Brendan Rodgers..yay or nay?

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, La-li-lu-le-lo said:

At what point did I say Puel wasn’t? I was commenting on Rodgers, which was the topic heading.

 

I think its now clear Puel will not be here next season. 

Where did I say you said that?

 

Can you please tell me why it is now clear that Puel will not be here next season?

[LCFC hub]

1 hour ago, The Doctor said:

Purely because he had a genuinely world class Suarez on hand. But, he wasn't a good manager for them and most Liverpool fans wouldn't give him any credit for their current status like you did. 

 

Guys a David Brent wannabe and not that good. Getting rid of Puel for him would not be an improvement

So is Pep only successful because of the World Class players? 

 

Is Klopp only doing great now because he has Salah? Van Dyik? Alisson? 

 

All good manager's need good players. Do you forget he also got a young Raheem Sterling to play out of his skin too. 

 

Guess that was JUST down to Suarez? 

[LCFC hub]

1 hour ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Rogers may have finished higher than Klopp.  But Rogers < Klopp, no doubt

 

Also Klopp is looking like winning the league against this Man City team we have atm which is very impressive (even if he doesnt win, still pushing them as hard as possible)

Also CL final

 

But apart from any of that.... Klopp  > Rogers

 

And the suggestion that Rogers laid the foundation for what Klopp has done there is complete bollocks

I haven't said Rogers is better than Klopp. Just he has finished higher than Klopp has so far. 

 

Did Rogers have the spending power that Klopp has now? 

 

I guess everything he did was crap. Must be the luckiest manager out there then...

[LCFC hub]

24 minutes ago, mozartfox said:

Part of Puel's problem at the moment.  But our recruitment team escape the daily roasting Puel's receives.

I'm not even sticking up for Puel, but it's true. We are going to struggle to bring players in until we can get rid of most of our fringe players. 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

1 minute ago, 80's fox said:

I haven't said Rogers is better than Klopp. Just he has finished higher than Klopp has so far. 

 

Did Rogers have the spending power that Klopp has now? 

 

I guess everything he did was crap. Must be the luckiest manager out there then...

You are willing to grant Rogers credit for everything he does and thats fine, he probably deserves it

 

But you arent willing to grant Puel credit for anything.  The fact is that Rogers has not achieved what Puel has in the game

[Ric Flair]

44 minutes ago, PoshhFox said:

Gerrard who has never managed a team before is giving him a run for his money, albeit in the SPL but still....

Ranieri who was sacked from Greece for losing to some fish sniffers, gave Poch, Klopp, LVG, Wenger, Mourinho and co a masterclass in managing.....

[Rusko187]

3 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Indeed they do, which means realising that Puels getting us to about as high as we can realistically be without massive investment. So, why destabilise the club by changing managers when that's not really going to improve us? It's change for the sake of change, and to satisfy the majority of idiots in our fanbase

Clearly the "majority of idiots" in our fanbase and looking at polls is the overwhelming majority do not want him at the club, and last time I checked those "idiots" were often the ones paying to go to matches. Now you could argue the club doesn't need their money from the fanbase but it's important for a football club to keep it's fans onside and if that is Puel going then so be it.

 

I'm still largely on the fence with the guy, some good things and some bad things but there are no guarantees on where we will finish this season and by no means any guarantees that we have improved under his tenure. Reading some of the comments in the Mercury recently I think he's been massively mis-quoted but the "idiots" have interpreted his comments as him trying to mitigate poor form and to disrespect the fans.

His cup runs were disappointing but inevitable given the tactics we've been seeing and it seems as though the league has figured how to stop Leicester scoring, what's the say every team in the league doesn't employ this tactic for the remainder of the season?

 

Even you have to admit it's not been rosey and plain sailing under him, we got to 7th in the league in the Xmas break but the season is far from over and there are no guarantees that we will get a top half finish.

[PoshhFox]

1 minute ago, Ric Flair said:

Ranieri who was sacked from Greece for losing to some fish sniffers, gave Poch, Klopp, LVG, Wenger, Mourinho and co a masterclass in managing.....

Ranieri had been managing for decades

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

1 minute ago, Ric Flair said:

Ranieri who was sacked from Greece for losing to some fish sniffers, gave Poch, Klopp, LVG, Wenger, Mourinho and co a masterclass in managing.....

[The Doctor]

5 minutes ago, 80's fox said:

So is Pep only successful because of the World Class players? 

 

Is Klopp only doing great now because he has Salah? Van Dyik? Alisson? 

 

All good manager's need good players. Do you forget he also got a young Raheem Sterling to play out of his skin too. 

 

Guess that was JUST down to Suarez? 

Pep and Klopp mostly bought them to work into a planned system. Rodgers had one season where he did well, with Suarez on top form - his finishes with Liverpool were 6th, 2nd and 7th, then sacked with them in 10th, the second place finish hides that for the most part he had them underperforming. 

[LCFC hub]

1 minute ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

You are willing to grant Rogers credit for everything he does and thats fine, he probably deserves it

 

But you arent willing to grant Puel credit for anything.  The fact is that Rogers has not achieved what Puel has in the game

Sorry where have I not given Puel credit? 

