• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Sam urges reds owners to back Hodgson

Forums Unread posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=42390.msg1204295#msg1204295 date=1287866256]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42390.msg1204291#msg1204291 date=1287865859]
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=42390.msg1204287#msg1204287 date=1287865256]
Of course it was seen as a rant.

We weren't winning, and was seen as the attempt of a losing manager at deflecting criticism from his own inadequacies.

If we were winning, I think the media would have had a lot of difficulty in portraying Rafa as having 'cracked'.
[/quote]


but you said he was unlucky in that we started losing and then it was seen as a rant - isn't that what you meant? and surely if you mean that we were already losing at the time (as you imply above) and that naturally it'd be seen as cracking up, then he should have anticipated such a reponse and bad luck would've played no part in it would it?

the way i remember it is that we weren't losing - we were still top of the league - and immediately after we went on a poor run (0-0 at stoke was first, i think), but that it had already been reported as a rant/cracking up before the dip in form.
[/quote]

I really can't remember, pete.

And my interest in it is no match for the levels you'll go to in maintaining a spirited defense of Rafa,as is your wont. but my basic position on this point is more critical of rafa than yours! or do you mean that you can't be bothered defending him like i do?

I don't know if we were already beginning to lose or if we only began losing after the 'facts' statement.

But either way, if we had gone on to win the next 30 League gamnes enroute to winning the title, no one would have dared to make any suggestions about a 'rant' but that's what i'm saying happened! on day one! 'Rafa's Rant'!
[/quote]


honestly, man, i've never known anyone to twist and turn in an argument like you - seemingly without even realising it!
 
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42390.msg1204296#msg1204296 date=1287866873]
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=42390.msg1204295#msg1204295 date=1287866256]
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42390.msg1204291#msg1204291 date=1287865859]
[quote author=Avmenon link=topic=42390.msg1204287#msg1204287 date=1287865256]
Of course it was seen as a rant.

We weren't winning, and was seen as the attempt of a losing manager at deflecting criticism from his own inadequacies.

If we were winning, I think the media would have had a lot of difficulty in portraying Rafa as having 'cracked'.
[/quote]


but you said he was unlucky in that we started losing and then it was seen as a rant - isn't that what you meant? and surely if you mean that we were already losing at the time (as you imply above) and that naturally it'd be seen as cracking up, then he should have anticipated such a reponse and bad luck would've played no part in it would it?

the way i remember it is that we weren't losing - we were still top of the league - and immediately after we went on a poor run (0-0 at stoke was first, i think), but that it had already been reported as a rant/cracking up before the dip in form.
[/quote]

I really can't remember, pete.

And my interest in it is no match for the levels you'll go to in maintaining a spirited defense of Rafa,as is your wont. but my basic position on this point is more critical of rafa than yours! or do you mean that you can't be bothered defending him like i do?

I don't know if we were already beginning to lose or if we only began losing after the 'facts' statement.

But either way, if we had gone on to win the next 30 League gamnes enroute to winning the title, no one would have dared to make any suggestions about a 'rant' but that's what i'm saying happened! on day one! 'Rafa's Rant'!
[/quote]


honestly, man, i've never known anyone to twist and turn in an argument like you - seemingly without even realising it!
[/quote]

I don't think I actually 'defend' anything, tbh..

The point of the matter is that some on here have suggested that Rafa is the victim of some dastardly racism from the media.

Which is obviously bullshit unless racism differs across the Iberian Peninsula.

I've already said that the main reason why (I think) Rafa was disliked by the media was because he didnt play their game, and also liked to use them when it suited them..my guess is hat the media didnt like that, and the fact that he was the manager of a club like Liverpool just made it worse.

It's not as if the media likes us all too much,tbh.

I can fully believe that the media raced to paint him as a raving lunatic the moment he talked aboutthe 'facts'.

But two things did happen; there was an initial interest in the 'facts' and Fergie did get more scrutiny, and why not?

There was nothing untrue in what Rafa said.

But the moment we began losing, everyone knew what was going to happen.

The scrutiny of Fergie would end and the spotlight would turn back to Rafa (with relish and glee from the media).

And try as they might, when managers keep winning and winning it's very hard for the media to keep printing their own spin.

I can remember an article being very critical about a football team that won against a more fancied side, by playing very effective football, but which had nullified the other sides game (whch was prettier).

But they weren't talking about Mourinho, they were talking about Paisley.

If Mourinho had come a cropper after all his bloody 'Special One' bullshit, I have little doubt that the media would have ripped him a new one as well.

I'm not sure why you think I'm spinning things,pete.
 
[quote author=Herr Onceared link=topic=42390.msg1204300#msg1204300 date=1287867825]
Sams a twat. Roy wants adiosing pronto.


[/quote]

^^^ That sums it up very well.
 
I am not calling for Hodgson's head because I can't help seeing parallels with the situation of Leeds United in 2002. Through bad dealings on the transfer market, David O'Leary managed to land what had been a very successful side in trouble in quite a short space of time, in the same way that Rafa did with us. O'Leary was sacked and Terry Venables was brought in to get the best out of the squad. Venables turned out to be a failure as a miracle worker, and results continued to be dreadful. Venables was soon sacked and Peter Reid was hired. Under Reid Leeds were relegated and relegated again the following season.

I don't think appointing Frank Rijkaard, Kenny Dalglish or anybody else is going to improve the situation - in fact it is going to make it even more unstable.
 
Rafa's rant had nothing to do with us losing. Sky invented mind games, it doesn't actually impact results.

If Fergie says something he's the "old master". If anyone else says something they've "lost it".

Fuck off.
 
I respect Rafa as a manager and tactician, but there is a serious attempt to hide Rafa's transfer market mistakes under the carpet in this thread.

Using Net Spend as an indication of his performance in the squad can lead to some serious misrepresentation of facts.

- Rafa had a huge turnover of player. More so than most (almost any) managers. For example, in the Right Back slot he has used/bought Finnan, Josemi, Baragan, Krompkamp, Arbeloa, Degen, Johnson and a few youngsters. He kept buying players and then moving them on for a marginal loss or sometimes a small profit, because the player didn't work out. It gets even worse when you look at the amount of money he wasted on the wings by bringing in players and then moving them on a year or two down the line and starting from square one. If not for Torres his success rate with forwards will be just as dire.

The net-spend was obviously low, because he tended to quickly ship his mistakes for a marginal loss. But it does not count the time wasted and the resulting value erosion over time with each of these mistakes, when in fact we could have been challenging for the title consistently if he had even a slightly higher success rate with those transfers for winger and wing-back slots.

I would much rather look at the sum of all transfer-in amounts, than look at the net spend to evaluate how he performed with transfers.

Fact is, he took-over a good squad (good enough to win the Champions League), and after buying about at least 30 players for the senior squad in 6 years, we are now weaker in most positions than when he first came in. We have absolutely no depth to top it off.

I think it is safe to put some of that blame on Rafa. This 'Only 58 million pound net spend for 6 years' argument does not convince me in the least bit.
 
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=42390.msg1204314#msg1204314 date=1287870585]
I respect Rafa as a manager and tactician, but there is a serious attempt to hide Rafa's transfer market mistakes under the carpet in this thread.

Using Net Spend as an indication of his performance in the squad can lead to some serious misrepresentation of facts.

- Rafa had a huge turnover of player. More so than most (almost any) managers. For example, in the Right Back slot he has used/bought Finnan, Josemi, Baragan, Krompkamp, Arbeloa, Degen, Johnson and a few youngsters. He kept buying players and then moving them on for a marginal loss or sometimes a small profit, because the player didn't work out. It gets even worse when you look at the amount of money he wasted on the wings by bringing in players and then moving them on a year or two down the line and starting from square one. If not for Torres his success rate with forwards will be just as dire.

The net-spend was obviously low, because he tended to quickly ship his mistakes for a marginal loss. But it does not count the time wasted and the resulting value erosion over time with each of these mistakes, when in fact we could have been challenging for the title consistently if he had even a slightly higher success rate with those transfers for winger and wing-back slots.

I would much rather look at the sum of all transfer-in amounts, than look at the net spend to evaluate how he performed with transfers.

Fact is, he took-over a good squad (good enough to win the Champions League), and after buying about at least 30 players for the senior squad in 6 years, we are now weaker in most positions than when he first came in. We have absolutely no depth to top it off.

I think it is safe to put some of that blame on Rafa. This 'Only 58 million pound net spend for 6 years' argument does not convince me in the least bit.
[/quote]That wont go down well mate.
Just dont get involved.
 
I just don't think my balls produce enough jizz for the art installation bukkake piece I'd like to make of Sam Rafadyce's Flintstone of a head tomorrow.
 
