On Andy Carroll and Charlie Adam

I've said it before. If a manager doesn't like a player, doesn't want a player, it's almost always better to cut bait immediately.

But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

There's little I can add to James Tyler's wonderful piece for ESPN FC on Andy Carroll.

The new Liverpool is one of Raheem Sterling and Joe Allen. Of Adam Morgan and Fabio Borini. If you loathe Rodgers for being so swift to dismiss the likes of Carroll, at least credit him with having an identifiable plan. Unlike with Dalglish, there appears to be a crystalline method to such madness, even if it does mean Carroll's depressing demise.

Aye, there's the rub. So be it.

As painful as it is to admit, still, Carroll was a misguided purchase to begin with. Rodgers clearly doesn't believe he fits with Liverpool's future – he did everything but drive Carroll to London himself, and he probably didn't do that only because Liverpool had a match yesterday. Liverpool want him off the wage bill, and Carroll wants and needs to play regularly. And Liverpool simply can't get a better offer at the moment.

Personally, I'd still prefer Liverpool kept Carroll.

We'll see who, if anyone, Liverpool purchase with the added money, but the club will save all of approximately £3.2m (40 weeks at £80k/week), plus a rumored £1m loan fee. That's not much added to the piggy bank, as Rodgers admittedly earlier today.

Even if Rodgers has determined he has no use for Carroll, it's depressing. Carroll's 23. Liverpool paid an enormous, club record amount to sign him. And Rodgers won't even give him the chance to prove himself? That's an indescribable condemnation of Carroll as a player and Liverpool's spending under Comolli and Dalglish. And I truly hope it doesn't bite Liverpool in the ass. Carroll has more than enough time left in his career to prove Liverpool wrong, and now that much more motivation to do so.

Maybe he'll thrive at West Ham, and return to Liverpool a conquering hero and better player, with a role to play next season. Admittedly, not bloody likely. But maybe he'll thrive at West Ham and Liverpool will actually be able to sell him for a reasonable fee. That's the hope, and a distinct possibility. Or maybe he'll fail, West Ham will be relegated, and it'll be that much harder to find someone to take him off Liverpool's hands. That's a frightening prospect, but not as frightening as the concern that Liverpool will actually miss his few-and-far-between goals. But we'll get to that.

Adam departs for similar reasons, on a smaller scale, and permanently, transferred to Stoke for an undisclosed fee, most likely somewhere around £4-5m. Another of last season's scapegoats – right or wrong, right and wrong – another who didn't fit with Rodgers' future. I'm less sorry to see him depart, mostly because Liverpool should have more than enough in midfield to cope thanks to the Allen and Şahin additions. I'm still sorry he got more criticism and less credit than he deserved, but mostly I'm just relieved I won't have to tortuously defend his flaws any more. Can't help but wish Charlie luck, no matter how much I detest Stoke, because he should fit very well in that squad. And will probably punish Liverpool when Liverpool face the Potters this season because that's what happens.

Adam (and Spearing) aside, I still can't help worrying about squad depth. Maybe there will be a late purchase to ease concerns, but eight players have departed – Carroll, Adam, Spearing, Bellamy, Kuyt, Maxi, and Aurelio (even if Aquilani barely merits mentioning) – and four have come in, one only on loan for a season: Allen, Assaidi, Borini, and Şahin. It seems Sterling has a large role to play this season, so maybe we should call it five. More specifically, Liverpool have gotten rid of four forwards – Carroll, Kuyt, Bellamy, and Maxi – who played 8593 minutes and made 149 appearances combined, and scored 29 of Liverpool's 79 goals last season. If you add Adam's stats to those four, they contributed 39% of Liverpool's goals last season (31 of 79) and 39% of Liverpool's assists (22 of 56).

