The in between transfer windows discussion period!

[Bruce 2,524 2.1k]

1 hour ago, Riverside94 said:

I think that’s because we are more suited to counter attack which makes his tactics more frustrating. 

Indeed. What I think has happened is that Carrick has made his system steadily more complex over time. Everytime he has tried to fix a problem it has led to more complicated patterns of play.

When he first started, he actually had a fairly simple 4-4-1-1 or 4-2-3-1 that was based on what he knew. Giles had a good cross so he overlapped while McGree, who isn't a winger, could play fairly narrow. Smith was more defensive. Howson and Hackney were a simple double-pivot. Akpom dropped deep to pick up the ball from a restart and then lay it off. Jones provided width on the right and Forss played on the shoulder of the last defender.  It's pretty much the same system that McKenna got Ipswich promoted with last season.

Now we have a complex system where each player has some sort of GANTT chart of where they're meant to be and when with Morris dropping deep behind the centre-backs and either the right or left back occasionally ending up as a #10. 

I'm hoping that Carrick goes back to basics for the rest of the season because if he does and we avoid injuries in midfield and central defence, I still think we're good enough to make the playoffs. 

[Redcar Rioja 8,076 7.9k]

My head hurts after reading the previous page!

My take is this. Stop conceding so many stupid f@(xwit goals which are totally on us and unnecessary complications of our own making 20 yard from our goal. It's blindingly clear that it is costing us and hasn't worked to the required level for 2 1/2 years now. 

That or we set Footballing records by scoring 150+ goals in a season. With better set plays (actually any sort of pre-planned and orchestrated set plays) we could maybe add a few more from corners and free kicks, even throw ins without too much difficulty but realistically it shouldn't be necessary as we are one of the top scorers in the Championship already.

The problem with either scenario is that we either need better tactics and coaching defensively or better tactics and coaching offensively. Neither is going to happen as I have been waiting to see it happen for 18 months now and it's clear we just need more forwards and not defenders, in fact at this stage when I see the team sheet each game I'm just relieved that Carrick has selected a Goalkeeper.

[estonpidge 1,673 6.2k]

There's a piece in the Athletic about how L'pool have reduced injuries by extending the length of training but reducing the intensity 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6112176/2025/02/05/liverpool-injuries-prevention/

It went almost unnoticed amid the celebrations that accompanied another crucial away Premier League victory, but one of the most significant aspects of Liverpool’s win at Bournemouth could be found in who was not part of it.

Joe Gomez and Federico Chiesa did not even make the bench on Saturday — not due to injury, but because there was simply no room for them. Both were understandable absentees, with Gomez only returning from a hamstring injury suffered at the end of December and Chiesa having just completed his first 90 minutes of the campaign against PSV, yet the significance of Arne Slot having a fully fit squad should not be underestimated.

It is a luxury few managers enjoy at any point, but especially at this time of year following the intense Christmas schedule.

Slot’s options are in stark contrast to the injury problems his predecessor, Jurgen Klopp, was experiencing around this time last year. At the end of February 2024, Liverpool were without seven of their most experienced players — Alisson, Trent Alexander-Arnold, Dominik Szoboszlai, Diogo Jota, Darwin Nunez, Mohamed Salah and Ryan Gravenberch — and were turning to youngsters such as Conor Bradley, Jarell Quansah, Bobby Clark, James McConnell and Jayden Danns to plug holes.

They did admirably, playing a significant role in the Carabao Cup final victory against Chelsea, but ultimately the difficulty of phasing players back from injury for the run-in contributed to a late-season slump.

The minimal injury problems (Alexander-Arnold has a muscle issue but is expected to be out for days rather than weeks) is remarkable given Liverpool have played one more game in all competitions than they had at the same stage last season — 36 compared to 35.

Last season, Klopp also had the opportunity to rest and rotate more during the Europa League group stage against lesser opposition. Slot has not had that luxury and, for seven of the eight Champions League league-phase games, fielded a strong side.