[quote author=crump link=topic=42390.msg1204323#msg1204323 date=1287872201]
I just don't think my balls produce enough jizz for the art installation bukkake piece I'd like to make of Sam Rafadyce's Flintstone of a head tomorrow.
[/quote]

If you could just land a small blob on him I'll buy you a pint.
 
avvy > i was only kidding about the 'twisting' 😉 - just seems that sometimes you jump about a bit in your arguments... 😛 the one point doesn't necessarily follow on from the last. ??? i wasn't having a go >🙁 , just a bit of friendly exasperation :laugh: . knew i should've used a smiley :-[ , but they always come across a bit 'zlatan' 🙂 to me so i'm bit allergic :'( .
 
Kingjulian>

I respect Rafa as a manager and tactician, but there is a serious attempt to hide Rafa's transfer market mistakes under the carpet in this thread. no mate, i can't speak for everyone but i'm sure there isn't. this is want irtates me a bit about his critics - that they seem to imply that we'd have a particular motive for defending or sanitising his record. well, i know i don't! i genuinely believe he's unfairly judged - especially his transfer record - and what annoys me when i see that kind of criticism isn't that it's aimed at benitez but that i think it's plain wrong, full stop.

Using Net Spend as an indication of his performance in the squad can lead to some serious misrepresentation of facts.

- Rafa had a huge turnover of player. More so than most (almost any) managers. For example, in the Right Back slot he has used/bought Finnan, Josemi, Baragan, Krompkamp, Arbeloa, Degen, Johnson and a few youngsters. He kept buying players and then moving them on for a marginal loss or sometimes a small profit, because the player didn't work out. It gets even worse when you look at the amount of money he wasted on the wings by bringing in players and then moving them on a year or two down the line and starting from square one. If not for Torres his success rate with forwards will be just as dire. i could accept this point more easily if you were talking about players that were major signings, but josemi? a £2m right back? an early error, sure, but he at least provided cheap backup and by jan 07 had been traded for almost exactly the same fee for arbeloa, a bargain signing. it seems an essential element of buying on a shoestring, at least to me, to be willing to wheel and deal, because you know that as often as not such cheap signings will fail. as for barragan, he wasn't signed as a right-back per se, but as a promising youngster. he couldn't settle so wa sold back to spain - what's the problem? degen was signed on a free transfer as back-up because finnan was leaving or had left: a minor position in the squad addressed with a minor signing. i agree (presumably) that a better player would've been preferable, but i'm not sure how easy one would have been to find for free - i couldn't say. johnson hasn't proved to be the best of signings so far, but he wasn't brought in as a like-for-like replacement for arbeloa, but as an attempt to provide a bit more creativity down the flank, a problem that had come to light during the previous league season. it would be wrong, therefore, to include his purchase in the same sequence of misfit signings and replacements that started with josemi and ended with arbeloa. for me, it's all very well just naming a long list of his signings and criticising them for their very number, but without attempting to put them in context or give them a meaningful narrative i think that approach is, well, useless. it'd be different if there had been a constant turnover in big money signings, all of whom great things were expected, but each one had failed and been replaced, one a year - but i don't think that ever really happened. you've got more of a point with the wingers: gonzalez, pennant, babel, riera were all failures to varying degrees, but i'll give one point in defence for 3 of them. gonzalez was a cheap punt sold quicly for a profit - not imo a bad thing, although i realise you disagree. babel was a hot property who looked a bold signing at the time - it was, at least, understandable. riera actually looked decent for a season and played a useful part in the title challenge. it's also worth remembering, in general, that rafa might be considered a bit unlucky with wingers because he was, in 3 consecutive seasons, very close to signing simao, dani alves, and malouda, all top-class players. that's why i find the oft-stated opinion that rafa simply couldn't buy good wingers - while understandable - a bit unbalanced. finally, strikers. so there's morientes, crouch, bellamy, kuyt and keane. first up morientes - no arguments here, a clear failure, totally unsuited to the premier league. at least he was a cheap failure, i suppose. crouch, bellamy and kuyt were all brought in over the next year and formed our strike force for 06/07. these are all part of the same reality that he was basically trying to fill out a small inherited squad with only an average budget, so the end result was more or less expected: decent players but not quite the answer. when bigger money arrived in 07, bellamy was sold to help pay for torres, so as with the right backs i think it's wrong to see this as quick turnover of failed signings, but a reflection of changed circumstances: suddenly he could compete for a different calibre of player. the same analysis can be applied to the crouch for keane 'swap' in 2008 - a decent player on the books who could, due to increased power in the market, now be upgraded. it's not so much that the crouch signing was a failure, but more a relic from a different ownership/budget. of course, the fact that pompey were offering high wages made it harder to keep hold of the player, even if benitez wanted to.

