|
|
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,824
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,824 |
I have read, and continue to peruse comments about how our chances for the top 4 are all but over with FSG in charge. There are numerous suggestions that the squad depth is poor, the manager is poor, the style of play doesn't bring the results, the investment in the team needs to be more and the first XI needs more quality amongst many other suggestions that everyone is more than entitled to have an opinion on. As much as I also feel some areas are weaker than our competitors, I feel there is much more to it, and for an open debate, I just wanted to air my views on why I am remaining positive this season, and where I do feel we need to improve.
Being competitive requires much more than...
A lot of "technically" quality players
Obviously, having more of them gives you better options; Injury crises are much more easily handled, under-performing players can be dropped like-for-like in quality, there is an increase in likelihood that your substitute can be game-changing. However, I have always felt there is a limit/threshold that quality in the squad is necessary/able to be used. Just because they are all seen as brilliant players, doesn't mean anything other than a perceived "better chance" to win. Their qualities can change games, and the business is about winning, but with only 11 on the pitch, are 25 top players actually necessary?! 22? 20? 18? 15?
Precedent
I always go on about justification, so here it is. Man Utd, to some, over-performed last season. The squad that won the title relied heavily on some quality players, notable Van Persie, but they also played regularly with players that would struggle to make many other top 7 teams first XI. Evans? Valencia? Giggs? Young? Welbeck? Cleverley? Now the reason I think most believe Utd will struggle, is because the genuine quality in their first XI was blanketed by Ferguson's ability as a manager. It is obvious that they still have a strong squad, only that they lack (to many) a couple of first-teamers to be able to challenge the likes of Chelsea and City.
So my first poll to you, is how many players need to be of very good quality in a squad to compete for the top four, because that is where we are led to believe we're targeting this season?
Being competitive requires much more than...
A top quality manager
And the first point I want to make, is having one is essential to win the league, and a very good one is necessary to make the top 7. Ultimately a teams success can be dependent on how the manager puts the team out, formation, style, ability to change the game etc. There are so many areas of a managers ability to determine, but even having one of the "perceived best" isn't always enough. I think the most important thing a manager can do, is to get the team playing in a style that suits them, to get the team to play comfortably with each other, and to get the best out of them while doing so.
Precedent
Man City, for example, struggled to get the balance right consistently. Mancini is certainly a very good manager... but whether he really was of top quality remains to be seen. Ultimately, in that title-winning season, many of his attributes affected the team positively. Game-changing substitutions, players fit his system, and there was consistency. They aren't, however, the best example that comes to mind. Arsenal, with Arsene Wenger, have one of the best managers around. Despite having a manager with a strong style of play, players deeply integrated into the system, and he does, consistently, get the best out of many of them, where they have struggled, has also been a weakness in Wenger. There were glaring problems with the team he failed to remedy, and these problems could have been solved. A combative midfielder, for example, could have been his focus one summer, but instead he has continued to put pride over the deal that works best to get the team winning. A top manager is necessary, and there is certainly an impact without one, in the realisation that sometimes you can prosper or faulter by some of their decisions, but ultimately this is only part of being competitive. In Arsenals case, they could have signed a manager who would have signed that player in a similar system...
So my second poll to you, is if you were rating Rodgers on the back of his first season at the club, do you believe he is of the quality needed to make the top 4 with Liverpool this season?
Being competitive requires much more than...
Owners willing to splash a mountain of cash
Money makes everything easier; do not get me wrong! But it is not as if money plays on the pitch. I think, first and foremost, that money can often cover the inadequacies of teams scouting set-ups. Of old, many managers had the choice of whoever they wanted without too much need to send out scouts for them. Now there are lots of players that can be presented to managers as good players that he can then look at himself. Obviously he always has the casting vote (in the UK it seems anyway), but now there is greater conversation about what players can offer. Quality is available at all prices. The bosman rule means players contracts can run out, and the value of players drops towards the end of their contract. To me, and I have had many arguments about this, it all comes down to value to teams. A player could be of a high quality, but mis-used by a team, and therefore under-valued. Signing the player for less money doesn't make him a poor player. He is still the mis-used high quality player.
Precedent
I'm not going to mention Coutinho or Sturridge past this sentence, because so many believe these are anomalies. Zabaleta, for example, had a buy-out clause that meant at 23, he could sign for Man City for less than £7m. Thibaut Courtois was signed for less than £7m as well, and is rated as one of the best keepers plying their trade in La Liga. He has been that highly rated since he signed a few years ago. Glen Johnson left Chelsea for £4m. Monreal at £8.3m was a steal at Arsenal. Arteta for only £10m. There is always some value in the market, it is a case of attracting it. Van Persie cost £22m. Kagawa cost only £12m. Even Chicharito went for £6m! Lloris cost just £12m. Van Der Vaart (one of te best value transfers in recent memory... for £8m. Baines for £6m. Howard for £3m. It isn't as if the clubs they went to made them good to great players. They were talented players either under-valued, or valued low because of circumstance.
So my final question (no poll just open debate)... is do you believe that it is impossible that if if we found the right mix of very good players that were under-valued/valued low by circumstance, that they couldn't go on to be more successful than teams that built the same thing for transfer fees much higher?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 173
Under 16 Player
|
|
Under 16 Player
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 173 |
I think we will struggle for top 4 with BR as manager - not so much because of his ability/tactics, but it hurts us in the transfer windows. We have no director of football to convince players, just that clown Ayre on his bike, that Liverpool is a good place to be at the moment. And the prospect of working with a relatively unknown manager (worldwide and across Europe I imagine) at a club where ours is currently isn't a great one.
I think that if we would have had van Gaal (we were close to employing him in some capacity), then we could well have done better in the transfer market on his reputation alone.
Then again, there is time enough this transfer window to prove me wrong yet...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 502
Under 18 Player
|
|
Under 18 Player
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 502 |
so interesting points there the 1 thing i think most lfc are concerned with is not our manager for me the football weve been playing is some of the most attractive i have seen in many a season the crooks of this is we are ready to kick on but are fsg holding brendan and the team back with 2 quality additions we will defo make a challenge for top 4 thats how much i rate this squad and in particular the manager if anyone thought he was going to get us straight in the top 4 when he came they would be dillusional we have got 1 week left no quality additions no top 4 simple as that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 27,628 |
I think Rodgers is capable of taking us forward with backing from the board. We're we to get rid of him I don't think we could get anyone better.
The problem is the lack of backing no one is suggesting unlimited cash but if a club are to compete they need a reasonable level of talent. I was expecting this close season to keep or replace Suarez like for like plus two players of a quality similar plus the housekeeping we have done,
Instead we are operating on a shoestring. It's fine writing these long posts but it comes down to the fundamentals.
At the end of the day the proof will be in our final league placing this season. And what saddens me if once again we finish 7th most fans will accept it. And come August 2014 we will be getting these silly posts saying FSG are progressing with promises of better things in the future and half baked theories of how we are going to dominate the prem without spending any money
IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD SPEAK SOFTLY - BOB PAISLEY
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
|
|
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926 |
I have read, and continue to peruse comments about how our chances for the top 4 are all but over with FSG in charge. There are numerous suggestions that the squad depth is poor, the manager is poor, the style of play doesn't bring the results, the investment in the team needs to be more and the first XI needs more quality amongst many other suggestions that everyone is more than entitled to have an opinion on. As much as I also feel some areas are weaker than our competitors, I feel there is much more to it, and for an open debate, I just wanted to air my views on why I am remaining positive this season, and where I do feel we need to improve.
Being competitive requires much more than...
A lot of "technically" quality players
Obviously, having more of them gives you better options; Injury crises are much more easily handled, under-performing players can be dropped like-for-like in quality, there is an increase in likelihood that your substitute can be game-changing. However, I have always felt there is a limit/threshold that quality in the squad is necessary/able to be used. Just because they are all seen as brilliant players, doesn't mean anything other than a perceived "better chance" to win. Their qualities can change games, and the business is about winning, but with only 11 on the pitch, are 25 top players actually necessary?! 22? 20? 18? 15?
