Quote from: yorkykopite on Today at 11:28:06 AMI love the fact that we've got fans like Allerton Andy. Keepers of the flame. Men of honour, men of valour. True men who know what Liverpool Football Club is all about because Liverpool Football Club pulsates through ever fibre of their bodies. Cut Andy from Allerton in half, from head to toe (yes please!), and you'd see the words 'Liverpool Football Club' running through him like 'Blackpool' does through a stick of rock. For Andy is our rock and upon this rock the church of Liverpool is built. There are not many of them left now - these true men of Liverpool with their hotline to Shankly. But in these dark days we need these Knights of Anfield. And Andy is one of the great Anfield Knights, along with Inter '65, St Etienne 77 and Chelsea 05. Brendan Rodgers on the other hand. He may have temporarily stumbled into the hallowed manager's seat at Anfield but he's a usurper. He's not our real manager (our real manager is still Rafa Benitez). No one should respect this little man with his Talksport crack addiction and his David Brent way of running the club. Like Andy says Rodgers spent last season thinking he was managing Reading. And now, with this interview, he's proved once again that his heart lies, not on Merseyside, but in the London commuter belt. This intereview is a deliberate slap in the face to the few remaining genuine Liverpool fans out there. Men like Andy. In Paisley's day the cameras were never let inside Anfield - well apart from that hour-long documentary called 'The Big Time' produced by Esther Rantzen. It was captained by men of great dignity who shunned the superficial media world. Emlyn Hughes for example, who who wouldn't have dreamt of being on Question of Sport every week, cosying up to Princess Anne. Nor would Emlyn have kissed the cheek of Maggie Thatcher outside Downing Street - and certainly not with Kevin Keegan kissing the other one. Why? because we had more class in those days. Finally, as Andy is no doubt now pointing out, Rafa Benitez might have appeared on Talksport as well. But that's different. Very different. Why? He doesn't know but it just is.
Macca resplendent!A colossus bestriding the moral high ground as ever.
Wow, that post was so bad I actually went through the five stages of grief of the Kubler-Ross model after reading it. From denial (‘I seriously did not just read the things I read, I cannot comprehend that such levels of stupidity actually exist…’) via anger, bargaining and depression to acceptance (‘My word, I did just read that! By Jove! How remarkable..’). Man, wow, buddy…. your post.. It is special, even for Rawk, I was literally stunned. It is the complete opposite of thought-provoking (thought-deterring? Thought-discouraging? Thought-impeding? Yeah, thought-impeding is the word). Then it dawned on me. This is it. I will never ever see, hear or read somebody be more completely, fully, deeply and categorically wrong about a subject ever again for the rest of my natural born life. It actually does not warrant a response, because it’s so removed from the parameters and contours of reality and objectivity one does not even know where to begin with, not knowing where to start ‘applying the truth’ like a lotion (or more appropriately in this case a water cannon) over the layers and layers of warped thinking, character assassination, congealed bullshit, despicable half-truths and crude misrepresentations of events & facts that Redhopper smeared together to form the concoction of blissful ignorance that is his, let’s say, ‘argument’. SO Redhopper this actually is not addressed to you anymore, I am done talking to you because let’s face it it is a completely pointless exercise and an unproductive waste of my time, your delusions are too deeply entrenched and will not be moved I feel. SO I write this post in order to press home to all other rawkites that what Redhopper is saying is complete bull, please disregard his otiose, upsidedownface, bizarro-world ‘opinion’ on the events regarding Cruijffs revolution at Ajax. You wont find a person with facts more removed from the reality of the situation than this clown. To put it in terms you can understand, his post and his level of knowledge about the facts he speaks of should be accorded the same level of authority and credibility like one affords those half-wit 'fans' (those with a childlike appreciation of facts), blessed with toddler level IQ, that read at a fifth grade level and that call up radio-shows and tv-shows to piss and moan about things they clearly don’t understand, spouting the typical cringe worthy shite that embarrasses every sane and truly knowledgeable supporter, if you know what I mean (I believe you lot call that a ‘Talkshite caller’). I will not have it that this ignorance spreads and contaminates other Reds on rawk. I will not have the greatest icon of Ajax insulted like this, I will not let these lies go unchallenged. I will not let some Irish guy insult and talk shit about Cruijff, even if his insults and shit talking is spawned out of complete ignorance, in the same way that I would not let a Dutch cretin talk shit about and insult Dalglish out of ignorance. I apologize for continually derailing the thread by actually responding to RedHopper but dont worry this will the last time, he will be ignored from now on. Quote from: RedHopper on June 28, 2013, 01:51:04 amGood god Wickedbark, your love of Cruyff seems to take you beyond reason. Firstly you give no credit to the men in suits for balancing the books across the seasons. Yet you are ready to blame them for the ill judged signings, the most spectacularly awful of which was Sulemani. But he was signed at the request of the greyest of non-footballing grey men in suits, Marco van Basten. By in large, these players were signed by directors of football at the behest of managers. the job of the men in suits was to make sure there was enough money. You also miss the point about the other clubs. Ajax have remained strong through a cautious policy of developing and selling players. The other clubs over extended themselves, and can't compete any more. It means that the teams that de boer's squad now face, just aren't anywhere near as good as the opponents that the pre 'velvet revolution' teams had to face. But That doesn't matter to Cruyff, he doesn't really care what he uses to attack his enemies, so he can use one thing to attack his enemies at ajax, and then turn around and attack his enemies at Barcelona using exactly the opposite. He can praise one barcelona president, and excoriate another barca president for doing exactly the same thing. This is not good. My god, another absolute abortion of a post. The fantastical element rampant in your factfree narrative is actually quite impressive, it takes serious effort and commitment to distort the truth in such bizarre ways, you could very well work for the fantasts and reality escapees huddled together at FOX news or a red top tabloid like the s*n. The manner in which you misrepresent my club and reality is truly shocking, the level of your knowledge about Ajax and Dutch football superficial at best, completely fantastical news.google.com generated Bullshit at worst. You are well and truly out of your depth. With every nonsensical post, with every misrepresentation of facts, with every boring tripe filled paragraph after paragraph you only dig yourselves further and further into a whopper sized ignorance hole, pretty soon you will be cut of from the oxygen of reality completely. That you actually believe the excrement you post just shows how incredibly arrogant, ignorant, narcissistic and pompous you are. The very characteristics that bug you about Cruijff I notice. Well, I will not stand by idly to see these fitly lies peddled. 1. The men in suits ARE the reason why we needed to balance the books in the first place. 15 years of awful, commercial, financial, scouting and transfer policy from these incompetent suit wearing managerial bastards. 15!!!! In 15 years under their stewardship we went from a healthy business with 115 million euros of own-capital in 1998 to to brink of financial collapse in 2010. We nearly went bankrupt. So yeah great fucking job they did there huh? OH NO WAIT they totally did not! Weird huh@!? They did a fucking swell job in handing out golden parachutes to all the old boys though. However, they fucking let ALL our money E V A P O R A T E. They were known as the control-v budget boys. They could not even competently handle the most basic of things. Like sending bills out on time. Or not Not-Responding the most normal of phone-calls. Fucking up hugely in commercial terms almost crippling the club. The most failed transfer policy outside of LFC 1991-2011.They fucked up a major deal with a Chinese concern by simply doing NOTHING and subsequently forgetting about it, losing millions in the process. Staff at the Toekomst sometimes had to complain for months in order to get their salary. I could name dozens more examples of their incompetence but every sane poster will get the gist. You won’t, but I’m not in this anymore to convince you, I am in this just to convince others not to believe your lunacy. I would translate these, but I really dont care enough, you are so far up your ass that probably nothing will move you from your own ill informed ignorance.2. Thank you for bringing up Sulejmani, he is the pinnacle and prime example of exactly this TERRIBLE policy implemented by the suits letting managerial morons and journeyman coaches bring expensive players to the club, the policy that Cruijff is dead against. Spending 24 million on Sulejmani was madness, and symptomatic of the incompetence of the men in suits and their policy. Atouba, Teemu tainio, Olegeur etc etc etc. Dear lord man, they pissed 70 million away on mostly pure shite. This is a COMPLETE deviation from the clubs philosophy which is ofcourse formulated by C R U I F F in the same way that LFC’s ethos and modus operandi was and STILL IS formulated by Shanks. You don't know this because quite frankly you have demonstrated repeatedly that you really do not know anything about anything when it comes to Ajax.3. Ajax had to embark on a casual policy of selling its best players BECAUSE of the TERRIBLE TERRIBLE policy by the suits in both financial, commercial and transfers aspects. We needed to sell our best players BECAUSE of the mismanagement of these cretins. One further thing where you clearly are way out of your depth as its very easy to see that you cannot even distinguish between cause and effect at MY club. QuoteThe reason that Cruyff became involved again was apparently because he saw ajax lose 2-0 to real madrid and only have one shot. Now in response he prepared an action plan for Ajax, and eventually came back with something. Now like all plans created by individuals, it had its good points and its bad points, however, cruyff insisted that every single part of his miraculous plan had to be implemented or nothing at all. The plan also insisted that the board had to go. So he publicly destroyed them, and then brought in his buddies. Now you think that cruyff is wearing a white hat and his allies are the goodies, and that his enemies were wearing the black hats, and are the baddies. But the story doesn't end there does it? Once again demonstrating ignorance and half truths in literally every sentence, you understand things about Ajax like Sky understands things about transfers. Nothing. I have actually read the plans, and read the reports.You have not. You do not know what you are talking about, you're fucking trying to bluff and google your way out of this but It wont happen. It simply wont. Why? Because I am ACTUALLY knowledgeable about Ajax. I know the actual details in detail. The board you refer to with Ten Have, Davids, Romer and Offers included Cruijff. They were supposed to work together but in actuality they were just a fifth column for the vested interests of the suits and old boys networks. They tried to block the changes Cruijff (and not just Cruijff you seem to think he was acting alone, no he was not, one of the reports has something like 25 authors, Cruijf was just the figurehead simply because he is Cruijff and therefore intrinsically has the most authority in all matter regarding Ajax) was trying to implement. They went behind his back and contacted Aloysius Paulus Maria "Louis" van Gaal in secret, even though this was against the rules as the board was bound by rules to work unanimously, knowing full when that van Gaal was not an option.Then Frank de Boer, Jonk, Bergkamp and most of the staff at the Toekomst said they would not work with van Gaal ( in the same way that Brendan Rodgers told FSG that he did not want to work with Louie - DO YOU SEE A PATTERN FORMING!). That however is just one of the reasons why he sued them. And the judge said he was in the right which you fail to mention for obvious and pathetic reasons. That’s not even to mention the other dirty tricks they pulled. Like when they resigned in secret