I think Rodgers has supported Balotelli so far. He has been giving him chances and waiting for him to start playing well the whole season, sturridge was out, Lampert can't help as a first striker, he gave Balo the opportunity, he failed at it.Later he changed the formation to get the team back on the track and got Balo out! Now again he didn't say that Balotelli behavior was unacceptable and supported only henderson but he supported both. The way I see it Balotelli has been supported too much. Rodgers never came out and attack Balo but he is always defending him so far. And that is what a good manager should do.
The Liverpool Thread
- Thread starter Steve*
- Start date
- Replies 44K
- Views 3M
I think Rodgers has supported Balotelli so far. He has been giving him chances and waiting for him to start playing well the whole season, sturridge was out, Lampert can't help as a first striker, he gave Balo the opportunity, he failed at it.Later he changed the formation to get the team back on the track and got Balo out! Now again he didn't say that Balotelli behavior was unacceptable and supported only henderson but he supported both. The way I see it Balotelli has been supported too much. Rodgers never came out and attack Balo but he is always defending him so far. And that is what a good manager should do.
LFCMarshall
YNWA.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2009
- Messages
- 14,836
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Im not quite sure what Rodgers conference's you have been watching the season but its a mixture with Balotelli with a lot more criticism
Majority has been fair but these recent quotes come at a bizarre time
Well I guess he tried the supportive way it didn't work, then tried to motivate him with criticism , I don't think it worked either. Compared to Balotelli's previous managers he has been way much more supportive. I can recall times where he was fighting with Mancini in Man City's trainings and mourinho had described him as ''unmanageable''. He can't risk Liverpool's failure by supporting him no matter what. Rodgers still seems to has a good player-manager relationship with him(Don't know for how long). He still shows trust and support to him.
Not quite. The way I understand how the committee works, he always has the final word when it comes to signings. If Rodgers actually wants the player, they can pull rank and overrule. But they can't force a signing if Rodgers doesn't want it to begin with. So its safe to say, anybody that made it into the team, it was managers decision.
LFCMarshall
YNWA.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2009
- Messages
- 14,836
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
But this is exactly it, the 'committee' is a mystery and nobody knows truly what the process is
For me, i'd get rid of it all and let the manager have full control. Live and die by the sword and all that
Mignolet is playing well now but I really do miss Pepe Reina
LFCMarshall
YNWA.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2009
- Messages
- 14,836
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I'd personally like to see this side tomorrow:
Migs
Skrtel - Lovren - Sakho
Ibe - Henderson - Can - Moreno
Coutinho/Sterling
Balotelli - Sturridge
Migs
Skrtel - Lovren - Sakho
Ibe - Henderson - Can - Moreno
Coutinho/Sterling
Balotelli - Sturridge
I wouldn't get rid of it, for 2 reasons:
1. Managers come and go. If Rodgers is given full control, then the next manager will be given full control as well. Then we'll end up having no continuity, and having a huge garage sale every time we change manager, which in turn is guaranteed to lose us money. Not to mention that the first season after a manager change is almost guaranteed to be well outside top 4. The past 5 years we've been a counter-attacking team under Benitez, a destructive ****-team under Hodgson, a traditional english "wingers who cross on a tall target man" under Dalglish, and a possession based attacking side under Rodgers. We need a solid philosophy as a basis for the club if we're to achieve anything, one that outlasts managers.
2. Rodgers hasn't shown anything on the transfer market that justifies giving him full control. He reportedly wanted Ryan Bertrand ahead of Moreno, he seems to prefer "PL proven" players that we all know usually have inflated price tags, he's signed players like Lovren, Lambert, Allen and Borini. Players like Can, Markovic, Moreno and Origi are reportedly the works of the transfer committee, not Rodgers. Do we really want to give full control of transfers to a manager who consistently looks for players already in the Premier League and fails to recognise talents from outside UK? I don't.
Don't get me wrong, I have full support of Rodgers. I think he's brilliant when it comes to man management, playing style and tactical pragmatics, but transfers? Sorry, I'm not impressed.
To be fair, Ryan Bertrand's having a superlative season at the moment, in terms of form he's flat-out the best English left-back in the league and is arguably the best full-stop. As for the rest of the list, pretty much all of them made sense. Lovren had come off an excellent season, Lambert made all the sense in the world, Allen was a player he knew well (and is a good player to boot) and Borini could have been starting for Liverpool with a little more luck.
I think there's a balance that needs to be struck. Bringing in players from outside can work, but it doesn't always. Just look at Assaidi, Aspas, Luis Alberto, Cissokho and Balotelli. All of those were what people reckon are board signings, and they were all varying degrees of flop. I don't think Rodgers is necessarily any worse than the rest of the board, which might indicate it's not their fault and could in fact be the product of an inconsistent scouting system. Who knows, but my point remains.
Sure, Bertrand is having a great season, but I'd still choose Moreno any day of the week. In my opinion he has a much higher potential, and I wouldn't be surprised if Bertrand's next season is far less impressive. Also I disagree that all of them made sense, especially Lovren. One good season at a Southampton side where the defence was constantly shielded by players like Schneiderlin and Wanyama. Lovren is still fairly young for a centre back, sure, but £20m for a player who hasn't really proved anything? I think we could have done a lot better with that money. Also: Dejan Lovren Reliving Lyon Nightmare at Liverpool | Bleacher Report
As for Lambert, the only reason he made sense was because of the transfer fee. Everything else does not make sense. A powerful, target man-like, stationary, slow striker? That shouldn't even be a plan B, that's plan Z.
Allen and Borini were probably brought in because they were players Rodgers knew well, after all they were 2 of his first signings. But none of them will ever be any more than rotation players, and for £25m+ we could've gotten better players. I'm not saying they're bad, I'm just saying I don't think they give much value for money. Hopefully Borini will agree to a transfer in the summer, so we can get some of that money back. I do agree, however, that Borini could have been a more important player for Liverpool. Not just with a little luck, but with a little sense: A hard-working player like him should be given at least twice as much playing time as Lambert.
Of course, I'm not saying the transfer commitee is faultless. Nor am I saying that non-English players 10/10 times are better than English. I'm just saying Rodgers has shown nothing to convince me he should be given full control over transfers. As for Aspas, he could be starting just as much as Borini could be starting. Aspas has a pretty good goalscoring record, especially the last few years. Which is why he was signed. Yet he was given close to zero playing time as an actual striker. Assaidi didn't cost much money, and we ended up selling him for more. With that in mind, he made at least as much sense as Lambert. Cissokho, Alberto and Balotelli (so far) didn't contribute with much. But Cissokho was only on loan for coverage. Alberto was young and had some promise, but he will likely be offloaded in the summer for close to same money we paid for him. Balotelli, well... We needed a striker, and reportedly it was either him or Eto'o. As Rodgers has admitted, it was a risk.
Saying 'I wouldn't be surprised if Bertrand's next season is worse' is a completely null argument, it has no basis in anything really. I could rock up and say 'I wouldn't be surprised if Sterling was worse next season' and without justification it makes just as little sense. Why do you think Bertrand will do worse next season? Frankly I'd say with a bit of investment and bedding in from the signings Bertrand could conceivably get even better.
Lovren had a good season, yes, that's how these things work. In other words, 100% of his seasons spent in England at that point had gone well. Sure having Schneiderlin helped, but he was arguably their flat-out best player last year. I don't want to just throw out stats ***** nilly, but he had more interceptions last year than Schneiderlin. He had more interceptions than a defensive midfielder. That's pretty rare. Either way, he had an excellent season and it made perfect sense to buy a young, promising centre back coming off a great season who was already used to England. It's only in hindsight that we can say that was anything other than a very astute purchase. That Bleacher Report article is (oh so very surprisingly) a completely unfair hatchet job. Lovren was frozen out, given little to no game time to improve, and then absolutely destroyed in the press whenever he made a mistake. As a young defender, his problem was always his timing in the tackle, but as Southampton proved that's fixable. As for the money, well, that's an inflated Premier League transfer of a talented young player with time on his contract. Had he played as well as he could, it'd look like a fine price. It's only in hindsight that it isn't.
Eh? Lambert made sense because he was a cheap, experienced, quality and Prem proven striker who was a Liverpool fan from childhood and completely willing to sit on the bench. That makes perfect sense. To call Lambert stationary is incredibly harsh, since he's a good and intelligent link-up man, something you can't be if you're immobile. I actually still think Lambert has a part to play, but got incredibly unlucky. Instead of being the change of pace striker you use to modify your variety in attack, he had to shoulder a large burden because of Sturridge's injury troubles and Balotelli's uselessness. The team wasn't set up to have him starting consistently, but that's how it happened.
You forget that at the time, Joe Allen was coming off a year in which he was the second best player in the entire Swansea team, practically the embodiment of Rodgers' playing style on the pitch. It made perfect sense to sign him as the basis for a new style, just as Arsene Wenger did with Remi Garde. Frankly I'd say Liverpool have got their money's worth with Joe Allen, he's a very tidy midfielder who can be fill in an role in midfield. 15 million for one of the more promising young talents in Britain at the time and an embodiment of the manager's style to boot is a pretty good deal to me.
Borini is an interesting one, because he was regarded as being very talented and has done good work at every club he's been at other than Liverpool. The fee was perhaps rather steep, but for a talented 20 year old striker coming off a year of top-flight experience in Italy? Again, you need to consider the fee in the context of the time. In hindsight, any transfer can look amazing or terrible, but it's how they look at the time that's important. Look at Balotelli; he LOOKED like a bad transfer at the time, let alone in hindsight. But Borini and Allen looked like good ones that could form the basis of the side for years to come. That they didn't does not mean the transfer itself was terrible.
I'd say Rodgers has shown a reasonably good eye for transfers, personally. Even if you go back to looking at Swansea, look at some of the people he brought in: Wayne Routledge, Michel Vorm, Scott Sinclair, Neil Taylor, Leon Britton and Danny Graham were all astute purchases who then proved their worth. Even the ones who didn't work out, like Darnel Situ, were very good moves in theory. Only once have I seen a signing by Rodgers and gone 'Now why did he do that?!' and that was Leroy Lita for the frankly ludicrous sum of 'any money at all'.
Aspas' problem was his attitude rather than his talent. It certainly seemed like a decent deal at the time, but I'd say it certainly wasn't a more astute move than, say, Allen was. He was then given no playing time because he sulked like a little ***** and pined for home. As for the rest of them, all underperformed, but more importantly only really Aspas and to a certain degree Assaidi made any sense. Alberto had an okay season for Barcelona B, Cissokho was a known liability in France, and Balotelli was a hilariously bad idea from the outset.
My point is, I'd far rather have a guy handling transfers who targets people who make sense, even if they don't necessarily work out, rather than a board who take a scattergun approach to it and occasionally buy on reputation. Realistically I think Liverpool's transfer board idea works pretty well at the moment, but given the choice between full committee only with no Rodgers input and Rodgers given full control, I think I'd choose the latter. At very least with the latter you can be sure the manager will attempt to use the players for the positions he thinks needs to be filled, as opposed to the committee buying someone the manager doesn't really want and then having him rot for two seasons.
In my opinion, managers should have full control of the players the team buys/sells. After all they will train and manage them. If someone does not fit in the managers philosophy but the committee buys him because they think is good and will become even better in the future he will not find a role on the team and therefore will be useless. Is not good to give managers 3-4 players that can't support the plan they have in mind for the team and tell them this is what you have make a new plan.
I completely agree with the fact that we need a solid philosophy as a club that will not change every time we get a new manager. I believe though that there is a better way to achieve that. We can get managers with similar game philosophy and not completely different with each other. In the same way Barcelona would never hire mourinho because does not fit in the attractive attacking football, we have to built a philosophy and hire managers with similar characteristics so no matter who it is will be able to follow the philosophy. I think its better to get someone with similar ideas rather someone completely different and ''force'' him to follow our plan.
LFCMarshall
YNWA.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2009
- Messages
- 14,836
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Huge chance for us today after that Spurs result. Very hard game and after a Europa League game could make life difficult but we could go 6th and only 3 points off 3rd place
With City next week, it's a big game today
With City next week, it's a big game today
On the other hand, Martin O'Neill.
we are playing with 5 wingers/attacking midfielders and no striker. we have 3 strikers as subs(mario,lampert,sturridge) so if we make a change we change our whole formation...hope rodgers has studied well Southampton because it's a critical game in the leagues for us.
I already stated why: Because I think Moreno has higher potential. In other words, I believe this is about as good as Bertrand gets.
It's not only in hindsight. I was sceptical to the transfer when it happened, not just now. To pay an inflated £20m for a defender who had arguably only one good year behind him, playing behind the likes of Wanyama and Schneiderlin is, in my opinion, bad business. Not only because of the price, but also because Liverpool were playing with Gerrard as a DM, basically a regista. He has nowhere near the defensive qualities of the two aforementioned, and even when we play with Lucas, Lovren has shown that his lack of pace and questionable positioning and decision-making does not justify his transfer fee.
Which is exactly why Borini should've been playing instead of Lambert. He was a better fit to the team, but it was almost as if Rodgers was trying to prove a point to him: If you don't accept to be sold when we want to cash in, you won't get playing time. I don't have anything personal against Lambert, I'm sure he's a fine player in the right team, but that team isn't Liverpool. He's slower than Carragher and I can only remember one time he successfully timed his run behind the defenders for Liverpool. In addition he doesn't have the stamina and mobility to perform the first-defender job Rodgers wants his strikers to do. Which is why he's been criticising Balotelli...
Then again I never said the transfer was terrible, so I don't see the point in arguing against a straw man. All I said was that for £25m+ I feel we could've gotten better players, and I stand by that. I never said Borini and Allen were bad players - I actually reiterated they weren't - and I even argued that Borini should be playing ahead of Lambert.
Those two aren't the only choices though. There's still the choice that's actually the reality today, namely a committee which Rodgers is a part of, and has influence in. And I prefer that model ahead of the other two you mentioned. Ideally I'd prefer a DoF, but Rodgers won't accept that.
Theatreof Dreams
Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2013
- Messages
- 11,821
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Pool best watch out for Djuricic he is a class talent. Hope for a good game from a neutral point of view. Bit weird who Rodgers has left out.
We ARE playing with a striker: Sterling. Just because he's not a natural striker doesn't mean he's not playing AS a striker today. Which means we don't have to change formation when making a substitution.
Sakho out with hip injury, Markovic chosen ahead of Moreno. Sturridge probably not risked another 90 minutes again.