Liverpool FC Forum

by **god_bless_john_houlding** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:40 am

s@int wrote:
god_bless_john_houlding wrote:
s@int wrote:The injury to Agger was a blow that I think we have struggled with but never recovered from, although after a shaky start Hyypia has done a splendid job of rolling back the years and playing very well, we have still missed Agger.

sorry saint mate, most of the post was top notch but this is no reason mate. Every club has injuries. United haven't had their captain all season, yet are walking away to another league title. Chelsea and Arsenal have injuries. I don't see the injury to Agger as an excuse for us not challenging. It's again fans trying to hide the fact that it's not in us as a squad to go on and win the league.

I think we have the players, and possibly even the manager to win the league, what we don't have is the mentality.

It is a reason mate, because we didn't buy a CB in the summer while chasing after Heinze. It goes down as a Rafa error for me mate.

I'm still not so sure. I mean Alonso recovered (earlier than he should of probably) for the Arsenal game I think back in October. So Benitez probably wasn't expecting Agger to be out for so long and thought a combination of Carra, Hyypia, Arbeloa and Jack Hobbs could manage at the latest till Christmas. So he probably didn't see the need to bring in a new centre half.

Again I'll never be convinced that injuries are valid reasons for failing because every side has them. Gary Neville is probably more important to United than Agger is to us and United have pretty much won the league without their skipper and have made a european cup semi final.

by **The_Rock** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 am

Leonmc0708 wrote:Still a few games to go, but heres where I see us at:

Three draws that could/should have been wins, (Wigan (h), Man City (a) and Birmingham (h) are three I would suggest where close enough) and a better reflection of the games against United and Chelsea at home (we outplayed both teams by a mile, would have beaten Chelse but for the ref and should have gotten a draw against United) would yeild us 9 points, whilst deducting one from Chelsea and two from United. The table would then look like this:

P W D L F A GD Pts
1 Manchester United 34 24 6 4 72 18 53 78
2 Liverpool 34 22 13 3 60 26 34 75
3 Chelsea 33 22 7 4 58 23 35 73
4 Arsenal 34 20 11 3 64 29 35 71

These changes in results may well have been by not rotating, although an easier way would be the addition of two TOP QUALITY players would have seen us get those points.

Point being, not as far away as some might have us think.

Have you forgotten how we were lucky to win against everton & wigan away ? What about the home draw against arsenal ?

Man Utd and Chelsea can come out with a similar argument too (ie...."turning a few of their draws into wins" and a couple of their losses into draws) and suddenly they will have $hitload of points.

The thing is these stuff will even out in a season.... We were unlucky in some of our draws ...yeah sure. At the same time, we were also lucky in some of our wins and draws too...

All these...if we won against this team or that team doesn't cut ice....The other 19 teams can come up with a similar arguement....

Heck....even derby will be a midtable team when they "convert" some of their unluck results into favourable one.

by **account deleted by request** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:52 am

god_bless_john_houlding wrote:
s@int wrote:
god_bless_john_houlding wrote:
s@int wrote:The injury to Agger was a blow that I think we have struggled with but never recovered from, although after a shaky start Hyypia has done a splendid job of rolling back the years and playing very well, we have still missed Agger.

sorry saint mate, most of the post was top notch but this is no reason mate. Every club has injuries. United haven't had their captain all season, yet are walking away to another league title. Chelsea and Arsenal have injuries. I don't see the injury to Agger as an excuse for us not challenging. It's again fans trying to hide the fact that it's not in us as a squad to go on and win the league.

I think we have the players, and possibly even the manager to win the league, what we don't have is the mentality.

It is a reason mate, because we didn't buy a CB in the summer while chasing after Heinze. It goes down as a Rafa error for me mate.

I'm still not so sure. I mean Alonso recovered (earlier than he should of probably) for the Arsenal game I think back in October. So Benitez probably wasn't expecting Agger to be out for so long and thought a combination of Carra, Hyypia, Arbeloa and Jack Hobbs could manage at the latest till Christmas. So he probably didn't see the need to bring in a new centre half.

Again I'll never be convinced that injuries are valid reasons for failing because every side has them. Gary Neville is probably more important to United than Agger is to us and United have pretty much won the league without their skipper and have made a european cup semi final.

But United had adequate replacements waiting in the wings, we had Hyypia who did a great job but can't be expected to shine in two games a week anymore. Hobbs was totally untried in the prem and Arbeloa looks frail for a fullback nevermind CB. We should have bought Skrtel (or equivalent) in the summer mate. Alonso's injury like Finnans, Aurelio's etc are part and parcel of a footballing season, Aggers wasn't because we went into the season with only 3 recognised CB'S.

