Official Premier League 2010/11 thread

[Starvinho]

I seem to remember saying it was Benetiz's fault because of the signings he had made in recent years and players he let go, I also made by point that the players weren't playing for Hodgson and were disheartened with his tactics and style of play. Hodgson never had a fair chance at getting his own players because of the lack of money before the takeover, but Benitez had similar problems too.

[therockbox]

Roy signed five of his own players in the summer. Three of them have ranged from poor to abysmal, one hasn't played and the other was generally played out of position.

Our signings and sales in the last couple of years under Rafa were determined by the board's need to turn a profit in every transfer window. We were losing £50m a season in interest payments alone, what did people think would happen to the squad in those circumstances?

[HailtotheYo]

How much time does it take to reshape a squad full of players who absolutely don't work in your system?

And yeah, motivating the players was kinda his key task.

The first part of that, honestly, it takes more than half a season and 2-3 player transactions. That's why it looks exactly like the college football HC dilemma over here. It was brought up that he wanted to sign Cole ... at least he was trying to address an obvious need for the club. Whether his potential targets would have worked out is an entirely different conversation, however, he was at least attempting to bring in players and do what little transforming he could do at this point. There at the end of his reign, it wasn't like Benitez was making brilliant player decisions. While not necessarily better, I don't think that Roy's decisions were any worse.

Yes, absolutely one of the most important things a manager is to do is motivate his players. However, we're talking about a squad that gave up on a manager that took them to the CL final twice and pushed for the league by getting them to overachieve. If a team quits on a manager like that, how can you hold the new guy accountable for them being a sulky pile of ninnies ? The issues run much deeper at 'Pool which is why it looks like Roy was sold down the river.

To me, it seems that they should at least have left him on until the end of the season. That way you have an entire off-season to address things. There is certainly more time to make squad movements and more players available to do it as contracts mostly end at the summer. Roy's moves were being judged by a one month window he didn't get to finish. Roy didn't have the squad to compete in the competitions he's in yet he's the lone one at fault for the poor results ? Nonsense.

It looks like he was sold down the river as a way for the brass (and indirectly) the players to keep from acknowledging the much deeper rooted issues at the club.

EDIT - didn't realize he made those moves over the summer

[therockbox]

Do you really think that the owners think getting rid of Roy solves the problems? I've said before that I think they saw him as the short term option - get to the summer, even if it meant writing off the season as one spent in mid-table, then replace him at the end of the season giving the new manager time to prepare for next season.

Unfortunately our home form dipped, and our away record, coupled with Roy's away record throughout his career - 12 wins or so in 80 odd top flight away games - meant that sticking with Roy would be a massive gamble. Teams that get outplayed at home to the likes of Wolves are in serious danger of relegation. It got to the point where sticking with Roy until the end of the season became a bigger gamble than getting rid of him now.

Since he left a number of scouts has left, the backroom staff have already started to change and apparently there's going to be a big clear out of some of the older players in the summer. To suggest that the other problems in the club are being ignored is, simply, wrong.

[brenchill]

Why exactly do you think Hodgson's away record is so bad? I'm genuinely interested. Is it the way he sets up away from home?

[HailtotheYo]

Do you really think that the owners think getting rid of Roy solves the problems?

They're American owners, that's how the American sports mind usually works.

Since he left a number of scouts has left, the backroom staff have already started to change and apparently there's going to be a big clear out of some of the older players in the summer. To suggest that the other problems in the club are being ignored is, simply, wrong.

Sounds like they lucked into that situation. Hasn't that "older player clearout" been a few years coming though ? What were they doing before Roy was sacked to make any headway with any of the other issues ? That phrasing really makes it sound like a "whoops, look what we found" kind of deal with other things starting to take care of themselves because Roy was sacked, not because of anything that the club was doing otherwise.

