Liverpool FC Forum

by **LFC2007** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:28 am

I agree with quite a bit of what Magus' is saying - the gist of it at least.

Is it reasonable to expect a club of our stature - coming off the back of our best PL season in our history - to make at least £15m available to the manager to strengthen? In my opinion, absolutely, it's a no brainer. To that extent, the owners have to be held responsible for a decent degree our exposure since the start of the season (I discount the notion that further funds were available but that Rafa declined to spend them, because it's nonsense). If those funds had been made available, Rafa would have been able to resolve a certain proportion of our lack of squad depth - and that's where the balance between the criticism of his historical transfer dealings and the criticism of our owners in this last window lies. Certainly, IIRC, we were interested in Tevez and Turner before any suggestions of deals for those two myseriously disappeared. Tevez would've been an instant starter, allowing for Gerrard to move back from game one, while Turner would've replaced Skrtel, providing a much needed aerial presence. Two players who probably would have lessened the burden on the rest of the squad - there would still have been some fair potential for dysfunction and that's where I think the critique of Rafa's historical dealings may be brought in i.e. once you've factored in what he ought to have had to spend and who he might have spent it on.
The rule then; funds should be provided when there's good reason to do so, and there was very good reason to do so. That the owners couldn't do so because it wasn't financially viable is a criticism of their ownership credentials and nothing else - they shouldn't have made the commitments they did if they didn't intend to follow them through, and by that I mean promising to support the manager when he needed it.

Then there's three other issues that tie in; the decision to sign Aquilani, the injury situation and the inexplicable demise of our defense.

It was made clear once we'd signed Aquilani that this was a player Rafa had eyed for many months - he'd been lined up early on as Alonso's replacement. It was obvious, then, that he felt this was going to be a very significant signing, one he had to get right for the future of the club - and coming off the back of the best PL season in our history he had every reason to think of the long-term future by not simply confining his thoughts to the start of this season, but to a number of years. Moreover, it was widely accepted by fans and with very good reason, that - with Ronaldo and Tevez moving on, and drastically inferior replacements taking their place - the Manc's would drop down a few notches, and that this would provide a necessary condition for us to overtake them. At the very least then, it seemed unlikely that they'd be capable of stealing a seven point lead by the end of October - even accounting for our need to manage with Masch, Lucas, Spearing and Gerrard in midfield until Aquilani recovered from injury. So it seemed reasonable enough to suggest that we would be able to absorb Alonso's loss for the first two months of the season, if not getting a lead, then certainly keeping within a margin of six points. The gamble to sign Aquilani was premised on this very perspective and so it wasn't 'obviously' an error, nor was it reckless. We might have signed someone else but for the sake of waiting two months - and in light of the above facts - it seemed wiser to sign the player he'd long admired. Indeed, it was circumstance that dictated that we were to miss out on Gareth Barry at the start of the summer - a player I'm convinced would've steadied the ship in midfield without much risk attached at all. Circumstance too has dictated that Aquilani's return to fitness is taking longer than expected - I recall when Chelsea away was being penned in by newkit regulars as his likely debut date. It is doubly unfortunate that during this period of having to make do without the Italian, we've suffered injuries to Torres, Gerrard, Riera and Agger. Further still, and finally, few could've foreseen the ineptness that would stain our defensive record. Of course, it's the responsibility of the management to ensure players perform to their potential but some margin for individually poor form has to be incorporated into our judgments. That both Carra and Skrtel have performed as badly as they have individually could not have been expected by anyone's standard, and it is quite outside of Rafa's sphere of control to remedy that problem directly under the circumstances (couldn't sign anyone - of any note, hadn't a fit replacement). Whether he ought to have shown greater influence in order to try and induce better performances is very hard to tell, all I can be certain of is that there are two players there who've performed well below their best and barring some inexplicable change in our defensive coaching, they as individuals have to take most of the responsibility for the level of their performances. If in Carra's case it's fitness - it's fitness - and fitness is circumstance.

