|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926 |
[quote=ecnirp98][quote=TiredReds]
Total BS, seriously. So VVD and Klavan are the same? Definitely not as VVD is much more skilful and calmer than Klavan, thus he can cope better under pressure. It's not Klopp who decided to change tactics but the opponent who went all in to score and put us under immense pressure, this is why we needed an additional defender, but somebody who can defend under pressure, which Klavan is not. Of course Klopp changed the tactics, he brought on an extra CB and went to 3 at the back in those games to try and make us defensively stronger, which never seemed to work and gave the opposition even more encouragement. Of course VvD is much better than Klavan, the point is switching tactics late in the game to try and hold on would cause problems whatever the quality of player you brought on at that stage, so it wasn't Klavan causing the problems when he came on, it was the tactical change. What I am trying to tell you is that Klopp went with 5 defenders because the opponents went all attack, the pressure was on before Klavan came on, he was supposed to add to the defence which he couldn't do, a good defender will reinforce the defence but not Klavan. The problem is not the change in tactics. Are you saying you should defend in the same way when you have your opponent risking everything to score? Definitely not, you play defence if you have a result to protect.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,054
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Mar 2016
Posts: 6,054 |
[quote=ecnirp98][quote=TiredReds]
Total BS, seriously. So VVD and Klavan are the same? Definitely not as VVD is much more skilful and calmer than Klavan, thus he can cope better under pressure. It's not Klopp who decided to change tactics but the opponent who went all in to score and put us under immense pressure, this is why we needed an additional defender, but somebody who can defend under pressure, which Klavan is not. Of course Klopp changed the tactics, he brought on an extra CB and went to 3 at the back in those games to try and make us defensively stronger, which never seemed to work and gave the opposition even more encouragement. Of course VvD is much better than Klavan, the point is switching tactics late in the game to try and hold on would cause problems whatever the quality of player you brought on at that stage, so it wasn't Klavan causing the problems when he came on, it was the tactical change. What I am trying to tell you is that Klopp went with 5 defenders because the opponents went all attack, the pressure was on before Klavan came on, he was supposed to add to the defence which he couldn't do, a good defender will reinforce the defence but not Klavan. The problem is not the change in tactics. Are you saying you should defend in the same way when you have your opponent risking everything to score? Definitely not, you play defence if you have a result to protect. Most of our problems have occurred when we sit back and try and defend a lead, I still think keeping the defence as a 4 they are used to and played with successfully for 75 minutes is the best option, keep a better threat on the pitch rather than subbing an attacking player and changing to a different formation they are not playing regularly.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926 |
[quote=ecnirp98][quote=TiredReds]
Total BS, seriously. So VVD and Klavan are the same? Definitely not as VVD is much more skilful and calmer than Klavan, thus he can cope better under pressure. It's not Klopp who decided to change tactics but the opponent who went all in to score and put us under immense pressure, this is why we needed an additional defender, but somebody who can defend under pressure, which Klavan is not. Of course Klopp changed the tactics, he brought on an extra CB and went to 3 at the back in those games to try and make us defensively stronger, which never seemed to work and gave the opposition even more encouragement. Of course VvD is much better than Klavan, the point is switching tactics late in the game to try and hold on would cause problems whatever the quality of player you brought on at that stage, so it wasn't Klavan causing the problems when he came on, it was the tactical change. What I am trying to tell you is that Klopp went with 5 defenders because the opponents went all attack, the pressure was on before Klavan came on, he was supposed to add to the defence which he couldn't do, a good defender will reinforce the defence but not Klavan. The problem is not the change in tactics. Are you saying you should defend in the same way when you have your opponent risking everything to score? Definitely not, you play defence if you have a result to protect. Most of our problems have occurred when we sit back and try and defend a lead, I still think keeping the defence as a 4 they are used to and played with successfully for 75 minutes is the best option, keep a better threat on the pitch rather than subbing an attacking player and changing to a different formation they are not playing regularly. What you are saying we defend better when we have one less central defender on the pitch, right? Doesn't make sense to me.
|
|
|
|
|
