Yes. I didn't think there was anything wrong with the side Rodgers picked. Quite the contrary. The problem was the attitude they showed out on the pitch. For far too long, sides from lower divisions, drawn against us in cups, have rubbed their hands together and thought, 'They'll give us a chance,' because we've acquired a habit of resting far too many first choice players, fielding a team full of far too many unfamiliar partnerships,and the opposing team has started aggressively and confidently with the smell of blood in their nostrils. So it was good to see us start with a side that visibly took the wind out of the opponents' sails (their manager, in particular, looked set to throw up with trepidation). But we soon signalled to them that we were only prepared to sleepwalk through the game, which encouraged them to really have a go. What we need to do in future is not switch back to the old shambolic selection strategy but begin such games with cold and hard professionalism, treating it as a half-hour of ruthless and aggressive attacking.. Then we can take players off and bring on pretty much who we like. That's MUCH better than how we behaved against, say, Oldham, sending on Gerrard to chase a game against opponents who by that time were convinced they were destined for glory and quite prepared to injure anyone who threatened to spoil their day. Rodgers is going in the right direction. It's now up to the players to show the right attitude.
all well, but playing a 32yr old, who has hardly played any footie last season, for 3 games in a week is asking trouble. I don't understand why Agger didn't start instead of Toure. It would signify strength and Agger could take it.