RAWK Goes into Meltdown 2014/2015 - The "We go again" Edition

The Man Himself said:
We didn't go around calling Rodgers tactically inept. Yes we know that it can happen and has happened to best of managers, multiple times but if Liverpool supporters go on telling everyone that their manager and team are experts in tactics and play the most intelligent as well as beautiful football ever and everyone else are shite then they will be shown facts on how they screwed up at most important juncture till now of their league history in premier league era.
Click to expand...
Yep, screwed up due to an individual error against Chelsea who then sat back back expertly. Hardly tactical nonsense from Rodgers. Liverpool were flat and played poor in the second half. It happens.

The overt focus on that one match by some on here to construct a narrative either about Gerrard or Rodgers is a bit daft really.
 
PickledRed said:
Yep, screwed up due to an individual error against Chelsea who then sat back back expertly. Hardly tactical nonsense from Rodgers. Liverpool were flat and played poor in the second half. It happens.

The overt focus on that one match by some on here to construct a narrative either about Gerrard or Rodgers is a bit daft really.
Click to expand...

It is not daft. Slip occurred around half way line and Liverpool like always were playing high line. Needing a draw they could have adjusted tactics and approached game differently and better. In 2nd half, if Stevie Me would have kept his head instead of shooting as soon a she got ball, Liverpool might still have got equalizer.

It is really daft of Liverpool fans to convince themselves that it was just bad luck.
 
The Man Himself said:
It is not daft. Slip occurred around half way line and Liverpool like always were playing high line. Needing a draw they could have adjusted tactics and approached game differently and better. In 2nd half, if Stevie Me would have kept his head instead of shooting as soon a she got ball, Liverpool might still have got equalizer.

It is really daft of Liverpool fans to convince themselves that it was just bad luck.
Click to expand...
It was a game of fine margins. 99 times out of 100 Gerrard keeps the ball and it's forgotten. Furthermore, Liverpool's success had come from aggressively attacking tactics. All the big boys had arrived at Anfield and been spanked with such an approach. Why would Rodgers risk changing the strategy for that game. It wouldn't make sense.
 
PickledRed said:
It was a game of fine margins. 99 times out of 100 Gerrard keeps the ball and it's forgotten. Furthermore, Liverpool's success had come from aggressively attacking tactics. All the big boys had arrived at Anfield and been spanked with such an approach. Why would Rodgers risk changing the strategy for that game. It wouldn't make sense.
Click to expand...

..because in previous games you needed to win (not 'have to' but Liverpool were chasing top spot till later in season). Also, you didn't spank City or United so not ALL big boys. Your approach could have failed against City if not for individual error by Kompany. Fine margins? Those are fine margins for you from other side.
In this game, all Liverpool needed to do was draw, maintain lead and then win remaining two games against inferior oppositions. It was a second string Chelsea team who hadn't played together. Liverpool cocked up big time on tactics vs Chelsea and Palace. No questions about that.
 
PickledRed said:
It was a game of fine margins. 99 times out of 100 Gerrard keeps the ball and it's forgotten. Furthermore, Liverpool's success had come from aggressively attacking tactics. All the big boys had arrived at Anfield and been spanked with such an approach. Why would Rodgers risk changing the strategy for that game. It wouldn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Maybe the way in which you lost was not foreseeable but a loss certainly was. You were fortunate to beat Norwich and should have lost to City. I repeatedly said to my two scouse housemates that you wouldn't win your last three games and I'd be surprised if you even won two of them. They disagreed saying they'd already won 10 or whatever it was and that previous results wouldn't affect the odds of future games. I said that due to the pressure of midweek and weekend games, they'd finally succumb to fatigue that teams in European competitions had dealt with all season. I was right.
 
The Man Himself said:
..because in previous games you needed to win (not 'have to' but Liverpool were chasing top spot till later in season). Also, you didn't spank City or United so not ALL big boys. Your approach could have failed against City if not for individual error by Kompany. Fine margins? Those are fine margins for you from other side.
In this game, all Liverpool needed to do was draw, maintain lead and then win remaining two games against inferior oppositions. It was a second string Chelsea team who hadn't played together. Liverpool cocked up big time on tactics vs Chelsea and Palace. No questions about that.
Click to expand...
Firstly, conventional wisdom is that you don't set up to draw. It's foolhardy.

Out of the top 6 sides Liverpool won 5-1 against Arsenal, 4-0 against Spurs, 4-0 against Everton and adopted a similar strategy against City and quickly took an early 2-0 lead. Indeed, the match took a twist and an individual error led to the win. If anything the Kompany error supports my argument - these matches against top sides are often decided in small details. Look at Chelsea's 2-1 win against City at the Bridge - 90th min mistake at the back gave Torres a sitter. It wasn't down to tactical failings it was just an individual error.

Going back to Chelsea at home, it was a tight match that wasn't blessed with many chances. One error and the whole picture changes and Chelsea can set up for the second half to keep out Liverpool. It worked and Liverpool looked flat.
 
PickledRed said:
Firstly, conventional wisdom is that you don't set up to draw. It's foolhardy.

Out of the top 6 sides Liverpool won 5-1 against Arsenal, 4-0 against Spurs, 4-0 against Everton and adopted a similar strategy against City and quickly took an early 2-0 lead. Indeed, the match took a twist and an individual error led to the win. If anything the Kompany error supports my argument - these matches against top sides are often decided in small details. Look at Chelsea's 2-1 win against City at the Bridge - 90th min mistake at the back gave Torres a sitter. It wasn't down to tactical failings it was just an individual error.

Going back to Chelsea at home, it was a tight match that wasn't blessed with many chances. One error and the whole picture changes and Chelsea can set up for the second half to keep out Liverpool. It worked and Liverpool looked flat.
Click to expand...

I said in very first post that errors can happen from anyone but if you try to show to world that your team and manager is great at tactics and others are not, you will be shown that is not the case, particularly when your team failed so horribly at final juncture and both results were as much down to tactics as individual errors.

Also, Liverpool need not had to 'set up' for draw but approach game differently and try to see if Chelsea has any interest in winning. If not Liverpool could have easily intensified after 70th minute with score 0-0 and it could have even given win, forget draw.
 
Richard Cranium said:
Maybe the way in which you lost was not foreseeable but a loss certainly was. You were fortunate to beat Norwich and should have lost to City. I repeatedly said to my two scouse housemates that you wouldn't win your last three games and I'd be surprised if you even won two of them. They disagreed saying they'd already won 10 or whatever it was and that previous results wouldn't affect the odds of future games. I said that due to the pressure of midweek and weekend games, they'd finally succumb to fatigue that teams in European competitions had dealt with all season. I was right.
Click to expand...
City were very fortunate to get a draw against Sunderland which was the point that led Liverpool to approach Palace with goal difference in mind. Had City lost to Sunderland Liverpool would've probably been a lot more cautious at 3-0 as the whole dynamic to what was needed would have been different. However, I concede that this is all a bit hypothetical.

However, to regard Liverpool's run in as lucky is simplistic. You could construct a similar argument about them being unlucky given the slip. Not sure how City deserved to beat Liverpool. When you start as slowly as they did you deserve little. Just because you finish a game strongly doesn't discount the sloppy way you conceded early goals. A draw may have been fair but Kompany did his thing and Liverpool won. Fine margins...not tactical failings.
 
The Man Himself said:
I said in very first post that errors can happen from anyone but if you try to show to world that your team and manager is great at tactics and others are not, you will be shown that is not the case, particularly when your team failed so horribly at final juncture and both results were as much down to tactics as individual errors.
Click to expand...

Not sure I have suggested others aren't tactically capable. I only entered the debate to take issue with the use of The Chelsea defeat as evidence that Rodgers' was poor tactically. Maybe I over reacted but I just think it's simple minded to use one game which swung on a single moment.
The Man Himself said:
Also, Liverpool need not had to 'set up' for draw but approach game differently and try to see if Chelsea has any interest in winning. If not Liverpool could have easily intensified after 70th minute with score 0-0 and it could have even given win, forget draw.
Click to expand...

I guess we can all play the perfect game in hindsight.
 
PickledRed said:
Not sure I have suggested others aren't tactically capable. I only entered the debate to take issue with the use of The Chelsea defeat as evidence that Rodgers' was poor tactically.
Click to expand...

Nobody was talking about you :D
We were having fun at RAWKites and that 'breathe mint' tactics something. Not sure why Liverpool fans here feel they have to defend RAWKites. At best you can say that not all Liverpool fans think like them but you guys somehow end up defending RAWKites!
 
PickledRed said:
City were very fortunate to get a draw against Sunderland which was the point that led Liverpool to approach Palace with goal difference in mind. Had City lost to Sunderland Liverpool would've probably been a lot more cautious at 3-0 as the whole dynamic to what was needed would have been different. However, I concede that this is all a bit hypothetical.

However, to regard Liverpool's run in as lucky is simplistic. You could construct a similar argument about them being unlucky given the slip. Not sure how City deserved to beat Liverpool. When you start as slowly as they did you deserve little. Just because you finish a game strongly doesn't discount the sloppy way you conceded early goals. A draw may have been fair but Kompany did his thing and Liverpool won. Fine margins...not tactical failings.
Click to expand...

It was just arrogant to try and beat a well disciplined Palace side by 8 or 9 and then beat Newcastle by 6, when in reality you struggled to get points out of either game. Would have been better trying to win both games, keeping the pressure on City.
 
I'm pretty sure this was already posted but no harm in laughing at it again. We're living in the past?

Rawkite said:
Add then they have their delusional fans living in the past, who can't come to terms with being a mid-table club. Put all this together and we have all the recipes for another entertaining season from them. Sit back and enjoy the carnage.
Click to expand...
 
Richard Cranium said:
It was just arrogant to try and beat a well disciplined Palace side by 8 or 9 and then beat Newcastle by 6, when in reality you struggled to get points out of either game. Would have been better trying to win both games, keeping the pressure on City.
Click to expand...
A well disciplined side that went 3-0 after 50mins. There for the taking? As for Newcastle, damp squib explains that one. The league had gone to City by then.
 
I don't think Brendan had a lot of control over events in the Chelsea & Palace games, tbh.

1) He can hardly play for a point v Chelsea reserves

2) can't legislate for Captain Starfish falling over just before HT - might have taken Gerrard off 2nd half but what message does that send?

3) maybe at/regarding Palace he could've damped down the ''we can win this on Goal Difference'' cobblers, but the Palace 1st goal was as out of the blue as they come after which his team was a shambles, maybe he'd 'mentally gone' like they were.

We should move on.
 
I remember when this thread was for laughing at RAWK rather than discussing Rodgers tactical analysis.
 
veryhot_post_locked.gif
 
I can never find the really crazy RAWK stuff. Some of the posters on there are pretty sensible. A few believe Liverpool will finish 4th.
 
Americano said:
Care to translate into American?
Click to expand...

Agenda would be, something that is moving against them.. Like for example apparently Howard Webb has an agenda against the scouse..

Recycle the ball is a phrase used by them to describe just how tactically astute they are.. More than likely Rodgers used it in a interview once..

Whopper, use this word myself to be honest.. Describes something excellent... Their example, Gerrards 40 yard Hollywood passes that ALWAYS hit a team mate are whopper.

Boss, similar to whopper.. For example that Markovic is boss..

La, probably stands for Lad, "well la, Lambert in the CL la, going to tear it up, la 5 times la"

And didn't know the other 2.
 
whopper = idiot making disloyal statements in RAWK-land, innit?

some ''never been good enough, Brendan should do something'' consternation on the Borini thread - as he may not want to join Sunderland for the £ 14 M,
 
Delusional united fans living in the past? FFS :lol: Cannot be serious.

LVG - Dutch Woy & poor mans Moyes? :lol:. Must have missed all those titles Woy & Moyes have won. :lol:.
 
Learn Scouse with Waltraute
Lesson one :cool:

Wool -- An out of towner still living pretty close to Liverpool, often living in the Wirral or around that area. So a eg a Noggie OOT would not be a wool, but a Warrington one would. Comes from 'woollyback', because these were originally sheepshaggers selling wool in Liverpool (don't quote me on that).

Whopper -- An oblivious idiot. All those featured in the Full Kit W*nkers thread would be prime examples of whoppers. I think RAWK had a Whopper Of The Week thread way back; looked like our Full Kit thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.