The Official Liverpool FC Thread [Vol 9]
Discussion
m3sye said:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/how-fi...
Totally agree, bringing just Origi back will be a mistake - he is not the answer for goals, he needs to be playing with someone and not have the expectation placed on him as soon as he arrives. We need to spend big on 1 striker this Jan - more important than any position for me.
Do you think that will work after the Tomkins article? I honestly believe we have the players to get top four, we just need to start playing as a team. Given Borini and Lambert a run - they might not get massive amounts of goals, but I think the team as a whole would start scoring more!Totally agree, bringing just Origi back will be a mistake - he is not the answer for goals, he needs to be playing with someone and not have the expectation placed on him as soon as he arrives. We need to spend big on 1 striker this Jan - more important than any position for me.
Plus From what I've seen of Origi he isn't an out and out striker anyway, almost seems more like a Sterling or Ibe.
jammy_basturd said:
Do you think that will work after the Tomkins article? I honestly believe we have the players to get top four, we just need to start playing as a team. Given Borini and Lambert a run - they might not get massive amounts of goals, but I think the team as a whole would start scoring more!
Plus From what I've seen of Origi he isn't an out and out striker anyway, almost seems more like a Sterling or Ibe.
This is what I don't understand about BR playing Balo on his own all the time. Yeah Borini and Lambert may not bang in 20 goals but if they are there playing up top with Balo when they make a run a defender has to follow, it creates more space for Balo and for your other attacking players to move into. Its not always about the end product.Plus From what I've seen of Origi he isn't an out and out striker anyway, almost seems more like a Sterling or Ibe.
jammy_basturd said:
Do you think that will work after the Tomkins article? I honestly believe we have the players to get top four, we just need to start playing as a team. Given Borini and Lambert a run - they might not get massive amounts of goals, but I think the team as a whole would start scoring more!
Plus From what I've seen of Origi he isn't an out and out striker anyway, almost seems more like a Sterling or Ibe.
Some of Tomkins article I agreed with but not all - Plus From what I've seen of Origi he isn't an out and out striker anyway, almost seems more like a Sterling or Ibe.
I dont know how you could be happy with Lambert and Borini as our main choice upfront following Sturridge and Suarez last year - we need to spend some money on a proven striker, one who can score goals and have movement to compliment the style of play Rodgers likes to play.
Origi is a striker who can drift out wide - Them 2 are more wingers who can play at the top of a diamond (sterling mostly) Origi played ahead of Lukaku and Benteke the other day as there main striker - he is still to raw to rely on as our main striker.
Flip Martian said:
BR might be kicking him around Melwood for being a lazy arse - we wouldn't get told. 
My suspicion is thats exactly what these little snippets are aboutRodgers said: ‘Most players you’ll find want to play through an injury to get on to the field. Obviously that’s what you do’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-...
anonymous said:
[redacted]
He does not come across as the type of lad who doesn't want to play - I also would not want to play with a muscle tear - especially with him being an explosive type of player - sounds to me like a long term plan needs to be put together. No doubt we have access to the best in the business when it comes to injuries so do exactly as they say.Perhaps he is too eager to play and trying to hard. He does not seem to be a shirker
He must know we are struggling and that it is his big opportunity.
I think we should buy a big striker in January, not sure who will actually be available, but a world class, cocky, in form, experienced striker - to show intent to the rest of the league, the fans and the rest of the players and hope that the confidence of the striker rubs off on the rest of the team
He must know we are struggling and that it is his big opportunity.
I think we should buy a big striker in January, not sure who will actually be available, but a world class, cocky, in form, experienced striker - to show intent to the rest of the league, the fans and the rest of the players and hope that the confidence of the striker rubs off on the rest of the team
ked without him - (his, committee's and FSG's fault though) Should Liverpool sort out their transfer strategy before spending in January?
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/football/the-g...
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/football/the-g...
BlackST said:
Should Liverpool sort out their transfer strategy before spending in January?
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/football/the-g...
Subscribers only!http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/football/the-g...
BlackST said:
Should Liverpool sort out their transfer strategy before spending in January?
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/football/the-g...
Fully agree with this and something I implied in my last post about using Lambert and Borini. I wholeheartedly think, if Borini and Lambert were in the Southampton team right now, Southampton would still be 2nd. I think we need to put right what is wrong with the club and the team before spending more money.http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/football/the-g...
