Rodgers In

[fowler9]

That's underachieving, not being on the rocks. The nearest this club has come to being on the rocks was when we were a day away from administration. And that was not in a football sense, but in a business sense.

 

its all subjective then I guess, I'd say at that point we were on the rocks off the pitch, now we are on the rocks on the pitch for me, your correct in that it is underachieving but I think that underachieving has gone on for so long that we are on the rocks footballwise because of it, we are in danger of this area of the league table becoming the norm, thats why this next couple of transfer windows are massive

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

That's underachieving, not being on the rocks. The nearest this club has come to being on the rocks was when we were a day away from administration. And that was not in a football sense, but in a business sense.

 

This 'on the rocks' thing is getting out of hand. It's a throw away comment referring to the team Rodgers inherited, based on that team's performance over the last half of the season, minus several attacking players. It's not reference to business or results from previous seasons.

[Neil G]

Do you really think so Hank? I respect your opinion but I'm wondering if we had for example Van Persie last season how much our goal per chance ratio would have increased, and subsequently our league position. We may have even made top 4, with the addition of just one player.

 

 

I agree with this. I reckon if we'd kept Torres instead of signing Carroll, we could have signed the exact same players in the summer and easily finished in the top three.

[Anubis]

I'm sorry Hank, but you don't do throw away comments. It was a phrase you deliberately chose to make it appear that Rodgers inherited a far worse situation than he actually did.

[Neil G]

This 'on the rocks' thing is getting out of hand. It's a throw away comment referring to the team Rodgers inherited, based on that team's performance over the last half of the season, minus several attacking players. It's not reference to business or results from previous seasons.

 

 

I doubt people would have made quite so much of it if you didn't already have form for exaggerating the problems Rodgers inherited from Kenny. I wouldn't have anyway.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I doubt people would have made quite so much of it if you didn't already have form for exaggerating the problems Rodgers inherited from Kenny. I wouldn't have anyway.

 

I'm not exaggerating anything, I, like you, am offering an opinion on the state of the team. I thought, and still think, they're terrible. I could go into why, but you've got form for being so staunchly behind Kenny that any criticism of him or his signings falls on deaf ears. So what's the point?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I'm sorry Hank, but you don't do throw away comments. It was a phrase you deliberately chose to make it appear that Rodgers inherited a far worse situation than he actually did.

 

It was a phrase chosen to illustrate how tough a job I believe he has, given the utter dross he inherited. Now, you're free to disagree with that opinion, but you and Neil are talking as if it's not subjective, but a fact I'm getting wrong. It's not.

 

I certainly think the squad was and is on the rocks in terms of quality. By 'on the rocks', I mean very poor.

[Neil G]

I'm not exaggerating anything, I, like you, am offering an opinion on the state of the team. I thought, and still think, they're terrible. I could go into why, but you've got form for being so staunchly behind Kenny that any criticism of him or his signings falls on deaf ears. So what's the point?

 

 

I know exactly why you think the squad is poor Hank, you've made it abundantly clear over the last 18 months.

 

This is the second time recently that you've claimed I reject all criticism of Kenny. I'll give that the same response I gave it the first time: it's utter bollocks. I explained why then. And I said in a reply to you on this very thread, on the previous page, that Kenny was at fault for the players underachieving last season. Do you actually bother to read my posts before you make sweeping generalisations about my opinions?

 

The exaggeration from you that I was referring to isn't actually your view of the quality of the squad that Kenny left for Rodgers. It's your claim that we went route one at the end of last season and that Rodgers has had to wean the players off it, which just isn't true. Even if it were, it would be no different from the situation Kenny inherited from Hodgson, and Kenny had no trouble getting the players to quickly switch to a fast passing game. I've put that point to you twice now, and twice you've declined to respond.

[moof]

Fucking hell. You said you were 'delighted' when he signed. I was the most vocally opposed to Downing's signing. On any forum. Bar none.

 

Heh, yeah, I can vouch for that.... You've been extremely consistent in your opinion of Downing.

[KopOut]

 

You are going by fucking guess work. So im guessing you are a fucking lunatic.

 

Anyway' date=' who gives a fucking shit about league tables in december ?[/quote']

 

yeah who cares, its only halfway through the season.

