• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Ryan Mason

alekaras said:
I'd plug the holes in the back. If you let 0 goals in every match, you're guaranteed not to lose. And you're bound to score the odd goal. Scoring goals requires some luck. Not conceding not so much. If I were to focus on one area it would be the one where luck plays the smallest role.
Click to expand...
but dude, we're spurs
 
alekaras said:
I'd plug the holes in the back. If you let 0 goals in every match, you're guaranteed not to lose. And you're bound to score the odd goal. Scoring goals requires some luck. Not conceding not so much. If I were to focus on one area it would be the one where luck plays the smallest role.
Click to expand...

The stats certainly support that approach but taking a more defensive approach resulted in many fans turning on AVB
 
alekaras said:
Exactly. We don't have the money to buy the elite attacking players, so we need to follow a different approach. I'm not saying I would like it, but if it got us results, I can live with it.
Click to expand...

Liverpool conceded 50 goals two seasons ago when they came within a whisker of winning the league.
 
alekaras said:
I'd plug the holes in the back. If you let 0 goals in every match, you're guaranteed not to lose. And you're bound to score the odd goal. Scoring goals requires some luck. Not conceding not so much. If I were to focus on one area it would be the one where luck plays the smallest role.
Click to expand...

My thoughts as well, its no good scoring 2 goals a game if we are letting 3 in. Sort the back out and work from there.
 
Yoof said:
Liverpool conceded 50 goals two seasons ago when they came within a whisker of winning the league.
Click to expand...

They also had one of the best players in the world and a brick hot attack. Their defence actually cost them the title see Crystanbul when they were 3-0 up at Selhurst but contrived to concede 3 and somehow draw the game.
 
Jurgen the German said:
They also had one of the best players in the world and a **** hot attack. Their defence actually cost them the title see Crystanbul when they were 3-0 up at Selhurst but contrived to concede 3 and somehow draw the game.
Click to expand...
I watched that game on norwegian telly. The commentator is a massive Pool supporter. I couldn't stop laughing when they let the third one go in, he couldnt in any way hide his feelings :D
 
SpursNorway said:
I watched that game on norwegian telly. The commentator is a massive Pool supporter. I couldn't stop laughing when they let the third one go in, he couldnt in any way hide his feelings :D
Click to expand...

They were too preoccupied with catching Emirates Marketing Project's goal difference to realise they were in danger of dropping two points, which they went on to do amazingly despite wiping the floor with Palace.
 
Jurgen the German said:
They also had one of the best players in the world and a **** hot attack. Their defence actually cost them the title see Crystanbul when they were 3-0 up at Selhurst but contrived to concede 3 and somehow draw the game.
Click to expand...

We had one of the best players in the world too but never got close to winning a title, their brick hot attack cost less than what we've paid for ours so it can be done. I think the issue here is that some don't seem to want to acknowledge that attack and defence are intrinsically linked, they're not two separate entities whereby we can just say oh, we conceded too many, stick a more defensive player in Mason's position and and we'll be better off. You set up more defensive then you're more than likely not going to score as many either, just like above saying there's no point scoring 2 if you concede 3, well equally there's no point only conceding 1(like on Saturday) if you're going to score none. It's easy to say Liverpool's defence cost them the title but was it their defence, or was it because of the way they setup that left their defence exposed? Was it just their attack that gave them a chance of winning the title in the first place or was it the expansive setup that allowed them to be so effective? Rodgers obviously concluded that to extract the maximum from the squad he had then that's the way he needed to set his team up.
 
Yoof said:
We had one of the best players in the world too but never got close to winning a title, their **** hot attack cost less than what we've paid for ours so it can be done. I think the issue here is that some don't seem to want to acknowledge that attack and defence are intrinsically linked, they're not two separate entities whereby we can just say oh, we conceded too many, stick a more defensive player in Mason's position and and we'll be better off. You set up more defensive then you're more than likely not going to score as many either, just like above saying there's no point scoring 2 if you concede 3, well equally there's no point only conceding 1(like on Saturday) if you're going to score none. It's easy to say Liverpool's defence cost them the title but was it their defence, or was it because of the way they setup that left their defence exposed? Was it just their attack that gave them a chance of winning the title in the first place or was it the expansive setup that allowed them to be so effective? Rodgers obviously concluded that to extract the maximum from the squad he had then that's the way he needed to set his team up.
Click to expand...

You are joking? I have not seen or heard anyone say anything like that at all. Its in your head if REALLY believe that.
 
parklane1 said:
You are joking? I have not seen or heard anyone say anything like that at all. Its in your head if REALLY believe that.
Click to expand...

I've not seen you acknowledge it no. All I hear is that we'd be better off playing Dier than Mason because we'd concede less.
 
Yoof said:
I've not seen you acknowledge it no. All I hear is that we'd be better off playing Dier than Mason because we'd concede less.
Click to expand...

Yes I would, but your post said this( I think the issue here is that some don't seem to want to acknowledge that attack and defence are intrinsically linked,) seems to me you are suggesting that some fans have less understanding of the game then you have. Which is foolish at best and ignorant at worse.
 
Jurgen the German said:
They also had one of the best players in the world and a **** hot attack. Their defence actually cost them the title see Crystanbul when they were 3-0 up at Selhurst but contrived to concede 3 and somehow draw the game.
Click to expand...
Crystanbul :D:D:D

I wish we still had the old :ross: and :lol: smileys
 
I think @Yoof issue is the same as mine

The best teams defend from the front

Suarez was a ducking terrier for defenders as Sanchez did it for arsenal last year

Chelsea had the 3 behind Costa busting a gut to defend from the front as its the best place to win the ball

Our problem is as much as our calls can run a lot as shown by their stats their defensive impact can be negligible. We hear plaudits for lamella for his defensive work for example but we still concede plenty because we need them all to do it

Look at chadli and analyse his play

He gets assist and goals which is a massive part of the game. But for the system we play he needs to do more tracking. My guess is he doesn't have the discipline to do that but at the moment he is as good as we have

Is actually less of an issue through the middle as we tend to lose it going or coming from wide and then were chasing shadows in the counter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back