Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2015/16 (*EVERYONE READ MOD POST in OP)

monkey9

brevity wrote: »

Imagine what would have happened if we could.

Nothing much different to be fair. We won a lot of matches by just scoring more goals than the opposition, no matter how many goals they scored.

You can't plan or do anything about Gerrard slipping.

brevity

Augeo wrote: »

100% disagree, Sturridge playing 20 more PL games last year for us would have been at a minimum 9/10 extra points imo.

We wouldn't have conceded any more with him playing but I am as sure as one could be that he would have scored goals.

I'm all for scoring goals and exciting play, but if we are unable to defend leads, unable to control games, then we are not going to be successful.

Relying on Sturridge to save our season considering we've just spend 35 million on another striker is another cock up made by this club.

Knex*

Yeah, its not like the league came down to goal difference

Morzadec

Morzadec wrote: »

....

For this reason, Sunday's game has a real sense of Judgement Day about it. A loss (especially a comfortable one) could be the last straw for many and would really pile the pressure on.

Don't think it's an exaggeration to say it's one of the biggest matches of Rodgers' career.

A win will have us on 14pts after 8 games played, 2 points off a 2ppg figure.
Big game no doubt and Rodgers is fully aware of it.

Ings not getting 90mins last night indicative enough that we'll be starting with Sturridge & Ings as per Villa game. Coutinho on for Ings seemed strange as Ings would do well off Coutinho passes but Sunday a fresh Ings deemed necessary.

Lucas, Milner & Sturrdge totally rested for last night.

I am pretty sure Rodgers is going to Goodison wanting 3 points and he knows how important it is, which is great imo

Francie Barrett

Said it before, but October will be make or break for Rodgers. We're going to be playing the teams that we would expect to be just finishing behind us in 6th, 7th, and 8th. If we fail to win a game against Spuds, Southampton and Everton, then Rodgers is gone. 4 points would be enough for Rodgers to limp on (and is what I am expecting).

brevity

monkey9 wrote: »

Nothing much different to be fair. We won a lot of matches by just scoring more goals than the opposition, no matter how many goals they scored.

You can't plan or do anything about Gerrard slipping.

I agree the slip is just one of those things but if we had a better defensive system in place maybe Gerrard isn't in that position. Maybe there is someone behind him to stop Demba Ba...

Knex*

If we still looked like being capable of scoring 75 goals or so in the league, we'd actually be fine, but we don't. We really don't.

We've looked creative in about three games in twenty months now, and that's extremely worrying when its meant to be Rodgers' forte.

Hangballlouie

brevity wrote: »

Anyone else looking for Kolo?

I couldn't find Kolo but I found Wally.

Francie Barrett

Knex. wrote: »

For me, I would say that my pre match expectations are as low as they perhaps have ever been as a Liverpool fan, right now.

We're stagnating, and something needs to be done quickly.

It was worse under Woy, but Rodgers certainly does seem to be trying his hardest to get us to that level.

Knex*

Francie Barrett wrote: »

It was worse under Woy, but Rodgers certainly does seem to be trying his hardest to get us to that level.

True. Having the likes of Joe Cole waddling his way around Anfield, and Jovanovic being an absolute Leonard on the pitch, certainly didn't help with the optimism stakes either.

J Mysterio

Caovyn Lineah wrote: »

Oh good christ, can people stop banging the Ilori drum? He has done NOTHING in his career yet people give out about him being loaned to Villa. If the manager threw Cleary in to the starting 11 he would be slated on here for playing such an inexperienced defender.

I'd practically guarantee that the people clamouring for Ilori have never even seen him play ffs.

Maybe they want to see him play?

We bought the lad as a highly promising CB and proceeded to never play him before looking to loan him out. The MO for the club recently. Ridiculous.

brevity

brevity wrote: »

....

Relying on Sturridge to save our season considering we've just spend 35 million on another striker is another cock up made by this club.

Not really imo, Sturridge is an exceptional talent.
Benteke I have no doubt will be in and around a goal every 2 / 2.5 games but as I mentioned earlier "Sturridge is to us what Sanchez is to Arsenal & what Aguero is to Man City."

City spent £30m on Bony and would struggle without Aguero

Football isn't analgous to a builder with 2 brickies, 2 chippies and 7 labourers making up his team, one gets sick, he hires in another and all is well the job gets done.

Francie Barrett wrote: »

...... If we fail to win a game against Spuds, Southampton and Everton, then Rodgers is gone. 4 points would be enough for Rodgers to limp on (and is what I am expecting).

time for a good run imo

brevity

Augeo wrote: »

Not really imo, Sturridge is an exceptional talent.
Benteke I have no doubt will be in and around a goal every 2 / 2.5 games but as I mentioned earlier "Sturridge is to us what Sanchez is to Arsenal & what Aguero is to Man City."

City spent £30m on Bony and would struggle without Aguero

Football isn't analgous to a builder with 2 brickies, 2 chippies and 7 labourers making up his team, one gets sick, he hires in another and all is well the job gets done.

City know that Aguero is injury prone, they have bought to remedy that. They do struggle without Aguero but they have players that keep them close to the line, Aguero comes in to get them over the line. They don't depend on him as such, he's a luxury imo.

That's how we should view Sturridge. We have players that should keep us competitive and Sturridge as a luxury.

brevity

brevity wrote: »

City know that Aguero is injury prone, they have bought to remedy that. They do struggle without Aguero but they have players that keep them close to the line, Aguero comes in to get them over the line. They don't depend on him as such, he's a luxury imo.

That's how we should view Sturridge. We have players that should keep us competitive and Sturridge as a luxury.

If you consider our line to be 4th I 100% agree with your sentiment as last season we didn't have Benteke

Knex*

I still think we're lacking a midfielder, especially when Henderson is out, that can give that quick line splitting pass into the attacking midfielders/wingers/striker etc.

Even with Henderson, I prefer when he has that license to get forward and roam and use his energy to press high up the pitch, and also to use his creativity around the box, as he can create goals.

But yeah, we miss that player who can set the tempo but also then flip us onto the front foot with an incisive pass.

Pyjamarama

brevity wrote: »

City know that Aguero is injury prone, they have bought to remedy that. They do struggle without Aguero but they have players that keep them close to the line, Aguero comes in to get them over the line. They don't depend on him as such, he's a luxury imo.

That's how we should view Sturridge. We have players that should keep us competitive and Sturridge as a luxury.

City also have the money to hang on to their better players. Simple fact is we're way behind them in the financial pecking order now.

Also all the talk of if we had a better defensive system we'd have won the league. We played all our attack all season because it suited the players we had. If we'd played more defensive we'd have given Suarez and Danny less space in which to destroy teams. We played a more defensive system in our good run last season and tbh it was painful to watch. I'd take two years ago over that any day of the week.

brevity

Pyjamarama wrote: »

City also have the money to hang on to their better players. Simple fact is we're way behind them in the financial pecking order now.

Also all the talk of if we had a better defensive system we'd have won the league. We played all our attack all season because it suited the players we had. If we'd played more defensive we'd have given Suarez and Danny less space in which to destroy teams. We played a more defensive system in our good run last season and tbh it was painful to watch. I'd take two years ago over that any day of the week.

If we had a better defence we would have won the league - Defending doesn't mean boring. Suarez & Sturridge would have still scored goals, maybe not as much, but we would have had better results IMO.

Agent Coulson

A 59 player short list and the best player in the league is on it.
https://twitter.com/theanfieldchat/status/649852016819355648

ThunbergsAreGo

brevity wrote: »

If we had a better defence we would have won the league - Defending doesn't mean boring. Suarez & Sturridge would have still scored goals, maybe not as much, but we would have had better results IMO.

When did this make a difference?

We won 13 of the last 15 games or something like that, whe did the defence cost us?

brevity

naughtb4 wrote: »

When did this make a difference?

We won 13 of the last 15 games or something like that, whe did the defence cost us?

The Everton game springs to mind. The palace game.

Our defending was abysmal that season.

kfallon

naughtb4 wrote: »

When did this make a difference?

We won 13 of the last 15 games or something like that, whe did the defence cost us?

The League is not 15 games, it's 38!

Hidalgo

Morzadec wrote: »

Many here may have already made up their minds and are sure the end is inevitable, but I'm not sure the owners see it that way yet, or indeed perhaps a sizeable portion of the crowd.

I'm one of those who hasn't quite yet committed to the Rodgers Out brigade.

For this reason, Sunday's game has a real sense of Judgement Day about it. A loss (especially a comfortable one) could be the last straw for many and would really pile the pressure on.

Don't think it's an exaggeration to say it's one of the biggest matches of Rodgers' career.

As you say, a bad loss could be the catalyst for change

But what if it's a 1-0 loss or Sunday plays out a draw. For me that solves little and merely strings the current malaise along with still no direction or signs that maybe the end isn't nigh.

Personally I can't see him lasting beyond the end of October.

Turtyturd

No Mata on that list?

klose

Christian atsu haha aw for **** sake.

Potential Underachiever

The revisionism at times can be astounding in here, we've reached a point now where Rodgers instead of having credit lavished all over him for a fantastic season, is now getting blamed for not winning us the league!

brevity

Potential Underachiever wrote: »

The revisionism at times can be astounding in here, we've reached a point now where Rodgers instead of having credit lavished all over him for a fantastic season, is now getting blamed for not winning us the league!

If that's directed at me, I didn't say that.

ThunbergsAreGo

brevity wrote: »

The Everton game springs to mind. The palace game.

Our defending was abysmal that season.

Joe Allen misses a sitter in the Everton game,

We fail to score vs Southampton, only can manage one versus Hull etc.

Looking abck over the results, what a ridiculous season that was!

Lord Trollington

When Henderson, Benteke, Firmino and Lovren all return and if Sturridge and others stay fit.

Then I will judge Rodgers. At the moment I would like to see him continue.

Pyjamarama

brevity wrote: »

If we had a better defence we would have won the league - Defending doesn't mean boring. Suarez & Sturridge would have still scored goals, maybe not as much, but we would have had better results IMO.

The team that scores the most goals usually wins the league. The idea you need a great defence is a fallacy and the stats back that up. We didn't win the league that year because City were better and scored more goals. If we'd scored two more goals, one against chelsea and one against Palace) then we'd have scored the most and won. Obv thats actually a bit ludicrous and too simplistic but its not more ridic than half the stuff that gets posted on here regularly.

Hidalgo

Lord Trollington wrote: »

When Henderson, Benteke, Firmino and Lovren all return and if Sturridge and others stay fit.

Then I will judge Rodgers. At the moment I would like to see him continue.

Based on what evidence if I may ask?

brevity

Pyjamarama wrote: »

The team that scores the most goals usually wins the league. The idea you need a great defence is a fallacy and the stats back that up. We didn't win the league that year because City were better and scored more goals. If we'd scored two more goals, one against chelsea and one against Palace) then we'd have scored the most and won. Obv thats actually a bit ludicrous and too simplistic but its not more ridic than half the stuff that gets posted on here regularly.

Can't agree with any of that.

Pyjamarama

Lord Trollington wrote: »

When Henderson, Benteke, Firmino and Lovren all return and if Sturridge and others stay fit.

Then I will judge Rodgers. At the moment I would like to see him continue.

You'll want him gone so...

Pyjamarama

brevity wrote: »

Can't agree with any of that.

You don't agree that the team that scores the most goals usually wins the league?? Thats not an opinion, its a fact.

dogbert27

Pyjamarama wrote: »

You don't agree that the team that scores the most goals usually wins the league?? Thats not an opinion, its a fact.

The team that finishes with the most points wins the league. That is the only fact.

dogbert27

brevity wrote: »

If we had a better defence we would have won the league - Defending doesn't mean boring. Suarez & Sturridge would have still scored goals, maybe not as much, but we would have had better results IMO.

I agree with your point. At 3-0 up against Palace with 10 mins left we should have been able to close out the game.

With a defensive strategy we could have played out the Chelsea game to a 0-0 draw.

We would then have won the league.

jaykay74

Lord Trollington wrote: »

When Henderson, Benteke, Firmino and Lovren all return and if Sturridge and others stay fit.

Then I will judge Rodgers. At the moment I would like to see him continue.

Managers are not usually afforded such luxury. Its part of the reason for maintaining a good quality squad, not just first 11. So if Sturridge suffers a re-occurance and is out for the season then Rodgers get a bye for 15/16 ?

Pyjamarama

dogbert27 wrote: »

The team that finishes with the most points wins the league. That is the only fact.

Nope, its not the only fact. If you look back at the last 20 years you'll see that the team that scores the most goals more often than not (by a large margin) wins the league.

Having a quality defence is more important in one off cup matches. Its not that having a good one wouldn't be great or anything but you don't really need it (or historically haven't) against the lower half of the league as they offered so little threat. That may be changing but i'd be shocked if it doesn't hold true again this year.

Lord Trollington

Hidalgo wrote: »

Based on what evidence if I may ask?

It's pretty self explanatory really. Our captain will be back. Our £30m+ signing will be back and he'll have a full deck to pick from.

Then I can make a decision on him. It is clear we are not functioning well at the moment.

But imagine this. I support Liverpool and I'm backing our manager to turn it around. There's a new concept maybe for people to think about.

dogbert27

Pyjamarama wrote: »

Nope, its not the only fact. If you look back at the last 20 years you'll see that the team that scores the most goals more often than not (by a large margin) wins the league.

Having a quality defence is more important in one off cup matches. Its not that having a good one wouldn't be great or anything but you don't really need it (or historically haven't) against the lower half of the league as they offered so little threat. That may be changing but i'd be shocked if it doesn't hold true again this year.

If you win all 38 matches 1-0 you win the league.

It doesn't matter if the team that finished second has scored over 100 goals.

As you say it more often than not goes hand in hand but the only fact to winning the league is that you finish with the most points, not goals scored.

whatawaster

dogbert27 wrote: »

I agree with your point. At 3-0 up against Palace with 10 mins left we should have been able to close out the game.

With a defensive strategy we could have played out the Chelsea game to a 0-0 draw.

We would then have won the league.

If we had played for a 0-0 against Chelsea, there's a good chance we still would have lost the game.
As it was we limited Chelsea to no chances in the first half. When your last man back slips there is then little you can do.


If we had drawn against Chelsea we could afford no more mistakes. There is nothing to say we would then have gone 3-0 up against Palace as there would have been an awful lot more pressure on us.

5starpool

Pyjamarama wrote: »

Nope, its not the only fact. If you look back at the last 20 years you'll see that the team that scores the most goals more often than not (by a large margin) wins the league.

Having a quality defence is more important in one off cup matches. Its not that having a good one wouldn't be great or anything but you don't really need it (or historically haven't) against the lower half of the league as they offered so little threat. That may be changing but i'd be shocked if it doesn't hold true again this year.

You can't say that when something happens, something else usually happens. It certainly doesn't make it a fact. We scored the most in 2008/09, what did we win that season?

It is certainly true that the top scorers usually win the league, but it is far from being a certainty.

kfallon

We bottled the league 2 seasons ago, ye can dress it up any way ye want but that's the reality.

When it came down to the crunch and we finally had our destiny in our own hands, we threw it away. From half time in the City game the team became scared/nervous. We got away with it big time against City, we just about clung on at Norwich and then it all went pear shaped against Chelsea and Palace.

That's the long and the short of it, you can go on about 13 wins from 15 or 12 wins in a row but when the pressure was really upon us there were too many players who weren't strong enough to stand up to it.

It's a lot easier to win games when you are going for 4th, 3rd, 2nd (as what happened in that great run) but when you need character to get over the line and lift that trophy we didn't have enough of it! The last 10-12 minutes of the Palace game showed how weak our players were.

Agent Coulson

Behind the paywall.

Frank de Boer tempted by Liverpool adventure

Frank de Boer is the latest European manager to show interest in managing Liverpool, a move that will inevitably intensify the pressure that Brendan Rodgers continues to come under following a poor start to the season.
De Boer, the Ajax manager, was considered for the Liverpool job before FSG, the Merseyside club’s owners, appointed Rodgers as Kenny Dalglish’s successor in 2012, but his interest in the position remains and his admission that he is “looking maybe for another adventure” will alert potential suitors to his possible availability.
With Jürgen Klopp’s camp also intimating that the former Borussia Dortmund manager would be interested in taking over at Liverpool in the event of the job becoming available, it isn’t just results that mean Rodgers is facing a battle to remain in charge, as rivals go public on the appeal of the post he occupies.
It is a situation that Rodgers reluctantly accepts as a result of the uncertainty over his own future but De Boer’s admission that he could also be interested in managing Newcastle United will have done little to diminish his sense of vulnerability, particularly with Ajax currently top of the Eredivisie. “Yes I think every year [moving to the Premier League] comes closer of course,” De Boer told BBC World Service in an interview that will be broadcast tonight. “I’m looking maybe for another adventure. If there is an interesting club that I think with my quality I can make that team better – if I can, than I will take that chance.
“They are fantastic clubs. Liverpool and Newcastle - with supporters behind them - it is a fantastic environment to coach but this year it is important for me to do well at Ajax and then we will see.”
Given his age and profile as an up and coming manager with a clear philosophy of how football should be played, De Boer would seem a natural fit for FSG’s model. But should an alternative to Rodgers be sought, Klopp has significant backing among Liverpool’s fan base which could make him a contender in the event of a change being made.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/football/clubs/liverpool/article4574393.ece

whatawaster

Remember 3-0 in the Palace game. The exhilaration. "We're actually going to win this 9-0 and win the league on goal difference"

brevity

whatawaster wrote: »

Remember 3-0 in the Palace game. The exhilaration. "We're actually going to win this 9-0 and win the league on goal difference"

That season was so crazy, it was like something from a movie.

Connavar

brevity wrote: »

That season was so crazy, it was like something from a movie.

I have such a big dislike of Dwight Gayle after that game

Pyjamarama

5starpool wrote: »

You can't say that when something happens, something else usually happens. It certainly doesn't make it a fact. We scored the most in 2008/09, what did we win that season?

It is certainly true that the top scorers usually win the league, but it is far from being a certainty.

But my point was that more often than not the team that scores the most wins the league. I never said it was all that mattered but I would be more worried about our inability to score and create chances than our inability to defend.

The whole "if you win every game 1-0 you'll win the league" argument is ludicrous as its pretty much impossible. Having a team that can reliably score goals is more important than one that can reliably keep clean sheets. Thats the reason they changed it from 2 points to a win to 3.

dogbert27

Pyjamarama wrote: »

But my point was that more often than not the team that scores the most wins the league. I never said it was all that mattered but I would be more worried about our inability to score and create chances than our inability to defend.

The whole "if you win every game 1-0 you'll win the league" argument is ludicrous as its pretty much impossible. Having a team that can reliably score goals is more important than one that can reliably keep clean sheets. Thats the reason they changed it from 2 points to a win to 3.

Some brain box out there did a review of Rodgers goal difference. The result was that to win a game under Brendan Rodgers we have to score something like 2.3 goals a game due to the amount of goals we concede.

If we didn't concede so many goals the average goals scored figure of 2.3 would decrease.

It adds to the players pressure if they know they have to be scoring 2-3 goals a game to get a win instead of knowing they are set up correctly to see out a 1-0 victory.

The game against Aston Villa is the perfect example.

mormank

dogbert27 wrote: »

I agree with your point. At 3-0 up against Palace with 10 mins left we should have been able to close out the game.

With a defensive strategy we could have played out the Chelsea game to a 0-0 draw.

We would then have won the league.

We weren't trying to close the game out at 3-0. We needed to score alot more goals to possibly be able to win the league on goal difference. You either forgot that or are just being purposefully ignorant to suit your point/agenda. Mis representing the facts just costs us all time cos then someone has to come in and correct you so others don't believe your lies/mistakes. By "you" I mean everyone.

dogbert27

whatawaster wrote: »

If we had played for a 0-0 against Chelsea, there's a good chance we still would have lost the game.
As it was we limited Chelsea to no chances in the first half. When your last man back slips there is then little you can do.


If we had drawn against Chelsea we could afford no more mistakes. There is nothing to say we would then have gone 3-0 up against Palace as there would have been an awful lot more pressure on us.

Chelsea didn't come to score. Their tactic was to suck us in which they did, our defence was caught too high up the field and they capitalized on a mistake.
They had a tactic and it worked. We got sucked in to it.

Knowing that a draw would suffice against Chelsea and seeing their negative tactics so early we could have easily changed to play a deeper back line and seen out a dull game.

We couldn't afford a loss in those last 3 games. On paper Palace and Newcastle were wins.

The Chelsea game was the one game that needed to be managed tactically and it wasn't.