If Rodgers was sacked tomorrow?

[Trucker Paddy]

We turned down Van Gaal for a man who'd been sacked by Reading 2 years earlier and who's only achievement was getting promoted with a team he inherited, sweet jaysus

[t1971]

Pellegrini would have been a massive risk, probably greater than Rodgers, but for different reasons.

 

 

Van Gaal was interested in the DOF role and would have been an excellent appointment. Sadly, high calibre individuals are not FSG's style.

 

Pelligrini was less of a risk than Rodgers, cos he was actually proven at the top levels.

 

Youre completely wrong on Van Gaal.

[lifetime fan]

Could have had Pellgirini and Van Gaal and got Hodgson and Rodgers.

 

Now Rodgers may become a brilliant manager but that is some fucked up 'leadership' our club has had in the last few years.

[TheHitman]

Mark Hughes was on Purslows short-list as well, I guess it could have been worse.

[Trucker Paddy]

Mark Hughes was on Purslows short-list as well' date=' I guess it could have been worse.[/quote']

 

Except he wasn't, Deschamp is on record as saying he was offered the job in 2010 but the financial situation at the club put him off. Pellegrini was interviewed by dalglish also in 2010.

[TheHitman]

Except he wasn't, Deschamp is on record as saying he was offered the job in 2010 but the financial situation at the club put him off. Pellegrini was interviewed by dalglish also in 2010.

 

We had two British options and two good managers. Lets not forget Roy was waiting on England and there was a chance he would have got that gig. A short-list means several options doesn't it?

[TheHowieLama]

Van Gaal though at the time seems to upset clubs etc.. he certainly leaves them better off imo..

 

 

Other than the fact he doesn't, this is spot on.

[xerxes]

Pelligrini was less of a risk than Rodgers, cos he was actually proven at the top levels.

 

Youre completely wrong on Van Gaal.

 

The risk with Pellegrini was twofold.Firstly, his experience was Hispanic only at a time when we needed someone to hit the ground running, the fact that Hodgson fitted that bill but still failed is irrelevant to the initial risk assessment. Secondly, he couldnt handle the politics and profile at Madrid, he would have found it no easier here with even less of a suport network.

 

You are wrong on Van Gaal. he has no long term ambitions as manager, but he would have loved to have reshaped LFc into a winning outfit andd would have been a formidable DOF.

[RedPaul]

I don't think anything other than relegation will lead FSG to sack Rodgers this season. He's here for the long haul, which is probably just as well because I wouldn't trust them to replace him with anyone decent anyway. I expect to see a slow improvement over the second half of the season however, with a couple of extra attacking options to give opposition teams more problems when playing us.

[Bjornebye]

Pellegrini could have been another juande ramos

Des champs or rijkaard would have been my preferred options over hodgson. Then again so would bungle from rainbow.

[brucespanner]

Stolen fron HERE, but quite interesting anyhows...

 

2012 -- some number-crunching. . .

 

I was sent some of these stats during the week, and thus must give credit to others. This is Liverpool's record from the last 38 EPL games -- so effectively the 'calendar season' of 2012:

 

11 Wins, 11 Draws, 16 Losses

GF 50 GA 50

Points: 44

Clean Sheets: 10

Failed to Score: 12

 

This points tally would leave us about 15th over a normal season, two places above relegation.

 

In contrast, the club's high watermark of the Premier League era -- the Benitez team of 2008/2009, which at the time registered the highest points tally to not win the league -- had the following haul from that full season:

 

25 Wins, 11 Draws, 2 Losses

GF 77 GA 27

Points: 86

Clean Sheets: 17

Failed to Score: 6

 

Since that 2008/2009 season, we've had four managers in four years, and won roughly an average of one game in three, regardless of the manager in charge.

 

2nd to 15th in a little over three seasons. A near-halving of the points haul.

