Pack your bags Roy

[danperkins]

Lucas let Coleman past him and presumed Konchesky would stop him. Had he tracked back behind Konchecky while Coleman was cruising around Konchesky, Lucas would have stopped that ball from coming in. He was too lazy to do so.

your right mate just watched it there

[danperkins]

I don't think danperkins should read this article by Tomkins. It's not good for his health. It's a bit old but filled with FACTS that is FACTS even if hate him or love him.


I was recently asked (on Twitter) whose was bigger, Houllier’s or Benítez’s? (Net spend, I hasten to add.)

As each has (to date) managed the club for six years, it seemed a fair time to ask, although the obvious problem is that Houllier started buying players 12 years ago, when transfer fees were a lot cheaper. And of course, his sales were likewise affected.

That’s where TPI© (Transfer Price Index) comes in. It was created with this kind of question in mind.

(As with any transfer studies, we add the disclaimer that 100% accuracy is virtually impossible, given the obfuscation surrounding some deals and the widely ranging fees depending on which source you use, but we’ve done our utmost to be as close as possible; overall, it’s between 95% and 99% accurate.)

In actual terms, Houllier spent £130.9m on players. In today’s money, adjusted using TPI (i.e football inflation) that equates to £245m. But of course, it’s important to see how much was recouped; more on that in a moment.

In actual terms, Benítez has spent £223m. In today’s money (transfer prices have of course risen since he started buying players in 2004), adjusted using TPI (football inflation) that equates to £278m.

Houllier sold players for an actual amount of £60.3m. Using TPI inflation, that translates to £99.4m.

Benítez has sold players for a total of £159.3m. Using TPI inflation, that translates to £215.1m.

Therefore, Rafa Benítez net spend, when adjusted to inflation, equals£63,550,192, compared with Gérard Houllier’s far greater total of £146,061,083.

On average, using TPI to create an even playing field, Benítez has spent £10.5m net per season, while Houllier spent £24.4m; roughly two-and-a-half times as much. Houllier clearly had more supportive backers than Benítez.

Of course, these figures include money raised by selling players they inherited.

Both men lost around £12m (actual) on local stars who went to Real Madrid (McManaman in 1999, Owen in 2004) for less than their market worth due to contract issues, within one year of the new boss taking over. So that was an early blow to both managers.

However, only 29.5% of Houllier’s income was from selling his own players (such as Heskey, Barmby and Ziege); the rest came from selling his predecessor’s signings, or home-grown talents like Fowler, Thompson and Matteo.

By contrast, Benítez has raised £128.8m TPI (£109.9m actual) from selling his own players: 59.8% of the money he has raised through sales has been from offloading his own purchases – twice as much as with Houllier.

Now, of course, in some cases (such as Robbie Keane and Andrea Dossena), Benítez was selling his own mistakes for a loss. I don’t think there is a manager alive who hasn’t done this (Houllier did so with Ziege, for example), and the key is to get as much as possible, as quickly as possible.

However, a lot of money was raised from selling the likes of Alonso, Sissoko, Bellamy, Crouch, Carson, et al, for a profit; in some cases, after a few years of sterling service.

What’s interesting is that every single player Houllier signed has now left Liverpool FC. They did so for an actual combined price of just £52.6m, or £86.9m when adjusted with TPI.

Benítez has already raised far more than this from his sales, and that’s before (perish the thought) any potential sale of Torres, Reina, Agger, Johnson, Benayoun, Kuyt and Mascherano, who between them, at current value, could raise another £150m.

In fairness to Houllier, players like Hyypia and Hamann left the club on free transfers having served the Reds with distinction, to the point in time when they were too old to sell. None of us would complain if Torres left on a free, aged 33, after seven more years of goals.

Even so, the figures seem to support the view that Benítez has outperformed his predecessor.

Conclusion

In conclusion – as I’ve said before – Benítez has had to sell his own players to raise much of his own transfer funds. He has also raised more money through European progression, and yet despite this, the current squad costs only £143m, between £50m-£100m behind those of Spurs, City, Chelsea and United.

Benítez’s win percentage in the league is 55%, to Houllier’s 49%. But Houllier only had one year of Chelsea’s wealth to contend with; and the Stamford Bridge outfit spent another £100m the summer Benítez arrived.

