Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 11/12 MOD POST #1130

Gbear · 16-07-2012 06:01PM

There's a colossal difference between us and Swansea and Barca and Spain.

The system being used in all cases is predominantly about control. With Barca and Spain, the quantity of goals come from the magnificence of their players.
The majority of Spain's play in the Euro's consisted of tidy passing around the place with no overriding notion of penetration. It relied on Iniesta or someone else pulling something amazing out of their arses to break through defences that were more competent than ours.

Having an option at set pieces, a target dropping deep and in the box and a player who's all round play is ridiculously underrated - he's not a "lamp" as somebody mentioned above, is a valuable asset.
To assess him in training and then decide he's not the right fit is one thing. To dismiss him out of hand would be another.

If Carroll leaves we'll be left with 2 senior attacking players and Bellamy and Downing if they're not sold.

If we can get 15m+ then maybe it would be worth it but only if we bring in serious quality and the quantity of players to sustain a potentially 60-game season.

Guy:Incognito · 16-07-2012 06:04PM

Kess73 wrote: »

Hmm every time he has moved club, the club he has just moved to wins the league in his first season with them.

He went from Malmo to Ajax. Ajax won the title.

He went from Ajax to Juve. Juve win the title that season.

He went from Juve to Inter. Inter won the title.

He moves from Inter to Barca. Barca win the title.

He was sent on loan with option to buy deal from Barca to Milan. Milan win the title in his first season playing for them.

I know (hope) thats said with tongue in cheek, but how many of those were missing out on CL places and struggling to finish in the top 6 or 7 havign not won the league in over 20 years?

Chucky the tree · 16-07-2012 06:10PM

Gbear wrote: »

There's a colossal difference between us and Swansea and Barca and Spain.

The system being used in all cases is predominantly about control. With Barca and Spain, the quantity of goals come from the magnificence of their players.
The majority of Spain's play in the Euro's consisted of tidy passing around the place with no overriding notion of penetration. It relied on Iniesta or someone else pulling something amazing out of their arses to break through defences that were more competent than ours.

Having an option at set pieces, a target dropping deep and in the box and a player who's all round play is ridiculously underrated - he's not a "lamp" as somebody mentioned above, is a valuable asset.
To assess him in training and then decide he's not the right fit is one thing. To dismiss him out of hand would be another.

If Carroll leaves we'll be left with 2 senior attacking players and Bellamy and Downing if they're not sold.

If we can get 15m+ then maybe it would be worth it but only if we bring in serious quality and the quantity of players to sustain a potentially 60-game season.

Why? It's not like we need to replace serious quailty. If we can bring in a guy who can get ride the bench, has better attributes than Carroll and can do this all on lower wages than Carroll an costing less than £15m then it's already a big upgrade.

Strawberry Fields · 16-07-2012 06:10PM

We are not Barca but pass and move has always been the Liverpool philosophy through the glory years. Rodgers philosophy of the game is similar to what Barca do best on the planet, he doesn't believe in the tripe Trappatoni would have you watching.

qvsr46ofgc792k · 16-07-2012 06:15PM

Gbear wrote: »

There's a colossal difference between us and Swansea and Barca and Spain.

The system being used in all cases is predominantly about control. With Barca and Spain, the quantity of goals come from the magnificence of their players.
The majority of Spain's play in the Euro's consisted of tidy passing around the place with no overriding notion of penetration. It relied on Iniesta or someone else pulling something amazing out of their arses to break through defences that were more competent than ours.

Having an option at set pieces, a target dropping deep and in the box and a player who's all round play is ridiculously underrated - he's not a "lamp" as somebody mentioned above, is a valuable asset.
To assess him in training and then decide he's not the right fit is one thing. To dismiss him out of hand would be another.

If Carroll leaves we'll be left with 2 senior attacking players and Bellamy and Downing if they're not sold.

If we can get 15m+ then maybe it would be worth it but only if we bring in serious quality and the quantity of players to sustain a potentially 60-game season.

Obviously if Carroll is sold, someone will be coming in to replace.

opr · 16-07-2012 06:18PM

Captain Morgan Freeman wrote: »

Barca only ever had a plan A and they were found out when they played Inter Milan in 2010 and Chelsea this year. Anyone who thinks Guardiola is already a managerial great should be shown clips of their game against Chelsea when Barca passed the ball around aimlessly for 30 minutes before Ivanovic twatted it up the field once they finally made it into the Chelsea box.

