Do We Need To Become More Direct To Succeed?

I've been thinking about his for a few weeks now and the way the league has been this season, and even last, with the 'lower' teams becoming much stronger and more capable of beating the so called top sides.

The likes of Stoke, Palace, Leicester, Watford and others can sign better players than ever before and the middle tier of clubs can and have closed he gap to the top albeit not quite enough to seriously challenge for honours.

We have always struggled to beat these sides, especially at home, and the most success against them I can recall was during Brendan's run to second place where we did play a more direct counter attacking style of football.

Is the key to winning the league becoming a little more direct and a little less subtle because passing around and trying to draw this type of opposition out hasn't succeeded for us over the years so should we play two strikers and at least one wide player and try something different to win against the 'lesser' sides and build up points that will help towards a title challenge?

I'm not advocating a long ball style but I think this league has changed and we need to find a formula to beat sides outside the traditional big clubs in order to win the title.

Not sure what we need to succeed mate. All I know is that any team can beat any other team on any given day no matter what the tactics or formations are.

I'm sick of fearing these lower teams being capable of embarrasiing us and hope Jürgen is the man to change it once and for all. These cu*ts should be shaking in their boots when they look at the fixture list and they see our name.

Simple answer, no.

We went long ball early on this season with Brendan and the reason it failed was largely down to the midfield getting out battled. We need stronger players in there, right now we have nobody who can hold the ball in tight spaces and pick a defense splitting pass. We have people who can hit raking balls out to the wide areas but actual dinks or straight accurate at pace delivery we simply don't have the technicians.

So we have to condense the space, get our less capable midfielders closer to their box where they might be able to hurt them on a more regular occasion. Then the problem becomes movement up top, if you don't have people moving once they are in 2 banks of 4 then it's simple, by the book defending. So what does Jürgen do, honestly he buys better players, able to play in the latter of the two systems because I'd rather not watch us play like Villa.

Too many of our players are incapable of beating a man in a 1v1 situation in the middle of the park. Can is the only one who has the strength to burst past players but then the rest of his game is currently far too erratic. In time he may become an option but right now he's being asked to do it too early.

Unfortunately for now we'll look unbalanced and disjointed on many occasions because our players simply do not compliment each other in any style and it's why there were many calls that certain players "do not fit" and this is what we're finding.

Just need better players, especially in midfield an area that was neglected for too long by the previous incumbent.

We need the same intensity, guts and team spirit as these "lesser" teams. If we can match them in commitment then we'll beat them with our skill.

we have a pattern of play that has long been established as a club and it never included direct football as a concept. We have been passing and moving for over 50 years what we don't have now is a Roger Hunt an Ian Rush or a Luis Suarez.

Just need better players, especially in midfield an area that was neglected for too long by the previous incumbent.

Our midfielders have for sometime been goal shy and its not even ok for Lucas not to score a couple of goals each season we just need to score far more goals and concede fewer goals

Good OP.

The Gerrard/Torres pairing were direct, and if we had the calibre of those two upfront then an emphatic YES would be my answer. As it is, we don't have the quality in a striker to get in channels and run behind the defence with the turbo boosters on supplied by a pin pointed Gerrard through ball.

The closest we have is Sturridge, ala Southampton, who has the movement, pace and finishing to rely upon but we all know he is about as reliable as a car made in France.

The other style of directness that a player like Benteke may tempt, would have to be a no from me. And this wouldn't even solve our fundamental problems IMO.

Similar to Arsenal, we've become pansies somewhat on the field who don't fancy the fight of earning the right to play. While the Leicester's and Watford's will scrap and ruffle the feathers of their opponents and use their quality thereafter, we've become accustomed to mincing around about shirking the dirty work.

We need a destroyer in midfield, Mascha, Sissoko, Gerrard or someone who can dish out a bit of the rough stuff and who can help put some meat on our bones.

I digress, even if we had Ings fit, never mind Sturridge I don't think this reasonable question would be asked because we'd have a couple of strikers who would keep big CB on their toes all game with their pace and movement. Origi, recently has looked to put his pace to better effect but because he is far from the finished article it looks as though he needs five good chances to put one away, most of the time.

