It wouldn't matter much which manager you have with the players we have, and those we need and haven't, we would be in or around this position anyway. Two seasons ago FSG appear to have come with a vision of the style of football they wanted at the club, yet they hired a manager and a director of football neither of which were versed (or probably even interested) in their tiki-taka vision, but they carried on regardless and sanctioned the purchase of near half a dozen players who mostly didn't suit their preferred style either. One season on and a net 40m spent, they suddenly wake up and realise they boarded the wrong bus, so they up and sack the manager and the director of football, and replaced them both with a manager well versed in the tiki-taka style they wanted in the first place. But then an appalling vista presented itself they had their preferred manager with their preferred playing style, but the wrong team, and if that wasn't bad enough when they looked in their piggy bank they were fresh out of funds!
Now in this scenario who should we blame? The first manager they appointed? the second manager they appointed? Or those who sleepwalked into this mess in the first place?
What complete nonsense. With the players we have we should be sitting comfortably in 6th, possibly 7th. Do you think our team/squad is actually worse than that of west brom, norwich, west ham, stoke, swansea and only money can improve us?? No chance - those clubs simply have a better manager.
A good manager will play to his team's strengths and should be able to improve results with his coaching and tactical acumen.
No, it's not nonsense CarheX, any manager is going to find it time consuming and exceedingly difficult to convert players chosen for hoof and hope style football into competent tiki-taki (
here we go...) players as he'll require a much more technically proficient type of player for that style (
like borini?), That is common knowledge, (at least among football people) and something I assumed you already knew. Rodgers has started moving out some of the most unsuitable players and I believe he will continue in the next few transfer windows, apparently he has advised Downing that he can leave and he is trying to bring through young lads he considers suited to his style of play. That he inherited a group of players most of which were unsuited to his style of play is common knowledge
(opinion, not common knowledge).. That FSG selected a manager and director of football who had no prior experience of their preferred tiki=taka style football (
FSG wouldn't know tiki-taka if it bit them on the tiki-testicles!) and then sacked them in order to install a manager with such a style (
do you really think BR plays tiki-taka?! looks like the way we've always played - pass & move) is also common knowledge
(again, only your opinion).In addition to the above not too many managers will prove successful if they have to start a season with no recognized striker/s
(not true. and our shortage was down to his own bad decisions and spending money elsewhere). Most football fans will accept that had we been able to convert even a portion of the clear cut chances we created would be further up the table (
roll out the excuses!), Rodgers tried to sign a striker in the last window but was foiled by FSG (
foiled? he'd already exceeded his budget - again, this was down to his own poor planning). Given the above I think most football fans would agree Rodgers has done pretty well to keep us in touch
(in touch of what, relegation?), the real culprits for our current predicament is not Rodgers, it's FSG. No doubt in your rush to condemn Rodgers you will call my views "complete nonsense" again since this view doesn't suit your current witch hunt (
there's no witch hunt - the buck stops with the manager).
