Topic: Some quality/important posts you may have missed

[royhendo]

We've not finished in the top four for ages. Reality. We fucked up last summer, and now have to work our way up slowly from where we are. That's reality, that's what teams do. Pretending we have been shit for years? We have been. 2009-2010 - 1 year. 2010-2011 - 2 years. 2011-2012 - 3 years. We are now in our 4th year. That's years mate.

What's happened in that time? Players have aged, players have left, shit has come in, shit has gone out, good players have come in, good players have gone out, youth has been promoted, youth has been sold, the owners have fucked off, the new owners have come in, we've had four different people manage the club - it's a ridiculous amount of time ago considering what's happened since 2009- and the turbulent nature of our club definitely isn't helping us to improve.

And I'm not talking about you, but since FSG sacked Rafa and Kenny, the fans have tasted blood and are hungry for more, it's splattered all over this thread. I can sort of, even understand that - I can understand that after Kenny and Rafa went that they want other managers to have equally short periods of time (to turn us around)- but that would be cutting off our nose to spite our face- it won't help us. It simply won't help us.

The criticism of Rodgers is beginning to become wildly hilarious now (in a 'I want to headbutt a wall till I pass out' hilarious), and I can only attribute it to frustration at how the team is doing at the moment- which I can also forgive- it's a terrible time to be a supporter (in comparison to our history, we don't support Nottingham Forest, Leeds or Blackburn). But attacking him for acting out his duties in speaking to the press, attacking him for wearing a fucking scarf, for daring to have a way that he would like us to play? Quoting sentences he has said to the press and taking three words from it and using it to have an attack? Analysing every little last thing he does after a loss to try and get in a few good pops?

Nah I can't have that, it's pathetic in the extreme, I thought we were better than that- and I think it comes from how we reacted to Hodgson and think that's acceptable now- but that man attacked the Kop for daring to fight to protect their club, that man had us sitting on the edge of our box in two banks of four, in front of the fucking Kop as teams out passed us, out played us, and we showed absolutely nothing to hold onto as a positive. Rodgers has done none of that and is not deserving of the abuse at his door at the moment. Aston Villa result bad, yes- improvement needed - but it's not a weekly occurrence like it is hinted at here.

I'm only 25 for fuck sake, but I remember growing up with a culture of backing the team and the manager, and then at the end of the season, taking time to look over all the decisions made, and having the difficult discussions about the manager then (Houllier sticks out)- but allowing him the season to get on with his job without petty sniping or any of that shite. I've admitted that more recently I've fucked up on that in recent times in the opening post. I was wrong, it doesn't help anything, only helps perpetuate a negative atmosphere around the club. So I've decided to stop being a bellend and get on with what I was taught by those older with more experience than me to do- and allow the manager to do his job without needless criticism or pressure.

The hypocrisy here is astounding from some people. Brendan said after West Brom, that in improving the team and getting them used to how he wants us to play that we'd have more games like that (a 3-0 loss)- and he was pilloried for saying it- 'our expectations are greater than that, we're Liverpool', 'It's a Hodgson style comment' and 'how dare he profess that as Liverpool's future this season'.

Then, right, get this, when he dares to look up the table, dares to try and show some positivity after getting two back to back wins since 2011 (that's a whole year ago by the way)- he's castigated again. So he came out and made that comment about 2nd, so what? He said let's aim high essentially, he didn't say 'oh well if we beat Aston Villa tomorrow it'll be utopia' he tried to make the team believe that we are capable of dispatching these teams now and that's no bad thing to me and he tried to get some positivity around the club. Could we fucking score, and have won, perhaps we'd even be discussing climbing the table again. He won't be the first, or the last manager to say something positive in a press conference and have the team lose- it happens even to Ferguson.

I think some of the attacks on Rodgers, aren't through looking realistically at our position, or how we can move forward, but a bitterness at how far we have fallen (not entirely his fault), a bitterness that Rafa and Kenny were let go, bitterness that Everton are doing better than us and a bitterness at watching Man United to continue to rumble on at the top of the league or thereabouts. Bitterness, and it stinks, we'll be laughing at Everton for it with no hint of irony at some point in the future and all.

Anyone would have thought that last summer was the only transfer window we'd ever get to improve the team. That no subsequent windows would be allowed. Unlike Kenny, who was allowed 5 top targets he could go out and purchase whatever the price, Rodgers wasn't allowed this. Period. No argument. We can and I can, argue that he had just two of his own proper signings despite more first team squad players leaving than that Borini and Allen compared to (Carroll, Maxi, Kuyt and Bellamy). So let's be fair in any criticism of Borini/Allen.

His signings were clearly long term based as well, so we need to factor that into our analysis when weighing up how well they have done- and even Borini's barely played- so the criticism on him is baffling. Short term if we wanted instant improvement, should he have gone for players like Borini (21) and Allen (22)? (as well as Yesil 18, Assaidi 23 and Sahin on loan at 23)?- perhaps not, perhaps it was a mistake- but we'd tried cuppa soup points last season and that failed as well- so what's wrong with trying to build foundations for the future?

So whether he wanted to do it or not or not, he also had the promotion of Suso/Sterling, both also 18 from the academy to replace seasoned veterans Maxi and Bellamy.  Also Wisdom has found himself breaking through into the team. To me it seems that there is pressure from above to start to slowly build the club up again with a collection of players who can grow into their roles- youth essentially- and then have quality added to them.

I can see the criticism of the summer, especially at FSG, but I don't think it's all Rodgers fault, not by a long stretch. I think there was an acceptance from the owners and even from some of us, that perhaps spring boarding straight back into the top four would be difficult especially after the summer prior, so the year zero was put in place- everyone says this year zero always happens but it's the first time I think it has properly happened for me. Big earners were taken off the wage bill, youth was brought in through transfers and promoted up from the academy- we've saved money on wages etc - great. We have tied down Skrtel and Agger to new contracts - great- even Suarez signed a new one- great.

But to judge Rodgers on one overhaul, one big window in the scheme of things is harsh in my book. The window was in some ways different to windows we've had before. Everyone was willing to blame FSG for not backing him in August, it's all Rodgers fault in December.

He needs at least two other windows. He needs at least three other fucking players. Assuming FSG stay true to their word, we can now look to reinvest the saved wage bill on the right players - these players need to be quality who will slot straight into the first team or the bench to compete with the youth coming through- Sterling shouldn't be starting every game in his first season!

But we collectively need to make sure he gets these players and pressure FSG if he doesn't- that involves backing him unfortunately for some of you.  On the other side, in terms of outgoings it looks like Downing has been told he can leave, so that will help us manoeuvre more as well, but it's taking time to get players like him and Joe Cole out of the club- thus not everything can be done in one summer or one window.

18 months. Since when has that been too much to ask? He needs to be allowed to make some adjustments in January and see how we perform after that. Then to make some more adjustments in summer and see how we perform after that - until at least halfway into next season. For me, that's only fair- else we get rid of the end of the season, more millions on compo, then more money on getting players out that the new manager might not fancy, that have just come in - nah it's a never ending cycle of shite can we not see that now?

We are the epitome of midtable. We are 7 points from THIRD. We are 7 points from the relegation zone, but it's not exactly new under Rodgers. We need consistency. But we are certainly not miles behind where we want to aim for- even after the setback yesterday. There is no denying that reinforcements will help us in January, when you look at the sort of players we play behind Suarez (Enrique, Sterling, Shelvey, Joe Cole) whether they are heroes, or just effective players who put the ball in the net- we have to be able to improve on the players who play behind Suarez at the moment and thus must improve our effectiveness as a team- those new players will do that, don't bother arguing against that.

It hurts right now. We've not been like this for a long time. But Kenny isn't here. Rafa isn't coming back. Capello and (insert whoever else you may have wanted here) wasn't appointed, and I don't think as proud Liverpool fans we'd even want another manager sacked during a season.

Now criticism of his methods, fine, criticism of his line ups and his tactics, fine- all managers make decisions that not everyone agrees with- this happens in football. But talking about getting rid of him already, talking of potential replacements for next season, or constantly reminding people about how you have been proved right with Rodgers (well before the end of the season and even KNOWING he was fucked over with the Carroll/Dempsey shit) is pathetic.

Oh and that snake oil salesman shit, is hugely disrespectful and can massively fuck off as far I'm concerned. I can't believe people are allowed to imply that Rodgers is one big act, going home laughing at how he is Liverpool's manager and we're all falling for how shit he is. I don't believe he has that little ambition and I don't believe he isn't trying his utmost even if it isn't enough at the moment.

Best supporters in the world my arse. He's not walking on his own, but he's walking with a lot less of us than he should be and it'll have an impact on the pitch eventually as well, it always does. Remember that.

[royhendo]

Chops on the Sturridge signing.

Dear Daniel,
I love you so,
from the bottom of your toe
to the top of your soul glow.
Let me be your Roland Browning
to your Janest St Clair
Let me be your Roland Browning
because You're so debonair

Like a sweetcorn in a poo
you stand out so bright
offering your love
thats rare like white dog shite
be the one for me
who scores all them goals
and don't let gripper stebson
step on your sweet toes


All my love

Roland.

[royhendo]

You don't get this anywhere else.

If you take into account the fact that Fulham were poor, and if we allow for the possibility that our own play helped to make them look even poorer, then that performance was as good as any we will have all season. Statistically, it ticked all of the boxes - more possession, more shots, more goals, clean sheet, more passes, more accurate passes, more dribbles, more tackles, more corners, etc. I don't know how much more the team could have done yesterday in terms of build-up, defending, possession, managing the recovery in the game, and more. If Agger had scored in the open net, and Suarez and Gerrard finished their angled 1v1's with the GK, we are looking at a really good score to compare with Chelsea's today. Overall, though, the players did what was demanded of them, did it consistently, and did it to a high standard.

Shape -
The shape of the team, overall, was really good, even with the substitutions. The positional discipline that the starting eleven held to was good to see, and it definitely helped not only the possession and pass accuracy, but it helps Gerrard to play the passes he was playing to make him look like vintage Gerrard - players were making natural runs, if a pass wasn't on, players could turn and make instant passes to positions they knew would be filled, and the runs were more natural - Gerrard seemed to be choosing his moments to break beyond the forward, and if it was a conscious thing, we may see a better second half of the season because it means he has accepted his new physical limitations in terms of his explosive power, and can make better use of them by timing the frequency of those runs, rather than making them the central part of his game.

Additionally, with the definite shape of the front four, it meant that although Fulham might have approached the game with the idea that we would pass and pass to rest on the ball without penetrating much, the surety of Gerrard's long passes, allied to Suarez's running, allied to the overall extreme circulation of the ball, meant that Fulham had more than one pattern to worry about. Then, with Downing not only having a good game, but being more direct than is usual for him, you can see that if Fulham were under-prepared and below par, they were going to be in for a long evening with these subtle changes of approach from Liverpool. The foundation of all that, though, was the consistent and strong shape of the team:



Pressing -
The pressing yesterday, much like in the Norwich game, was a lot closer to what it needed to be a Barca-type team. Instead of pressing one at a time and stranding the first defender against the attacker and support attackers, players were going at the opposition player on the ball in two's. This is quite a Brazilian thing to do, rather than a Spanish one - it works under the maxim that "the first defender doesn't win the ball, the 2nd defender might, but the 3rd defender must". We could see this working by the number of times we forced the Fulham midfield to turn with the ball and play it back, leading to some pressure on their defense as Shelvey, Suarez and Suso did good jobs of tracking the passes and pressing them (although Shelvey lacks the acceleration to be truly effective at this, and Suso can sometimes get disengaged from the flow of play). As we can see from the average positions, though, the attacking midfield three kept it tight horizontally, so there was a tighness to our pressing game that is often missing in the straight 4-3-3 (something Rafa understood, hence the development of the 4-2-3-1 to a high degree). This horizontal pressure also allowed the fullbacks to get more engaged in the attack, so the flow of transition from one phase (defence) to another (attack) was consistent and smooth, allowing us to keep Fulham under positional pressure for most of the game.

