Brendan Rodgers

[kris90210]

What qualifies you to disagree with my statement

Nothing

Its just opinion

Hodgson worked at a high level for years also

You're presenting your opinion as fact. When the fact is, you are in no position to say with any certainty how easy it is to organise the defence of a premiership level football team.

I would love to hear your reasoning behind why you have such a strong view that it is an easy thing to do.

And yes, Roy Hodgson, despite being a total flop at our club, has still forgotten more about football than you and I will ever know.

[Lecter]

You're presenting your opinion as fact. When the fact is, you are in no position to say with any certainty how easy it is to organise the defence of a premiership level football team.

I would love to hear your reasoning behind why you have such a strong view that it is an easy thing to do.

And yes, Roy Hodgson, despite being a total flop at our club, has still forgotten more about football than you and I will ever know.

IMO means "in my opinion". I've stated that a number of times

And IMO it is easy to do

Roy might have forgotten more about football than you or me but it doesnt mean hes right, just like it Rodgers coaching at a higher level doesnt mean hes right either

[kris90210]

Why did Kevin Keegan struggle with the defensive side of things??

Why did Roy struggle tactically??

Why did Villas-Boas struggle to sort the backline out at Chelsea yet Di Matteo managed it within a few games?

Just because hes a Premier League coach doesnt mean hes infallible

That's it? So you've watched a bit of football on TV, seen how some managers have done, and you feel confident enough to state that organising a defence is easy??

Right-o Lec. You should have gone for the Liverpool job with that kindof CV.

Seriously, why haven't you gone into football managment? There's a lot of money to be made!

[Lecter]

That's it? So you've watched a bit of football on TV, seen how some managers have done, and you feel confident enough to state that organising a defence is easy??

Right-o Lec. You should have gone for the Liverpool job with that kindof CV.

Seriously, why haven't you gone into football managment? There's a lot of money to be made!

I could bore you by saying I played at a decent level semi-pro and also have a handful of the old FA coaching badges but what does that mean

It doesnt qualify me to talk football anymore than you do

You think arranging a defensive unit is very difficult and takes an inordinate amount of time, I dont

Your opinion is no more valid than mine is

I've given examples of how things can be done quickly and how other managers have failed to do it

Oh and whilst your comment about management is amusing perhaps I could have used the same argument to criticise you last year when you were slagging off Dalglish week in week out for his buys, lack of tactics etc...

[Scratch]

Is it not possible that the defensive "frailty" is down to personnel? Wisdom at right back, Enrique gone to pot, Johnson having to cover, Lucas injured with not defensive cover in place. We have not seen our "first team" back 5 all this season, but with them in place, and adequate cover bought (Allen is good, but he is not adept at protecting the back line, and I don't think he was bought for that reason) will we not then see the frailties covered?

[Lecter]

Is it not possible that the defensive "frailty" is down to personnel? Wisdom at right back, Enrique gone to pot, Johnson having to cover, Lucas injured with not defensive cover in place. We have not seen our "first team" back 5 all this season, but with them in place, and adequate cover bought (Allen is good, but he is not adept at protecting the back line, and I don't think he was bought for that reason) will we not then see the frailties covered?

When I talk defensive I'm not just talking about the back four and the holding player

I'm talking about the midfield as a unit, it doesnt press or close down anywhere near enough

Lucas coming back might make a big difference but I'd be expecting more out of the unit as a whole than it is currently giving

[Darkon]

Rafa had us tactically right very quickly

Hell even Houllier (Bergues) had us organised and disciplined into a shape very very quickly

I am disappointed with what I have seen defensively from us as a unit, its just not there imo

But there is also a difference of approach to take in to account. Rafa and Houllier had in common that their philosophy is building from the defence and then forward. First establish a solid back and then build upon it. Disregarding the Hodgson ultra defensive period, we then moved on to Kenny, that is/was more offensive minded from the outset but still with a focus on a solid defense.

Rodgers is really the first manager to install a new philosophy in the team since Houllier was put in charge, and he even had some overlap time with Evans. It will take time to flip the philosophy in the team to focus on the opposition half and then backwards and not opposite like we have been doing for over a decade now.

The only quick way to do it is if you as a manager can buy the core of players in the team that knows the philosophy. Rodgers have got Allen, one central piece, and Borini that have been injured so far. That's it. The rest have to adjust to a new footballing philosophy with perhaps the notable exception of Suarez.

It will take at least 6 months to get a new philosophy in place. A new tactical formation can be set up much much quicker, not really that imporant if you play 433, 451, 4231 etc. but it takes time to install a footballing philosophy in a club and a team. Rodgers still mainly have to work with players bought for a different philosophy, and some have their main strenghts suited for a different style, so we need more time - and Rodgers should get all the time needed (within reason of course). Give the man a few seasons at the least.

[dww]

Hmm, not sure I agree with you about Rafa not changing our playing philosophy after Houllier (even if both built from the back).

That said I think there is a lot to your argument re: Rodgers. To me a lot of the criticism of his team building so far seems based on him not doing it the way others would. I'd draw an analogy with criticising zonal defending because men are not marked.

I'm not a complete convert to the church of Rodgers but I think we have to give him time to show how things develop. We have begun to do better in defensive terms of late. It has been incremental rather than coming on leaps and bounds though. Part of that might be due to injuries though. Houllier's methods, for example, looked pretty ropey until he managed to get Hamman, Hyypia and Henchoz playing together regularly. I think for Rodgers we need to get Lucas, Allen and Agger together.

[Lecter]

The strange thing is I think his philosophy is coming along quicker than I'd expect

BUT tactically in terms of shape, pressing etc.. we are regressing

I cant help but wonder if it might be worth changing focus slightly in order to improve things in the interim

[Lecter]

That said I think there is a lot to your argument re: Rodgers. To me a lot of the criticism of his team building so far seems based on him not doing it the way others would. I'd draw an analogy with criticising zonal defending because men are not marked.

This is probably a good point and is probably why I think Rodgers is doing stuff arse about face as if it were me I'd tighten things up and be pressing much more whilst slowly bringing in the pressing game

Rodgers seems to be doing the opposite and for me it isnt working from a defensive viewpoint

[Darkon]

But the style of pressing and how players are moving and placed when pressing is a huge part of the philosophy, and it has changed fundamentally under Rodgers. The reason we are looking weak at the back and leaving some big gaps at times, is because the philosophy is still not completely installed.

Not everyone in the team moves in a coherent unit, and it's a huge change of mentality for a lot of players of ours. Some have adapted quicker than others, but there are still big problems movement wise in the team.

Tactical problems are the match specific problems, and our pressing and movement is more general than that - it's the fundamental philosophy that is outside formation etc.. Attacking wise we look good for most parts, but still have some problems around the goal, but it's just somewhat less criminal than when we see it at the back. A bit like a GK's mistakes are just more costly than a strikers.

[Tee]

We over analyse things here.

[dww]

The strange thing is I think his philosophy is coming along quicker than I'd expect

BUT tactically in terms of shape, pressing etc.. we are regressing

I cant help but wonder if it might be worth changing focus slightly in order to improve things in the interim

I'm not sure we have universally regressed tactically or in terms of pressing. It clearly hasn't quite come together yet. I think the choices of pressing etc are part of the philosophy we are trying to adopt. Perhaps you are right and that the passing side has been over emphasized up to this point but perhaps that is the best way to learn the system overall (or at least Rodgers thinks so). I have to say I can't think of a similar program of style change that I followed closely (Arsenal with Wenger was ages ago, his style is much more progressive than that of Rodgers and AW started with a phenomenal defence).

[Lecter]

But the style of pressing and how players are moving and placed when pressing is a huge part of the philosophy, and it has changed fundamentally under Rodgers. The reason we are looking weak at the back and leaving some big gaps at times, is because the philosophy is still not completely installed.

Not everyone in the team moves in a coherent unit, and it's a huge change of mentality for a lot of players of ours. Some have adapted quicker than others, but there are still big problems movement wise in the team.

Tactical problems are the match specific problems, and our pressing and movement is more general than that - it's the fundamental philosophy that is outside formation etc.. Attacking wise we look good for most parts, but still have some problems around the goal, but it's just somewhat less criminal than when we see it at the back. A bit like a GK's mistakes are just more costly than a strikers.

The thing is you should be starting to see some signs of progress in terms of the shape, pressing etc..

I cant say I've seen that

We are 20 games into Rodgers reign and despite progress in other areas a fundamental area such as defensive shape and or pressing intructions has shown little or no improvement

I find that must surprising and somewhat worrying

[Lecter]

I'm not sure we have universally regressed tactically or in terms of pressing. It clearly hasn't quite come together yet. I think the choices of pressing etc are part of the philosophy we are trying to adopt. Perhaps you are right and that the passing side has been over emphasized up to this point but perhaps that is the best way to learn the system overall (or at least Rodgers thinks so). I have to say I can't think of a similar program of style change that I followed closely (Arsenal with Wenger was ages ago, his style is much more progressive than that of Rodgers and AW started with a phenomenal defence).

One explanation I have quite liked for the failing to be organised in terms of pressing is that the Rodgers idea of lots of movement and interplay is disrupting that pattern of defensive work

Interesting idea that imo