Liverpool FC Forum

by **bigmick** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:15 am

Bad Bob wrote:
bigmick wrote:My prediction is that if Rafa stays another ten years or leaves tomorrow, we will still qualify for the Champions League and make it out of the group stages regardless of who takes over. Then we will need to win three home and away matches and a final to add to our big ears tally. To me, though it's lovely and a fantastic experience for the fans, it doesn't form my opinion on whether Rafa should stay or go, or indeed the identity of any new manager. When the Champions League was dreamt up over a decade ago, it was formulated just like the Premier League, to benefit the bigger and wealthier clubs. Over time that has come to fruition, and it also stands to reason that those from the richest and most widely watched league in the World (the Premiership) are at a significant advantage to most of the other teams. Get used to Arsenal, Chelsea, Manchester United etc being in the quarters, the semi's and winning it because over the next few years unless something happens to disturb the status quo it will continue to happen.

Kinell, Mick, have you always felt this way about the Champions League or do I detect a new--and to me quite unfathomable--flippancy about progressing in football's premier club competition? Are you really saying that we basically just have to show up in order to have a good CL run? That our position in the richest league in the world means we'll walk it to the quarters at least, year in, year out? That any old manager could successfully navigate us through the group stages and see us get past the likes of Inter, Barcelona or Juve? Really? Or have I misunderstood?

It's one of my more outlandish thoughts I must admit but I've been mulling it over for a while now. It does kind of get you thinking when the same teams keep reaching the latter stages of the competition time after time.

If we look at it logically, in England there are really only four teams who can possibly win the Champions league at present, five if you include Everton (which I don't) who qualified a couple of years back. I think these days you can discount the likes of Ajax, Stau Bucherest, Red Star Belgrade, Dukla Prague (don't know if they really ought to be in there I just like the name, ever since the hlf man half biscuit song

) and other teams who do have some sort of European pedigree.

You are left with the four from the prem, a couple from Spain (Barca and Madrid) and a couple from Italy (and even then the Italian League is poor at the mo). Occasionally you get someone do what Portsmouth are going to do in the FA Cup this season (Porto for example, must be the name) but the pool of teams who can actually win it is very small.

We sacked Houlier because he struggled to get in the top four and therefore qualify, while the knives are certainly out for Rafa each time we flirt with missing out. we can take it from that that we as fans consider finishing at least fourth as the minimum standard, and so it should be. If we do finish fourth, then we qualify.

Once we or any of the other English teams have qualified (and like I say only Everton once have broken the status quo in recent times) we go into the group, and avoid the other English teams. How hard it is to get out of the group is probably best demonstrated by how often the English team fail to get out. I think Man Utd did once a couple of years back, but other than that, almost always the English teams get out and therefore make it into the last sixteen. At that point they again avoid each other and need to win a home and away tie to get in the quarters. It's by no means a given, but it's by no means impossible either and you've only got to look at the english clubs records to see.

Now I'm probably ahead of myself here, but my suspicion is that if any of Grant, Ferguson, Wenger or Rafa failed to firstly qualify, and secondly get out of the group then questions would be asked.

I've said on another thread earlier that beating Arsenal is an excellent achievement, as was beating Chelsea those couple fo times. I'm not though buying into this idea that it is some kind of managerial genius to get us into a position where we have these games. Pretty soon I would have thought, UEFA will have to look again at the format because as it is, the same teams will get to the latter stages year after year after year.

If it's not the case already, it'll become like the FA Cupwhere the bigger teams absolutely dominate. All this is even more reason where a manager of Liverpool must be judged on how he performs in the truest of all tests, the league.

by **god_bless_john_houlding** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:26 am

Anybody with half a brain, which excludes anybody thinking that Ferguson's seven years has anything to do with us, could lead Liverpool to fourth in the league and through to at the least the last 16 of the european cup with the group of players at Liverpool right now. That to me is nothing to be proud of. "well done I got Liverpool fourth" any fan celebrating the fact we're fourth should be ashamed. I'm not saying don't celebrate we're in a champions league place because anybody will tell you that's the competition you need to be, but for Liverpool Football Club to be happy or to accept fourth is a disgrace. That's what we were during Houllier's final year, a side who were pleased to come fourth...that's what we still are...a team happy coming fourth. So basing it upon that there hasn't be progression. When Benitez took over we were a side fourth, we're still a side fourth.