Additionally, if we look at the positions of Skrtel and Agger, we can see two things that were different than usual; firstly, Skrtel is usually the more recessed of the two defenders, dropping in behind Agger's line. This has a few reasons - either the opposition attacking from the left, the opposite forwards having pace against Skrtel, and sometimes just general uncertainty about the system in the back. Yesterday, though, they were pretty square to each other, which might indicate growing trust in the system and each other's role within in. It could also be influenced by the return of Lucas and the knowledge that he will drop into the middle and do a central defenders job in a way that Joe Allen can't (no fault of his). Secondly, Agger and Skrtel were closer together than they usually are, and it would be interesting to know if this was a conscious move given the gaps we were hurt in last week, or if it was a subconscious thing, with the pair not wanting to risk being beaten through the middle again. Either way, it worked, it was conventional, and it didn't disrupt the possession game. If it was consciously done, with BR's approval/coaching, then I hope it stays, because it allows them both to defend more naturally, keeps them involved in the movement of the ball, and doesn't preclude them from going wide on certain triggers (GK with the ball, goal kicks, etc.). The analogy to us is a zipper - when the ball is behind, it opens up, but when the ball moves into the forward zones, the central defenders close up together, hurting the space behind. On the other hand, this opens the wings to counterattack, but that has the benefit of making play predictable (the ball has to come inside, and it's only arriving from one direction - not the boy band, though. They are terrible wingers). So hopefully this is a genuine change to the positional play of the defenders, because that central channel is consistently a weak area of the system in a league that more often than not goes directly down the middle.

Lines of attack -
What is interesting to look at the Fulham defender's average positions is that they are pulling towards our left side, but statistically, we attacked a lot more down the right side. The probable reason for this is the threat we posed down that side, augmented by Gerrard's pinpoint passes to Enrique. The combination of Enrique, Suarez and Suso, with Shelvey moving in that zone too, clearly kept the Fulham central defence on their toes. This had the added benefit of isolating Downing and Johnson with Riise, allowing Downing to have a bit of space to express himself and show what a fully-motivated Downing can do. This explains the space he had for both his goal, his shot and his assist. The fact that the defensive midfield trio for Fulham pushed quite far forward (not so much in support of Berbatov, but probably to disturb the possession of Gerrard and Lucas - however, as mentioned earlier, Gerrard was releasing the ball longer and earlier and behind the Fulham fullbacks, so that made that gameplan ineffective quite quickly) meant that the entire attacking midfield three had a lot of space to move and play, forcing the Fulham defence to split their attention away from Suarez, which let him in at least twice with legitimate chances to score (one of which he did). If we add Sturridge and one more mobile forwards (including Borini when fit), I think we'll see more games like this one, in terms of the attack. If we can keep the defence solidified like we did yesterday, I think that even the most doubtful fan can see the progress that can be made in the second half of the season. We may not meet our actual table position targets, but I don't think we'd be far off with more performances like yesterday

Merry Xmas.

[The 5th Benitle]

Superb.
Scribe him up

[Hazell]

Shockingly, the calls for Roy's head still took time to come in spite of knowing precisely what would happen from 30 years of experience or whatever the fuck the number was at the time. You're right though, it's set a bloody bad example because now people look to it and think it's normal. It isn't, it's utterly abhorrent but it was depressing to see people calling for Rodgers' head on here within a few minutes of the match ending last night. You could see a group building up their little slanted portfolios of evidence to throw out and then justify doing it. 'Look at the money he's wasted - not one of his signings was in the first eleven' was a true belter. There's an element in our support who give us manic depressives a bad rep - there's a real mid-table mentality on display, not from those counselling patience, but from those who think a win means we'll win the league (or get top 4) or those who think a loss means that we need to write off everything and start again. It's unhealthy. And they need to grow up or fuck off because the club really won't be able to do anything going forwards when torn between those two daft extremes.

That's not saying all criticism is unfair or even unhealthy. And that's the kicker - there's enough things to mull over and discuss without the ludicrous stuff. There's been some great posts about the details recently, real food for thought which can help inform opinion. Rodgers has made mistakes. He'll make more mistakes. Every manager does. Maybe he'll make more than others. (Do wish at times we had gone for Van Gaal because I could write some people's complaining posts for them in advance - those aren't knuckles dragging on the floors but their agendas being dusted off). But we either stick with him and see him right and give him the support and demonstrate that actually we are willing to eat some shite as part of a bigger plan. Or we emphasise to the world that we've become everything we used to despise and mock. A revisit to Spurs in the 80s or any other of the big clubs who figured sacking the manager at the sign of every dark cloud would propel them forward rather than entrenching their decline. And we'll do it in 120 characters or less because big posts, long sentences and anything which requires more than a glance is now beyond our sub-neanderthal comprehension.

Rodgers may well not be the one who'll get it right. There's no guarantees that he will. And if he doesn't, I'm sure we'll be deluged with those who pop out of the woodwork after every setback telling the world that they got it right first. He'll definitely not get it right if we start agitating for his head. Know some say they didn't see it, but it's started already. We've got to Christmas, so that's patient enough right? Not seeing what the options are. Short term fixes are always tempting, but there's no realistic short term fix for us which doesn't involve ludicrous amounts of spending funded by petrodollars. We can certainly get a short term bounce, and I think Rodgers is going to be hellishly tempted to go for one to buy himself some time, but the same people'll still be back having a moan about how we're not playing in the right way. Seen it before. They're predictable. Their attitude towards football is the same as Chelsea's owner - "I want that team - in the right colour kit - and now".

The irony is that some of these same people were the ones who agitated against the man they'd now welcome back with open arms. Booed and whipped themselves into a fury against the manager of a team which went top of the table. Bitched and moaned about two defensive midfielders and playing teams on their merits. The sad thing is that those who'll kick against the pricks are just getting fed up of it and are opting out. It's draining their love for the club and the game. Still of the opinion that whilst relegation and a complete financial meltdown would have been a terrible thing to wish on the club it would have really cleaned out some of the idiocy which has gathered around the club. A long time really is a week now. A month has become an eternity. We let the genie out of the bottle with our campaigns. Sad that when we unite we're such a force for the good at times, but that same power is at risk of destroying everything worth preserving about us. We need to shape up as a support or fuck off. Because we've become a parody of ourselves the past few years.

[royhendo]

Just came in here to do just that Hazell. A RAWK treasure, our Zeb.

[the 92A]

Zeb's posting has been consistantly spot on recently that is a belter of a post.

[royhendo]

A young man bursts out the front door and sprints down the cobbled streets, lured by the buzz ahead of him. People stream like ants towards the middle of town and join what is now a noisy, rumbling throng of excitement. Murmurs and tears and outright hollering cascade along the crowd as news is disseminates between friends and families and neighbors. The child looks for an explanation, but everybody around is captivated either by the occasion, or by what now might be celebration. He pulls on the coat of a wizened old man in front of him in the hope of news.

"What is it sir? What is all the commotion?"

The old man stoops, and in one motion lifts his hat and holds it to his heart. His face trembles with years of bottled emotion but he stares the child dead in the eyes:

"We did it son. We sold Joe Cole."

[royhendo]

I hope you haven't missed it...

Liverpool v Sunderland

Rather than focus on the game itself as a game of two teams, I think it is important to focus more on Liverpool after this game, because quite frankly that game was the best example of what Rodgers is looking to achieve on a broader scale. The game had everything – Possession, Pressure, Goals and Shots on Target, Mobility, Balance and more importantly, Cohesion. It was not even a perfect performance. The overall key factor from the game, from a fans point of view, is that Rodgers must be allowed to realize his vision – both from the fan support aspect and from the owner’s perspective. He needs time, encouragement and funds (allied to control of who comes in and who goes out). The reason for this is simple – if he doesn’t get the support and time here, another big club will give it to him, and he could create something special there instead.

“Death by Passing” and Sunderland’s System -

What we saw yesterday was not quite the culmination of Rodgers’ work, but a major pointer in the right direction. It was, for all intents and purposes, “Death by Passing”. People are disinclined here to give the team and manager any credit for these recent dominant wins, claiming the lack of talent of the other team on the day. The truth, though, is somewhere in the middle between them being bad and us being good. The QPR that looked soulless and lost in the last game went out and beat Chelsea away. The Fulham that were tanked 4-0 were 2-1 winners AT West Bromwich Albion, a few people’s dark horses for a Champions League spot.

And so it was that the Sunderland who have picked up form in recent games and have beaten the League Champions were made to look like pub league amateurs constantly chasing the ball like a cat chasing a ball of string. Certainly, they didn’t play to their full potential, but once they missed their second clear chance on goal, they weren’t seeing much of the ball for the rest of the game – a fluid midfield, a suffocating front line and the engine of Jordan Henderson made sure of that. For the sake of fairness, let’s look at how Sunderland ended up having to play:



The first thing we can see is that their midfield and forward shape were dragged all over the pitch. Because of the strength of Sterling and Suarez connecting, McClean had to play deep and double up on Raheem. Although they ostensibly played a 4-4-1-1, and although their back four with Colback in front kept their shape at least, the midfield and forward set-up was a shapeless mess in reality, being forced to chase the ball all over the width and depth of the field. And if they thought they had some respite from the possession at any time once Liverpool got beyond the 6th pass, there was Gerrard dropping deep into the right defensive third space to receive and launch passes Suarez.

Although Sunderland have been prone to sitting deep under O’Neill, the quality of ball and player mobility from Liverpool forced the back four to push up just to stay connected to their rudderless midfield. This is what created the ample space for Liverpool to attack into. The quality of the combination patterns, the direct passes from Gerrard and Suarez, and the midfield runs from deep ensured that no matter what plans Sunderland had for the game, our early goal would ensure that their plans would be a footnote to the game, rather than the narration of it. They didn’t play to their potential, but to give Liverpool and the manager credit, they weren’t allowed to. To do that, you have to get the ball, and when you get it, you have to attack an unbalanced defence. Thankfully, they neither got much of the ball, nor did they face a shapeless and open backline.

Liverpool’s System –


I asked earlier if anyone wanted to hazard a guess at what our actual formation played out as, according to player roles rather than what was on paper. Most guessed at a 4-2-3-1, and there wouldn’t be anything wrong with that assessment, as there was a solidity to our play that would indicate that. However, the solidity, I believe, came more from the balance of the team through the thirds and in the channels, and we covered the field very, very well, without sacrificing defensive solidity. For all intents and purposes, we lined up tactically like we have done for a lot of the season (and which I proposed in the Preview thread):




We can see the high-positioned back four, the defensive midfielder, the runner, and the “Controller”/Playmaker in central midfield, and the recessed wingers/inside forwards with Suarez central and high up front. We didn’t stray too much from that shape at all, except where we DID make an alteration, we created almost a whole new system which was a hybrid of systems that the players seemed comfortable with:




What we first notice here is that Lucas played closer to Agger and Skrtel than he usually does, which had the effect of plugging that central gap I talked about in the Back-Three thread. Agger and Skrtel also played relatively closer to the central channel, splitting only on certain triggers (Reina on goalkicks, Reina receiving a back pass, etc). After the ball entered the central and attacking thirds, Agger and Skrtel became a bit more conservative. This is something a few posters mentioned in that Back-Three thread, including myself, as a way of mitigating that large space in the middle. Combine that with Lucas playing deeper than usual, and we had a central defensive channel covered by three players no more than 10 yards apart, meaning we covered 20-30 yards of central space with 3 players, rather than leaving a 30 yard space being covered by one (Lucas). This allowed the fullbacks to comfortably get forward into the attack, as evident by the number of forays forward into the edge of the box that both Wisdom and Johnson made, with both having good chances to shoot on target. With Lucas dropping back, though, and the fullbacks being wide, Gerrard found himself with a lot more space to drop into to receive the ball, allowing him to assess the runs of the forward players, or switch the play our of pressure in the channels when necessary.

The second part of this space created was due to the unrelenting pressure that Henderson put on the Sunderland midfielders and back four. In all, the workload and positional play of the trio showed how a Rodgers midfield works when the right people are in the right positions. You can almost imagine why a player like Sahin would appeal to Rodgers in this scenario, as the runner and the holding mid would create a huge pocket of space for the controller to “quarterback” the game. Up front, Downing had another good game, working hard, showing a bit of flash, and a good understanding with him, Henderson and Suarez has been recently evident. Sterling and Suarez have a clear mentor relationship, and that could be a forward partnership to look out for over the years. The only positional relationship which didn’t materialize was between Wisdom and Sterling, who clearly didn’t know each other’s style of play too well, and didn’t seem to be on the same page the way Johnson and Downing usually are. All-in-all, the shape of the team and the play was as close as we’ve been to the ideal Rodgers team this season.

Echoes of History –


However, the positives don’t end there. If we look again at the formation, and the roles played, we can see from the diagrams that although we played a 4-3-3 on paper, in terms of positions and tasks, we actually played a 3-4-3. The gap between midfield still existed, even though the gap between the two central defenders was consolidated with Lucas. The workrate of Gerrard and Henderson, though, more or less nullified that space, except for the one passage of play when they cut through us with some good give and go’s. What is noticeable is that our front three pressed Sunderland into their defensive third quite aggressively, backed up by another line of three (Johnson – Henderson – Wisdom), with Gerrard almost sweeping up behind them, and Lucas, Agger and Skrtel taking care of the offside space.

In effect, we were pressing their back four with seven players, and when we won the ball, we opened up and created good width and depth. We can see this by the positions of the team across the three channels – the central channel is well stocked with the spine of the team – Lucas, Gerrard, Henderson, and Suarez. The wide channels were equally balanced with at least Downing-Johnson and Sterling-Wisdom doubling up in the channels, with Agger and Skrtel playing half-and-half roles in defending the channels and the central defensive zone. In effect, we were playing a 3-4-3 (or a 3-1-3-3 to be technical, with Gerrard as the “1”). This was encouraging, because positiionally on paper, we weren’t playing with three central defenders, we didn’t have a midfield four, and the two outside attackers were true wingers on their strong sides. If you’re an opposition manager and team preparing in any way all week to play against a 4-3-3, then these positional changes were really going to make you dizzy. It’s a very difficult formation to play against, and it has a good solid precedent in the past from one of the great teams that could be said to be a model almost more than Barca are for what we’re trying to achieve: the Ajax team of 1995. If we look below...




…. We can see that Ajax played positionally much the same way as we did against Sunderland, with the main difference being the more dedicated central positioning of Blind at the back and Rijkaard being the general. Similarly, the outside central mids were actual central midfielders, but as someone pointed out earlier, it seemed at times that Johnson and Wisdom came into the middle of the field as part of the initial pressure phase. We definitely played more compact in the first pressure phase, both in open play and in defence of free-kicks (a trait which almost let Sunderland in to score). This shape-change helped us to win the ball back as it put players in areas that Sunderland didn’t expect. It threw their shape off and had Sunderland chasing shadows. In much the same way, Ajax would keep the ball moving and drop Litmanen into central positions to make their diamond midifield into a flat midfield, causing the opposition to reassess their own shape as they now had a new arrangement to face. The constant moving of the ball under Van Gaal was something that relied on good balance, good width, coverage of both the thirds of the field and the channels, and Van Gaal felt that a 3-4-3 did that job better than other formations, even Ajax’s historically prized 4-3-3. But it was also flexible, as have seen, and could even be changed to a 4-3-3 by dropping Rijkaard into the defense and having Blind play as a sweeper. If anyone wants to see the potential for how Rodgers wants us to play, don’t watch Barcelona – watch Ajax in the 1995 Champions League and the Eredivisie. That was the archetype of “Death by Passing”.

Conclusion –


In the fullness of the game, I think we saw some real glimpses of the Rodgers vision being played out for all to see. There was no “guff”, no soundbites, no “talking”, and no buzzwords. It was Rodgers’ vision writ large for the people of Liverpool to see – extreme circulation of the ball, temporization, pressure defence, balance in all thirds and channels of the field, a central spine, and a system that every player understands, from starters to bench players. Even the addition of Allen, Suso and Carragher didn’t change the patterns of play. That, my friends, is real coaching. The players believed, the manager believes, the message is being perfected, and the addition of top quality will only see the plan getting better. For the future, I think a lot more teams are going to come to Anfield and be made to look “rubbish”. Rodgers is building a fortress, brick by brick, pass by pass. It needs some time, but it needs a good foundation, and the lumps we took early in the season in order to get the system machinated will be well worth it – if not this season, then in the seasons to come.

[Not A Scouser]

A milestone for me, posting on this marvelous thread (with permission 'cause I'm new).  Reality with regard to referees by RedHopper

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=301510.msg11224839#msg11224839


I'm not sure that refereeing has been left behind, I think that it is fans perceptions, expectations, and the bullshit pressure put on them by Television that has changed.

Watching match of the day last night, you could see referees making mistakes all over the place. Wigan should have had two clear penalties in the first half an hour (one in the lead up to the first goal, one when ireland just chopped down maloney) Stoke should have had two penalties for handball against southampton, and nzonzi should never have been sent off. Kompany should have been sent off in the build up to the second city goal, bassong should have been sent off for the tackle on nasri, (nasri's reaction was absolutely hilarious, and butting bassong's shoulder with his chin to get sent off shows unlimited wells of stupidity) but aguero should have had two penalties at least. In spurs southampton, bale shouldn't have been booked, but defoe should, and there should have been at least one penalty. Watching that you'd think that refereeing had never been worse.

However if you go back and look at old games, when the game was slower, and players were trying to con the referee less, you see much worse refereeing, and people missing more. Go back fifteen years, and you see people literally getting away with murder, go back further still and things approximating criminal assault are going unchecked. The game where they put a microphone on david elleray back in 1989 shows that players were screaming "you fucking cheat, You Fucking cheat" into the referees face, and refusing to look at him when he was giving them a mild ticking off (I'm talking about tony adams and Dave O'Leary here) and later in that clip we see George Graham coming into the referees dressing room with a face like thunder, only to take flight when he sees the camera. Go back to the 70's and you'd think that every ref was either blind or bought.

I think all that has really changed is our expectations, and the pressure of television. The referees today are faster, fitter, sharper, and able to deal with an awful lot more. They have to make a decision every 18 seconds on average, and in the post match ratings get well over 90% of the key decisions, and a much higher proportion of the minor decisions correct.

What has changed is that as the proportion of the mistakes goes down and down, the focus on these mistakes goes up and up. Television focuses only on the ones that go wrong, and fans only focus on the ones that go against their own team. This is true of fans of all clubs, but with the advent of one club message boards, this problem is getting worse and worse. Fans, with the assistance of television (that is pushing for a bigger role in football) is pushing people to focus more and more on what they don't get, and managers who are desperate for any old excuse grasp at refereeing decisions that go against them.

We get into the realms of selection bias. People remember only the decisions that go against their side. they never remember the decisions the penalties or free kicks that they shouldn't have got. They never remember the stuff that their own players get away with, only what the other guy gets away with. And once you lose sight of that, that's where conspiracy theories, and dark talk of corruption creeps in.

As fans We sit around complaining about linesmen missing marginal offsides, even though the linesman has to be able to see the ball be struck, the position of all the players at the split second when the ball is being struck, and  decide whether or not the person he is looking at is interfering with play. I don't know how they do it. However I'm happy to let them have a go at it.

Human error is part of the game, and referees have worked harder than most to reduce it. I think that managers or players who complain about referees should get a boot up the hole, because they are simply shifting blame and trying to dodge the issue and look for excuses. The quicker that people within the game, and covering the game start to realise how difficult it is for referees and lines men, and the quicker they move away from blaming officials, then the healthier the situation will become. Using technology is only going to move us towards some stop start bullshit like rugby or american football, and seperate the professional game, from everyone else.

[BreakfastPercy]

PhaseofPlay (Red) with a superb example of maintaining one's thread beyond the OP, and keeping things high-concept and non-patronizing.

Also credit to DanA (black) for asking pointed questions.

Quote from: DanA on Today at 05:52:32 PM

I've known from the start what you are saying has to be correct as I am almost certain it's a concept you're well researched on and has stood up against greater football minds throwing more than anything I could think up. I'm arguing more for my education than anything else. It's how I learn.

I can see that space and time is a good answer to all those questions and it's got me leaning more towards what you are saying but then I ask.


Why do Stoke pack the box for a long throw? Is it space or time?

There's a glib and a real answer

The glib on is that because they're all 6 foot plus, the space they use is in the air

The real one is this - they don't score directly from the throw - it's the flick-on headed in. So if they put Crouch near-post, it draws players towards him to compete for the header, which creates space at the back post for the flick-on player. If the defending team then spread out to negate the back post space, then the receiver of the throw has space to control the ball and do something else with it. So it's about using space to cause indecision on the part of the defence.

How did Inter beat Barcelona despite conceding so much space/time?

They conceded space in the two thirds of the field that Barca couldn't hurt them. But Barca didn't have much space in the final third, where they could do damage. So Inter consolidated the space where most goals are scored from, and dared Barca to try and break through. Space isn't concrete, which is why it can be manipulated and changed on the field.

If space and time was all that was important why do we have Andy Carroll successfully playing the game?

Carroll, for all intents and purposes, creates space by checking into long balls to his head. The space he checks into drags a defender away from the central area. A runner will be moving into this space and will receive the flick-on and be in with a chance to shoot. Kevin Nolan did that job at Newcastle, but there was no-one doing it at Liverpool (especially as Suarez is more of a lateral-mobility player off the ball, rather than a vertically moving one).

Was total football successful because it exploited space and time or because it transferred from one advantage to another more effectively.

It was more successful because it exploited the predominant man-marking defence of the day. The right-back marked the left winger. When the left winger moved inside (or back to the ball), he created space behind him, because the right back would stick to the left winger and move with him. We see this movement as pretty standard these days, but in the late 60's/early 70's, this type of movement throughout a whole team was pretty revolutionary. It is also partly why zonal defence was developed, as players now stayed in their zones rather than following opposition players all over the field.

[royhendo]

You misunderstand our 'fan base'.

If we sign Sneijder it will be a panic buy, a colossal waste of money, a repeat of the Joe Cole mistake, a triumph of commercial over tactical considerations, and an almighty indication that Rodgers hasn't a clue in what direction he's sailing his boat.

But if we don't buy him the same 'fan base' will be eager to explain that Liverpool lack ambition, are a mediocre club with no star quality, are being run into the ground by tight-fisted owners, and have a manager who is wedded to a youth model that doesn't work and a set of tactics that cannot accommodate genius.

In other words these people wait to see where Brendan Rodgers and FSG stand on a particular question before jumping themselves. And, of course, when the managerial hand is revealed they promptly jump into the opposite camp. 

[Arcadian]

Dalglish, Barnes, and Souness eh? All great players, there's no doubt about that whatsoever. Souness is probably my 'favorite' player. Namely because he was simply the most horrible of horrible c*nts who'd literally physically beat a result of his opponents if he had to. But here's the thing. Kenny was a central forward attacking player in his pomp. Barnes was a wide attacking player in his pomp, and Souness a central midfielder in his. Gerrard has occupied all of those positions for us at various points of his career and never failed to excel in any of them. He was dynamite behind Torres. That partnership was lethal when injuries weren't thwarting them from playing together.

He also played out wide for virtually the entirety of Rafa's second season in charge and banged in a shit load of goals from that position too. And despite what the "Gerrard shouldn't play centrally" brigade might say, he has delivered countless massive performances for us in that position as well. Add to that the fact that he also played right back for us during extra time in Istanbul and completely nullified Milan's threat from that wing. Not only did he adapt seamlessly to that job that night, he delivered a performance that any right back would be proud of, including the Phil Neals of this world. I'm not necessarily saying that he is a better attacker than Kenny and a better winger than Barnes and a better central midfielder than Souness all rolled into one. But no one can say that Gerrard has ever failed in any of those positions. When you really think about it, you really do have to acknowledge that Gerrard is a footballing freak of nature that has consistently delivered for us in positions where the aforementioned 3 might have failed in. That's quiet a testament to the guys ability and the true extent of his ability as a footballer

Dalglish might beat him on certain attacking attributes, but when you lay their respective skill sets out wide and really compare them then it's quiet evident that Gerrard is the superior 'footballer'. Same with Barnes and Souness. Yeah, each of those two might beat him on certain attributes also, but when the comparison is one that's simply based on "footballer versus footballer" then no one can really touch Gerrard when it comes to being the single most complete player to ever play for Liverpool. You can argue the side debates about their number of winners medals or about them playing in different teams and era's all you like. But It doesn't really change their individual attributes as players. Yeah, sure, Gerrard probably lacks the silky skills of Digger, and probably wont go around breaking opponents jaws like Souness did, but what what he lacks in certain areas, he makes up for in absolute spades in others. Players rarely get the acclaim that they truly deserve until they retire IMO. Players like Zidane for example. He walked out on the game under a cloud. But now that he's not playing anymore I can't help but think "fuck, he's a loss. I actually miss watching him. What a fucking player he was". I think the same will happen with Gerrard. It will be after his retirement before people will really reflect objectively on just how good he really was and think "fuck, he really could pull off a host of things that others couldn't".

Nostalgia and sentiment can often make us look backwards when it comes to offering our praise and our acknowledgment of greatness. Everyone is guilty of that from time to time. The problem is though, if you do it too much, you'll fail to notice what's right in front of you. We're witnessing the twilight years of the career of the most complete player to ever play for Liverpool in Steven Gerrard. Is he the same player he was in his pomp? No. He's not. You wont see that Gerrard ever again. At least not consistently. But he's still capable of producing the impossible, albeit at a now slightly reduced frequency. Just enjoy and appreciate him while he's still playing because he's on the wind down now. You'll all miss him when he's gone. Don't say you won't, because you will

[djphal]

Good post Billy, I would have to agree with all of it

[royhendo]

Brilliant that. This too.