You realise how good your strikers are when chances are few and far between but the Rush's, Fowlers, Owen's, Suarez's and Torres's could always be called upon to nip that fleeting opportunity into the onion bag.

I just think we're crying out for that striker, and Sturridge briefly gave us a glimpse of what it would be like if we had the quality up front to rely upon. All this sadly is compounded by the fact our AM and M collectively have a horrendous scoring record. Would lumping it up Benteke change this, maybe, maybe not but from the little I have seen from our long ball game suggests the likes of Coutinho and Firmino would have an easier time reading Brail than knowing where the ball is going to drop. Addded to the fact that to most defenders in this league, this is food and drink for them where as it's like lambs to the slaughter as far as our little lightweights are concerned.

I think we do need to be more direct and I think we actually are playing more direct now than we were under Brendan. I tend to look at possession stats when I am looking at other teams results and I have noticed that more and more teams are now winning games with 35% possession.

A few years ago possession was the new in word, Barcelona was the best team in the world and totally dominated possession and everyone was trying to emulate them. Brendan was lauded because his sides played possession football, while Kenny was "old fashioned" because he didn't. Yet it was only when Brendan changed to a faster more direct style, taking advantage of the pace of Sturridge and Sterling combined with the sheer brilliance of Suarez that our results improved and we went oh so f**king close.

Possession is great ... as long as you are doing something positive with it and not just passing the ball sideways, allowing the opposition time to regroup and organise their two banks of four.

Quick transition is one way to give your forwards time and space.

Direct doesn't mean hoofing the ball up field and hoping for the best, it means playing the ball forward rather than sideways, looking for the through ball rather than the safe ball. Pass and move rather than just stand and receive.

If you have 3 world class strikers like Barca you can afford to play possession football, if your strikers are mere mortals maybe more direct football is the way to go. 

Maybe if we called it positive football rather than direct it might be easier for people to accept.


 

we have a pattern of play that has long been established as a club and it never included direct football as a concept. We have been passing and moving for over 50 years what we don't have now is a Roger Hunt an Ian Rush or a Luis Suarez.

So we keep 'pass and move' even if it isn't working and not producing results?

Also Kenny's sides were direct at times. Rafa's were direct at times and as I sadi in the OP Brendan was direct for a spell as well.

It seems maybe only Beerbelly noticed I wasn't exclusively taking about long ball, lump it to a big man direct football.

His thoughts about Torres/Gerrard is more along what I'm thinking.

So we keep 'pass and move' even if it isn't working and not producing results?

Also Kenny's sides were direct at times. Rafa's were direct at times and as I sadi in the OP Brendan was direct for a spell as well.

It seems maybe only Beerbelly noticed I wasn't exclusively taking about long ball, lump it to a big man direct football.

His thoughts about Torres/Gerrard is more along what I'm thinking.

I was suggesting our lack of decent strikers means that all the possession in the world doesn't guarantee you goals. Our problem is who can we be direct with I think its more a case of personnel than tactics and if we do need to go direct you really need two up front to make it work so maybe putting Couthino much closer to Benteke could help.

I was suggesting our lack of decent strikers means that all the possession in the world doesn't guarantee you goals. Our problem is who can we be direct with I think its more a case of personnel than tactics and if we do need to go direct you really need two up front to make it work so maybe putting Couthino much closer to Benteke could help.

Ah, is that what you were saying Walt?

When you said we 'never included direct football as a concept' I took from that you were against it and thought we've never been direct at times over our history.

So we keep 'pass and move' even if it isn't working and not producing results?

Also Kenny's sides were direct at times. Rafa's were direct at times and as I sadi in the OP Brendan was direct for a spell as well.

It seems maybe only Beerbelly noticed I wasn't exclusively taking about long ball, lump it to a big man direct football.

His thoughts about Torres/Gerrard is more along what I'm thinking.

If we had Ings and Sturridge to call upon, then we would definitely have to look at using their pace to exploit teams on the counter and in quick transition. We could try it with Origi too, so long as we don't become one dimensional using it. Nothing wrong in mixing it up.

If we had Ings and Sturridge to call upon, then we would definitely have to look at using their pace to exploit teams on the counter and in quick transition. We could try it with Origi too, so long as we don't become one dimensional using it. Nothing wrong in mixing it up.

