Early thoughts on Rodgers

[ali]

Rodgers similarities with ghost of Liverpool past bring concern; Record over same period worse than ill-fated Roy Hodgson's

 

 

10 November 2012

The Times

 

 

"Judge me after ten games." With those words, Roy Hodgson damned himself to an unflattering appraisal of his opening months as Liverpool manager, from which he never recovered. Brendan Rodgers never committed himself to such an early assessment and his refusal to do so appears particularly shrewd in the wake of his record being marginally worse than Hodgson's over a similar period.

 

In the ten Barclays Premier League games that Liverpool have played this season, they have won only two, giving them one point fewer than what Hodgson achieved in 2010-11.

 

By that stage of his Liverpool career, the England manager had already fallen foul of the Kop. It is the treatment of Hodgson that makes the emphatic support that Rodgers continues to receive from all the more striking.

 

Rodgers recognises that the time is rapidly approaching when he will be judged on results rather than potential or possession. "This is the business we are in," he said. "The performance levels have been good and we have to keep moving forward.

 

"I have got so much respect for the supporters because it must be frustrating for them, considering what they have had in the past at this club and where we are at. But I also believe we cannot keep everything in our rear-view mirror."

 

The feeling persists that Rodgers is the first Liverpool manager of the modern era to benefit from the lowering of expectations. Rafael Benítez and all who preceded him post-Bill Shankly were expected to win the Premier League; Hodgson and Kenny Dalglish were expected to guide them into the top four. Rodgers? He has merely been tasked with improving on the eighthplace finish of last season by Fenway Sports Group, the owner, which has made it clear that cup football should not distract him from that challenge.

 

Another key difference from Hodgson's ill-fated tenure lies in the style of football that Rodgers wants Liverpool to play, in keeping with the club's pass-and-move traditions.

 

More than anything else, it was Hodgson's rudimentary approach that lost him support, but, given Rodgers's fundamental commitment to possession, there is no chance of him going down the same road.

 

The likelihood is, though, that the time for a more critical judgment of Rodgers is approaching. Already there have been murmurings among former players and managers of a lack of variety in Liverpool's play and the need for the club to return to the pragmatism that laid the platform for their glory years.

 

One former player used an anecdote to illustrate that it never mattered how Liverpool won, so long as they did. Everton and Manchester United played friendly matches against Tranmere Rovers in the early Eighties to help to raise funds for the cashstrapped Merseyside club. Both tried to play a passing game on a mudbath of a pitch at Prenton Park and lost.

 

By contrast, Graeme Souness, the Liverpool captain, took one look at the state of the playing surface and ordered his team-mates to play it long instead. Liverpool's possession statistics plummeted, but they won 3-1. It is that kind of streetwise pragmatism that Liverpool have lacked more than anything under Rodgers.

 

Tomorrow, Chelsea will become Rodgers's eleventh league opponents, against whom Hodgson reached the same landmark. Even under a manager who was not long for the job, Liverpool managed to win — albeit at Anfield.

 

A repeat of that result would be the most positive indication that future statistical comparisons with Hodgson will be more flattering to Rodgers.

 

What a difference two years make... Perhaps Liverpool fans are showing Brendan Rodgers more patience than they did to Roy Hodgson in 2010-11 because the team have often dominated matches in terms of shots for and against. Rodgers has also introduced more of a short-passing possession game, which supporters may prefer.

[sir roger]

It may also be that Hodgson was a complete arsehole as well.

[ZonkoVille77]

Hodgson spoke out of his hoop the whole time.

A professional waffler.

[the walsh]

i know fans were only trying to show their support for rodgers but chanting he,s name after a couple of games was cringeworthy.2 wins in ten says it all for me the more i hear him talk the less im, sure he will be a success.

[Anubis]

I think comparrisons to Hodgson's football alone are unfounded. The fact is that Hodgson was busy winding up supporters even before the team had kicked a ball in anger - telephone calls to Ferguson asking for forgiveness for taking the job are never going to sit well.

[toneloc]

He deserves to sign at least two attacking players in January to complement the patient game. Unconvinced' date=' nor taken by the guy, but 100% he must be allowed this season.

 

Like a broken record I have become, but Zaha sign we should. Boss is he, even better he will become - or like Moses, Bale, Ramsey and Theo, miss out shall we. Holloway already staggered by how good this lad is. Best player outside the top division.[/quote']

 

Do you speak like yoda in real life?

[KopOut]

Yep. In few years time, when Anfield has been rebuilded, and our squad consist mostly of home grown players, like Sterling, Shelvey, Kelly, Wisdom, Robinson, Suso, Coady, Mclaughlin etc. then the owners are really close to winning this race to be competitve again in english football added with healthy financials. All they need to do then is to add a few pearls to the cake and this club will be unstoppable again. Rodgers may go or stay at that point, he is irrelevant.

 

Sterling joined the academy at Queens Park Rangers at the age of 10.

 

Shelvey has played in the youth teams of first Arsenal and then West Ham United, the team he had supported as a boy. In 2007, he moved to Charlton Athletic.

 

What, exactly do you mean by home grown?

[Faustus]

I think aws makes a lot of great points and I'm in agreement with a lot of things he says.

 

I do like Rodgers. I think his personality is infectious, and so far has said all the right things but, as we all know, that doesn't put points on the board.

 

I've been happy enough with the performances this season. Off the top of my head, only Arsenal and Swansea have been genuine stinkers were I've left the ground disgusted at the performance, but it's the same old in the sense that we can't put the ball in the back of the net and it is incredibly frustrating. I think it's a problem which transcends the position of manager because we simply do not have goalscorers in the side. It was a problem for Kenny and it's now a problem for Rodgers. It really is getting to be corrosive because the later the game goes on and we haven't scored, the more agitated the crowd get and I think it starts affecting the players. When I'm watching the match, I even find myself rolling my eyes when we miss a half chance which sees the odds stacked in favour of the opposition, simply because I'm that concerned about us getting goals. January really is so important. We get one or two players in who are capable of picking up the slack and giving Suarez a breather, then I think we can start climbing the league.

 

Anyway back to Rodgers; like I said, I do like the fella. However, I wish he'd be a little more pragmatic at times, because we are simply not good enough to play the style of football he wants. He talks of 'hunting in packs' to win the ball back like Barca, but that requires incredible fitness and one cute pass from the opposition to make things go tits up. Against Newcastle, I clocked Gerrard and Allen going after the same fella with the ball in midfield and I was doing my nut in because all one of them had to do was hold their position and pick up the spare man. The Newcastle fella played the ball to the spare man, he switched it and played in Cisse, who thankfully fluffed his shot and Jones made an easy save.

 

Similarly againsy Stoke, when Reina made a hash of his kick and it went to Adam who was one-on-one, I clocked Stoke mark the space really well as our midfielder dropped back to recive the ball. Still, we decided to play it out from the back and it nearly cost us, as it did when Pepe saved from N'Zonzi (I think).

 

It's kind of like when you see our full backs pushing right up and our centre halves have no screen in front of them. With Lucas gone, I'd have thought that you just keep it to a flat back four just to keep things that little bit more solid.

 

I do like the philosophy Rodgers is trying to implement and I think it's one every footballer would love to be a part of, but I think it's a case of diluting it as we progress. These though are just general observations, but I do think the fella needs time and our backing. We've been awful for three years now and I think it would be a hell of a job for anybody to turn it around in three months. I made the point in the summer that if we were to go down the young manager route (one I was in favour of because I felt we needed a clean break and let a new man mould the club in his image), we'd need to let him grow into the role and learn from his mistakes. It's obviously easier said than done and he has made a couple- I put the Carroll thing down to this naivety and I doubt he'd ever let a player go again without the replacement having signed the contract- but I think he needs to be backed in January to try and put things right. It really is a big month for us.

[gkmacca]

Hodgson spoke out of his hoop the whole time.

A professional waffler.