Scoring goals have been an issue, the issue, since the beginning of last season. And now, Suarez, Borini, and Morgan are Liverpool's only central strikers. Eccleston does not count. Eccleston will never count. Adam Morgan made his senior debut yesterday. Liverpool signed 18-year-old prospect Samed Yesil yesterday as well, who's just a month younger than Morgan, but his first interview for the official site suggests that he's a ways away from first team action, making just one late substitute appearance for Leverkusen last season. He'll almost assuredly spend the season with the u-21s. It's no surprise that Liverpool are currently scrambling around like a last-minute Christmas Eve shopper trying to buy a forward. We'll find out if it comes to fruition within nine or so hours.

As much as I regret Carroll's loan, it's the manager's decision, and an identifiably new era. And the manager's clearly decided Carroll has no role to play in it. Carroll and Adam were two of Comolli and Dalglish's marquee signings. I doubt Liverpool are consciously ridding themselves of the last regime, but you can't help but wonder, especially with yesterday's mooted Henderson for Dempsey swap deal – a deal with makes less than zero sense and is hopefully massively incorrect. The new regime's regime's strategy is simply far, far different than the last one. Which is probably the point.

Do you trust Brendan Rodgers? FSG sure seems to.

Why Can't Everything Be Like Last April?

There has been lots of talk around the internet and in the comments of yesterday's match review about this side regressing from last season's run-in. And Dalglish (and Comolli) is obviously at fault and I'm an idiot for holding fire on the manager. Instead of replying under the fold, I figured I'd ramble here on the front page. The short version is that Liverpool weren't as good as you remember last season and aren't are bad as you think now. There. I saved you 1500 words.

But if you're still here...

A five-match stretch from April through early May is used as definitive proof of regression. 3-0 v City, 1-1 at Arsenal, 5-0 v Brum, 3-0 v Newcastle, and 5-2 at Fulham. All very good results. But those results also blind some to the memory of Liverpool losing 1-3 at West Ham, 1-2 at West Brom, 0-2 v Spurs, 0-1 at Aston Villa and insipidly going out of the Europa League, both before and after than five-match stretch.

Regardless, there was some very good football played over that stretch. Some very good football and even better results, which seemingly raised expectations for this season more than a little bit too high. There are also, unsurprisingly, some vast differences between the end of last season and Liverpool's current state.

Goals, goals, goals
Conversion of chances. Pretty much the alpha and omega of Liverpool's problems, as has been written since September. A handful of draws this season (and at least one of the losses) were just about as impressive as last season's large wins in everything but the goals. Liverpool pummeled Sunderland, United, Blackburn, and Stoke, among others, but drew, drew, drew, and lost. Aside from Maxi, who I mentioned in yesterday's review, it's the same players who were scoring at the end of last season who aren't scoring now: Kuyt, Suarez, even Carroll (against City). And not playing Maxi is not the reason Liverpool are tallying fewer than 10% of their chances. At the same time, Liverpool usually played 4-4-2/4-2-2-2 through that run-in, but 4-4-2/4-2-2-2 this season is the devil and should be killed with fire, whether it's Kuyt-Suarez or Carroll-Suarez up front.

As for chances created, the focus of last summer's spending. During that Brum-Newcastle-Fulham stretch, with 13 goals scored, Liverpool created 35 chances – 13 against Birmingham and Fulham, nine against Newcastle. Compare that to three of the eminently-frustrating results mentioned in the previous paragraph. Liverpool created 12 chances against Sunderland, 18 at Stoke, and 19 against Blackburn. And these aren't cherry-picked numbers. Chances created in other disappointing results: 12 at Wigan, 17 at Fulham, 15 against Swansea, 20 against Norwich, etc. All via FourFourTwo's StatsZone.

Two of Liverpool's summer signings, Adam and Downing, have created the most Liverpool chances by some distance. The reason each was purchased. The obvious logic is that more chances created leads to more goals created. This season's done much to kill that notion. Liverpool's attack at the end of last season was ruthless in front of goal. The same front players, on the whole, are the opposite of ruthless this season, and it's not because of fewer opportunities or where they're getting said opportunities.