Houllier had a great United side (1999) and Arsenal’s Invincibles to battle, but Benítez has had to face what Alex Ferguson believes to be a better United team, plus the might of Chelsea (and now City). And of course, when Benítez arrived, that Arsenal side were reigning champions.

Benítez has averaged 72.2 points per season, Houllier managed 65.7 (just 2.7 more points on average than in the ‘disastrous’ season we’ve just witnessed). Houllier qualified for the Champions League three times (once would be for the season after he left), Benítez five. Benítez’s best tally in a season was 86, Houllier’s was 80.

Houllier won four trophies, Benítez two. Benítez won one of the two that really matter, and made another Champions League final.

Houllier did a good job – especially up to 2002 – and Benítez has done a better job.

However, Rafa cannot regularly work miracles, and the more financially adrift the Reds find themselves, the harder it will be to simply tread water, let alone forge ahead. While we’ve just experienced a relatively poor campaign, the financial undermining of the club by Gillett and Hicks preceded it, and people would do well to remember that fact.

CLICKY

Didn't even read it mate took your advice, and are we talking about Tomkins the biggest Rafa apologist on the planet? What ever suits the argument mate. Oh and who cares about Houllier,WTF?

[Shaggy]

Well, operation disagreed at least. Thought you were agreeing with him. Sorry mate. You are clearly a man of excellent judgement and perception.

Haha

[banditos]

There is far too much of that around these days. Allardyce said so.

In that far too many people perceive him to be a **** manager and an arseclown.

[Craig_H]

Didn't even read it mate took your advice, and are we talking about Tomkins the biggest Rafa apologist on the planet? What ever suits the argument mate. Oh and who cares about Houllier,WTF?

I'm not a tomkins fan, but it's actually a good article and, beautifully, is under 100,000 words.

[saveferris]

Our best game this season was against Arsenal. We looked dangerous attacking before Cole went off and our defending when we were down to ten men was text book.

Showing Mascherano's importance, we have missed him incredibly and he would have worked well in Hodgson's defensive minded system. Merieles would have benefitted so much.

Found this on YNWA. It's how many games managers are currently going without a win away from home.

Hodgson - 22

Incredible stats, and "he was only at Fulham" doesnt really wash either when Holloway already has 3 away wins, West Brom won at Arsenal, Wigan at Spurs etc, its not that difficult to win 1 away match though evidently it is for our manager.

He allegedly didnt win away from home all season, last win being in May 2009. At times we played badly and lost last year but you could see the manager was unhappy or gutted. It concerns me that Roy doesnt. We need a change and with the debt gone we might be able to attract a better manager.

Pellegrini did well at RM and heard he did well before although i know little about him. Rijkaard has a track record of success at a top club. How about Bert Van Marwijk? Did really well in the World Cup and has had an excellent track record with Holland, the next competition is at least 2 years away so could he be enticed?

[Arn]

I myself blame Gerrard much more than Rafa for finishing seventh last season. Rafa at least tried his best week in week out that is something that you can only laugh about if someone suggests that our captain did that.

The way Gerrard acted was disgrace and he should have been sold in the last window just to point out that you don't act the way Gerrard did.

I find it very strange that Gerrard is still our Captain after what happened last season and his **** attitude. That sends out completely wrong signals.

If Gerrard had given 100% week in week out then we would most probably finished top four or at least been a hell of a lot closer.

Gerrard have of course rescued us so many times so for some reason he gets away with it.

[Ben_Itez]

your right mate just watched it there

So because Konchesky is SO slow and such a ****e defender Lucas should have anticipated that he would be beaten and put his foot down and overtaken him to prevent the cross? Yep it was definitely Lucas' fault

[Arn]

Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised by Tom Hicks blaming Rafa Benítez for the Reds losing money; after all, he’s after scapegoats, following his scandalously disruptive time as Liverpool’s owner. But people like Mark Lawrenson, Alan Hansen, Robbie Savage and Harry Redknapp should know better.

(Okay, most of these aren’t intellectual titans, but even so.)

