Brendan Rodgers is our manager

[stringvest]

I don't necessarily see it like that, if he gets some real experience put in behind him (which should have been put in place from the outset and shows just how fucking clueless the people running the club are) then maybe they can help him with the defensive side of his game and ring European experience with them, wasn't that the reason Ferguson used to bring people like Quiroz in? This could actually be a good thing having some older heads brought in to support him, it makes sense because he is only young and as said some think he could someday become a top manager, it all depends on the appointments though and given our illustrious owners general unwillingness to hire top people for positions I don't hold out much hope.

 

I wonder how the players would see this?  At least Ferguson made his own decisions - he would retain respect from the players because they could see it was him making the changes.  

[Section_31]

You know we're fucked when you're pinning your hopes on getting a better first team coach.

[stringvest]

You know we're fucked when you're pinning your hopes on getting a better first team coach.

 

Well, it did for Benitez when Paco left, and there are numerous examples from other clubs.  

[Phoenix]

At least he has an excuse which can feed to the press next season. 

[Anubis]

I think we need to see who they bring in. From the outset Of Rodgers' tenure I was calling for a DoF to give us an additional level of experience, and while I'm not expecting them to go down that route, I'm interested to see where they go with replacement coaches. If it turns out to be people of good experience all well and good, if not we'll know this was an exercise in escapegoating.

[Tyler Durden]

I wonder how the players would see this?  At least Ferguson made his own decisions - he would retain respect from the players because they could see it was him making the changes.

 

To be honest our squads full of characterless shite anyway so I don't think it will matter too much, I'm just trying convince myself it might be better

[stringvest]

At least he has an excuse which can feed to the press next season. 

 

and I wouldn't be in the least surprised if he pulls it out of an envelope at some point in the future.  

[ritchie]

But that is crazy.

 

Any coach is only as effective as the manager allows, and if new coaches do turn things round, shouldn't they be in charge?

Well I think Rodgers and Achterberg should have gone too with a clean sweep but that hasn't happened. It was Rodgers who appointed Marsh and Pascoe as his first team coaches so surely he is responsible for them?

 

He is though a promising coach and he should do better with a more talented staff to help him. Should he be Liverpool manager? No, but he is. If we can get a tactically sound coach with experience at the top level then we may actually have a chance in the Europa League. Does that mean that coach should then be manager? Not necessarily. Good coaches often don't make good managers. In fact i'd say Rodgers is a good coach and not a good manager.

[Guest davelfc]

Next to go, the head of the transfer committee

 

[marcus50bucks]

Brendan looks pretty vulnerable to me now. He's lost his coaching staff (one of them being his best mate), there are rumours he will have little or no say in who comes in to work with him. I know the echo said he had to agree to the changes or lose his job but it also smacks of him being undermined. I wonder what our players think of all of this because to me it looks like Rodgers has been humiliated.

[gkmacca]

It makes little sense to me. If he was a manager and not a coach, then it would have more logic, but he's a coach first and foremost, he always will be, and his obsession is shaping a team stamped with his signature. He won't welcome someone coming in who wants to coach. If FSG see the new staff as a means of making him more flexible, then I'm sceptical the arrangement will last for long. It looks more likely to force him into quitting,

[Paco]

if they didn't want him they would have just sacked him.

 

There's no grey area here. FSG are very black and white with their hirings and firings.

[Razoray]

Well, it did for Benitez when Paco left, and there are numerous examples from other clubs.

Our league finishes were better after Paco left - besides the last season when the whole club was fucked. We were still very good in Europe. I do think that Paco was a loss for the club and Rafa personally, his loss didn't "do for" him at all.

[thompsonsnose]

It makes little sense to me. If he was a manager and not a coach, then it would have more logic, but he's a coach first and foremost, he always will be, and his obsession is shaping a team stamped with his signature. He won't welcome someone coming in who wants to coach. If FSG see the new staff as a means of making him more flexible, then I'm sceptical the arrangement will last for long. It looks more likely to force him into quitting,

Yup.

[Paco]

can't see pako coming back as a no.2

 

he's just won a treble as manager of some israeli team. He'll be looking to manage somewhere else and challenge himself further.

 

who are the great first team coaches available? I only know the names of a few coaches full stop - meulensteen, carver, sammy lee, chris ramsey

[Denny Crane]

[dennis tooth]

Meulenstein? Hasnt his coaching just helped relegate hull after relegating fulham?

Whats he got to offer other than telling the players what safs sphincter tastes of?

Hes another commolli, a name who actually has a very shit record.

Like many of ferguscums right hand men getting work off it but the only common denominator is the manager, he could have had a stunned haddock called mike phelan as his number 2 and still won a lot because players tend to respect whoever the assistant is when your record trophy winning manager appoints them.

These are the stupidest owners in the premier league.

[gkmacca]

can't see pako coming back as a no.2

 

he's just won a treble as manager of some israeli team. He'll be looking to manage somewhere else and challenge himself further.

