Discussion in 'Rumour Mill - Transfer Talk' started by Nikola, Apr 14, 2017.
should have typed spend
So you have no faith in Klopp and the way he sets our players up, and would rather Pochettino managing us then? You cannot have it both ways of wanting to show your affinity towards Klopp while wanting him to line us up like Spurs. Just not going to happen. So give it a rest.
Nope. Chelsea are also playing 3 at the back, as have Spurs in a number of games this season. So, your comparison isnt exactly accurate to just compare midfield set ups. Furthermore, we concede amongst the fewest number of chances of any side in the league as far as i understand. Our problem is that those chances generally tend to be, due to errors, significant goals scoring opportunities.
Injuries and lack of quality in the squad are the significant differences (and probably our weaker back 5).
You also cannot discount the style that we play which is a risk pressing game which will result in opponents being more restricted but when the pressing fails, due to errors or whatever, it will lead to significant goals scoring opportunities.
Yes, but few of our goals have been as a result of our press failing.
I think you are correct that its about balance, but not in the way you are talking.
Chelsea play two deeper players because their forwards dont work anywhere near hard enough. Hazard (9.5km) and Costa (8.7km) border on being classed as lazy. And yes im aware Cou's distances this season are lower than Hazards but then he has played a full 90 only 4 times since august due to injury. They need to play two deeper players or their game wouldn't work. Luckily both Kante and Matic work their bollocks off each game to cover their forwards lack of work ethic.
As for Spurs, Kane works reasonably hard a game (10.7km) but again nothing like Firmino (11.7km). They do have a number of players with exceptional work ethics so they probably don't need to play as defensively as they do, but when you have a 30 goal a season striker in your team you can afford to. We are playing with a jack of all trades, master of none up top.
At the risk of sounding like I'm making excuses, I dont see why Spurs are suddenly the measuring stick on all things awesome. They have had a great season, but they are what, 7 or 8 points ?above and all without suffering a horrendous 6 week form rut like us in jan-feb Plus they didnt lose their hardest working , and possibly the league's hardest working player for practically the entire season and their absolute best players sporadically throughout the entire campaign. If we were lucky like spurs this season I would actually expect us to be pushing Chelsea harder than they are atm.
I personally don't think our lack of a deep two is our problem at all. More that our striker isnt absolute top shelf at finishing, though I realise this may be a little unfair on Bobby as our forward play is designed to spread the load amongst many rather than being reliant on a single striker, and that our midfielders are prone to making retarded errors at crucial times , and our defenders arent too crash hot either.
Wrong thread for this but I truly believe that our defensive frailty is a lack of trust, particularly of the goalkeeper, but dont want to go further than that in a VVD thread.
Actually, I wouldn't really mind seeing van Dijk join us. But. 50 million is a ridiculous price tag - I'd accept LFC paying in the region of £30M, and even that's a little high.
50 million quid could get us a defender who is highly-rated, consistent and doesn't easily become injured. With enough spare change to buy a back-up defender who is also highly-rated, consistent and doesn't easily become injured. Or, possibly a Left Back who is highly-rated, consistent, etc. etc.
In my opinion, at this price, van Dijk would offer less value for money than Pogba has to Man U.
Prior to this injury, he'd only missed one other game due to injury since May 2012... and the ones he missed back then were due to an appendectomy which, given the nature of the operation, isn't going to recur.
Assuming he recovers fully from this issue, there's no reason to believe he is prone to injury.
Your entitled to your opinion even though in my opinion its very wrong.
It our style and generally it works well against park the bus teams if were able to perform to our highest energy levels which in january we clearly were not able to.
You only have to look when Lallana is in the side we create more chances but we are defensively more suspect when player run off him or he gives away silly fouls because he cant tackle, but he can clearly press.
The recent game against Everton when it was more like 4231 we didnt play offensively so well but scored 3 amazing goals but were much more defensively solid.
Our squad is build for playing 433 ie players like Lallana and Gini dont really suit a 4231 but are good in the current system.
Better players especially more defensively minded CM with tough tackling abilities would help but I guess we will always conceded more chances than Chelsea or Spurs
Interesting stats for Chelsea which shows Chelsea could be even stronger next season if they replaced Costa with a harder working CF.
I still think you miss the main point, yes we could have scored more goals but you cant win trophies conceding 40 goals in 32 games and thats because of the system we play clearly better players should bring that stat down a bit but our system will concede more goals than Chelsea or Spurs
Except we don't. You can argue we concede better chances because our attacking play means we are more stretched and open when we are broken through. However we are typically one of the teams that give up the least amount of chances in the league.
40 goals in 32 games says it all really, Those are facts that need to change next season and even to the end of this season if we could keep it under 47 that would be a start
Oh. I wasn't trying to imply that van Dijk is injury prone. Those were just general characteristics that I'd have on my wishlist when assessing potential transfers.
It's all just numbers... if van Dijk is the player we want then go and get him, basically.
If worst comes to worst and he flops here then we will still be able to get most of our money back regardless of what we pay due to the nature of the transfer market and ever increasing fees.
We do indeed concede a fairly low number of chances. But, once those shots are away, we're rather easy to score against.
If my calculations are correct, we've allowed around 266 shots and conceded 40 goals. At the other end of the pitch, we have taken around 530 shots, resulting in 68 goals.
If we swapped our goals allowed/conceded per minute statistics with our opponents, we would have scored 80 goals and conceded only 34. I'd wager that we would be well on our way to the PL title with those stats.
Just an observation, with a little bit of wishful thinking thrown into the pot.
I'm not as confident as you.
One of our biggest problems this season has been a lack of squad depth. On his own, van Dijk will do little to offset that risk; he can't be expected to play at his best for a full game, 50 times a season.
When it comes to defenders, I would far rather have one £30-35M player, and one £15-20M player for that money.
I don't have a problem with Klopp spending 50 million on a striker though.
If we want to be the best we have to just bite the bullet sometimes and pay top prices. As you said, if he flops someone will buy him for close to what we got him for. I cant see that happening though as he is pure quality. Also it would send a massive message to other potential signings saying come to us, we are here to compete.
Thanks very much. But it's not simply my opinion. It' a statistical fact that we concede amongst the fewest chances. This idea that we are wide open and are conceding goals as a result is false.
Again false. Our problems in january was more to do with losing key players through injury and AFCON, and a lack of depth to cover this.
Stats dont really back this up. The effect is pretty marginal as we're not conceding many goals from open play in that way.
There is no reason why Lallana and Gini wouldnt fit a 4231. To suppose they cant is silly as the positions they take up could easily be done in either system. Chelsea sometimes play with Fabregas in their deeper two.
Except this isnt backed up by the statistics. We (8.3) are second in the table behind City (8.1) on chances given up. Chelsea are 3rd (8.5) and Spurs are 4th with Utd (both 9)).
The issue for us isnt giving up chances, its making mistakes which lead to those chances being easier to score from.
In case of CB, its all about partnership. We haven't had a proper pair who played throughout the season in last 4-5 years. The last successful CB partnership for us was Agger Skrtel or Skrtel Carra. The partnership played loads of games every season. At CB its not about having numbers - rather having 2-3 players quality enough and injury free enough and able to have a good partnership.
That is true.
However, when going through those periods during which our schedule is congested, particularly at the end of the year, would you not rather have a better alternative in the squad than Lovren? The fact is: if all goes according to plan there will be more than enough games for our starters to play almost every week, and for the backup players to get enough time on the pitch to keep them interested and committed.
Even the rather injury-resistant Gerard Pique has missed more than 10 league games a season for most of his career, not to mention the cup games during which his services have not been necessary.
Maybe, but there are no guarantees.
Furthermore, while there is a fairly good chance that he wouldn't actually flop, what would happen if he does? Who is going to do the defending if our £50M defender finds himself struggling to adapt to Klopp's system?
I actually disagree with these two statements. In CB with Matip, Lovren, Klavan, Lucas and Gomez we've always had the numbers. We've not even had Gomez on the bench much let alone academy kids or using Can there or something. The problem has been the quality. Swap Lucas for Lovren and bring Van Dijk in to the starting position instead and you've dramatically increased the quality levels in that position whilst keeping the numbers.
In the forward positions our first choices are Coutinho, Firmino and Mane but we don't really have decent like for like cover. We have, different style, cover only in Origi and permanent injured Ings and Sturridge. None of which play same as the starters. No matter how good the forward we sign if we only sign one we are still going to struggle deploying our plan A at times next season.
Any player can flop, even a £50 million striker. If he did flop people would still remember how good he was before he came to us and Id think we'd get the majority back. Big players make millions for the club through marketing and all that these days so the fee is often more than the player is worth on the pitch. Unless its through injury I really couldnt see him flopping though. Hes a leader and wont be overwhelmed by the pressure of the fee or expectations. It all depends on the money available too but If we can get a couple of real quality players in I'd prefer that than twice as many average players.
I took it for granted that the list of backup players you've mentioned would undergo some changes before the new season.
I'm hardly suggesting that we use £50M to sign 50 untested Centre Backs for a million each. I'm rather confident that if Klopp spent that amount on two defenders, they would be of high quality.
In my opinion, Lovren is far too inconsistent to be our first choice as backup to the starters.
Now, if you're thinking that Lovren cost about the same as my hypothetical 15-20M player, and that my argument has been defeated by its own logic, bear in mind that we overpaid for Dejan.
Indeed, there's a good chance that we might. But, I didn't say that I'd have no complaints if Klopp were to buy just one player, I said that I had no problem with spending 50 million on one player. If it was decided that we needed to spend £100M on two top-class, experienced forwards, I would be happy to hear it.
The fact is, really good goal-scorers can take a £50 million shaped chunk out of a club's transfer kitty. Really good defenders just don't cost that much.
Recouping our investment isn't the point to which I'm referring. I'm referring to the fact that if we buy only one defender, and he flops, our defense won't have improved one bit.
I'm not asking for average. That type of money can buy more than one real quality player.
So you're telling us Ubermick has a thing for donkeys?...
Why do you think he's always offering to drive them to the "airport"?
I don't agree at all. For £50m, there are few clubs outside the top 3 or 4 who could afford to give us the majority back.
And for the most part, these top clubs don't have the habit of buying other team's expensive flops. You don't see anyone lining up to buy Luke Shaw for anywhere close to his original £30m fee. We are desperate for a leftback but you just don't see us showing interest.
And having leadership does not have much to do with whether he will adapt to a new system. VvD was fairly good, but far from a star when he was playing for Celtic. Did he instantly become amazing as soon as he put on a Saints' shirt? Will he lose his mojo when he takes it back off and plays in a much less disciplined system?
Agree with the first part. It's rare to see teams recoup fees for their flops, except if it's a striker or someone who just wasn't a tactical fit but still has clear talent (eg. Benteke).
Shaw is still a very talented player; he's just been unlucky with a serious injury and then having a manager who throws him under the bus at every opportunity. He'd definitely be a good enough LB for Liverpool, but probably not worth £35m. Anyways, transfers between United and Liverpool don't happen.
As for Van Dijk, CB's take time to develop so it's natural that he didn't look like a world beater at Celtic.
Most people who watch him play will agree that he has the natural skills to be a top CB in any system, given that he's very tall, dominant aerially, calm and elegant on the ball, a good reader of the game (exemplified by his very good timing in front-foot tackles), a good passer (long balls too), as well as being poised enough to bring the ball out of defense. He's basically the all-round package you look for in a CB, and at the ideal fully-developed age for a CB just entering his prime (25). These are the reasons why his mooted transfer fee is so high, especially given that he's contracted until 2022 so Southampton don't really have to sell.
That said, it wouldn't surprise me if Klopp was happy with his current first-choice CB pairing (Matip & Lovren) given that they've only conceded 10 in 13 games playing together (with no losses). That suggests that the issue isn't either of them, but rather that the drop-off between them and Klavan/Lucas has been a big issue.
A good case could thus be made for simply signing a very good 3rd choice CB (Michael Keane?), but of course I'm sure fans would naturally be happier if a "top" CB was brought in, thereby making Lovren a very strong 3rd choice CB instead. However, last summer the plan seemed to be having Sakho as 2nd or 3rd CB, which might be indicative that Klopp will want to sign another top CB if he can (at least on the level of Sakho).
Fwiw, I think there's certainly something to be said about the "intimidation factor" of coming up against two CB's like Matip and Van Dijk than it is against Lovren, simply for how enormous they are (while still both being very agile and poised on the ball)...
Van Dijk 1,93m
Klopp seems to like his CB's to be massive too judging by those he had at Dortmund...
oh i can think of a cb who'd supply an 'intimidation factor' for far less than 50m