Basing it on more acceptable arguements when Houllier left we were a side fourth and 30 points behind the champions. This season we're likely to end up 17/18 points behind United. So we've gained 12 extra points. Obviously some improvement or progress there. Not enough, but some. Europe speaks for itself under Benitez. Under Houllier we had one good year and his success in the UEFA Cup of 2001 was what set us up really for the following season to finish second. But since Benitez took over we're back to being the most feared side in Europe. He didn't however "put us back on the map" as some think, because we've never been away from it. We've always been a massive side in Europe but that declined during the 90s because we never progressed well in Europe, until Houllier won the UEFA in 01 and showed people that we were still capable. Benitez like I've said has taken us back to the memories of 60s, 70s and 80s in terms of Europe. So from that prospective, progress has been made. Quality of players has improved. Reina or Westerveld? Mascherano or Diao? Torres or Heskey? the quality of the players has improved indivually. So again I suppose progress. Money signings. Benitez has brought in our most expensive keeper (reina) defender (skrtel) midfielder (mascherano) and forward (torres) so obviously our money situation has improved under Benitez. He's been able to spend massive amounts for each position.

There's also things that have gone backwards of course. Amount of cahos surrounding non footballing matters have exculated since Benitez came and I don't just mean recently with the yanks. In the first couple of months there were "rifts" between him and Gerrard. Then him and Cisse, Cisse even shook his hand during the super cup final of 05. There's been stories of players sticking in their own little cliques. There's been the "rift" between him and Pako. The name of Liverpool Football Club has been in the press for the wrong reasons alot more under Benitez and pre American ownership than any other manager. The signing of Craig Bellamy also brought the name of our club down with the golf club incident, Benitez signing a known trouble maker. So in that sense we've gone backwarsds. Domestic cup competitions. Houllier's first four full seasons included three cup finals and three cup wins, Benitez' CV says two domestic cup finals and only one win. So obviously no progress there. Points off the top three has declined since Benitez' arrival. So there's also a few backward steps we've taken since Benitez took over.

So overall I think we may have progressed slightly, but nowhere enough. I don't see Benitez making us progress enough for at least another six years. I think then, we'll be at least challenging. But while Benitez is our manager we won't win a league title, so for me he has to go at the end of the season and try someone new. I'll still be backing Mr Benitez and praying he brings even more success to the club from now until he finally leaves and I really hope he proves me wrong and does win us the league. If he can do that, then I'll personally kiss the man's arse, whether he wants me to or not.

by **god_bless_john_houlding** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:45 am

bigmick wrote:we can take it from that that we as fans consider finishing at least fourth as the minimum standard, and so it should be.

mick I agree whole heartedly with the rest but who are you kidding with this mate. "we as fans consider FOURTH minimum standard" I certainly don't and I know alot of others who don't. Fourth is an embarrassment and shouldn't be entered into fans heads. Minimum standard is first. The players or certainly those who mix with fans will take this opinion of fourth being minimum and accept it as good enough. The truth is for this club fourth isn't good enough and I know you're not saying it is, but minimum standard has to be higher than fourth.

If we finish fourth, fighting it out at the top, then I can accept it less painfully, but being in fourth and a mile away from first is a disgrace. The minimum standard for this club is to win the league, unless rules have changed you win no championships for coming in fourth. Liverpool legends of old would be turning in their graves if they thought we were accepting fourth as minimum.

by **bigmick** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 3:19 am

You've slightly misunderstood my point John. What I'm saying is that qualification for the Champions League (ie finishing in the first four) is hardly something to shout about, if we can't finish above Everton, Portsmouth and Villa we really ought to give over when you look at how much we outspend those clubs by. Any manager at Liverpool who can't at least finish in the first four deserves to come under pressure.