I realise I'm at a slight disadvantage here because I saw a lot of Souness in the flesh and am therefore not confined to the odd tape here and there. But Souness was a better passer of the ball than Gerrard. He wasn't nearly as dynamic, he couldn't do many of the things that Stevie does, but he was quicker to release the ball, used every bit of the boot to do it, and had a wider menu of passes than any other player I've ever seen at Anfield except Alonso. To see Souness poised over a ball was thing of joy in itself. He was exceptionally balanced (like Litmanen) and it was very hard to tell which way he was going to move with it. In other words he was in absolute command of the thing.

We always knew he was good. A better passer than Glen Hoddle and obviously much harder. It was the fact that he was much harder that prevented many pundits from seeing how graceful he was as a footballer. Then as now it was difficult for English football commentators to understand that a player could be both skilful and fierce at the same time. I recall a game at White Hart Lane where it seemed Souness only played with the outside of the boot - as if he was proving a point about who had genuine finesse and who didn't. Probably that's not on tape, sorry. But it was indicative of the arrogance of the man. And let's face it, you can't exist in a permanent state of arrogance - as Souness did - without a huge reservoir of skills to draw on. There's plenty of opponents who would have liked to have stopped him, by foul means as well as fair. I can't think of one who did.

The crowning achievement was when he came up against Falcao and Cerezo in Rome. Thanks to the '82 World Cup the whole world knew how awesome that central midfield pair were, whereas Souness was relatively unknown outside Britain. What was remarkable about that Final was Souey's effortless command of the centre of the park. It wasn't even done through intimidation. It was the fact that he had the skills and aura to impose himself on his illustrious opponents - in their own back yard too. I remember reading an interview with Cerezo later where he talked about the frustration of not being able to get the ball off Souness. I was remarkably relaxed watching that Final and the main reason was Souness. Him being there, strutting and orchestrating, meant we were better than them.

I love Gerrard. He's up there with Kenny for me. But as a player who dictates the game through passing it's hard to look past Souness. Alonso comes very near. Jan Molby isn't too far behind. But Souness was king.

[royhendo]

At the risk of going all Dirk Gently, If you’re going to look at the fullbacks then I’m not sure you can do it in isolation. You’ve got to look at them in the shape of the team in general, and specifically, how they affect the attack. I’d say it’s pretty clear through our purchases and how we’ve set up that Rodgers is looking to build from the front. I don’t necessarily think this is what he would always look to do, or whether it was what he had in mind taking over at Liverpool because of how poor we were in front of goal last season and he’s chose to address that first and foremost.

When Rodgers was interviewed by the fans last month I felt one of the key things that came over was his belief (which I assume is borne out in statistics) that the majority of goals are scored from within the width of the goal. When he spoke of the shape of the 4-3-3 (2-3-2-3 ) I kept this in mind, and then decided to see how it stacked up with our supposed targets of the window. I said when we were after Sturridge that it was interesting how many of his goals last season (38%) came from within the 6 yard box.

A similar trend appeared when looking at Tom Ince’s goals this season in a fantastic break down by Tangerine Dreaming:



Although the goals are from further out they’re again scored from positions within the width of the posts.

I think we need to understand that Rodgers values players in these positions, especially allied with Suarez’s ability to break free down the sides and pullback into the box. Understanding where Rodgers wants his wide players leads to a greater understanding of what we should then expect of the fullbacks.

Rodgers was talking of Enrique of the time but you could extrapolate the ideas into a more general philosophy: If he thinks the goals come from within the width of the posts, and wants wide players to play narrow as a result, the fullbacks need to push on.

Assuming you’ve got freak athletes, even compared to the top level athletes on the other team, you’ve got to assume you can’t have wide players that can hold the width of the pitch and then get into those threatening positions to score goals. If you’ve got Cristiano Ronaldo maybe you can get away with it, but for everyone else it seems an impossibility.

With that in mind you can’t have two players out wide who want to come narrow playing ahead of ‘traditional’ fullbacks because it’ll just congest the play. I think this is what happened a lot under Houllier after Babbel got injured. Whenever we couldn’t suck a team out we never seemed to have space to operate in.

If you look at how the reserves have changed over the last few games with Inglethorpe, toward the 4-3-3/2-3-2-3 you can start to see why Rodgers hasn’t necessarily gone for Robinson so far.

I think Robinson is a fabulous fullback prospect, but the key attributes valued seem to be the timing of the runs from fullback and the athleticism to get up and down the flanks over the 90 minutes. I think it’s the only two areas that someone like Brad Smith has over Robinson, but you can immediately see the difference it makes in the shape. McLaughlin on the other side and Johnson in the first team, on whatever flank, knows when to overlap and importantly you can give him the ball out wide and he is a winger.

Of course, it’s fairly easy to say you want your fullback to be great 1-vs-1 with the ball, have fantastic stamina, and ideally – because we’re a pretty powder puff team – be physically imposing. Someone strong and ferocious without the ball, who scares fullbacks when he powers forward.

You could say that’s a description of Enrique, and it is to an extent, but he’s a pretty stupid footballer. If you watch the reserves and NextGen teams you see at their respective levels how well the runs are timed to open up the space for the forward players. Enrique runs into players. Rodgers mentioned it on his ‘partnership’ with Downing. If there was a greater game intelligence to Enrique, like there is with Johnson, then they’re the perfect physical specimens to play fullback in the Rodgers system. They’re wingers in possession but bullies without the ball.


Something I think was interesting in terms of Dilks talking about Guardiola’s Barcelona using Abidal as a safety net; that’s what I felt Henderson was doing on Saturday in a different role. Having him on the left when out of possession definitely helped the midfield on Saturday. Henderson definitely played within the width of the 18 yard box when in possession, which ties in to where Rodgers wants his wide players, because it gives him far less distance to cover to get within the width of the goals for those fairly simple goals we’ll be looking to score from now on (although there was only minimal evidence that Henderson would be a threat hitting those areas). Presumably that’s the area of the pitch where Coutinho is being looked at, given Rodgers so far has leaned more towards the attacking threat than the defensive solidity. Same with Ince on the other flank. It’s possible that their extra foot speed may result in a more aggressive initial press higher up the field, but that would be a huge gamble if teams played through that initial first stage of pressure (and Prof and PoP’s posts on this indicate that they think it’s fairly easy to get past our first press) and that would leave a lot of extra work on Lucas, more than would full on even Busquets.

Curiously at Swansea, whilst both fullbacks had a fair degree of stamina and allowed Sinclair and Dyer to push inside, neither are physically imposing. This to me is a fairly big step they’ve taken under Laudrup compared to Rodgers. Although they’re not as expansive, and there seems more drilling on defensive shape (and I’d argue it’s closer to 4-2-3-1 than 4-3-3 if we’re going to get into that), they’re definitely a more physically imposing side. Tiendalli, Ki and De Guzman are sharper around the pitch and a good deal more physical than their contemporaries were under Rodgers. That’s a combative edge we need to add to the team under Rodgers, certainly out of possession, and fullback would seem to be one of the easier positions to add it. Again though, these are attributes Enrique already possesses, it’s just about syncing them up with a brain.

[No666]

Nearly 5 O'clock and I can't sleep so I'm going to get this out here and now. This is less about the actual game and more about the press conferences after it.

I genuinely think the criticism of Brendan's press conferences over the last two days are just an easy opportunity to have a pop at him from certain quarters. I'm loathe to use the word "agenda" but it's certainly seems like a bandwagon mentality. We lose a game and daggers that have been sheathed for a while are buried like Casca's in Caesar's back. I've seen him vilified for saying after a loss that the players were great and showed quality and commitment. Now he's getting damned because he refuses to lie and states what everyone else saw with their own eyes? I just get the feeling that if he'd come out and said "Oh the players were excellent, I'm really proud of them" he'd have just given his detractors a different type of knife to stick in him.

So let me first say this about Brendan. He picked that team because he had belief in the players and the tactics he provided for them that they would get the desired result for our club. No other reason. He had confidence in their ability. He did what he felt was right to the best of his abilities to get a win at Oldham. It was the player's job to translate that onto the pitch. Argue all you want over formations and personnel, but those 11 players on the pitch almost to a man did not do what was asked or expected from them.

On to the players themselves. I've seen two different strands of an argument against what he said. One was that he was right to say what he did, but should have done it in private. The other is that he shouldn't have said it at all because they're only youngsters in the main. Firstly I don't agree that it was just aimed at the youngsters, because it doesn't sound like Skrtel or Jones were spared a few tongue lashes either.

And I'm sorry. I'm in the camp that says he was right to say what he did to the press, and would have been even more within his rights to say a hell of a lot more in the changing room yesterday and at Melwood today. He basically said that the players he picked did not do the job he asked them to do, and they didn't do the job that was expected from Liverpool players fighting to keep our club in the FA Cup.

What's more, I'm sick of people expecting him to pussyfoot around players. If a public bollocking is going to make anyone shrink into the corner and have their fragile sensibilities upset, I'd prefer them to pack their bags now and look for another team. People are calling for "more beef" in the line up to deal with the more physical teams. Well I'm sorry but you don't need to have the physique of Arnie to have a set of balls. It's mentality, not physicality that's needed. The boss understands this, because if he didn't, we'd have players like Samba at centre half, Salif Diao in the middle and Andy Carroll up top. Belief in themselves is what's needed. The boss can only do so much, the rest is all up to them. But what more belief can he show in them than giving them a start in an important game for Liverpool in the first place? if they can't use that as a springboard to have more faith in themselves, that's their fault.

If I come across as a sanctimonious old twat now, I apologise. But I think people's reaction to Brendan's words say an awful lot about the society we live in now. Damn them with faint praise and they'll turn out ok. Tell them they're all winners. We've got a world full of little twats whose grandparents are convinced they're going to be the next Stephen Hawking because they got a D in a test and their parents praise them to the hilt. Schools full of kids whose parents think they're going to be the next Picasso because they can't keep the fucking crayons between the lines in a colouring book. And 19/20/21 year old kids who think they're going to be the next Messi/Roberto Carlos/ Beckenbauer without earning it because someone has given them more praise than they deserve. Just look at Michael Johnson from City for a brilliant example. Next Stevie G, future England Captain, greatest City player since Franny Lee. Now tell me how well massaging his ego turned out for him.

What Brendan Rodgers said, and where he said it, I'm 100% supportive of. He's let everyone know that he won't suffer fools, he won't accept anything other than 100% effort and he will not put up with players failing to follow his commands. He's in charge, that's why he's called the boss. He's shown great faith in youth and milked their egos to get great performances out of them. But now he's set down a marker, not just for those players who rolled over yesterday. He's sending that message to the players in the reserves, the Academy, and to players who are not at the club yet, which is even more important given the recruitment emphasis on youth. That message is loud and clear. It used to be the old adage, if you're good enough, your old enough. Brendan has changed that axiom for LFC in the 21st century to "If you're good enough, follow my instructions, mentally discipline yourself, conduct yourself well on and off the pitch, learn from a couple of the best players in the world and put in the hard work and effort, you're old enough. If you're none of those things, age doesn't matter because you won't get a game anyway" and about fucking time someone said it too.

[royhendo]

All I want is a picture in my wallet
A small remembrance of you playing solid
All I want, is a picture of you

Picture this, a game near December



Picture this, sent off and not two yella
The crowd full of lids and your boxies with skids
If weren't for your ability at your job being garbage
if you could only save Oh Oh OH Oh Oh

Picture this a goalie we remember
Picture this 4 games with a big massive number
1-1 is what we were telling you!
harsh words from this crew on computer
Try to do what you could never do!






I may start a Blondie thread after that. Fucking great song that.

[royhendo]

Not sure the article that prompted it deserved this response, but it's an excellent retort.

First of all, I dislike the reaction on here. If everytime a critical piece is offered on here the reaction is going to be shrieking disapproval, the only result will be extremes; overly harsh criticism and blinkered denial. Instead lets, in a measured way, consider the criticisms and see if we can offer a rebuttal.

As I see it, amongst all the language there are four criticisms;

1] Rodgers, by sleight of hand, has dampened expectations to his own benefit, while Liverpool fans have been blinded by his flannel.
2] Rodgers management is not good, enough, the proof being  his failure to beat teams in the top 10
3] Rodgers hung his young players out to dry after Oldham
4] Rodgers is a failure because from 2-0 up against Arsenal, they managed to draw.

1] Lets consider the first of those, because it's the most important; Is Rodgers dragging down Liverpool into mediocrity and using smoke and mirrors to fool the fans into thinking he is doing a great job?

Personally I hate this idea the most, it suggests that the fans are simpering morons who clap along to the pied piper as he leads them to oblivion. It's really annoying because it never asks the question, why do the fans support Rodgers? Again, personally I dislike Rodgers tendency to talk in the media and some of his quotes are very 'middle management'. I think if you look around the forum you will see plenty of people who have doubts about the manager. I have my own doubts (I regularly stress my concerns over many of the transfers made to date). SO why do I continue to support Rodgers? Because I can discern some very positive improvements to date, most notably in attack. I think he approaches the game in a very positive way and the side plays some of the best attacking football I have seen at the club in years. I cam also discern gradual but steady improvement on the pitch and in the league; the team is coming together and gelling - results and performances are also on an upward trajectory, see graph below



So the support for Rodgers is not based on nothing, the fans would be quick to turn (see Hodgson) if results and performances were not good enough - to suggest their too stupified by flannel to do so, currently, is frankly ridiculous.

2] Point 2 is wrong. Liverpool have beaten sides in the Top 10 - West Ham and Norwich. Just because they no longer are, or weren't at the time but were at some other point in the season shows how arbitrary and static this measurement is. The fact that Dion has not considered this aspect is because it does not suit his argument to do so, a fatal flaw. Of course, what he really means is 'Liverpool haven't beaten a top 4 side - Arsenal, United, Chelsea, City - and you can throw Everton and Spurs into the mix as well'. In the world of journo speak, its this mini league that is the measure of a manager. Of course, this is also an arbitrary and pointless measure (I remember United winning a league with horrible performances against the 'top top' sides - 3 pts is 3 pts).

3] Rodgers hung his younger players out to dry against Oldham. Well, yes and no. He did indeed criticize them. Plenty on here didn't like it. I didn't like it much either, but mostly because it gave the press ammo to write articles like this. Rodgers point was the younger players weren't hardy enough (arguably true) and didn't try hard enough (arguably not). Was this a calculated piece of evasion. I seriously doubt it, the fact Rodgers was trying to roll back on it later in the week says to me this was an angry outburst, a moment when the mask of cool slipped, rather than some calculated assassination to cover his own failings. I say this because Rodgers took blame later on in the week for the Oldham defeat, which shows an attempt at damage limitation. I didn't even think the criticisms were that damning, vague finger pointing at about 6-7 players, 'need to try harder, need to toughen up'. Compare it to Mancini slating Balotelli or Redknapp picking on individuals and you see its an indifferent comment in truth.

4] Drawing from being 2-0 up against 'a team on the ropes, fans in revolt' scenario, is of course, utter horseshit. Anyone who watched that game would know it was incredibly open and either side had had chances prior to the goals... both sides had chances to win it after the goals. Liverpool got blitzed in a three minute period, they got ahead because of two mistakes. I personally thought they showed character to not collapses from 2-2 down. Why couldn't Fanning see this for what it was? An exciting game which, deservedly, ended in a 2-2 draw. Is every game in the mini league now an examination of Rodgers credentials just because he doesn't win them? Again, I don't care if he never beats them, as long as he finishes in or near the top 4, and the performances against these sides are solid (which they have been for the most part this year.

In conclusion then, I think this piece sucks balls, is a pile of sticky donkey shit. Why? Because the key points made are poorly considered and subjective, used by the author to further his agenda rather than made to discuss their merit.

[the 92A]

Fantastic post from the History Thread by Andy G, about a time well gone, it's posts like this that make RAWK for me. I remember Joe Mercer as Manchester City manager and he also managed England even making them play decent football, always came across as a nice fella and liked Liverpool.

The week before the 1950 Cup Final, my Dad was hanging around Anfield (not sure why he was not at school), a 12 year old with aspirations of playing for Liverpool (for which he had two trials later on).

After the great Joe Mercer had been treated so badly Everton over medical fees for a serious injury, he had joined Arsenal, however, being an Ellesmere Port lad, had arrange to train with Liverpool during the week, travelling down to London only for the games themselves.  In the week before the cup final, it would have been crazy to have the opposition captain training with 1st team squad, and so the former England Captain had to train alone at Anfield while the Liverpool team plotted his downfall at Melwood.

After Mercer had finished training, he began the walk home (with some shopping I might add) when the 12 year old approached him and asked for his autograph.  Mercer ignored the question, and seeing the ball under my Dads arm (he was not my Dad at the time), told him to get in goals.  The goals of course, were two of the pillars that made up the brick wall at the back of the Main Stand car park.   After a while, Mercer suggested that he go in goals while my Dad tried to score against him.

The warm-up to Wembley lasted over an hour, but the score was not recorded so as to save face for the Arsenal Captain.  The final whistle was more of a “Sorry son, I have to get home now, the wife is waiting for the shopping, now what do you want signing?”, and with that, the great mans famous smile was beaten only be the one on my Dad’s face.

While many were reading in the Monday papers how the Compton brothers and their team-mates knocked King Billy for 6 – and may as well have used their bats too such was the ferocity of their victimization.  One little boy was disappointed, but not altogether devastated.  King Billy would always be the greatest, but new hero Joe Mercer had lifted the F.A. Cup.

Smiling Joe will always have a place in the hearts of my brother and I as well as our Dad, for both of us have seen the glimmer in his eye when he tells the story.

Dad, I ask you but one question.  What the hell did you teach him that day?

[Harinder]

Because this really should be here for a long time

I haven't been so gutted at anything related to our players since Kenny hung up his boots. I'm absolutely devastated, even though I always knew it would happen one day. Make no mistake, this feels almost like a death in the family; the Liverpool family. Because when someone dies in the family, the abiding wish is always that you could just spend one more day with them, just see them one last time, just forget about all the little arguments and remember them with rose tinged glasses. But the good thing is, we've got the chance to do all that and more. We've got the opportunity to know that we're spending the last days of his career with him and act accordingly. The days of seeing him screaming at the goalie or whoever was alongside him because of the pride and passion he feels for our club, the putting his body on the line week after week, inception after inception, last ditch tackles thick and fast will last longer in the memory than a mistimed tackle or a daft mistake in any particular game. This isn't about tactics, playing styles, ability, victories, mistakes, or over analysing the minutiae. This is just about raw honest emotion for a true Liverpool legend, whose legacy is written well into our club's history.


And I'm saying this now, because if I get permanently banned for it in the future, I'll make no apologies. Usually I'm polite and respectful to everyone. Sure, I'll take the piss out of anyone and everyone, but I'm the first to apologise if I upset people. Using my death analogy again, if you knew the exact date and time that one of your loved ones was about to depart this mortal coil, wouldn't you make damn sure you used every second you spent with them wisely? Wouldn't you shower them with unadultered love, constantly tell them how happy and privileged you've been to have them in your life and brush off any little irksome thing they did because in the grand scheme of things, it wouldn't be important any more? well if you didn't, you'd be a fucking c*nt, and an undeserving one at that. So all you kneejerking backstabbing fuckwits who frequent post match threads, and at the opposite end of the spectrum, the little fucking stattos,  football experts, firm but fair critics and the cold and dispassionate constructive criticism experts, get yourselfs to fuck for the rest of the season. Whenever he plays for the rest of this season, he'll give every ounce of courage, passion, commitment and dedication for our club, which is more than you will ever do. So if he plays and doesn't do everything perfectly according to your expectations, misses an important tackle, positions himself wrongly for a set piece and isn't 100% perfect according to your idealised notion that every single player should meet some unachievable perfect standard, it won't be because he hasn't tried his best or because he hasn't wrung every last ounce of blood sweat and tears out of his aching body. So if he fails to meet YOUR expectations in any particular game, and you decide to come on here or see me in the boozer after a game and share your bile or self-indulgent over-opinionated wisdom in the interests of being rational, fair and feeling perfectly within your rights to let no player escape from your overburdening expectations and critiques, I'll be right behind you calling you the fucking c*nt that you deserve to be called. Only fair don't you think?


Or instead, we could all just sit back and watch a true Liverpool legend's final few swansongs with the unbridled joy and raw honest emotion and pride that one of our greatest ever servants deserves. Park your brains somewhere else for the rest of the season where our great servant Carra is concerned, and just watch him as though you were watching him through the eyes and emotions of a young child with nothing but joy in your hearts.


Carra, you're a true legend.

[No666]

Phase of Play ditches the diagrams and gets emotional - a piece we of a certain age can identify with, apart from the initial reactions to Keane and Hodgson. 


"I have my own concerns about Rodgers, and I've expressed them in some threads (I think we should play three defenders against direct 4-4-2 teams, for example - and I remember an interview with Roy Evans in 2000, I think, where he was asked about his use of 3-5-2, and he said that they tried it twice under Souness, but Souness didn't like it and abandoned it, and he always thought it was a shame, because they had the players for it - I feel sometimes that Rodgers might be the same way. I also think if we play a four man defence that a diamond 4-4-2 would suit our players better without sacrificing his principles of play). My issue is mainly with the posters with barely hidden agendas trying to justify those agendas but not having the knowledge to back it up, and talking like they have a wealth of experience in the game to be able to say "I just don't think he'll do it". It just boggles my mind, not as someone who coaches, but as a more than 30 year supporter. I was there for the good times. I remember hating Rangers because they wouldn't let Souness go. I remember feeling like something was lost when he resigned. I remember delighting in the news that Evans would get the job. I remember thinking I could one day be good enough to play like an Evans player. I remember being suspicious of Houllier. I remember being angry about Evans leaving and Houllier getting sole responsibility. I remember stepping back, giving the man a chance, and seeing in 99-2000 that there was a style of play he was trying to get to. I remember 2001, and loving it. I remember getting home from a game to the news that he'd been taken into hospital. I remember the shock that surrounded the team for a week after that. I remember Roma. I remember being proud of the fans at the reception he got, and the big bear hug from Capello that said "this man is respected in the game".

I remember the final two seasons. I remember some fans turning on him in a way I never saw fans turn on a Liverpool manager before. I remember the league cup final and the joy it brought, and against United too. I remember the sluggishness of 03-04, and the tired relief at getting 4th. I remember having the wind knocked out of my sails when he was sacked. I remember thinking "there's only two other managers we should be looking at to replace him". I remember being happy we got Rafa (my personal coaching role model). I remember 2005, and everything being possible. I remember not minding that we were 3-0 down and looking like we lost it, because we had a man with a plan and we'd be back there soon enough. I remember walking on a cloud for 6 months. I remember the league challenge. I remember thinking Keane could be a good buy, and I remember being impressed that Rafa wasn't afraid to cut his losses on a player who didn't fit. I remember H&G. I remember Rafa looking like a broken man. I remember a team being booed for drawing a game. I remember fans turning on Rafa like they did on Houllier. I remember being intrigued by Hodgson. I was fortunate to have colleagues who had been around him, and their words were encouraging but prophetic - steady and unspectacular, but solid methods. I remember thinking we won't get Rafa 2, but we might get Houllier 2. I remember being disappointed not so much in the performances, but the manner of his bearing. The impression that he was a careerist, and Liverpool was a step to the England job. I remember him going, and being relieved, not because he went, but because the Owl comparisons didn't sit well with me.

I remember the joy at the King returning. I remember the football we played, and the positivity it brought. I remember Suarez scoring what might be the most important goal of Liverpool's recent history (debut goal). I remember the start of the new season - we had the form of champions for 6 months, we'd carry that on. I remember Meireles with the finger, I remember sub-par performances, and the loss of the flow we had in 2011. I remember the moans and the groans. I remember the haunted look on Kenny's face at times. I remember the cups. I remember the inconsistency. I remember the season ending and hoping that we got some fresh faces in for the new season, and Kenny kicking it back into gear. I remember shedding a tear when he was sacked. I remember the dance around Martinez. I remember Rodgers having the balls to say "Thanks, but no thanks". I remember him getting the job. I remember thinking that he would be good for the players, and they would respond to him. I remember thinking that we would be playing a style of football that would be the envy of clubs if he was given the chance. Not because of coaching manuals, but because he has a passion and a vision, and men of passion and vision in professional football are too few. Most want to retain their status quo. I remember thinking that the football he got us playing would get the fans behind him. I remember thinking "we used to be the most cultured fans in the world, he'll get the support because we'll all see what he's trying to do and how it will take time". And today I remembered that that faith was misplaced. We don't have those fans anymore. We have some of them. Others want everything to be instant, successful, and if it's not, dump the man in charge and move on. They won't say this overtly, but it drips from every sentence they type in pseudo-realism. And for me that's a shame.

To answer your question - I have much respect for Clarke. I thought Kenny and Clarke would get it right given time, but that hard decisions would have to be made about certain players. I have much respect for Rodgers, but hard questions still have to be asked of certain players, while some concerns are legitimate about his learning curve. The coaching manual only tells you so much. To be a good coach, you have to be out on the field, getting things across to players, and discarding stuff that doesn't work. There are plenty of theorists, but without practical experience, their opinions are more fitting for blogs. I don't have a blog. I did my learning on the field. As did Rodgers. I know where he's come from, and how much he has dedicated to being the best coach he can be. He is not a charlatan, but he is cast as one. He is not an unclothed Emperor, but he is cast as one. If this was year 3 of his contract, there would be valid criticisms, and I am sure I would support a lot of them. But 7 months into a season is way too early for the knives to be drawn. Especially for a manager trying to implement a difficult style of play without the players throughout to do so, and with the limitations of two transfer windows per year to contend with. People might say he should be pragmatic, but these are probably the very same people who thought Houllier should be playing a more expansive type of football. Rodgers is certainly an idealist, but I applaud that. I want young kids to look at Liverpool playing and say "I want to play like that. I want to be good enough for a Rodgers team". Just like I did when I watched Roy Evans' teams play. It's not enough, for me, to just win trophies. We could be a great cup team and do that (and that's not a criticism of Kenny. I'm talking long-term, over the next ten years). I want a Liverpool team to be like the greatest ones - a team that wins, but shows other teams, coaches and players the way the game should be played. We've missed that for two decades. Rodgers is a man who can bring that. He needs improvements. I certainly won't deny that. But if people are already damning his reign 7 months into the job where we are looking at very discrete moments that could have changed our season, then I don't know the Liverpool fanbase anymore. Maybe I'm too old now. Maybe I'm overqualified to be a supporter these days. Or maybe I just prefer fans to talk about the issues without agendas (and I have some great conversations with the likes of Vulmea, Dan A, Al555, and more, where we don't agree, but those guys clearly want what's best for the club, and they clearly will give Rodgers some time).

Rodgers has some learning to do. But 7 months is not enough time to judge whether he is learning or not. There are clear signs of what he is looking to achieve; there are clear deficiencies that need to be addressed. But that's the point. We can all see the problems, and I'm sure Rodgers and the staff can, too. But he can't do anything about them right now - he doesn't have the training time, and he doesn't have a transfer window. If, at this point next season we are still having these conversations, then THAT will be the time to express concerns. Right now, though, we should be supporting, enjoying the progress, and looking at the games with insight, not agendas.


Normal diagrams and red and blue circles will resume shortly."

[conman]

Boss that from PoP

[Corkboy]

Yup. Nice post.

[royhendo]

I'll have a Guinness and a bag of scapegoats please.
I'm sorry sir, we're fresh out of scapegoats.
Errr... have you got any flavour of the months at all?
We've got Flavour of the Month systems... we've got Flavour of the Month Managers... We've also got some Flavour of the Month Scouting Systems...
Erm... What Flavour of the Month managers have you got?
We've only got a Poccetinno and a few Clarkes left
I'll have a Guinness, a Poccetinno and a bag of 442's please.

[exino]

Cracking post from PhaseofPlay in reply to Carlos Qiqabal.

My worry with Rodgers though is that he is too bound into the philosophy to acknowledge its errors.

After all, new techniques, tactics and stratgies in the 50's were found to be outdated and with inherent weaknesses over the next 20 years. The same thing happened in 60's, 70's, 80's and so on.

So my question is - do you think we will look back in 20 years at anything Rodgers is trying to coach into our team now and regret or are you 100% behind everything that is written in the coaching manuals?

I have my own concerns about Rodgers, and I've expressed them in some threads (I think we should play three defenders against direct 4-4-2 teams, for example - and I remember an interview with Roy Evans in 2000, I think, where he was asked about his use of 3-5-2, and he said that they tried it twice under Souness, but Souness didn't like it and abandoned it, and he always thought it was a shame, because they had the players for it - I feel sometimes that Rodgers might be the same way. I also think if we play a four man defence that a diamond 4-4-2 would suit our players better without sacrificing his principles of play). My issue is mainly with the posters with barely hidden agendas trying to justify those agendas but not having the knowledge to back it up, and talking like they have a wealth of experience in the game to be able to say "I just don't think he'll do it". It just boggles my mind, not as someone who coaches, but as a more than 30 year supporter. I was there for the good times. I remember hating Rangers because they wouldn't let Souness go. I remember feeling like something was lost when he resigned. I remember delighting in the news that Evans would get the job. I remember thinking I could one day be good enough to play like an Evans player. I remember being suspicious of Houllier. I remember being angry about Evans leaving and Houllier getting sole responsibility. I remember stepping back, giving the man a chance, and seeing in 99-2000 that there was a style of play he was trying to get to. I remember 2001, and loving it. I remember getting home from a game to the news that he'd been taken into hospital. I remember the shock that surrounded the team for a week after that. I remember Roma. I remember being proud of the fans at the reception he got, and the big bear hug from Capello that said "this man is respected in the game".

I remember the final two seasons. I remember some fans turning on him in a way I never saw fans turn on a Liverpool manager before. I remember the league cup final and the joy it brought, and against United too. I remember the sluggishness of 03-04, and the tired relief at getting 4th. I remember having the wind knocked out of my sails when he was sacked. I remember thinking "there's only two other managers we should be looking at to replace him". I remember being happy we got Rafa (my personal coaching role model). I remember 2005, and everything being possible. I remember not minding that we were 3-0 down and looking like we lost it, because we had a man with a plan and we'd be back there soon enough. I remember walking on a cloud for 6 months. I remember the league challenge. I remember thinking Keane could be a good buy, and I remember being impressed that Rafa wasn't afraid to cut his losses on a player who didn't fit. I remember H&G. I remember Rafa looking like a broken man. I remember a team being booed for drawing a game. I remember fans turning on Rafa like they did on Houllier. I remember being intrigued by Hodgson. I was fortunate to have colleagues who had been around him, and their words were encouraging but prophetic - steady and unspectacular, but solid methods. I remember thinking we won't get Rafa 2, but we might get Houllier 2. I remember being disappointed not so much in the performances, but the manner of his bearing. The impression that he was a careerist, and Liverpool was a step to the England job. I remember him going, and being relieved, not because he went, but because the Owl comparisons didn't sit well with me.

I remember the joy at the King returning. I remember the football we played, and the positivity it brought. I remember Suarez scoring what might be the most important goal of Liverpool's recent history (debut goal). I remember the start of the new season - we had the form of champions for 6 months, we'd carry that on. I remember Meireles with the finger, I remember sub-par performances, and the loss of the flow we had in 2011. I remember the moans and the groans. I remember the haunted look on Kenny's face at times. I remember the cups. I remember the inconsistency. I remember the season ending and hoping that we got some fresh faces in for the new season, and Kenny kicking it back into gear. I remember shedding a tear when he was sacked. I remember the dance around Martinez. I remember Rodgers having the balls to say "Thanks, but no thanks". I remember him getting the job. I remember thinking that he would be good for the players, and they would respond to him. I remember thinking that we would be playing a style of football that would be the envy of clubs if he was given the chance. Not because of coaching manuals, but because he has a passion and a vision, and men of passion and vision in professional football are too few. Most want to retain their status quo. I remember thinking that the football he got us playing would get the fans behind him. I remember thinking "we used to be the most cultured fans in the world, he'll get the support because we'll all see what he's trying to do and how it will take time". And today I remembered that that faith was misplaced. We don't have those fans anymore. We have some of them. Others want everything to be instant, successful, and if it's not, dump the man in charge and move on. They won't say this overtly, but it drips from every sentence they type in pseudo-realism. And for me that's a shame.

To answer your question - I have much respect for Clarke. I thought Kenny and Clarke would get it right given time, but that hard decisions would have to be made about certain players. I have much respect for Rodgers, but hard questions still have to be asked of certain players, while some concerns are legitimate about his learning curve. The coaching manual only tells you so much. To be a good coach, you have to be out on the field, getting things across to players, and discarding stuff that doesn't work. There are plenty of theorists, but without practical experience, their opinions are more fitting for blogs. I don't have a blog. I did my learning on the field. As did Rodgers. I know where he's come from, and how much he has dedicated to being the best coach he can be. He is not a charlatan, but he is cast as one. He is not an unclothed Emperor, but he is cast as one. If this was year 3 of his contract, there would be valid criticisms, and I am sure I would support a lot of them. But 7 months into a season is way too early for the knives to be drawn. Especially for a manager trying to implement a difficult style of play without the players throughout to do so, and with the limitations of two transfer windows per year to contend with. People might say he should be pragmatic, but these are probably the very same people who thought Houllier should be playing a more expansive type of football. Rodgers is certainly an idealist, but I applaud that. I want young kids to look at Liverpool playing and say "I want to play like that. I want to be good enough for a Rodgers team". Just like I did when I watched Roy Evans' teams play. It's not enough, for me, to just win trophies. We could be a great cup team and do that (and that's not a criticism of Kenny. I'm talking long-term, over the next ten years). I want a Liverpool team to be like the greatest ones - a team that wins, but shows other teams, coaches and players the way the game should be played. We've missed that for two decades. Rodgers is a man who can bring that. He needs improvements. I certainly won't deny that. But if people are already damning his reign 7 months into the job where we are looking at very discrete moments that could have changed our season, then I don't know the Liverpool fanbase anymore. Maybe I'm too old now. Maybe I'm overqualified to be a supporter these days. Or maybe I just prefer fans to talk about the issues without agendas (and I have some great conversations with the likes of Vulmea, Dan A, Al555, and more, where we don't agree, but those guys clearly want what's best for the club, and they clearly will give Rodgers some time).

Rodgers has some learning to do. But 7 months is not enough time to judge whether he is learning or not. There are clear signs of what he is looking to achieve; there are clear deficiencies that need to be addressed. But that's the point. We can all see the problems, and I'm sure Rodgers and the staff can, too. But he can't do anything about them right now - he doesn't have the training time, and he doesn't have a transfer window. If, at this point next season we are still having these conversations, then THAT will be the time to express concerns. Right now, though, we should be supporting, enjoying the progress, and looking at the games with insight, not agendas.


Normal diagrams and red and blue circles will resume shortly

[Corkboy]

Cracking post from PhaseofPlay in reply to Carlos Qiqabal.

Look up....

[royhendo]

RAWK's Candle In The Wind


Goodbye Brendan Rodgers
Though you haven’t been here for a year at all
You tried to improve the playing style by yourself
While RAWK’s fishermen trawled
We kept hitting the woodwork
And they whispered into JWH’s brain
They wanted to set Liverpool on the treadmill
Of sacking managers again and again


And it seems to me, we watched the game
Like gobshites with no brains
Never knowing when to support the team
When a few bad results set in
And we should have backed our manager
But we just never did
A few draws and losses enough to make us act
Like a gang of spoilt fucking kids


Zenit away was tough
The toughest game of the season we played
But they said we should have beaten a team of superstars
And moaned when after about 70 minutes we began to fade
Even when you moaned
To the press about a terrible performance in the FA Cup
All the fucking idiots could say
Was that Rodgers should keep his fucking mouth shut


And it seems to me, we watched the games
Like gobshites with no brains
Never knowing when to support the team
When a few bad results set in
And we should have backed the manager
But we just never did
A few draws and losses enough to make us act
Like a gang of spoilt fucking kids


Goodbye Brendan Rodgers
Though you haven’t been here for a year at all
You tried to improve the playing style by yourself
While RAWK’s fishermen trawled
Goodbye Brendan Rodgers
From the young men with 22 Meg broadband download speed
Who will never get any sex from women ever
Unless they phone Dial-A-Ho’


And it seems to me, we watched the games
Like gobshites with no brains
Never knowing when to support the team
When a few bad results set in
And we should have backed the manager
But we just never did
A few draws and losses enough to make us act
Like a gang of spoilt fucking kids

[Ormskirkfc]

LFC Legends Dinner at Anfield

Callaghan, Neal, Case, Evans

Relive the magic of Rome....

Date: Saturday 11th May - 7.30pm till late
Location: The Champions Suite, Anfield

Tickets Cost £40 Each, Dress Code: Shirt and Tie

Included is a 3 course dinner, Comedian Willie Miller, Games, Raffles and Auctions as well as Guest Speakers Ian Callaghan, Phil Neal, Jimmy Case and Roy Evans telling tales from their time at England’s most successful club

For more information and ticket availability contact
Kevin Duffy on 07979 212069 or via e-mail ormskirkfc@gmail.com

[Bob Kurac]

Edit: due to some people completely missing the point of the thread... here's the point.

This is meant to be like the RAWK 'Readers Digest'.

Some threads go to double figures in pages in a few hours, and in amongst that lot you might miss a little nugget of quality cos you can't be arsed trawling through it all. If you see a post like that, from whoever it is (and it doesn't matter if it's a satanic bestial rant proving unequivocally that Rafa is the antichrist), then post it.

YOU ARE THE JUDGE. THE IDEA IS NOT FOR THE ORIGINAL POSTER TO GET ALL 'PRAVDA' ON YO' ASS. JUST POST THE QUALITY IF YOU FIND IT. SOME PEOPLE LIKE THEIR RAWK IN BITE-SIZED CHUNKS.

Anyway on to the posts I wanted to highlight in the first place cos they were buried under a mountain of shite.

---


I thought I'd quote a few posts I appreciated this week, because they appeared like little havens of rest in a stormy sea, only to fade from view in the barrage of garbage. If you've read them already, I apologise. I just know that I'd appreciate someone bringing stuff like this to my attention if I'd missed it - goodness knows it's hard to find the diamonds in amongst the shite these days.

Cheers to the posters like these for making this the finest site on the web.

---

On the 'Rafa's Houllier Moment' thread...

---

On the 'Rafa contract statement' issue...

Superb contributions, these.

[royhendo]

The old lady peered from under her cowl just long enough to curl a finger and beckon the boy inside. He followed nervously, allowing himself a glance at the baked dirt street before heading inside and away from the swirling dust and prickling heat. She shuffled ahead purposefully, taking a seat opposite a little table draped in red silk. Again she beckoned him, this time to sit at the table. He followed, giving an apprehensive smile of teeth he hadn’t grown into yet.

“Your palm,” she said.

He held out a muddy childish hand, and she gripped his wrist intently as her other hand traced the lines of his palm.

“I see good fortune. Riches and success in lands that know such things,” she continued to follow the lines. Were it that her face could show it, she might be smiling. “There is love too, and a baby,” she paused, her wrinkled brow furrowed in thought.

But quickly thought became worry, and she begun to grip his wrist more tightly. Her finger stopped abruptly in the middle of his palm as her vice-grip started to hurt the boy. She pulled him in closely, a look of panic on her face; attention; wildness. “You must beware the one called James Collins, for like the Plagues of Egypt he shall stricken you.”

The boy’s eyes questioned: he didn't know this name.

“He is the Jonjo Shelvey-looking one. Of him you must beware!” she said, releasing her grip as the boy nodded understanding, though he was still none the wiser.

“Luis!” shrilled a voice behind him, and the boy turned to look. “There you are! Come along now.” Luis eyed his mother oddly, still startled by what had just happened. She seemed unconcerned. He turned back in the hope of explaining himself but- to his disbelief- there was no one there! He looked around the room for any sign of an exit, but there were neither windows nor doors, just the tawdry, covered table and an empty chair.

He sat unmoved; dazed. His mother took him by the hand, dragging Luis like a weight as he stewed in utter shock. As he finally came too, he glanced one last time at the now still room before his mother dragged him through the doorway and plunged them back into the glare of the Salto city streets.

***End of Chapter One:  Luis Suarez and The Foretelling of James Collins***

Football is both utterly predictable and bizarre in the extreme. I have little antipathy towards Sam Allardyce, Pulis bathes in that hate now. Numb to it...

Don't let it get you too down guys, Allardyce has spent a lifetime perfecting this shit, we've spent one season learning the opposite

[redforlife]

Think everyone should make sure they read this

Thatcher Fucked the Kids

About 6 months ago I found myself explaining to a new friend why I found Margaret Thatcher so abhorrent an human being that I had no qualms in joining in the chants of “Maggie Maggie Maggie, DIE DIE DIE” when at the football, and why “we’re gonna have a party when Maggie Thatcher dies” is acceptable terrace humour.

Some people don’t understand the complete disrespect I (and millions of others) have for Margaret Thatcher. Some people may be new to the UK and to UK politics, and may not understand why there were street parties popping up in cities and towns all over the UK yesterday evening. Some people find the celebration of the death of another individual hard to fathom… “disgusting” perhaps. In some ways, I suppose it is. But when you consider the effect Thatcher had on Britain (and further afield), it really shouldn’t be too hard to understand why we refuse to show her a respect in death that she denied us in life.

Outside of the communities worst affected by Thatcher’s policies and legacy, you’d think this woman was some sort of heroine. Britain’s first female Prime Minister – WOW – what a step forward for feminism, eh? Single handedly smashing that glass ceiling. EQUALITY FOR ALL? And Gosh, wasn’t she just such an inspiring leader? Knew her mind? Stuck to her guns? Put all those foreigners in their place? Except, no. That is the revisionist version of events which the press will spoon feed you. The same press who she had such tight ties with. The press run by multi-billionaires like Rupert Murdoch – men who were able to make their fortunes because of the ideologies of Thatcherism.

So in an attempt at a brief history of Margaret Thatcher’s political career, here are just a few of the reasons why I will not respect her, and why I fully support the right of anyone to have a big, fuck off party in celebration of her death.

1. Section 28

The clause which prohibited the “promotion of homosexuality” or the “teaching of the acceptability of homosexuality  as a pretended family relationship” in schools.While it didn’t go so far as to criminalise homosexuality, it forced the closure of support groups for LGBT students and kids, and made it very difficult for a generation of LGBT kids to recognise who they were, and realise that their feelings were not wrong. Incidentally, David Cameron spoke out fiercely against its repeal in 2000. Yeah, we remember, Dave.

2. The Falklands

255 British and 649 Argentinian soldiers killed, and for what? By all accounts she engineered the war to boost her political popularity, by ignoring intelligence on the subject, and opting for violence over diplomacy. And let’s not forget that the Argentinan ship The Belgrano was sunk – on Thatcher’s orders – while OUTSIDE of the exclusion zone. War crimes, anyone?

3. The World’s Worst Feminist

“The feminists hate me, don’t they? And I don’t blame them. For I hate feminism. It is poison.”

Charming. Of course if it wasn’t for those poisonous feminists, she’d never have had the opportunity to gain the power she did. But no, old Maggie preferred to think she did it all for herself, and she owed no-one anything.

“I owe nothing to women’s lib”

A complete lack of social responsibility and a genuine desire for inequality which characterises the Conservatives to this day.

4. The Hillsborough Cover-Up

Oh, where to start? Her government were responsible for knowingly helping the police shift the blame from themselves onto the innocent Liverpool supporters, whose only “crime” was to attend a football match. The responsibility for the deaths of 96 people and the damage done by the treatment of their families, the survivors and the city of Liverpool in the aftermath of the disaster lays squarely at the feet of the establishment. For 23 years those wronged had to fight for the truth to be known. And all along, Thatcher and her cabinet of equally awful individuals knew who was to blame. But it suited her ideology to blame the working classes, it suited her to protect the police force which enforced her rule, and it suited her to turn sections of society against each other.

5. The Deaths of the Ten Hunger Strikers and Shoot-to-Kill

The refusal of the British government to grant political prisoner status to Irish nationalists resulted in a hunger strike from prominent prisoners, including Bobby Sands MP (elected during his strike), and subsequently the deaths of 10 strikers. Whichever side of the fence you sit on, granting the political prisoner status was a simple gesture which would not have impacted the British government, but would have showed some basic human compassion and saved 10 lives. Removing their status in the first place was an act of unnecessary political aggression on Thatcher’s part. Likewise, the “shoot-to-kill” policy adopted by the British Army in Northern Ireland, where no attempt was made to arrest suspected paramilitaries, and they were shot on sight, was a unnecessarily vicious “unofficial order” from the British government.

6. The Miners

In an attack on the Unions and the working classes, Thatcher brought wholesale closures of coal mines. The coal hadn’t run out, but the pesky workers were the sorts of people who could be awkward for the Tories. The solution, then? Close the mines (making the Unions obsolete), demonise the miners, and effectively ruin their lives and the communities in which they lived. As in the case of Hillsborough, the media were used to portray the miners as the bad-guys, the “enemy within”, and the cause of their own demise.

7. The Inexcusable Inequality in Society

From a starting point where 50% of the population had 97% of the UK’s wealth, she managed to make the country so unequal that this shifted to the top 10% of the population controlling the vast majority of wealth. Corporation tax was reduced by 16% in just 2 years during her reign, while VAT (tax on the ordinary people as opposed to private sector companies) increased by almost 10%.

“There is no such thing as society, only individuals”

Unemployment reached a record high of 12% under the Thatcher government. It was less than 5% when she took office. In whose world can a leader who oversaw these sorts of statistics ever be regarded as anything other than a complete failure? And an uncompassionate failure at that.

8. Poll Tax

Replacing “rates” which were based on estimated rental value of a property, with a “Community Charge” based on the number of people living in a property undeniably and deliberately shifted the tax burden from the rich to the poor. It was ultimately the reason for the decline of Thatcher as Prime Minister, following the Poll Tax Riots and its general unpopularity. The tax was clearly going to be hugely difficult to enforce, expensive to collect, and appallingly unfair on the poorer members of society. Yet Thatcher, so stubborn in her ideological belief, “would not turn”.

9. Leaving Liverpool to Rot

Maggie and her mate Geoffrey Howe discussed the option of “managed decline” for the entire city of Liverpool. Only the intervention of Michael Heseltine meant that  they were not able to follow through on threats not to “expend limited resources trying to make water flow uphill” and – with clear parallells with their party line on Hillsborough and the miners – to denounce Merseyside’s problems as “very largely self-inflicted”, with particular reference to striking dockers.

10. Privitisation and the “Free Market”

She sold off vital services and industries, allowing business to profit from over-charging for essential utilities such as water and electricity. It paved the way for the selling off of further state-run provisions, from telecoms to railways. But it’s the utilities that really hurt – profit making from services which are considered essential means our wages are dented by lining the pockets of the (often foreign owned) companies who control utilities. The private sector is important – on that I agree, but to privatise gas, water and electricity was crazy.

Deregulation of the financial services industry also started paving the way for greedy bankers (lazy, I know) and the corporate world to make billions while billions of people suffer in poverty. The abolishment of credit controls made debt a national problem, and it was the Thatcher government who made it easier for offshore tax-dodging to occur.

11. Support for Pinochet and Pol Pot

If there was a murderous dictator to be pally with, Maggie was right there. Chile’s General Pinochet was a lifetime friend, and she actually helped him avoid extradition to Spain where he should have faced charges of crimes against humanity. She also supported the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia, where around a quarter of the population were slaughtered, and referred to General Suharto (President of Indonesia whose invasion of East Timor resulted in over 100k deaths) as “one of our very best and most valuable friends”. And what’s worse? She referred to Nelson Mandela as a “terrorist”.

**

So those are just some of the reasons why Thatcher deserves no-one’s respect. She had none for anyone else while she lived, and it is an insult to those who survived her vicious attacks on common decency to eulogise about a woman who was selfish, spiteful and power-hungry.

Here’s to the free speech she’d rather we didn’t have, and to the millions of people whose lives were ended or ruined by her complete disregard for anyone but herself. Tramp the dirt down…

http://therhivolution.wordpress.com/2013/04/09/thatcher-fucked-the-kids/

[Red_Isle_Chap]

Superb post from E2K this:

This isn’t a new phenomenon, unfortunately, and there’s very little that can be done about it (bar stopping watching, as you say). There was a book written a few years back by author David Yallop, for example, called ‘How They Stole The Game,’ an exposé of FIFA, João Havelange, Sepp Blatter and others detailing shenanigans stretching back to the early 1960’s (when Garrincha mysteriously had a suspension withdrawn for being sent off against Chile so that he could play in the 1962 World Cup final). Indeed, it’s a subject that has gained relevance again this week with the resignation of Havalenge from his position as honorary president of FIFA over accusations of bribery, something which would come as little surprise to anyone who has read Yallop’s book (the only minor shock being that he actually resigned, although at 96 he might have figured that it didn’t matter too much anyway). There are allegations in that particular book so outrageous that they would have surely landed its author in court had they been in any way baseless, but to my knowledge FIFA never took any action against him. That says a lot.

This is the governing body of the entire sport we’re talking about, and it’s been up to its neck in this kind of stuff for at least 50 years. And since shit tends to roll downhill, the ultimate irony represented by its motto ‘for the good of the game’ is always likely to be replicated in other, smaller organisations like the FA, the Premier League and even the PFA. In truth, the people who run these bodies typically couldn’t give a fuck about ‘the good of the game,’ yet they can usually be given a solid B- for effort for their deceit in arguing to the contrary and they do fool a lot of the people a lot of the time. Gordon Taylor seems to me to be typical of this type of official. He certainly never appears unduly concerned with being fair or scrupulous, which would immediately make him an outstanding candidate to hold office in any of football’s major governing bodies, and his hypocritical moralising and double-standards are simply par for the course in this kind of job. If he had any real talent or ambition, in fact, he would surely have ascended to the upper echelons of UEFA or FIFA by now. Thankfully he doesn’t, so it’s only the unfortunate members of the English PFA that have to deal with him.

In the Rachel Anderson article mentioned earlier, the term “representing the wishes of his players” is attributed to him. That, then, would be his version of ‘for the good of the game’. Yet as Anderson mentions, “they weren’t spending their own money; it was their players’ money wasn't it?” All for fighting a case that nobody in their right minds in the closing years of the 20th century would have wanted him to fight, certainly not his own membership. Yet he did so anyway. In Yallop’s aforementioned book, he quoted someone who knew Havelange describing him as an individual who would say hello with another man’s hat. Well, fighting a needless court case with your own members’ money would seem to me to be the perfect illustration of that. You have to wonder how they haven’t tired of him yet? Maybe it’s just a straightforward case of fooling all of the people all of the time?

Whatever it is, the members of the PFA might do well to begin considering that Taylor, as the leader of the organisation, ultimately reflects on them, and then ask themselves a few questions. Is it a worthwhile organisation at all, or merely an anachronism? What do they actually want it to be – a real union that tries to tackle the myriad of problems that affect supporters and players alike, or just a vehicle for media soundbytes when certain members get in trouble?  Do they want it to represent them with integrity? Do they want it to represent them at all? Is it even worth the cost of membership anymore? And if they do want the PFA to be a more relevant, productive organisation, is Taylor really the man to do that when he seems to resemble a press officer more than the highly-paid chief executive of what is supposed to be an important body?

Back in February 2012, Taylor immediately offered his services (to the media rather than the player, naturally) to discuss Luis Suárez’s failure to shake Patrice Evra’s hand, storming that “I feel sick to the stomach that there were youngsters who go on the pitch with the players and they would have wondered what was going on.” PFA Chairman Clarke Carlisle was also disgusted. This was the Professional Footballers’ Association, through its leadership, leaving us in no doubt as to what it finds acceptable – a refused handshake sickened its chief executive, Gordon Taylor, to the stomach (this from a man who once played down Stuart Pearce’s racist abuse of Paul Ince by saying that it was “in the heat of the moment”). On the other hand, rape is apparently more of a grey area. By its very nature, it takes place in darkened rooms far away from the football pitch and, therefore, Gordon Taylor’s jurisdiction. This is presumably why Sheffield United striker Ched Evans, convicted last year of raping a 19 year-old woman, was allowed to keep his place in the PFA League One team of the season for 2011/12. Taylor subsequently justified the decision to allow Evans retain this honour by saying that it “was not a moral judgement.” Is it any wonder that Rachel Anderson was refused entry to the PFA dinner in 1997 with that kind of attitude?

Here’s what I don’t get. I work a 40-hour week for a decent wage, nothing more, nothing less. I’m in a union too. My free-time is my own business. However, if I was to be convicted of rape, do you think I’d still get that employee of the month award? And do you think the head of my union would be defending me on any level? Does football exist in that kind of sphere or is it out there on its own somewhere between the music industry and organised crime? And should it be? I wonder what the PFA members reckon, or are we to assume that Taylor's views are their views? The race issues which engulfed Luis Suárez (and, to a lesser extent, John Terry) over the past couple of seasons brought real world issues into football, a sport which normally exists in a bubble. Its people bristle at any outside interference, be it regulation, police interference or Panorama investigations. Suddenly, you had all of this posturing and chest-beating about what’s right and wrong, and although the message was predictably garbled and distorted by hypocrisy and self-interest, manipulated and squeezed for every single drop of PR it had to give while someone’s reputation was being savaged (Suárez), it was at least a positive one – racism is inherently wrong and it has no place in football or anywhere else.

So amidst the usual double-standards (e.g. the virtual media silence on instances of racism involving Chelsea and Manchester United supporters in comparison to the circus which sprang up around the Tom Adeyemi incident at Anfield, as well as one high-profile writer suggesting that ignorance is no excuse for Suárez even as he wondered aloud whether the term “black ****” is racist), at least the central truth was inescapable. Yet when it comes to sexual assault? Nothing, despite the fact that a third of Premier League fans are supposedly female. What’s wrong with coming out and saying that if you get convicted of something like that by a court of law, beyond a reasonable doubt (i.e. not 'on the balance of probabilities'), then your PFA privileges (whatever they may be) will be revoked? Why do I get the distinct impression that anything which doesn’t take place on the football pitch is somehow more acceptable? Perhaps it’s because of quotes like this one from Clarke Carlisle: “It was a democratic vote on professional ability, not a moral decision. Some things in life are a shade of grey. Separating professional and personal behaviour is one of them.”

Right, so let’s be crystal clear about the PFA position here. Luis Suárez (a PFA member himself) is fair game to be criticised, psycho-analysed and condemned over his failure to publicly shake someone’s hand and, more recently, his ‘bite’ on Branislav Ivanovic. Were he to be charged with and convicted of, say, beating his wife or raping someone, on the other hand, the PFA would draw a clear line in the sand between his personal and professional conduct, no doubt because it’s an area that’s outside of their jurisdiction (even though he’s a member of their organisation). So, really, the only thing Suárez did wrong in their eyes was doing these things on a football pitch? If he did it in the street, presumably the PFA would have no comment? Or maybe they would, considering that Gordon Taylor saw fit to comment on a police investigation in January 2012 when he said of Tom Adeyemi that “we can confirm that he was the victim of racist abuse.” The accused was eventually acquitted of all charges in this case, yet Taylor was apparently confirming his guilt within days of the incident. Is that within his jurisdiction?

If I was a player, I wouldn’t want this individual representing me in any way, and it reflects very poorly on the PFA that he remains its chief executive.

[Yorkykopite]

Superb post from E2K this:

Yes a terrific post. The only false note is the apostrophes around 'bite'.

[E2K]

Superb post from E2K this:

Cheers!

Yes a terrific post. The only false note is the apostrophes around 'bite'.

Fair point. It wasn’t a particularly conscious decision to do that and it certainly isn’t a case of trying to diminish what he did, which remains one of the stupidest things I’ve ever seen a Liverpool player do (if not the stupidest). I suppose there must just be a part of me that still finds it strange using the same word to describe what he did to Ivanovic as we use to describe Mike Tyson relieving Evander Holyfield of part of his ear and spitting it across the ring, but I’m sure I’ll get over it

Oh, and thanks!

[royhendo]

Of course I did. While holding my fucking half and half Fiorentina Liverpool scarf aloft.

I'm not just singling you out mate although it seems I might be, because I see loads of posts like this on loads of other threads and I've decided to address it now to your post initially, but to every post like it more generally. I'm sick to fucking death of this "You clearly haven't watched many ******* games this season" or "you clearly haven't watched player x many times" You really don't know how condescending it sounds. I wouldn't have even been arsed replying if your answer had been along the lines of "Oh do you think so? I've watched him a good few times for Fiorentina and he's improved an awful lot" or "bit harsh that mate cos he's come on leaps and bounds since he played for City." But it wasn't delivered like that at all. I can almost imagine you and other people who say similar things saying it, and there being about 50 E's in CLEARLY. It came across as more smug than Bob fucking Monkhouse ballroom dancing with George Hamilton while David Dickenson showers them in rose petals.

This is a Liverpool thread on a Liverpool forum. I'm a Liverpool supporter, not a huge general football fan, and going to matches takes a lot more time than flicking a button on a computer or pressing a remote control, so I wouldn't go out of my way to watch many other matches on the whole. I've got a wife and three kids and spend most of my spare time with them. I'm helping two of my lads with revision for their GCSE's and the third with his A-Levels. Watching every Fiorentina game in case someone pulls me on my opinion of a certain player is the last of my worries. I've got neither the time nor the  fucking inclination to spend every waking minute watching global football so I can rain on someone's parade who has an opinion of a footballer different than mine.

It's a matter of opinions and respecting that other people might just have a different one than you. The times I've seen him, he's been shite. Do I need to watch every fucking game every player in the world is involved in to have a valid opinion on them? No, because I'm not a fucking scout. I mentioned the scouting for City. Every single time I saw him play for them he was dogshit. Bear in mind, there was every possibility when they signed him that he was going to play a lot of games for them with Kolo Toure the third choice being shit or injured and going away to the ACN. He did play a good few games and was absolutely fucking abysmal in the ones I watched him in. City scouted him, signed him, played him and he was shite IN THAT PARTICULAR TEAM. I've seen him once or twice for Fiorentina here and there and to be honest with you, Thora Fucking Hird would be able to cope with the pace of most matches I've seen in the Serie A. He hasn't shone in my opinion in any game. So you've seen him play in more games than me, and you think that makes my opinion completely irrelevant? Lucky you for seeing him having a few good games because I've not had that benefit.

And congratulations on having the time to spend watching countless hours of football from all regions of the footballing world. See how much of it you do when you've got a good wife and kids you want and need to spend time with, and then see how drastically you make more instant pejorative decisions on whether a footballer is shite. And then see how you feel when someone tells you your opinion is so much less important than theirs because you've got yourself a fucking life outside of watching every minute of football ever played. So all I can say to you is, if you've got the time to watch every minute of every match involving the 5th best Italian team, you really should try getting your fucking end away. You honestly don't know what you're missing.

[Vulmea]

 wish macca would say what he thinks always sittin on the fence that lad

[The Gulleysucker]

I'd really recommend that you read the superb op by Vulmea in this thread here ... http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=305411.msg11595219#msg11595219

I won't quote it here as it's rather a big missive, but pour yourself a cup of tea, sit down, relax, and persevere with it, it's truly an excellent read and well worth a bit of your time, and shows exactly where many of us have come from and how we think.

[Corkboy]

A quick glance indicates our Vulmea may have finally embraced capital letters. Which is nice.

[ChaChaMooMoo]

No,  Luis did not go to do a radio interview to announce that he dreams of a move to Real.  He was asked by the reporter what he would do if Real came calling.... big difference.  He stated that due to the crazy atmosphere with the English media and the unbalanced treatment he get's compared to other's, that he is open to a move.  He also stated how much he loves Liverpool and the fans.  What many of you that have chosen not to follow the Livepool motto of YNWA, and are quick to abandon Luis forget is that the man.... is a man.  True , a gifted man when it comes to his futbol talents, but as my father used to say, he puts on his pants like the rest of us, one leg at a time.  Granted, he does not help himself , acting like an idiot at times (biting, and challenging refs, but NOT the EVRA GATE crap), he is by far, persecuted by the English FA, and the sorry excuse of a media you all have.

How many of you would continue to expose your wife and child to such treatment?   The cannibal jokes, vampire Photoshop, etc?
Evra incident would not have raised an eyebrow in Spain, why? Because they are racist?  Heck no... because in Uruguay, negro is BLACK and not that other vile word that Sir I drink too much whiskey, made it look like Luis said.  Messi holds sign with the negro word wishing a teammate a speedy recovery, and the media said NOTHING!   When my mother calls over my very white and very blond youngest daughter, she says  "venga my negra, venga"  .  Surely this makes no sense to many of you, just as saying "Bloody Hell" makes no sense to me....

Luis' crime in the media's eyes was playing for Liverpool.  If he was playing for MU he would have received a different treatment.  Sir Alec  saw him as a threat, as a way for Liverpool to gain their greatness, and he started to undermine all that by targeting Luis.  John Henry and crew did a pitiful job of protecting their asset.  Liverpool should have had lawyers and good media relation people come in and circle the wagons around Luis.  But no... they left him flapping in the wind.  Like all the other times.  Your great and honorable star King Kenny paid the price for it.  He tried protecting Luis, because he saw the goodness that Luis has.  He also saw the vulnerability he has.   What many forget, he is a simple young man, from the countryside in Uruguay.  Heck, he's not even a city boy.  He was not trained in media relations.  It's very apparent, when you see his answers during interviews... honest to  a fault. 

This witch hunt against Luis started when he supposedly kept the African team from being in a final, during a world cup that was being played in Africa.  Bad old Luis, how could he do that?   The reality with that incident is that the play should have never happened.  If you look at the time when he placed his arm up (along with another one of our players) that play started with an African off sides!!  If the refs had done their job, that ball would have been called dead.  No hand ball, no goal, no controversy.  And Luis would have been able to play for us and not been red-carded.   Humm,  Uruguay in the final with Spain?   What could have been...


I have lurked this forum for two years now.  Have enjoyed many of your postings.  Find the Liverpool fans good, honorable folks that love good futbol.  That have passion for their players.  A perfect fit for Luis IMHO!  I ask all of you to let things play out, don't jump on the ugly bus against Luis.  Put yourself in his place.  He has given you his heart, his love, his hard work.... heck his passion!!  Don't be so quick to criticize him.  And if he has had enough and leaves.... be happy for him, be happy for the joy he brought you. 

Ask yourself how would you react after being hounded by opposition fans, being booed every time you touch the ball.  Having your National Anthem being booed during the Olympics just because they hate YOU.  Having refs allow opposition players abuse you, stamp on you, try to injure and possibly ruin your career.  And to top it off, have the media look for every little thing you do, so they can abuse you in print and make the world think your a monster.

Last year I purchased a Liverpool game jersey, I wear it with pride, and will continue to do so , if the day comes that Luis leaves Liverpool.  Why?  Because through this forum, and by watching every game the team plays, I have seen what wonderful passionate fans you all are.   Please show Luis Alberto Suarez, and his wife Sofi that they truly Never Walk Alone!