Brentan Rodgers

[Barney]

Liverpool are a sleeping giant. The last time they won something important was back in 2005 and they haven't won the league in ages. They aren't exactly renowned to give huge salaries either (when compared to Chelsea, Shitty, PSG, Real etc) I understand that Brits would give value to their history bla bla bla. However foreign players don't really give a feck about that. Some may not even know Liverpool's history at all (although Liverpool are quite known in Italy, for all the wrong reasons).

We are a sleeping giant. No denying that. Are only the Champions League amd Premier League meaningful or have you decided to ignore the FA cup since you haven't won it in a decade (I'd also argue the Carling Cup). Foreign players might not know our exact history, but you can bet they've all heard of Liverpool.

What Rodgers did last season was amazing. However things need to be taken into context. With United suffering a meltdown, Chelsea playing without a real quality striker and Spurs adapting to all those new players they bought, it wasn't that difficult for Liverpool to step up. The Scousers were hungry, they could focus on one trophy alone and lets face it those record number of penalties given did gave Liverpool a hand.

This strikes me as completely trying to discredit Rodgers for what he did last season. 84 points is 84 points. It's almost certainly enough to come second in any given year. Are we going to discredit United's title wins because we were in a slump? Of course not. Fact is, Chelsea, Arsenal and City all improved on their previous points haul from 2013. Of course it was bloody difficult for us to step up. There's a reason why we don't see teams go from 7th to 2nd. Ahh, the penalties. Yep, that must have been why we challenged. Let's not give Rodgers and the players any credit, right?

One of his mistakes (a classic in terms of British managers) was to concentrate his spending in the EPL were talent is very very expensive.

He signed three players from England and six players from foreign leagues. That's massively concentrated spending, innit?

 

[devilish]

We are a sleeping giant. No denying that. Are only the Champions League amd Premier League meaningful or have you decided to ignore the FA cup since you haven't won it in a decade (I'd also argue the Carling Cup). Foreign players might not know our exact history, but you can bet they've all heard of Liverpool.

I am not talking in terms of a Manchester United supporter but as a non British person who loves football. Do you think that a German, Spanish or Italian player give a feck about the FA cup? In Italy they've got the Coppa Italia which is rated as the Brits rate the league cup (or even worse)

This strikes me as completely trying to discredit Rodgers for what he did last season. 84 points is 84 points. It's almost certainly enough to come second in any given year. Are we going to discredit United's title wins because we were in a slump? Of course not. Fact is, Chelsea, Arsenal and City all improved on their previous points haul from 2013. Of course it was bloody difficult for us to step up. There's a reason why we don't see teams go from 7th to 2nd. Ahh, the penalties. Yep, that must have been why we challenged. Let's not give Rodgers and the players any credit, right?

Erm had you not read the first sentence? Let me rewrite it for you. What Rodgers did last season was amazing. Having said that you also need to take in context others stuff like United/Spurs meltdown and Chelsea who were clearly struggling upfront. Also its fair to say that Liverpool's condition which allowed them to focus on just 1 cup did helped them up. Its helping us up this season because there's no way this team would be at 4th place with so many injuries ravaging us.

He signed three players from England and six players from foreign leagues. That's massively concentrated spending, innit?

He spent 49m + another 15m on Balotelli (I am pretty confident that he signed him for what he did at Shitty rather then for his horrible experience at Inter and Milan were he was basically kicked out of both clubs) on players with EPL experience. That's quite a huge amount of money expecially when considering the value for talent/attitude. As said before its a common mistake done by many British managers. Moyes for example spent 60m+ on a thug with funny hair and a player which we didn't need when they were cheaper and better options around.

 

[Jayvin]

Stevie Me practising for when Brendan goes.

That's fantastic. "Yeah but Jordan, I'm Steven Gerrard"

 

[RedRover]

What nonsense.



We could have paid more for a player, but the trouble was who? Balotelli was the best available player and Rodgers took him after the TC said it was him or no one.

Your opinion would hold more water if you could tell me why you think that. Mourinho saw Ballotelli as a problem, and Mancini who was suppsoedly like a father to him couldn't handle him either. AC Milan are hardly flying and were willing to let him go. He's clearly a talent but one who's moved on for less money each time he's pitched up at a new club - the law of diminishing returns.

