BYE BYE ROY!!!!!

[Oncy]

[quote author=vantage link=topic=42120.msg1219763#msg1219763 date=1289984811]
[quote author=dirtyho link=topic=42120.msg1219748#msg1219748 date=1289982644]

Yeah, we should have hired a wonderful wizard manager with a magic hat and a wand.

Or maybe we shouldn't have hired a manager with a record of 13 away wins in 6 seasons of English fooball...
[/quote]

+1
[/quote]What 14 wins?

 

[Portly]

[quote author=Ryan link=topic=42120.msg1220231#msg1220231 date=1290038556]

Liverpool passes: 306
Successful - 242
Unsuccessful - 64

Stoke passes: 203
Successful - 136
Unsuccessful - 66

Like I said: formation, tactics, and setup. We had enough of the ball, we were just badly set up, and using it in all the wrong areas.

[/quote]

Stoke don't play a passing game. It's mostly Route 1 stuff which admittedly they do well. So in any match between Liverpool and Stoke, you would always expect Liverpool to record more passes even if we were playing badly.

I am also very sceptical about these statistics because they don't take into account the quality of the pass. Are these not the same statistics that show Lucas is the Premier League's top midfielder?

 

[Ryan]

[quote author=Portly link=topic=42120.msg1220275#msg1220275 date=1290043346]
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=42120.msg1220231#msg1220231 date=1290038556]

Liverpool passes: 306
Successful - 242
Unsuccessful - 64

Stoke passes: 203
Successful - 136
Unsuccessful - 66

Like I said: formation, tactics, and setup. We had enough of the ball, we were just badly set up, and using it in all the wrong areas.

[/quote]

Stoke don't play a passing game. It's mostly Route 1 stuff which admittedly they do well. So in any match between Liverpool and Stoke, you would always expect Liverpool to record more passes even if we were playing badly.

I am also very sceptical about these statistics because they don't take into account the quality of the pass. Are these not the same statistics that show Lucas is the Premier League's top midfielder?
[/quote]

No, they're actual statistics which rubbish your initial point, so I can see why you don't like them.

 

[kingjulian]

Ha ha......This argument has gotten very one sided.

Any argument involving Roy Hodgson's competence is bound to be one sided though.

 

[Whaddapie]

[quote author=Ryan link=topic=42120.msg1220277#msg1220277 date=1290043428]
[quote author=Portly link=topic=42120.msg1220275#msg1220275 date=1290043346]
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=42120.msg1220231#msg1220231 date=1290038556]

Liverpool passes: 306
Successful - 242
Unsuccessful - 64

Stoke passes: 203
Successful - 136
Unsuccessful - 66

Like I said: formation, tactics, and setup. We had enough of the ball, we were just badly set up, and using it in all the wrong areas.

[/quote]

Stoke don't play a passing game. It's mostly Route 1 stuff which admittedly they do well. So in any match between Liverpool and Stoke, you would always expect Liverpool to record more passes even if we were playing badly.

I am also very sceptical about these statistics because they don't take into account the quality of the pass. Are these not the same statistics that show Lucas is the Premier League's top midfielder?
[/quote]

No, they're actual statistics which rubbish your initial point, so I can see why you don't like them.
[/quote]

They actually don't rubbish his point at all, Ryan (at least not without further research).

If Lucas and Konchesky knock it back and forth to each other 5 or 6 times, 30 yards from our goal, but then give it away, and a long ball and a goalmouth scramble later, we're 0-1 down, we've had 500% more passes than them, but their single pass was more effective.

Posession or number of passes made means nothing if you do nothing with it.

As you well know.

 

[kingjulian]

[quote author=Whaddapie link=topic=42120.msg1220285#msg1220285 date=1290044928]
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=42120.msg1220277#msg1220277 date=1290043428]
[quote author=Portly link=topic=42120.msg1220275#msg1220275 date=1290043346]
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=42120.msg1220231#msg1220231 date=1290038556]

Liverpool passes: 306
Successful - 242
Unsuccessful - 64

Stoke passes: 203
Successful - 136
Unsuccessful - 66

Like I said: formation, tactics, and setup. We had enough of the ball, we were just badly set up, and using it in all the wrong areas.

