Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2015 Mod Note in OP 9/4

5starpool

Flanagan did well for a couple of months last season, but given his career to date it's a bit early to be talking of making him a fixture just yet I think. He might not really be fit enough to play a part this season. I'd imagine he'll get a couple of run outs at u-21 level first to improve match fitness given he's been out so long.

D'Agger

noodler wrote: »

I'd say he is applauding the effort of one of his own players battling on at 4-0 down!

Flanno being a fixture in the team would require dropping 3-5-2, right?

You're right actually, must have been applauding Soldado almost getting a touch :pac:

Talisman

SlickRic wrote: »

Mario was bought because we put our eggs in the Sanchez basket, and we needs SOMEONE to fill a gap in the squad. we took a risk on Mario because he was relatively cheap in terms of his talent.

Ian McGarry was adamant last summer that Rodgers wanted Di Maria to replace Suarez.

Dickerty

slingerz wrote: »

Illaremendi was linked as well wasnt he? would be a good addition to the midfield and probably more likely than some that have been linked already

Well it's him or Khedira, or maybe both, leaving Real I reckon. I'd take the latter, more proven and more dynamic, but a bit of an injury risk.

I think this summer could be VERY interesting for us. We didn't spend a lot in the summer (net), so we have room for a few purchases, and with Stevie and Glenjo out, that's a lot of salary room. But a lot will depend on making CL, as we know...

SlickRic

Talisman wrote: »

Ian McGarry was adamant last summer that Rodgers wanted Di Maria to replace Suarez.

it's great if Rodgers was looking at those sorts of players (and the Sanchez rumours certainly suggest he was), but it's another thing for the owners to stump up the cash required, and for Rodgers to convince the player of the opportunity it is to play for Liverpool.

something seriously went awry last summer.

Polo_Mint

SlickRic wrote: »

it's great if Rodgers was looking at those sorts of players (and the Sanchez rumours certainly suggest he was), but it's another thing for the owners to stump up the cash required, and for Rodgers to convince the player of the opportunity it is to play for Liverpool.

something seriously went awry last summer.

I think for Liverpool the Bargaining Chip ( Champions League ) was not used to full effect last season, United had to Flash the cash because of this and it became very expensive with barely any resale value.

I dont know how Liverpool will fair in the Summer without Champions league or Big Bucks to sign whats needed.

The Cheaper options is to either have Rogers work a miracle
on what he has or to Get a manager who can work miracles and can attarct players

jcsoulinger

SlickRic wrote: »

it's great if Rodgers was looking at those sorts of players (and the Sanchez rumours certainly suggest he was), but it's another thing for the owners to stump up the cash required, and for Rodgers to convince the player of the opportunity it is to play for Liverpool.

something seriously went awry last summer.

With regards Sanchez he chose London and arsenal above us not much we could do about that.

SlickRic

jcsoulinger wrote: »

With regards Sanchez he chose London and arsenal above us not much we could do about that.

i do agree, to a point.

we're losing out on players that can make a difference to often though, so it is very worrying.

Super-Rush

Considering that we supposedly offered Sanchez more money than Arsenal, the conclusions you can come to are two fold.

He either didn't rate Rodgers or he didn't want to be Suarez's replacement.

Jesus Wept

I think first things first, we should move the club to London.

rob316

Super-Rush wrote: »

Considering that we supposedly offered Sanchez more money than Arsenal, the conclusions you can come to are two fold.

He either didn't rate Rodgers or he didn't want to be Suarez's replacement.

Or he preferred Liverpool to London or he choose a team that is a constant mainstay in the UCL

I keep saying it blaming Rodgers for not signing WC players is ridiculous.

Do you really think it goes like this,

" Brendan we want to get DiMaria to replace Suarez!", no thanks get me Lazar Markovic instead, hes cheaper and his wages are low.

Its the recruitment team's job to scout the best talent available for the money and present it to the manager and for me they aren't doing there jobs.

Rodgers to me is an excellent coach but the club need to surround him with a better recruitment team.

