Brendan Rodgers

[Doc_Piptorious]

Right. So, who is at fault- the manager who can't adapt the 9 players behind the wrong style of attackers, or the club's structure and buying program, who does not give the manager what he wants to succeed? I'll take fake teeth and ego every day of the week if we're ****ting people. I have no football experience other than carefully watching the team for decades-- and I think this is very obvious. How is it that no one in club management can see it? Or are they just willfully doing this for some reason?

No idea who is most at fault tbh.

But what I do know is that even if we discount the scouting and buying process altogether, much of what we got to see on the pitch during the season just gone was baffling.

It seemed to be game after game of trying to make players fit rather than trying to get a style of play to fit the players.

We often had strikers, none of quality though when Sturridge was out, yet we seemed determined to not find some way of incorporating what we had into the team.

Borini, Lambert, and Balotelli have been lambasted greatly on here, some of it warranted some not so much, but when did we give any of them a steady run in the team or even try to see if we could have worked two of them into the team at the same time?

Midfield was similar, we seemed to chop and change roles for players. Then we would find something that works, keep it for a run of games and then tear it up again (Lucas being used in the DM role, and then going back to the Gerrard being in the same role despite how he has played there in the past). Could not understand why you would put someone in a role they are not good at, when injuries force a reshuffle, rather than trying to set up in a manner that all the used players are in roles they understand and are good in.

And don't start me on Can being showed out to RB despite him not being even moderately good in the role. Fair enough if it happened during a game and all subs were used, but starting games that way?


All of the above comes back on one man, and that is Rodgers.


Yes if he had better players available to him he may have done better, but I think an arguement could be made that even with the players he had available to him that he should, as a professional football manager, should have been able to put out starting elevens that played like one entity rather than it looking like three to four different sections of a team that only met for the first time before games

[BrooklynRed]

No idea who is most at fault tbh.

But what I do know is that even if we discount the scouting and buying process altogether, much of what we got to see on the pitch during the season just gone was baffling.

It seemed to be game after game of trying to make players fit rather than trying to get a style of play to fit the players.

We often had strikers, none of quality though when Sturridge was out, yet we seemed determined to not find some way of incorporating what we had into the team.

Borini, Lambert, and Balotelli have been lambasted greatly on here, some of it warranted some not so much, but when did we give any of them a steady run in the team or even try to see if we could have worked two of them into the team at the same time?

Midfield was similar, we seemed to chop and change roles for players. Then we would find something that works, keep it for a run of games and then tear it up again (Lucas being used in the DM role, and then going back to the Gerrard being in the same role despite how he has played there in the past). Could not understand why you would put someone in a role they are not good at, when injuries force a reshuffle, rather than trying to set up in a manner that all the used players are in roles they understand and are good in.

And don't start me on Can being showed out to RB despite him not being even moderately good in the role. Fair enough if it happened during a game and all subs were used, but starting games that way?


All of the above comes back on one man, and that is Rodgers.


Yes if he had better players available to him he may have done better, but I think an arguement could be made that even with the players he had available to him that he should, as a professional football manager, should have been able to put out starting elevens that played like one entity rather than it looking like three to four different sections of a team that only met for the first time before games

Agree completely. The definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over and expecting a different result every time. In that regard, Rodgers was literally insane in his tactics and team selection. You leave Can out to dry, stick with a poor Moreno, but won't give Manquillo time to mature and adapt? Gerrard as DM when it doesn't work, playing target strikers alone, and for me, benching Sakho, which was criminal.

I agree with you 100%.

I guess my thought is it is up to the owners to get the players the manager wants to succeed and up to the manager to adapt when things don't go his way and both completely fell down on this.

That said, do I want to rebuild under a new manager's style? Knowing he is god awful at adapting, do we keep Rodgers and then go buy Benteke and Ings and Milner (who he will play as a CM)? It is a mess.

[gratziani]

No idea who is most at fault tbh.

But what I do know is that even if we discount the scouting and buying process altogether, much of what we got to see on the pitch during the season just gone was baffling.

