So much to talk about in Liverpool vs Chelsea having watched the game back and so Paul Cope and Sean Rogers get stuck into:
– The approach and selection of both sides
– The lack of changes from Klopp in the second half
– The way Liverpool’s shape disintegrated during the last twenty minutes.
It’s a thorough show covering everything we can. Hosted by Neil Atkinson and is available to hear by clicking here to subscribe to The Anfield Wrap.
This was very good. Spoilt for choice after this last match.
Thanks as ever for the show.
If it wasn’t for lots of like-minded comments on recent podcasts/articles, I’d think it was just me. I don’t understand the extent of the disappointment being expressed by the majority of the TAW guys following this week. Usually, I pretty much see things as you do so I’m wondering if this is a match that looked totally different in the ground as opposed to watching in the pub (as I did).
If I didn’t know the score and just listened to this podcast, I would assume that we lost the game 2/3 – nil. I hear how fantastic Chelsea played, what great players they have, how Liverpool didn’t seem to have a plan to stop them, how our tactics didn’t work, how a number of our players didn’t perform, how Klopp’s substitutions or lack of them didn’t make sense.
It finished 1-1. They fluke an equaliser. I know goals don’t give you the whole story of a game but I didn’t feel watching it over a pint that Liverpool were under the cosh, that it was coming . I checked the stats to see if they backed up my feeling or not – we had more possession, more shots overall, more shots on target, more passes with a higher passing accuracy, more expected goals. None of these by that much mind you. I’m not trying to say we deserved to beat them, only that we didn’t deserve to lose and that that hasn’t come over in any of the shows I’ve listened to this week.
Klopp isn’t above criticism but if Chelsea really are that good (I think they are) then shouldn’t you be pointing out what we did well to at least have matched them?
Fully agree. Also, I don’t buy the “settling for a draw is a sign of mediocrity” response from some commenters. During our heyday we drew plenty of matches – and often unconvincingly, for a variety of reasons. You start every match planning for and seeking victory. Accepting draws in retrospect is fine, setting out to achieve them in advance is the problem. I’m pretty certain in this case most Chelsea fans would be more than happy with their point. I think we are just suffering from a general thin skin and brittle confidence as a supporter base caused by 27 years of dashed hopes, frustrations and an almanac’s worth of “what might have beens”. We have an amazing manager, a fantastic set of players, an an ownership that isn’t despotic or dysfunctional. Discussions about the timings of substitutions is fine – but let’s keep it in context!
I think there was value in talking about Chelsea and how good they were as a challenge to the notion that 1-1 is a terrible result for the Reds. I agree though it would have been a better pod if that was balanced by a bigger discussion on what we did well to stop them winning. It is fascinating how resistant most of us are to the idea that Klopp might have got the selection and tactics spot on – judging by comments on twitter Chelsea fans were equally unhappy with Conte’s management of the game.
Would you leave it out with the ‘mothers meeting’ misogynistic crap
This felt like a better evaluation of the game – thanks!
Agree completely with the Red Priest. We played well for 70 minutes. We reacted too slowly as Chelsea overloaded our left flank. At the match , I thought that we needed to clear into touch and someone go down to give us 90 seconds to organise into a back 5. Call it game management.
All said, Chelsea were the best away team at Anfield in 2 seasons.
How good the draw was will be defined by the next 2 games.