Ings and Sturridge would be a big help Beer.

Ings and Sturridge would be a big help Beer.

And just by having them in the team, especially Sturridge we know that the longer, early ball is deffo an option when Danny spins off his marker.

Ah, is that what you were saying Walt?

When you said we 'never included direct football as a concept' I took from that you were against it and thought we've never been direct at times over our history.

I remember a goal from Terry Mac which included about 3 long diagonal passes and a cross to the far post for him to head it in wouldn't mind a bit of that sort of direct football. Last season and now this season our lack of goals makes us beatable.

I think this season in particular, teams such as Leicester and Watford are playing what I would describe as a "throwback" to the English way of playing. Fast, direct, powerful rather than what teams have become accustomed to fairly recently, ie, intricate, overly complicated, too many passes. With the players we have, maybe it would be the right way to achieve results.

This is a tricky question, as some people automatically relate being direct to thumping long balls up the pitch. I would say yes, we should become more direct but in this sense: quit worrying about the undying possession. Play forward, incorporating the strike(s) more often and running off and behind him/them more often. Get down the flanks with purpose, and whip the ball with actual runners coming into the box. I can find myself frustrated with us this year (a lot last year) in the side-to side passing, always ending up back to our CB's for them to swing it out to the fullbacks yet again, or that CM who drops in to essentially be a 3rd CB. As long as we can keep the pressing mentality, lets not be afraid to lose the ball in offensive half. Let's press like we have before, and we get that turnover, pounce on the opponent with our crafty players and movement along our front 3 or 4 players. This is what made us successful in 13-14, we would attack full throttle every chance we got, spreading the other team out with our movement. I wouldn't care watching us have 40% possession every game, as long as we kept that pressing energy and intensity up. That's the directness that I want to see.

Personally, I'm a believer that a possession based, high pressing, pass and move style is the best way to win consistently.  However, there is no formula to win all the time.  Even Barcelona would struggle against a physical Stoke side on a cold windy night at the Brittania -- Stoke are great about playing to their strengths, and on a small, bobbly pitch with English referees the small and skillful players of Barcelona would be in for a real battle.  On the flip side, Barca would rip them apart on the big, prsitine, open spaces available at Camp Nou.  Also, Spanish (or European) referees wouldn't allow Stoke's "thugs" to play as rough as they can in the Prem.

At the end of the day, it's all about developing a set of tactics and getting the right personnel to optimize those tactics.  I think Jürgen will play a more direct style than Brendan employed, and I'm OK with that.  I just want to see exciting, entertaining, and winning footie.  Is that asking too much???

It's football, it's simple, mix it up. Pass and move, get in the tackle, work hard! sometimes cross low, sometimes high depending on the situation. I don't think it needs over analysing.

I'm with you, pal.  We need to get away from 'philosophies' and remember the point of the game is to score more goals than the other bunch of lads.  We need to get better at seeing the opportunities and capitalizing on them quickly, whether that means direct long passes or short quick ones.

As several people have said, 'direct' doesn't need to mean 'Wimbledon88/Pulis/Allardyce', but it can and should mean that players are looking to get the ball forward quickly and create as much danger as possible. 

We don't need to be lumping it up to a big striker every time for that to happen.  Watch highlights of the goals from the 'nearly season' (13/14) and you can see just how quickly and often we broke forward and created chances on the counter-attack (not much possession football there).  Yes, we had the players to do it, and we're not far off now (no-one as good as SG and LS, admittedly).  We have skill, we have pace (Origi, Ibe), the only thing we don't seem to have is the vision and passing accuracy of a Gerrard; Henderson comes closest.  However, we also have players who can interplay quick short passes to work in tight spaces if needed.  Its just a case of getting the players to see the options quickly enough and weigh up what's needed in the blink of an eye!  If they can't do it, then we need to get somebody in who can.

 Good OP.

It's football, it's simple, mix it up. Pass and move, get in the tackle, work hard! sometimes cross low, sometimes high depending on the situation. I don't think it needs over analysing.

Simple really.

