1. 'Pass and move'는 구식이 아니다. 그것이 리버풀의 방식이다.
Liverpool manager Kenny Dalglish is keen for the club to rediscover the style of their glory days - as it is the only way he knows how to play football.
Liverpool manager Kenny Dalglish is keen for the club to rediscover the style of their glory days - as it is the only way he knows how to play football.
The success of the late 1970s and through the 1980s was built on the pass-and-move doctrines instigated by Bill Shankly and Bob Paisley.
Dalglish flourished as a player in those teams and tried to continue the legacy in his first spell as manager.
The game may have moved on since the last time he was Reds boss nearly 20 years ago but, particularly in the last couple of years, Liverpool's playing style became more structured and solid with less focus on attack and flair.
Asked if it was important to rediscover the attitude Shankly introduced at the club the 59-year-old Scot said:
"Well, it has never gone for me. It would be nice if we could get back to that, on the pitch especially. Pass-and-move isn't old fashioned, it's the Liverpool way. That's the way I was brought up and I don't think I could change. I think that's the way the players would like to play as well."
http://www.mirrorfootball.co.uk/news/Liverpool-manager-Kenny-Dalglish-is-keen-for-the-club-to-rediscover-the-pass-and-move-style-of-their-glory-days-as-it-is-the-only-way-he-knows-how-to-play-football-article677383.html
2. 리버풀의 철학
Shankly :
"Football is a simple game based on the giving and taking of passes, of controlling the ball and of making yourself available to receive a pass. It is terribly simple."
Paul Tomkins on Shankly :
Next was the style of play: pass and move. “Liverpool are the most uncomplicated side in the League,” Joe Mercer, the former Aston Villa and Manchester City manager, once said. “They drive forward when they’ve got the ball and get behind it when they haven’t.” Endless five-a-sides honed technique and awareness. Keeping the ball worked the opposition, and the Reds superior fitness could have a double impact late in game –– they got stronger as the opposition wilted. “Never pass to a red shirt in one direction when there are two in the other,” Shankly would say. “Support the man, but look to the ball. If you lose the ball work twice as hard as the opposition to get it back.” When trying to get to the heart of the simplicity inherent in Liverpool’s game, he said: “Our approach was to use the ball like a baton in a relay race. You pass it to me, I pass it to him, he passes it on. It’s the ball that is covering most of the ground — not the players.” And when the players got into the penalty area, it remained simple: “If you are in the penalty area and aren’t sure what to do with the ball, stick it in the net and we’ll discuss your options afterwards.”
In terms of the style of football, Liverpool were also patient; happy to contain teams and sit on slender leads, an understanding which grew in time with the lessons of European football. If no lead had been built up, the team would keep going until the death, often stealing late goals like a lot of the best teams, once the opposition is worn down. Despite the pass-and-move philosophy, which was in keeping with purist theories, they weren’t regarded as a beautiful side to watch. The passing was simple but effective — find the nearest red shirt, give him the ball, move into space, get it back. There were elements of Total Football that the Dutch pioneered in the ‘70s, in which full-backs attacked and no-one stayed still. But the passing wasn’t as elaborate or imaginative as some ‘60s rivals, particularly the two from Manchester. Liverpool’s was an incredibly effective style of football, rather than one about aesthetic merits.
http://www.lfchistory.net/Articles/Article/2835-2
Ronnie Moran on Shankly :
"Previously, we used to run down to Melwood from Anfield, which was about 3 and a half miles, do our training, and run back. Shanks did away with all that. He said 'you don't run on the road in a match so we won't do it in training'. He introduced lots of work with the ball. We played a lot of small sided games where the emphasis was put on simple quick passing. I learnt so much from him and from Joe Fagan about the game and how it should be played."
"Previously, we used to run down to Melwood from Anfield, which was about 3 and a half miles, do our training, and run back. Shanks did away with all that. He said 'you don't run on the road in a match so we won't do it in training'. He introduced lots of work with the ball. We played a lot of small sided games where the emphasis was put on simple quick passing. I learnt so much from him and from Joe Fagan about the game and how it should be played."
"If he looked at a couple of kids juggling a ball, it wouldn't matter to him which one was better. He would want to see how they played in a game situation. His argument would be that you don't get opportunities to juggle the ball in a match so it was irrelevant. Nowadays, clubs and coaches in this country would always take the kid with the better ball skills. That's the problem we have now. Youngsters are being taught all the fancy ball skills, which is fine, but they're not being taught how to play the game."
Paul Tomkins on Paisley :
Paisley was tactically astute, but there was little tampering with a system ahead of games. The coaches adapted to the circumstances as the play unfolded — shifted players around if need be, or made a substitution — but the first instinct was to go with their natural game. And a big part of Paisley’s great tactical brilliance was knowing which players were needed, and where they would fit into the team. Get that right, and the tactics are more able to dictate themselves.
Paisley was tactically astute, but there was little tampering with a system ahead of games. The coaches adapted to the circumstances as the play unfolded — shifted players around if need be, or made a substitution — but the first instinct was to go with their natural game. And a big part of Paisley’s great tactical brilliance was knowing which players were needed, and where they would fit into the team. Get that right, and the tactics are more able to dictate themselves.