 

I'm not actually going by guesswork at all. FSG asked Clarke to stay on. He refused. No guesswork there. He wasn't sacked. Dalglish was given a 3 year contract and sacked after the first season, having won the league cup, come close to the fa cup, and given us 8th in the league, which was realistic under the circumstances (re-read Code's very well put points for more info) and generally brought us improvement after the Hodgson debacle - considering the loss of Torres in Jan the previous season and with injuries through the squad, if anything Dalglish over-achieved as caretaker, and it was unrealistic to expect as good a position in his first full season, with the new players bedding in.

 

Let me put it another way. Considering Downing and Enrique and even Henderson, to a degree, are playing a major part in BR's plans, my argument is that if Dalglish and Clarke were still here, we'd AT THE VERY LEAST be on a par with Rodgers results, and we'd be financially BETTER OFF, having not bought Assaidi, Borini or Allen. How much did that little lot cost us??

[Block109'er]

Only a total mong would want BR out at this point. We need to stick with him for at least 3 seasons before we will see what direction we are heading. We need stability.

 

He won't be getting 3 seasons...unless we are improving each season that is.

 

Agree that he needs money in this window and then let's hopefully see the improvements over the next six months.

 

The only real problem I have with him to be honest is that I have little faith in his philosophy although I hope to be proven wrong. There is only one team that plays this way and wins trophies and we all know who they are and also that they are a once in a generation collection of several of the World's best players.

 

I'd much rather see us playing to our strengths than this pass the opposition to sleep rubbish.

 

Anyway, time will tell and for the meantime 'Brendan In'

[Guest davelfc]

Let me put it another way. Considering Downing and Enrique and even Henderson, to a degree, are playing a major part in BR's plans, my argument is that if Dalglish and Clarke were still here, we'd AT THE VERY LEAST be on a par with Rodgers results, and we'd be financially BETTER OFF, having not bought Assaidi, Borini or Allen. How much did that little lot cost us??

 

We would have bought some players though, but would not have paid off a manager (£8m?) or paid to bring a new manager here (£5m?) although FSG might not have got the lead character they wanted in 'becoming Liverpool' because I just can't see Kenny wanting to do that. Bellamy, Maxi and Kuyt would probably all still have left though.

 

Most agree Kenny should have had another year, he didn't and we are here now with a new manager and on the brink of a January transfer window when he has chance to correct the monumental fuck up that was the summer window.

 

January will be a very interesting month.

[Timão]

yeah who cares, its only halfway through the season.

 

I'm not actually going by guesswork at all. FSG asked Clarke to stay on. He refused. No guesswork there. He wasn't sacked. Dalglish was given a 3 year contract and sacked after the first season, having won the league cup, come close to the fa cup, and given us 8th in the league, which was realistic under the circumstances (re-read Code's very well put points for more info) and generally brought us improvement after the Hodgson debacle - considering the loss of Torres in Jan the previous season and with injuries through the squad, if anything Dalglish over-achieved as caretaker, and it was unrealistic to expect as good a position in his first full season, with the new players bedding in.

 

Let me put it another way. Considering Downing and Enrique and even Henderson, to a degree, are playing a major part in BR's plans, my argument is that if Dalglish and Clarke were still here, we'd AT THE VERY LEAST be on a par with Rodgers results, and we'd be financially BETTER OFF, having not bought Assaidi, Borini or Allen. How much did that little lot cost us??

 

I am sorry, but that is bollocks.

 

He did not 'give' us 8th place.

 

He presided over a terrible second half of the season and SIX home wins in one full season...all that after spending more money than any Liverpool manager ever has or is ever likely to have again - certainly in the foreseeable future.

 

You could well argue that his trophy and coming close to a second were enough to give him another season, but it was equally valid to say that 8th after all those signings was not good enough.

 

As for the players Rodgers is using, what options has he got? He was told to slash the wage bill and we fucked up in the window, so we are left with Downing and the rest.

 

We can hardly make a considered judgement on Borini and I like Allen. The only major flop has been Sahin who I thought would play more and do more, having seen him play lots of times - and very well - for Dortmund.

 

We are underachieving at the moment, but Rodgers has inherited a situation not of his own making and it will take a long time to sort this club out.

[Coro]

I am sorry, but that is bollocks.

 

He did not 'give' us 8th place.

 

He presided over a terrible second half of the season and SIX home wins in one full season...all that after spending more money than any Liverpool manager ever has or is ever likely to have again - certainly in the foreseeable future.

