Brendan Rodgers

[Guest SO1]

57 minutes ago, don_danbury said:

fair enough. i don't agree he inherited a mid table side with a prime suarez in there  

Doubt Suarez would do very well playing against 11 men on his own.

Those first two years when I saw Rodgers put that team together from what he had managed to scrape together are some of my fondest memories of football. Building a posession football team from scratch. Piece by piece from players most on here would consider trash. All with a part to play in a team that hit its height two points short of the Title. The club lost 55 goals the following year with Suarez going to Barca and Sturridge injured most of the year with no replacement.

But go on now continue with your vast knowledge of Liverpool and Celtic who I followed everyday Rodgers was at the club. Just like here. Obviously we both watch football for entirely different reasons.

[Ric Flair]

To Rodgers credit, that Liverpool team in 2013/14 was probably one of the most enjoyable teams I've watched in the PL thst didn't include my beloved Leicester. Cannot stand Liverpool but the football and them appearing from the chasing pack and going on an unreal run in the final third of the season was scintillating. 

 

Had he won the PL with them I think his managerial career would have taken a different path. He does need to win a major trophy in England to be considered one of the best coaches in the PL and this is his biggest weakness. He seems to have the uncanny knack of his teams ballsing it up when the pressure is really on.

[Finnegan]

9 hours ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

Bellamy who were past their best

 

You take that back 

[Clever Fox]

51 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

To Rodgers credit, that Liverpool team in 2013/14 was probably one of the most enjoyable teams I've watched in the PL thst didn't include my beloved Leicester. Cannot stand Liverpool but the football and them appearing from the chasing pack and going on an unreal run in the final third of the season was scintillating. 

 

Had he won the PL with them I think his managerial career would have taken a different path. He does need to win a major trophy in England to be considered one of the best coaches in the PL and this is his biggest weakness. He seems to have the uncanny knack of his teams ballsing it up when the pressure is really on.

I agree with what you say but the reason he Balls it up is because he has a dogmatic approach to the game when he needs to be more pragmatic.

Even in the run in his insistence on playing open football when a  more pragmatic approach would have most likely yielded the few points we needed for the Euro Championships.

One of the beauties of football is that there is no perfect system. I'ts about building a team that can play football but also change to different systems when needed. He needs to bring players into the squad who can mix it up when total football is not working.

That doesn't mean he's abandoning his values just that he's prepared to do what he needs to win matches. Which is what it's all about, Winning Matches.

 

[Finnegan]

17 minutes ago, Clever Fox said:

he has a dogmatic approach to the game when he needs to be more pragmatic

 

Not sure I agree exactly, to be honest. 

 

I'd actually consider him a pragmatist, we've seen a few times he'll give far too much respect to an opponent and negatively change the shape, add in an extra defensive midfielder, to lower the risk. 

 

I wouldn't say his approach against sides like Tottenham away were about being cavalier, it's about being a purist. He's a student of total football, he believes the game should be played a certain way and he's quite stubborn in his commitment to that philosophy. 

 

Unfortunately, it's a philosophy that's a little bit out of date. Ironically, given Top and Vichai wanted us to "evolve" in to something stronger post-15/16, I'd argue that the Pearson/Ranieri approach that won us the league was more modern and more current than what Rodgers is trying to do. 

 

Tiki taka was very 00s and early 10s, it had its time in the sun and now everyone's learned to defend against it (and, by extension, us.) If you're Pep, the best in the world at coaching it, and you've got billions to spend buying the world's most creative players in possession, it's one thing. But Rodgers trying to copy it on a shoe-string is doomed to fail. 

 

The modern way of high intensity pressing, fluid counter attacking and maximising your efficiency of possession is the natural counter to the way we play and there's a fantastic irony in that given our title win popularised that method in the Premier League. 

 

For such a (relatively) young coach, Rodgers is already at risk of becoming a dinosaur if he doesn't get up to date. Guys like Erik Ten Hag are doing a great job of showing how you can blend the ideals of total football, purists football, with a more dynamic, exciting approach that utilises more intense movement. 

 

What we want is a best of both worlds, a balance somewhere between our 15/16 and 19/20. There were glimmers of it at times in our winning run last year but too often we were far too slow, ponderous and static. 

[Guest SO1]

3 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

Not sure I agree exactly, to be honest. 

 

I'd actually consider him a pragmatist, we've seen a few times he'll give far too much respect to an opponent and negatively change the shape, add in an extra defensive midfielder, to lower the risk. 