Precedent
I always go on about justification, so here it is. Man Utd, to some, over-performed last season. The squad that won the title relied heavily on some quality players, notable Van Persie, but they also played regularly with players that would struggle to make many other top 7 teams first XI. Evans? Valencia? Giggs? Young? Welbeck? Cleverley? Now the reason I think most believe Utd will struggle, is because the genuine quality in their first XI was blanketed by Ferguson's ability as a manager. It is obvious that they still have a strong squad, only that they lack (to many) a couple of first-teamers to be able to challenge the likes of Chelsea and City.
So my first poll to you, is how many players need to be of very good quality in a squad to compete for the top four, because that is where we are led to believe we're targeting this season?
Being competitive requires much more than...
A top quality manager
And the first point I want to make, is having one is essential to win the league, and a very good one is necessary to make the top 7. Ultimately a teams success can be dependent on how the manager puts the team out, formation, style, ability to change the game etc. There are so many areas of a managers ability to determine, but even having one of the "perceived best" isn't always enough. I think the most important thing a manager can do, is to get the team playing in a style that suits them, to get the team to play comfortably with each other, and to get the best out of them while doing so.
Precedent
Man City, for example, struggled to get the balance right consistently. Mancini is certainly a very good manager... but whether he really was of top quality remains to be seen. Ultimately, in that title-winning season, many of his attributes affected the team positively. Game-changing substitutions, players fit his system, and there was consistency. They aren't, however, the best example that comes to mind. Arsenal, with Arsene Wenger, have one of the best managers around. Despite having a manager with a strong style of play, players deeply integrated into the system, and he does, consistently, get the best out of many of them, where they have struggled, has also been a weakness in Wenger. There were glaring problems with the team he failed to remedy, and these problems could have been solved. A combative midfielder, for example, could have been his focus one summer, but instead he has continued to put pride over the deal that works best to get the team winning. A top manager is necessary, and there is certainly an impact without one, in the realisation that sometimes you can prosper or faulter by some of their decisions, but ultimately this is only part of being competitive. In Arsenals case, they could have signed a manager who would have signed that player in a similar system...
So my second poll to you, is if you were rating Rodgers on the back of his first season at the club, do you believe he is of the quality needed to make the top 4 with Liverpool this season?
Being competitive requires much more than...
Owners willing to splash a mountain of cash
Money makes everything easier; do not get me wrong! But it is not as if money plays on the pitch. I think, first and foremost, that money can often cover the inadequacies of teams scouting set-ups. Of old, many managers had the choice of whoever they wanted without too much need to send out scouts for them. Now there are lots of players that can be presented to managers as good players that he can then look at himself. Obviously he always has the casting vote (in the UK it seems anyway), but now there is greater conversation about what players can offer. Quality is available at all prices. The bosman rule means players contracts can run out, and the value of players drops towards the end of their contract. To me, and I have had many arguments about this, it all comes down to value to teams. A player could be of a high quality, but mis-used by a team, and therefore under-valued. Signing the player for less money doesn't make him a poor player. He is still the mis-used high quality player.
Precedent
I'm not going to mention Coutinho or Sturridge past this sentence, because so many believe these are anomalies. Zabaleta, for example, had a buy-out clause that meant at 23, he could sign for Man City for less than £7m. Thibaut Courtois was signed for less than £7m as well, and is rated as one of the best keepers plying their trade in La Liga. He has been that highly rated since he signed a few years ago. Glen Johnson left Chelsea for £4m. Monreal at £8.3m was a steal at Arsenal. Arteta for only £10m. There is always some value in the market, it is a case of attracting it. Van Persie cost £22m. Kagawa cost only £12m. Even Chicharito went for £6m! Lloris cost just £12m. Van Der Vaart (one of te best value transfers in recent memory... for £8m. Baines for £6m. Howard for £3m. It isn't as if the clubs they went to made them good to great players. They were talented players either under-valued, or valued low because of circumstance.