And it's a problem that grows as the monkey on strikers' back grows. Each miss makes the player think longer and harder about the next. Confidence drains with every post hit and penalty spurned. At the same time, it's far easier to score after scoring. Hot and cold streaks happen in every sport, even when they're sustained over the course of a season. After all we've seen, I still believe one or two ruthless demolitions like we saw 11 months ago changes an awful lot. Much like a fortunate hat-trick against United pushed Kuyt on for the rest of the campaign or, further back, Crouch's first Liverpool goal after a long barren stretch led to him scoring seven in the same month. And Liverpool's current players have ruthless demolitions in them, whether for Liverpool in the past or at their previous clubs. As unfulfilling as it as to credit intangibles like confidence and luck, both go a long way in determining form. Single spark, prairie fire. Yes, still.

Short-term v long-term
Last season's attack during the run-in was consistent; Carroll played against City and Arsenal, but otherwise it was Suarez, Kuyt, Maxi, and Meireles in Liverpool's big wins. That consistent front four was also getting on in years. Kuyt, Suarez, Meireles, and Maxi's average age at the time was 28.5; Kuyt and Maxi were 30, Meireles 28. Keeping the latter and using Kuyt and Maxi more might have led to a few more points this season (although, given Kuyt and Maxi's form when they have played, that's in doubt), but it would also put Liverpool in a worse position long-term, even if Liverpool's most recent signings don't pan out. It's also probably churlish to mention that Meireles has had a stinker of a season for Chelsea.

The damage which Hicks and Gillett inflicted required a massive overhaul, no matter a five-match hot streak with Champions League qualification a lost cause. Liverpool made six summer signings not counting Doni, four of whom usually start if available. The average age of Adam, Bellamy, Coates, Downing, Enrique, and Henderson is 25, which drops to 23.6 without free-transfer Bellamy. Because of Hicks and Gillett (and because of Hodgson's signings), Liverpool had to get younger. And fast. With four to six changes to the first-team, growing pains were inevitable. At least now Liverpool have a foundation for the future. Downing and Adam may have disappointed more than they've impressed, Henderson remains more potential than potent, but those three players still put Liverpool in a better position for the future than Maxi and Meireles did. The squad is now deeper, younger, and more valuable.

Liverpool are in transition. We'd hoped the transition would go more smoothly. We arguably had a right to expect it. It hasn't. Nonetheless, again, aside from that five-match stretch, Liverpool weren't radically better during last season's run-in, simply more ruthless in front of goal. Performances this season, while massively inconsistent, remain better than under Hodgson and 'nearly' as good as during last season's run-in, even if results don't measure up. Because of goal-scoring. Because Suarez and Kuyt and even Carroll aren't scoring as they did at times last season. It's not Adam, Henderson, and Downing's fault those players, in position to score, aren't scoring more.

I love you, Lucas Leiva
Also, this. Goal-scoring may be the alpha and omega, but missing the Brazilian midfielder has been almost as much of an issue. Admittedly, Comolli and Dalglish deserve criticism for not replacing him; Spearing is a useful squad player, but nowhere near Lucas' level, and has played his best football for the club when partnered with Lucas. Spearing's not as effective holding in front of the back four, setting the tempo, starting the attacks, etc. In retrospect, no other absence could have hurt Liverpool's more: not Suarez, not Gerrard, not Agger. Maybe not even Reina.

Also, a lack of Lucas has assuredly hurt Charlie Adam. I maintain what I've said all season: Adam has his faults and his benefits, and the former frequently obscure the latter. Without Lucas, those faults are magnified. That partnership was increasingly potent as they formed an understanding, a near-archetypal blend of creator and destroyer. And without Lucas, Adam (or Gerrard, for that matter) necessarily has more defensive work to do. Which isn't his strong suit in the slightest. Still, it's hard to blame Adam's frequent inability to tackle for Liverpool's problems when conceding goals isn't Liverpool's problem. Liverpool miss Lucas as metronome much more than Lucas as wrecking ball. Which is the one facet that Adam, Gerrard, and Spearing can't replicate.

Liverpool could and should have planned better, but there's only so many fingers to stick in the dike's numerous holes. And Liverpool couldn't have predicted that Lucas would have missed 2/3rds of the season thanks to a freak injury.


