G.H. Question.

[Dhav]

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!

Well if Rafa was here without Houllier being his predecessor, Rafa's hands wouldnt be so tied in the transfer market as they are now.

Yes, we had an awesome defence, but surely you can see it yourself in the way you describe how we played ("who cared if we sat back and let teams play - we needed only a handful of chances to win a game") that this way of playing is an extreme high risk strategy eg what if Owen is injured? what if he is having an off-day and misses the one chance in 90 minutes that comes his way? what do we do if a lesser team comes to Anfield and puts 11 men behind the ball? This style of play is not going to bring you lasting success as it is easily found out and countered against - which is what makes me think ultimately Houllier was destined to fail whether he suffered his heart scare or not.

[Dhav]

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.

Spot on.

He was attack minded in 2003, but when we lost that game against Arsenal at Anfield after playing so well, he abandoned it and lost faith in it and went back to type. That is what proved we had no direction under GH

[red g]

Spot on.

He was attack minded in 2003, but when we lost that game against Arsenal at Anfield after playing so well, he abandoned it and lost faith in it and went back to type. That is what proved we had no direction under GH

Houiller was very pragmatic....a win is a win. Like Maureen not bothered how it comes as long as it does.

[Rich]

Well if Rafa was here without Houllier being his predecessor, Rafa's hands wouldnt be so tied in the transfer market as they are now.

Yes, we had an awesome defence, but surely you can see it yourself in the way you describe how we played ("who cared if we sat back and let teams play - we needed only a handful of chances to win a game") that this way of playing is an extreme high risk strategy eg what if Owen is injured? what if he is having an off-day and misses the one chance in 90 minutes that comes his way? what do we do if a lesser team comes to Anfield and puts 11 men behind the ball? This style of play is not going to bring you lasting success as it is easily found out and countered against - which is what makes me think ultimately Houllier was destined to fail whether he suffered his heart scare or not.

Houllier showed that he didn't want this negative football to be the be-all and end all of our football - in my opinion he was building a platform from which to build. He certainly achieved an excellent defence and on many occasions the we played attacking, fluid football. His signings in the summer of 2002 clearly showed that he was attempting to inject the squad with further attacking capabilities (just that the players picked were crap!)

Summer 2003 also highlighted his commitment to attacking players as he brought in Kewell and Finnan.

He started the that season with an incredibly attack minded team, with a midfield including Kewell, Smicer and Diouf - and they played some excellent football. Unfortunately, after playing Chelsea off the park (yet losing) and losing a couple more very early on in the season, GH paniced an decided to revert back into his defensive shell - maybe if he had stuck with it he might have saved his job?! Who knows.

[univofchicago]

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!

Wow...the post of the day.

I agree with you 100%

ESPECIALLY your point about Dalglish. I've always suspected ONE of the reasons he resigned was because he wasn't quite prepared to make the changes as backbone of the team was getting old (McMahon, Whelan, Beardsley, Gillespie, Hansen, Nicol, Grobelaar, Rush). It would have meant severing relationships with several members of the first team and Dalglish did not feel all too comfortable about doing so.

[Dhav]

Houllier showed that he didn't want this negative football to be the be-all and end all of our football - in my opinion he was building a platform from which to build. He certainly achieved an excellent defence and on many occasions the we played attacking, fluid football. His signings in the summer of 2002 clearly showed that he was attempting to inject the squad with further attacking capabilities (just that the players picked were crap!)

Summer 2003 also highlighted his commitment to attacking players as he brought in Kewell and Finnan.

He started the that season with an incredibly attack minded team, with a midfield including Kewell, Smicer and Diouf - and they played some excellent football. Unfortunately, after playing Chelsea off the park (yet losing) and losing a couple more very early on in the season, GH paniced an decided to revert back into his defensive shell - maybe if he had stuck with it he might have saved his job?! Who knows.

Houllier never got the balance right between defence and attack the way Rafa has. He didnt in his early days when we were playing deep and counter-attacking, or in the latter days we played too attackign for him so he went back to ultra-defensive mode.

What makes you think he was ever going to get the balance right? You might herald the signings of players like Hyypia, Henchoz and Hamann, but may I remind you how slow these players were even at their peak, which facilitated the need for us to play so deep? His dependence on these players throughout his reign, plus Owen's pace and Heskey's role of doing all the donkey work for Owen, proves to me it was always his intention to play this type of football.

[brendan]

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.

He won three trophies in one season and delivered the League cup twice.

He presided over our finest ever finish in the Premiership (second) the same season we scored a record-breaking number of goals and Michael Owen won European Footballer Of The Year.

He won us our first European trophy for two decades.

He brought in the players who formed the spine of the 2005 CL-inning team.

Did you think, after that runners-up spot following the treble season, that he was "papering over cracks"?

Did you ****.

[red g]

Houllier never got the balance right between defence and attack the way Rafa has. He didnt in his early days when we were playing deep and counter-attacking, or in the latter days we played too attackign for him so he went back to ultra-defensive mode.

What makes you think he was ever going to get the balance right? You might herald the signings of players like Hyypia, Henchoz and Hamann, but may I remind you how slow these players were even at their peak, which facilitated the need for us to play so deep? His dependence on these players throughout his reign, plus Owen's pace and Heskey's role of doing all the donkey work for Owen, proves to me it was always his intention to play this type of football.

The thing is if you think of players we had with Skill everyone was criminally wasted Litmannen, Le Tallec(maybe should have got a chance) Camara etc

[Rich]

Houllier never sustained a balance between defence and attack, that is true. However, at times we went on long unbeaten runs and did play quality football (I don't see the point to pick out specific games however, as games can be picked out to fuel either side of the debate!)

I could spin the question around and ask, what makes you sure that Benitez has got the balance right - after all we have had some 'lucky' cup wins but we haven't won the league?

[brendan]

In terms of trophies won Houllier certainly was an improvement.

That's the only meaningful measure of a manger's tenure.

Next.

[Dhav]

He won three trophies in one season and delivered the League cup twice.

He presided over our finest ever finish in the Premiership (second) the same season we scored a record-breaking number of goals and Michael Owen won European Footballer Of The Year.

He won us our first European trophy for two decades.

He brought in the players who formed the spine of the 2005 CL-inning team.

Did you think, after that runners-up spot following the treble season, that he was "papering over cracks"?

Did you ****.

MAte, even when we were winning trebles and the like there were Liverpool fans who were saying we would never win the league under Houllier.

I wasn't one of them mind you, I'm not going to take credit for that, but in hindsight I do believe it was always destined to end in tears, whether Houllier had his health problems or not.

[Rich]

MAte, even when we were winning trebles and the like there were Liverpool fans who were saying we would never win the league under Houllier.

I wasn't one of them mind you, I'm not going to take credit for that, but in hindsight I do believe it was always destined to end in tears, whether Houllier had his health problems or not.

Got to be honest, but when I was standing on the river front with 500,000 other LFC fans in the summer of 2001 - I didn't hear anyone saying "Good stuff, bit lucky like, and we'll never win the league with this shower"....

[Dhav]

The thing is if you think of players we had with Skill everyone was criminally wasted Litmannen, Le Tallec(maybe should have got a chance) Camara etc

Exactly. Why did GH signed these players? He bought them and then had no idea how to utilise them. If nothing else, these kind of players could have been used for a "Plan B", off the bench type role if nothing else, but he didnt even use them for that.

[paulcooper4]

his style of football was ****e. it was depressing going to anfield. He done a good job steadying the ship, but should have gone earlier, once he realised he couldnt take us up another level. I think he outstayed his welcome by at least 12 months.

[Rich]

Out of the players mentioned:

Le Tallec was what 19 when Houllier left? Do you think he should have played at that age? Not a chance.

Camara. He burnt many a bridge when he demanded to play when he'd only just returned from injury.

Litmanen. OK, probably treated unfairly - but why build a team around an injury prone player? (Which is your arguement against building a team around the talents of Owen!)