There can be no greater tactic in football than finding intelligent, gifted and adaptable players who can think for themselves, and forming a harmonious blend in a team. It obviates some of the need for clever thinking on a game-to-game basis; that took place with the overall masterplan. Phil Neal never had to worry if he wanted to go on an overlap; someone would have the nous to cover him. Neal was told that if he joined an attack, to stay with it.
Fagan on Paisley :
"Keep it simple, don't complicate things. He loathed all soccerspeak; he wouldn't have recognised a Christmas-tree formation if it had toppled on to him. "What does getting round the back mean?" he would ask. "We're not talking about burglars are we?"
http://www.lfchistory.net/Managers/Manager/Profile/10
Paul Tomkins on Fagan :
Fagan once said “Our methods are so easy, sometimes players don’t understand them at first.” Jan Molby was just one example of a new player who found the simplicity surprising. Used to the Ajax way of playing, he approached Fagan 40 minutes before his debut against Norwich. “What do you want me to do?” he asked. “Listen,” the manager replied, “we’ve signed you because you’re a good player, just go and show us what a good player you are, whatever you want to do.”
Fagan once said “Our methods are so easy, sometimes players don’t understand them at first.” Jan Molby was just one example of a new player who found the simplicity surprising. Used to the Ajax way of playing, he approached Fagan 40 minutes before his debut against Norwich. “What do you want me to do?” he asked. “Listen,” the manager replied, “we’ve signed you because you’re a good player, just go and show us what a good player you are, whatever you want to do.”
Sacchi defines the modern game as "the harmonic movement of 11 players, who are always active, with or without the ball." That, he said, was "the real revolution in modern football and few have been able to pull it off". Among the few teams that did, he said, were the great Liverpool sides of the 1970s and 1980s.
"Liverpool were up there with Brazil, Holland and Ajax as the teams that most excited me. They were one of my main reference points for the way they married individual ability with collective ability to create a marvellous continuous style of play."
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/liverpool-will-spring-shock-says-milan-legend-sacchi-6145450.html
3. 케니 1기
John Aldridge :
"Kenny Dalglish knew his players. We never even had any set pieces really. He just went out and said 'Go and beat them'. We never worked on patterns of play, which people would be amazed at now."
John Barnes talking about his Liverpool days when Dalglish was in charge :
"Liverpool practiced small-sided games every day and it was high-intensity stuff. We used to do a very light warm-up, jog around the field a couple of times to loosen the limbs, do a few stretches, put the cones down for goals and then go into five-a-side or eight -a-side. t was the same every single day. There was no tactical work, none whatsoever. All the strategic stuff was done within the small sided games. Liverpool believed that everything we faced in five-a-sides would be encountered again on match day. That was why the five-a-sides were so competitive. Liverpool’s training characterised Liverpool’s play – uncomplicated but devastatingly effective."
http://www.lfchistory.net/Managers/Manager/Profile/12
Alan Hansen :
"He told Steve Clarke what he wants to see and that's a return to the traditional pass and move Liverpool values. We used to do this function at Liverpool, one of the few training functions we ever did, where the man in possession had to move after passing the ball. If he didn't move a foul was awarded and the team he was playing for lost possession. You wouldn't believe how many times players got caught out for not moving, but it became a natural thing for us to do after passing the ball. It was drilled into us that when a man is in possession, if people are moving then it is easier for him to play a pass. That is exactly what has been missing from Liverpool, especially away from home, and it's what Kenny is trying to restore."
"He told Steve Clarke what he wants to see and that's a return to the traditional pass and move Liverpool values. We used to do this function at Liverpool, one of the few training functions we ever did, where the man in possession had to move after passing the ball. If he didn't move a foul was awarded and the team he was playing for lost possession. You wouldn't believe how many times players got caught out for not moving, but it became a natural thing for us to do after passing the ball. It was drilled into us that when a man is in possession, if people are moving then it is easier for him to play a pass. That is exactly what has been missing from Liverpool, especially away from home, and it's what Kenny is trying to restore."
http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/hansen-reveals-how-kenny-trains
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=268889.msg7962189#msg7962189
But generally, I think this is something to 'get used to' in a Dalglish side. Someone else referred to the chalkboards for Reina and the defence suggesting we were still 'hoofing' the ball - but chalkboards don't show context. From Reina in particular, many of those incomplete passes weren't hoofs, but deliberate, not under pressure long passes (he's been strangely inaccurate for a while now). There's been a lot of discussion about a new freedom of movement, particularly in midfield, but perhaps less on an equally important aspect of play under Dalglish: freedom of pass selection.
We can and will play patient possession football, as we did for most of the build up to the 3rd goal. But possession is a means to an end, not the end in itself - nor is it the only means. For the 3rd goal itself, the patient (and mostly deep) build up ended when an opportunity was seen and taken, to play a quick, direct attacking pass (when we could easily and justifiably have passed around for another couple of minutes to wind down the clock). Early on, we saw Meireles receive the ball 10 yards inside his own half, look up and hit a 50 yard ball to Torres, which ended in his left footed shot saved by the keeper. Meireles saw an attacking opportunity and took it. He did the same thing for the first goal - with a surging run off the ball rather than the 50 yard pass.
