I don't think people understand the vital difference between a well-rehearsed (and physical) team vs a collection of individuals with no real understanding - new players, makeshift centre-backs, other players out of position. Make do an mend when missing a ton of quality = v.hard

Add fatigue,with less option to rotate, and big effort in 3 away games in previous 9 days. Team lacks height and heft without VvD, Matip, Fabinho, Gomez. Team lacks pace and goals without Jota, Mané. Lacks pace at back without VvD and Gomez. No senior keeper undermines confidence
Team has been disrupted constantly this ssn. Rarely below 6 injuries, often = 10. Thiago a real bonus after months out, but the proper team is not around him. Even Gini looked knackered yesterday. 5th/6th-choice strikers and centre-backs will always be a big drop from 1st choices
Last night was a bit grim, and Brighton were excellent. But it was a strong XI for them, in terms of usual players and in terms of physicality. LFC full of skilful slower little guys right now - lacking the skilful bodyguards and pace. Kabak should help, but he's young and new
You can read Mentality Monsters or Perched for how much I talk about the unity of a team, the practiced understanding from years of intense training together, knowing each others runs and movements. Right now it's a team of semi-strangers and stand-ins.
No team could handle the loss of qualities in VvD, Gomez/Matip, Fabinho, Alisson, Jota, Mané, & even Keita (who last played in the 7-0 win at Palace, & is superb, but injury prone). So much cutting edge, pace, power, authority, height and skill amongst that group. So many = vital
These injuries are not an excuse, but a reality. If you car is driven into by a snow plough, you cannot drive your car. It's not an excuse, it's a reality. If the same happens to your spare car, ditto. Large quantities of injuries remove quality from the team, and also the bench.
LFC are starting players who weren't really even in the 25 man squads for the start of the season. On the bench are players who also were not. Weakened team = weakened bench, equals less quality, equals less variety, fewer options. Your extreme-fringe players cannot be great
One bonus is that many fringe players will learn and benefit this season, but the team may suffer setbacks and inconsistencies as a result. Just hope next season is not as mad as this for crazy adversity; yet still in top 4. Anyway, I'll leave that all there. Take it or leave it!

More from Sport

Aight. Here’s my favorite 2 stories about Bill Russell.

Both stories reveal how much of a humble human being he is. And one blows my mind because it dismantles what we think about the evolution of sports.

A thread:


The first is, that there is an assumption that today’s athletes are faster, stronger, etc. which is is based on ZERO evidence.

For instance, Wilt Chamberlain benched 465 lbs at 59 years old. Arnold Schwarzenegger says he benched 500 lbs on the set of Conan the Destroyer

Most basketball experts say Wilt has the highest vertical leap in NBA history. A few others argue that Michael Jordan did.

I think they’re both wrong.

Why?

Well let me tell you a story:

In 1956 Bill Russell was selected for the US Olympic basketball team

During this time, pros weren’t allowed in the Olympics, so the International Olympic Committee tried to say that he was ineligible since he had already signed with the Celtics, even though he hadn’t played yet

Luckily, Russell prevailed and led the team to the gold medal as the captain.

But if they would have stopped Russell from playing for the US basketball team, he would have STILL been in the Olympics.

How?

Because Bill Russell was one of the greatest high jumpers I. The world.

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?