Rodgers In

[UnwelcomeinPeru]

Over-complicated?

 

In the Rafa farewell season, Liverpool finished 7th with 63 points, 7 off CL. In the Hodgson/Dalglish porridge that followed, it was 58 points, although 6th place, 10 points off CL. Dalglish was asked what it would take to win an extra 10 points and was backed with money to buy in the players he wanted.

 

The League season was a catastrophe. 52 points and 8th place, 17 points off CL.

 

Whatever explanation Dalglish had for that - and whatever plan he had to put it right - didn't wash and quite rightly he was shown the door. Any manager would have been. The PL was poor last season and has been for some time - in the last three seasons, the team finishing third has done so with 9 or 10 defeats. Rafa only lost 11 in his swansong. The amount they had to get better by was not much - win an extra 3 or 4 rather than losing them. But Kenny went and won the fewest games we've won since something or the other.

 

As for BR, well it is obviously too early to say really. He wasn't told to get 4th this season so he won't be moved on anytime soon. They look to me like couple of players off being able to compete so he - like Kenny - will get judged on his signings. Ultimately that's what did for Rafa.

[Bobby Hundreds]

At the beginning of the season, what position did you think we would roughly finish around.

[fin-bat]

Dalglish was asked what it would take to win an extra 10 points and was backed with money to buy in the players he wanted. The League season was a catastrophe. 52 points and 8th place, 17 points off CL. Whatever explanation Dalglish had for that - and whatever plan he had to put it right - didn't wash and quite rightly he was shown the door.

 

Dalglish was asked to buy potential. British potential. That´s what he did. Rest is history. His-story. Interesting story, but not a very winning one. Suarez, Enrique and Shelvey are probably the only signing that Dalglish got spot on. Others are just potential.

[UnwelcomeinPeru]

Same as most people I imagine - I looked at the teams that we'd most likely finish below and counted on my fingers. So a range of not higher than 7th and not lower than 9th.

[Shreddy]

Dalglish was asked to buy potential. British potential. That´s what he did. Rest is history. His-story. Interesting story, but not a very winning one. Suarez, Enrique and Shelvey are probably the only signing that Dalglish got spot on. Others are just potential.

Mate, I don't call Carroll, Downing,Adam, Henderson potential :P

[UnwelcomeinPeru]

Dalglish was asked to buy potential. British potential.

 

Well that may be true, but either he's very far-sighted, or got it wrong. The British potential is now worth half at best what it cost and has not produced anything of note so far. There's a lot of salary been paid to players who haven't shown it yet.

 

I think - and frankly I don't know and and just enjoy guessing - that he and the owners agreed at the start of last season that there was a realistic chance of 4th. It didn't take much - Spurs improved by 19 points a couple of seasons ago to finish 4th.

 

I suspect that if Rogers can break 60 points this season that will be seen as success.

[Neil G]

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?

 

 

Why are you asking me this? As I've just had to explain to Hank, I've also been critical of Kenny's signings.

 

I was making a comment on how far away from being a top four squad we were / are, as part of a discussion on the state of the squad.

[Neil G]

Over-complicated?

 

In the Rafa farewell season, Liverpool finished 7th with 63 points, 7 off CL. In the Hodgson/Dalglish porridge that followed, it was 58 points, although 6th place, 10 points off CL. Dalglish was asked what it would take to win an extra 10 points and was backed with money to buy in the players he wanted.

 

The League season was a catastrophe. 52 points and 8th place, 17 points off CL.

 

Whatever explanation Dalglish had for that - and whatever plan he had to put it right - didn't wash and quite rightly he was shown the door. Any manager would have been. The PL was poor last season and has been for some time - in the last three seasons, the team finishing third has done so with 9 or 10 defeats. Rafa only lost 11 in his swansong. The amount they had to get better by was not much - win an extra 3 or 4 rather than losing them. But Kenny went and won the fewest games we've won since something or the other.

 

As for BR, well it is obviously too early to say really. He wasn't told to get 4th this season so he won't be moved on anytime soon. They look to me like couple of players off being able to compete so he - like Kenny - will get judged on his signings. Ultimately that's what did for Rafa.

 

 

I assume this in response to me. My "overcomplicated" line was specifically about the first half of last season. The performances and results were as good as Kenny's caretaker half-season, but there were more changes in personnel among the front six which didn't help us.

 

On the bolded bit, how can you say it was right for him to be sacked when you admit you've no idea what his plan might have been to put things right? Yet another poster who thinks a man who's won four league titles with two different clubs is incapable of learning from his mistakes.

[RobbieOR]

Dalglish was asked to buy potential. British potential. That´s what he did. Rest is history. His-story. Interesting story, but not a very winning one. Suarez, Enrique and Shelvey are probably the only signing that Dalglish got spot on. Others are just potential.

 

Benitez signed Shelvey.

[Code]

Benitez signed Shelvey.

 

He sure did, you can spot it by the fact he is fuckin shite.

[RobbieOR]

Hook line and sinker.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

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.

 

I meant - and I'll clarify this as many times as you like - that you ignore it. You ignore it when it is used as corroborating evidence to make a wider point that you either don't agree with or feel uncomfortable with. You quite clearly ignore these criticisms in order to argue against the claims I make about the squad Rodgers inheriting being poor. Now, I'll admit that it's a subjective claim. Some people like Andy Carroll, Steward Downing, and other non-entities. I don't. You might not either, and I've made no claim either way on that.

 

However, if the aim of football is to win football matches, rather than lose football matches, then I think I have a fairly strong case. If the aim of squad building is to fill your team with good quality, productive footballers that help in the objective of winning football matches, rather than poor, overly expensive, over-paid players who do little to win football matches, then I think I have a fairly strong case. If the aim is having a squad deep enough with quality that you can compete on more than one front at a time - not having to prioritise matches against Cardiff over league position and the future of the football club, for example - then I think I have a fairly strong case.

 

You can disagree all you like, but rather than a blanket disagreement, I've heard very little in the way of a solid argument suggesting that we've not got a mightily poor squad.

 

Firstly, I actually engage in criticism of him myself, as I've already said and proved to you more than once.

 

This is essentially meaningless. I don't claim that you don't recognise faults or have criticisms. I claim that you ignore criticisms when somebody else is using them in an argument. Whether you actually agree with that criticisms seems of little importance to you.

 

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.

 

I didn't 'duck' out of anything. I dismissed it as nonsensical. To me, what with actually having seen it happen 'n all, it's as much of a waste of time as arguing the earth isn't flat or the moon isn't made of cheese. If you want to believe we didn't go more direct at the end of the season, that's up to you. I've no really problem with flat-earthers.

 

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.

 

I didn't. To both.

 

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.

 

We are, which I why I said - and then you quoted, so I'm surprised you've missed it - that it was any criticism of him or his signings. Not just his signings, but of him as a manager (I'm just going to go ahead and assume you're not accusing me of suggesting we should criticise him as a person, as I think he's pretty much beyond doubt on that front. This conversation would be over pretty quickly if you did.).

 

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.

 

Same here. I'm judging the entire squad inherited by Rodgers as weak. I don't ever remember claiming that it was the sole responsibility of Kenny that we have such a weak squad. Although, it's fairly telling that you instantly jump to Kenny's defence - talking only about Kenny's signings, rather than anybody else's - because it's what I'm accusing you of doing.

 

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 didn't read it, but I've no doubt you've problems with those signings. I'm not accusing you of being totally and utterly fucking mental, Neil, just that you lack objectivity when it comes to accepting the legacy inherited by Rodgers was a fucking poor one. You seem to be the guardian of Kenny's honour, or something.

 

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.

 

I'm not making any statements about your opinions, much less sweeping ones. I'm making an observation on how you act. That's entirely different. If you want to get all bent out of shape about it, you're welcome to. I'm happy to discuss anything with you in a (fairly) civil way. I think I've been pretty specific about the issue, rather than making sweeping statements.

 

Even allowing for the fact that Kenny spent badly, the squad he had last season was still good enough to get top four.

 

Well, I guess that's just something we're going to have to disagree about. I think it's obscene to say such a thing, actually. It's not important, though; you're entitled to your opinion on it. However, what is important to recognise is that, even if it was good enough to finish top four (and I want to stress how ludicrous I think that is...), the fact still remains that it isn't the squad

 

If the squad showed top-four form for the first half of last season

 

The squad didn't show top four form. Ever. Top four isn't about what you do in December or January. Fucking hell, we're talking about football squads here, mate. The need for a squad is so that when the games come thick and fast at the business end of the season, you can compete in more than one competition at a time. Skirting around the top six in January and February isn't top four form in any more of a real way than our form was when we were only a few points away from fourth this season. The squad was too poor to get anywhere near fourth. That's why it didn't. The squad is too poor for fourth now, too. That's why we won't. Not unless something dramatic happens anyway.

 

This strange reality you've built for yourself - that the squad was good enough for fourth in the first half - is as bizarre as it is meaningless. West Brom aren't good enough for fourth, regardless of what their 'form' has been like the first half of the season. It's a false reality that you're building up here, in my opinion.

 

but then results suffered because Kenny went direct in the second half

 

Woah, woah, woah. I'm going to have to stop you here. I don't think I've ever said, suggested or insinuated that the reason the results suffered is because we went more direct. Going more direct isn't necessarily an insult. It's just what happened. Rodgers does have to make the transition from that style of football - both in terms of tactics and personnel - to something that we'll hopefully see in the future. We're certainly not there yet. Shit, even if Rodgers took over at Christmas last year, we'd have to have made a transition from Kenny's side to his. I'm making no claims about whether that's the right thing to do. We could be transitioning into relegation. I personally don't think we are, but who knows?