[therockbox]

I think so. Our best results came against teams that didn't press us at all, and were quite happy to let us walk the ball into their half. Villa and West Ham were the worst for it, and we only turned the game around against Bolton when they retreated back to the edge of their own 18 yard line and just let us come at them. Teams like Wolves and Blackpool approached the games at Anfield as if they were playing at home, and we couldn't cope.

[therockbox]

They're American owners, that's how the American sports mind usually works.

And yet all the evidence so far would suggest they think the opposite.

Sounds like they lucked into that situation. Hasn't that "older player clearout" been a few years coming though ? What were they doing before Roy was sacked to make any headway with any of the other issues ? That phrasing really makes it sound like a "whoops, look what we found" kind of deal with other things starting to take care of themselves because Roy was sacked, not because of anything that the club was doing otherwise.

In what sense have they 'lucked into' actively getting rid of scouts and changing the coaching staff?

When they arrived FSG openly admitted that they needed time to learn the game, and didn't rush into making any rash decisions (even though removing Roy when they first arrived would have saved them money, because of a clause in his contract). I don't think it's a surprise that they've made a number of big decisions within a few days of each other, although there won't really be any major movement until a new CEO is in place.

I don't know where you got that bit in bold from, either. Mainly because the older players that are likely to leave wouldn't have been as old a few years ago, or weren't here.

Edited January 13, 2011 by therockbox.

[HailtotheYo]

And yet all the evidence so far would suggest they think the opposite.

How so ? This is twice now they've cut the head off ...

In what sense have they 'lucked into' actively getting rid of scouts and changing the coaching staff?

When they arrived FSG openly admitted that they needed time to learn the game, and didn't rush into making any rash decisions (even though removing Roy when they first arrived would have saved them money, because of a clause in his contract). I don't think it's a surprise that they've made a number of big decisions within a few days of each other, although there won't really be any major movement until a new CEO is in place.

So then the answer to my question of what they've been doing to address the deeper rooted issues at the club is: "they were learning the game" ?

The way you stated things, made it seem like they were actively doing quite a bit. I'm curious as to what exactly they were doing to address the many issues at the club. Outside of sacking two managers, what has been done ?

How did they address the other issues in order to give Roy a chance ?

I don't know where you got that bit in bold from, either. Mainly because the older players that are likely to leave wouldn't have been as old a few years ago, or weren't here.

I think it was 06-07 when guys like Fowler and Zenden were around and a 'look to get younger' type of deal started ? While there has been turnover, it's 4 years later and there's still to be a sell off of older players.

It just seems (again, outside looking in) that Liverpool is quite a bit like Notre Dame and Michigan over here.

[therockbox]

What two manager's have they sacked?

[Hobo]

Think he means Rafa and Roy. But Rafa was sacked by Hicks and Gillette not NESV.

[Starvinho]

So anyways I'm sick of this Liverpool debate now. Who's looking forward to Sunday? Three games in a row

Birmingham v Aston Villa, 12:00

Liverpool v Everton, 14:05

Tottenham v Man Utd, 16:10

Sunday's sorted then

[Pesci]

How much time does it take to reshape a squad full of players who absolutely don't work in your system?

And yeah, motivating the players was kinda his key task.

The first part of that, honestly, it takes more than half a season and 2-3 player transactions. That's why it looks exactly like the college football HC dilemma over here. It was brought up that he wanted to sign Cole ... at least he was trying to address an obvious need for the club. Whether his potential targets would have worked out is an entirely different conversation, however, he was at least attempting to bring in players and do what little transforming he could do at this point. There at the end of his reign, it wasn't like Benitez was making brilliant player decisions. While not necessarily better, I don't think that Roy's decisions were any worse.

Yeah, it takes a very long time to completely transform an entire squad. The evidence is that his system doesn't work and that he'll have to bring in an entirely new squad for it to ever work, because it's not working with anyone he's tried so far. Why should we let him continue to reshape the squad when he's shown a total inability to manage the side so far? Isn't it risky letting him reform the squad in his image when he's never done anything to suggest his style works with Champions League spot-chasing teams and he's had a disastrous start to the job? It's one thing backing a manager who's shown promise, or is proven at the top level, but it's madness to back a guy who's came in to motivate the players and inspired the worst performances most of these players have produced.

