If Rafa needs money to win the Premier League, just like Mourinho supposedly did

[SpeedyG]

As is leaving strikers on the bench when you are drawing at home to Hull.

 

Yeah, ten strikers is the way to go man :whoops: Fuck all that defending and transition play bullshit.

[Guest Ulysses Everett McGill]

As is leaving strikers on the bench when you are drawing at home to Hull.

 

But your not Anti-Rafa

 

Oh no

 

And the team we had out against Hull was easily strong enough to beat them, what cost us that day wasn't the personell on the pitch, it was the managers decision to pull back when they were on the rack at 2-2

[rebel23]

if Mark Hughes wins the Premier League will he gain sainthood like status for being a genius and will everyone ignore the 200 million spent in less than 12 months?

[Antynwa]

But your not Anti-Rafa

 

Oh no

 

And the team we had out against Hull was easily strong enough to beat them, what cost us that day wasn't the personell on the pitch, it was the managers decision to pull back when they were on the rack at 2-2

 

No I'm not, and yes the team should have beaten Hull, but it didn't. I always thought it was good logic to bring on strikers if you want to win a game.

 

It at least shows where the managers ambitions lie, didn't he say after that match, or it might have been another 'It's important to win, but more important not to lose'.

 

Edit: It was Stoke away when Torres and Keane where on the bench

Edited June 30, 2009 by Antynwa

[Antynwa]

Yeah, ten strikers is the way to go man :whoops: Fuck all that defending and transition play bullshit.

 

That is why we lost the league, we didn't take enough gambles, we may have lost fewer games to the Mancs, but our 'play it safe' attitude screwed us up pre-march.

[Whelan]

That is why we lost the league, we didn't take enough gambles, we may have lost fewer games to the Mancs, but our 'play it safe' attitude screwed us up pre-march.

 

Maybe if the team against Hull proved themselves capable of basic defending then Rafa would not have felt the need to tighten up! FFS Stoke away, Everton etc fair game, but our defensive play was atrocious at home to Hull and THAT is the reason we did not win.

[Antynwa]

Maybe if the team against Hull proved themselves capable of basic defending then Rafa would not have felt the need to tighten up! FFS Stoke away, Everton etc fair game, but our defensive play was atrocious at home to Hull and THAT is the reason we did not win.

 

We've been over this ground before, I was simply trying to state that it's all well and good pointing out where Mourinho has cocked it up, but Benitez is not innocent of making some crazy decisions himself.

[Catch22]

No I'm not, and yes the team should have beaten Hull, but it didn't. I always thought it was good logic to bring on strikers if you want to win a game.

 

It at least shows where the managers ambitions lie, didn't he say after that match, or it might have been another 'It's important to win, but more important not to lose'.

 

Edit: It was Stoke away when Torres and Keane where on the bench

 

 

The team that played the Mancs & Chavs "should" have lost to them

 

But it won.

 

With our wage bill we "should" have finished 4th.

 

We achieve 2nd (no other side from 4th or down has ever done better than taht in the post-Bosman era) which is a wonderful achievement & people complain!

 

It's extremely unlikely we finish top 2 next year & it is almost an impossibility to win the League so people might as well get their complaining in now

[Whelan]

We've been over this ground before, I was simply trying to state that it's all well and good pointing out where Mourinho has cocked it up, but Benitez is not innocent of making some crazy decisions himself.

 

Unecessarily pointing out that Benitez is not innocent of making some crazy decisions, in all fairness we have been of this ground before as well!

[Antynwa]

The team that played the Mancs & Chavs "should" have lost to them

 

But it won.

 

With our wage bill we "should" have finished 4th.

 

We achieve 2nd (no other side from 4th or down has ever done better than taht in the post-Bosman era) which is a wonderful achievement & people complain!

 

It's extremely unlikely we finish top 2 next year & it is almost an impossibility to win the League so people might as well get their complaining in now

 

All because of wages?

:wow:

[Cardie]

No I'm not, and yes the team should have beaten Hull, but it didn't. I always thought it was good logic to bring on strikers if you want to win a game.

 

 

It isn't as easy as saying 'we're losing let's put all our strikers on' though is it.

[Kennys_spell]

Awesome!!!!!!

 

And much appreciated.

[AmerScouse]

depends on what the money is needed for.

 

in modern football, no "team" is ridiculously better than another team based on the players alone. there are plenty of shock results every week.

 

football is a matter of inches at times. i think if managers had squads of fairly equal stature then it becomes how they spend their money, not necessarily how much.

 

liverpool were a shambles when rafa started and with minimal money he had to build an entire squad. that takes time as hamstrung pointed out with regards to results.

 

mourinho did much of the same, he just did it all in one summer because he had the luxury but it still took them some time to gel. and i know that ranieri brought in a few players before him but the bulk of his squad was bought by mourinho. chelsea weren't that good when he got there, they were top 4 worthy but certainly not title contenders.

 

i actually don't think that chelsea or real madrid's model is a bad one. you make a massive one time investment and amortize the money over a certain number of years. in theory if you are buying players of the right age and quality and paying realistic transfer fees you should see a return on investment over a period of time assuming you work within a budget afterwards. but abramovich was part of the problem as well when you spend 30 million on a schevchenko when you don't really need him etc.

 

i hate talking about football like a business but its unfortunately what it is, our biggest problem was that our evolution as a club was always going to take time because it required us to do it in steps instead of a leap like chelsea did.

 

man u is the minor exception because they had a crop of ridiculously good home grown players who if they had to be bought would have cost hundreds of millions of pounds in transfer fees.