Those hoping for a transition to tiki-taka, let alone a more cautious 'control' based style, under Dalglish will be disappointed. Dalglish's teams, much as Paisley's and Fagan's, play two or three styles in one; with good reason, because it's effective. Possession-focused patient pass and move is one of them, but only insofar as it fulfils it's original aims - to work the opposition, to probe for an opening and then strike quickly (whether that's a 10 yard slide rule pass, a 60 yard ball over the top or a surging run from a midfielder) to exploit it. Retaining the weapon of the long pass, the surging run or quick tempo short passing with fluent movement keeps the opposition honest. A patient passing game can be frustrated if the opposition can defend and press high, without fear of being beaten by pace at the back. Alternatively, parking the bus can blunt attacks if they lack movement off the ball and changes in angles of attack.
We're not interested in a 25 year old Scotsman from Blackpool because he plays tiki-taka, but because he can ping a ball perfectly into the path of an overlapping fullback or surging midfielder from 60 yards. And with his left foot, which we lack. Meanwhile he, Lucas, Gerrard, Meireles and the wide players (perhaps most in need of upgrading), can play the high tempo ground passing game, too. Fullbacks can overlap. Midfielders can run beyond the striker. Central defenders can hit the ball long, if they spot an opportunity that can be exploited by doing so.
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=268889.msg8052567#msg8052567
I have really enjoyed the metamorphosis process the team is under going through Kennys instructions. The really exciting thought is that we are already showing positive signs in such a short time you would imagine the best is still yet to come as the indoctrination of the approach Kenny wants our team to take will take time for the players to get under their skin.
It does remind me of a famous Shankly quote; "Football is a simple game based on the giving and taking of passes, of controlling the ball and of making yourself available to receive a pass. It is terribly simple" And from what we've been watching i reckon this is exactly what Kenny has been focusing on first, keeping things simple, removing the burden of over complication you know getting the lads to walk over the touch line with little to think about other than to work hard make yourself available for the ball when you have it look for another pass then make yourself available again.
It had me thinking i remember watching Sky soften the style of football good ole Allardyce used to serve up at Bolton as they were doing well by calling it 'percentage football' rather than what i'd prefer to describe as more hoof to a big guy then feed off any scraps. Presumably it was percentage football because the small percentage of possession the team had was "proven" proportionately to be more frequently in the oppositions defence than in their own. Well i'd prefer to describe Kennys football as percentage football as his idea of keeping the ball you know having more possession than the other team is more adept, after all if you see more of the ball and were a betting man you'd expect to have more opportunities to score.
This is where Kenny has got it bang on for me, sure science has played a massive role since he was last rocking the kop, players are athletes and a teams game can be scrutinised through measured opta stats! But the reality is football isn't a science, its organic rather than a scripted process of mathematical certainty. Kenny has made reference a number of times to how for him the key element has been the players themselves making them feel relaxed and confident, rather than bamboozling them with how opta suggests they could increase their passing efficiency or that on paper Torres could work the channels more. No he prefers to get a positive atmosphere in the dressing room and make players feel relaxed but with the notion that when they step over the white line they have to work their socks off, however if you're feeling positive and confident anyone that has played football would agree with you want the damn ball, so you subconsciously work harder. Simple really, (Benitezism) No?
Many had reservations about Kenny, concerned about his lack of top flight exposure in a decade and how if he didn't deliver he may lose some of the admiration he has through his previous achievements. But you know that ole chestnut - Form is temporary, class is permanent... well what were we worrying about? Kenny Dalglish is class personified, his methods to get the best out of players saw us rack up title after title - science won't change that, his reassuring manner, confidence, simple ethos born of era gone by can only help our players, his attacking philosphy inspiring players to play with more freedom asking them to express themselves rather than contain through strict tactical instructions. Again all very simple.
He commands respect, he leads by example - any player not pulling their weight cannot point the finger back in the direction of the manager he provides the platform for players to enjoy playing in, after all any debate with Kenny can always come back to well lets put our medals down on the table and take a look?
I'd like to see Kenny be given the position permanently as i believe by the end of this season he will have given more than enough proof he can take our club forward. He was born a natural winner, his ability to infect this culture through his beliefs and approach supported by the board with backing offers us every opportunity to get back in the mix. Just how overwhelmingly fantastic would it be to see Kenny lift a trophy again here with us? words couldn't convey just how brilliant it would be to see him bring number 19 here.
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=268889.msg8057862#msg8057862
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=268889.msg8151072#msg8151072
Well, the articles on Zonal Marking (and Jonathan Wilson's) are more about the death of the box-to-box midfielder; about how "midfielders" to an extent don't exist anymore - we have defensive midfielders and attacking midfielders. It's interesting stuff, though occasionally (particularly Wilson) overstated.
But football - and in particular, the battle to win control of the centre of the pitch - is ever changing to the point of being almost cyclical. The 'standard' 442 was killed by the 'no.10' (no.7, for Liverpool fans) in the hole, forcing the increasing importance of the 'Makelele' role; this then encouraged 4231/451 formations with a midfield trio of destroyer/passer/attacker - specialist roles (perhaps Masch, Alonso, Gerrard being a perfect example under Rafa).