 

surely the logic of your argument is that the reason for us finishing

8th was primarily the tactics and not the signings.

 

As I've just explained, that's not my argument. My arguments are this: Firstly, Rodgers inherited a poor squad. Secondly, my previous argument is that he needs to make a transition - both in terms of tactics and players - to a style that's different to what we were playing in the second half (and the first for that matter) of last season. We need players who are able to handle the tactics. Joe Cole, Downing, Carroll, Adam, Gerrard (in my honest opinion), and others aren't able to play that type of football. They can do other things well, no doubt about it.

 

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.

 

Ingrained long-ball mentality? You're going to have to stop it, mate. I've said no such thing, just that we need to transition from one way of playing to another. That takes time. You're only pissed because you think it's a criticism of Kenny, which is, again, exactly what I've accused you of. It's not even a criticism of Kenny to say we played the ball long to Carroll in the second half of the season, especially the final third of it.

 

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.

 

You call it exaggerating, I call it an honest appraisal of what I think Rodgers is tasked with. I think you're underselling it to cover the issues we had under Kenny. After all, the problems you talk about are all seemingly dismissed by the chatter about Comolli buying Carroll or FSG asking for British signings. I'm not covering for Rodgers, just saying that he inherited a squad which - and this isn't opinion, it's fact - lost 11 and drew 4 of its last 10 games. That's three points from 14 of the last 19 games.

 

We're now in the position where we've paid £35m for West Ham to have a striker, £20m for a winger who does next to fuck all and who is quickly becoming worthless in resale, and we've had to sell others to get them out of the team in order to rebuild. Now, regardless of who is to blame - Kenny, FSG, Comolli, it doesn't matter - that's the position we're in and it's Rodgers who is having to pick up the pieces and put them back together. One thing is for sure, you can't have a successful team like this, and it's going to take time to fix.

 

We can argue the toss all week about how good the squad he inherited is, and I'm happy to do it because I believe my argument blows yours out of the water, but I'm not going to keep dragging over the Kenny situation unless it's directly relevant. It's not about getting at Kenny any more, it's about acknowledging the task Rodgers has. It's huge.

 

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.

 

Yeah, no shit it's a long way from my assessment of the squad. It's a huge massive ravine away because you've glossed over just about everything other than some fact omitting rhetoric.

 

Firstly, I don't agree we have good cover in every position in the back five. We have one borderline acceptable goalkeeper. We have one quality left back, who when injured has to have his position filled by Downing, or by moving the right back to left-back and getting a kid to fill in at right back. Right back is pretty much the same as left-back. We have a good, but always injured back-up.

 

So for all the 'one of the best Strikers in the world' chatter - and it's entirely true - there's another three spaces that need filling with top quality players to match the likes of: Mata, Hazard, Oscar, Torres; Aguero, Dzeko, Nasri, Tevez; Van Persie, Rooney, Kagawa, Nani; Walcott, Podolski, Giroud. That's without mentioning the other teams busing around there, like Spurs with Adebayor, Defoe, Bale, backed up in their system by Dempsey and Sigurdson. To say that Suarez, erm, erm, and erm, is going to 'easily challenge' those sides is wild, in my opinion. We're talking about squad, and a player doesn't make a squad. 11 world class players don't make a squad, and we're about 8-10 world class players away from that, depending on your definition.

 

Then you mention Lucas, Spearing and Gerrard. I don't even know where to start. Honestly, Spearing? We're 'easily' competing against teams with... Oh, fucking hell, do I really need to bother listing them? You pick your favourites and go with them. Gerrard isn't Gerrard. Not anymore. That's not a fault of Kenny - although you seem to think me saying the squad is poor is only a criticism of Kenny, rather than just a frank assessment of where we are - but it is true. He isn't getting any younger, and he isn't that player we used to look at for 15-20 goals a season, plus as many situations created (whether in terms of assist or not). At times, he has been part of the problem. One that needs solving in the summer.

 

Then there's Downing, who Rodgers has so much faith in that he's made him available for transfer, and has played him - our £20m attacking winger - as a fucking left-back as many or more times than he has as a winger. If your argument for having a good squad - or even a less bad squad than I'm saying - is Stewart '1 goal and assist in a season and a half' Downing, you're on the ropes.

 

But I think my favourite of your argument for 'why the squad is good' is that we have promising youngsters. Well, what you're seeing as a positive is one of the main indicators of how weak the squad is. If it was 2007/8/9, and Sterling and Sterling were coming through and playing the odd game from the bench, doing the odd bit of magic and showing they can break into the team over the next couple of years, I'd be right with you.

 

Unfortunately, that's not even close to what's happening in reality. In reality, and what's stopping us pushing on, is that we've spent £35m on a striker and £20m on a winger who are so fucking useless at scoring and creating goals that we have had to turn to the next best option. Unfortunately, the next best option isn't a couple of £10m players, it's two kids who have barely kicked a football in the Premier league and they've had to go from the youth/reserves straight into starting week in and week out. If that's an indicator of a strong squad, I'd like to know what a weak one looks like. Our squad is so good, so strong that we have no option to rely on raw youngsters with no experience as our main attacking threat. It's hardly surprising

 

But these 'strong points' you list, that I feel I've fairly convincingly quashed, are just the tip of the iceberg. We do have some good players. We have a smattering of quality, albeit a shade of what we had a few years ago under Rafa (which actually was good enough to be in the top four regularly). I don't deny we do have Suarez, Lucas, Agger, Skrtel, Johnson. Those are really good players.

 

The problem lies outside those five or six or seven or eight good players, and inside the 22-25 players needed of really good quality. We're light on quality in the first 11, let along the 22.

 

When you say 'easily challenge for top four', you really need to look at the level of squad the teams who are top 5 have. They don't have to play 17 and 18 year olds as their first choice in two of the three attacking positions. They don't have to play a 20 year old midfielder as a striker when their's gets injured or suspended. We're a mile away and the sooner we realise it the better it'll be. There's no surprise that this squad, which has gradually declined since 2009, has finished so far outside the top four for the last three years, and will likely do again this year. It's not because the 'squad is good', mate.

 

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.

 

In my opinion, you are MASSIVELY underestimating what's needed. Rodgers had enough time and money to fix the flaws which spending shit loads - tens upon tens of millions - hadn't solved. Wow.

 

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.

 

Well, I guess I'm just going to have to disagree again. I think it's significantly bigger than you're making out.

 

Anyway, I'm going to wish you a happen new year, I'm off down the local for 11 for a bit of couple. Back a bit later maybe. Possibly. Sorry for spelling and grammatical mistakes, I can't be arsed reading back.

[Baltar]

If loving B-Rod is wrong I don't wanna be right.

[J-V]

Holy wall of text. Due to the size I thought it was a RedShadow post for a minute had to double check for BOLD words

[Neil G]

Not had time to reply until now Hank.

 

 

I meant - and I'll clarify this as many times as you like - that you ignore it. You ignore it when it is used as corroborating evidence to make a wider point that you either don't agree with or feel uncomfortable with. You quite clearly ignore these criticisms in order to argue against the claims I make about the squad Rodgers inheriting being poor. Now, I'll admit that it's a subjective claim. Some people like Andy Carroll, Steward Downing, and other non-entities. I don't. You might not either, and I've made no claim either way on that.

 

 

Thanks for clarifying, because it certainly needed clarification.

 

I'm not ignoring anything. I have a different opinion from you on certain issues, that's all. Earlier in this thread you accused me and Anubis of treating something as unassailable fact when in reality it's a subjective opinion. You're doing the same thing here.

 

 

However, if the aim of football is to win football matches, rather than lose football matches, then I think I have a fairly strong case. If the aim of squad building is to fill your team with good quality, productive footballers that help in the objective of winning football matches, rather than poor, overly expensive, over-paid players who do little to win football matches, then I think I have a fairly strong case. If the aim is having a squad deep enough with quality that you can compete on more than one front at a time - not having to prioritise matches against Cardiff over league position and the future of the football club, for example - then I think I have a fairly strong case.

 

You can disagree all you like, but rather than a blanket disagreement, I've heard very little in the way of a solid argument suggesting that we've not got a mightily poor squad.

 

 

Your case is only strong if it's based purely on results and league position. The quality of the players isn't the only factor that determines this. Another key factor is the extent to which the manager gets the best out of the players at his disposal.

 

The results list and the league table don't say whether a manager left players on the bench who'd have done a better job than the players he picked, or whether he motivated the players to give their best over the entire league season, or whether he did sufficient work on individual and collective weaknesses which affected results over a sustained period.

 

Kenny didn't get the best out of the players at his disposal last season, for the reasons I've listed. That's a separate argument from talking about how good or bad the players he signed were.

 

I don't see how your point about the cups is relevant, unless you think fatigue in league games was an issue. We didn't pick weakened sides in the league because of our involvement in the cups, apart from the dead rubber against Fulham four days before the FA Cup final, which was perfectly reasonable.

 

 

This is essentially meaningless. I don't claim that you don't recognise faults or have criticisms. I claim that you ignore criticisms when somebody else is using them in an argument. Whether you actually agree with that criticisms seems of little importance to you.

