Jump to content

Official Liverpool Thread


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 39k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Synyster

    3029

  • ray1981

    2427

  • Vendetta

    1303

  • koplfc

    1242

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Re: Official Liverpool Thread The end of another season and I just want to lay down some of my ideas, hopes and aspirations for our beloved LFC. It was a disappointing season, finishing 6th due to a

Re: Official Liverpool Thread I'm a complete Suarez convert. Couldn't care less what he's done in the past, or that he may have gone down slightly theatrically in the odd game or two. He absorbs qui

Re: Official Liverpool Thread Just compiled andy carroll's match highlights..

Posted Images

Re: Official Liverpool Thread

can the 'adult' then explain to me how i acted like a child?

Saying 'I didn't ask for your opinion' is petulant and frankly ridiculous when this is a forum open for people to air their views. I expressed the opinion that the list he gave was obscenely biased. Nothing wrong with that is there? :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Official Liverpool Thread

TBH it doesn't really matter which of the two get the job (or even King Kenny)...

Under the current ownership of Liverpool it will be impossible for any manager to meet the expectations of the Kop faithful and bring home the league title for the first time since I moved to manchester - and believe me that was a long time ago :D

With you missing this years Champs League - there is even less 'cash' around the club - and it will get even more difficult to challenge to get back into it without that money

The first cracks inthe big four monopoly - and aren't we all glad to see it

I was fed up with the rich getting richer and the poor picking up the scraps :D

Saying 'I didn't ask for your opinion' is petulant and frankly ridiculous when this is a forum open for people to air their views. I expressed the opinion that the list he gave was obscenely biased. Nothing wrong with that is there? :rolleyes:

Well again TBJ - if you don't want someone to oppose or criticse your opinion you shouldn't post your opinion on a forum - so I agree with StuartH on that one

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Official Liverpool Thread

Saying 'I didn't ask for your opinion' is petulant and frankly ridiculous when this is a forum open for people to air their views. I expressed the opinion that the list he gave was obscenely biased. Nothing wrong with that is there? :rolleyes:

i admit i made a mistake, but you was trying to be sarcastic with me, which i didnt appreciate

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Official Liverpool Thread

True. Ian likes the lowest form of wit :)

Can only just keep it above my level of intelligence :D

But honestly - Pellegrini did well in Spain with Villareal....and got RM to their highest ever points total...

So what does that say...he took a small Spanish club up the league...

But RM then scored the most points in their history under him..

That says to me that the upper middle to lower middle aren't good enough to challenge the big teams over a season - and makes it easier to improve from say 8th-14th up 2nd-4th.....

The EPL is more competitive in my eyes - or certainly more so now that there are cracks in the "big 4"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Official Liverpool Thread

How do you guys rate Agger? I watch him occasionally' date=' so can't base a opinion to the level which I want. You guys watch him more than me, so want your view on the Dane. Will he be a a starter next season (bar injury?)

Thanks in advance lads :)[/quote']

With no other defender that can match him (Other then Carragher, Johnson, you know, the established players), he will be a starter, I can see this as our defense for the season.

Johnson-Carragher-Agger-Insua

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Official Liverpool Thread

With no other defender that can match him (Other then Carragher' date=' Johnson, you know, the established players), he will be a starter, I can see this as our defense for the season.

Johnson-Carragher-Agger-Insua[/quote']

That's confirmed my suspisions, thank you :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Official Liverpool Thread

Article by Paul Tomkins

Subscribers to this website, with whom I’ve discussed the issue at length, will know that I named Manuel Pellegrini as my choice for the vacant Liverpool manager’s job some weeks ago, even when his odds were 40-1. With his odds now slashed, and reports saying that he’s been approached and even that a deal tied up, I thought it was worth stating why I believe he’s the right man for the job.

To be honest, I didn’t expect someone with such an impressive CV to be in the running while Liverpool were out of the Champions League and deep in debt. But of course, ‘Liverpool FC’ retains its cachet, and, with the possible exception of AC Milan, I don’t think there is a bigger club in world football currently seeking a manager.

While I can see the pros behind going for Dalglish or Hodgson, I feel there are a few cons, too. I wouldn’t be unhappy if either were appointed, but – romanticism regarding Kenny and fairytales aside – not totally convinced either.

Of course, doubts exist when any manager or player swaps his usual environment for something new. (Or in Dalglish’s case, returning to a massively familiar environment, but with management itself being increasingly unfamiliar, after a 12 year hiatus.)

No new manager would come with any guarantees, or without his faults and drawbacks. But for me, Pellegrini is the most exciting choice. With that in mind, here are my reasons for backing the Chilean:

1) He has sufficient gravitas to impress the major players, particularly the Spanish ones, given his record in La Liga since 2004. He managed Pepe Reina at Villarreal, and Torres will know of his qualities. Those who still speak to Xabi Alonso – and I believe it includes Gerrard and Carragher – will get a first-hand account of a ‘proper’ coach.

2) Pellegrini – modern, forward-thinking – is not someone who would abolish the good things Rafa had implemented, or bring about a disruptive 180º u-turn. There’d be no throwing the baby out with the bath water.

My opinion is that England and Newcastle are the prime examples of footballing institutions that bow to popular opinion and lurch from a people-pleaser to a disciplinarian; a local to a continental; tactician to a motivator. And then back again, as soon as it doesn’t work out. This means costly squad renovations, as different kinds of players are sought.

As we saw up to 2008/09, Benítez got loads right, often in Europe, but also in the Premier League (82- and 86-point finishes). And while people will argue that ‘losing’ Alonso was a mistake, not that much had changed in terms of personnel in his final 12 months (the squad had been somewhat thinned due to budgetary constraints, but enough talent remains to at least contest the top four again).

Confidence obviously diminished, but that’s replenishable; any new manager brings a clean slate. Unless they are sold off, Benítez left a very strong first XI; just one lacking confidence after the poor start to last season.

For me, the culture does not need changing; Chelsea never bothered to revert to a British boss after a couple of continental failures, and are now reaping the rewards. I’m not against British managers – I just don’t feel one should be appointed simply to appease those who see British as best. (In worldwide coaching terms, this is certainly not the case. And most of the best ones are already at rival English clubs.)

And nor do the Reds need a pally-pally manager. The club simply needs the best available manager, and with no compensation to pay, Pellegrini is currently that man.

3) The Academy. With Rafa having established the Barcelona connection in overhauling the Academy, it’s vital that someone who appreciates their value – and whom they respect in return – is appointed.

(Of course, this is also a positive in Dalglish’s favour, with his relationship established with Rodolfo Borrell and Pep Segura over the past 12 months.) While he is Chilean, Pellegrini’s six years in Spain would give him a connection with the staff that remain from Benítez’s time, but also the promising young Spaniards making their way at the club (Pacheco, Ayala, Duran), not to mention the several South Americans.

4) Pellegrini is someone who would surely appeal to any future owner of the club. While there might be a case for a short-term appointment, to tide the club over, to me it seems vital to get someone capable of being around for a few years, so the process does not need repeating in 12 months’ time. A top-class boss would almost certainly help the sale, rather than hinder it.

5) After a year at Real Madrid, Liverpool, even with the current ownership farce, may seem like a sane working environment.

6) Pellegrini worked for years at Villarreal on a small budget – and turned them into a big club. His side were one final-minute missed penalty away from taking their 2006 Champions League semi-final against Arsenal to extra-time, and he took them to a club-best 2nd-place finish. He didn’t win the league – he was not at a club expected or equipped to – but he won La Liga’s Manager of the Year in 2008.

He is used to the pressures of managing one of the giants of the game; in each of Chile, Argentina and Spain he took charge of the biggest team in the land. While his Madrid tenure is seen by some as a failure, he did register the most points in the illustrious history of the club: 96.

Of course, he still got sacked. In many ways, it’s like ditching a striker who got 41 league goals because a rival striker got 42.

Yes, Pellegrini had some amazing talent at his disposal at the Bernabeu, but he also had to deal with some incredible egos, not to mention the difficult task of immediately fashioning a team from the massive influx of new players, many of whom weren’t necessarily compatible (in contrast to Barcelona’s less haphazard approach).