 

We've gone from having ink nearly on the paper for Nejmana Vidic, David Silva, Dani Alves, and being linked with just about every top player in the Spanish-speaking world, to losing Mascherano, Arbeloa, Alonso and Torres straight into the starting XIs of Champions League teams.

 

And most depressing of all, we still have the 4th or 5th highest wage bill in the Premiership; that is to say, we're paying Champions League salaries for nigh-on relegation form.

 

Friends, that is as stark a slide for a so-called 'big club' as you're ever likely to see. It's a result of many different things; owners, administrators and managers all taking decisions that -- in retrospect -- were not the right ones. And to think Hicks and Gillette bought the club in 2007, when we played in a Champions League Final, and bought Fernando Torres that summer.

 

But what else can we say: that 'calendar' league position(s) doesn't lie -- this is the scale of the fall, and this is the new reality. Reduced expectations is the only response for the short and medium term. . .

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

The made up league position doesn't lie. Much.

[Strontium]

We turned down Van Gaal for a man who'd been sacked by Reading 2 years earlier and who's only achievement was getting promoted with a team he inherited, sweet jaysus

 

 

And this after sacking one of only two British managers to have won the Premier League title. Who the hell is making these decisions and why are they employed at all, let alone in a high profile position?

[Code]

Haha what a load of shite.

 

So they are now comparing a "calendar year season" with full seasons.

 

Well this is how it would be.

 

Kenny 2011: 67 points.

 

Rafa/Roy 2010: 58 points

 

Rafa 2009: 74 points

 

Rafa 2008: 81 points.

[kalasoma]

The last line starts "reduced expectations". Lowering our expectations is exactly what Roy Hodgson tried to do and that mentality saw us in the relegation zone and underperforming spectacularly. As a Liverpool supporter, 'reducing' expectations means accepting mediocrity. It means accepting when the team make little or no effort at all to win. That's not acceptable to me at all and it isn't what any of us as supporters should be swallowing.

[chrisbonnie]

Pellegrini would have been an excellent choice back in 2010.

 

that man hasnt failed at one single club he's been with, not 1.

 

contrast that to Rogers who has failed at 2 out of 3 senior jobs, and Hodgson who had won less than 20 away games in his while fucking career.

 

ah fuck this, it doesnt bare thinking about.

 

everyone says our problems is all down to having 4 managers in 4 years. thats bollocks, its that we've had the 4 bad managers in 4 years, thats the problem.

[Bobby Hundreds]

The last line starts "reduced expectations". Lowering our expectations is exactly what Roy Hodgson tried to do and that mentality saw us in the relegation zone and underperforming spectacularly. As a Liverpool supporter, 'reducing' expectations means accepting mediocrity. It means accepting when the team make little or no effort at all to win. That's not acceptable to me at all and it isn't what any of us as supporters should be swallowing.

 

I agree I'm sick of this constant downplaying. weve not been good enough its that simple our players aren't playing well enough, they get plauditudes for working hard in training, I fucking expect them to be working hard in training as a given.

 

Every single player we have is capable of more but they have been mollycoddled their allowed to lose because were constantly in transition they're given every excuse. Rodgers talks about this team like its never played before and they are all,learning their first steps, they're not they're all proffesional have been playing there entire lives yet they can't function as a team they can't pass to a player or move and find space, they can't even shoot accurately 9 times out of 10. No more excuses for them or the managers we have. We don't have one of the highest wages structures in football because we are an early learning centre.

[piscinin]

Pellegrini would have been an excellent choice back in 2010.

 

that man hasnt failed at one single club he's been with, not 1.

 

contrast that to Rogers who has failed at 2 out of 3 senior jobs, and Hodgson who had won less than 20 away games in his while fucking career.

 

ah fuck this, it doesnt bare thinking about.

 

everyone says our problems is all down to having 4 managers in 4 years. thats bollocks, its that we've had the 4 bad managers in 4 years, thats the problem.

 

My thinking is along the same lines but more charitable. 4 managers who the situation was just too big for.

