Poll Dodge the brodge
- Thread starter Skullflower
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Prefix for Poll Threads
- Status
No
Seriously though, mark. How many times do we have to do this before you clock on? Those three will be our main targets.
It'll be quite hilarious (albeit tragic) if Brodge were to be sacked/leave during the summer after that 150% self confidence-boost of a claim.
I was just thinking the same after reading Bascombes comments.
5th is poor but if we end up 7th it could be his last game today.
That review will surley not just be something "routine" as Rodgers made it to be.
Well, if he's going to comment publicly at all he's got to be bullish about it. I suspect he knows full well that he'll be facing some awkward questions - apart from anything else my bet would be that he was given a target of 4th place this season, never mind next. I reckon he'll be told that that's the bare minimum requirement for 2015/16 and that he'll be gone if he doesn't achieve it. I expect he'll answer that our transfer arrangements, including the amount of money available, need dynorodding and he'll be right about that, so here's hoping.
Yep. It does seem like change may be on the way there (hope that isn't just wishful thinking). Whether it'll be the kind of change Rodgers himself would want, we'll have to wait and see. If it isn't - especially if it involves bringing a DOF and/or defensive coach in - he may yet walk.
I don't get the sense that FSG know what they want. I think they'll know it when they see it, but I don't think they know it now. They just know it's not right. That's what bothers me. They picked and then kicked out Comolli. Then they established a transfer committee. Now they might kick out Fallows and Edwards and maybe Hunter(although Fallows and Hunter, incidentally, didn't seem to be incompetent when they were at City). But what are they looking for? Someone, or some people, who get it right nearly all of the time, I guess. But that's what anyone wants. The skill that owners need is the ability to recognise such a person. And I don't have the impression that FSG have a clue. They resemble a medieval monarch clapping his hands, demanding someone entertain them and then chopping off their head when they don't raise a smile. Have they actually learned that much about football in their time here? It's as if occasionally they hear someone say something and they decide, 'Hmmm, maybe THAT'S the way to go...' They just jump from one hunch to the next. I don't actually think they've chosen people who don't know how to scout very good players; the problem seems to be that we either can't decide on the order of their options, or we fail to get their top choices. In which case we're wielding the axe too far down the pecking order.
On the question about a defensive coach being mentioned elsewhere: not that I'm aware of, no. I raise it only because I doubt Rodgers' stock is at its highest with the owners at the moment and, if they've done their research, they'll know we had problems in that area even last season, when we were going for the title and he publicly set his face against such a move.
I suspect that's pretty close to the truth. It surprises me that they as experienced business people went with the transfer committee set-up, because that had to blur lines of responsibility in a way which is contrary to anything resembling a good business model. IMO the situation is rescuable and in theory they have enough about them to rescue it, but they're going to have to rethink a number of aspects of their approach so far.
Very good post that macca, sums up my feelings on it.
It's a haphazard & almost whimsical way of running a business, only it's dressed up in some finery.
It's why I was pleased David Dein was linked with them as an advisor so heavily when they first arrived, as I thought it would avoid this.
I understand why he won't take a role at the club (although I'm unconvinced that the right package & job title that makes it seem more business advisor than football related would not sway him) but that was the right play.
My confusion is after doing something that seemed so sensible, when it didn't come off they abandoned it completely.
I get that but it's one thing to force an executive on a manager, it seems quite another to wrestle control away on the training ground. Is there any sort of precedent for this?
Again, not that I'm aware. There is a partial parallel though, IMO anyway, in the decision back in the day to bring GH in as "joint manager" with Uncle Roy and there were a good few suggestions at the time that this was part of a process to ease Roy out. FSG might perhaps think "Our defence needs sorting and Rodgers needs help to do it. If he accepts that, fine. If not, that's fine too - we'll replace him."
Yeah, perhaps. Rodgers doesn't strike me as the type to ask for help or willingly accept it but you never know.
We really need a maverick CEO / chairman who really understands football (and most importantly where football is headed) to steer us in the right direction.
We really need a maverick CEO / chairman who really understands football (and most importantly where football is headed) to steer us in the right direction.
You wouldn't just have to force a defensive coach on the manager, you'd also have to force it on the players. The players like Rodgers' sessions because he's imaginative, versatile and he keeps them fresh. If you look at any players talking about managers/coaches renowned for their organised defences (see, for example, Maldini in that Carra interview) they all say the same thing: 'He made us do it over and over and over again'. Players hate that. obviously, because it bores them to tears but it works. But you'd better be successful and stay successful, otherwise the players lose interest fast (see Pulis/Allardyce teams). Players will be much more tolerant of Rodgers' approach because they enjoy the sessions. So I'm not sure how you'd shoehorn in a defensive coach. I agree the defence needs coaching better, but I can't see it happening under this current system.
It was interesting to read Maldinis thoughts on who runs Milan today.... It was something like Baresi was there in some function, but aside from that noone that knew the history or what it took to win all the things they have won over the last few decades. It is scary cause that experience you cant shop for. Either you have been through the pain and hard work it takes winning or you havent, and Brodge and Pascoe obviously havent. Ayre neither....
I think the strange thing is that it looks like that's what they're doing, but I don't think it actually is.
I think they've known all along how they want to proceed: Young, Hungry Manager TM, Director of Football above him, clear focus on quality young players.
They just keep letting themselves be sidetracked at the first sign of resistance. They're unbelievably limp-wristed about the whole thing. Dunno why but it reminds of that Peter Kay bit about dunking biscuits, and FSG are the Rich Tea, floppy and pliant on the very first dip.
1 more chance? 1 more season? Seriously?
But he appears to have lost the changing room. The players the fans the plot.
He lost me last year v Chelsea
'kinell. When King Binny weighs in, it's over johnny.
We've been rudderless for months now.
No settled system. No defensive organisation. A losers mentality on the pitch. Players in the wrong position. Strikers who never score. Sterling looking to leave.
He's got to go.
The only positive this season has been Ibe and Coutinho. Beyond that there has been fuck all to reflect upon with any happiness.
No settled system. No defensive organisation. A losers mentality on the pitch. Players in the wrong position. Strikers who never score. Sterling looking to leave.
He's got to go.
The only positive this season has been Ibe and Coutinho. Beyond that there has been fuck all to reflect upon with any happiness.
To be fair to the strikers they've been sat on the bench the whole season.
But he can justify his cause by that five goals from Sturridge would have won us the game....
- Status
