Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Philkeavo said:

I should start by saying I am big Brendan Rodgers fan and that we are very lucky to have him as our manager. But that does not mean he is immune from criticism. The article in today’s Times rightly singles out Rodgers for his team selection yesterday. We all recognise that managing player loading, particularly our star man Vardy is sensible. But this argument is to some extent undermined when he puts him on the bench and then has to bring him on when we have to chase the game. He either needs a rest or he doesn’t, if he does, he should not have been in the matchday squad.

 

I also found BR’s comments about Nacho’s penalty miss peculiar “he scored 5 out of 5 in training”. So Kelechi is confident and displays great ability in training, no shit Sherlock. The proof is in his game day performances which have been, in the main, woeful. BR is a great manager but is also a bit of a gambler, perhaps that is what make him successful. He is also frustrating when he makes these wholesale changes when every man and his dog could see that playing a strong line up would have more than likely resulted in a win. We don’t know the sport science stats behind why some players are rested, etc. and if we make the top 4 this season his decision (in this game) will be seen as vindicated. I pray that BR is proven right.

 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/weakened-leicester-city-squander-chance-to-pile-the-pressure-on-liverpool-fs2kjjnfv?shareToken=0e94b27c071833bedec963b835471e15

I am struggling to understand why people don't see Rodger's thinking with Vardy...

 

The ideal scenario was for Vardy to be rested the full game. This would have happened if Iheanacho hadn't had such a stinker. We should have been 2-0 up by half-time and then managed the game from there, and left Vardy and Tielemans on the bench to rest. Vardy needed a rest but we also wanted to win, so Rodger's made the smartest choice available IMO. It's about risk vs reward, and he and his staff will have a whole lot more information available than we or the Times have! He listed the exact reasons for each change too, with a number of players having certain niggles to manage. 

 

Criticising him for commenting that Iheanacho had scored all 5 of his practice ones is a new high for nitpicking too! :facepalm:

 

I see posters moaning that they get criticised for being critical of Rodgers, but they should expect it with posts like this tbh :thumbdown:

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

People talk as if he has just thought Vardy et all needs a rest.

 

He will have been advised by the sport science/medical team on which players need a break and who could probably could manage 30 minutes. 

 

If he could he would have pick them without doubt.

9 minutes ago, Corky said:

I do wonder about his selections sometimes but totally understood yesterday's. The change team could've been better had Ricardo and Soyuncu been further along in their recovery but he did what he felt was best and would take the criticism.

 

At least he got on with it and didn't make a fuss unlike other managers.

I agree, he didn't moan or hide behind it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, coolhandfox said:

People talk as if he has just thought Vardy et all needs a rest.

 

He will have been advised by the sport science/medical team on which players need a break and who could probably could manage 30 minutes. 

 

If he could he would have pick them without doubt.

I agree, he didn't moan or hide behind it. 

Oh okay then. 
Just scrub all the comments now then! 
🙄

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, STUHILL said:

I am struggling to understand why people don't see Rodger's thinking with Vardy...

 

The ideal scenario was for Vardy to be rested the full game. This would have happened if Iheanacho hadn't had such a stinker. We should have been 2-0 up by half-time and then managed the game from there, and left Vardy and Tielemans on the bench to rest. Vardy needed a rest but we also wanted to win, so Rodger's made the smartest choice available IMO. It's about risk vs reward, and he and his staff will have a whole lot more information available than we or the Times have! He listed the exact reasons for each change too, with a number of players having certain niggles to manage. 

 

Criticising him for commenting that Iheanacho had scored all 5 of his practice ones is a new high for nitpicking too! :facepalm:

 

I see posters moaning that they get criticised for being critical of Rodgers, but they should expect it with posts like this tbh :thumbdown:

 

 

It’s an opinion. I had the impression that’s what FT was all about right :whistle:

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Babylon said:

Whilst I was pissed off yesterday, I'd not seen what he said about the injuries we'd picked up. With that in mind and the fact we had so many coming back fro injury, then I'm going to write it off as just one of those days where he didn't have a huge amount of choice. I'd rather not take the risk on players and hopefully have them available in the long term. 

Babylon.. I See you has One of the most balanced Posters on this forum.. you are normally well informed...

That list of injuries was posted well before gameday.

Plus any decent fan must recognise, how defining our injuries have been since..First January...through to June,

Then into the new season...

Chronic-long-term / Long-term-niggling injuries, and then the Irritating reoccuring/returning knocks,that have not yet settled...

The Fans naivity,that players like Evans, Ndidi, Maddison,Castagna, Under, Vardy can be put onto,

and all risked & pushed into 4-5 games in such a short period.

Add Fofana/Tielemans/Albrighton,Fuchs, who have had niggles but seen their gametime mount up more than expected..!!!

 

Yesterday selection  was ok for me, in fact if either Nacho,Praet,Perez or even  Barnes

had converted  any of those really top chances when we were on top, we would be Jumping up & down with festive joy this morning....

I have posted before, Rodgers has had his hands somewhat tied, with consistent high Quality Player availability...He hasnt moaned or whined, Held himself above the ignorant negative moaning on this forum, he doesn't throw out Giveaway excuses...!!!

 

Spite and contrary to quite incompetent opinions & suggestions on this forum from the start of the season,has Rekindled careers  or shown belief in 3-4 players,that have returned Top quality performances...

That has seen us hold a Top 4 positions up to the turn of the year.....

 

oh Yes some others clubs have games in hand...but the last few rounds including yesterday show actual points on the table count..

Even so, if we First Slip down to 6th or 7th...the so called 2nd string, since mainly October have done a Great job...

Yesterdays selection was a structured must, or a forced need...Rodgers is due alot of respect...!!

 

I have noticed in these last few months negative Moaning posters, more so Now with the Covid-bubbles, just Dont inform themselves of

their clubs weekly/daily/matchday predicaments....Asking Why this or those 2-3 players have Not been even selected for bench..

pre-match critic on selection & formation, only to pre-assume how the team will Set up...Maddison or Praet often falsely argued they will Play on the wing, then see them Take up & Run into flexible channels, then even afterwards claiming,

those phantom positions were Bad calls from Rodgers.

Rodgers has always selected his bline & Front 6, prepared for on pitch choices, or deliberate off-field intervention....

The Main problem on this forum are over-zealous pre-game judgements usually based on pre-concieved false facts..or post game opinions still based on their Pre-Match assumed ideas .

 

It seems the further positive steps Rodgers & Club make, I am doubting a large Minority of fans are showing any balanced thought or support and are failing to recognise, the Club & manager's awkward situation,

they find themselves in..in both positive & negative periods...

For me, we are doing it just right, and more than holding our own...

At present I find much of the critic in direction, team selection, manager, Formation is well OTT...

Though Game critic/plaudits on players is the Natural Nature of the beast and fair enough.

But fans, should do their homework before starting any negative Based statements & posts...First look positive. 

These last Two seasons, some individuals seem to have taken it on themselves to grind only into the negative pool then make up agendas based on poor tittle-tattle and Not looking at the big Picture or needs based on rescources....

 

The fact that IMO ,We have only 3 players Gray,Slimani and now maybe Nacho (After yesterday) that will find it difficult to create a future Place in our squad,

within itself that small fact is Credit to Rodgers & his Coaching staff how Good  they are Handling the whole squad...We have discovered early  or Rekindled careers of Thomas,Justin,Mendy,Amartey,Albrighton...then usefully/carefully played Fuchs & Morgan...

 

Before we Grind on about Nacho....We have seen Vardy have Good games,but still miss penalties and Open goals,

causing lost games & points..!!

Yesterday the 'team' decided of indescision from Tielemans,Barnes,Gray & Perez, that Gray was the man of the moment....