Well we can analyze it till the cows come home , there's one simple fact being we have been left a legacy of a midfield that basically dont know how to score , consistently , the very fact they just are not good enough ,

Even if we had a flying Torres /Owen  type of player it would be of little use because the one who made them got shipped out by the last clown

, Look at any top team and I do mean any including your Brazil,s the Germans , them cu*ts down the east lancs the great arsenal teams in fact our very own great teams they all had one thing in common , a fully functional hard tackling play making midfield sadly we dont .

Its a good OP.

Successful styles of play are cyclical - becoming more direct is currently in vogue and imnsure Klopp will take us in that direction however it wont benlongbbefore possession-based play dominates again.

The important thing is getting the right players in to enact whatever style we are using to the best of our ability.

It woud make sense to keep our pass and move philosophy and do that better than anyone else.

Hopefully Klopp will have the chance to demonstrate his tactical prowess withinbthose parameters - premiership teams adapt very quickly.

I'm with you, pal.  We need to get away from 'philosophies' and remember the point of the game is to score more goals than the other bunch of lads. 

Sorry mate, but I completely disagree with this. Harry Redknapp used to just put the best 11 players out with no real direction or purpose and said "just go play football."  That never worked well for him because the teams with a clear directive and proper execution would always beat them. 

Barcelona probably have the most notable philosophy of any team in the world.  They breed the tiki-taka style into their players from very young ages, and they have been reaping the rewards for the last decade or so.  A clear vision and proper execution is the best formula for success.

This time I have to agree with althebest1. It's simple, really. We don't need to become more direct, we need to become better. Captain obvious, very simple but true. Let's sign players who are good enough, and let's get rid of the players who don't deserve to play for LFC. When we talk about '' lesser teams '', we do seem to forget that we ourselves are one of the '' lesser teams '' in the league. That's it! With the side that we have now, we should deal with the fact that there's no win we can take for granted. Just take a look at the starting XI, then tell me if you're surprised we keep losing to the likes of Watford, Newcastle etc.
I'm not!

I know that we're not talking about the transfer window in this thread, but you probably get my point.

Sorry mate, but I completely disagree with this. Harry Redknapp used to just put the best 11 players out with no real direction or purpose and said "just go play football."  That never worked well for him because the teams with a clear directive and proper execution would always beat them. 

Barcelona probably have the most notable philosophy of any team in the world.  They breed the tiki-taka style into their players from very young ages, and they have been reaping the rewards for the last decade or so.  A clear vision and proper execution is the best formula for success.

I take your point, and its a good one.  I think I did put it clumsily in that sentence you quoted and you're right to pull me up.

As Claudio says, we need to be better - and for me that means having players who are sufficiently able and intelligent to see what's required, be it a quick long pass or a patient, possession build up.  The thing about Barca, though, is that they only possess the ball for as long as it takes to spot a weakness in the defence and then suddenly, they'll exploit it instantly. Its not possession for possession's sake.  If they have a counter attack against a disorganized defence, and see the chance to make a long accurate (direct) forward pass, they do it. 

The point I wanted to make is that our players seem less confident at making those instant decisions and acting on them instantly and effectively, whether that means going direct or keeping possession in the build-up play. 

We definitely need to get the ball forward faster, but then we need to make sure someone is making runs to receive the ball.
The Chelsea game showed what we are capable of when we moved quickly, when Sturridge comes back I think we'll see more of that kind of play.

I cant think of one team that has won the league in recent years being direct.

Manchester United - even in the days of Yorke and Cole were playing football and putting crosses in for them. Giggs was making mazy runs, Neville making overlaps and Scholes playing well crafted balls through the middle. Then Ronaldo and Valencia ran the wings with both powerful explosive runs and so forth.

Arsenal - they basically walked it in and counter attacked teams to oblivion with Pires and Ljungberg. The most direct they ever went really was passing it into Bergkamp to play off. In fact, I'd say since going more direct with strikers like Giroud they've been emphatically worse as a team whereas when they had Henry, who'd turn and go at the opposition and link up better, they scared teams to death.

Man City - they played football with possession being the main point - they controlled in the middle of the park and then released players with the right pass when the time was right. It was often boring but allowed players like Toure to dictate the flow of the game and keep control of it. This has been proven time and time again, because when Toure cannot dictate the flow of the game and Man City lose their midfield control and dictation, they fall to pieces, as they did to us this season.

