He was in his shell for the first couple of games, but my goodness is he getting good. Him first choice, with Milner occasionally filling in should be absolutely fine for us next season.I think he's been quality from day one. You could just tell he was a player as soon as he put the red shirt on; pace, energy, strong tackler, can beat a man and a great crosser. He's the perfect modem full back. It's a bit tough on Moreno who has worked hard to improve but he will have to work harder again to win the spot back. Robertson is fast become essential to Klopps attacking game.
Woah woah woahBest left back we've had in 30 years.
Hull fans were said to be thankful he was leaving. Shows what they knew.
Certainly wasFabio was a superb full back, such a shame about his injuries.
Is your username because of him? @Fabio
I most definitely not call clyne aggressiveRobertson is infinitely more assured that the clown that is moreno. His crossing is getting better and has similar, aggressive playing style to that of clyne.
Haha - I just knew you'd pipe up and say that. You couldn't help yourself could you. I only saw that you mentioned it in the West Ham thread after I wrote it but let's be honest it is fucking obvious. 😀Very creative thread title.
Couldn't agree more. They're both also players who were palpably grateful for the chance to come and play for Liverpool, rather than imagining they were doing the club a favour by agreeing to sign. Long may the trend continue.
It's one of the things I like to see, & one of the things that really pissed me off about Moyes at Everton, he was renowned during his successful spell there for preferring players a little less skilled with the right attitude over ones that were better players but had issues with application or attitude.
It showed when they played & he got a lot more out of the side because of it, cos their side was batting way above where they should have been simply due to that application & attitude.
Of course, our level of target is very different, & the pool of potential players smaller, but it's equally important to get that right, had we looked at El Hadji Diouf the same way for example, it would have saved us a lot of cash (at the time) & reputation too.
It was the same with Benteke and Mario, I couldn't see how they would fit into a system that had been reliant on work-hungry, quick, interchanging attackers. It would be similar to putting one of them into this attack, it would make the whole system defunct and it just wouldn't work.
It's why it surprises me that Mourinho went back for Lukaku. Mourinho has always liked his industrious, fierce competitors in attack (much like us with Firmino now, or Suarez previously). It's why they've bought Sanchez too, because he gives them a bit of that back. But Lukaku seems an odd fit overall, his place for them seems to be to bag 20 a season against the dregs of the league. If that contributes to overall success, then fair play, but he doesn't strike me as a long term "fit" in the main striker position for Jose. He's lazy and in certain games, easy to take out the game. Look at him against us for Everton, we always controlled him high up the pitch so he had minimal impact.
I feel like, under Klopp, we're finally doing proper due diligence on players we sign - rather than just signing players because...
It might not satisfy everyone - take the most recent window and the cacophony of angst at not making more signings.
We've shown we're more interested in making the right signings - we'll be better for it in the end.
Agree with most of what you've said, but I take a a small amount of umbrage with the quote above. For me at least, the issue wasn't about not just "making more signings". We sold Coutinho - a player who had been agitating for a move for about six months - and didn't outwardly appear to have used the time to build a robust plan to replace him.
As has been argued umpteen times before, there isn't only one player in the world in that position who will fit in that position, or have the correct attitude, or make us stronger, or protect us from further losses through an unanticipated injury. A strong plan would have ensured that a replacement was identified and signed before Coutinho was sold. (Protecting us from the financial blackmail we will now face from clubs who know how much we got from the sale.)
So, whilst we have been steadily improving in our purchases, the process for planning player sales, identification, and acquisition is absolutely not functioning in an optimal way. That's the point here. Not a single person is arguing that we should throw cash around for the sake of it, just because we have it. because that would be fucking retarded.
Nothing panicky about what I posted JJ. And, at the same time, I also don’t have to name anyone because I’m not employed to research replacement players. Someone, or a bunch of someones, are employed to do this, and had at least six months to figure it out. The balance of probabilities suggests that in all of world football, there is a replacement for Coutinho out there. The fact that you’re defending the inaction tells me that you’re probably just as bollocks at planning as LFC.No, but I don't think that was Stevie's point. I think he's aiming, rightly IMO, at all those panicky "there has to be somebody else out there who would do just as well" posts - of which, with respect, there's a slight echo in the beginning of your second para.above - which kept appearing a while ago, usually without actually naming anyone. AFAIC there may well be only a tiny number of players, quite possibly just the one, who (a) will be good enough and (b) are available at (c) an acceptable price - and, even if we find him/them, doing a deal isn't an overnight job. We have endured a profusion of "near enough is good enough" signings in recent years, decades even, which have turned around and bitten us on the @rse, so I'm totally with Stevie in celebrating the fact that under Klopp we're no longer willing to go that route.
ly. In terms of backing up your argument or otherwise, it may not be your "job" to name names, but it's never been clear to me how those who voice such criticisms expect those criticisms to be taken seriously without being able to point to possible names themselves.