What's your opinion of Brendan Rodgers?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Stability is an absolute myth

Yeah, giving somebody time to build before throwing them in the bin is a total myth. Your post is up there with some of the most ridiculous. Certainly in your top 100.

[Dr Nowt]

It's also worth pointing out the set-up the owners have is designed to ensure if we change managers there is less upheaval.

 

Agree with that, we'll be mostly lousy-average in the transfer market whoever's in charge.

[Boss]

I reckon I could name at least 20 managers who would love to manage Liverpool who would do a better job than Rodgers. Managers with a more proven track record such as trophy's or managers who have lost players and not had their clubs worst start to a season in 50 odd years.

 

However let's see if he can do the job he is paid to do and meet the minimum requirement of a Liverpool manager in his 3rd season. No manager lives off what he did last season these days at a big club.

 

I guess it all boils down to what the owners expectations are?. The fans expectations are more than likely different to the owners.

 

Go on then 20 'current' managers that are attainable, go.

[ratcatcher]

Stability is an absolute myth and just a lazy cliche.

 

Obviously there are extremes that some clubs go to that have to be clearly avoided. 

 

The LMA preach stability and most in the media do to keep their mates, the ones they like in a job.

 

A lot of fans have this romantic notion of some leader managing a club for a generation. It just does not happen in many instances over the the past 30 years.

 

I also think too many people project what can be achieved because a manager is young it's the same with young players also.

 

Ferguson and Wenger are the outliers and most seem to feel Wenger went stale a few years back. 

 

If you look back through history, very few managers have a consistent winning cycle of more than 3-4 years at a time.

 

There is a much stronger argument for saying that clubs actually need a change every 3-4 years. Managing football clubs is not a marriage.

 

It's also worth pointing out the set-up the owners have is designed to ensure if we change managers there is less upheaval.

 

So you'd have sacked off Shankly between 1967 and 1973? Oh, it was 'different then' wasnt it?

 

Dont talk daft, of course you need stability at a club. Ive lost count of the number of clubs who regularly changed managers and ended up going down the tubes. Look at forest now.

 

I dont think Ive ever read anything so 'lazy' as to suggest the LMA and media preach stability to keep mates in work.

 

This just sounds like more of code's shit that manager dont win titles after 3 seasons then they never will.

[Dr Nowt]

This just sounds like more of code's shit that manager dont win titles after 3 seasons then they never will.

 

It's almost as if it i....hang on a second...

 

[Denny Crane]

Ratty, I'm pretty sure it was the clueless owners not understanding a balance sheet overspending and building new stadiums at the likes of Forest, Leeds, Sheffield Wed, Derby and Coventry that fucked them not replacing managers right?.

[ratcatcher]

Ratty, I'm pretty sure it was the clueless owners not understanding a balance sheet overspending and building new stadiums at the likes of Forest, Leeds, Sheffield Wed, Derby and Coventry that fucked them not replacing managers right?.

 

That'd be the same owners who chopped and changed managers at the clubs you've mentioned, yes?

[Kevin D]

I reckon I could name at least 20 managers who would love to manage Liverpool who would do a better job than Rodgers. Managers with a more proven track record such as trophy's or managers who have lost players and not had their clubs worst start to a season in 50 odd years.

 

However let's see if he can do the job he is paid to do and meet the minimum requirement of a Liverpool manager in his 3rd season. No manager lives off what he did last season these days at a big club.

 

I guess it all boils down to what the owners expectations are?. The fans expectations are more than likely different to the owners.

Repped.

[moof]

Sorry, no I didn't.

 

I don't know him personally and have never met him. However I've watched his interviews, listened to those that haven't been filmed, and had regard to things he'she's said and done over three seasons. Assessing body language, tone of voice, and actions I've applied my experience and I beleive that he's disingenuous in that I believe that when it suits him he lacks sincerity.

So basically similar to every other manager in the history of football. With few exceptions.

[Kevin D]

So basically similar to every other manager in the history of football. With few exceptions.

Why do you care if he doesn't like him?

[aws]

So basically similar to every other manager in the history of football. With few exceptions.

That argument only works if Anubis likes nearly every other manager in the history of football. He is entitled not to like them if he wants.

[Dr. J]

The digital age has changed time and how we perceive it - why should short life spans for managers be different?

 

One of my kids asked me the other day about what people did before dvd. I explained about video and she asked me what about before then. Told her you had to wait years sometimes before you could see a film that you missed at the cinema - if ever see it all - something she couldn't understand. 

 

When I entered the working world a job for life was still something possible. Then it became 2 or 3 or more in a lifetime. Now it's 2 or 3 careers in a lifetime. Why should football be any different? You get a fixed amount of time to produce, less now than before, sure, but it was never an indefinite length of time.

 

Time has been telescoped for everybody.

[Jairzinho]

That argument only works if Anubis likes nearly every other manager in the history of football. He is entitled not to like them if he wants.

 

No he fucking isn't.

[moof]

That argument only works if Anubis likes nearly every other manager in the history of football. He is entitled not to like them if he wants.