His attitude is a problem, everyone can see it - including Rodgers no doubt, yet he clearly thought he could get the best out of him. It seems he overestimated his ability to do so.

That's not even considering the tactical implications of replacing a supremely talented workhorse in Suarez with a static, often workshy target man and expecting the same (or a very similar) system to work.

I take teh point about who else was avaialable but when is that ever an excuse? Not only is Ballotelli iffy in terms of consistency, he's potentially a dvisive character in the dressing room. Liverpool last year had a good balance and a team pulling for each other. When things start going wrong a lazy underperforming player like Ballotelli will not be popular with other players. He's come in on huge wages which makes him hard to move on if it doesnt work out so what then? Singing him isnt only a risk in terms of him performing - its a risk in terms of damage he can cause off the field as well if he's not happy.

 

[RedRover]

Or perhaps Ballotelli was the best that he could buy on wage structure and budget left? Plus LVG could be shot at with the accusation of the 3 at the back! I think Rodgers is not a great manager (like what was said last year) and is not a (car salesman) what is getting banded about just now. He will be somewhere in between.

Managers stand and fall by decisions they make. Is he the "best" they could have bought? He might have been the only big nmae they could afford but there are arguably much better players out there in terms of performances they've been putting in.

As I said above, he's come in on wages that will make him difficult to move on if this doesn't work and as it stands he's not scoring any goals. One good game in five or six isnt what Liverpool need and nor is a player with form for being lazy on the pitch and difficult when things arent working out.

The implications of signing one bad player are usually not that significant. Signing Mario Ballotelli comes with huge scrutiny and a warning - with people queuing up to tell you "I told you so" when he proves to be a disaster. You also get the Ballotelli sideshow in the meantime why you try to get him to leave. Its put Rodgers under scrutiny he may not have been under had he signed another player.

And Rodgers had a fortune at his disposal. He was the one who chose to spend £20 million on Lovren and various sums on other players. Some might argue that money could have been spent better and Suarex replaced properly.

 

[Ducklegs]

Really, Liverpool would of been better signing nobody rather than Ballotelli, its not like you needed to be Nostradamus to see how it was going to work out with him.

 

[finneh]

We could have paid more for a player, but the trouble was who? Balotelli was the best available player and Rodgers took him after the TC said it was him or no one.

You should have thrown good money and wages at Khedira for a start. Probably should have pushed the boat out for Cech as well. There were also far more proven, quality player's like Valbuena available for £4-5m, rather than Lallana at £25m. Investing money "for the future" on Markovic was stupid too, considering you needed to replace Suarez now, not in 5 years.

Khedira/Cech would have solved two of the three most glaring weaknesses in goalkeeper and defensive midfielder. That would leave £70m to throw at a centre forward/wide player (such as, as I'd have kept the central defence of Agger, Toure, Skrtel & Sakho, as they aren't great but there aren't many better at the moment for a reasonable price. Liverpool should have been blowing Atletico out of the water (wage wise) for the likes of Griezmann at £24m.

Then with the £45-50m left over wouldn't have got someone like Cavani. A Summer similar to:

Khedira
Cech
Moreno
Manquillo
Cavani
Greizmann
Valbuena

Would be infinitely better and would have probably cost you less (albeit with higher wages). Maybe I am wrong and even with good wages the likes of Cavani, Greizmann, Khedira, Cech would have shunned Liverpool, but money talks and a Summer like that and you'd be up there come the end of the season imo.

The wages issue should be offset by Reina leaving, much lower contract for Gerrard imminently; obviously Suarez' 200k a week gone. Plus the new TV revenue and CL revenue of course.

 

[Barney]

Erm had you not read the first sentence?

I did. It's just that everything that came after read like that.

You should have thrown good money and wages at Khedira for a start. Probably should have pushed the boat out for Cech as well. There were also far more proven, quality player's like Valbuena available for £4-5m, rather than Lallana at £25m. Investing money "for the future" on Markovic was stupid too, considering you needed to replace Suarez now, not in 5 years.

Khedira/Cech would have solved two of the three most glaring weaknesses in goalkeeper and defensive midfielder. That would leave £70m to throw at a centre forward/wide player (such as, as I'd have kept the central defence of Agger, Toure, Skrtel & Sakho, as they aren't great but there aren't many better at the moment for a reasonable price. Liverpool should have been blowing Atletico out of the water (wage wise) for the likes of Griezmann at £24m.

Khedira was asking for what? 160k a week? Those wages are ridiculous. Chelsea refuse to sell Bertrand to us, but they'll sell us Cech? Valbuena is 29 or so, isn't he? He went to Dinamo Moscow which tells you what his priorities are. As for Griezmann, he's lived in Spain and Atletico had just reached the final of the champions league and won La Liga. Aside from that, Madrid is a bigger city than Liverpool.

 

[Sarni]

You should have thrown good money and wages at Khedira for a start. Probably should have pushed the boat out for Cech as well. There were also far more proven, quality player's like Valbuena available for £4-5m, rather than Lallana at £25m. Investing money "for the future" on Markovic was stupid too, considering you needed to replace Suarez now, not in 5 years.

Khedira/Cech would have solved two of the three most glaring weaknesses in goalkeeper and defensive midfielder. That would leave £70m to throw at a centre forward/wide player (such as, as I'd have kept the central defence of Agger, Toure, Skrtel & Sakho, as they aren't great but there aren't many better at the moment for a reasonable price. Liverpool should have been blowing Atletico out of the water (wage wise) for the likes of Griezmann at £24m.

Then with the £45-50m left over wouldn't have got someone like Cavani. A Summer similar to:

Khedira
Cech
Moreno
Manquillo
Cavani
Greizmann
Valbuena

Would be infinitely better and would have probably cost you less (albeit with higher wages). Maybe I am wrong and even with good wages the likes of Cavani, Greizmann, Khedira, Cech would have shunned Liverpool, but money talks and a Summer like that and you'd be up there come the end of the season imo.

The wages issue should be offset by Reina leaving, much lower contract for Gerrard imminently; obviously Suarez' 200k a week gone. Plus the new TV revenue and CL revenue of course.

Cavani was never going to join Liverpool and I'd not be surprised if Griezmann prefered Atletico over them.

 

[finneh]

Khedira was asking for what? 160k a week? Those wages are ridiculous. Chelsea refuse to sell Bertrand to us, but they'll sell us Cech? Valbuena is 29 or so, isn't he? He went to Dinamo Moscow which tells you what his priorities are. As for Griezmann, he's lived in Spain and Atletico had just reached the final of the champions league and won La Liga. Aside from that, Madrid is a bigger city than Liverpool.

Khedira was asking for around £160k a week; but how much are Balotelli, Can and Lambert earning together - about the same I imagine? It's a position where you needed a top drawer player, but you decided to go for the cheap option in Can, who is a bench warmer. Valbuena obviously was looking for a good salary, but you'd have got him for a 4 year package worth around half that of Lallana including the transfer fee.

Again money would have talked with Greizmann, you offer him £80-100k a week which I'd assume would be double Atletico's offer and he'd have been persuaded. Obviously Chelsea will reject peanuts for Bertrand when they can just loan him to So'ton, what is a couple of million to Chelsea? It's a different kettle of fish if you cough up £15-20m for Cech, like with the £37m for Mata.

To me Liverpool's transfer exploits were shopping in the bargain basement. Instead of looking at attracting top class player's with a competitive salary who would actually improve the team; they went for bench warmers who cost a fortune in transfer fee's, but would command a lower salary. That's the tactics of a club like Sunderland, not Liverpool.

 

[Barney]

Khedira was asking for around £160k a week; but how much are Balotelli, Can and Lambert earning together - about the same I imagine? It's a position where you needed a top drawer player, but you decided to go for the cheap option in Can, who is a bench warmer. Valbuena obviously was looking for a good salary, but you'd have got him for a 4 year package worth around half that of Lallana including the transfer fee.

Again money would have talked with Greizmann, you offer him £80-100k a week which I'd assume would be double Atletico's offer and he'd have been persuaded. Obviously Chelsea will reject peanuts for Bertrand when they can just loan him to So'ton, what is a couple of million to Chelsea? It's a different kettle of fish if you cough up £15-20m for Cech, like with the £37m for Mata.

To me Liverpool's transfer exploits were shopping in the bargain basement. Instead of looking at attracting top class player's with a competitive salary who would actually improve the team; they went for bench warmers who cost a fortune in transfer fee's, but would command a lower salary. That's the tactics of a club like Sunderland, not Liverpool.

Can will be a big player for us in the future. Strange that a bench warmer played against Chelsea. Valbuena is what, 29 or 30? A 4 year package at that age is not great.

No idea what Atletico are paying Griezmann so I won't bother arguing that one. We were offering £8m for Bertrand. The Cech situation is different than the Mata one as at the time Chelsea viewed us as a threat.

 

[SteveJ]

"Skrtel, Lovren - I want you two to mind the posts each time the opposition has a corner.
Is that absolutely clear?"

"Right - don't mind the posts every time they get a corner."

"No...EACH TIME THEY HAVE A CORNER, YOU TWO MUST GUARD EACH POST. Get it?"

"When they get a throw-in, we've got to guard the postbox."

"Fockin' 'ells bells..."

 

[Barney]

"Skrtel, Lovren - I want you two to mind the posts each time the opposition has a corner.
Is that absolutely clear?"

"Right - don't mind the posts every time they get a corner."

"No...EACH TIME THEY HAVE A CORNER, YOU TWO MUST GUARD EACH POST. Get it?"

"When they get a throw-in, we've got to guard the postbox."

"Fockin' 'ells bells..."

 

[JPRouve]

Really? I genuinely don't remember that.


Edit - Appears there were a few, I wouldn't say a lot, but there was also a lot of caution.

I'm maybe exaggerating but I remember that he was the fourth or fifth choice in a list containing, Hummels, Varane, Godin, Miranda, Mangala and Lovren.
And i still can't believe that Mangala or Lovren are rated that highly, i think that some people don't watch football outside of England.

 

[devilish]

Really, Liverpool would of been better signing nobody rather than Ballotelli, its not like you needed to be Nostradamus to see how it was going to work out with him.

Balotelli had always had a consistent goal scoring record wherever he went. He was cheap, young and his career was heading to nowhere so he's probably accepted a salary package that reflects that.

Ok He's a cnut but Liverpool love those type of strikers (Fowler, Collymore, Suarez).

 

[Barney]

Balotelli had always had a consistent goal scoring record wherever he went. He's a cnut but Liverpool love those type of strikers (Fowler, Collymore, Suarez).

We love Collymore?

 

[devilish]

We love Collymore?

He was a regular scorer for you wasn't he? 35 goals in 81 matches isn't that bad.

 

[Barney]

He was a regular scorer for you wasn't he? 35 goals in 81 matches isn't that bad.

Definitely wasn't loved by us.

 

[Reds-of-Ulster]

Definitely wasn't loved by us.

Does anyone love him?

 

[devilish]

Definitely wasn't loved by us.

Well I am talking about the club. Liverpool FC had never shown any real concerns about having strikers who were cnuts and to be fair I understand why because they did so well with you. Suarez, Fowler, Collymore.....etc

 

[Barney]

Does anyone love him?

I doubt it. He's a knob.

 

[finneh]

Can will be a big player for us in the future. Strange that a bench warmer played against Chelsea. Valbuena is what, 29 or 30? A 4 year package at that age is not great.

No idea what Atletico are paying Griezmann so I won't bother arguing that one. We were offering £8m for Bertrand. The Cech situation is different than the Mata one as at the time Chelsea viewed us as a threat.

Again the bolded is ridiculous. Firstly most of the German posters were saying he was a pretty average player last season; secondly the last thing Liverpool needed was player's who are a toss of a coin as to whether they'll be good in 5 years (Markovic too).

Are you suggesting that Mourinho is idiotic enough to think that Man United are less of a threat in the short-medium term than Liverpool? Even if we accept that you were above them last season and we were 7th; do you really think he wouldn't have thought about 6-12 months in the future? The fact is he wanted rid and we were the team that offered the most, which enabled him to buy Matic and Salah with some change. Mourinho is pragmatic; he knows he can strengthen Chelsea as a team with £20m, rather than have a goalkeeper warm his bench.

I don't really know what happened at Liverpool. Apparently they matched Arsenal's salary offer to Sanchez of around £7-8m, so offering big money doesn't seem to be the issue; but they still ended up shopping in the bargain basement. With the extra CL revenue, TV revenue and Suarez money we should have seen them wipe the floor with the likes of Dortmund & Atletico in the transfer market, and only be beaten to targets by United, Chelsea, City, PSG, Real, Bayern, Barcelona & Arsenal.

Now the problem is that even though their are a few "gettable" player's in January who'd improve you; have you blown your entire budget?

 

[Barney]

Now the problem is that even though their are a few "gettable" player's in January who'd improve you; have you blown your entire budget?

Doubt it. I reckon Rodgers will be given £20m or so to make adjustments.

 

[Nogbadthebad]

Balotelli had always had a consistent goal scoring record wherever he went.

That was never the problem with signing Balotelli.

That he also has a consistent way of pissing off everyone around him everywhere he goes is the real issue with balotelli. Pool had a squad over performing all over the pitch due to team spirit and the form player in the league. The latter went, they had to keep the former to do anything, instead, they bought the one player who is guaranteed to feck about, give no effort and disrupt the dressing room.

 

[Ducklegs]

Balotelli had always had a consistent goal scoring record wherever he went. He was cheap, young and his career was heading to nowhere so he's probably accepted a salary package that reflects that.

Ok He's a cnut but Liverpool love those type of strikers (Fowler, Collymore, Suarez).

Its more than just goals as has already been said.

He is like Anelka but without the goals, you just dont want him in the side.

Ballotelli is just a massive twat, not because he has played for two of Uniteds biggest rivals, just because he is genuinely a massive twat who you wouldn't want in your side.
We've all played with guys like him, and its very difficult to get past the fact you are are playing with someone you cannot fecking stand, especially when they are so lazy.

 

[Phurry]

Balotelli had always had a consistent goal scoring record wherever he went. He was cheap, young and his career was heading to nowhere so he's probably accepted a salary package that reflects that.

Ok He's a cnut but Liverpool love those type of strikers (Fowler, Collymore, Suarez).

How much of that was down to penalties & free kicks? Something he was never going to be taking at the dippers.

 

[Crackers]

"Skrtel, Lovren - I want you two to mind the posts each time the opposition has a corner.
Is that absolutely clear?"

"Right - don't mind the posts every time they get a corner."

"No...EACH TIME THEY HAVE A CORNER, YOU TWO MUST GUARD EACH POST. Get it?"

"When they get a throw-in, we've got to guard the postbox."

"Fockin' 'ells bells..."

 

[devilish]

That was never the problem with signing Balotelli.

That he also has a consistent way of pissing off everyone around him everywhere he goes is the real issue with balotelli. Pool had a squad over performing all over the pitch due to team spirit and the form player in the league. The latter went, they had to keep the former to do anything, instead, they bought the one player who is guaranteed to feck about, give no effort and disrupt the dressing room.

Liverpool has been the natural home for these sort of strikers for decades. Fowler, Anelka, Collymore, Suarez. Id say if there was a club capable to make this work was actually Liverpool.

 

[devilish]

Its more than just goals as has already been said.

He is like Anelka but without the goals, you just dont want him in the side.

Ballotelli is just a massive twat, not because he has played for two of Uniteds biggest rivals, just because he is genuinely a massive twat who you wouldn't want in your side.
We've all played with guys like him, and its very difficult to get past the fact you are are playing with someone you cannot fecking stand, especially when they are so lazy.

I wouldn't want him in our side that's a given. However as said before, Liverpool has been able to sign strikers who were absolute cnuts and make it work. Seriously the boy is talented. He's still young and had been a regular scorer with Shitty, AC Milan and Inter. Considering Liverpool's history with these sort of strikers + the fee I believe it was worth the punt.

In my opinion the big mistake was to expect him to replace Suarez. The latter is like the third best player in the world.

 

[RedRover]

Its more than just goals as has already been said.

He is like Anelka but without the goals, you just dont want him in the side.

Ballotelli is just a massive twat, not because he has played for two of Uniteds biggest rivals, just because he is genuinely a massive twat who you wouldn't want in your side.
We've all played with guys like him, and its very difficult to get past the fact you are are playing with someone you cannot fecking stand, especially when they are so lazy.

I saw some quote from him where he was taking about how he loved Ibrahimovic. Sums him up - don't model yourself on a player who actually works hard to get where they are, rather look up to a bloke who while being a great talent doesn't have the work ethic that others have.

Ibrahimovic gets by on having the level of talent, and ability to turn it on when required that Ballotelli doesn't.

If he was half as good as he was in his own head he'd be a great player. The biggest pity is if he knuckled down and worked a bit harder he'd easily be a success in the PL. Sadly I suspect he's got no inclination to do that.

 

[RedRover]

I wouldn't want him in our side that's a given. However as said before, Liverpool has been able to sign strikers who were absolute cnuts and make it work. Seriously the boy is talented. He's still young and had been a regular scorer with Shitty, AC Milan and Inter. Considering Liverpool's history with these sort of strikers + the fee I believe it was worth the punt.

In my opinion the big mistake was to expect him to replace Suarez. The latter is like the third best player in the world.

That last point is spot on. Totally different players.

The thing Rodgers probably underestimated is the scrutiny a signing like this puts a manager under. The press love Ballotelli fir obvious reasons and if this continues as it has, and Rodgers gets the push then "replacing Suarez with Balotelli" (even if that's not strictly how it went) could be seen as a watershed moment summing up what went wrong for him.

 

[gooDevil]

Balotelli...Did they have a better option? Why didn't they buy a replacement before they sold Suarez?

I have to conclude most top players don't want to go to Liverpool. Torres is the only top player they've been able to lure, who was actually at his best when purchased, when plenty of other top teams were in for him, in a decade.

And after their “stand up for racism" campaign it's gotta be tough.

 

[devilish]

That last point is spot on. Totally different players.

The thing Rodgers probably underestimated is the scrutiny a signing like this puts a manager under. The press love Ballotelli fir obvious reasons and if this continues as it has, and Rodgers gets the push then "replacing Suarez with Balotelli" (even if that's not strictly how it went) could be seen as a watershed moment summing up what went wrong for him.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong in bringing in a different type of striker to Suarez. I mean are there any other strikers like Suarez around? The guy is an absolute cnut but he's good in his job. Liverpool are in the same situation we were when we replaced Ronaldo. Valencia was a different player and much much much much much much much worse then Ronaldo. There again, there's only one Ronaldo as much as there's only one Suarez.

When you're replacing a world class player with someone worse then you simply have to protect him. SAF did that by giving Michael Owen the iconic no 7. We were so busy laughing at the has been with his brochures and his ridiculous optimism of returning back to his Liverpool form that Valencia went largely unnoticed. I am not putting the blame completely on Rodgers. In my opinion Balo should do more because this IS his last chance at top club level. Having said that Rodgers knew exactly the type of player he was signing and at 15m you can hardly complain for not getting a top dog.

To conclude I never understood why EPL top clubs go for a lazy striker. As a forward in the EPL you can get away with anything (too short ex Zola, a poacher ex RVN, shit in scoring ex Welbeck etc) apart from being lazy. A lazy striker would never make it at a top EPL side or at least I can't remember one doing that.

 

[Sad Chris]

Pretty sure that last season there were posters in this thread making a serious claim that we should get Rodgers in here.
Anyone owning up to that now?

I wanted him, but Brenda's head was too big for Fred the Red's costume. Talking about our mascots, remember Michael the Bank Street Canary?

During the 1890s, readers of Newton Heath F.C. match programmes may have seen advertisements to hear "Michael the Bank Street Canary sing," for a nominal fee. However, Michael was not able to sing, and nor was he a canary. In actuality, Michael was a goose and was an unwitting participant in the money-making schemes that the club were using during their financial difficulties.

Understandably, the fans who had paid good money to hear a canary sing were rightfully unimpressed by Michael's tuneless honk. Then, one Christmas, Michael mysteriously disappeared, never to be seen again, believed to have been served as a dissatisfied fan's Christmas dinner.

Now THAT sounds like Brenda's true career story to me, and I'll give you a hint: Brenda is not the Canary...

Btw. the factual research was bluntly stolen from wikipedia. For a full mascot summary have a look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_United_F.C._mascots

 

[RedRover]

There's nothing intrinsically wrong in bringing in a different type of striker to Suarez. I mean are there any other strikers like Suarez around? The guy is an absolute cnut but he's good in his job. Liverpool are in the same situation we were when we replaced Ronaldo. Valencia was a different player and much much much much much much much worse then Ronaldo. There again, there's only one Ronaldo as much as there's only one Suarez.

When you're replacing a world class player with someone worse then you simply have to protect him. SAF did that by giving Michael Owen the iconic no 7. We were so busy laughing at the has been with his brochures and his ridiculous optimism of returning back to his Liverpool form that Valencia went largely unnoticed. I am not putting the blame completely on Rodgers. In my opinion Balo should do more because this IS his last chance at top club level. Having said that Rodgers knew exactly the type of player he was signing and at 15m you can hardly complain for not getting a top dog.

To conclude I never understood why EPL top clubs go for a lazy striker. As a forward in the EPL you can get away with anything (too short ex Zola, a poacher ex RVN, shit in scoring ex Welbeck etc) apart from being lazy. A lazy striker would never make it at a top EPL side or at least I can't remember one doing that.

A different type of forward is fine if you're going to change your system. I'm not sure Rodgers had the inclination to do that.

I feel a bit sorry for Rodgers - he had to buy quantity due to the CL but still needed quality to replace Suarez. But the bottom line is he looks like he's got it wrong. Spent a fortune and has a worse side than he started with.

The young lads he's brought in in Markovic and Origi may come good - but he might not be there to see it.

The season after coming so close was always going to be hard. They're not a surprise package, nor do they have the advantage of less games as last year, but the pure truth of it is that they're simply noted good either and Rodgers as it stands doesn't look like he knows how to change it.

 

[gasmanc]

What nonsense.



We could have paid more for a player, but the trouble was who would come

Fixed

 

[BorisontheRock]

There's nothing intrinsically wrong in bringing in a different type of striker to Suarez. I mean are there any other strikers like Suarez around? The guy is an absolute cnut but he's good in his job. Liverpool are in the same situation we were when we replaced Ronaldo. Valencia was a different player and much much much much much much much worse then Ronaldo. There again, there's only one Ronaldo as much as there's only one Suarez.

When you're replacing a world class player with someone worse then you simply have to protect him. SAF did that by giving Michael Owen the iconic no 7. We were so busy laughing at the has been with his brochures and his ridiculous optimism of returning back to his Liverpool form that Valencia went largely unnoticed. I am not putting the blame completely on Rodgers. In my opinion Balo should do more because this IS his last chance at top club level. Having said that Rodgers knew exactly the type of player he was signing and at 15m you can hardly complain for not getting a top dog.

To conclude I never understood why EPL top clubs go for a lazy striker. As a forward in the EPL you can get away with anything (too short ex Zola, a poacher ex RVN, shit in scoring ex Welbeck etc) apart from being lazy. A lazy striker would never make it at a top EPL side or at least I can't remember one doing that.

Berbatov always had a languid style which could be seen as lazy, argue whether he made it maybe, but he was a it of a fans favourite. Probably the exception rather than rule as you are right. It's the rooney rule... Hardwork covers all ills

 

[Lawman]

Berbatov always had a languid style which could be seen as lazy, argue whether he made it maybe, but he was a it of a fans favourite. Probably the exception rather than rule as you are right. It's the rooney rule... Hardwork covers all ills

Henry was a lazy fecker defensively but awesome

 

[Jammydodger7]

Found in the newbs.

It's things like this that make me hate him! Why did he have to come out and say this? At the end of the day Southampton didn't really have a choice, if a player wants to leave he will!
His ego got the better of him and he thoufght he could say whatever he wanted!

 

[gulli_G]

Proof that Moyes for us last year was better than Brenton for the scousers this year: