Where is your plan B, Rafa?

[zigackly]

"I imagine you've never experienced football beyond 5 a side?"

 

Classy debating tactic, blert. Now fuck off.

[Gary Mac Legend]

"I imagine you've never experienced football beyond 5 a side?"

 

Classy debating tactic, blert. Now fuck off.

 

 

I can find so many examples of that on this forum by 'great posters' it's too easy. So what's your point?

 

Go on, tell me what's your experience in football? You were making comments about our coaching methods under Rafa and Houllier, care to back that up with a source?

 

It's a much, much, more classy debating tactic than 'Gary Twat Legend, Gobshite, Blert and 'Now fuck off.' - Is the 'Now fuck off' you're attempt to claim a victory?

[zigackly]

[Gary Mac Legend]

Much easier than having to answer for the silly claims and hypocritical digs you made I guess.

 

Just wondering, is that you would say passes for football discussion?

[Il Fenomeno]

You were making comments about our coaching methods under Rafa and Houllier

 

I don't think it's any secret Benitez & Houllier are more defensive minded than attack minded managers.

 

That said, the 08-09 side was perfectly balanced, it's a shame Rafa tried to change it and it didn't work out.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

So you don't appreciate that football may have changed over the last 30+ years?

Elucidate us, then. Why do passing, possession and intelligent movement have no place in the modern game?

 

(Or if that's not your point - tell us what your point is.)

[Gary Mac Legend]

I don't think it's any secret Benitez & Houllier are more defensive minded than attack minded managers.

 

That said, the 08-09 side was perfectly balanced, it's a shame Rafa tried to change it and it didn't work out.

 

 

Rafa tried to make us a more attacking and ruthless side after 08-09. Look at the buys he made in the summer, he brought in Glen Johnson, an exciting attacking full-back to compliment Kuyt and cause more troubles for defences.

 

He brought in Aquilani, who when played increased the tempo of our game, got some one touch passing going and improved us going forward. A less defence minded player than Alonso.

 

We also began the season with a high line, trying to press teams higher up the pitch.

 

Unfortunately, for one reason or another it didn't come off, and we were in big trouble so we had to play a more defensive game.

 

However, the intent was definitely there, trying to turn those pesky draws into wins.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Gary Mac Legend

[Gary Mac Legend]

Elucidate us, then. Why do passing, possession and intelligent movement have no place in the modern game?

 

(Or if that's not your point - tell us what your point is.)

 

 

Did I say it has no place in the modern game?

 

The original point made was that football should just simply be what was described. This is fine, when you're Barcelona, or Arsenal and have the squad and players to implement such a simple and effective system.

 

Do you however, believe for a random example, that we'd have beaten Chelsea in either CL semi-final with just that as our philosophy and approach? If you disagree, then you agree with my original point that football has evolved beyond that simple ideology, which is only effective in circumstance.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Did I say it has no place in the modern game?

 

The original point made was that football should just simply be what was described. This is fine, when you're Barcelona, or Arsenal and have the squad and players to implement such a simple and effective system.

Do you however, believe for a random example, that we'd have beaten Chelsea in either CL semi-final with just that as our philosophy and approach? If you disagree, then you agree with my original point that football has evolved beyond that simple ideology, which is only effective in circumstance.

You agree that the simple philosophy (as practised by Barca) can win you 6 out of 6 national and international trophies.

 

Your last paragraph is illogical: just because Liverpool don't have good enough players, it does not follow that a team with such players could not have beaten Chelsea. The simple approach is still valid.

 

In any case, I'm not sure what you're advocating instead of (or in addition to) a philosophy of passing, movement and possession.

[Benitaur]

If that's your level of "debate" then you know where you can stick it I reckon.

 

I like a balanced team which can both attack and defend. If you can't have a discussion without misrepresenting me on purpose then what's the point of you?

 

Wow, back-pedalling fast, aren't you?

 

Three posts before this, you posted:

 

 

Problem is we chose a replacement with a similar plan A and B to Rafa. If changing the manager was going to work we also had to change the style.

 

...

 

I haven't seen much of last night but from what I've read, we suffered from the exact main problem our teams have all suffered for over ten years: we do not buy players or coach players to make the right movements or give the right passes.

 

This emphasis on defence first and attack as an afterthought is not what the players want, not what the fans want, and it does not get you enough results in English football. We've suffered it through our last two managers and it looks set to continue with the new one.

 

So if you don't like managers who emphasize defence first and attack as an afterthought, I assumed you wanted a manager who emphasized attack first and defend as an afterthought, ie Keegan.

 

NOW you say you meant one that can attack and defend? I thought you just said that you didn't like Rafa's style

 

After all, this was the style that consistently was either the top or second in clean sheets. And when in all clicked together, like in the 2 seasons before last, we were the top scoring and second top scoring team in the league.

 

One poor season where we couldn't defend for our lives the first 10 or so games, and had a crocked attack most of the season (Gerrard, Torres, Johnson, Aqua etc out for half the season) doesn't negate the intention that Rafa was trying to recreate his crushing machine.

 

Sounds like you don't know what you want, and didn't like what you got

[Gary Mac Legend]

You agree that the simple philosophy (as practised by Barca) can win you 6 out of 6 national and international trophies.

 

No need to agree with anything, what you've stated is fact.

 

Your last paragraph is illogical: just because Liverpool don't have good enough players, it does not follow that a team with such players could not have beaten Chelsea. The simple approach is still valid.

 

In any case, I'm not sure what you're advocating instead of (or in addition to) a philosophy of passing, movement and possession.

 

 

The simple approach was presented as a solution to our problems, I'm pointing out that it isn't, and that football has moved on from the days when we can impose that kind of philosophy and win games.

 

I'm not advocating anything.

[zigackly]

The original point made was that football should just simply be what was described.

 

[Gary Mac Legend]

you would have a longer and happier forum life if you tried engaging with people and discussing stuff occasionally, instead of firing random shots in the dark all the time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At least show some consistency.

[CaptainK]

Zig is it really a matter of record that Benitez doesn't coach attack? I seem to remember someone from our squad (I forget who exactly) moaning that the attacking plays were drilled incessantly.

 

Torres said last year that Xavi Valero coached on how to beat the keeper. He's also said that one of the first things that he learned on signing for us, was passing the ball into the net.

 

If they're not examples of coaching attacking, I don't know what is.

[Gary Mac Legend]

Torres said last year that Xavi Valero coached on how to beat the keeper. He's also said that one of the first things that he learned on signing for us, was passing the ball into the net.

 

If they're not examples of coaching attacking, I don't know what is.

 

 

According to Zigackly, it's on record that we almost solely coach defence. I'm still waiting for him to provide a source or some solid proof of this.

[Anubis]

Am I the only one who wants to know what Plan C is?

[Benitaur]

You agree that the simple philosophy (as practised by Barca) can win you 6 out of 6 national and international trophies.

 

Your last paragraph is illogical: just because Liverpool don't have good enough players, it does not follow that a team with such players could not have beaten Chelsea. The simple approach is still valid.

 

In any case, I'm not sure what you're advocating instead of (or in addition to) a philosophy of passing, movement and possession.

 

You make it sound so easy, when this "simple" philosophy of passing, movement and possession is so difficult to achieve.

 

"Soccer is simple, but it is difficult to play simple." - Johan Cruyff

 

It has to be drilled into the players from the academy onwards, hence the current success of Barcelona and to a lesser extent Arsenal. In fact, if Wenger didn't poach Fabregas, I doubt his current team would be as good

 

Which is why Rafa wanted control of the academy, as we weren't producing players of this calibre and philosophy. That is why we got the 2 Barca coaches to hopefully reproduce the same results in years to come.

 

And finally no, OUR squad trying the Barca/Arsenal approach in those semis against Chelsea would have been slaughtered. We didn't have the players

 

For a team to play circulation football the way Barca does, and Arsenal tries to do is incredibly hard as it requires the whole team to play that particular type of football. We achieved it for a while when we were trashing Real and the Mancs by 4 goals.

 

However, the whole Alonso incident happened. If we were a side with real title aspirations, we would have given him a raise and STILL bought Barry wouldn't we? Thats how other big expensive squads keep their players happy.

[Red Nick]

Problem is we chose a replacement with a similar plan A and B to Rafa. If changing the manager was going to work we also had to change the style.

 

I posted this elsewhere earlier, sums up for me what has been going wrong with us for years:

 

"Football is a simple game based on the giving and taking of passes, of controlling the ball and of making yourself available to receive a pass. It is terribly simple."

 

I haven't seen much of last night but from what I've read, we suffered from the exact main problem our teams have all suffered for over ten years: we do not buy players or coach players to make the right movements or give the right passes.

 

This emphasis on defence first and attack as an afterthought is not what the players want, not what the fans want, and it does not get you enough results in English football. We've suffered it through our last two managers and it looks set to continue with the new one.

 

In reality we chose a manager with a far worse plan A and plan B than Rafa one that failed under the manager before he arrived.

 

Rafa is right about one thing though that it is a major problem when all the people making the decisions no nothing about football. Its pretty clear to me King Kenny didnt want Hodgson as manager because he realised that the style of play that Hodgson has been playing for the last 30 years isnt suited to the players at the club ie no pace on the flanks and full backs who are better going forward than defending.

 

King Kenny knows his football and even if they werent going to give him the job they should have let him choose Rafas successor

[Red Nick]

You make it sound so easy, when this "simple" philosophy of passing, movement and possession is so difficult to achieve.

 

"Soccer is simple, but it is difficult to play simple." - Johan Cruyff

 

It has to be drilled into the players from the academy onwards, hence the current success of Barcelona and to a lesser extent Arsenal. In fact, if Wenger didn't poach Fabregas, I doubt his current team would be as good

 

Which is why Rafa wanted control of the academy, as we weren't producing players of this calibre and philosophy. That is why we got the 2 Barca coaches to hopefully reproduce the same results in years to come.

 

And finally no, OUR squad trying the Barca/Arsenal approach in those semis against Chelsea would have been slaughtered. We didn't have the players

 

For a team to play circulation football the way Barca does, and Arsenal tries to do is incredibly hard as it requires the whole team to play that particular type of football. We achieved it for a while when we were trashing Real and the Mancs by 4 goals.

 

However, the whole Alonso incident happened. If we were a side with real title aspirations, we would have given him a raise and STILL bought Barry wouldn't we? Thats how other big expensive squads keep their players happy.

 

Sorry to pull you up on the Alonso thing but no amount of money would have kept Alonso at LFC the damage was done the season before. It was down to Rafa to make things ok again and he didnt. Now If you take Ferguson he went out of his way to keep Ronaldo and there you have the difference.

[rondeco]

Ferguson kept ronaldo?

[ronnie38]

Ha ha Zig got his arse handed to him.

[Red Nick]

Ferguson kept ronaldo?

 

For an extra season when it was a done deal he would go to Real

[Benitaur]

Sorry to pull you up on the Alonso thing but no amount of money would have kept Alonso at LFC the damage was done the season before. It was down to Rafa to make things ok again and he didnt. Now If you take Ferguson he went out of his way to keep Ronaldo and there you have the difference.

 

Well, Ronaldo was similar to Mascherano. They only stayed an extra year. And Mascherano, like Alonso was going to leave regardless

 

You say it was down to Rafa to make things ok again. However, if players have their hearts set, they are leaving. Either now or later

 

Money however, does help. Its probably the only way squads like Real, Chelsea and currently City can keep so many top players happy sitting on the bench.

 

If Alonso's excuse was that he was unhappy with Rafa's chase of Barry, it just means that he wasn't prepared to fight for his place, doesn't it?

 

The fact of the matter is, there are several other reasons too why he would have left for Real, namely the taxes there are cheaper, its his home country, and lets not forget, Real were building their second Galactico team, one which is probably very attractive for most players.

 

So ultimately Alonso left for one or most possibly a combination of those reasons. Not willing to fight for his place with Barry, Mascherano and Lucas is the lamest one.

[Red Nick]

Well, Ronaldo was similar to Mascherano. They only stayed an extra year. And Mascherano, like Alonso was going to leave regardless

 

You say it was down to Rafa to make things ok again. However, if players have their hearts set, they are leaving. Either now or later

 

Money however, does help. Its probably the only way squads like Real, Chelsea and currently City can keep so many top players happy sitting on the bench.

 

If Alonso's excuse was that he was unhappy with Rafa's chase of Barry, it just means that he wasn't prepared to fight for his place, doesn't it?

 

The fact of the matter is, there are several other reasons too why he would have left for Real, namely the taxes there are cheaper, its his home country, and lets not forget, Real were building their second Galactico team, one which is probably very attractive for most players.

 

So ultimately Alonso left for one or most possibly a combination of those reasons. Not willing to fight for his place with Barry, Mascherano and Lucas is the lamest one.

 

I agree with some of what your saying but not all of it and I see no point going over the Alonso debate its all there in the previous threads as to my opinion on the matter.

 

So lets look forward not backwards, even though that is fucking hard to do at the minute

[zigackly]

Ha ha Zig got his arse handed to him.

 

I don't see it that way, because I never once advocated an all out attacking philosophy, which is the basis of the criticism of my original post. I simply made the point that the balance between defence and attack in our team has been too negative for too long and I do not see any signs that this team can pass well or move well off the ball. We too often look like a team of individuals who do not want the ball and do not want to step out of their comfort zone.

 

Be honest, apart from a brief spell at the tail end two seasons ago, have you seen us look consistently balanced and confident in attack under either of our last two managers? Not "we had shots on goal". What did the football look like? Chelsea had shots on goal under Mourinho, but often the football was stale and it was only because they could afford their choice of peg in each hole for me that their approach was ever successful.

 

Our current team are probably the worst collective passers of the ball in the league right now, and have been since Alonso left. I don't believe it's purely a matter of ability; I believe the coaching has not been balanced and I've read quotes by players which imply as much.

 

I'm not going to dig them out, life's too short for spending too much of it on a silly argument on the internet. When someone misrepresents me and throws insults around, why should I respond sensibly?

 

I'm sure it was an exaggeration by me to say Rafa and Houllier never coached attack, but if they did then it was not very successful.

 

As to the shots on goal statistic, not many of those were meaningful chances. I watched our games through those seasons, and those statistics do us a big favour. I'll reiterate; the only time I think we have had a consistently well balanced team in recent memory was for about two months worth about 18 months ago. That's hardly an argument for balanced coaching is it?

Edited September 23, 2010 by zigackly