Topic: Time to roll the dice

[Carlos: Very Kickable]

Price, Quality, Convenience – pick any two of three.
 
Whether it’s picking a new school for your kid or planning a holiday it’s a conundrum known to anyone trying to plan a project of any size. In footballing terms, we are at a crossroads with the direction our club now needs to take if we are to succeed with our own project which is to get back to where we belong. Put simply, we can’t spend less than everyone else, have a better team and expect to compete anytime soon.

But on top of that there’s a fourth, more important, dimension.

Surely it should be a truth that’s self evident that the time for playing safe is over. Winning the league last year, or the year before, or even the one before that entitles you to play safe, confident that you are not far from a winning formula. The further you are from success, the more changes have to be made.
We last won the title in 89-90. Everton last won in 86-87. That’s where we are - a brief glorious European spell under Rafa aside.

Even if we are able to compete on two of those three fronts as a footballing team, we need to roll the dice in terms of the way the club is run, the way we play football and the players we have.

But looking at the tenure of the posts on this board it’s not clear how far that truth has sunk in, if at all.

Get rid of Kenny? “you need to give managers the time to succeed”. Sell Skrtel for 20 million? Nah impossible – “you don’t break up a winning partnership”. Try to move Carroll on? “Crazy – look at the form he was coming into at the end of the season”.

I’m not commenting on the right or wrong of any of those situations but you CANNOT succeed without taking risks unless you are already on a pretty certain course for victory – which we are not. It seems to be the case that our new manager has the conviction to make some radical changes to the way we are going to go about things. Some of them may be unpalatable and it’s impossible to say which decisions work out.

But we’re now in a position where taking the safe options, comfortable though they may seem are the ones we have to avoid. As a club we need to think the unthinkable and countenance ideas which may appear crazy or unpopular or unpalatable because if we don’t we’ve already lost before we’ve started.

[ActiveSloth]

Nice post.
I do agree that as a club we have to take risks to move forward but these risks that we must take have to be calculated and we must understand the consequences of taking them. For me the biggest thing we have to do is to learn from our past and this includes the mistakes we have made and the glory we have seen. To move forward we need to understand what made us go backwards from what we were.
Throwing money at the situation may work but we need to implement a new system and catch up with how football is played on and off the field these days.

[ALANM]

Some interesting points.

I was disgusted by the sacking of Dalglish, but that's in the past now. We all need to get behind Brendan Rodgers and support him. One of the biggest problems this club has suffered since the glory days is that different people have been continually pulling in different directions. If we can present something resembling a united front then our prospects will improve greatly.

[Il Capitano]

The dismantling of our forward options is an interesting one, given the horrendous difficulty we had in scoring goals last season. FSG are clearly as ruthless with their players as they are with their managers - failure is not an option. Kuyt, Carroll and Bellamy could all leave, and maybe it's the right decision to take a gamble on some new blood, if what you have clearly isn't working.

[stardorman]

Great OP Carlos..

I think the first and biggest gamble of this whole process will be sale
of Andy Carroll.. unthinkable only weeks ago but now almost essential
for progression.

[vivabobbygraham]

Would love you to expand on how we've played safe these last twenty years? Since the end of Roy Evans tenure, we've had Houillier, Rafa, Hodgson, Kenny and now BR. Also, Moores, H&G and now FSG. Parry, Purslow, now Ian Ayre make a busted flush.

We played safe with Kenny with success, other than that it's been a crap shoot with Rafa the only jackpot, and we blew the winnings there. Now, we've rolled the dice again with BR, no matter that we support this wager it's a gamble. We've been 'doubling up' for years. Now, more than ever we need a 'safe' pair of hands. We had them and then cut them off at the wrists. I don't want anymore risk taking thanks. We've become the fucking Barclay's of the football World.

[Camarero25]

Would love you to expand on how we've played safe these last twenty years? Since the end of Roy Evans tenure, we've had Houillier, Rafa, Hodgson, Kenny and now BR. Also, Moores, H&G and now FSG. Parry, Purslow, now Ian Ayre make a busted flush.

We played safe with Kenny with success, other than that it's been a crap shoot with Rafa the only jackpot, and we blew the winnings there. Now, we've rolled the dice again with BR, no matter that we support this wager it's a gamble. We've been 'doubling up' for years. Now, more than ever we need a 'safe' pair of hands. We had them and then cut them off at the wrists. I don't want anymore risk taking thanks. We've become the fucking Barclay's of the football World.

I'll probably get slated for this but that is... debatable.

[vivabobbygraham]

I'll probably get slated for this but that is... debatable.

Fairly predictable you would hone in on that one sentence. 

[RedinExile]

Would love you to expand on how we've played safe these last twenty years? Since the end of Roy Evans tenure, we've had Houillier, Rafa, Hodgson, Kenny and now BR. Also, Moores, H&G and now FSG. Parry, Purslow, now Ian Ayre make a busted flush.

We played safe with Kenny with success, other than that it's been a crap shoot with Rafa the only jackpot, and we blew the winnings there. Now, we've rolled the dice again with BR, no matter that we support this wager it's a gamble. We've been 'doubling up' for years. Now, more than ever we need a 'safe' pair of hands. We had them and then cut them off at the wrists. I don't want anymore risk taking thanks. We've become the fucking Barclay's of the football World.

Indeed mate, bad (uninformed) gambling down the years has cost us big time.

[Red Reign]

Would love you to expand on how we've played safe these last twenty years? Since the end of Roy Evans tenure, we've had Houillier, Rafa, Hodgson, Kenny and now BR. Also, Moores, H&G and now FSG. Parry, Purslow, now Ian Ayre make a busted flush.

We played safe with Kenny with success, other than that it's been a crap shoot with Rafa the only jackpot, and we blew the winnings there. Now, we've rolled the dice again with BR, no matter that we support this wager it's a gamble. We've been 'doubling up' for years. Now, more than ever we need a 'safe' pair of hands. We had them and then cut them off at the wrists. I don't want anymore risk taking thanks. We've become the fucking Barclay's of the football World.

If I'm reading this right you are equating change with taking risks. Change itself is not a risk in my opinion but the kind of change happening. I think getting rid of Kenny was a huge roll of the dice for the club. We can't necessarily say that about Hodgson or even Rafa.

[vivabobbygraham]

If I'm reading this right you are equating change with taking risks. Change itself is not a risk in my opinion but the kind of change happening. I think getting rid of Kenny was a huge roll of the dice for the club. We can't necessarily say that about Hodgson or even Rafa.

My gambling analogy was in response to the op's claim that we had been playing safe and now was the time for risk taking. Houllier was a risk. Hodgson was an enormous risk, surely? Rafa was a risk that paid off yet we blew the winnings. I concur that replacing Kenny, who had steadied the ship but was not allowed enough time to set a new course, is a huge gamble especially replacing him with an unproven manager albeit with decent form in handicaps. He is now in training for a classic.

[keyo]

If I'm reading this right you are equating change with taking risks. Change itself is not a risk in my opinion but the kind of change happening. I think getting rid of Kenny was a huge roll of the dice for the club. We can't necessarily say that about Hodgson or even Rafa.

getting rid of rafa was not a gamble?  given that he put together the squad, the backroom staff and implemented the structure that was there in terms of coaching and each team from youth upwards?  it cost over 6 million i believe?  and given that he had failed to reach the required goal of cl football once, was it really inevitable for him to go?

at the very least it is expensive change, but the reality is, change your manager and lose your structure and impact the squad, coaching, etc. and that equates to a gamble......change with a plan, now that is not a gamble, but given that none of the change we have seen, other than bringing in benitez has been orderly or without risk (without commenting on the rights or wrongs of the decisions)

[reds88]

Failure by Rafa to qualify for CL is used as a stick to beat him with.  The real reason is that he's opposed what the then owners were trying to do to the club.

[isildurrr]

great op.

i echo the sentiment.

[Carlos: Very Kickable]

Would love you to expand on how we've played safe these last twenty years? Since the end of Roy Evans tenure, we've had Houillier, Rafa, Hodgson, Kenny and now BR. Also, Moores, H&G and now FSG. Parry, Purslow, now Ian Ayre make a busted flush.