His desire to keep Sneijder and Robben led to an instant fallout with the tyrannical Florentino Perez, and from that point on, Madrid’s newspaper engaged all-out war on the manager that made the UK media’s attacks on Rafa Benítez look almost complimentary.

Failure in the Champions League was because Higuian, currently the World Cup’s top scorer, missed a series of sitters – and it was the fifth year running they stumbled at the last 16, so it wasn’t a backwards step. And losing out so narrowly in La Liga to Barcelona, so soon after

they won an amazing treble that saw them hailed as the best team ever, is nothing to be ashamed of.

He’s tactical, but also seen as a very attacking coach, whose teams are noted for playing attractive football. He uses two strikers, but in a fluid 4-2-2-2 formation (see image); wing play comes from either a forward, midfielder or defender moving into the space.

(Regular readers will note that I don’t see two strikers as in itself ‘attacking’; it’s how many forward-thinking players you have in the team that matters, whatever their position.)

Having said that, Pellegrini says he always used 4-2-3-1 against Barcelona when at Villarreal, the only team he felt ever had more of the possession than his side. And he won more than he lost against the Catalans.

On the downside, it’s not clear if his English is up to scratch – I’ve heard mixed reports on his fluency. The fact that he attended coaching courses in the UK some twenty years ago presumably means he had to have some understanding. (Also, as he is someone who undertook a degree while waiting to make his breakthrough as a player, he’s clearly intelligent enough to learn.)

So there you have it: for me, a bona fide top-class candidate, who only 12 months ago was seen as good enough to land the top job in club football. He was treated shabbily by Real Madrid (he’s not the first), but this could be his chance to revive both his reputation and a club whose fans, in the middle of a hugely depressing summer, could use any kind of good news right now. Therefore, I hope the rumblings turn out to be true.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Official Liverpool Thread

Another Managerial Review Article by Paul Tomkins

Judging which managers are suitable for a big club is fraught with perils, especially if those in question have never held such a position before. Ultimately, those who’ve gone on to succeed at major clubs have had to have been given that initial chance first. But these days, it takes a brave chairman to appoint someone previously untested in a high-pressure position.

Ultimately, managers can only be judged by the possibilities and limitations of the clubs they’ve managed, within the context of the strength of the league and, in particular, against those rivals with shared aims.

However, to me it seems that there are clearly those suited to smaller jobs, who achieve great things with certain approaches, but whose methods don’t transfer to bigger clubs, where expectations are higher and demands are placed on at least some ‘style’ to the play (case in point: Sam Allardyce from Bolton to Newcastle).

My choice, as outlined here, would be Manuel Pellegrini, because of the reasons outlined in the piece. But where does Roy Hodgson – the current bookies’ favourite – fit in?

Background

Hodgson made his name in Scandinavia in 1977, taking Halmstads, who’d just finished 12th (out of only 14 teams) to the Swedish title in his first season. Over the course of the next four seasons he finished 8th on three occasions, and champions one further time.

His success here, and in several later jobs, was largely down to converting the team from the traditional German-style man-marking and libero system, to a pressing, 4-4-2 formation where players marked zonally in open play. These are now very much current trends.

This led to a move to England, and Bristol City. He took charge after two years as assistant to Bob Houghton, but lasted just 20 games the hot seat, winning only three of them. So it was back to Sweden, and stints at Örebro (where he won the 2nd Division North) and giants Malmö, where he topped the 1985 championship in his debut campaign – and indeed, wrapped up the league in the next four seasons, too. However, a play-off system meant that, despite topping the table in each of his five seasons, only twice were Malmö recorded as actual Champions.

These were Malmö’s best years, and only once in the two decades since Hodgson left have they won the Swedish title.

Next up was Neuchâtel Xamax, in the Swiss league. Domestically they did okay – nothing remarkable – but a 5-1 Uefa Cup thrashing of Celtic and victory over Real Madrid showed an ability to humble bigger names.

