A team with serious aspirations of finishing in the top four is expected to win games against the so-called 'lesser' teams, but as we have seen this season, Liverpool have an alarming propensity for dropping points against some of the smaller clubs in the Premier League. Guest writer David Bolt illustrates how Liverpool have paid the price over the years for this ongoing inconsistency.
There is plenty of recent evidence to suggest that Liverpool struggle against the smaller teams, but does the club drop more points against these teams than their top 4 rivals?
This is not too easy to quantify; what constitutes one of the smaller teams in the Premier League is in many cases quite subjective, so what I’ve done is:
* Analysed Liverpool’s record against newly promoted/relegated teams over the last 10 years, and:
* Compared that record with Man United, Arsenal and Chelsea.
Newly-promoted teams are a good example of a team that a side aspiring to finish in the top 4, or better, of the Premier League would expect to beat. These teams are normally inexperienced, or contain players with little to no experience of playing against teams containing very highly talented players.
Teams with top 4 aspirations would definitely expect to beat the relegated teams as they are the three teams that were consistently weakest over that season.
TABLE 1: Record Against Newly Promoted Teams
The values in the tables represent points picked up and I’ve expressed the points picked up as a percentage of the maximum available (18 points).
KEY POINTS
* Liverpool on average pick up 12.24 points per season against teams newly promoted to the Premier League.
* This is inferior to Man United (14.4), Arsenal (13.32) and a long way behind Chelsea’s 16.2.
* In the previous ten seasons, Liverpool lost eight games in total to newly-promoted sides. Man United and Arsenal have both lost 6 games.
* Chelsea have not lost a game to a newly-promoted team in the past ten seasons.
* Liverpool have only picked up maximum points home and away once, which when compared to Chelsea’s five times, isn’t too impressive.
* Liverpool have only managed to beat all three newly-promoted teams away from home once, in the 05/06 season.
* By comparison, Manchester United have achieved that three times, Arsenal twice and Chelsea an impressive seven times.
TABLE 2: Record Against Relegated Teams
KEY POINTS
Liverpool’s record against relegated teams isn’t any better in comparison to their rivals.
* Liverpool only average 12.78 points per season against the relegated sides per season, which is significantly less than Man United, who average 15.12, Arsenal, who average 15.66 and Chelsea, who average 15.84.
* In the past ten seasons, Liverpool have lost a total of ten games to clubs that were eventually relegated from the Premier League.
* In the same time period, Manchester United and Chelsea lost three games and Arsenal lost two, which means Liverpool have put themselves at a disadvantage to the other teams vying for the top 4 places by dropping points against teams they should be beating.
Clearly, it's correct to say that Liverpool struggle to beat some of the smaller clubs in the Premier League. Whether this has been a result of hubris, complacency or inability to change the counter-attacking mentality and play on the front foot, is unclear, but it is something that has to change for Liverpool to challenge at the top of the league once again.
Kenny Dalglish's team have done well so far this season against the clubs at the top of the league. However, if Liverpool keep dropping points against teams towards the bottom of the league, those good results will count for nothing.
Hopefully Liverpool can start to turn things around with a win against QPR on Saturday.
David Bolt
There is plenty of recent evidence to suggest that Liverpool struggle against the smaller teams, but does the club drop more points against these teams than their top 4 rivals?
This is not too easy to quantify; what constitutes one of the smaller teams in the Premier League is in many cases quite subjective, so what I’ve done is:
* Analysed Liverpool’s record against newly promoted/relegated teams over the last 10 years, and:
* Compared that record with Man United, Arsenal and Chelsea.
Newly-promoted teams are a good example of a team that a side aspiring to finish in the top 4, or better, of the Premier League would expect to beat. These teams are normally inexperienced, or contain players with little to no experience of playing against teams containing very highly talented players.
Teams with top 4 aspirations would definitely expect to beat the relegated teams as they are the three teams that were consistently weakest over that season.
TABLE 1: Record Against Newly Promoted Teams
The values in the tables represent points picked up and I’ve expressed the points picked up as a percentage of the maximum available (18 points).
KEY POINTS
* Liverpool on average pick up 12.24 points per season against teams newly promoted to the Premier League.
* This is inferior to Man United (14.4), Arsenal (13.32) and a long way behind Chelsea’s 16.2.
* In the previous ten seasons, Liverpool lost eight games in total to newly-promoted sides. Man United and Arsenal have both lost 6 games.
* Chelsea have not lost a game to a newly-promoted team in the past ten seasons.
* Liverpool have only picked up maximum points home and away once, which when compared to Chelsea’s five times, isn’t too impressive.
* Liverpool have only managed to beat all three newly-promoted teams away from home once, in the 05/06 season.
* By comparison, Manchester United have achieved that three times, Arsenal twice and Chelsea an impressive seven times.
TABLE 2: Record Against Relegated Teams
KEY POINTS
Liverpool’s record against relegated teams isn’t any better in comparison to their rivals.
* Liverpool only average 12.78 points per season against the relegated sides per season, which is significantly less than Man United, who average 15.12, Arsenal, who average 15.66 and Chelsea, who average 15.84.
* In the past ten seasons, Liverpool have lost a total of ten games to clubs that were eventually relegated from the Premier League.
* In the same time period, Manchester United and Chelsea lost three games and Arsenal lost two, which means Liverpool have put themselves at a disadvantage to the other teams vying for the top 4 places by dropping points against teams they should be beating.
Clearly, it's correct to say that Liverpool struggle to beat some of the smaller clubs in the Premier League. Whether this has been a result of hubris, complacency or inability to change the counter-attacking mentality and play on the front foot, is unclear, but it is something that has to change for Liverpool to challenge at the top of the league once again.
