El_Ménco

Failed in that he was pretty awful for both Barcelona, Inter and, in the very short time he was there, Chelsea.

Who would you have suggested at the time?

Well that goes without saying.... It was incredibly naïve and foolish to assume that if we sacked Benitez, all the top managers around the world would start flocking to the job on the basis that "we are Liverpool", as we were repeatedly told by certain people on this forum.

Just out of interest, who were these better managers?

He's really not.

I would much rather Rafa always fighting someone and being easy to wind up (although I'm not sure that's entirely accurate) over Hodgson constantly talking about himself being such a fantastic manager, whilst at the same time making snide remarks about other managers who have achieved what he could only dream of.

Oh dear. This post is a disaster.

Steven Gerrard's best position remains open to debate - Jonathan Wilson - SI.com Twenty years ago, it would have been obvious what Steven Gerrard was. He has boundless energy, a ferocious shot and an extraordinary capacity for bending games to his will. Think of his goals against Germany in the 2001 World Cup qualifier in Munich, against Olympiakos in the 2005 Champions league quarterfinal and against West Ham United in the 2006 FA Cup final. On each occasion, as the ball dropped to him, there was a magnificent inevitability about the ball flashing from his boot into the net. There was something of the comic book about him, a hero who always did what was needed just when it was needed. The player he most recalled in style was Bryan Robson -- not the crabby battler Robson became later in his career, but the swashbuckling leader who for much of the 1980s seemed to drag England and Manchester United along single-handedly. If there was a last-ditch challenge needed to be made, he'd be there, and seconds later he'd be clattering through the opposing penalty area to thump a header into the top corner. He seemed to be everywhere, tireless and fearless. In terms of trophies, Gerrard has actually been more successful than Robson, but he, like Michael Owen before him, has found the evolution of tactics overtaking him. His case is not as severe as that of Owen, who has admitted that he needs another striker alongside him and is finding it difficult to adjust to an era of single-striker formations, but the box-to-box midfielder is in its own way becoming as much of an anachronism as the specialist goal poacher. The problems are twofold: practical and theoretical. Very simply, box-to-box players are slipping out of fashion for the same reason wingbacks are; because they cover a huge amount of ground, they have to be fitter than everybody else, and with improvements in general fitness and sports nutrition and the increase in the pace of the game, the number of players who can cope with the physical demands of the role is decreasing. Gerrard is one who still can, but there must be a tactical framework to accommodate him. The liberalization of the offside law has also had a huge impact. Since the interpretation of what constitutes interfering with play was altered in favor of the forward in 2005, it has become harder and harder for teams to play an aggressive offside trap (as a measure of that, the number of offsides per Premier League game fell from 7.9 to 4.9 between the 1998-99 season and 2008-09). That means teams are defending deeper, and that in turn stretches the effective playing area from around 50 yards to about 70 yards, which in turn means that those players whose job is to charge up and down have to cover more ground (in that regard, box-to-box was always something of a misnomer; "defensive-line-to-defensive-line" would have been far more accurate). Improvements in fitness and the change in the laws have both contributed to tactical changes in the game, but so too has the realization that using two holding midfielders allows a side to include three creators plus a striker in a 4-2-3-1. As the World Cup showed, that setup has replaced 4-4-2 as a near-universal default. In such a system, there is no place for the box-to-box player. Midfield has been split into, broadly speaking, holding and creative roles. Of course, there are variations within that: Xabi Alonso and Javier Mascherano are about as different as two players could be and yet are both holding midfielders -- which is perhaps why they once formed such a superb partnership for Liverpool. But where does Gerrard fit? Even in conservative England, the World Cup brought an acceptance that sending out the players in good old 4-4-2 and expecting them to sort it out isn't really enough, and that in turn has led to a slew of debate about Gerrard's "best position." But even that seems an oddly English way of looking at the problem. "I can't believe that in England they don't teach young players to be multifunctional," Jose Mourinho said during his time at Chelsea. "To them it's just about knowing one position and playing that position." The temptation, following the paradigm of the late Robson, was always to see Gerrard as a holding midfielder who got forward to score the odd goal, but former Liverpool manager Rafa Benitez quickly decided he lacked the tactical discipline for that, and tried to turn him into a goal-scoring midfielder who made the odd tackle. The decisive game in his thinking was probably Liverpool's Champions League quarterfinal with Juventus in 2005. Liverpool won the first leg at Anfield 2-1 but Gerrard missed the second leg in Turin with a thigh strain. There was much anguish in the media, but Alonso and Igor Biscan were superb in midfield as Liverpool held possession and frustrated Juventus to draw 0-0. It was hard to imagine Gerrard's contributing to such a performance, full of sideways and backward passes designed to draw the sting from the game and keep Juve at arm's length. One of the joys of English soccer is its lack of cynicism, its relentless pursuit of goals, and Gerrard embodies that. This, though, was a night for discretion, and Gerrard's seemingly unbreakable habit of spraying 40-yard passes at every opportunity would have been out of place. But if Gerrard lacks the tactical discipline to be a holding midfielder, he also lacks the guile to be a playmaker. His game is about power and endeavor, not subtlety. By using Alonso as a holder, Benitez was able to provide enough guile to use Gerrard off a front man in his 4-2-3-1. When Alonso left, though, Liverpool were rendered predictable. Fabio Capello's solution, during the World Cup qualifiers, was to use Gerrard on the left. He has made clear he prefers to play in the center, and tends to follow the ball, but at first it worked as Wayne Rooney dropped off Emile Heskey and drifted left, creating a neat interplay as Gerrard came inside, opening space on the left for Ashley Cole to overlap from fullback. But when Rooney, perhaps under instruction or perhaps because his role at Manchester United had changed, began playing higher up the pitch during the World Cup, alongside rather than off Heskey, Gerrard's drifts inside simply led to congestion. Against Bulgaria on Friday, with Capello reverting to a more orthodox 4-4-2, Gerrard was back in the middle alongside Gareth Barry, a natural holder, but that may be because of the absence of the injured Frank Lampard rather than a long-term plan. Four years after the FA Cup final he won almost single-handedly, though, there's the nagging sense that wherever Gerrard plays he'd always be slightly better elsewhere, mainly because he remains a square peg and tactical changes in the game have left only round holes. Gerrard has had a great career, but it might have been even greater if only he'd been born 20 years earlier.

At least those that don't want Hodgson as manager haven't stooped to the admirable levels of calling him a fat cunt as often as they can, which can't be said for many of those that wanted rid of Benitez.

Hodgson's going to be our manager?! I thought the world class managers would be crawling over broken glass to get the Liverpool job!?

Just because we’ve previously signed some terrible players in the past doesn’t mean we should sign another one.

[YOUTUBE]lH3hrtp1T84[/YOUTUBE]

That man truly knows no limits.

How has this rumour changed from rubbing hands together to rubbing fingers together in one thread? I thought this whole story was factually correct?

At least Lucas has generally looked like he gives a fuck.

I did as a matter of fact, but I assume next season can be included as the future? "I'm talking about past and future, not today."

If the investment being reported does take place it will undoubtedly make Rafa's job a lot easier, I would still say to take Juve, who are without a doubt the biggest club in Italy, from where they are at present to title winners in one season would still be an impressive feat, even with the level of investment being suggested. When Abramovich invested all his millions into Chelsea, it still took the appointment of a great manager in Mourinho to shift the team from 2nd place under Ranieri, a good manager in his own respect, who's currently doing well with Roma. I'm referencing this as I think it will still take excellent management from whoever is at the helm next season, be it Rafa or someone else, to win the title with the club. (Good post, by the way).

Your argument would probably be much more cohesive if you were drawing pictures. So after having 3 years of re-building the club which has resulted in them sitting comfortably in 6th place this season, behind the clubs that Juventus are leading the way for, why will it be difficult for Rafa to fail next season? Is there a specific re-building time that only lasts for 3 years and then in the 4th year they become the best team in Serie A by default? You don't think the team needs anymore re-building after, like us, being knocked out of the Champions League, being knocked out of the Europa League and having a terrible title challenge?

Haha, it's nice to see you cut out the rest of what I wrote: Why was it not "difficult to fail" for those who have been Juventus manager since their promotion, yet it will be for Rafa if he takes over next season? Besides a sponsorship that gives the club only 8 million Euros a season, 7 million less than AC Milan who are getting 15 million Euros every season, I can't see a huge amount that will have changed by next year. My question was why will it be different for Rafa?

May I just ask what they were doing then if they weren't match fixing? BBC SPORT | Football | Europe | Italian trio relegated to Serie B 2006 Italian football scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'Kinell, the irony is spectacular. Why was it not "difficult to fail" for those who have been Juventus manager since their promotion, yet it will be for Rafa if he takes over next season? Besides a sponsorship that gives the club only 8 million Euros a season, 7 million less than AC Milan who are getting 15 million Euros every season, I can't see a huge amount that will have changed by next year.

Why haven't the previous managers won Serie A then? Especially as they've had this huge advantage over all the other Italian clubs?

Don't be ridiculous.... That couldn't possibly be the case....

Why are they currently in 6th now? And their sponsorship is only worth 16 million euros across two seasons, that's not really getting back to their (I think) 23 million euros a season that they had?

Well then why should it be "difficult to fail" with Juve for Rafa then? Especially with all these factors going against him?