Im surprised more teams haven't taken the "you want the ball barca? ****ing have it!" approach.

Found out? Would you stand down from that soap box before we all drown in the excrement coming from your mouth. Luck plays an extremely big part in cup football. Taking two games in isolation that they should have won as some kind of proof they need a plan B is very silly. No matter how superior you're to the opposition due the quality of teams competing in the champions variance will mean you might lose games even though right throughout the competition you played the way which gave you the highest percentage chance of winning.

Opr

Kess73 · 16-07-2012 06:18PM

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I know (hope) thats said with tongue in cheek, but how many of those were missing out on CL places and struggling to finish in the top 6 or 7 havign not won the league in over 20 years?

very much tongue in cheek:D

smileyj1987 · 16-07-2012 06:20PM

CL7 wrote: »

Going backwards? Seriously? Maybe you should wait until the transfer window is nearly over before you judge what direction we are going in.

In case you haven't noticed we have preseason games coming up on Saturday which is supposed to help players bed into the squad . We only have one new signing going on this tour . When the tour is over our season begins in the Europa League .

Lets say Carroll is sold would really fancy starting off the season with only having these players as our strikers who have played together under Rodgers system . If this was any other Club the panic buttons would be in overdrive right now .

Adam Morgan
Daniel Pacheco
Krisztian Adorjan
Fabio Borini
Nathan Eccleston

8-10 · 16-07-2012 06:20PM

Regardless if Carroll stays or goes, I just hope that the season starts with enough depth up front. It's hurt in the past and with no Kuyt or Bellamy now the priority should be efficient numbers to cover.

TBH I think that's Newcastle's ploy too. With the African Cup of Nations they could be the guts of a month without their 2 main forward players if Senegal qualify

qvsr46ofgc792k · 16-07-2012 06:23PM

opr wrote: »

Found out? Would you stand down from that soap box before we all drown in the excrement coming from your mouth. Luck plays an extremely big part in cup football. Taking two games in isolation that they should have won as some kind of proof they need a plan B is very silly. No matter how superior you're to the opposition due the quality of teams competing in the champions variance will mean you might lose games even though right throughout the competition you played the way which gave you the highest percentage chance of winning.

Opr

So much found in fact that everyone wipes the floor with them now

Captain Morgan Freeman · 16-07-2012 06:35PM

opr wrote: »

Found out? Would you stand down from that soap box before we all drown in the excrement coming from your mouth. Luck plays an extremely big part in cup football. Taking two games in isolation that they should have won as some kind of proof they need a plan B is very silly. No matter how superior you're to the opposition due the quality of teams competing in the champions variance will mean you might lose games even though right throughout the competition you played the way which gave you the highest percentage chance of winning.

Opr

Should have won? They could have played Chelsea all day and not have scored. A Chelsea team with 10 men i might add. Granted for the approach Chelsea and Milan took you need to be lucky enough to snatch a lead first in order to put 11 men behind the ball but the fact is Barca for all the success of their tiki taka system they were bloody clueless when Chelsea came out with a game plan to nulify their passing game. A change was needed and it was never going to come, not if the game went on for 10 hours. This is also a Barca team that lost the league this year also i might add.
Barca were right to go in with their original game plan but when it became apparent Chelsea were going to sit back and hoof the ball away at every opportunity then Barca needed to change, they didn't because they don't have a plan B.
From your post you make it seem Barca were unlucky to lose to a ten man Chelsea.

And no it's bloody comfortable on this soap box

opr · 16-07-2012 06:35PM

The u18's played Exeter the other day in a pre-season friendly. Won 8-1.

Portugese starlet Joao Carlos Teixeira made his first appearance in a red shirt when he appeared during the U18s friendly 8-1 win over Exeter on Saturday morning.

The midfield playmaker, who arrived at the Academy from Sporting Lisbon, enjoyed a 25 minute run-out in the second half.

The Portugese youth international didn't feature for the Academy last term because of a niggling back problem, but now fully fit, he is set to be a regular in Kirkby this season.