[/quote]

Stoke don't play a passing game. It's mostly Route 1 stuff which admittedly they do well. So in any match between Liverpool and Stoke, you would always expect Liverpool to record more passes even if we were playing badly.

I am also very sceptical about these statistics because they don't take into account the quality of the pass. Are these not the same statistics that show Lucas is the Premier League's top midfielder?
[/quote]

No, they're actual statistics which rubbish your initial point, so I can see why you don't like them.
[/quote]

They actually don't rubbish his point at all, Ryan (at least not without further research).

If Lucas and Konchesky knock it back and forth to each other 5 or 6 times, 30 yards from our goal, but then give it away, and a long ball and a goalmouth scramble later, we're 0-1 down, we've had 500% more passes than them, but their single pass was more effective.

Posession or number of passes made means nothing if you do nothing with it.

As you well know.
[/quote]

Isn't that what he is saying, when he says the problem was tactical? Anyway, we are over analyzing things.....

 

[Ryan]

[quote author=Whaddapie link=topic=42120.msg1220285#msg1220285 date=1290044928]
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=42120.msg1220277#msg1220277 date=1290043428]
[quote author=Portly link=topic=42120.msg1220275#msg1220275 date=1290043346]
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=42120.msg1220231#msg1220231 date=1290038556]

Liverpool passes: 306
Successful - 242
Unsuccessful - 64

Stoke passes: 203
Successful - 136
Unsuccessful - 66

Like I said: formation, tactics, and setup. We had enough of the ball, we were just badly set up, and using it in all the wrong areas.

[/quote]

Stoke don't play a passing game. It's mostly Route 1 stuff which admittedly they do well. So in any match between Liverpool and Stoke, you would always expect Liverpool to record more passes even if we were playing badly.

I am also very sceptical about these statistics because they don't take into account the quality of the pass. Are these not the same statistics that show Lucas is the Premier League's top midfielder?
[/quote]

No, they're actual statistics which rubbish your initial point, so I can see why you don't like them.
[/quote]

They actually don't rubbish his point at all, Ryan (at least not without further research).

If Lucas and Konchesky knock it back and forth to each other 5 or 6 times, 30 yards from our goal, but then give it away, and a long ball and a goalmouth scramble later, we're 0-1 down, we've had 500% more passes than them, but their single pass was more effective.

Posession or number of passes made means nothing if you do nothing with it.

As you well know.
[/quote]

Christ.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Portly's original point was that it was the players fault, and that we gave the ball away.

I've pointed out we had it more often, and gave it away less. Our problem was that we were playing in the wrong areas, and our setup was wrong.

I'm not really sure why I'm having to explain this again.

EDIT: Thanks KJ.

 

[StevieM]

[quote author=refugee link=topic=42120.msg1220233#msg1220233 date=1290038870]

Stoke City Team Statistics ............Liverpool
4 Shots on Target 3
5 Shots off Target 4
9 Blocked Shots 5
4 Corners 3
14 Fouls 11
1 Offsides 0
2 Yellow Cards 2
0 Red Cards 1n
19 Tackles 13
78.9 Tackles Success 92.3
39.7 Possession 60.3
56.7 Territorial Advantage 43.3
[/quote]

And there it is in black and white.

More passes & more possession versus less territorial advantage means we sat deep and passed it around the backfour and penetrated them as much as a 2 inch flaccid dick would.

Although at roy's age I guess playing with a flaccid cock is usual.

 

[mr_moo]

After his comments re: stevie's injury, he should be made to leave, fucking twat!

 

[manwithnoname]

Oh, it was nothing to do with the players being shit, it was the set-up. Of course!

Great to see the chalkboard back isn't it? Now we can truly understand why we're shit

 

[Insignificance]

He probably saw us as a last walk-in-his-own-golden-sky-park before takin the reins from Capello. My advise to Roy is that he steps down now himself to have any chance in hell to be concidered by FA. In two years time they might have forgotten what a shit fuckhed manager he is and still believe he is a tactical genius.....