Of course, he probably dislikes most people involved in world football if he holds them up to the same values as he does rodgers. Which is fine. Nobody is telling anyone else they aren't entitled to an opinion, which is one of the laziest arguments brought up when people question negativity.

[ZonkoVille77]

Thank fuck we didn't get bobby brown shoes instead.

[Anubis]

Look closer guys, many people voted multiple times for each option...

 

Damn. I was hoping nobody would get onto it.

[FanchesterCity]

Wenger pretends his team play perfect football, and all other teams use rough tactics

Mourinho thinks he's 'special' forgetting how much it cost to produce his 'special' teams

Pellegrini tries to avoid offending anybody to the point where he actually says sod all

Rodgers likes to throw in a lot of soundbites

Van Gaal and his 'philosophy' is like the holy grail, and nobody knows what it really is

 

As managers PR acumen goes, Rodgers is much of a muchness with the rest of them. They each talk their own dialect of bollocks.

 

As for 20 managers willing to take the job and could do a better job.... that's bollocks too. When Rodgers got the job, there was a distinct lack of managers willing to take it.

 

I'm sure there's a lot of managers who would like the job on their own terms, but that's a different matter altogether. Their own terms could be a mega salary and mega transfer budget (ain't gonna happen)... and sure to do better? unlikely.

 

There are better managers than Rodgers. Unless he's the best in the world, then by definition, there must be others better. But there simply aren't 20 of them wanting the job AND better than him AND guaranteed to do better. That's just madness.

[Anubis]

I do like every other manager in world football.

 

Except that cunt Mourinho.

 

Oh, and that twat Neil Warnock.

 

Can't stand Fat Sam either.

 

Or 50+ ASBO chav Tony Pulis.

 

And Wenger can be a cunt on his day.

 

And that balloon headed fuck Steve Bruce.

 

Not to mention the spunkmonster that is Mark Hughes.

 

And that boggle-eyed smackrat Moyes.

 

The less said about Hodgson the better.

 

 

 

 

Er, this may take a bit of time.....

[Gnasher]

BOOM, Have that naysayers, critiquing Brendan's transfer dealings. Fergursons last major signing Wilfred Zaha 16 fucking million sold to Crystal Palace for peanuts, and the old cunt gave away Pogba for free. Throw in the massive money the old cunt paid for Phil Jones and our dealings don't seem to bad.

[xerxes]

There are better managers than Rodgers. But there simply aren't 20 of them wanting the job AND better than him AND guaranteed to do better.

No manager comes with a guarantee of success, just levels of risk.

 

Because we cannot bankroll the elite managers, future appointments are likely to follow the Rodgers principle, where the appointee is indebted to us rather than vice versa.

[Babb'sBurstNad]

I've lost track of the sarcasm in this thread.

[Major Tom]

Of course, he probably dislikes most people involved in world football if he holds them up to the same values as he does rodgers. Which is fine. Nobody is telling anyone else they aren't entitled to an opinion, which is one of the laziest arguments brought up when people question negativity.

Anubis has said he doesn't mind the manager but doesn't like the man. Who he thinks is a liar. So I don't think it's a football thing.

[Gnasher]

Rodgers had some big decisions when he came to the club, like Kenny he didn't have the fallback of a 25 year old Steven Gerrrard or Jamie Carrragher to pull the side through. Pepe and Agger were losing their form and he had a 35million white elephant of a problem on his hands, Sterling was not a regular. Big calls for a new manger to make and imo he got the vast majority the calls right.

[FanchesterCity]

Rodgers had some big decisions when he came to the club, like Kenny he didn't have the fallback of a 25 year old Steven Gerrrard or Jamie Carrragher to pull the side through. Pepe and Agger were losing their form and he had a 35million white elephant of a problem on his hands, Sterling was not a regular. Big calls for a new manger to make and imo he got the vast majority the calls right.

 

What big calls? to ditch Carroll? most would have made that call, even from their favourite armchair.

To slow down on using Gerrard? not so much a big call is an inevitability.

Letting Suarez go? I don't think that was even a call. I was going to happen regardless.

 

He brought in Sturridge - wouldn't say it was a big call, simply a very good buy (in hindsight). 

He brought in lots of other players too - they weren't big calls either, just a mixed bag of purchases.

 

I'm curious what you think these big decision are / were?

 

At a push, maybe Mignolet in and Reina out was a big call. The jury's out on the wisdom of that. I'm struggling to think of many others.

[ratcatcher]

What big calls? to ditch Carroll? most would have made that call, even from their favourite armchair.

To slow down on using Gerrard? not so much a big call is an inevitability.

Letting Suarez go? I don't think that was even a call. I was going to happen regardless.

 

He brought in Sturridge - wouldn't say it was a big call, simply a very good buy (in hindsight). 

He brought in lots of other players too - they weren't big calls either, just a mixed bag of purchases.

 

I'm curious what you think these big decision are / were?

 

At a push, maybe Mignolet in and Reina out was a big call. The jury's out on the wisdom of that. I'm struggling to think of many others.

 

Behave yourself. You dont know enough about Liverpool to say what was a big call or not.