Hicks was never going to go quietly. As I noted in my reaction to NESV taking over, we now have owners that appear to possess some dignity and sporting savvy. But when talking about recent seasons, we must remember that Hicks and Gillett effectively made Rafa Benítez’s job twice as hard from the moment they tried to sack him in 2007 and replace him with Jurgen Klinsmann, months after the Spaniard had just led Liverpool to a second Champions League Final in three seasons. From that point, Rafa had been fatally undermined, and all trust was gone.

Despite all this, I remain baffled as to how Rafa ‘wasted loads of money’ as Liverpool manager (either since 2007, when Hicks and Gillett arrived, or dating back to 2004). Especially as his expertise generated around £100m in Champions League prize money, which far exceeded what the club was achieving before he arrived. (One run to the quarter-finals was the best under Houllier, compared with four in five seasons under Benítez.)

You cannot judge a manager only by his mistakes, and ignore all the stuff he got right. And yes, that applies vice versa, too. You look at the whole picture, then make your case.

Like any manager, Rafa wasted money on certain players, and in his case, took a hit of a few million quid on the likes of Keane, Dossena and, it seems now that he’s been loaned out, Aquilani; but you cannot just focus on those and ignore the likes of Torres, Reina and Alonso, whose values trebled at various points during his tenure.

Every manager has his Verons, Jeffers, Poborskys, Shevchenkos, Wright-Phillips and Forlans, who, for whatever reason, just don’t work out. But they also have their Anelkas, Henrys, Rooneys, Vieiras, Drogbas, Ronaldos. (Not quite sure why I’m pluralising these; multiple Jeffers? *Shudders*.)

A lot has been said about how much Rafa spent on players. But little has been said about how the likes of Torres, Reina, Agger, Kuyt, Johnson et al were part of the value of the club. (As was Mascherano, before he was sold.)

If, as many advised, Rafa had bought Darren Bent – a fine striker – instead of Torres (for a vaguely similar amount at the time, remember), the club would have a player whose value hadn’t increased to roughly £50m (at one time, £70m). It would still have a £15m-£20m striker. If Rafa had bought Michael Owen in 2007, the club would now have a virtually worthless forward, about to turn 31.

I feel like I’ve put in the homework here. My new book looks into the spending of every club and every manager during the Premier League era.

One of the reasons for doing so much work on a book like this is to understand more about the realities of the game; subsequently enabling me to share that in other areas of my writing. It’s not a case of plugging the work (though I’d like as many people to know about it as possible – a light is worthless hid under a bushel), but using it as a reference, after a year of hard work and research.

The trouble with focusing on gross spends is well known – it ignores money recouped; it pays no attention to ‘trading up’ (à la Sissoko to Mascherano, Kromkamp to Arbeloa, Bellamy to Torres). But even a net spend during a manager’s time is misleading: it depends on the quality and age of the squad he inherited. After all, a lot of it would be from selling another manager’s mistakes. (And in Houllier’s case, he left Benítez some good players, but nearly all of the best ones the Frenchman purchased were either approaching or already in their 30s; meaning limited shelf-life and little-or-no sell-on value.)

To me, the fairest way is to look only at the players bought by that manager, and what those players are now worth/what they were sold for.

Between 2004 and 2010, in buying 40 players who started a league game, Benítez spent approximately £225m.

He recouped £132m from the 25 of those purchases to have moved on.

And he left purchases conservatively worth £150m.

(Valuations courtesy of a panel of non-partisan football experts I assembled for the project, including noted international scout and transfer advisor, Tor-Kristian Karlsen. Torres, for example, was valued at £47m, Reina at £14m; you might argue that these are too low.)

To me, that makes £225m spent, £282m either recouped or currently recoupable.

Now, what about during the Hicks and Gillett years?

We make it £139.8m spent under Benítez, with those same players sold for (or now worth) a grand total of £158.7m (£51m from sales, £107m in current value of present LFC players bought in that three year period). Since Hodgson took over, a further £23m has been spent.

However, as well as the players bought between 2007 and 2010, Gillett and Hicks benefited from the sale of players bought by Benítez and Houllier during the David Moores era.

So a further £70m was brought in via the sales of Alonso, Crouch, Carson, Bellamy, Hobbs, Sissoko, Garcia, Riise and Le Tallec.

All in all, that makes for approximately £150m spent on first-team squad players, and £120m generated from the sale of first-team squad players from the day Gillett and Hicks took over to the day they left.

Or roughly, £30m net; ten times less than the figure Hicks claimed (although he switched between saying they’d invested £300m and $300m; the small matter of over £100m difference!). It is true that wages were increased, but of course, so was the income of Premier League clubs in general following a new TV deal. (And in fairness to LFC, the marketing and merchandising side of the club began to bring in a lot more money.)

On top of this, the £82m spent by Benítez on those players who remain the property of LFC (i.e. including Aquilani and Insua) are now worth an estimated £107.2m. In other words, rather than waste their money, on the whole Benítez invested it wisely. If Hicks had decided to cash in on all the players he’d allowed the Spaniard to buy, the club would have made a tidy profit; thankfully, he only got to do so with a few of them, and the likes of Torres, Reina, Agger, Kuyt et al remain.

(For the purposes of the book, we discounted the myriad youngsters clubs buy for minimal fees, many of whom never see the light of day. In Liverpool’s case, there were quite a few, going all the way down to 15-year-olds like the outrageously gifted Raheem Sterling. However, even here we think Rafa did well on the whole: although someone like Leto never started a league game, he cost £1.8m and left for £3m. Nemeth, Dalle Valle and San Jose fetched in excess of £5m between them, having cost a fraction of that amount. And Jonjo Shelvey, Danny Pacheco and Daniel Ayala are now worth £10m combined, four times what was paid.)

However, in the book we look at all prices in relation to inflation; we created the Transfer Price Index to know what players bought in previous seasons cost in today’s money. So rather than £10.5m, Xabi Alonso’s move to Liverpool in 2004 cost the equivalent of £20m when sold in 2009. So a £30m sale was only £10m ‘genuine’ profit, not £20m. His value had risen to three times the original amount; but the value of players in general had doubled in the same period.

I came up with the idea of ‘genuine profit’ (and loss) because players are bought in one market, and sold in another, in which prices are generally higher. And therefore it’s actually very hard to make genuine profits. Not one was made on any of Graeme Souness’ purchases; they all lost money when inflation was taken into account. And only two were made on all of Houllier’s signings. It’s a very different story with Benítez’s dealings.

I won’t give away the full results here (they are listed in full in the book, along with those of the major Premier League managers, in a special section), but it shows a manager who understands the transfer market, but who – like all managers – could not guarantee the success of certain purchases.

Read the book, and I can guarantee that you’ll find quite a few surprises – not just about Benítez, but about a whole host of managers.

“Pay As You Play: The True Price of Success in the Premier League Era” is released on November 9th.

Amongst other things, the book looks at the increasing correlation between transfer spending and success, with plenty of evidence presented to back this up. All 43 clubs to play in the top-flight between 1992 and 2010 have their own chapter, complete with views from an expert fan/journalist. To be 100% fair, managers are rated on how they performed purely in relation to their budget: looking at things like cost-per-point (in other words, how expensive their team was in relation to the league points garnered, and weighting this against the norm for such a level of achievement). And a lot, lot more.

Exclusive material relating to Liverpool will be made available to subscribers of The Tomkins Times. The contributors of other clubs will feature the research in their own work.

Jonathan Wilson: “An ingenious and intelligent look beneath the surface to reveal what the headlines too often don’t tell us. Fascinating.”

Gabriele Marcotti: “For years we’ve judged football and football people without the analytical tools to do it properly. Finally a book that attempts to do so intelligently. Hopefully a harbinger of more to come!”

http://tomkinstimes.com/2010/10/the-...%99s-spending/

[Arn]

This season, Liverpool have allowed opponents 92 shots at their goal in their first six league games, in contrast to just 46 in the corresponding fixtures last season. (For those failing to grasp this concept, corresponding fixtures refers to games against the same teams we’ve played to date, not the first six games we played last season.)

In 2009/10, 72 crosses were delivered into Liverpool’s box in those same games; this year, it’s 126. Nine goals have been conceded this time, to four last year.

(And bear in mind, these were not necessarily Liverpool’s better performances last season.)

Only one Premier League team has delivered fewer crosses of their own. Liverpool are not having as much of the ball, and any passing that does take place is in deeper areas. No-one hits the byline, or gets even close. Torres looks bewildered.

Now, as with any piece on the team these days, the off-field issues are vitally important to remember. They are the bigger issues. The sit-in last week, and the direct action this week, are all vital in fighting for the long-term future of the club.

But the actual football is still something that people want to talk about. (The healthier the Reds are on the pitch at the time this horrible saga is resolved, the less time it will take to restore the team to a position to challenge for honours.)

Wingless

“We don’t play with wingers” said Roy Hodgson, and he’d know. But with only one attacking full-back – who himself seems unsure of overlapping as confidently as in the past – it makes for very one-dimensional football; especially with two holding midfielders sometimes deployed (the point of which is to allow full-backs to become quasi-wingers).

At home to Sunderland last season, Liverpool fielded eight players who could be considered ‘attacking’ (at least in relation to where they were deployed on the pitch). There were three progressive players in defence, three in midfield and two in attack. This meant fluidity could be achieved by interchanging positions. Sunderland were well-and-truly battered.

(The only player who was not exceptionally attack-minded for his position in which he played on the pitch was Maxi, but he’s still a one-in-three goalscorer throughout his career, and a clever player.)

This was Benítez’s usual tactic at home to teams who were not part of the elite: Gerrard in midfield, Kuyt off Torres, and players like Benayoun and Riera on the wings if not Babel and Maxi.

Look at Roy’s team for the same fixture, and it’s easy to see why Sunderland were the better side; from being hammered, they were now the more aggressive attackers, all in the space of six months. (I know it’s not entirely fair to compare two games when the circumstances will always be different, but it’s indicative of a more general trend.)

From eight ‘comfortable’ attacking players, it was down to just five.





By choosing Skrtel over Agger for such games, Hodgson was instantly removing one of his best technical players. Skrtel is fine enough on the ball; but he’s no Agger.

Konchesky is a decent all-rounder, but Insua was one of the top assist-makers from full-back in the Premier League last season. You could question his defending, but going forward he could deliver quality (watch the Wolves game at Anfield), and was often looking to beat his man with a dribble or one-two. So from three really comfortable possession players at the back, it’s now down to just Johnson.

The loss of Mascherano obviously makes things harder for Roy; but so far, Poulsen doesn’t look in the same league, let alone a half-decent replacement. At 30, he’s not got time on his side, either. He’s decent, but a plodder.

But Meireles – who many expected to replace Mascherano – is an interesting one. He’s certainly not a purely negative player out on the right flank – he has ability on the ball – but he’s not used to attacking in such a role. He looks a good player, and potentially a very good one, but not one whose play suggests right midfield is somewhere he’s natural and comfortable. (I may be proved wrong on this, as I can only go on what I’ve seen so far.)

The way the team is set up exacerbates these issues. In the past, the high-pressing would enable Gerrard, Torres and Kuyt to swarm around midfielders and defenders, forcing mistakes and taking their chances in ‘breakaways’ that take place close to the opposition goal. It can be tiring for players (hence rotation), but it gives a bit of oomph to the play. Teams as good as Real Madrid were left shellshocked.

Even Fulham under Mark Hughes are now pressing higher up (according to Danny Murphy) and playing better football (as mentioned by Diomansy Kamara and a couple of others). Kudos must go to Hughes’ predecessor for setting up that platform, but it was one built on low-scoring matches and a lot of drawn games. (Much like Roy’s time at Blackburn and Inter Milan.)

Roy prefers the more Houllieresque (Allen Wade) approach of men behind the ball in two banks of four, sitting off from the opposition. In theory, you keep your shape and are hard to break down – although any kind of cross into our box right now seems akin to a fox lobbed into a chicken pen.

In terms of Liverpool’s play, this either leads to direct balls to the striker/s, or possession in deeper areas: where the passing may look pretty, but where it’s easier to indulge in, due to the fact that opposition aren’t too worried. When the defence isn’t ‘hoofing’, there’s been some nice football on the deck; but unfortunately, it’s not been going anywhere (bar one really nice move versus Utrecht).

An absolute lack of clinical passing in the final third has rendered the Reds largely impotent. Joe Cole and Steven Gerrard should be able to deliver on this front, but for some reason it’s not happening.

Torres cuts a lonely figure; there’s just no quality service into him. Granted he’s not at his sharpest, but it usually only takes a couple of rusty games to get back amongst the goals in a Liverpool shirt.

Sitting Off

By sitting off teams, the Reds are allowing the opposition defences to gang up on him; without hassling them in return, they are in their comfort zones.

And by sitting off, we are inviting teams to come and have a go at us. We are playing like the away team at home. Looking at the Guardian chalkboards, our performance last Saturday looked more like the one put in at the Stadium of Light against the same opponents than the one at Anfield.

In some ways it’s impossible to believe that we would be set up in exactly the same fashion as Fulham were, whose primary aim was to avoid defeat. But right now, it appears that way.

All my doubts about Roy – expressed at the outset – remain; I expected to see one or two – and hopefully three or four – erased by now. (Or at least partially addressed.)

He’s a good man, but by this stage of the tenures of every previous Liverpool manager I can recall we’d had at least something to latch onto. The players currently look no happier than last season, and now far more clueless to boot. Yes, it may take three to six months to get the side playing exactly how he wants, but at least some signs of progression are normally par for the course.

I retain the fear that he is a good manager at clubs where expectations are lower (in itself a difficult task in many ways), but one without the progressive ideas to take a big club forward. They are very different types of job, requiring different skill-sets. It seems that he was appointed because he was the kind of man the suits would get along with, with no thought to the tactical side of the game taken into consideration.

He was also appointed to go down the ‘safer’ English route. I said it in the summer, but would Arsenal have done the same had Arsene Wenger failed to qualify for the Champions League a few seasons back (when only a stomach upset denied Spurs)? If Wenger retired now, it would be unthinkable for them to appoint someone like Hodgson. The club just isn’t set up that way.

Things like Pepe Reina being asked to change his goalkeeping ‘to a more English style’ concern me. Why change what is so clearly not broken? (And of course, it’s not like Spanish goalkeepers – with Spanish coaching – are the best in the world right now… Oops.)

It’s now up to Roy to go on and prove that he has what it takes. I’ll happily start doling out the credit, if it’s due. I really thought we’d turned a corner five minutes into the Sunderland game, with a disallowed goal followed quickly by a legitimate one (in the ref’s eyes). We were seeing both good football and good fortune. I was looking forward to feeling positive again. But it quickly evanesced.

There should be no calls for Roy’s head – I find that unacceptable at this stage – but equally, he has to show that he’s up to what is a really difficult job (even without the ownership farce), and face up to criticism such as this. He has to get his team playing better. That’s his job. Some poor performances are to be expected in times of uncertainty, but not week after week.

I will continue to stave off all claims that he should be replaced forthwith, but in reply, he needs to give us something to work with. In return for time and patience, we need an idea of where we are going. There may no longer be a good enough collection of players to dream of the top four (let alone top two), but there is enough quality and experience to be in the top six (which is why last season was a case of under-achievement). This run of ‘easier’ games is his chance to show that he can get things right sooner rather than later.

But to date there seems very little connection between Roy and the fans, and that’s strange. Even those who’d have taken Harold Shipman and his box of needles over Rafa seem unable to ‘bond’ with the new man. Yet no one thinks he’s a bad bloke in the slightest; avuncular Roy. Strange. It just feels more like an arranged marriage right now, than one of love.

Finally, the following is from a Fulham season ticket holder, and was written in the summer. I thought it was worthy of a wider audience, given how it matches up with what we’ve seen so far.

On substitutions:

He’ll make few substitutions, those he does will come late in the game and be mechanical. For example at Fulham he’ll take off Danny Murphy on 75 mins, every game. His philosophy is essentially one of Plan A, Plan A, Plan A. He’s worked on a plan with his team (no really, he has) and he’ll see it through on the basis that it is just a question of keep on working at it and it will work eventually. He is not short on believing in his convictions.

On selections:

He believes in having a first 11. He will work out who it is and then stick with it, week in week out. Others will play in the Europa League and the cups [now labeled his Liverpool ‘B team’]. Don’t expect to see him at the Academy too often, just not his thing.

On formation / tactics:

He’ll get his team to sit back in two banks of four, very narrow and basically say to the opposition, “go on play through us”. It had some success against teams like Arsenal. When you win the ball back, first option will be a ball to the striker and let him hold it up. Wide midfielders will often play on the side opposite their best foot to cut in (like Damien Duff at Fulham) and the fullbacks will have to provide any width. You’ll find it frustrating to watch as they won’t press, and as a fan it is very hard to get into the game when there is limited energy in attack or defence.

At Fulham the fans get into it because their expectations are lower and they have more games against what they see as better teams, and anything from the games is a victory of some sorts they can support. I think you’ll find it tougher to hang on to that at Anfield.

Clicky

[danperkins]

If you honestly believe that Benitez is at fault for the team's position now and we were a laughing stock last season in the way we most definitely are this season, then you're quite clearly delusional. I know you've been a committed Roy apologist, but please get a grip

Benitez was a fine manager trying to do a job with a sell-to-buy policy forced on him from above and managing extensive injuries to key players all last season. Hodgson, on the other hand, is ****ing clueless and is a total disgrace. The sooner he ****s off the sooner we can progress.

Let's hope the owners in meeting the supporters' club today get that message into their heads loud and clear

Em when did i say i blaming Rafa for the position of the team Red? I said i blame him for the squad he left, on several others posts i have said its Roys fault we are 19th. Probably best to read posts properly first before spouting argo nonsense

[danperkins]

So because Konchesky is SO slow and such a ****e defender Lucas should have anticipated that he would be beaten and put his foot down and overtaken him to prevent the cross? Yep it was definitely Lucas' fault

I think we take take out of it that Lucas and The Konch are in fact ****ing Useless

[danperkins]

I'm not a tomkins fan, but it's actually a good article and, beautifully, is under 100,000 words.

i can't stand the guy, stopped reading his stuff long time ago as IMO it was so biased.

[Arn]

i can't stand the guy, stopped reading his stuff long time ago as IMO it was so biased.

or simply because it doesn't suit your agenda. It may be biased but it's still FACTS.

[Daniel 7]

Our best game this season was against Arsenal. We looked dangerous attacking before Cole went off and our defending when we were down to ten men was text book.

Since then it's all gone to pot. Every game since we have played far too narrow, far too deep, we're stretched resulting in defence being disjointed from midfield being disjointed from attack. Rafa knew how to play a 4-2-3-1; everyone was connected and the lone striker was never actually isolated. As a respected football man it's surprising that Hodgson doesn't seem to have a clue how to play.

The basics of defending aren't there anymore which is all the more dangerous when we are playing off the 18 yard line. We struggle to play from the back and through the mid-field because we are too stretched. We end up having to play long balls which are too easily read and intercepted. Torres is getting no service. He ends up having to go wide and/or play deep resulting in having no-one in the danger area.

In short, the basics are all wrong.

I've been proud that Liverpool have always given our managers decent runs to prove themselves. But I fear that under these circumstances, it will be far too damaging to keep Hodgson on in the hope he might eventually get it right. I don't want us to turn into a "sacking" club, but he could be the first Liverpool manager in decades to be genuinely dismissed (as opposed to one of these "mutual consent" deals).

I don't want to trust him with whatever turnaround budget we may have available in the January transfer window. Bringing in a new top class manager in the next couple of weeks will give him two months to familiarise himself with our squad and work out who to buy in Jan. The only question is who.

Good point - the difference is that the new managers who came in at least showed the potential that they were moving in the right direction and addressing the problems left behind by their predecessors. Look at Houllier with his re-organising of the defence, employing Hamann as the best holding midfielder in the league. Benitez getting us playing with more cohesion and providing tactical acumen...

Hodgson is addressing problems left by Benitez by making them worse. How are Poulsen and Konchesky solving aything? What did getting rid of Auilani solve? It didn't even give us money to reinvest.

What has sitting back with no ambition solved in our desperation to re-qualify for the Champion's League.

The man has "improved" us to 19th in the league.

Good job Roy.

Please leave.