There are other, less important excuses. Suarez's stupidly-incurred suspension(s). Gerrard's continued injury problems. Reina conceding a handful more goals because of arguable mistakes. And, yes, a handful of mistakes from the manager: tactical, selection, or substitution. Still, I'm content laying most of the blame with goal-scorers, transition, and a lack of Lucas. One facet at the foot of aforementioned players, two thanks to the cruel hand of fate.

The easiest recommendation is adding an out-and-out scorer, either replacing or in addition to Carroll. As much as I hate writing it, that purchase looks Liverpool's worst business by some distance, record fee or no record fee. I really want to like the player: young, multi-talented (even if he doesn't show it enough), and with a physicality that most defenders can't handle when he's on his game. But goals are the problem and Liverpool's most-expensive striker rarely looks like scoring. When he can even get in the side.

But then again, Andy Carroll is just 23. It could also mean, much to our chagrin, that Liverpool still needs more time to adjust to the past year's overhaul, made with an eye on the future despite short-term hopes for an immediate return to the Champions League.

I'm not exonerating Liverpool's player recruitment or certain team selections. Despite the above excuses, there's still a chance Downing, Adam, Henderson, and/or Carroll don't work out. It was a calculated gamble, one we still can't fully judge. Liverpool's pre-FSG state, Chelsea and City's oil money, United's insane commercial revenue, Financial Fair Play regulations, and no Champions League football means Liverpool have to gamble. But Liverpool also gambled when paying £10m for Alonso, taking West Ham-outcast Mascherano on an expensive loan, and breaking the club transfer record on an unproven-outside-of-Spain Torres. And gambled on Pennant, Gonzalez, Riera, etc solving the non-stop problem on the flanks. Sometimes gambles work and sometimes gambles don't.

All I meant by yesterday's review was that things aren't as bad as some make out and Liverpool's tactics against Arsenal worked well everywhere but in front of goal. We all mock Chelsea for failing to give Villas-Boas time and leeway to make necessary changes, then demand Dalglish return to what worked for a month almost a year ago. No one likes suffering through the short-term in the hopes it'll eventually pay off, but patience remains a virtue. Yes, even when the sky is falling. Which it isn't at the moment. Even if/when Liverpool miss Champions League qualification for next season, there's still a very good chance that patience pays off in the future.

Three Midfielders, Two Halves

It's been awhile since I trawled through the Guardian chalkboards for interesting items. I know, we all missed it.

I remain convinced that Liverpool changed tact in midfield during the interval. The key seemed to be Spearing, more willing to stay in his own half and shield the defense rather than pressing higher up the pitch and leaving gaps. But the passing chalkboards suggest that all three central midfielders played differently in the first and second halves.





Both Spearing and Adam sat deeper, more content to hold their positions. Henderson was also less involved going forward, attempting fewer crosses (none of which he completed through 90 minutes), more concentrated on the right flank with Kuyt much more a striker. Spearing attempted the same number of passes, Adam and Henderson both attempted fewer. Spearing and Henderson had an improved completion rate, while Adam sacrificed a slight drop in accuracy but provided two much-needed assists.

The passing heatmaps make these trends more noticeable.



Out-and-out attack is all well and good, and often needed for this Liverpool side to score again less-fancied opposition, but the base in midfield is crucial for starting these attacks while still securing the defense. When Spearing and Adam go forward, gaps appear if either, or anyone else, loses possession, especially with both Johnson and Enrique bombing forward, which they did yesterday and often do against less-fancied opposition. And this led to a couple of Wolves' first-half chances, which, thankfully, Wolves couldn't take. Comparatively, the home side had just one second-half chance, Ebanks-Blake's rocket from nowhere, despite needing goals and shifting to 4-4-2 after Liverpool's second.

