The Banter Thread

placeholder · 24 Sep 2011 at 00:09

BaZ87 said:
I'm pretty sure we've had this debate before and as I told you before, rightly or wrongly the club had identified Carroll as their main target to replace Torres (even before they knew he'd leave in January (there was an expectance that he'd leave in the summer)). In hindsight, signing him in January was the wrong decision due to his injury problems however at the time the club (I assume) believed it was worth paying the extra few £m to sign him in January to give him time to settle with this season in mid but also to help us in the run-in of last season.

And £80k per week for 6 months is ~£2m, and while £37m is closer to £40m than £35m is, £37m is still closer to £35m than it is to £40m

BIB, i have some straws around here, i'll throw em.....

For the record Carroll was a terrible and desperate signing.

He may come good but at NO point was he worth £35m. It has nothing to do with injuries. It wasnt worth paying anything extra because there were no other bidders.

This is going to sound very flippant but DJ Campbell was £1.2m this summer.

One came from a newly promoted club with a lot to prove and the other.......

BaZ87 · 24 Sep 2011 at 00:21

I'll think you'll find their were other bidders with Spurs having a reported £25m bid rejected a week or so before we signed him. Throw in the fact we had £50m from selling Torres and it being the last day of the transfer window and you're paying £35m. I was the first to say he's not worth that but that's how much it took for us to sign the player the club specifically wanted. And that's the cruicial part; we were signing a player we wanted and were prepared to pay what it takes.

The only question is whether we should have signed him in January or waited until the summer. In hindsight it would have been better to wait until the summer but even then, we wouldn't have got him for great deal cheaper as Newcastle would have still known we had £50m sitting in our pocket.

placeholder · 24 Sep 2011 at 00:39

BaZ87 said:
I'll think you'll find their were other bidders with Spurs having a reported £25m bid rejected a week or so before we signed him. Throw in the fact we had £50m from selling Torres and it being the last day of the transfer window and you're paying £35m. I was the first to say he's not worth that but that's how much it took for us to sign the player the club specifically wanted. And that's the cruicial part; we were signing a player we wanted and were prepared to pay what it takes.

The only question is whether we should have signed him in January or waited until the summer. In hindsight it would have been better to wait until the summer but even then, we wouldn't have got him for great deal cheaper as Newcastle would have still known we had £50m sitting in our pocket.

I cant really argue with that other than to say that if it went to the summer you wouldnt have signed Carroll.

Who "wanted him" and "identified him"?

If you wanted hm that badly why isnt he playing?

If KD identified him why isnt the team set up for a big front man?

If KD didnt identify him why was he signed?

BaZ87 · 24 Sep 2011 at 00:41

Nobody identified him, nobody wanted him, we just wanted to do our bit for the North East economy. Same reason we signed Henderson.

I think that's the only explanation you'll accept so I'll leave it with that

Tom84 · 24 Sep 2011 at 01:50

BaZ87 said:
Only anybody that chose not to read (and quote) the end of the above post where it says Liverpool lost 5 games under Dalglish last season

But it was still all Hodgson's fault for not qualifying for Europe?

Purdy · 24 Sep 2011 at 02:57

Spurs could still make a run at fourth, can't see Arsenal recovering but you never know.

BaZ87 · 24 Sep 2011 at 03:08

Tom84 said:
But it was still all Hodgson's fault for not qualifying for Europe?

Seeing as it's coming from you, I won't give you the benefit of the doubt and I'll assume that's a serious question.
We were 11 points behind Spurs when Dalglish took over; for us to get a European spot we didn't just have to match a side that (at the time) cost considerably more than ours, we had to make up 11 points on them in less than half the season. A bit of realism is needed Tom, we were out of contetion for Europe before Dalglish got the job and were fortunate that Spurs had a terrible run of results towards the back end of the season (coinciding with our good form) which somehow got us briefly back in contention.

But then again we could just say it's Dalglish's fault we didn't win our remaining 18 games and finish a point off the top of the table and qualify for the CL.