A key reason behind Liverpool’s appointment of Slot was his impressive injury-prevention record at AZ and Feyenoord. For three seasons, the Rotterdam side’s player availability levels were above 90 per cent.

Ruben Peeters, formerly head of physical performance at Feyenoord, followed Slot to Merseyside and he plays an important role as part of the wider department led by director of medicine Jonathan Power, who oversees all facets of medical, rehab and recovery.

Specialising in periodisation, Peeters helps to map out training plans and individual timetables for each player to manage workload for rest and recovery and to avoid overloading players.

 

Training days are longer, with it now compulsory for players to eat breakfast together, and sessions last around 90 minutes on an average day — but they are often less intense than under the previous regime, reducing injury risk.

Wellness checks are completed in the morning and, before the start of training, sessions involving yoga or hydrotherapy are encouraged as part of a “body wake-up” process that can also involve breathing techniques.

More time is spent in the gym on individual programmes set out by the performance and medical team, ice baths are encouraged and days off have been scheduled when appropriate. Slot gave his team two days off following the victory against Bournemouth, with the Tottenham semi-final not being played until Thursday evening.

The hard work and preparation are reflected in the number of key first-team players who have played more minutes this season.

[Jonny Ingbar 477 684]

10 hours ago, Riverside94 said:

I think that’s because we are more suited to counter attack which makes his tactics more frustrating. 

That's all very well and good, but when teams come sit in and play (what's now fashionably termed) a low block, counter attacking opportunity is limited.

Teams that are prepared to go 'toe to toe' with us need to be able to play, because we do attack to well. The stats back this up and it's not a coincidence that many teams play with a low block and try to nick a goal or two (Blackburn, for example).

But there's a deeper fundamental defensive issue that's costing us goals and points and I suspect it's because we lack a bit of balance with our attacking style, in terms of players and how many players we commit to attacks. 

If Hackney moves on I suspect his 'replacement' will be more robust. 

Fullbacks too, are an area where we've looked susceptible defensively.

 

[LinoJo3 4,958 12.4k]

37 minutes ago, Jonny Ingbar said:

That's all very well and good, but when teams come sit in and play (what's now fashionably termed) a low block, counter attacking opportunity is limited.

Teams that are prepared to go 'toe to toe' with us need to be able to play, because we do attack to well. The stats back this up and it's not a coincidence that many teams play with a low block and try to nick a goal or two (Blackburn, for example).

But there's a deeper fundamental defensive issue that's costing us goals and points and I suspect it's because we lack a bit of balance with our attacking style, in terms of players and how many players we commit to attacks. 

If Hackney moves on I suspect his 'replacement' will be more robust. 

Fullbacks too, are an area where we've looked susceptible defensively.

 

Our full backs are susceptible defensively because they are to busy sprinting back from the #10 position. I can’t see how that isn’t an insanely easy change that should gain us a lot more than we lose from our set up.

[Jonny Ingbar 477 684]

56 minutes ago, LinoJo3 said:

Our full backs are susceptible defensively because they are to busy sprinting back from the #10 position. I can’t see how that isn’t an insanely easy change that should gain us a lot more than we lose from our set up.

I agree in part, but neither Engel or Borges are strong defensively; both are susceptible 1v1 (Engel especially) and Giles, whilst an improvement, also has his defensive issues, particularly heading the ball.

It's a mix of both, plus they don't get loads of protection either. Doak's biggest area for improvement I'd say was his work out of possession, for example.

 

[Redcar Rioja 8,076 7.9k]

6 hours ago, estonpidge said:

There's a piece in the Athletic about how L'pool have reduced injuries by extending the length of training but reducing the intensity 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6112176/2025/02/05/liverpool-injuries-prevention/

It went almost unnoticed amid the celebrations that accompanied another crucial away Premier League victory, but one of the most significant aspects of Liverpool’s win at Bournemouth could be found in who was not part of it.