Liverpool may have had more possession in the first half (55-45% at half-time, 53-47% at full-time), but that's as much down to Liverpool being able to sit and counter after finally getting on the score sheet. Counter-attacking which led to the second and third goals. And a focus on counter-attacking also allowed Spearing and Adam to focus more on defending. But, of course, Liverpool needed to score first for that change in tactic to be successful. Round and round in circles we go.

Admittedly, Spearing's second-half improvement can also be credited to simply playing. He's missed far too much time over the winter months, first due to an unfair suspension, then following an injury in the first leg of the Carling Cup semi. It wouldn't be surprising if he needed time to find his sea legs. Hopefully, now back to fitness, he'll continue this improvement, especially with Gerrard back in the side.

---
Finally, a bonus chalkboard. It has little to do with the point made above, but is just as crucial to Liverpool's style of play and results.



In the first half, Liverpool attempted 17 crosses, completing five. In the second half, Liverpool attempted six crosses, completing two, one the assist for the opener.

Kuyt was 3 for 8 on crosses, Henderson was 0 for 7, Adam was 2 for 3, Bellamy was 1 for 3, and Enrique was 1 for 2. 13 of the 23 total crosses came in the first 20 minutes – an average of one every 90 seconds or so – when Liverpool were clearly on top but, again, couldn't take advantage of dominance.

I've grumbled about Liverpool's crossing before, and had Liverpool kept up its first-half crossing pace, yesterday's match would have rivaled 3-1 at Newcastle and 0-3 at City for most crosses in a league match. Punting the ball toward Carroll is an obvious tactic, something the striker thrives on. But it's not the only thing he thrives on, and usually better for the team as a whole when used as an alternative – a Plan A only if there's a viable Plan B, not the lone source of attack. The second half, where Liverpool attempted fewer and one finally led to an assist, bears that out.

Charlie Adam Creates Chances

One of the summer's main talking points was "chances created," a fairly new statistic meant to replace assists. Assists take two to tango, reliant on the goal scorer actually scoring the goal. LiverpoolFC.tv clarifies the stat by renaming it "shot assists," a name I actually prefer, although I'll stick with Opta's nomenclature since I'm using FourFourTwo's StatsZone stats throughout this piece. The official site also has slightly different numbers than StatsZone, crediting Adam with two fewer shot assists than StatsZone credits chances created.

After the summer signings, Liverpool fans couldn't wait to pass around a chart showing Adam, Downing, and Henderson in the Top 10 for chances created in the league last year. Anfield Index featured multiple articles on the stat. Given how Liverpool struggled for goals last season, most notably under Hodgson, adding players who set up goal-scoring opportunities seemed crucial.

Well, Liverpool are creating more chances. They're simply not taking them. And Charlie Adam tops the list of those creating said chances.

After 11 games, Adam's created 26 chances, more than any other in the Liverpool squad. Suarez and Enrique on 20, Downing with 17, and Lucas with 10 are the only other players in double figures. Adam played 35 games last season; currently averaging 2.36 chances created per game, Adam's on pace for 83 chances created this season if he plays the same number of matches. Which is 19 more than his total for Blackpool last season. And with Downing, Suarez, Henderson and (sometimes) Gerrard involved, he's not taking every set play either.

Adam created eight against Swansea, five more than the next closest player (Downing) and the most in any Liverpool match this season. Four came from set plays and four came from open play. There were chips and crosses to Suarez, corners to Agger, and layoffs and throughballs to Downing. Probability more than suggests at least one should have led to an assist and Liverpool winner.

In total, Liverpool have created 137 chances through this season's 11 matches. The side created 121 in Hodgson's first 11 matches and 120 in Dalglish's first 11 matches as "caretaker manager." Liverpool scored 12 goals in Hodgson's first 11 games, 18 in Dalglish's first 11 games, and 14 through this season's 11 games. This season's chances created-per-goal ratio (9.79) is far closer to Hodgson's mark (10.08) than that from Dalglish's first 11 matches (6.67). Again, creation isn't the problem. Conversion is.