 

I'm not even Puel Out.. I'm on the fence!! 

 

I think Puel has done some good things here, which is probably why he is still in the job. 

 

However we haven't progressed enough and that is what will probably cost him. 

 

I've tried to remain Puel In because I can see what he is trying to do, however I can also see the negatives too which is holding us back too. 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

Just now, 80's fox said:

Sorry where have I not given Puel credit? 

 

I'm not even Puel Out.. I'm on the fence!! 

 

I think Puel has done some good things here, which is probably why he is still in the job. 

 

However we haven't progressed enough and that is what will probably cost him. 

 

I've tried to remain Puel In because I can see what he is trying to do, however I can also see the negatives too which is holding us back too. 

Oh, well i'm not Rogers out either

 

The talks of sacking the manager and getting a new one in are still a bit mental for me all thigns considered, dont mean to be derisive, just my opinion

[LCFC hub]

Just now, The Doctor said:

Pep and Klopp mostly bought them to work into a planned system. Rodgers had one season where he did well, with Suarez on top form - his finishes with Liverpool were 6th, 2nd and 7th, then sacked with them in 10th, the second place finish hides that for the most part he had them underperforming. 

Same as Ranieri then. He had one season where he did well.

 

So is Ranieri a good manager, or a bad manager? 

 

I haven't suggested he is the catalyst for why Liverpool are doing well atm. Yet his 2nd place finish put them back in the limelight again. He deserves some credit for that, instead of suggesting it was soley down to one player. 

 

 

[The Doctor]

2 minutes ago, Rusko187 said:

Clearly the "majority of idiots" in our fanbase and looking at polls is the overwhelming majority do not want him at the club, and last time I checked those "idiots" were often the ones paying to go to matches. Now you could argue the club doesn't need their money from the fanbase but it's important for a football club to keep it's fans onside and if that is Puel going then so be it.

 

I'm still largely on the fence with the guy, some good things and some bad things but there are no guarantees on where we will finish this season and by no means any guarantees that we have improved under his tenure. Reading some of the comments in the Mercury recently I think he's been massively mis-quoted but the "idiots" have interpreted his comments as him trying to mitigate poor form and to disrespect the fans.

His cup runs were disappointing but inevitable given the tactics we've been seeing and it seems as though the league has figured how to stop Leicester scoring, what's the say every team in the league doesn't employ this tactic for the remainder of the season?

 

Even you have to admit it's not been rosey and plain sailing under him, we got to 7th in the league in the Xmas break but the season is far from over and there are no guarantees that we will get a top half finish.

Paying money doesn't mean they're not idiots, but the average fan is a right walloper, and 50% are even worse than that.

 

It's not been plain sailing but, and I swear im saying this every bloody day now, that's the nature of being a midtable club. Inconsistent and frustrating - taking points you wouldn't expect then dropping points against clubs you'd expect to beat. It's why Bournemouth have lost 7 of their last 10. It's why West Ham have had two runs of 1 win in 6 games this season. It's why wolves took 3 points from 6 games across October/November. It's why Everton, prior to beating Bournemouth last week had taken 9 points from 10 games. It's why Watford took 12 points from their first 4 games, then 13 more games to get another 12 points. Being midtable means being inconsistent, it means bad form interspersed with good form. It's something our fanbase needs to learn - we're not special

[LCFC hub]

6 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Oh, well i'm not Rogers out either

 

The talks of sacking the manager and getting a new one in are still a bit mental for me all thigns considered, dont mean to be derisive, just my opinion

I know, I purely just stated that should Puel be sacked I would have him here IMO. 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

Just now, 80's fox said:

I know, I purely just stated that should Puel be sacked I would have him here IMO. 

Well, i'd agree with you.  Would have no problem with Rogers coming here should Puel be sacked.

 

Tbh i couldnt give a f*** who comes here should Puel be sacked.  It doesnt matter because whoever they are they probably wont be here long, or we'll have massive success under them

[The Doctor]

3 minutes ago, 80's fox said:

I haven't suggested he is the catalyst for why Liverpool are doing well atm. 

 

That's a lie.

 

4 hours ago, 80's fox said:

He built the platform for Liverpool to be where they are now. 

 

 

 

Also, Ranieri has had a far longer career with more success than Rodgers, Rodgers was a failure at Liverpool

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

3 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

 

That's a lie.

 

 

 

 

Also, Ranieri has had a far longer career with more success than Rodgers, Rodgers was a failure at Liverpool

@80's fox you just got stung by the hornet

 

[mozartfox]

17 minutes ago, 80's fox said:

I'm not even sticking up for Puel, but it's true. We are going to struggle to bring players in until we can get rid of most of our fringe players. 

I do not disagree.   We need to let all the expiring contracts run down and use these wages to bring in new players that will take us forward. We also need to clear out the mistakes we have made, although this will not be easy.   Whoever our Manager is, these issues remain the same.  