[Guest TK-421]

Charlie Sheen helped the Cleveland Browns win the Major League, now they were skint and had to use a lawnmower motor and a bath as a makeshift spa, so it can be done.

[Torvald Utne]

Same shit, different day. Tedious cunts.

[Ted]

Cleaveland Indians, idiot.

[Red Nick]

And another potentially interesting thread decends into open warfare.

 

You have have intellegent debate as long as you dont question Rafa or suggest That he could have done things better

 

Betaur and Amerscouse show the way to go in this thread but alas the usual suspects descend into open warfare

[Ted]

It isn't as easy as saying 'we're losing let's put all our strikers on' though is it.

 

Is it easier to say 'we're drawing at home to relegation fodder. Fuck the striker, get Lucas on.'

[Antynwa]

I suppose the question is would Rafa have won the title at Chelsea.

 

I am not so sure, I am sure he would have won them 2 CL titles though.

 

Rafa is only now grasping the nettle of risking a game to win a game.

 

Where Mourinho has an advantage over Rafa is that he is prepared to take risks and bring 3 subsitutions on at HT if he feels things arent going right wheras Rafa is better tactically in a one off game.

 

Nest season will define if Rafa has really grasped the risk losing a game to win a game,

 

What did you mean about me 'Asking the question?'

 

I think a good question is could have Benitez replicated the success Mourinho had at Chelsea, or better it?

 

I think you are spot on actually.Rafa would have aced the Champions League with CFC, and he would probably have done with any club in Europe, but it seems to me some of the problems Rafa has had in this league have not actually been down to money as such, but more down to his own personal flaws. Just like Mourinho had in the Champions League. For all the money in the world, some of the problems we have encountered with Benitez can't be solved by money, and even if it could, it doesn't make him no better, or worse than the likes of Mourinho IMO.

[reder]

liverpool were a shambles when rafa started and with minimal money he had to build an entire squad. that takes time as hamstrung pointed out with regards to results.

 

Christ on a bike. You would swear that we were battling against relegation, year in year out, before Rafa arrived. Good post overall but this is OTT.

[Catch22]

depends on what the money is needed for.

 

in modern football, no "team" is ridiculously better than another team based on the players alone. there are plenty of shock results every week.

 

football is a matter of inches at times. i think if managers had squads of fairly equal stature then it becomes how they spend their money, not necessarily how much.

 

liverpool were a shambles when rafa started and with minimal money he had to build an entire squad. that takes time as hamstrung pointed out with regards to results.

 

mourinho did much of the same, he just did it all in one summer because he had the luxury but it still took them some time to gel. and i know that ranieri brought in a few players before him but the bulk of his squad was bought by mourinho. chelsea weren't that good when he got there, they were top 4 worthy but certainly not title contenders.

 

i actually don't think that chelsea or real madrid's model is a bad one. you make a massive one time investment and amortize the money over a certain number of years. in theory if you are buying players of the right age and quality and paying realistic transfer fees you should see a return on investment over a period of time assuming you work within a budget afterwards. but abramovich was part of the problem as well when you spend 30 million on a schevchenko when you don't really need him etc.

 

i hate talking about football like a business but its unfortunately what it is, our biggest problem was that our evolution as a club was always going to take time because it required us to do it in steps instead of a leap like chelsea did.

 

man u is the minor exception because they had a crop of ridiculously good home grown players who if they had to be bought would have cost hundreds of millions of pounds in transfer fees.

 

The bulk of the Chav's title winning squad were not bought by Mourinho.

 

The deals were in place before he arrived: Largely they were the players the Mancs wanted which Kenyon knew & took with him to his new employer who then paid the top.

 

Shevchenko was in fact a Mourinho signing though: he was the 2nd name on the summer target list which he provided, rather like Robbie was for us last season.

[Red Nick]

The bulk of the Chav's title winning squad were not bought by Mourinho.

 

The deals were in place before he arrived: Largely they were the players the Mancs wanted which Kenyon knew & took with him to his new employer who then paid the top.

 

Shevchenko was in fact a Mourinho signing though: he was the 2nd name on the summer target list which he provided, rather like Robbie was for us last season.

 

Drogba was very much a Mourinho signing.

 

Mourinho's best peice of management was to get Makele back in the team after Ranieri kept tinkering with him. When Mourinho arrived Makelle was like signing the best DM in the world which is what he was under Mourinho.

 

The thing about that first Chelsea title winning team there was no out and out superstar like a Gerrard or Ronaldo.

 

In reality Drogba, Carvalho and Feirara were Mourinho's signings two of which were very good.

[Guest TK-421]

Cleaveland Indians, idiot.

 

Oh yer, it was the Indians. My point about makeshift spas stands though.

[Catch22]

Drogba was very much a Mourinho signing.

 

Mourinho's best peice of management was to get Makele back in the team after Ranieri kept tinkering with him. When Mourinho arrived Makelle was like signing the best DM in the world which is what he was under Mourinho.

 

The thing about that first Chelsea title winning team there was no out and out superstar like a Gerrard or Ronaldo.

 

In reality Drogba, Carvalho and Feirara were Mourinho's signings two of which were very good.

 

They had finished 2nd the year before!

 

Cech was the key player in their 2 title winning sides & what tuned that team was wh he got hs concussion

 

He was a Manc target which Kenyon stole which i guess is good!

[Red Nick]

They had finished 2nd the year before!

 

Cech was the key player in their 2 title winning sides & what tuned that team was wh he got hs concussion

 

He was a Manc target which Kenyon stole which i guess is good!

 

Dont dissagree also Robben was a manc target