Admittedly, Adam has multiple faults. Fitness is usually the first mentioned: how he tends to tire after the hour mark, with skepticism exacerbated by his less-than-ideal physique. He tends towards the spectacular and over-ambitious when Liverpool might be better served by keeping it simple. He's also more than questionable defensively: in positions he takes up, in his frequently rash tackling, in his recovery speed. And, yes, he's seemingly better in a three-man midfield, which Liverpool rarely uses.

All players have faults; it's balancing the good against the bad. As long as the positives outweigh the negatives in the manager's mind.

We can argue whether Liverpool would be better in a different formation, with support from two other "orthodox" central midfielders rather than the 4-2-2-2/4-3-3 half measure that has Henderson often coming inside. Or whether Spearing's a better partner for Lucas in the formation Liverpool's using. Those are questions for management. However hesitant I am (and you should be) to criticize Dalglish's evolutionary team after less than a third of the campaign gone, they're valid debates.

But the main reason Liverpool bought Adam from Blackpool was to create chances. And Charlie Adam creates chances.

Midfield Partnerships vs Pairings

A quick note. Instead of the usual Guardian Chalkboards, there are links to the FourFourTwo StatsZone diagrams. Similar utilities, but StatsZone has a couple of features I like better, primarily the way they classify tackles, show passes in the final third, and its ease of use. If you have an iPhone, iPad, etc., I highly recommend it.

Against Sunderland, Lucas and Adam were a pairing. Two players playing in central midfield. Against Arsenal, they were a partnership.

Lucas is the more defensive of the two, but against Arsenal, the Brazilian was able to join the attack more than usual. Adam, the more play-making, sat notably deeper and was far better in the tackle.

Compare where each made tackles against Sunderland and Arsenal: Lucas and Adam. The combination contributed more than half of Liverpool's total successful tackles (13 of 24) on Saturday.

The better understanding allowed Lucas more influence. Adam didn't attempt to dominate proceedings and his partner benefited. Both alternated going forward to better effect – for example, Adam in the run-up to the Henderson chance in the 23rd minute or Lucas's role in Suarez's clinching goal. When one went forward, the other knew to sit, and it wasn't just Adam going forward willy nilly.




After the match, I posted a link to each's passes in the attacking third on Twitter, somewhat surprised that Lucas completed more than his partner. Again, both Lucas and Adam's output was dramatically better than against Sunderland – Lucas, Adam – despite the fact the latter was at home against a bottom-half side and the former was at a ground where Liverpool had never won. Lucas attempted and completed far more, Adam's came further forward and were more dangerous. The Scot only had two unsuccessful passes into the opposition's penalty area a week ago. On Saturday, Adam had three successful and four unsuccessful entering Arsenal's box.

Both Adam's and Lucas' passing wheels (see previous passing wheels for Lucas, Gerrard, and Henderson.) were unsurprising on the whole, typical of each's style.

The Guardian Chalkboards (there's that crutch) for each can be found here. As usual, only open play passes are included in the wheel, so two free kicks from Lucas and three free kicks, two corners, and one throw-in from Adam aren't included.





Each played his own game – Adam's passes were usually more ambitious, even sideways and backwards; Lucas had a higher completion percentage (86.0% to 82.3%) and looked for shorting, knitting passes. But countering some of the presumed beliefs, Lucas played fewer backward and had more going directly forward. In fact, the Brazilian's only unsuccessful passes came in the first quadrant.

You'd expect the two to better harmonize in their second game together. It takes time to make a central midfield partnership work; even Alonso and Mascherano took half a season to fully integrate. But Lucas and Adam's progression from a draw with Sunderland to a win at Arsenal was impressive, and bodes very well for the future, regardless of the opposition's current crises.

On Charlie Adam

The never-ending story finally has its conclusion. Our long international nightmare is over, and Charlie Adam will sign for Liverpool after completing his 17th medical (rough estimate). Danny Wilson and Jonjo Shelvey continue to be mentioned as possible makeweights on loan, but that hasn't been confirmed.

Adam and Blackpool were a football purist's dream last season: eminently watchable and frequently magical. That the club was relegated on the last day is further proof that life is not fair (also, that defending is kind of important). Yet I'm still warier of Liverpool spending £8-10m on Adam than £16m on Henderson.