 

 

The lazy man's guide to last season.

 

What you said about Rodgers applied to Dalglish last year.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I know exactly why you think the squad is poor Hank, you've made it abundantly clear over the last 18 months.

 

This is the second time recently that you've claimed I reject all criticism of Kenny. I'll give that the same response I gave it the first time: it's utter bollocks. I explained why then. And I said in a reply to you on this very thread, on the previous page, that Kenny was at fault for the players underachieving last season. Do you actually bother to read my posts before you make sweeping generalisations about my opinions?

 

Well, I must admit that it's becoming increasingly difficult to read such excessively defensive posts. I didn't say you reject it, did I. I said you ignore it. You skirt around it without paying attention to it, ploughing forward and coming to the conclusion you desire, rather than the one you'd come to if you removed the self-imposed blinkers.

 

And by the way, I don't agree with you on this point either. You said it was 'largely Kenny's fault' that the players underachieved. I don't agree, Kenny didn't do too much wrong until the last third of the season, when he started playing a much more direct game. It was the players he bought and their limits which were the problem - which is what I'm accusing you of skirting, dismissing and/or ignoring. But that's a totally different thing to what I said in this thread.

 

The exaggeration from you that I was referring to isn't actually your view of the quality of the squad that Kenny left for Rodgers.

 

Right, but you said it was a revision of Kenny's legacy - in response to me saying the quality of the squad was poor - in order to make it appear Rodgers has a harder job that he does. So that's what I'm talking about.

 

In this thread at least, I'm solely arguing that Rodgers was left a very poor squad, with very little quality in depth. That'll take time to remedy, and a whole lot of money. Maybe even the level of spending Kenny had.

 

It's your claim that we went route one at the end of last season and that Rodgers has had to wean the players off it, which just isn't true. Even if it were, it would be no different from the situation Kenny inherited from Hodgson, and Kenny had no trouble getting the players to quickly switch to a fast passing game. I've put that point to you twice now, and twice you've declined to respond.

 

I don't see the relevance. Kenny inherited a better squad than Rodgers, in my opinion. Hodgson mismanaged the flying fuck out of the team, Kenny sorted it out. I was with him, the football was right, the players were okay, just needed to spend the money he had in the right way and we were fighting for the big time again.

 

The difference between the team inherited my Kenny and the one inherited by Rodgers is players like Maxi, Kuyt, Meireles can play fluid football. Just because they didn't under Hodgson, it doesn't mean those players couldn't do it. Rodgers didn't have those players - even if he wanted some of them to stay. Carroll had to go because he can't play that way, Downing isn't that type of player, the other attackers are kids, and his one major attacking signing was injured after 5 games.

 

It's a strange and somewhat irrelevant point you're making, to suggest Kenny's transition from Hodgeball should impact Rodgers' transition into his style of football, which is far slower in its build up. Again, this is off-topic, and my point is that Rodgers has inherited a very weak squad of players.

[Nightcat]

I am sorry, but that is bollocks.

 

.........

 

We are underachieving at the moment, but Rodgers has inherited a situation not of his own making and it will take a long time to sort this club out.

 

Rodgers inherited the third best (behind City and Utd) defence in the league and the same defence which took us to two domestic cup finals. He managed to turn it into an absolute PIECE OF SHIT in less than five months.

 

We conceded 3 goals at home against the worst attack (Aston Villa) in the league.

 

Try to explain that.

 

Overall, I disagree. It won't take long... it took only 5 months to ruin the best aspects of our game. Some people call that progress.

Edited December 30, 2012 by Nightcat

[xerxes]

I know exactly why you think the squad is poor Hank, you've made it abundantly clear over the last 18 months.etc

 

 

 

Hodgson inherited the worst situation of any LFC manager in modern times. He did not do well. The adverse influence of his reign is overstated by those who love soft targets. The problem was that he DIDN’T have much influence.

 

Kenny was at his best in that caretaker half season, when adrenaline and feel good carried us through and the folly of Carroll’s purchase was disguised by his injury absence. The problems started for Kenny when he had to start buying, and was exposed as woefully out of touch, and were then exacerbated when our league form drifted after Christmas, and he had no solution other than “to work harder on the training ground”- which the players didn’t.