It seemed to be game after game of trying to make players fit rather than trying to get a style of play to fit the players.

We often had strikers, none of quality though when Sturridge was out, yet we seemed determined to not find some way of incorporating what we had into the team.

Borini, Lambert, and Balotelli have been lambasted greatly on here, some of it warranted some not so much, but when did we give any of them a steady run in the team or even try to see if we could have worked two of them into the team at the same time?

Midfield was similar, we seemed to chop and change roles for players. Then we would find something that works, keep it for a run of games and then tear it up again (Lucas being used in the DM role, and then going back to the Gerrard being in the same role despite how he has played there in the past). Could not understand why you would put someone in a role they are not good at, when injuries force a reshuffle, rather than trying to set up in a manner that all the used players are in roles they understand and are good in.

And don't start me on Can being showed out to RB despite him not being even moderately good in the role. Fair enough if it happened during a game and all subs were used, but starting games that way?


All of the above comes back on one man, and that is Rodgers.


Yes if he had better players available to him he may have done better, but I think an arguement could be made that even with the players he had available to him that he should, as a professional football manager, should have been able to put out starting elevens that played like one entity rather than it looking like three to four different sections of a team that only met for the first time before games

For sure that is a fault Brendan has to deal with , when your starting eleven players are not available it should not change how you set up and play.

We look like total strangers at times.

[Exiled_red]

So, to recap - Are we blaming Brendog, the scouts, the committeeeeeee, FSG or a combo of them all?

I do need some guidance so I can properly vent my miffedness.

50% FSG policy
30% TC targets (which includes Rodgers as one of the TC)
20% Rogders tactical acumen

I think that the issue is a lack of communication between the parties. The biggest issues for me are 1) that we don't sign players who are suited to our style of play and 2) that this season we ripped up the style of play we were trying previously. As a result of having no set style of play I think transfer wise this summer could be a disaster too, because again we will probably end up with the wrong players.

I don't think that in isolation any one group is to blame, the tactics we use would be fine if we had the right players for the system, similarly I don't think the players we signed are bad players, they have just looked bad because they aren't suited to the system.

It is unclear who is to blame, Rodgers is in charge of the tactics and is on the transfer committee, but it is unclear how much influence he has over transfers. If he really doesn't want a player (Balotelli) and we end up signing him for a sizable chunk of money and he spends much of the season on the bench that is evidence that the system isn't working. IMO Rodgers should have a 'veto' power over a signing because if he isn't happy with them and won't play the guy if we sign him we may aswell save our money.

IMO we if we are to stick with the transfer committee mode then we need more 'football' people on it. To me it seems that we are looking at stats and saying this Benteke guy has scored a decent amount of goals, but no-one is saying yes he has but most of them come from crosses and we don't cross the ball. I guess this is partly an FSG thing, I assume in baseball these sort of stats things work well, but if you are signing a player in baseball for his abilty with the bat you don't really have to worry so much about his ability to link up with his team mates in the same way you do in football.

[danperkins]

No idea who is most at fault tbh.

But what I do know is that even if we discount the scouting and buying process altogether, much of what we got to see on the pitch during the season just gone was baffling.

It seemed to be game after game of trying to make players fit rather than trying to get a style of play to fit the players.

We often had strikers, none of quality though when Sturridge was out, yet we seemed determined to not find some way of incorporating what we had into the team.

Borini, Lambert, and Balotelli have been lambasted greatly on here, some of it warranted some not so much, but when did we give any of them a steady run in the team or even try to see if we could have worked two of them into the team at the same time?

Midfield was similar, we seemed to chop and change roles for players. Then we would find something that works, keep it for a run of games and then tear it up again (Lucas being used in the DM role, and then going back to the Gerrard being in the same role despite how he has played there in the past). Could not understand why you would put someone in a role they are not good at, when injuries force a reshuffle, rather than trying to set up in a manner that all the used players are in roles they understand and are good in.

