No, no and no. The reason I keep mentioning Rafa is because he's used as sole evidence Rodger's managerial credentials doesn't fit the bill. Rafael Benitez will never manage this club again mainly because he failed to improve the team in the PL during his 6 year spell. I've said numerous times on here I was happy as fkuc when we signed Rafa, that I'm eternally grateful for no. 5 and that he was probably one of the best managers in the game during his first 24 months at the club. I don't know what happened but it remains a fact he lost it sometime in 2007 - sacking of Ayesteran, Drogba dvd, Parry conflict, sole charge of transfer conflict, endless fights with G & H, the infamous attempt at engaging in mind games with Taggart. And there's more. All of this needs to be taken into context when you decide to write off the current manager after less than half a season. I gave Rafa 4 seasons before I started to write thing similar to what's said about Rodgers on here, why can't you lot give him one? Becasue you KNOW he's not able to take us to the next level?
Yes he deserves respect for winnin no. 5 I agree. I do not agree with the rest. Rafa's mission was to take us closer to no.19. He got 6 full seasons and failed altho the 2008/09 season was good. I would always agree iwith Shanks that the league is our bread and butter. That's something Rafa never took onboard it seems. His fear of losing was Always bigger than his will to win and the steady decline in the league during his tenure (bar that one-off in 2009) is a testament to that fact. I don't think either of us will ever see Brendan cruising us to another CL final. But that's not his commission. His job is to rebuild and restore continuity for this club. He was dealt a very weak hand and given that he's done tremendously well this season. The win at Villa is a huge testament as to how far the team has progressed under his guidance. That's why I think it's unfair, yes even dishonest, to ask of Brendan the same return in results we asked of Rafa who came in and took over a much stronger squad at a much more stable club.
No, that's not the case. Me too can see, in large, what we lack. Me too can see he's made some silly and costly mistakes over the course of the season. But I can also balance that with the good things he brought to the club. Unlike you I never thought he'd be able to fix all the problems we suffered from in one season. Here's some he sorted. Downing's better (tho still not good enough IMHO), Henderson's looking more and more at least decent value for Money, Sturridge and Coutinho looks great buys, we sorted the goal drought, we're playing better and more efficient footy as a TEAM than we have for a very very long time. He's set us up very very nicely for next year!!!
And again scrutiny, constructive criticism, frustration over bad decisions is one thing, personal insults, unfounded criticism, non-support is a totally different. I gave my full support to Rafa for over 2 seasons altho I often thought he made the wrong decisions or priorities.
I hear what you say and I also think I can see where you're coming from. I respect that point of view. At the same time I kind of like and appreciate Brendan's belief in himself and his ideas. An experienced appointment (regardless of the role and formal power connected to it) would always bring a moment of rejection/non-belief in Rodgers no matter how you look at it. When would be the right time to hand Brendan sole power? Who would decide that? I fear such a solution, no matter how logical and sympathetic, would halt the club's progression. We simply have different opinions on that one.
I think what you say apply to most human beings. I would say some of Rafa's decisions though, are unprecedented as for instance his Drogba dvd, the "fact" discussion with Taggart, the Parry incident, and the sole charge of transfer affair. These are decisions and actions on a totally different level than anything Brendan's come even close to. If you're honest about it I think you can see that as well.
I wouldn't bring up past mangers if they weren't constantly brought in as evidence the current manager is "brainless", "Brent-like", "Clueless" or what have you. If Brendan, in this place, had been critizised and judged based on his own merits rather than his age or previous track record we'd probably have a more civilized discussion climate.
That's a concern of mine as well. But maybe Agger and Skrtel never was as good as we first thought? Maybe Skrtel last season was masked by our offensive failure? Maybe Agger just never got the chance earlier to prove his genuine quality? I can see Brendan's preferred style of play may have implications for the players in the squad. We'll see in the summer how he'll adress the issue for it is clear that we would most likely have finished 4th or at least very close to 4th if it wasn't for all the silly mistakes that cost us silly points (even though most of them have been individual).
In hindsight to that game a lot I would say. The change of our central midfield from 2-1 to 1-2 did the trick in terms of preventing Villa to play the ball through the center while at the same time providing more people going forward. It also helped us kill off the game the last 20 where we could see glimpses of what Brendan mean by "resting with the ball".
I hear what you say Martin and to save the rest of the forum from a cure for insomnia, I won't go into depth with a huge reply.
Other than to say this, as I said to Edward when he accused me of the exact same thing, don't tell me what I think, OK?
Unlike you I never thought he'd be able to fix all the problems we suffered from in one season. If you've read anything I've written as me expecting everything to be fixed in one season then you've either misunderstood what I was writing or my English really is as truly poor as my German teacher used to say it was.
I want to see a balanced improvement. Going from not being able to score but able to defend to going to the opposite extreme of both is not a balanced improvement and it has needlessly cost us goals and much more importantly, points.
The things I don't get with Rodgers is that he's offered up reasons for not doing something but then has gone and done it anyway.
Two examples:
1. As mentioned the other day, he stated very recently in a printed interview that he had no idea what we needed in terms of inward transfers when he came in or anything about players such as Henderson,
yet still he brought in Allen and tried to offload Henderson in the Fulham debacle. Now if he'd have done what he said he was going to do (that was give every player a chance to prove themselves and show him what they could do, thankfully he broke his word again with Carroll) then both the purchase of Allen and the sale of Henderson would have proved unnecessary.
He showed himself the way to go (or at least his words did, and I have no reason or desire to disbelieve him) then did something else anyway.
2. A couple of months or so (could have been even longer) into the season he was all over the press explaining that he didn't have the players at the club to play the way he wanted to,
yet still he's changed it wholesale to the way he wants to play
irrespective of him admitting he doesn't have the ingredients yet to make the pudding.
Now with the exception of Kuyt, Bellamy and Maxi we have pretty much the same squad that played so effectively in Dalglish's caretaker stint, which is why going back to
that style as a starting point, which is pretty much midway between the turgid rubbish we produced a lot of the time last season and the slick, short passing interplay that Rodgers is looking for, would have seen evolution, not revolution, and that was balanced between scoring goals without letting them in at the other end. Dalglish's method of play was the perfect starting point. We had the players that had played it. Henderson was an upgrade on Spearing, and it just left the left side (Maxi/Bellamy) to fill. Downing could have been tried as he's damn sure not a genuine, pure winger. With the exception of Enrique, the defence was the same. Enrique would only add to the effectiveness of the style.
It wasn't a wholesale change to something
completely unfamiliar to the players. Then he builds on that, gradually bringing in his own players and the style evolves as more players are recruited/replaced.
Do you see what I mean, he answers his own conundrum, accurately as it happens, then ignores it through his all encompassing belief in this
philosophy of his.
So much for a short answer. Sorry about that folks.
Damn, what a couple of beers around a table couldn't sort out.
