Defensive lapses a natural consequence of Liverpool's dynamism
Posted by David Usher
"It's not coaching; some of the goals we have conceded, you can't coach that. It isn't so much structurally. It's just mistakes or decision-making that costs us." That's how Brendan Rodgers summed up Liverpool's continuing defensive troubles after his side shipped three goals in a thrilling 4-3 win over Swansea City last weekend.
He's right, up to a point: Defensive errors have plagued the Reds all season and they seem to be happening more often than not. It's an obvious concern, yet it doesn't tell the whole story for me. I mean, come on -- it can't all be laid at the door of the players, can it? Surely coaching and tactics must play at least some part in Liverpool's erratic defending?
Granted, it was not coaching that caused Kolo Toure to pass the ball directly to Victor Anichebe at the Hawthorns or to slice the ball into his own net at Craven Cottage. And it was not down to any tactical instruction when Martin Skrtel decided to unnecessarily grab hold of Wilfried Bony in the box last weekend. Nevertheless, tactics and coaching have to be contributing in some way to Liverpool's defensive issues.
For example, could Simon Mignolet not be coached into becoming more adept at coming off his line and helping to relieve pressure from his defenders? That has been a big issue of late and has certainly added to the uncertainty of those in front of him. And is it too much to expect for the defenders (and others) to be coached in the art of not allowing the opposition the freedom of the penalty area from set-pieces?
Then there's the tactical approach. The Reds are the most attack-minded team in the land, they've scored more goals than anybody else, and they play the most vibrant, exciting brand of football in the Premier League bar none. Manchester City are the only side that could even contest that claim without people laughing in their faces, but when a side is as gung ho as Liverpool often are, there simply has to be some kind of trade-off in terms of defensive security.
Teams that are conceding fewer goals than Liverpool do not necessarily have better defenders than the Reds. They concede fewer because their defenders receive more protection in front of them than Liverpool's do, and because tactically they are less adventurous. Put simply, you can't be as attacking as Liverpool are without occasionally looking vulnerable at the other end, and that's even when you aren't making "individual mistakes" and "bad decisions."
Under both Gerard Houllier and Rafa Benitez, Liverpool were much tighter at the back, but were also a lot less potent in attack and -- for the most part -- a lot less fun to watch. I'd say it's almost certain that a back four of Glen Johnson, Skrtel, Daniel Agger and any one of Jose Enrique, Jon Flanagan or Aly Cissokho would statistically fare much better in a side coached by Houllier or Benitez than they are doing under Rodgers. For the midfield and strikers, however, the opposite is surely true.
Liverpool won a cup treble in 2001 under Houllier, and that success was based on a solid back four that was well protected by a talented but also workmanlike midfield four. Up front Houllier could call upon the firepower of Michael Owen, Robbie Fowler and Emile Heskey (who was as brilliant that season as he was disappointing in most of those that followed), and that defensive solidity combined with the goal threat at the other end, served the Reds very well that year.
Liverpool kept clean sheets in the Nou Camp against Rivaldo's Barcelona and also in Rome's Olympic Stadium against Gabriel Batistuta & co. This current side could never do something like that, but then Houllier's side would not have been capable of blowing away Spurs 5-0 at White Hart Lane or demolishing Everton and Arsenal in the manner that Rodgers' side did recently, either. What you gain on the swings, you lose on the roundabouts. The question is whether you prefer "Houllier's Swing" or the "Rodgers Roundabout"? I'm all about the roundabout myself, which is perhaps why I'm not frothing at the mouth about Liverpool's defending as many others seem to be at the moment.
It seems to just be a widely accepted view now that Liverpool's defenders are not good enough, but is it really that simple? After all, these are all experienced international footballers with previously good reputations who (with the exception of Toure) cost a lot of money. Last week, Skrtel was once again linked with a move to City, while Agger has been a longtime target of Barcelona. Average players generally don't make the shopping lists of Europe's top sides, so what does that tell us? It tells me that Liverpool's defensive issues can't just be dismissed as "those players are making too many mistakes. They're not good enough, get rid."
Cheap goals have been conceded all season regardless of which combination of defenders Rodgers has fielded. Does that mean that none of those defenders are good enough, or does it point to something else? The lack of a settled back line obviously hasn't helped, but the problem runs deeper than that, too.
Look, I'm not completely sold on any of Liverpool's centre-backs as a long-term answer (I've got hopes for Mamadou Sakho, but it's still early), but I don't think it's as straightforward as "buy two new defenders and all of the defensive issues will disappear," either.
Sami Hyypia and Stephane Henchoz were the bedrock of Houllier's treble-winning side, and both are rightly remembered by Kopites as being top-class defenders. Without taking anything away from Big Sami or "the Hench," if they were playing in this current side it would be much more difficult for them to shine as the back four does not get the same kind of protection they did under Houllier's more rigid tactical approach, and they are often asked to do things that your typical centre-back is not necessarily comfortable doing.
Equally, Skrtel, Toure and Agger would probably not be making the same kind of errors they have been committing this year because they would not be exposed as much or subjected to as many situations that put them under the kind of pressure that can eventually lead to mistakes. While individual errors are proving costly, surely the question also needs to be asked as to why those errors are happening and why players are occasionally not looking particularly comfortable in defensive situations?
Liverpool's defenders -- and the goalkeeper for that matter -- are often finding themselves in high-pressure situations due to being asked to play the ball out from the back. When teams are sitting off in their own half, it's not a problem. When they press high up the pitch, as the likes of Southampton and Swansea have done, nerves have crept in and players have often looked edgy. That translates to the crowd, too, and it can get very jittery at times. Even if those situations aren't necessarily resulting in goals conceded, it is adding to the nervousness and uncertainty felt by the players.
Some have been affected more than others. For example, Agger is largely unflappable with the ball at his feet regardless of how much pressure is applied, but Skrtel and Toure are different. Neither is as assured on the ball as the Dane, yet they are expected to play the same way in which their more accomplished colleague does. Last weekend, Skrtel conceded the free kick that led to Swansea's second goal because he got caught in possession. At the Hawthorns, Toure was trying to play his way out of trouble and only succeeded in presenting Anichebe with the best pass he's had all season.
So yes, players are making costly mistakes and poor decisions, but it's at least in some part due to what is being asked of them tactically. Jamie Carragher coped with the demands of playing the Rodgers way, but then he possesses one of the keenest football minds Anfield has ever seen. Others have not fared as well because the demands of playing this way are unlike anything they have experienced before.
I'd also suggest that some of the goals that are being conceded are not down to individuals, but are a direct result of how open Liverpool are due to the attacking nature of their game. That's not a criticism -- personally I can live with conceding a few more goals than usual if it means seeing the kind of mesmeric attacking play Liverpool have treated us to this season -- it's just an observation.
So what's the answer? Well, in theory, Rodgers could provide more midfield cover for his defence by leaving out an attacker and he could get the fullbacks to sit in more. He could also set his team up to defend deeper and to get more men behind the ball. Look at the great job Tony Pulis has done at Crystal Palace: They have been keeping clean sheets galore since he arrived at Selhurst Park. Does that mean they have better defenders than Liverpool? Of course not, but they are using tactics that help their defenders out and make things easier for them, it's as simple as that.
Rodgers won't do that though, and nor should he. It's not who he is, it's not how he believes the game should be played and I'm with him all the way on that. Liverpool have got to within four points of the top playing this way; that's better than anyone anticipated. There's no point changing anything now. The strength of this Liverpool side is in its attacking flair and ability to score goals. The team is set up to do that and it's working. Sacrificing that in an attempt to shore things up at the back would just be playing into the hands of the opposition.
Can Liverpool do better defensively? I'd certainly hope so, and cutting out the stupid mistakes would go a long way to tightening things up. However, it's unrealistic to expect them to ever be as miserly at the back as, say, Chelsea, because Jose Mourinho's tactical setup is much more "defender friendly" than that of Rodgers. It's also a lot less pleasing on the eye, and has yielded 21 goals fewer than the "Rodgers way" has this season.
Conceding goals is just a natural consequence of the way Liverpool play football and it can't just be explained away by pinning it all on the centre-backs (although clearly they have to do better) or individual errors. Even without the stupid own goals, the daft penalties and the errant passes, I'd still expect the Reds to have problems keeping regular clean sheets, simply because the current team is set up with the emphasis strongly leaning toward scoring goals rather than stopping them.
And you know something, I'm fine with that, as this is the most fun I've had watching the Liverpool in many a year.
