giorno
boob novice
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2016
- Messages
- 28,824
- Supports
- Real Madrid
I agree liverpool should have gone for a cheap, decent option for depth, because having to play Klavan is criminal. But there weren't any realistic options out there(including VVD clearly) that would have made much of a difference for their defending.It's just the hyperbole that is weird. No, not all defenders are equally exposed in an attacking system. Klavan and lovren were rubbish for other teams. That's just their level. Nothing to do with klopp.
Just to randomly name-drop: garay was for sale and Valencia got murillo. Both would have been fairly affordable upgrades. There are at least 20 other players Liverpool could have signed. I have no interest to start a detailed discussions about the pro/cons of alternatives. They exist and klopps decision to sign vvd-or-nobody was plane stupid.
And no, not all defenders are crap when they're exposed, but even the best ones tend to look worse in those situations. And only the truly elite ones with the right skillset don't look subpar in those situations
Besides which, liverpool don't exactly give up a zillion chances a game(aside from set pieces), and if they were better at controlling games and attacking in the half pitch, that by itself would further improve their defending in open play. They kept two clean sheets so far in the league, same as chelsea. Set pieces are the far bigger problem for them, and that's up to klopp to fix.