The net-spend was obviously low, because he tended to quickly ship his mistakes for a marginal loss. But it does not count the time wasted and the resulting value erosion over time with each of these mistakes, when in fact we could have been challenging for the title consistently when do you think we should've started challenging for the title then? imo the first season we could really have expected it is 2007/08, after the first really significant transfer outlay. as i said earlier i think he was a victim of his own success in winning the CL in 2005 as people suddenly started to think he had resources capable of challenging for the title. to me, that sounds ridiculous, because that CL success was a footballing miracle - almost ridiculously unlikely. to add to that team with zenden, reina, sissoko and crouch and expect a title challenge seems laughable, expecially when the oponents were the most expensive team in the history of the league, who'd just won the league with 97 points, and were managed by jose mourinho, one of the best young coaches in the world. 2006/07 was perhaps a more realistic target, but an investment of around £20m is still fairly modest compared to chelsea's unprecedented spending and a utd team that had ronaldo and rooney ariving at their best form. it would have been an extraordinary achievement to have won the title, although to be fair the team never even got into the race early in the season, which wasn't good enough. if he had even a slightly higher success rate with those transfers for winger and wing-back slots.

I would much rather look at the sum of all transfer-in amounts, than look at the net spend to evaluate how he performed with transfers.
i think both measures have their uses, but net spend is clearly better imo, because that's wat tells you how much power a manager really had in the market. gross spend is useful, imo, where a manager has made lots of unnecessary and expensive flops. i went over this above, and as i said i don't think there are as many as you made out. keane and aquilani are the obvious 2, but that would ignore what i consider to be his good mitigting work in quickly facing up to the keane failure and getting a good fee back from spurs: i think you need to look at both, the initial big failure and the subsequent smaller mitigation.


Fact is, he took-over a good squad no he didn't (good enough to win the Champions League no it wasn't, not by any rational measure, anyway. by that logic i could say he himself left a squad good enough to win a houllier-style cup treble, or a squad bad enough to be relegated from the premier league.), and after buying about at least 30 players for the senior squad in 6 years, we are now weaker in most positions than when he first came in see below. We have absolutely no depth to top it off.

I think it is safe to put some of that blame on Rafa of course. This 'Only 58 million pound net spend for 6 years' argument does not convince me in the least bit.

< Kingjulian


2004 squad

dudek, 31
kirkland, 23
finnan, 28
henchoz, 29
hyypia, 30
carragher, 26
riise, 23
warncok, 22
diao, 27
biscan, 26
hamann, 31
murphy, 27
gerrard, 24
smicer, 31
le tallec, 19
kewell, 25
diouf, 23
sinama-pongolle, 19
mellor, 18
owen, 24
cisse, 23
baros, 22

(22 players in or close to first team squad)

first XI average age 26.5
squad average age 25


2010 squad

reina, 27
cavalieri, 27
johnson 26
kelly, 20
carragher, 32
agger, 25
skrtel, 25
kyrgiakos, 31
wilson, 18
insua, 21
mascherano, 26
lucas, 23
shelvey, 18
aquilani, 26
gerrard, 30
maxi, 29
benayoun, 30
riera, 28
babel, 23
kuyt, 30
pacheco, 19
n'gog, 21
torres, 26

(23 players in or close to first team squad)

first XI average age 26.9
squad average age 25.2


to me, those squads look fairly well matched - you certainly wouldn't immediately say houllier's was stronger. if i was to pick a 22 man squad from both, it'd be:

reina RB
dudek GH
finnan GH
johnson RB
carragher N/A
hyypia GH
agger RB
skrtel RB
riise GH
warnock GH
mascherano RB
hamann GH
murphy GH
gerrard N/A
aquilani RB
benayoun RB
kewell GH
babel RB
cisse GH
kuyt RB
owen GH
torres RB

10 each. not much to choose between a potential 1st XI, either. the one thing i think benitez's clealy wins on is the value of the players outside the first XI, the ones you could sell on to regenerate the squad. houllier left:

warnock
henchoz
diao
biscan
smicer
le tallec
sinama-pongolle
diouf
mellor
baros


benitez left:

kelly
wilson
skrtel
kyrgiakos
shelvey
aquilani
maxi
riera
babel
pacheco
n'gog


anyway, it should at least be crystal clear that the squad rafa inherited was not a CL-winning squad, barring a miracle - which is what benitez delivered.
 
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=42390.msg1204314#msg1204314 date=1287870585]
I respect Rafa as a manager and tactician, but there is a serious attempt to hide Rafa's transfer market mistakes under the carpet in this thread.

Using Net Spend as an indication of his performance in the squad can lead to some serious misrepresentation of facts.

- Rafa had a huge turnover of player. More so than most (almost any) managers. For example, in the Right Back slot he has used/bought Finnan, Josemi, Baragan, Krompkamp, Arbeloa, Degen, Johnson and a few youngsters. He kept buying players and then moving them on for a marginal loss or sometimes a small profit, because the player didn't work out. It gets even worse when you look at the amount of money he wasted on the wings by bringing in players and then moving them on a year or two down the line and starting from square one. If not for Torres his success rate with forwards will be just as dire.

The net-spend was obviously low, because he tended to quickly ship his mistakes for a marginal loss. But it does not count the time wasted and the resulting value erosion over time with each of these mistakes, when in fact we could have been challenging for the title consistently if he had even a slightly higher success rate with those transfers for winger and wing-back slots.

I would much rather look at the sum of all transfer-in amounts, than look at the net spend to evaluate how he performed with transfers.

Fact is, he took-over a good squad (good enough to win the Champions League), and after buying about at least 30 players for the senior squad in 6 years, we are now weaker in most positions than when he first came in. We have absolutely no depth to top it off.

I think it is safe to put some of that blame on Rafa. This 'Only 58 million pound net spend for 6 years' argument does not convince me in the least bit.
[/quote]

I don't think I've ever agreed more with a post.

Benitez is the perfect manager to guide an inherited side to success, but what's patently obvious is he has never built a successful squad himself, and too many people ignore this fact.

He came close in 2008/09, but he allowed his cautious nature to derail a side which was marching to it's first title in 20+ years.

Benitez will always be a potentially brilliant manager in my book. He is so close to greatness, but yet so far. Pity.
 
Peter - there is a whole lot of subjective opinion on your response, and i will steer clear of them, because I can't tell you what is right and what is wrong.

I will respond to the only question you posed on that reply.

when do you think we should've started challenging for the title then?
Click to expand...

By 06/07 - He was backed sufficiently enough to make sure that there was no huge gap (15 pts or more) with the title winner. By 07/08 he was backed even more that the only team that had outspent him in the transfer market in his time in ENgland was Chelsea, who coincidentally had a problem of having too many aging stars on massively high wages and were also dealing with the aftershock of the sacking of Mourinho. So at that stage, it was very fair of the fans to expect him to challenge for the title and he did challenge for one season. If he had a slightly higher success rate in the transfer market, we could have had a hell of a strong squad in all positions. The only positions we were extremely strong in were, GK, CM, and CB in that period. Where as, in other positions we were weaker than at least 3 or 4 squads in the premiership. But that is not the gripe that fans have with Rafa's transfer dealings. He had done fairly well, and for whatever shortcomings he had in the transfer market, he overcame with better tactics and coaching.

The main gripe is what transpired after that. After a season where we challenged for the title we had one summer transfer window where we had 0 net-spend, but the wheels came off the wagon in a very very spectacularly ugly manner. Every top team in the league has had a year or two like that. But the difference is, they coped and we couldn't. The main reason for that is Rafa. The huge turnover of players coupled with a relatively poor (compared to the other top managers in the league) success rate in the market meant, we couldn't cope for even one low spending transfer window. At the time he was sacked/let go we were looking at one or two more transfer windows with 0 or negative net spend. So Rafa either had to retain vast majority of the squad and dig deep by working closely with the players he had with him, or make some really astute transfer dealings. He had failed on both counts for over 5 years. Poor man management meant working closely with an unchanged squad was impossible for him (hence his revolving door policy, and also the nadir of his relationship with the senior players in the squad. If you compare that with how well Fergi has coped with losing Ronaldo and Tevez in one window and not replacing them, the point becomes very clear.), and he never had the wherewithal to make astute transfer signings and work on a budget (you only need to look at the long list of excuses you made for Benitez's failings in the transfer market). So it was the right time to let go. If he had been better in any of the two aspects, he would be still with us.....and i have a feeling you actually agree with that from your response below. So what are we debating?

I think it is safe to put some of that blame on Rafa of course.
Click to expand...
 
