Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2015/16 (*EVERYONE READ MOD POST in OP)

brevity · 02-10-2015 01:41PM

Pyjamarama wrote: »

The team that scores the most goals usually wins the league. The idea you need a great defence is a fallacy and the stats back that up. We didn't win the league that year because City were better and scored more goals. If we'd scored two more goals, one against chelsea and one against Palace) then we'd have scored the most and won. Obv thats actually a bit ludicrous and too simplistic but its not more ridic than half the stuff that gets posted on here regularly.

Can't agree with any of that.

Pyjamarama · 02-10-2015 01:44PM

Lord Trollington wrote: »

When Henderson, Benteke, Firmino and Lovren all return and if Sturridge and others stay fit.

Then I will judge Rodgers. At the moment I would like to see him continue.

You'll want him gone so...

Pyjamarama · 02-10-2015 01:44PM

brevity wrote: »

Can't agree with any of that.

You don't agree that the team that scores the most goals usually wins the league?? Thats not an opinion, its a fact.

dogbert27 · 02-10-2015 01:46PM

Pyjamarama wrote: »

You don't agree that the team that scores the most goals usually wins the league?? Thats not an opinion, its a fact.

The team that finishes with the most points wins the league. That is the only fact.

dogbert27 · 02-10-2015 01:47PM

brevity wrote: »

If we had a better defence we would have won the league - Defending doesn't mean boring. Suarez & Sturridge would have still scored goals, maybe not as much, but we would have had better results IMO.

I agree with your point. At 3-0 up against Palace with 10 mins left we should have been able to close out the game.

With a defensive strategy we could have played out the Chelsea game to a 0-0 draw.

We would then have won the league.

jaykay74 · 02-10-2015 01:51PM

Lord Trollington wrote: »

When Henderson, Benteke, Firmino and Lovren all return and if Sturridge and others stay fit.

Then I will judge Rodgers. At the moment I would like to see him continue.

Managers are not usually afforded such luxury. Its part of the reason for maintaining a good quality squad, not just first 11. So if Sturridge suffers a re-occurance and is out for the season then Rodgers get a bye for 15/16 ?

Pyjamarama · 02-10-2015 01:55PM

dogbert27 wrote: »

The team that finishes with the most points wins the league. That is the only fact.

Nope, its not the only fact. If you look back at the last 20 years you'll see that the team that scores the most goals more often than not (by a large margin) wins the league.

Having a quality defence is more important in one off cup matches. Its not that having a good one wouldn't be great or anything but you don't really need it (or historically haven't) against the lower half of the league as they offered so little threat. That may be changing but i'd be shocked if it doesn't hold true again this year.

Lord Trollington · 02-10-2015 01:59PM

Hidalgo wrote: »

Based on what evidence if I may ask?

It's pretty self explanatory really. Our captain will be back. Our £30m+ signing will be back and he'll have a full deck to pick from.

Then I can make a decision on him. It is clear we are not functioning well at the moment.

But imagine this. I support Liverpool and I'm backing our manager to turn it around. There's a new concept maybe for people to think about.

dogbert27 · 02-10-2015 01:59PM

Pyjamarama wrote: »

Nope, its not the only fact. If you look back at the last 20 years you'll see that the team that scores the most goals more often than not (by a large margin) wins the league.

Having a quality defence is more important in one off cup matches. Its not that having a good one wouldn't be great or anything but you don't really need it (or historically haven't) against the lower half of the league as they offered so little threat. That may be changing but i'd be shocked if it doesn't hold true again this year.

If you win all 38 matches 1-0 you win the league.

It doesn't matter if the team that finished second has scored over 100 goals.

As you say it more often than not goes hand in hand but the only fact to winning the league is that you finish with the most points, not goals scored.

whatawaster · 02-10-2015 02:01PM

dogbert27 wrote: »

I agree with your point. At 3-0 up against Palace with 10 mins left we should have been able to close out the game.

With a defensive strategy we could have played out the Chelsea game to a 0-0 draw.

We would then have won the league.

If we had played for a 0-0 against Chelsea, there's a good chance we still would have lost the game.
As it was we limited Chelsea to no chances in the first half. When your last man back slips there is then little you can do.

If we had drawn against Chelsea we could afford no more mistakes. There is nothing to say we would then have gone 3-0 up against Palace as there would have been an awful lot more pressure on us.

5starpool · 02-10-2015 02:01PM

Pyjamarama wrote: »

Nope, its not the only fact. If you look back at the last 20 years you'll see that the team that scores the most goals more often than not (by a large margin) wins the league.

Having a quality defence is more important in one off cup matches. Its not that having a good one wouldn't be great or anything but you don't really need it (or historically haven't) against the lower half of the league as they offered so little threat. That may be changing but i'd be shocked if it doesn't hold true again this year.

You can't say that when something happens, something else usually happens. It certainly doesn't make it a fact. We scored the most in 2008/09, what did we win that season?

It is certainly true that the top scorers usually win the league, but it is far from being a certainty.

kfallon · 02-10-2015 02:04PM

We bottled the league 2 seasons ago, ye can dress it up any way ye want but that's the reality.

When it came down to the crunch and we finally had our destiny in our own hands, we threw it away. From half time in the City game the team became scared/nervous. We got away with it big time against City, we just about clung on at Norwich and then it all went pear shaped against Chelsea and Palace.

That's the long and the short of it, you can go on about 13 wins from 15 or 12 wins in a row but when the pressure was really upon us there were too many players who weren't strong enough to stand up to it.

It's a lot easier to win games when you are going for 4th, 3rd, 2nd (as what happened in that great run) but when you need character to get over the line and lift that trophy we didn't have enough of it! The last 10-12 minutes of the Palace game showed how weak our players were.

Agent Coulson · 02-10-2015 02:11PM

Behind the paywall.

Frank de Boer tempted by Liverpool adventure

Frank de Boer is the latest European manager to show interest in managing Liverpool, a move that will inevitably intensify the pressure that Brendan Rodgers continues to come under following a poor start to the season.
De Boer, the Ajax manager, was considered for the Liverpool job before FSG, the Merseyside club’s owners, appointed Rodgers as Kenny Dalglish’s successor in 2012, but his interest in the position remains and his admission that he is “looking maybe for another adventure” will alert potential suitors to his possible availability.
With Jürgen Klopp’s camp also intimating that the former Borussia Dortmund manager would be interested in taking over at Liverpool in the event of the job becoming available, it isn’t just results that mean Rodgers is facing a battle to remain in charge, as rivals go public on the appeal of the post he occupies.
It is a situation that Rodgers reluctantly accepts as a result of the uncertainty over his own future but De Boer’s admission that he could also be interested in managing Newcastle United will have done little to diminish his sense of vulnerability, particularly with Ajax currently top of the Eredivisie. “Yes I think every year [moving to the Premier League] comes closer of course,” De Boer told BBC World Service in an interview that will be broadcast tonight. “I’m looking maybe for another adventure. If there is an interesting club that I think with my quality I can make that team better – if I can, than I will take that chance.
“They are fantastic clubs. Liverpool and Newcastle - with supporters behind them - it is a fantastic environment to coach but this year it is important for me to do well at Ajax and then we will see.”
Given his age and profile as an up and coming manager with a clear philosophy of how football should be played, De Boer would seem a natural fit for FSG’s model. But should an alternative to Rodgers be sought, Klopp has significant backing among Liverpool’s fan base which could make him a contender in the event of a change being made.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/sport/football/clubs/liverpool/article4574393.ece

whatawaster · 02-10-2015 02:11PM

Remember 3-0 in the Palace game. The exhilaration. "We're actually going to win this 9-0 and win the league on goal difference"

brevity · 02-10-2015 02:15PM

whatawaster wrote: »

Remember 3-0 in the Palace game. The exhilaration. "We're actually going to win this 9-0 and win the league on goal difference"

That season was so crazy, it was like something from a movie.

