Why did we barely keep the ball in the second half?

[bencher]

Forget the psychology of it; in the second half, we all knew, as did Parker and the team, that we needed to try to keep the ball and build some attacks, because (although we managed to) it was going to be a mammoth task to just defend the lead. What happened to the team shape of each team that meant we barely kept the ball, barely got into their half, and really had little threat on the counter attack?

I could understand it being fatigue in the last 20 minutes, but it was almost from the KO of the second half. Did attacking players stop getting into forward positions? I could see Liverpool pressing us higher and with more intensity, but why could we not play out and through the press? Poor passing?

[Gezza]

A lot of the time , from what I can remember, we were hoofing it long upfield but with no target man to hold up play. So just coming back at us. Their goalie spent a lot of the half near their half way line.

[Jules]

It was a fantastic result, but I get the point being made here. When we take the lead, we often just sit back and invite pressure. Sometimes this can go on for a lengthy spell. Yesterday it seemed like the whole second half. Don't get me wrong, we defended really well but the best form of defense is attack. Perhaps we should just enjoy the victory, but I do worry that we adopt this policy in many games and we may not always be able to hold out for the win.

[Andy S]

I do agree. Sometimes you get driven back but to sit back voluntarily can quite often be suicidal. The fact was though that Liverpool side was not good enough. But I wish them well in the Champions League this week

[Twig]

I feared this would happen when Maja was taken off. This is not a dig at RLC (although I thought he was pretty ineffective), I just felt we lacked someone to pass forward to, the ball just kept coming straight back. I also thought the mindset changed to "OK the boss has taken off our striker so let's sit deep and try to see this out". It worked but i was very nervous.

[Woolly Mammoth]

Yes I take your point bencher, a target man takes the pressure off the defence because he can be their outlet and he can hold the ball up and release it wide to the wings once he has the support or pass the way he is facing to give and go.

[Whitesideup]

Psychology of the game - one side was winning 1-0 but the other was losing?

[WindyCity]

Yes I can understand the question.  I thought the team played much better in this regard v Everton, seemed like they played a more 'complete' game, as they attacked throughout even with the lead.

But that's not to say FFC was poor in the second half v LFC.  I thought we did have a few counter attack chances.  But it was mostly a defensive stand, and they kept their shape and really gave the opponent few good scoring chances.  LFC had the one shot in which Areola made a terrific save and the one close in chance at the end of the game that Andersen cleared over the net.  Nothing wrong with sitting back and absorbing the onslaught, which I think FFC did very well.

[Jamie88]

It seems to be the way Parker wants us to play - go in front and defend that lead, no matter who we are playing. It makes for a frustrating watch at times but we have been fairly successful with it under him in the past.
My issue with it is, by all means you can play with caution and ensure you have numbers back, but playing with all 11 behind the ball and still not allowing even one player to close down an opposing player until they are on the edge of our box is just asking for trouble surely? It means not only do we not have an outlet when we eventually win the ball back, but we also effectively allow them to have a potential sight on goal at nearly every opportunity they venture forward because of no pressure on any of their players.

Anyways, it worked so who cares!

[filham]

A definite change in tactics by Parker to defend what we have, time and again we were seen to concentrate on just getting our players back behind the ball.

[perry geyton]

I thought it was bizarre when Mitro got the ball with 3 mins left and rather then hold onto it he shot it from about 30 yards
I know he's desperate to get off the mark but dear me

[bencher]

Some replies have commented on it being team orders etc. I don't think that's right. Parker lamented the fact that we ended spending the whole second half defending deep. I think the GK and centre backs should have been ordering the midfield higher up the pitch to help alleviate the pressure. We could then have won the ball back in the middle instead of the edge of our box and have no out ball. Subbing Maja was not the cause of playing deep, it was the effect, as Parker thought RLC would offer a threat on the break, to help push us out, but that didn't work either.

On the other hand, it's satisfying to see us defend so well. The best way to avoid it is to have a bigger goal cushion giving the other team less hope of getting back in the game. So in a way, you can blame the forwards for their profligacy.

[blingo]

I feared this would happen when Maja was taken off. This is not a dig at RLC (although I thought he was pretty ineffective), I just felt we lacked someone to pass forward to, the ball just kept coming straight back. I also thought the mindset changed to "OK the boss has taken off our striker so let's sit deep and try to see this out". It worked but i was very nervous.

A BIG +1 Twig. Plus when he came on RLC was mostly ball watching.

[H4usuallysitting]

To me it shows how comfortable we are in defending.... let's face it, our defence (including keeper) are up with the best in the league