Knex*

The Rodgers wrote: »

I think first things first, we should move the club to London.

I'm with you there. Its the only thing that makes sense.

More derbies and everything.

SuperTortoise

The Rodgers wrote: »

I think first things first, we should move the club to London.

No half measures please, we go all out and move to Spain!

greendom

You could just cut out the middle man and support Arsenal. You know it makes sense !

MD1990

I wouldn't like lllaramendi. I think he could be another Granero.

JohnDaniels

It must be awful for United and City never being able to compete for the best players as they all want to go to London. Oh wait . . .

Buford T. Justice XIX

greendom wrote: »

You could just cut out the middle man and support Arsenal. You know it makes sense !

We're all not Turtyturd, you know...

micks

NukaCola wrote: »

I agree.

When have we implemented Moneyball effectively? Less than 10% of the time and thats being generous.

We have a problem with transfers. Its a huge stumbling block. A change in direction is needed on that front.

But who doesn't have a prob with transfers though?
Chelsea obs look like they can't go wrong at mo in transfer even failure make a profit
But to put liverpools transfers into perspective look at Utd - shaw, falcoa, rojo & di Maria all effective let spectators at the moment
It's not an easy thing to get right all the time. Then throw in this transfer committee thingy
I've a mate who like many praised all liverpools signings last summer as they happened. Now with hindsight they're all bad players and a waste of money.

NukaCola

micks wrote: »

But who doesn't have a prob with transfers though?
Chelsea obs look like they can't go wrong at mo in transfer even failure make a profit
But to put liverpools transfers into perspective look at Utd - shaw, falcoa, rojo & di Maria all effective let spectators at the moment
It's not an easy thing to get right all the time. Then throw in this transfer committee thingy
I've a mate who like many praised all liverpools signings last summer as they happened. Now with hindsight they're all bad players and a waste of money.

I'm not expecting instant success, or saying its easy.

Without getting into another analysis of players it would be nice if we could get value for money. Even for half the time. How many times have we underpaid for a player under BR? Spending approx 60m on "first team" players of Mario/Lallana/Lovren is absolutely criminal for LFC with our seemingly limited resources.

Lallana was massively overpriced and overhyped. I didnt see much of Lovren at Southampton but they doubled their money in one season and Mario, while everyone hoped would come good is an absolute embarrassment. Do we need to pay these fees or take these risks on average to good players?

LuckyLloyd

noodler wrote: »

It's a popular motivation but I'm not so sure.

Was Rodgers setting the EPL alight while we were in the CL? Was it not just the poor form of the team in general?

The idea that European opposition is some homogeneous thing is also a bit questionable fore, what did games against Ludogrets tell us that playing City or Chelsea didn't? I mean weren't Ludogrets filled with South Americans?

I'm not saying that there is nothing to be learned from European teams I just wonder if we over egg the benefits of playing opposition abroad because we want to beat Brodge with the "needs more European experience" stick.

Earning a hard earned draw in Moscow might (might!) put us in better stead for a subsequent CL campaign, I'd fear that being tired for the trip to say, Stoke, the following Sunday might impact negatively on our chances of actually getting there.

Would you agree that certain managers appear to have a stronger record in Europe than other managers?

MD1990

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Would you agree that certain managers appear to have a stronger record in Europe than other managers?

Would u agree that managers can improve in Europe with experience?
We done poor this season but apart from the Real Madrid team selection it wasn't down to Rodgers imo. Most of the squad was in a terrible run of form.

Agent Coulson

This summer we need a "Dennis Bergkamp" type signing.

The type of signing that says we can attract a big name a proven international with his best years to come a player we can build the club around.

DVDM93

I was back Connemara there over the weekend and says an old wise man of the village to I; beat not Newcastle and we be not only unworthy worthy of top 4, we be not worthy of this league, for relying on a crumbling blue moon is the least of our problems.

NukaCola

MD1990 wrote: »

Would u agree that managers can improve in Europe with experience?
We done poor this season but apart from the Real Madrid team selection it wasn't down to Rodgers imo. Most of the squad was in a terrible run of form.

BR record in Europe is W9 L7 D4. Its poor overall. Plenty of scope to improve though.

brevity

How could it not be Rodgers fault?

He picks the teams and sets them up to go out. Sure the players can shoulder some of the blame but they looked so devoid of ideas. That's on Rodgers IMO.

Europe wasn't a priority for him IMO.

LuckyLloyd

MD1990 wrote: »

Would u agree that managers can improve in Europe with experience?
We done poor this season but apart from the Real Madrid team selection it wasn't down to Rodgers imo. Most of the squad was in a terrible run of form.

I'm sure they can, hence why the Europa League is important to us and needs to be treated with a positive attitude by the club.

European football is an important part of this club's legacy and can be a vital part of its future. You get into the CL or the EL you have a route to an important trophy; lucrative prize money and revenue; positive sponsorship branding / fanbase growth. But all of that assume you not just get into the competitions but you make a fist of them. Houllier and Benitez found ways to do that in multiple years where we were not challenging for the title. It is a challenge for Rodgers that he needs to embrace and master.

Connavar

brevity wrote: »

How could it not be Rodgers fault?

He picks the teams and sets them up to go out. Sure the players can shoulder some of the blame but they looked so devoid of ideas. That's on Rodgers IMO.

Europe wasn't a priority for him IMO.

Have to agree there. One or two players in bad form happens, but a whole team in bad form suggests problems, be that in training or formation

JohnDaniels

Chatting with a mate at the weekend and he put something interesting to me when talking about Rodgers. How highly do people rate Garry Monk as a manager? If we did get rid of Rodgers, I would guess absolute uproar would ensue if we hired him? He is currently having an incredible season with Swansea. They are eighth in the table while having lost their best player to City in January. Swansea in general have coped very well since Rodgers departure, indicating the structures within the club are very good.

Why though is Monk not being seen it the same light as Rodgers? Is it the the lack of self promotion? His inability to build a mystic around a certain footballing philosophy he wants to play as a manager like Rodgers did even though Rodgers failed and abandoned his to a large degree shorty after arriving at Liverpool. Sorry if it looks like I'm taking shots at Rodgers as I'm not but during the conversation I found it hard to argue with the idea of Rodgers as a manager of Liverpool was to a large degree sold around many intangible football reasons. The idea of someone we are sold is often far more important in what we think than the reality. Ha, bit heavy maybe for a Monday afternoon.

LuckyLloyd

I think you're hitting it there tbh. As I said last week, if you don't care about style of play or personality manager comparisons become a lot easier.

noodler

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Would you agree that certain managers appear to have a stronger record in Europe than other managers?

Rafa had a very good record for Liverpool.

But take Pellegrini. he has a poor one for City but I don't know what it was like with his previous clubs (EDIT: just wiki-ing it, he got Malaga and Real out of the group stages although the latter probably not really an achievement, semi-final of the CL with Villareal etc).

It just seems there are other things to look at when judging if a manager is specifically good at Europe, is his league form also bad when in Europe? Was he good in Europe with other clubs?

marklazarcovic

Kerrigooney wrote:

Any particular post or just in general?

The obvious ones

LuckyLloyd

Pellegrini's inability to cut it in Europe justifies his sacking imo.

noodler

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Pellegrini's inability to cut it in Europe justifies his sacking imo.

He has cut it in Europe for many years prior to City though was my point.

NukaCola

JohnDaniels wrote: »

Chatting with a mate at the weekend and he put something interesting to me when talking about Rodgers. How highly do people rate Garry Monk as a manager? If we did get rid of Rodgers, I would guess absolute uproar would ensue if we hired him? He is currently having an incredible season with Swansea. They are eighth in the table while having lost their best player to City in January. Swansea in general have coped very well since Rodgers departure, indicating the structures within the club are very good.