So my final question (no poll just open debate)... is do you believe that it is impossible that if if we found the right mix of very good players that were under-valued/valued low by circumstance, that they couldn't go on to be more successful than teams that built the same thing for transfer fees much higher?
Totally agree with you regarding the importance of the manager. You cannot be a top team with a bad manager, some might say Mancini was, but I won't agree as he won the league both in Italy (a few times) and England. However, a manager despite being good can end up not getting the best od a particular squad, because of inter relationship problems. For your 1st poll, difficult for me to answer because how do you define very good players. I would say you need a team of 22, out of which 11 among the top 25% of the league including 4 among the best in their positions and 2 the best in their positions (2 top players getting in the EPL team of the year). The other 11 would do what is asked of them consistently. Such a team would be able to get in top 4 with a top manager. For BR I would answer probable because I don't know, playing attractive offensive high possession football doesn't mean winning games, i think that a manager needs to know how to adapt his game to his opponent, of course by using his own resources (players) available. Mourinho excels at that, even during the same game, he doesn't play with only one tactic, sometimes he attacks and sometimes parks the bus even at the expense of attractive football (one of the reasons he was sacked by Abramovich apparently). Against Barca, he used to park not only the bus but the plane as he said it once. He knew for instance that his main problem against Villa would be counter attack and Benteke, he explained what his Benteke plan was after the game and often his game is dull. Like Fergusson he knows how to grind out results. I've noticed that BR has one style, some would say, uni dimensional.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,824
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,824 |
I like the way that to analyse things, I break them down point by point, and then people start commenting on generalised ideas that aren't even part of the discussion. The points were to do with the amount of very good players, the abilities of the manager, and about what can be done with funds, and over and over again all anybody can talk about is FSG. I think we will struggle for top 4 with BR as manager - not so much because of his ability/tactics, but it hurts us in the transfer windows. We have no director of football to convince players, just that clown Ayre on his bike, that Liverpool is a good place to be at the moment. And the prospect of working with a relatively unknown manager (worldwide and across Europe I imagine) at a club where ours is currently isn't a great one.
I think that if we would have had van Gaal (we were close to employing him in some capacity), then we could well have done better in the transfer market on his reputation alone.
Then again, there is time enough this transfer window to prove me wrong yet... We have Ken talking about Ayre... Ian Ayre a guy that has been vehemently hated, despite the fact he has had his job altered and actually hasn't appeared to have done much wrong since that happened. And also the suggestion the targets would have been more willing to come because of a change of manager, despite the fact that there is no evidence BR's name has been inhibiting players joining us... If Mkhi wanted CL football, Costa wanted to play in the CL, and Willian wants big money, then how does Gaal have anything to do with that changing..? so interesting points there the 1 thing i think most lfc are concerned with is not our manager for me the football weve been playing is some of the most attractive i have seen in many a season the crooks of this is we are ready to kick on but are fsg holding brendan and the team back with 2 quality additions we will defo make a challenge for top 4 thats how much i rate this squad and in particular the manager if anyone thought he was going to get us straight in the top 4 when he came they would be dillusional we have got 1 week left no quality additions no top 4 simple as that. For all of the nice comments on my points, again it is an anti-FSG thread saying they're holding BR back. Again, how much do we really know? We know with near clarity the Dempsey saga, but BR wanting £30m and £100k wages for a guy untested in a top competitive league does seem OTT, and any owner would question it. I think Rodgers is capable of taking us forward with backing from the board. We're we to get rid of him I don't think we could get anyone better.
The problem is the lack of backing no one is suggesting unlimited cash but if a club are to compete they need a reasonable level of talent. I was expecting this close season to keep or replace Suarez like for like plus two players of a quality similar plus the housekeeping we have done,
Instead we are operating on a shoestring. It's fine writing these long posts but it comes down to the fundamentals.