But what I think we're seeing the beginning of under Dalglish is something different. We all have 'impressions' of how Lucas, or Gerrard, or Meireles play. But looking at the chalkboards, those might not be entirely accurate. For instance, Garstonette elsewhere in his match report says that Gerrard played off Kuyt. He didn't. He played everywhere. The chalkboards show him making passes and tackles across the width of the pitch, from the edge of his own area to the oppositions. The other midfielders are actually similar. Comparing these to chalkboards under Hodgson or Rafa shows a significant difference in movement; our midfielders are switching positions throughout and playing the full breadth of the pitch; even the 'defensive' one.
I think a common Dalglish mantra, that seems almost banal at times, is part of the answer - that the players have to trust each other. If you're playing with three (or tonight, four) central midfielders, they can go all over the pitch and play almost instinctively - sometimes two or even all three at a time. A teammate watches their back. Under Rafa or Hodgson, the idea of shape and discipline not only discouraged the wandering player, but to an extent also the 'covering' player, who had his job/area and seemed loath to leave it. This isn't about Lucas or Meireles covering for Gerrard or compensating for his 'lack of discipline', it's working for all of them. But in terms of Gerrard specifically, it's possibly the best way yet to get the most out of a particularly talented footballer.
The effect of that level of movement at times is to actually make the opposition more static; they can't follow every single run, or be dragged all over the place, so they resort to Hodgson-esque 'keeping shape'. And when they do that, we can cut right through them with simple passing and movement.
Being brought up on Shankly's mantra, of football being a simple game.. for years I ignored formations but understood instinctively how players covered for each other in a pass and move system and how fluidity was key to the Paisley teams that followed, Being brought up to understand a football pitch in terms of 2-3-5 it was obvious that that no longer applied but understood what we played was a square defence (flat back 4) that moved up as a unit.
The fluidity that we played with meant many of my generation of Liverpool fan were ambivalent to numerical analysis but would comment that Dalglish is playing three at the back etc. This changed for me gradually and under Rafa numerical analysis became important to understand what was going on. The exciting thing for me in our last few games isn't the results but the reintroduction of fluidity and the way that players are encouraged to commit to offensive play and it's the responsibility of who ever notices to fill the gaps. Last night Agger was lapping up this new freedom and after one of his surges forward I noticed it was Auerlio who had dropped deep to fill the gap in the three.
The fluidity often makes it hard to analyse things purely in terms of a set of numbers but needs an additional narrative to explain the process, Redmark's excellent analysis being a case in point, this to me is an exciting begininning and hopefully Dalglish will keep us all on our toes, trying to understand what is going on.
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=268889.msg8152465#msg8152465
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=268889.msg8159033#msg8159033
I am not so sure Kenny has a preferred system yet but he does seem to have his own philosophy about how a Liverpool team should play. This philosophy can be felt no matter which system we use. It is a philosophy that is beginning to look very familiar to my uneducated eyes.
When you do not have the ball, you find space to receive the ball, support the man on the ball - the old Liverpool mantra.
The Liverpool way was to not play with a fixed and rigid formation, it was always about making the opposition adapt to our movement. That is what I saw in the Stoke game - we played it wide left and right, CMs breaking into the left, centre and right channels, so many questions for Stoke to answer.
In the final third, players have the freedom to express themselves, the midfield it encouraged to make runs into channels to receive a pass.
Obviously this is not a system of anarchy, players do have roles, for example if Gerrard breaks into box, Lucas must look to cover the centre and vice versa. When a CB carries the ball forward, we can really see the movement of the CMs to accommodate him, what a joy it is to see Skrtel/Agger cross the half way line with the ball
Perhaps I am being romantic and seeing what I want to see but it is really looking like the football of the 80s to me.
5. 지난 시즌 케니가 연재하던 칼럼
6. Kenny 2기
1. Fabio Capello's wide men are generally all better on the right, so there's an opening for Jack Wilshere to play on the left, tucked in a bit to allow Ashley Cole to charge forward. Wilshere is suited to that role, an intelligent player who can spot a pass, either to Cole outside or Wayne Rooney and Steven Gerrard inside.
2. Darren Bent has the advantage over Kevin Davies and Peter Crouch in terms of pace up front, while Rooney can dovetail with any of the forwards. The United man will be allowed to drop into 'the hole', where he'll have options and the awareness to pick the right pass.
3. I believe Gerrard's best position is central midfield. With Gareth Barry behind him as cover, he can get forward to support the two strikers. Whether he's captain or not, Gerrard will give 100 per cent for the team – he's not a sulker. I've been aware of Steven since he was 14, he's so good he can play anywhere but this system will get the best out of him.
Dealing with long throws: Stoke's long throw might have lost the element of surprise but it is still a major weapon, particularly after Edwin van der Sar’s blunder last weekend. United must try to win the first header once Rory Delap launches it and, if not, be quick to win a knockdown because they often cause the damage.
Sir Alex Ferguson will want his best headers in the heart of the box and his other players alert to track any runs. Stoke might try to get one of their giants, like Ryan Shawcross, to stand by the goalline hoping to drag Vidic out of position.
