KopTalk.com Forums Football Liverpool FC Forum Do you prefer your team to be specialists or versatile?

Lots of debate has been had on the reasons behind the teams inability to break down stubborn resistance from the leagues more defensively prepared, and the susceptibility of the defense when the foolhardy attack struggles to turn pressure and dominance in possession into goals.

Klopp's comments ahead of Sunday's game against Burnley, while not revelatory or surprising, prove reaffirming in his ambitions for the team; present and future.

At Burnley's pre-match press conference:

"People say I don't have a Plan B or whatever [but] yes, we know how to play. We have to cover specific spaces and make the right decisions. We can't just say we can only concentrate on counter attacks, set pieces, whatever. It's an all-round challenge. My job, how I understand it, is to help them find the right decisions easier. That's what training is for [now] we have to prove it on the pitch."

Breaking those comments down, he makes a couple of clear affirmations about what his role is, what the team works towards and what is expected.

Firstly - there is a stubbornness to the approach the team will take in all games. This is not about preparing different isolative strategies to teams in attack and defense, there is a holistic view. This appears to be ever-present in his comments about the lack of a "Plan B." The team needs to learn to find a way to learn from the stubbornness of other teams to prosper, not find alternative or specific solutions.

Secondly - There is clarity in his comments that there is ultimately a singular game-plan which is regular and rehearsed. Players have positions, zones to cover and attack, and recurring decisions which will always require player-made responses. He makes regular assertions about the learning process, and that the team isn't where it could be, but that his is a position in the wider spectrum of his approach.

Thirdly, there is a responsibility which he takes for facilitating their decision-making in these situations. In general, he shows respect and confidence in his team, and his expectation is always commitment - 100%. He however shows that his constant effort is to ensure that when decisions arise, the "right decision" is clear.

Ultimately, it is pretty easy to understand that there is no "Plan B" under Klopp, and that it is not about a singular tactic, but a holistic approach to games. This is not about formulating different approaches, but incorporating those requirements within the same umbrella. There is no Plan A, B, C etc. or even just Plan A, there is just a framework for the players to work with and adapt with as stages of the game pass.

With all this in mind, it brought questions. Do teams that win the league have various plans for various games, or are they part of this more rounded approach?

When you consider Leicester last season, they had only Plan A. Chelsea this season appear a more rounded proposition. I'd speculate that generally teams require a more holistic/all-encompassing approach. I wonder whether people generally notice this, or whether they see the team soak pressure and counter, and at other times control possession and play through, and see these as separate or contained plans.

All this leads to what I think is the most interesting debate for a lot of football fans and the club they support. Would you prefer to see your team adapt to the opposition with difference approaches/tactics that are clear in both formation, personnel and style, or would you prefer to see the team resolute in its ambitions/tactics without requirement to adapt personnel, formation or style?

Do you prefer your team to be adaptive of strategy - specialist reponse to opposition tactics/approach? Or adaptive in situation - variations/versatility to in-game phases?

I prefer my questions less gobbledygook!

So you're asking if we prefer the team to play one way, no matter the opponent OR to have the ability to play many different ways, depending on the opponent?

No war was won by fighting battles the same way tactically.

I have clearly faltered trying to make this clear.

It is not that you play one way.

It is more a case of, do you prefer a team with such variety in their play that they are able to confront every game the same way, or do you prefer the team to have game-plans for situations, where you can change a player/formation and play a different way when the situation dictates?

One relies on all players able to play a multitude of systems, the other relies on substitutions/formation changes and selective versatile players.

I think we need to adapt a style where different players go in and out of the squad depending on their individual specialist capabilities needed against different opposition.

I think the only club not reliant on an approach like that is Barcelona - at their best.

The rest of the clubs definitely need to rely on players being good enough in specific formations, tactics etc.

I think the best teams play to their strengths, if you have 2 midget strikers there's no point hoofing it up with long balls etc.

I prefer a team to have a plan/pattern of play, but then can adapt, good players can adapt and exploit weaknesses in opponents, like when we used to play the likes of Stoke under Pulis, you knew it would be physical, with towering players maximising set pieces, so you had to be strong and battle them, winning the knockdown second balls.

I think Utd do it well now, they try and play their standard game, then if they are struggling with 10 mins to go, like they were against us 0-1 down, they bring on Fellaini and put him up front, pump balls in to bypass our midfield pressing to cause problems, winning knock downs and panicing defense, there's nothing wrong with that. I would have liked us to do something like that with Benteke when we are struggling to break down the likes of Burnley/Hull etc, sometimes the intricate passing game just doesn't work, so try something different.

Helping players to make the right decisions with the ball or without the ball or both? Also are the players making decisions relative to a particular style of play and again is that with or without the ball or both? I'd argue that players are creatures of habit and will only make right decisions instinctively on split second time if they're drilled in specific responses to a practiced range of situations. The problem we seem to be having is that we have a limited range of practiced movements and responses and teams are reading it and anticipating our movements. Already we can see how teams are spreading play in their own third and at a sharper tempo to negate our high press. This is having two effects in that it wears out our pressing players and in that our opponents make less mistakes as they're now under less pressure. We need to find variations on the press theme in these situations and we don't seem to be finding any.

Perhaps I should have said also that it would seem that this lack of variation points to stereotypical training sessions that focus on very limited movements mainly running, stamina development, etc. and are not focussing on a sufficient range of tactical and playing style variations.

And capabilities...

If you have a forward who is 5" tall there can be no crossing into the box - you can't play that way.

You need physical presence to go long ball.

We haven't got that.

It doesn't work for us, we've had both Carroll and Benteke and both struggled. There is no way we should be going down the 'target man' striker route again. Unless it's a fantastic player like Lewandowski who can also do everything on the floor, because of course I'm dreaming if I think we could ever sign him.

I want my team to have a game plan against teams who want to win therefore leave space in their half for our players to attack (something we seem to know how to do) and a game plan with probably a few different attacking players against teams who park the bus. The second game plan is to have attacking players who are strong physically who are strong headers of the ball who can also score from set pieces (a lot of our corners end up being small passes behind instead of passes in the box for headers for example). Except Origi (who is not a Costa, Ibraimovic, not even Giroud, Lukaku or Welbeck), very few of our attackers would win headers, and when there is little space in the box, the struggle to score. Leicester had one game which was counter attacks as everybody fancied to beat them, this year, most team respected them and did not leave a lot of space behind and they stuggled, then probably lost confidence at all.