G.H. Question.

[dww]

To be honest we needed to make a gamble when we signed Diouff. The team needed a quality creative attacking influence. To do so you have to pay big money in general.

The real mistake was buying Diao, who frankly we didn't even need - we had options in central midfield which were better and so even if had been a decent player it would have been a waste of money. By paying good money on players for positions we didn't need to strengthen and neglecting the wide area of midfield Houllier made a big mistake.

Howeveer this should not be allowed to cloud our judgement of what Ged had done for us earlier. Neither should he be made a scape goat for the size of contracts players are offered as there are other people Parry etc. involved who should have ensured that all contracts were affordable and would not affect our future transfer dealings.

[red g]

To be honest we needed to make a gamble when we signed Diouff. The team needed a quality creative attacking influence. To do so you have to pay big money in general.

The real mistake was buying Diao, who frankly we didn't even need - we had options in central midfield which were better and so even if had been a decent player it would have been a waste of money. By paying good money on players for positions we didn't need to strengthen and neglecting the wide area of midfield Houllier made a big mistake.

Howeveer this should not be allowed to cloud our judgement of what Ged had done for us earlier. Neither should he be made a scape goat for the size of contracts players are offered as there are other people Parry etc. involved who should have ensured that all contracts were affordable and would not affect our future transfer dealings.

Very few managers are bothered about the clubs finances and what they spend on players, this makes Rafa even more specail

[univofchicago]

• Diouf - Talent but his attitude should have meant that we didn't go near him with a barge-pole
• Cheyrou - The old saying "One good season doesn't make a good player" is correct for Cheyrou. Far too light-weight to make it in England and didn't have the bottle to fight it out.
• Diao - Physically could mix it with the Gerrard's, Essien's, Sissoko's etc of the world, but you need footballing talent too. Which Diao doesn't have.

That was the ultimate downfall of Gerard Houllier. He had built a squad that was capable of challenging for top honours. And at a crucial stage, he made those three blunders as well as letting Anelka go. The momentum was lost and he never recovered did he?

He made some terrific signings at the start but the above blunders will stick out in the minds of many Liverpool supporters - unfortunate because Houllier did a marvellous job of getting us back on track.

What is interesting is that we are now in a near mirror situation to 2002. Rafa has, similiarly, built a squad capable of winning the title. Whether we can actually win it depends a lot on how our new signings fit in.

It's early days but I have a hunch that Rafa did not make the same mistake...

[red g]

That was the ultimate downfall of Gerard Houllier. He had built a squad that was capable of challenging for top honours. And at a crucial stage, he made those three blunders as well as letting Anelka go. The momentum was lost and he never recovered did he?

He made some terrific signings at the start but the above blunders will stick out in the minds of many Liverpool supporters - unfortunate because Houllier did a marvellous job of getting us back on track.

What is interesting is that we are now in a near mirror situation to 2002. Rafa has, similiarly, built a squad capable of winning the title. Whether we can actually win it depends a lot on how our new signings fit in.

It's early days but I have a hunch that Rafa did not make the same mistake...

I was never convinced by houiller and always though we were papering over cracks. rafa seems to cover every weakness in our squad and addresses them.

[univofchicago]

I was never convinced by houiller and always though we were papering over cracks. rafa seems to cover every weakness in our squad and addresses them.

I agree with you.

But Houllier was still a big improvement on Roy Evans and, ESPECIALLY, Graeme Souness...

[red g]

I agree with you.

But Houllier was still a big improvement on Roy Evans and, ESPECIALLY, Graeme Souness...

Graeme Souness was the downfall of LFC i have no doubt. Houiller brought us our respect back....but then he ultimately lost it

[univofchicago]

Graeme Souness was the downfall of LFC i have no doubt. Houiller brought us our respect back....but then he ultimately lost it

Yes.

You do wonder what if...what if...someone other than Graeme Souness got that job...

The downfall of Liverpool was simply down to mis-management. As simple as that.

We had some quality players coming through - McManaman, Fowler, Redknapp etc and still had some quality veterans in the team - Beardsley, Barnes, Gillespie, McMahon.

I know its a long time ago...but it still hurts...

[Dhav]

I agree with you.

But Houllier was still a big improvement on Roy Evans and, ESPECIALLY, Graeme Souness...

Souness was an absolute shambles, but I'm not sure I would say that Houllier was a big improvement on Evans- I think they both did a similar job - certainly league placings will bear that out, although Evans never finished as low as Houllier did or as high.

Houllier had luck in cup competitions and won a few, but played sterile and dull football which is some of the worst I;ve ever seen - on the other hand Evans played exciting attacking football but never managed to over come that final step and win a big trophy.

To say Houllier left the club in a better state than when he found it is laughable in my opinion. The fact Rafa went on to win the CL in the first season is not testament to the good legacy Houllier left behind, it's testament to Rafa's miracle-working qualities.

I dont think think it's fair to say Houllier was much better than Evans just because he had a bit of luck in a couple of mickey mouse cup competitions. Remember the Sunderland away defeat in 2002, the 4-0 at Old Trafford in 2003, home defeats to PAlace and Blackburn in the Cup, Basle etc - were there any lower points than this under Evans? I dont think so.

[red g]

Yes.

You do wonder what if...what if...someone other than Graeme Souness got that job...

The downfall of Liverpool was simply down to mis-management. As simple as that.

We had some quality players coming through - McManaman, Fowler, Redknapp etc and still had some quality veterans in the team - Beardsley, Barnes, Gillespie, McMahon.

I know its a long time ago...but it still hurts...

shudders as he thinks of Speedie & Jimmy Carter

[univofchicago]

Souness was an absolute shambles, but I'm not sure I would say that Houllier was a big improvement on Evans- I think they both did a similar job - certainly league placings will bear that out, although Evans never finished as low as Houllier did or as high.

Houllier had luck in cup competitions and won a few, but played sterile and dull football which is some of the worst I;ve ever seen - on the other hand Evans played exciting attacking football but never managed to over come that final step and win a big trophy.

To say Houllier left the club in a better state than when he found it is laughable in my opinion. The fact Rafa went on to win the CL in the first season is not testament to the good legacy Houllier left behind, it's testament to Rafa's miracle-working qualities.

I dont think think it's fair to say Houllier was much better than Evans just because he had a bit of luck in a couple of mickey mouse cup competitions. Remember the Sunderland away defeat in 2002, the 4-0 at Old Trafford in 2003, home defeats to PAlace and Blackburn in the Cup, Basle etc - were there any lower points than this under Evans? I dont think so.

I understand. But I still believe that Houllier was an improvement over Evans. Maybe not a "big" one as I suggested before, but still an improvement

[Dhav]

To be honest we needed to make a gamble when we signed Diouff. The team needed a quality creative attacking influence. To do so you have to pay big money in general.

The real mistake was buying Diao, who frankly we didn't even need - we had options in central midfield which were better and so even if had been a decent player it would have been a waste of money. By paying good money on players for positions we didn't need to strengthen and neglecting the wide area of midfield Houllier made a big mistake.

Howeveer this should not be allowed to cloud our judgement of what Ged had done for us earlier. Neither should he be made a scape goat for the size of contracts players are offered as there are other people Parry etc. involved who should have ensured that all contracts were affordable and would not affect our future transfer dealings.

My only experience of Diouf before we signed him was the World Cup 2002, and while he was decent, all his good work was on the flanks and generally outside the box. He didnt score and spent very little time around the penalty box. On the other hand, we had Anelka at the time, who not only did all the link-up playu etc Diouf did outside the box and out wide - he also got in the box and scored ie he offered exactly what Diouf did, but also more. I dont accept the Diouf gamble was one worth taking, I feel it was a reckless one given that we already had a better player at the club.

Diao's signing was pathetic. Cheyrou I think I can understand, although Houllier heralded him with too much fanfare and hype given he was unproven in England.

As has already been said - Houllier merely papered over the cracks and got lucky with some cup runs. The style of play he imposed in the early days was never going to bring us lasting success as it was too one-dimensional,inflexible and too easy to work out and play against, especially at Anfield.

[Rich]

People seem to forget the job that Souness inherited - Dalglish had been making some stop-gap signings and there was trouble in the not-too-distant-future, as a lot of the great players were troubled by major injury or nearing the end of their playing days. Dalglish didn't really start addressing these weaknesses and eventually decided that he need a complete break from the game (I'm not having a pop at Dalglish!)

Souness therefore arrived and made plenty of costly mistakes, no doubt about it, however he correctly identified the need to replace the aging stars. He just happened to pick some shocking players - and relevatively probably wasted more money on crap players than any other LFC Manager.

By the time Roy Evans was in the hot seat, we were pretty lucky in that we had a good batch of youngsters around (McManaman, Fowler, Matteo, etc) and he got the best from some of the rear-guard (Rush and Barnes!) however at the back he couldn't find a winning combination, and through a combination of wasting money (Babb?) and a lack of backing from the board - we began to be further left behind.

Hence the correct reason to bring Houllier in, who in my opinion made some fundamental changes to our club, which he should be praised for - me brought back respect - respect for a club from the players and from football in general. He made some incredible signings and constructed one of the best defences the league had seen. By doing so he restricted our attacking talent, but with a spectacular player such as the then young Owen in our attack who cared if we sat back and let teams play - we needed only a handful of chances to win a game. I believe Houllier made tremendous progress and by the summer of 2002, I think the majority of us thought we were one step away from history! (Who can forget that GH quote from before the second leg of the Champions league QF)

We had respect, we had become one of the big teams again, and we had some incredibly effective players. Arguably we were only denied the title because of a tremendous Arsenal run of games.

This all brings us to the Summer of 2002 (those heady days..... )

The rest is history - but I believe that to say Houllier was only papering over cracks is totally incorrect. I'm of the firm belief that no Houllier would mean no Benitez - and where would we be without him!

[Dhav]

I understand. But I still believe that Houllier was an improvement over Evans. Maybe not a "big" one as I suggested before, but still an improvement

In terms of trophies won Houllier certainly was an improvement. But I think in terms of the legacy they left behind, it was pretty much identical.

Houllier's comments after he was unceremoniously shown the door, that he left the club in a much better state than when he found it, is laughable and actually delusional if he believed it. We were a mess, both financially and in terms of quality of players.

[univofchicago]

The style of play he imposed in the early days was never going to bring us lasting success as it was too one-dimensional,inflexible and too easy to work out and play against, especially at Anfield.

That is a great point.

Houllier did realize it though towards the end of the 2002/03 season, and tried to rectify it the next; The team he put out in his last season was, in general, very attack-minded.

[univofchicago]

In terms of trophies won Houllier certainly was an improvement. But I think in terms of the legacy they left behind, it was pretty much identical.

Houllier's comments after he was unceremoniously shown the door, that he left the club in a much better state than when he found it, is laughable and actually delusional if he believed it. We were a mess, both financially and in terms of quality of players.

Perhaps.

But Houllier did play an important role in nurturing the likes of Carragher and Gerrard as well as bringing Finnan, Hyypia and Hamann to the club. The Champions League success and our improvement was ultimately down to Benitez but having those players at his disposal certainly helped.