The OFFICIAL Liverpool FC thread - #DankeJürgen

[Denn Forever]

It has to be Wille Mullins as LFC manager for the Stallion.

Doesn't he mainly race Mares?

[J70]

"Most sensible people  recognize that no manager is a miracle worker and there will be setbacks along the way when a new man comes in."


He's had five months.  Liverpool's performances have been awful throughout this time. You only have to look at Ranieiri to see that a good manager can have an immediate impact. The squad Klopp inherited was good enough to finish top four, yet Liverpool languish in 8th.

No, Liverpool's have not been awful throughout. There have been some awful performances, and some superb performances.

Ranieri is a dataset of ONE. Doesn't prove anything, either way, about Klopp. They both inherited totally different situations. Have had different squads and injury problems to deal with. How do their historical records at previous clubs compare?

Chelsea, City, Arsenal, United, Spurs ALL have arguably better squads than Leicester AND Liverpool. Do they ALL have shit managers too?

Rodgers have an average first season at Liverpool, yet came within a whisker of the title in his second with some of the best football ever seen in the premier league. By your "standards", he would have been shipped out after three months amd we never would have got to see that.

[The Stallion]

"No, Liverpool's have not been awful throughout. There have been some awful performances, and some superb performances."

I disagree. I have yet to see a single superb Liverpool performance under Klopp.


"Ranieri is a dataset of ONE. Doesn't prove anything, either way, about Klopp"

It shows you don't necessarily need a long time to improve a team. Giving a poor manager like Klopp too much time is a mistake in my opinion. One Liverpool made with Rodgers.


"Chelsea, City, Arsenal, United, Spurs ALL have arguably better squads than Leicester AND Liverpool. Do they ALL have shit managers too?"

No. I have never suggested they do all have shit managers.

[J70]

"No, Liverpool's have not been awful throughout. There have been some awful performances, and some superb performances."

I disagree. I have yet to see a single superb Liverpool performance under Klopp.

Chelsea away, City away, United at home, Villa away, City at home, Southampton away... just six off the top of my head.

"Ranieri is a dataset of ONE. Doesn't prove anything, either way, about Klopp"

It shows you don't necessarily need a long time to improve a team. Giving a poor manager like Klopp too much time is a mistake in my opinion. One Liverpool made with Rodgers.

So by your logic, the only proof of progress for a team is instant and consistent success and improvement on the field. The respective squad, suitability of players, training etc. etc. is all irrelevant.

You must have been some critic of Ferguson back in the late 80s. God knows what you would have said about Shankly back in the day.

And Liverpool's "mistake" with Rodgers resulted in arguably the most exciting campaign of football ever seen from any team in the premier league era, one that came within a whisker of the title.

"Chelsea, City, Arsenal, United, Spurs ALL have arguably better squads than Leicester AND Liverpool. Do they ALL have shit managers too?"

No. I have never suggested they do all have shit managers.

Well you're not very consistent then, are you?

I mean, IF your gauge of how they're doing is only results on the field.

[The Stallion]

"So by your logic, the only proof of progress for a team is instant and consistent success and improvement on the field"

No. I am stating that good managers don't necessarily need time. And also that I have not observed any real improvement in Liverpool's performances dyring Klopp's time in charge.



"Chelsea away, City away, United at home, Villa away, City at home, Southampton away... just six off the top of my head."

I don't think any of those performances were superb.



"And Liverpool's "mistake" with Rodgers resulted in arguably the most exciting campaign of football ever seen from any team in the premier league era, one that came within a whisker of the title."


I would contend that Liverpool finished second despite Rodgers rather than because of him. A good manager would have sorted out the shambolic defending which cost them the title. Suárez was the only reason they almost won the League.

[J70]

"So by your logic, the only proof of progress for a team is instant and consistent success and improvement on the field"

No. I am stating that good managers don't necessarily need time.

So sometimes they do, sometime they don't. Which makes Ranieri irrelevant.

And also that I have not observed any real improvement in Liverpool's performances dyring Klopp's time in charge.

You think the Liverpool of September and October would have won all those games I listed above in the manner they did? You think they would have strolled past United in Europe?

"Chelsea away, City away, United at home, Villa away, City at home, Southampton away... just six off the top of my head."

I don't think any of those performances were superb.

How would you describe them then? Take City and Southampton away, for starters.

"And Liverpool's "mistake" with Rodgers resulted in arguably the most exciting campaign of football ever seen from any team in the premier league era, one that came within a whisker of the title."


I would contend that Liverpool finished second despite Rodgers rather than because of him.

Based on what? Rodgers bought Coutinho and Sturridge, and promoted Sterling. He only inherited Suarez, who turned himself into one of the top three or four players in the world under Rodgers' guidance. Rodgers put them all together, put the tactics together.

A good manager would have sorted out the shambolic defending which cost them the title. Suárez was the only reason they almost won the League.

So Rodgers gets credit for the awful defending, but NOT the almost unprecedented breathtaking attacking football which yielded more than 100 goals.

Got you!

[The Stallion]

Rodgers gets no credit for "breathtaking attacking football"  because it wasn't anything other than Suárez being Suárez. He was the only reason they finished so high. Surely you realise that now?

Over half the side were rubbish all season, a decent manager would have organised the defence and Suárez would have done the rest.

[J70]

Rodgers gets no credit for "breathtaking attacking football"  because it wasn't anything other than Suárez being Suárez. He was the only reason they finished so high. Surely you realise that now?

Over half the side were rubbish all season, a decent manager would have organised the defence and Suárez would have done the rest.

Suarez was a once in a generation player for Liverpool. But he had completed 2.5 seasons with the team before the 13/14 season. If Rodgers had not brought in Coutinho and Sturridge (who actually stayed fit!), and promoted Sterling, and put together such a dynamic, quick front four, who pressed the ball all the time, there is no guarantee that Suarez would have hit the heights he did. And part of the reason they conceded 50+ goals was because half the team was always bombing forward. Gerrard slotted in in front of the defence to launch attacks, but he was not a defensive central midfielder. Rodgers robbed from Peter to pay Paul, and very nearly pulled it off. A bit like Keegan did in the 90s with Newcastle (Ardiles did similar with Spurs.)

We will never know what might have happened had Suarez elected to stay put, allowing Rodgers to instead focus on strengthening the defensive aspect of the game. Instead, he had to dismantle the whole thing when Sanchez, a lesser, but similar player, went to Arsenal and ended up making a balls of it.

Your argument would be like totally dismissing Jim McGuinness and Donegal after the 2011 season, because they got only one aspect of the game (defense) solved at the expense of the other (attack). Instead, McGuinness sorted out both for the 2012 season and reaped the benefits. Rodgers might have done the same, or maybe not. Liverpool under him were never going to grind out a title challenge like Mourinho, but if Suarez had stayed, it might not have taken a huge defensive improvement to get them over the line.

[gawa316]

Flanno captain!

[Gabriel_Hurl]

Ah but sure Southampton are shite and should have had a penalty

[laoislad]

Im not watching it, must be playing ok if they are 2 up.
Any banners in the crowd.......?

[brokencrossbar1]

Should be 4 up. Dodgy enough one over the penalty not given but Long went down very easy. Not as clear cut as Bentekes the other week. Playing well without really being extended.

[Milltown Row2]

Good game, Liverpool should be outta sight.... Not as good as the Clare Limerick game though!!

[Milltown Row2]

Im not watching it, must be playing ok if they are 2 up.
Any banners in the crowd.......?

Playing well, they've a banner up saying we don't want fourth, we want to concentrate on being chokers!!  That's ridiculous the last few minutes

[brokencrossbar1]

Im not watching it, must be playing ok if they are 2 up.
Any banners in the crowd.......?

Playing well, they've a banner up saying we don't want fourth, we want to concentrate on being chokers!!  That's ridiculous the last few minutes

Fell apart with Skertl coming on. List all confidence at the back