 

 

It's not meaningless. When you claim for the second time that I can't handle or won't engage with any criticism of Kenny – not just the criticism which you put forward – I think it's pretty pertinent to point out that I've criticised him myself.

 

 

I didn't 'duck' out of anything. I dismissed it as nonsensical. To me, what with actually having seen it happen 'n all, it's as much of a waste of time as arguing the earth isn't flat or the moon isn't made of cheese. If you want to believe we didn't go more direct at the end of the season, that's up to you. I've no really problem with flat-earthers.

 

 

So in other words, you did exactly what you're accusing me of. You refused point blank to engage with an argument you disagreed with.

 

If you remember Hank, you were the first to introduce a statistic into that debate, not me. It was the one about the number of headers Carroll won compared to Skrtel and Agger. When I pointed out that this stat was meaningless and challenged you to produce something more relevant, you decided an evidence-based debate wasn't actually necessary after all.

 

I also gave you a list of games spread across the course of the second half of the season, which we both saw happen, in which I claimed we played good passing football that bore no resemblance to what you claimed to have seen. You didn't address this, claiming you had no need to. Who was ignoring arguments here?

 

Here's the list again, with the cup games added.

 

Oldham (FA Cup)

Man City away (League Cup)

Man City home (League Cup)

Wolves away

Spurs home

Brighton (FA Cup)

Arsenal home

Everton home

QPR away

Stoke (FA Cup)

Villa home

Everton (FA Cup)

West Brom home

Norwich away

Chelsea home

 

That's more than half of the games in all competitions that we played under Kenny in 2012. I want you to tell me in which of those games our primary tactic was long balls to Carroll and/or crosses from Downing. If the reality was as mind-blowingly obvious as you claim, your answer should be very brief.

 

 

I didn't. To both.

 

 

Then you're going to have to help me out, because I'm really struggling to understand exactly what you're accusing me of. As far as I can make out now, you're acknowledging that I have my own criticisms of Kenny, but that if anyone else makes any, I refuse to engage with them.

 

Have you considered the simpler and more likely alternative? That criticism which I consider valid I agree with, and criticism I don't consider valid I challenge? That's the conclusion that most posters would come to. However your position seems to be that if I reach a different conclusion from you, it must be because I haven't thought about the issue properly, and if only I did then I'd recognise that I was wrong and you were right all along.

 

 

We are, which I why I said - and then you quoted, so I'm surprised you've missed it - that it was any criticism of him or his signings. Not just his signings, but of him as a manager (I'm just going to go ahead and assume you're not accusing me of suggesting we should criticise him as a person, as I think he's pretty much beyond doubt on that front. This conversation would be over pretty quickly if you did.).

 

 

I don't see how this reply addresses the part of my post you've quoted.

 

You said I ignored / dismissed any criticism of Kenny or his signings. It's that word "any" that I have a problem with Hank, because it's the second time you've aimed it at me.

 

Your assumption in brackets is entirely correct, but I don't see why you've felt the need to include it. I'm not aware that I've said a single word to you in the past eight months that could be construed as suggesting you have problems with Kenny as a person.

 

 

Same here. I'm judging the entire squad inherited by Rodgers as weak. I don't ever remember claiming that it was the sole responsibility of Kenny that we have such a weak squad. Although, it's fairly telling that you instantly jump to Kenny's defence - talking only about Kenny's signings, rather than anybody else's - because it's what I'm accusing you of doing.

 

 

If I appear to you to be focusing on Kenny's signings, it's because I assumed that that was what you were doing. Kenny inherited a strong squad himself, good enough to make the top four if he'd taken charge with it at the beginning of the season. So to claim that the squad is now poor can only be a comment on the quality of the players he signed relative to the ones he let go.

 

You might disagree with my assessment of the squad that Kenny inherited. I'm more than happy to debate that as well if so, but I wasn't minded to set out my reasoning here as this post is long enough already.

 

 

I didn't read it, but I've no doubt you've problems with those signings. I'm not accusing you of being totally and utterly fucking mental, Neil, just that you lack objectivity when it comes to accepting the legacy inherited by Rodgers was a fucking poor one. You seem to be the guardian of Kenny's honour, or something.

 

 

Again, you're claiming I'm not objective when I just happen to disagree with you.

 

"Guardian of Kenny's honour" is going a bit far, but yes, I do feel the need to speak up for him when I see people like you making what I consider wildly inaccurate and misleading claims about his tenure – just like you do with Rodgers. All the more so since unlike Rodgers, Kenny isn't in a position to correct his mistakes and prove his critics wrong.

 

I've seen you get pretty indignant yourself about the unjust criticism that Rodgers gets, and Rafa as well for that matter, to the extent that you frequently dish out personal abuse. If you're going to see your arse over people twisting the truth about managers you rate, don't be surprised if others object to you doing the same with Kenny. Ditto when you call for Rodgers and his signings to be given time, after you were happy to pronounce Kenny's project dead after one bad half-season, and to write his signings off after one season.

 

For the record, I don't think your opinion of the squad strength is twisting things – it's a subjective opinion which we've agreed to disagree on. I do think phrases like "on the rocks" are massively exaggerating the problems with the squad however. And I certainly think your analysis of the way we played in the second half of last season, and how you claim it's affected our play and results this season, is blatantly untrue and constitutes unjust criticism of Kenny. This last point is really the crux of my current beef with you regarding Kenny.

 

 

I'm not making any statements about your opinions, much less sweeping ones. I'm making an observation on how you act. That's entirely different. If you want to get all bent out of shape about it, you're welcome to. I'm happy to discuss anything with you in a (fairly) civil way. I think I've been pretty specific about the issue, rather than making sweeping statements.

 

 

You'll have to excuse me for failing to spot the difference then. If my actions are those of someone who stubbornly refuses to engage with other people's criticisms of Kenny, then that must mean my own opinions are 100 per cent supportive of Kenny, doesn't it? How could it be otherwise?

 

I don't know how many more times I have to say it, but you most certainly have made sweeping statements about me. You've twice said that I can't take any – let me repeat the word, just in case you're not sure why I'm pursuing this line – any criticism of Kenny.

 

In what world is that not a sweeping statement?

 

You also levelled the same charge at Anubis, who has been nowhere near as animated as me in the defence of Kenny these past few months. To me this proves you're not interested in taking each person's posts on their merits. You're self-evidently on a mission to discredit the opinions of people who challenge your views on Kenny, and by extension on FSG. You have been ever since he was sacked.

 

It may be a subconscious thing that you don't even realise you're doing. It may be a reaction on your part to the unjust criticism of Rodgers that's coming from people who genuinely won't accept any of Kenny’s failings (yes, I do recognise that that's happening – I'm not as blinkered as you make out). I don't know what the reason is, but you're definitely doing it, and it makes a mockery of your calls for posters to be objective and fair on Rodgers, and to give him and his signings time. I completely agree with those calls, but at the same time I consider them rank hypocrisy on your part.

 

 

Well, I guess that's just something we're going to have to disagree about. I think it's obscene to say such a thing, actually. It's not important, though; you're entitled to your opinion on it. However, what is important to recognise is that, even if it was good enough to finish top four (and I want to stress how ludicrous I think that is...), the fact still remains that it isn't the squad

 

 

Unfinished sentence here? I'm guessing you were going to say it isn't the squad that Rodgers inherited, as several attacking players left which was beyond his control. I'll deal with that further down.

 

"Obscene" is a rather dramatic adjective. I've already listed the reasons why I think the squad underperformed and was good enough for top four, which you still haven't addressed.

 

 

The squad didn't show top four form. Ever. Top four isn't about what you do in December or January. Fucking hell, we're talking about football squads here, mate. The need for a squad is so that when the games come thick and fast at the business end of the season, you can compete in more than one competition at a time. Skirting around the top six in January and February isn't top four form in any more of a real way than our form was when we were only a few points away from fourth this season. The squad was too poor to get anywhere near fourth. That's why it didn't. The squad is too poor for fourth now, too. That's why we won't. Not unless something dramatic happens anyway.

 

This strange reality you've built for yourself - that the squad was good enough for fourth in the first half - is as bizarre as it is meaningless. West Brom aren't good enough for fourth, regardless of what their 'form' has been like the first half of the season. It's a false reality that you're building up here, in my opinion.

 

 

You've brought up the West Brom analogy several times, but it's a false comparison. Our squad last season wasn't a bunch of plucky triers performing above themselves for a while before sinking back to their natural level. It was the opposite, a team performing at a level that should be expected of it for half a season, before falling away due to underperformance, much of it resulting from the manager's mistakes.

 

 

Woah, woah, woah. I'm going to have to stop you here. I don't think I've ever said, suggested or insinuated that the reason the results suffered is because we went more direct. Going more direct isn't necessarily an insult. It's just what happened. Rodgers does have to make the transition from that style of football - both in terms of tactics and personnel - to something that we'll hopefully see in the future. We're certainly not there yet. Shit, even if Rodgers took over at Christmas last year, we'd have to have made a transition from Kenny's side to his. I'm making no claims about whether that's the right thing to do. We could be transitioning into relegation. I personally don't think we are, but who knows?

 

 

As I've just explained, that's not my argument. My arguments are this: Firstly, Rodgers inherited a poor squad. Secondly, my previous argument is that he needs to make a transition - both in terms of tactics and players - to a style that's different to what we were playing in the second half (and the first for that matter) of last season. We need players who are able to handle the tactics. Joe Cole, Downing, Carroll, Adam, Gerrard (in my honest opinion), and others aren't able to play that type of football. They can do other things well, no doubt about it.