Why though is Monk not being seen it the same light as Rodgers? Is it the the lack of self promotion? His inability to build a mystic around a certain footballing philosophy he wants to play as a manager like Rodgers did even though Rodgers failed and abandoned his to a large degree shorty after arriving at Liverpool. Sorry if it looks like I'm taking shots at Rodgers as I'm not but during the conversation I found it hard to argue with the idea of Rodgers as a manager of Liverpool was to a large degree sold around many intangible football reasons. The idea of someone we are sold is often far more important in what we think than the reality. Ha, bit heavy maybe for a Monday afternoon.

I was so so disappointed when BR was linked. When we signed him I was really annoyed. I couldn't believed we signed such an inexperienced manager.

However, I stopped the negativity and got behind him and the team. I've been largely impressed with him since. I believe he can be a success here but hiring him was a gamble. It could have been a disaster. Still a lot to do but a lot of positives. Next year is a big year for him as LFC manager.

MD1990

JohnDaniels wrote: »

Chatting with a mate at the weekend and he put something interesting to me when talking about Rodgers. How highly do people rate Garry Monk as a manager? If we did get rid of Rodgers, I would guess absolute uproar would ensue if we hired him? He is currently having an incredible season with Swansea. They are eighth in the table while having lost their best player to City in January. Swansea in general have coped very well since Rodgers departure, indicating the structures within the club are very good.

Why though is Monk not being seen it the same light as Rodgers? Is it the the lack of self promotion? His inability to build a mystic around a certain footballing philosophy he wants to play as a manager like Rodgers did even though Rodgers failed and abandoned his to a large degree shorty after arriving at Liverpool. Sorry if it looks like I'm taking shots at Rodgers as I'm not but during the conversation I found it hard to argue with the idea of Rodgers as a manager of Liverpool was to a large degree sold around many intangible football reasons. The idea of someone we are sold is often far more important in what we think than the reality. Ha, bit heavy maybe for a Monday afternoon.

You think Monk could have taken us to 2nd last season?
I know many will say it was mostly Suarez but Rodgers improved him as a player as before Rodgers became manager Suarez wasn't prolific for us.He also improved other players too like Sterling,Henderson & Coutinho. I had my doubts about Rodgers last December but after our form in the last 3-4 months I think he is still the right manager to take us forward.

NukaCola

noodler wrote: »

Rafa had a very good record for Liverpool.

As did Roy Hodgson 6W 4D 0L

Obviously not as good as Rafa :P

MD1990

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Pellegrini's inability to cut it in Europe justifies his sacking imo.

Lol he took Villarreal to the CL semi finals & Malaga to the QF. The PL is well behind the other top leagues tactically.

NukaCola

MD1990 wrote: »

You think Monk could have taken us to 2nd last season?

Did you think BR could after one season in the EPL with Swansea?

JohnDaniels

MD1990 wrote: »

You think Monk could have taken us to 2nd last season?
I know many will say it was mostly Suarez but Rodgers improved him as a player as before Rodgers became manager Suarez wasn't prolific for us.He also improved other players too like Sterling,Henderson & Coutinho. I had my doubts about Rodgers last December but after our form in the last 3-4 months I think he is still the right manager to take us forward.

Monk currently has the same amount of points that Rodgers achieved in Swansea highest ever points total and he still has 6 games to play. I take the point that they have been an established PL side now for a few year which makes a huge difference but it is still very impressive in my eyes especially considering they lost their best player in January. You obviously would recoil at the idea of Monk as Liverpool manager? What I think is interesting is I dont think Monk would be any more of a gamble than Rodgers was apart from the fact Rodgers is a far more saleable manager to fans for a number of reasons which I'm not sure matter all that much.

MD1990

NukaCola wrote: »

Did you think BR could after one season in the EPL with Swansea?

The difference with Rodgers & Monk is that Rodgers got promoted with Swansea with a team a with very little PL experience & they had a great season playing great football. With Monk they have more money & have bought PL players in comparison to what Rodgers done. I didn't know whether Rodgers could get us to 2nd back then.

Hannibal

The fact Rodgers spent a few years at Chelsea probably stood for him aswell. People are generally more hirable when they worked under or near other managers that have big reputations.

noodler

Anyway, my basic argument here is regarding the EL.

No doubt a CL place makes it more attractive but I still reckon CL football is what will prepare us for CL football.

I certainly question whether a slog in the EL would be of massive benefit to us in terms of possibly qualifying (or possibly performing) for the CL. Hell, if such a slog costs us top 4 again and Rodge doesn't survive then what do we do? Continue to expend huge effort in the EL in the hope it will give the new manager greater European experience etc etc.

Obviously I am trying to look at this without taking into account the club's European tradition, the (vague imo) possibility it would help attract players etc.

rob316

Rodgers may not be a manager long but he is a vastly experienced academy/reserve coach, Rodgers career ended very early so he has been coaching for over 20 years, people forget that about him sometimes. He wasn't some new promoted championship manager who came out of nowhere.

Rodgers was picked by FSG because they wanted a young team and with his record in youth development he was the ideal candidate. If they wanted Benitez or someone of that ilk that's who they would have got.

Monk while I think he's a good manager, he has a structure around him that makes it difficult to fail.

Utopia Parkway

Man U now favourites to sign Ings according to the Mail.

jcsoulinger

I think monk would be a bigger gamble now than rogers was back then, Monk doesn't seem to have the ego you need to make it at a big club. Will never happen anyways we won't take the same gamble twice.

Gbear

SlickRic wrote: »

Rodgers isn't the issue. He makes mistakes, sure, but he's not the root.

Moneyball only works to a certain degree in the Premier League.

There is no succesful strategy that involves spending considerably less than your rivals.

This isn't a problem of strategy but one of economics.

We're not even a million miles behind some of our rivals but until we're close enough to trade blows there's going to be a large amount of pissing in the wind done by our transfer team.

I can't see it just turning around in one go. It's going to require that we jockey for position in the CL for a few years rather than the 5 years we had of finishing 7th or some ****e.

rarnes1 wrote: »

Imo, booing current players from the club comes from the idiot section of the fanbase. Nothing good can come from it.

Unless they're like a rapist or Slobodan Milosovic or something.

Boo-worthyness isn't any different for footballers (at least those on your own team). There just aren't that many murderers and war criminals taking to the field on Saturday afternoons.

Hannibal

noodler wrote: »

Anyway, my basic argument here is regarding the EL.

No doubt a CL place makes it more attractive but I still reckon CL football is what will prepare us for CL football.

I certainly question whether a slog in the EL would be of massive benefit to us in terms of possibly qualifying for the CL. Hell, if such a slog costs us top 4 again and Rodge doesn't survive then what do we do? Continue to expend huge effort in the EL in the hope it will give the new manager greater European experience etc etc.

Obviously I am trying to look at this without taking into account the club's European tradition, the (vague imo) possibility it would help attract players etc.

The Europa has the benefit of coefficient points which help if we do qualify for CL. Man City and PSG got very tough CL groups because they were relative new comers and in the fourth pot.

Matchplay revenue, prize money and sponsorship money all come into account aswell.

JohnDaniels

rob316 wrote: »

Monk while I think he's a good manager, he has a structure around him that makes it difficult to fail.

Why does this apply to him and not to Rodgers? Swansea had spent many years carefully selecting managers to cultivate that playing style which we seen under Rodgers. They had the same structures in place around Brendan at the time. Rodgers earlier attempts at management hadn't gone too well.

JohnDaniels

jcsoulinger wrote: »

I think monk would be a bigger gamble now than rogers was back then, Monk doesn't seem to have the ego you need to make it at a big club. Will never happen anyways we won't take the same gamble twice.

This is exactly the type of rubbish I am talking about. Lending things like ego some intangible quality needed to manage Liverpool is ridiculous. Rodgers is a master at creating this character with all these intangible qualities which football fans eat up.

mosstin

I do enjoy popping in and out of here on occasion.
Never fails to make me smile.
Lennon to replace Rodgers?
Tipsy by name, ****faced by nature.