Tom84 · 24 Sep 2011 at 14:11

BaZ87 said:
A bit of realism is needed Tom, we were out of contetion for Europe before Dalglish got the job and were fortunate that Spurs had a terrible run of results towards the back end of the season (coinciding with our good form) which somehow got us briefly back in contention..

you're right you did get back into contention and ultimately the reason why you didn't finish higher than Spurs was just as much due to your defeats at Blackpool, West Brom, West Ham, Aston Villa and at home to Tottenham.

Hodgson wasn't a success fair enough but what's stupid is you not only blaming him for not qualifying for Europe, but downplaying the games he did win and stating that his record only compares favourably with Dalglish because of the level of opposition he played when remind me who was in charge when you beat Sparta Prague and crashed out of Europe to mighty Braga?

BaZ87 · 24 Sep 2011 at 14:43

Tom84 said:
you're right you did get back into contention and ultimately the reason why you didn't finish higher than Spurs was just as much due to your defeats at Blackpool, West Brom, West Ham, Aston Villa and at home to Tottenham.

Hodgson wasn't a success fair enough but what's stupid is you not only blaming him for not qualifying for Europe, but downplaying the games he did win and stating that his record only compares favourably with Dalglish because of the level of opposition he played when remind me who was in charge when you beat Sparta Prague and crashed out of Europe to mighty Braga?

I know it's pointless trying to explain anything to you but I'll try again.

Again, we were out of contention for Europe when he took over and the fact that we got back in contention for a European spot was testament to the form of the side after Dalglish took over. The fact that we ultimately didn't qualify is hardly the fault of Daglish considering where we were when he took over. As I said, we could come up with more bs (like you have) and blame him for us not winning all 18 games and not finishing 2nd in the league. That's not very realistic though is it Tom?

And I didn't downplay Hodgson's historic wins over Rabotnicki (x2) and Trabzonspor (x2) (I should mentioned the famous away win at Bolton (Hodgson's words, not mine)), I was simply highlighting how misleading that stat was.

If you're going to compare the records of 2 managers, especially if they're over relatively short periods, then you have to take into consideration the standard of opposition each faced. Which was why I broke down their league records which painted a very different picture.

Alpherah · 24 Sep 2011 at 14:43

Tom84 said:
Hodgson wasn't a success fair enough but what's stupid is you not only blaming him for not qualifying for Europe, but downplaying the games he did win and stating that his record only compares favourably with Dalglish because of the level of opposition he played when remind me who was in charge when you beat Sparta Prague and crashed out of Europe to mighty Braga?

Roy's win % with LFC was a few .'s of a percent below 35.

Kenny's is much higher.

Kenny's made mistakes but the difference between him and that poor excuse for a manager is night and day.

Tom84 · 24 Sep 2011 at 15:19

BaZ87 said:
I know it's pointless trying to explain anything to you but I'll try again.

Again, we were out of contention for Europe when he took over and the fact that we got back in contention for a European spot was testament to the form of the side after Dalglish took over. The fact that we ultimately didn't qualify is hardly the fault of Daglish considering where we were when he took over. As I said, we could come up with more bs (like you have) and blame him for us not winning all 18 games and not finishing 2nd in the league. That's not very realistic though is it Tom?

And I didn't downplay Hodgson's historic wins over Rabotnicki (x2) and Trabzonspor (x2) (I should mentioned the famous away win at Bolton (Hodgson's words, not mine)), I was simply highlighting how misleading that stat was.

If you're going to compare the records of 2 managers, especially if they're over relatively short periods, then you have to take into consideration the standard of opposition each faced. Which was why I broke down their league records which painted a very different picture.

So ultimately what you're saying is Dalglish should be excused for his defeats last season because he got you back into contention to begin with? No manager should be expected to win every game, certainly not that early into their tenure (I actually agree with that) but by solely blaming Hodgson for your failure to qualify for Europe you're contradicting that. How many defeats was it Hodgson was allowed in the Baz hand book before he took full blame for the second half of your season?

Oh and yes you were downplaying the wins under Hodgson saying that Dalglish hadn't been fortunate to play teams of a similar quality as Rabotnicki, Trabzonspor and Steaua Bucharest even though he was in charge in the games against Braga and Sparta Prague.

BaZ87 · 24 Sep 2011 at 16:03

Tom84 said:
So ultimately what you're saying is Dalglish should be excused for his defeats last season because he got you back into contention to begin with? No manager should be expected to win every game, certainly not that early into their tenure (I actually agree with that) but by solely blaming Hodgson for your failure to qualify for Europe you're contradicting that. How many defeats was it Hodgson was allowed in the Baz hand book before he took full blame for the second half of your season?

Oh and yes you were downplaying the wins under Hodgson saying that Dalglish hadn't been fortunate to play teams of a similar quality as Rabotnicki, Trabzonspor and Steaua Bucharest even though he was in charge in the games against Braga and Sparta Prague.

Do you have the inability to read Tom? Where did I excuse any defeats under Dalglish? Do you want a break down of every game we played under Dalglish?

I gave an assessment of our results as a whole under Dalglish and it's clear as day that we punched above our weight. To criticise him for not doing even better is about as valid as criticising him for not winning every game he's ever managed us.

And no, I didn't downplay those results. I pointed out that the standard of opposition that 5 of Hodgson's came against were considerably lower than any other side we played against during the rest of the season (both under Hodgson and Dalglish). That's not 'downplaying', that's stating a fact.

It's really not difficult to understand that if you're going to compare and contrast the results of 2 different managers that you need to look at the standard of opposition they played against, otherwise you end up with ridiculous stats that simple minds think are brilliant.

Tom84 · 24 Sep 2011 at 16:37

BaZ87 said:
Do you have the inability to read Tom? Where did I excuse any defeats under Dalglish? Do you want a break down of every game we played under Dalglish?

I gave an assessment of our results as a whole under Dalglish and it's clear as day that we punched above our weight. To criticise him for not doing even better is about as valid as criticising him for not winning every game he's ever managed us.

And no, I didn't downplay those results. I pointed out that the standard of opposition that 5 of Hodgson's came against were considerably lower than any other side we played against during the rest of the season (both under Hodgson and Dalglish). That's not 'downplaying', that's stating a fact.

It's really not difficult to understand that if you're going to compare and contrast the results of 2 different managers that you need to look at the standard of opposition they played against, otherwise you end up with ridiculous stats that simple minds think are brilliant.

You're excusing defeats under Dalglish by putting sole blame on Hodgson for your failure to qualify for Europe. If you're actually of the opinion that you pushed above your weight last season under Dalglish you shouldn't bemoaning not qualifying for Europe whatsoever because if finishing 6th is pushing above your weight then you simply don't deserve to be in Europe and that's not down to the either manager but more the quality of the squad you had which was assembled during your previous regime.

As for the comparisons you're right if you're going to compare then it is only fair if both managers had the same level of opposition luckily though this is the case, Hodgson had the likes of Trabzonspor and Steaua Bucharest, Dalglish had Sparta Prague and Braga. Obviously an even fairer comparison would be both having the same set conditions to work within as well....

BaZ87 · 24 Sep 2011 at 17:08

Tom84 said:
You're excusing defeats under Dalglish by putting sole blame on Hodgson for your failure to qualify for Europe. If you're actually of the opinion that you pushed above your weight last season under Dalglish you shouldn't bemoaning not qualifying for Europe whatsoever because if finishing 6th is pushing above your weight then you simply don't deserve to be in Europe and that's not down to the either manager but more the quality of the squad you had which was assembled during your previous regime.

As for the comparisons you're right if you're going to compare then it is only fair if both managers had the same level of opposition luckily though this is the case, Hodgson had the likes of Trabzonspor and Steaua Bucharest, Dalglish had Sparta Prague and Braga.

I've not excused single defeats under Dalglish, I've said that on the whole we performed better than expected and what the squad he had available to him should have been capable of performing. On the other hand, under Hodgson we performed worse than expected and worse than what the squad should have been capable of. A team gets what they deserved and over the whole of the season we didn't deserve to qualify for Europe. But we can't blame either manager for the whole season, we can only assign blame to the games they were manager of. First half of the season = terrible, second half of the season = very good.

I'm not going to blame a manager for doing excellently, if that's what you're looking for so I think we should stop wasting each others time.

Oh and Braga and Sparta were far better teams than Steaua and certainly Trabzonspor and Rabotnicki.

Tom84 said:
Obviously an even fairer comparison would be both having the same set conditions to work within as well....

You're right. I actually did that last night. Dalglish lost Torres partly thanks to Hodgson, was without Gerrard for the most part due to injury and without the majority of our defense. Hodgson didn't have those injury problems yet still done worse.

placeholder · 24 Sep 2011 at 20:34

BaZ87 said:
Nobody identified him, nobody wanted him, we just wanted to do our bit for the North East economy. Same reason we signed Henderson.

I think that's the only explanation you'll accept so I'll leave it with that

Sorry i wasnt try to be arsey. All im saying is i have seen it said that the fee for Carroll was based on the size of the fee for Torres and the failure of Torres at £50m has covered for the relative failure of Carroll at £35m.

If Carroll was scouted and watched by the current regieme at Liverpool and they paid £35m for him because he was "the man they wanted" then thats top. You cant put a price on getting the right man. We paid a huge fee for Dwight Yorke but the won the treble etc etc. Jones looked a huge fee but now he is apparently the "England captain in waiting" depending on what papers you read!

However with Carroll he seems to not really fit in with the way KD wants to play and when he is out of the side they dont tend to have a big focal point target man type up front in his place, so when Carroll does play it signals a change in formation and tactics. If thats the case then thats why im questioning why he was bought and if you put and extra £35m in KDs coffers for Jan and removed Carroll from the current squad would you feel better or worse off?

BaZ87 · 24 Sep 2011 at 21:11

I disagree that Carroll doesn't fit into the way Dalglish wants to play. The way he wants to play is with Carroll as the focal point of the attack and then having Suarez feeding off of him. We have no like for like replacement for him so when he doesn't play, it's natural that we don't play the same way, and there's also no denying that on the whole we've played better without him.

You have to look at it both from a squad point of view and a first team point of view. From the squad point of view, having Carroll (as you've pointed out) gives us a 2nd way of playing which can only be a good thing. And from the first team point of view, we're still a work in progress and are still trying to integrate the Downing/Carroll style of football with the Suarez/Kuyt style of football. If and when we can do that, the variety in our attack will be excellent.

placeholder · 24 Sep 2011 at 21:17

BaZ87 said:
I disagree that Carroll doesn't fit into the way Dalglish wants to play. The way he wants to play is with Carroll as the focal point of the attack and then having Suarez feeding off of him. We have no like for like replacement for him so when he doesn't play, it's natural that we don't play the same way, and there's also no denying that on the whole we've played better without him.

You have to look at it both from a squad point of view and a first team point of view. From the squad point of view, having Carroll (as you've pointed out) gives us a 2nd way of playing which can only be a good thing. And from the first team point of view, we're still a work in progress and are still trying to integrate the Downing/Carroll style of football with the Suarez/Kuyt style of football. If and when we can do that, the variety in our attack will be excellent.

I kinda agree in theory.

The concept of Carroll as a focal point with players playing off him makes sense.

The idea of having him as an "option" because he is big and strong and good in the air makes sense too.

Im just not sure the reality matches the ideal.

BaZ87 · 24 Sep 2011 at 21:28

As I said, on the whole it's not gone to plan so far. However there has been a few games where it's clicked and we've looked very dangerous going forward, today being one of them.

I've mentioned before that the biggest issue with having Carroll in the side isn't Carroll himself but the players around him. It's not so much long balls from the back (although Carra's not afraid to bring out the pitching wedge and try and dink balls into Carroll) but the obsession with crossing the ball whenever we've got the ball in a wide position.

placeholder · 24 Sep 2011 at 21:32

I think its just a generic problem with having a big front-man. The next line is usually "he has good feet for a big man".

The default setting becomes trying to hit him as quickly as possible. He becomes an outlet for the defence and an excuse for the wide man to punt a hopeful ball in.

HangTime · 26 Sep 2011 at 18:22

LOL @ latest announcement from Arsenal:

Arsenal midfielder Jack Wilshere's ankle surgery has gone without a hitch. He should be back in 4-5months

So he was out for 2-3 months (revised from the original estimate of 6 weeks), then a week or two later his surgery goes "without a hitch" and he's now due back in 4-5 months :confused: