What Caused Liverpool’s Lack of Fluidity?

I’m sure every one of us, as Liverpool fans, voiced our qualms (perhaps more vehemently after full-time) about Brendan Rodgers naming a back four consisting entirely of centre-halves on Saturday. The Northern-Irishman said post-match that his pragmatic selection had been forced by injuries, but in my opinion, the reds’ manager remains largely accountable for the one-nil loss.

I’ll explain why.

Liverpool players' average positions against
Southampton: lack of width and gap between
midfield and attack are both noticeable.

First of all, it’s easy to lament the negative team selection after the game, so I’ll do my best to avoid that. Although, there is one point I’d like to get off of my chest: for a usually innovative and forward-thinking manager, playing two central defenders at full-back on either side of the pitch was uncharacteristic for Brendan Rodgers. We ended the match, chasing a goal, with Jordan Henderson at right-back. As I proposed in a previous post, with the absence through injury of Glen Johnson, why not start him there? Particularly in home games against weaker opposition: it’s the sort of inventive move I would expect from Brendan Rodgers.

But of course, that didn’t happen. Instead, the manager chose Kolo Toure and Mamadou Sakho on either side of Liverpool’s defence. Subsequently, the reds possessed less attacking threat and intent from wide areas than when the likes of Jose Enrique and Glen Johnson play. But this alone did not consign us to defeat. It was now important, due to our more conservative full-backs, we altered our lines of attack accordingly; focussing more on central areas rather than wide. But this didn’t happen; there was no evident modification of the game-plan.

Usually, Liverpool rely on the likes of Johnson and Enrique to provide attacking width from full-back, lessening the need to play with conventional wingers and allowing their attacking players to exploit spaces, centrally, in between the lines. The reds’ two deep-lying central midfielders, Lucas Leiva and Steven Gerrard, are then required to control proceedings from behind the play, and, vitally, cover the positions vacated by their marauding full-backs. On Saturday though, this was not the case, purely because of Rodgers’ conservative selections. Gerrard and Lucas were redundantly sitting deep; there were no gaps to fill because let’s face it, Sakho and Toure are not exactly raiding wing-backs. Personnel had changed but, conflictingly, Liverpool’s pattern of play remained the same.

Fundamentally, what I’m trying to say is Liverpool missed a trick against Southampton. Due to the reds’ unusually conservative full-backs, holding midfielders Gerrard and Lucas should have been afforded more attacking adventure by Brendan Rodgers to take advantage of their lack of defensive responsibilities. This would have compensated for Liverpool’s deficiency of offensive width from defenders Toure and Sakho.

Instead though, Rodgers set him team up in an unchanged shape; central midfielders Gerrard and Lucas were sitting deep to fill spaces which didn’t exist (and were never going to) with two relatively cautious centre-backs lining up on either side of Liverpool’s defence.

Had more freedom been afforded to Lucas, and perhaps more significantly, Gerrard, the reds could have switched the focus of their attacks to central areas, where they’d have had more numbers. A more attack-minded middle pair would also have decreased the special disparity between Liverpool’s midfield and the isolated attacking duo of Daniel Sturridge and Iago Aspas, which came about due to the absence of Philippe Coutinho.

An alteration in attacking style was necessary on Saturday to combat the enforced changes in team selection, but unfortunately it did not come.