 

who are the great first team coaches available? I only know the names of a few coaches full stop - meulensteen, carver, sammy lee, chris ramsey

 

Yes, but they ARE coaches. Meulensteen won't come to act as Rodgers' cone carrier. Sammy's about the only one, who's any good, who'd tolerate being a support act. 

[ritchie]

Meulenstein? Hasnt his coaching just helped relegate hull after relegating fulham?

Whats he got to offer other than telling the players what safs sphincter tastes of?

Hes another commolli, a name who actually has a very shit record.

Like many of ferguscums right hand men getting work off it but the only common denominator is the manager, he could have had a stunned haddock called mike phelan as his number 2 and still won a lot because players tend to respect whoever the assistant is when your record trophy winning manager appoints them.

These are the stupidest owners in the premier league.

Meulensteen wasn't at Hull. He was at Fulham for a brief period as a manager but we wouldn't be employing him as a manager. He is a very good coach, was very popular with the players at United and Ferguson delegated a lot to him after Querioz left.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-united/9851206/Manchester-United-striker-Robin-van-Persie-says-clubs-coach-is-winning-points-for-team-with-his-training-sessions.html

[Boss]

Meulensteen was good at Fulham, i remember that game being a very significant game in the run in, that was the moment our team truly believed they could win the league. Teams were just attacking us before that and getting destroyed on the counter because Rodgers had subverted the possession based football we were known for into a blitzkreig like counter attack that nobody expected or could deal with.

 

Meulensteen was the first coach that made the necessary tactical adjustments to deal with it. He let us just pass the ball freely in our own half without any of his players pressing us. The common consensus before that is Liverpool struggled most if you press them high up the pitch. He realised his team would get opened up if he did that so it became a real cat and mouse game of tactics. It was an extremely close game up until the penalty at the end which clinched it for us and Gerrard as usual balls of steel under immense pressure.

 

Sunderland later adopted the same tactics at Anfield albeit much more defensively, Fulham was the blueprint before the Chelsea game in how to beat us, it's similar to the Swansea away game this season just gone in how to set up against our 3-4-2-1 before the mancs took us apart at Anfield. People will remember the Chelsea game and the Man U game but the seeds were planted before that. 

[dennis tooth]

Meulensteen wasn't at Hull. He was at Fulham for a brief period as a manager but we wouldn't be employing him as a manager. He is a very good coach, was very popular with the players at United and Ferguson delegated a lot to him after Querioz left.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-united/9851206/Manchester-United-striker-Robin-van-Persie-says-clubs-coach-is-winning-points-for-team-with-his-training-sessions.html

No mate they won before and after he was there, there was only one wizard there.

[dennis tooth]

Meulensteen was good at Fulham, i remember that game being a very significant game in the run in, that was the moment our team truly believed they could win the league. Teams were just attacking us before that and getting destroyed on the counter because Rodgers had subverted the possession based football we were known for into a blitzkreig like counter attack that nobody expected or could deal with.

 

Meulensteen was the first coach that made the necessary tactical adjustments to deal with it. He let us just pass the ball freely in our own half without any of his players pressing us. The common consensus before that is Liverpool struggled most if you press them high up the pitch. He realised his team would get opened up if he did that so it became a real cat and mouse game of tactics. It was an extremely close game up until the penalty at the end which clinched it for us and Gerrard as usual balls of steel under immense pressure.

 

Sunderland later adopted the same tactics at Anfield albeit much more defensively, Fulham was the blueprint before the Chelsea game in how to beat us, it's similar to the Swansea away game this season just gone in how to set up against our 3-4-2-1 before the mancs took us apart at Anfield. People will remember the Chelsea game and the Man U game but the seeds were planted before that.

Come on man, tim sherwood made a better job of it.

Good at fulham they lost like ten on the spin.

[Original202]

It's a similar situation to Evans and Houllier where the board didn't have the balls to make the big change.

 

If a new assistant comes in, especially if they aren't hand picked by Rodgers, and things go well then the assistant is going to get the attention for any improvement. If it goes bad (or things just stay the same) then Rodgers is the fall guy. I'm assuming we're going to bring in a relatively big name with good experience. If we're not, then what's the point of making a change at all?

 

Makes Rodgers pretty vulnerable I think and increases the likelihood of a resignation at some point rather than a sacking.

[Boss]

Come on man, tim sherwood made a better job of it.

Good at fulham they lost like ten on the spin.

 

The team was crap and they where terrible under Magath as well. He impressed me tactically in that game and got sacked straight after it. He was much better than Magath who basically destroyed the club in such a short space of time and played dog shit football. At least with Meulensteen they where playing some good football and working as a team.

[ritchie]

No mate they won before and after he was there, there was only one wizard there.

If it was all about Ferguson then why did he insist on appointing top coaches to help him? Because despite his despotism he was humble enough to know he couldn't do it all himself and wanted to surround himself with talent rather than a bunch of yes men. Ferguson was a great manager and motivator but he couldn't do it all himself. He delegated a lot tactically. and had sharp minds next to him.

 

If Ferguson can do that then so can Rodgers.