To combat that, United can stick another six-footer like Dimitar Berbatov on him and keep Nemanja Vidic and Rio Ferdinand together up against Kenwyne Jones. United must play as many big men as possible, which is why it wouldn’t surprise me to see John O’Shea and Darren Fletcher in the line up.
The United defenders will try to keep a clear path for Van der Sar to come and collect anything near his goalline. That means trying to block off any Stoke player trying to distract the goalkeeper. Relieving pressure is also important in these situations. United can deploy someone like Ji-sung Park between the thrower and the penalty area to clear up after headers.
6. Kenny 2기
When the game settled down, it seemed Dalglish had set Liverpool out in an energetic 4-1-4-1 system, with Lucas Leiva the midfield anchorman, and the four players ahead all given license to move upfield and support lone striker Fernando Torres.
Dalglish will have pleased Liverpool’s fans – with only a day in charge of the club he barely had time to change anything major, but the simple shift towards a more positive style of football (most notably without the ball) marks a move away from Hodgson’s regime.
http://www.zonalmarking.net/2011/01/09/manchester-united-1-0-liverpool-dalglish-tactics/
Liverpool usually had an advantage in the centre of midfield and all three players in that zone had decent games, primarily because they kept it simple rather than trying ambitious passes
http://www.zonalmarking.net/2011/01/16/liverpool-2-2-everton-tactics/
Liverpool didn’t play fantastic football – but they didn’t have to. Simple passes combined with good movement from Torres and forward runs from midfielders caught out Wolves’ defence, and Liverpool were comfortable after their second goal, despite a couple of nervous defensive moments.
http://www.zonalmarking.net/2011/01/22/wolves-0-3-liverpool-midfield-runs-not-tracked/
Liverpool were the better side even before they went ahead in the second half, however, for two reasons. First, their diamond had much more fluidity. Chelsea’s midfield roles were obvious, with the diamond remaining intact throughout, each player in the same position. Liverpool’s diamond was based around more mutual understanding – Meireles was usually at the head of the four, but sometimes it was Gerrard, sometimes Rodriguez, sometimes Lucas would venture forward and another player would drop in and hold. That kept Chelsea guessing, and though it didn’t produce anything particularly exciting in the final third, did make Liverpool the side more likely to cause the opposition defence problems.
The second factor was more a question of formation – with the diamonds cancelling each other out in the centre, it was left to the wide areas for drive and attacking thrust. Here, we had Chelsea’s full-backs (in a four) against Liverpool’s wing-backs (in a five), with the latter given much more license to get forward and support the attack. Glen Johnson and Martin Kelly were often immediately in a position to receive a forward pass in space, and stretched the play. In contrast, Ashley Cole and Jose Bosingwa had to motor forward to move into attacking positions, which made Chelsea’s build-up play more laboured. Johnson becoming free on the left resulted in the best chance of the first half, where Rodriguez somehow missed an open goal from inside the six yard box.
http://www.zonalmarking.net/2011/02/06/chelsea-0-1-liverpool-tactics/
Ian St John:
"Kenny doesn't pretend to be a coach, he's gone out and got himself a top one in Steve Clarke. Kenny doesn't take training but he watches training, he sees what's happening and when I saw Lucas on Sunday I said to myself, 'Yes, he's had a word with the lad. He's told him where he isn't coming up to scratch. He's told him that there really isn't any such thing as a withdrawn midfielder because every formation anyone ever dreamt up is changed by the movement of the ball and the opposing team.'
"Kenny doesn't pretend to be a coach, he's gone out and got himself a top one in Steve Clarke. Kenny doesn't take training but he watches training, he sees what's happening and when I saw Lucas on Sunday I said to myself, 'Yes, he's had a word with the lad. He's told him where he isn't coming up to scratch. He's told him that there really isn't any such thing as a withdrawn midfielder because every formation anyone ever dreamt up is changed by the movement of the ball and the opposing team.'
"No, there's no withdrawn midfielder in the books of football men like Kenny. There are midfielders with responsibilities, and they include the ability to adapt to the moving game."
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/james-lawton-dalglish-has-turned-to-an-old-shankly-trick-making-liverpools-players-justify-their-inclusion-2207489.html
Better movement and interplay from Liverpool’s front players was the key here. Kuyt v Berbatov was an interesting comparison – and not just in terms of work rate. Kuyt’s pure energy was combined with intelligent movement to provide a better focal point for Liverpool’s attacks. The goals may have simple, but the Dutchman’s all-round performance was superb.
http://www.zonalmarking.net/2011/03/06/liverpool-3-1-manchester-united-kuyt-x-3/
Lucas Leiva :
"During the week of the game, Dalglish talked about the possible United line-ups and made sure we understood how important it would be for us to give them some of their own medicine. He went on and on about suffocating them in midfield. We had a great afternoon doing what he said. His mantra is: make it simple and work together."
"During the week of the game, Dalglish talked about the possible United line-ups and made sure we understood how important it would be for us to give them some of their own medicine. He went on and on about suffocating them in midfield. We had a great afternoon doing what he said. His mantra is: make it simple and work together."
Daniel Agger :
"The way he wants to play is pass and move with a high tempo. Ever since I joined Liverpool [in 2006], that is how we have wanted to play but it just hasn't worked like that. You saw there was some quality passing in the team and that we are playing it on the ground. I think this is what most people want to see."
"The way he wants to play is pass and move with a high tempo. Ever since I joined Liverpool [in 2006], that is how we have wanted to play but it just hasn't worked like that. You saw there was some quality passing in the team and that we are playing it on the ground. I think this is what most people want to see."
Craig Bellamy :
"I would never sound negative towards Rafa (Benitez) or Gerard Houllier because they done so much for the club and were outstanding, but this is what I grew up with.
"I watched Liverpool towards the end of last season and the way they were playing, and it was what I grew up supporting - the passing and moving, the free-flowing football. It felt like it was back.
The interplay that resulted in Rodriguez’s chance was excellent, and it’s worth pointing out that in their pre-match warm-up, Liverpool’s attacking four plus Adam were practising a very similar move (whilst the defenders worked separately and Lucas worked on defensive headers with a coach). Adam would fire the ball into Bellamy or Suarez, the wide players would come inside, a couple of quick passes would be played, and then one player would finish. The similarity with the goal – albeit with Adam winning a tackle rather than playing a pass – was remarkable.
Jose Enrique :
"I prefer to pass to feet, it is more quick touch. Kenny wants us to enjoy football because if we enjoy it, then so will the crowd. This is very important; that we play in a certain way...on the floor and to have the freedom to make our own decisions."
"I prefer to pass to feet, it is more quick touch. Kenny wants us to enjoy football because if we enjoy it, then so will the crowd. This is very important; that we play in a certain way...on the floor and to have the freedom to make our own decisions."
"We play a lot of small games. But the rules are always different. We try to take this into the real matches."
http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/kenny-wants-us-to-enjoy-it
7. 캐롤과 Pass and move
Passing statistics showing Carroll was far more involved than Torres in the game between Newcastle and Liverpool in December.
Barton has set up five of Carroll's 11 league goals this term, making them the most prolific combination in the Premier League. The duo have 12 assists between them.
There is an added value to Carroll's aerial ability. Where Torres rarely contributed to Liverpool's defending, the 6ft 3in striker can help clear danger at set-pieces, as the touch map right shows.
That has proved to be a hidden weapon for Newcastle this season, who have the second best record in the Premier League for conceding this way, only 15% of their total, while 24% of Liverpool's goals against have come in this fashion.
8. 샹클리 - 페이즐리 - 페이건 - 달글리쉬 v 사키 - 라파
Firstly, I also recall an interview with Sacchi discussing the Liverpool/Paisley influence. I agree with another poster that it was almost certainly in 442 magazine - probably about 1993-95, the only period I read the magazine. That leads on to the discussion on pages 2-3 about whether football is a 'simple' game or not. I think both basic viewpoints are correct, though I also think both azer and Pron take the viewpoints to overstated extremes.
Shankly and Paisley's "simple" game I think is true, but also illustrates the simplicity of genius doing what comes instinctively without perhaps the academic mindset or modern tactical vocabulary to express the ideas in the same way that Sacchi did. Paisley is commonly reported by those who played for him to have been a relatively poor communicator, often unable to put across his ideas briefly or succinctly, but more than capable of doing so, with the help of the bootroom, over the longer term in training.
The simplicity I think is more or less as follows, with each point being a natural and logical development:
1 - Score more goals than the opposition
2 - The opposition can't score if they don't have the ball
3 - Keep the ball (slow, slow)
4 - Keep the ball until a good opportunity to attack/score presents itself (quick, quick)
5 - If you lose the ball, stop the opposition scoring
6 - See 2: the best way of stopping them scoring is to get the ball back
This is undeniably simple (though of course incomplete) and undoubtedly borrowed ideas of controlling possession from continental football. Liverpool's dominance in Europe was the result of the marriage of continental possession football (slow) to English tempo (quick) in both defence (pressing) and attack. However I think it's reasonable to assume that Shankly and Paisley didn't theorise it to the extent that Sacchi did (or to the degree that this thread does). For them it was instinctive, experience, 'what worked', organic development - simple. How do you keep possession? Pass simply and move into space/position to receive a pass. How do you get the ball back? Work hard, deny space, block the simple passes.
Sacchi may well have studied Paisley's Liverpool; but I'm guessing he didn't ask Paisley for a detailed tactical exposition - even if he did, Paisley would not or could not provide it. I recall interviewers asking Paisley what the 'Liverpool secret' was. The answer was usually a shrug, a smile or a denial. Journalists speculated that it was 5 a sides, or diet, or some mythical book in the bootroom that covered every football scenario and the solution. Therefore while Shankly and Paisley developed a system over many years through simple genius, Sacchi had to analyse and theorise before being able to replicate and implement his own developments. Thus was born the complex theories of a 'simple' pass and move game. For modern managers, it is clearly easier to study Sacchi's teams and his well-publicised theories than to study the lower quantity of televised Shankly/Paisley Liverpool games and a few cryptic or embarassed utterances.
