first minute prowling his chalk rectangle, discarding his quilted Dalek coat, all the better to revolve his arms in a series of strange geometric shapes, seeing space, angles, intersections, a man trying to grasp the day in his hands.


From those early moments City did something simple, playing a series of long, flat, diagonal passes into the space behind Liverpool’s full-backs. By half-time the back four had produced 18 of these. Both City’s first-half goals had come from swift lateral movements, finding that loose, undefined space in the lines between centre-half and full-back. By the end City had made enough chances this way to win the game quite comfortably with competent finishing.


They should have scored via this route with four minutes gone, then took the lead moments later, De Bruyne’s shot taking a deflection off Joël Matip. It took 10 minutes for Liverpool to equalise. It was a lovely goal made by Andy Robertson’s delightful chipped pass to the back post, where Alexander-Arnold was in place to provide a velum-bound, goose feather-stuffed touch-off into the path of Diogo Jota, who just had to ease it into the net.


It was a finely worked goal. And more than that a moment of pure, luminous Liverpool full-back‑ism, a kind of manifesto goal, a moment that said, yes, we really are going to keep doing this, being entirely ourselves, overloading our own strengths, daring you to plug at our weaknesses.


By half-time Liverpool were 2-1 down. City’s passing and movement was thrillingly precise. Close to the pitch you could hear the clips and thuds and pings, like the comforting rat-a-tat of an electric sewing machine stitching the game, the day into place.


How to respond, how to close that space on the flanks? How to protect those ailing full-backs? The most interesting part of the game was Klopp’s response. Which was to do: nothing. In fact, to ask for more: more aggression, more vertigo, more and better high-risk full-back play.


Less than a minute into the second half Alexander-Arnold was already high up the pitch, funnelling the ball on in one movement to find Mo Salah in space. His cross was pinged high into the net by Sadio Mané.


Three times in that second half Alexander-Arnold was the furthest man forward for Liverpool. Just as many he was back covering in extremis. No doubt there will be damning video segments in the post-match playbook, the spotlight of doom.


This is of course his role, to move forward, to provide the point of difference, the one real anomaly in this brilliantly constructed systems-team. That looseness is written into his game, not just the freedom, but the obligation to act as a playmaker, a roving brain, a note of creative imagination.


Afternoons like this present the paradox of Trent: a player so unusual, so sui generis it still seems inconceivable that Gareth Southgate will find a space for him in his meat-and-potatoes England team; but good enough to come to the home of the champions and provide his own unique notes of illumination.
[/article]
 
I often read through this forum's match threads and think "WTF that's not what I saw". Happily it seems I'm not alone as the commentators/studio guests from City's own TV (3 guests waxing lyrical about both sides) to ESPN, BBC etc. (plus the written media) are all rapturous about the match as a spectacle (from both teams) and the amount of quality shown all over the pitch, from defending to attack to the small moments. Most seem to agree that 2-2 was a fair result even though City had more ½ chances. Interestingly the xG was 1.1 for City and 1.21 for us which just goes to highlight that City's chances weren't considered golden by any stretch.

Yes City had the better of the first half by some distance but for the first 15-20 mins of the 2nd it seemed like we had complete control and another goal was coming (maybe from Diogo's two chances it should have).

The last 20-25 mins neither team seemed like they wanted to go all out and win it (or risk losing it), they were content to slow it down and try to work an opportunity but the intensity of the first 65-70 mins was gone.
 
Having spent time on the fume, they’re furious about their chances. They scored a deflection and their second was because we didn’t push up quick enough.

Yes, we looked ragging at the back but don’t really remember them missing sitters.

xG 1.2 for each side shows the quality of chances. Even though I hate xG.
Sterling missed a sitter just before their opening goal.

It was easier than Jotas in the second half.
 
From the guardian.

[article]
With 67 minutes gone at a breezy Etihad Stadium, on an afternoon that seesawed like a listing ship on a spring tide, Trent Alexander-Arnold could be seen twirling and jinking high up the pitch on the Liverpool right flank, a place he occupied for much of the afternoon.

Eventually his cross was cut out by a City foot. Kevin De Bruyne, who produced the perfect through pass for Raheem Sterling to skitter away upfield.