 

Admittedly he didn't talk about false number 9s, portentous envelopes and death by football, but it's a bit rich to suggest he was more of a professional waffler than Rodgers is. Hodgson's problem - aside from his shite tactics - was more to do with an inability to not be candid when it didn't suit him. Rodgers strikes me as someone who will wriggle and turn and twist to say whatever suits himself at every moment.

[Neil G]

Villa I didnt think we were that good although we did batter them in the second half and should have won. And I thought we were piss poor against West Brom too.

 

Most of the games you listed I had no problems with because we won and played well.

 

As I said earlier, it was more the games against Bolton, Stoke, United, Wigan, Fulham, Swansea, Blackburn at home, Sunderland, Newcastle etc that pissed me off and it far outweighed the good performances after Christmas.

 

 

We had tons of chances against West Brom too.

 

The poor performances didn't outnumber the good ones after Christmas. It was 50-50 as I said, and you've basically just gone and agreed with me.

[Neil G]

Absolutely right, I'm saying it. We were in a significantly better place on the field when Hodgson took over.

 

 

I was assuming Gkmacca meant when Kenny took over from Hodgson, not when Hodgson took over from Rafa. Maybe he can confirm if he's arsed.

 

 

Oh, and if you don't think Kenny got the team to play long-ball tactics in the second half of the season, you're out of your mind. Even when we weren't playing 'lump it to Carroll to knock-down' we were utterly predictable, old-fashioned and naive. There was a reason we finished 8th, and it's not because we couldn't be bothered in the league like some people are trying to make out.

 

 

Bollocks. Fabricated, agenda-driven bollocks. Carroll only started 11 of the 19 league games after Christmas to begin with, and of those he did start, we played well in around half of them and kept the ball on the deck for the most part. That hardly leaves enough remaining games to affect the change in culture that you now hold partly responsible for our poor results.

 

As for us being "predictable, old-fashioned and naive" – was that in every game? Does it apply to all the games I Iisted to Robbie? Does it apply to the games after Christmas where we either won, or created more than enough chances to win? Or did I imagine those games?

 

I'm happy to agree to disagree over how good / bad our performances were after Christmas, whether Kenny deserved to be sacked, and how good / bad the squad he left us with was. What I'm not going to walk away from is your ridiculous claim that we're now struggling partly because our players can't make the adjustment from having Andy Carroll as the sole focus of our attack, and have had pass and move coached out of them by Kenny. It's complete fiction. I support Rodgers just as much as you do, but as I said to Robbie, I don't find it necessary to blatantly make stuff up to justify my position.

[stringvest]

 

You know the same way people are happy for Chang to exposed as they feel he is not up to the job.

 

Here are some thoughts from Rick Parry.

 

"You don't get into the business if you want people who are easy. You want people who are winners.

 

It's not the same at all. It's the owners you're talking about here.

[Kobayashi Maru]

Not sure if its arrogance, naivety, inexperience or a bit of everything, but has tried to change far too much far too quickly imo. From the offloading of players to the change in style and playing philosophy. Our playing syle was the least of our issues and such wholesale changes rarely allow for a smooth transition and focus from the key issues. The same problems of last year, interms of scoring goals, we've carried over to this year and probably been aggravated by the lack of personel and change in approach. Would have prefered a bit more pragmatism and prudency in his approach with this addressed as a priority and other areas allowing for a more incremental phased in approach.

 

I like him and believe given the time will come good. However, would prefer a bit more of an honest appraisal of games and key issues. Nothing grates supporters more than being patronised, which recent successive managers have been exemplary at times.

[Trucker Paddy]

My early thoughts are:

 

1. He deserves time and a bit of space to see if he is the answer

 

2. Not overly impressed so far - he's inexperienced and it shows

 

3. He talks far too much - not Hodgsonesque so far but I'm seeing worrying signs as the pressure builds. I don't like the way he talks about players and I think it'll add to our chances of getting screwed in the transfer market (again). If he is going to compare us to "big clubs" then his goose is cooked.