Once you've qualified for the Champions League, (which should be an absolute certainty) then to get out of the group is almost a given as well. We ost two out of our first three this season still got through fairly comfortably so it ain't that hard. the big teams in the "league" format can afford a couple of dodgy results and they still have plenty of time to recover.

by **Bad Bob** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 3:26 am

bigmick wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:
bigmick wrote:My prediction is that if Rafa stays another ten years or leaves tomorrow, we will still qualify for the Champions League and make it out of the group stages regardless of who takes over. Then we will need to win three home and away matches and a final to add to our big ears tally. To me, though it's lovely and a fantastic experience for the fans, it doesn't form my opinion on whether Rafa should stay or go, or indeed the identity of any new manager. When the Champions League was dreamt up over a decade ago, it was formulated just like the Premier League, to benefit the bigger and wealthier clubs. Over time that has come to fruition, and it also stands to reason that those from the richest and most widely watched league in the World (the Premiership) are at a significant advantage to most of the other teams. Get used to Arsenal, Chelsea, Manchester United etc being in the quarters, the semi's and winning it because over the next few years unless something happens to disturb the status quo it will continue to happen.

Kinell, Mick, have you always felt this way about the Champions League or do I detect a new--and to me quite unfathomable--flippancy about progressing in football's premier club competition? Are you really saying that we basically just have to show up in order to have a good CL run? That our position in the richest league in the world means we'll walk it to the quarters at least, year in, year out? That any old manager could successfully navigate us through the group stages and see us get past the likes of Inter, Barcelona or Juve? Really? Or have I misunderstood?

It's one of my more outlandish thoughts I must admit but I've been mulling it over for a while now. It does kind of get you thinking when the same teams keep reaching the latter stages of the competition time after time.

If we look at it logically, in England there are really only four teams who can possibly win the Champions league at present, five if you include Everton (which I don't) who qualified a couple of years back. I think these days you can discount the likes of Ajax, Stau Bucherest, Red Star Belgrade, Dukla Prague (don't know if they really ought to be in there I just like the name, ever since the hlf man half biscuit song ) and other teams who do have some sort of European pedigree.

You are left with the four from the prem, a couple from Spain (Barca and Madrid) and a couple from Italy (and even then the Italian League is poor at the mo). Occasionally you get someone do what Portsmouth are going to do in the FA Cup this season (Porto for example, must be the name) but the pool of teams who can actually win it is very small.

We sacked Houlier because he struggled to get in the top four and therefore qualify, while the knives are certainly out for Rafa each time we flirt with missing out. we can take it from that that we as fans consider finishing at least fourth as the minimum standard, and so it should be. If we do finish fourth, then we qualify.

Once we or any of the other English teams have qualified (and like I say only Everton once have broken the status quo in recent times) we go into the group, and avoid the other English teams. How hard it is to get out of the group is probably best demonstrated by how often the English team fail to get out. I think Man Utd did once a couple of years back, but other than that, almost always the English teams get out and therefore make it into the last sixteen. At that point they again avoid each other and need to win a home and away tie to get in the quarters. It's by no means a given, but it's by no means impossible either and you've only got to look at the english clubs records to see.

Now I'm probably ahead of myself here, but my suspicion is that if any of Grant, Ferguson, Wenger or Rafa failed to firstly qualify, and secondly get out of the group then questions would be asked.

I've said on another thread earlier that beating Arsenal is an excellent achievement, as was beating Chelsea those couple fo times. I'm not though buying into this idea that it is some kind of managerial genius to get us into a position where we have these games. Pretty soon I would have thought, UEFA will have to look again at the format because as it is, the same teams will get to the latter stages year after year after year.

If it's not the case already, it'll become like the FA Cupwhere the bigger teams absolutely dominate. All this is even more reason where a manager of Liverpool must be judged on how he performs in the truest of all tests, the league.

I can go along with everything you say until you get to discussing the knock-out rounds, mate. It's true that the group stages throw up the odd test but are fairly navigable if we're on our game. As such, we do take getting through to the knockout rounds as something of a given (as witnessed by the criticism when it looked like we might not do it this year). But, the flaw in your argument for me is that, once you're into the knockout rounds, there's every likelihood of drawing a quality team and thus it takes a quality manager to outwit them. For all the Fenerbahces and PSVs kicking around there's also the Inters and Barcelonas to contend with. So, is it pure dumb luck or latent Premiership superiority that got us through those ties with the Italian champs and Spanish champs/CL holders in successive years? No. Is it pure dumb luck that we've turned Chelsea over twice at the semi-final stage and sent Arsenal packing this year? Again, no. Rafa's developed a game plan and the lads have executed it--with the help of luck that all quality teams need and get along the way. To diminish the significance of those achievements and the quality of the competition is to do Rafa and the lads a considerable disservice, IMO. It's perfectly legitimate to wonder--as you have in the past--why we can beat the likes of Inter and yet stumble against the likes of West Ham. For me, it's much less credible, however, to suggest that beating the likes of Inter is no great achievement.

by **maguskwt** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 3:48 am

s@int wrote:I don't seem to see the list you produced of patience being rewarded, as being a very successful or long one.

Because that is the list of clubs who has won the PREMIER LEAGUE multiple times. Yes it is short. you know why? Only 4 teams have won the premier league, only 3 teams have done so multiple times. 2 most successful managers of the current league are serving their clubs for 21 and 12 years respectively and backed by patient boards. What a coincidence eh? if you're not the most idiotic poster with above 10 thousand posts, you would have started to notice that. oh wait i forgot half of your posts are cut n pastes from tabloid rumours :laugh:

.

Ok now I would like to announce that I'm really done with a poster who first puts words in other ppls' mouth, and insult others' intelligence by referring to them as "fergie followers" without trying to fully understand their opinions and at the same time think that it is the intelligent thing to do. After he gets embarrassed throw a tantrum worse than a woman pms-ing and take cheap shots by calling 'moron' and 'wum' and insulting others intelligence again because he has nothing more intelligent to say and only by doing that he fullfills his misconceived believe that hes the most intelligent and respected poster on the forum. what a joke. what a tit... it was fun while it lasted but... tata...have a nice day...

by **bigmick** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:54 am

Bad Bob wrote:I can go along with everything you say until you get to discussing the knock-out rounds, mate. It's true that the group stages throw up the odd test but are fairly navigable if we're on our game. As such, we do take getting through to the knockout rounds as something of a given (as witnessed by the criticism when it looked like we might not do it this year). But, the flaw in your argument for me is that, once you're into the knockout rounds, there's every likelihood of drawing a quality team and thus it takes a quality manager to outwit them. For all the Fenerbahces and PSVs kicking around there's also the Inters and Barcelonas to contend with. So, is it pure dumb luck or latent Premiership superiority that got us through those ties with the Italian champs and Spanish champs/CL holders in successive years? No. Is it pure dumb luck that we've turned Chelsea over twice at the semi-final stage and sent Arsenal packing this year? Again, no. Rafa's developed a game plan and the lads have executed it--with the help of luck that all quality teams need and get along the way. To diminish the significance of those achievements and the quality of the competition is to do Rafa and the lads a considerable disservice, IMO. It's perfectly legitimate to wonder--as you have in the past--why we can beat the likes of Inter and yet stumble against the likes of West Ham. For me, it's much less credible, however, to suggest that beating the likes of Inter is no great achievement.

