Just reading
Ring Of Fire by Simon Hughes and came across this in the Alonso chapter:
I stick with my opinion. I know it is viewed differently in Britain.It's not the action [of tackling]. It's the idea: the cause and the consequence. I love to tackle. But if I could avoid it, I think I have done better in my job. If I tackle, sliding across the floor, it means that I - or someone else - have been caught out of position at the start of the move and that drives me crazy because team shape and balance is crucial. At Bayern, this is what we practise all of the time: "shape,shape,shape". If you spend too much time on the ground, it means that your positioning is not so good. I would say I pride myself on positioning, being in the right areas - that's why I get chosen."
Instantly I think of one of the reasons we love Sakho so much, those last ditch tackles, where he throws his long frame behind everything to get a toe on the ball. Then I think about the first few weeks under Klopp where every analysis was dominated by the discussion of our shape and discipline in playing the selected shape.
Maybe we're all over thinking the Sakho thing too much, maybe after nearly a year Klopp has just decided that position wise Mama just isn't up to scratch. Not for a regular place at least? Maybe this is the shared quality Matip and Klavan had that made Klopp decide they were the ones he wanted. Klavan may have been a head scratcher but so was Sami Hyypia some years ago. Sami never had the legs to deal with the forwards he came up against, but his reading of the game was incredible, he was in the right place at the right time.
Like Benteke, Sakho is not a bad player, but maybe he just doesn't suit exactly what we want to do?
Note: I am not comparing Ragnar Klavan to Sami Hyypia before I get murdered here!
Logged