Obviously a mistake that we had to wait till January to rectify.

by **LFC2007** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:55 am

god_bless_john_houlding wrote:
LFC2007 wrote:There isn't really an argument to be made against the fact that it took Ferguson 7 seasons to win the league (the dismissive 'it's not relevant' statement is as good as it gets for most - without actually explaining how and why it isn't relevant). It is of course absolutely relevant and those reasons have been elaborated upon numerous times.

what's relevant to Liverpool Football Club about Alex Ferguson taking seven years to win a league title? It took Kenny Dalglish four years to win the league with Blackburn Rovers during the same period of which Ferguson and United were dominating English football. So shall we compare Benitez to Dalglish? Dalglish won the league in his fourth season, Benitez hasn't...does that hold relevance? No of course it doesn't because that's Blackburn and we're Liverpool. Likewise Ferguson taking seven years holds no relevance to Liverpool. It took Ferguson 13 years to win the European Cup, should we of allowed Souness, Evans and Houllier 13 years each? No we shouldn't of. So how Alex Ferguson taking seven years to win a league title is relevant to Liverpool Football Club I really don't know.

Please do explain. Don't "refer me to your post" because I want a straight answer here. How does Alex Ferguson taking seven years to win a league title have relevance to Liverpool Football Club. Please answer now.

I refer you to my previous answers.

by **maguskwt** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:08 am

LFC2007 wrote:
god_bless_john_houlding wrote:
LFC2007 wrote:There isn't really an argument to be made against the fact that it took Ferguson 7 seasons to win the league (the dismissive 'it's not relevant' statement is as good as it gets for most - without actually explaining how and why it isn't relevant). It is of course absolutely relevant and those reasons have been elaborated upon numerous times.

what's relevant to Liverpool Football Club about Alex Ferguson taking seven years to win a league title? It took Kenny Dalglish four years to win the league with Blackburn Rovers during the same period of which Ferguson and United were dominating English football. So shall we compare Benitez to Dalglish? Dalglish won the league in his fourth season, Benitez hasn't...does that hold relevance? No of course it doesn't because that's Blackburn and we're Liverpool. Likewise Ferguson taking seven years holds no relevance to Liverpool. It took Ferguson 13 years to win the European Cup, should we of allowed Souness, Evans and Houllier 13 years each? No we shouldn't of. So how Alex Ferguson taking seven years to win a league title is relevant to Liverpool Football Club I really don't know.

Please do explain. Don't "refer me to your post" because I want a straight answer here. How does Alex Ferguson taking seven years to win a league title have relevance to Liverpool Football Club. Please answer now.

I refer you to my previous answers.

by **The_Rock** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:13 am

And I like to make this clear....I hope rafa stays.... What he has done in europe this season is nothing short of a miracle... and he has earned his right. He has been competent in his job (unlike the worst CEO in the history of bad CEOs we have here).

I am sure at the beginning of the season the board would have given rafa 2 KPIs..do well in the league or in europe. He has managed to do the 2nd one well. It would be a satisfactory season (for me at least) even if we had to go out in the semis. We just need better players on the wings. And for what i have heard, he might have signed philip lamm (and that is certainly moving in the right direction).

It just pi$$es me when people use "if win won this or that game", we would be higher up the league... Every team in this league can come up with a similar argument.

So in short....rafa to stay. Moores, Parry, G & H to leave this club at the end of this season...

by **LFC2007** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:17 am

I'm sensing fickleness on the forum, two very ardent anti-Rafa's who were previously pining for his departure have changed their minds in the space of a couple of months.

by **maguskwt** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:19 am

I would just like to add something on our head-to-head record with our rivals. Alot of ppl seem to point out this less than favourable record under benitez and put it out as a reason we haven't progressed in the league. I think I've said this before... a team doesn't need to be the best team among the rivals to win the league. So I don't really give much importance to that record when we talk about winning the league. Imagine this scenario where we lose all our games against our rivals, arsenal, chelsea and the mancs 6 losses. But we win all our games against the so called "lesser" teams... 32 wins = 96 points which should win us the league. Of course that scenario won't happen... but what I'm saying is that being able to consistently beat the other teams are more important than beating our rivals... which in our scenario means to convert those draws that we have into wins... winning against our rivals is a bonus because it means a loss to our rivals and a win to us... but it is not the essential thing in winning the league... that's all for now...

by **stapo1000** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:33 am

maguskwt wrote:I would just like to add something on our head-to-head record with our rivals. Alot of ppl seem to point out this less than favourable record under benitez and put it out as a reason we haven't progressed in the league. I think I've said this before... a team doesn't need to be the best team among the rivals to win the league. So I don't really give much importance to that record when we talk about winning the league. Imagine this scenario where we lose all our games against our rivals, arsenal, chelsea and the mancs 6 losses. But we win all our games against the so called "lesser" teams... 32 wins = 96 points which should win us the league. Of course that scenario won't happen... but what I'm saying is that being able to consistently beat the other teams are more important than beating our rivals... which in our scenario means to convert those draws that we have into wins... winning against our rivals is a bonus because it means a loss to our rivals and a win to us... but it is not the essential thing in winning the league... that's all for now...

if you look at the top 4 only taking into account the games they played against each other it'd look like this:
man utd 13pts
chelsea 5pts
arsenal 5pts
liverpool 4pts

with chelsea still to play man utd at the bridge. this i think shows the importance of these games for not just the points on offer but the boost the winning team gets in terms of confidence. imo you cant expect to win the league without taking points off other top 4 sides

by **The_Rock** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 7:18 am

Whats so fickle about being "OK" with rafa staying .....

I wanted him to go when he played crouch as a left forward.

I wanted him to go when he kept playing voronin and kuyt as strikers who can play between lines.....

I wanted him to go when he kept changing the teams something like 75 times in 1st 10 matches (or to that effect).

But now, it seems he has finally seen the light....

He is playing a settled team when possible. And we are getting results. It also doesn't help when he is consistantly doing miracles in europe....

So u see...rafa seems to have learnt his lesson. Fair play to him. So in that case, i have to judge him differently...

Does not take a rocket scientist to figure this....

Jesus.....you have to spell it out for some M0R0NS sometimes.... :no

by **RedBlood** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 8:45 am

god_bless_john_houlding wrote:
s@int wrote:The injury to Agger was a blow that I think we have struggled with but never recovered from, although after a shaky start Hyypia has done a splendid job of rolling back the years and playing very well, we have still missed Agger.

sorry saint mate, most of the post was top notch but this is no reason mate. Every club has injuries. United haven't had their captain all season, yet are walking away to another league title. Chelsea and Arsenal have injuries. I don't see the injury to Agger as an excuse for us not challenging. It's again fans trying to hide the fact that it's not in us as a squad to go on and win the league.

I think we have the players, and possibly even the manager to win the league, what we don't have is the mentality.

yeah but their captin is gary neville mate so there not missing much lets be fair

by **66-1112520797** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:08 am

LFC2007 wrote:There isn't really an argument to be made against the fact that it took Ferguson 7 seasons to win the league (the dismissive 'it's not relevant' statement is as good as it gets for most - without actually explaining how and why it isn't relevant). It is of course absolutely relevant and those reasons have been elaborated upon numerous times.

Excuse me, but why the f.uck is it relevant ?

Its totally irrelavant and has f.uck all to do with LFC, its just a sorry, clutching at straws @rsed excuse.

F.uck it then, if we can play this pathetic game, how long diid it take Wenger, Mourinhio, Dalglish (with blackburn) and Wilkinson (with leeds I think) to win the league ?

ITS AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL TOTALLY IRRELAVANT TO LIVERPOOL FOOTBALL CLUB !

by **Owzat** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:45 am

Ok some slightly different ways of showing 'progress'

Results (all competitions)

2004/5 : P60 W29 D12 L19 F82 A56 (win 48.33%)
2005/6 : P62 W40 D11 L11 F104 A44 (win 64.52%)
2006/7 : P58 W32 D10 L16 F90 A52 (win 55.17%)
2007/8 : P53 W30 D15 L8 F109 A44 (win 56.60%)

And no surprise we finished with 82 points in 2005/6, a total out of our reach this season. Our wins were boosted by playing two extra qualifying rounds in the Champions League against minnows

Goals per game

FOR

2.06 goals/game : 2007/8 (109 in 53 games)
1.68 goals/game : 2005/6 (104 in 62 games)
1.55 goals/game : 2006/7 (90 in 58 games)
1.37 goals/game : 2004/5 (82 in 60 games)

AGAINST

0.71 goals/game : 2005/6 (44 goals in 62 games)
0.83 goals/game : 2007/8 (44 goals in 53 games)
0.90 goals/game : 2006/7 (52 goals in 58 games)
0.93 goals/game : 2004/5 (56 goals in 60 games)

What significance of goals you may ask, well the sides that score most goals tend to be right up there in the title race. Chelsea are an exception to that rule, but have scored only one less than us in the Premiership this season. The mancs not only have 12 more goals for, but 6 less conceded. We are scoring more goals this season, however they are not spread out enough and winning 12 games by scoring 4 goals hasn't helped. Our total of 60 goals in the Premiership is already our highest under Rafa, but still likely to fall short of our Premiership record of 71 in 2000/1. If we can manage 68 (two a game from now on) it will be our highest since 2000/1.

Season by season - by competition

2004/5

Premiership : 5th (58 points)
Champions League : Winners
FA Cup : 3rd Round
League Cup : Runners-Up

2005/6

Premiership : 3rd (82 points)
Champions League : Last 16
FA Cup : Winners
League Cup : 3rd Round

UEFA Super Cup : Winners
Club World Championship : Runners-Up

2006/7

Premiership : 3rd (68 points)
Champions League : Runners-Up
FA Cup : 3rd Round
League Cup : Quarter-Finals

2007/8

Premiership : 4th (66-78 points)
Champions League : Semi-Finals+
FA Cup : 5th Round
League Cup : Quarter-Finals

So league progress is not really there, ignoring points we have gone from third down to fourth. Champions League is pretty consistent, a one-off bad season last season, but pretty much challenging for it most of the time with three semis or further in four years. Success in the other cups vary which you'd expect, putting out weakened sides contributing of course.

But if you want to assess if we are progressing then we haven't won a cup for two seasons and we've dropped one place in the league. With it difficult to keep reaching finals of the Champions League then you have to say even reaching the final this season would not really constitute progress. A win in the Champions League would be great but would it constitute progress any more than winning the FA Cup or League Cup, but finishing third or fourth?

by **Festy** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:03 am

Owzat wrote:2007/8

Premiership : 4th (66-78 points)
Champions League : Semi-Finals+
FA Cup : 5th Round
League Cup : Quarter-Finals

But if you want to assess if we are progressing then we haven't won a cup for two seasons and we've dropped one place in the league. With it difficult to keep reaching finals of the Champions League then you have to say even reaching the final this season would not really constitute progress. A win in the Champions League would be great but would it constitute progress any more than winning the FA Cup or League Cup, but finishing third or fourth?

Sorry but gunners are only 5 points above us this season with 4 games to go. We can very much finish 3rd season with the kind of form they are in.

by **Owzat** » Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:03 am

Bamaga man wrote:
LFC2007 wrote:There isn't really an argument to be made against the fact that it took Ferguson 7 seasons to win the league (the dismissive 'it's not relevant' statement is as good as it gets for most - without actually explaining how and why it isn't relevant). It is of course absolutely relevant and those reasons have been elaborated upon numerous times.

Excuse me, but why the f.uck is it relevant ?

Its totally irrelavant and has f.uck all to do with LFC, its just a sorry, clutching at straws @rsed excuse.

F.uck it then, if we can play this pathetic game, how long diid it take Wenger, Mourinhio, Dalglish (with blackburn) and Wilkinson (with leeds I think) to win the league ?

ITS AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL TOTALLY IRRELAVANT TO LIVERPOOL FOOTBALL CLUB !

The reason fergie and his "seven seasons magic formula" is irrelevant doesn't take long to sum up :-

a) Rafa is not fergie. Giving a manager seven years is not proven to work in any way and as I mentioned a while back and someone poo pooed, he is an exception and noone else has taken that long to win the league in twenty odd years.

b) This is a different era, back when fergie started winning the league he was spending the same as anyone else which with all the money now about is simply unlikely to be the case. Rafa is now way behind on spending, plus the main rivals are all established which makes it even harder.

c) How fergie first won it is unlikely to be repeated. He bought Cantona for £1.2m from CHAMPIONS Leeds and Keane for £3.75m from rivals Notts Forest. That would be like Rafa buying Ronaldo from the mancs for £16m and signing Fabregas from Arsenal for £12m. They simply wouldn't sell let alone for those kind of fees, trying to make a reasonably realistic comparison within the comparitive markets of 1992/3 and 2007/8. He also happened across Schmeichel, bought Irwin on the cheap and had bought a couple of top quality CBs - Pallister was surely a record signing for a CB at the time (£2.2m?)

d) Timing. fergie got lucky in the sense that Liverpool who were the dominant side in the 80s were under mismanagement. So their rivals were Leeds and Blackburn who won a title apiece and then Newcastle. Hardly the most heavyweight of opponents, until that is Wenger came on the scene and was a thorn in fergie's side. Or put another way the clubs that could have made fergie's time more torrid consistency were in transition until he had established a grip on the league and money was their's with which to dominate. Rafa is unlikely to win a couple of titles and be the biggest spending force, not now.

e) When fergie took over his job was hard because he couldn't buy his way to the league and Liverpool and the bitters were much stronger. He also had an obsession with scots, once buying switched to Europe he found his niche. Once Liverpool faded he stepped in, if you take that into account then that explains why he took seven years. Not because it is a magic number, but it took five years before our dominance ended and so in real terms fergie hung around long enough that he effectively started in 1990/91 and it took only a few seasons.

But basically to win the league Rafa has to outspend everyone or do a Wenger. If he were going to do a Wenger he'd have done it by now, even if we outspend everyone else his signings have not exactly seen huge progress. Gerrard and Carra are still two of our best half dozen players, the players are improved on Houllier's but we're still well short of the quality needed.

Liverpool FC Forum

Progress Under Rafa - Analysis and Opinion

Who is online