At the end of the day the proof will be in our final league placing this season. And what saddens me if once again we finish 7th most fans will accept it. And come August 2014 we will be getting these silly posts saying FSG are progressing with promises of better things in the future and half baked theories of how we are going to dominate the prem without spending any money Then we have SPark-y, who continues to bemoan my long posts. At least he understands my English now! Again though, rather than discuss the points I raise, he chose to talk about the board holding BR back because many of the top players seem to be priced too high for the owners liking. He then suggests we're on a shoestring budget. Basically only referring to a non £25m transfer, rather than the facts that we're still in a process of turning over the entire squad. Skrtel and Reina two of the likeliest to leave because of being over-paid for their worth to the team. You then go on to say it all comes down to the end of the season. Great, but that shouldn't halt discussion. You suggest my long posts are silly, suggest its pro FSG when in fact I didn't mention them, and talk about the fans in generalised misplaced stereotypes. I mean what is the point of writing these points, if you're all just not going to discuss the points to hand?! Every thread is about FSG and budgets... and I start one up to be about specifics and nobody bothers to follow suit. We might as well just re-title every thread and put FSG: Moaners versus Believers. On a more positive note, I really appreciate the comments Vish made. His opinion on the manager is clear. I said "very good" to avoid the whole world-class and quality sagas that have preceded these kind of threads... I don't always agree with you, as most will know. I certainly don't think BR is a one-tactic kind of manager, though I do admit that none of his tactics ever revert to hit-and-hope, which I guess a lot of managers still choose to revert to when they deem it necessary. I think BRs opinions on possession based football still hold grounding in counter attacking plays, so I think there is a lot more to the formations and tactics than uni-dimension, but I understand the point!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,542
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,542 |
I think Rodgers is capable of taking us forward with backing from the board. We're we to get rid of him I don't think we could get anyone better.
The problem is the lack of backing no one is suggesting unlimited cash but if a club are to compete they need a reasonable level of talent. I was expecting this close season to keep or replace Suarez like for like plus two players of a quality similar plus the housekeeping we have done,
Instead we are operating on a shoestring. It's fine writing these long posts but it comes down to the fundamentals.
At the end of the day the proof will be in our final league placing this season. And what saddens me if once again we finish 7th most fans will accept it. And come August 2014 we will be getting these silly posts saying FSG are progressing with promises of better things in the future and half baked theories of how we are going to dominate the prem without spending any money Agreeing more and more with Stanley. People seem far too relaxed about the lack of investment and seem more concerned with getting value for money, have we really been that scarred by the Carrol/Downing saga? People seem to be over-complicating the situation. Not many, I don't think, want a sugar daddy, but you can't end a window with a positive balance, and HUGE decreases in the wage bill, AND extra TV revenue. We need 2 quality additions asap or expect more quality to leave. I actually think, despite the cost-cutting, it's been a very good summer. Most of the players people weren't too keen on, have been moved on. Transfer targets fees are often inflated, but there's many quality players available that would get into our first team, whether we'll sign them in the 9 next days will tell it's own story, and certainly define our chances for top 4. Even if we got top 4, would FSG invest enough to keep us there? I seriously doubt it. If we dont, I agree people will say 'at least the clubs not in administration' or we have a great young squad developing...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eliot
Unregistered
|
|
Eliot
Unregistered
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,185
1st Team Squad
|
|
1st Team Squad
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,185 |
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuccccckkkkkk!!!!!!!!!! As Arnie would say "Chill out!"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,824
Under 23 Player
|
|
Under 23 Player
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,824 |
Look, I am just sick of hearing people slating FSG and not actually talking about anything else. Surely there is more to discuss! Because they are not even discussions. There are people hating and people giving them a chance. And it just ends up being arguments. This forum, to me, is becoming a bit short-sighted for its own good.
There are good and bad things to talk about. Why do we need people making the same point 200 times a day?
|
|
|
|
|