a day before the general member assembly voted to have them fired so they could remain as interim managers for six more months because of procedural loopholes. These other boardmembers were called the “gang of four” here in Amsterdam and were loathed and despised. Several received death threats. And now three years later, having implemented Cruijffs policy we are indeed looking very healthy again. Our team improves every year. Financially we are healthy again. We are growing our commercial base. We are improving our youth academy. We also are stocking our academy with foreign talent. We are implementing the plan FULLY and will reap the benefits from it FULLY in about 5 years.See below for a graphic representation of the parasitical networks operating at Ajax before and during the time of the Revolution. Red lines are the so called Da Vinci group, a bunch of posh basterds. Blue lines are the VU mob, that destroyed our youth academy and were probably themost inept medical department in the Netherlands. Green lines is the old boys network of the Saturday 4 veterans team. Purple is the network of uber-slime Coronel. QuoteWhat you have neglected to mention is that when the people he brought in as his buddies disagreed with him, he forced them to resign as well. You see Ajax needed to apoint a chief executive, johan's plan was to appoint the unbelievably inappropriate Ling Tshen La., and the people he had on the board with him were horrified at this completely insane suggestion, but were also big fans of louis van gaal, and they decided that they'd like him to be chief executive. But Cruyff absolutely refused point blank. So these allies of cruyff took advantage of the fact that he never actually turned up to meetings, decided to try and bring in van gaal behind his back and when cruyff discovered such betrayal he completely blew his top and launched a courtcase to prevent van gaal from being appointed, he succeeded and for the second time in a year, everyone resigned. so Ajax had no chief executive, and no board, all because johan wanted his way and didn't care about anything, or anyone else, he'd sooner see ajax without a board than have Louis van Gaal in an important position at the club. That is what he is like, It's all about him and what he wants. Jeez, you even butcher the article you quote. Leave out important parts much? You are such a sad joke man. And if you think Tscheu is shady, what about RIk vd Boog, a man who is an actual criminal under investigation. (what?!?!?! you dont know who that is? funny huh how you never mention him in your drivel) Most of this other bollocks I already proved to be bullshit, like they weren’t his buddies. More on La Ling. First of all La Ling is by all accounts a pretty decent TD at Trencin. Second of al, Tscheu la ling was exactly that, just a suggestion by Cruijff. He suggested him when asked. Then during the vetting process a couple of things were discovered about la ling and then blown up out of proportion by Cruijffs opponents. Cruijff did not know these things beforehand. La Ling was disqualified eventually. But this is all not important because La Ling was just a suggestion and quite contrary to how you view Cruijff he is willing to compromise. Indeed the whole board with Davids, Romer, Offers en Ten Have was a compromise that went wrong when they backstabbed him and started a media war against him and started slandering La Ling. Fourth of all those dicks held meetings IN SECRET, and BEHIND Cruijffs back (which is even against basic board procedure). Fifth, EVERYBODY from Bergkamp to Jonk to de Boer was against appointing van Gaal, let ALONE, dozens of others within the organization. Nobody wanted to work with van Gaal. EVERYBODY in Amsterdam wanted Johan to succeed. NOBODY except the suits, the old boys networks and the VU mob wanted van Gaal. Why? Because van Gaal would not mess with their extravagant salaries whilst and they could keep their cushy jobs. Johan would purge them ruthlessly BECAUSE of their incompetence. QuoteYou see the only thing that cruyff cares about is whether or not you agree with him, and he doesn't care about doing the right thing, or whether his ridiculous narcissistic posturing is good or bad for the club he is helping. Oh and In the two seasons since his revolution, they've been battered by real madrid four times, and conceded 14 goals, but they scored two. Johan has yet to bring out a report suggesting that his system is a failure and that everyone should be fired.Yawn.. scorebordjournalistiek. He doesnt criticize because the quality of our team and our play has increased over the last three years whilst selling key players like Stekelenburg, Emanuelson, Vertonghen, Anita, Suarez, Jansen, De Zeeuw, van der Wiel. Because despite the fact we have moved on most of our first XI we still ended 3rd in a poule of death with the champions of spain, England and Germany. We beat Man City. We held Dortmund 0-0 until a slip up in the 87th minute. Real Madrid has become our bogey team, we choke up against them but that is nothing to be embarrassed about. Even then in the last game we had two goals ruled offside incorrectly and would have been 2-0 up at halftime if the ref had eyes. We lost half our starting eleven from the first time we met them till the last time we met them. Yet every time we meet them we play better than the last time. Cruijff doesn’t criticize because things are finally going in the right direction. Fucking logical, no?Quote And as for the academy, it's true that the ajax academy has hardly produced any players over the last decade, apart from Christian eriksson, and siem de jong, Ricardo van rhijn, kenneth vermeer, toby aldeirweld, and daley blind in the current first team. so that's basically no-one. well apart from jan vertonghen, urby emmanuelson, vurnon anita, gregory van der Wiel, maarten Steklenberg, thomas vermalen, johnny heitinga, ryan babel, wesley sneijder, tom de mul, hedwiges maduro, all of whom were sold over the last six seasons for a total of €120 million The ajax academy was clearly shit. And what was cruyff's brilliant plan for the academy? Fire all of the specialist coaches, and appoint a bunch of former players and move away from a focus on tactical organisation and team play, and focus more on individual skills and technique. Basically take a giant flying leap into the 1970's. You can start to see why maybe some people thought they could do with having louis around. I am not impressed with these names at all. I played with some of them. I’m not fussed. I learned to play football on the Balboa plein in Amsterdam-West. The same plein that produced artists like Bergkamp, Gullit and Rijkaard. In my highschool there were portraits hanging in the aula of ex-student footballers such as Bergkamp (again) and Louie van Gaal. I am used to a higher standard of player. I have seen greatness. You clearly have not. You may be impressed with the above names, but we have higher standards at Ajax. The standard of, for example, the ’95 generation. None of these lot make that team (except Vertonghen). Our academy had been stagnating and substandard since the late nineties, archaic and the standards set and de facto ruled by the incompetent VU mob. I know this, because I regularly go and watch the youngsters, and have been for over a decade or so. They are all substandard, except for Vertonghen, who came at age 15 so for me does not really qualify as youth product. As for the second paragraph regarding the academy I honestly think you are firmly dislodged from reality if you actually believe that bullshit. Have you read the detailed report that Cruijff co-wrote for the youth academy? No, you did not. That much is evident from your post. So "Ignoramus, please" kindly do zip it.As for..Quote and to be honest I'm not impressed with how many rabbits he killed in the dutch league, or how many teams he ran over in spain. I just highlighted that his dream team really wasn't that dreamy in those big games. I particularly hold losing that cup winners cup final against him. They were so..... disappointingly shit in that game. Perhaps they were super dreamy to a club that was as starved of success as barcelona were, and being the first spanish team to win a european cup in 26 years may have added an extra layer of glitz. but looking back at it now, they weren't perhaps quite as extraordinary as they would have had us believe at the time. Barcelona are capable of producing extraordinary teams from time to time, but perhaps only real madrid are better at blowing their own trumpet.Yes clearly because they were shit in a couple of games according to some Irish fella we should really re-consider the dreamteam moniker. I mean clearly they are unworthy of that title after being judged shit in a couple of games by some no-mark internet dwelling fustilarian. Clearly. Indeed so, most indeededly. I mean, clearly. QuoteAnd yes, Cruyff may have helped to revitalise the ajax academy in the 1980's, but it was the immensely tedious drilling work carried out over several years by van gaal that managed to lift those players to the level where they could dominate europe. Without van Gaal, and without his endless work on defending as a unit, as well as attacking as an interchangable unit, then ajax would have been butchered by milan like the dream team were. it was van gaal who got those players ready for football in the 90s. It is telling that those players were never really able to reach the same levels without van Gaal. I mean they were so well organised that Winston Bogarde looked like an excellent defender in that team. Now at this point it is worth pointing out that Van Gaal is also a total Headcase (it seems to be a real dutch football thing) who is only really happy when fighting with people, but he's not as charismatic as Cruyff, so he doesn't have an army of true believer followers who are prepared to always take his side, and always believe his side of the story, regardless of how badly he behaves. Therefore he gets fired before he can cause too much damage. It takes skill to get fired by barcelona after winning two titles and coming second in the league in only three seasons, but van Gaal fought with everyone. if you're fighting with the media, with your star players, with your board, then being right a lot of time isn't going to save you. Sooner or later people get sick of him. (he's like a charmless Jose in a lot of respects)You really love the pixels of your own posts huh captain obvious. At least that’s the conclusion I draw as to what the function of these paragraphs is. As for the players never reaching the same levels again. Delusional. Yeah. Seedorf reaaaly never hit those heights again huh... Must have imagined him making Reals XI of the 20th century QuoteHowever while he may draw on elements of cruyff's approach, he's very much his own man. It's difficult to think of two more different teams in terms of organization and tactical awareness than barcelona 94 and ajax 95. here was a man who had taken Cruyff's ideas and brought them into the modern age. Of course cruyff hates him. van gaal had raised football to a new level. Guardiola and Rijkaard's cl winning barcelona teams are the closest thing to the systematic brilliance of that 94-95 and 95-96 team. Cruyff may have been a visionary in his day, but he can't accept that football has moved on, and it won't stop him from interfering and meddling in barcelona, and more damagingly at ajax. The best thing that could happen to Ajax over the next couple of years, would be for Cruyff to leave them alone and stop causing such massive trouble everywhere he goes. and to bring us back to where he started, Barcelona could benefit with having to hear less of his wisdom as well. He's really not very helpful at all.This is probably the worst part of your post. In fact this is the worst part in all the crap posts you have enveloped this thread in. Cruijff is still a visionary and despite the fact that football has moved on since the 70s it still has about 50-60 years before it will catch up to him. This is what the small minds like you don’t get. You don’t understand genius because genius is far ahead of you. He’s thinking several steps ahead. He is in the penthouse and your somewhere stuck hanging out with Chilean miners. And, like all small minds, what you don’t understand you hate and ridicule. Van Gaal did not raise football to a new level, Cruijff started raising football to another level back in the late 60s. Van Gaal just reinterpreted Cruijffs work. Adapted it to the players he had at his disposal. But it is still essentially a lesser version of total football, a pragmatic compromise. Nothing new. Nothing revolutionary, just a reinterpretation, as its conception and the heavy duty thinking were already done by Cruijjf. Rijkaard the same. Guardiola did re-raise the level of football because he actually did try, and succeeded, to implement an uncompromised version of total football, adapting it to set of players he had. If Ajax in the 70s was the