paul tomkins,colomniste émérite(sic) de l'offal parle de l'art de la défense.
interessant,mais là j'ai pas le temps de le lire.qqn peut le lire et nous dire de quoi il parle.
-------------------------
THE BEAUTIFUL ART OF DEFENDING
Paul Tomkins 22 February 2006
In amongst the blood, sweat and tears, and the collision of crunching tackles, beauty exists within the game of football. It may not always be evident throughout the course of a match, but it's there, bubbling beneath the surface.
In the case of the current Liverpool side, it may be in an inch-perfect Xabi Alonso pass, or Steven Gerrard's strike of a ball towards goal, or a moment of Luis Garcia trickery as he bamboozles a defender twice his size.
In art, as in nature, symmetry and synchronicity are seen as being possessed of beauty. It was with this in mind that something struck me as I re-watched the Manchester United match on video: namely that, of all things, an offside trap can be beautiful. (Duly moved, I almost felt like going out and renting an old Arsenal season review from George Graham's prime.)
There were a number of instances when the BBC paused the action on the replay to prove that Ruud van Nistelrooy - the master of bending the rules of offside - had strayed a yard or two, and that the flag was rightly raised. In that split second, with reality frozen for an artificial moment of stillness that cannot be registered by the naked eye, there was the Liverpool defence, in the straightest of lines.
Getting people to think and act in unison is not easy. It's why, when it's done to perfection, it wins gold medals in the Olympic pool, and is what makes the dancing in pop videos and musical productions something many marvel at. A group of people take a forward step on the same beat; the more I think about it, the more I'm sure Rafa's had the lads down the community centre, attending evening classes in line dancing.
Defending is an art, of course. It can be a lot of things: gritty, ugly, desperate, essential. But it is only beautiful in perfection.
Unlike the practised choreography of dancers, who follow set routines, footballers need to improvise in every situation. They need to anticipate when the pass will be made, and you can never be sure how, and when, it will be played; however much you prepare on the training ground, every situation in a match is unique, especially as opposition players will think in their own idiosyncratic ways that cannot be replicated in practice situations. Improvising in synch is when it becomes an art-form.
The understanding built up between this back-line is not to be underestimated. By my calculations (made before the Benfica game), in the 12 games when the first-choice defence of Riise, Carragher, Hyypia, Finnan and Reina have started the game, the Reds have kept 11 clean sheets, conceding just one goal (Rio Ferdinand's last-minute winner at Old Trafford). Liverpool won ten of the games, and drew the other.
That is a staggering statistic.
A few weeks ago people were questioning Liverpool's ability to beat the top teams. A win away at (then)-6th placed Wigan has been followed by impressive, untroubled victories over Arsenal and Manchester United. Not that the latter two have taken defeat particularly well.
Long ball?
Something that irks me is the criticism of Liverpool's playing style. Of course, such criticism is less cutting when the Reds have just won (a case of 'you can say what you like, we still have the victory'), but it seems that the mere presence of Peter Crouch has enabled other managers to overlook Liverpool's ability to pass the ball on the deck.
Maybe it takes the opposition to talk badly about you to prove you are on the right tracks; after all, anyone can say nice things about a team that offers no realistic threat.
First, Jose Mourinho said the cabbage patch at Stamford Bridge didn't effect Liverpool's game as the Reds play in the air anyway. Then Freddie Ljungberg made a series of baffling comments, including a suggestion that Arsenal had been dragged down to Liverpool's level in terms of rudimentary football. "We probably both deserved one point", Ljungberg said, after his team was so comprehensively outplayed the only Gunner to emerge with any credit was their goalkeeper, who kept the score respectable.
Then, the latest insult from Alex Ferguson: that Liverpool knock it long and 'only play for five minutes'. Of course, if that's the case, why didn't his side do better for the other 85 minutes? Perhaps - and this is just a suggestion - even attempt to force Pepe Reina to dirty his gloves?
Obviously I'm heavily biased, but I'm not blind to when Liverpool are playing bad, uncultured or ugly football; and this season, it has been a case of none of those things. In recent years there have been times when the Reds have been hard to watch, but that is not the case now.
This may not yet be the best, nor the most 'beautiful' Liverpool side ever, but it's one of the most varied in terms of its approach, and it involves a healthy dose of skill. This current side can play a number of different ways, often during the same game. It can break up and destroy, but with Kewell and Gerrard on the flanks and Alonso in the centre it can illuminate with creative inspiration. Up front, Peter Crouch gives the team a number of options.
You can do a lot with a long-ball game - such as create chances by getting the ball into the 'mixer' time and time again and hoping to prod home a loose ball - but one thing you cannot hope to do is have a decent share of the possession. And it is this that makes a lie of the recent accusations.
The long-ball game is anti-possession. It says 'we'll have the ball for .3 of a second before either creating a chance on goal or letting you have the ball back'.
Every ball knocked long to a striker makes it a 50-50 chance of retaining possession as he battles the centre-back - but that's just with accurate passes; how many extra passes go through to the goalkeeper or out for a goal kick? And if your striker does win the initial header, the chances of him finding a team-mate is also greatly diminished, in the fight for the 'second ball'.
No matter how tall or how good his control, Peter Crouch cannot win everything - and he would need to just that in order to give Liverpool decent possession statistics; if indeed all the Reds did was hit it long to him. The truth is that what Mourinho, Ljungberg and Ferguson have said is not backed up by the facts of what actually took place.
In each of the four recent 'big' games - against Manchester United (twice), Chelsea and Arsenal - Liverpool had the lion's share of the possession. On top of this, in each of these games the Reds had the most corners (against Arsenal it was to farcical proportions), and while corners don't mean anything on their own, they do reflect the balance of play.
Bob Paisley said 'it's not about the long ball, or the short ball, but the right ball', and this is what we see from this Liverpool side: a flexibility that means any player can look long if desired, but he also has all sorts of different potential passes. Liverpool are not predictable in possession.
The side can build slowly and centrally with cultured football from some of the best midfield passers in the world; a player can go wide and look to Gerrard and Kewell to raid down the flanks with the assistance of attacking full-backs Riise and Finnan; or, if necessary, he can go direct. And that's a big strength of this side: it is far from one-dimensional.
The ball can be played long to Peter Crouch's head, but also into his feet (unlike traditional target men, he's exceptionally good on the deck). Luis Garcia doesn't want the ball in the air the whole time, does he? Morientes and Crouch, despite their aerial prowess, are technical players who are extremely comfortable with the ball at their feet.
'Long balls' tend to come from centre-backs, who are not renowned for their passing; it is when they constantly bypass the midfield (although of course every defender can be forced to hit it long to clear his lines). A long-ball, in the negative sense, tends to be a hit-and-hope punt that gets the ball roughly into a danger zone.
Players like Xabi Alonso and Steven Gerrard are long passers. Many of their 40-yard passes are to the wings, spreading play and in so doing, stretching and turning defences. Arsenal could not cope with this type of pass last Tuesday. Liverpool utilise the long pass effectively. But that doesn't make the Reds a long-ball team, and such conclusions are lazy and incorrect.
It's like the great zonal marking myth, as touched upon in this column recently. Manchester United's man-to-man marking on Sunday left more totally unmarked players than Liverpool's zonal marking has all season. When Rio Ferdinand scored a last-minute header at Old Trafford, he was at least under pressure from a defender in his zone.
But at Anfield, Kewell (twice), Crouch and Finnan were all scandalously unmarked. And yet it's hard to find criticism of the man-marking system in the press.
Liverpool could easily have scored from all four opportunities, but of course due to another clean sheet it only required Peter Crouch's header to win the game. Until the Reds convert a greater percentage of the chances created the team will never be credited as exciting or attractive, but no one can legitimately say this Liverpool side is 'winning ugly'.
Home