*Official* English Football Season 2014-15

[sledger]

Sterling with better dribbling, less game IQ. Looks a prospect, too early to tell whether he is the 'real deal' but he'll be a good player for Liverpool for years I reckon.

As for the discussion above...I think the game has shifted from who wins what towards who is noticed where. Not to take a shot at Arsenal, but if you look in the last 10 years we've won a champions league, gone to another final; won an FA cup, gone to another final; won a league cup, gone to another final; and have challenged for the title twice.

Arsenal has won 2 FA cups; gone to a champions league final; gone to 2 league cup finals; and that's it if I'm not mistaken? But they've regularly been in the champions league and that's what I mean by players simply wanting to play at the highest level to be noticed more these days. It's better if you're a team that is always in the CL than one who is there half the time but wins a few more cups.

It makes the comparison with Liverpool and Tottenham even sillier but I guess maybe players are seeing it that way. The thing with Liverpool is that it doesn't challenge for players that tend to go to Tottenham - because I think we'd beat them out 9/10 - but that most of the players we are after are wanted by clubs in better positions than us.

Whereas a few years ago that was fine because at least we were in the the top 4 and we'd be in the CL (and could attract a better caliber of player); now with City it means we are the 5th best club. And by virtue of the monetary considerations it's about where we can expect to be. We have to be shrewd with our signings and develop players. As much as I don't like that direction because it requires a lot of patience and time; until we increase our revenues to increase our spending under FFP rules it is what we have to do. Credit to the owners, it's what they've done by expanding the stadium and garnering more commercial deals.

Won't be able to say that this time next week.

 

[sledger]

Anyway, facile dig aside, good post.

 

[Furball]

Not really. I did say I don't think we should accept the pecking order. Forest had one three-year spell of success.

Don't know how you figure they'd only been successful for 25 years - would be like saying that of United now - alas in 1977 Liverpool had 9 league titles. I think that was more than any other English club at that point. In fact I reckon it would be enough to see them joint third with Everton now? So really, you couldn't be more off target with that one.

I support a small club. I'm a huge advocate of the pyramid and that clubs can rise and fall. I don't think clubs should dwell on their history, Man U and Liverpool have respectively suffered through phases of trying to do that, but I don't think they become irrelevant. In fact, it's nonsense.

EDIT - bearing in mind here you were putting Spurs on par with Liverpool. This is despite, in the last decade having won fewer trophies, not coming close to a title and finishing lower probably 7 or 8 times.I wasn't saying people should sign for Liverpool over Chelsea, at any point.

25 years back from 1992 is 1967, not 1977.

You're also forgetting (easily done) that I support Rangers; in my lifetime we've gone from being the biggest, richest club in the UK to the absolute pits, and even if we recover the limit of our ambition will be occasionally getting out of the Champions League group stage and trying to hold off nobodies like Hull or Leicester from signing our best players. I know all about how much modern football is skewed towards the richest clubs.

My Spurs v Liverpool point was what I would do as a young player; Spurs have the same number of top 4 finishes in the last 6 years than Liverpool. Liverpool won a couple of domestic cups in that time and have the bigger history whereas Spurs are based in London. Personally, if I was a young footballer, it would be much of a muchness; a Champions League title 10 years ago and the history in the 80s really isn't a massive pull IMO.

 

[sledger]

25 years back from 1992 is 1967, not 1977.

You're also forgetting (easily done) that I support Rangers; in my lifetime we've gone from being the biggest, richest club in the UK to the absolute pits, and even if we recover the limit of our ambition will be occasionally getting out of the Champions League group stage and trying to hold off nobodies like Hull or Leicester from signing our best players. I know all about how much modern football is skewed towards the richest clubs.

And modern fans

 

[Uppercut]

Do people think Klopp to Liverpool could happen?

 

[Cabinet96]

Do people think Klopp to Liverpool could happen?

Yeah good chance I reckon. Would be a good fit. Anfield and the average age of the squad make it quite Dortmundesq.

 

[Furball]

Do people think Klopp to Liverpool could happen?

I kind of expect him to take a break but it's probably the ideal job for him if he doesn't.

 

[GIMH]

25 years back from 1992 is 1967, not 1977.

You're also forgetting (easily done) that I support Rangers; in my lifetime we've gone from being the biggest, richest club in the UK to the absolute pits, and even if we recover the limit of our ambition will be occasionally getting out of the Champions League group stage and trying to hold off nobodies like Hull or Leicester from signing our best players. I know all about how much modern football is skewed towards the richest clubs.

My Spurs v Liverpool point was what I would do as a young player; Spurs have the same number of top 4 finishes in the last 6 years than Liverpool. Liverpool won a couple of domestic cups in that time and have the bigger history whereas Spurs are based in London. Personally, if I was a young footballer, it would be much of a muchness; a Champions League title 10 years ago and the history in the 80s really isn't a massive pull IMO.

Haha maths fail on my part...point still stands though, they were still one of the most decorated sides. It's not like they won nothing and then exploded in the 70s. Every other word I said was valid.

Easy enough to forget you're a Rangers fan from reading the footy thread over the past few years - edit - this joke was a bit pointless wasn't it. You made it yourself

Anyhow. Ikki made a great post I thought. I understand the London thing but is literally the only reason to pick Spurs. Footballing prestige is worth a lot IMO.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah good chance I reckon. Would be a good fit. Anfield and the average age of the squad make it quite Dortmundesq.

Doesn't the average age thing work in Rodgers' favour, ie his remit was to build for the long term?