Chelsea - perhaps more direct than the others but still not that direct. Drogba did well at holding it up and feeding others into play. The alternative for them was Drogba falling over like he'd been shot multiple times and surrounding the referee until he gave them a decision. However, they still played some good counter attacking football at times, much like Leicester are doing now.

Personally, even though he's bagged us winners this season, I still think Benteke was a major screw up of a signing by Rodgers, but hopefully he can adapt. Rodgers was a domestic level manager at best, we hoped could keep rising in the game, and elevate us at the same time. It didn't work out yet people kept wanting his mediocrity to turn into something more. It only ever did when we went on incredible runs of form and to expect that week in, week out is insane. We need enough quality to be able to play sh*t and still come away with the points.

Benteke was proven domestically but to replace someone like Suarez you need someone proven on world level, and for a manager like Rodgers, its no easy task to replace him. With all due respect, no world class player is going to come and play for Rodgers. You need a well respected manager in the world to bring in these top players and make them believe. Even if you are average now you make these players buy into your vision. Klopp will be able to do that. The media furore over him is no hype job, its because he's respected for his achievements, most notably at Dortmund, and that is infectious.

I hope Benteke works out, and if it does, it'll be more to do with Klopp's nurturing and mentoring of him, and Benteke's ability to adapt to Klopp's way, than anything else. Under Rodgers, Benteke looked completely lost. He was not a player that fitted Rodgers system and Rodgers just simply didn't have the answers. He should have signed Tevez or went all out for a hungry striker who chased down and caused problems. Instead he replaced a bloodthirsty pitbull with an elegant labrador. It just didn't make sense. Klopp either needs to get Benteke to adapt or he needs to replace him, but he shouldn't waste too much time on him or it'll be his undoing.

Having a clue how to defend a corner would be a good start.

Look at any top team and I do mean any including your Brazil,s the Germans , them cu*ts down the east lancs the great arsenal teams in fact our very own great teams they all had one thing in common ,

a fully functional hard tackling play making midfield , sadly we dont .

Mascher and Alonso  the perfect pairing .

Nice OP Si, I wouldn't be averse to us playing a little more direct, and by that I don't mean playing long balls but by trying to hit strikers feet early and playing off him. Ideally this would be Benteke (assuming we see some more movement from the big man following his man talk with the manager) but the key is getting players in, around and beyond him. One way to do that would be to play with two up but it can also work with Firmino, Coutinho and Henderson buzzing around the big man. I wouldn't like to see us just tossing it up there and hoping to run onto to flick ons and bits and pieces but I'd love to see Benteke setting a few shots from the edge of the box but that sort of thing needs to be scripted and patterned on the training ground first.

The key issues (as I see it) with our current approach to home matches vs the bus-parkers is two-fold. Firstly we have no one who can bring what Studge brings to the table. On full fitness and form and is comfortably IMHO our best and most important player (even better than Coutinho). He is obviously a huge threat with his pace and finishing ability when he plays on the shoulder but if you sit deep and starve him of that space he will drop off, face up and then run beat players with skill and trickery. So that for me is our biggest problem, we've got no one else who can do that and when Studge plays he makes it easier for everyone else in the side. Does Origi get that hatrick at Saints if Studge isn't in the side? Not a chance.

The 2nd issue (when Studge isn't in the team - which is always!) is with our CMs. Strength, tenacity, work-rate all spring to mind but there is a lack of guile and creativity between them. If it isn't happening in front of them they all struggle a little bit, we don't have what I would call a pure passer in the Alonso/Carrick/Pirlo mould and neither to we have a string puller who can thread it in the final third (think Modric but Stevie did this for us for years). Funnily enough our middies strengths actually play into a more direct style ie. Winning 2nd balls, competing for everything, engines to get up and down and some strong lads in there (particularly Can, Hendo and Lucas)

Mascher and Alonso  the perfect pairing .

Willie Stevenson and Tommy Smith,class and agression says it all.

Willie Stevenson and Tommy Smith,class and agression says it all.