And don't start me on Can being showed out to RB despite him not being even moderately good in the role. Fair enough if it happened during a game and all subs were used, but starting games that way?


All of the above comes back on one man, and that is Rodgers.


Yes if he had better players available to him he may have done better, but I think an arguement could be made that even with the players he had available to him that he should, as a professional football manager, should have been able to put out starting elevens that played like one entity rather than it looking like three to four different sections of a team that only met for the first time before games

yeah that is spot on mate.

[danperkins]

I think that the issue is a lack of communication between the parties. The biggest issues for me are 1) that we don't sign players who are suited to our style of play and 2) that this season we ripped up the style of play we were trying previously. As a result of having no set style of play I think transfer wise this summer could be a disaster too, because again we will probably end up with the wrong players.

I don't think that in isolation any one group is to blame, the tactics we use would be fine if we had the right players for the system, similarly I don't think the players we signed are bad players, they have just looked bad because they aren't suited to the system.

It is unclear who is to blame, Rodgers is in charge of the tactics and is on the transfer committee, but it is unclear how much influence he has over transfers. If he really doesn't want a player (Balotelli) and we end up signing him for a sizable chunk of money and he spends much of the season on the bench that is evidence that the system isn't working. IMO Rodgers should have a 'veto' power over a signing because if he isn't happy with them and won't play the guy if we sign him we may aswell save our money.

IMO we if we are to stick with the transfer committee mode then we need more 'football' people on it. To me it seems that we are looking at stats and saying this Benteke guy has scored a decent amount of goals, but no-one is saying yes he has but most of them come from crosses and we don't cross the ball. I guess this is partly an FSG thing, I assume in baseball these sort of stats things work well, but if you are signing a player in baseball for his abilty with the bat you don't really have to worry so much about his ability to link up with his team mates in the same way you do in football.

[Exiled_red]

No idea who is most at fault tbh.

But what I do know is that even if we discount the scouting and buying process altogether, much of what we got to see on the pitch during the season just gone was baffling.

It seemed to be game after game of trying to make players fit rather than trying to get a style of play to fit the players.

We often had strikers, none of quality though when Sturridge was out, yet we seemed determined to not find some way of incorporating what we had into the team.

Borini, Lambert, and Balotelli have been lambasted greatly on here, some of it warranted some not so much, but when did we give any of them a steady run in the team or even try to see if we could have worked two of them into the team at the same time?

Midfield was similar, we seemed to chop and change roles for players. Then we would find something that works, keep it for a run of games and then tear it up again (Lucas being used in the DM role, and then going back to the Gerrard being in the same role despite how he has played there in the past). Could not understand why you would put someone in a role they are not good at, when injuries force a reshuffle, rather than trying to set up in a manner that all the used players are in roles they understand and are good in.

And don't start me on Can being showed out to RB despite him not being even moderately good in the role. Fair enough if it happened during a game and all subs were used, but starting games that way?


All of the above comes back on one man, and that is Rodgers.


Yes if he had better players available to him he may have done better, but I think an arguement could be made that even with the players he had available to him that he should, as a professional football manager, should have been able to put out starting elevens that played like one entity rather than it looking like three to four different sections of a team that only met for the first time before games

We need a system / style of play that more or less stays the same whoever is in the side. We need this sorted ASAP because, if we don't have the system in mind we can't sign the right players and in all likelihood next season will be another season like this one

Now for me it is not clear what has caused the problems with changes of system, the availability (or lack or availability) of players, trying to evolve the system, Rodgers trying to be too smart trying to fit in the players we signed in the summer. To be honest I don't care we just need to get the issue sorted, for me this means Rodgers sorting out the style of play and FSG, the transfer committee and the manager and coaching staff working together to ensure that players who come in are suited to the role, and to the club and that we aren't going to waste money on a player who looks good in another system, but will come here and flop. Unfortunately it doesn't look as though that has happened yet.

[baitman]

Yes if he had better players available to him he may have done better, but I think an arguement could be made that even with the players he had available to him that he should, as a professional football manager, should have been able to put out starting elevens that played like one entity rather than it looking like three to four different sections of a team that only met for the first time before games

it looks like we have gone around a car boot sale buying up old jigsaws with bits missing, mixing up all the pieces and then trying to assemble one big jigsaw from all the random bits.

too many of brendans players [he has bought most of them] dont seem to make the team any better and are only bothered about pass completion stats. i bet the team talks are electrifying

[Riche]

50% FSG policy
30% TC targets (which includes Rodgers as one of the TC)
20% Rogders tactical acumen

yeah they are wrong.

I dont think you can catorgorise them all in one.

Management

FSG = 70% at fault - not blowing my skirt up. But at least they got a spade.
T&G 100% Fault. why oh why..


Tactical Accumen
Ok here we have with a rising scale for more accumen. ie. 100% = totes amaze.
20% Bodgers - totally dumb .. we only needed a ****ing draw numb nuts. Has no idea what hes doing and stumbles upon a solution sometimes.
Rafa 80% yeah he got it wrong sometimes but on the whole was the best manager we had since the Kenny MK1.

Targets
FSG = 20% Just buy a ****ing donkey already, it will be better than some for the junk youv'e bought.
H&G = 20% At least Rafa was allowed to buy 1 or 2 decent players.

My head is starting to hurt now.

Rich

[captainfog]

At least Rodgers has united the fan base. When was the last time 80% of liverpool fans agreed on something.

Rodgers out!

[Chazza]

Jonathan Northcroft in the Sunday Times saying we are looking at alternatives to Rodgers and Klopp has indicated he would consider the job.

[marcus50bucks]

Liverpool turn heat up on Rodgers

Jonathan Northcroft Published: 31 May 2015

LIVERPOOL are exploring alternatives to Brendan Rodgers, adding to uncertainty about whether the manager will survive an end-of-season review.

He is to be appraised on his performance during 2014-15 in a process led by Mike Gordon, the executive from Fenway Sports Group with most responsibility for day-to-day business at Anfield.

Rodgers and Gordon have a good rapport and the manager remains appreciated by others in Liverpool’s hierarchy, but that has not stopped other options being explored.

A process is under way of examining the availability and credentials of other candidates, such as Jurgen Klopp, whose reign at Borussia Dortmund ended last night after the German Cup final, which Dortmund lost 3-1 to Wolfsburg. Klopp has indicated he would consider the Liverpool job – despite initially saying he planned a sabbatical when his time at Dortmund was over.

It is thought Rodgers still has a very significant chance of remaining in charge, provided he can satisfy FSG that a disappointing 2014-15 campaign – where Liverpool finished sixth in the Premier League and performed badly in Europe – was a blip. Inside the club, the expectation is Rodgers will still be manager when next season begins.

Embarrassing defeats in Liverpool’s final two games, a 3-1 home loss to Crystal Palace and 6-1 humiliation at Stoke, have increased the pressure on Rodgers. However, Liverpool are pressing ahead with attempts to sign Christian Benteke, Nathaniel Clyne, James Milner and Danny Ings – all targets favoured by Rodgers.

Gordon is due to meet Rodgers, who is on holiday in Spain, in the next fortnight. An American, he is FSG’s second largest shareholder after John W Henry, sits on Liverpool’s board of directors, and spends significant periods in Merseyside.

Rafael Benitez, whose name a number of supporters chanted during the 6-1 defeat at Stoke, will be unveiled as Real Madrid’s new manager on Wednesday.

Klopp, who led Dortmund to two German titles and a Champions League final during seven years in charge, is favourite to be offered the job if Liverpool decide to make a change. More than just the manager’s position will be scrutinised in Gordon’s review, with changes considered in Liverpool’s medical department and recruitment structure.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/sport/football/article1562755.ece

[Fosterbloke]

Another bull**** peddler no doubt.

[Leyton388]

The express is reporting that Werner is flying in to hold discussions this week.

[danperkins]

Needs to be asap