Re: Rafa - It's like breaking up with a girl, and then getting back together a few weeks/months later - it might be exciting at first, but the same old problems will arise because they were never fixed in the first place. The problem with Rafa back as either a full time appointment or a caretaker is not if he's successful, but what if he's not? The aim of any manager at Liverpool is to win the league first, and the European Cup second. If he falls to do that, which is more probable than winning it, then where does that leave his legacy. As a lot of posters say, best to give it more time, and then if the position is open and he wants it, give him a return a few years from now, or even a year. But to bring him back now? It would be an unmitigated disaster for all concerned. Too much baggage right now, and more so because we are not sure how NESV are going to function in terms of finances. They seem slow to correct the Roy situation, what else might they be slow to do? nd if they are sow to release transfer funds, how long before Rafa gets pissed off and has a go at these owners? It's a minefield right now, so not a good option.
Re: "any manager who gets us", "must know English football", "must be aligned with the Liverpool Way" - If those are criteria, than the pool of potential new managers is quite large, but not necessarily the right appointment - in fact, not even close to the right appointment in most cases. If that's the criteria, then we have Houllier, Evans, Toshack, Aldridge, McMahon (Steve), Nicol, Saunders, Souness, Beardsley, Barnes, etc, etc, etc. Neither one of those are the right appointment at the moment, or ever in most cases (perhaps Nicol in the future but I'm not sure he wants to leave America). Any new appointment, if it indeed happens, should be a step forward with a clean slate and a playing philosophy that gets fans excited again. Simply having Liverpool ties, no matter how strong or tenuous, is not enough. This is no different to any other job on the planet. You have to have a good skill set for the task, and you have to be able to manage upwards and downwards effectively and show success. These are the only criteria.
Re: Laudrup - minor point, because he deserves a chance at a big club, but this idea that he should be a candidate because of his success with BRONDBY (!) is fairly hypocritical because Hodgson is beaten with the same stick for his success at Copenhagen and Malmo. Same part of the world (same country as Brondby in one case), same level of football. What's good for one should be good for the other. So either Laudrup is a potential candidate because of his style of play rather than his trophies, or his trophies are an acceptable barometer in which case, so are Roy's, and the idea that he has won nothing of any import is either a canard, or he has won something and that line of criticism should be ended. Alternatively, Laudrups achievements are taken out of the equation if they can't be added to Roy's. Incidentally, Roy isn't right for Liverpool, but we can't have double standards ni our assessments of managers.
Re: Deschamps v Rijkaard - Are we that spoiled as fans that this is an argument? I despair at people who might not be able to trap a bag of cement - let alone a ball - at worst, and at best couldn't hold a candle to either of these players' playing or coaching careers, saying one is acceptable over the other and that the other is no use!!! Seriously? We have Roy Hodgson! EITHER WOULD BE A MASSIVE STEP UP! Both have had stellar playing careers, played under some good managers, have a good philosophy of the game, and would command short term respect in the dressing room. To say one is preferable over the other is incredibly short sighted. The only issue is accessibility. On that note, Rijkaard wins, because he's available. but only on that note. sure, he's won more and bigger trophies than Deschamps, but really, given the situation we are in, either one would and should be welcomed with open arms and minds should their appointment transition from speculation to reality.
Re: Kenny - I was wel against this, but have softened on the idea. My main concern wasn't the excuse of "football has moved on" - it hasn't. Tactics are no different now than they were 20 years ago. Redknapp shows that every week with Spurs. The issue for me was the quantum leap in fitness methods from even 5 years ago. As long as Kenny let our supposedly world class fitness and medical team do their jobs, and he listened to them (integrated training rather than the old fitness without a ball, tactics with a ball philosophy - not that there's anything wrong with that but he should be open to those types of ideas) then he should have no problems. I'd be excited to see a Dalglish 2nd millennium (tm) team. But it would have to be a long term appointment. Half a season is an insult to a legend. Half a season as a trial and then go from there would be a good compromise.
Re: Boas, Lowe, Klopp, etc - arguments against lack of experience are another canard. Wenger was an unknown quantity before Arsenal, Mourinho with Porto, Houllier with Liverpool, Rafa with Valencia, Guardiola with Barca. Lack of big club experience as the top guy shouldn't be a barrier to an appointment. Again, proven success, good philosophy and outstanding skill set for the job should br the only barometers. After all, the Liverpool dynasty was founded on untried and untested managers - Shanks to Bob, to Joe to Kenny. It actually floundered for the first time with big name successful Scottish manager Graeme Souness.
Wow, that was long. But I think we need to look at ourselves as a collective and ask if we are not too spoiled as a group of fans, because some of the candidates (Aldridge, Hyppia, CARRAGHER!) are nowhere near good enough on any level, while some are exactly good enough but fans want to pick holes in their cases based on minuscule knowledge, rather than just be happy that we could attract managers of that stature. Any appointment is a risk - that is the percentages game of success. The trick is to manipulate the probabilities in your favour. With Rafa and Ged, we did that. With Hodgson we didn't. We have to do that again for the next appointment and it has to be based on logic and common sense, not sentiment or risk-aversion