Thsts what I'm talking about mate , until we get that balance we will struggle ,  a fully functioning midfield is  every bit as good ad a fully functioning defence only then will we be in shape to win the wholly grail the

I don't see why people equate being "more direct" (as Si meant it) with hoofball. We do need to get the ball forward a lot faster than we do now.  Benteke's goal against Sunderland was as direct as they come, Clyne's pass was what a good 40 or so yards on the deck. We need that bravery in our passing and we need players with pace who are willing to run at defenders and make space for their teammates.

Coutinho, Firmino and Lallana are nice to have but I don't see the point in having all 3 of them in the team together because they all like having the ball to feet and neither one of them attempt to stretch the opposition back line. Put a couple of players in the Pedro mould in our aide and we'd be laughing.

Anyway Happy New Year fellow Reds. Hope you, your families and the mighty Liverpool Football Club have a prosperous 2016.

Willie Stevenson and Tommy Smith,class and agression says it all.

Souness and Case ?

Possession game is only worthwhile if it is controlled possession.

Numerous games we may have had 70% possession but didn't look as if we were breaking down the opposition lines, and we were never in control. In fact, many teams were controlling us without the ball. Mourinho sides have shown perfect case studies where they don't have the ball but have the opposition team wrapped around their finger.

Barca is an example of 70% possession which IS controlled. They look threatening with it because they have the players to do it - effective possession relies on quick thinking, poise, guile and good touch - it seemed as if Barca at their peak under Guardiola were always three passes ahead of the opposition, in that whoever had the ball, the team almost had a psychic like quality of where it would be in a few passes. Many times with us, the player who had the ball - and the players around him - seemed clueless. Intelligence must be another crucial factor in this type of game I think.

Never ever take the possession stat seriously - I admit I used to do it a few years back as evidence of a much better team but it is simply one of the most misleading stats you can look at. As long as it is not an appalling stat where we only have 5% of the ball, then there is no reason to look at it I think.

Likewise, I wouldn't equate directness with long ball. Direct play is more the case of build from the back then a few killer passes in your own half, as opposed to the last line of defence blasting it into no man's land in the hope of a big man being up front. United under Ferguson executed the direct play most effectively and we showed it many times in 13/14.

I just wonder if Brendan's obsession with possession football eventually did it for him - he seemed to return to the default mode back in 14/15. Someone like Sanchez would have been a perfect signing to continue the style of play in 13/14 but signing the likes of Lambert and Lallana was a sign that hold up play in the final third would be emphasised a lot more than running behind the lines.

No, we need to become more adaptable and that's something you can clearly see Klopp working on. Happy New Year to everyone by the way o/

In all honesty, we didn't do too badly in the opposition box, it's just that when our lads found themselves inside the opposition box they looked jittery, lost, don't know what to do, bolted to ground no movement. This is one area we need to work on quickly. as soon as we get some rhythm inside the opposition box the goals will start to flow.

I've been thinking about his for a few weeks now and the way the league has been this season, and even last, with the 'lower' teams becoming much stronger and more capable of beating the so called top sides.

The likes of Stoke, Palace, Leicester, Watford and others can sign better players than ever before and the middle tier of clubs can and have closed he gap to the top albeit not quite enough to seriously challenge for honours.

We have always struggled to beat these sides, especially at home, and the most success against them I can recall was during Brendan's run to second place where we did play a more direct counter attacking style of football.

Is the key to winning the league becoming a little more direct and a little less subtle because passing around and trying to draw this type of opposition out hasn't succeeded for us over the years so should we play two strikers and at least one wide player and try something different to win against the 'lesser' sides and build up points that will help towards a title challenge?

I'm not advocating a long ball style but I think this league has changed and we need to find a formula to beat sides outside the traditional big clubs in order to win the title.

Thought provoking post srslfc..... And some great points. To be quite honest I do not know. What I do know is under Rafa most of the players bought in (strikers and middle-fielders) scored on a regular basis, we pretty much maintained that up until K.D's second stint and now; in this incarnation of LFC we have no real goal scores from middle field, coupled with strikers that spend more time injured than on the pitch.... Will not use this to single out anyone striker in particular, because If we have four strikers (Ings,Origi,Benteke and Sturridge) missing lager parts of the season due to injuries its a real problem...Until we solve this problem I am not sure that a more direct/indirect approach really matters