renaissance of Total Football, than Guadiola’s Barca was its Enlightenment era. But Guardiola is merely Montesquieu, to Cruijffs Da Vinci because both renaissance and enlightenment eras of total football originate in Cruijff, in his take on the 433, his take on dominance, and especially on the 1-2 midfield that Cruijff, not Guardiola, pioneered and the tactical reasons for that 1-2 midfield. The following is also bizarre and fallacious, symptomatic of the brainless nature of you argument: QuoteIt's difficult to think of two more different teams in terms of organization and tactical awareness than barcelona 94 and ajax 95. here was a man who had taken Cruyff's ideas and brought them into the modern age.Brought Cruijffs ideas into the modern age? You really are deficient in the head. You forget that Cruijff won the CL/EC1 just 3 years earlier. Or would that difference of three years not make it count as being in the ‘modern age’? Bizarre. But I guess that it suits your dimwitted and risible agenda.The best thing for Ajax is to never again deviate from the clubs core ethos and modus operandi as established by Cruijff.Oh and a friendly tip if you are ever in Amsterdam I would refrain from insulting Cruijff like this in conversation or in public with Ajax fans so as to not embarrass yourself completely. The posh bastards and the student crowd would ignore such comments, internally labeling you an ignorant football illiterate, but would not act upon it. The working class and vak 410 lads might very well chin you. You know why? Because Cruijff is to Ajax what Shanks AND Dalglish are to LFC. That’s why when the Revolution was going on the whole of Amsterdam was on Cruijffs side, vak 410 and the F-Side (Ajax Kop’) sang JOHAN JOHAN JOHAN every game. There were posters of TEAM Johan everywhere, and people wore t-shirts with his likeness. You have a bizarrely detached, reductionist, almost robotic, economic-mechanical perspective on football. No feeling. No passion. No knowledge or intrinsic understanding of greatness.. That’s why so many people think you are a manc, because in this sense you are SO concretely different from most Reds and Ajacieden, because you do not act or think like one of us. You don’t understand greatness, clearly, because you have not seen the things we have seen. You don’t comprehend in emotional terms the near religious experience of being supporter of Ajax or LFC. There is a great quote by Shanklyboy (RIP) on here somewhere where he states that if Shanks had told the Scousers to invade Poland they would be lining up ten deep pronto . The same holds true for Ajax supporters and Cruijff. But I guess it would not hold for you. You may not be a Manc, but it is clear to me that you simply don't get it and us. Now, kindly hop on to some other topic where you can continue your delusional, google.com enabled Mr. Know-It-All act
Good god Wickedbark, your love of Cruyff seems to take you beyond reason. Firstly you give no credit to the men in suits for balancing the books across the seasons. Yet you are ready to blame them for the ill judged signings, the most spectacularly awful of which was Sulemani. But he was signed at the request of the greyest of non-footballing grey men in suits, Marco van Basten. By in large, these players were signed by directors of football at the behest of managers. the job of the men in suits was to make sure there was enough money. You also miss the point about the other clubs. Ajax have remained strong through a cautious policy of developing and selling players. The other clubs over extended themselves, and can't compete any more. It means that the teams that de boer's squad now face, just aren't anywhere near as good as the opponents that the pre 'velvet revolution' teams had to face. But That doesn't matter to Cruyff, he doesn't really care what he uses to attack his enemies, so he can use one thing to attack his enemies at ajax, and then turn around and attack his enemies at Barcelona using exactly the opposite. He can praise one barcelona president, and excoriate another barca president for doing exactly the same thing. This is not good.
The reason that Cruyff became involved again was apparently because he saw ajax lose 2-0 to real madrid and only have one shot. Now in response he prepared an action plan for Ajax, and eventually came back with something. Now like all plans created by individuals, it had its good points and its bad points, however, cruyff insisted that every single part of his miraculous plan had to be implemented or nothing at all. The plan also insisted that the board had to go. So he publicly destroyed them, and then brought in his buddies. Now you think that cruyff is wearing a white hat and his allies are the goodies, and that his enemies were wearing the black hats, and are the baddies. But the story doesn't end there does it?
What you have neglected to mention is that when the people he brought in as his buddies disagreed with him, he forced them to resign as well. You see Ajax needed to apoint a chief executive, johan's plan was to appoint the unbelievably inappropriate Ling Tshen La., and the people he had on the board with him were horrified at this completely insane suggestion, but were also big fans of louis van gaal, and they decided that they'd like him to be chief executive. But Cruyff absolutely refused point blank. So these allies of cruyff took advantage of the fact that he never actually turned up to meetings, decided to try and bring in van gaal behind his back and when cruyff discovered such betrayal he completely blew his top and launched a courtcase to prevent van gaal from being appointed, he succeeded and for the second time in a year, everyone resigned. so Ajax had no chief executive, and no board, all because johan wanted his way and didn't care about anything, or anyone else, he'd sooner see ajax without a board than have Louis van Gaal in an important position at the club. That is what he is like, It's all about him and what he wants.
You see the only thing that cruyff cares about is whether or not you agree with him, and he doesn't care about doing the right thing, or whether his ridiculous narcissistic posturing is good or bad for the club he is helping. Oh and In the two seasons since his revolution, they've been battered by real madrid four times, and conceded 14 goals, but they scored two. Johan has yet to bring out a report suggesting that his system is a failure and that everyone should be fired.
And as for the academy, it's true that the ajax academy has hardly produced any players over the last decade, apart from Christian eriksson, and siem de jong, Ricardo van rhijn, kenneth vermeer, toby aldeirweld, and daley blind in the current first team. so that's basically no-one. well apart from jan vertonghen, urby emmanuelson, vurnon anita, gregory van der Wiel, maarten Steklenberg, thomas vermalen, johnny heitinga, ryan babel, wesley sneijder, tom de mul, hedwiges maduro, all of whom were sold over the last six seasons for a total of €120 million The ajax academy was clearly shit. And what was cruyff's brilliant plan for the academy? Fire all of the specialist coaches, and appoint a bunch of former players and move away from a focus on tactical organisation and team play, and focus more on individual skills and technique. Basically take a giant flying leap into the 1970's. You can start to see why maybe some people thought they could do with having louis around.
and to be honest I'm not impressed with how many rabbits he killed in the dutch league, or how many teams he ran over in spain. I just highlighted that his dream team really wasn't that dreamy in those big games. I particularly hold losing that cup winners cup final against him. They were so..... disappointingly shit in that game. Perhaps they were super dreamy to a club that was as starved of success as barcelona were, and being the first spanish team to win a european cup in 26 years may have added an extra layer of glitz. but looking back at it now, they weren't perhaps quite as extraordinary as they would have had us believe at the time. Barcelona are capable of producing extraordinary teams from time to time, but perhaps only real madrid are better at blowing their own trumpet.
And yes, Cruyff may have helped to revitalise the ajax academy in the 1980's, but it was the immensely tedious drilling work carried out over several years by van gaal that managed to lift those players to the level where they could dominate europe. Without van Gaal, and without his endless work on defending as a unit, as well as attacking as an interchangable unit, then ajax would have been butchered by milan like the dream team were. it was van gaal who got those players ready for football in the 90s. It is telling that those players were never really able to reach the same levels without van Gaal. I mean they were so well organised that Winston Bogarde looked like an excellent defender in that team. Now at this point it is worth pointing out that Van Gaal is also a total Headcase (it seems to be a real dutch football thing) who is only really happy when fighting with people, but he's not as charismatic as Cruyff, so he doesn't have an army of true believer followers who are prepared to always take his side, and always believe his side of the story, regardless of how badly he behaves. Therefore he gets fired before he can cause too much damage. It takes skill to get fired by barcelona after winning two titles and coming second in the league in only three seasons, but van Gaal fought with everyone. if you're fighting with the media, with your star players, with your board, then being right a lot of time isn't going to save you. Sooner or later people get sick of him. (he's like a charmless Jose in a lot of respects)
However while he may draw on elements of cruyff's approach, he's very much his own man. It's difficult to think of two more different teams in terms of organization and tactical awareness than barcelona 94 and ajax 95. here was a man who had taken Cruyff's ideas and brought them into the modern age. Of course cruyff hates him. van gaal had raised football to a new level. Guardiola and Rijkaard's cl winning barcelona teams are the closest thing to the systematic brilliance of that 94-95 and 95-96 team. Cruyff may have been a visionary in his day, but he can't accept that football has moved on, and it won't stop him from interfering and meddling in barcelona, and more damagingly at ajax. The best thing that could happen to Ajax over the next couple of years, would be for Cruyff to leave them alone and stop causing such massive trouble everywhere he goes. and to bring us back to where he started, Barcelona could benefit with having to hear less of his wisdom as well. He's really not very helpful at all.
It's difficult to think of two more different teams in terms of organization and tactical awareness than barcelona 94 and ajax 95. here was a man who had taken Cruyff's ideas and brought them into the modern age.
Apathy for me. A deep rooted sense of apathy. It's the fin de siecle ennui trapping me still, thirteen years on. That hedonistic blaze of the late 90s where we were all going to be rock stars, now mixed with years of regrets, hangovers, comedowns and a dark heavy weight upon the shoulders. 'I want to be Bob Dylan' 'I want to be someone just a little more funky'. That's what we used to sing with the affected melancholy of the 90s. Now we'd settle for being Liberace just to have a paid shoulder to cry upon every night. Is it a generational thing? Do you younger ones, between alt-tabbing to look at tits and bashing f4, feel it? When you listen to whatever it is you listen to these days, do you get the sense that things just aren't as good as they used to be? Is that why austerity has such resonance right now? Because it 'feels' right. 'We need punishing lord, beat us harder'. It's the masochism of the morning after and our carpet tongues feel bloated in our mouths. You're mid-twenties, the world should be your oyster, and instead we're leaving you with rising water and 'scorchio' as the weather forecast up on the arctic circle. I saw a polar bear once in Chester Zoo. Banging its head against the wall. That's what it feels like. No amount of late 80s or early 90s ecstasy fuelled Madchester music will drown out that dull beat.Also: it's just how things are with transfers. We were interested, he's gone elsewhere. We're not paying over the odds for a player so have decided not to play the game with his current club. Not sure why we should be different to any other club or why now particularly it's a cause for great gushing wankery. Sure there'll be others on the list we'll be looking at. As there's money there, pretty sure we'll sign someone if they reckon he'll be up to the job. And if there isn't, not much point throwing money away. Find that little inner piece of calmness and hold it tight. It's the first week of July. It's been a beautiful day. Have a beer. Chat a nice lass up. Get her to give you a shoulder rub. Or better.