Who ever took it, would it have mattered....

We needed to rest those players,the perfect scenario was for no gametime for either Tielemans,Vardy & co....

We failed to convert, we failed to Keep it goalless, so Rodgers had to Take an unwanted calculated risk..

 

Fans also have to Read the actual upto date script und recognise the needs on gamedays & understand the future season's need!!!

Sofar Babylon you have been a solid beacon of reason,yesterday your Light  blinked a bit...:D

 

 

 

 

Edited by fuchsntf
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, STUHILL said:

I am struggling to understand why people don't see Rodger's thinking with Vardy...

 

The ideal scenario was for Vardy to be rested the full game. This would have happened if Iheanacho hadn't had such a stinker. We should have been 2-0 up by half-time and then managed the game from there, and left Vardy and Tielemans on the bench to rest. Vardy needed a rest but we also wanted to win, so Rodger's made the smartest choice available IMO. It's about risk vs reward, and he and his staff will have a whole lot more information available than we or the Times have! He listed the exact reasons for each change too, with a number of players having certain niggles to manage. 

 

Criticising him for commenting that Iheanacho had scored all 5 of his practice ones is a new high for nitpicking too! :facepalm:

 

I see posters moaning that they get criticised for being critical of Rodgers, but they should expect it with posts like this tbh :thumbdown:

 

 

Sitting in the cold waiting to come on surely has more chance of pulling a hamstring or muscle , either play for the first half or leave at home. I suppose a win at Newcastle is now required to vindicate his selection planning 🤔

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jerry said:

Sitting in the cold waiting to come on surely has more chance of pulling a hamstring or muscle , either play for the first half or leave at home. I suppose a win at Newcastle is now required to vindicate his selection planning 🤔

What team would you have started with? Take into consideration the knocks many of them are carrying and the fact they only had 1 full rest day. I'm curious? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, STUHILL said:

What team would you have started with? Take into consideration the knocks many of them are carrying and the fact they only had 1 full rest day. I'm curious? 

Hindsight is a great thing I know but maybe start with Vardy and Ndidi and rest later in the game although I do agree with Paul Scholes who has little time for this tiredness excuse and had played 60 games in a season in days gone by, and on worse pitches.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Philkeavo said:

It’s an opinion. I had the impression that’s what FT was all about right :whistle:

Quite right Sir! No harm in disagreeing. Do you see why the Times probably should have done their homework first though? 

Fofana - nursing a ongoing knee problem

Maddison - nursing a ongoing knee problem

N'didi - still not fully fit from injury

Castagne - still not fully fit from injury

Albrighton - knackered 

Tielemans - knackered

Vardy - managing groin issue 

 

7 changes there, that I think are justified. You could argue Tielemans and Vardy could have started but with the way we played in that first half, we should have had the game done and dusted. It is a shame we had to bring both Tielemans and Vardy on, but we had to take that risk to try get a result. Not ideal and we may pay for it, in terms of Vardy and Tielemans not getting the rest they need, but it got us a point and probably could argue should have got all 3, with the late chances. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jerry said:

Hindsight is a great thing I know but maybe start with Vardy and Ndidi and rest later in the game although I do agree with Paul Scholes who has little time for this tiredness excuse and had played 60 games in a season in days gone by, and on worse pitches.

I think that is harsh on the Mendy change. He was arguably our best player yesterday. 

 

As mentioned, Rodgers would not have wanted to use Vardy at all yesterday, hence not starting him. I think it made much more sense to try get the win without risking Vardy if possible, and we really should have considering how good we were first half and a penalty miss and a sitter from Iheanacho, would have had us 2-0 up bossing it. 

 

Unfortunately Iheanacho had a stinker and Plan B had to be activated, after a lapse in defence for their goal. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, STUHILL said:

I think that is harsh on the Mendy change. He was arguably our best player yesterday. 

 

As mentioned, Rodgers would not have wanted to use Vardy at all yesterday, hence not starting him. I think it made much more sense to try get the win without risking Vardy if possible, and we really should have considering how good we were first half and a penalty miss and a sitter from Iheanacho, would have had us 2-0 up bossing it. 

 

Unfortunately Iheanacho had a stinker and Plan B had to be activated, after a lapse in defence for their goal. 

I think Nacho and BR had stinkers, his subs were badly timed and poor.  Nacho should not have started the second half.  ayoze would have been a better striker.  Nacho looked lost after the peno miss, totally useless.

 

Plaet should have played the Tielemens role, he is neither quick or tricky to play a ACM instead of Choudary.  Grays sub should again been at half time.  Give Plaet the opportunity to show his accumen.

 

First half strength and power might have been the better option then put in subs and push for a draw?

 

 

Overall, Managers have to evaluate risk etc.  He could have played Vardy first half etc and we would have cruised it.  Hindsight is a wonderful thing.  Unfortunately he got things wrong at critical points.  I think Sheff Utd would have even killed Palace.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

I think Nacho and BR had stinkers, his subs were badly timed and poor.  Nacho should not have started the second half.  ayoze would have been a better striker.  Nacho looked lost after the peno miss, totally useless.

 

Plaet should have played the Tielemens role, he is neither quick or tricky to play a ACM instead of Choudary.  Grays sub should again been at half time.  Give Plaet the opportunity to show his accumen.

 

First half strength and power might have been the better option then put in subs and push for a draw?

 

 

Overall, Managers have to evaluate risk etc.  He could have played Vardy first half etc and we would have cruised it.  Hindsight is a wonderful thing.  Unfortunately he got things wrong at critical points.  I think Sheff Utd would have even killed Palace.

 

 

Would have cruised it? Football management is that easy eh. Hindsight indeed. 

 

Plan A should have been enough. Iheanancho should score that penalty or the header, and then Vardy and Tielemans are fully rested. 

 

 

 

 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, STUHILL said:

Would have cruised it? Football management is that easy eh. Hindsight indeed. 

 

Plan A should have been enough. Iheanancho should score that penalty or the header, and then Vardy and Tielemans are fully rested. 

 

 

 

 

Yep, in hindsight;).

 

But BR needed to react, he needed to make decisions, he needed to think like a top class manager that wants to win every match.....didn't happen for me.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

Yep, in hindsight;).

 

But BR needed to react, he needed to make decisions, he needed to think like a top class manager that wants to win every match.....didn't happen for me.

I disagree on making half-time changes. We were absolutely bossing it. I don't hold Rodgers accountable for the complete Jekyll and Hyde performance of the same players either side of half-time. He was right to bring on Tielemans pre-Palace goal, as you could see we had lost control of the midfield and our composure. He would not have wanted to bring Vardy on at all, but when it became clear we had to take that risk, it was again a spot on decision IMO. 

Not taking our chances cost us, it happens. Hopefully, this reinforces our case for a striker in the window though. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, STUHILL said:

I disagree on making half-time changes. We were absolutely bossing it. I don't hold Rodgers accountable for the complete Jekyll and Hyde performance of the same players either side of half-time. He was right to bring on Tielemans pre-Palace goal, as you could see we had lost control of the midfield and our composure. He would not have wanted to bring Vardy on at all, but when it became clear we had to take that risk, it was again a spot on decision IMO. 

Not taking our chances cost us, it happens. Hopefully, this reinforces our case for a striker in the window though. 

You can disagree, but the plan only got us a draw I'm afraid.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jerry said:

Sitting in the cold waiting to come on surely has more chance of pulling a hamstring or muscle , either play for the first half or leave at home. I suppose a win at Newcastle is now required to vindicate his selection planning 🤔


You know all players have to start their game from a position of not playing whether they start or come on as a substitute. Just because Amazon didn’t show him warming up... I’m sure he was well informed how and when to warm up by the training staff. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...