Adding both Adam and Henderson to a side with Gerrard, Meireles, Lucas, Shelvey, and Spearing (and, technically, Aquilani and Poulsen) seems overkill. That Liverpool's are shallower than a Pygmy kiddie pool is no great secret, and added depth is necessary all over the pitch. But I still wonder how Adam fits, even with Liverpool likely to divest at least two central midfielders (Poulsen sold, Shelvey loaned, Aquilani still doesn't count). It's not as if the CMs on their way out played key roles; combined, Shelvey and Poulsen saw 1082 minutes of Premiership action. And we're not even conceding the remote, inconceivable, illogical possibility that Meireles might be sold.

The bigger fear, however, is that Adam will prove another single season flash in a the pan, a big fish when the pond isn't much bigger than a puddle. Adam thrived at Blackpool because Blackpool built its attack around his strengths while trying to minimize his faults. Vaughan and Southern/Grandin/Phillips carried countless gallons of water while Adam sprayed nanometer-perfect passes from his sedan chair in the center circle. Adam monopolized every free kick, penalty, and corner, which seems slightly less likely with High Priest Steven Gerrard involved. 10 of Adam's 12 goals (seven penalties, two free kicks, one corner) and five of his nine assists (four corners, one free kick) came from set plays. Adam didn't defend, but he didn't have to; Blackpool doesn't defend either.

Those set pieces sure were magical though. Like when he scored directly from a corner. Or when he embarrassed van der Sar with this swirling free kick. Or this free kick, a sumptuously floated assist. Or either of these corners.

Adam's also got a cross in him when popping up out wide. And he's not too bad on the break either: cleverly scoring and assisting on the counter this year. Noel dutifully analyzed Adam's weaknesses a couple of weeks ago, while Tangerine Dreaming wrote an outstanding firsthand dissection, but it's easy to see from the above highlights how those qualities could mesh with Liverpool's current capabilities.

I've been playing with potential formations since the previous season ended. One of the hazards of having not football to watch, I guess. And I'm still not sure what "base" formation Liverpool will prefer come August, although I have a suspicion.



I've included the oft-discussed potential signing of Stewart Downing in these diagrams, albeit in parentheses. Initially, Wickham was also mentioned; that's how long ago this post was drafted in anticipation of Adam's signing. Wickham's moot now, although Liverpool still seem likely to sign a young-ish striker if Ngog is finally sold. But the sale of Downing feels like a matter of time, no matter news of Villa recently rejecting Liverpool's latest bid.

That the first finished summer business was signing two central midfielders leads to an assumption that 4-3-3 is most likely deployment, with six midfielders for three spots and a front line containing some combination of Carroll, Suarez, Kuyt, and one or two new signings. The formation easily becomes 4-2-3-1 if Meireles, Adam, or Gerrard pushes forward, with the two other midfielders holding. But given Dalglish's preference for 4-2-2-2 last campaign (which Joel Radaj analyzed brilliantly for Liverpool Offside), that formation is also possibility.

In a 4-2-2-2 with these players, the lineup would be more malleable. Any central midfield pairing seems possible: Gerrard and Lucas, Lucas and Adam, Gerrard and Henderson, etc. Adam and Gerrard seems a frighteningly defense-free duo, while I worry that any midfield without Lucas or Spearing would be prone to attacks through the center, but that doesn't seem to concern the club considering its supposed transfer targets. In this formation, both Meireles, Henderson, and Kuyt could play as attacking midfielders (along with any new signings and/or Maxi) instead of in central midfield or up front respectively.

Liverpool needs more left-footers. Liverpool could certainly use a left foot capable of Adam's passes, Adam certainly is fun to watch, and £8-10m certainly isn't the end of the world. I should wait until the summer's business is finished before passing judgment, but there appear to be at least two or three bigger holes in the squad than another central midfielder. As a former manager might have put it, I'm most afraid it's another lamp at the expense of a coffee table.