Brentan Rodgers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not sure I understand the premise here, as regards the cup debate. Surely, no team - barring a lower-division one - can be said to have overachieved by winning the cup. It's a trophy which works as a feather in your cap, as a manager - but which cannot possibly be set as some kind of decisive goal before the season. For obvious reasons. Statistically, the cup is NOT won by the best team in the land.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Not sure I understand the premise here, as regards the cup debate. Surely, no team - barring a lower-division one - can be said to have overachieved by winning the cup. It's a trophy which works as a feather in your cap, as a manager - but which cannot possibly be set as some kind of decisive goal before the season. For obvious reasons. Statistically, the cup is NOT won by the best team in the land.
Click to expand...
Yep, agreed.
 
Speak said:
To just take the bit in bold: Not sure I agree with this. Overachieving is more relative to the club's current standing (and the level of competition) than what the club did in other seasons. Plus league and cup is completely different.

You say most people expect "at best" semi-final for Liverpool. I don't really understand this. Everyone knows that the cup is unpredictable. People don't expect much beyond, perhaps, one of the top five or six clubs to win it. Over-achievement is much more easily graded in a league format.
Click to expand...

Chesterlestreet said:
Not sure I understand the premise here, as regards the cup debate. Surely, no team - barring a lower-division one - can be said to have overachieved by winning the cup. It's a trophy which works as a feather in your cap, as a manager - but which cannot possibly be set as some kind of decisive goal before the season. For obvious reasons. Statistically, the cup is NOT won by the best team in the land.
Click to expand...

Since 1994 the FA Cup has been won by Chelsea 6 times, Arsenal 5 times, United 4 times. That's 15 out of 20 trophies won by one of the top clubs in the Country. Apart from those 3 teams only Liverpool, Everton, Portsmouth, Wigan & City have won it. When Liverpool & City won their trophies you would have classed them as one of the best 3-4 clubs in the League (Liverpool won it at the time they were getting to Champions League finals, City won it when they finished joint 2nd in the League).

That leaves Everton, Portsmouth & Wigan as the only clubs to have won it whilst not being a regular team competing at the top of the table. I'd say that means that statistically the FA Cup is won by one of the best teams in the land, in fact around 90% of the time that is the case.

So yes, in my opinion Liverpool finishing fifth and winning the FA Cup is a season where Rodgers will have performed better than expected (and ergo overachieved).
 
finneh said:
Since 1994 the FA Cup has been won by Chelsea 6 times, Arsenal 5 times, United 4 times. That's 15 out of 20 trophies won by one of the top clubs in the Country. Apart from those 3 teams only Liverpool, Everton, Portsmouth, Wigan & City have won it. When Liverpool & City won their trophies you would have classed them as one of the best 3-4 clubs in the League (Liverpool won it at the time they were getting to Champions League finals, City won it when they finished joint 2nd in the League).

That leaves Everton, Portsmouth & Wigan as the only clubs to have won it whilst not being a regular team competing at the top of the table. I'd say that means that statistically the FA Cup is won by one of the best teams in the land, in fact around 90% of the time that is the case.

So yes, in my opinion Liverpool finishing fifth and winning the FA Cup is a season where Rodgers will have performed better than expected (and ergo overachieved).
Click to expand...
Just looking at the last few years - Chelsea finished 6th under Di Matteo. Arsenal finished 4th last season. Not sure about the rest of the times Chelsea and Liverpool won it.

Regardless, it's a very different situation to the league, in terms of clear over-achievement. I see where you're coming from though.
 
finneh said:
Since 1994 the FA Cup has been won by Chelsea 6 times, Arsenal 5 times, United 4 times. That's 15 out of 20 trophies won by one of the top clubs in the Country. Apart from those 3 teams only Liverpool, Everton, Portsmouth, Wigan & City have won it. When Liverpool & City won their trophies you would have classed them as one of the best 3-4 clubs in the League (Liverpool won it at the time they were getting to Champions League finals, City won it when they finished joint 2nd in the League).

That leaves Everton, Portsmouth & Wigan as the only clubs to have won it whilst not being a regular team competing at the top of the table. I'd say that means that statistically the FA Cup is won by one of the best teams in the land, in fact around 90% of the time that is the case.

So yes, in my opinion Liverpool finishing fifth and winning the FA Cup is a season where Rodgers will have performed better than expected (and ergo overachieved).
Click to expand...

You're getting cause and effect mixed up. Of course the best teams in the land are more likely to win the FA Cup. This doesn't mean that the winner of the FA Cup should be considered one of the best teams in the land.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
You're getting cause and effect mixed up. Of course the best teams in the land are more likely to win the FA Cup. This doesn't mean that the winner of the FA Cup should be considered one of the best teams in the land.
Click to expand...