It seems then that a reasonable gamble has been left woefully exposed quite substantially by circumstance, and perhaps partially by managerial error. By managerial error, I refer specifically to the decision to employ Lucas instead of Gerrard in the centre of midfield more often than would have otherwise been desirable from my point of view. Since it seemed perfectly understandable that Rafa shouldn't risk breaking up the partnership of Torres and Gerrard from the beginning, and so effectively necessitating a Lucas-Masch midfield pairing, I can accept the line-ups he selected for at least the Spurs and Stoke games. Spurs because it would gauge how we might function as a team, Stoke because it's Stoke. Lucas didn't do too badly in the Stoke game IIRC, while Torres and Gerrard showed signs of gelling, it didn't seem ludicrous then that Rafa should keep the same team for the next match against Villa - and barring the inclusion of Skrtel for Ayala - he did exactly that. By the end of the Villa game, however, it was becoming if not patently obvious then verging on it - to me at least - that Gerrard would have to revert back to a conventional midfield role, with Benayoun filling in. The Bolton game seemed to crystalise that view, but by then we'd lost as many as we had last season - an urgent situation but clearly a retirevable one. Yet with the games we had approaching and the injury problems that were about to disrupt us, circumstance would gradually expose those early defeats and the selectoral decisions that had apparently defined them. It was unfortunate then that we should have had to play Chelsea as early on as we did, having already borne the blow of two defeats, while the Sunderland game was a culmination of great misfortune - injuries that we couldn't absorb and a howler of a decision that you probably won't see in another ten years of Premier League football.

by **bigmick** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:39 am

It's a top post LFC and it's hard to argue with too much of it. There are quite a lot of "circumstance has dicatated"s and "doubly unfortunate"s in it though. While it's one point of view to say that Rafa could hardly be blamed for not realising that some players weren't going to be up to the task he had in mind for them, or how quickly certain players were going to decline, you could also argue that as a top class manager it would be nice if he predicted this stuff correctly every now and then.

Presumeably if he'd succeeded in selling off Alonso for 16 million quid in the Summer before last, we could have all said "well you can hardly blame Rafa for not realising Alonso was about to start playing out of his skin". Maybe, (I know I certainly didn't see it coming) but like I say, good managers get these decisions right and get them right early. When Ferguson sold Keane, Van Nistelroy, Beckham etc he made a big call and he called it early. Just recently, Rafa has too often not made a call at all or has called it wrong when he has.

by **maguskwt** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:08 am

bigmick wrote:When Ferguson sold Keane, Van Nistelroy, Beckham etc he made a big call and he called it early. Just recently, Rafa has too often not made a call at all or has called it wrong when he has.

Did he call it right though? If Ferguson sold those players in the same situation as Rafa is in now he would have been in similar circumsstances. Let's not forget that Man United didn't win the league for 2 years after they sold Beckham. It was a period of decline for them which also of course coincides with the rise of Chelsea. But Ferguson was able to bring in Wayne Rooney, Ronaldo, Carrick, Hargreaves, and Anderson to replace his aging squad. And they don't cost a bargain.

by **LFC2007** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 5:15 am

bigmick wrote:It's a top post LFC and it's hard to argue with too much of it. There are quite a lot of "circumstance has dicatated"s and "doubly unfortunate"s in it though. While it's one point of view to say that Rafa could hardly be blamed for not realising that some players weren't going to be up to the task he had in mind for them, or how quickly certain players were going to decline, you could also argue that as a top class manager it would be nice if he predicted this stuff correctly every now and then.

Presumeably if he'd succeeded in selling off Alonso for 16 million quid in the Summer before last, we could have all said "well you can hardly blame Rafa for not realising Alonso was about to start playing out of his skin". Maybe, (I know I certainly didn't see it coming) but like I say, good managers get these decisions right and get them right early. When Ferguson sold Keane, Van Nistelroy, Beckham etc he made a big call and he called it early. Just recently, Rafa has too often not made a call at all or has called it wrong when he has.

I don't disagree - ultimately the buck stops with him and all that (at that point you may aswell just end the debate though, it's your trump card

). I'm just differentiating between the types of criticism as I think it appreciates his view of things better. By that I mean general and specific criticisms; his transfer record overall and the implications of it today, and the situation since the end of last season - at which point, IMO, the standard was sort of reset. Otherwise, you could go on arguing that he isn't deserving of any further funds because of his previous failings. At some point you have to move on, almost draw a line but not quite, and I'm giving some distance to those past mistakes and the end of last season at which point he most certainly was deserving of a few more quid. In that domain, a relative lack of funds, a convergence of injuries at the wrong time and the inexplicable demise of our defence (soundbite?) provide a fairer standard by which to judge him, IMO.

If you don't distinguish I think you run the risk of reverting to general criticisms again. So, if the owners never provided a penny more, if our injury problems persisted, if Carra continues to play badly, and (to a lesser extent) if we didn't appreciate how this tied in with our fixture list, you could still revert to the argument that Rafa is exclusively at fault because of his historical mistakes in the transfer market. Context is everything, well, almost.

How would you explain the problem Magus throws up?

On the last para, it would depend on who he replaced Alonso with. If we assume it would've been Gareth Barry, then myself, I rate the guy quite highly so who knows? Alonso wouldn't necessarily have gone on to have a stormer at Juventus or wherever it may have been either.

by **bigmick** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:14 am

maguskwt wrote:
bigmick wrote:When Ferguson sold Keane, Van Nistelroy, Beckham etc he made a big call and he called it early. Just recently, Rafa has too often not made a call at all or has called it wrong when he has.

Did he call it right though? If Ferguson sold those players in the same situation as Rafa is in now he would have been in similar circumsstances. Let's not forget that Man United didn't win the league for 2 years after they sold Beckham. It was a period of decline for them which also of course coincides with the rise of Chelsea. But Ferguson was able to bring in Wayne Rooney, Ronaldo, Carrick, Hargreaves, and Anderson to replace his aging squad. And they don't cost a bargain.

Well without wanting to derail the thread, Man Utd still had a good team at that point but the reason they didn't win the league was in probably due to Chelsea having quite a good team, and unquestionably quite a good manager at the time as much as anything else. Sometimes you've just got to take your hat off to whoever wins it.

As for Ferguson rebuilding from there and spending money, I don't see a problem with it. He's bought big and small and promoted from within very effectively. Just like Wenger completely rebuilding the "invincibles" team of five seasons ago, it's what managers must do, that's what they get paid for.

by **Owzat** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 6:47 am

The mancs 'revival' coincided with Ronaldo near enough doubling his goals output, that would boost most sides.

Ronaldo (Man Utd)

03/04 6 goals in 40 apps
04/05 9 goals in 50 apps
05/06 12 goals in 47 apps
06/07 23 goals in 53 apps
07/08 42 goals in 49 apps
08/09 26 goals in 53 apps

From 27 goals in 137 apps, Ronaldo went to 91 in 155 which is treble the strike rate (0.197 to 0.587 goals/app) No surprise the mancs won the title three years in a row having not won it in the previous three. It is also no surprise many people thought the mancs would not be champions this season given the Ronaldo effect

And as BM points out, in his way, Chelsea's "quite good team" had taken football to a new level with massive funds and record points. Josie fecked up in 06/07, too clever for his own good and left himself short of CBs and had made a few too many changes while the mancs had made only one or two.

Selling one player doesn't destroy a proper TEAM, only one that is heavily reliant on that one player. So the loss of Alonso SHOULDN'T have had the effect it appears to have. Using injuries to Gerrard and Torres is nonsense, they only missed most of the last two games through injury and if we'd only lost those two then "crisis debates" would not be rife. I think Rafa has become too predictable, the defensive weaknesses from set-pieces is being exploited and his ability to change the direction a game is going has been absent from day one of his tenure, the subs thing is nothing new just more important when you're losing than when winning.

One sentiment I've long disagreed with is changing the manager at the end of a season. Change well before then, give the new manager half a season or more to get used to the players, the set-up etc and assess what he needs. If the new manager has to make CRUCIAL decisions that could make or break the team and chances of winning the title, don't make him do it the second he walks in the door. And then when next season starts at least then he isn't making a standing start, he already has some momentum and the players have had time to settle into new formations, tactics etc ie he has had time to get used to them, they have had time to get used to him and his way of doing things. If we were to sack Rafa, or he walks, in the summer then we should prepare for a modest season and perhaps even 6th or 7th. Give him a chance say in December then he has a month to look at players, a chance to add to the squad in January and clear "dead wood" and then a run at the job until the summer and give us optimum hope of a new manager making a title challenge. Nobody expects a manager to win the title in their first season so why not make the next season the second season?!?

