Please, enlighten us to when I haven't credited Rodgers for his part in '13/14.
He he took arguably the 6th best side going in and came within a game of the title. I've never not credited him for that on here.
But what I also don't do is go OTT on him that year and look at the key factor that season. A player having a Worldie, career year. The first four games we were shockingly poor. We eaked out some 1-0's that we were lucky to. Stumbled through Notts County the league cup. Then lost at home to Sourhampton. Then Suarez returned and was other Worldly for 34 games. That, along with Stirridge being for the majority, was what brought around the run in the main. ALL Ridgers had to do was get the defensive side organised. But instead he had no earthly on how to do that. Conceding a historically bad number of goals that were overshadowed by the 100 plus we scored the other end. Suarez by his mere nature pulls every other player along with him and his play on the field demanded extra from everyone else. To deny he was the catalyst that year is revisionist history and then some.
Rodgers deserves credit for being the manager of that team. But by the same token it can WELL be argued his naivety and cluelessness in certain areas cost us the league title that should of been wrapped up well before we played Chelsea.
There for a start? ALL he had to do was sort out the defense? Really? The idea that Suarez was so unstoppable that he basically single-handedly transformed into a worldclass attack, without input from Rodgers, is mad. There are plenty of teams that have phenomenally good attacking players and play like **** because they're being misused or the system as a whole is broken. Even with the best players, you still need someone to mould that attack, to ensure that they're being supplied and that they're able to focus on doing what they do best. Just look at Argentina, Brazil, Belgium etc if you see that in action.
So why not credit him for it? The only thing anyone seems to want to credit Rodgers for at all, are the things that he didn't do well. Defense is bad? Rodger's fault. Great attacking play? All because of the players. Good press? Proud players motivated by playing for Gerrard and the club. Fullbacks overcommitting? Rodger's fault. This brand of spin is a familiar one: it's the same variety that Liverpool fans used to slate Sterling, the same one Mourinho used to justify selling off Mata, the same one fans love to use against Wenger. There was so many jobs that he did well, the reason you noticed the **** ups is because they were exceptions, not the general standard of his term.
No one is saying that he wasn't naive in areas or that he didn't make mistakes. The thing that lots of Liverpool fans like to do is to create a seemingly measured assessment of the man, the trick being that the values that going into it have all been through a spin cycle first. Rather than crediting Rodgers for what he did do fairly, all his achievements are downplayed, so when it's "analysed" the result is a negative one.
It makes sense at face value, but go beneath the surface and there are clear flaws. It never for a minute stops to think that maybe without Rodgers, you wouldn't have been such a potent attacking force or that if he had opted for a less swashbuckling style, you wouldn't have scored many of those goals in the first place. Saying that you would have won it if you'd had the same attack but a better defense doesn't make any sense because it completely disregards the fact that football is a team game that's heavily dependant on balance.
The original point, which wasn't misconstrued, though is that you named lack of belief in the manager as one of the 3 reasons why you didn't win it, which is nonsense.
I get that you guys are full of hope, which is cool and I'm happy for you, but it's possible to be hopeful about a new arrival without tearing down the last one.
