16 Sep 2017 21:11:21
So we could have won all 5 games? The main reason why we haven't is the defence.
How can they have looked at all these players and not seen a single better defender out there?
I know he can't publicly attack the team/ squad, but he either actually believes it or the club did not work hard enough to solve the problem.
We supposedly need defenders comfortable playing a high line, have pace and are comfortable on the ball.
I don't think Lovren, Klavan or Matip have all the qualities we supposedly need and on top of that there are positional and concentration issues?
Forget trying to find the supposed ultimate defender and actually just upgrade what we have.
The only issue will be offering enough money to get the deal done and/ or keeping quiet about it until it is done.
How many of our defenders would get into any of the top 6? Top 10? Any other Premier League team?
Come on now, that's 4-5 transfer windows and we have spent relative peanuts on the defence and you can't really argue that it has improved.
Personnel wise, the RB slot is better as Johnson has been upgraded.
You could argue that the CB slots are weaker, especially with letting Sakho go.
I understand there were issues, but what did he do that was so bad?
Was it any worse than saying he would never play for the club again? That his relationship with the manager had deteriorated? That he handed in a transfer request?
I really hope it's not a case of cutting the nose off to spite the face.

I don't want Klopp to go, I just wish the defence was such a talking point after every damn point dropped :- (.

1.) 16 Sep 2017
16 Sep 2017 22:53:53
Rubbish. If conceding goals is the fault of the defence then not scoring is the fault of the attackers. We didon't score vs City so we couldn't av won that game even if they had kept clean sheet. We had 35 shots against Burnley and scored 1 goal, is that also the defences fault?
Give criticism when it's due, but make it constructive and based sound rationale.

2.) 16 Sep 2017
16 Sep 2017 23:15:15
It's the defences fault that we conceded early to a soft goal. That put us on the back foot. 35 shots doesn't tell the full story, the vast majority of them were speculative shots not clear cut opportunities. We certainly didn't over work their keeper. Because all they had to do was sit back and soak up the pressure.

3.) 16 Sep 2017
16 Sep 2017 23:20:33
I was talking about the defence in general, but if you want to discuss the number of attempts we had, to the number of goals we scored today, that is fine.
How about the fact that they actually defended like a defence should do. No brain farts, lapses in concentration, schoolboy error, bad positioning.
We are conceding on a very high ratio of opposition attacks, so that points to exactly how bad our defence is.
I would love the attack to outscore the number of goals we concede, but would rather they didn't have to nearly every damn game, as there are games where they will struggle to score 1, let alone the 3 we seem to need at the moment.
We concede sloppy chances when the opposition haven't had to work that hard to get the opening and then concede off of nearly all of these sloppy chances.

As for the bit about could have won these 5 games, this was what was quoted in the press after the game today.
My response was that it was not the case, especially when we have these defensive deficiencies at the moment.

4.) 16 Sep 2017
16 Sep 2017 23:44:50
I'd be happy if our side when we don't have the ball didn't look like a group of headless chickens. We're just so disorganized it's ridiculous. I realize this is at least somewhat by design, but it just seems like a terrible way to do things to me.

5.) 17 Sep 2017
17 Sep 2017 00:17:29
Well we could set up like Burnley. . I'm sure our goal to chance ratio conceding would improve. You will quite happily absolve the attack for a poor goal to chance ratio whilst criticise the defence for a poor goal to chance ratio. It is inconsistent at best and floored at worst. Notwithstanding the fact that teams that park the bus can sometimes have this skewed statistic. That's the whole point of parking the bus! If it wasn't successful then teams wouldn't do it. I just think it's a poor example of trying to make your point.

6.) 17 Sep 2017
17 Sep 2017 01:40:40
If Lovren or Klven had been playing for Burnley today, they'd have looked world beaters,

Because of the protection the back four were given by 4-5 players infront of them.

Of course our conceded goal was down to individual errors but sometimes you have to question the system of play.

7.) 17 Sep 2017
17 Sep 2017 07:27:03
Of course it isn't.
Stop trying to defend a defence that is so crap and should have been sorted out a long time ago.
The attack will have off-days.
They will also come up against good defences (even ones that don't park the bus) .
Yet every defence the attack plays against is better than ours - there can't be any denying this.
The problem with the game yesterday is that once the defence gave up it's customary goal, the attack then has to score at least twice, when under normal circumstances, only one would have done.
This creates that little bit more anxiety, urgency and maybe panic.
Shots are affected, through-balls and passed are affected.
Yes, on another day we still could have won the game had the attack taken just one more of those opportunities, but the actual situation is that they only needed to because of our own defence!
Also, we were actually lucky to not have lost with those other sloppy chances given the opposition in the closing minutes.

8.) 18 Sep 2017
18 Sep 2017 01:06:28
True, but Burnley protected their back 4, that's why we found it hard to break them down,

If we score first it makes it easier for us as the other team has to push up looking for an equaliser, leaving space behind.

Its why Utd are ages getting the first but then bang in late goals as the other team must go for it.