DISCLAIMER : that isn't a statement to sack Rafa now, simply observing that if we change managers I strongly believe it is better to do it the minute it is clear the current manager won't win the league or isn't working out, not wait until an arbitrary point. Managers don't have transfer windows, some might argue more's the pity, but players do and I for one wouldn't want a new manager having to make crucial signings and decisions weeks into his tenure. Even for some of the least important decisions of our lives we like to think about things before deciding so to me it's like walking into a cinema, not knowing what is on before you get there, and being made to choose one by the missus and have 5-10 seconds to choose. You may well end up sitting through a chick flick for 90 mins!

by **The_Rock** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:02 am

Lando_Griffin wrote:
LFC2007 wrote:
big al wrote:Gerrard got absolutely no encouragement form Rafa to stay. Parry was clever enough to realise that he could not allow liverpools number one asset to go to Chelsea.

I remember Rafa urging Gerrard to stay at the club in a press conference at the height of the Chelsea saga. I presumed most people had seen it.

No, you obviously just watched an episode of Friends.

You know - the one guest-starring Rafael Benitez as a cold-hearted manager who goes down on one knee and proposes to his Captain, promising to love, honour and obey his every wish, dream and command...

Well - that's how the successful managers do it, isn't it...?

Isn't it?

by **Effes** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:10 am

Lando_Griffin wrote:
LFC2007 wrote:
big al wrote:Gerrard got absolutely no encouragement form Rafa to stay. Parry was clever enough to realise that he could not allow liverpools number one asset to go to Chelsea.

I remember Rafa urging Gerrard to stay at the club in a press conference at the height of the Chelsea saga. I presumed most people had seen it.

No, you obviously just watched an episode of Friends.

You know - the one guest-starring Rafael Benitez as a cold-hearted manager who goes down on one knee and proposes to his Captain, promising to love, honour and obey his every wish, dream and command...

Well - that's how the successful managers do it, isn't it...?

Isn't it?

You're a 100% total fucking biff.

Nearly every post of yours has me shaking my head, a total twat you are.

by **maguskwt** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 7:34 am

bigmick wrote:
maguskwt wrote:
bigmick wrote:When Ferguson sold Keane, Van Nistelroy, Beckham etc he made a big call and he called it early. Just recently, Rafa has too often not made a call at all or has called it wrong when he has.

Did he call it right though? If Ferguson sold those players in the same situation as Rafa is in now he would have been in similar circumsstances. Let's not forget that Man United didn't win the league for 2 years after they sold Beckham. It was a period of decline for them which also of course coincides with the rise of Chelsea. But Ferguson was able to bring in Wayne Rooney, Ronaldo, Carrick, Hargreaves, and Anderson to replace his aging squad. And they don't cost a bargain.

Well without wanting to derail the thread, Man Utd still had a good team at that point but the reason they didn't win the league was in probably due to Chelsea having quite a good team, and unquestionably quite a good manager at the time as much as anything else. Sometimes you've just got to take your hat off to whoever wins it.

As for Ferguson rebuilding from there and spending money, I don't see a problem with it. He's bought big and small and promoted from within very effectively. Just like Wenger completely rebuilding the "invincibles" team of five seasons ago, it's what managers must do, that's what they get paid for.

So what's your point Mick? I'm starting to get lost here...

... my point was that Ferguson had the luxury to spend 30 millions on Rooney, 15 millions on Ronaldo, and around the region of 20 millions each on Carrick, Hargreaves, Nani and Anderson to build a deep enough squad to challenge for the title again. This has mitigated his sales of Beckham, Stam, Keane, Nistelrooy.... Rafa, after selling Alonso and Keane did not have the same support and his mistakes have been exposed more than other managers. If Ferguson were to sell those players and not have the support by owners to bring in replacements, he would have been exposed of his mistakes as well. Because selling all of those players, Beckham, Stam, Keane and Nistelroy was a mistake IMO, as they were no where near decline back then. And they were decisions made by Ferguson as you mentioned, he made the calls. In Rafa's case selling of Alonso was not really his choice.

by **andy_g** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:31 am

here's an article from the grauniad which is relevant to this discussion. i'll post my own thoughts on it when i've had some coffee.

Rafael Benítez: 10 mistakes that have cost Liverpool
Rafael Benítez has faced off-field difficulties but some problems at Liverpool are of his own making

This summer's transfer strategy
Rafael Benítez has purposely avoided conflict with Liverpool's owners, George Gillett and Tom Hicks, this season but there are signs diplomacy over their budget restrictions is beginning to wane as pressure mounts. "We signed three players and we wanted four," he said before Lyon. The fourth, it is safe to assume, was a forward. Not signing quality cover for Fernando Torres, and being so short of strikers that David Ngog started the critical game against the French and Andriy Voronin was reluctantly brought back from loan at Hertha Berlin, is proving catastrophic

Handling senior players
It is an exaggeration to say Benítez is a completely cold fish with players; sometimes he offers congratulations before pointing out their tactical failings. Even in Istanbul. That detachment is viewed as a positive when results go well, but presented as a weakness when they don't. A request that "senior players take the responsibility and take us forward" after defeat to Aston Villa did not sit well with its intended targets. Outside the dressing room, however, few dispute that Benítez was right

Trusting the owners
Protracted contract negotiations concluded in March with Benítez in control of transfer policy, the youth set-up and being promised around £20m to spend this summer above whatever he raised through sales. Hicks and Gillett had sold their master tactician a dummy. As summer progressed it materialised that the improved contracts given to Steven Gerrard, Torres, Dirk Kuyt, Daniel Agger, Yossi Benayoun and José Reina were coming out of Benítez's transfer budget. Yet another reason for the Spaniard to rue the day David Moores accepted the Americans' higher bid for his majority shareholding

Poor signings
While Benítez has been restrained on some transfers – such as when he discovered he had less than £2m for a new central defender late this summer, hence Sotirios Kyrgiakos – he has squandered plenty. Inexpensive errors such as Josemi, Antonio Núñez and Mauricio Pellegrino were excusable as he overhauled the squad and concentrated resources on Xabi Alonso, Javier Mascherano or Fernando Torres. But to be six seasons into the job and have a squad utterly reliant on two players, one inherited, while £11m Ryan Babel was left on the bench against Lyon is damning

Control of the youth academy
Martin Kelly was exceptional against Lyon on Tuesday, though not only in the sense of his impressive full debut. It is a rarity to witness a home-grown, local teenager being deemed worthy of consideration under Benítez and the dearth of talent coming through is why the Spaniard copied Arsène Wenger's global recruitment policy. The issue prompted a fallout with Steve Heighway, revered by Steven Gerrard and Jamie Carragher, but many would argue this summer's radical overhaul of the academy system was long overdue

Distracted by events beyond his control
Gérard Houllier's presence at Anfield on Tuesday served as warning of what can happen to Liverpool managers who lose sight of the bigger picture. Benítez was the refreshing antidote to the stale odour of Houllier's final years when he took charge in 2004. Out went a fixation with statistics or United's greater spending power as a means to defend poor performances and an obsession with ex-Liverpool players turned media pundits. That is creeping back

Too passive over international call-ups
The Liverpool manager frequently complains about international commitments and their repercussions but rarely prevents his players, even those carrying slight injuries, from joining their national teams. Unlike, for example, Manchester United, Liverpool players do not often develop sudden, mysterious problems ahead of an international week. Torres suffered three injuries with Spain last season that may have cost Liverpool the title. Spain and England had qualified for the World Cup before their recent qualifiers, but Gerrard and Torres travelled with slight injuries and returned far worse

The 'list of facts' against Ferguson
Few managers would dispute the truth in Benítez's accusations against "the Ayatollah" in January – just not in public – with the list representing years of simmering frustration and arguably extended by events at Old Trafford this season. It was also a deliberate tactical ploy by the Spaniard, designed to heighten pressure on United ahead of their home game with Chelsea and as Liverpool looked to extend their Premier League lead at Stoke. Results that weekend ensured it backfired badly and Benítez has been hostage to the outburst ever since

Xabi Alonso's transfer
Or, rather, dealing with it. Getting £30m for a player who wanted to join Real Madrid, double what Benítez had been hawking him around Europe for the previous summer following two mediocre campaigns by the Spanish midfielder, was decent business. Replacing him with Alberto Aquilani, an Italy international who may well re-energise Liverpool but has been injured since March, was a risk that has heightened with every defeat. Liverpool could not afford patience this season and Aquilani's absence, coupled with Javier Mascherano's poor form, has brought an overreliance on Lucas Leiva; not the disaster many claim but a squad player all the same