We've gone back to playing how we did back two seasons ago, and even with Suarez we didn't finish in the top four.
m3sye said:
m3sye said:
phil_cardiff said:
Raja mentions a 20 goal a season man and someone who can play accross a front 3, then mentions Bony. Does not compute.
He got 16 in the prem last year, and has 4 this year from 9 ? so not far off - he certainly would score 20 in all comps - he got 25 last year for the swans Edited by m3sye on Friday 21st November 10:05
I like Bony but don't think he'd fit at Anfield. I could be wrong though.
Lambert and Borini have to be given a fair chance now with the Sturridge news.
There is a real possibility of Borini shining if given a proper run of 90 minute games imo, and Lambert would be a good option for playing two up front with either Balo or Borini.
Who knows what the league will look like by the end of January, there are only two teams nailed on for top 4 imo and that's Chelsea and City.
There is a real possibility of Borini shining if given a proper run of 90 minute games imo, and Lambert would be a good option for playing two up front with either Balo or Borini.
Who knows what the league will look like by the end of January, there are only two teams nailed on for top 4 imo and that's Chelsea and City.
m3sye said:
jammy_basturd said:
Do you think that will work after the Tomkins article? I honestly believe we have the players to get top four, we just need to start playing as a team. Given Borini and Lambert a run - they might not get massive amounts of goals, but I think the team as a whole would start scoring more!
Plus From what I've seen of Origi he isn't an out and out striker anyway, almost seems more like a Sterling or Ibe.
Some of Tomkins article I agreed with but not all - Plus From what I've seen of Origi he isn't an out and out striker anyway, almost seems more like a Sterling or Ibe.
I dont know how you could be happy with Lambert and Borini as our main choice upfront following Sturridge and Suarez last year - we need to spend some money on a proven striker, one who can score goals and have movement to compliment the style of play Rodgers likes to play.
Origi is a striker who can drift out wide - Them 2 are more wingers who can play at the top of a diamond (sterling mostly) Origi played ahead of Lukaku and Benteke the other day as there main striker - he is still to raw to rely on as our main striker.
phil_cardiff said:
I don't thnk he'd score 20 prem goals a season in our team. Plus he can't play accross a front 3.
I like Bony but don't think he'd fit at Anfield. I could be wrong though.
He can play as lone striker with 2 wide men either side - can do that as good as anyone - I like Bony but don't think he'd fit at Anfield. I could be wrong though.
Also as a rule of thumb you would think a team higher up the league would create more chances - at the moment swansea are obviously higher but I doubt this would be the case come end of the season. You would think more chances creates more goals
m3sye said:
He can play as lone striker with 2 wide men either side - can do that as good as anyone -
Also as a rule of thumb you would think a team higher up the league would create more chances - at the moment swansea are obviously higher but I doubt this would be the case come end of the season. You would think more chances creates more goals
I think just as importantly for you lot is he is brilliant at defending set pieces!Also as a rule of thumb you would think a team higher up the league would create more chances - at the moment swansea are obviously higher but I doubt this would be the case come end of the season. You would think more chances creates more goals
Flip Martian said:
BlackST said:
Should Liverpool sort out their transfer strategy before spending in January?
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/football/the-g...
Subscribers only!http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/football/the-g...
The Times said:
For more than twenty years, the scenario has been the same. As soon as Liverpool encounter problems, they look to the transfer market for a solution only to end up creating new ones. If the definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, an army of psychiatrists should head to Anfield in January for football’s bi-annual outbreak of lunacy.
Having spent £120 million on players in the summer but turned the second best team in the country into the kind of uninspiring mid-table fodder that they were sweeping aside with contemptuous ease last season, Liverpool have conspired to put themselves in a position in which new signings are seen as the panacea to all their ills. Demands for further spending are inevitable given what is at stake but they also fly in the face of prevailing logic. The last thing Liverpool should do in six weeks time is get involved in the January sales.
At some point, someone at the club has to call a halt to one of the most ill-advised sprees since pools winner Viv Nicholson famously vowed to “Spend, spend, spend” and order an audit of all of the signings that Liverpool have made since Brendan Rodgers. The review should begin with an appraisal of every recruit and their impact on the team but it should not stop there. Before Liverpool shell out another penny, their entire transfer strategy and its implementation by committee needs to be assessed because the risks of allowing the current situation are far too great.