Yes, absolutely one of the most important things a manager is to do is motivate his players. However, we're talking about a squad that gave up on a manager that took them to the CL final twice and pushed for the league by getting them to overachieve. If a team quits on a manager like that, how can you hold the new guy accountable for them being a sulky pile of ninnies ? The issues run much deeper at 'Pool which is why it looks like Roy was sold down the river.

The issues do run a lot deeper, and I'm sure you'll agree that the way Liverpool fans reacted to Hicks and Gillett shows we're a little aware of that. And nobody's saying it's all Roy's fault, as you've said later on in your post. But the British media and a few people here seem to be suggesting none of it is Roy's fault, which is baffling. He came in to do a job, and he didn't do it - if anything he did the opposite. Whether it was unreasonable to expect Roy to motivate the players, that's what he said he'd do and that's what he was hired to do, and why he was hired over other, better qualified candidates, so naturally that's what he should be judged on. But it's unfair to sack him because of half a season's worth of bad results and poor performances?

To me, it seems that they should at least have left him on until the end of the season. That way you have an entire off-season to address things. There is certainly more time to make squad movements and more players available to do it as contracts mostly end at the summer.

And Dalglish is only in charge until the end of the season, so this will all be possible.

EDIT: Yeah, Sunday looks awesome. Three games I'm genuinely really interested in.

Edited January 13, 2011 by Pesci

[Starvinho]

EDIT: Yeah, Sunday looks awesome. Three games I'm genuinely really interested in.

Newcastle vs Sunderland are on aswell at 12, but not on Sky, gutted they couldn't fit that one in too, that's always one of the better fixtures on the season. Can't complain with the three that are on though

[Liam]

If Liverpool continue to bite the weenie this season, at what time can we turn and point our fingers at Daglish, or the squad? I mean, anytime Benitez was mentioned, the Liverpool fans were just interested in the current manager, but I wouldn't be surprised if Hodgson gets a kicking for the rest of the season if Liverpool continue to play poorly.

As for squads, yeah, you have players that are the same that played in a team that did well in the League last year, but that's last year, your best players are either getting on a bit (Carragher), underperforming (Johnson had been, for example) or just look like they don't want to be there (Torres). Last year is last year, the side had looked like it was creaking big time towards the end of last season, which is where a lot of people are making these judgements from. People don't care that Liverpool finished high in the table, they remember how woeful Liverpool looked at times late last season, and this has continued into this season.

[Szumi]

I still think they should've sold Torres last summer when they had the opportunity to. I backed the idea then, and I still do. They could've gotten crazy money for him last year from Chelsea, and probably other clubs too. He doesn't want to be there anymore, and his confidence isn't really there either. He's been so banged up the past season, his body is wearing down, I feel, from all the knocks that comes with playing as a lone striker, especially one as good as he is, and when he decides to put in an effort, he's starved of service. I love Torres, and appreciate immensely what he did for the club, but his time should've ended at Anfield 6 months ago. However, the gamble of selling him with Pinky and the Brain in charge still could've resulted in none of that money being spent on transfers, or Roy using it to probably buy the likes of Carlton Cole (even as a West Ham fan I say he's not fit to play for Pool) and Damien Duff. So really, I guess it's been a lose-lose when it comes to Torres. He's going to go soon, but you have to think his value has dropped tremendously. They could've gotten something outrageous like 40million, and probably up to 60 million, pounds for him.

[HailtotheYo]

Yeah, it takes a very long time to completely transform an entire squad. The evidence is that his system doesn't work and that he'll have to bring in an entirely new squad for it to ever work, because it's not working with anyone he's tried so far. Why should we let him continue to reshape the squad when he's shown a total inability to manage the side so far? Isn't it risky letting him reform the squad in his image when he's never done anything to suggest his style works with Champions League spot-chasing teams and he's had a disastrous start to the job? It's one thing backing a manager who's shown promise, or is proven at the top level, but it's madness to back a guy who's came in to motivate the players and inspired the worst performances most of these players have produced.