This led to Hodgson taking over as manager of the Swiss national team in January 1992; taking charge of a country that hadn’t qualified for the World Cup since 1966, and wasn’t exactly blessed with bundles of top talent. But Hodgson ended that 28-year wait. The Swiss finished in 2nd place, ahead of Portugal and Scotland to qualify for USA ’94, and just a point behind the tournament’s eventual runners-up, Italy.

In the States, a draw with the host nation and a 4-1 thumping of eventual quarter-finalists Romania, saw the Swiss through to the last 16, where Spain turned them over, 3-0.

Qualification for Euro 96 was secured by topping a group that included Turkey, Hungary, and World Cup semi-finalists Sweden. At one point, quite incredibly, they were ranked 3rd in the world. This all led to Hodgson being offered the Inter Milan job, which he took in 1995.

The Milan giants had finished runners-up in 1993, but 13th a year later, and 6th the season before they installed their new English manager. Hodgson himself would lead the Italians to 7th and 3rd place finishes.

He did however take Inter to the 1997 Uefa Cup Final; as would be the case 13 years later, his side lost, although in this instance they were the more favoured outfit. Schalke won the first-leg 1-0, although Inter had been denied three of their best players through suspension, and others were sick with flu. The return saw Inter win 1-0, but not for the first time, a German side won the penalty shootout.

This wasn’t good enough for Inter’s fans, who pelted Hodgson with coins and lighters, causing him to resign – even though they were on the brink of qualifying for the Champions League. But Massimo Moratti, the man who recently gave Rafa Benítez his latest job in football, liked Hodgson enough to twice ask him to return, briefly, in a caretaker capacity.

Next up was Blackburn, which was fairly disastrous (more on which later).

Then it was back to Switzerland, this time to manage (ahh) Grasshopper for a season. This time, in contrast to his early career, titles arrived both before and after his time in charge. So it was back to Scandinavia – this time Denmark – to take charge of Copenhagen. The Danes, who had finished 7th and 8th prior to his arrival, won the title in his sole season.

In 2001, he left Copenhagen to move to Serie A side Udinese. Despite a successful start, he was sacked just six months into the job, after apparently making comments about regretting his decision to move there.

Between 2002 and 2004 he took charge of United Arab Emirates, but it was an unhappy experience, with a poor showing at the 2003 Gulf Cup. The Englishman was philosophical. “That was a period where I didn’t know where my career was going. But all these experiences enrich you.”

Repeating a theme, he returned to Scandinavia yet again, this time managing Norwegian side Viking. He took them from the relegation zone to mid-table, then 5th a year later. They qualified for the Uefa Cup, and enjoyed a famous victory (by Viking standards) against Monaco.

The Scandinavian set was complete when he switched to Finland, to boss their national side for their Euro 2008 qualifying campaign. He did fairly well, and they were reasonably close to an unlikely qualification, although 0-0 draws were the most common result.

And finally, Fulham, in December 2007. A poor start to his time in London was forgotten when the Cottagers improved in the spring of 2008, and pulled out a remarkable final-day relegation escape.

This impetus was taken into the next season, with an excellent 7th-placed finish, and finally there was the season just gone, when their league form slipped a little (although they still managed to beat Man United 3-0 and Liverpool 3-1 at Craven Cottage), but which was easily offset by a superb run to the Uefa Cup Final. They ended up empty-handed, but Hodgson was voted the 2010 LMA Manager of the Year by a record margin.

Present

So, all in all a mixed record – as you’d expect from three decades in the game at clubs of different stature – but enough highlights to suggest he has something. Hodgson is clearly a fine manager. But is he an outstanding one? And can Liverpool currently attract anyone from the top bracket?

I’ve heard it said that Hodgson is not suitable for the Liverpool job because of his 39% win ratio with Fulham. The question should be, what is a realistic win percentage for a club like that? Surely not better than 39%?

(For comparison, Graeme Souness won 41% of his league games at Liverpool, obviously on a far greater budget: he had the country’s most expensive squad at the time. Rafa Benítez won 55% of his league games.)

More worrying is that Hodgson’s win percentage at Inter Milan was just 44%, and at Blackburn 35%. Over 148 games, that’s not very encouraging.

