Official Premier League 2010/11 thread

[Hobo]

I would trace Liverpool's revival to the following:

1) The takeover by NESV.

2) The appointment of Kenny Dalglish.

3) The appointment of Steve Clarke.

4) The sale of Fernando Torres and the arrival of Luis Suarez and Andy Carroll.

[stokeriño]

I would trace Liverpool's revival to the following:

1) The takeover by NESV.

2) The appointment of Kenny Dalglish.

3) The appointment of Steve Clarke.

4) The sale of Fernando Torres and the arrival of Luis Suarez and Andy Carroll.

So you would trace Liverpool's revival to Everything That Happened To Them During That Time? Ingenious, Holmes.

[Crybaby Bunting]

Back in October or whenever I made that comparison, Liverpool were absolutely terrible. I was generally saying that given how badly their squad was playing there was a genuine fear that they could go down.

Look at West Ham now, on paper their squad is good enough to be sorta around the mid-table mark. Look at Newcastle when they went down, a similar scenario. Look at Leeds when they went down, same scenario.

Players are strange things because they fluctuate so greatly in talent depending on their mood and motivation. Emre was Inter Milan's best young player of the fucking season once you know, now look at him.

People forget that back then every Liverpool players form appeared to be shot to pieces; other players appeared to be past it, other players hadn't played enough to 'click' yet.

Reina - Was making mistakes on a regular basis

Konchesky - Not even the best left back in the squad but playing regularly

Caragher - Seen as 'past it' the previous season, it's only recently that he's started to gain form again.

Gerrard - Doing his best 'superman' impression, hogging the midfield but doing nothing.

Lucas - Out of position, if played at all.

Poulson - Lol.

Meireles - Played out of position, as a consequence he was the worst midfielder in the squad.

Maxi/Cole - Oh come on, until they started scoring goals recently they were touted as the worst players Liverpool had ever signed.

Torres - Giving his best Michael Owen impression, shame he was mimicking his Newcastle form.

Notice how the squad back then is different to the squad now? They got rid ofthe unresponsive Torres, played Meireles in his proper role, used their better left back, and started to utilise Kuyt and Lucas more.

Their first team squad back then was comparable to Newcastle and Leeds because, barring Reina, Torres and Gerrard (who were grossly underperforming) they had no notable players that honestly stood out. Was Konchesky better than Enrique? Was Joe Cole better than Jonas Gutierrez? Was Poulson better than Lee Bowyer?

Maybe I'm overestimating the Newcastle squad because I was so used to them, but stepping back a little makes the comparisons at least vaguely plausible.

Notice how Liverpool are playing so much better now that Gerrard is injured and they can play creative midfielders who aren't hogging EVERY ATTACKING OPPORTUNITY?

I fully expect Liverpool to fix their key problems over the summer that would normally prevent them from fucking up their momentum. I expect them to find a replacement for Caragher. I expect them to find a long term replacement for Gerrard. I expect them to find another winger etc.

But that's another thing. Back in October etc. Liverpool were still owned by Hicks and Gillete and there was a sickening sense that they might keep control of the club one way or another. Do you guys realise that, had those guys remained at the club, Hodgeson would have stayed longer... quite possibly fucked up the transfer market with whatever he had (HE WANTED TO SELL Lucas).

When you consider that most of Liverpool's recent surges have come from expensive quick fixes, just wonder what would have happened if they hadn't come. Liverpool could have been fucking relegated with a team (at that moment in time) worse than Leeds or Newcastle.

EDIT: Post fucked up the formatting, it turned me into Matzat :/

Edited May 2, 2011 by The General

[Matt]

Newcastle, I'll give you arguaby but the Leeds one? nah, not in a month of sundays.

