KopTalk.com Forums Football Liverpool FC Forum dalglish returns as a director

The difference between Peter Robinson John smith and David moores and dalglsh is that whilst they are all culpable for Liverpools decline dalglish is still being let loose n the club. It's just incredible after the last catastrophe that a year or two later he is allowed back he should not be let anywhere near the club the man is poison. There is no man alive who has done more damage to LFC than dalglish.

What was exactly his job? We had a title winning side when he left, yes, probably the prayers were getting old, but, Barnes, Beardsley and Aldridge to name a few still had a number of years to perform. You could say the same thing when he was appointed but he is the one who brought Barnes and Beardsley (and Aldridge when Rush left before coming back) to improve the team. All managers make mistakes with new signings which he also did. However, Souness took a team who used to challenge for the league and won a mere FA cup with it, despite having all time greats who were added to the team like Fowler, Mc Mananan etc. You cannot expect a team to keep winning, there will always be some kind of a decline, a good manager would steer it back, Souness had all the time that was required, but failed, not KD.

Probably the modern game is not suitable for KD as today it is more important to finish better in the league than winning a trophy (as expressed by a number of fans here until we are kicked out of the cup competition), for him winning a trophy looked more important, this is why he took us to 2 cup finals winning one, beating both United and City on the way, by far the 2 best teams in that season.

vish mate the team was in decline , everyone going the match knew this from about december that season , the cracks were all to see the decline was shocking compared to what it was , he had molby playing centre half , he froze beardsley out for alledgly personal reasons , he had made hysen captain over established liverpool players , look mate just because its kenny dalglish doesnt mean he wasnt to blame he started it the decline and the club has never recovered from then and thats for all of us to see , as for souness who is just as much a liverpool great and icon as dalglish , he failed for trying to move liverpool on but still won the F.A.Cup and took liverpool to the quarter finals of the uefa cup getting beat by a real top genoa team but it wasnt good enough he got sacked , but dalglish who is a great LFC icon started the decline but if you dont want to believe that because its dalglish well its up to you but your wrong mate .

Anyone who watched Liverpool in that era has to concur with faz,s description. Dalglsh has a brand which s almost mythical and overrides reality in a way souness was every bit as much an influence in those late seventies teams as was dalglsh.

But sourness the brand is not big. If you look at the overall 45 year picture it would have been better for the club had dalglsh not replaced Keegan. We would not have had the great player but we might have not had his managerial qualities and ambassadorial qualities inflicted on us also.

One other thing dalglsh has finished his wrecking and will try to do it for a third time by undermining from within the club.

But we could have had Keegan as manager instead

the hyperbole on this thread is ridiculous.

emp its not mate its sadly reality about dalglish , yes dalglish the player the man top stuff , but dalglish the manager sadly very flawed and sadly the man who started the decline .

Yeah,i give up with it...again.

So Faz, you and Stanley think Kenny Dalglish was a good manager for the club then? Or do you think Souness was better?

souness failed and dalglish started the decline thats all in the end you need to know , both did some good things both did things the effected the well being of the club .