Sterling ran the length of Liverpool’s right flank, then stopped, twirled, stopped again, crowded out now by two red shirts. One of these was Alexander-Arnold himself, loping back in that dogged style, with the air even at top speed of a man trotting along the beach with a surf board under one arm. As the ball trickled out of play Alexander-Arnold bent double and clutched his knees, chest heaving, the end of just another instalment in his own thrillingly high-stakes game of risk and reward.


By the end of this 2-2 draw Liverpool’s right-sided defensive playmaker had made a goal, almost made quite a few others, passed the ball with wonderful elan, and resembled at other times an open wound on the right, isolated by a well-executed plan from Pep Guardiola.


No doubt the entire Alexander-Arnold methodology will be pored over once again. It has become a truism to mutter darkly about his defending, as though in allowing this monster, this defensive refusenik to even take the field Jürgen Klopp is somehow revealing to the world his blindness, his tactical illiteracy.


The internet says Alexander‑Arnold can’t defend – and not just that he can’t defend, that his defending is a kind of outrage, a societal toxin. The truth is not just in the middle, but a great deal more interesting. How do you solve a problem like Trent? The answer to this is a blank look, a shrug. What problem, exactly, are we talking about?


Better, perhaps, to imagine a Liverpool team where the right‑back sits, covers and blocks up the space. Because the current one, that era-forging Klopp machine, is built to a startling degree around that balance of risk and creativity on the right. It was all on show here in a beautifully open, beautifully flawed game of elite club football, which seemed to centre in so many ways around Liverpool’s right-back.


Guardiola deserves credit for taking the game that way. Here City’s manager was up in the first minute prowling his chalk rectangle, discarding his quilted Dalek coat, all the better to revolve his arms in a series of strange geometric shapes, seeing space, angles, intersections, a man trying to grasp the day in his hands.


From those early moments City did something simple, playing a series of long, flat, diagonal passes into the space behind Liverpool’s full-backs. By half-time the back four had produced 18 of these. Both City’s first-half goals had come from swift lateral movements, finding that loose, undefined space in the lines between centre-half and full-back. By the end City had made enough chances this way to win the game quite comfortably with competent finishing.


They should have scored via this route with four minutes gone, then took the lead moments later, De Bruyne’s shot taking a deflection off Joël Matip. It took 10 minutes for Liverpool to equalise. It was a lovely goal made by Andy Robertson’s delightful chipped pass to the back post, where Alexander-Arnold was in place to provide a velum-bound, goose feather-stuffed touch-off into the path of Diogo Jota, who just had to ease it into the net.


It was a finely worked goal. And more than that a moment of pure, luminous Liverpool full-back‑ism, a kind of manifesto goal, a moment that said, yes, we really are going to keep doing this, being entirely ourselves, overloading our own strengths, daring you to plug at our weaknesses.


By half-time Liverpool were 2-1 down. City’s passing and movement was thrillingly precise. Close to the pitch you could hear the clips and thuds and pings, like the comforting rat-a-tat of an electric sewing machine stitching the game, the day into place.


How to respond, how to close that space on the flanks? How to protect those ailing full-backs? The most interesting part of the game was Klopp’s response. Which was to do: nothing. In fact, to ask for more: more aggression, more vertigo, more and better high-risk full-back play.


Less than a minute into the second half Alexander-Arnold was already high up the pitch, funnelling the ball on in one movement to find Mo Salah in space. His cross was pinged high into the net by Sadio Mané.


Three times in that second half Alexander-Arnold was the furthest man forward for Liverpool. Just as many he was back covering in extremis. No doubt there will be damning video segments in the post-match playbook, the spotlight of doom.


This is of course his role, to move forward, to provide the point of difference, the one real anomaly in this brilliantly constructed systems-team. That looseness is written into his game, not just the freedom, but the obligation to act as a playmaker, a roving brain, a note of creative imagination.


Afternoons like this present the paradox of Trent: a player so unusual, so sui generis it still seems inconceivable that Gareth Southgate will find a space for him in his meat-and-potatoes England team; but good enough to come to the home of the champions and provide his own unique notes of illumination.
[/article]
Awesome. And spot on.

Actually what I often saw yesterday was Hendo so far up the pitch that he no longer had any influence on where the game was, around the halfway line. If he was supposed to cover for Trent then he was often out of position. If he wasn't then I'm not sure what his role was because he shouldn't be the one supporting the attack (that should be Thiago / Keita) - I'd much rather see him, against City, in a double defensive pivot.
 
On another day, starting with the right intensity & mindset we should have won that game. But given the first half, that is absolutely a point gained. 7 games to go - pressure could do anything to either team in that run in.
 
Sterling missed a sitter just before their opening goal.

It was easier than Jotas in the second half.
A sitter each? And sterling’s sitter wouldn’t have changed the result as seconds later they scored anyway.

They prodded and probed well but it’s not like Ali kept us in it or they were constantly missing the target.
 
Can't really see who City are going to drop points against, except maybe Villa on the last day.
With the way results have happened this season, only a mug will bet on any result. The thing is that City played some of its best football in this match and didn't win. We played some of our worst-- the passing especially from the midfield throughout the match was beyond atrocious-- and didn't lose. City played exceptionally well at Palace and lost. Dominated Spurs and lost.

We just need two make sure we put this dreadful performance behind us and win the next match.
 
Last edited:
277819501_2505574612912263_4285273642355047704_n.jpg
 
A sitter each? And sterling’s sitter wouldn’t have changed the result as seconds later they scored anyway.

They prodded and probed well but it’s not like Ali kept us in it or they were constantly missing the target.
Yep. I think this is what contributed to the xG being 1.1 for City and 1.21 for us. It felt like they were creating loads (our/my nerves!) but we defended well and that kept the real chances to a minimum.
 
A sitter each? And sterling’s sitter wouldn’t have changed the result as seconds later they scored anyway.

They prodded and probed well but it’s not like Ali kept us in it or they were constantly missing the target.

Yep, the poor kicking from Alison from that led the free kick very quickly later led to the first goal. In fact, the whole back 5 were hurried into a lot of poor passing in the first half and the city pressing was partly to blame for it but it wasn’t that intense. Reminded me a little of the RM first leg first half last season, seemed like the nerves just got the better of us. Fabinho and Hendo were terrible in the first half, but unlike season before and the games before, Sadio and the lads found a way to get something.
 
Not just that though. We lost the ball / gave away possession way before a De Bruyna type player would have been able to have the ball to feet. Understandable with all that pressing City did, but we could have been a little better there. If we had been, our attackers would have flourished far more I feel.

Remember how at one time Chelsea was unplayable and then some genius discovered that if you stop the water carrier i.e. Kante, you basically nullify their effectiveness. It wasn’t rocket science.

That's what they did to Fabs yesterday. Ganged up and bullied him, each time the ball fell onto his feet.

Yesterday's game was crying out for someone to help alleviate the pressure in midfield, someone who could link midfield and attack, and also counter-press from the top, which was what a fully-fit Bobby would've done. Or maybe a Diaz who could do the same, but via the wings instead of through the middle.

Granted, Jota offered more of a goal threat, but i didn't notice him pressing effectively. Maybe someone can check if there's any data that can provide more insight on this ?

Personally i felt It was elementary how we played into City's hands yesterday, and this to me was a bit shocking, considering how much time and effort we put into tactics, data analysis and preparation.
 
Last edited:
Yep. I think this is what contributed to the xG being 1.1 for City and 1.21 for us. It felt like they were creating loads (our/my nerves!) but we defended well and that kept the real chances to a minimum.

Sterling missed the easiest chance of the game. Mahrez also had a great opportunity to score at the death. In addition to that they hit the post from a free kick and both DeBruyne and Foden went close.

Other than Jotas snatched half chance I can't remember us missing any opportunities. I don't know where this idea that it was close in terms of opportunities is coming from.

We had less chances overall, and less good quality chances, but we were more ruthless.
 
Salah missed
Sterling missed the easiest chance of the game. Mahrez also had a great opportunity to score at the death. In addition to that they hit the post from a free kick and both DeBruyne and Foden went close.

Other than Jotas snatched half chance I can't remember us missing any opportunities. I don't know where this idea that it was close in terms of opportunities is coming from.

We had less chances overall, and less good quality chances, but we were more ruthless.
I also had the same view as you until I watched the full match highlights in the cold light of date.

Would this help?

 
Sterling missed the easiest chance of the game. Mahrez also had a great opportunity to score at the death. In addition to that they hit the post from a free kick and both DeBruyne and Foden went close.