Goalkeepers

Robinson, Paul

Milosevic,

Carson, Scott

Defenders

Kelly,Gary

Harte, Ian

Camara, Zoumana

Radebe, Lucas

Roque Junior, Jose Vitor

Matteo, Dominic

Duberry, Michael

Domi, Didier

Richardson, Fraser

Midfielders

Bakke, Eirik

Barmby, Nick

Batty, David

Johnson, Seth

Keegan, Paul

Lennon, Aaron

McMaster, Jamie

Milner,James

Morris, Jody

Olembe, Salomon

Pennant, Jermaine

Wilcox, Jason

Woods, Martin

Strikers

Chapuis, Cyrile

Johnson,Simon

Viduka, Mark

Smith, Alan

Baring in mind that Mark Viduka was half interested at best and overweight, Milner and Lennon were kids, Radebe and Batty were old and very injury prone, Eirik Bakke was injury prone and Paul Robinson was inexperienced, who in that squad were you comparing Gerrard, Torres, Lucas, Carragher, Agger, Reina and Kuyt to? Alan Smith was probably our best/consistent/fit/experienced player that season. We were nailed on certainties for relegation from day one.

Admittedly, I think we did have Lee Bowyer until January which isn't mentioned on there.

Not meaning to sound a dick here, by the way, I've just realised it might come across that way.

[therockbox]

When you consider that most of Liverpool's recent surges have come from expensive quick fixes,

Two players, aged 22 and 24, who were paid for by outgoing transfers? Come on.

The squad, as I said right from the off, was always far better than Hodgson was managing to get out of them. Even before the Torres/Babel & Suarez/Carroll swap we were looking much better than we had at any point earlier in the season, and whilst we've improved massively since February an awful lot of that is down to players that Roy had at his disposal as well. No way did we have a 'worse team' than Newcastle or Leeds when they got relegated, we just had a manager who was totally and utterly out of his depth and had no idea what to do with the players he inherited. Despite having a sulk on Torres was starting to pick up some form under Dalglish.

Notice how the squad back then is different to the squad now? They got rid ofthe unresponsive Torres, played Meireles in his proper role, used their better left back, and started to utilise Kuyt and Lucas more.

But these things boil down to the manager, not the quality of the squad. If a manager chooses to play a career central midfielder as a right winger then you can't put that down to the quality of the players at his disposal, it's just the manager making a mistake.

I'm not buying that our squad was worse than Leeds' or Newcastle's when they got relegated, because it just isn't. What is largely the same squad is now pushing for a fifth placed finish despite the relegation fears earlier in the season, which goes along with what I said was the problem pretty much from the moment it all started going tits up under Roy, mainly that the manager's only system was totally incompatible with the players he had and exposed pretty much every weakness going, on an individual level and overall.

[Colly]

I've noticed Andy Carroll looks oddly like Edge.

Tamas Kadar agrees, he pointed it out in a Newcastle program pre-transfer. Supposedly Carroll answered 'so does your mother'. Witty character.

And yep, I was another commenter on the Liverpool = Leeds conversation, but it was Robbie Fowler who made the point. I still don't think its that far off the mark, the difference made by Suarez, Maxi hitting form and playing Meireles in the right position has been huge, with the odd appearance from Carroll and a crazy run of goals from Kuyt saving Liverpools season.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Colly

[DavidMarrio]

I can't buy the argument that we had the same quality squad as Newcastle or Leeds either.

I think the fact that when watching the games the players looked demoralized, off form and played out of position and there was no self belief in the team whatsoever. Now when you look at the team we've got a strong unit who look like they are enjoying themselves and are willing to fight for the team

Perfect example: Look at Wolves at Anfield under Hodgson there was no fight in the team whatsoever we got dominated in midfield the team weren't fighting to win the ball back. Look at the team now they'll chase the ball down the pitch and try and win it back.

The team is more organized and are playing better football thanks to a Kennys philosophy compared to Roy who while he is a good manager he's not the type of manager to be in charge of a club like Liverpool, he's doing a great job at West Brom and that is the type of job he excels at.

The squad isn't that much different really it's just two players have been sold in Torres/Babel and we've brought in using the money from those sales to get Suarez and Carroll. People like Poulsen, Konchesky don't get played anymore and Kenny is trusting the youth players in Kelly, Robinson and Flanagan who have all put in good performances considering the relative experience of them. Players like Spearing are playing really well and stepping up in the absence of Gerrard.

Kenny is just utilizing the players he's got better than Roy did and has got them believing in themselves again. Our squad is a top 6 quality team and hopefully with the right signings next season we can try and make the push to getting back Champions League.