Superb from Zeb, but careful- your souls might start sliding down the plughole...
Oh my, that's good writing.
I see what you're saying but we don't have the resources of at least 3 of the current top 4 so it's difficult to compete financially with them. That is why we have to go for cheaper, possibly undervalued players to try and catch up by developing them just like Dortmund have been doing. The bottom line is that we can't attract the top, top players right now and we also cannot afford their wages without being financially irresponsible. Being hungry does not mean you can not be cheap. Aspas is all 3 of cheap, hungry and ambitious. We are actually targeting hungry and ambitious players, we want players with character in the team.I'm not sure getting cover for Lucas is a priority right now as we have Allen and even Gerrard to fill in there. In an ideal world with a tonne of cash maybe it would be addressed but I think scoring more goals from the midfield area is what we're focusing on. We are not cutting costs either but simply reallocating wages into areas which will make the team perform better. As we generate more income, our wage pool will increase but the philosophy will always be the same - to get the maximum performance from itUntil we are winning big trophies again our top players will always be looking to leave at some point. This is not making excuses but rather accepting reality, we don't have the money that the sugar daddy clubs have, 2 and a half years ago we were almost in administration while other clubs were spending like crazy. The club and the owners are very ambitious and want to get back to the top, but we have to do it differently and it may take longer than our current stars can wait. Buying players and selling them on is part of it unfortunately and the sooner we all accept it and get behind what they're trying to do, the less stressed people will be. You can bring Shankly and Ferguson into it all you want but I'd argue we face a more difficult task than either of those two were faced with, primarily because there are now at least 4 teams who are currently ahead of us in our own league and quite a few in Europe on top of that.
I think it's important to not let this change us as a fanbase. Just because Suarez let us down after we stood in the trenches beside him doesn't mean others will. Just because Torres thought blue would make him look prettier than red doesn't mean others will.Don't let them change us.It bloody hurts now, of course it does. Fuck me I nearly came to blows with lads down the local pub defending Suarez. And looking back, I feel like a fool, and let down at the same time. But then I think of a lad like Daniel Agger. Someone who has been here since the years of Champions League finals, through to Hodgson and he's still standing tall. With YNWA tattooed on his knuckles no less. A man who was last week linked with Barcelona, but there was no "it would be hard to turn Barcelona down" from him. A man who was linked with City all summer last year and ended that summer by signing a new contract in August. A man who I genuinely feel gets excited by walking out at Anfield and wants to take us back to the top. A man who I feel we should get attached to. A man who I will jump in the trenches with, without fear of being let down. Maybe loyalty isn't dead.Don't let them change us.Then I look at Coutinho and that kid can reach the sky. It's easy to think he'll just bolt at the first flash of Chamopions League knickers, and not get too attached to him. But you know what? I love how attached I (and I'm guessing a lot of you) get attached to players and treat them like mates rather than footballers. Or as Rodgers said of Suarez, we treated him like a son. And I'm convinced that will have a huge affect on 95% of footballers. Don't let them change us.Who knows where we'll be in 10 years? Maybe we'll be saying Coutinho is the best Liverpool player in history, or Mignolet has shown loyalty is alive and well. Maybe Martin Kelly will be kissing the European Cup and lifting it up high before passing it to Lucas. I like to think that we as fans make our players feel 10 feet tall, and we do that by emotionally investing in them and treating them like long lost friends. Just because we've been let down before doesn't mean we will be again.Don't let them change us.
Have my expectations changed? Yes - I now hope rather than expect. The mid-2000’s was also when that started to happen for me.When Gerard Houllier left in May 2004, I agreed whole-heartedly with the decision. It didn’t necessarily have anything to do with disliking the man, nor the fact that one of the best young coaches in Europe was available (although I was obviously delighted that we were getting a manager who had guided Valencia past free-spending Real Madrid to the La Liga title twice in three years and overseen two of the most complete performances against us that I had ever seen). It was mostly down to the fact that I still expected the club to be looking towards the League title every season, despite managing a realistic challenge only once in the previous fourteen seasons (1996/97). Houllier himself had once said something about aiming for the moon and maybe landing among the stars, but all I kept hearing were Shankly’s words: “Aim for the sky and you'll reach the ceiling. Aim for the ceiling and you’ll stay on the floor”.I just couldn’t fathom back then that the ultimate goal of the club would ever be anything other than winning the League championship. Five-year plan? Fine, as long as the end result was that monstrously ugly Premier League trophy being paraded around Anfield as our players took turns making arses of themselves by putting that tacky crown on their heads. And while I truly appreciated everything Houllier had done for the club, not just the treble in 2001 but also in terms of the many improvements in how the playing side of it was run, I simply couldn’t reconcile him staying with the kind of success that I still envisaged for the club. Such was the downward trajectory that his team had been on in the eighteen months since that twelve-game unbeaten start to the 2002/03 season had ended in November 2002 (and morphed into a grim two-month winless streak) that such a scenario only equated with aiming for the ceiling in my eyes, not the sky or the stars.So Rafael Benítez arrived and went on to lead Houllier’s squad, complimented with a few of his own signings, to a triumph that few of us could have ever imagined. By 2005/06, he was bettering the best League points total that we had managed under his predecessor and, indeed, since the Premier League was founded in 1992. Hell, it was even a better points haul than Liverpool had managed the last time they had won the League, back in 1989/90. His team won the FA Cup as well. Everything seemed like it was going to plan – Liverpool Football Club still existed to win trophies, and the League title was still our proverbial bread-and-butter. The following season, however, saw a step backwards in terms of League performance. Another Champions League final was reached, but many of Rafa’s signings were punts (Pennant, Gonzalez, Palletta, Bellamy to an extent) that disappointed, and it was the first time that I really heard grumblings about the manager from our own supporters. Three seasons into his reign, we were wondering where the League title challenge was…It was at that point that I took a step back, looked at our situation with a bit more clarity and began to wonder, for the first time since I had started supporting the club, whether we should be expecting League title challenges anymore. Benítez had taken over a squad of players which had finished thirty points off the top in the previous season. His best players were Gerrard and Owen (both of whom were restless and set on leaving) and the aging Hyypia and Hamann. Aside from that, it was solid performers (Murphy, Finnan, Riise, Carragher, the latter a utility full-back at that point, maybe Pongolle and Mellor at a push), inconsistent under-performers (Heskey, Dudek, Kirkland, Kewell, Baros, Smicer, Cissé would quickly add himself to this list) and players who needed to be moved along as soon as humanly possible (Diouf, Diao, Biscan, Traore, Le Tallec, Cheyrou). Even worse, there was only one decent prospect coming out of the academy, Stephen Warnock, who went on to become a decent, mid-level Premier League player, nothing more. Benítez gave all the young lads he inherited a chance in various competitions during his first season, even in Europe. Along with Warnock, the likes of Darren Potter, David Raven, Jon Welsh and Zak Whitbread were all handed debuts. Their contribution can be summed up with the abject 0-1 FA Cup defeat at Burnley in January 2005 (for which Benítez received incredible criticism). Houllier had Gerrard waiting in the wings; Evans had Owen and Carragher; Souness had McManaman and later Fowler; Rodgers has had Sterling, Suso, Ibe and Wisdom coming through; Rafa had Stephen Warnock.Not only that, but his rivals were bloody serious. Champions Arsenal had just become the first English team in over a century to finish a League season unbeaten, and had top-class, seasoned international players of the calibre of Bergkamp, Henry, Vieira, Pires, Campbell and Cole to call upon (and with Fabregas coming through). That summer also saw the arrival of Robin Van Persie. Manchester United were less than a year removed from a League title win and also had a deep, experienced squad packed with players like Ronaldo, Keane, Scholes, Giggs, Ferdinand, Vidic and Evra. And when they needed to strengthen, they were able to spend £25m on a teenager. But it was Chelsea that really opened my eyes. That summer, Rafa had to effectively search down the back of the couch for change in order to sign a right-back (Josemi, for £2m). By contrast, the newly-arrived José Mourinho was able to lavish £13m on Paulo Ferreira, who had just finished runner-up in Euro 2004. The haves and the have-nots. Along with the £19m spent on Carvalho, £24m on Drogba and £12m on Robben, Chelsea were massively bolstering a squad which had reached the Champions League semi-finals and finished second the previous season, and which already contained the likes of Lampard, Duff, Terry, Makelele and Cech (signed by Ranieiri). Under the circumstances, I thought it was mad to expect a title challenge. Hope for one, yes, but expect it? No way. In his six years at the club, Rafa would go on to manage one, in 2008/09. Like many, I remain convinced that had Gerrard and Torres lined up together in more than 14 games out of 38 (or had higher-quality deputies on the bench), we would have won our nineteenth League title, but while Manchester United had Carlos Tevez to call on from the bench, we had David N’gog. Part of that is clearly the manager’s fault for blowing £20m on Robbie Keane, you’ll get no arguments from me there, but that’s not really the point (that I’m making, nor the point of this thread). The point is this: a team that was good enough to crush Real Madrid 4-0 and Manchester United 4-1 in individual games did not have enough to win a League title. A net spend of roughly £14m per season was not enough to win a League title. A necessity to sell players in order to buy was not enough for a team that reached four European semi-finals in six years to win a League title. Whether we expected it or not. Like Rafa, Brendan Rodgers took over a squad of players which had finished far off the top of the table in the previous season (37 points, in his case) and he is also unable to compete for the very best players in the world (even Rafa’s best signings, Torres, Mascherano and Alonso, were all considered risky to some extent at the time – had Chelsea or Manchester United come in seriously for them, it would have been far trickier to sign them, but they didn’t). In Brendan’s case, however, it’s an even bigger challenge. Manchester City and Tottenham have now been added to Arsenal, Manchester United and Chelsea. His predecessor left him no Champions League football, albeit the crop of youngsters coming out of the academy is better. The fact is, though, that he’s got arguably more obstacles in his path than any other Liverpool boss in the club’s history. So have my expectations changed over the years? Absolutely. As the game changes, so attitudes have to evolve and the reality, these days, is that you can aim for the sky all you want but if you haven’t got the cash for a plane ticket, you’re staying on the ground.
I don't expect to see an E2K post in every thread, but by fuck do I hope to see one. Another belter!
You are my hero Prof.
tried wading through this after not being in since friday afternoon, but got stuck on the bile being spouted by so manythe abuse is ridiculous, the shifting positions is ridiculous, the assumptions being made and the conclusions being jumped to are ridiculouscome the season, and suarez turns out to be still here, and scores the winnner first game back, will he still be a disrespectful obnoxious c*nt not worthy of the shirt to those of that opinion? will you boo him and hope he fucks off still?and if he does move to arsenal, will you be happy to see him playing against our defence, cos at the end of the day he isn't all that is he?and if the club shows the bollocks to make him stay will they have made a mistake? if thet take the cash and flog him will they have made a mistake? too mamy absolutes and crying for an outcome that has not happenedwhilst we may not like what he has said over the summer, or how he behaved in the past (whether you believe the evra thing or not), at least be consistent (and i know there are plenty who have been) and if you want loyalty from a footballer, or you want professionalism from him, then fair enough......but some of the abse and the assumptions are ridiculousthe best outcome for lfc is what we all want, not what is best for suarez, or arsenal, or even rodgers, but lfc...and if thay is selling him then so be it, if it isn't then so be it...debate that, or debate how we should play it, but having a pop does fuck all for anyone
One cannot ignore the "billionaire playthings" clubs. It is no coincidence that since being bought by wealthy billionaires who've poured money into them, both City and Chelsea have pretty much always featured in the top 3 year in year out. The saying "form is temporary class is permanent" explains this. Though on their day, any 11 players can beat any other 11 players in the EPL, over the length of a season class shows and simply having MORE top class players effectively means they they perform more consistently in the long run. To a degree it explains why their success in cups (a series of one off games) is comparatively modest. Even the best players get injured, have dips in form or have bad games against other good teams (in the CL). That being said, both City and Chelsea do alright in cups too. Man Utd are an enormous global brand and one of the richest clubs going around. They may not have the explicit billionaire owner pumping cash into their squad, but they do acquire some of the best and brightest talent. I think they will undergo an inevitable period of rebuilding and decline since SAF has left. Realistically, I think City and Chelsea will always finish in the top 3 so long as there is unbridled spending and high wages (financial fair play anyone?). This leaves Utd, Arsenal, Spurs and us competing for one of the top 3 spots and 4th. I don't think Everton will feature. They rode a lot on Moyes' shoulders, and his departure will send them back to mid table I think. There's always a chance that the rich clubs will slip up somewhere, key players get injured, games get lost and managers get sacked. Look at Chelsea in 2011. Out of our natural competitors, our chances are moderate. I still think we're short of genuinely world class players. Agger, Suarez and Gerrard aside, we have a lot of "useful" or "handy" players which is great if you're looking to scrape 6th but if you want to play in the CL then you need world class talent. It may be that Sterling, Coutinho and Sturridge all become world class, but until they do, I don't see us moving on. It also doesn't help that out of our genuinely world class players, one wants to leave and another is considerably less dominant than he perhaps was 3 years ago. We also let a world class keeper go (he was in decline I suppose). Agger is a pretty borderline entry into the world class category too - there are many that would suggest he's hardly in that bracket. Until we change this, I see us doing well in patches but being troubled by inconsistency and upsets. Over a long season, this is your worst enemy. If we can get a decent start, then I fancy our chances in the back end when other teams are distracted by cups. I can't help but feel that we're always just one more year away from being ready to challenge fr a CL spot because of our lack of current top class players and our persistence with buying future stars. I think we're probably good enough for 4th but don't think we'll get there this season. I think if Suarez leaves then our chances of CL football will pretty much disappear.
I honestly can’t understand the anxiety in here.FSG are not H&G. So far we have bought two players who are considered good enough for the starting 11 as well as Aspas who will be very close, and Alberto who looks a more talented squad player than Jonjo Shelvey. We have got the depth of the squad almost complete and now yes, we need to do further work to improve the starting 11 in order to be truly competitive, but I don’t see the need to rush or the panic that surrounds us at the minute. In an ideal world yes you would get your first choice targets wrapped up very early on, but in an ideal world I’d be shagging Mila Cunis. The fact is these things take time and given the choice between signing the wrong players early or the right players late, I know I would take the latter.I empathise with the doubters, we have trusted before and been brutally let down by the last owners, but that doesn’t mean we should be straight on FSGs back when something as comlplex as transfer negotiations don’t happen overnight. If your ex cheated on you, would that mean you can hire a private investigator on your next partner? Of course it doesn’t, as I mentioned FSG are not the cowboys and our experience under their guidance so far has been pretty admirable. They have backed Rodgers with £50m over two windows with minimal return (in terms of sales) and we’ve made good transfers like Suarez, Sturridge, Coutinho, Allen and likely Mignolet and Toure since their arrival; Borini and Aspas may have plenty to prove but even if they were to fail we could still regard our transfer business very productive under their tenure at the club – they are making the club self-sustainable, we are improving all the time, have a talented young squad and manager and we are playing hard ball over the sale of our biggest asset rather than accepting £40m and running as we would have done in the past. As I say I understand why people are wary, and it’s probably a good thing that people are rather than everybody trusting them inexplicably.The point I am making is it is okay to have slight doubts, ask questions here and there and ensure we are doing what is best for the protection of our wonderful club, but statements like ‘it’s clear we have no money’ and ‘we’ve obv gunna have to sell before we buy’ is nothing by cynical speculation based on no evidence, previous form or any quotes from people at the club. In fact all these factors point to the opposite, and although the owners have made errors like not replacing Carroll etc, it’s not the mistake that is important it’s the reaction to it. We reacted well in January, and so far this window our business has been quite savvy if not awe-inspiring. There are 6 weeks left of the window, and if we don’t make any further improvements before it closes then I will be disappointed with the people running the club – however, I support my club, the people running it, the players, staff and my fellow supporters and therefore am willing to be realistic – so until that happens I am not going to be coming on here making bold statements like ‘we’ve got no money’ until that is proven to me because the people that are may end up looking very silly. It’s like declaring someone guilty before any damning evidence has even been discovered.
Do you know, the title of this thread just encapsulates the difference between the way you and I see the club. You want to discuss what you expect from the club this coming season whereas as I want to discuss the hopes and dreams I have for the club in the long term, on and off the pitch. Nearly losing the club I've supported my whole life was a humbling experience and reminded me not to be so entitled and not to take things for granted.This club, believe it or not, has been blessed a thousand times over because despite all of the financial bullshit, ownership changes, managerial changes, player changes and board room battles of the last 4-5 years, the lowest we finished was 8th. Thats right, 8th. The league is littered with horror stories of clubs over extending themselves financially to try and compete when they cannot afford it and inevitably going bankrupt or losing their home stadiums. And now I look on here and read thats what you want for the club to do in order to satisfy your ambition for its immediate future. Really? My hopes for the future is to have a successfull, modernised, well run club from top to bottom, financially self reliant and owing nothing to anyone. I want it to be there healthy and strong well after I am dead. The best thing is I feel like these dreams are starting to come true; the academy set up, the scouting network, the medical staff, the new PR staff, the overseas marketing, the tough stance from the top in terms of negotiation and transfers and the absolute lack of transfer target leaking are things Rafa could only dream of. I never expected the owners to put in masses and masses of cash, all I wanted was for them to help the club help itself by getting its house in order. They are well on course to meet these expectations.I don't expect you to agree with me but just ask your self what you want for the club long term (I'm talking 20+ years), success I know, but I mean how do you want that success to be achieved and would that route be sustainable for the club in the long term?
We've been told to cool it so I won't reply to him in kind but I'll answer you. 15 years ago we were a week away from starting our campaign in League 1, the first time we'd ever been in the third tier. Even though we were in the third tier we got crowds of 30,000 every home game and set attendance records at many away stadiums. Just before Xmas that season, we lost at York and were in the bottom half of that division. Amazingly we clawed our way back and got to the play-off final where we played Gillingham. With 30 seconds left in normal time we were 2-0 down but got one back. There were 5 minutes of injury time and with just one minute left, we equalised and went on to win the penalty shoot-out after extra-time. The next season we were promoted to the PL, then relegated and promoted again. Since then we've stayed in the PL. This time 5 years ago, we were desperately trying to avoid going into administration, with Thaksin having spent money we didn't have. We managed to get financing to keep us going but we'd have been in serious trouble again within 12 months. Then Sheikh Mansour came along and it was the equivalent of winning the lottery. And I asked myself the same question you asked "Would success taste hollow?". Well I'm afraid to say it didn't. I keep trying to rationalise why it didn't but the simple fact is I'm a fan and most fans would justify pretty much anything to see their team win things. I laugh when I see people say "I couldn't support my club if we were like City" because it's complete and utter bullshit. If you're a true supporter you support your club through everything, good times and bad. You accept the times you've had bad luck and the times it's all gone for you. If Dubai came back and bought you off FSG, pouring money in and bringing you back to the top table people like wickedbark may walk away but 99% of you would go with the ride and not question it, whatever you say now. I've said it before and some of you have agreed with me - as football fans, we have an incredible capacity for hypocrisy and delusion. "Our" player does something wrong and we support him. Another club's player does the same thing and he's a cheat. Does it bother anyone on here that you wear a shirt with the name of a bank that was recently handed the second highest fine for money-laundering?Conn himself is a good example of someone between a rock and a hard place. He's done the hard yards over the years with City and still loves the club. He even thinks the owners are very good owners to have and run the club well. But he's deeply uncomfortable with the fact that money is now the driver (not that it ever wasn't). I'm a partisan City fan but I'm also a football fan and am concerned about the future of the game. I want the best for my club but I wouldn't be happy with a situation similar to La Liga, with just us and Chelsea battling it out. But look at last season - in the second half we got 39 points and you got 36. We didn't get a single win in the CL. The season before, Chelsea finished 6th. Arsenal spend nothing yet finish 4th. So we're not in La Liga territory yet.I know of one high-profile City fan, author Colin Shindler, who has "walked away" because he hates the club being used as a marketing tool for Thai politics & Abu Dhabi. His criticism of the club and owners is quite vituperative but he's entitled to his view. Yet in one way or other, all big clubs are marketing tools. People pay us to manufacture the shirt, get their name on it, have their product associated with the "brand" as an official partner and put adverts around the ground so they're seen all around the world. George Bernard Shaw once asked a woman if she'd sleep with him for £1m. "Yes" she replied. He then asked if she'd sleep with him for £1. "No. What sort of woman do you think I am?" she replied. "We've already established what sort of woman you are. We're merely trying to agree your price."Football established what it was many years ago. In the age of the mimimum wage, the better players were paid extra money illegally, either with cash in envelopes or sinecure jobs with directors' companies. To get round FA regulations about dividends and paying salaries to directors, clubs formed holding companies. Clubs like Liverpool demanded that they kept all home gate receipts, to their financial benefit and the detriment of smaller clubs. The G14, of which you were a founder member, demanded clubs were paid for their players being on international duty and threatened to withdraw from established competitions and form a super-league unless they got their way. They demanded a bigger share of the financial pie in the CL. What did Shankly say about everyone working to the same end and having a share in the rewards?The fact is that we got to the top table in a different way. Call it what you like but we've not broken any rules. Like us, you were delighted to be rescued from the threat of administration. The difference is that our rescuers had more money than yours but the principle was the same. Does anyone ever criticise Wigan & Fulham? Whelan bankrolled Wigan's rise from non-league to Premier League. If he ever withdrew his support they'd collapse. But I bet no Wigan (or any other) fan thought "We've bought this" when they beat us at Wembley. But suppose Whelan had been a multi-billionaire (god help us) and taken them to the top four. Would that have been alright? At what point would the line have been crossed?As to the last part of your post, Pellegrini is definitely going to be a step up from Mancini. For one thing, he knows how to keep his players on his side, which Mancini never did. I've heard stories that a number of key players were seriously considering transfer requests this summer if he'd still been in place. Mancini was so divisive in so many ways. Reading the Moyes thread with people talking about his tendency to over-train players, the former City team doctor was quite strict about over-training and bringing players back too early and we had by some considerable diatance the best injury record in the 2011/12 season. But because he stood up to Mancini, he was sacked in favour of someone more pliable and we had a much worse injury record last season, possibly to the detriment of our title challenge.Mancini, in both the title winning season and last, he was too ready to adopt a more conservative approach in favour of defensive solidity which sacrificed our attacking capability. I'd be interested to hear PhaseOfPlay's view on the fact that we used to bring every single player back for a corner and not leave anyone upfield. Yesterday's game was a bit of a jaw-dropper but we already looked to be back to our most vibrant going forward since the first dozen games of the title winning season (although the less said about the defence the better). I wouldn't ever put much reliance on a friendly but the signs are good so far.
Or more likely, it was his manifesto for how to manage a club, rather than just on how the game should be played. He was dealing with American business owners for a job he clearly wanted (not necessarily Liverpool per se, but a big club management job), so it was prudent to speak in their language, given that they are new to the game. It's funny though. Mourinho has his coaching bible, and he's an arrogant so-and-so - "Shanks and Paisley didn't need any coaching bibles". Joe Fagan - "We recorded everything we could in the big books. Anything we thought would be relevant that could help us later on. What the weather was like, what exercises we did, who was injured, who was ill". People use stats to support their views and it's "I don't need numbers to know what I see. You can't reduce the game to numbers". Rafa - "We use data to know who ran what distances, who needs rest, who can do more work, and how much work they've done. We use blood lactate values to determine who will be fit enough to play the next game. We have all the Amisco and Prozone stats at out disposal to help us scout the opposition" Rodgers isn't a good enough manager, because he's only managed Swansea, and his staff aren't good enough, because who ever heard of Colin Pascoe, the lowly player with a few Welsh caps. Paisley - no managerial experience, took over one of the great teams, with a backroom staff of Joe Fagan, Ronnie Moran and Roy Evans. And three European Cups did follow. RAWK - it's a strange place at times
Fwiw I think it's worth stating to visitors to this forum why people are celebrating.People aren't celebrating because we're keeping Suarez (mostly), he's behaved despicably during the close season and consistently changed and twisted his story. He doesn't deserve the support of the great fans we have.People are celebrating because as a club we've had an horrific few years with huge onwebership issues and we've had no strong leadership for 20 years.Finally we have strong leadership, we've been stabbed in the back by Luis Suarez and arsenal have behaved somewhat poorly in lowballing for a player they can't reallly afford. They've tried every trick int he book to try to destabilise him.We've had this before, and we've behaved in a gentlemanly way and quietly caved in.Today, we've taken the option to come out and kick back. We've had leadership strength and determination. The last 12 months has felt like we're actually trying to grow the club back to where it belongs, we aren't where we belong, but we're going about things in the right way now and were showing back bone and spine.That's why we're celebrating my visiting chums, not because we've kept Suarez, but we've regained out aggression.
It was over for Wenger when he not only sold Van Persie to the mancs but did so graciously and submissively and as if it was some credit to him for doing so as a gentleman and a scholar.The Wenger who won things would do such a thing when hell froze over. He'd have scratched Van Persie's eyes out for even asking to go to them. He'd spit nails and snake venom at the very thought. If the option was to let him go without a fee he'd have arranged for him to go to a European club rather than to the mancs. This was not just a practical example of how Wenger had capitulated to mediocrity, it was also symbolic. It was Wenger raising the white flag and it ripped Arsenal's fans hearts out. Wenger should have never allowed him to go to United for that reason. He didn't realise that if you make your supporters feel so dispirited you will ultimately lose them. What about your dignity, your face, your honour?At some point the Wenger that had a warrior like Patrick Viera as his captain and produced brilliant, attacking, competitive, hungry, ruthless and winning football teams became a detached professor who treated Arsenal like a laboratory for his aesthetic theories of football and conservative thriftiness in the transfer market. That experiment has failed.Wenger became an idealist who had dreams about the purity of football but idealists and purists have to live in a dirty world of reality and he forgot what made him great in the first place.
I would honestly let Wijnaldum jizz in my face right now
You wouldn't get banned for that so no need to worry you'll become the transfer forum Martyr for your last post. Fair enough if you won't lose sleep over being banned but it does raise the question why bother to register? We don't give a flying fuck about what other sites think of us, unlike loads of the internet we want some quality control not a place full of trolls and spotty adolescents slagging the fuck out of each other, bores the fuck out of me the sort of comments you get underneath You tube videos but if that's what you want the internet is a big place and there are plenty of sites with no quality control where you can say what the fuck you want, just not this site.
Do we really want to be like Chelsea, spurs, or city with tens of millions of pounds on the bench when we don't have the competitions to give them games? I think FSG made some blunders early on due to their complete naivete about the game and the business of it all, and were attempting to right the ship quickly going off of advice from certain people in the game. After seeing this fail, they realized that a reset was needed. Trim the fat, right the transfer wrongs as best as possible, bring in a talented young coach who can give the stability of management needed to succeed, and seek out bargains. We can argue about transfer spending overcorrection, but seeing them learn from mistakes is gratifying, and I'm glad we aren't going for an over bloated squad of prima donnas. Though, I'm not a win at all costs kind of guy, and I'm probably in the minority. I'm not from Liverpool, and have never even been to England. My basis for supporting and following the club as closely as I do does not come from seeing us win everything and jumping onboard. I've never seen LFC win a league title. I support the club because of the ethics, the footballing philosophy, the history, the passion, the fans, the politics of the city. I want to have respect for our players, and want players who will see the club as more than just a means to a partying, cars, houses, and girls end. We were ready to pay for Henrikh and Costa, but they chose differently, and that's the reality of where our club is. I didn't see anyone freaking out that we should have been in for Willian when Anzhi picked him up, but now some are beside themselves that we didn't get him paying a couple million less than they did. Our policy now is to measure twice, cut once. I can see us benefitting from picking up the pieces of bad management of other clubs and achieving at a fraction of the oil money price of entry.