Joe Gomez and Federico Chiesa did not even make the bench on Saturday — not due to injury, but because there was simply no room for them. Both were understandable absentees, with Gomez only returning from a hamstring injury suffered at the end of December and Chiesa having just completed his first 90 minutes of the campaign against PSV, yet the significance of Arne Slot having a fully fit squad should not be underestimated.

It is a luxury few managers enjoy at any point, but especially at this time of year following the intense Christmas schedule.

Slot’s options are in stark contrast to the injury problems his predecessor, Jurgen Klopp, was experiencing around this time last year. At the end of February 2024, Liverpool were without seven of their most experienced players — Alisson, Trent Alexander-Arnold, Dominik Szoboszlai, Diogo Jota, Darwin Nunez, Mohamed Salah and Ryan Gravenberch — and were turning to youngsters such as Conor Bradley, Jarell Quansah, Bobby Clark, James McConnell and Jayden Danns to plug holes.

They did admirably, playing a significant role in the Carabao Cup final victory against Chelsea, but ultimately the difficulty of phasing players back from injury for the run-in contributed to a late-season slump.

The minimal injury problems (Alexander-Arnold has a muscle issue but is expected to be out for days rather than weeks) is remarkable given Liverpool have played one more game in all competitions than they had at the same stage last season — 36 compared to 35.

Last season, Klopp also had the opportunity to rest and rotate more during the Europa League group stage against lesser opposition. Slot has not had that luxury and, for seven of the eight Champions League league-phase games, fielded a strong side.

A key reason behind Liverpool’s appointment of Slot was his impressive injury-prevention record at AZ and Feyenoord. For three seasons, the Rotterdam side’s player availability levels were above 90 per cent.

Ruben Peeters, formerly head of physical performance at Feyenoord, followed Slot to Merseyside and he plays an important role as part of the wider department led by director of medicine Jonathan Power, who oversees all facets of medical, rehab and recovery.

Specialising in periodisation, Peeters helps to map out training plans and individual timetables for each player to manage workload for rest and recovery and to avoid overloading players.

 

Training days are longer, with it now compulsory for players to eat breakfast together, and sessions last around 90 minutes on an average day — but they are often less intense than under the previous regime, reducing injury risk.

Wellness checks are completed in the morning and, before the start of training, sessions involving yoga or hydrotherapy are encouraged as part of a “body wake-up” process that can also involve breathing techniques.

More time is spent in the gym on individual programmes set out by the performance and medical team, ice baths are encouraged and days off have been scheduled when appropriate. Slot gave his team two days off following the victory against Bournemouth, with the Tottenham semi-final not being played until Thursday evening.

The hard work and preparation are reflected in the number of key first-team players who have played more minutes this season.

It'll never catch on, knacker them and have them out for a season or two, that'll teach 'em. Can't be doing with all this fandangled modern crapola, give them a good hamstring they'll never forget in training, or better still a cruciate problem, that'll sort the men from the boys.

[Changing Times 14,687 21.7k]

13 hours ago, Bruce said:

A quick look at our home games this season: 16

Swansea 36% W
Portsmouth 72% D
Preston 55% D
Stoke 50% W
Bristol City 69% L
Sheff Utd 54% W
Coventry 50% L
Luton 52% W
Blackburn 61% L
Hull 44% W
Millwall 59% W
Sheff Wed 57% D
Burnley 45% D
Cardiff 75% D
WBA 42% W
Sunderland 53% L
 

In most games we aim to dominate possession. We've had 4 games where we have had less than 50% possession: won 3, drawn 1. If you look at the 6 games where we have had 50% or less possession it is won 4, drawn 1, lost 1. The 5 games where we've had the most possession (59%+) dllwd - Won1, drawn 2, lost 2.

When we do what Carrickball is meant to do, dominate the ball and spend the game on the front foot(tm) we have a much worse record than when we play primarily without the ball. 