Other than Jotas snatched half chance I can't remember us missing any opportunities. I don't know where this idea that it was close in terms of opportunities is coming from.

We had less chances overall, and less good quality chances, but we were more ruthless.
Maybe - but Sterling always misses so even if Ali wasn't awesome and closed him down, he'd still have missed the empty net.

Mahrez's shot was going over even without Matip's deflection (see below - this is the moment before it hits Matip's foot). I was looking at this earlier today replaying it frame by frame and still have the tab open. Mahrez's shot against the outside of the post - you can clearly see in the closeup shots that Ali had it covered (as you would expect from that distance). It was never going in. DeBruyne wasn't even on target and I can't remember Foden doing anything all match - did you mean Jesus perhaps?

If you are going to count interceptions/deflections then you have to say a) they were beyond lucky with DB's goal, it was never going in without that wicked deflection (it's noticeable how little this is mentioned in the media - it's all about DB scoring again) ! And b) Mo's goal was going in without Stones defecting it off his hip (in slo-mo you can see Edison wouldn't have got to it in time).

Jota's was a great chance TBH - had he just rifled it near post instead of trying to flick it to the back post. Anyway I don't make up the xG and we all know it's pretty random at times however MC 1.1 xG and LFC 1.21 xG was their summation.
Screenshot-2022-04-11-at-19-06-32.png
 
Yep. I think this is what contributed to the xG being 1.1 for City and 1.21 for us. It felt like they were creating loads (our/my nerves!) but we defended well and that kept the real chances to a minimum.

I think (but it might be my lack of understanding on how xG is calculated, I dunno?) that had Jesus been a little less craven and squared the ball a couple of times rather than being selfish, then they probably would have had more sitters - and probably goals
 
Maybe - but Sterling always misses so even if Ali wasn't awesome and closed him down, he'd still have missed the empty net.

Mahrez's shot was going over even without Matip's deflection (see below - this is the moment before it hits Matip's foot). I was looking at this earlier today replaying it frame by frame and still have the tab open. Mahrez's shot against the outside of the post - you can clearly see in the closeup shots that Ali had it covered (as you would expect from that distance). It was never going in. DeBruyne wasn't even on target and I can't remember Foden doing anything all match - did you mean Jesus perhaps?

If you are going to count interceptions/deflections then you have to say a) they were beyond lucky with DB's goal, it was never going in without that wicked deflection (it's noticeable how little this is mentioned in the media - it's all about DB scoring again) ! And b) Mo's goal was going in without Stones defecting it off his hip (in slo-mo you can see Edison wouldn't have got to it in time).

Jota's was a great chance TBH - had he just rifled it near post instead of trying to flick it to the back post. Anyway I don't make up the xG and we all know it's pretty random at times however MC 1.1 xG and LFC 1.21 xG was their summation.
Screenshot-2022-04-11-at-19-06-32.png
It felt like Mahrez was trying to lift the ball over Ali, his body shape and all. Anyway, our defenders got back so it wasn't like he was 1v1 clear and all that.

Yeah, i felt for all of their possessions, both their goals had an element of luck. It was KDB second deflected shot against us, his other one the equaliser at Anfield, how lucky can one get? And Jesus is not a good finisher, there is no way he meant to finish like he did, he merely stuck out a foot and it worked, so meh.

Whereas both our goals were intricately setup. Jota's finish had an element of luck but everything before that was pure class, so was Mane's.
 
So I get the risk/reward aspect of TAA. he's a flying winger, so we leave gaps. Grand!

But on that second goal, he didn't even track the player he was marking, Jesus. I mean surely he's required to do that
 
So I get the risk/reward aspect of TAA. he's a flying winger, so we leave gaps. Grand!

But on that second goal, he didn't even track the player he was marking, Jesus. I mean surely he's required to do that

He was close to playing him offside so was Matip I think, wasn’t like he was yards onside.
Just wonder whether shouid be playing this high from a free kick set piece but Klopp knows better than me on this.
It’s not just Trent, Robbo wasn’t able to track the runner who played the ball in from the left for Sterling’s first golden chance either.
Think it’s easiwr to get focus on Trent at times…
 
Last edited:
I thought they were the better side yesterday.

Also got the impression that we were way below our best, whereas City seemed close to top form. If Klopp doesn't rest too many, I think we'll see a positive reaction on Saturday.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom