Whats the Point?

[Craig_H]

You were comparing league positions between Rafa and GH I thought. Chelsea spending and Mourinho spending pushed Chelsea into the top positions, We never did much under GH in the CL no higher than the quarter finals

Your chelsea point...i still dont see what you're saying.

I was comparing league positions between RB and GH and give or take the odd single position difference here or there, they have basically done the same. Under GH, we finished 2nd once, and were generally 3rd or 4th.

Under Rafa, barring a 2nd place finish, it's been the same.

You still need 90 odd points to win the title as you did before Abramovich.

GH didnt achieve it and neither has Rafa.

Much difference?

[kurtangle01]

Can i play devil's advocate and ask whether 4 years is considered a long enough period of time?

How long are you prepared to wait Scott?

If he'd taken over a team that was capable of winning the premiership then, yes, four years is enough. He never took over a side that was good enough though, did he?

In the four years he's been here he's ahd alot to do and he's improved our team alot. The quality and strength in depth is almost there with only a few additions needed. I'm sure you'd agree with that?

I'm honestly not joking when I say it might be another two years before we can judge him properly.

The fact that he's won the CL and FA cup in that time is also enough to show me that he's got what it takes. Add that to the fact that he's taken us to another CL final, beating Barca and the chavs along the way.

Some people just seem to want to judge Rafa on the last 8 weeks though which, imho, is ludicrous. Yes, he's made some mistakes in that time but those mistakes aren't enough to warrant such serious questions of his ability to take the club forward.

[Dhav]

Your chelsea point...i still dont see what you're saying.

I was comparing league positions between RB and GH and give or take the odd single position difference here or there, they have basically done the same. Under GH, we finished 2nd once, and were generally 3rd or 4th.

Under Rafa, barring a 2nd place finish, it's been the same.

You still need 90 odd points to win the title as you did before Abramovich.

GH didnt achieve it and neither has Rafa.

Much difference?

A lot of difference. Chalk and cheese. The team under Houllier was such a limited one-dimensional team, you can't compare it to the team of today. We're poles apart now from the team under Houllier at any point under his reign.

I think the point he's trying to make is that there is greater competition for top spot now with Chelsea on the scene, who weren't really a competitve force when Houllier was at Liverpool - it is therefore harder for us to get a top 2 spot now due to greater competition than at any time under Houllier.

[Craig_H]

If he'd taken over a team that was capable of winning the premiership then, yes, four years is enough. He never took over a side that was good enough though, did he?

In the four years he's been here he's ahd alot to do and he's improved our team alot. The quality and strength in depth is almost there with only a few additions needed. I'm sure you'd agree with that?

I'm honestly not joking when I say it might be another two years before we can judge him properly.

The fact that he's won the CL and FA cup in that time is also enough to show me that he's got what it takes. Add that to the fact that he's taken us to another CL final, beating Barca and the chavs along the way.

Some people just seem to want to judge Rafa on the last 8 weeks though which, imho, is ludicrous. Yes, he's made some mistakes in that time but those mistakes aren't enough to warrant such serious questions of his ability to take the club forward.

To clarify, i DONT want rafa gone, far from it.

I acknowledge that a better replacement is asking a lot.

I do however, want him to ditch the absurd rotation (in favour of more intelligent rotation), ditch the overly cautious approach and to put more focus on the league than anything else.

If he can win us the title without doing the above, then great, go for it. I dont think it'll happen though.

[Dhav]

If he'd taken over a team that was capable of winning the premiership then, yes, four years is enough. He never took over a side that was good enough though, did he?

In the four years he's been here he's ahd alot to do and he's improved our team alot. The quality and strength in depth is almost there with only a few additions needed. I'm sure you'd agree with that?

I'm honestly not joking when I say it might be another two years before we can judge him properly.

The fact that he's won the CL and FA cup in that time is also enough to show me that he's got what it takes. Add that to the fact that he's taken us to another CL final, beating Barca and the chavs along the way.

Some people just seem to want to judge Rafa on the last 8 weeks though which, imho, is ludicrous. Yes, he's made some mistakes in that time but those mistakes aren't enough to warrant such serious questions of his ability to take the club forward.

He deserves this season at least before he is judged on whether he is the right man going forward. This is the first time he has been able to bring in first choice targets - before he had to bring in the likes of Zenden and Mark GOnzalez; what he's achieved in that time is a huge bonus

[kurtangle01]

If 4 years and around 140M (assuming we spend money in January) is not enough then someone will need to tell me what is? 8 years and 240M? Where does it stop?

He's not going to be spending double what he's alredy spent in the last few years though, is he? He's had to spend that much so far because he took over a squad full of terrible players. We never needed a few tweaks here and there when he took over, we needed a complete overhaul and that's why he's spent so much. That complete overhaul is no longer needed.

You also appear to have have included his gross spend and not taken into account how much money he's recouped for the club which lowers his overall spending somewhat.

[molonyg]

A lot of difference. Chalk and cheese. The team under Houllier was such a limited one-dimensional team, you can't compare it to the team of today. We're poles apart now from the team under Houllier at any point under his reign.

I think the point he's trying to make is that there is greater competition for top spot now with Chelsea on the scene, who weren't really a competitve force when Houllier was at Liverpool - it is therefore harder for us to get a top 2 spot now due to greater competition than at any time under Houllier.

Exactly... in a nutshell mate

[Craig_H]

A lot of difference. Chalk and cheese. The team under Houllier was such a limited one-dimensional team, you can't compare it to the team of today. We're poles apart now from the team under Houllier at any point under his reign.

I think the point he's trying to make is that there is greater competition for top spot now with Chelsea on the scene, who weren't really a competitve force when Houllier was at Liverpool - it is therefore harder for us to get a top 2 spot now due to greater competition than at any time under Houllier.

That's a fair point about greater competition. But the objective remains the same, win the league. I appreciate it's harder. That doesnt lower the level of expectation though, does it?

And whilst there's extra competition, that doesnt account for STILL ending up 20 points adrift.

[kurtangle01]

To clarify, i DONT want rafa gone, far from it.

I acknowledge that a better replacement is asking a lot.

I do however, want him to ditch the absurd rotation (in favour of more intelligent rotation), ditch the overly cautious approach and to put more focus on the league than anything else.

If he can win us the title without doing the above, then great, go for it. I dont think it'll happen though.

Rotation's the new zonal marking. When we're losing it's a problem but no one was talking about it when we were on a good run of results, were they?

If I'm honest I would say that I'd agree with some other peoples concerns about rotation because it does seem to happen in quite high numbers but I think we'll see it feature less and less as the season progresses.

The cautious approach is something that I don't entirely agree with though. We might not play with the same flow as Arsenal or United but we create as many chances. How often do we bemoan our luck in front of goal and say things like "If we'd taken our chances we'd have been out of sight by half time."?

With better strikers you will see that improve, as we have already seen with Torres.

[kurtangle01]

He deserves this season at least before he is judged on whether he is the right man going forward. This is the first time he has been able to bring in first choice targets - before he had to bring in the likes of Zenden and Mark GOnzalez; what he's achieved in that time is a huge bonus

I would say this season and next before we can really judge.

[molonyg]

That's a fair point about greater competition. But the objective remains the same, win the league. I appreciate it's harder. That doesnt lower the level of expectation though, does it?

And whilst there's extra competition, that doesnt account for STILL ending up 20 points adrift.

But in a number of games towards the end of the season last year and we focused on the CL Final and lost games we would have drawn or won had we not already secured qualification for this year.Under GH we were always struggling for CL qualification (bar the yr we finished 2nd) right until the last moment. I don't think we are the finished article yet and Arsenal and M utd have had stability for the last 10 yrs at least. They have longer to build up a structure than Rafa has.Don't forget AF won very little in his first 5 year there

[bigfooty]

I wish people would stop using Chelsea as a crutch, some kind of excuse for Rafa or our league performances.

How quickly it is forgotten that, under Houllier, we not only had to compete with a free-spending Leeds and a solid Newcastle but also a tremendous Arsenal side that finished unbeaten in 2003-2004 i.e. Ged's last season in charge. Chelsea themselves had also begun to splash the cash that season.

[Craig_H]

Rotation's the new zonal marking. When we're losing it's a problem but no one was talking about it when we were on a good run of results, were they?

If I'm honest I would say that I'd agree with some other peoples concerns about rotation because it does seem to happen in quite high numbers but I think we'll see it feature less and less as the season progresses.

The cautious approach is something that I don't entirely agree with though. We might not play with the same flow as Arsenal or United but we create as many chances. How often do we bemoan our luck in front of goal and say things like "If we'd taken our chances we'd have been out of sight by half time."?

With better strikers you will see that improve, as we have already seen with Torres.

The cautious approach i refer to, is one where we play 2 defensive CMs in a game. I consider that overly cautious and having a negative effect on our attacking prowess.

As for the rotation...of course it's an issue when we dont win, because more often than not, it LEADS to us not winning.

And that aside, the lack of consistency and stability it causes doesnt increase a team's chances of winning games. That much is obvious.

I dont mind him rotating with proper purpose, but sometimes he does it just because it's 'his' thing.

[kurtangle01]

But in a number of games towards the end of the season last year and we focused on the CL Final and lost games we would have drawn or won had we not already secured qualification for this year.Under GH we were always struggling for CL qualification (bar the yr we finished 2nd) right until the last moment. I don't think we are the finished article yet and Arsenal and M utd have had stability for the last 10 yrs at least. They have longer to build up a structure than Rafa has.Don't forget AF won very little in his first 5 year there

Now now, mate. Don't let facts get in the way of a good argument.

[molonyg]

I wish people would stop using Chelsea as a crutch, some kind of excuse for Rafa or our league performances.

How quickly it is forgotten that, under Houllier, we not only had to compete with a free-spending Leeds and a solid Newcastle but also a tremendous Arsenal side that finished unbeaten in 2003-2004 i.e. Ged's last season in charge. Chelsea themselves had also begun to splash the cash that season.

A SOLID NEWCASTLE???? lol mate

Seriously they were in decline by the time GH took over though I do accept your point on Leeds. why i mention chelsea is that no team in the UK has ever spent so much in 2 seasons compared to the rest of the PL it was a 'money is no object' type of spending