As I keep trying to explain I think that you are misunderstanding what you're seeing there.  I'll give you a few examples to explain what I mean.  Let's look at some of these games:  

West Brom to begin with.  We only had 42% possession in that game, and we won, so therefore we won because we had less possession.  However, we actually had 57% in the first half, and the higher xG.  We went in at half time 1-0 up.  West Brom then came out to chase the game in the second half, we sat back and they had 74% possession and the higher xG but we added the second goal and won.

The Sunderland game is obviously slightly different but still relevant.  In the first half we dominated possession and had the higher xG.  In the second half possession was split 50/50 and Sunderland had the higher xG.  So we got worse with less possession not better.

In the Luton game we scored twice in the first half with 47% possession, and three times in the second half with 57% possession.

The Preston game we had less possession than them in the first half 43%-57% but a lot more in the second half.  Half time was 1-1, full time was 1-1 so it didn't seem to make any difference either way.

The Stoke game we had more possession in the first half 54%-46% but less in the second half 46%-54%.  We won both halves 1-0 but had the much higher xG in the first half when we had more of the ball.

The Portsmouth game we dominated possession in both halves - 65%-35% and 77%-23%.  We were also behind after 2 mins, and then behind again after 25 mins.  In the first half our xG was 0.62 and in the second half it was 2.17.  Again we improved with more of the ball, and we should have won but didn't.

Sheff Wed game is another one.  In the first half we had 70% possesion and absolutely battered them.  Second half they had 60% possession and absolutely battered us, helped by the red card of course but they'd also already pulled it back to 3-2 by then.

If we go behind in a game then we will almost always dominate possession from that point because we are chasing the game.  If we go on to lose that game then we have lost with more possession but it's not necessarily because we had more possession.  Similarly, if we get ahead in games we are more likely to sit back more and therefore not dominate possession.  If we go on to win that game then we win it with less possession but it's not necessarily because we had less possession.  When Carrick first took over, and we had that spell of battering teams, we were dominating possession in most of them, and not just at home either.  We beat Norwich, Blackpool, Luton, Wigan, Birmingham, Blackburn, Millwall, Watford, Blackpool again, Cardiff, Sheff Utd, QPR, Reading, Preston between the beginning of November and the beginning of April and had more possession in each game.  We lost away against Burnley, at the Mackems, at West Brom and drew at home with Stoke over that period as well.  Burnley had more possession than us (they were better quite simply, the Mackem had more possession (Fry got sent off), and the Stoke draw we were 50/50.  Only the West Brom defeat in that period was when we had more possession and lost. Of course after that we lost at home against Burnley with less possession than them, and got battered at Huddersfield with far more, and Coventry were certainly happy for us to have the ball in the play off semi finals.

We are a possession based team.  I don't know if trying to be a counter attacking team would help us or not.  You can certainly make an argument that sitting behind the ball can make you defend better, and not playing out from the back so much would lead to fewer mistakes you'd think.  Generally though you tend to have the higher xG when you have more of the ball than when you have less of it or at least that seems to be the case with us.  I think our problems at home, away from home as well sometimes, are more down to not taking good chances we are creating, and therefore games staying tighter than they should be, and us making daft mistakes at the back to let teams into games that they shouldn't really be in.  I know xG is a complicated stat to use for all sorts of reasons but we have the second best differential between xG scored and xG conceded.  Based on that we should have the 2nd highest goals total and the 4th lowest conceded.  Instead we are 3rd and 11th respectively.  Generally speaking there is a correlation with possession and the better sides in the league, and a lack of possession and the worst.  It's not absolute by any means, and you can get a team like Luton who have some success in the Championship but didn't have the ball much.  In the Premier League right now, Southampton tend to have more of the ball and aren't very good, Man Utd and Spurs are the same and are having poor seasons, whilst Forest have the lowest amount and are having their best season in 30 years.  But generally they tend to be outliers and better teams have more of the ball.  I do however think that the stats are being skewed by teams copycatting each other in terms of style of play.

