Logic

Maybe it's just because of the last two games I think the following but... It seems like Rodgers has sacrificed his possession based football with intense pressing high up the pitch to make us more solid at the back. That's all fine and good but it appears as if we can't change back to that preferred system of his during games where we need a goal and should be pressing high up the pitch and keeping the ball. And I don't know if that's because of the players or because of Brendan but it needs change immediately. It's worrying seeing the last two matches where we don't seem to have an extra gear to go into when chasing the game. It's as if the players (and management?) think "ah... we're losing again. Nothing we can do about that" and just keep playing the same game at the same tempo with the same system. Brendan has talked quite a bit about the club needing to be brave and to fight. Both of those are severely lacking at all levels this last week (and arguably since the start of the season).

Why run with the man when you know what area he is running towards? Why not be at that point before he arrives? A central defender or a striker attacking a corner will not do any damage at the edge of the area but will want to connect with the ball on the 6-yard line. So why put your best defenders in an area where nr.1: the attackers won't harm you in and nr.2: you know they won't be in after the ball is kicked and nr.3: give the attackers the initiative with set-plays? Why not defend the areas of the box that matter with your best defenders instead of having them chase their designated players into those same areas?

We needed either Aspas or Alberto on during the end and it could have been anyone of Enrique (Moses going wide left), Moses or Sturridge that needed to come off. We paid 7m for them (or thereabout) and when you are a goal down in the cup with 15min to go you need to be able to put that kind of investment on. And if you check the substitutions we made yesterday... They are all dubious. Kelly isn't a wingback and Raheem isn't a nr 10. So we are playing players out of their comfort zone instead of changing the system to fit the players better. I liked the way we set up to begin with but with the exception of Moses as a nr 10. But when we started making substitutions when we were a goal down we needed to be brave and change the system to fit the players better - and to try something new. If the sub we needed to make was Kelly for Lucas then instead of keeping the same system and only move Hendo into the centre we should have changed to a 4-1-2-3 with Toure holding in midfield and Hendo&Stevie in front of him. Then we can put Moses and one of Sturridge/Luis as wide forwards and the system fits the players better. Or even better, take both Lucas and one central defender off for Kelly+Alberto/Aspas and switch to either a 4-3-3 or a 4-2-3-1. TL;DR: I hate like-for-like subs when chasing a game and man-marking at set pieces.

I'm not sure that has as much of an effect on defending set pieces as it does in open play. If you defend a certain way on set pieces then no matter the formation changes you play you can drop players into the positions you choose without losing much of the understanding of how to defend. If everyone knows that player nr 2 on the 6-yard line should do X in situation 1, Y in situation 2 and so forth then it doesn't matter if that player is Sakho, Lucas or Suarez. If you don't cover the most dangerous areas of the penalty box and put your best defenders trying to mark attackers (especially at the edge of the f*cking area) who are about to do a practiced set piece (that goal most certainly comes from a pre-determined system) then you are always on the back-foot and the mistakes will start adding up. Mistakes will happen in zonal and man-marking systems but it's clear our system isn't working and needs changing immediately. And when we change it we could do with going back to the system used by Rafa in the past. *runs for cover*

It did but we paid something like 14m combined for two attacking players who sat on the bench yesterday but didn't get on when we needed a goal. Instead it looked like we moved Toure into an attacking role at the end...

Seriously... what's going on here? Since when is it a good idea to leave a large part of the penalty area right in front of goal just empty? If Hernandez doesn't score there then there's every chance two of their can still poke the ball into goal. Stevie completely misjudges the flight of the ball. Both Sakho and Skrtel lose their players. F*ck it... everything is wrong there. Every. F*cking. Basic. Thing. And the worrying thing is that something like this happens practically every single match we play. We look amateurish when defending set-pieces and don't look to be getting any better. We should be setting 4 players on the 6 yard line approximately from the position Stevie takes up and back to the far post. Something like Stevie, Toure, Sakho, Skrtel from right to left. Put three in front of them who's main job it is to disrupt any runs from the attackers. That leaves you 3 outfield players to do what you want (one stays up, one shields the goalie and one stands on the near/far post and so on and so forth). We need to change the set-up at set pieces and wisen up fast because this is starting to look embarrassing...

With no proper nr 10 that midfield should be set as a 1-2. Lucas holding and the two busy midfielders in front of him.

That was simply amazing. Intercepts a pass (looked like it at least... got a crazy two year old trying to get my attention ), runs up the length of the pitch through their defence and then wins the penalty. Raheem for right back!

