Brendan Rodgers sacked - If you're happy and you know it KLOPP your hands !!!
- Thread starter squerble
- Start date
no one remembers the runners up tbf...
Yep you're right, but we are clearly a step below and considering where we had been it was.
Probably would be a large improvement for arsenal to bring it to the last day
Weird because they keep singing about them the obsessed clowns
No it wasn't purdy, it was a failure. 2 managers in recent memory have failed as they both won **** all & that's the definition of success, trophies. Not playing pretty football or coming 2nd, winning something.
No it wasn't and you can't really hold that against Hodgson considering he never had the opportunity too as much as I hate the ****.
Also not sure the definition of success is winning a trophy.
Anyway we can agree to disagree and hopefully you can remain respectful towards our manager
Trophies isn't the defination of success at all...I feel for you if that's how you view football. You'll be getting rid of Klopp soonish then when he only delivers an FA cup during his 3 years..
Yes they are, for a club of Liverpools stature for a manager to not win anything it's a failure. Pure and simple. And yes if he doesn't acheive his targets he will be gone after 3.
Rodgers isnt our manager and I only ever judged him by what he 'achieved' on the pitch
You havent won the league in 20 years. You won the CL 10 years ago. Hadly success. There would be no supporters if everyone thought they had to support a club that won stuff all the time. Your biggest acheivement is nearly winninng the PL a few years ago.
As long a club has an aim/objective to win things then as supporters you should support that. Every club have different priorities be it avoid relegation, getting into Europa, CL etc and it all revolves around their budget to spend usually.
If Klopp managed to finish higher than City for example that would be a success.
If Klopp managed to finish higher than City for example that would be a success.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 41,256
- Location
- Cornwall
Rodgers nearly won us the title and had us playing the best football I've ever watched as a Liverpool supporter. Considering the financial power of the teams we compete against that was most definitely a successful season.
Conversely, Rodgers lost the plot the following season along with his identity and wasted a huge amount of money on players that were neither good enough for Liverpool or suited whatever style of football he thought he had us playing. That was most definitely his undoing and led to him being sacked.
Was Rodgers the greatest Liverpool manager of all time? No. Was he the worst? No.
I'm expecting to see Klopp bring the passion back to the Kop, a style of football that's easy to identify and enjoy and players that will suit the way he wants us to play. I don't however expect him to win the PL with us but that won't mean the next three years won't be considered a success
Conversely, Rodgers lost the plot the following season along with his identity and wasted a huge amount of money on players that were neither good enough for Liverpool or suited whatever style of football he thought he had us playing. That was most definitely his undoing and led to him being sacked.
Was Rodgers the greatest Liverpool manager of all time? No. Was he the worst? No.
I'm expecting to see Klopp bring the passion back to the Kop, a style of football that's easy to identify and enjoy and players that will suit the way he wants us to play. I don't however expect him to win the PL with us but that won't mean the next three years won't be considered a success
hmm..
I kinda see what you are saying there but by the same token, winning nothing cannot be deemed a success surely?
*edit* having said that I considered LVG and Man U getting back into the Champions League last season a "success" so I agree with you.
Last edited:
Its all a matter of timing isn't it - your best season coincided with the worst one (by far) for Utd in ~20 years, IF KD had still been around at Liverpool what could he have led you to instead? Even a 3rd place finish instead of 2nd that year (if Utd had not chosen Moyes / not been a complete mess when SAF left) would have made it successful
Even taking the cannibal
D) out of the equation, who was "responsible" for the success of that season / "failure" of all the others? Its not completely Rodgers or the players (as it wasn't Moyes's at Utd) - or Sturridge's injury hit 12+ months but all these factors coming together at the same time
That's not success, that's unrealistic expectations. As people have said its relative, He deserves credit for the season that we played the best football Liverpool fans have seen for more many, many years.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Considering the 'style' he tried to impose on the team it's clear that the year coming 2nd wasn't much of anything to do with Rodgers. If you have Suarez, Sterling and Sturridge on the pitch you might say for instance, lets play possession but if you have the chance to break by all means.... then those three break forward at crazy speed every 8 seconds. They played a style Rodgers doesn't teach, doesn't intend and hasn't remotely come close to with other players in the side.
As for his success at Swansea, Martinez took over a league one side iirc, became champions, brought players on a shoe string budget, built a team that came was it 7th in the championship before he moved on to Wigan. Rodgers took over a prebuilt team and took the next step, then got 11th in the prem league with largely Martinez's team and style. When Rodgers left Swansea both managers after him did better. I regard that much like Mourinho winning the first title with Chelsea though he did change their style over time it would have taken a genuine retard to not win at least one league title after Ranieri left, Ranieri would 100% of won the title that next year had he stayed.
Without Suarez there isn't a chance Rodgers would have come 2nd or played the style of football that 'happened' that year, imho. Personally I see a manager as successful if he improves the team he has. Any team can have a freak finish when you get very few injuries, a couple of insane years for players and a lot of luck. The team he has left, I can't think of any players he's improved obviously, only regression of multiple players.
He has final say on buys, people make a huge deal about a transfer committee while ignoring that EVERY other team in the world has a group of scouts who find players for managers to have a look at. It's how football runs but not called a committee people don't freak out about it. Likewise how many top teams give little to no say to the manager? Barca, Real, Bayern.
That he didn't win any of the other cups as well, it's entirely NOT unrealistic to get into another cup final or win one. ARsenal came VERY close to losing to Hull, then thrashed Stoke. Is it really unreasonable expectations to expect Liverpool to be capable of winning one of the cups considering who got into the finals? With the top teams having not cared about the Carling cup for years and the FA cup is falling to the wayside now, Liverpool being just outside the top four should have had both cups as a very realistic target.
As for his success at Swansea, Martinez took over a league one side iirc, became champions, brought players on a shoe string budget, built a team that came was it 7th in the championship before he moved on to Wigan. Rodgers took over a prebuilt team and took the next step, then got 11th in the prem league with largely Martinez's team and style. When Rodgers left Swansea both managers after him did better. I regard that much like Mourinho winning the first title with Chelsea though he did change their style over time it would have taken a genuine retard to not win at least one league title after Ranieri left, Ranieri would 100% of won the title that next year had he stayed.
Without Suarez there isn't a chance Rodgers would have come 2nd or played the style of football that 'happened' that year, imho. Personally I see a manager as successful if he improves the team he has. Any team can have a freak finish when you get very few injuries, a couple of insane years for players and a lot of luck. The team he has left, I can't think of any players he's improved obviously, only regression of multiple players.
He has final say on buys, people make a huge deal about a transfer committee while ignoring that EVERY other team in the world has a group of scouts who find players for managers to have a look at. It's how football runs but not called a committee people don't freak out about it. Likewise how many top teams give little to no say to the manager? Barca, Real, Bayern.
That he didn't win any of the other cups as well, it's entirely NOT unrealistic to get into another cup final or win one. ARsenal came VERY close to losing to Hull, then thrashed Stoke. Is it really unreasonable expectations to expect Liverpool to be capable of winning one of the cups considering who got into the finals? With the top teams having not cared about the Carling cup for years and the FA cup is falling to the wayside now, Liverpool being just outside the top four should have had both cups as a very realistic target.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,515
- Location
- Warwickshire
Gotta love scouse fans. Unreasonable expectations really.