 

Exactly what game he favoured is a bit of a mystery. That caretaker half season was fuelled by spirit, not tactics. Then we had gems like “Downing is even better than I thought..................”

 

Kenny’s preference for playing style was to recreate the pressing high tempo British spirit driven vision of what he was familiar with here first time around, and then at Blackburn, hence the purchases of Downing, Henderson and Carroll. There is nothing to get particularly misty eyed about.

[Guest San Don]

yeah who cares, its only halfway through the season.

 

I'm not actually going by guesswork at all. FSG asked Clarke to stay on. He refused. No guesswork there. He wasn't sacked. Dalglish was given a 3 year contract and sacked after the first season, having won the league cup, come close to the fa cup, and given us 8th in the league, which was realistic under the circumstances (re-read Code's very well put points for more info) and generally brought us improvement after the Hodgson debacle - considering the loss of Torres in Jan the previous season and with injuries through the squad, if anything Dalglish over-achieved as caretaker, and it was unrealistic to expect as good a position in his first full season, with the new players bedding in.

 

Let me put it another way. Considering Downing and Enrique and even Henderson, to a degree, are playing a major part in BR's plans, my argument is that if Dalglish and Clarke were still here, we'd AT THE VERY LEAST be on a par with Rodgers results, and we'd be financially BETTER OFF, having not bought Assaidi, Borini or Allen. How much did that little lot cost us??

 

Clark was asked to stay on by FSG? After they had sacked the guy he worked with and expected him to stay?

 

In any event, with a new manager coming in, clark would have seen the writing on the wall.

 

If FSG wanted clark to stay on after sacking Dalglish and wanting to bring in their man while expecting clark to stay or be retained by the incoming manager, that just adds fuel to the fire that they havent a fucking clue!

[Coro]

Clark was asked to stay on by FSG?

 

He offered his resignation, they declined. Then they sacked him, compo and all.

[therevivalist]

I agree that we should be doing better. Stoke and Villa results pissed me off. We should have won both of those. If we did what we should have, we'd be 1pt from the top four and in with a good shout after Christmas with new arrivals. Still, it wasn't to be. We need those arrivals over the next two windows and then next season is when the clock really starts running on Rodgers' time here. Assuming he has money to spend, of course.

 

I'm one for giving Rodgers a decent amount of time too before passing any sort of judjment on his performance. I know he's made a mistake or two with his tactical naivety which has cost us games but that should come as no surprise considering his age and inexperience managing at this level. what I like most is his enthusiasm although he does from time to time indulge in hyperbolies as a result. But I believe he's someone who can learn quickly from his errors and rectify them. And tha's pretty much one can ask for there. we will see what he can do in this window and how well he does going forward. I do however expect him to see the backs of the likes of Cole and Downing, the latter despite his recent and occasional impressive performances.

 

'

[xerxes]

He offered his resignation, they declined. Then they sacked him, compo and all.

 

The above, is as I understand it, with the matter being handled by a junior HR staffer.

 

The performance of Steve at WBA raises some intriguing questions.

[Neil G]

Well, I must admit that it's becoming increasingly difficult to read such excessively defensive posts. I didn't say you reject it, did I. I said you ignore it. You skirt around it without paying attention to it, ploughing forward and coming to the conclusion you desire, rather than the one you'd come to if you removed the self-imposed blinkers.

 

 

You said "any [my emphasis] criticism of him or his signings falls on deaf ears". Whether you meant reject it or ignore it, either way, you're totally wrong. Firstly, I actually engage in criticism of him myself, as I've already said and proved to you more than once. Secondly, I tried to engage you in a proper evidence-based debate about your claim we played longball at the end of last season – hardly indicative of the mindset you attribute to me – and you were the one who ducked out of it.

 

If you meant that I hadn't engaged with you on the particular point about the quality of Kenny's signings, then you should have said that, rather than make, or more to the point repeat, a wildly inaccurate blanket statement about my views on Kenny.

 

Anyway, I haven't "skirted around" anything. I was under the distinct impression that we were discussing the quality of the overall squad that Rodgers inherited, not solely of the players that Kenny signed. When assessing the strength of the squad I've taken into account the levels of performance that Kenny was able to elicit from the players he inherited when he took over, not just the players he bought himself.

 

I've said plenty of times that Kenny wasted a lot of money. I said in my article in the last but one issue of the fanzine that the money spent on Carroll, Downing and Henderson should have had us competing for the title if it had been spent properly. I've had numerous exchanges on here about FSG's spending policy, including with you, in which I've acknowledged that they might be wary of spending big again after seeing such a big budget so badly spent.

 

I've gone on record more than enough saying that Kenny spent badly. Just because I haven't constantly bemoaned it over the last 18 months like you have, doesn't mean I don't think it. I really wish you'd stop making sweeping statements about my opinions when even by your own admission you've missed a lot of my posts.

 

 

And by the way, I don't agree with you on this point either. You said it was 'largely Kenny's fault' that the players underachieved. I don't agree, Kenny didn't do too much wrong until the last third of the season, when he started playing a much more direct game. It was the players he bought and their limits which were the problem - which is what I'm accusing you of skirting, dismissing and/or ignoring. But that's a totally different thing to what I said in this thread.

 

 

Even allowing for the fact that Kenny spent badly, the squad he had last season was still good enough to get top four. The mistakes I think he made with the players at his disposal were: freezing out Maxi, dropping Carroll on two occasions when he finally looked to be finding some form and confidence, persisting with Downing and Henderson when they were stinking the place out, failing to motivate the entire team in the league after we lost to Arsenal, and not getting the squad to practice enough with shooting, penalty-taking and taking set pieces. Several of these faults were in evidence even before Christmas when the performances and results were good.

 

If the squad showed top-four form for the first half of last season, but then results suffered because Kenny went direct in the second half, surely the logic of your argument is that the reason for us finishing 8th was primarily the tactics and not the signings.

 

 

Right, but you said it was a revision of Kenny's legacy - in response to me saying the quality of the squad was poor - in order to make it appear Rodgers has a harder job that he does. So that's what I'm talking about.

 

In this thread at least, I'm solely arguing that Rodgers was left a very poor squad, with very little quality in depth. That'll take time to remedy, and a whole lot of money. Maybe even the level of spending Kenny had.

 

 

You've been bundling everything in together, that's why I made reference to your previous comments on Rodgers having to adjust our style of play. Kenny's legacy, according to you, consists of both a poor squad and an ingrained long-ball mentality that developed over the second half of last season.

 

 

I don't see the relevance. Kenny inherited a better squad than Rodgers, in my opinion. Hodgson mismanaged the flying fuck out of the team, Kenny sorted it out. I was with him, the football was right, the players were okay, just needed to spend the money he had in the right way and we were fighting for the big time again.

 

The difference between the team inherited my Kenny and the one inherited by Rodgers is players like Maxi, Kuyt, Meireles can play fluid football. Just because they didn't under Hodgson, it doesn't mean those players couldn't do it. Rodgers didn't have those players - even if he wanted some of them to stay. Carroll had to go because he can't play that way, Downing isn't that type of player, the other attackers are kids, and his one major attacking signing was injured after 5 games.

 

 

The relevance is that I was explaining to you why I and others jumped on your "on the rocks" line. Because it's part of an overall pattern of posting from you which exaggerates the scale of the problems Rodgers inherited. Saying the way we played under Kenny in the latter part of last season is an issue for Rodgers serves this purpose, in just the same way that claiming Kenny left him a shite squad does.

 

I know you've agreed to disagree about this, but as you've subsequently accused me of not engaging with the issue properly, here's why I think the squad is good. Rodgers inherited one of the strongest back fives in the country with good cover in every position, Lucas and Spearing who formed an excellent midfield partnership in Kenny’s first half-season, a fit Steven Gerrard which Kenny didn't have for his first year in charge, one of the best strikers in the world in Suarez, the best crop of youngsters for a long time, plus various other players of differing ability and consistency who he could still use. Rodgers clearly disagrees with you about Downing's ability to play the way he wants, and he's shown a lot of faith in Henderson as well which is being repaid.

 

The squad he inherited, even though it was nowhere near as strong as it should have been given the money Kenny spent on it, was still easily good enough to be challenging for the top four if strengthened with a reasonable transfer budget this season. By the looks of it Rodgers will have had that by the end of January. That's a long way away from your assessment of the squad.

 

Anybody who knew anything about us last season would have known that the problem with the squad was goal-scoring, first, second and third. Rodgers had enough money and time in the summer to fix this. It wasn't a screamingly urgent necessity to spend £15m on Joe Allen.

 

 

It's a strange and somewhat irrelevant point you're making, to suggest Kenny's transition from Hodgeball should impact Rodgers' transition into his style of football, which is far slower in its build up. Again, this is off-topic, and my point is that Rodgers has inherited a very weak squad of players.

 

 

It is off-topic, but I'm going to pull you up on it anyway, because you declined to address it in our previous exchange when I put it to you twice.

 

You've moved the goalposts. At no point have you said that the difference in the pace of play was an issue with the transition from Kenny to Rodgers. Your posts were all about us relying on long balls and crosses in the latter part of last season, rather than using the whole pitch to play pass and move.

 

Rodgers's style of play might involve a slower build-up, but to succeed it'll still require speed, incision and fluidity in the final third. Under Kenny we showed that in spades throughout 2011, and in a decent number of games in 2012 – I've listed these several times, I can do it again if you want.

 

The difference in style between how Kenny had us playing for the majority of his time in charge and how Rodgers wants us to play, and the scale of the job Rodgers therefore has in getting the players to make the transition, is nowhere near as big as you're intent on making out.

[Neil G]

Hodgson inherited the worst situation of any LFC manager in modern times. He did not do well. The adverse influence of his reign is overstated by those who love soft targets. The problem was that he DIDN’T have much influence.

 

Kenny was at his best in that caretaker half season, when adrenaline and feel good carried us through and the folly of Carroll’s purchase was disguised by his injury absence. The problems started for Kenny when he had to start buying, and was exposed as woefully out of touch, and were then exacerbated when our league form drifted after Christmas, and he had no solution other than “to work harder on the training ground”- which the players didn’t.

 

Exactly what game he favoured is a bit of a mystery. That caretaker half season was fuelled by spirit, not tactics. Then we had gems like “Downing is even better than I thought..................”

 

Kenny’s preference for playing style was to recreate the pressing high tempo British spirit driven vision of what he was familiar with here first time around, and then at Blackburn, hence the purchases of Downing, Henderson and Carroll. There is nothing to get particularly misty eyed about.

 

 

I didn't see a huge difference in the styles of play between the caretaker half-season and the first half of last season. Kenny overcomplicated things a bit due to having more attacking options, but what he was trying to do was essentially the same.

 

I don't believe at all that Carroll was part of some master plan from Kenny. Rather he was a panic buy when Kenny was faced with losing his main striker just weeks after taking the reins. It was a stupid decision to replace Torres with Carroll, but I'm not convinced that it was entirely or even primarily Kenny who made that decision.

 

If Kenny had been so set on signing Carroll and making him the focus of the team, he would have played him more often. He certainly wouldn't have dropped him for both league games against Man United just as he was hitting a bit of form. Compare his treatment of Carroll with the way he persisted with Downing and Henderson, who were both definitely his signings, when they were offering even less to the side.

[Cardie]

I agree with this. I reckon if we'd kept Torres instead of signing Carroll, we could have signed the exact same players in the summer and easily finished in the top three.

 

But we didn't, and with the oppertunity to replace him we wasted money.

 

Who was the manager who presided over that, and subsequent, monumental waste with seemingly no real plan or vision of how these players were going to fit together?

[boomer39]

Hodgson inherited the worst situation of any LFC manager in modern times. He did not do well. The adverse influence of his reign is overstated by those who love soft targets. The problem was that he DIDN’T have much influence.

 

Kenny was at his best in that caretaker half season, when adrenaline and feel good carried us through and the folly of Carroll’s purchase was disguised by his injury absence. The problems started for Kenny when he had to start buying, and was exposed as woefully out of touch, and were then exacerbated when our league form drifted after Christmas, and he had no solution other than “to work harder on the training ground”- which the players didn’t.

 

Exactly what game he favoured is a bit of a mystery. That caretaker half season was fuelled by spirit, not tactics. Then we had gems like “Downing is even better than I thought..................”

 

Kenny’s preference for playing style was to recreate the pressing high tempo British spirit driven vision of what he was familiar with here first time around, and then at Blackburn, hence the purchases of Downing, Henderson and Carroll. There is nothing to get particularly misty eyed about.

what do you class as "modern times"??? 50's 60's ? shanks took over a side in the old 2nd div... did a good job... just wish some of you lot had been there in the 50's and early 60's.. you might have a bit more bloody patience...