Kenny Dalglish's team have done well so far this season against the clubs at the top of the league. However, if Liverpool keep dropping points against teams towards the bottom of the league, those good results will count for nothing.
Hopefully Liverpool can start to turn things around with a win against QPR on Saturday.
David Bolt
This article + Our history of not beating small teams = Not one world class two footed goalscoring mesmorising winger for a decade.
ReplyDeleteSmall teams are compact and defend deep. I can't believe that we failed so badly to address this issue in the summer. Unpredictability and potential world class status is needed on BOTH flanks. If I'd have told any young supporter that Kenny signed John barnes for £900,000 all them years ago they'd respond " What a player! So what the hell is Downing doing here?"
Our prejudice against against quality wide men continues.................
Just out of curiosity, who would you have signed (realistically) in the summer in wide positions instead?
ReplyDeleteA perennial problem thats remains to be solved. Anybody has any ideas?
ReplyDeleteGreat to see stats done on this subject. Thanks JK.
ReplyDeleteFull credit has to go to David for taking the time to compile the stats; the time and effort required was, I'm sure, immense. It's great to now have a statistical basis for making the assertion that Liverpool struggle against the lesser teams.
ReplyDeleteThere was a part in the original article that I had to cut out due to space, but David made the depressing point that if Liverpool had beaten newly promoted Hull
and Stoke at HOME in 2008-9, we would've won the title. Instead, we drew both games, the title went to the Mancs.
As I said, depressing.
Always play the best team available in every game; always include players who are most likely to score; don't leave goalscorers on the bench; if you must leave them on the bench, BRING THEM ON AS SUBS with enough time to make a difference etc etc.
ReplyDeleteThe draws against Norwich, Swansea and Sunderland, plus the defeats against Stoke and Fulham could perhaps have been avoided if the players who were on fire at the end of last season actually played this season. That hasn't happend, and the team has suffered as a result of favouritism towards players with high price tags.
Thank you very much for the stats compiled. This is definitely a problem for Liverpool. It will be great to see stats for Liverpool VS top 4 teams for the past 10 seasons. However, I rather see Liverpool has a complacent attitude towards lesser teams than an under-dog mentality against top teams. It's a long time since we last won games against Stoke City in the league...
ReplyDeletei see you mention stoke in 08/09 jamie.
ReplyDeletethat was a sickener,stevie had an early free kick disallowed for no apparent reason,a shove in the box the ref said.a bad decision.city that season was annoying too,richie dunne handled on the line and we got no penalty.
those two moments really haunt me.
Just read it over and saw that stats were compiled by him. Well done David.
ReplyDeletemaybe the tide is turning.
ReplyDeletechelsea lost to qpr this season (newly promoted team)
chelsea had two players sent off and were still the better side
ReplyDeleteI have pointed this out before we have struggled to beat promoted teams for years thank you for more facts!
ReplyDeleteTaking Arsenal out of the equation and just looking at when ourselves, Chelsea and Man U did best against newly promoted sides, those were the seasons when our respective teams played our most negative football. Interesting how Chelsea looked the better side, despite having 2 sent off and losing to QPR, because this meant they were playing positively. It seems that the key to beating newly promoted sides is to be as tight as possible defensively and then hit them on the counter. Newly promoted sides do tend to have a certain verve to their attacking play, which is what got them promoted to begin with, so it would be a big mistake to attack them, meaning they can play their games. With this season as proof, Swansea, Norwich and QPR certainly know how to attack and Man U seems to be doing the best against them between us and Chelsea whilst playing horrible football and then catching the newbies wrongfooted on the counter. We've allowed teams to focus on defending and then countering, rather than invite them to attack and leave spaces we can punish. If anyone wondered why goalkeepers put in MOTM displays against us, this is why. We contain teams and don't pull them out enough. We beat top teams who think they can beat us and give us the space to hit them - e.g. Chelsea.
ReplyDeleteAs for relegated teams, they seem to struggle against teams with better organisation but there is a similarity with the first lot in that Chelsea and United love to start off with formations setup using half the pitch, which is also how Arsenal likes to pass. Once again, this invites poorer teams to try matching their formations, making it easier for them to suddenly cut through to score. Of course, you'd be asking for trouble doing it against a top side without your top players, which is how Spurs got demolished at old toilet. When we pass, we lay seige to the opponent's entire team and they never really get to spread their players out too much till the second half, when we realise this and sit back, but how suddenly this happens gives all the momentum to the other team and we screw ourselves. Look at Citeh against United, although neither of them will get relegated, Citeh sat back to absorb United's pressure from the first whistle, and then got the first goal hitting United on the counter. It was then United had to attack and defend simultaneously and had to open up and got totally smashed. You must allow weaker teams some rope to hang themselves on which we almost never do, instead, we tried it at Spurs and it backfired because they are not a weaker team.
In all, it would seem like the solution to our woes is predominantly patience. We know we have the players who can win a match and create the necessary opportunities, however, superior play doesn't always win matches, unless your whole team is that much better, like Shitteh or Real Madrid. Man U has demonstrated over the years that the key to winning is to win ugly. They don't always play the best football, but they consistently get results, but we also know it is not an option because it is not the Liverpool way. Barca showed against Madrid 2 days ago that the other alternative which is available to us is to wait for the right time to strike. We've been too efficient in creating chances that our inferior opponents will always be at their defensive best against. Perhaps it's not that our team needs to improve but learn how to take a step back so we can take 3 forward.