 

 

Ingrained long-ball mentality? You're going to have to stop it, mate. I've said no such thing, just that we need to transition from one way of playing to another. That takes time. You're only pissed because you think it's a criticism of Kenny, which is, again, exactly what I've accused you of. It's not even a criticism of Kenny to say we played the ball long to Carroll in the second half of the season, especially the final third of it.

 

 

Not a criticism? Do you have selective amnesia about your own posts?

 

You've posted previously that in the second half of last season our performances were poor, we lacked penetration, and that our football was predictable, old-fashioned and ineffective. You linked all of this in with our style of play, which you characterised as a hybrid of Blackburn circa 1992 and Wimbledon circa 1988. And then you claimed that the need to move away from this style of play, which the players had become used to, was partly responsible for our poor results under Rodgers. That's criticism, whatever way you try and dress it up. Don't try to back out of it now mate, and don't accuse me of being over-sensitive and seeing things, because it's all there in your own words.

 

Criticise Kenny all you like for his poor signings and the poor results last season, but don't attribute non-existent mistakes to him and then blame them for non-existent issues with our play this season. Not when he himself was able to resolve the same issues that you're talking about very quickly when he took over from Hodgson, when they were actually real.

 

 

You call it exaggerating, I call it an honest appraisal of what I think Rodgers is tasked with. I think you're underselling it to cover the issues we had under Kenny. After all, the problems you talk about are all seemingly dismissed by the chatter about Comolli buying Carroll or FSG asking for British signings. I'm not covering for Rodgers, just saying that he inherited a squad which - and this isn't opinion, it's fact - lost 11 and drew 4 of its last 10 games. That's three points from 14 of the last 19 games.

 

 

I haven't said a word about FSG insisting on British signings, no idea why you've mentioned it in relation to my argument. I don't believe that was the case at all.

 

I've already said that Kenny shouldn't be blamed for the Carroll fee, or even necessarily the signing itself, when for all we know he might have preferred to keep Torres but didn't have the final say on it. Or, possibly, he was told he couldn't sign Suarez unless we got the money for Torres, and chose to go with the striker who wanted to play for us over the one who didn't. Yes, he said he told Comolli to get Carroll, but if the alternative was signing nobody and banking the Torres money for the summer when he didn't even know if he'd still be manager, that puts a very different complexion on that statement. I think all that's fair comment given that his critics, including you, consistently bring up the Carroll fee, and the total amount spent under his tenure, when discussing his transfer record.

 

See above for my response to the poor results line. Results over half a season are not always a reliable indicator of a squad's quality. If they were, then Kenny inherited a side that wasn't good enough for the top half of the table, let alone qualification for Europe.

 

 

We're now in the position where we've paid £35m for West Ham to have a striker, £20m for a winger who does next to fuck all and who is quickly becoming worthless in resale, and we've had to sell others to get them out of the team in order to rebuild. Now, regardless of who is to blame - Kenny, FSG, Comolli, it doesn't matter - that's the position we're in and it's Rodgers who is having to pick up the pieces and put them back together. One thing is for sure, you can't have a successful team like this, and it's going to take time to fix.

 

We can argue the toss all week about how good the squad he inherited is, and I'm happy to do it because I believe my argument blows yours out of the water, but I'm not going to keep dragging over the Kenny situation unless it's directly relevant. It's not about getting at Kenny any more, it's about acknowledging the task Rodgers has. It's huge.

 

 

Yeah, no shit it's a long way from my assessment of the squad. It's a huge massive ravine away because you've glossed over just about everything other than some fact omitting rhetoric.

 

 

Fine, let's have that debate.

 

To clarify, I'm not saying the squad Rodgers inherited was good enough for top four, but it was good enough to be brought up to that level with one decent summer transfer kitty, which he got. In other words, good enough to achieve the target expected of Rodgers with the resources made available to him.

 

 

Firstly, I don't agree we have good cover in every position in the back five. We have one borderline acceptable goalkeeper. We have one quality left back, who when injured has to have his position filled by Downing, or by moving the right back to left-back and getting a kid to fill in at right back. Right back is pretty much the same as left-back. We have a good, but always injured back-up.

 

 

Brad Jones has mostly done fine when he's come in this season, and has been deemed good enough by Rodgers to get a new contract. With him and Gulacsi, that's as much depth in goal as most teams going for fourth place have. If we need more experienced goalkeeping cover then it's hardly going to break the bank to address it.

 

Downing doesn't have to deputise at left back at all. Nothing wrong with having Johnson at left back, he's excelled there before. And we've got two quality youngsters to cover in Robinson and Wisdom, who are both good enough to fill in when required.

 

 

So for all the 'one of the best Strikers in the world' chatter - and it's entirely true - there's another three spaces that need filling with top quality players to match the likes of: Mata, Hazard, Oscar, Torres; Aguero, Dzeko, Nasri, Tevez; Van Persie, Rooney, Kagawa, Nani; Walcott, Podolski, Giroud. That's without mentioning the other teams busing around there, like Spurs with Adebayor, Defoe, Bale, backed up in their system by Dempsey and Sigurdson. To say that Suarez, erm, erm, and erm, is going to 'easily challenge' those sides is wild, in my opinion. We're talking about squad, and a player doesn't make a squad. 11 world class players don't make a squad, and we're about 8-10 world class players away from that, depending on your definition.

 

 

Why are you comparing our attacking options with those of United, City and Chelsea? I haven't said a thing about the squad being good enough to challenge them for the title. I've only ever been talking about getting into the top four.

 

Our attacking options – and I include Gerrard in there, because that's where he should be playing – would have matched those of Arsenal, Spurs and the other teams going for fourth if FSG had done what they should have done and given Rodgers enough money to address that area properly in the summer, as they are belatedly now. Or, alternatively, if Rodgers had spent the £15m for Joe Allen on another goalscorer instead. I like Allen, I think he could be an excellent player for us, but he was a signing of choice and not necessity. He didn't address a desperate need in the squad, and it wasn't as if other clubs were queueing up for his signature meaning we needed to get in there quickly.

 

 

Then you mention Lucas, Spearing and Gerrard. I don't even know where to start. Honestly, Spearing? We're 'easily' competing against teams with... Oh, fucking hell, do I really need to bother listing them? You pick your favourites and go with them. Gerrard isn't Gerrard. Not anymore. That's not a fault of Kenny - although you seem to think me saying the squad is poor is only a criticism of Kenny, rather than just a frank assessment of where we are - but it is true. He isn't getting any younger, and he isn't that player we used to look at for 15-20 goals a season, plus as many situations created (whether in terms of assist or not). At times, he has been part of the problem. One that needs solving in the summer.

 

 

Spearing is good enough to play in our midfield alongside a partner who imposes themself on the game, whether as a ballwinner or a playmaker. His limitations were exposed last season alongside Henderson or Adam, neither of whom did that, but I would be more than happy to see him playing alongside one or two of Lucas (already done it, with great success), Allen, Sahin, Gerrard or even Shelvey. He's a useful member of a team when surrounded by good players, not someone who I'd expect us to look to make things happen himself. He'd certainly put a bit more bite into our midfield, which we've been lacking.

 

Gerrard hasn't been Gerrard for the last three years because he hasn't had the chance to play in his best position, when fit, in a team that's confident and playing well. The team was dying on its arse for most of Rafa's last season, while Hodgson was in charge, and last season under Kenny by the time Gerrard was back to full fitness. And as for him not getting 15-20 goals a season, well of course he fucking isn't if Rodgers is going to keep playing him deep where his attacking strengths are wasted.

 

I also mentioned the various other players which I didn't name. Henderson is making a valuable contribution to the team this season, and Shelvey has shown he can make a difference in games as well. I had Charlie Adam in mind as well, but I know you disagree about his worth to his squad. Personally I thought that for the money we paid for him, he did a good job until Lucas was injured and then the whole team started to play poorly shortly after.

 

 

Then there's Downing, who Rodgers has so much faith in that he's made him available for transfer, and has played him - our £20m attacking winger - as a fucking left-back as many or more times than he has as a winger. If your argument for having a good squad - or even a less bad squad than I'm saying - is Stewart '1 goal and assist in a season and a half' Downing, you're on the ropes.

 

 

Yes Hank, that's right. Because Stewart Downing is in the squad, that means we have a good squad. That's all the evidence I need to present. Because that’s exactly what I'm saying, isn't it?

 

(I typed that sentence in the style you use when someone has completely misrepresented one of your posts. Hope I got it right.)

 

Rodgers has said that since he put Downing up for sale, Downing's reaction has been excellent and that he has a future here if he keeps up this level of performance. For someone who started a thread on "what Brendan said", I thought you might keep more up to date with his pronouncements. Unless you think Rodgers was lying, but you invariably insist that we take his words at face value, so I'm happy to do so in this case.

 

 

But I think my favourite of your argument for 'why the squad is good' is that we have promising youngsters. Well, what you're seeing as a positive is one of the main indicators of how weak the squad is. If it was 2007/8/9, and Sterling and Sterling were coming through and playing the odd game from the bench, doing the odd bit of magic and showing they can break into the team over the next couple of years, I'd be right with you.

