Against Chelsea Last weekend, Liverpool striker Daniel Sturridge (arguably) has his most ineffective game of the season, and Reds boss Brendan Rodgers has explained why the prolific striker struggled to make an impact.
In his pre-Crystal Palace press conference today, Rodgers admitted that Sturridge lacked match-fitness, and hinted that he shouldn't really have taken part in the game. He explained:
"He [Sturridge] hadn't trained since he got injured, so it was a bit much for him.
"He worked really hard to get back, and we needed something on the bench that could help us in the game.
"Unfortunately, it wasn't to be. He's in a much better place now, and he's worked tirelessly this week with the medical team. We'll see over the next 48 hours [if he's fit for Palace]".
It was obvious that Sturridge lacked match-fitness for the game, and he ended being a passenger in the match, which arguably hindered rather than helped Liverpool. This is not the first time this has happened. Whether it's Gerrard, Allen, Agger, or Sturridge, Rodgers has a history of using unfit players, and it almost always backfires.
It's hardly surprising, though. Due to Rodgers' ineffective performance in the transfer market, the squad is so woefully short of genuine match-changing back-up options that he had no choice but to include Sturridge. Thankfully, the striker's stint on the pitch didn't aggravate his injury, and he'll hopefully be good to go against Palace.
Rodgers also reflected on the Chelsea defeat, and after accepting the 'blame' for the Blues' second goal (admitting that he sent Sakho and Skrtel up front), he offered two additional reasons why he believes Liverpool ultimately lost the game. He observed:
"We had 73% of the possession, but for us, the focus is only the dangerous possession, and in the final third, we didn't have enough, and that's something we'll look to improve. We also ran out of patience in the game, and we'll look also look to improve on that next season. "
Liverpool certainly lacked something in the final third, but Rodgers knew beforehand that Liverpool would face a negative, defensive Chelsea team, and he didn't really come up with a viable tactical plan to counteract that.
Author: Jaimie K
In his pre-Crystal Palace press conference today, Rodgers admitted that Sturridge lacked match-fitness, and hinted that he shouldn't really have taken part in the game. He explained:
"He [Sturridge] hadn't trained since he got injured, so it was a bit much for him.
"He worked really hard to get back, and we needed something on the bench that could help us in the game.
"Unfortunately, it wasn't to be. He's in a much better place now, and he's worked tirelessly this week with the medical team. We'll see over the next 48 hours [if he's fit for Palace]".
It was obvious that Sturridge lacked match-fitness for the game, and he ended being a passenger in the match, which arguably hindered rather than helped Liverpool. This is not the first time this has happened. Whether it's Gerrard, Allen, Agger, or Sturridge, Rodgers has a history of using unfit players, and it almost always backfires.
It's hardly surprising, though. Due to Rodgers' ineffective performance in the transfer market, the squad is so woefully short of genuine match-changing back-up options that he had no choice but to include Sturridge. Thankfully, the striker's stint on the pitch didn't aggravate his injury, and he'll hopefully be good to go against Palace.
Rodgers also reflected on the Chelsea defeat, and after accepting the 'blame' for the Blues' second goal (admitting that he sent Sakho and Skrtel up front), he offered two additional reasons why he believes Liverpool ultimately lost the game. He observed:
"We had 73% of the possession, but for us, the focus is only the dangerous possession, and in the final third, we didn't have enough, and that's something we'll look to improve. We also ran out of patience in the game, and we'll look also look to improve on that next season. "
Liverpool certainly lacked something in the final third, but Rodgers knew beforehand that Liverpool would face a negative, defensive Chelsea team, and he didn't really come up with a viable tactical plan to counteract that.
Author: Jaimie K
The same thing happened to Atletico Madrid in the first leg of the CL final. They had no answers to a Chelsea team who had 11 players cramped in the six yard box.
ReplyDeletesigh the whole fleet of buses were parked at that game that and time wasting sigh the game was destined for a draw or loss my only complaint is BR should've gone for the draw not the win as now we have to hope city drop points or we go on a goal scoring spree to win the league sigh yay liverpool
ReplyDeletethats why i was overjoyed when atletico kicked them out of the competition diego simeone u are a football genius
ReplyDeletewe would need to score a minimum of 12 goals, why not conceeding one in our last 2 games, if city wins all their remaining 3 games by 1 goal to 0 - no chance boy!
ReplyDeleteif we finish on a level with city the goaldifference will put us to 2nd place...
don't kill the dream... time to believe in martinez
ReplyDeleteWhat is even funnier is that if Chelsea had played the way they did in the second leg of the CL semi final when they visited Anfield it would have been a blood bath.
ReplyDeleteRodgers is a smart man, the players seems to totally buy in the system that he's implementing (considering our offensive display this season not hard to understand why) we still have some weakness and he's totaly aware of that, which is great for the team in the long run.
ReplyDeleteIt bodes well for Liverpool's future whatever happen a tthe end of the season !
mourinho knows that he can not play attacking football against a top flight team thats why they got creamed at athletico 6 defensive players really mourinho urgh how i despise that man
ReplyDeleteMourinho did not park the bus in the CL semi final 2nd leg though. If Mourinho had deployed the same tactics as he did vs Atletico on Wednesday night when they visted Anfield then Rodgers would have made Mourinho shake his hand.
ReplyDeletei think the plan was to park the bus as soon as they got the first goal otherwise why have ivanovic, luiz, cahill, terry, cole, azpuiceta all on the pitch at the same time fortunately for simeone they equalized soon after otherwise would've been game over and thank God no boring boring CL final like that unforgettable one of 2012... that said i agree with u if mourinho played anfield like how he did wednesday he surely would've gotten creamed but like jose enrique said thats what u get when u don't play football lol
ReplyDeleteLots of pressure will be on City to win the match tomorrow as we play on Monday. Come on Everton!
ReplyDeleteJust being realistic, we need to hope for Everton, westham or villa to draw with city, we should be finde then!
ReplyDeleteIn a sense moaninho gave us the ultimate compliment by lining his team up the way he did,he knew he couldn't win if they went toe to toe. This is a testament to how far we have progressed. I knew Brendan would recognize his own mistakes,when faced with the cold light of day and I've no doubt he will learn that not losing can sometimes be bigger than winning!
ReplyDeleteRodgers has said he watch the Chelsea game twice since - surely he's drilled into everyone's head - get the ball to Suarez's feet.
ReplyDeleteEither way not worried about Palace, preferably slaughter them as we are more than capable of it, hopefully get close to the goal difference. Long shot, but not impossible. There was a run of games 5-1 Norwich, 4-1 westham, 5-0 Tottenham. If we can outdo that we have a chance no matter what. Sure Palace have a great defense, but between Suarez, Sterling, Sturridge, and Stevie there's goals to be had, Coutinho can get some decent service in, maybe a goal or two from a set piece from Skrtel. If City win - you know this will be the game plan.
As for Everton, they have a great record against city, have the 3rd best defensive record, and have everything to play for - they lose their next two, United could take them out of an Europa League place - which has become more valuable as next season's winner will get automatic CL qualifiaction.
Mourinho also did not shake Simeone's hand when Chelsea parked the bus in the first leg of the CL but had to when they were slaughtered in the 2nd leg to show that he is not a 'sore loser'. Jaimie is right, Mourinho is a psychopath.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest in world football if you ask me!
ReplyDeleteHe's a funny guy at times but I certainly don't want him to be in the BPL, just when we got finally rid of SAF...
I guess there will always be a dark side in English football
Other than Eriksen (who I know you wanted), what else should Rodgers have done in the transfer window? The players of the difference-making quality were not coming here.
ReplyDeleteAnd in terms of a viable second option last Sunday... what were we supposed to do differently? We needed a bounce to go our way (a deflected shot, a hand ball, a penalty, a player not slipping). It didn't. That's not for a lack of managerial acumen. Chelsea played very disciplined defensively. That's kudos to them, not a shame on us.
Would we have conceded any goals on Sunday by having 11 players shoved between our goal posts?
ReplyDeletewe'd need to win 6-0 both of our remaining games to come close to city, who will surely win their games by more than one goal difference, realistically theres no way we could win the title by goal difference, mancity clearly need to slip anytime
ReplyDeleteAs well as Eriksen, LFC could've - and should've - signed any of the following: Dejan Lovren; Victor Wanyama; Jordan Rhodes; Romelu Lukaku. All were heavily linked with LFC, and all would've made an infinitely bigger difference on the squad than Alberto, Aspas, Moses etc.
ReplyDeleteSpurs, Sothampton and Everton clearly missed out on Sturridge, Coutinho and Henderson and let's not forget Suarez!
ReplyDeleteWe are top of the league. Where are the teams that have signed the players you have mentioned?
What does that have to do with the point being made here? Please stop replying to my comments - you just come out with stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue being discussed. Please waste someone else's time with your pointless diversionary tactics. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteLukaku was not coming here under any circumstances in my opinion. Yes, we would have preferred him, but I don't think Chelsea would have sent him here (even on loan) because there's a chance he wouldn't play and if he did play, he'd strengthen a rival.
ReplyDeleteLovren, Wanyama and Rhodes are, in my opinion, not on the level that we needed. They are nice players, sure. And while they were certainly more realistic than a Mkhitaryan or Willian, I don't believe that they would have been the type of difference maker we needed.
This summer will be the true test of BR's transfer prowess. I've defended him staunchly, mainly due to lack of CL football holding him back from getting the type of quality needed. That's no longer a defense. We have the tournament entry guaranteed now.
Either he gets it right this summer, or I'll start leaning your way with this subject.
Are you insinuating that the alternative tactic for us should have been to park the bus against Chelsea? For us to play for the draw?
ReplyDeleteWe didn't play poorly the other day. We had two unfortunate bad breaks in the game. And we didn't get a good one ourselves. That was the difference in the game, in my opinion.
What do you mean they're not on the level that LFC need? Lovren and Wanyama are experienced internationals, and they - plus Rhodes - are infinitely superior to Alberto, Aspas and Moses. All three have made significant impacts for their respective teams. Aspas et al are squad players, and Lovren, Wanyama, and Rhodes would've been much better players to have in the squad (IMO).
ReplyDeleteWanyama is nowhere near the level of Gerrard and would much rather have Lucas as backup.
ReplyDeleteNot sure how you can say that Lovren is better than Sakho. On what basis?
Rhodes would also be a risk. If Blackburn do not earn promotion then Rhodes will probably be signed by one of the other teams who are promoted to EPL. IMO LFC, Arsenal, Chelsea, Utd or City will not go for his signature.
I agree with you Jaimie. Instead of chasing players who were unlikely to come to LFC we should have gone for those who wanted to. Kono was a piece of bad luck but not following through with Romulu in particular was stupid. I've never seen a Brazilian player withe workrate of this guy and talented also. Box to Box midfielder who is no pussy in tackling and some silky skills.
ReplyDeleteIf BR did go for players like Rhodes, Wanyama etc then a lot of Liverpool fans would be complaining that we were not going for Top players.. either way BR could not win.
ReplyDeleteThere is no viable tactical plan for that. Chelsea already have the best defence in the league by some margin (City are second best with 9 more goals conceded), they're second overall only behind us, they're managed by a vastly experienced manager and they have a ton of talent, both offensively and defensively. When a team of that quality sets up in an ultra-defensive mode there is no shame in being unable to break it down. Chelsea were dead set on stopping us from scoring and it should come as no surprise that they were successful. I can't imagine there are many teams in the world that could have broken down that kind of defence.
ReplyDeleteAnd Aspas, Alberto and Moses are 'top players'?!
ReplyDeleteThe point I'm making is that Wanyama, Rhodes and Lovren would've been infinitely better buys that Aspas, Alberto and Moses.
We all knew how Mourinho was going tp play it and I think BR was right to play to our strengths and go for it from the start ......what he didn't anticipate is the Chelski cheating time wasting tactics which should have been dealt with more harshly by the ref. We did have chances and on another day we would have the run of the green and forced them into more mistakes . Of course after their gift of a goal we were chasing the game and became even more frustrated with their bus parking tactics as the game wore on . A lot has been said about our squad depth - or lack of , and BR's poor performance in the transfer market but I think the owners wanted him to prove himself with the squad he had before giving him anywhere near the amount of money needed . Also who was really available at the time for the money we were prepared to pay ? Much better to wait till the Summer window when if we qualified for CL our options for better players would be wider. Brendan has more than proved his worth we have saved the money and it's now up to FSG to come up with the goods and prove that we are in it to win it . Come on you Toffees do the business this afternoon !
ReplyDeleteI guess barca could hardly break it down couple of years ago
ReplyDelete