People spoke a lot about the games Liverpool drew in 2008/09, but 66% of league games were won that season. Hodgson’s record at Inter, as at other clubs, shows a lot of drawn games. When they finished 3rd, they won only one more game (15) than they drew.

So, what can be read into the last time Hodgson managed an English club with fairly high expectations: Blackburn? As it was 13 years ago, it’s fair to suggest that he will have learned plenty in the interim. Even so, it’s a worrying blot on his copybook.

Blackburn were champions only two years before Hodgson pitched up, although it’s fair to say that the club had fallen quite far in that short space of time, following Kenny Dalglish’s departure from the dugout; they’d just finished 13th in 1997.

Even so, with Hodgson in charge, they were still spending heavily in the transfer market, if not quite as lavishly as in the early ’90s.

Using TPI, Blackburn still had the 3rd most expensive average XI in 1997/98, when they finished 6th, and the 5th most expensive average XI a year later, when the club were relegated, upon finishing 19th. (By that stage, Hodgson had long-since been sacked; he got his marching orders in mid-November, when they sat bottom of the table, with just two wins in 14 games.)

So, in his time at Blackburn his XI was, on average, the 4th most expensive in the land; in other words, identical to Liverpool’s average XI in 2009/10.

However, in his one full season, Blackburn’s average XI cost 87% of the most expensive average XI (Kenny Dalglish’s Newcastle), and only a fraction behind champions, Arsenal, whose figure was 93%. This dwarfs the current Liverpool squad.

The average cost of every starting XI fielded by Benítez last season was, at 48.5%, less than half that of top-spenders, Chelsea. (Manchester United’s XI was 76.30% of Chelsea’s, and Manchester City’s was 66.80%. As an additional point, the Liverpool team that finished as runners-up in 2009 cost 57.9% of the most-expensive side – Chelsea – so it’s clear to see a fairly significant drop in the intervening 12 months.)

In other words, Hodgson’s Blackburn were far closer to the big spenders of their day than the current Liverpool set-up, and it’s a gap that looks set to widen. And the pressure and expectation at Blackburn was nothing compared with what you get at Liverpool (although even with money, it’s only fair to point out that Blackburn were never going to attract the real elite of world football to Ewood Park once they found themselves a mid-table outfit, in 1997).

Even though he had money to spend, and even allowing for the fact that his club lacked the glamour to lure the leading lights, Hodgon’s record in the market was not at all impressive.

He paid £7.5m on Kevin Davies – or £17m in today’s money (calculated using TPI). You could argue that Davies is still a ‘successful’ Premier League player (albeit in his own inimitable barrel-chested style), 12 years on. But ‘£17m’ doesn’t read well for a player who scored only one league goal in his year at Ewood Park, and who ended up being swapped for the unremarkable, low-valued Egil Ostenstad.

In just 16 months, Hodgson’s gross outlay, in today’s terms, would work out at around £75m.

Of these, only Stephen Henchoz, at £3m (£10,128,237), and later sold to Liverpool where he further enhanced his reputation, stands out as an abiding success; in stark contrast to the horribly mediocre Christian Daily, who cost £5.35m (£12,982,782).

Anders Andersson, with just four games in two years, and Martin Dahlin, with just four goals in 27 games, were both clear flops. Swedish internationals, the pair (who combined cost approximately £10m in today’s money) weren’t without pedigree, but they didn’t succeed. Tore Pedersen, another from Hodgson’s beloved Scandinavia, played just five games for Rovers.

It gets worse. Nathan Blake, a striker who barely scored, was another flop. Blake’s fee – £4.25m – would in today’s terms equate to £10,410,721.

Finally, Callum Davidson was decent if unspectacular: £1.75m working out at £5,908,138 in 2010. Blackburn at the time were a richer, more successful club than his current employers, Fulham, but his signings seem awfully mid-table – if that.

By contrast, his story at Fulham is, to date, one of success. In 2008/09 they had the 13th-most expensive average XI, and finished 7th, to take them into Europe. Last season they had the 14th-most expensive average XI, and finished 12th, with a great cup run thrown in.

And it’s been achieved with far better signings than he bought for Blackburn.