 

I wouldn't say his approach against sides like Tottenham away were about being cavalier, it's about being a purist. He's a student of total football, he believes the game should be played a certain way and he's quite stubborn in his commitment to that philosophy. 

 

Unfortunately, it's a philosophy that's a little bit out of date. Ironically, given Top and Vichai wanted us to "evolve" in to something stronger post-15/16, I'd argue that the Pearson/Ranieri approach that won us the league was more modern and more current than what Rodgers is trying to do. 

 

Tiki taka was very 00s and early 10s, it had its time in the sun and now everyone's learned to defend against it (and, by extension, us.) If you're Pep, the best in the world at coaching it, and you've got billions to spend buying the world's most creative players in possession, it's one thing. But Rodgers trying to copy it on a shoe-string is doomed to fail. 

 

The modern way of high intensity pressing, fluid counter attacking and maximising your efficiency of possession is the natural counter to the way we play and there's a fantastic irony in that given our title win popularised that method in the Premier League. 

 

For such a (relatively) young coach, Rodgers is already at risk of becoming a dinosaur if he doesn't get up to date. Guys like Erik Ten Hag are doing a great job of showing how you can blend the ideals of total football, purists football, with a more dynamic, exciting approach that utilises more intense movement. 

 

What we want is a best of both worlds, a balance somewhere between our 15/16 and 19/20. There were glimmers of it at times in our winning run last year but too often we were far too slow, ponderous and static. 

Klopp?The best of both worlds?

[Finnegan]

3 minutes ago, SO1 said:

Klopp?The best of both worlds?

 

Narh, not for me. Klopp is to "heavy metal football" or "gegenpress", or whatever you want to call it, what Pep is to tiki taka. 

 

They're two pioneers and probably the best two coaches at two contrasting styles. What makes their clubs both so succesful is that they've had the sense to build squads specifically for those philosophies, too. 

 

 

[UpTheLeagueFox]

So if it doesn't work out and BR gets the heave ho, we need a manager who can have us regularly challenging the top six (or top four according to the more excitable fans) AND be quality in Europe ... is that right?
And then this fella has to want to come to Leicester.

Sounds easy on paper.

[Mike Oxlong]

3 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

So if it doesn't work out and BR gets the heave ho, we need a manager who can have us regularly challenging the top six (or top four according to the more excitable fans) AND be quality in Europe ... is that right?
And then this fella has to want to come to Leicester.

Sounds easy on paper.

His name is Claude ...  😉

Edited 7 September 2020 by Mike Oxlong

[volpeazzurro]

2 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

Not sure I agree exactly, to be honest. 

 

I'd actually consider him a pragmatist, we've seen a few times he'll give far too much respect to an opponent and negatively change the shape, add in an extra defensive midfielder, to lower the risk. 

 

I wouldn't say his approach against sides like Tottenham away were about being cavalier, it's about being a purist. He's a student of total football, he believes the game should be played a certain way and he's quite stubborn in his commitment to that philosophy. 

 

Unfortunately, it's a philosophy that's a little bit out of date. Ironically, given Top and Vichai wanted us to "evolve" in to something stronger post-15/16, I'd argue that the Pearson/Ranieri approach that won us the league was more modern and more current than what Rodgers is trying to do. 

 

Tiki taka was very 00s and early 10s, it had its time in the sun and now everyone's learned to defend against it (and, by extension, us.) If you're Pep, the best in the world at coaching it, and you've got billions to spend buying the world's most creative players in possession, it's one thing. But Rodgers trying to copy it on a shoe-string is doomed to fail. 

 

The modern way of high intensity pressing, fluid counter attacking and maximising your efficiency of possession is the natural counter to the way we play and there's a fantastic irony in that given our title win popularised that method in the Premier League. 

 

For such a (relatively) young coach, Rodgers is already at risk of becoming a dinosaur if he doesn't get up to date. Guys like Erik Ten Hag are doing a great job of showing how you can blend the ideals of total football, purists football, with a more dynamic, exciting approach that utilises more intense movement. 

 

What we want is a best of both worlds, a balance somewhere between our 15/16 and 19/20. There were glimmers of it at times in our winning run last year but too often we were far too slow, ponderous and static. 

Very well put.

[Clever Fox]

2 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

Not sure I agree exactly, to be honest. 

 

I'd actually consider him a pragmatist, we've seen a few times he'll give far too much respect to an opponent and negatively change the shape, add in an extra defensive midfielder, to lower the risk. 

 

I wouldn't say his approach against sides like Tottenham away were about being cavalier, it's about being a purist. He's a student of total football, he believes the game should be played a certain way and he's quite stubborn in his commitment to that philosophy. 

 

Unfortunately, it's a philosophy that's a little bit out of date. Ironically, given Top and Vichai wanted us to "evolve" in to something stronger post-15/16, I'd argue that the Pearson/Ranieri approach that won us the league was more modern and more current than what Rodgers is trying to do. 

 

Tiki taka was very 00s and early 10s, it had its time in the sun and now everyone's learned to defend against it (and, by extension, us.) If you're Pep, the best in the world at coaching it, and you've got billions to spend buying the world's most creative players in possession, it's one thing. But Rodgers trying to copy it on a shoe-string is doomed to fail. 

 

The modern way of high intensity pressing, fluid counter attacking and maximising your efficiency of possession is the natural counter to the way we play and there's a fantastic irony in that given our title win popularised that method in the Premier League. 

 

For such a (relatively) young coach, Rodgers is already at risk of becoming a dinosaur if he doesn't get up to date. Guys like Erik Ten Hag are doing a great job of showing how you can blend the ideals of total football, purists football, with a more dynamic, exciting approach that utilises more intense movement. 

 

What we want is a best of both worlds, a balance somewhere between our 15/16 and 19/20. There were glimmers of it at times in our winning run last year but too often we were far too slow, ponderous and static. 

I don't agree with the first bit but the rest is spot on. You have to a box of Tools as you never know what you come up against.

Brendan sends out his team with his philosophy and it's up to the other team to beat us. Which is what they've been doing in recent Months.

Where Klopp was clever he added physical strength to his squad, But they're also players who can go long as well as short. They rarely give the Ball away too often and have the power to win it back.

I just find it very strange a talented Coach which Brendan is fails to see the bigger picture. Ultimately it's about winning Matches and that could be his downfall. Unless we sign a few quality players before the window closes.

 

[volpeazzurro]

8 hours ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

So if it doesn't work out and BR gets the heave ho, we need a manager who can have us regularly challenging the top six (or top four according to the more excitable fans) AND be quality in Europe ... is that right?
And then this fella has to want to come to Leicester.

Sounds easy on paper.

Absolutely true of course but it's extremely frustrating if you have to watch a manager who refuses to learn from his mistakes made over a long period of time, something that we were warned of by Liverpool and Celtic supporters alike but, it suited some of us to just right it off to sour grapes.

 

Having a philosophy is one thing, sticking to it slavishly even if it is now either old hat or you don't have the players to execute it quite another.

 

Paulo Sousa was a prime example of a manager who wanted to play champagne and oyster football with beer and chips players. It didn't work, he was sacked. Rodgers is perhaps a little similar albeit he has at his disposal some very talented young players, our start to last season bore testament to that. However, his increased insistance on a particular mode of play and micromanaging  which was contrary to that winning style appears both bizarre and a little egotistical. Surely an astute manager plays a system that will get the very best out of the players available to him, not get them to play a system for a systems sake.

Edited 7 September 2020 by volpeazzurro

[SuperMike]

3 hours ago, Mike Oxlong said:

His name is Claude ...  😉

Hmmmmm...

 

.....I thought his name was Marcelo!

[NaijaFox]

4 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

Narh, not for me. Klopp is to "heavy metal football" or "gegenpress", or whatever you want to call it, what Pep is to tiki taka. 

 

They're two pioneers and probably the best two coaches at two contrasting styles. What makes their clubs both so succesful is that they've had the sense to build squads specifically for those philosophies, too.

 

 

And the financial muscle to do so.

[Finnegan]

8 minutes ago, NaijaFox said:

And the financial muscle to do so.

 

Well sure but United and Chelsea can spend that kind of money too but haven't done as well doing so. 

[NaijaFox]

2 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

Well sure but United and Chelsea can spend that kind of money too but haven't done as well doing so. 

But Chelsea has been more successful than Liverpool since it came into Russian wealth.

Obviously money is not the only factor, but let’s not treat it as not one of the principal factors.

[Anglodanglo]

22 hours ago, volpeazzurro said:

He hasn’t got a pedigree with big teams. He got sacked by big team Liverpool and my Labrador could have won the league with big team Celtic such was his competition 🤣

Imagine the puparazzi headlines..

'Celtic Winalot to become Pedigree Chumpions'

Sorry for the lame puns, been a ruff day.

[foxfanazer]

I just don't see him turning it around. You can only change things when you admit there's a problem and he's too stubborn to concede that 

[l444ry]

Some of the criticism on here of Rodgers is way over the top. He took us to 5th place and Europa League as well as two good cup runs. Many would have taken that last August.  Was a disappointing end but you can only judge a season in its entirety.  Wait and see how things develop this coming season first, see if some concerns about the big matches have been addressed and perhaps whinge then if it all goes pear shaped. But last season has to be judged as decent progress in any sane person's book.

[Finnegan]

16 minutes ago, l444ry said:

Was a disappointing end but you can only judge a season in its entirety.

 

I mean, you could just as easily say that Claudio Ranieri's tenure here should be judged in its entirety. Its what the press believed. 

 

Rodgers' time here is actually not entirely unlike Claudio's, it's just spread the wrong way across two seasons. Rodgers' 2019 form was title winning, his 2020 form was literally relegation worthy. 

 

If Puel had been sacked instead at the end of the year and BR had started fresh with the new campaign and you take his first 38 games with us to be a "season", we'd have pushed Liverpool right to the end. 

 

Alas. 

 

At the end of the day the reality is that Rodgers is overseeing a monumental collapse, not for the first time in his career, and he has to demonstrate that he can recover that, which he doesn't have very good previous at doing. I'm absolutely not calling for his head, in the slightest, but the man isn't the messiah just because he got a team to fifth that should always been in a top four, top six at the least, fight. 

 

That's just par for the quality of our team vs the quality of the competition in 19/20. I hate this unhealthy, partisan fixation on this place where so many people entrench themselves as either Happy Clappers or Moaners and rigorously either attack or defend the club as a default position. 

 

Look, sometimes it's okay to accept a guy is a decent manager with flaws or a player is alright but not world class. You can be critical of something without hating it or disrespecting it or thinking its trash. 

 

Equally, you can value the qualities of a manager or player and accept that they've done some good but that it's still just their time to move on (Chilwell, Puel, etc.)

 

Edited 8 September 2020 by Finnegan

[The People's Hero]

7 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

I mean, you could just as easily say that Claudio Ranieri's tenure here should be judged in its entirety. Its what the press believed. 

 

Rodgers' time here is actually not entirely unlike Claudio's, it's just spread the wrong way across two seasons. Rodgers' 2019 form was title winning, his 2020 form was literally relegation worthy. 

 

If Puel had been sacked instead at the end of the year and BR had started fresh with the new campaign and you take his first 38 games with us to be a "season", we'd have pushed Liverpool right to the end. 

 

Alas. 

 

At the end of the day the reality is that Rodgers is overseeing a monumental collapse, not for the first time in his career, and he has to demonstrate that he can recover that, which he doesn't have very good previous at doing. I'm absolutely not calling for his head, in the slightest, but the man isn't the messiah just because he got a team to fifth that should always been in a top four, top six at the least, fight. 

 

That's just par for the quality of our team vs the quality of the competition in 19/20. I hate this unhealthy, partisan fixation on this place where so many people entrench themselves as either Happy Clappers or Moaners and rigorously either attack or defend the club as a default position. 

 

Look, sometimes it's okay to accept a guy is a decent manager with flaws or a player is alright but not world class. You can be critical of something without hating it or disrespecting it or thinking its trash. 

 

Equally, you can value the qualities of a manager or player and accept that they've done some good but that it's still just their time to move on (Chilwell, Puel, etc.)

 

 

Yes, Finners!

[ozleicester]

They gave Pep $$ and time = results

They gave Klopp $$ and time = results
 

[Finnegan]

Edit. Nevermind. 

Edited 8 September 2020 by Finnegan

[ealingfox]

2 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

They gave Pep $$ and time = results

They gave Klopp $$ and time = results
 

 

[ozleicester]

1 minute ago, Finnegan said:

 

Umm, two of the wealthiest and most powerful clubs in world football gave the two best managers in world football some of the best players in world football and they won titles?

 

That's your contribution? 

 

Christ, why do I take you off ignore. 

I ask the same question you pointless piece of turd.

If you cant read deeper than the words on the page thats not my problem