Taking on too many internal battles
It is over five years now of being frustrated with Liverpool's transfer dealings, waiting for new investment, being caught in the middle of a divided regime when it finally came, seeing his job offered to Jürgen Klinsmann, falling out with trusted lieutenant Pako Ayesterán, involved in an internal power struggle with former chief executive Rick Parry and all the while seeing United, Chelsea and now Manchester City improve relentlessly. Many scraps were unavoidable, many were self-inflicted, and it is not alarmist to suggest that Benítez is looking battle-weary

by **Sabre** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:52 am

Too passive over international call-ups
The Liverpool manager frequently complains about international commitments and their repercussions but rarely prevents his players, even those carrying slight injuries, from joining their national teams. Unlike, for example, Manchester United, Liverpool players do not often develop sudden, mysterious problems ahead of an international week. Torres suffered three injuries with Spain last season that may have cost Liverpool the title. Spain and England had qualified for the World Cup before their recent qualifiers, but Gerrard and Torres travelled with slight injuries and returned far worse

Rafa is known for being a pesky manager who's always pressing to the players and he has annoyed the Spanish Federation.

Quite Simply Rafa can't do much more at all to prevent Torres to play for Spain, had Ferguson tried to do a similar pressure in the Spanish Federation he simply would find a closed door slammed in his whisky nose. He wouldn't find a whole Federation kneeled down to his feet.

It's pretty clear the situation is critical now and we have identified many factors so far. We could talk about the failure of Lucas in the midfield, we could talk about the mistake of Rafa trusting some players or foreseeing this situation, we could talk about receiving that many goals in a set pieces situation is not good enough... we could talk about plenty of reasons, football related all of them to explain why we are struggling.

What I won't buy is an opportunistic journo pretending to say his decalogue of historical Rafa stick is right, I won't buy that the list of facts to Ferguson has anything to do with the problems we have now, and I don't think saying Rafa is too passive when it comes to his internationals is a serious point. I would like to see what's the influence of that cúnt named Ferguson if he wanted to attempt bringing back Torres early from a Spanish game

by **bunglemark2** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:15 am

andy_g wrote:here's an article from the grauniad which is relevant to this discussion. i'll post my own thoughts on it when i've had some coffee.

CRacking article there, and without wishing to sound facetious, I could've selected at least 8 of them off the top of my head....
I think this article has hit the nail right on the head...

by **Dazzer** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:22 am

bunglemark2 wrote:
andy_g wrote:here's an article from the grauniad which is relevant to this discussion. i'll post my own thoughts on it when i've had some coffee.

CRacking article there, and without wishing to sound facetious, I could've selected at least 8 of them off the top of my head....
I think this article has hit the nail right on the head...

Careful Lando the inquisitor is around on a witch hunt he will burn you burrrrrrn you I tells ya. :Oo:

by **Sabre** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:35 am

Gotta laugh with the Alonso praises from the journos aswell. When discussing Alonso's football and blips, I don't remember many copy and pasting articles defending the game of Xabi Alonso and how important he was. I remember users of this forum such as Bob or Lando defending his football but without copying and pasting articles.

Now you read every article from London and they all seem to reckon how important was Alonso's game. All of a sudden he was pivotal. Gotta laugh.

The best players are always those who aren't here any more :glare:

by **Dazzer** » Thu Oct 22, 2009 10:42 am

Sabre wrote:Gotta laugh with the Alonso praises from the journos aswell. When discussing Alonso's football and blips, I don't remember many copy and pasting articles defending the game of Xabi Alonso and how important he was. I remember users of this forum such as Bob or Lando defending his football but without copying and pasting articles.

Now you read every article from London and they all seem to reckon how important was Alonso's game. All of a sudden he was pivotal. Gotta laugh.

The best players are always those who aren't here any more

One of those things isn't it you don't miss it till its gone any one who said Alonso wasn' important don't know nothing about football tbph it was clear he was the link man from defence to attack and those types of players don't come cheap.Because every team needs one.Unless you are Bolton of course.

EDIT: also I don't think we miss him that much tho when rafa plays gerrard in same role and that moves me to my point about rafa he played gerrard in that role for 3 games the 3 games we played well this season and for the reasons only Rafa knows he moved him to his stupid 2nd striker role agian after that and we lost ? poor very poor.If it ain't broke don't fecking fix it.

Liverpool FC Forum

Rafa. a victim of circumstance..... - Or has he fecked it up?

Who is online