[Pesci]

Yeah but those are all, with the exception of Suarez and Carroll (the latter of whom, while showing great promise in his appearances, hasn't exactly had a monumental impact anyway), players who were there with Hodgson too. The fact that Kenny's getting a lot more out of them isn't a reflection on the squad, it's a reflection on the manager. Hodgson was dragging the players below their natural level with his timid and counter-effective tactics including an awful away record that saw us win just one away game under his reign (which has been a recurring theme with him ever since he joined Fulham so it doesn't make sense at all to blame it on the squad), his poor man management and strange morale-breaking post match interviews, and Kenny is playing them to their potential, albeit with a little help from the atmosphere at the club following the takeover. I get that this is a spent argument by now but our squad has always had more potential than those of Leeds and Newcastle's when they went down. If Hodgson chose to play Cole and Konchesky, it doesn't take away from the fact that there were better options there. If Maxi, Kuyt and Meireles have had a revival under Kenny, it doesn't mean they've suddenly gained these awesome superhuman powers to be better footballers, it means the manager's utilised them better.

Admittedly the NESV takeover has helped to lift morale a great deal as well and to be fair to Hodgson it's not like he would've got a great deal from the players at that stage anyway, which is exactly why he was the wrong man for the job in the first place. I appreciate that it was always going to be a hard job for him but there were more qualified candidates who had a better chance of succeeding. And let's not forget that a lot of the shit players - Konchesky, Poulsen and Cole - were his signings anyway, so he doesn't get the whole "aww bless, look at what he was left with" argument when it comes to them.

[Hobo]

I would trace Liverpool's revival to the following:

1) The takeover by NESV.

2) The appointment of Kenny Dalglish.

3) The appointment of Steve Clarke.

4) The sale of Fernando Torres and the arrival of Luis Suarez and Andy Carroll.

So you would trace Liverpool's revival to Everything That Happened To Them During That Time? Ingenious, Holmes.

Are you going to tell me that I am wrong?

[stokeriño]

Howard Webb chosen to referee United v Chelsea

Forget the match. We might as well just award them the title right now.

[lanky316]

Just renewed my season ticket!

Shame I'll be getting married on the first day of the new season... *crosses fingers for Sunday kick-off*

"Ah well, glad that's over. Toodles, my dear wife. I'm off to the Bridge."

Call yourself a fan? You should be married on the pitch at half time, she'd understand...

Liverpools turnaround is ultimately down to a couple of minor factors, the prima donnas felt they were too good for Hodgson and didn't want to work for him, I'm glad things worked out for him after being let go as he wasn't that bad. Still starting the rebuild of Inter Milan and guiding Switzerland to number 3 in the world show he was the wrong man for the club . Comments like playing players out of position are just ridiculous, look at how Rafa had played people out of position for years, good enough for the Champions League wasn't it?

New personnel came in, a tired and bored striker who wanted out was let go for two incredibly talented and hungry players who I'm gutted Spurs didn't go for, those two might've kept the Champions League challenge alive. The Leeds comparisons were wrong, a better one would've been Spurs when Harry took over. There was SOMETHING wrong at the club and the players in general shouldn't have been down there, things were changed around at board and management level a bit and the buzz lifted them where to roughly where they should be. Unlike Spurs' revival though the top clubs haven't been as convincing and they're able to go a step farther and a shout at Europe.

[therockbox]

Liverpools turnaround is ultimately down to a couple of minor factors, the prima donnas felt they were too good for Hodgson and didn't want to work for him, I'm glad things worked out for him after being let go as he wasn't that bad. Still starting the rebuild of Inter Milan and guiding Switzerland to number 3 in the world show he was the wrong man for the club . Comments like playing players out of position are just ridiculous, look at how Rafa had played people out of position for years, good enough for the Champions League wasn't it?

The lengths some people will go to in order to absolve Roy of any blame are astounding.

He was out of his depth and failed miserably.

If you could point out these players that Rafa played out of position FOR YEARS that would be super. I'd imagine one of them is going to be Kuyt, and possibly Gerrard as well, both of which would be very, very silly but we'll wait and see.

Of course, it was good enough for the Champions League more often than not, which pretty much destroys your argument in itself. Under Roy we were looking at relegation.

