Jordan Henderson

[Lee]

I'm not as much of a fan but fair points

yeah that must be it alright

good post

fair point mate

Top, top input Dan.

[ronanm]

Think he will be very good in a couple of years but a lot more work required to get there!

[danperkins]

Top, top input Dan.

So what's the problem with agreeing/respecting other people's opinions and points of view lee? It is a forum, it is allowed isn't it?

[Reece]

So what's the problem with agreeing with other people's opinions and points of view lee? It is a forum, it is allowed isn't it?

Agreed

[Exiled_red]

In reality, he is a symbol of the FSG / Comolli / new transfer philosophy - in that we purchase players based on potential and nurture that so they become superstars....

I think this is the right way forward for our club - because in reality, we are never going to be able to compete with Man City, Madrid etc for signings like Ronaldo, Silva etc.....

I just don't think that LFC were in a proper position to spend 15-20m on a player like that.....not yet anyway. I think we needed players that could fit straight into the first team.......i'd consider Henderson as a player that needs to be a squad player for a year or two and ease himself in to life at LFC before he can become a first team guaranteed starter....

I like the fact that we are signing the likes of Sterling, Ibe and all them young lads.... in reality, if we unearth 2 or 3 superstars and half a dozen squad players, not to mention sell on players for a million or two here and there, then it is proof that the method works....

However, last summer, we didn't have the existing first team squad to justify spunking 16m on Henderson..... we'd should have tried to spend a third of that on Scott Parker instead.

It's the same with Seb Coates......we'd have been better off getting Gary Cahill for the same money.....

The problem this approach is that there is never an ideal time to buy players for the future rather than players for the here and now. We have bought a player for now and a player for the future in Adam and Henderson, if instead of buying Henderson we'd have bought Parker in a few years we'd find ourselves in the position we were in last summer, needing a long term replacement (for Parker), then what do we do? We'd either have to buy a youngster lacking experience or pay top price for someone established - if Henderson progresses as hoped over that period he'd cost alot more than we paid for him in the summer...

[danperkins]

The problem this approach is that there is never an ideal time to buy players for the future rather than players for the here and now. We have bought a player for now and a player for the future in Adam and Henderson, if instead of buying Henderson we'd have bought Parker in a few years we'd find ourselves in the position we were in last summer, needing a long term replacement (for Parker), then what do we do? We'd either have to buy a youngster lacking experience or pay top price for someone established - if Henderson progresses as hoped over that period he'd cost alot more than we paid for him in the summer...

True enough, although then the flip side could be Parker playing so well like he has this season, that it helps us get us into the champions league and stay in that top tier of football. Therefore being in a better position financially, aswell as being a bigger draw for potential talent/replacements when do do need to replace him.

IMO i think both of you have valid points

[ric.williams]

he's tidy at the minute. plenty of potential though. not a right mid though

[Mattshark]

Perhaps I misread the context. However, last summer we wouldn't have been able to get Cahill for the same price we got Coates for.

Also he is older, less potential and not any better than what we have or likely to get than good imo. Cahill would have been a waste of money, while we know Coates is one for the future.

[The Birdman]

If Lucas hadn't got injured Scott Parker wouldn't have played for us so would have been a waste of money to replace 1 30 odd year old sub (Poulson) for another in Parker.

Henderson has played and would have played regardless of another players injury

[The Birdman]

Also he is older, less potential and not any better than what we have or likely to get than good imo. Cahill would have been a waste of money, while we know Coates is one for the future.

Also I think it was Lec who said on here that Cahill was after 90k a week in the summer when we were sniffing around.
So I guess 12m would have got him then plus 90k a week x 5 years deal.

Would guess that Coates is on something closer to 30k a week

[Muddled]

I like Henderson, I love his ability to see the early ball and his quickness of thought, as well as his control and general neatness, but he desperately needs to add a bit of tenacity to his game (kinda what he showed at the end of the game on the weekend, at Evra) and he also needs to stay central, as apposed to drifting right if the game is passing him by - we can't afford any passengers at this moment in time.

To add to what I mentioned in another thread, his position is definitely an attacking midfielder with the need for a defensive-minded partner. With this in mind, I don't think the future of our midfield is a combination of Henderson and Shelvey, it's definitely one or the other, with the t'other being a more than able deputy.

[Phoenix07]

To add to what I mentioned in another thread, his position is definitely an attacking midfielder with the need for a defensive-minded partner. With this in mind, I don't think the future of our midfield is a combination of Henderson and Shelvey, it's definitely one or the other, with the t'other being a more than able deputy.

Before you read on, I'm putting a warning of hyperbole for player comparison.

I reckon they can both play together easily. Shelvey always strikes me as a "Gerrard" type of player, one who arrives late, drives forward making direct runs and makes some great passes.

Henderson on the other hand is like Iniesta. He knits well, makes some effective runs but he needs to make a lot more off the ball runs to help out his teammates. Also, he needs to seek the ball more rather than become a floating midfielder. Most of his play is pressing. If he asks for the ball more and releases it more clinically, then he'll become one heck of a player.

[ashey]

Henderson & Lucas in the middle with a couple of attacking midfielder's (in the Garcia / Benayoun / Silva / Mata mould) would be a very decent midfield for me.

[Mostar]

I think he's a decent player he's much better in central midfield than he was on the right wing. I'm still not sure we know what his best role will be in the team yet (long term) but he's doing a decent enough job, and if he continues to improve I think he could be a very good player for us.

Same here. He's CM and that is where he should play.

Personally I thought we bought him one year too early but I do think he has the potential to be a good player over time.

Not ready yet imo to be playing week in and week out and though fundamentally he is very solid he needs to improve his crossing, learn how to take a man and tackle, head the ball better and not shy from the challenge and contact.

[baitman]

Not ready yet imo to be playing week in and week out and though fundamentally he is very solid he needs to improve his crossing, learn how to take a man and tackle, head the ball better and not shy from the challenge and contact.

so what does he actually bring to our team, then, other than potential for the future.