• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Rafa

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hence obsessed.

Wouldn't surprise me if he in the future gives me shit for using letters. "Look at that trolling cunt using letters, who does he think he is".

At least you can't get subbed at half time
 
@peterhague I think history makes it very clear that a safe coach is not what we need.

The hardest thing in change management is to get things moving - inertia is the toughest force to overcome. Once it's moving it simply requires a nudge now and again - unless there is a very defined pathway it needs to follow.

History tells us that success in the EPL comes - consistently - to teams with a strong attacking nature who can simply swat opposition away almost as much through style as through technique. In recent years the same is true of the CL.

What we need, therefore, is a manager or coach of some vision to be able to create a successful culture in this manner. Rodgers proved he knew how to start the movement and how to create that style. Now he needs to prove he can create that culture. A "safe" coach doesn't do that; what we need is a visionary coach who can continue this work with resources which aren't going to match the city's or Madrid's of the world.

I'll also suggest that this is a reason not to go back to Rafa. It's simply not his style and I believe football has moved on from his approach in the last 5 - 10 years. I personally think there's no way in the world he would have had us overcoming Barca in 08 to 11 and certainly wouldn't have been able to overcome Madrid in the form they're currently in. I remain convinced the only way to overcome that kind of power is to hit them first - very much our pattern from last year.

Rodger's management here could very easily be defined by the January transfer window. I don't think he ever wanted Mario as I've said elsewhere. I've also explained why I think he's one match winner short and that's what needs to be adjusted in January. His approach requires multiple points of attacking potency and he doesn't have it just now. If he get's that sorted in January then he has, IMO, just a keeper to really get worked out.

Whether he can do this; whether he is the one to build the culture necessary I'm not sure but he's the most obviously appropriate choice right now.


What proof have you got that we need an attacking approach? And even if that's true, did these attacking examples we need to follow all do so at the cost of no defensive organisation whatsoever? I really don't think that's true at all, is it?

What I meant (did I even say it btw?) by 'safe' is a rounded coach who can organise a team as efficiently as possible so as to get the most out of its resources. That doesn't mean defensive, or cautious. It means, for example, recognising that a team of limited means simply *must* be competent in all areas of the pitch, because it simply won't have the funds to employ the brilliant attackers a more flamboyant team needs. It means recognising that you get more return from making the defence solid and keeping the attack just decent than you do from concentrating everything in attack.

I'm basically talking about a pragmatic approach, rather than the kind of grander visionary sort of thing you're pushing, because I think that might suit our needs better right now. We've got the resources to have a very decent team, either the third or fourth best in the country, with a focus on very good young players, that in time will mature into the best team in the country. I'm saying we might no longer need any alchemy to get them playing like more than the sum of the parts: we just need someone to organise them efficiently and to see them through the maturation process as smoothly as possible, because the danger with someone more maverick like BR is that he's a gamble: there's an upside that isn't much better than the upside of the 'safe' (say, finishing 2nd with amazing football instead of third with just good football) but a downside that is really really bad (say finishing 6th having conceded 60 goals instead of 4th with 40 goals).

In short, the argument is: we're on our way. Everything is in place. Why do we need a rather unpredictable genius type in charge when he can't really help the process that much but can surely hurt it?
 
@peterhague I think history makes it very clear that a safe coach is not what we need.

The hardest thing in change management is to get things moving - inertia is the toughest force to overcome. Once it's moving it simply requires a nudge now and again - unless there is a very defined pathway it needs to follow.

History tells us that success in the EPL comes - consistently - to teams with a strong attacking nature who can simply swat opposition away almost as much through style as through technique. In recent years the same is true of the CL.

What we need, therefore, is a manager or coach of some vision to be able to create a successful culture in this manner. Rodgers proved he knew how to start the movement and how to create that style. Now he needs to prove he can create that culture. A "safe" coach doesn't do that; what we need is a visionary coach who can continue this work with resources which aren't going to match the city's or Madrid's of the world.

I'll also suggest that this is a reason not to go back to Rafa. It's simply not his style and I believe football has moved on from his approach in the last 5 - 10 years. I personally think there's no way in the world he would have had us overcoming Barca in 08 to 11 and certainly wouldn't have been able to overcome Madrid in the form they're currently in. I remain convinced the only way to overcome that kind of power is to hit them first - very much our pattern from last year.

Rodger's management here could very easily be defined by the January transfer window. I don't think he ever wanted Mario as I've said elsewhere. I've also explained why I think he's one match winner short and that's what needs to be adjusted in January. His approach requires multiple points of attacking potency and he doesn't have it just now. If he get's that sorted in January then he has, IMO, just a keeper to really get worked out.

Whether he can do this; whether he is the one to build the culture necessary I'm not sure but he's the most obviously appropriate choice right now.

Good post as per but I'm less convinced than you that Rafa wouldn't have had us overcoming that Barca side or its current Real equivalent. Milan in the 2005 CL Final, and arguably one or two of the sides we beat on the way there, were at a similar level IMHO.

I'm not saying I want Rafa back - like most on here I'm happy to stick with Brendan. I am saying, though, that Brendan could do well to pursue a *somewhat* more balanced approach which pays more attention, or at least more effective attention, to getting the defence right.
 
Well, I think I could point to every title winning team in England over the past five years with one exception as evidence of the need for an attacking ethos. That once exception being City under Mancini and, if there's going to be an exception, I think a team with a 200 trillion transfer value would be the exception. I reckon the same is true for the CL - Madrid last year would be the only possible exception and they were still a reasonably attack focused team.


What evidence do you have that a team without an attacking ethos is going to be successful in winning the league (or CL) anytime soon?
 
Talk about being obsessed. It's getting boring now Mark.

What have I trolled about this time? I think my opinion counts as trolling for you.

Also @Fabio you share private conversations much?
Considering I was getting hounded to ban you, I didn't see it as a problem to share that with other mods
 
Well, I think I could point to every title winning team in England over the past five years with one exception as evidence of the need for an attacking ethos. That once exception being City under Mancini and, if there's going to be an exception, I think a team with a 200 trillion transfer value would be the exception. I reckon the same is true for the CL - Madrid last year would be the only possible exception and they were still a reasonably attack focused team.


What evidence do you have that a team without an attacking ethos is going to be successful in winning the league (or CL) anytime soon?

You're right, but what JJ is saying (I think) is that Rodgers needs to be able to take a more pragmatic approach at times, we need to tighten up as well and that shouldn't necessarily have a knock on effect on our attacking play - there are enough attacking sides who *can* defend.

When we got beat by Chelsea at home and Rodgers was asked if he would ever play that way, he said "never". His commitment to good entertaining football can't be faulted, but his stubbornness in showing a willingness to adjust when playing the big boys can. There's only so many times the old "at least we lost trying to win" ethos will wash, when you play the big teams you have to show you can be clever and patient, not how great you are in comparison as an attacking side.

It's almost like he's trying to prove a point, that he can "out attack" them with a squad that's been assembled on the cheap (it hasn't really, lets be honest). We just end up getting picked off most of the time, especially against the sides like City and Chelsea who know how to defend the life out of a game.

Attack the lesser sides, that's where you earn your points and goal difference, but when it comes to the major clubs, we have to be more ruthless and intelligent, even if it means a good old fashioned backs to the wall job.
 
Well, I think I could point to every title winning team in England over the past five years with one exception as evidence of the need for an attacking ethos. That once exception being City under Mancini and, if there's going to be an exception, I think a team with a 200 trillion transfer value would be the exception. I reckon the same is true for the CL - Madrid last year would be the only possible exception and they were still a reasonably attack focused team.


What evidence do you have that a team without an attacking ethos is going to be successful in winning the league (or CL) anytime soon?


This is wandering from the point, that what we need right now is a balanced team.

But if you really want to know how we would build an attacking ethos once we were ready to challenge for the title, and accepting as a given that's what we needed, I'd simply say that finding that ethos is nowhere near as hard as you seem to make out. Witness Chelsea this season compared to last, or City last season compared to the one before. It's much more to do with having a squad of excellent players and letting them go out with a certain abandon than building on some years old ingrained philosophy.
 
Talk about being obsessed. It's getting boring now Mark.

What have I trolled about this time? I think my opinion counts as trolling for you.

Also @Fabio you share private conversations much?

I really hope you're not having a nibble at someone for sharing a PM on open forum. You tried (and failed) to make me look like a cunt when you did exactly that...
 
we were so boring to watch under rafa though, even when we won it was a fucking chore to watch us play
 
Excellent post as per.

This morning I find myself in the strange position of feeling quite optimistic after a 3-0 home defeat. I thought the way we acquitted ourselves - against the European champions - after half-time was very encouraging, and it made me wonder what the score (not necessarily the result) might have been if we'd played that line-up for the whole 90, because there were times when we definitely worried them. It's easy to forget that even last season we didn't fully hit our stride until the New Year, and I'm now hopeful we can do that again this season.

They were in cruise control in the second half. They knew they'd done the hard work in the first half and were clearly enjoying taking it easy in the second. What's more, they took their best players off one by one. Let's not kid ourselves here - if they'd needed another goal, they would have scored it.
 
I really hope you're not having a nibble at someone for sharing a PM on open forum. You tried (and failed) to make me look like a cunt when you did exactly that...

Difference is he's a mod. You're not, and I don't know about failed.
 
Difference is he's a mod. You're not, and I don't know about failed.

You really do behave like such a sanctimonious prick on here sometimes. I said things that I stood by. I took them off the site so the rest of the forum didn't have to trawl through them and get involved in our squabble. You also quoted out of context and tried to make me look like I was threatening you but neglected to post what you said to me as well.

So in my eyes you tried and failed. I don't care what you think and your weak attempt at justifying the hypocrisy is, well simply it's weak.

Carry on though, you normally do.
 
You really do behave like such a sanctimonious prick on here sometimes. I said things that I stood by. I took them off the site so the rest of the forum didn't have to trawl through them and get involved in our squabble. You also quoted out of context and tried to make me look like I was threatening you but neglected to post what you said to me as well.

So in my eyes you tried and failed. I don't care what you think and your weak attempt at justifying the hypocrisy is, well simply it's weak.

Carry on though, you normally do.


Jesus, whatever...
 
Jesus, whatever...


Yeah Modo. You're never fucking wrong and if it looks like you are, resort to that. I'm comfortable with what was said then and what's been said since.

Carry on being a try hard. But don't complain when people bite back from time to time. If you go fishing, you're bound to get a bite once in a while.
 
Nah, I don't need an apology. Obviously it was important for me to mention that to other mods though
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom