ycsatbjywtbiastkamb » Tue Nov 06, 2012 2:34 pm wrote:Thommo's perm
Any ar'sehole can look for negatives. Theyre not hard to find.
Slagging someone off takes no effort whatsoever. Its like moaning, it comes naturally to most people because its not difficult to do.
Go on facebook or twitter, listen to phone ins, read the papers: moan, moan, Fu*king moan. "I dont like him", "He's sh'it", "He's clueless" "He's not good enough" on and on ad nauseum. There is no easy solution to the situation we are in. But SOMEONE'S got to try and get us back on an even keel. Someone has to take charge and try and steer us back on track to where we want to be. Not Gandalf, or Merlin or any other cu'nt with a magic wand, but a real, passionate, hard working man who believes and has a vision. Someone who is willing to take chances and change things. Someone who will have the balls to make mistakes and take the flack on behalf of the team. Someone who is desperate to put LFC back where the fans know we belong. Someone who "gets us"
Criticise all you want but youre wasting your time wishing and dreaming that Mourhino will arrive on a white horse and save the day. Rodgers is the new Shankly and people would be better off looking for positives and giving him their support rather than constantly whinging like arl women
i think in the future rodgers might make a good manager but at the moment he`s got a lot to learn.
for a start he`s got to learn to be a bit more pragmatic, the game at the very top is all about winning, `first is first and second is nowhere` as shanks put it, no one gets a trophy for playing the best footy.
top managers like benitez and mourinho both grew up in countries were the culture is to pass the ball but it didnt stop them having the likes of drogba, carew, crouch etc in their teams and we are talking about a pair of champions league winning coaches here.
hypothetically speaking say we played against a team with a couple of 5 foot 2 centre halves and we had carroll in the squad, we know rodgers wouldnt play him, even though there is an obvious weakness in the opposition he wouldnt try to exploit it because it goes against his `philosophy`.
i think thats crazy, bill shankly won our first ever european trophy by spotting a weakness in the opposition defence and pumping high balls into john toshack. thats not being ale house thats being smart. shankly was the man who invented the `pass and move philosophy`, he`s a million miles away from long ball merchants like dave bassett or tony pulis but he also knew you had to exploit weaknesses in the opposition when they were there.
it`s alright us having mobile quick forwards but what happens if the opposition defence is full of mobile quick defenders? say the opposition defence is made up of 4 bertie vogts? do we flog a dead horse all day or do we try to change tack?
rodgers has only been in management 4 years and he`s had a lot of pats on the back for his style of play so it`s understandable that he wants to keep doing the same things that have got him so many plaudits and seen him get one of the most prestigeous jobs in world football but he`s at the top now and the only thing that matters is results.
he`s making it far too easy for other managers to read him, after the arsenal game at anfield one of the mods posted a tactical analysis of the game in the after match thread and although i think tactics are a bit over rated that analysis was startling, wenger absolutely read us like a book and you can be sure every team that plays us is going to use that as a blueprint.
on sunday you could sense the frustration in pardew because it was only a piece of sublime individual brilliance from suarez that stopped the plan from working again. he actually said in his after match interview that his plan was working great and at half time he thought he`d won.
it`s not a coincidence why we seem to struggle to score in every game and keep getting hit on the break.
rodgers needs to get smart and mix his game up, his philosophy is 90% right, he just needs to add pragmatism to it.
Your first line sums it up perfectly if you change "might" for "will"