[Trumo]

In this month's edition of World Soccer, there is an interview with Roy Hodgson. Now being Roy Hodgson, he can't help but keep mentioning how many years of management experience he has, and how he's been successful in places like Sweden, Denmark, and the Swiss national side. He doesn't specifically mention Liverpool at any point in the interview. Indeed, there is basically nothing here that even hints at him having ever been the Liverpool manager.

 

The strangest part of the whole interview though, is when he talks about how he wants his teams to play. He talks about things like playing the ball out from the back, defending with a higher line, plenty of movement and plenty of pressing to try winning the ball back quickly. It basically reads like the mantra of Pep Guardiola, and actually appears to be very sound thinking.

 

And yet he implemented none of these things when he took charge of Liverpool. What we had instead was a flat 4-4-2 with 2 banks of 4 sitting deep, not pressing the opposition, not providing any width or movement, with very little playing out from the back. It was football that handed all the initiative to the opposition. We've seen much the same with his England side, yet his results have on the whole been very good. Having very few expectations with this England squad compared to Liverpool has obviously made a difference.

 

Why am I going on about Hodgson in a Brendan Rodgers thread (I don't hear you ask)? Well, what Hodgson says in that interview about his approach to the game reads well, and will certainly impress people who are not 'football people'. Apart from being endorsed by many in the game, Purslow et al were clearly impressed by Hodgson's spiel and gave him the job on that basis. Brendan Rodgers impressed the top dogs at FSG (and their unknown cabal of advisors) with his 180-page manifesto and his ability to talk a good game. Neither Purslow et al nor FSG are 'football people' yet felt empowered enough to make that key hiring decision.

[kalasoma]

Pellegrini would have been an excellent choice back in 2010.

 

that man hasnt failed at one single club he's been with, not 1.

 

contrast that to Rogers who has failed at 2 out of 3 senior jobs, and Hodgson who had won less than 20 away games in his while fucking career.

 

ah fuck this, it doesnt bare thinking about.

 

everyone says our problems is all down to having 4 managers in 4 years. thats bollocks, its that we've had the 4 bad managers in 4 years, thats the problem.

 

Disagree with the last bit. I don't think Benitez is a bad manager. A bad manager has consistently unsuccessful seasons (if given that much time at his job) and doesn't win titles and/or trophies. Same for Kenny. Hodgson was the wrong appointment and as for Rodgers, well, I think it's a bit too early to make that judgement. Having 4 managers at a club that has suffered financially and instability at the ownership level, does have an impact and shouldn't really be ignored.

[kalasoma]

In this month's edition of World Soccer, there is an interview with Roy Hodgson. Now being Roy Hodgson, he can't help but keep mentioning how many years of management experience he has, and how he's been successful in places like Sweden, Denmark, and the Swiss national side. He doesn't specifically mention Liverpool at any point in the interview. Indeed, there is basically nothing here that even hints at him having ever been the Liverpool manager.

 

The strangest part of the whole interview though, is when he talks about how he wants his teams to play. He talks about things like playing the ball out from the back, defending with a higher line, plenty of movement and plenty of pressing to try winning the ball back quickly. It basically reads like the mantra of Pep Guardiola, and actually appears to be very sound thinking.

 

And yet he implemented none of these things when he took charge of Liverpool. What we had instead was a flat 4-4-2 with 2 banks of 4 sitting deep, not pressing the opposition, not providing any width or movement, with very little playing out from the back. It was football that handed all the initiative to the opposition. We've seen much the same with his England side, yet his results have on the whole been very good. Having very few expectations with this England squad compared to Liverpool has obviously made a difference.

 

Why am I going on about Hodgson in a Brendan Rodgers thread (I don't hear you ask)? Well, what Hodgson says in that interview about his approach to the game reads well, and will certainly impress people who are not 'football people'. Apart from being endorsed by many in the game, Purslow et al were clearly impressed by Hodgson's spiel and gave him the job on that basis. Brendan Rodgers impressed the top dogs at FSG (and their unknown cabal of advisors) with his 180-page manifesto and his ability to talk a good game. Neither Purslow et al nor FSG are 'football people' yet felt empowered enough to make that key hiring decision.