 

[TeaCider24 16,744 21.9k]

Engel exit confirmed.

Good luck to him, always gave his all in matches even if it sometimes wasn't good enough.

The summary on the site is written in a way that sounds like they're not expecting him to return, so hopefully Cincinnati take up the option.

He'd still have 18 months left on his deal here when the loan ends otherwise, and we might end up with another Hoppe situation.

Edited February 11 by TeaCider24

[Bruce 2,524 2.1k]

13 hours ago, Changing Times said:

As I keep trying to explain I think that you are misunderstanding what you're seeing there. 

I don't agree. I do agree that there is cause and effect. If we go ahead then the other team has to try and attack which means they will have more possession. Similarly, if we go behind, the other team will tend to sit back so we will end up with more possession. In every game, each team has some periods of being on top. That goes without saying. Possession, in part, is a factor of which team is trying to press the attack. By default, we aim to keep possession and press the attack.

Take our recent match away at Preston simply because it's convenient for me to see it. Overall we had 58% possession and lost 2-1. Looking at "attack momentum" on sofascore. First quarter of the game we have all the possession, fail to score, PNE start to gain possession and do score. Rest of the half we have most possession but don't do much with it. Second half, we get an early equaliser and are on top for the next 20-25 minutes with massive amounts of possession but don't score. We start to lose momentum then give away a clown show of a goal. Preston shut up shop and we keep the majority of the possession but don't score. The game is pretty much defined by us not scoring while dominating. This has been pretty much the norm in the current Carrick era. We spend large periods on top without scoring, start to tire then concede a cheap goal.

It compares to the game against WBA. We won 2-0. When Hackney scored the game had been pretty level in terms of possession. WBA had just had a good spell then Hackney scored. As is traditional we then dominated the rest of the half without scoring. Second half, was pretty much WBA attack vs our defence. One of the things it showed was that when our defence actually focuses on defending we're decent at it, though WBA were also struggling due to losing their only decent striker. Eventually, WBA started to tire, we came back into the game and Doak finished them off late. 

Final example, Hull away. We won with 69%. First 20 minutes or so Hull had the majority of the ball then we got some control and kept possession pretty much until the end. Hull had a brief spell just before full time then Gilbert scored at the death after Kamara just gave up and let Burgzorg run with the ball. 

Assuming Carrick told Scott that his priority was attacking reinforcements and Giles (who is essentially an attacking reinforcement) rather than Scott just dumping a bunch of loanee attackers on him, then Carrick's diagnosis must be that the attack is the problem. Might seem odd when we're conceding easily and scoring more than most but our problem has been our inability to turn possession into goals. We tend to score during periods when the game is being evenly contested. For whatever reason, when we are dominating possession our speed of play turns to a crawl and we struggle to score.

These are all tendencies, not absolutes but this season, watching us has been like watching Russell's Martin's Swansea: lots and lots of aimless possession. We do score goals but, by and large, we generally score during games when we're not on top. If a team gets ahead and sits back, we just get slower and slower and slower. 

 

[estonpidge 1,673 6.2k]

Plymouth brought in 2 solid CB's but we couldn't find one? Surely this has to be an area for upgrade along with at least 1 RB.

[TLF10 5,409 7.1k]

1 hour ago, estonpidge said:

Plymouth brought in 2 solid CB's but we couldn't find one? Surely this has to be an area for upgrade along with at least 1 RB.

Dont think it was ever said we could not find one. We chose not to find one.