We played safe with Kenny with success, other than that it's been a crap shoot with Rafa the only jackpot, and we blew the winnings there. Now, we've rolled the dice again with BR, no matter that we support this wager it's a gamble. We've been 'doubling up' for years. Now, more than ever we need a 'safe' pair of hands. We had them and then cut them off at the wrists. I don't want anymore risk taking thanks. We've become the fucking Barclay's of the football World.

I disagree - youre conflating "change" with "risk". But of course taking any decision (or not taking one) has a risk attached.  Hodgson was, for example, a "safe" choice - the establishment choice, premiership proven, English, wouldnt answer back to the owners, mediocre in all forms.

In regard to your last two sentences - we're not going to outspend our rivals, we're not going to have better quality players than them and teams like United have a massive head start on us in terms of their setup and infrastructure. So if you also don't want to take any risks what would you realistically be happy with? 6th? 7th?

[The 5th Benitle]

I think getting rid of Kenny was a huge roll of the dice for the club. We can't necessarily say that about Hodgson or even Rafa.

If this had ended with the word Hodgson, I'd agree. But of course it was a risk sacking Rafa, as proved by subsequent embarrassment under his replacement. You can't possibly argue otherwise.

[keyo]

I disagree - youre conflating "change" with "risk". But of course taking any decision (or not taking one) has a risk attached.  Hodgson was, for example, a "safe" choice - the establishment choice, premiership proven, English, wouldnt answer back to the owners, mediocre in all forms.

In regard to your last two sentences - we're not going to outspend our rivals, we're not going to have better quality players than them and teams like United have a massive head start on us in terms of their setup and infrastructure. So if you also don't want to take any risks what would you realistically be happy with? 6th? 7th?

Change always involves some risk, the level is what I think you are talking about.....sacking Benitez was a risk, as there was a lot of upheaval involved, hiring hodges on may appeared to have been the safe option but it was clearly a risk given his record and lack of success in recent seasons and experience of top levels of football.....dalglish' sacking was risky from a publicity point of view and an operational decision being only one year into a three year contract....so far each of fsg's decisions have carried some risk, how much return though?

[Red Reign]

If this had ended with the word Hodgson, I'd agree. But of course it was a risk sacking Rafa, as proved by subsequent embarrassment under his replacement. You can't possibly argue otherwise.

Within the constraints of the then ownership, Rafa was not producing the desired results. It has been brought up before that it was mainly Houllier's team that won in 2005. That said, we know the then ownership was a pile of shit. It doesn't change the fact that Benitez departure was not a risk. It was almost inevitable with the crap going on at the time and bad business on the ownerships end but again I would say that it wasn't really a risk they were taking. At least not in the way the OP is mentioning.

[The 5th Benitle]

It has been brought up before that it was mainly Houllier's team that won in 2005.

The fact that you can repeat this drivel tells me all I need to know, cheers

[KirkVanHouten]

The fact that you can repeat this drivel tells me all I need to know, cheers

Some credit must go to Houllier for some of the squad and getting us into the Champions League, but that run and eventual win was more to do with Rafa than anyone else anyone who disputes that has no clue. Alonso and Garcia were also key.

[Nessy76]

It has been brought up before that it was mainly Houllier's team that won in 2005.

It's been brought up before that Alonso scored. And that Luis Garcia got us to the final in the first place. And that we never played like that under Ged.

[Carlos: Very Kickable]

Within the constraints of the then ownership, Rafa was not producing the desired results. It has been brought up before that it was mainly Houllier's team that won in 2005. That said, we know the then ownership was a pile of shit. It doesn't change the fact that Benitez departure was not a risk. It was almost inevitable with the crap going on at the time and bad business on the ownerships end but again I would say that it wasn't really a risk they were taking. At least not in the way the OP is mentioning.

You are right in one sense; getting rid of Rafa wasn't a huge risk insofar as the people who enacted it had the objective of replacing him with someone who would be a lot more amenable to what the board wanted - possibly with the misguided notion of easing the club's sale.

However, if it was our intention to actually compete with those clubs at the top of world football it wasn't just a risk replacing him, it was an almost criminal act of vandalism against the club's best interests.

But this shouldn't descend into another Rafa thread, there are plenty of examples where we should have pushed ahead instead of taking the easy option, building a new stadium, putting the club into the supporters' hands, selling Gerrard etc.

Barcelona, for example, took a huge risk in investing in a consistent way of playing and bringing youth players through their academy system. They now dominate club football and have allowed the Spanish national team to dominate world football. But that was a 20 year plan - it looks obvious that it was an intelligent and longsighted thing to do now but it wasn't obvious 20 years ago when they started. If it had failed - if as the preveailing view was - "kids never win you anything" - where would they be now? Embarking on another 20 year project?

So what's the next big idea that is going to get us back to the top? If it was something obvious you can bet every major club in Europe would already be doing it. And that's my point - the next team that dominates football after Barcelona (and there will be one) will be laughed at by all its rivals for pursuing some crazy scheme which doesn't fit in with orthodox thinking.

Why shouldn't that team be us?

[UntouchableLuis]

I just don't understand why Kenny was allowed to spend such ludicrous money on such risky/average players. I think Kenny was a great short term solution at this club - we badly needed galvanising after the debacle of Hodgson - we were at an all time low, let's face it. Kenny came in and did a great job at 'steadying the ship' as it were. But then he was allowed to go and spend about £50 million in the summer of last year which was baffling if he was never intended to be a long-term manager.

Now it seems to me like the owners have brought in a young man as they want a fresh change and they want this to be a long appointment. However, the backing just doesn't seem to be there at the moment - we're having to sell to buy, make no mistake. We've sold Kuyt, we'll probably sell Maxi and Joe Cole and this Carroll thing doesn't sit right with me. I don't care if people bang on about him not fitting into Rodger's system. At the end of the day if a striker is in form and gives you a different option, which Carroll will always do, he is an essential asset to the football club. To loan him out or to sell him for a very cut-price would be daft and a backwards step because out of all our signings that flopped last season, he's at least showing the potential to become a success now. If we're going to say we got it all wrong and signed the wrong players then why not sell Downing first? He's shown absolutely nothing, isn't exactly young any more and hasn't showed the determination to be given another shot - whereas Carroll certainly has.

Just seems to me like the owners are making things up as they go along now - we heard all about directors of football and that was cited as a possible reason why we didn't approach Rafa to come back but then in Rodger's first interview we hear they've told him he's going to be the main man which completely contradicts the strategy we'd been hearing for weeks on end.

As long as we get the right transfers in, improve the squad and keep hold of our most key players then I'm not overly concerned but I don't particularly like what I'm seeing as of now.

[scared_person]

Excellent OP Carlos.

We've already taken the big risk by getting rid of Kenny and bringing in an unproven manager in Rodgers. Having done that we need to back whatever he wants to do, otherwise there was no point in making such a big change in the first place. If he wants to get rid of big Andy then so be it. There's no point in half measures here.

[Nessy76]

Excellent OP Carlos.

We've already taken the big risk by getting rid of Kenny and bringing in an unproven manager in Rodgers. Having done that we need to back whatever he wants to do, otherwise there was no point in making such a big change in the first place. If he wants to get rid of big Andy then so be it. There's no point in half measures here.

If he does, yes, but his words on the subject have been massively overinterpreted if you ask me.

[Red number seven]

Leeds United were the biggest gamblers of all.
Manchester United went for a methodical, slow and steady approach with a very organised, determined manager who they trusted and was given sufficient time and funds to realise his potential.

I think I know which model I prefer - I have always believed the opposite of what the poster is alluding to - that patience in a manager and system is a virtue in club development, that one season too many is less harmful than one season too few. I think the evidence of the great dynasties in English football supports that supposition. The resources wasted on changing tack before you know for sure the system's broke are simply wasted resources, not brave bets.

I am extremely disappointed that Rafa was never and probably will never be given a Liverpool Football Club with full corporate support, time and decent funds the way Ferguson was in the late 80s/early 90s and the way Shanks was in the early 60s. I am also disappointed that we didn't allow Kenny the time to demonstrate that the absolutely enormous progress he had made in performance could be translated into results. Much as I like the Mr. Rodgers, the football his team played and the wya he conducts himself, I think his appointment is not shrewd - it represents a massive gamble, and like all massive gambles it could pay off in spades or come down to earth with a bang.

I will be there supporting the team and getting behind the manager as far as I can. I do think, though, that we have wasted the opportunity to be patient with a couple of fantastic managers in the last 5 years and there is no real reason to believe that the money wasted on losing Rafa and changing his team, and losing Kenny and changing his team, will benefit the club more than sticking with the guys in the first place.

[Red number seven]

You are right in one sense; getting rid of Rafa wasn't a huge risk insofar as the people who enacted it had the objective of replacing him with someone who would be a lot more amenable to what the board wanted - possibly with the misguided notion of easing the club's sale.

However, if it was our intention to actually compete with those clubs at the top of world football it wasn't just a risk replacing him, it was an almost criminal act of vandalism against the club's best interests.

But this shouldn't descend into another Rafa thread, there are plenty of examples where we should have pushed ahead instead of taking the easy option, building a new stadium, putting the club into the supporters' hands, selling Gerrard etc.

Barcelona, for example, took a huge risk in investing in a consistent way of playing and bringing youth players through their academy system. They now dominate club football and have allowed the Spanish national team to dominate world football. But that was a 20 year plan - it looks obvious that it was an intelligent and longsighted thing to do now but it wasn't obvious 20 years ago when they started. If it had failed - if as the preveailing view was - "kids never win you anything" - where would they be now? Embarking on another 20 year project?

So what's the next big idea that is going to get us back to the top? If it was something obvious you can bet every major club in Europe would already be doing it. And that's my point - the next team that dominates football after Barcelona (and there will be one) will be laughed at by all its rivals for pursuing some crazy scheme which doesn't fit in with orthodox thinking.

Why shouldn't that team be us?

Most crazy schemes are just crazy schemes, though. Selling good, young players at a loss for less than their market value - even if they don't fit into your overall strategy - is simple bad business and will not be one of the beneficial crazy schemes. I'm not wedded to keeping Carroll (I would on balance, but that's another story), but him going on loan when he still has a good value, is utterly ridiculous.  His value will just decrease.

There was an a priori logic to what Barca did - invest in youth, trust the playing system (which is based on largely proven methods of passing and possession) and be patient. Shame we didn't have the same degree of patience in the project of 2004-2009, and started to dismantle it at the first sign of a few bad results. Barca stuck with it through some pretty lean years and it paid dividends. The Barca example supports the virtue of patience not the virtue of risk taking. There has never been anyone in football who thought good passing, possession based football was not a good idea. Well, perhaps the odd England manager...

[SirCliveWolfe]

Leeds United were the biggest gamblers of all.
Manchester United went for a methodical, slow and steady approach with a very organised, determined manager who they trusted and was given sufficient time and funds to realise his potential.

I think I know which model I prefer - I have always believed the opposite of what the poster is alluding to - that patience in a manager and system is a virtue in club development, that one season too many is less harmful than one season too few. I think the evidence of the great dynasties in English football supports that supposition. The resources wasted on changing tack before you know for sure the system's broke are simply wasted resources, not brave bets.

Ah, but your talking about two different types of risk, short term and long term;

A: Leeds risked all on a short term 'safe bet', which was to invest heavily to build a squad to challenge for the title and get into the CL. This short term, but very risky, bet did not pay off at all and the club almost folded.

B: ManU risked a considerable about of time, in giving Ferguson 5/6 years to win the league, after all if he had failed, Utd would have had to try and build again, probably by giving the manager 4/5 years.

So both of the above scenarios were risky (to a varying degree) and no-one played it safe, imagine a slightly different world that Ferguson had lost the FA Cup replay and been sacked. Suddenly its the mid-90's and Liverpool/Blackburn/Arsenal dominate and become the comercial colosus that utd did.


The 'risk' that the OP is talking about, in my oppinion, would be something like;

A: Give Rodgers 5/6 years even without CL football to build a dynasty

or

B: Decided to go down the route Bilbao did and say, we'll rely on our academy and only have scousers/north-westerners playing for us, with maybe 1 'foreign' player

I don't necessarily agree with the OP, but I don't think he's talking about Leeds type risk 

[redbyrdz]

Do it yourself.

[vivabobbygraham]

I disagree - youre conflating "change" with "risk". But of course taking any decision (or not taking one) has a risk attached.  Hodgson was, for example, a "safe" choice - the establishment choice, premiership proven, English, wouldnt answer back to the owners, mediocre in all forms.

In regard to your last two sentences - we're not going to outspend our rivals, we're not going to have better quality players than them and teams like United have a massive head start on us in terms of their setup and infrastructure. So if you also don't want to take any risks what would you realistically be happy with? 6th? 7th?

You're missing my point which is usual fayre with you. Your rather unbalanced op declared it was time to take risks. I've argued we've been doing it for years with fuck all to show for it. What we needed was stability. We had it twice with Rafa and Kenny but both times were fucked by those who did not have a clue the damage they were doing.You get me? And you can fuck off with your 5th, 6th, 7th, shizer. That was not the op.

[Shanks1965]

I'd say we've already taken a big risk in appointing a new young manager with no proven experience of managing a big club. Which by the way I believe to have been a very good decision once they made the wrong decision to replace Kenny. Beyond that I don't agree with what the OP seems to be suggesting which is to get the cheque book out? Would be nice if we had money to spend but we did that in the last 18 months and on the whole it wasn't spent very wisely. So we have to face the facts that this is now a long term thing and if it takes us 3-4 years to get back into contention then thats what it will have to be and as long as we are making steady progress that's ok with me.

[Vulmea]

the idea of 'taking risks' being the only thing we can do? its sounds pretty desprate to me.

surely the key is being smarter than everybody else not taking bigger risks?

FSG are all about mitigating risks that does not mean you dont take them but you take them in a calculated way having weighed all the options. The trick isn't to take more risks than anybody else its about making the right choices, the right 'risks'.

Its a common management approach to take risks, senior management are particularly adept at signing off on them when they see the potential rewards -  unfortunately its also common for them also to see only the rewards and none of the downsides - and when those risks kick in its all about blame and what idiot decided to take those risks. In footie the manager generally carries the can.

Gambling has the glamour but it aint really a plan.

[And CouldHe Play!]

I don't see what point you're trying to make. We should take more risks? Sell more players? Recycle managers faster?

[keyo]

You're missing my point which is usual fayre with you. Your rather unbalanced op declared it was time to take risks. I've argued we've been doing it for years with fuck all to show for it. What we needed was stability. We had it twice with Rafa and Kenny but both times were fucked by those who did not have a clue the damage they were doing.You get me? And you can fuck off with your 5th, 6th, 7th, shizer. That was not the op.

It is not risks we have lacked but a plan....rafa had a plan but not supported fully by the owners, and see how we progressed then...we need a plan, then progression, and usually the title requires that little bit extra which is where we may have to gamble on a player outside the accepted plan (a sort of cantona type gamble, where it could go either way but the rewards if it goes the right way are massive) ....but that comes at the end of the successful implementation of a good plan

[vivabobbygraham]

It is not risks we have lacked but a plan....rafa had a plan but not supported fully by the owners, and see how we progressed then...we need a plan, then progression, and usually the title requires that little bit extra which is where we may have to gamble on a player outside the accepted plan (a sort of cantona type gamble, where it could go either way but the rewards if it goes the right way are massive) ....but that comes at the end of the successful implementation of a good plan

Agreed. It's this business of risk taking that I am averse to. It's the equivalent of casino banking, speculating, it has no plan. We need to plant roots and then grow. Rafa did it, Kenny was trying but the speculators scuppered it both times. I sincerely hope they allow BR the time to establish a garden where all plants can be nurtured to flourish and grow over time. Change is not risk until it becomes desperation. Mistakes will inevitably be made. They should be learned from not used as a stick to beat the boss with. It's happened too many times in the past and I fear it has become the norm now for the impatient armchair risk takers, accountants and managers who believe all our ills can be solved tomorrow by speculating in the transfer market.