Connavar · 02-10-2015 02:19PM

brevity wrote: »

That season was so crazy, it was like something from a movie.

I have such a big dislike of Dwight Gayle after that game

Pyjamarama · 02-10-2015 02:20PM

5starpool wrote: »

You can't say that when something happens, something else usually happens. It certainly doesn't make it a fact. We scored the most in 2008/09, what did we win that season?

It is certainly true that the top scorers usually win the league, but it is far from being a certainty.

But my point was that more often than not the team that scores the most wins the league. I never said it was all that mattered but I would be more worried about our inability to score and create chances than our inability to defend.

The whole "if you win every game 1-0 you'll win the league" argument is ludicrous as its pretty much impossible. Having a team that can reliably score goals is more important than one that can reliably keep clean sheets. Thats the reason they changed it from 2 points to a win to 3.

dogbert27 · 02-10-2015 02:28PM

Pyjamarama wrote: »

But my point was that more often than not the team that scores the most wins the league. I never said it was all that mattered but I would be more worried about our inability to score and create chances than our inability to defend.

The whole "if you win every game 1-0 you'll win the league" argument is ludicrous as its pretty much impossible. Having a team that can reliably score goals is more important than one that can reliably keep clean sheets. Thats the reason they changed it from 2 points to a win to 3.

Some brain box out there did a review of Rodgers goal difference. The result was that to win a game under Brendan Rodgers we have to score something like 2.3 goals a game due to the amount of goals we concede.

If we didn't concede so many goals the average goals scored figure of 2.3 would decrease.

It adds to the players pressure if they know they have to be scoring 2-3 goals a game to get a win instead of knowing they are set up correctly to see out a 1-0 victory.

The game against Aston Villa is the perfect example.

mormank · 02-10-2015 02:29PM

dogbert27 wrote: »

I agree with your point. At 3-0 up against Palace with 10 mins left we should have been able to close out the game.

With a defensive strategy we could have played out the Chelsea game to a 0-0 draw.

We would then have won the league.

We weren't trying to close the game out at 3-0.

We needed to score alot more goals to possibly be able to win the league on goal difference. You either forgot that or are just being purposefully ignorant to suit your point/agenda. Mis representing the facts just costs us all time cos then someone has to come in and correct you so others don't believe your lies/mistakes. By "you" I mean everyone.

dogbert27 · 02-10-2015 02:35PM

whatawaster wrote: »

If we had played for a 0-0 against Chelsea, there's a good chance we still would have lost the game.
As it was we limited Chelsea to no chances in the first half. When your last man back slips there is then little you can do.

If we had drawn against Chelsea we could afford no more mistakes. There is nothing to say we would then have gone 3-0 up against Palace as there would have been an awful lot more pressure on us.

Chelsea didn't come to score. Their tactic was to suck us in which they did, our defence was caught too high up the field and they capitalized on a mistake.
They had a tactic and it worked. We got sucked in to it.

Knowing that a draw would suffice against Chelsea and seeing their negative tactics so early we could have easily changed to play a deeper back line and seen out a dull game.

We couldn't afford a loss in those last 3 games. On paper Palace and Newcastle were wins.

The Chelsea game was the one game that needed to be managed tactically and it wasn't.

monkey9 · 02-10-2015 02:35PM

That Palace game was gutwrenching like any loss of a three nil lead would be. But I wasn’t disappointed in the sense that we just lost the league. We lost the league when Gerrard slipped and we couldn’t pull it back. If we had drawn that Chelsea game, we’d have been Champions

We only blew the Palace match because we were still going gung ho for more goals at three nil up, something we wouldn’t have had to do had we got something from Chelsea. I wasn’t full of elation at three nil up thinking we had a chance. All I was shouting for was more goals as I was still gutted from the previous match and the reality that that result had caused.

Grayditch · 02-10-2015 02:37PM

mormank wrote: »

We weren't trying to close the game out at 3-0. We needed to score alot more goals to possibly be able to win the league on goal difference. You either forgot that or are just being purposefully ignorant to suit your point/agenda. Mis representing the facts just costs us all time cos then someone has to come in and correct you so others don't believe your lies/mistakes. By "you" I mean everyone.

whatawaster · 02-10-2015 02:37PM

dogbert27 wrote: »

Chelsea didn't come to score. Their tactic was to suck us in which they did, our defence was caught too high up the field and they capitalized on a mistake.
They had a tactic and it worked. We got sucked in to it.

Knowing that a draw would suffice against Chelsea and seeing their negative tactics so early we could have easily changed to play a deeper back line and seen out a dull game.

We couldn't afford a loss in those last 3 games. On paper Palace and Newcastle were wins.

The Chelsea game was the one game that needed to be managed tactically and it wasn't.

Chelsea set out to frustrate us.

I doubt very much they would have sat back and defended for 90 minutes. They had no reason to.

They probably thought their defense would be good enough to shut us out for 90 minutes and they would grow into the game and nick a winner.

It would have been unbelievably dangerous for us to sit back.

ricero · 02-10-2015 02:38PM

I'd be very underwhelmed if de Boer came in as manager instead of a klopp or ancelloti

whatawaster · 02-10-2015 02:38PM

monkey9 wrote: »

If we had drawn that Chelsea game, we’d have been Champions

Both the Palace and Newcastle games would have become monumentally harder had we still been in the title driving seat. No guarantee we would have won both at all.

dogbert27 · 02-10-2015 02:38PM

mormank wrote: »

We weren't trying to close the game out at 3-0. We needed to score alot more goals to possibly be able to win the league on goal difference. You either forgot that or are just being purposefully ignorant to suit your point/agenda. Mis representing the facts just costs us all time cos then someone has to come in and correct you so others don't believe your lies/mistakes. By "you" I mean everyone.

I'm not being purposefully ignorant. We weren't able to defend the 3 points.

As soon as Palace scored we panicked due to not having a solid defensive system which is the main point of this current argument.

It's over 3 season under Rodgers reign and we have never had defensive stability.

Knex* · 02-10-2015 02:39PM

ricero wrote: »

I'd be very underwhelmed if de Boer came in as manager instead of a klopp or ancelloti

I'd really like De Boer, tbh. Especially if he was able to bring a lot of his backroom staff with him.

He's not like the Rodgers appointment either, for me, as he has league titles behind his name and a lot of European experience too.

I think he has a very bright future in the game.

dogbert27 · 02-10-2015 02:40PM

whatawaster wrote: »

Chelsea set out to frustrate us.

I doubt very much they would have sat back and defended for 90 minutes. They had no reason to.

They probably thought their defense would be good enough to shut us out for 90 minutes and they would grow into the game and nick a winner.

It would have been unbelievably dangerous for us to sit back.

We didn't have to sit back, we just didn't have to be playing such a high line in defence.

dogbert27 · 02-10-2015 02:43PM

whatawaster wrote: »

Both the Palace and Newcastle games would have become monumentally harder had we still been in the title driving seat. No guarantee we would have won both at all.

Or seeing as there is no evidence of this only your opinion I will say that the Palace and Newcastle games would have been easy peasy.

Having drawn against Chelsea the pressure would have been greater on Man City for their games.

The fact of the matter is that losing to Chelsea meant that we lost control of the situation.

A draw and it was still in our hands where we only needed the 6 points against Palace and Newcastle and not be having to score as many goals as humanly possible.

brevity · 02-10-2015 02:45PM

Knex. wrote: »

I'd really like De Boer, tbh. Especially if he was able to bring a lot of his backroom staff with him.

He's not like the Rodgers appointment either, for me, as he has league titles behind his name and a lot of European experience too.

I think he has a very bright future in the game.

De Boer does seem to be a more suitable appointment from FSG's point of view. I've read a couple of pieces about him and he seems to be doing well for himself.

Still would love Klopp though.

Liverpool FC Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread 2015/16 (*EVERYONE READ MOD POST in OP)

Comments