Credit to Rodgers
- Thread starter localny
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Well you complained about something two days ago and it was sorted out by LTW, and now you've decided to reopen the issue by posting randomly about it again when the problem is resolved.
Stop being a pain in the fucking arse.
He's normally better after his brunch of 20 mcnuggets
Modo, I think you get more flak than you deserve on here, and always appreciate how you rarely respond with the same aggro / bad language thrown at you. That said, you were being a bit pedantic and argumentative. It was a minor point you were repeating and repeating!
Rosco, are you on a mission? First it wasn't down to managers, then it was referees, and now it's luck. Rodgers has had a great run in 2013 that deserves credit.
I'm no soft center on managers, but this guy deserves kudos given all the reforms, and overhauling he's done. While also managing 20 or so lads.
Rosco, are you on a mission? First it wasn't down to managers, then it was referees, and now it's luck. Rodgers has had a great run in 2013 that deserves credit.
I'm no soft center on managers, but this guy deserves kudos given all the reforms, and overhauling he's done. While also managing 20 or so lads.
You're wrong. Poor process does = poor results. Poor process is setting up to fail and that leads to poor results. Ok, the 'always' bit maybe wrong but it's in the region of 98%-99%, so in all probability poor process = poor results. Using the 2005 CL win as an example of poor process is fundamentally wrong. If you look at the CL in it's entirety ie from qualification to winning it then the whole process was bang on. Simply because we won it, especially with the squad we had and some of the wins weren't down to luck (Juve, Bayer Leverkuson (sp) etc). Now, things did go astray in the final where poor process lead to us 3 goals down at HT but guess what Rafa fixed it and, we know what happened then. From an overall point of view the 2005 CL was a good process and, guess what, it = a good result.
Yes I agree that a good squad will get you more good results and vice versa but I'm not ascribing everything to the manager but he IS integrated into how the team functions and the subsequent results. To simply say managers have no influence is ridiculous.
Rodgers' preference is for lots of possession.
Given we're 8th or 9th in the average possession stats and are scoring more than 90% of our goals in a way he doesn't approve of you have to question whether the credit is for him to take.
Or whether it's the players ignoring his wishes that is reason we're succeeding.
your view is way too simplistic, and very common.
Good results = good manager. Bad results = bad manager.
You ignore a host of influences when you think like that. You ignore the fact that the opposition have an effect on any tactics, that the managers own players may not follow the tactics.
That can happen with good and bad managers.
To say the wrong team tactics, team selection will result in a bad result 98% of the time is absolutely mad. Is the opposite true as well ?
Take your favourite manager, think about how the Fulham team would do with him at the helm.
You and I both know that even if he got the tactics perfect every time there's not a hope they'd win the league (which they would if process and results had such a strong relationship as you argue)
Part of the problem with this debate is that football has a dearth of information to back up any argument.
I see it this way - if there was data that tracked how changes a manager makes in the game changed your probability of winning. Let's say if you had a 2-0 lead and you're playing some version of a 4-4-2. And the data suggests that if you change to a 4-5-1 with 20 mins to go you win that game 95% of the time.
Let's say you make the change, you draw 2-2.
For me the right decision is the one that is backed by the numbers, so that decision was the right one, even if the result didn't go right.
And that's how you separate process from results, you're equating process with results which is nonsense.
Not win the league but there would a definite improvement. Take southampton as a prime example. A new manager has come in with new ideas and they have improved a great deal.
Real Madrid when they sold Makelele (can't remember the manager) had the best squad in the world, but still failed to win a major title for 3 years because of of poor management. They sacked del bosque and hired Carlos Queiroz and it was a total disaster. So of course managers made a huge difference to the team.
Can you explain why Roberto Di Matteo and Rafa Benitez won the same average points with the same Chelsea squad - given the impression that's given is that there's a gulf in class between the pair. My explanation is the squad is the most important factor, and that the managerial ability not that decisive.
Can you explain Newcastle over the past 2 and a half seasons?
In the medias eyes Pardew went from manager of the year to one for the sack, and now he's been redeemed. Is that him being good, then bad then good ? Do managers change so frequently ? If so why do people out any stock in reputation and pedigree?
My explanation is that the stats at the end of last season showed Newcastle as being an unlucky side last year when peripheral stats were measured against outcomes. This season seems to be more balanced for them.
How many team sports have you played during your life Ross?
Just interested, as it's so obvious that change in managers, in whatever team sports, completely makes you change the way you play, the way you position yourself, the philosophy in how your team moves as a unit, your approach to games and training, your mentality before a match starts, during, and after. etc. etc etc.
Just interested, as it's so obvious that change in managers, in whatever team sports, completely makes you change the way you play, the way you position yourself, the philosophy in how your team moves as a unit, your approach to games and training, your mentality before a match starts, during, and after. etc. etc etc.
Moyes is demonstrating this right now.
I understand what you're saying, and intuitively we all know that's the case. The question is how do you reconcile that with the statistical evidence which says in the Premiership they're virtually all the same, with only two managers known to have had a positive effect over when all other factors were equalled ?
Do they all make as many good tactical decisions as bad ones ?
Is the difference at the highest level minimised because they've all gone to the same UEFA coaching courses ?
Nope, but i'm not a big believer in stats painting the whole picture. For example you say that Di Matteo and Rafa averaged the same points (im sure its not exactly the same but i'm not pedantic). But the chelsea players and fans supported Di Matteo a lot more than Rafa. Rafa had half the squad against him and yet still averaged the same points as Di Matteo which i would say is a better job. So imagine what he would have achieved if the players actually played for him like that they did Di Matteo.
You still conveniently ignored southampton and Real Madrid scenario's which totally go against your theory.
They both won 2 points a game. Your explanation is guesswork at best.
Southampton is mainly the result of money and good long term decisions. I said that at the time Adkins was sacked - plenty of people were proclaiming Adkins as their saviour and the club would now freefall because some unknown manager with no premiership experience took over.
You haven't given me enough detail in the Madrid example.
The problem with averages is that it ignores the trends. What was the game results for both managers?
Or whether he has successfully adapted and is willing to sacrifice a little possession for more incision/creativity in the final third. I do not for a single moment think that the players are ignoring his wishes, in fact it is pretty incredible (or desperate) to even conceive that.
To quote Gary Player " the harder I practice the luckier I get "
I agree luck always plays a part and doesn't always average out over a season, however, you have to take into account that no club starts the season with the same squad each year, some players will be developing some will be fading. Team spirit, fitness, the way the team is set up, how the defence and attack are set up for free kicks are all things the manager can directly influence. Incidentally am I right in thinking we are top of the post hitting AGAIN this season.
Coaching makes a massive difference to players. Clearly the way BR is orchestrating the coaching is having a good effect on our players
I think so, I'm sure I also read that Sturridge had 3/4 post hits by himself which is more than all but 1 team this season (or pre Fulham anyway).
So are you saying everything that happens on the pitch is a direct result of the manager, his instructions and wishes ?
Because I think that's nonsense. The manager decides who goes out on the pitch. But he can't control what goes on out there.
If that's what people believe then Champ manager has done an equally good brainwashing job as fantasy football.
nice straw man
I don't think one word you said there has any relevance at all to what you quoted (i.e. what I said). Not one.
You said
and I called that BS. And I also said that Rodgers may have adapted his 'possession at all costs' for something else that is proving more successful.
So go back, read what I said again, and have another go, we all know you can do better.
I don't see any evidence for your comment. If there is some, by all means present it.
I do think it's funny that we're better on the counter, despite it being the opposite of the managers preference too.
Indeed. Despite his relative youth he himself was a coach for a long time before stepping up to management. Perhaps we're benefiting from that now.
Someone tell me where Rodgers said he doesn't "approve"of direct or counter attacking football. He's said enough times that we need to be quicker and more decisive. Win the ball back quicker, less passes needed to get in on goal. I think Ross is being a bit myopic about his preference for possession based football. It can equally mean making posession count, as it can mean bossing the possession stats. There's gaping hole that's getting bigger...
- Status
Similar threads