[Changing Times 14,687 21.7k]

8 hours ago, Bruce said:

Take our recent match away at Preston simply because it's convenient for me to see it. Overall we had 58% possession and lost 2-1. Looking at "attack momentum" on sofascore. First quarter of the game we have all the possession, fail to score, PNE start to gain possession and do score. Rest of the half we have most possession but don't do much with it. Second half, we get an early equaliser and are on top for the next 20-25 minutes with massive amounts of possession but don't score. We start to lose momentum then give away a clown show of a goal. Preston shut up shop and we keep the majority of the possession but don't score. The game is pretty much defined by us not scoring while dominating. This has been pretty much the norm in the current Carrick era. We spend large periods on top without scoring, start to tire then concede a cheap goal.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say.  You've just said here that Preston scored twice when they were on top.  Your argument is that we shouldn't have the ball but Preston scored twice when we didn't.  I can look at the attack momentum as well for that game.  There were two periods when Preston were dominating possession and both were about half way through each half, and in each they scored.  I can see what you're saying that we didn't score when we had the ball but we also didn't concede.  And the reason for us not scoring wasn't because we didn't create anything it was because we didn't take the chances that we did create.  I don't see how having less of the ball would have helped us here?  The stats indicate that it wouldn't have helped at all.

 

8 hours ago, Bruce said:

It compares to the game against WBA. We won 2-0. When Hackney scored the game had been pretty level in terms of possession. WBA had just had a good spell then Hackney scored. As is traditional we then dominated the rest of the half without scoring. Second half, was pretty much WBA attack vs our defence. One of the things it showed was that when our defence actually focuses on defending we're decent at it, though WBA were also struggling due to losing their only decent striker. Eventually, WBA started to tire, we came back into the game and Doak finished them off late. 

West Brom had a decent spell, then we had a decent spell in which we scored.  The second half was very much West Brom I agree, and we got a goal on the break.  That's not something we've done a lot of though.  Go through all of the games and look at the same attack momentum you've looked at above and you'll see that we tend to score when we're on top not when we're digging in and trying to defend.  I'm not trying to be argumentative here but it's a fact certainly as far as the matches this season seem to show.  Occasionally we score when on the back foot but it's not often enough to make me think that this is key to our success.

 

9 hours ago, Bruce said:

Final example, Hull away. We won with 69%. First 20 minutes or so Hull had the majority of the ball then we got some control and kept possession pretty much until the end. Hull had a brief spell just before full time then Gilbert scored at the death after Kamara just gave up and let Burgzorg run with the ball. 

I don't know what you think this is an example of to be honest with you?  We dominated possession throughout the game, and we won the game.  What part of that is a problem I can't really see it?  Is it because we didn't win by more than one do you mean mate?

[Bruce 2,524 2.1k]

10 hours ago, Changing Times said:

I don't know what you think this is an example of to be honest with you?  We dominated possession throughout the game, and we won the game.

My point is, simply, that we are really, really bad at turning possession into goals. You know the old cliché when a commentator says "they're knocking on the door" well we knock on the door but never go through it. Other teams have figured this out. We tend to score not after or during a period of possession but when the other team is on top or when there's a period of back and forth. 

What's more, the more we're on top, the worse we get. 

I presume the reason why Carrick has 4 new attacking players is because he feels that this is our main problem. (Obviously had to replace ELL but  Iheanacho does not look like a like-for-like replacement for him. Iheanacho is as much a provider as a goal scorer - 232 games, 74 goals, 42 assists.)

[Borodane 7,456 27.1k]

I don't think it's possession based but rather that we tend to switch off and lose concentration and tactically we often look sencond best in large parts of the game. To me it looks like the opposition manager tends to figure Carrick out as the game goes on and Carrick simply doesn't have the tactical nous to see what's going wrong and how to change it. Granted I haven't looked back on all the games but my recollection is just that we start well but tail off and especially after the break where we tend to come out second best.

I still think that Carrick is a below par manager on some parameters, tactically being the obvious one, but that's not really a sursprise as he is still very inexperienced in that role. Question is whether we are willing to put up with that while he learns? We obviously still have a decent squad that should be in the top-6 but his defficiencies could well be the difference between play-off and not.