Shankly and Paisley's genius was that they developed the system instinctively and without the benefit of thousands of hours of video to draw on. Sacchi's genius was that he studied, analysed and came to more or less the same conclusions (possession, variation in tempo, intelligence of players) in rapid time, while being able to document and explain the system.
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=231088.msg5797217#msg5797217
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=231088.msg5799520#msg5799520
Firstly, I think the 'simple game' stuff was genuine. Paisley started from the premise (no doubt in turn from Shankly) that it was a simple game - the six points in my previous post, say, or something very similar. It's about scoring goals and not conceding goals. One of the most beautiful simplicities is that both objectives are met by the same basic principle: maintain possession of the ball.
The development of tactics and style was in response to constantly focusing back on the simple principles. Why did we lose that game? Why didn't we keep possession well enough? How can we get the ball back more quickly when we lose it? These questions lead to the keeping of journals and constant tweaking to get things right. But the primary objective remains the same - how to keep the game as simple as possible. How to maximise opportunity while minimising risk.
Crucially, how to keep the game simple on an individual player basis. Here I do (to some extent) agree with your point that "Maybe the real art of the coach is to take the complicated ... and make it seem simple?". How could Fagan say to Molby, "we've signed you because you're a good player, just go and show us what a good player you are, whatever you want to do"? I think the secret to this is that to Paisley and Fagan, it really was simple. Chats over tea and biscuits may be used to work out some points of detail, or clarify what they did 10 years ago in a similar situation.
But fundamentally I think they did believe it was a simple game, based on simple principles. I would speculate that this may be a result of class and education as much as anything. To an unassuming, working class and relatively academically uneducated man like Paisley, I think there's a tendency, when you're so very good at something that it comes naturally - literally, is simple - to think it must be simple for everyone else too. Yes it requires hard work, constant review and tweaking to get the details right, but within a simple framework, with simple objectives. Only over time would it occur that it couldn't be so easy, if other managers didn't get it; if journalists constantly ask what the 'secret' is. The reaction of someone like Paisley to that realisation would be a certain shyness; what if it really is terribly complicated, and I'm just lucky? He could be perfectly happy discussing points of detail in themselves, but would balk at the idea of presenting a grand theory, other than the occasional bland statement about 'a simple game'.
(Perhaps this doesn't apply to Shankly, who may have had a little more self awareness and maybe realised that he was actually a genius, simplifying and 'codifying' something rather complex).
Here I think comes the difference between Paisley/Fagan and Sacchi/Rafa. For the former, 'pass and move' was a framework which had evolved organically to keep things simple, to put players on the pitch without complex instructions for specific scenarios, so that at any stage (with the ball, without it and moving offensively, or without it and denying space or pressing an opponent) they could play instinctively; simply. For Paisley/Fagan then, each tactical lesson or development was with the original objectives in mind. It is simple, therefore keep it simple. If we overcomplicate, we've moved away from the objective. Anything that complicated matters for players - instructions that introduced the slightest hesitation when the ball arrived at their feet: "what am I supposed to do now?" - took the team away from the primary objective.
For Sacchi and Rafa, the process of analysis rather than acquired practice and knowledge must inevitably make the game more complex. The process of analysis 'from scratch' will overemphasise the instructional rather than the instinctive. The tendency - and this becomes important in assessing Rafa and how he might be developing as a manager - becomes to instruct players, to fill their heads with detail, to stifle freedom and to appear 'cautious'. The temptation will be to tell players why there should be 25 yards between defence and attack; rather than Fagan simply telling his defence to push up, over and over until it becomes second nature.
"This is how we do it" is a much simpler message than "this is how, this is why, this is when".
One of my early doubts about Rafa was when I read (I think from 2005) that he liked to "score goals with as few passes as possible". This bothered me because it reminded me of one of the old long-ball managers, who had studied the statistics and discovered that goals result from an average of two-point-something touches from the attacking side. Therefore, if his team got the ball forward with two or three touches, they were more likely to score. This is an horrendous misuse of statistics. Consider two attacks of ten passes; the first leads directly to a goal, while the second leads to a miscued clearance from which a striker scores. The average number of attacking touches from these two examples is 5; but both goals result from 10-pass moves.
Such errors can come from an overly-statistical approach to analysis; they don't result from understanding the inherently 'simple' ebb and flow of a game. I think royhendo said in this thread or the 'level 3' about watching a game at double speed; it's a great way of watching that I've used occasionally. I remember being impressed with Terry Venables precisely once in his career - when he said in an interview he watched videos of games taken from the end terrace because it gives a better picture of the flow, the shape and structure of a game.
For an analytical/theorist manager, the game is complex - after all, you've just spent years studying it. That must almost inevitably make your implementation of it difficult, complex and analytical. But that, I think, isn't because the topic - football - is inherently complex. It's because it's being approached from the wrong angle. It becomes the implementation of a system. It's measured against the idealised perfect system, as 'designed' by the analysis. If something isn't working, the analysis has to be revisited, the theory has to be refined. The objective is implementing the perfect system (or implementing the system perfectly).
For the organically evolved 'instinctive' manager - who may indeed document every detail over decades, to provide context and log what worked and what didn't - the objective is always the simple, basic principles. Keep the ball. Get it back quickly. How to keep the ball, how to get it back quickly are mere details, subject to change, not objectives or theoretical principles in themselves.