After I finished this book last Thurs/Friday, I was aiming to write as an immediate response as possible. I was going to briefly write down a few thoughts, but I got a bit carried away. Excuse typos, rhetorical flourishes etc.Red or Dead by David Peace – A Review.Oscar Wilde's famously argued that, “The truth is rarely pure and never simple.” Biographies and autobiographies it must be said, on the whole, bare out this maxim. They are usually one-sided, biased, mostly with an axe to grind or score to settle. I, like many others I suspect, read biographies/autobiographies armed with suspicion, on the look out for subtext. And so what of fiction in relation to Wilde's observations about truth? What of the completely made up stuff? Oddly, one might argue, in many ways, fiction can sometime shine a light upon and uncover a truth more clearly than non-fiction. Sometimes. Paradoxical as it may seem, in many ways, the spirit of a universal truth can sometimes be found not in the bald facts, but through the act of imagination. Through the act of creation. Religious texts are acts of the imagination, contain very few actual facts, yet millions across the globe find within their pages truths upon which to live their lives.Wilde's sentiments feels even more ironic when sitting down to review David Peace's Red Or Dead, because if there is one thing we know for sure about Bill Shankly, then it's the value he invested in honesty, truth and simplicity. Perhaps, then, a fictional account of Shankly's life may bring us closer to the truth of man, reveal the man of honesty and simplicity, bring light to his life, to his footballing philosophy, perhaps even help us understand the tenets of his socialism.I started reading Red or Dead on the eve of the new football season. As somebody who is sick of modern football, I was in need of some inspiration for the up-coming season. And, after 90 minutes in the company of BT sports Michael Owen, I sensed it was going to be increasingly difficult to find this season. Nor was I willing to go looking for it in the increasingly hyperactive presentation from the game's owners, Sky Sport. In contrast to the modern game, Peace's book on Shankly shows us a simpler time, (not innocent, however, and far from it) in which the hype, hyperbole and large sprinkling of horseshit we have to sit through via Sky, didn't triumph over skill, determination and tactical nous. The importance of the collective endeavour of the team espoused by Shankly, and any modern day manager worth his salt – yet seemingly forgotten in the presentation of the game these days – seems at odds with the British neoliberal model of football, especially the football model which sells itself on the individual brilliance of one player in a particular team. And, as John Barnes reminded us so eloquently on BBC2's Newsnight prior to the season's beginning, these multi-millionaire superstars now appear to think of themselves above the team. Better than the team, indeed. Something which Shankly wouldn't have allowed to take root within any of the clubs he managed.Red or Dead is built around a rather conventional and straight forward narrative – unlike say the brilliantly executed Dammed United, which switched from the past tense, showing Clough's journey from deadly, clinical centre forward, injured and on the scrap head, to the present day 1974 and his acceptance of the job as manager of Leeds United. The switching of the narrative from past to present worked within that particular book for many reasons, most notably as a way to show and explore the roots of Clough's almost pathological hatred for Don Revie's Leed's United. Perhaps Bill Shankly's life was more straightforward. He lived it straight. Straight and honest. Thus the narrative runs (quite literally) with ever growing momentum and dynamism in one direction: from 1959 up to his death in 1981. The vast majority of the book takes place between 1959 and 1974, and is concerned with the minutiae of pre-season training, of pre-match preparation, of game after game after game. It's only when you immerse yourself in a text such as this and read hundreds of pages of the prose in one sitting, that you realise that football, like history, is just one fucking thing after another. One game after another. One post season after another. One pre-season after another. One league season after another. One cup competition after another. And Peace also shows what Shankly knew instinctively: greatness comes with repetition, with dedication, with passion, with obsession to the task, the sport, the art, you have chosen to pursue. If you cannot dedicate yourself to becoming great at your thing, then all the natural ability in the world will not suffice. For, just as we see today with the many exceptional athletes, in many different fields – both in football and other sports – it is the hours and hours on the training pitch, the hours and hours of honing and refining muscle memory. It this which counts most, this which breeds success. Just as we see with outstanding artists, musicians etc. it is the hours of repetition, the hours of dedication, the hours of passionate obsession you dedicate to your art, your sport, your thing; it is the hours and hours of repetition that makes the difference. And Shankly knew this. And Shankly practiced this. Think of how many times Shankly used the phrase “drum(med) in to them.” Shankly not only tried to mould the player, through drumming things into them, but also attempted to mould the man, build the character. Bill saw that dedication, ability and character make the great footballer, and perhaps in Kevin Keegan we saw the greatest example of what a Shankly footballer should look like. Not the greatest or most natural football player to be born, yet – under the tutelage of Shankly – shaped into perhaps the first modern football specimen. For some reviewers and readers this matching, this parallelling of form, style, structure and subject matter is too much. It the biggest criticism used against Peace, especially from those who say the 'general' reader (whatever/whoever that is) cannot possibly be expected to 'get' this form of literary modernism. Indeed the repetition and the endless description of Bill undertaking even the most mundane of tasks can take up page after page. And, to an extent, I agree with the critics. But only insofar as if you are going to treat this book lightly, if you are only going to dip in and read a handful pages at a time...Then, of course, it is bound to alienate. It's a book that requires you to pick up its rhythm, to follow it prose style like you would an intricate jazz composition, a classical music symphony or a concept album. However, I would advise if you are going attack this colossus of a book (walk around it, it must be seven feet tall!) take it on as Shankly would take it on. With passion, with utter and total dedication, with an obsession bordering on the insane. Devote yourself to it. Forget about your loved ones for a week or two. Forget the missus/partner exists. Dedicate yourself to this book. Lose yourself in the book, lose yourself to the hypnotic prose, dedicate yourself to the rhythms of the prose, like a whirling dervish entranced to the sound of sufi music. Follow the ups and downs of the football season. Get all the facts and figures. See titles won and lost, cup finals won and lost. Derbies won and lost and drawn.It is is literally all here. Everything you ever wanted to know about Liverpool FC – 1959 to 1974 – but where too afraid to ask yer arl fella. In many ways, Peace also shows us that Shankly was a revolutionary figure, too. He revolutionised football. Shankly came around at the right time to revolutionise not just the sport, but popular working class culture. There was that moment of great synchronicity – the revolutionary popular culture and emerging youth culture of the period coinciding with Shankly's revolution at Anfield. The Merseybeat and emergence of modern day football culture are conceived at that moment when Shankly emerges as the first, great modern football manager. Indeed, the dialectic between Shankly and the crowd creates the sort of football atmosphere we all take for granted today. Despite what many may say about how Shankly would hate the game today, that he would have no place, that he would be lost etc. I have to say I'm not so sure. The excessive money and antics of 'star' players engineering moves would obviously sicken him. However, his methods, his tactical nous, his attention to detail, his training and match preparation appear to be cutting edge for the time. His knowledge of players, (from the first division to the fourth) of upcoming fixtures from all leagues, appeared encyclopedic. I'm not sure many modern day football managers are as ahead of the game in this day, as Shankly appeared to be during his. Indeed, there is a reason why for a decade or more we were the best team in Europe. It didn't happen by chance. And that it continued without Bill at the helm says even more for the way he transformed the club. The foundations lasted because of all the work Shankly put in from 1959 to 1974. Take away the obscene finances, and I'd belief Shankly would be well at home pitting his wits against Pep, Jose, Jurgen, Carlos, Rafa and the other top European managers.And yet despite the brilliance of the man, he was a real man of the people. This phrase is often over-used and not really applicable today to a world of millionaire celebrities, overpaid footballers and even most lefty politicians. How somebody so famous, so popular, so adored, could still act as an everyman, as one of the people, as a man who would stand next to you on the Kop, is quite staggering in that age and in this. Stories of his every day kindness, especially after his retirement, flow from the pages. His gestures of unthinking charity and kindness as important to him as his days as a football manager. People mattered to Shanks. One episode which shows his visit to an injured teenager footballer in Alder Hey hospital is inspirational. And I mean properly inspirational. I wanted to get off my fat arse and run a few miles and cycle like mad, then swim a few lengths of the baths, immediately after reading. Imagine what this man was like in the dressing room? No wonder we became famous as team which never gave in, which came from behind, which scored so many last minute goals. The spirit of Istanbul was forged across the dressing rooms of the 1960s England. Having said all that I have, is there an absence of war, an absence of conflict from the narrative? All great literature at some point must present the protagonist with an antagonist, right? In The Damned United, Peace presents Clough's hubris in taking on the Leeds United job, and his ultimate failure. Peace presents Clough in conflict with directors and the board of Derby County Football Club for large parts of that novel. Most of all, it shows Clough wrestling with his own, inner demons. In Red or Dead there are hints of conflict with LFC directors. One or two episodes of conflict with players. Hints that Bill may have been fighting some inner demons, and his behaviour after numbing defeats, especially his obsessive cleaning of the kitchen, oven etc are suggestive of this. There are also brief moments were we suspect that there may be a hint of resentment at the manner in which he is treated by Liverpool Football Club after his retirement. But, as Bill says to the media when interviewed about his biography after his retirement, why do you highlight the one per cent of criticism, when the book is ninety-nine per cent praise and support of others? So, if not conflict, then what? Poignancy perhaps. There are passages after August 1974 which made me search for invisible dust particles lodged in those impossible to reach areas of my eyes. For instance, Bill on the outside looking in at one of the greatest football teams of all time many triumphs. The team he helped to build, winning the trophy that so cruelly alluded him – the European Cup. Indeed one the most profound moments in the entire book is not the winning of trophies, not the devastating defeats but a simple scene in a West Derby cafe during Bill's retirement. This is the literature, this is the great writing. This is the truth that fact cannot quite capture. It is in these little moments of pathos where we glimpse both the greatness of the man and the greatness of the writer.Make no mistake, Red or Dead is a hagiography – something Peace openly admits. He once wrote that Marx and Engel's Communist Manifesto was the fifth gospel and in some ways reading Red or Dead is analogous to a religious experience. The text is suffused with religiosity. Bill saying his prayers, Bill on his knees praying for Matt Busby and those who lost their lives in Munich. Bill's sacrifices and sermons. Bill in retirement akin to a Jesus: “Bill carried these memories. A great weight Bill bore, a piece of wood Bill carried. A piece of wood which left Bill with splinters, splinters in his back. In his shoulders and in his neck. But splinters which gave Bill faith, splinters which made Bill believe. Believe in the things that had been, once. Believe in the things that could be, again. After the resurrection, before the resurrection...” But the religiosity of Red Or Dead is not exclusively to be found in Bill's own Christianity, which he practises every day with the people he meets, and with as much dedication as he does in the training drills he used for his players. The religiosity is apparent in the book's form, in its very structure, in the books very DNA. For it is devotional book. Like the music of Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan's sufi inspired songs, like a Buddhist mantra, chanted over and over, or a Gregorian chant. The narrative is a devotional song to it's hero. Like the heroes of the ancient epics, many of which were thought to have been sung aloud, this novel should heard orally. And like those great epics and like those great devotional songs, the effect is the same. The intention is the same. And that intention is to transform one's consciousness. And reading this book is transformational. If not the Bible, then it is the Das Kapital of football books. In one brilliant passage Peace even paraphrases the Italian marxist Antonio Gramsci. “The old was dying and the new could not be born.” It is an epic tome about an epic man. A man who lived a life as simple and basic as Mahatma Ghandi. Shankly's socialism, like his Christianity, is simple. It's not the socialism of scientific schema or Leninist dogma. It is what Billy Bragg once referred to as socialism of the heart. The socialism of the everyday, brought to life most vividly in his conversations with the then Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson.Reading this book is transformational. I agree with The Farm's Peter Hooton, who upon reading the book said he felt like a Jehovah's Witness and wanted to knock upon doors imploring others to read it. So, if you too wish for a transformative experience, read this book. If you're an atheist, like myself, it's the nearest thing through literature (scripture?) you'll have to a religious experience. As Peace recently said, Shankly was not just a great football man, he was a great man. One of the great men of the 20th century. Be inspired by the great man and read the book. The book about a great, inspirational man. Billy Shankly.