 

With Hodgson, what he thinks he put out on the pitch contradicts with what we actually saw with the two banks of four. His approach to the game is the antithesis of a Guardiola playing style. What he appears to say in that interview, reads like a man who might be a little deluded. With Rodgers, I can see what he wants to do, but I don't think he has the players to do it with. In that respect, he might be a bit deluded himself. That may be harsh. Naive, might be more accurate.

[Gym Beglin]

Van Gaal.

 

Fuck me, people never question the motives of these big old cunts who just morph between the big jobs, usually ending up in the sack, only to be given a fresh start somewhere else due the fear of appointing somebody new and unknown.

 

Van Gaal wanted to come to Liverpool? I bet he fucking did. WHile you're at it, go ask Terry Venables, Wanderlie Luxembourgo, Giovanni Trappatoni and Ottmar Hitzfeld to also come and suck on our milky tit. Trapp's has bled Ireland dry, Hitzfeld is also 4 years into a magical spell at Switzerland, proper football men these are, bet they're getting paid fuck all, just doing it for the challenge, like Van Gaal would.

Oh look, private jets.

[chrisbonnie]

In this month's edition of World Soccer, there is an interview with Roy Hodgson. Now being Roy Hodgson, he can't help but keep mentioning how many years of management experience he has, and how he's been successful in places like Sweden, Denmark, and the Swiss national side. He doesn't specifically mention Liverpool at any point in the interview. Indeed, there is basically nothing here that even hints at him having ever been the Liverpool manager.

 

The strangest part of the whole interview though, is when he talks about how he wants his teams to play. He talks about things like playing the ball out from the back, defending with a higher line, plenty of movement and plenty of pressing to try winning the ball back quickly. It basically reads like the mantra of Pep Guardiola, and actually appears to be very sound thinking.

 

And yet he implemented none of these things when he took charge of Liverpool. What we had instead was a flat 4-4-2 with 2 banks of 4 sitting deep, not pressing the opposition, not providing any width or movement, with very little playing out from the back. It was football that handed all the initiative to the opposition. We've seen much the same with his England side, yet his results have on the whole been very good. Having very few expectations with this England squad compared to Liverpool has obviously made a difference.

 

Why am I going on about Hodgson in a Brendan Rodgers thread (I don't hear you ask)? Well, what Hodgson says in that interview about his approach to the game reads well, and will certainly impress people who are not 'football people'. Apart from being endorsed by many in the game, Purslow et al were clearly impressed by Hodgson's spiel and gave him the job on that basis. Brendan Rodgers impressed the top dogs at FSG (and their unknown cabal of advisors) with his 180-page manifesto and his ability to talk a good game. Neither Purslow et al nor FSG are 'football people' yet felt empowered enough to make that key hiring decision.

 

interesting read Truumo.

 

i have to admit, id give my left testicle to get my hands on that 180 page document that landed Brendan "the salesman" Rogers his golden ticket

[piscinin]

 

Why am I going on about Hodgson in a Brendan Rodgers thread (I don't hear you ask)?

 

ha ha! I knew where you were going with that.

 

I think many will have, the talk the talk vs. walk the walk question is uppermost in many minds.

[Jairzinho]

Pellegrini would have been an excellent choice back in 2010.

 

that man hasnt failed at one single club he's been with, not 1.

 

contrast that to Rogers who has failed at 2 out of 3 senior jobs, and Hodgson who had won less than 20 away games in his while fucking career.

 

ah fuck this, it doesnt bare thinking about.

 

everyone says our problems is all down to having 4 managers in 4 years. thats bollocks, its that we've had the 4 bad managers in 4 years, thats the problem.

 

Ahh yes, but his experience is Hispanic.