 

4. I thought he had a 50/50 chance when we appointed him but I now think failure is more likely than success.

 

5.I don't really think his "philosophy" is the way to success for us in the League. Easy on the eye but frustrating as it relies on having a lot of top quality players to execute it properly and consistently and we'll never have the funds to compete at the necessary level in the market.

 

I really hope I'm wrong.

 

Pretty much sums up my thoughts

[Unrighteous]

I really disagree with number 5.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Bollocks. Fabricated, agenda-driven bollocks.

 

I think I covered it pretty well in my previous post when I said, "if you don't think Kenny got the team to play long-ball tactics in the second half of the season, you're out of your mind". That's still my statement and I stick by it. However, the fact you think I'm the one with the agenda isn't only fairly funny, but also indicative of your fragile mental state when it comes to anything to do with Kenny.

 

Carroll only started 11 of the 19 league games after Christmas to begin with, and of those he did start, we played well in around half of them and kept the ball on the deck for the most part. That hardly leaves enough remaining games to affect the change in culture that you now hold partly responsible for our poor results.

 

Of the 20 games after Christmas, Carroll started 13 of them (I can list them, if you'd like), plus significant spells in another 5 of that 20, including coming on at Wigan (45 mins), Stoke (58 mins), United (60 mins), Villa (64 mins) and Sunderland (68 mins). So that's major appearances in 'only' 18 of 20 matches. If you're going to accuse me of fabrication, Neil, do it from sturdy footing.

 

By the way, although this thread isn't about Carroll, he scored 2 goals in those 20 games. Though, despite his lack of goals, he won by far the most aerial duels last season. In fact, he won more than both our centre-backs put together. Carroll won 152, where as Skrtel (78 ) and Agger (44) managed a combined 122. Nothing to do with us launching it towards him, though; that's just a fabrication. It's not like his supporters were in every match thread bleating on about all the flick-ons and knock-downs he was winning.

 

As for us being "predictable, old-fashioned and naive" – was that in every game? Does it apply to all the games I Iisted to Robbie? Does it apply to the games after Christmas where we either won, or created more than enough chances to win? Or did I imagine those games?

 

In general, sure; the way we were set up to play football was old-fashioned and predictable. We went all Blackburn '92, but without the good results. I'm not saying there were no good games, there clearly were, but that doesn't mean we weren't watching Downing run a few yards down the wing, turn back and play the ball backwards, games after game. When he wasn't doing that, we were looking for the big man.

 

I'm happy to agree to disagree over how good / bad our performances were after Christmas, whether Kenny deserved to be sacked, and how good / bad the squad he left us with was. What I'm not going to walk away from is your ridiculous claim that we're now struggling partly because our players can't make the adjustment from having Andy Carroll as the sole focus of our attack, and have had pass and move coached out of them by Kenny. It's complete fiction. I support Rodgers just as much as you do, but as I said to Robbie, I don't find it necessary to blatantly make stuff up to justify my position.

 

No matter what you attribute to me, it doesn't mean I said it. I didn't say players couldn't make the adjustment. I didn't say Kenny coached anything out of anyone.

 

I'll repeat it, just so my opinion is clear: Anybody, including you, who doesn't think we switched to direct football, with long-balls to Carroll, is out of their mind.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I really disagree with number 5.

 

Yeah, I don't agree with it myself. I've got to say, not only do I think it can work, I think what he's trying to do is the best way to win without having City/Chelsea style funds.

[Unrighteous]

Yeah, I don't agree with it myself. I've got to say, not only do I think it can work, I think what he's trying to do is the best way to win without having City/Chelsea style funds.

 

That's my thoughts exactly

[KopOut]

So in order to get a clear balanced view of Rodger's performance, stating that our defence currently is absolutely shite and in its worst shape for over a decade, is moaning? Why's that?

 

The defence is down to Rodgers tactics. Last season, the same defence was third best in the league, took us to two finals(we won one) and it was back to its best, like the Rafa and Houllier years.

 

How did Rodgers manage to screw this? We're conceding goals in every possible way and form. I think he needs to reconsider his tactics.

 

Why's that moaning?

 

What's also more than just a little significant is that the man who gave us our great defence, and co-managed with Dalglish last season - obviously learning a few tricks about 'attack' at the same time - has hauled West Brom (after beating us 3-0 in the opening game of the season) up into FIFTH place scoring more goals than us along the way, and conceding fewer!!!

[xerxes]

I've got to say, not only do I think it can work, I think what he's trying to do is the best way to win without having City/Chelsea style funds.

 

The tradition of flowing pass and move football should be close to the hert of any LFC fan.

 

My concern is that a winning pass and move side has to have very good players and I doubt that FSG will finance the acquisition of the best.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

The tradition of flowing pass and move football should be close to the hert of any LFC fan.

 

My concern is that a winning pass and move side has to have very good players and I doubt that FSG will finance the acquisition of the best.

 

I don't actually think good players need to cost much money. Getting them young is cost efficient. Bringing them through the ranks - like Suso and Sterling - is especially good. It'll have to be a mix: money and bargains.

[Tyler Durden]

I don't actually think good players need to cost much money. Getting them young is cost efficient. Bringing them through the ranks - like Suso and Sterling - is especially good. It'll have to be a mix: money and bargains.

 

Well we have had since August to scout for these types of players so hopefully we won't be signing the Swansea team and hopefully we don't buy from this country because everyone can see what we are lacking so the already inflated fees will be even bigger.

[Code]

Seriously, do you even bother watching football? Or do you just check the results and look at the stats from the game?

 

Are you incapable of making a judgement based on what you see with your own eyes?

 

I'd say I was on to Carrolls inabilities before most, but to get rid without a replacement was never going to be a good idea and he has been playing well for West Ham even if he has not scored.

 

He is in far better shape now though than what he was at the beginning of last season so he could have been a useful option to have.

 

Suso and Sterling or 2/3 of our attacking set up have 1 goal and zero assists between them in 25 games this season.

[RobbieOR]

We had tons of chances against West Brom too.

 

The poor performances didn't outnumber the good ones after Christmas. It was 50-50 as I said, and you've basically just gone and agreed with me.

 

Either way, 18 points from 19 games isnt good enough. And it wasnt solely down to luck either.

[gkmacca]

I think I covered it pretty well in my previous post when I said, "if you don't think Kenny got the team to play long-ball tactics in the second half of the season, you're out of your mind". That's still my statement and I stick by it. However, the fact you think I'm the one with the agenda isn't only fairly funny, but also indicative of your fragile mental state when it comes to anything to do with Kenny.

 

 

 

Of the 20 games after Christmas, Carroll started 13 of them (I can list them, if you'd like), plus significant spells in another 5 of that 20, including coming on at Wigan (45 mins), Stoke (58 mins), United (60 mins), Villa (64 mins) and Sunderland (68 mins). So that's major appearances in 'only' 18 of 20 matches. If you're going to accuse me of fabrication, Neil, do it from sturdy footing.

 

By the way, although this thread isn't about Carroll, he scored 2 goals in those 20 games. Though, despite his lack of goals, he won by far the most aerial duels last season. In fact, he won more than both our centre-backs put together. Carroll won 152, where as Skrtel (78 ) and Agger (44) managed a combined 122. Nothing to do with us launching it towards him, though; that's just a fabrication. It's not like his supporters were in every match thread bleating on about all the flick-ons and knock-downs he was winning.

 

 

 

In general, sure; the way we were set up to play football was old-fashioned and predictable. We went all Blackburn '92, but without the good results. I'm not saying there were no good games, there clearly were, but that doesn't mean we weren't watching Downing run a few yards down the wing, turn back and play the ball backwards, games after game. When he wasn't doing that, we were looking for the big man.

 

 

 

No matter what you attribute to me, it doesn't mean I said it. I didn't say players couldn't make the adjustment. I didn't say Kenny coached anything out of anyone.

 

I'll repeat it, just so my opinion is clear: Anybody, including you, who doesn't think we switched to direct football, with long-balls to Carroll, is out of their mind.

 

You're out of your mind.