egg

The main changes, revolutionary stuff to an extent, is sports science not tactics. Fitness levels these days are unreal. Players are like rugby backs from 20 years ago. Diet and nutrition on another level. I've heard of corners being taken in darkness to improve perception. It's amazing. Players are just better, bigger, etc. That's meant a bigger need to press, and better ability to press. For me, that's the main are of change but largely caused by and necessitated by the physicality of players.

That shows a lack of knowledge. Sure, 442 can be 2 out and out wingers. Those wingers could stay high, or get up and down. They could also stay wide, or tuck in. They could run inside as inside forwards. There's always been variations of a theme. In a 442 the two up top could both play long through the middle. One would pull wide. Or both. One could come short leaving the other long. Some would call that 2 up top, others 1 up with 1 behind. It doesn't matter what it's called. It's all variations of the same. Mixing up the above, a man dropping off the front to sit between the wide men/wingers forms a 3 behind. Double pivot. We played 424 under Nichol. Some called it 442. We had 2 men in the middle who sat deep. A double pivot if you like manual jargon. If one got forward more, guess what, it was still a 424 or 442. If the wingers cut inside more than staying wide, they were still wingers. Honest questions. How long have you been watching football? It's relevant as those that have watched longer can see that what we see now isn't radical Have you coached? It's relevant as you talk coaching manual, but I could recite a cookbook but In truth I'm a shit cook.

Thanks. A good listen. Interesting start re everyone working hard, with his emphasis then shifting to recruitment and money. I wasn't sure if he was annoyed by the work ethic and/or coaching, or whether it was a general point about people having to work hard. Either way, he's saying our academy isn't going to be what it once was.

You and TWar both talk of the terms used. The point others have made, I think, is that using a new term does not make something new. Ralph calls 2 of our players "10's". They're wide midfielders who tuck in, get between the lines, track back and support the front men where they can. He could just call them wide midfielders. What's in a term? I've been watching football for many years. Yep, there's been subtle evolution, but nothing significant. We'll never know, but I'd hazard a guess that the current Liverpool squad playing in the style that Liverpool played in their glory days of the 80's, would do just as well in the current era.

LD is correct. Tactics we see today aren't new. 4231 is essentially a 442 but with a man dropping off the front and the wingers staying a bit higher. 4222 is barely any different than the 424 we played under Nicholls. Calling it something different doesn't make it innovative. Sure, tactics and styles evolve, but for me that's largely been down to the fitness, size and speed of players making a different approach necessary. LD point re Cruyff is bang on. Read what Balague has to say about Koeman's issues at Barca. He's under pressure because he won't commit to the donkeys years old Cruyff 433, and style. Essentially, he's facing the sack partly because he wants to move away from tried and trusted. Pep is brilliant but let's not pretend he's a tactical guru. He was raised in the Cruyff style. He's fused that with some of the Bielsa way. Poch, Klopp, Bielsa, our man, all are doing variations of the theme. Pep has had more success than the others because he's had amazing players to use.

Try harder mate, you're downright rude. I'll respond no more to you on this, you're attitude and lack of self awareness makes it pointless.

Exactly. It's not complicated. Unless you're looking for an argument.

I was responding your comment "Hope you and Egg had a nice spoon last night. xx". Pathetic. You really have taken a simple point way too far. You're not convinced we'd have won with Ings in the team rather than Armstrong. That's fine, I don't give a shit what you think. Normal people can agree to differ. Not you though, you carry on, and on, calling me princess, suggesting I'd "spoon" with Turkish, and generally being a bit of a twat. The irony is that you say "But as you sow, so you shall reap.) xx" Read my posts back. Read your responses too. I've not once been personal, abused you or otherwise been out of line. Even now I'll resist calling you an utter fucking helmet.

The sad reality is that in almost every response to either of us he's been personal, unpleasant or abusive, even throwing a loosely homophobic line. I've posted nothing personal about him. Not one word. Bizarre behaviour.

All this from me having an opinion that Ings would have taken chances that Armstrong hasn't. It wasn't intended to be a discussion as to our overall transfer dealings, just a simple point that imo one player would have taken chances that another didn't. That's led to a pathetic and ott response from you getting all personal and abusive. Wind your neck in.

I think Lyanco was deemed the best at that price point, and the club have taken a punt in him. Like you, I haven't written him off, although getting hauled off with 20 mins to go away to a championship reserve team doesn't inspire confidence. I'd forgotten that about VVD though but it was clear from early doors that he was something special.

Take a breath mate, it's only a football discussion.

Yep, all fair points Del. Armstrong definitely has something. Good touch, pace, aggressive, decent movement. There's a player in there and he looks better than Adams did when he arrived so there's a lot of scope for improvement. In time I'm confident he'll come good, but it's goals this season we need. Our biggest issue for me is the 10's/wide players. If we can get the blend right there I reckon we'll surprise a few this season, but it's been a very promising start.

You clearly struggle with the concept of an OPINION mate.

You had a bad day mate?! Yes, I am being that simplistic - it's a very simple point that Ings would have (imo) taken chances that Armstrong hasn't. Responses have gone off at all sorts of tangents, and you've now gone back 5 years. It's no crime to agree with someone, which we've established you do after numerous responses.

Simple point - I think Ings is a loss for us, and that he would have put away chances that Armstrong hasn't, and that we'd have won a couple of games as a consequence. Various points in response.

Of course it's an opinion, 90% of the nonsense posted on here is opinion. I'm not putting the club down. I've said that Ings is better than Armstrong, which he is. If you disagree, you're in a tiny minority. You're being contrary for the sake of it.

I've made a very simple point that I feel we would have won a couple of games if we had Ings (as he's played this season) rather than Armstrong. We've had responses about signing full backs and now querying which version of Ings we'd be comparing to, and speculating that he may have got injured!! It's really simple. Ings is better than Armstrong. I think he'd have taken chances that Armstrong hasn't and we'd have won as a result. Some people will argue for the sake of arguing.

I'm not sure what Valery/Perraud / Livramento have to do with my point that Ings is a better player Than Armstrong.

To an extent, yes, but I've yet to meet anyone who believes Armstrong has done better for us than Ings would have done.

Most people, if they're being honest, would take a job that offers 20% + more pay, especially if it's probably their last job before retiring. In Ings case, that 20% is about £1m a year. He's been good for them, and he's a big loss for us. We'd have a couple of wins on the board if we had Ings rather than Armstrong.

Ditto. Just waiting to hear who we're transferring to and what tariff we get hit with.

Yep. Have for a long time. Not one benefit from it. Absolute pile of shite.

Not someone I'd fancy with a pen.

Straight to pens.