Bob you might not have seen it (or you might have avoided it) but I did say in anther thread that beating the likes of arsenal has been a good achievement. The point I'm making to be perfectly honest is not necessarily to diminish the achievements of Rafa and the team (although I accept that this is the inevitable conclusion if my ramblings are taken at face value) it is more to offer an alternative view to the one which says this is Europe's supreme test etc etc. It quite simply isn't in my opinion.

You've said yourself that in the current format us qualifying from the group stage, and indeed qualifying for the competition in the first place is practically a given. Well whoever you play at that stage, you've got three Home/Away two leggers and a final to negotiate if you are going to win it, and you have the added bonus that in the first encounter you are going to avoid an English club.

I really do believe that over the next five or six years unless they do something with the format (and feck knows what TBPH) English teams will dominate it and semi final appearances will be the norm. The Premiership has had three out of four semi finalists the last two years, two out of four in the season before that and at least one team in the final in each of the last three seasons with at least one and most probably two in the final this year. Against that backdrop, if we continually crow about the fact we're having Champions League success and use that as a compensation for poor showings in the league, then Rafa will in all probability have a meal ticket for life. All the English teams will get to the quarters, the semis and finals over the next few years, that is my point really.

That is why it's nothing comapred to the league for me. We have proven in the past it's possible to win the Champions League with a fairly poor team (if we're talking managerial achievement, that was a truly incredible one and no mistake) but you don't win the Premiership unless you've got a good side. Hopefully next year we will get somewhere near it ourselves, but whatever happens I will be amazed if we don't reach at least the last 16 of the Champions league, and unless we're very unlucky with the draw the last eight at least as well.

by **Owzat** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 7:38 am

maguskwt wrote:
s@int wrote:I don't seem to see the list you produced of patience being rewarded, as being a very successful or long one.

Because that is the list of clubs who has won the PREMIER LEAGUE multiple times. Yes it is short. you know why? Only 4 teams have won the premier league, only 3 teams have done so multiple times. 2 most successful managers of the current league are serving their clubs for 21 and 12 years respectively and backed by patient boards. What a coincidence eh? if you're not the most idiotic poster with above 10 thousand posts, you would have started to notice that. oh wait i forgot half of your posts are cut n pastes from tabloid rumours .

Ok now I would like to announce that I'm really done with a poster who first puts words in other ppls' mouth, and insult others' intelligence by referring to them as "fergie followers" without trying to fully understand their opinions and at the same time think that it is the intelligent thing to do. After he gets embarrassed throw a tantrum worse than a woman pms-ing and take cheap shots by calling 'moron' and 'wum' and insulting others intelligence again because he has nothing more intelligent to say and only by doing that he fullfills his misconceived believe that hes the most intelligent and respected poster on the forum. what a joke. what a tit... it was fun while it lasted but... tata...have a nice day...

But you're putting the cart before the horse, the two most successful managers are long serving BECAUSE of that success. And you've rather made a meal of it by including Wenger as he didn't take a long time to win his first title. And neither did Mourinho, but then throwing a couple of names in and saying it proves your point is a classic approach because all three of the managers who've won the Premiership since 2000 are completely different. And it's that being different which makes anyone thinking there's a pattern that if we follow it will give us a Premiership an idiot.

So come on then, how was the Arsenal board patient with Wenger? They certainly weren't with his predecessor, or perhaps if he'd been given more time he'd have succeeded. Have you ever considered that some might have the ability and just take a little longer? And that time isn't the one single contributory factor? No, that would spoil a nice little DREAM.

How many years and millions were wasted on Houllier? How many "next years" came from the fans then? He was no closer to winning the league than when he started and Rafa's the same.

And for once I agree with GBJH, fourth is an embarrassment. Rafa can't even outspend Wenger to third. And it may be more than just a coincidence that we're fighting off the wannabes for fourth consistently, managing third when Arsenal underperform themselves, while we're consistent in the Champions League. No coincidence that our best season in the Premiership happened in the same season we flopped in the Champions League. What we've done is half bake a cake and put the icing on before it's finished, won the nice little prize of the Champions League before the side is solid enough to challenge for the Premiership.

So how is it we are happy with fourth? Because we're ALL distracted by the Champions League and making MASSIVE allowances for failure in the league.

by **Owzat** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:07 am

Rafa vs :-

Man Utd - P9 W1 D1 L7 F2 A11 (won 11.11%)
Chelsea - P18 W5 D5 L8 F12 A18 (won 27.78%)
Arsenal - P12 W4 D3 L5 F20 A24 (won 33.33%)

So against the big three we win a quarter, and most of those are cup games/Champions League.

Home - P19 W8 D4 L7 F23 A23 (won 42.11%)
Away - P17 W0 D5 L12 F5 A25 (won 0.00%)

In the league it's almost embarrassing :-

04/05 P6 W1 D0 L5 F4 A9 PTS 3
05/06 P6 W1 D1 L4 F3 A9 PTS 4
06/07 P6 W2 D0 L4 F6 A8 PTS 6
07/08 P6 W0 D4 L2 F3 A7 PTS 4

No wins in the league against the teams above us this season. So how is this progress? We can just about compete at home against the big guns, but here's a telling little table of four seasons just based on results between the big four :-

Man Utd P23 W13 D5 L5 F29 A17 PTS 44
Chelsea P23 W11 D8 L4 F27 A15 PTS 41
Arsenal P24 W6 D7 L11 F23 A32 PTS 28
Liverpool P24 W4 D5 L15 F16 A33 PTS 17

While the majority of points are from games against other teams, we're managing a mere 4 points out of 18 a season in these head to heads and that's to their advantage. We've fired the most blanks and kept fewest clean sheets. We have managed to concede more than the mancs have scored! So the most points we could manage IF we won every other game is 100, that's not much room for manoeuvre. And while no away wins isn't too bad considering they all have good home records, 5 goals in 17 games is pretty feeble. It's even more annoying when teams like Reading draw at old trafford or Wigan at Stamford Bridge, why can those low budget sides get results and we struggle? And how frustrating is the Fulham result, their first away win at Reading where we capitulated?

by **66-1112520797** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:57 am

Whilst were on the subject of CL, I think it would be in our best interest if the European Cup went back to ... Whoever wins their own respective league qualfies soley as winners for the CL. The Top team or possibly two should qualify for it IMO, no more though.

Managers these days dont have to win their leagues to stay in a job, as long as they qualify for the money making of the CL. There is more of an onus to scrap for fourth place IMO than there is having loftier ambitions of winning the league.

Maybe if it were 1st or just possibly 2nd to qualify for the CL, I'd bet you'd see Rafa change his mentality domestically, and not make so many risky decisions and needless rotations for the sake of it.

by **JoeTerp** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:05 am

Bamaga man wrote:Whilst were on the subject of CL, I think it would be in our best interest if the European Cup went back to ... Whoever wins their own respective league qualfies soley as winners for the CL. The Top team or possibly two should qualify for it IMO, no more though.

Managers these days dont have to win their leagues to stay in a job, as long as they qualify for the money making of the CL. There is more of an onus to scrap for fourth place IMO than there is having loftier ambitions of winning the league.

Maybe if it were 1st or just possibly 2nd to qualify for the CL, I'd bet you'd see Rafa change his mentality domestically, and not make so many risky decisions and needless rotations for the sake of it.

well then we wouldn't be in the champions league, so de facto it would be easier to focus on the league.

by **Leonmc0708** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:11 am

Furgeson never retired cus he wanted to win the Champions Leuage again, he knows that to be seen as truly succesful you have got to win the European Cup twice.

Mourinho was ousted cus he did not deliver the Champions League at Chelsea.

Bernt Schuster will probably lose his job at the Benrebau cus he has not progressed in the European Cup.

by **crazyhorse** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:23 am

I agree with most of Micks comments to now. However I really do not think that as a club we are leaps and bounds ahead of where we were under GH. There are many reasons for this but to my mind as Mick has already said the ONLY measure we should apply as to our improvement is our performance in the LEAGUE. We know we have an excellent team, capable on its day of beating any team put in front of us - but we also know that since the early 90s the one thing we have never been able to do is be consistent week in week out. Every season since 1990 there has been a month or six week period in the season that has seen us lose several games and put ourselves out of contention.

You can list each manager we have had since then and yes you can always put a reason to our underperformance - Souness, too many poor signings and tactically inept. Evans - had a really talented squad but some would say was too much of a nice guy. Houllier - Headstrong and brought in far too many mediocre players. And now Rafa - Rotation, Rotation, Rotation (Although I believe that he is shifting on this). Each of these managers has brought success in cup competions but failed to deliver the title that we all want and deserve. Why?

I do not think that there is a definitive answer to this qustion. However when you look at the current top three in detail there are different approaches that they have employed which have brought success.

Man Utd - They have a firm and solid foundation, and have possibly the biggest fan base in the world which brings he wealth with it. Ferguson although we hate him has been a fantasitic servant and is tactically first class - he has built the success of the team based upon the old fashioned principles of his predecessors. Build a spine and invest in youth - He has spent a lot of money, but how many big named signings have been failures?. I can only really think of Seba Veron. Fergie has only spent money on talent that will improve the squad and has been careful not to introduce too many new faces to upset the balence of his side.

Arsenal - Wenger is another fantastic manger, no matter how much we think him arrogant this has to be acknowedged. He has not spent a lot of money, but has built a squad based on youth and potential and combined this with experience. You can tell his players enjoy playing for him - how many actually leave? and those that do have normally been at the club for years and are in need of a change for the good of their career. Arsenal are the best footballing side in the league and possibly in Europe.

Chelsea - Completely different. A new breed of club that has built itself into a challenger through corporate investment. They have developed the whole area aound the ground into a complex almost like a town in its own right, and now have a chairman with more money than sense. They have invested heavily in the playing staff and in Mourinio had the charasmatic manager to carry it all off. This is in my opinion not sustainable, and eventually I believe that Abramovic will withdraw his money - the challenge for them is by that time to have built themselves into a business so profitable that they can sustain the spending themselves. Chelsea have bought the title, but their route to success is still uncertain in terms of keeping it up.

Liverpool - We are really not too much like any of the above. I look at the first team squad now and do not see many names that came through the youth system (two notable exceptions aside). I see several players on which a lot of money has been spent and none apart from one has delivered the goods in the way that we hoped. The atmosphere in the board room is chaotic and the new ground seems a long way away. Successive managers have made very poor signings (I dare not go through the list and add up how many millions have been wasted) and truly inspired signings have been few and far between. In recent years I stil think the best signing we have made is Sami but The money spent on Torres looks to have been money well spent if we can keep the lad fit.

A bit of a ramble, and I am not sure that I have put my point across. Buit there you go!

by **bigmick** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:26 am

Leonmc0708 wrote:Furgeson never retired cus he wanted to win the Champions Leuage again, he knows that to be seen as truly succesful you have got to win the European Cup twice.

Mourinho was ousted cus he did not deliver the Champions League at Chelsea.

Bernt Schuster will probably lose his job at the Benrebau cus he has not progressed in the European Cup.

It's an interesting one. I actually agree with you that it irks Ferguson that having had such a good team over so many years, he has only won the Champions League once. It should as well, their record is poor considering how good their team has been.

I also agree that Mourinho's failure to win the Champions league, and Schusters failure to make much of a fist of it contributed to their downfall.

That doesn't really though alter my opinion on how difficult or not it is to achive relative success in the competition. If you accept the premise that we really ought to be able to finish in the first four just about every season, then qualification is automatic. If you look at English clubs records of getting out of the groups in recent years that is almost automatic as well.

Chelsea have made semi final appearances practically an annual event, and we are getting that way ourselves. I think my original point regarding the difficult of achieving relative success holds scrutiny. I do accept however that my theory is at best original and at worst outlandish (or a load of sh!t some might say

).

I'm pretty much convinced I'm right on this one though, and next seasons Champions League semi finals will no doubt contain at least two English teams and possibly more.

I'm not obviously disputing the financial gain of doing well, nor the prestige although I do think as people come to realise that the whole thing is totally predictable, the degree of both will diminish significantly.

Perhaps it would be better if it was genuinely played on a league basis, home and away against every team. At least that way the team that won it could claim to genuinely be the best in Europe. I wonder how often we'd win it though under those circumstances

by **bigmick** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:30 am

crazyhorse wrote:I agree with most of Micks comments to now. However I really do not think that as a club we are leaps and bounds ahead of where we were under GH. There are many reasons for this but to my mind as Mick has already said the ONLY measure we should apply as to our improvement is our performance in the LEAGUE. We know we have an excellent team, capable on its day of beating any team put in front of us - but we also know that since the early 90s the one thing we have never been able to do is be consistent week in week out. Every season since 1990 there has been a month or six week period in the season that has seen us lose several games and put ourselves out of contention.

You can list each manager we have had since then and yes you can always put a reason to our underperformance - Souness, too many poor signings and tactically inept. Evans - had a really talented squad but some would say was too much of a nice guy. Houllier - Headstrong and brought in far too many mediocre players. And now Rafa - Rotation, Rotation, Rotation (Although I believe that he is shifting on this). Each of these managers has brought success in cup competions but failed to deliver the title that we all want and deserve. Why?

I do not think that there is a definitive answer to this qustion. However when you look at the current top three in detail there are different approaches that they have employed which have brought success.

Man Utd - They have a firm and solid foundation, and have possibly the biggest fan base in the world which brings he wealth with it. Ferguson although we hate him has been a fantasitic servant and is tactically first class - he has built the success of the team based upon the old fashioned principles of his predecessors. Build a spine and invest in youth - He has spent a lot of money, but how many big named signings have been failures?. I can only really think of Seba Veron. Fergie has only spent money on talent that will improve the squad and has been careful not to introduce too many new faces to upset the balence of his side.

Arsenal - Wenger is another fantastic manger, no matter how much we think him arrogant this has to be acknowedged. He has not spent a lot of money, but has built a squad based on youth and potential and combined this with experience. You can tell his players enjoy playing for him - how many actually leave? and those that do have normally been at the club for years and are in need of a change for the good of their career. Arsenal are the best footballing side in the league and possibly in Europe.

Chelsea - Completely different. A new breed of club that has built itself into a challenger through corporate investment. They have developed the whole area aound the ground into a complex almost like a town in its own right, and now have a chairman with more money than sense. They have invested heavily in the playing staff and in Mourinio had the charasmatic manager to carry it all off. This is in my opinion not sustainable, and eventually I believe that Abramovic will withdraw his money - the challenge for them is by that time to have built themselves into a business so profitable that they can sustain the spending themselves. Chelsea have bought the title, but their route to success is still uncertain in terms of keeping it up.

Liverpool - We are really not too much like any of the above. I look at the first team squad now and do not see many names that came through the youth system (two notable exceptions aside). I see several players on which a lot of money has been spent and none apart from one has delivered the goods in the way that we hoped. The atmosphere in the board room is chaotic and the new ground seems a long way away. Successive managers have made very poor signings (I dare not go through the list and add up how many millions have been wasted) and truly inspired signings have been few and far between. In recent years I stil think the best signing we have made is Sami but The money spent on Torres looks to have been money well spent if we can keep the lad fit.

A bit of a ramble, and I am not sure that I have put my point across. Buit there you go!

That's a good post that mate and I agreed with pretty much all of it. Infact I don't really see how anybody could disagree with it too much, although no doubt someone will prove me wrong.

Liverpool FC Forum

Progress Under Rafa - Analysis and Opinion

Who is online