A youthful Exeter side had travelled up on the morning of the match and several regulars from the reserve team squad were on duty for the Reds including Michael Ngoo and Toni Silva, who spent the final part of last term on loan at Northampton Town.

Jordan Sinclair netted a hat-trick, while Silva, Sam Gainford, Kristoffer Peterson, Marc Pelosi and Danny Smith were also on target.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Muq3fhv5W-Q

Opr

kryogen · 16-07-2012 06:36PM

opr wrote: »

Found out? Would you stand down from that soap box before we all drown in the excrement coming from your mouth. Luck plays an extremely big part in cup football. Taking two games in isolation that they should have won as some kind of proof they need a plan B is very silly. No matter how superior you're to the opposition due the quality of teams competing in the champions variance will mean you might lose games even though right throughout the competition you played the way which gave you the highest percentage chance of winning.

Opr

Over the course of the league campaign it was also shown that they suffer at times from not having a plan B.

opr · 16-07-2012 06:42PM

Captain Morgan Freeman wrote: »

Should have won? They could have played Chelsea all day and not have scored. A Chelsea team with 10 men i might add. Granted for the approach Chelsea and Milan took you need to be lucky enough to snatch a lead first in order to put 11 men behind the ball but the fact is Barca for all the success of their tiki taka system they were bloody clueless when Chelsea came out with a game plan to nulify their passing game. A change was needed and it was never going to come, not if the game went on for 10 hours. This is also a Barca team that lost the league this year also i might add.

Barca were right to go in with their original game plan but when it became apparent Chelsea were going to sit back and hoof the ball away at every opportunity then Barca needed to change, they didn't because they don't have a plan B.
From your post you make it seem Barca were unlucky to lose to a ten man Chelsea.

And no it's bloody comfortable on this soap box

Barcelona created enough good chances over the two legs to have won that game comfortably. Lets stop rewriting history here, Chelsea were incredibly lucky to progress to the final bordering on miracle status stuff.

Opr

Knex* · 16-07-2012 06:49PM

Barca do not need a plan B. Ibrahimovic is a far superior striker to Carroll and they shipped him on pretty quickly.

Chelsea were absolutely haunted to get through against Barca and could/should have lost the first game 4 or 5 nil and that's not an exaggeration.

The idea that Barca were found out in either game is just lol.

~Rebel~ · 16-07-2012 06:50PM

Captain Morgan Freeman wrote: »

Should have won? They could have played Chelsea all day and not have scored.

They did score. Twice.

opr · 16-07-2012 06:51PM

kryogen wrote: »

Over the course of the league campaign it was also shown that they suffer at times from not having a plan B.

I presume they needed a plan B in the previous seasons when they won the league? Many factors contributed to Barcelona not winning the league last season the least of which was not having a bloody plan B.

I'm not even a huge fan of the footballing style but how people watching Spain/Barcelona sweep all before them for the last number of years continue to spout this rubbish about them not having a plan B being an achilles' heel I find incredible.

Opr

whatawaster · 16-07-2012 06:52PM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Selling Carroll is simply not an option, not yet. He has just put together his best block of form for us and the price is simply too low right now. We / Rodgers is obliged to rotate him in up top and see if he can push on this year. Yes, he has been disappointing but he is still very young and has an upside that the likes of Henderson / Downing / Adam can't touch.

What I would do is a much longer post that I don't have time to get into for the moment...

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

So Rodgers plans to implent plan A all of the time, every game? If his "system" can't utilise a potentially game changing physical specimen then it can get ****ed imo.

Plan B doesn't need to be physicality, that's the kind of rubbish that BBC pundits think.
Teams can change their shape, players can swap position, substitutes can be brought on to inject more pace, more width, more creativity etc

There are numerous ways to change a game.

We might not like it, but if Rodgers doesn't see Carroll as someone who fits into his way of playing, then he has every right to move him on. He is not obligated to play him, and if he is not playing him then there is a very good argument that his wages are far too high for a bench player.

MD1990 · 16-07-2012 06:59PM

Andy carroll rumour to NUFC strictly not true as mike ashley has a strict no returns policy at sports direct

Gbear · 16-07-2012 07:02PM

Jazlynn Lively Handbag wrote: »

Obviously if Carroll is sold, someone will be coming in to replace.

