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.

Henderson v Kuyt: Four Games on the Right Flank

Below is a comparison of individual statistics from Henderson and Kuyt's last four league games when played on the right of a 4-2-2-2. Formation notation is subjective, especially with this season's group of players, but these are how I saw each formation at the start of matches. For Henderson, that's wins over Wolves and Bolton, the draw against Sunderland, and loss at Stoke. For Kuyt, it's last season's win over City, draw at Arsenal, and losses to Spurs and West Brom.

No opinion, no commentary, just numbers. As always, remember the oft-cited 'your lying eyes' argument. Stats without context is driving without directions – you might get there in the end, but it's more down to luck than knowledge. Regardless, there are some interesting, and surprising, things to see.

All statistics from Opta via the FourFourTwo Stats Zone app. Too many chalkboards to post, so you're just getting the numbers. Check the app, or the comparable Guardian chalkboards, for the "pretty" pictures. If you have an iPhone or iPod Touch, I highly recommend the FourFourTwo app.



The customary caveats/notes:

• Main caveat: this focuses solely on the statistics because I don't want it to turn into a critique – or endorsement for that matter – of either. Six games into the new season with a rebuilt squad seems too soon to start second-guessing a manager with Dalglish's CV. Hodgson was different because the regression was obvious and constant. I think Henderson's done decently in his matches aside from Saturday's, especially considering circumstances. The condemnation he's received from some quarters has been mean-spirited and inexcusable, and if anything similar appears in the comments, it'll be deleted. Everyone would do well to remember he's a 21-year-old in his first season at Liverpool, adapting to a new role. And I don't need a disclaimer about my never-ending, probably illegal love for Dirk Kuyt.

• Henderson was subbed off in all four of the above matches, playing a total of 274 out of 360 minutes. Kuyt was subbed off once, in the 87th against West Brom – giving him 83 more minutes of playing time in the four games considered. All of Liverpool goals scored and all but one of those conceded (Bolton's consolation) in Henderson's games came with him on the pitch, though.

• The right-backs Henderson played with were Kelly, Skrtel, Kelly/Skrtel, and Flanagan. The right-backs Kuyt played with were Flanagan, Flanagan, Flanagan, and Carragher.

• The teams considered for Kuyt's four games finished 5th, 4th, 3rd, and 11th in 2010-11. The teams considered for Henderson's four games finished 17th, 13th, 14th, and 10th in 2010-11 (no point in using this season's table yet).

• Liverpool kept clean sheets in none of Henderson's four games and just one of Kuyt's four. Liverpool conceded four in Henderson's set of matches, five in Kuyt's set. Liverpool scored six in Henderson's set of matches, five in Kuyt's set.

• Finally, I promised no commentary, but can't help mentioning the passing completion, take-ons, tackles, interceptions, and fouls committed stats stick out like beacon bright-red sore thumbs.

Update:
• Should have done this in the original post; seeing certain numbers misconstrued around the internet, so I feel the need to add. There is an egregious discrepancy in some of the stats no matter the number of minutes played: specifically take-ons and basically all the defensive statistics. But due to Henderson playing 83 fewer minutes, there is basically no difference in the number of passes (passes attempted, successful passes, attacking third passes, passes received) when controlling for minutes played.

Averaging the above four games, Henderson attempted 44 passes per 90 minutes, with 34 successful. Kuyt attempted 47 passes per 90 minutes, with 32 successful. Henderson received 44 passes per 90 minutes, Kuyt received 46 passes per 90 minutes. Henderson attempted 20 attacking third passes per 90 minutes, Kuyt attempted 24 attacking third passes per 90 minutes, and both completed 14 attacking third passes per 90 minutes. By the numbers, Henderson is not less involved in the passing game; the completion percentage is the only significant difference in each's passing statistics. Granted, that doesn't account for the usual 'chalkboards don't tell us what kind of passes they were' argument, but that argument's not going away. Don't throw the baby out with bath water, but you have to actually watch the games for that information. Sorry.

That is why I mentioned the number of minutes played above in the 'caveats' section, but by now, I should be well aware of the need to fully explicate. My apologies.

Passing Wheel – Jordan Henderson

As actual news is sparse with the silly season in full flow (yes, I know it's barely mid-June), I thought I'd bring back the quasi-informative passing wheel (previously highlighted: Lucas and Gerrard) to take a look at three of Jordan Henderson's best games from the previous season.

The links will take you to the actual Guardian chalkboard for each game.

1) 3-0 at Chelsea (4-4-2 CM)



A fairly stereotypical, balanced central midfield performance. Not overly adventurous, with more passes in the 2nd quadrant, but diligent, with the majority of his passing moving play forward and a 78% completion percentage. His riskier passes – not necessarily a good idea at Stamford Bridge, even if your side is somehow running riot – were usually unsuccessful, but most attempts were the short "ticking over" passes so frequently derided. And those passes played a key part in handing Chelsea its worst home defeat since 2002, Sunderland's first win over the Blues in a decade.

2) 1-0 v West Ham (4-4-2 RM)¹



And a fairly stereotypical right-midfield performance. That 80% of his passes were to his left is little surprise: on the flank, Henderson passed infield to the central midfielders, looked for long-range diagonals, and crossed in the final third. There are far more backward passes, in the 3rd and 4th quadrants, mainly to bring the right-back into play or reset with the central defenders. His completion percentage is lower than usual at 68% (season average: 78%), but he also attempted more difficult passes than in the other two examples.

Incidentally, this game featured Henderson's first goal of the season, cutting inside to run into the box, smartly slamming home a centered ball from the flank. He didn't do that nearly enough – as he admits – scoring just twice more in 2010-11, both coming against Wigan in April.

3) 4-2 v Wigan (4-4-2 RM)²



This is the one that interests me the most. Here's his two goals: the first after a sustained build-up, the second on the break, both from the middle of the penalty area after coming infield from the flank.

Ostensibly still a 4-4-2, in midfield with Cattermole, Colback and Sessegnon, nearly all of Henderson's passes came in the opposition half. The performance, while "less involved" than ideal (attempting just 28 passes in open play), seems almost prototypical for an attacking midfielder in Dalglish's 4-2-2-2 system. It bears more than a slight resemblance to what Liverpool's Portuguese midfielder did a week later on the right against Newcastle.



1 Not included are seven corners (three successful, four unsuccessful) and two throw-ins counted on the Guardian chalkboard.
2 Not included are seven corners (two successful, five unsuccessful) and one throw-in counted on the Guardian chalkboard.

On Jordan Henderson

Update (7:00am 06.10.11): Should have done this yesterday night. Henderson deal's completed for a rumored £16m, probably with a few million in add-on incentives as well. Ngog has permission to speak with Sunderland, but the fee on his potential deal remains undisclosed. Depending on the sum agreed, the overall outlay on Henderson could be cheaper than initially expected.
---

Who knew the Internet would be so polarized because Liverpool's actually able to spend money? Oh, right, it's the Internet.

The discord seems to be because the Henderson deal aligns with the post-Carroll 'Liverpool are spending like a drunken xenophobic sailor' narrative. Which is as unfair to Henderson as it was to Carroll. Both are fantastic prospects, already excellent players with their entire careers ahead of them, who fans should be thrilled to have in red. A year ago, Liverpool were checking under couch cushions for the privilege of spending £8m in transfer fees on Joe Cole, Paul Konchesky, and Christian Poulsen.

Obviously, everyone would be happier if Henderson were cheaper, but it's not as egregious as many are making out. The rumored inclusion of Ngog – somewhat sad but smart business – lessens the blow, but a £20m valuation on a 20-year-old midfielder with two seasons under his belt is slightly staggering on first glance. However, recent regulations – the Premier League's homegrown law and UEFA's financial fair play rules – make the player both more valuable and costlier. There's the ubiquitous, constantly increasing British premium, the fact he'd be on comparatively low wages, and that his nationality and age will keep his resale value high unless he flops harder than Yokozuna off the high dive. If it's the biggest business or, God forbid, only business Liverpool does, we have a problem. But I highly doubt that'll be the case.

Liverpool evidently want the best and brightest of England's next generation. Whether or not it's a smart policy is debatable. But, unlike last summer, it's not dross for the sake of passport numbers, but two or possibly more of the most sought-after talents on these shores. Not players in their prime or past it, but clay that Dalglish gets to mold in whatever manner he sees fit.

I didn't catch a ton of Sunderland last season, but Henderson's crosses were his most memorable attribute – the video Liverpool Offside posted yesterday features a fair few sparking examples. Goes without saying that Liverpool needs more of that.

Just as important is Henderson's versatility. He's played both centrally and on the right for Sunderland. He's a flexible, pass-and-move player able to cover a couple different positions. Which seems to be Dalglish's modus operandi. At the same time, that adaptability gives us few clues as to Liverpool's future formation.

In theory, Henderson seems best suited for 4-2-2-2 or 4-3-3: on the right a la Meireles in the former, as the right-sided central midfielder in the latter. But that's with no guarantees he'll go straight into the first team or that Liverpool's summer business is anywhere near finished. I've also never seen him play in the attacking line of a 4-2-3-1 because Sunderland never plays that formation, so that's not entirely out of the question either. He's 20. I doubt he knows his best position. Liverpool are building a squad, not for a certain formation. We saw 4-2-2-2, 4-2-3-1, 4-4-2, 4-3-3, and 3-4-2-1 during Dalglish's five months.

At the same time, Henderson, Meireles, and Shelvey (and Aquilani, but don't expect to see him back) have more than few similar qualities. Yes, all three have different strengths – Meireles is a better scorer and, more obviously, in the prime of his career; Shelvey has a better range of passing; Henderson is quicker, taller, stronger, and seemingly has the highest ceiling – but all three are "box-to-box" midfielders: neither strictly defensive nor especially attacking. All three played both central and right midfield for their respective clubs last season. I'm incredibly interested to see how they all fit into next year's team, especially if (as rumored) Liverpool are still in pursuit of Charlie Adam. That deal makes even less sense following this one, but Dalglish and Comolli must have a master plan.

Liverpool were also rumored to be in the market for a defensive midfielder: a replacement for Poulsen, competition for Lucas. Blaise Matuidi, at Comolli's old club, has been most frequently mooted. My initial thought was this might mean Spearing is seen as Lucas' back-up. Or, God forbid, Poulsen might actually get a second chance. This summer has many more twists and turns left in it.

As for the departing young Frenchman, it's supposedly a £5.5m gain on a player who perpetually divided fans. He was one of the few positives under Hodgson, but clearly regressed under the new manager. Ngog only started two games after Dalglish took the reins: both legs against Sparta Prague. He played just 146 minutes in eight appearances over the last 18 league matches. Seemingly without a future at Anfield, including Ngog in the deal is good business for both the player and the club.

Welcome, Jordan. Good luck, David. Be excited, Liverpool fans.