 

Unfortunately, that's not even close to what's happening in reality. In reality, and what's stopping us pushing on, is that we've spent £35m on a striker and £20m on a winger who are so fucking useless at scoring and creating goals that we have had to turn to the next best option. Unfortunately, the next best option isn't a couple of £10m players, it's two kids who have barely kicked a football in the Premier league and they've had to go from the youth/reserves straight into starting week in and week out. If that's an indicator of a strong squad, I'd like to know what a weak one looks like. Our squad is so good, so strong that we have no option to rely on raw youngsters with no experience as our main attacking threat. It's hardly surprising

 

 

Sterling and Suso wouldn't have needed to play so frequently if Rodgers had addressed the attacking options as a priority, or if FSG had given him the January money in the summer, or if he'd played Gerrard in his best position. To be fair he's also been unfortunate with the injuries to Borini and Assaidi.

 

Sterling, Suso, Wisdom and Robinson have all shown they're good enough to come into the first team and deputise adequately when the first choice player is out. That's what you need from your squad players, and if they can do that then it doesn't matter whether they're 17, 27 or 37.

 

 

But these 'strong points' you list, that I feel I've fairly convincingly quashed, are just the tip of the iceberg. We do have some good players. We have a smattering of quality, albeit a shade of what we had a few years ago under Rafa (which actually was good enough to be in the top four regularly). I don't deny we do have Suarez, Lucas, Agger, Skrtel, Johnson. Those are really good players.

 

The problem lies outside those five or six or seven or eight good players, and inside the 22-25 players needed of really good quality. We're light on quality in the first 11, let along the 22.

 

When you say 'easily challenge for top four', you really need to look at the level of squad the teams who are top 5 have. They don't have to play 17 and 18 year olds as their first choice in two of the three attacking positions. They don't have to play a 20 year old midfielder as a striker when their's gets injured or suspended. We're a mile away and the sooner we realise it the better it'll be. There's no surprise that this squad, which has gradually declined since 2009, has finished so far outside the top four for the last three years, and will likely do again this year. It's not because the 'squad is good', mate.

 

 

You haven't quashed my argument at all, convincingly or otherwise. To quash an argument you need to engage with it fully, which you haven't done.

 

Clearly the squad isn't as good as it was in 2009, but in each season since then it's been capable of finishing in a higher league position than it did. Rafa reverted to cautious type in his final season, and eventually the players looked utterly miserable playing for him. Hodgson's half-season is self-explanatory. And I've already put my case about Kenny last season.

 

I think your fixation with league position as the indicator of squad quality is simplistic and misleading. Again, I'll invite you to have a debate on the failure of the manager(s) to get the most out of the players at their disposal, which is something I don't ever recall you doing when it comes to Kenny.

 

 

In my opinion, you are MASSIVELY underestimating what's needed. Rodgers had enough time and money to fix the flaws which spending shit loads - tens upon tens of millions - hadn't solved. Wow.

 

 

I'm not talking about "fixing it" in terms of making us competitive for the title – that's a debate for another time. To reiterate, I'm talking about the squad being good enough to make top four if this season's transfer kitty was spent properly. I've already said the squad was good enough last season, and on that basis, I contend that three months and £30m in the summer was enough time and money to replace the 12 league goals scored last season by Maxi, Kuyt and Bellamy, and to add the rest on top that we should have scored / that we need to get into the top four, whichever you think is applicable.

 

By the way, your "4 out of 6 top scorers lost" mantra doesn't look quite such a slam dunk when you look at how few goals the three he couldn't keep actually scored. Plus the fourth, who he could have kept, was according to you one of the worst players ever to play for us, and we're better off without him.

 

Just because Kenny, and indeed Rafa and Hodgson before him, wasted shedloads of money, doesn't mean the problem requires shedloads of money to fix. We just need to be smarter in the transfer market, something we haven't been for most of the last five years now. The bar hasn't exactly been set high during that period.

 

 

Well, I guess I'm just going to have to disagree again. I think it's significantly bigger than you're making out.

 

Anyway, I'm going to wish you a happen new year, I'm off down the local for 11 for a bit of couple. Back a bit later maybe. Possibly. Sorry for spelling and grammatical mistakes, I can't be arsed reading back.

 

 

It looked fine to me. Belated happy new year to you too.

[The Golden Eel]

Holy fuck!

[Neil G]

I know, I'm exhausted after that. That's the longest post I've made since the marathon religion argument on the GF about five years ago.

[Guest LFD]

Haha, good luck with answering that Hank!

[TheHowieLama]

Lets get a couple quick posts up to flip the page here.

[Liquid football]

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

I'm not ignoring anything. I have a different opinion from you on certain issues, that's all.

 

As I said in my previous post, I don't think that's the case. I think you deliberately ignore or dismiss evidence when it's presented as part of an argument you don't want to accept, simply because it reflects badly on Kenny's legacy. You seem to have a real issue with me pointing out the team he left behind, but in another breath concede he bought badly.

 

Still, it doesn't really matter. I just wanted to clarify what I meant by it. Rather than you continually using one line of my argument, I wanted to be totally clear. I'll probably elaborate further, as you've done the same thing several times in your reply.

 

Earlier in this thread you accused me and Anubis of treating something as unassailable fact when in reality it's a subjective opinion. You're doing the same thing here.

 

Considering you've just quoted me saying ''I'll admit that it's a subjective claim' just a few inches above the bolded sentence, I think you're going to have a hard job making a credible case on that one, mate. Again, it doesn't really matter and it's certainly not relevant to the subject at hand. A subject I feel is getting a little lost.

 

Your case is only strong if it's based purely on results and league position.

 

Surely, if you read this back in the coming days, you'll be able to see how flippant and dismissive that sounds. It's as silly as dismissing an argument that Heskey isn't a good striker because it's only based on goals and assists. Erm, well, yeah: just like goals to a striker, results and league position are a fairly solid way to judge the quality and performance of a squad. It's not just a one-off, either; we've had three straight seasons of lower than acceptable finishes and, baring a miracle, is heading the same way again. If you take a squad which finished 7th and 6th in previous seasons, spend amounts which are unprecedented at this club, and then finish 8th, it's a solid indicating trend to show the squad isn't good enough.

 

We're not talking about the side Rafa took to 7th after finishing top four year on year, as well as challenging for titles the year before and reaching European Cup finals the year before that. We're talking about three seasons now, and a fourth on the horizon. Something's wrong with the squad, both in terms of quality and in depth. Now, as I keep saying, it's subjective and some might think Spearing or Carroll, or whomever else, are terrific. That's their opinion and, no matter how bonkers, it's their right. I just think, as is my right, that it's easy to break it down player-by-player and make a very strong argument why that's not the case. I certainly don't think pointing to a few odd positive bits is a strong case that we've got a good squad.

 

The quality of the players isn't the only factor that determines this. Another key factor is the extent to which the manager gets the best out of the players at his disposal.

 

The results list and the league table don't say whether a manager left players on the bench who'd have done a better job than the players he picked, or whether he motivated the players to give their best over the entire league season, or whether he did sufficient work on individual and collective weaknesses which affected results over a sustained period.

 

Kenny didn't get the best out of the players at his disposal last season, for the reasons I've listed. That's a separate argument from talking about how good or bad the players he signed were.

 

Sure, I’ll concede there are additional ways to judge the quality of a squad; none that cover up the most important aspects, though. Just in the same way as a striker’s ability to hold up the ball doesn’t cover for him not scoring. If it was a case that we had a good enough squad, but Kenny still finished 8th, then other questions arise.

 

It seems to me that you're actually blaming Kenny's management for our issues last season. If you're, as you appear to be, saying that it was his poor tactics and/or team choices and/or man-management which were a/the major factor in the underperformance of the side, it's quite something. You jumped straight in on the day he was sacked with the 'FSG go fuck yourselves' thread, and have beaten the 'FSG are ignorant' drum ever since. Surely you'd have to admit that, if you believed it was Kenny and not the lack of squad quality, that he put himself in that position.

 

Personally, I don't believe that it was all Kenny's tactics/man-management/team choices. It wasn't the major factor in the reason we had an issue last season. It was terrible waste and poor player procurement which was the major problem for Kenny in the end. I accept other influences, but the major one was poor player purchasing adding to a poor set of playing staff. Had we got [insert names of similar priced but vastly better quality players] instead of Carroll, Downing, Henderson, and Adam, we'd have done better on the pitch. We'd have had more goals, more assists, and a better league position because of it. We didn't lose because we left quality 'we'd be winning if they were playing' stars on the bench (I can show the players we put on the bench, if you'd like?), we finished 8th because Downing and Carroll, at £55m, scored four goals between them. Had we got better players, we'd have done better. Again, it's just another indicator of a poor squad.

 

It's not meaningless. When you claim for the second time that I can't handle or won't engage with any criticism of Kenny – not just the criticism which you put forward – I think it's pretty pertinent to point out that I've criticised him myself.

 

Again (and again, and again...), I'm saying "I don't claim that you don't recognise faults or have criticisms. I claim that you ignore criticisms when somebody else is using them in an argument. Whether you actually agree with that criticisms seems of little importance to you" and that "you ignore it when it is used as corroborating evidence to make a wider point that you either don't agree with or feel uncomfortable with". I think I've clarified it pretty clearly. You keep asserting that I'm saying that you 'reject' or 'won't engage' with any criticism. I'm not, I'm saying you ignore any criticism when it's relevant to an argument you're trying to gloss over. I don't think I can keep going over this same ground after I've clarified what I meant so many times.