My one nagging doubt, however, is that yet again he’s often gone for the market he knows best: Scandinavia and Switzerland. This is natural; after all, Wenger plundered France, Benítez Spain. But even though you get the occasional excellent player from the Nordic region, real quality from these parts of the world is rare. At Fulham that’s not a problem, but would he have the imagination in the transfer market to bring better than mere journeymen to Anfield?

At Blackburn, the fans expected him to raid Serie A; they got nothing of the sort. And while fans’ desires for glamour signings just for the sake of them are to be avoided, the ability to spot and snaffle top-class talent is a skill. (For all Benítez’s mistakes in the transfer market, with Reina, Torres, Alonso, Mascherano and Agger in particular, he signed players for fees in the same prince-range, taking inflation into account, as Hodgson bought at Blackburn. This is before getting onto the likes of Benayoun, Skrtel, Kuyt, Garcia, Crouch, Sissoko, Johnson, Maxi, et al.)

His one major signing at Fulham, Andy Johnson, has delivered little for his £10.5m fee. But perversely, the lesser-rated Bobby Zamora, at £5.8m, has been little less than a revelation. Hodgson deserves great credit for the improvement in his game.

Another major success has been Brede Hangeland, the giant Norwegian centre-back having previously played under Hodgson at Viking. He’s the manager’s one signing during his four years in English football who wouldn’t look out of place in the Liverpool side.

But other Scandinavians have arrived, to far less impact. Leon Andreasen cost £2m, but was sold after just one season. Swedish international Fredrik Stoor, also £2m, joined from Rosenborg, but ended up on loan at Derby. Norwegian striker Erik Neveland, at just under £2m, has been a useful addition. Another decent £2m acquisition was John Arne Riise’s brother, Bjorn Helge.

But his signings from other Premier League clubs have been much better. Mark Schwarzer, on a free: good signing. Dixon Etuhu, £1.5m: good signing. Zoltan Gera, free transfer: very good signing. Damien Duff, £4m: another good signing. And John Paintsil, £500,000: also a good signing.

Those who mock his recent procurement of Philippe Senderos for Fulham are missing the point; at 25, and yet to reach his peak as a centre-back, he seems well-suited to that level of club. And in fairness, that’s what Hodgson has done well at Fulham.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Official Liverpool Thread

‘The Return of The King’ Why Dalglish should takeover

Written by Brian Irvine on June 11th, 2010 61 Comments

The word ‘legend’ gets used far too often in football these days, often to people not as deserving of it as some of their predecessors.

There is one man who is undeniably worthy of the title, a true club legend in every sense of the word, a man who epitomises the club and its values and a man who would go to hell and back to the sake of the red shirt.

I am of course referring to the one and only, ‘King’ Kenny Dalglish. Few men can say they have had the impact on a club and a city as much as Kenny has on Liverpool. Only Bill Shankly and Bob Paisley would be worthy of challenging that title.

With Rafael Benitez leaving, it has left the club in a tricky position. Never in the club’s history has a manager been relieved of his duties without a replacement waiting in the wings.

Or at least that’s the way it looks on the surface. Roy Hodgson’s name has been repeatedly thrown around as a replacement after an impressive spell at Fulham but the man Liverpool needs so desperately may already be at the club.

Kenny Dalglish has done it all, as a player and as a manager. During his playing career he racked up 118 goals in 335 appearances for The Reds while he helped win an incredible six league titles, three European cups, a FA Cup, four League Cups, five Charity Shields and a European Super Cup.

His managerial career is just as remarkable. Beginning in the 1985/86 season, as Liverpool player-manager, Kenny guided the team to the club’s first league/FA Cup double, a further two league titles, another FA Cup and two Charity Shields, all in the space of just five seasons.

Kenny’s time as Liverpool was hit by tragedy in the form of the Hillsborough Disaster on April 15 1989 claiming the lives of 96 supporters. Kenny’s support to the victim’s families and the dignity in which he handled the matter won him many supporters throughout Liverpool and a continued respect still remains.