[pazzerfox]

29 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Indeed they do, which means realising that Puels getting us to about as high as we can realistically be without massive investment. So, why destabilise the club by changing managers when that's not really going to improve us? It's change for the sake of change, and to satisfy the majority of idiots in our fanbase

I think many supporters would like to see us have a few shots at goal and for games to be slightly more exciting, instead of the dross that's being served up most weeks!!

[LittlethorpeFox]

On 22/12/2018 at 13:56, Beechey said:

Why? People currently moan that we're too defensive. Rafa is a quintisential defensive manager, it's his first choice in a game.

Couldn't agree more. 

[Rusko187]

10 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Paying money doesn't mean they're not idiots, but the average fan is a right walloper, and 50% are even worse than that.

 

It's not been plain sailing but, and I swear im saying this every bloody day now, that's the nature of being a midtable club. Inconsistent and frustrating - taking points you wouldn't expect then dropping points against clubs you'd expect to beat. It's why Bournemouth have lost 7 of their last 10. It's why West Ham have had two runs of 1 win in 6 games this season. It's why wolves took 3 points from 6 games across October/November. It's why Everton, prior to beating Bournemouth last week had taken 9 points from 10 games. It's why Watford took 12 points from their first 4 games, then 13 more games to get another 12 points. Being midtable means being inconsistent, it means bad form interspersed with good form. It's something our fanbase needs to learn - we're not special

Again, doesn't mean they're not entitled to their opinions of which are the overwhelming majority.

 

Agree with the points being made on mid table clubs with inconsistency and frustration but that's only part of the story with him. As mentioned I'm on the fence with him, I think the club needs to bring some players in to help us get goals but tactically he is culpable for some failings. We don't create space to score, we can ping shots outside the box all day long but we need players who will move the ball around quickly to create space. Is that a by-product of his over defensive nature? Possibly, do we lack players to operate in the manner he is trying to implement? Very likely.

So to keep him I think we can all agree he needs to go on a good run, I don't think that's possible without the club investing and which so far and seemingly they are not investing. Is that down to no good players being available.... or do they not back him long-term? If he was their man you'd think they would be digging deep to pick up a player to make it work.

I'm speculating here but as I've said the majority of the fan base want him gone, there's only one way to change that view will only change when we consistently win games and improve our style.. this in my opinion and reading yours is not possible.

[Scotch]

1 hour ago, HankMarvin said:

Let’s not take into account his net spend over the last 3 seasons is about minus -5m

Anytime they have a good player he gets sold:

they cant keep players from Championship clubs. Let’s not expect world beaters 

Dembele, Armstong and VVD are the only 3 players of note that Rodgers has lost since taking over. The latter when he first arrived and the other two in the summer. That's like excusing our poor performances because we've lost Kante, DD and Mahrez in the last 3 years. 

 

You're right in terms of net spend but that doesn't change the fact that he's spent £28m (not including loan fees which would make a few more million)  on 23 players and only Edourd, Ntcham, Sinclair and Dembele have been better than average  of his permanent signings and Benkovic and Roberts of his loan signings. 

[Great Boos Up]

1 hour ago, TonyN11 said:

If Rodgers ever did come here it wouldn't take long before we binned him....

 

Play a back 4, then 3 - 2 - 1

[The Doctor]

4 minutes ago, pazzerfox said:

I think many supporters would like to see us have a few shots at goal and for games to be slightly more exciting, instead of the dross that's being served up most weeks!!

Ok, let's play the shots game: we've taken 274 shots this season - https://understat.com/team/Leicester/2018, or just over 12 shots per game. 134 have been in the penalty area, a further 19 in the six yard box. So, 153 of 274 from within the area - 56% from within the area.

 

Before I move on, just to tackle the "they're all pot shots from range when  trailing" argument - 127 (46%) of the shots come while the game is level, 115 (42%) come while trailing. Only 32 (12%) have been looking to extend the lead. 

 

So, let's compare that to other midtable clubs:

 

Everton: 290 shots, 13 shots per game, 64% in area

West Ham: 262 shots, 12 shots per game, 65% in area

Watford: 268 shots, 12 per game, 62% in area

Bournemouth: 270 shots, 12 per game, 65% in area

Wolves: 278 shots, 13 shots per game, 57% in area

 

We're all taking similar numbers of shots per game, only difference is we're taking a slightly higher proportion of long range shots than the rest, but at 10% more long range than the highest proportion of in area shots, it amounts to 1 shot per game out of the box where they're in the box.

 

The only real frustrating thing I see there is, normalising for per minutes:

 

1 shot per 8 and a half minutes while level

1 shot per 5 and a half minutes while trailing

1 shot per 10 and a half minutes while ahead

 

We don't look really to push the advantage and extend our lead once we've got it, but then again, looking at points dropped from winning positions:

 

Liverpool - 2

Man Utd - 2

Bournemouth - 3

Cardiff - 3

Leicester - 3

Burnley - 5

Man City - 6

Watford - 6

Brighton - 7

Chelsea - 7

Newcastle - 7

Wolves - 7

Palace - 8

West Ham - 8

Arsenal - 9

Everton - 9

Spurs - 9

Fulham - 12

Huddersfield - 13

Southampton - 15

 

It'd be churlish to complain because defending those leads is proving very effective