17 Jan 2016

Liverpool Travesty: When the going gets tough, the tough turn into...Sam Allardyce!

After Liverpool's 3-3 draw with Arsenal, I highlighted Jurgen Klopp's preposterous decision to play Steven Caulker as a striker, but all occasionally managers make strange decisions, and I - like many fans, I'm sure - took a measure of comfort in the idea that it was just a one-off decision, borne of frustration/desperation. Well, that clearly isn't the case, as Klopp made exactly the same decision today against Manchester United, which once again begs the question: why did Liverpool sign Caulker?

Forget the failure to introduce Teixeira (a dedicated attacking player) - Klopp's decision to play a centre-half as a striker represents yet another Allardycian/Pulisian regression into draconian hoofball tactics.

If Klopp's plan to win the game is to throw not one, but TWO big lumps up-front, and then aimlessy send balls into the box, then it (arguably) shows that he has no credible plan to respond to defensively solid teams.

If this is Klopp's plan to break down stubborn defences, then Liverpool should've just brought in Sam Allardyce, as that's exactly what he'd in a similar situation.

Perhaps it's just me, but I expect more from one of Europe's (allegedly) best managers.

Just imagine if Brendan Rodgers made the Caulker decision TWO games in a row (amid a poor run of only 3 wins in 11 games). There'd be blood on the streets, if fans are honest with themselves, they know that's true.

How many more times is a central defender going to be used as a striker?

Klopp's defenders will come up with all kinds of excuses for playing a central-defender up-front (!), but for me, there's no credible justification for this decision, especially when there's an attacking player on the bench.

Whatever happened to pass and move, the fundamental footballing principle which underpins all of Liverpool's historical success? What's the philosophy now: 'hoof and move'? Or is it 'press and move'?

With the Caulker decision, and the befuddling persistence with Lallana, Klopp is (IMO) sending a negative, demotivating message to the club's young attacking players, and this may have long-term repercussions on the club's ability to attract and retain the most talented youngsters.

On a related note: this is the worst Manchester United side I've see since the late 1980s, and if Liverpool are incapable of beating this bungling band of leaden-footed lemmings AT HOME, then it's a serious concern.

Author: Jaimie K



0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Suarez (286) Benitez (227) rodgers (146) sturridge (89) coutinho (79) henderson (75) lucas (56) suarez-evra (48) Torres (46) LFC finances (41) klopp (40) sakho (32) gross/net spend (30) mignolet (28) can (21) LFC myths (18) lallana (18) firmino (15) mane (11) markovic (11) origi (10) milner (9) moreno (8) karius (7) matip (7) klavan (5) ojo (5) wijnaldum (2)