Yes. I rate Carroll though both in terms of what he can do now, but more importantly what he could develop into.

I'm not saying it would be the end of the world but unless we bring in a very good quality attacker, then we should hold on to Carroll and see how he develops and let Newcastle (or whoever) keep their money because it would represent poor value.

If that 15m is being earmarked to bring in Dempsey and another midfielder, then I'd rather not bother.

MD1990 · 16-07-2012 07:04PM

Gbear wrote: »

Yes. I rate Carroll though both in terms of what he can do now, but more importantly what he could develop into.

I'm not saying it would be the end of the world but unless we bring in a very good quality attacker, then we should hold on to Carroll and see how he develops and let Newcastle (or whoever) keep their money because it would represent poor value.

If that 15m is being earmarked to bring in Dempsey and another midfielder, then I'd rather not bother.

why?
Dempsey scored 17 PL goals last year while Carroll got 4

16-07-2012 07:05PM

We already need another striker. Moving on Carroll will mean we need another two.

whatawaster · 16-07-2012 07:11PM

rarnes1 wrote: »

We already need another striker. Moving on Carroll will mean we need another two.

Since we will probably play one up front, Borini and Suarez plus one more should be enough. We are light on the wings moreso

mike65 · 16-07-2012 07:14PM

Liverpool will be playing three up front, not one,

4-3-3

AN Other - Borini - Suarez

whatawaster · 16-07-2012 07:17PM

mike65 wrote: »

Liverpool will be playing three up front, not one,

4-3-3

AN Other - Borini - Suarez

You could say it that way

We would need 6 players - Borini, Suarez and Sterling would be three.

Bellamy, Downing and Carroll are the other three we have at the moment, who must all be replaced if they leave.

Gerrard, Shelvey, Pacheco and Suso are also cover for those positions.

16-07-2012 07:29PM

whatawaster wrote: »

You could say it that way

We would need 6 players - Borini, Suarez and Sterling would be three.

Bellamy, Downing and Carroll are the other three we have at the moment, who must all be replaced if they leave.

Gerrard, Shelvey, Pacheco and Suso are also cover for those positions.

Pacheco? He's played only about 15 games in the past 2 years or so. I wouldn't be relying too heavily on him tbh. Plus he hardly set the world on fire in his first stint.

Suso and Sterling are great prospects but untested as regular first team starters.

doc_17 · 16-07-2012 07:46PM

Borini and Suarez can't be expected to play 50 games either. If Carroll goes we will then need two strikers. Not one.

DeadParrot · 16-07-2012 07:47PM

Selling Caroll and replacing him with Dempsey is an extremely shortsighted move imo

Gbear · 16-07-2012 08:06PM

MD1990 wrote: »

why?
Dempsey scored 17 PL goals last year while Carroll got 4

I don't have a problem with Dempsey other than his age.

I value Carroll as the highest of those linked with a move away given how big men tend to peak later, he made incremental improvements over the course of the season in terms of general play and a marked improvement in form over the last 5 games and at the Euros.

In addition to the midfielder Rodgers seems to be after, I want either Carroll to stay as well as Dempsey coming in or Dempsey and another attacker covered by the fee for Carroll.

If it's a situation whereby we're dependant on the sale of Carroll to pay for Dempsey and someone else, then I'd rather we just stuck with Carroll as I think it represents poor value and I worry we'll be left light up front.

We'll have to wait and see until the end of the window to see what state our squad is in. If Rodgers plans on playing a 4-3-3 and we have a starting front 3 of Suarez-Borini and Dempsey without any players in rotation or backup I think the change in formation and the playing staff required to adequately man it will have been handled poorly.

whatawaster · 16-07-2012 08:16PM

rarnes1 wrote: »

Pacheco? He's played only about 15 games in the past 2 years or so. I wouldn't be relying too heavily on him tbh. Plus he hardly set the world on fire in his first stint.

Suso and Sterling are great prospects but untested as regular first team starters.

I have Pacheco as 3rd/4th choice at best. Hardly relying heavily on him.

Similarly, whilst I would have Suso and Sterling heavily involved in the first team squad next season, they would be very much second choice, and in the event that we didn't want to throw them in we have Gerrard, Shelvey and even Henderson who can put in a stint in wide positions.

Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 11/12 MOD POST #1130

Comments