I don't think I am. When buying players you have to look at the system they're playing in, and whether they'll fit the system you want them to play in. I don't think Lovren fits our bill, as his weaknesses were better hidden in Southampton than they are at Liverpool. If Gerrard is the problem - and I'm not saying he is, I'm just saying we play a completely different midfield than Southampton does - then it's Rodgers' fault for bringing Lovren in. As for your last question, I'd probably choose both Rojo and Caulker over Lovren. Bear in mind though, I haven't given up on Lovren. I want him to succeed, and I hope he does. I just don't think he'll be worth the money, and so far he obviously hasn't been.
Systems don't really effect centre backs that much, especially not when Liverpool and Southampton play quite similar systems. Perhaps Rodgers wants his centre backs to be quite good on the ball, but Lovren's decent at that despite his other flaws. The other question is did Rodgers bring in Lovren? I'm not altogether convinced he did.
You'd choose Caulker over Lovren?! He's not even been the best defender in his own team filled with **** defenders. He's an okay player, but good lord Liverpool would be in all kinds of mess if he'd been given the minutes Lovren had.
Well I disagree, I think Allen was (slightly) overpriced. He did well today (although he could've given away a penalty if Kevin Friend had seen what most others saw), but overall I don't think he justifies £15m. He's still fairly young though, on low wages, doesn't complain, and a good squad player, so I admit there's a case for the opposite opinion. I just don't share it.
That's what £15 million gets you nowadays, when the player in question is young, British and a midfielder.
Well, isn't that the basis of this argument? Why change something that works?
The debate was whether it does work. I can see both sides of the argument really, and I think I fall rather in the middle of the Rodgers vs committee debate, much like you. It's an interesting topic though. You mentioned a DoF earlier which I found interesting, because I think that's inherently worse than a committee. A spread of people is almost always going to beat the opinion of a singular person (all other things being equal) unless that singular person is amazing. So short of Liverpool hiring one of the best talent evaluators in the world it's usually going to be a better idea to stick with the committee.
Sorry, don't mean to invade this thread but why does everyone think arsenal have got 3rd in the bag?
Not everyone does, but I do. They're in good form, they're grinding out wins when they shouldn't be (see the Palace game), their players are fit and firing, their attack is overwhelming and they've got a very easy run in. Their last 12 fixtures are:
Everton H
QPR A
W'Ham H - The first game they'd expect to drop points
Newcastle A
Liverpool H - The first game they could lose
Burnley A
Sunderland H
Chelsea H - Critical for both sides, but Arsenal at home
Hull A
Swansea H
Man Utd A
WBA H
That's a lot of winnable games, and they're already seven points clear of fourth.