Well, it comes down to your position on the squad, as it is now. As Liam mentioned, this is a squad that had quit before he even got there. The second half of last year was piss poor as was the player's attitudes. Roy had absolutely nothing to do with that. Torres hasn't wanted to be there for almost a year now. Guys like Gerrard were already slipping. He's just the one to be there when the bottom finally dropped. He contributed yes, but nobody was going to stop it from happening. He's shown promise from a lesser league, up to a mid-tier club with mid-level resources. There isn't that much of a step between the (up until this year) Fulham/Everton/Villa level and the "big clubs" in the EPL.

As for his style not working with Champions League chasing teams ... he's only been in charge of one for six months. By no means am I saying that I'm of the opinion that he can do it, but just looking at his results with Fulham and their resources ... It's not a stretch to believe that he could accomplish quite a bit with a club like Liverpool and their resources.

The issues do run a lot deeper, and I'm sure you'll agree that the way Liverpool fans reacted to Hicks and Gillett shows we're a little aware of that. And nobody's saying it's all Roy's fault, as you've said later on in your post. But the British media and a few people here seem to be suggesting none of it is Roy's fault, which is baffling. He came in to do a job, and he didn't do it - if anything he did the opposite. Whether it was unreasonable to expect Roy to motivate the players, that's what he said he'd do and that's what he was hired to do, and why he was hired over other, better qualified candidates, so naturally that's what he should be judged on. But it's unfair to sack him because of half a season's worth of bad results and poor performances?

This is where one of the biggest issues with 'Pool is right now. Self image. 'Pool isn't "Liverpool" right now. With everything else going on at the club, and with the players in the state they were in when he took over ... how could there be any real kind of expectation. This is why I made the comparison to Michigan and Notre Dame over here. Things simply aren't what they used to be, but the mode of thinking hasn't changed. I'm not saying that the white flag should be unfurled and waived, but there definately needs to be a bit of reality checked and a much better understanding of what it is going to take to right the ship according to the Liverpool standard.

With the injuries, attitude of the squad, and turn over needed nobody would have the side performing up to Liverpool standard in half a season.

And yes, it was two American ownerships ... but the first answer was the same. Sack the coach. Kind of my point.

Szumi, I agree completely. Had they capitalized on Torres they could have fixed a couple of the issues with the squad considering the money that would have been shelled out for him.

[Pesci]

If Liverpool continue to bite the weenie this season, at what time can we turn and point our fingers at Daglish, or the squad? I mean, anytime Benitez was mentioned, the Liverpool fans were just interested in the current manager, but I wouldn't be surprised if Hodgson gets a kicking for the rest of the season if Liverpool continue to play poorly.

As for squads, yeah, you have players that are the same that played in a team that did well in the League last year, but that's last year, your best players are either getting on a bit (Carragher), underperforming (Johnson had been, for example) or just look like they don't want to be there (Torres). Last year is last year, the side had looked like it was creaking big time towards the end of last season, which is where a lot of people are making these judgements from. People don't care that Liverpool finished high in the table, they remember how woeful Liverpool looked at times late last season, and this has continued into this season.

It's still the only basis you have for ranking the squad Hodgson inherited, though. We were awful at the end of last season but players don't just deteriorate overnight and it's not like a player is condemned to play badly forever if he goes through a bad spell. If we continue to play badly Hodgson has to take a share of the blame, as does Benitez for the state the squad was in when Roy took it over - and the term "a share" is key here, because it's not even close to being entirely Rafa's fault, or even mostly. I personally wouldn't suggest, if we got relegated for instance, that Dalglish had nothing to do with it - he would've done an awful job, influenced massively by Hodgson's performance but still an awful job. Besides, there's a big difference from inheriting a squad that's played half a campaign already and inheriting a squad at the start of a new season.