I think Rafa began as an analyst, but is learning the 'instinctive' approach*. The appointment of Sammy Lee may be a significant factor in this (both that Rafa felt the need to bring in that link to the bootroom, and what he then offers). I think, and hope, that Rafa is beginning to learn it's a simple game after all, now that he has the players able to understand the basic framework and to thrive in it. That gives the players less instruction, less restriction; more freedom and more confidence in their own innate ability. Beating Real Madrid and Man United was a simple matter, after all.
There is a fascinating old thread (http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=231088.320) on Liverpool Tactics and the Sacchi influence - largely, about the evolution of Rafa's Liverpool with reference to his major influence - but the almost circular influence, in that Paisley's Liverpool was a major influence on Sacchi himself. There's some good discussion on Paisley's interpretation of the 'simplicity' of the game; or how he made it simple for the players, at least (in the discussion, a possible contrast with the more systematic and instructional nature of Rafa).
Before the 2005 CL Final, the Independent did an interesting article on Liverpool, Rafa and Sacchi (Sacchi himself discussed the influence of Paisley's side in more depth in an article in 442 magazine, sometime in the early 90s, that I would love to find again):
Sacchi defines the modern game as "the harmonic movement of 11 players, who are always active, with or without the ball." That, he said, was "the real revolution in modern football and few have been able to pull it off". Among the few teams that did, he said, were the great Liverpool sides of the 1970s and 1980s.
Why mention this? Because trying to analyse Dalglish now and looking back at his earlier achievements, tactics and approach, I think the easiest way to summarise his managerial style and approach is to consider a very simple shorthand: in football terms, Dalglish is Son of Paisley. Even in the manner and content of what he says, there is an emphasis on simplicity, teamwork and trust. Tactically, both almost seem to understate what Liverpool actually do - pass and move; keep it simple; retain possession. Dalglish's best days as a player were under Paisley's management; in his autobiography, he was clearly hugely impressed and influenced by the boot room and the wisdom therein.
Is this pragmatism? Not quite, I think - it's sort of the flip side of the coin. Pragmatism is about coming up with a system to get the best out of the players you have. What Paisley did and I think Dalglish does, is to establish a framework that allows the players to do what they do best; but seamlessly and almost invisibly, this is within a very deliberate framework. It's about empowerment rather than pragmatism. It removes the responsibility for complex tactical considerations from the players. At any given moment in a game, a player needn't be thinking "what do I do now", but just act instinctively and does whatever comes to mind - but that 'whatever comes to mind' is actually a result of good practice and behaviour. Players do what comes naturally (and therefore instinctively, enjoyably and without hesitation), but 'what comes naturally' is infact exactly what the manager wants them to be doing within the tactical framework.
Of course, this needs the right players. Konchesky was perhaps shipped out quickly not because of a breakdown in the relationship with the fans, but a rigid mindset from previous managers at an age where he's not going to change. Cole seems to be unfavoured perhaps because his natural instinct is to over elaborate, to take too many touches and a lack of awareness of those around him. Similarly the trust in Kelly and Shelvey may be precisely because they are 'natural', confident and unhibited. If Dalglish were primarily a pragmatist, particularly in the situation he found himself, he'd be focusing on his known 'big names' and tweaking the system to suit. Cole would be in the side and the side adjusted to suit him; Johnson would be at his familiar position of right back; Skrtel would have been dropped to the bench several games ago. To a real pragmatist, Torres would have been told he was going nowhere until the summer. The empowering Dalglish who wants his players to trust each other and play their natural games needs players who want to be here and want to impress, not sulking prima donna's. Out goes the morose superstar, in come a couple of enthusiastic (and talented) younger players.
I think Dalglish is a bit of a tactical genius, on the quiet. Managers like him and Paisley, who win as much as they do, who slot new and different sorts of players seamlessly into basically the same framework time and again, must be. But the genius is in taking tactics out of the players minds; by application of the absolute basics: play football, as a team, do what you do naturally and enjoy it. The genius slots all of the pieces into the right place and it all just - works.
An illustration from neither Paisley or Dalglish, but the man who managed briefly between them, embodying the continuityof principles they both employed to great effect:
Fagan once said “Our methods are so easy, sometimes players don’t understand them at first.” Jan Molby was just one example of a new player who found the simplicity surprising. Used to the Ajax way of playing, he approached Fagan 40 minutes before his debut against Norwich. “What do you want me to do?” he asked. “Listen,” the manager replied, “we’ve signed you because you’re a good player, just go and show us what a good player you are, whatever you want to do.”
Rafa's teams were essentially about shape - as much about shape as Hodgson's were, but unlike Hodgson, not shape alone. But movement in a Rafa team was movement within (offensive) zones; yes, pass the ball and move to be available - but within your given zone, keeping overall shape.
In Dalglish's team, the idea is to move wherever takes your fancy. Is that shapeless? No, because - unless players move into the same areas and get in each other's way, the fluid movement of several outfield players simultaneously actually does keep the shape: it just doesn't matter so much who is where at any given moment.
http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=268889.msg8152857#msg8152857
TAG pass and move