Aye, that was my point. The bigger the club, the more FA Cups they have historically, but on a season-by-season basis pretty much anything can happen. How often does a clearly inferior team win the league? Almost never. The cup? Pretty damn often.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
You're getting cause and effect mixed up. Of course the best teams in the land are more likely to win the FA Cup. This doesn't mean that the winner of the FA Cup should be considered one of the best teams in the land.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying they should be considered the best in the land, that wasn't my point even slightly.

My point was that for an upper mid table team like Everton, Spurs or Liverpool winning the FA Cup should be considered over-achieving for that season.
 
Speak said:
Fair enough. We'll have to disagree on Liverpool's draw for top players. During the Premier League era... they've not had a manager who's left a mark like Sir Alex or Wenger, they're not really known for their attractive football over the years, they don't have a history of signing many big names, they haven't actually ever won the Premier League, they don't pay the highest wages.

Their 'prestige' and 'legacy' which, frankly, is so far removed from the Liverpool of today, is pretty irrelevant to a top player with options. Liverpool would barely enter the mind. And yes, the type of player they can attract is much more in line with Tottenham than United.

As for the rest, my point was about having a squad that on paper should be higher than fifth.
Atletico have worked wonders. That's exactly my point. Regardless of how highly people now rate their squad after the success has been achieved, on paper they've still overachieved. Wage bill for wage bill - they've overachieved. Same as Rodgers did last season.

Yes I do think it's a big task for them to build a better squad than the four teams above them. I'll put it this way - United are more likely to sign three Di Maria-caliber players in the next three seasons than Liverpool signing just one. And the reality is - it's that caliber of player that wins the title year after year. Long gone are the days when someone like Wenger could build a ridiculous team with modest fees and wages.
Click to expand...
Then you've been detached from the current situation in european football if you think that its that difficult to build a great squad even if not signing the so called 'stars' who most are rejects from the super clubs.

On this paper of yours Coutinho and Sturridge should be pretty high since they have obvious quality, they weren't signed as some big name players which in turn I'd say proves just how poor pool have been in the market in recent times. This isn't over achieving, just great work in the market. The squads we and arsenal have put together aren't anything spectacular despite our 'stature'. You can't just say because we are higher on the list of so called stars then its okay for rodgers to have put together the squad he has with the amount of money he has.

Pool have a revenue of 300mil+. Which is 9th in european football. Do you see a squad that warrants a team of such a stature? They are far away from having a squad that's the 9th best in europe, instead they have squad that's getting beaten by the likes of Besiktas and can't qualify from a terrible group in the CL. With that sort of revenue and spending 220 in the market in the Rodgers years this doesn't tell a story of over achievement, this is a story of abject failure.

If the people that are running Pool think like you then I'd seriously worry for them. Continuing down the path they've embarked on in recent years is only going to push them further down the ladder. A ladder that despite them not achieving much in recent times they still find themselves financially 9th in europe, and have the backing of a wonderful history.

We'll agree to disagree as its clear you think money is the be end all and its acceptable to have 1 point over a formerly decimated southampton regardless of how much money is actually spend.
 
RooneyLegend said:
Then you've been detached from the current situation in european football if you think that its that difficult to build a great squad even if not signing the so called 'stars' who most are rejects from the super clubs.

On this paper of yours Coutinho and Sturridge should be pretty high since they have obvious quality, they weren't signed as some big name players which in turn I'd say proves just how poor pool have been in the market in recent times. This isn't over achieving, just great work in the market. The squads we and arsenal have put together aren't anything spectacular despite our 'stature'. You can't just say because we are higher on the list of so called stars then its okay for rodgers to have put together the squad he has with the amount of money he has.

Pool have a revenue of 300mil+. Which is 9th in european football. Do you see a squad that warrants a team of such a stature? They are far away from having a squad that's the 9th best in europe, instead they have squad that's getting beaten by the likes of Besiktas and can't qualify from a terrible group in the CL. With that sort of revenue and spending 220 in the market in the Rodgers years this doesn't tell a story of over achievement, this is a story of abject failure.

If the people that are running Pool think like you then I'd seriously worry for them. Continuing down the path they've embarked on in recent years is only going to push them further down the ladder. A ladder that despite them not achieving much in recent times they still find themselves financially 9th in europe, and have the backing of a wonderful history.

We'll agree to disagree as its clear you think money is the be end all and its acceptable to have 1 point over a formerly decimated southampton regardless of how much money is actually spend.
Click to expand...
Not really sure your point any more. You're coming up with things I've never even claimed, such as: "its clear you think money is the be end all and its acceptable to have 1 point over a formerly decimated southampton..." when I never mentioned Southampton.

No point continuing much further. Regardless of their revenue and all that, Liverpool's standing has dropped hugely. In this league (Not the German league; not the Italian league) top players win you titles and close that gap. The proof is in Suarez being the driving force in them almost doing the unthinkable last season.
When you aren't shopping in that market (Liverpool aren't) you're buying hit or miss players like Lallana, Paulinho, Sigurdsson, Coutinho. That is the ceiling for Liverpool. The best they can sign is a "has potential and might come good" The best Arsenal and United can sign is "is already proven as good."

Liverpool's issue is that, despite their revenues etc. they don't pay the wages and they don't attract the top names.
Yes it's possible to close the gap by getting every 'hit or miss' signing spot on, but it's a hard task (which is essentially all I said in the first place.)

I don't care about their history. And I doubt someone like Sanchez would care either. I've given you reasons above why Liverpool (despite intangibles such as 'prestige' and 'history') do not register when it comes to signing the players that make a difference in this league.

We're just going to go in circles it seems.
 
Last edited:
As much as I find Rodgers to be incredibly smug and annoying I still think that he's a good manager and if he got the sack at the end of the season it would be harsh.

I don't know if he'll ever be a top manager but he deserves at least another season in my opinion.
 
Chesterlestreet said:
Aye, that was my point. The bigger the club, the more FA Cups they have historically, but on a season-by-season basis pretty much anything can happen. How often does a clearly inferior team win the league? Almost never. The cup? Pretty damn often.
Click to expand...

Indeed - I don't get the point at all about this to be honest.
 
Lawman said:
Yes agree but Pickledred. This is where United Arsenal have left Liverpool way behind by bring miles ahead of them off the pitch. That is why now I think Arsenal are a much bigger club/draw than Liverpool even though there trophy haul doesn't reflect this. For Liverpool to be successful longterm they need a cash rich sugar daddy or a major restructuring of the field. As year in year out with their limited success the future fan base is dwindling (kids like supporting either local or winning teams) and Liverpool as a club are slipping down the ranks. Trophy haul and history doesn't mean that much to younger see Forrest or Villa for that example.
Click to expand...
This has happened under the current owners.
 
PickledRed said:
This has happened under the current owners.
Click to expand...

But a little bit behind United and Arsenal it's fair to say. Hence the reason Rodgers is up against it wage rise and who he can attract. The need for top 4 for Liverpool at this stage is much greater than Uniteds. Even though it would cause all sorts of problems at United if it was us.
 
Lawman said:
But a little bit behind United and Arsenal it's fair to say. Hence the reason Rodgers is up against it wage rise and who he can attract. The need for top 4 for Liverpool at this stage is much greater than Uniteds. Even though it would cause all sorts of problems at United if it was us.
Click to expand...

What Liverpool need is a sugar daddy. It is not going to happen with footballing success as they have 4 teams now who have the capability to outspend and outwage them. Actually,I don't even know if it is even possible with a sugar daddy with FFP being in full effect.

The scousers missed the boat in the premier league era. Arsenal, City, Chelsea and us have firmly established ourselves as the big 4 in the league. It would be very hard to dislodge any of us from that position permanently.
 
Brenton has had a decent season. On quality of squad alone they're 5th best in the land. They could finish 4th due to us having an up and down season under new management but 5th would neither be a disappointment nor an achievement. Obviously going from 2nd to 5th would be a fall but a completely expected one as last season they had the league's best player. If were running the club there's no way I'd even consider getting rid as he's taken them to very tall heights last season and that should earn him a few more seasons to try and get top 4 (if they dont this year that is).
 
amolbhatia100 said:
Brenton has had a decent season. On quality of squad alone they're 5th best in the land. They could finish 4th due to us having an up and down season under new management but 5th would neither be a disappointment nor an achievement. Obviously going from 2nd to 5th would be a fall but a completely expected one as last season they had the league's best player. If were running the club there's no way I'd even consider getting rid as he's taken them to very tall heights last season and that should earn him a few more seasons to try and get top 4 (if they dont this year that is).
Click to expand...

Exactly this.
 
Insanity said:
What Liverpool need is a sugar daddy. It is not going to happen with footballing success as they have 4 teams now who have the capability to outspend and outwage them. Actually,I don't even know if it is even possible with a sugar daddy with FFP being in full effect.

The scousers missed the boat in the premier league era. Arsenal, City, Chelsea and us have firmly established ourselves as the big 4 in the league. It would be very hard to dislodge any of us from that position permanently.
Click to expand...

Yep totally agree
 
Creep!!

Look at his little hands.....The wanking claws!

Cx2wNZ.jpg
 
Just doing what any other SUPERPOWER in football would do really....play it out in public.
 
They are a World superpower even though they haven't been a domestic superpower since 1990.
 
Last edited:
Earthy said:
The wank pheasant
Click to expand...

Unusual turn of phrase there, Earthy mate. Maybe you could be the new Brendan.
 
Earthy said:
I don't think I could handle being considered such a massive twat. I mean, I'm ok with the regular level twat I am, but that would be too much.
Click to expand...

Brendan would say that you lack ambition. In fact, he already said it in a press conference he called after reading these posts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.