 

[Cabinet96]

Doesn't the average age thing work in Rodgers' favour, ie his remit was to build for the long term?

Yeah I think they'll probably keep him on. But they could be swayed by a big name being available.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah I think they'll probably keep him on. But they could be swayed by a big name being available.

Yeah really does seem like it would be a good fit for both parties

 

[Furball]

Haha maths fail on my part...point still stands though, they were still one of the most decorated sides. It's not like they won nothing and then exploded in the 70s. Every other word I said was valid.

Easy enough to forget you're a Rangers fan from reading the footy thread over the past few years - edit - this joke was a bit pointless wasn't it. You made it yourself

Anyhow. Ikki made a great post I thought. I understand the London thing but is literally the only reason to pick Spurs. Footballing prestige is worth a lot IMO.

I might be much mistaken but I was always under the impression that the vast majority of Liverpool's success started under Shankly.

 

[Ikki]

The noise around the club seems to be that Rodgers is being backed for next season but I guess it isn't bullish enough to go further than that.

On the whole I think he's done well; I'd be disappointed if they let him go. There have been significant periods in all 3 seasons for me that have shown that he is the right guy IMO. First season, after turning the team around into positive football; the second half of it where we got Sturridge and Coutinho we were great - top 4 form IIRC, which at that time was far better than the dross of the previous few seasons. You could see where it was going.

The 2nd season was amazing. I think it's the stats people that really appreciate how much of a miracle it would have been for Liverpool to have won the title - most people didn't even back us for top 4.

Then this season was a bit mixed. We lost Suarez and not having Sturridge fit for most of the season basically meant we lost some 50 goals. No matter how little you rate Borini, Balotelli and Lambert; I doubt anyone would have bet against them scoring more than 4 (which is their combined total) in the league. So the first half of the season consisted of us trying these others, especially Mario, and seeing some turgid stuff. It's around the United defeat in December where he starts changing things around, goes to the 3-4-3, and we play much better. Despite losing that United game I felt really positive because we created a lot and it was a game where they were clinical whereas we were wasteful, rather than just one team outclassing the other.

Then we go some 13 games without losing and playing some great stuff, Sterling being played up top. We almost dragged ourselves into the mix for the top 4 again which is remarkable when you think of it. Even now we won't be too far off despite basically not having a forward this season. So despite the downers, I think we hit par despite our troubles. If we had 1 fit and firing forward - even a 15 goal forward - I think we'd have made the top 4.

So, I'm optimistic on the whole because I think Rodgers provides solutions for league success - as opposed to a manager of great repute and achievement in Rafa, who built his teams not to lose and who thrived in cups. He gets his team functioning a certain way by facilitating the kind of football that will get more than the sum of his parts. We went from a really leaky defence to breaking records for away clean sheets - Mignolet right now is equal 1st for the golden gloves believe it or not. In the 1st season we went from finding it tough to score to scoring for fun in the 2nd. If we get Benteke, which seems to be the rumours, and keep Sturridge fit I reckon we'll be back up there. Gerrard no longer being in the team also compels the others to step up and grow up.

I think it's better to judge Rodgers like many of his players: he's got great potential and is in development. He'll make some mistakes but I think he'll get it right in the end.

 

[GIMH]

I might be much mistaken but I was always under the impression that the vast majority of Liverpool's success started under Shankly.

Well they had at least five titles before he took them out of the second...think they were the traditional 'sleeping giant' back then...

Looked it up. Shankly's first title was their sixth which took them into joint second with Everton and Sunderland (!!) with six, one behind Arsenal in seven.

I guess that kind of meets us in the middle. Over time the clubs who are the biggest will always evolve but for me the three in red of Liverpool, Manchester and North London will always be the biggest English clubs. For better or worse.

 

[Uppercut]

I'll laugh so much if Liverpool could get Klopp but decide to stick with Rodgers instead. Borderline dereliction of duty, like when United plumped for Moyes over Mourinho.

If Klopp can't happen then I still think getting rid might be the better option. Hard to say without knowing the inside track at the club, but if changing manager would improve their chances of keeping Sterling then I don't think the difference between Rodgers and A.N. Other is big enough to counteract that.

 

[Cabinet96]

Put it this way, I don't see how Klopp would reject Liverpool. He wants to manager somewhere where he speaks the language, which pretty much limits him to England and Germany. All of Germany's top four are doing well and it looks unlikely any of England's top four will sack their managers so...

 

[Uppercut]

I guess that kind of meets us in the middle. Over time the clubs who are the biggest will always evolve but for me the three in red of Liverpool, Manchester and North London will always be the biggest English clubs. For better or worse.

So if I understand right, the argument here is that the clubs whose position at the top was consolidated by the original TV revolution of the 60s and 70s have firmer long-term advantages than those whose position was cemented by the money influx of the 2000s. What are those advantages exactly? Is it a fanbase-size thing?

 

[Uppercut]

Put it this way, I don't see how Klopp would reject Liverpool. He wants to manager somewhere where he speaks the language, which pretty much limits him to England and Germany. All of Germany's top four are doing well and it looks unlikely any of England's top four will sack their managers so...

Pellegrini could get sacked. But yeah I agree. It's an obvious fit.

 

[Ikki]

If Rodgers were to leave, which I highly doubt is even being considered by either the club or the man himself, I'd rather Rafa.

 

[Cabinet96]

If Rodgers were to leave, which I highly doubt is even being considered by either the club or the man himself, I'd rather Rafa.

Boring.