Hillsborough took its toll on Kenny resulting in him taking a break from management citing ‘health issues’ in 1991. Surprisingly though he left management for only for eight months, after which he returned as manager of then second-division side Blackburn Rovers. By 1995 he had taken Blackburn from a side in struggling in the second-division to eventual Premier League champions within three seasons, a feat unlikely to be repeated in the future.

He subsequently went on to manage Newcastle from 1996-99 and Celtic in 1999/00. However he wasn’t as successful at these clubs as his pervious ones gaining runners-up spots in both the English and Scottish premierships respectively.

Kenny has experience most managers can only dream of; having witnesses both sides of the game at the highest level as a player and a manager.

Given Liverpool’s situation there couldn’t be a better man for the job. Not only would it give the club and the fans a huge boost by having him back at the helm but the fact that he truly does have the know-how to turn the clubs fortunes around.

It must be remembered that Kenny is an idol to a large majority of people at our club; he is the player than the current squad would have seen growing up and looked on at with admiration in their youth, the man who probably adorned the walls of their bedrooms.

Not only would Kenny be the man to convince key players to stay such as Torres and Mascherano, but his very presence as manager would encourage players like Gerrard and Carragher to get back to their best and reignite their belief in team.

People may say that the club is in too much of a state and that Kenny taking over may mar his reputation and that he has been out of management too long to do the job effectively.

At the end of the day the game hasn’t changed that much it’s still 11 v 11, the players are still human and require the same motivation and drive as they did 20 years ago. Kenny’s time at Blackburn shows that he can cope with overhauling a squad if necessary as well as having a great record of uncovering and nurturing young players.

If the Liverpool board had a checklist of for qualities required in a new manager, Kenny would tick every single box; he loves the club and the city, has played and managed at the highest level, knows the club inside out and maybe most importantly, he knows what it means to play for LFC.

I’m sure Kenny himself would take the job in a flash if he was offered it and I’m sure every right-thinking supporter in the land would not object to the decision.

He has given so much to Liverpool Football Club and asked for little in return and he can still offer so much more.

Long live The King.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Official Liverpool Thread

Blenkers' date=' just post the link to the articles and not the whole actual article![/color']

Agreed. The articles are really great to read, but perhaps a simple LINK or TWO would suffice.

As far as Dalglish goes :

IMO it's great that he seems to be the one handling futbol matters @ LFC. He is 100% necessary given that there was no-one in that role once occupied by Parry.

But that said, I don't think he is the right person to be managing the squad going forward. We discussed it earlier on the thread and if LFC were going to sack Benitez last Spring during the season, he may have been a good fit for caretaker manager for a few months.

However, no matter how good he or any other manager was 20-30 years ago, at this day in age 11 years AFTER he last managed a match, I can't believe that he'd have the patience/skill-set to day-in and day-out manage and deal with a current big-time First Team squad.

Running the overall futbol operations of the club... Hell yeah! He looks great in that role so far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Official Liverpool Thread

I don't mind; whatever the consensus. But I get much more feedback from people when the articles are C&P'd rather than just the links posted, so thats why I've mostly done it that way.

As far as Dalglish goes :

IMO it's great that he seems to be the one handling futbol matters @ LFC. He is 100% necessary given that there was no-one in that role once occupied by Parry.

But that said, I don't think he is the right person to be managing the squad going forward. We discussed it earlier on the thread and if LFC were going to sack Benitez last Spring during the season, he may have been a good fit for caretaker manager for a few months.

However, no matter how good he or any other manager was 20-30 years ago, at this day in age 11 years AFTER he last managed a match, I can't believe that he'd have the patience/skill-set to day-in and day-out manage and deal with a current big-time First Team squad.

Running the overall futbol operations of the club... Hell yeah! He looks great in that role so far.

I'd agree with you on that one.

Things have changed since he was in the mgt game. He also inherited a great LFC squad, and at Blackburn had a alot of resources which makes things easier.

Of course we the general public don't get to know everything, so of course our opinions are formed on what information is available to us, but Fulhams performance this year will be interesting to witness and if Hodgson repeats what he's achieved, then he deserves all plaudits. If they don't do anything spectacular, then of course he still deserves credit for a fine season last year, but will the majority of Pool fans still think he's the solution?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...