 

[peterhague]

[quote author=Insignificance link=topic=42120.msg1220338#msg1220338 date=1290068667]
He probably saw us as a last walk-in-his-own-golden-sky-park before takin the reins from Capello. My advise to Roy is that he steps down now himself to have any chance in hell to be concidered by FA. In two years time they might have forgotten what a shit fuckhed manager he is and still believe he is a tactical genius.....
[/quote]


the thing is though, as much as i've grown to dislike roy, i'd actually worry for him if he ever became england manager. he looks haunted enough failing at liverpool; the england job would absolutely destroy him.

 

[Richey]

Indeed. It does make me wonder every week if there is any way at all that he is actually enjoying this job. He can't possibly be.

I can't say i paid him a great deal of attention last year but the impression i got was that he was quite a cheerful old chap. He certainly isn't now!

 

[Insignificance]

[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42120.msg1220341#msg1220341 date=1290069115]
[quote author=Insignificance link=topic=42120.msg1220338#msg1220338 date=1290068667]
He probably saw us as a last walk-in-his-own-golden-sky-park before takin the reins from Capello. My advise to Roy is that he steps down now himself to have any chance in hell to be concidered by FA. In two years time they might have forgotten what a shit fuckhed manager he is and still believe he is a tactical genius.....
[/quote]


the thing is though, as much as i've grown to dislike roy, i'd actually worry for him if he ever became england manager. he looks haunted enough failing at liverpool; the england job would absolutely destroy him.
[/quote]

Good.

 

[Avmenon]

[quote author=mr_moo link=topic=42120.msg1220315#msg1220315 date=1290065498]
After his comments re: stevie's injury, he should be made to leave, fucking twat!
[/quote]

Those comments weren't made by Hodgson.

 

[mark1975]

[quote author=Insignificance link=topic=42120.msg1220349#msg1220349 date=1290069988]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42120.msg1220341#msg1220341 date=1290069115]
[quote author=Insignificance link=topic=42120.msg1220338#msg1220338 date=1290068667]
He probably saw us as a last walk-in-his-own-golden-sky-park before takin the reins from Capello. My advise to Roy is that he steps down now himself to have any chance in hell to be concidered by FA. In two years time they might have forgotten what a shit fuckhed manager he is and still believe he is a tactical genius.....
[/quote]


the thing is though, as much as i've grown to dislike roy, i'd actually worry for him if he ever became england manager. he looks haunted enough failing at liverpool; the england job would absolutely destroy him.
[/quote]

Good.
[/quote]

Harsh! He might be your stereotypical confused, dithering old duffer but he doesn't deserve 'hate'. He needs to just go, for his own sake as much as anyone's.

 

[spider-Neil]

[quote author=mark1975 link=topic=42120.msg1220354#msg1220354 date=1290070356]
[quote author=Insignificance link=topic=42120.msg1220349#msg1220349 date=1290069988]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42120.msg1220341#msg1220341 date=1290069115]
[quote author=Insignificance link=topic=42120.msg1220338#msg1220338 date=1290068667]
He probably saw us as a last walk-in-his-own-golden-sky-park before takin the reins from Capello. My advise to Roy is that he steps down now himself to have any chance in hell to be concidered by FA. In two years time they might have forgotten what a shit fuckhed manager he is and still believe he is a tactical genius.....
[/quote]


the thing is though, as much as i've grown to dislike roy, i'd actually worry for him if he ever became england manager. he looks haunted enough failing at liverpool; the england job would absolutely destroy him.
[/quote]

Good.
[/quote]

Harsh! He might be your stereotypical confused, dithering old duffer but he doesn't deserve 'hate'. He needs to just go, for his own sake as much as anyone's.
[/quote]

I think the time to push him out and only pay a years salary has expired but roy walking of his own accord isn't going to happen as it would see him losing out on 6million. he's thinking 'walk out? fuck THAT!'

 

[peterhague]

£6m, that's a fucking LOT of rocking chairs and olbas oil, right there.

 

[Insignificance]

[quote author=mark1975 link=topic=42120.msg1220354#msg1220354 date=1290070356]
[quote author=Insignificance link=topic=42120.msg1220349#msg1220349 date=1290069988]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42120.msg1220341#msg1220341 date=1290069115]
[quote author=Insignificance link=topic=42120.msg1220338#msg1220338 date=1290068667]
He probably saw us as a last walk-in-his-own-golden-sky-park before takin the reins from Capello. My advise to Roy is that he steps down now himself to have any chance in hell to be concidered by FA. In two years time they might have forgotten what a shit fuckhed manager he is and still believe he is a tactical genius.....
[/quote]


the thing is though, as much as i've grown to dislike roy, i'd actually worry for him if he ever became england manager. he looks haunted enough failing at liverpool; the england job would absolutely destroy him.
[/quote]

Good.
[/quote]

Harsh! He might be your stereotypical confused, dithering old duffer but he doesn't deserve 'hate'. He needs to just go, for his own sake as much as anyone's.
[/quote]

I wouldnt hate the old duffer. But his presence is so uninspiring that many Pool fans are now starting to ignore the matches and the clubs. Many fans are not to bothered if they miss a match or not. Which is very worrying, as here in Norway that has never happened before We are the only club that actually fills the pubs on any given day of the week. We are the one club the pubs are showing if anything collides and they cant cover more matches. And if any other clubs are priritized it is Man City or SPurs, and that was before the sheik came as well.

 

[HC]

I think people are underestimating just how deep,slow and disjointed we are under roy.

Say what you want about rafa but the football was never consistently played like this.

I find it hard to believe that kenny would adopt a similarly defensive approach to EVERY match.

 

[Whitey85]

Does every Rory Delap throw in count as Stoke having possssion? If so they must have had about 75% of the ball.

 

[Ryan]

[quote author=Brendan link=topic=42120.msg1220317#msg1220317 date=1290065681]
Oh, it was nothing to do with the players being shit, it was the set-up. Of course!

Great to see the chalkboard back isn't it? Now we can truly understand why we're shit
[/quote]

And again you're arguing a pint that no one else is. Such is your determination to ratify your intelligence at every turn, you now invent discussions and arguments in order to get your completely unrelated points across.

What. A. Cock.

 

[manwithnoname]

And again you're arguing a pint that no one else is. Such is your determination to ratify your intelligence at every turn, you now invent discussions and arguments in order to get your completely unrelated points across.

What. A. Cock.

Oh, I thought you said the Stoke result was "95% to do with formation, tactics, and setup" which would seem to divest the actual players of any blame at all. Because I thought they were shit, regardless of formation, tactics and setup.

You seem to be calling me a "cock" and a "dick" a lot recently. It hurts.

 

[StevieM]

O'hare's right on this occasion.

On all counts.

 

[manwithnoname]

[quote author=StevieM link=topic=42120.msg1220396#msg1220396 date=1290076425]
O'hare's right on this occasion.

On all counts.
[/quote]

Oh, that's a shame. I really like you. And if I could remember one thing you've ever posted, I'm sure I'd like you more.

 

[spider-Neil]

[quote author=StevieM link=topic=42120.msg1220396#msg1220396 date=1290076425]
O'hare's right on this occasion.

On all counts.
[/quote]

I think it's a combination of a lot of things.
having the ball in the wrong areas i.e. too deep
not doing enough when we had the ball (regardless of where we had the ball)
not having enough quality to DO anything with the ball once we had it.

 

[Judge Jules]

[quote author=Whitey85 link=topic=42120.msg1220374#msg1220374 date=1290072492]
Does every Rory Delap throw in count as Stoke having possssion? If so they must have had about 75% of the ball.
[/quote]

I'm sure half the effect of those things is in the mind of opposition teams. There doesn't seem to me to be any real reason why they should cause so much more trouble than dead-ball kicks usually do.

 

[manwithnoname]

Hmm, I suppose it just adds to the general volume of balls being hoiked into the box, rather than being somehow 'more dangerous'

 

[Judge Jules]

[quote author=Hardcastle link=topic=42120.msg1220372#msg1220372 date=1290071741]
I think people are underestimating just how deep,slow and disjointed we are under roy.

Say what you want about rafa but the football was never consistently played like this.

I find it hard to believe that kenny would adopt a similarly defensive approach to EVERY match.
[/quote]

I doubt the King would adopt a similar approach to ANY match. He would never have the players going out there practically apologising for being on the same pitch as the opposition, the way we do at the moment.

 

[gene hughes]

The key statistic for Stoke regarding Delap throws is:

-Take the amount of time they are in possession of the ball and calculate the % of this possession that is had with 4 or more Stoke players in the opposition box.