A Tribute to Roy Hodgson - his LFC legacy in quotes

Yes, nice counter Sam.

Redman can keep banging on about 77 all he likes, christ I'd probably keep living in the past too if we were as shite as you've been for the past 2 years, and hey, its made all the more easy to do when you're backed by the board bringing King Ken out of retirement eh?

I mean, he's such a legend he's earned the right to get you relegated.

erm, did you get enough sleep, Popper?

But I don't need to counter anything. As good as the "we've spent less than you" debate is, it's not one I feel compelled to indulge in.

Kenny has earned the right to get Liverpool relegated? Are you using Ungenius Bearded American bloke's school of logic?

hehe.
 
Is it dick measuring to be proud that your club's best teams have contained a strong contingent of homegrown players?

I'm proud of the organic nature of our success, that's all. I was also surprised Liverpool had so few homegrown players in their greatest teams.

Basically dick measuring. I'll leave you to it.

There's a potential netspend debate here, Red. You're normally all over those.

Get your links out for the lads.
 
erm, did you get enough sleep, Popper?

But I don't need to counter anything. As good as the "we've spent less than you" debate is, it's not one I feel compelled to indulge in.

Kenny has earned the right to get Liverpool relegated? Are you using Ungenius Bearded American bloke's school of logic?

hehe.

Well - if you had lost every game since he took over you might well have got relegated.

It's your own fault for making that ridiculous statement of hero-worship.
 
Basically dick measuring. I'll leave you to it.

There's a potential netspend debate here, Red. You're normally all over those.

Get your links out for the lads.

Anything you don't like the sound of is dick-measuring. Taking pride in organic success is something you don't really understand so we'll leave it there.

Sam, most of the spending debates you've got yourself embroiled in have been started by you, claiming poverty on Liverpool's behalf.

You quickly get shown up as an idiot, then say some bollocks about agreeing to disagree, and scarper out of the thread ASAP.

Do we really have to go through the same charade again?

Let's just skip to the bit where you realise you're wrong and leave the thread.
 
Anything you don't like the sound of is dick-measuring. Taking pride in organic success is something you don't really understand so we'll leave it there.

Sam, most of the spending debates you've got yourself embroiled in have been started by you, claiming poverty on Liverpool's behalf.

You quickly get shown up as an idiot, then say some bollocks about agreeing to disagree, and scarper out of the thread ASAP.

Do we really have to go through the same charade again?

Let's just skip to the bit where you realise you're wrong and leave the thread.

:lol:
 
erm, did you get enough sleep, Popper?

But I don't need to counter anything. As good as the "we've spent less than you" debate is, it's not one I feel compelled to indulge in.
You're the one that mentioned it Sam, if you dont want to discuss a topic its probably best not to wade in with idiotic little comments on them.

Kenny has earned the right to get Liverpool relegated? Are you using Ungenius Bearded American bloke's school of logic?

hehe.
Oh I'm sorry I thought it was you that said he'd earned the right to lose every match to May... which would result in relegation... maybe I'll go back and dig out the quote...



Edit: Here you go.
I don't imagine Dalglish would ever take the stick that Hodgson did even if he loses every game from now till May.

But he has earned that right in my view.

Kenny.... earned the right to be free from criticism, even if he loses every game (which would see you relegated).
 
Anything you don't like the sound of is dick-measuring. Taking pride in organic success is something you don't really understand so we'll leave it there.

Sam, most of the spending debates you've got yourself embroiled in have been started by you, claiming poverty on Liverpool's behalf.

You quickly get shown up as an idiot, then say some bollocks about agreeing to disagree, and scarper out of the thread ASAP.

Do we really have to go through the same charade again?

Let's just skip to the bit where you realise you're wrong and leave the thread.

Wrong about what?

That you were dick measuring? You clearly were, Red. Just admit it.
 
Eh... he was responding to

Our 1977 European Cup winning side contained Tommy Smith & Ian Callaghan. We also Had 'super-sub' David fairclough on the bench. All 3 came through the youth system. We also had the likes of Ray Clemence, Phil Neal, Joey Jones, Steve Heighway, Kevin Keegan, & Jimmy Case. All 6 cost us pretty much next to nothing - We sold Kevin Keegan that year, & bought Kenny Dalglish as a replacement. Not only did we get a better player, we also made a nice little profit too.

Where the feck was your super duper youth system between 1968 & 1992 ?


Again,.... scousers bring it up, then complain about it being brought up.
 
I'm not sure I said that, Popper.

There's your confusion.

The quotes there for you Sam.... it was an unbelievably stupid fecking thing to say, I'd try deny it too.
 
The quotes there for you Sam.... it was an unbelievably stupid fecking thing to say, I'd try deny it too.

I believe I said King Kenny has earned the right never to take as much stick as Hodgson got. But he is by no means beyond criticism.

Hodgson did nothing for our club. KK has done a massive amount.
 
I said King Kenny has earned the right never to take as much stick as Hodgson got.

Yep, thats what you said alright, even if Kenny lost every game and got you relegated he doesn't deserve the stick that Hodgson got.

:lol: fecking hell.
 
You're the one that mentioned it Sam, if you dont want to discuss a topic its probably best not to wade in with idiotic little comments on them.

Oh I'm sorry I thought it was you that said he'd earned the right to lose every match to May... which would result in relegation... maybe I'll go back and dig out the quote...



Edit: Here you go.


Kenny.... earned the right to be free from criticism, even if he loses every game (which would see you relegated).
:lol: Sam G = Owned!!
 
Wrong about what?

That you were dick measuring? You clearly were, Red. Just admit it.

You don't understand the concept of taking pride in organic success, so there's no point discussing that further.

Just wrong in general. You're often wrong on alot of things, but you made a reputation of being repeatedly wrong in the spending debates you started. That's what I was referring to.

So rather than take your invitation to go through the charade again, I was offering you the chance to skip to the end. Let's do that.
 
No side has had organic success - it just doesn't happen. It's all very well saying that Giggs, Scholes and whoever have contributed to your success, which they have done, but you'd never have won 2 CLs without the players you spent money on who came from outside the club. Look at '08 for example - would you have won that tournament without your super front three that set you back approximately £50m? No way.
 
You don't understand the concept of taking pride in organic success, so there's no point discussing that further.

Just wrong in general. You're often wrong on alot of things, but you made a reputation of being repeatedly wrong in the spending debates you started. That's what I was referring to.

So rather than take your invitation to go through the charade again, I was offering you the chance to skip to the end. Let's do that.

I have no problem admitting I am wrong, Red. It's a rare thing that I'm wrong, that's all.

Like I'm not wrong about Utd's success - like all success in football - not being organic but being fundamentally on the back of having (a lot of) money. Take the big money signings out of Utd's current side and you are left with a 36yo Giggs and Scholes.

And Wes Brown.

I rest my case.
 
No side has had organic success - it just doesn't happen. It's all very well saying that Giggs, Scholes and whoever have contributed to your success, which they have done, but you'd never have won 2 CLs without the players you spent money on who came from outside the club. Look at '08 for example - would you have won that tournament without your super front three that set you back approximately £50m? No way.

I think 'organic' didn't exclude the purchase of players using money generated by the club. I think it implies a form of growth that is not reliant on third party investment.
 
No side has had organic success - it just doesn't happen. It's all very well saying that Giggs, Scholes and whoever have contributed to your success, which they have done, but you'd never have won 2 CLs without the players you spent money on who came from outside the club. Look at '08 for example - would you have won that tournament without your super front three that set you back approximately £50m? No way.

Well obviously no club wins things with a team entirely made of youth players.

Goes without saying really.

But clubs like Man United and Barcelona have certainly had a considerable homegrown element to their greatest teams.

Nothing wrong with being proud of that. It's natural I would have thought.
 
Well obviously no club wins things with a team entirely made of youth players.

Goes without saying really.

But clubs like Man United and Barcelona have certainly had a considerable homegrown element to their greatest teams.

Nothing wrong with being proud of that. It's natural I would have thought.

It depends how you define homegrown, to be honest. For example, with Arsenal, could we take pride in no player apart from Wilshere? Or could we take pride in players like Fabregas, Song, etc?

You got very lucky to have that golden generation of the early 90's. At the end of the day, if you win the CL, say, in 2012, you will have no players from Manchester/that sort of area in the squad. Does that make it any less an achievement?
 
Not less of an achievement, but its fairly straightforward to suggest that any team anywhere in the world would be glad and proud to have local lads in the first 11. I think those days are gone for pretty much every team though.
 
I have no problem admitting I am wrong, Red. It's a rare thing that I'm wrong, that's all.

Like I'm not wrong about Utd's success - like all success in football - not being organic but being fundamentally on the back of having (a lot of) money. Take the big money signings out of Utd's current side and you are left with a 36yo Giggs and Scholes.

And Wes Brown.

I rest my case.

And John O'Shea, and Darren Fletcher, and the future bright stars mentioned, who'll get their chances when Giggs and Scholes hang up their boots.

My point was, all United's greatest teams have contained a strong homegrown element. That is undisputable. This in turn allowed us to spend where we needed to because we didn't have to buy an entire squad (Liverpool style). The foundations were built on youth, and hopefully will continue to be so, though I accept it's more difficult in modern football to blood youngsters.

I'm proud of the organic foundations of our success though. If that annoys you, so be it.
 
And John O'Shea, and Darren Fletcher, and the future bright stars mentioned, who'll get their chances when Giggs and Scholes hang up their boots.

My point was, all United's greatest teams have contained a strong homegrown element. That is undisputable. This in turn allowed us to spend where we needed to because we didn't have to buy an entire squad (Liverpool style). The foundations were built on youth, and hopefully will continue to be so, though I accept it's more difficult in modern football to blood youngsters.

I'm proud of the organic foundations of our success though. If that annoys you, so be it.

Sorry, forgot about John O'Shea.

But, no, I am far from annoyed - not quite sure how you got there, Red - as having a core of local, or homegrown, lads in your team is definitely something to be proud of.

I know Liverpool have a few very good youngsters bubbling under the surface who hail from in and around the city itself, as well as others who will be considered homegrown. If they are regularly representing the club in 5 years time, I will be a happy man.
 
It depends how you define homegrown, to be honest. For example, with Arsenal, could we take pride in no player apart from Wilshere? Or could we take pride in players like Fabregas, Song, etc?

You got very lucky to have that golden generation of the early 90's. At the end of the day, if you win the CL, say, in 2012, you will have no players from Manchester/that sort of area in the squad. Does that make it any less an achievement?

It's not really lucky to bring through players that good. It takes alot of foresight and hard work. Witness how Fergie turned Scholes from a support striker into the best midfielder of his generation, for example.

2012 is next year. I'd fancy us to have at least 5 homegrown squad members. Wish it could be more obviously, but when you consider Liverpool have only had 7 homegrown winners in their history, it's not that bad.

It's getting more difficult though. There's a great article I read about it in The Independent. I'll fish it out for you on my lunch break. Very insightful but depressing read about why we'll probably never see a group like 1992 come through again.
 
Here's that article. It's actually an interview with Brian McClair.

Brian McClair: 'We won't produce a group like Beckham, Butt and Scholes again' - News & Comment, Football - The Independent

The whole article is good but these paragraphs outline some of the difficulties of repeating the same today:

Will United ever produce another generation like that? Will any English club? Brian McClair, head of United's academy since 2006, is probably sick of being asked the question. Behind the scenes of English football, in its most powerful clubs, the question of how young players are being developed is changing fundamentally. A whole new system – the Premier League-designed academy structure – has been in place since 1998 and it is not universally popular. When asked about the issue, Ferguson will often reply that he needs an entire press conference to answer. So here is a simple opening statement that puts it in perspective.

When McClair is asked when the next Scholes or Giggs or Beckham is coming, he answers thus. If the current academy system had been in place in the late 1980s United would not have signed Beckham, who grew up in Essex. McClair does not believe they would have signed the Nevilles either, as they would have been snapped up by Bury at an early age and a prohibitive price put upon them. Scholes, he says, would have been at Oldham Athletic's academy. Giggs would not have had the chance to leave Manchester City for the club he supported. United might have got Butt; they might not.
 
As an aside, Red, what do you consider 'homegrown'?

First senior appearance? At the club for a certain time? From a certain age?
 
As an aside, Red, what do you consider 'homegrown'?

First senior appearance? At the club for a certain time? From a certain age?

Of the current lot, the likes of Giggs, Scholes, Fletcher, O'Shea, Welbeck, Cleverley.

I don't consider the likes of Fabio, Rafael or Macheda homegrown, even though they hadn't played pro before coming here.
 
All buys are a risk. The thing is shrewd buys are called shrewd, because you get what you need at a reasonable cost and they work for you immediately. Smalling and Hernandez of United are 2 great examples. Kagawa at Dortmund and Ozil of Madrid another.

Are you classing £10m signings in the "shrewd" bracket now?

Don't you think you'd have been better off if you'd kept Stephen Warnock?

No.

There was another academy product a few years ago, a right back, who I thought looked really good when he broke through and it obviously meant a lot to him to wear the shirt - can't remember his name but he was moved on swiftly too.

So he turned out to be that good that you can't remember his name yet you think it was a mistake he was moved on? :wenger:

Holy Comolli Batman.
 
Of the current lot, the likes of Giggs, Scholes, Fletcher, O'Shea, Welbeck, Cleverley.

I don't consider the likes of Fabio, Rafael or Macheda homegrown, even though they hadn't played pro before coming here.

Ok. Cleverly signed from Bradford didn't he?

Liverpool have got an excellent 17yo youngster by the name of Andre Wisdom who we also got from Bradford 2 or 3 seasons ago. For some reason, if he makes it, I will struggle to think of him as homegrown. Same with Sterling who we signed as a 16yo. QPR will take the credit for that one should he make it.

I am not quite sure the point I am trying to make here. Maybe that the definition of homegrown is quite loose and subjective.
 

Yet King Kenny was trying to right the wrong by apparently trying to buy Warnock back in the January window. It's just my opinion - I'd have kept him, if only for the consistency amidst all the cheapo, hit and miss foreign buys you've had under recent managers. Looks like Kenny agrees too.

I mean given all the problems with that area of your team, trying out guys like Insua for example, why let a future full England international go? Seems madness, especially as he'd have given his right nut to play for you.

So he turned out to be that good that you can't remember his name yet you think it was a mistake he was moved on? :wenger:

I've never said he turned out to be 'that good'. He did look promising though and I was surprised when he so quickly moved on.

I can't really be arsed with you though, as you're clearly all about blindly defending everything Liverpool do, regardless of the sense in it. You seem pretty pissed off too, so I'm out.
 
Ok. Cleverly signed from Bradford didn't he?

Liverpool have got an excellent 17yo youngster by the name of Andre Wisdom who we also got from Bradford 2 or 3 seasons ago. For some reason, if he makes it, I will struggle to think of him as homegrown. Same with Sterling who we signed as a 16yo. QPR will take the credit for that one should he make it.

I am not quite sure the point I am trying to make here. Maybe that the definition of homegrown is quite loose and subjective.

The rules are different now and Uefa have muddied the waters further. Someone like Sterling, who played top level football at another club doesn't seem at all homegrown to me, but probably is in the eyes of Uefa.

Under the old system we may well have seen Wayne Rooney come through as a United player, seeing as Fergie was watching him from the age of 13/14, but Everton were always going to get him. It's worked out OK in the end but cost us £25m.
 
Yet King Kenny was trying to right the wrong by apparently trying to buy Warnock back in the January window. It's just my opinion - I'd have kept him, if only for the consistency amidst all the cheapo, hit and miss foreign buys you've had under recent managers. Looks like Kenny agrees too.

I mean given all the problems with that area of your team, trying out guys like Insua for example, why let a future full England international go? Seems madness, especially as he'd have given his right nut to play for you.



I've never said he turned out to be 'that good'. He did look promising though and I was surprised when he so quickly moved on.

I can't really be arsed with you though, as you're clearly all about blindly defending everything Liverpool do, regardless of the sense in it. You seem pretty pissed off too, so I'm out.

Haha I'm far from pissed off, I just disagree with you. Kenny may well have been trying to bring Warnock back but that doesn't necessarily mean it was the wrong idea to get rid of him. We are at a different place now than we were back then. Warnock is not the kind of player to take us back up a level in my humble opinion.

And I'm not "blindly defending Liverpool". I was merely pointing out that the argument you were using to criticise Liverpool made no sense. You are knocking us for getting rid of a player who you thought looked "promising" yet that player (whoever he may be - Steven Wright perhaps?) was not good enough to either make you remember his name or make Liverpool fans think "damn why did we get rid of him". So is that not a positive rather than a negative?

For the record I would have kept Insua as I feel he was thrown into the deep end too soon with the increasing glassiness of Aurelio and the increasing shiteness of Dossena.

There is no doubt however that we need to strengthen that position and if Kenny wants to bring Warnock in then fine as a squad player but we need better as a first choice.
 
Actually he only cost us 6m. Those are the types of deals a Liverpool should be looking at.

That's what SAF said in an interview just in passing. The majority of people claim it was £10m. But who knows.

Liverpool's argument would be that spending that amount of money on a substitute striker wasn't possible in the last couple of years of G & H.
 
That's what SAF said in an interview just in passing. The majority of people claim it was £10m. But who knows.

Liverpool's argument would be that spending that amount of money on a substitute striker wasn't possible in the last couple of years of G & H.
But we are talking about next season and beyond. They need to find gems of that price. In most outfield positions to beef up their paper thin squad. Rather than worrying about attracting stars like Sam G was alluding to.
 
That's what SAF said in an interview just in passing. The majority of people claim it was £10m. But who knows.

Liverpool's argument would be that spending that amount of money on a substitute striker wasn't possible in the last couple of years of G & H.

Hernandez is a great example of £7m well spent. Bebe is not.

There a very few guarantees when spending such a small amount though and there will be more misses than hits. Unless you have a very good eye of course.

Rafa generally didn't. Let's see about Kenny.