[therockbox]

Howard Webb chosen to referee United v Chelsea

Forget the match. We might as well just award them the title right now.

The picture the Daily Mail have used

[stokeriño]

That picture is Ryan Babel's gift to the world (although he probably didn't make it himself...)

Shame this news came out this early - I could have done with another couple of days of Naive Optimism.

[lanky316]

He made some errors of judgement but name one manager who hasn't. He wasn't out of his depth, he's taken on much harder jobs and done well at them but some clubs think they're too big for certain personnel. All the rumoured candidates and you get "Roy Hodgson" he was on to a losing battle from day one.

Silly to mention out of position players perhaps but undisputable fact. So much so for a long time Scousers were saying Kuyt was shit and must be let go, eventually he adapted to the new position but for ages you lot wanted him out. Gerrard, like Rooney has the talent to get away with it. Even still he has massive anonymous days but we're more likely to remember the great ones those days we forget he's playing aren't worth discussing are they? Ryan Babel looked a talented young striker who perhaps moved over from Ajax before he'd really been given time to develop, nut was hurt morseso when Liberpool opted to play him wide instead. Robbie Keane, reliable striker for clubs all over the shop, played as a winger and not been the same since. Handful of players off the top of my head, I'm not going to look at every player to wear a red shirt for examples but that he got lucky some players adapted well is irrelevant. They weren't being played in their ideal positions.

You got INCREDIBLY lucky with the Champions League once but for the most part the team didn't advance and weren't going anywhere, it's not a coincidence that once teams behind you started to step up you started to slide down the table. I'd already said relegation wasn't realistic - just like with Spurs - problems for that could easily be attributed to the fact half the players didn't turn up, stupid mistakes were made by supposedly reliable players (Reina was Gomesesque for the first couple of months) and players bought in by order of one manager were working under someone completely different. Just a couple of ones that stood out. Still, it's Roys fault as he was out of his depth, Liverpool on the slide is completely different to a shitty midtable Inter where Paul Ince is head and shoulder the best player in the squad...

[therockbox]

Babel was played on the left of a front three for Ajax - where he was played for Liverpool. The only person that thinks Babel is a striker is Ryan Babel.

Keane played 'on the wing' twice as I recall, once for 45 minutes against Reading and against Aston Villa, but only after we'd had to bring a couple of players off through injury early on. Other than that he always played as a striker, and was pretty much always useless.

That stuff about Kuyt just isn't true. He goes through cycles of either being very, very good or incredibly bad. Very few fans have ever wanted him gone, but would rather not have seen him as a first choice regardless of how well he's playing.

We finished second in Benitez's second to last season, which sort of goes against the whole 'didn't advance' thing, doesn't it?

Given that we're now fifth despite not having had a proper manager for the first five or six months of the season, it shows just how bad a job Roy was doing.

[lanky316]

Had posted out a longer more detailed response, then clicked X on the wrong tab so I'll just outline a couple of points. No doubt losing some of the detail which you'll try and pick up on but there ye go...

1) Funny negative shape for a 4-3-3 for Babel. Keane always seemed out wide, granted didn't watch as closely as you lot. Kuyt always seemed to get way too much dung thrown at him, again you probably got more through Liverpool forums than I'd pick up though.

2) The slide in that season between takeovers says a lot more than finishing 2nd place after a semi-reasonable season, Hodgson inherited a team sliding down the table with players who weren't performing and a key component who didn't want to be there. Also need to take into account management styles. Some teams respond to different ways of management and there could be a conflict there which means he can't get the best out of them. See also Woodwards flop as British Lions coach, his God Save The Queen method didn't work on the Jocks or Irish.

3) Hodgson has also guided a much worse starting squad to safety (almost...) after leading Fulham to a European final which shows how good the kind of job he could do. Out of depth is nothing to do with it, players personalities probably a lot more.

Long post synopsis - I think there was a lot more wrong at Liverpool than Roy Hodgson coming in, for the most part what he was trying was the right thing. Cole could've been a great signing (we were all 50/50 on that in August), Liverpool needed a left back, Konchesky probably not right choice but right idea with plausible targets scarce, Meireles at times been stellar, attempt to sign VDV who's had to carry an underperforming Spurs at times.

[Hobo]

Had posted out a longer more detailed response, then clicked X on the wrong tab so I'll just outline a couple of points. No doubt losing some of the detail which you'll try and pick up on but there ye go...

1) Funny negative shape for a 4-3-3 for Babel. Keane always seemed out wide, granted didn't watch as closely as you lot. Kuyt always seemed to get way too much dung thrown at him, again you probably got more through Liverpool forums than I'd pick up though.

I've never heard of Kuyt being disliked. The guy works his socks off, out of position for the most part and recently has been having a rebirth as a striker to great effect. Babel, when he started a game, was guaranteed to be awful. His first touch was poor, his pace was about all he had going for him. He was an inconsistent finisher. Keane, I remember reading in some article, was outshined by some Liverpool defenders in terms of his attacking statistics. (I wish I had time to find that article, it's probably on the thread for that season).

2) The slide in that season between takeovers says a lot more than finishing 2nd place after a semi-reasonable season, Hodgson inherited a team sliding down the table with players who weren't performing and a key component who didn't want to be there. Also need to take into account management styles. Some teams respond to different ways of management and there could be a conflict there which means he can't get the best out of them. See also Woodwards flop as British Lions coach, his God Save The Queen method didn't work on the Jocks or Irish.

Liverpool spent the 2009/10 season still in the hunt for the champions league spot. Not as good as the previous years performance but I would put that down to the players being a bit jaded after coming so close to winning the title an failing, the loss of Xabi Alonso (who had his best season at the club in his final season, I think the fact he was almost booted out during the previous summer may have been the kick start he needed), Gerrard under performed, Aquilani was injured most of the season (although when he came in he performed well). It was a fall from grace from the previous season, but with the limitations placed on the club by the previous ownership, not to be unexpected.

The conflict in styles is a most correct point. Hodgson still inherited a team that for the most part had finished 2nd in the league, had loads of champions league experience but didn't have the motivational skills, the tactical acumen to get the best out of it.

3) Hodgson has also guided a much worse starting squad to safety (almost...) after leading Fulham to a European final which shows how good the kind of job he could do. Out of depth is nothing to do with it, players personalities probably a lot more.

I'd say he was out of his depth. He didn't have the acumen to deal with the players he had inherited, his transfer targets were mainly players who weren't going to bring any advancement to the club, they were for the most part the kind of players Fulham would buy, not Liverpool, I mean that with the exception of Meirieles, these were players bought for a team hoping to finish at least midtable, when at least Liverpool should be aiming for top 6. He wasn't right for the position.

Hodgson came and turned a team that had challenged for the title and the champions league places regularly into near relegation candidates. If that doesn't define out of depth, I don't know what does.

[lanky316]

But he didn't inherit a team who came second, he inherited a team that barely scraped a UEFA spot. You mentioned Alonso who I think was a huge blow (there was a bit about him in the original post) they didn't really recover from but ultimately it was still a team significantly on the slide.

I'm not saying Liverpool didn't have a shocking start but I think the blame on Hodgson is wrong. There were clearly a lot more issues at the club when he took over that meant that [almost] any manager coming in was sure to have a difficult time getting anywhere with them. The man had led a sliding Inter Milan to UEFA Cup finals and started a rebuilding effort which got them back competing for trophies, it shows that there was some background here to him taking high pressure jobs and doing well so to say he was out of his depth just isn't right. Did he make some mistakes, of course, every manager on this planet has but there's not been drastic changes there. It's the Tottenham situation again that a decent side are in a stupid position they shouldn't be and with a few tweaks they've got themselves out. In that situation things have to change but blaming Hodgson with everything else that was wrong is just silly.

[IAceI]

I still wonder to this day what made Hodgson decide to even leave Fulham for Liverpool. Everyone said from the start it was going to end in disaster, I couldn't see it ending in anything but for him.

Glad he's quickly and easily bounced back and got West Brom playing some good football. Doing a fantastic job with the Baggies, got to wonder if he could pull off something as incredible as a Fulham-esque run with them as well. Probably wouldn't have expected it to happen when he was at Fulham, but he managed it.