I think this post hits on the fundamental root of this discussion. There's been a lot of mitigating circumstances to where we are now, but I believe (from watching the reds under Rodgers) that our defensive prospects will never live up to what we expect at LFC. And in turn, limited success - if any, in a footballing sense - is something we'll have to get used to if he continues as manager.
There seems to be a good philosophy about attacking football with Rodgers. Last season we saw that. But without the meat on the bones - in regards to getting proven quality players on the pitch and not relying on 'potential' (for example having a Suarez available..) - then there's more pressure on our defence.
Since Rodgers has been manager, I've been unimpressed about the defensive philosophy. Because there doesn't seem to be one. Set pieces don't look like they're being worked on, at all. There's far too much ball watching that goes on when the ball is in or around the box. And we seem to give full backs a miss if they're fundamentally good at defending, with preference for players who might be able to provide a bit of pace down the wing. Our defence has not improved and in fact it seems to look more fragile these days. This will only lead one way. Down the league table.
Attacking football is great. Teams playing at Anfield knowing they can score a goal, is not. I think Rodgers has tried to cover the defensive problems with attacking football and that's the only way he'll ever work. It's common knowledge that this will never work to win cups or league titles.
It might keep you hanging around 4th or 5th spot though. Good enough for the owners? Maybe. Good enough for Liverpool fans? No way!
This all day long. We've shipped 141 goals in the 114 league games Brendan has managed us in. Whereas we'd shipped 119 goals in the 114 league games preceding Brendan so defensively it's taken a noticeable turn for the worst since he's come in.
And to emphasise the importance of having a sturdy defence our rivals (in the same time period) have conceded
114 goals (Arsenal), 98 goals (Chelsea), 108 goals (Manchester City), 123 goals (Scum). So in Brendan's time we've shipped 18 goals more than the second most vulnerable team defensively and that 18 goals makes a massive difference had we scored 18 more or (somehow) conceded 18 less this season we would have finished in the Top 4.
Cheers for that chat, do you know other managers on the list?
Here's my thought: they should be assessing Rodgers, but they should also be assessing his backroom staff and whether they are up to the quality required. Likewise, backroom staff of other prospective candidates should be assessed.
I would like to see Rodgers with the addition of top quality coaches with continental experience.
I guess we will know a lot more now that Klopp is fully available to talk.
But the coaches we have here are the ones Brendan himself chose. We had a top quality #2 with plenty of experience in European competition in Steve Clarke and Brendan showed him the door in favour of his mate Pascoe. We had an experienced first team coach in Kevin Keen who Brendan replaced with Mike Marsh because he's a local. The rest of the staff are either people he brought with him from Swansea or people he deemed fit to keep here. We'd have to impose new coaches on Brendan and if we did so then isn't that an indictment on how weak or compliant Brendan supposedly is? Brendan and his coaching staff aren't mutually exclusive you can't say they're not good enough yet he supposedly is. Unless Brendan himself wants a change they aren't going anywhere.
I would like to see Brendan stay with the addition of top continental coaches - that is my preference, I'm just not sure of the likes of Pascoe and Marsh have the experience and knowledge to instil Brendan's ideals - of which I am in favour of.
Two questions.
#1: Which top continental coaches are readily available Because the top coaches on the continent are either tied up with the best national teams or the best club teams in Europe and why would any of them want to leave a Juventus or a Bayern Munich or even a Benfica in order to work under Brendan Rodgers of all people?
#2: So Marsh and Pascoe aren't experienced or knowledgeable enough to implement Brendan's ideas but Brendan himself is? Even though he failed to do so (miserably) at Reading and Watford and coincidentally the only club he's been able to implement them at was the club who'd already played that way for years before Brendan had even walked through the door there and who have continued to do so almost effortlessly since he left. Hell they've even won more silverware than us in that time.
Does anyone remember this article?
www.liverpoolfc.com/news/latest-news/rodgers-barca-and-tiki-takaIn the three years he's been here have we implemented ANY of the stuff he spoke about here. Granted it sounds great and all but after 3 years surely Brendan should have been able to implement what he supposedly implemented at Swansea in 2 years... With the same coaches.
Klopp on the other hand relies on his coaches and delegates in a way that Ferguson did, he's actually less hands on than Brendan. Perhaps Brendan has to be less hands on in some training matters by hiring and delegating to top quality coaches. That does not undermine managers - it's actually what all the most successful managers do.
I wholeheartedly agree with you here. Delegation is the way to go. But does Brendan realise it?
Logged