The best that can be said of the nine signings that Liverpool made last summer is that it is still to early to judge them,, even if the early signs are not positive. Equally, it is damning that only Alberto Moreno could be regarded as a qualified success. The argument that the others will improve in time is all well and good but Liverpool cannot claim that they were not expecting an encouraging impact from at least some of them. Nor can they hide behind transition given that other clubs, Southampton being the most obvious example, are flourishing despite profound change.
By common consensus, out of the 23 signings that Liverpool have made over the last two and a half years, only two – Daniel Sturridge and Philippe Coutinho – have been a resounding success. Given Sturridge is now a long- term absentee as a result of the injuries that have blighted him throughout his career and Coutinho is, like most at Liverpool, becoming an increasingly fitful and less effective presence without Luis Suárez, even their success stories are not without drawbacks. It is an appalling record.
Clearly, something is not working. Depending on personal choice, responsibility for Liverpool’s failings in the transfer market lies at the feet of either Rodgers, the club’s scouts or the committee. But if there are any fingers to be pointed, they should first be aimed in the direction of the club’s owners, Fenway Sports Group (FSG) who not only determined Liverpool’s transfer strategy, they also put in place the young, up-and-coming manager, committee and scouting system that they wanted.
If FSG are given credit for signing the cheques, as they should be, then they should also be questioned if the structure they implemented fails to provide value for money.
The complex, almost clandestine, nature of how Liverpool go about their transfer business makes it almost impossible to assign each signing to either the manager or the committee, even if the setup that isn’t as great a departure from the traditional model as some would have us believe. The reality is that, as Rodgers himself freely admits, with the possible exception of Oussama Assiadi, not a single player has been signed against his wishes. He might have had to have his arm twisted on a few, Sturridge, Mario Balotelli and Mamadou Sakho being the most obvious examples, but, one way or another, they have all arrived with his blessing.
Many questions remain unanswered . What exactly does Rodgers have the final say on? How much choice does Liverpool’s strict wages policy afford him and his scouting team who are competing for talent with some of the highest payers in world football? If, as Rodgers has claimed, the “calculated gamble” on Balotelli was forced by a lack of options, what does that say about Liverpool’s strategy? Why, when Suárez signed a contract that guaranteed his departure if a club met his release clause, did their list of attacking options have a Plan A in Alexis Sanchez with the only Plan B being Loïc Remy, a player with historic and well documented medical issues, and little else? You could go on and on.
All of these issues would not be such a mounting concern if so many of the first-choice signings that Liverpool have made have not been so counterintuitive. After Rodgers said whereas other teams play with ten men and a goalkeeper his philosophy was “to play with eleven,” Liverpool went and signed Simon Mignolet who has shown no signs of being a sweeper keeper since his arrival. After he said last summer that he “would rather have one or two world class players than seven or eight who might not be able to help us,” Liverpool did the opposite.
After paying £17 million for Sakho – described by Ian Ayre at the time as a “marquee signing” – Liverpool spent £20 million on another left sided centre back, Dejan Lovren, just 12 months later. Neither the departure of Suárez nor longstanding concerns about Sturridge’s durability prompted moves for players of their ilk, instead two of the most mobile forwards around have been replaced by two of the most immobile with Balotelli and Rickie Lambert being asked to fill a considerable void.
None of this adds up. In the fullness of time, we might come back to look at Liverpool’s current transfer strategy as an object lesson in proving people wrong, as a case study in spotting, nurturing and fulfilling talent for the long term betterment of a team which critics had claimed was destined to fail. Alternatively, the status quo could continue and the failings which by now appear all too obvious will continue to undermine their chances of success.
While the latter remains a genuine concern, Liverpool should examine what is going wrong and endeavour to put it right before even considering throwing good money after bad.
Having spent £120 million on players in the summer but turned the second best team in the country into the kind of uninspiring mid-table fodder that they were sweeping aside with contemptuous ease last season, Liverpool have conspired to put themselves in a position in which new signings are seen as the panacea to all their ills. Demands for further spending are inevitable given what is at stake but they also fly in the face of prevailing logic. The last thing Liverpool should do in six weeks time is get involved in the January sales.
At some point, someone at the club has to call a halt to one of the most ill-advised sprees since pools winner Viv Nicholson famously vowed to “Spend, spend, spend” and order an audit of all of the signings that Liverpool have made since Brendan Rodgers. The review should begin with an appraisal of every recruit and their impact on the team but it should not stop there. Before Liverpool shell out another penny, their entire transfer strategy and its implementation by committee needs to be assessed because the risks of allowing the current situation are far too great.
The best that can be said of the nine signings that Liverpool made last summer is that it is still to early to judge them,, even if the early signs are not positive. Equally, it is damning that only Alberto Moreno could be regarded as a qualified success. The argument that the others will improve in time is all well and good but Liverpool cannot claim that they were not expecting an encouraging impact from at least some of them. Nor can they hide behind transition given that other clubs, Southampton being the most obvious example, are flourishing despite profound change.
By common consensus, out of the 23 signings that Liverpool have made over the last two and a half years, only two – Daniel Sturridge and Philippe Coutinho – have been a resounding success. Given Sturridge is now a long- term absentee as a result of the injuries that have blighted him throughout his career and Coutinho is, like most at Liverpool, becoming an increasingly fitful and less effective presence without Luis Suárez, even their success stories are not without drawbacks. It is an appalling record.
Clearly, something is not working. Depending on personal choice, responsibility for Liverpool’s failings in the transfer market lies at the feet of either Rodgers, the club’s scouts or the committee. But if there are any fingers to be pointed, they should first be aimed in the direction of the club’s owners, Fenway Sports Group (FSG) who not only determined Liverpool’s transfer strategy, they also put in place the young, up-and-coming manager, committee and scouting system that they wanted.
If FSG are given credit for signing the cheques, as they should be, then they should also be questioned if the structure they implemented fails to provide value for money.
The complex, almost clandestine, nature of how Liverpool go about their transfer business makes it almost impossible to assign each signing to either the manager or the committee, even if the setup that isn’t as great a departure from the traditional model as some would have us believe. The reality is that, as Rodgers himself freely admits, with the possible exception of Oussama Assiadi, not a single player has been signed against his wishes. He might have had to have his arm twisted on a few, Sturridge, Mario Balotelli and Mamadou Sakho being the most obvious examples, but, one way or another, they have all arrived with his blessing.
Many questions remain unanswered . What exactly does Rodgers have the final say on? How much choice does Liverpool’s strict wages policy afford him and his scouting team who are competing for talent with some of the highest payers in world football? If, as Rodgers has claimed, the “calculated gamble” on Balotelli was forced by a lack of options, what does that say about Liverpool’s strategy? Why, when Suárez signed a contract that guaranteed his departure if a club met his release clause, did their list of attacking options have a Plan A in Alexis Sanchez with the only Plan B being Loïc Remy, a player with historic and well documented medical issues, and little else? You could go on and on.
All of these issues would not be such a mounting concern if so many of the first-choice signings that Liverpool have made have not been so counterintuitive. After Rodgers said whereas other teams play with ten men and a goalkeeper his philosophy was “to play with eleven,” Liverpool went and signed Simon Mignolet who has shown no signs of being a sweeper keeper since his arrival. After he said last summer that he “would rather have one or two world class players than seven or eight who might not be able to help us,” Liverpool did the opposite.
After paying £17 million for Sakho – described by Ian Ayre at the time as a “marquee signing” – Liverpool spent £20 million on another left sided centre back, Dejan Lovren, just 12 months later. Neither the departure of Suárez nor longstanding concerns about Sturridge’s durability prompted moves for players of their ilk, instead two of the most mobile forwards around have been replaced by two of the most immobile with Balotelli and Rickie Lambert being asked to fill a considerable void.
None of this adds up. In the fullness of time, we might come back to look at Liverpool’s current transfer strategy as an object lesson in proving people wrong, as a case study in spotting, nurturing and fulfilling talent for the long term betterment of a team which critics had claimed was destined to fail. Alternatively, the status quo could continue and the failings which by now appear all too obvious will continue to undermine their chances of success.
While the latter remains a genuine concern, Liverpool should examine what is going wrong and endeavour to put it right before even considering throwing good money after bad.
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff