Brendan Rodgers

[Finnegan]

8 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

I think our biggest frustration as fans is the amount of options he now has available to him, we fail to grasp that he can't play them all and yet we expect our immediate annoyance when we don't see a particular player we had earmark to play not be picked to be rectified by Rodgers.

 

He's also the victim of two things, tactically:

 

1. His tactical approach (which is the tactical approach our owner wants) isn't the preference of a large section of our fan base and this is something extremely subjective that it's hard to mitigate. We simply have a lot of supporters that don't enjoy a patient, passing approach. They want us to play the cavalier, dynamic football that they feel we did under Pearson and Ranieri. 

 

Going further back, they're used to a more industrial, gritty, physical approach which is in keeping with our identity as a scruffy underdog. 

 

They watch the likes of West Ham get success playing the way they feel we "should" be playing (which is ironic, because West Ham historically think they should be playing as we currently are.) 

 

What they're willing to overlook is that both can be completely turgid, one can involve hours of patiently parking the bus not creating anything and the other can involve hours of sideways passing not creating anything. But the former is forgiven by these people more readily because it feels more like Leicester to them. 

 

All of this is compounded by:

 

2. There's no getting away from this, you need better footballers to play Rodgers' way than Klopp's, Tuchel's or - right now - Moyes'. 

 

Pep Guardiola is genuinely a football genius. Not hyperbole, an actual genius. His interpretation of space and his understanding of movement around a football pitch is incredible. He's also the best in the world at communicating that to his players and getting them to buy in. He took everything Cruyff taught him about football, added in his own charisma and vision and became what he is now. 

 

But even he is entirely dependent on having the right personnel. To play the way his Barcelona and Man City did/do you need exceptional footballers with brilliant technical skills and high levels of intelligence (hence why Grealish was a weird signing, boy's brain is smoother than his waxed legs.) This is why Swansea, Bournemouth, Brighton and countless other impersonators have failed in the Premier League. They dominate the Championship with the best players then come up and find out it doesn't work because their journeymen don't cut it. 

 

But to play Jurgen Klopp's heavy metal football you don't need world class footballers, you need world class athletes and those are EVERYWHERE. Speed and stamina aren't hard to find in modern football, neither is work rate. You just need to find a combination of the three and you're off. 

 

Of course I'm trivialising. There's still an awful lot you've got to put together and that's why our title win was severely under rated, you need organisation - not just in the block but in the press. Headless chickens chasing the ball out of shape gets you nowhere. But these things don't require you to find rare gems, incredible footballers with once in a generation talent. You just need strong athletes with the mindset to learn and stick to a plan. 

 

And let's not forget, as the world gets better at "gegenpressing", it gets harder and harder to play the Rodgers' way and the quality of player needed goes up. 

 

Nowhere is the example of what you need for these approaches laid out more clearly than with our most divisive club hero - one Mr Marc Kevin "Sharky" Albrighton. You can discern between the fans with the patience for Rodgers' football and those who want to go back to counter attacking and pressing by their reaction to Albrighton getting picked on match day. 

 

I guarantee there'll be a direct correlation between approval for Rodgers and disapproval of Albrighton and visa versa. The truth is they're both great at what they do, they just aren't compatible with their approaches and neither is really right. Albrighton is everything you wanted in our title winning season. He's got stamina for days, he's maybe the hardest working player at the club and his instincts are to always get on the front foot. But he's also technically limited and has little imagination. He'll nearly always hold the attack back if he's got to commit to playing possession football. 

 

And that's the conundrum. We've got a squad that's still heavily in transition, hovering between two styles of play. One we're aspiring to and one the majority of the fanbase truly want. Those folk who always preferred Kevin to Riyad, they'll never truly embrace Rodgers because Rodgers is never going to consistently set us up like he did when we scored 5 at the Etihad. 

 

And Rodgers will probably never have a squad with the calibre to win them over with consistently exciting, passing based football because we're not likely to ever afford a squad good enough to sparkle at it every week against stubborn opposition. 

[Matt]

34 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

He's also the victim of two things, tactically:

 

1. His tactical approach (which is the tactical approach our owner wants) isn't the preference of a large section of our fan base and this is something extremely subjective that it's hard to mitigate. We simply have a lot of supporters that don't enjoy a patient, passing approach. They want us to play the cavalier, dynamic football that they feel we did under Pearson and Ranieri. 

 

Going further back, they're used to a more industrial, gritty, physical approach which is in keeping with our identity as a scruffy underdog. 

 

They watch the likes of West Ham get success playing the way they feel we "should" be playing (which is ironic, because West Ham historically think they should be playing as we currently are.) 

 

What they're willing to overlook is that both can be completely turgid, one can involve hours of patiently parking the bus not creating anything and the other can involve hours of sideways passing not creating anything. But the former is forgiven by these people more readily because it feels more like Leicester to them. 

 

All of this is compounded by:

 

2. There's no getting away from this, you need better footballers to play Rodgers' way than Klopp's, Tuchel's or - right now - Moyes'. 

 

Pep Guardiola is genuinely a football genius. Not hyperbole, an actual genius. His interpretation of space and his understanding of movement around a football pitch is incredible. He's also the best in the world at communicating that to his players and getting them to buy in. He took everything Cruyff taught him about football, added in his own charisma and vision and became what he is now. 

 

But even he is entirely dependent on having the right personnel. To play the way his Barcelona and Man City did/do you need exceptional footballers with brilliant technical skills and high levels of intelligence (hence why Grealish was a weird signing, boy's brain is smoother than his waxed legs.) This is why Swansea, Bournemouth, Brighton and countless other impersonators have failed in the Premier League. They dominate the Championship with the best players then come up and find out it doesn't work because their journeymen don't cut it. 

 

But to play Jurgen Klopp's heavy metal football you don't need world class footballers, you need world class athletes and those are EVERYWHERE. Speed and stamina aren't hard to find in modern football, neither is work rate. You just need to find a combination of the three and you're off. 

 

Of course I'm trivialising. There's still an awful lot you've got to put together and that's why our title win was severely under rated, you need organisation - not just in the block but in the press. Headless chickens chasing the ball out of shape gets you nowhere. But these things don't require you to find rare gems, incredible footballers with once in a generation talent. You just need strong athletes with the mindset to learn and stick to a plan. 

 

And let's not forget, as the world gets better at "gegenpressing", it gets harder and harder to play the Rodgers' way and the quality of player needed goes up. 

 

Nowhere is the example of what you need for these approaches laid out more clearly than with our most divisive club hero - one Mr Marc Kevin "Sharky" Albrighton. You can discern between the fans with the patience for Rodgers' football and those who want to go back to counter attacking and pressing by their reaction to Albrighton getting picked on match day. 

 

I guarantee there'll be a direct correlation between approval for Rodgers and disapproval of Albrighton and visa versa. The truth is they're both great at what they do, they just aren't compatible with their approaches and neither is really right. Albrighton is everything you wanted in our title winning season. He's got stamina for days, he's maybe the hardest working player at the club and his instincts are to always get on the front foot. But he's also technically limited and has little imagination. He'll nearly always hold the attack back if he's got to commit to playing possession football. 

 

And that's the conundrum. We've got a squad that's still heavily in transition, hovering between two styles of play. One we're aspiring to and one the majority of the fanbase truly want. Those folk who always preferred Kevin to Riyad, they'll never truly embrace Rodgers because Rodgers is never going to consistently set us up like he did when we scored 5 at the Etihad. 

 

And Rodgers will probably never have a squad with the calibre to win them over with consistently exciting, passing based football because we're not likely to ever afford a squad good enough to sparkle at it every week against stubborn opposition. 

Pretty much nailed the situation.

 

The only thing I can pick up on is the bit I’ve highlighted. 
 

This word transition, we’ve been in transition since we ripped our old style up in 2016/17 after the title win.

 

I appreciate transition takes time, but it’s around 4 or 5 years have passed. We’re no further forward in it being any more palatable as far as I'm concerned likewise you’d have expected to us to have got a majority of a squad to play one way or the other, now I ask for us to switch it up, be adaptable, there is a time and a place for keep ball but not exclusively like we do, endlessly passing it sideways or backwards, but we don’t, we rarely switch it up or be adaptable get the best out of those players who don’t suit the style.

 

We’ll have to agree to disagree on Guardiola but what really gripes me is the football world in general trying to copy his style, it’s easy to do with an endless pot of money, buying the competition up, buying all the best players in the world, most teams simply cannot do the style and it’s turns out to be dull as dishwater, usually create their own problems and for me, it’s a negative style most teams.

 

As I keep saying, it’s a problem I have with football, not Leicester city or Brendan Rodgers, but it times for teams to get the best out of what they have not play in this “one size fits all”, boring, negative style, where teams are their own worst enemies and it leads to them making mistakes, giving gifts to the opposition. Be the exception and not the rule.

 

 

[Finnegan]

6 minutes ago, Matt said:

most teams simply cannot do the style and it’s turns out to be dull as dishwater

 

There's two competing forces when it comes to playing the way Rodgers wants us to. 

 

Creativity vs Organisation. 

 

Unfortunately, in modern football, defensive organisation is incredibly advanced. We have hyper professional, top level athletes practicing defensive shape for hours a day. I keep using West Ham as an example but they're absolutely fabulous at this at the moment. They are so incredibly well drilled, we complain about how boring we are playing then but they simply don't leave space anywhere to play in. 

 

And that's far easier to do than the opposing - breaking it down. Creativity in this instance means the vision to see space, the movement to find it, the vision to see the opportunity as the ball carrier, the skill and accuracy to find it. 

 

The precision to pull all of this off at a speed that adequately disorientates that well drilled defence is verging on super human. 

 

So you have players stall, wait, recycle and go sideways. The team in possession draw all the criticism but ultimately both sides are making it boring and there's an unrealistic expectation on the team with all the ball to do something about it. 

 

It's why the high press is so rewarding because if you can turn over possession when it isn't expected, you can catch the opponent before they've set. 

 

Football needs a revolution to be honest because too many games these days break down in to negative attack vs defence drills with way too much on the line for anyone to take risks. End to end encounters have become incredibly rare. 

[drumbeat]

2 hours ago, Finnegan said:

And let's not forget, as the world gets better at "gegenpressing", it gets harder and harder to play the Rodgers' way and the quality of player needed goes up.

Your post encapsulates so much of what I've been thinking lately, and have referred to in a couple of posts.

 

I really am beginning to wonder if Rodgers' preferred style of football is a little behind the times. As I have said elsewhere, it's more Man City than Liverpool - and I agree with you, you need players with better technical ability to play that game. What's more, that game has been sussed and teams with much less technical ability have shown how to combat it. Basically, it's a 'power and pace' game and requires supreme athletes, (edit) full use of the subs bench and squad rotation.

 

I think we are starting to see more teams aim for 'in your face, power and pace' (gegenpresse, whatever else you might like to call it) rather than a Man City style possession game. Not least because,as you say, it's easier (not to mention cheaper) to find players capable of it. We struggle against that style of football. I cited the Slavia Prague match, and I think that's when I really started to ponder the effectiveness of different styles, but I think we've seen a number of teams attempt employ it against us - West Ham have mastered it.

 

Of course there are always different styles of football, give or take, but I think there is a broad division here that can be isolated and remarked upon as to its effectiveness. We've currently no answer to it despite repeated exposures to it, I genuinely wonder if BR has an answer or maybe thinks moving the ball faster is the way to beat it.

 

Personally, I think Chelsea might be attempting to take it to another level; combining the styles a little and play the 'new' style with more technically capable players.... but there's a huge might be on that one for me and I reserve comment and am prepared to be proven wrong. Either the way, I'm actually concerned that when we face them that they'll rip us to shreds - seriously. 

Edited 23 September 2021 by drumbeat

[fuchsntf]

2 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

Here's some advice for fans who hate Rodgers. Write down all the things that irritate you about Rodgers. Then for each point come up with several other managers who don't do the thing that irritates you about Rodgers.

 

Post up what gripes you are left with.

In the gud  ol' days, we use to go to the out-house, to sit & ponder 

 

 

 

 

Edited 23 September 2021 by fuchsntf

[filbertway]

45 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

There's two competing forces when it comes to playing the way Rodgers wants us to. 

 

Creativity vs Organisation. 

 

Unfortunately, in modern football, defensive organisation is incredibly advanced. We have hyper professional, top level athletes practicing defensive shape for hours a day. I keep using West Ham as an example but they're absolutely fabulous at this at the moment. They are so incredibly well drilled, we complain about how boring we are playing then but they simply don't leave space anywhere to play in. 

 

And that's far easier to do than the opposing - breaking it down. Creativity in this instance means the vision to see space, the movement to find it, the vision to see the opportunity as the ball carrier, the skill and accuracy to find it. 

 

The precision to pull all of this off at a speed that adequately disorientates that well drilled defence is verging on super human. 

 

So you have players stall, wait, recycle and go sideways. The team in possession draw all the criticism but ultimately both sides are making it boring and there's an unrealistic expectation on the team with all the ball to do something about it. 

 

It's why the high press is so rewarding because if you can turn over possession when it isn't expected, you can catch the opponent before they've set. 

 

Football needs a revolution to be honest because too many games these days break down in to negative attack vs defence drills with way too much on the line for anyone to take risks. End to end encounters have become incredibly rare. 

I'm convinced the next big thing will include having a rapid set of defenders and at least one aerially dominant striker. With the aim being to fill the box with players and look to pick up pieces in an around the box. Having 3 or 4 incredibly athletic players at the back that are capable of handling counter attacks.

 

Sit deep all you want, we'll launch the ball into our unit up front and fill the box with 4 or 5 of our players. The law of averages says that by loading the box, you'll get plenty of chances. If it does break down, your defenders have worked on defending counter attacks and good to go.  Suddenly Ashley Barnes and Chris Wood are worth 100 million.

 

You can see the european way seeping into the A League as well which is a shame, the standard isn't great, but more often than not the games are entertaining as both teams are playing to try and score goals. There's a few teams though, Sydney are one that spring to mind, they focus on having good defensive shape and take very few risks. I actively avoid their games now, whereas someone like Adelaide, I'll always look out for.

 

 

 

[Dames]

29 minutes ago, drumbeat said:

Your post encapsulates so much of what I've been thinking lately, and have referred to in a couple of posts.

 

I really am beginning to wonder if Rodgers' preferred style of football is a little behind the times. As I have said elsewhere, it's more Man City than Liverpool - and I agree with you, you need players with better technical ability to play that game. What's more, that game has been sussed and teams with much less technical ability have shown how to combat it. Basically, it's a 'power and pace' game and requires supreme athletes and squad rotation. 

 

I think we are starting to see more teams aim for 'in your face, power and pace' (gegenpresse, whatever else you might like to call it) rather than a Man City style possession game. Not least because,as you say, it's easier (not to mention cheaper) to find players capable of it. We struggle against that style of football. I cited the Slavia Prague match, and I think that's when I really started to ponder the effectiveness of different styles, but I think we've seen a number of teams attempt employ it against us - West Ham have mastered it.

 

Of course there are always different styles of football, give or take, but I think there is a broad division here that can be isolated and remarked upon as to its effectiveness. We've currently no answer to it despite repeated exposures to it, I genuinely wonder if BR has an answer or maybe thinks moving the ball faster is the way to beat it.

 

Personally, I think Chelsea might be attempting to take it to another level; combining the styles a little and play the 'new' style with more technically capable players.... but there's a huge might be on that one for me and I reserve comment and am prepared to be proven wrong. Either the way, I'm actually concerned that when we face them that they'll rip us to shreds - seriously. 

A lot of great points in the past few pages that really highlight this point. For me the style is behind the times, when Pep introduced it 13-14 years ago it was revolutionary but in terms of footballers its almost a whole generation ago. The footballers of 2007-2012 really struggled playing against this style of football as it required a lot of disciplined off the ball work which wasn't as well drilled then as it is now. This current generation of footballers and coaches are well versed and prepared to deal with this style of play and its many cheap imitations.

[filbertway]

 

Watching this video about Balotelli, 1:30-2:00 is an example of Rodgers deciding he wants a player and then stubbornly playing him against all logic even when it's a seemingly obvious detriment to the team.

 

As I said, all managers seem to have it, but you'd think they'd learn after getting bitten many times in the past

 

[spacemunky]

Bit of a step down going to Barca, but best of luck to Brendan.

[Guest SO1]

7 minutes ago, filbertway said:

 

Watching this video about Balotelli, 1:30-2:00 is an example of Rodgers deciding he wants a player and then stubbornly playing him against all logic even when it's a seemingly obvious detriment to the team.

 

As I said, all managers seem to have it, but you'd think they'd learn after getting bitten many times in the past

 

That's absolute crap and refuse to listen to anymore of that Horseshit. Talk about making shit up to serve an agenda. How does one replace 55 goals when your choices are Eto at 35 and Balotelli? The ignorence is astounding and most don't have a clue what Rodgers had to do to get Liverpool to 6th that season. Blah Blah Blah. Gerrard Top Scorer with 9 goals.

[Muzzy_Larsson]

40 minutes ago, filbertway said:

 

Watching this video about Balotelli, 1:30-2:00 is an example of Rodgers deciding he wants a player and then stubbornly playing him against all logic even when it's a seemingly obvious detriment to the team.

 

As I said, all managers seem to have it, but you'd think they'd learn after getting bitten many times in the past

 

Tbf that's very unfair and verging on completely untrue in terms of being a stick to beat Rodgers with as it totally ignores the context in how Balotelli ended up being signed in the first place. Rodgers was backed into a corner with Balotelli and it was either sign him as the window closed or no striker at all. Pretty sure Gerrard spoke about it in his book, Rodgers said to him his only option was to take a gamble on Balotelli.

 

He was badly let down by the transfer committee at Liverpool at the time who dragged their feet the whole summer, chasing Alexis Sanchez and when he knocked them back they left it too late and had no plan B and basically strong armed Rodgers into signing Balotelli. Pretty sure Rodgers was on record as saying he provided two or three better options than Balotelli earlier in that window while they were still waiting on Sanchez's decision and he was basically ignored. He also stressed that Balotelli didn't fit the profile of the type of striker required as he basically couldn't press from the front.

 

I'm not defending Rodgers above all btw as his transfer record over the piece at Liverpool was bad and at Celtic it was very poor post his first window.

 

Comments from Rodgers here on goals on Sunday which reflect the above.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/jan/18/brendan-rodgers-liverpool-mario-balotelli-alexis-sanchez

Edited 23 September 2021 by Muzzy_Larsson

[Footballwipe]

Might have missed this in the thread previous, but I find it interesting how relatively consistent he is in terms of full PL seasons and points totals

 

2011-12: 47pts

 

2012-13: 61pts

2013-14: 84pts

2014-15: 62pts

 

2019-20: 62pts

2020-21: 66pts

[Les-TA-Jon]

45 minutes ago, filbertway said:

 

Watching this video about Balotelli, 1:30-2:00 is an example of Rodgers deciding he wants a player and then stubbornly playing him against all logic even when it's a seemingly obvious detriment to the team.

 

As I said, all managers seem to have it, but you'd think they'd learn after getting bitten many times in the past

 

Doesn't that clip show the opposite? Rodgers signed him (in desperation), Balotelli was given game time and was rubbish and then didn't make the team for at least 13 matches? 

[filbertway]

11 minutes ago, Muzzy_Larsson said:

Tbf that's very unfair and verging on completely untrue in terms of being a stick to beat Rodgers with as it totally ignores the context in how Balotelli ended up being signed in the first place. Rodgers was backed into a corner with Balotelli and it was either sign him as the window closed or no striker at all. Pretty sure Gerrard spoke about it in his book, Rodgers said to him his only option was to take a gamble on Balotelli.

 

He was badly let down by the transfer committee at Liverpool at the time who dragged their feet the whole summer, chasing Alexis Sanchez and when he knocked them back they left it too late and had no plan B and basically strong armed Rodgers into signing Balotelli. Pretty sure Rodgers was on record as saying he provided two or three better options than Balotelli earlier in that window while they were still waiting on Sanchez's decision and he was basically ignored. He also stressed that Balotelli didn't fit the profile of the type of striker required as he basically couldn't press from the front.

 

I'm not defending Rodgers above all btw as his transfer record over the piece at Liverpool was bad and at Celtic it was very poor post his first window.

 

Comments from Rodgers here on goals on Sunday which reflect the above.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/jan/18/brendan-rodgers-liverpool-mario-balotelli-alexis-sanchez

Hmmm fair play, I was basing this on an article in the athletic about Michael Edwards which seemed to insinuate that Rodgers insisted on going with Balotelli as it was a player he thought he could fix. I'll have to go back on that one then and hold my hands up and accept I've probably got the wrong end of the stick 

 

The mad thing is that they had Michael Edwards working at the club at the time but it only seemed to be when Klopp came in that he was allowed a greater say in the players that should be signed.

 

In that case, why did he continue to pick a player that clearly had an adverse affect of the squad and results?

 

[filbertway]

4 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

Doesn't that clip show the opposite? Rodgers signed him (in desperation), Balotelli was given game time and was rubbish and then didn't make the team for at least 13 matches? 

It shows that he was given time, they improved as soon as he was dropped, then Rodgers reintroduced him and their form dropped off a cliff again.

[ajthefox]

3 hours ago, An Sionnach said:

He's a typical taciturn Ulsterman Rodgers, so he will never come over as a bullshitting charmer. However he says what he means and I respect him for that. He will not get everything right , no manager does, but he gets a high percentage right. As I have said, he can keep us in the top half for the next few years and we will have years when we can challenge top six and that is fine with me.

In some respects I agree, but he I think he deflects and I always get the sense post-match that there is a lot he isn't saying. I'm not daft, I don't expect him to divulge everything, but I feel he holds more back than the average PL manager. That said, I think that's just the approach he takes in that he never really digs at anyone and generally tends to be more positive than you might expect after our poorer performances.

 

3 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

I can't argue with this. There are things he is doing differently and it's almost as if we need some honesty from him on why and whether he's happy with what he's seeing.

Agreed. I have my frustrations and would appreciate understanding a little bit more about where Brendan really thinks we are.I still trust him to get us back to playing our best football or at least there or thereabouts, though. We will struggle to get a better manager, anyone who replaces him when he eventually leaves will probably just have different faults.

[Matt]

2 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

There's two competing forces when it comes to playing the way Rodgers wants us to. 

 

Creativity vs Organisation. 

 

Unfortunately, in modern football, defensive organisation is incredibly advanced. We have hyper professional, top level athletes practicing defensive shape for hours a day. I keep using West Ham as an example but they're absolutely fabulous at this at the moment. They are so incredibly well drilled, we complain about how boring we are playing then but they simply don't leave space anywhere to play in. 

 

And that's far easier to do than the opposing - breaking it down. Creativity in this instance means the vision to see space, the movement to find it, the vision to see the opportunity as the ball carrier, the skill and accuracy to find it. 

 

The precision to pull all of this off at a speed that adequately disorientates that well drilled defence is verging on super human. 

 

So you have players stall, wait, recycle and go sideways. The team in possession draw all the criticism but ultimately both sides are making it boring and there's an unrealistic expectation on the team with all the ball to do something about it. 

 

It's why the high press is so rewarding because if you can turn over possession when it isn't expected, you can catch the opponent before they've set. 

 

Football needs a revolution to be honest because too many games these days break down in to negative attack vs defence drills with way too much on the line for anyone to take risks. End to end encounters have become incredibly rare. 

Bang on.

[UpTheLeagueFox]

27 minutes ago, ajthefox said:

We will struggle to get a better manager, anyone who replaces him when he eventually leaves will probably just have different faults.

Every manager has faults.

Fortunately our current manager gets loads more right than wrong, as results have proved over the past 2 1/2 years.

[coolhandfox]

I think people forget that how teams view us as opposition has changed.

 

In his first full season, lots of teams were happy to go toe to toe with us. 

 

They now see us differently and effectively do what they would do to the traditional big 6.

 

They want to be hard to beat, sit in a low block and wait to hit us on the break.

 

It is what every Liverpool, Man City, Chelsea and Man U fan has had to live with for years. Unfortunately, we don't have the level of talent of those teams as yet to breakdown team's sitting in a low block on a regular basis.

[deep blue]

8 hours ago, filbertway said:

I'm convinced the next big thing will include having a rapid set of defenders and at least one aerially dominant striker. With the aim being to fill the box with players and look to pick up pieces in an around the box. Having 3 or 4 incredibly athletic players at the back that are capable of handling counter attacks.

 

...

 

 

 

I've often wondered whether one way of countering the organised defences is to whang the ball quickly from defence up towards one or two forwards who can compete strongly for the ball, and have several attack-minded midfielders up in support who can mop up the second ball. They can then spark attacks up and around the opposition penalty box when their defense is still not well set and there are several attackers up there to open them up.

 

Sounds simple, so there must be a flaw, but it would make a change from all the tippy-tappy stuff.

[Chrysalis]

11 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

Hahahaaa 

 

I've been getting riled up about a few things he's done recently that don't appear to make sense but the problem is so do pretty much every manager. I think our biggest frustration as fans is the amount of options he now has available to him, we fail to grasp that he can't play them all and yet we expect our immediate annoyance when we don't see a particular player we had earmark to play not be picked to be rectified by Rodgers.

 

We all want Daka to get some proper minutes and some are questioning why we signed him. Yet as soon as Vardy gets his yearly injury that then hinders his output for quite a while after he returns, there'd be uproar that we didn't sign a striker for the 3rd season running.

 

I genuinely think if we could make 5 subs a game which needs to be brought in across all of Europe then quite a bit of the growing frustration would fade away.

 

 

Pretty much yeah, dont hate Rodgers just certain things frustrate me at the moment. 

[sacreblueits442]

31 minutes ago, deep blue said:

I've often wondered whether one way of countering the organised defences is to whang the ball quickly from defence up towards one or two forwards who can compete strongly for the ball, and have several attack-minded midfielders up in support who can mop up the second ball. They can then spark attacks up and around the opposition penalty box when their defense is still not well set and there are several attackers up there to open them up.

 

Sounds simple, so there must be a flaw, but it would make a change from all the tippy-tappy stuff.

......we do something in that way with Vestergaard and Soyuncu with balls from the back to our attackers!!!

Rodgers in no way plays with a big man up front and it would an agricultural approach to the game. We use to try to win the ball high up the pitch but with two midfielders we were very much open to the counter, playing out from the back is a controlled method of attack when we play through lines and and play with greater intensity.

[winteriscoming]

I’m going to go on a bit. Apologies. 
Clearly what he’s achieved in 2 and half years is outstanding. Finishing 5th twice and winning the fa cup along with the community shield is brilliant. 
He is the best imo we could hope for and transformed us into a very good side who also wants to progress younger players. 

However I would have to question some of his recent tactical decisions. Starting players clearly out of form - Maddison and Perez. Going ultra defensive when 1 nil up against average opposition is baffling.

I’m not saying sack him immediately but he’s not imun from criticism. I agree he’s done an incredible job since taking over and hope he takes us further because I honestly don’t think there’s anyone else who would do better. 
I do think there are some deluded people on here who think we have the best squad we’ve ever had which could be true who believe we should be finishing / challenging top 4 every season. This is maybe true about the squad but I think it’s getting even more difficult every season to finish top 4. Personally I’d be happy to finish top half and challenge for a cup domestically or do well in the Europa league - at least quarter finals I’d see as progress as would Rodgers especially his record in Europe.

[LestaAl]

Needs to find his winning shoes…

[Lionator]

1 minute ago, LestaAl said:

Needs to find his winning shoes…

Of course. But we will come good under Brendan again and he deserves the backing of us supporters and not weird impulsive calls to be sacked.