As for his style not working with Champions League chasing teams ... he's only been in charge of one for six months. By no means am I saying that I'm of the opinion that he can do it, but just looking at his results with Fulham and their resources ... It's not a stretch to believe that he could accomplish quite a bit with a club like Liverpool and their resources.

And it hasn't worked in the six months he's been in charged. At all. It worked with Fulham because Fulham is a completely different team with completely different players - that style of play is perfect for them. If he had his own squad suited to his system he'd probably do better, but there's nothing to suggest he'd do any better than last season (which, considering we sacked Rafa for finishing 7th, had to be the aim?), whereas the negative style and poor goal tally, and shocking away record to name a couple suggest he'd have a very hard time. It'd take a lot of time to overhaul the squad and I don't see the benefit of that for a guy who's had such a poor start and plays a style of football that clearly isn't suited for teams with as big a reputation as us - the reputation is relevant because it completely changes the way teams play against us and results we try for, before people think I'm just clinging onto a bygone era by mentioning it. I mean, if people's only reasoning for him staying is that he wasn't given a "fair shake", that's fair enough because he reminds you of your grandad and you feel bad seeing him turfed out, but there wasn't a real case for him staying on. Other than to placate Konchesky's mum maybe.

Edited January 14, 2011 by Pesci

[therockbox]

Also, it's wrong to suggest we poor in the second stages/tter part of last season. We were consistent in our inconsistency throughout, and either went out and blitzed teams or trundled along hoping to sneak a point. There were very, very few 'battling' wins, we either found games incredibly easy or beyond our reach. This season those easy games have all but disappeared (except for West Ham and Villa, who turned up and played right into our hands) and there have been far, far more of the games we've simply not coped with.

[HailtotheYo]

Besides, there's a big difference from inheriting a squad that's played half a campaign already and inheriting a squad at the start of a new season.

And it hasn't worked in the six months he's been in charged. At all. It worked with Fulham because Fulham is a completely different team with completely different players - that style of play is perfect for them. If he had his own squad suited to his system he'd probably do better, but there's nothing to suggest he'd do any better than last season (which, considering we sacked Rafa for finishing 7th, had to be the aim?), whereas the negative style and poor goal tally, and shocking away record to name a couple suggest he'd have a very hard time. It'd take a lot of time to overhaul the squad and I don't see the benefit of that for a guy who's had such a poor start and plays a style of football that clearly isn't suited for teams with as big a reputation as us - the reputation is relevant because it completely changes the way teams play against us and results we try for, before people think I'm just clinging onto a bygone era by mentioning it. I mean, if people's only reasoning for him staying is that he wasn't given a "fair shake", that's fair enough because he reminds you of your grandad and you feel bad seeing him turfed out, but there wasn't a real case for him staying on. Other than to placate Konchesky's mum maybe.

There IS a huge difference ... and what could possibly be the hope of sacking him and bringing on a new manager ? A new manager coming in now seems almost hopeless to turn things around given how the state of the players at this point. At least, that's the difference on our opinions I'm guessing. For me, the last thing I'd want to do is bring in a third guy (in the middle of a season no less) especially after I've gone from great manager gone sour to proposed great English manager gone wrong. My squad's performance and attitude have gone from horridly wrong to unthinkable in the matter of 6 months. Given the timeframe, a third man in at this point only seems to further the spiral as opposed to righting the ship.

"Don't complicate matters further" is my take on the situation summed up. I mean now you run the risk of finding a new bottom rather than flattening it out and starting the climb up.

That, and we all know it's best to keep mommy happy

Also, it's wrong to suggest we poor in the second stages/tter part of last season.

Really ? On February 6th you were sitting 4th ... and then proceeded to drop points in 8 of 13 remaining matches, gaining only 19pts off of the last 13 matches. That was your worst stretch of the season.