Lloyd Jones sent off for the U21's, Kelly to central defence and who starts playing RB? Raheem Sterling. Emergency right back against Southampton?

The good and the bad from Jonjo within the first 4 min. Now we just wait for the ugly and he has had the complete game.

Except it isn't. "The ancestry of African Americans is predominantly from Niger-Kordofanian (approximately 71%), European (approximately 13%), and other African (approximately 8%) populations, although admixture levels varied considerably among individuals." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19407144 But since posting facts and articles isn't swaying people I think I'll stop derailing this thread any more...

English is my third language so I might well be using incorrect/non-pc terms. Race, sub-species, ethnicity, breed etc all sound the same to me. Different words to describe the taxonomic rank below species level.

My world? I'm a biologist. I specify race/ethnic groups/communities like any biologist in the world does. The same way you classify different sub-species of dogs, cats and any other animal. Do you know how to differentiate between a German Shepherd and a Greyhound? (and does that make you a racist?)* A quick google to find something useful to answer you with provides this quote: "A subspecies (race) is a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. This definition requires that a subspecies be genetically differentiated due to barriers to genetic exchange that have persisted for long periods of time; that is, the subspecies must have historical continuity in addition to current genetic differentiation." * The differences between humans are smaller and more blurry than in domesticated animals though. "racial scientists"? There are a long list of scientists (and non-scientists) from any field that create Bad Things™ with knowledge based on facts of the world (nuclear bombs, chemical/biological weapons, and so on and so forth). That doesn't mean we can just ignore those same facts just because some might use them for their own nefarious purposes. And I don't think anyone except Adder has claimed bone density has an effect on someones ability to be a good swimmer. I only stated that there is a difference in bone density based on race... But then... I'm just a racist ain't I?

Outliers and normal distribution. Check it out. No, I'm stating the fact that there are physiological differences based on genetics between groups of people based on where they're from (not where they're born but their ethnical heritage). This isn't some hunch I have. It's a simple fact. And races aren't just white/black and such. There's are differences between western africans and eastern africans as well. Just like eastern europeans and western europeans. I really don't see what the big issue is with people saying that... Regards to running fast - yes it does. If group A has a better combination of myocytes (muscle fibres) for sprinting than group B they'll (as a group) run faster. Wrt swimming... I have no idea if it does (but don't believe bone density has anything to do with it as Adder claimed above).

I'm not sure how to respond to this... Obviously any single individual isn't representative of his entire "race". In general though groups of A vs. B shows genetic differences that can explain differences in characteristics x,y and z. Stating that isn't racism even if the groups in questions are of African or Caucasian origin. A few more differences just of the top of my head are SCA and lactose intolerance.

I'm not going to list everything but here's a short article about it related to sports. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1011594/ Here's are two articles, though not sports specific, but that lists up differences between "whites" and "blacks". http://money.cnn.com/2005/11/10/news/international/decode/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21431462 That, and the fact that I'm a molecular biologist makes me quite certain of the fact that there are differences between races in various aspects. What inferences we can make from those differences... that's for another discussion.

We can't be so "colour blind" that we don't recognise there are physiological differences between the different human races. Adder is correct about the bone density difference (although I'm not sure that has anything to do with swimming ability). Same with certain muscle fibers and the different composition of those based on race.

Agreed. And if they aren't banned at least they should be playing their home games in front of an empty stadium. But I somehow suspect UEFA threatens to fine them 5kr... and then this will be forgotten...

True. But then he wouldn't need to share his record of 5 relegations from the PL with Nathan Blake. Just think how proud he'd* be holding that record by himself! *and by extension we, the Icelandic people, as well.

Hermann "The Herminator" Hreiðarsson!?

I'd say drawing a foul to create an opportunity for someone like Stevie or Luis to take a shot on goal is worthy of an assist. What has been lacking is something similar to what we are suggesting here in adding the "non-assisting" contributions to the goals. Like Coutinho letting a good pass by Enrique go because he hears the shout from Sturridge. Or a top through ball to a winger who then squares it for a simple tap-in from the striker.

I'm just guessing here but I'd suspect Xabi would have scored quite high in Second assist/Key pass in the Opta stats. He would also probably score quite high on passes from the middle third of the pitch into the attacking third. And so on and so forth. A simple pass that leads to a goal is just as important as the simple tap in that results in a goal. It's ridiculous claiming otherwise. Or do you want to start weighing the goals/assists stats based on quality as well?