Briefly first on the Gerrard point, there's a phrase in your OP which sums up a point I've made before:QuoteHick's Law states that the more choices someone has, the longer it takes to make a decisionEssentially, Steven Gerrard has more choices with the ball at his feet than any player I've ever seen. He can do pretty much everything and anything with a football, and frequently does so instantly, having already processed the visual cues and information, assessed where his teammates are and his best options. It's a constant irritation to me to have some of our own fans belittle his 'intelligence' because he doesn't simply lay the ball off 100% of the time. Forget the countless goals, and numerous trophies, that are a result of the speed and success of his decision making and vision. It's easy for a player to lay the ball off quickly ('intelligently') if that's essentially the only viable option his skillset provides him; it's actually astonishing how consistently successful Gerrard's much more complex decision making, based on an unparalleled wealth of choices, has been.On game intelligence, again something I've discussed here before, I've changed my view over the course of 35 years or so, to come round to something like the title of the thread. The most 'intelligent' football teams I've ever seen were Paisley's sides at the turn of the 70s/80s and beyond. Utterly in control of most games, capable of racking up goals when the mood took them, or killing the game off by simply keeping hold of the ball. There was never any doubt in my mind that this was a highly intelligent side. They weren't all the best players; other sides boasted more gifted individuals, more pace or strength. It was intelligence.Yet over the course of the last 30 years, we've been given a glimpse into the footballing intelligence of most of the individuals involved, through autobiographies, media punditry or their own coaching and managerial careers. And almost without exception, it's been rather underwhelming. Only Souness and Dalglish had any notable success in management; yet Souness couldn't bring it to Anfield, while Dalglish couldn't bring it to a new generation of players. Player autobiographies are revealing in the almost total absence of tactical insight. Phil Neal became Graham Taylor's comedy sidekick, Alan Hansen's "revolutionary" punditry never went much beyond pointing out errors in marking, Mark Lawrenson's beyond smug self-amusement. Ronnie Whelan - one of the most 'intelligent' players I thought I'd ever seen - became a pundit of mind numbing simplicity and naivety, after a short string of management failures. Ex-players like Phil Thompson and Ian Rush can be counted on for loyalty, but there's little to differentiate their punditry ('commitment', 'courage', 'mentality', 'top player') from the host of other ex-players no one would dream of accusing of game intelligence.Perhaps game 'intelligence' doesn't translate outside the 'game' itself. But if it doesn't translate from the pitch even to analysing, let alone coaching, the game, is it really 'intelligence' at all? That seems more like 'instinct'. And this comes back to the point of the 'system being king'. When the system is drilled and understood, it becomes first nature - a player doing the 'right thing' when he receives the ball becomes instinctive. He doesn't need to concentrate on controlling the ball, or having to think about fundamentals such as whether he should play it long or simple, or whether beating his man inside his own half is a good idea or not, because all those things have become automatic. His vision and awareness, such as it is, is available for more complex calculations and considerations. He has that split second to look for a more complex, creative opportunity, because his subconscious is already preparing the simple pass and movement it's been drilled to do.I remember discussing this in much more depth some time ago, in relation to Rafa's approach to management in comparison to that of Paisley or Fagan, for example. I read an old interview with Jonathon Wilson a couple of days ago which has a related point:QuoteWhat about feedback from professional footballers and managers – do they ever tell you that you over-think tactical matters, given that it may not be wise for a player to go into the same level of detail?I remember talking to Ahmed Hassan, the great Egyptian player, about playing in a back three against one striker – or rather trying to talk about it – and just going around in circles for about 10-15 minutes, with him not really being able to understand what I was trying to say (or me not being able to articulate it properly). We never got anywhere and that is actually quite a common experience – you find it quite difficult to find the same register, or the same language, to discuss it in.You hear talk about people like Brian Clough, or Joe Fagan, whose players always say, “He kept it very simple.” But if you look at Fagan’s diaries, it shows that what he told the players might have been very simple, but he actually had a very sophisticated and complex understanding of football. He had a great ability to break it down and give players one or two line instructions.Some modern managers, like Andre Villas-Boas or Rafa Benitez, do go into more detail and do have dossiers and whatever, which I suppose started with Don Revie. But the gift of people like Clough and Fagan was to create an overall strategy (which pretty much came to be because of the players they had), work on it with them a little bit and then make tiny little tweaks here and there each game. So it seemed simple to the players but actually they had put together something much more complex.The point, I think, is that under a great manager and a great system, player 'game intelligence' is to some extent an illusion. Certainly the truly great players then use their intelligence within that system. But for the bulk of a team, 'doing the right thing' - game intelligence, as (IMHO) is overstated these days - is actually instinct as a result of coaching and drills, of 'keeping it simple'. But the result under the right manager and the right system - the 'machine', as the press once referred to our best sides - is that the simple cogs and processes produce something complex and beautiful.The intelligence is in the system.
Hick's Law states that the more choices someone has, the longer it takes to make a decision
What about feedback from professional footballers and managers – do they ever tell you that you over-think tactical matters, given that it may not be wise for a player to go into the same level of detail?I remember talking to Ahmed Hassan, the great Egyptian player, about playing in a back three against one striker – or rather trying to talk about it – and just going around in circles for about 10-15 minutes, with him not really being able to understand what I was trying to say (or me not being able to articulate it properly). We never got anywhere and that is actually quite a common experience – you find it quite difficult to find the same register, or the same language, to discuss it in.You hear talk about people like Brian Clough, or Joe Fagan, whose players always say, “He kept it very simple.” But if you look at Fagan’s diaries, it shows that what he told the players might have been very simple, but he actually had a very sophisticated and complex understanding of football. He had a great ability to break it down and give players one or two line instructions.Some modern managers, like Andre Villas-Boas or Rafa Benitez, do go into more detail and do have dossiers and whatever, which I suppose started with Don Revie. But the gift of people like Clough and Fagan was to create an overall strategy (which pretty much came to be because of the players they had), work on it with them a little bit and then make tiny little tweaks here and there each game. So it seemed simple to the players but actually they had put together something much more complex.
It's simplistic simply to credit that though. Jordan Rossiter would have been 11 when Segura and Borrell arrived, but all of the other kids who have made a mark had just as much development coaching under Piet Hamberg and even Heighway. Either that or they were bought in for elsewhere. Sterling, Suso, Ibe, Tricket-Smith and so on and so were all purchased and - save for a couple of games for Sterling, placed straight into the U18s. Wisdom was already an U18 by the time Segura and Borrell arrived. I'm not saying they didn't improve him, but most of these players were well along the way to being the players they were going to be by the time they arrived at Liverpool, and the ones live Robinson, Flanagan, Coady, Lussey, Dunn - these had just as much coaching at Liverpool from those before Segura and Borrell. At the moment we're a pretty good finishing school for young players, and we'll actually give them a chance - which frankly isn't something to be underrated. Not sure you'd look at it as the FA and say "let's do that!" though... Well, they might, they're pretty easily led by popular opinion. But on the professional footballers bit - Liverpool produced the most professional footballers before Segura and Borrell arrived. The problem was that most of them ended up in the lower leagues. They were producing professionals though. So here's a bit of devil's advocate for you - if the only players who come through are Sterling, Ibe, Wisdom, Suso and others we've bought in from elsewhere, while Flanagan, Coady, Robinson, Lussey et al go on to have careers at lower league clubs - what's changed, other than spending big on the best 16 year olds in the country?This is the problem with judging youth players in this country. We would attribute all the recent success to Rafa and the Barcelona coaches - and they deserve plenty of credit - but they've been at the club four years. The club gets youngsters from the age of 9. We're talking about our U14s team. The real success of this is going to be played out over the next few seasons when we see what a difference this coaching has made to blank slates, rather than players who already have some idea of themselves. Everything I've read, from Ajax through to the New Zealand FA, suggests that the key ages for player development technically, are up to the age of 12. At Ajax they mostly scouted youngsters under the age of 12 based on their physical ability, knowing they were still young enough to develop the technique. This is why debates on youth development are so stupid when played out in the media. We're told the Academies aren't producing the players they were supposed to, but most of the kids who went into the academy systems at the age of 9 are not 22/23. If - God forbid - you actually give them a little leeway to find their feet over the first couple of years. Look, players like Sturridge, Cleverley, Welbeck and Henderson (just off the top of my head) came through in those first years. They're the first year or so of the kids who had the full academy education. World beaters? Nah. Clearly very good players though. Two midfielders who are economical in possession and don't give the ball away cheaply, and an attacker who isn't afraid to attempt - and succeed - in trying some audacious things. And Daniel Sturridge.You want to look at the players coming through the academy set ups from the young ages and you'll see this as a theme - Oxlade-Chamberlain, Zaha, Sterling, Shelvey, Redmond, Ince, Townsend, Barkley, even Sammy bloody Ameobi - academies have been developing attacking players who aren't afraid to be audacious. Who aren't scared taking their opponents on, or running with the ball, or attempting the audacious pass. Then look at the midfielders - Wilshere, Tom Carroll, Will Hughes, Ward-Prowse, Coady, Cleverley and Henderson as mentioned, Lussey, Rossiter, Loftus-Cheek, Lewis Baker, Alex Pritchard and so on and so on (I'm naming a lot of Liverpool players because I see them more, but there's no reason to think that it's not happening at Arsenal or Aston Villa or wherever). Academies are producing a technically good midfielders who don't give the ball away cheaply, who can and do receive the ball under pressure without losing possession, and can turn on the ball. Problem is that most of them will end up out on loan in the lower divisions because there's too much money in the top flight for clubs to lean on their academies to make up a bulk of their squad. And without B-teams to give them an experience of professional football whilst keeping them at their parent clubs, that's a lottery. We've sent Coady away to a club who play him out of position, who sold their only #10 and have now been taken over. The real problem with the academy set up though is that most clubs want their team to be attacking, to have the ball and play attractive football. They then send their players away with England, who hire the likes of Noel Blake, Stuart Pearce, Hodgson and, y'know what, even Capello. Coaches of massively differing abilities but who are all, ultimately, more preoccupied with shape and control of space than they are with what a player can do on the ball. So when the U20s go away to Turkey in the summer with James Ward-Prowse and Ross Barkley as part of their midfield - two players who have started the Premiership season really strongly - they're not being shown patterns of play when in possession, and working out how they bring their teammates into play. They're being shown where to drop back into when possession is lost. This is England. Small nation mentality, except even the smaller nations want to play like the bigger nations, so you get Iraq, Chile and Egypt turning up and wanting to pass the ball and control the game in possession against England. And they manage it. Meanwhile, every English player who Has been taught these principles day in day out at a their academies and now with their first teams... They're sitting in, keeping shape, watching the game play out in front of them. Must be the academies fault.
Because I have posted it in other threads as cannot start a new thread which it rightly deserves, and the Gestapo dig is because its been deleted from where I have tried to post it to be honest