[The 92A]

Think the last few posters make good points, to equate are problems with a lack of risk taking is not only historically wrong but isn'ta template to build a   successful football club. The OP is well written but I can't go along with it's central premise that the lack of risk taking has been a problem for us.

[Carra-ton]

I think people are over-complicating this. It isn't about risks, or lack of football vision. Each of Kenny, Rafa and now Rodgers know their football. It isn't like we didn't throw money around in last ten years, barring the last seasons of the cunty americans H&G.
For me, it is simple. You either buy bad players or you buy good players. By this I mean technically gifted players. In Rafa's time we bought on an average more players with excellent technique and skills, we profited. In the last season we spent crazy amounts on mediocre players.
I think more than risk, it is the fact where you know whether a player is technically good or not, and if the sum of those in the squad aren't technically good, especially in the forward areas which has been our problem (barring Suarez) we will suffer.
People don't have the guts to call a bad player bad, at times it backfires like it did with Lucas, but barring Lucas I have yet to see a Liverpool player who came in, showed bad technique and then went on to achieve great things and sudden improvement in technique levels.
So, for me it is simple, get the squad balance correct with more technically qualified players in and you will succeed. Also, worth noting is that by technique, I mean both in the mind and on the pitch.

[vivabobbygraham]

Think the last few posters make good points, to equate are problems with a lack of risk taking is not only historically wrong but isn'ta template to build a   successful football club. The OP is well written but I can't go along with it's central premise that the lack of risk taking has been a problem for us.

Mein Keimpf is well written...

[vivabobbygraham]

I think people are over-complicating this. It isn't about risks, or lack of football vision. Each of Kenny, Rafa and now Rodgers know their football. It isn't like we didn't throw money around in last ten years, barring the last seasons of the cunty americans H&G.
For me, it is simple. You either buy bad players or you buy good players. By this I mean technically gifted players. In Rafa's time we bought on an average more players with excellent technique and skills, we profited. In the last season we spent crazy amounts on mediocre players.
I think more than risk, it is the fact where you know whether a player is technically good or not, and if the sum of those in the squad aren't technically good, especially in the forward areas which has been our problem (barring Suarez) we will suffer.
People don't have the guts to call a bad player bad, at times it backfires like it did with Lucas, but barring Lucas I have yet to see a Liverpool player who came in, showed bad technique and then went on to achieve great things and sudden improvement in technique levels.
So, for me it is simple, get the squad balance correct with more technically qualified players in and you will succeed. Also, worth noting is that by technique, I mean both in the mind and on the pitch.

Depends how far back you want to go. In the 70's/80's there were many early doubts about McDermott, the two Johnsons (Craig and Davey), Toshack was in and out before hooking up with Keegan. Aldo took a while to settle as did Beardsley.

You mention Lucas. How about Skrtel, Reina when he first joined? I agree decisions made in the transfer market can have an effect but those decisions should be given time to come to fruition and not in haste and should not be allowed to knock a plan off course. Every manager in the game makes mistakes in the transfer market without exception.

[Carra-ton]

Depends how far back you want to go. In the 70's/80's there were many early doubts about McDermott, the two Johnsons (Craig and Davey), Toshack was in and out before hooking up with Keegan. Aldo took a while to settle as did Beardsley.

You mention Lucas. How about Skrtel, Reina when he first joined? I agree decisions made in the transfer market can have an effect but those decisions should be given time to come to fruition and not in haste and should not be allowed to knock a plan off course. Every manager in the game makes mistakes in the transfer market without exception.

Technically it becomes clear after seeing a player, whether he has it in him or not. Add to that, the Liverpool pressure and a player with poor technique is easily singled out. Also, I am not sure about the 70s and 80s but since I have been watching it has been the trend. About Skrtel and Reina, the talent was there to see immediately, and mistakes a few were ironed out due to the mental fortitude shown, but I stand by the fact that get more technically gifted players in and you wont fall short. We made half-hazard decisions in the market last year without doubt, and reap as we sow.