Brentan Rodgers

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'd say Chelsea were very comfortable. Liverpool started well, but after 20 minutes it was an even game. Chelsea even had the better chances of that half. They were the away team after all.

Second half was much more negative, but I can still remember nearly as many chances/opportunities for Chelsea as for Liverpool.
 
Last edited:
Manucho the boss said:
It was 0-0 with very few chances on either side after half an hour wasn't it? Chelsea didn't look like creating anything to me, maybe hope to get lucky with a long throw but Liverpool were very comfortable until the slip.
Click to expand...

They had few chances because Chelsea didn't give them the chance to go all guns blazing, which is what they were set out to do. Liverpool had 73% of the possession in the match because once Chelsea shut down any avenue for the direct and pacey attacks that Liverpool have relied on, they didn't have a clue what to do other than dick about outside the box until Gerrard inevitably spooned it wide. Essentially, Liverpool, under Rodgers, run out of ideas if they don't score an early goal.
 
Manucho the boss said:
It was 0-0 with very few chances on either side after half an hour wasn't it? Chelsea didn't look like creating anything to me, maybe hope to get lucky with a long throw but Liverpool were very comfortable until the slip.
Click to expand...

Are you serious with this? 'Chelsea didn't look like creating anything.' Obviously they weren't creating chance after chance, because that wasn't their game plan. But look at the position they'd drawn Liverpool into by the end of the match: the entire team camped on the edge of Chelsea's area, not actually threatening the goal very effectively but totally absorbed by the sense of an impending goal. Meanwhile, the relatively fresh-legged Willian and Torres sitting ready and waiting pretty much in line with Liverpool's last line of defence. Given that Liverpool were trying to pass very fast in a very tight space, a Chelsea interception or a Liverpool missed pass was inevitable at some point, and that was all it would have taken at any point during that last period of the match to set Torres and Willian free the way they were for the second goal.

People just can't see past the fallacies. Liverpool being camped high up the pitch and having lots of the ball has no relevance whatsoever to who was likely to win the match. The fact that they'd left themselves so absurdly exposed, and that they were still unable to create many really promising break-throughs, whilst Chelsea were able to keep both Torres and Willian free and ready for that all-important chance, says everything.

Of course if it's true that Rodgers wanted a centre-back to hang back and they forgot their instructions, he's slightly less to blame. Then again, none of Mourinho's players put a foot wrong, and they had by far the more intense defensive duties. Besides, if I was a manager whose team had let such a catastrophe of a goal happen, I'd probably be tempted to imply that a defender had been in the wrong place, rather than admit that my plan was naive and that I got drawn into a very typical Mourinho sucker-punch. Well, I would if I was the egotistical sort that Rodgers comes across as.
 
ShadesOfTomato said:
All the media fawning over Mourinho is a bit ridiculous. Chelsea won because one of our players lost his footing - nothing else, unless Mourinho was playing with a vodoo doll in the dugout.
Click to expand...

They are??? The overwhelming majority I've heard (ESPN FC, NBC Sports, beIN Sports) are all crying because Mourinho didn't allow Liverpool to score goals galore.

This LFC lot - they always see a "the world is against us" view. Victim mentality.

Rodgers bricked it in that post-match interview too.

http://gulfnews.com/sport/brendan-rodgers-chelsea-criticism-a-case-of-sour-grapes-1.1325246
 
Pexbo said:
He completely out foxed Brenton. It was a master verses novice performance, brilliant from Mourinho, he asked a lot of questions and Rodgers had none of the answers as reflected by the clear cut scoreline.
Click to expand...

Outfoxed is not the word I'd use, at all. Whilst he was successful in neutering our attack, Mourinho's own side provided next to no invention and but for Gerrard's slip Liverpool were comfortable. The very fact that Chelsea came to stop us playing rather than to outplay us is a credit to Brendan Rodgers itself.

Some credit goes to Mourinho for dogging out a victory - it's what he's good at. But Liverpool's misfortune was ultimate what cost us on the day.

MrMarcello said:
This LFC lot - they always see a "the world is against us" view. Victim mentality.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes::lol: ffs you're not 12.
 
Alex99 said:
Everyone bloody knew what Mourinho was going to do, but Rodgers still set his team out as if going all guns blazing for the opening half hour was going to work. Rather than sitting back themselves and trying to draw them out, Liverpool pushed higher and higher up the pitch, basically inviting a counter-attack. They didn't even have to win the game; a draw would have been enough.
Click to expand...

This doesn't work against Mourinho's Chelsea when they're in bus parking mode because they don't commit anyone forward even when they're in attack and have the ball. The most you'll get from them is 3 players but the back four, the two holding midfielders and one of the wingers will always still just sit there. You can't draw them out unless they're prepared to actually send men forward when they're on the counter.

Rodgers has had one tactic all season. Send them out to sprint around like headless chickens for half an hour, and hope to grab a few goals. They've regularly conceded multiple goals, even against the shite teams. If they get to half time and they aren't in front, they don't have a clue how to approach the second half because they're all too knackered to keep playing the same way.
Click to expand...

A strategy which has seen them reach the top of the league. Also they've won much more games in the second half than you're giving them credit for. West Ham and City come to mind immediately.

They also might have actually had a better chance at scoring had Stevie Me not shat himself after falling over. One of the most unprofessional performances I've seen from a captain, especially one so often lauded for his leadership ability. Clearly wanted to be the hero again, but rather than actually playing football he was too busy fantasising about ticking a boo.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with Rodgers then.

There might not be a sure fire way to beat a world class team that's set out not to lose, but not losing would have suited Liverpool down to the ground. Rodgers played right into Mourinho's hands, and while we're all going to piss ourselves over Gerrard's slip, if Liverpool don't win the league, it'll be down to Rodgers and his tactical naivety.
Click to expand...

Again here you and everyone else goes again pointing out Rodgers's tactical naievity without actually explaining why he was naive. All he did to Chelsea was exactly what Simeone, Guardiola, Scorlari, Pellegrini, Heynckes, Moyes, Blanc and every other top club manager has done when Mourinho's Chelsea (or at Inter, or Chelsea under Di Matteo) have decided to park the bus. Some of those teams beat the side parking the bus, some lost but their approach was all the same. To push up, get men forward and probe for the opening. Are they all tactical naive managers?
 
The players certainly were at fault for lfc not getting a point or win but Rodgers doesn't escape blame either.

What pisses me off with him is how he moans like a 5 year old after the game that a manager parked the bus. He says it as though it's an easy tactic when in reality it takes hard work to defend as a solid unit for 90 mins and Chelsea did it perfectly.
 
ShadesOfTomato said:
Outfoxed is not the word I'd use, at all. Whilst he was successful in neutering our attack, Mourinho's own side provided next to no invention and but for Gerrard's slip Liverpool were comfortable. The very fact that Chelsea came to stop us playing rather than to outplay us is a credit to Brendan Rodgers itself.

Some credit goes to Mourinho for dogging out a victory - it's what he's good at. But Liverpool's misfortune was ultimate what cost us on the day.
Click to expand...
That's incorrect. Chelsea had the better chances in the first half, the Kalas header and the Ashley Cole shot from distance (first chance of the game). They also managed the game brilliantly in second half, utilising Schürrle and Salah to their maximum capacity before making good changes. Willian notably was a good sub.

All in all, it was a Mourinho victory, and I really don't like Mourinho and admit it reluctantly. Looking at it as 'it was only cos of a trip' is short sighted, the gameplan was excellent, very well prepared and perfectly executed. And yes, Liverpool and Rodgers were naive in this instance.
 
Marching said:
The players certainly were at fault for lfc not getting a point or win but Rodgers doesn't escape blame either.

What pisses me off with him is how he moans like a 5 year old after the game that a manager parked the bus. He says it as though it's an easy tactic when in reality it takes hard work to defend as a solid unit for 90 mins and Chelsea did it perfectly.
Click to expand...

I don't think he's so much giving out about the defending but rather the gamesmanship and time wasting right from the 1st minute. Chelsea did what they had to do, but if teams played like that on a weekly basis I'd have given up on football long ago, as I'm sure many would have.
 
It's a good analysis but it's a blunder to not mention the fact that the patience and calmness should be coming from the captain. They never mentioned anything about Gerrards obsessive shooting.
 
Spiersey said:
It's a good analysis but it's a blunder to not mention the fact that the patience and calmness should be coming from the captain. They never mentioned anything about Gerrards obsessive shooting.
Click to expand...

They did vaguely. They mentioned that there was shooting from "ridiculous" areas or something. They just didn't specify a certain player. Though they might have highlighted one Allen incident.
 
Blasphemy said:
This doesn't work against Mourinho's Chelsea when they're in bus parking mode because they don't commit anyone forward even when they're in attack and have the ball. The most you'll get from them is 3 players but the back four, the two holding midfielders and one of the wingers will always still just sit there. You can't draw them out unless they're prepared to actually send men forward when they're on the counter.

A strategy which has seen them reach the top of the league. Also they've won much more games in the second half than you're giving them credit for. West Ham and City come to mind immediately.

Nothing to do with Rodgers then.

Again here you and everyone else goes again pointing out Rodgers's tactical naievity without actually explaining why he was naive. All he did to Chelsea was exactly what Simeone, Guardiola, Scorlari, Pellegrini, Heynckes, Moyes, Blanc and every other top club manager has done when Mourinho's Chelsea (or at Inter, or Chelsea under Di Matteo) have decided to park the bus. Some of those teams beat the side parking the bus, some lost but their approach was all the same. To push up, get men forward and probe for the opening. Are they all tactical naive managers?
Click to expand...

It was naive because Liverpool didn't need to win. They didn't need to commit men forward and didn't need to leave acres of space at the back. Chelsea were the team that needed to win if they were to stand any chance of winning the league. Despite this, Mourinho set out first and foremost not to concede. Rodgers set Liverpool out to try and grab early goals, just like he's done all season. Had he set the team out in a way that didn't cause them to over-commit, the few Chelsea attackers might not have found themselves in so much space and might not have scored two goals. As I said in the post you quoted, if Liverpool fail to score in the opening half hour, they look clueless. If the only examples that come to mind of Liverpool doing well in the second half are against a shite West Ham team and getting lucky against City, then I don't think you've really got much evidence of it.

Liverpool would still have been guaranteed top had they drawn against Chelsea and won their remaining two games. As it stands now, they're relying on City dropping points, or somehow overturning a goal difference of at least 11 goals in two games. Rodgers' insistence on playing every game with three pacey attackers and a wide open midfield may have got Liverpool top, but as it stands, it's also left them relying on another team cocking up to stay there.

Rodgers may not have been directly responsible for Gerrard being shit, but his tactics (or lack thereof) are what ultimately cost Liverpool against Chelsea. I was just pointing out that your assertion that it was the only way Liverpool could have played isn't exactly true because Gerrard could have been far less selfish and actually attempted to make one of those defense splitting passes he's apparently so good at.

Again, it was naive because Liverpool didn't need to win. They were playing a team that literally everyone knew was going to be set out not to lose, yet they went out there and invited counter-attacks, despite there being no need to. Liverpool should have just shut up shop and left it to a few attacking players to try and nick a goal. There was no reason to try and blitz the game with early goals by starting three pacey attackers. If they'd needed to win, it would be a different discussion.
 
I'm glad they mentioned Suarez sarcastically clapping the keeper. He had the ball on the ground - he was under no obligation to do anything with it. It wasn't a place kick or anything like that. If you don't want him taking so long, rather than moaning and clapping why not close him down?
 
Alex99 said:
It was naive because Liverpool didn't need to win. They didn't need to commit men forward and didn't need to leave acres of space at the back. Chelsea were the team that needed to win if they were to stand any chance of winning the league. Despite this, Mourinho set out first and foremost not to concede. Rodgers set Liverpool out to try and grab early goals, just like he's done all season. Had he set the team out in a way that didn't cause them to over-commit, the few Chelsea attackers might not have found themselves in so much space and might not have scored two goals. As I said in the post you quoted, if Liverpool fail to score in the opening half hour, they look clueless
Click to expand...

Playing for a draw is a crap idea. He'd be slated everywhere if they'd done that and they conceded from a set piece.

If the only examples that come to mind of Liverpool doing well in the second half are against a shite West Ham team and getting lucky against City, then I don't think you've really got much evidence of it.
Click to expand...

I'm not a Liverpool fan, I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of their results this season. Obviously they've won more games than those two in the second half.

Liverpool would still have been guaranteed top had they drawn against Chelsea and won their remaining two games. As it stands now, they're relying on City dropping points, or somehow overturning a goal difference of at least 11 goals in two games. Rodgers' insistence on playing every game with three pacey attackers and a wide open midfield may have got Liverpool top, but as it stands, it's also left them relying on another team cocking up to stay there.
Click to expand...

Playing for a draw is never a good idea, especially when you're a side who can't defend very well.
 
Blasphemy said:
Playing for a draw is a crap idea. He'd be slated everywhere if they'd done that and they conceded from a set piece.

I'm not a Liverpool fan, I don't have encyclopedic knowledge of their results this season. Obviously they've won more games than those two in the second half.

Playing for a draw is never a good idea, especially when you're a side who can't defend very well.
Click to expand...

There's a middle-ground between playing for a draw and leaving yourself stupidly open to counter-attacks. Liverpool know that they're shite defensively, but part of that is because they play so openly. You've mentioned a plethora of other managers that have tried to play against the tactics that Mourinho utilised on the weekend, but it's almost a certainty that they didn't play a very open 4-3-3. When you try and play openly against a team that's just going to squeeze all of the space and leave you dicking about on the edge of their box, you're just opening yourselves up even more to counters. Rodgers may have been slaughtered had he set them out defensively and Chelsea had still won, but he's being slaughtered now, and it certainly would have been the more sensible approach.

Liverpool have been a first half team all year, with their tactics amounting to nothing more than shock and awe. When that hasn’t worked, they’ve looked clueless more often than not. Of 25 league wins, Liverpool have been ahead at half-time in 21, and level in the other 4, and they were against Stoke, Fulham, Cardiff and West Ham, which is hardly the most impressive opposition. They’ve drawn 5, throwing away half-time leads of one goal on 3 occasions, went in level on 1, and came from behind against Villa on 1. Out of their 6 losses, they’ve been behind at half time on 4 occasions, and level on 2. The draw against Villa is the only point out of a possible 15 that Liverpool have salvaged after going in behind at half time, despite never being more than a goal behind. They’ve failed to score in only 3 first halves (ultimately losing all 3 games), but have failed to score in 13 second halves. Out of the 12 games that they haven’t been in front at half time, they’ve lost half, drawn just 2, and won only 4. They’ve scored 58 in the first half, compared to 38 in the second, conceding roughly the same amount in each at 20 and 26 respectively.

Rodgers has relied all season on early goals, and half-time leads, and when he’s not had that, he and his team have been clueless. Everyone knew Mourinho was going to stifle that approach, but he still tried to play it, meaning his lack of Plan B would be shown up, ultimately leading to Liverpool potentially throwing away the league. He’s tactically naïve because he’s only got one tactic, and even when everyone who pays the slightest bit of attention to football knew it wasn’t going to work, he still played it.
 
Grinner said:
He'll learn from this. I still like him. If he can convince suarez to stay then it'll be really interesting.
Click to expand...

Big summer for him. He needs to re-motivate them all, come up with something other than shit or bust for the opening 45, and strengthen the team quite considerably given that they'll be fighting on two fronts next year. He threw his defense under the bus after the game today, but he's signed 3 defenders this season and not managed to strengthen it one bit. He's made 13 signings, and only 2 have really been any good.
 
nahealai said:
I watched the first 50 minutes of Liverpool's game today and I was severely underwhelmed by some of Liverpool's players, particularly Cissokho and Aspas. It also got me thinking: how many of Rodgers' own signings can be classified as unqualified successes?

HIT
  • Coutinho
  • Sturridge
PROBABLY SHIT
  • Toure
  • Mignolet
  • Sakho
  • Allen
SHIT
  • Aspas
  • Luis Alberto
  • Cissokho*
  • Moses*
  • Yesil
  • Assaidi
  • Sahin*
  • Borini
* loan signings


That's very, very unconvincing if you're to be honest about it. To give Rodgers credit, he has gotten the best out of Suarez and Henderson (a player written off by many, and whom was apparently offered to Fulham in part-exchange for Clint Dempsey) but his record in the transfer market leaves a lot to be desired.

N.B. Mignolet and Sakho could well prove to be successes, but they've looked shaky at times this season and the jury is still out on them.
Click to expand...

It seems I was going easy on Toure, Mignolet and Sakho. All three can now be demoted.

Two successful signings out of fourteen in total.

Rodgers, that.
 
Whatever you might think about this season, he's done amazingly well with that squad and played some great stuff. I wanted them to win but can still enjoy somebody else bottling.
 
nahealai said:
It seems I was going easy on Toure, Mignolet and Sakho. All three can now be demoted.

Two successful signings out of fourteen in total.

Rodgers, that.
Click to expand...

Not really.

Coutinho, Sturridge, Allen, Sakho, Mignolet, Toure have been good enough. Yesil and Alberto too soon to tell.

Brendan hasn't made all these signings either. ;)
 
When asked if he thought Liverpool's goal difference was a consideration for them pressing on at 3-0, Tony Pulis said: "No, they've been like that all season."

He's just a crap Kevin Keegan
 
BarneyLFC said:
Not really.

Coutinho, Sturridge, Allen, Sakho, Mignolet, Toure have been good enough. Yesil and Alberto too soon to tell.

Brendan hasn't made all these signings either. ;)
Click to expand...

What is this "not his signings" bollocks? When I first saw you post it I thought you were joking. Now I'm not sure.

Coutinho and Sturridge have been good, Allen's been alright. Sakho and Toure have been shite, and Mignolet's been no better than Reina.
 
Bit of a strange decision to bring on Moses tonight. I get that the players were tired but he's not the sort of player you'd want to being into a game like that.
 
Alex99 said:
What is this "not his signings" bollocks? When I first saw you post it I thought you were joking. Now I'm not sure.

Coutinho and Sturridge have been good, Allen's been alright. Sakho and Toure have been shite, and Mignolet's been no better than Reina.
Click to expand...

Transfer committee have bought them if you believe various reliable sources.

Sakho hasn't been shite. Nor has Toure. Some people have short memories.
 
Tarrou said:
Bit of a strange decision to bring on Moses tonight. I get that the players were tired but he's not the sort of player you'd want to being into a game like that.
Click to expand...

In the post-match interview he got asked about bringing Agger on, and he said something about wanting to plug the wings, then continued to ramble on about Agger as if he had actually brought him on.
 
BarneyLFC said:
Transfer committee have bought them if you believe various reliable sources.

Sakho hasn't been shite. Nor has Toure. Some people have short memories.
Click to expand...

They've not been particularly good, and certainly haven't made the defense any stronger than it was. Toure's been shite for a good while anyway. Far too unreliable.

Edit: Also, what the feck is a transfer committee? Surely Rodgers has final say on what players get brought in, regardless of anyone else that's consulted?
 
BarneyLFC said:
Not really.

Coutinho, Sturridge, Allen, Sakho, Mignolet, Toure have been good enough. Yesil and Alberto too soon to tell.

Brendan hasn't made all these signings either. ;)
Click to expand...

Allen has been 'meh'. No coincidence that Liverpool haven't been themselves when he has had to deputise for Henderson. He's nowhere near a Champions League-level midfielder either.

Sakho, Mignolet and Toure have been gash, mate. Absolute gash.

Don't give us this bollocks about him not signing them either. I heard murmurs a while back that Rodgers didn't fancy Sturridge initially, yet you're heralding his wisdom for signing him. Which is it then?

Lest we forget, Rodgers once tried to swap Jordan Henderson for Clint Dempsey. Genius.
 
nahealai said:
Allen has been 'meh'. No coincidence that Liverpool haven't been themselves when he has had to deputise for Henderson. He's nowhere near a Champions League-level midfielder either.

Sakho, Mignolet and Toure have been gash, mate. Absolute gash.

Don't give us this bollocks about him not signing them either. I heard murmurs a while back that Rodgers didn't fancy Sturridge initially, yet you're heralding his wisdom for signing him. Which is it then?

Lest we forget, Rodgers once tried to swap Jordan Henderson for Clint Dempsey. Genius.
Click to expand...

Allen has been good. He's a very good player to have in the squad.

Sakho, Mignolet and Toure have all been fine.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.