Pack your bags Roy

[Neil Young]

In the game that Carra allegedly 'refused' to play RB, didnt he play CB instead?

My thinking is that if any player 'refused' to play where he was told, Rafa would just drop them full stop.

Yeah, I can see the logic in that. So it's just a rumour...?

Who would have played CB if Carra had been dropped/played RB?

[Fredo]

I remember Rafa saying that 'almost' every player sent him a text after he was sacked. I think there's a lot of credence in the rumours that the few who didn't see eye to eye with him (for a number of reasons), were Carra & Gerrard. Those rumours about Carra lately seem to back up that.

As for playing out of position, I remember seeing Carra play right back last season, in some games.

[Craig_H]

Without being in the dressing room, i think we have to treat everything like this as just a rumour.

[Fredo]

Of course, but I have my reasons to believe why he was sacked, and none were for sporting reasons.

[Rowan]

In the game that Carra allegedly 'refused' to play RB, didnt he play CB instead?

My thinking is that if any player 'refused' to play where he was told, Rafa would just drop them full stop.

Was it the Boro game? I just remember Skyrtl getting mugged again and again. Normally if a player is having a horror show I'm
more irrate than anything else but on that occassion I really felt for the lad. He clearly had no idea what he was supposed to be doing. Carra felt 'a bit leggy' if I recall correctly.

[Neil Young]

Without being in the dressing room, i think we have to treat everything like this as just a rumour.

Sure but you know how it works - we can analyse, weigh different pieces of information, look for patterns, etc.

We all obviously have to be careful in what how we choose to interpret things (hence my frustration earlier with people insisting there was only one possible reason Benitez was sacked ) but not everything is equally credible (or incredible).

[red g]

I don't want to go in an endless argument re:Rafa with you as I know you don't rate him, but there's absolutely no fact to say that his position was 'untenable'. Dodgson's position is untenable, of that there's no argument against, Rafa's was different, as the main reason for him to be sacked was because he stood up against Hicks & Gillett. For sporting reasons, there was absolutely no reason to sack him.

during sept and november we had 1 win in 10 games...4 defeats in a row and think we lost 7 of those games. That is far worse than Roy........yet you want him sacked?

[Neil Young]

Of course, but I have my reasons to believe why he was sacked, and none were for sporting reasons.

I really don't think you can completely discount the fact we finished outside the CL places as being at least part of the equation (in fact I'm sure it's relevant). I certainly don't see why it needs to be the only term though.

[Fredo]

Sure but you know how it works - we can analyse, weigh different pieces of information, look for patterns, etc.

We all obviously have to be careful in what how we choose to interpret things (hence my frustration earlier with people insisting there was only one possible reason Benitez was sacked ) but not everything is equally credible (or incredible).

The one rather clear assumption that we could make is that it wasn't for sporting reasons because we were competitive until the end of his tenure. Yes, we didn't win a trophy for 3 years, but we weren't far away, especially if you consider that he was going for both the CL and the league (apart from Chelsea & Man. Utd during the last 5 years no other team ever got close bar us 2 years ago).

[RichC]

Of course, but I have my reasons to believe why he was sacked, and none were for sporting reasons.

Rafa made it sporting reasons for promising 4th.

He was got rid of as he was a royal pain in the arse for H&G and they used his we'll finish 4th guarantee to remove him.

And TBH I don't think they gave two hoots about anyone elses opinions than their own.

[Rowan]

I really don't think you can completely discount the fact we finished outside the CL places as being at least part of the equation (in fact I'm sure it's relevant). I certainly don't see why it needs to be the only term though.

As I said to Oranjeboom. That was the justification but not the reason. Hicks n co had been sitting there for years waiting for us to finish outside the top 4 so they could rid themselves of that infernal Rafael Benitez. In fact, having thought about it all day, I'm starting to think he'd have got the chop for 4th to ala Ged.

[Big-Red-Ed]

It seems so obvious to just put Kenny in charge until a proper replacement can be found. It's so obvious that maybe they asked Kenny and he said no. In which case your options are stick with Roy temporarily or let Sammy have a go.

The Sammy option is a tricky one as he is Roy's right hand man and would be difficult to broach the subject on the sly.

[Neil Young]

B*ll*cks - typed a long reply and promptly lost it before posting. CBA ***** to retype.

Anyway, it boils down to this - if we'd got fourth or better last season, do you think Benitez would have been sacked?

[The_weatherman]

If Roy is at that Auxerre game then I doubt he is leaving anytime soon.

[Fredo]

Rafa made it sporting reasons for promising 4th.

He was got rid of as he was a royal pain in the arse for H&G and they used his we'll finish 4th guarantee to remove him.

And TBH I don't think they gave two hoots about anyone elses opinions than their own.

He 'promised' 4th because Liverpool should always aim for at least 4th (4th isn't good enough even!), unlike Hodgson who thinks we're relegation fodder.

I think it's a bit simplistic to suggest he was sacked because he 'promised' 4th place. It would have been an insult if he said we couldn't finish 4th, and to be fair to him, we competed for 4th till the end.

But hey ho, I don't want to go into a Rafa debate.