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=42390.msg1204362#msg1204362 date=1287894229]
[quote author=kingjulian link=topic=42390.msg1204314#msg1204314 date=1287870585]
I respect Rafa as a manager and tactician, but there is a serious attempt to hide Rafa's transfer market mistakes under the carpet in this thread.

Using Net Spend as an indication of his performance in the squad can lead to some serious misrepresentation of facts.

- Rafa had a huge turnover of player. More so than most (almost any) managers. For example, in the Right Back slot he has used/bought Finnan, Josemi, Baragan, Krompkamp, Arbeloa, Degen, Johnson and a few youngsters. He kept buying players and then moving them on for a marginal loss or sometimes a small profit, because the player didn't work out. It gets even worse when you look at the amount of money he wasted on the wings by bringing in players and then moving them on a year or two down the line and starting from square one. If not for Torres his success rate with forwards will be just as dire.

The net-spend was obviously low, because he tended to quickly ship his mistakes for a marginal loss. But it does not count the time wasted and the resulting value erosion over time with each of these mistakes, when in fact we could have been challenging for the title consistently if he had even a slightly higher success rate with those transfers for winger and wing-back slots.

I would much rather look at the sum of all transfer-in amounts, than look at the net spend to evaluate how he performed with transfers.

Fact is, he took-over a good squad (good enough to win the Champions League), and after buying about at least 30 players for the senior squad in 6 years, we are now weaker in most positions than when he first came in. We have absolutely no depth to top it off.

I think it is safe to put some of that blame on Rafa. This 'Only 58 million pound net spend for 6 years' argument does not convince me in the least bit.
[/quote]

I don't think I've ever agreed more with a post.

Benitez is the perfect manager to guide an inherited side to success, but what's patently obvious is he has never built a successful squad himself, and too many people ignore this fact.

He came close in 2008/09, but he allowed his cautious nature to derail a side which was marching to it's first title in 20+ years.

Benitez will always be a potentially brilliant manager in my book. He is so close to greatness, but yet so far. Pity.
[/quote]

Can't argue with that Squiggs, or Julian.

This 'net spend' argument and how it's such a fucking travesty to accuse him of wasting £80m over two Summers is getting REALLY fucking tedious from Peter aswell, who gives a shit about what we got back? I'm sick of going over the same point, but he had £80m to spend over two Summers, regardless of what we brought in in sales and whatever, £80m invested and not alot to show for it is THE reality of the situation and a major reason why Rafa isn't here. Get over it.
 
kinglulian> you ask what are we debating? i made a whole host of what i consider valid arguments that you chose to ignore because you can't 'tell what is right or wrong' - that's what we are debating! an argument doesn't have to be in the form of a question for you to debate it you know! anyway, i think what you say re: the title challenge is all mostly fair even if i don't necessarily agree with it, so fair play there.

mark> the whole thrust of your reasoning on the point, to whatever i raised, just seemed to be 'oh, just accept you're wrong!!!' now it's 'look, he's still wrong!' at lest KJ was capable of an inteligent point on the one idea he did counter, and at least - until now - i paid you the respect of trying to respond to each of your points with a considered opinion. not anymore, you'll no doubt be relieved to hear.
 
[quote author=peterhague link=topic=42390.msg1204651#msg1204651 date=1287930164]
kinglulian> you ask what are we debating? i made a whole host of what i consider valid arguments that you chose to ignore because you can't 'tell what is right or wrong' - that's what we are debating! an argument doesn't have to be in the form of a question for you to debate it you know! anyway, i think what you say re: the title challenge is all mostly fair even if i don't necessarily agree with it, so fair play there.

mark> the whole thrust of your reasoning on the point, to whatever i raised, just seemed to be 'oh, just accept you're wrong!!!' now it's 'look, he's still wrong!' at lest KJ was capable of an inteligent point on the one idea he did counter, and at least - until now - i paid you the respect of trying to respond to each of your points with a considered opinion. not anymore, you'll no doubt be relieved to hear.
[/quote]

Look, for what it's worth I really liked Rafa and still have ALOT of good memories and 'what ifs' regarding his management. Someone else summed him up well in a post earlier, he did some brilliant stuff so you just know that the capacity was there to succeed, if he could get over this occasional tendency to not see the wood for the trees. So I have no personal thing against Benitez, nor am I stubborn in my opinion of him, I was ambivalent in the Summer regarding whether he stayed or went, for exactly the above reasons, yes I wanted us to succeed and get back to basics as I felt that was largely where he failed us, but I could also recognise the brilliance that often surfaced too.

What aggravates my feelings over how much of a success he was and how much responsibility he should take for our failures, is people papering over the cracks with views like yours regarding how much money we've recouped from his (failed) signings. It's entirely missing the point and serves to try to give some positive spin on his mistakes as though he needs defending so sternly because it's so clearly such a travesty to say such a thing.

We're clearly never going to agree on this point so there's not really much point arguing the toss over it. He is what he is, I'm completely thankful for everything he did for us, the fight's he put up for the good of the club, the good signings he made, Istanbul, The FA Cup, finishing second, being such a big lover of the club and the city and generally for the most part being a good guy, but when it comes to the last two transfer windows I'll always see it as a missed opportunity akin to Houllier failing to capitalise on his runners up season, and ultimately a pivotal point that saw him fall by the wayside and show too many flaws to be persevered with wholeheartedly, with trust and the faith to do the right things without costing the club financially or successfully.

The sales, the tightening of the purse strings and the off the field shenanigans aside, he was given £80m to invest in the squad over two Summers and all we have to show for it is a right back who's a good attacker but can't defend. I don't really know how much more black and white I can express the point, I'm thankful for all the good things and yes, at least we were always shrewd enough to cash in at the right time and not make huge losses on players, but ultimately it was not getting it right first time which cost us, and cost him.
 
Very little about Benitez' time at Anfield is clear which is why it's still being debated endlessly.

His legacy was silverware, and Europe wide respect.

His signings, tactics, comments are all subjective. His supporters and detractors seem evenly split to me.

We have a new Manager who has changed the squad, the tactics and our expectations. The question is whether the owners should back him as Allardyce suggests, I say no.
 
[quote author=jexykrodic link=topic=42390.msg1205083#msg1205083 date=1287952861]
Very little about Benitez' time at Anfield is clear which is why it's still being debated endlessly.

His legacy was silverware, and Europe wide respect.

His signings, tactics, comments are all subjective. His supporters and detractors seem evenly split to me.

We have a new Manager who has changed the squad, the tactics and our expectations. The question is whether the owners should back him as Allardyce suggests, I say no.
[/quote]

Well on current evidence, definitely not and as said, there's not much evidence to suggest it will change significantly, though I'm sure we'll get better anyway. Even if he's kept on for now or beyond January, it's clear he's not he for the longterm so to throw money his way would be foolish and in light of recent years at the club and our financial predicament, pretty fucking dangerous too.
 
[quote author=Brendan link=topic=42390.msg1205086#msg1205086 date=1287953006]
Nobody thinks Budgie is a better manager than Benitez though.

So what's the fucking point inthis discussion?
[/quote]

As an excuse to rake over the same coals about Benitez that we've been raking over for nearly 5 fuckin' months. He's a genius, no he's a shitcunt, he was misunderstood; no he was mad yadda yadda yadda

It's also a distraction from the realisation we've employed a poor Manager.
 
And there we have it.

Nobody thinks Budgie's a better manager than Benitez

Embarrassingly, a few people were quite happy to see Benitez replaced with Budgie.

They now look like fucking twats.

Budgie is still a really mediocre, old manager who shouldn't be in charge of Liverpool, and will be sacked soon.

That's about all there is to it
 
[quote author=jexykrodic link=topic=42390.msg1205094#msg1205094 date=1287953528]
It's an excuse to rake over the same coals about Benitez that we've been raking over for nearly 5 fuckin' months. He's a genius, no he's a shitcunt, he was misunderstood; no he was mad yadda yadda yadda
[/quote]

5 months?! I think it's been more like 3 years.
 
mark> fair enough. i'm sure we both, and others like us, gravitate towards the extemes of our opinion just as a reaction to perceived unjustified criticism/praise.

sorry to have kept winding you up on the matter!
 
[quote author=Brendan link=topic=42390.msg1205097#msg1205097 date=1287953770]
And there we have it.

Nobody thinks Budgie's a better manager than Benitez

Embarrassingly, a few people were quite happy to see Benitez replaced with Budgie.

They now look like fucking twats.

Budgie is still a really mediocre, old manager who shouldn't be in charge of Liverpool, and will be sacked soon.

That's about all there is to it
[/quote]

I don't think I look like a fucking twat.

Benitez had lost the plot completely, and had been over a period of time, and had to go.

There were very few takers for the role, less than we imagined, and as we are finding out various people were approached and turned down the opportunity, we don't know yet the full list of who that may have been. Clearly the ownership issue was much to do with that, and presumably a little lack of faith in this fantastic demotivated squad that Rafa had left as an inheritance for the new man.
Apart from Hodgson the only other one we know about who was willing to take it on was Kenny , he was willing to throw his hat in the ring and wisely , even to protect him from himself Broughton and or Purslow turned the idea down.
I was not unhappy with Hodgson, for the right reasons and like many of the people that wanted him (for those right reasons) I can't say I am particularly happy with the way things are going in several areas. Some of the issues are so Benitez like it is worrying.
I said a few weeks ago , he will have until Christmas and I stick by that.

regards
 
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=42390.msg1205151#msg1205151 date=1287966797]
I don't think I look like a fucking twat.

Benitez had lost the plot completely, and had been over a period of time, and had to go.

There were very few takers for the role, less than we imagined, and as we are finding out various people were approached and turned down the opportunity, we don't know yet the full list of who that may have been. Clearly the ownership issue was much to do with that, and presumably a little lack of faith in this fantastic demotivated squad that Rafa had left as an inheritance for the new man.
Apart from Hodgson the only other one we know about who was willing to take it on was Kenny , he was willing to throw his hat in the ring and wisely , even to protect him from himself Broughton and or Purslow turned the idea down.
I was not unhappy with Hodgson, for the right reasons and like many of the people that wanted him (for those right reasons) I can't say I am particularly happy with the way things are going in several areas. Some of the issues are so Benitez like it is worrying.
I said a few weeks ago , he will have until Christmas and I stick by that.
[/quote]

I second that. It's very unjust to compare Hodgson unfavourably with Benitez, when he is struggling to deal with the total mess he inherited from Rafa.
 
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=42390.msg1205151#msg1205151 date=1287966797]
[quote author=Brendan link=topic=42390.msg1205097#msg1205097 date=1287953770]
And there we have it.

Nobody thinks Budgie's a better manager than Benitez

Embarrassingly, a few people were quite happy to see Benitez replaced with Budgie.

They now look like fucking twats.

Budgie is still a really mediocre, old manager who shouldn't be in charge of Liverpool, and will be sacked soon.

That's about all there is to it
[/quote]

I don't think I look like a fucking twat.

Benitez had lost the plot completely, and had been over a period of time, and had to go.

There were very few takers for the role, less than we imagined, and as we are finding out various people were approached and turned down the opportunity, we don't know yet the full list of who that may have been. Clearly the ownership issue was much to do with that, and presumably a little lack of faith in this fantastic demotivated squad that Rafa had left as an inheritance for the new man.
Apart from Hodgson the only other one we know about who was willing to take it on was Kenny , he was willing to throw his hat in the ring and wisely , even to protect him from himself Broughton and or Purslow turned the idea down.
I was not unhappy with Hodgson, for the right reasons and like many of the people that wanted him (for those right reasons) I can't say I am particularly happy with the way things are going in several areas. Some of the issues are so Benitez like it is worrying.
I said a few weeks ago , he will have until Christmas and I stick by that.

regards

[/quote]

Rafa did have to go, but apart from that I'm not sure I agree with much of this unfortunately. Deschamps is the only one I've heard about who said no to being considered, and Pellegrini would certainly have taken it - he was interviewed for it. We're going to have to agree to disagree about Kenny's candidacy, about which I'm pretty sure you're in a minority and IMO rightly so for once. Roy may well get till Christmas, but next month will be telling as it's when the new owners apparently have to let him go if they want to do it on the (relatively) cheap.
 
The only reason why I thought Hodgson should have gotten the job over Kenny was because of recent managerial experience, and whilst he hadnt achieved much, he did have experience at sides with little money and utilising players availabaleto the best of their ability.

I was terrified that Kenny would have walked into a shit-storm which he couldnt have fixed and would then have tarnished the legacy of our greatest ever servant. (to some extent).

No one considered eiter to be a better manager than Rafa, but I did think he had to go as I dont think he could have sorted out the mess either.

Whilst Brendan may think he called it first, no one could have foreseen just how much of a lame duck Hodgson would have turned out to be be, and whilst it's obvious now that it was a bad appointment, hindsight is always 20/20.

We've forgotten that just a few weeks ago we were all contemplating the end of our club.

When Hodgson was appointed, we were in debt, unwanted by any logical owners, and any appointment was as much about damage limitations then anything else.

It ws a poor, but not surprising appointment, ands the release clause was put in for just the situation we find ourselves in now.

And I hope it's used.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom