Yes he does that was not a 300K per week performance, and Mo's performance was not a 400K per week performance. Only VVD had a good one bit should have won it for us
Trent hasn’t put in a 300k a week performance all season.
Yes he does that was not a 300K per week performance, and Mo's performance was not a 400K per week performance. Only VVD had a good one bit should have won it for us
Looks like Trent is off to Madrid in the summer. Bradley is good, but unproven over the course of the season. Who should we target to replace Trent? Other than Frimpong, which RBs around Europe stand out to you?
Good question, only going on what others have said here.Has Bajcetic actually played RB? Sounds like a dodgy square peg in a round hole.
Has Bajcetic actually played RB? Sounds like a dodgy square peg in a round hole.
Its £300k a week which isn't super high considering Kimmich is on £375k and Rooney was on that over 15 years ago, but with Trent, his output is decreasing. I am not sure why he runs like he weighs 25 stones. There's no urgency in his tracking back especially when its his fault.You know what - I am completely made up - I don't want to be paying one of our highest wages to a RB - don't give a shit - its not normal by any age or standard.
Its a lot of money for a RB, don't give a fuck about Kimmich - another overrated player that would probably fail over here anyway. Personally we should do what they did in the olden days - just go to South America or Spain and get an up and coming RB that does the basics right - which is defend and run back when he has to.Its £300k a week which isn't super high considering Kimmich is on £375k and Rooney was on that over 15 years ago, and with Trent, his output is decreasing. I am not sure why he runs like he weighs 25 stones. There's no urgency in his tracking back especially when its his fault.
He is a luxury player at best now not worth the £80m over 5 years thats being quoted
In the olden days...... Tsk, this post makes me feel old. When talking about Spanish fullbacks at LFC, we're still talking about the modern era aren't we? Give or take 20 years.Its a lot of money for a RB, don't give a fuck about Kimmich - another overrated player that would probably fail over here anyway. Personally we should do what they did in the olden days - just go to South America or Spain and get an up and coming RB that does the basics right - which is defend and run back when he has to.
Good question, only going on what others have said here.
We've recalled Calvin Ramsay (young RB) from Wigan.
Unfortunately not because he was doing great and we need him in the squad. He wasn't even making their bench. I wonder what we will do with him. They're in League One FFS.
Not too long ago - but in reality if you look at the fullbacks across many sides in the PL - they are usually youth products that eventually make it - its a simple job of all the positions in the team in terms of the tasks need to be performed and usually a clearly defined area where a LB/RB operates. That is my favoured position on this - I would rather try out Owen Beck at LB first before we even consider buying someone, and at some point if there are youth players for the RB - I would also try out one of our kids in that area as well to support Bradley if we get rid of Trent this January. If someone can find the stats - but I think the LB/RB roles are the least area of investment for any team in the PL.In the olden days...... Tsk, this post makes me feel old. When talking about Spanish fullbacks at LFC, we're still talking about the modern era aren't we? Give or take 20 years.
I agree with almost all of this, but what I do there is more disruption by him hanging around?I think the position of full back at LFC is evolving. Under peak-period Klopp, we would play 3 grafters in midfield (typically Hendo, Fabs and Gini) and rely on the forwards and the full-backs to do the creative work.
We now have more creative players in the middle - only Endo really fits the old-style Klopp model, so there is less emphasis on the full-backs to create. To me that means we don't need to spend huge money on keeping Trent, whose strength is creativity, and we also won't need to spend top-dollar on a replacement / cover as we won't be paying the premium that comes with a more creative player.
I like Bradley a lot, I would want us to play him a lot in the second half of the season whether Trent stays or not, but he has been prone to injuries. But he can save us a lot in transfer fees because he's solid defensively and not far off Trent in attack, albeit his strength is on the overlap rather than dictating play from deep.
If we lose Trent then we will likely be stronger defensively, but will lose the odd goal that came from one of his probing passes from the deep. But we will also probably channel more of our play through the middle which puts more pressure on Mac, Szob and Jones. I can live with that.
So my take on all of this would be:
1. Keep Trent until the end of the season. We don't need the disruption of trying to bring in a replacement
2. Play Bradley more to bed him in as a first-team regular, but not so as to risk injury.
3. New first-choice LB asap - Robbo to cover in Milner fashion, Kostas to move on. The disruption of bringing in a replacement here is out-weighed by the need to address the weakness in the position - Robbo can't play multiple games and Kostas breaks down too often.
I think the position of full back at LFC is evolving. Under peak-period Klopp, we would play 3 grafters in midfield (typically Hendo, Fabs and Gini) and rely on the forwards and the full-backs to do the creative work.
We now have more creative players in the middle - only Endo really fits the old-style Klopp model, so there is less emphasis on the full-backs to create. To me that means we don't need to spend huge money on keeping Trent, whose strength is creativity, and we also won't need to spend top-dollar on a replacement / cover as we won't be paying the premium that comes with a more creative player.
I like Bradley a lot, I would want us to play him a lot in the second half of the season whether Trent stays or not, but he has been prone to injuries. But he can save us a lot in transfer fees because he's solid defensively and not far off Trent in attack, albeit his strength is on the overlap rather than dictating play from deep.
If we lose Trent then we will likely be stronger defensively, but will lose the odd goal that came from one of his probing passes from the deep. But we will also probably channel more of our play through the middle which puts more pressure on Mac, Szob and Jones. I can live with that.
So my take on all of this would be:
1. Keep Trent until the end of the season. We don't need the disruption of trying to bring in a replacement
2. Play Bradley more to bed him in as a first-team regular, but not so as to risk injury.
3. New first-choice LB asap - Robbo to cover in Milner fashion, Kostas to move on. The disruption of bringing in a replacement here is out-weighed by the need to address the weakness in the position - Robbo can't play multiple games and Kostas breaks down too often.
Isn't Trent a disruption anyways? If Trent stays he needs to change his attitude. He is a defender, so needs to defend and Slot trying to save his ass from media flack by throwing Lex and Grav under the bus, which does nothing for squad moral.I think the position of full back at LFC is evolving. Under peak-period Klopp, we would play 3 grafters in midfield (typically Hendo, Fabs and Gini) and rely on the forwards and the full-backs to do the creative work.
We now have more creative players in the middle - only Endo really fits the old-style Klopp model, so there is less emphasis on the full-backs to create. To me that means we don't need to spend huge money on keeping Trent, whose strength is creativity, and we also won't need to spend top-dollar on a replacement / cover as we won't be paying the premium that comes with a more creative player.
I like Bradley a lot, I would want us to play him a lot in the second half of the season whether Trent stays or not, but he has been prone to injuries. But he can save us a lot in transfer fees because he's solid defensively and not far off Trent in attack, albeit his strength is on the overlap rather than dictating play from deep.
If we lose Trent then we will likely be stronger defensively, but will lose the odd goal that came from one of his probing passes from the deep. But we will also probably channel more of our play through the middle which puts more pressure on Mac, Szob and Jones. I can live with that.
So my take on all of this would be:
1. Keep Trent until the end of the season. We don't need the disruption of trying to bring in a replacement
2. Play Bradley more to bed him in as a first-team regular, but not so as to risk injury.
3. New first-choice LB asap - Robbo to cover in Milner fashion, Kostas to move on. The disruption of bringing in a replacement here is out-weighed by the need to address the weakness in the position - Robbo can't play multiple games and Kostas breaks down too often.
Yeah, I do wonder about that too, but I think if they resolve the contract position soon (including if he signs a pre-contract with Madrid) then it's manageable. But we can't have the media circus of it dragging out for the rest of the season. I can't bear poor Arne having to answer the same question in every single interview. Same goes for Virgil and Mo.I agree with almost all of this, but what I do there is more disruption by him hanging around?
Trent lacks the awareness and work rate of a modern midfielder.If you also factor in that Slot probably wants another all midfielder, then yeah, that probably eases the burden even more so.
I'm surprised Slot didn't try Trent in midfield though, if the theory is correct that he wanted a more creative midfield and a more solid defense.