 

In one breath you're saying Kenny bought badly, in the next you're saying he left a 'good' squad and it's just that he was 'largely to blame' for our performances, not the players. It's pretty inconsistent, especially when you add in your protestation at the way he was sacked. He either had a quality squad and his position rightly up for questioning, or the team wasn't good enough. It's a fine line to tread that he had a squad that was 'easily' good enough for fourth, wasted shit loads of money on average players, but also didn't deserve to have his position called into question.

 

So in other words, you did exactly what you're accusing me of. You refused point blank to engage with an argument you disagreed with.

 

If you remember Hank, you were the first to introduce a statistic into that debate, not me. It was the one about the number of headers Carroll won compared to Skrtel and Agger. When I pointed out that this stat was meaningless and challenged you to produce something more relevant, you decided an evidence-based debate wasn't actually necessary after all.

 

I also gave you a list of games spread across the course of the second half of the season, which we both saw happen, in which I claimed we played good passing football that bore no resemblance to what you claimed to have seen. You didn't address this, claiming you had no need to. Who was ignoring arguments here?

 

Here's the list again, with the cup games added.

 

That's more than half of the games in all competitions that we played under Kenny in 2012. I want you to tell me in which of those games our primary tactic was long balls to Carroll and/or crosses from Downing. If the reality was as mind-blowingly obvious as you claim, your answer should be very brief.

 

I'm not arguing that the earth is round. Again, I think I've been pretty clear on that. No matter how many times a flat earther told me I was ducking an argument, I'd have no intention of arguing with them. If you genuinely think that we didn't go more direct, with Carroll flicking the ball on, repeatedly, then I guess that's fine with me.

 

As for transitions, well, we're nowhere even close to a successful transition yet, but it'll take time and players. This 'ingrained mentality' you falsely presented as my argument, though, is nothing to do with me.

 

Then you're going to have to help me out, because I'm really struggling to understand exactly what you're accusing me of. As far as I can make out now, you're acknowledging that I have my own criticisms of Kenny, but that if anyone else makes any, I refuse to engage with them.

 

Have you considered the simpler and more likely alternative? That criticism which I consider valid I agree with, and criticism I don't consider valid I challenge? That's the conclusion that most posters would come to. However your position seems to be that if I reach a different conclusion from you, it must be because I haven't thought about the issue properly, and if only I did then I'd recognise that I was wrong and you were right all along.

 

Yes, I can see how it can be confusing. I've only repeated it. Again and again. And again. Then a few more times.

 

I don't see how this reply addresses the part of my post you've quoted.

 

You said I ignored / dismissed any criticism of Kenny or his signings. It's that word "any" that I have a problem with Hank, because it's the second time you've aimed it at me.

 

Fucking hell, Neil. I'm getting a little pissed here, mate. I respect you as a poster and a fellow fan, but I've said it enough times for the meaning to be clear. This is what I said, then later clarified. This really is the last time I'm going to post it.

 

You said that I had 'form for exaggerating the problems Rodgers inherited from Kenny', to which I replied '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?'. Now, you had a problem with that, so I clarified several times what I meant. "I don't claim that you don't recognise faults or have criticisms. I claim that you ignore criticisms when somebody else is using them in an argument. Whether you actually agree with that criticisms seems of little importance to you" and that "you ignore it when it is used as corroborating evidence to make a wider point that you either don't agree with or feel uncomfortable with"."

 

I don't think you reject certain criticisms. I've accepted many times that you have criticised certain parts of Kenny's tenure - like his signings, for example. I'm saying when I've made an argument that Rodgers has inherited a very poor squad from Kenny, or that we need to make a transition from the way we were playing under Kenny (and the strengths of the players he left behind) and that it'll take time to do that, you say that I'm exaggerating and ignore the criticisms - ANY corroborating criticism, even if you've made it yourself - which back it up. That's why I said 'I could go into why', because obviously a major reason why Rodgers inherited a poor squad is because some of the signings Kenny made.

 

If you accept the argument that he bought players who were poor, adding them to an already poor side which finished 7th and 6th in previous seasons, then it takes a staggering display of wilful ignorance - hence my 'falling on deaf ears' comment - for you to deny the importance of those things in my argument that Rodgers inherited a poor squad.

 

If I appear to you to be focusing on Kenny's signings, it's because I assumed that that was what you were doing. Kenny inherited a strong squad himself, good enough to make the top four if he'd taken charge with it at the beginning of the season. So to claim that the squad is now poor can only be a comment on the quality of the players he signed relative to the ones he let go.

 

You might disagree with my assessment of the squad that Kenny inherited. I'm more than happy to debate that as well if so, but I wasn't minded to set out my reasoning here as this post is long enough already.

 

I do disagree that Kenny inherited a good squad. The difference between him and Rodgers is that he has yet to spent the sort of money on incoming players. If the squad is still in as bad a shape as he found it - if not worse, and less financially stable - then I'm afraid I'll offer the same reasoning to the next man to take the job.

 

Personally, I have faith in Rodgers to get it right; I believe in his vision going forward. That's a judgement call, and it might be wrong. I might well have been sold something by somebody nothing more than a talented blaggard and he might be a total pretender. I just don't think he is. Given that I think he inherited a squad with many costly, overpaid, under-commited, below par players, and a team which lost 11 and drew 4 of the 19 games directly before he took over, and that he's got the makings of a quality manager, it's only natural that I want to see him given the money to mend the damage done by successive managers.

 

Again, you're claiming I'm not objective when I just happen to disagree with you.

 

I'm claiming you're not objective because I don't think you're objective. Nothing more. Given your outrage at his sacking and that you've just said 'I do feel the need to speak up for him', I think I've got a decent case. It's not a criticism, btw; sticking up for Kenny is fine. Claiming I'm all sorts of things because you don't want to declare your bias, however, is something I'm going to take issue with.

 

"Guardian of Kenny's honour" is going a bit far, but yes, I do feel the need to speak up for him when I see people like you making what I consider wildly inaccurate and misleading claims about his tenure – just like you do with Rodgers. All the more so since unlike Rodgers, Kenny isn't in a position to correct his mistakes and prove his critics wrong.

 

Now the validity and accuracy of my claims are what we should be debating, not going back and quoting ourselves about who said what. I think what I'm saying is accurate, given what I've seen, but we can debate it. You calling it wild (and, indeed, me calling it accurate) doesn't make it any more so.

 

I've seen you get pretty indignant yourself about the unjust criticism that Rodgers gets, and Rafa as well for that matter, to the extent that you frequently dish out personal abuse. If you're going to see your arse over people twisting the truth about managers you rate, don't be surprised if others object to you doing the same with Kenny. Ditto when you call for Rodgers and his signings to be given time, after you were happy to pronounce Kenny's project dead after one bad half-season, and to write his signings off after one season.

 

Truth? I don't often use that word. It's arrogant to proclaim to know what truth is. I just have opinions and evidence to back them up. My stance on Rodgers is in no way hypocritical. I expect exactly the same of him as I did Kenny: improvement relative to situation and expenditure. As I said, though; their tasks and resources are different.

 

Oh, and I didn't write Kenny's project off after a bad half-season. I wrote it off after what I consider to be egregious wastes of money, stupid purchases on players who weren't worth a fraction of what we paid, and losing faith in what he wanted to do going forward. To be honest, the results didn't bother me that much. They bothered me, but it wasn't a scratch compared to the missed opportunities. I never called for Kenny's head, I just stopped believing his vision for the future was the right one. It wasn't even a conscious choice.

 

The same is true of the signings Rodgers has made. If Sturridge, despite costing just over a third of Carroll, only scores 4 goals in the league going into the 14/15 season, then I'm going to write him off as a bad purchase. I'm just going to go out and do it. If he gets a £20m, 27 year old winger who has been pretty mediocre his entire career, but he scores none and creates none in an entire season. Fuck it, I'm going to say it was a tragic waste of money. Then I'm going to say that the next guy needs time and money to fix the problems he inherited.

 

For the record, I don't think your opinion of the squad strength is twisting things – it's a subjective opinion which we've agreed to disagree on. I do think phrases like "on the rocks" are massively exaggerating the problems with the squad however.

 

That's your opinion and I accept it. I totally disagree with it, and think it's utterly bizarre and unfounded, but I accept it. I also think it's necessary to ignore the lack of quality of many players, including Kenny's signings, to come out with that conclusion.

 

And I certainly think your analysis of the way we played in the second half of last season, and how you claim it's affected our play and results this season, is blatantly untrue and constitutes unjust criticism of Kenny. This last point is really the crux of my current beef with you regarding Kenny.

 

So it's not even my 'on the rocks' comment that has set you off, you're still bitter about what I said about the way we played? Well, if you show me exactly what I said about it impacting our results this season (which, I'd wager, isn't much), I'll happily take up the debate.

 

I said he needs time to make a transition. I don't think that's remotely controversial. He'd have needed time to make the transition regardless of when he took over, even if it had been at Christmas. I don't remember saying that impacts our results, although I am willing to say that it has some impact. Defending in the way he wants requires the right players, time, and practice. We haven't perfected it yet, and we might not even have the right players yet, but we have improved with practice. Our passing in the defensive third has been really quite good lately.

 

 

You'll have to excuse me for failing to spot the difference then. If my actions are those of someone who stubbornly refuses to engage with other people's criticisms of Kenny, then that must mean my own opinions are 100 per cent supportive of Kenny, doesn't it? How could it be otherwise?

 

I don't know how many more times I have to say it, but you most certainly have made sweeping statements about me. You've twice said that I can't take any – let me repeat the word, just in case you're not sure why I'm pursuing this line – any criticism of Kenny.

 

In what world is that not a sweeping statement?

 

Can't go through it again. I've been incredibly specific about this, and posted about it several times in this post alone.

 

You also levelled the same charge at Anubis, who has been nowhere near as animated as me in the defence of Kenny these past few months. To me this proves you're not interested in taking each person's posts on their merits. You're self-evidently on a mission to discredit the opinions of people who challenge your views on Kenny, and by extension on FSG. You have been ever since he was sacked.

 

It may be a subconscious thing that you don't even realise you're doing. It may be a reaction on your part to the unjust criticism of Rodgers that's coming from people who genuinely won't accept any of Kenny’s failings (yes, I do recognise that that's happening – I'm not as blinkered as you make out). I don't know what the reason is, but you're definitely doing it, and it makes a mockery of your calls for posters to be objective and fair on Rodgers, and to give him and his signings time. I completely agree with those calls, but at the same time I consider them rank hypocrisy on your part.

 

What utter garbage. As made up as your 'ingrained long ball mentality' fantasy.

 

Unfinished sentence here? I'm guessing you were going to say it isn't the squad that Rodgers inherited, as several attacking players left which was beyond his control. I'll deal with that further down.

 

"Obscene" is a rather dramatic adjective. I've already listed the reasons why I think the squad underperformed and was good enough for top four, which you still haven't addressed.

 

I've addressed the shit out of them! I'm not sure quite what more I can say about why I think your summary of our squad and the reasons you give are nonsensical. I don't mind you saying what I've written is rubbish, but pretending I've not talked about them at length is a bit strange.

 

You've brought up the West Brom analogy several times, but it's a false comparison.

 

Our squad last season wasn't a bunch of plucky triers performing above themselves for a while before sinking back to their natural level. It was the opposite, a team performing at a level that should be expected of it for half a season, before falling away due to underperformance, much of it resulting from the manager's mistakes.

 

Not only is it a false comparison, it's not even a comparison. I'm not comparing anything, I'm saying you don't judge a team by where they are at Christmas. I used West Brom as an example of this, but I can pick out any side you like from a season in the last 20 years.

 

 

Not a criticism? Do you have selective amnesia about your own posts?

 

You've posted previously that in the second half of last season our performances were poor, we lacked penetration, and that our football was predictable, old-fashioned and ineffective.

 

No, you're conflating the two things. My saying that we 'lacked penetration, we were predictable, old-fashioned and ineffective' wasn't something I said about when we were losing most games in the second half of the season or playing more direct football. They're criticisms I've made of the team in the first half of the season when we were apparently playing 'brilliantly'.

 

You linked all of this in with our style of play, which you characterised as a hybrid of Blackburn circa 1992 and Wimbledon circa 1988. And then you claimed that the need to move away from this style of play, which the players had become used to, was partly responsible for our poor results under Rodgers. That's criticism, whatever way you try and dress it up. Don't try to back out of it now mate, and don't accuse me of being over-sensitive and seeing things, because it's all there in your own words.

 

I didn't link those things with the style of play, because those criticism weren't aimed at the second half of the season. Blackburn is how I saw Kenny's vision for us and how we were playing in the first half of the season. We were an old-fashioned side in the first half of the season, and we do need to move away from that. But it'll take players and it'll take time. That's got nothing to do with how we played in the second half of the season, though.

 

I don't ever remember saying Kenny's style of play was responsible for poor results under Rodgers. I'm saying the transition from one to the other takes time, comes with pitfalls, and will require better players. You're confusing the two issues, and then applying them to each other. No wonder you're getting all bent out of shape.

 

As for backing out of things, I've no intention of doing so. I'll stand by what I've actually said, not what you've extrapolated and made-up in your head. I'm not going to defend things I've not said, just because you're accusing me of it.

 

Criticise Kenny all you like for his poor signings and the poor results last season, but don't attribute non-existent mistakes to him and then blame them for non-existent issues with our play this season.

 

What the flying fuck are you going on about here? Can you expand on this, because I don't know what you're going on about.

 

Not when he himself was able to resolve the same issues that you're talking about very quickly when he took over from Hodgson, when they were actually real.

 

How did Kenny resolve these issues? Maxi and Meireles had a lot to do with it, maybe Rodgers should play those two. Oh, wait. Those two, along with a £24m signing made his job a little easier in the transition from Hodgball. Had Rodgers - or any manager trying to take the team in the same direction - taken over the summer Kenny was given the job full-time, the transition would have been less than now. Mainly because he doesn't have to get away from the likes of Carroll, Downing and Adam, who are all built for a different way of playing football. Whether that's the right way or the wrong way (I personally believe it's the wrong way) is up for debate.

 

See above for my response to the poor results line. Results over half a season are not always a reliable indicator of a squad's quality.

 

*facepalm*

 

The wheels are coming off your wagon pretty quickly, mate. You based your argument that the squad inherited by Rodgers was good because they challenge for top four for the first half of the season. Now you're saying it's not a reliable indicator of quality. [insert something yiddish sounding]

 

 

Fine, let's have that debate.

 

To clarify, I'm not saying the squad Rodgers inherited was good enough for top four, but it was good enough to be brought up to that level with one decent summer transfer kitty, which he got. In other words, good enough to achieve the target expected of Rodgers with the resources made available to him.

 

Another wheel comes off. He got two major signings, Neil. One of them played five games before getting injured. If you think that's enough, you've gone crackers in the head. Seriously, you seem to think he had enough funds to rebuild what was left to him. I absolutely don't accept that. He had many players outgoing, some because they wanted to leave and some because they quite clearly weren't up to the task of playing the way he wants to eventually play. Two players don't rebuild a squad. If we had Sturridge in the summer, plus a fit Borini, maybe an outside push for top four would have a reasonable request. Shit, we might still manage it.

 

Brad Jones has mostly done fine when he's come in this season, and has been deemed good enough by Rodgers to get a new contract. With him and Gulacsi, that's as much depth in goal as most teams going for fourth place have. If we need more experienced goalkeeping cover then it's hardly going to break the bank to address it.

 

Downing doesn't have to deputise at left back at all. Nothing wrong with having Johnson at left back, he's excelled there before. And we've got two quality youngsters to cover in Robinson and Wisdom, who are both good enough to fill in when required.

 

What makes Robinson good enough? Your say so? Is that all the evidence you require to vindicate your own assertion? Jack Robinson has made three league appearances in four seasons. Whilst a talented youngster - somebody to blood in a full strength side - he isn't somebody you can just give your stamp of approval and expect me to accept it makes that position strong enough to get fourth. Look at the squad strength of the teams occupying those positions. Which one of them has to either play a left back, use a kid who hasn't played in the league for a year and a half, or switch the right back to left back.

 

The very fact that you say there's nothing wrong with having Johnson at left back indicates to me that you're just happy to gloss over anything, regardless of how ropey. If the back-up to your first choice left back is your first choice right back, it's not solution at all.

 

 

Why are you comparing our attacking options with those of United, City and Chelsea? I haven't said a thing about the squad being good enough to challenge them for the title. I've only ever been talking about getting into the top four.

 

I gave the teams of United, City, Chelsea, Arsenal and Spurs. There was a reason I did this. It's the teams who 'finished top four' and also the team who got into Europe off the back of their win. Those are the teams, season in and season out, who we're going to have to compete with for a place in the top four.

 

Our attacking options – and I include Gerrard in there, because that's where he should be playing – would have matched those of Arsenal, Spurs and the other teams going for fourth if FSG had done what they should have done and given Rodgers enough money to address that area properly in the summer, as they are belatedly now. Or, alternatively, if Rodgers had spent the £15m for Joe Allen on another goalscorer instead. I like Allen, I think he could be an excellent player for us, but he was a signing of choice and not necessity. He didn't address a desperate need in the squad, and it wasn't as if other clubs were queueing up for his signature meaning we needed to get in there quickly.

 

His first signing was a striker, he wanted an attacker for his last purchase too. FSG didn't pony the money up, so he didn't have the players. Rodgers can't be judged on what should have happened, not can the squad. That's an incredibly weak argument.

 

Now, could he have spent the Allen money on somebody else. Well, yeah, I guess he could. It's a judgement call, but there are reasons why he'd want Allen in there. Firstly, he wanted somebody in the engine room who knew what was expected of him. Second, he already got in a striker and thought he'd be getting another attacker. As it turned out, he got Allen, but Borini got injured and we didn't get the player he'd banked on. I think criticising him with hindsight is harsh, and I think judging him on what FSG should have done is even worse.

 

Spearing is good enough to play in our midfield alongside a partner who imposes themself on the game, whether as a ballwinner or a playmaker. His limitations were exposed last season alongside Henderson or Adam, neither of whom did that, but I would be more than happy to see him playing alongside one or two of Lucas (already done it, with great success), Allen, Sahin, Gerrard or even Shelvey. He's a useful member of a team when surrounded by good players, not someone who I'd expect us to look to make things happen himself. He'd certainly put a bit more bite into our midfield, which we've been lacking.

 

Spearing isn't good enough. There's a reason why he could only get a loan to Bolton, rather than to a team challenging for the top four. It's because he's not good enough to do it. Again, you like the lad, I respect that and disagree. I don't think he's anywhere near good enough. Love the guy and his work rate, but good enough for what Rodgers is trying to do? Not on your nelly, IMO.

 

Gerrard hasn't been Gerrard for the last three years because he hasn't had the chance to play in his best position, when fit, in a team that's confident and playing well. The team was dying on its arse for most of Rafa's last season, while Hodgson was in charge, and last season under Kenny by the time Gerrard was back to full fitness. And as for him not getting 15-20 goals a season, well of course he fucking isn't if Rodgers is going to keep playing him deep where his attacking strengths are wasted.

 

I also mentioned the various other players which I didn't name. Henderson is making a valuable contribution to the team this season, and Shelvey has shown he can make a difference in games as well. I had Charlie Adam in mind as well, but I know you disagree about his worth to his squad. Personally I thought that for the money we paid for him, he did a good job until Lucas was injured and then the whole team started to play poorly shortly after.

 

Yes Hank, that's right. Because Stewart Downing is in the squad, that means we have a good squad. That's all the evidence I need to present. Because that’s exactly what I'm saying, isn't it?

 

(I typed that sentence in the style you use when someone has completely misrepresented one of your posts. Hope I got it right.)

 

Rodgers has said that since he put Downing up for sale, Downing's reaction has been excellent and that he has a future here if he keeps up this level of performance. For someone who started a thread on "what Brendan said", I thought you might keep more up to date with his pronouncements. Unless you think Rodgers was lying, but you invariably insist that we take his words at face value, so I'm happy to do so in this case.

 

I know exactly what Rodgers said, I also know that he has played him all over the pitch. I know what he said, minutes after Downing scored and a little while before the window opens. If Downing keeps scoring and assists, that's fine, I'll want him in the team. However, let's not pretend like he inherited - which is what we're talking about - a player who did that every game.

 

Be honest, do you think Rodgers would prefer to go out and get a wide player who scored and assisted at a high rate and replace Downing? That's what he needs if we're going to get back in the top four. Not Downing, not Shelvey - who is as utterly shit as he is utterly brilliant, in near equal measure - and not Charlie Adam or Jay spearing. We need the level above these players, mate. I can't see how we can lose week after week, yet you can still be convinced that all bar a few of the 22 are good enough.

 

Sterling and Suso wouldn't have needed to play so frequently if Rodgers had addressed the attacking options as a priority, or if FSG had given him the January money in the summer, or if he'd played Gerrard in his best position. To be fair he's also been unfortunate with the injuries to Borini and Assaidi.

 

If FSG had given him the money? But they didn't, despite you saying he had enough. You seem to dart toward any excuse, when the logical answer is to honestly assess the squad he inherited. It lacked goals, even more so when the players who were sporadically scoring goals fucked off or were fucked off.

 

Sterling, Suso, Wisdom and Robinson have all shown they're good enough to come into the first team and deputise adequately when the first choice player is out. That's what you need from your squad players, and if they can do that then it doesn't matter whether they're 17, 27 or 37.

 

Sterling hasn't been coming into the first team to deputise for the first choice though, has he? He is the first choice. Suso was the first choice, but Downing seems to have won it back. That says a fair bit about how light we are in the attacking areas.

 

You haven't quashed my argument at all, convincingly or otherwise.

 

Well, I guess we're just going to have to disagree about that. I thought it was a comprehensive drubbing.

 

To quash an argument you need to engage with it fully, which you haven't done.

 

To be fair, I gave you way too much credit. It wasn't even an argument at all, just a few hastily written lines about how Spearing was this or that without a single honest appraisal of our weaknesses, nor who we were competing against.

 

You talk about engaging fully, maybe if you presented something a little more extensive than 'cover in every position' for the back five, which is clearly wrong when you consider our second choice left back is our first choice right back. If our left and right backs get injured, we're left with Wisdom, who didn't play a league game before this season, and either our £20m winger or a young lad who has 3 league appearances under his fucking belt, the last being two seasons ago.

 

You want me to 'fully engage' with that? Get real. I wrote seven paragraphs in response to the few sentences you offered as some sort of argument why our squad was good. The cream of which was 'various other players of differing ability and consistency who he could still use'. What a line - which was about a fifth of your entire case - to put in an argument about how good the squad is. Tell me, how can I engage fully with THAT? 'players of differing ability'. Get out of town.

 

Clearly the squad isn't as good as it was in 2009, but in each season since then it's been capable of finishing in a higher league position than it did. Rafa reverted to cautious type in his final season, and eventually the players looked utterly miserable playing for him. Hodgson's half-season is self-explanatory. And I've already put my case about Kenny last season.

 

I think your fixation with league position as the indicator of squad quality is simplistic and misleading.

 

Simplistic? Fucking hell, for as long as I've been watching football it has been held up as the unquestionable standard of where a side is. The league doesn't lie, they say. It might lie for one. It might even tell a fib on the second season. By the third season, and fourth season, maybe we might take a peek at the fucking squad?

 

Your argument is all about players who we can make-do with. Spearing here and Downing there. Robinson can do a job here, or Adam could have done a job there. The teams you're holding up as where we should be aren't making do, they're just doing.

 

He inherited a squad that had finished way below them on several occasions, has to make a transition to the way he wants them to play - which we're nowhere near - with players who are quite frankly much less competent than the teams going for and actually getting in the top four. That's what he has had to work with.

 

Again, I'll invite you to have a debate on the failure of the manager(s) to get the most out of the players at their disposal, which is something I don't ever recall you doing when it comes to Kenny.

 

I don't think there's too much to debate about. There's only so much blood you can get out of a stone. Yes, I agree we could have used Maxi a bit more here, or dropped Downing a but more there. Take us from either into the top four, though? Nah. We just don't have the personnel at the moment, despite spending the money over several managers. We've lost great players and replaced them with mediocre ones at twice the cost. That's what is making Rodgers short-term task really hard.

 

Sturridge is another piece of a jigsaw which has some shit stained bits, and about half-a-dozen bits missing. He'll slot in and give us improvement. Add in a Gameiro or Mertens for Downing, there's another bit. Get a quality defensive midfielder to either play in the Stoke type games or give Lucas back-up, that's another puzzle piece. Get a left back to cover and offer the same offensive qualities as Enrique, whilst still being solid at the back, there's another. Get somebody in to either be Pepe's long term replacement or seriously push him into performing better, then we're getting close. Then we'll need to replace Gerrard.

 

A while back we were talking about 'final piece of the puzzle'. Now we're wondering how the dog got in, ate the puzzle and did a poo on the rug. We need to rebuild, and I think you're massively underestimating how long any manager in the world would take to build us up again.

 

I'm not talking about "fixing it" in terms of making us competitive for the title – that's a debate for another time. To reiterate, I'm talking about the squad being good enough to make top four if this season's transfer kitty was spent properly. I've already said the squad was good enough last season, and on that basis, I contend that three months and £30m in the summer was enough time and money to replace the 12 league goals scored last season by Maxi, Kuyt and Bellamy, and to add the rest on top that we should have scored / that we need to get into the top four, whichever you think is applicable.

 

By the way, your "4 out of 6 top scorers lost" mantra doesn't look quite such a slam dunk when you look at how few goals the three he couldn't keep actually scored. Plus the fourth, who he could have kept, was according to you one of the worst players ever to play for us, and we're better off without him.

 

No, no. You're completely missing the point I'm making. I'm not suggesting the players who went where great - they were part of the problem and needed to be replaced. The issue is that we've lost 16 goals and haven't yet replaced them with more goals. No matter how shit the players are, 16 goals are about 16 goals better than 0 goals. Now, Sturridge will cover some, Borini will cover some others, but we still need at least one more attacker, maybe two if we're talking about number 10s (which Rodgers was recently).

 

If you take over a side which finished 8th, and had a problem scoring goals, but lose the ones who did score goals without having the money to improve on those players, I think it's fair to say the expectation to score as many goals isn't as great. It's harder to score goals when you don't have attacking players who scored them last season. Just because they weren't good enough to score our way to fourth, and therefore are part of the problem, it doesn't mean getting rid of them without replacing them is going to make it easier.

 

Just because Kenny, and indeed Rafa and Hodgson before him, wasted shedloads of money, doesn't mean the problem requires shedloads of money to fix. We just need to be smarter in the transfer market, something we haven't been for most of the last five years now. The bar hasn't exactly been set high during that period.

 

So we'e been stupid in the transfer market for half a decade, you admit, yet you're still maintaining we've got a good squad. When you rivals are pulling blinders in the transfer market season after season, and you're fumbling and fucking about, it means they pull ahead.

 

But I do think he needs money. Not £35m a player like Chelsea or City, but I do think it's reasonable that if we're going to ask him to get into the top four, we back him with players who are good enough to fetch some big money. At least Sturridge level signings. You can only be so smart.

 

I agree we've been stupid, I agree we need to be smart because we don't have enough money to make mistakes and then keep spending in the way City and Chelsea have, but we do need a decent amount of money to build a squad capable of bridging the gap.

 

It looked fine to me. Belated happy new year to you too.

 

And to you and yours. Again, if there's spelling and grammar mistakes, my bad; I'm too lazy to go back through it. I type at break-neck speed, so there's probably some typos and stuff. If you want clarification, just ask. And I'm sure you take any coarse words in the spirit of vigorous debate, rather than a personal attack.

[Hazel Motes]

My god! Level up.

[Bjornebye]

the fuck ?

[James Dean]

Fucking hell. Could someone give the light version? The 100-page one?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

To be honest, I thought I kept it quite short.