Topic: Decent Tony Barrett interview here

[newterp]

this has become a thinly veiled bash thread

[LFC when it suits]

The problem for me is clear the transfer committee is largely made up of performance analysts whose role is to watch a game and push buttons on their laptop. We simply don't have experienced football men who know the game and understand how players fit together. Coming up with a shortlist of Eto and Balotelli for a side that was based on pace and running in behind is a perfect example of that.

To the laptop boys both Eto and Balo might have good stats but that is completely meaningless if they don't fit with what you already have. Rodgers was a young unproven manager who had a DoF at Reading, a DoF at Chelsea and very little say in transfers at Swansea so put him together with analysts and it was a recipe for disaster.

Where is the old school scouting network and experienced people who know the game.

That shows me that you have never watched Eto'o play. Eto'o is a perfect example of a striker with pace who runs in behind.

[conman]

If it wasn't for the TC blocking some of Brendan's moves we'd have a pretty shocking squad at the moment (Dempsey, Tate, Williams, etc). Granted, the fact Ayre or Gordon couldn't find a working solution with Rodgers in 3 years makes them seem incompetent too, but I'm finding it hard to blame the "stats guys" as they've for the most part been responsible for signing our best players (including Suarez, given that Edwards joined during Comolli's tenure btw).

Commoli gets a raw deal too. He wasn't that bad

[JP-65]

Commoli gets a raw deal too. He wasn't that bad

agree, he also did a good job clearing out deadwood as well.

[trimore]

this has become a thinly veiled bash thread

I like Rodgers, I really wish it didn't come to this, but his fall was swift and stunning. I never would have guessed it after 13/14, it all happened too fast for him and he couldn't keep up, which is my guess but I really don't know what exactly happened.

The transfer committee is not perfect but Rodgers deserves the criticism he gets here. 

[iamrobk]

Commoli gets a raw deal too. He wasn't that bad

I'm torn. He had some good purchases, but he also brought us Carroll, Downing, and Adam (who was very cheap, tbf). I could forgive one of Carroll/Downing but they were both big, big money purchases and were both big, big failures.

[LiverBirdKop]

Granted, the fact Ayre or Gordon couldn't find a working solution with Rodgers in 3 years makes them seem incompetent too

    Nooooo, not at all. 

but I'm finding it hard to blame the "stats guys" as they've for the most part been responsible for signing our best players (including Suarez, given that Edwards joined during Comolli's tenure btw).

Nobody 'found' Suarez. He was an already awesome and established player when we signed him both for Ajax and Uruguay. It was a matter of time when a club would take a chance on him because of his 'problems', not because of his footballing abilities. Ajax took a chance and it paid off. We took a chance and it paid off as well.

[decky]

A thread full of made up bollocks 2 + 2 = 2035

[conman]

I'm torn. He had some good purchases, but he also brought us Carroll, Downing, and Adam (who was very cheap, tbf). I could forgive one of Carroll/Downing but they were both big, big money purchases and were both big, big failures.

True, but Kenny was also involved in those. So it's hard to know where to draw the line. Commoli got the bullet, then Kenny soon after.

[the 92A]

this has become a thinly veiled bash thread

I don't think it has. I thought Tony Barrett's interview rang true. Don't think it's as crude as anti Rodgers. I loved that exciting football and credited Rodgers with it and was happy to give him more time but doesn't mean I haven't wondered at some of his player choices and quite separately had come to the conclusion that buying players wasn't one of his strong points. If you think it's about picking sides I think you miss the point off what is being said which is that the process had become dysfunctional.

[BCCC]

I don't think it has. I thought Tony Barrett's interview rang true. Don't think it's as crude as anti Rodgers. I loved that exciting football and credited Rodgers with it and was happy to give him more time but doesn't mean I haven't wondered at some of his player choices and quite separately had come to the conclusion that buying players wasn't one of his strong points. If you think it's about picking sides I think you miss the point off what is being said which is that the process had become dysfunctional.

Agree, for some reason there's a lot of techyness around the dismissal of Rodgers so anyone questioning the club structure and transfer mechanism in particular seem to think that it's a pop at the outgoing manager. Once a few get their head around the points being made they will realise that there are still major issues surrounding the football structure of the club that will be inherited by the next manager.

That in itself is a big concern.

[conman]

Agree, for some reason there's a lot of techyness around the dismissal of Rodgers so anyone questioning the club structure and transfer mechanism in particular seem to think that it's a pop at the outgoing manager. Once a few get their head around the points being made they will realise that there are still major issues surrounding the football structure of the club that will be inherited by the next manager.

That in itself is a big concern.

The one big concern for me is their inability to buy for the positions we need. We massively failed to replace Suarez, knowing full well that Sturridge was a liability and unlikely to play more than 70% of the games. We've also over stocked in some area's and found ourselves wanting in others. I don't know where the blame lies there, and frankly don't care to much so long as it's sorted out.

They could probably do with a more extensive scouting network to call upon. Forinstance Zorgs network was identifying gems in Japan and the Polish second division. The last time a Liverpool member of staff set foot in Japan was likely in 2005 when Didi was legging it from the local cops!

Otherwise, i don't have many issues with the TC. I don't envisage Klopp having a bone to pick with them, so the cohesion between them and manager should get better.

[jDJ]

So, basically any transfers which have been successes, Rodgers didn't actually want but any failures are his picks.  Also, any cr@p players we've been linked with in the media - a media this forum generally doesn't believe a single word from - Rodgers was blocked from buying.

Do you think maybe, just maybe, the transfer committee collectively got it wrong on some, and collectively got it right on others?

Our net spending + wage bill is roughly 5th highest over the last handful of years - I would say we roughly have the 5th best squad in the league.  There's no terribly broken scouting system, there's no underlying problem which the club needs to get to the bottom of.  There's simply the symptom of not spending as much money as the clubs we're competing against.

[redmark]

The one big concern for me is their inability to buy for the positions we need. We massively failed to replace Suarez, knowing full well that Sturridge was a liability and unlikely to play more than 70% of the games. We've also over stocked in some area's and found ourselves wanting in others. I don't know where the blame lies there, and frankly don't care to much so long as it's sorted out.

They could probably do with a more extensive scouting network to call upon. Forinstance Zorgs network was identifying gems in Japan and the Polish second division. The last time a Liverpool member of staff set foot in Japan was likely in 2005 when Didi was legging it from the local cops!

Otherwise, i don't have many issues with the TC. I don't envisage Klopp having a bone to pick with them, so the cohesion between them and manager should get better.

I've said a few times since the time, that I think Lallana was the Suarez replacement (not perhaps in similarity of player, but if you looked back from the end of the season, based on an intended number of appearances if things had gone well; Lallana was the player who would have got Suarez's game time). Clearly now we can see that the TC's preference was Firmino, which may have been a better/more obvious fit. (At least once Sanchez chose Arsenal, and I've never been convinced that we pursued Sanchez with much conviction).

If Sturridge had stayed fit, or we'd signed Bony or Remy or anyone other than Balotelli, it might even have worked to some extent.

[Loo Pan]

So, basically any transfers which have been successes, Rodgers didn't actually want but any failures are his picks. 

Unfortunately that does seem to be the way it worked out. Although the TC have also had failures in the players they suggested, as you would expect.

Do you think maybe, just maybe, the transfer committee collectively got it wrong on some, and collectively got it right on others?

It was Rodgers himself who tried to create the distinction (and in doing so has caused this debate ever since) by briefing the press in an attempt to distance himself from our terrible transfer business in 2014.

[JP-65]

I find it interesting that Rodgers went primarily for "PL proven" players, who then, generally, performed worse than anticipated.  Provided a comparative point that would suggest that the managers at these clubs were actually better than he was IMO.

His best successes were with younger, less experienced players where he was able to generate substantial improvement.

[redmark]

Provided a comparative point that would suggest that the managers at these clubs were actually better than he was IMO.

I think it comes back to a point noted earlier, and I remember discussing a couple of years back - he didn't really get the difference in quality between (for example) Gerrard versus Allen. As Tomkins' article notes, his key players in 2013/14 were all at the club before him. Joe Allen, again - he can't really have been better managed by Swansea's Brendan Rodgers than Liverpool's Brendan Rodgers. But Brendan Rodgers just didn't quite get the difference in quality between Liverpool and Swansea.

[redmark]

What's Tompkins' view? Did he want him gone too?

From this particular article (dissecting Neil Ashton's hatchet job on the TC and Edwards in particular), I'm not sure - seems similar to my own position, which is that I never quite reached the 'Rodgers Out' moment, but with lots of doubts and not really being too fussed when it finally happened:

I’ve been defending Brendan Rodgers these past 15 months, but equally, I’ve had reservations about his input into transfers, which I’ve been expressing on this site for quite a while. I’m always happy to look at the positives of any potential new arrival, even if they’re not my cup of tea; and give them time in a red shirt before making bold statements about them. I try to be open minded. But after at least a season at the club I will draw conclusions. Mistakes are easily made, and it needn’t be anybody’s fault – but success rates over a number of signings tell a story.

Those Rodgers brought in – the deals he drove – have been well below what I’d expect based on my extensive analysis of the past 23 years of Premier League activity. To my mind, this is where he made his big mistakes, and why he’s no longer Liverpool manager. Had he got his signings right, his tactical issues wouldn’t have been of a concern.

The great team Rodgers “formed” in 2013/14 revolved around players he inherited or who were brought to the club by the committee. He shaped the team perfectly. But he did not buy the players. And he was “lucky” to have Sturridge and Henderson, in that he didn’t initially want either.

Not one single key player was bought by Rodgers, and with up to ten of the club’s signings driven by him these past three years, that fact remains true today. Joe Allen is his best buy, and he’s been mixed at best. I like Allen, but he’s not made much of an impact – Liverpool could have lived without him. The same applies to all of Rodgers’ own buys.

...

The committee’s signings from the summer of 2013 did not work out. And Rodgers used his great success coaching that season to get more control of the transfer budget. At which point the team got much worse.

I will always be grateful to Rodgers for his part in a glorious season, and I still like much about the man. He’s a good manager.

But I’m looking forward to things being better under Jurgen Klopp. And if he doesn’t like the transfer committee, with his vastly superior experience to Rodgers, and his desire not to meddle in such things, then I might take him seriously. Unlike Rodgers, he seems just what we need right now.

[stoa]

Our net spending + wage bill is roughly 5th highest over the last handful of years - I would say we roughly have the 5th best squad in the league.  There's no terribly broken scouting system, there's no underlying problem which the club needs to get to the bottom of.  There's simply the symptom of not spending as much money as the clubs we're competing against.

We have players worth 20 million or more out on loan every fucking season without any of them ever returning and making a meaningful contribution to the success of our club. I would say that is quite a big issue. Especially, if you consider that most of the time those players have only played a handful of games for us before being shipped out...

[killer-heels]

As much as I defended Rodgers, its safe to say that his eye for a player wasn't great. That however may not just be because of knowing what makes a player a good one or not, as we saw with the whole Toni Kroos thing from Gerrard, but more his insecurity. I reckon the main reason why he wanted players like Ashley Williams was because he felt they were more likely to understand and back his approach, as apposed to younger players or bigger profile players from abroad. Maybe he felt they wouldn't really take him seriously?

Whatever it was, FSG fucked up. They shouldn't have caved in to their DOF model for Rodgers who, quite frankly, didn't have the power to demand a change. Instead we got a committee which doesn't seem to have served anyone well.

The whole purpose of having this sort of structure is so that people can spend most of their time getting the sorts of players the manager wants with the qualities and strengths he wants and needs.

[jDJ]

We have players worth 20 million or more out on loan every fucking season without any of them ever returning and making a meaningful contribution to the success of our club. I would say that is quite a big issue. Especially, if you consider that most of the time those players have only played a handful of games for us before being shipped out...

Sorry, who are these players?  Are you talking about Markovic, he's the only player we've bought for 20 million who I can remember going out on loan.  United, Chelsea and City all have a similar transfer failure rate to ours, they just buy much more expensive players which are more likely to succeed because they're better players.  United have bought players for 10s of millions who never even step on the pitch for them.

I really wish I agreed with you that Liverpool have the world's most dysfunctional player recruitment policy, because then it'd be easy to fix and without much more investment we could see our squad drastically improve in quality.  Actually, we're about where you'd expect us to be considering what we've spent.  On a more positive note, there's really not that much wrong with us and we'll continue to finish 5th or 6th and occasionally challenge for 4th, as we would have done under Rodgers, until we start investing more once the money from the stadium expansion starts rolling in.

[OLDIE]

Sorry, who are these players?  Are you talking about Markovic, he's the only player we've bought for 20 million who I can remember going out on loan.  United, Chelsea and City all have a similar transfer failure rate to ours, they just buy much more expensive players which are more likely to succeed because they're better players.  United have bought players for 10s of millions who never even step on the pitch for them.

I really wish I agreed with you that Liverpool have the world's most dysfunctional player recruitment policy, because then it'd be easy to fix and without much more investment we could see our squad drastically improve in quality.  Actually, we're about where you'd expect us to be considering what we've spent.  On a more positive note, there's really not that much wrong with us and we'll continue to finish 5th or 6th and occasionally challenge for 4th, as we would have done under Rodgers, until we start investing more once the money from the stadium expansion starts rolling in.

I am made up that Klopp has said it's not about the money. Forget the money concentrate on the football.

Surely £300m expenditure over the last 3 years tells you that it's not the money. Stability is what is needed, instead of whole scale changes the odd buy here and there will do.

I can remember when Rush went, Kenny bought Barnes & Beardsley to team up with Aldo - we didn't buy 9 players or whatever we seem to think is needed these days.

I will be happy in January if Klopp only adds 1 player, providing that player is who he wants.

If we buy to meet our needs rather than stockpile players then we will break back into the top 4 and dare I say it, challenge again.