Brendan Rodgers

[Fox92]

1 hour ago, Stadt said:

Yeah, the squad Puel had was worse

Really? He had a younger Vardy plus Mahrez.

 

Puel got sacked after the Palace defeat and the starting 11 included a lot of players here today

 

Schmeichel
Ricardo - Evans - Maguire - Fuchs
Tielemans - Ndidi - Maddison
Ghezzal - Vardy - Barnes

[Guppys Love Child]

2 hours ago, Simoken said:

That’s a bit uncalled for, I was only supporting our manager. Chill

No...definitely a wind up..

 

The FA Cup was great,  but run over a few games, and a load of luck on the day

 

The league was a fabulous performance spanning 38.

 

But you knew this didn't you.

[cityfanlee23]

It's pretty mental really that objectively you could argue that Puel is a better manager than Rodgers on his performances here. 
I mean, I've always been fond of Puel but I thought Rodgers was a step up, we really have been awful for 18+ months and he's still here, mind-blowing. 

[Matt]

7 minutes ago, cityfanlee23 said:

It's pretty mental really that objectively you could argue that Puel is a better manager than Rodgers on his performances here. 
I mean, I've always been fond of Puel but I thought Rodgers was a step up, we really have been awful for 18+ months and he's still here, mind-blowing. 

Yeah I mean I didn’t think football could get any worse than Puel. ‘Be careful what you wish for’ merchants are right I guess.

 

Perhaps it says more about the football we’re trying (can’t stress that word enough) to implement. . .

[SemperEadem]

I really feel the bloke will be still here at the start of next season. 

[cityfanlee23]

6 minutes ago, Matt said:

Yeah I mean I didn’t think football could get any worse than Puel. ‘Be careful what you wish for’ merchants are right I guess.

 

Perhaps it says more about the football we’re trying (can’t stress that word enough) to implement. . .

Yep, there's absolutely no doubt in my mind if Rodgers went to a back to basics 442 we would improve massively. But he won't he would rather take us down than compromise his philosophy.

[CosbehFox]

1 minute ago, cityfanlee23 said:

Yep, there's absolutely no doubt in my mind if Rodgers went to a back to basics 442 we would improve massively. But he won't he would rather take us down than compromise his philosophy.

Just speaking on the formation rather than the Rodgers comment but no way can this team play 442. We'd be a mess just like we were on the single occasion I think we played it v Brighton. 

Edited 27 January 2023 by CosbehFox

[cityfanlee23]

3 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

Just speaking on the formation rather than the Rodgers comment but no way can this team play 442. We'd be a mess just like we were on the single occasion I think we played it v Brighton. 

Maybe, let me rephrase then, any other manager with a back to basics 442 would get results. I'm sure Dyche would have made it work. 

[CosbehFox]

3 minutes ago, cityfanlee23 said:

Maybe, let me rephrase then, any other manager with a back to basics 442 would get results. I'm sure Dyche would have made it work. 

Still disagree - the squad doesn't have two central midfielders capable of the required workrate. 

 

[Matt]

6 minutes ago, cityfanlee23 said:

Maybe, let me rephrase then, any other manager with a back to basics 442 would get results. I'm sure Dyche would have made it work. 

I've seen several comments on Dyche today saying he 'only plays one way', I'm not saying he's right for us, neither am I necessarily saying I want to see 'his' football here (although, out of the two....) but he's 100% more flexible than Rodgers.

 

And Dyche is no doubt considered the 'dinosaur' out of the two.

 

The point being most people only see the two polar opposites.

 

Edited 27 January 2023 by Matt

[CosbehFox]

Just now, Matt said:

I've seen several comments on Dyche today saying he 'only plays one way', I'm not saying he's right for us, neither am I necessarily saying I want to see 'his' football here but he's 100% more flexible than Rodgers.

 

And Dyche is no doubt considered the 'dinosaur' out of the two.

Nope - when he had to move away from his traditional style at the end of last season. He double downed and in January signed a huge striker. Threw a competent winger/full-back upfront cos he was quick. 

 

When Burnley got rid of him, they went to three at the back and started to get improved results/performances. 

 

The pair of them at their respective spells are wedded to formations and 'styles'. 

[cityfanlee23]

31 minutes ago, Matt said:

I've seen several comments on Dyche today saying he 'only plays one way', I'm not saying he's right for us, neither am I necessarily saying I want to see 'his' football here (although, out of the two....) but he's 100% more flexible than Rodgers.

 

And Dyche is no doubt considered the 'dinosaur' out of the two.

 

The point being most people only see the two polar opposites.

 

I have always had a gut feeling that Dyche is actually probably more diverse as a manager than he's given credit for. His teams did often play direct, but Burnley did know how to counter quickly with the ball on the ground also. I've often wondered what if he was given a squad with more technically gifted players like Madders. Personally I have a feeling he would do well with them. I think his style at Burnley was mainly down to financial constraints than anything else. 

[cityfanlee23]

33 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

Nope - when he had to move away from his traditional style at the end of last season. He double downed and in January signed a huge striker. Threw a competent winger/full-back upfront cos he was quick. 

 

When Burnley got rid of him, they went to three at the back and started to get improved results/performances. 

 

The pair of them at their respective spells are wedded to formations and 'styles'. 

Yeah but he's not going to suddenly sign a striker who plays a completely different style is he? Weghorst is massive sure, but he's not just a brute force tank player, he's great on the ball for his size. Weghorst gave them a real Ariel presence whilst also being good at linking up play, was a diverse signing imo. 

[CosbehFox]

2 minutes ago, cityfanlee23 said:

Yeah but he's not going to suddenly sign a striker who plays a completely different style is he? Weghorst is massive sure, but he's not just a brute force tank player, he's great on the ball for his size. Weghorst gave them a real Ariel presence whilst also being good at linking up play, was a diverse signing imo. 

So why did he continually use Weghorst in the Burnley style then or sign him to play in that style? 

 

He's as inflexible as Rodgers - when the time came last season that he had to try something else. A different tactic, a different formation - he just did the same as always which was failing. 

 

Don't get me wrong he could change at Everton with a bit of time out of the game. But he's not some innovative tactical thinker. 

[cityfanlee23]

3 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

So why did he continually use Weghorst in the Burnley style then or sign him to play in that style? 

 

He's as inflexible as Rodgers - when the time came last season that he had to try something else. A different tactic, a different formation - he just did the same as always which was failing. 

 

Don't get me wrong he could change at Everton with a bit of time out of the game. But he's not some innovative tactical thinker. 

Because signing one player doesn't change the whole teams playstyle? There's plenty of clips of Weghorst dropping deep, linking up play and dribbling past players. I think the thing with Weghorst is that he's able to play multiple styles, but his sheer size is something that suits Burnleys overall style perfectly. You don't get into a Ten Hag squad purely because of your size.

Edited 27 January 2023 by cityfanlee23

[CosbehFox]

7 minutes ago, cityfanlee23 said:

I have always had a gut feeling that Dyche is actually probably more diverse as a manager than he's given credit for. His teams did often play direct, but Burnley did know how to counter quickly with the ball on the ground also. I've often wondered what if he was given a squad with more technically gifted players like Madders. Personally I have a feeling he would do well with them. I think his style at Burnley was mainly down to financial constraints than anything else. 

He did spend over £40million last season for Burnley. 

 

[cityfanlee23]

1 minute ago, CosbehFox said:

He did spend over £40million last season for Burnley. 

 

Yeah, and signed 4 players for that amount. + 2x Free Transfers. 6 signings with 40m.

[CosbehFox]

1 minute ago, cityfanlee23 said:

Because signing one player doesn't change the whole teams playstyle? There's plenty of clips of Weghorst dropping deep, linking up play and dribbling past players. 

Burnley were struggling last season entering the January transfer window. They were playing the continuing same tactics. 

They sell Wood. Dyche has a chance to sign a player with a decent fee. Chooses Weghorst. As you say there is more to Weghorst game than going direct. 

Dyche selects Weghorst, plays the same tactics which were failing before January. 

 

Didn't change tactics when a) a changing style was needed because his tested 4-4-2 b) when he had approx £20million to spend

[cityfanlee23]

Just now, CosbehFox said:

Burnley were struggling last season entering the January transfer window. They were playing the continuing same tactics. 

They sell Wood. Dyche has a chance to sign a player with a decent fee. Chooses Weghorst. As you say there is more to Weghorst game than going direct. 

Dyche selects Weghorst, plays the same tactics which were failing before January. 

 

Didn't change tactics when a) a changing style was needed because his tested 4-4-2 b) when he had approx £20million to spend

Yeah I do agree and I completely understand your logic, my point really is that over the course of his time at Burnley, his spend was relatively low for a club looking to stay in the league over such a long period of time, the problem here is that when you're spending such small fees on players, you either need to be incredibly lucky, or you need to sign specific types of players who are largely not very dynamic and can't play multiple different styles very well, so yeah, he signed Weghorst because the player they just lost that was vital to their survival needed to be replaced, I'd assume the thought process would be that it's a huge gamble to suddenly try to get Ashley Barnes, Matty Lowton and Westwood to start playing a different style. Again i'm perfectly happy to admit i'm speculating though, the evidence is his football is largely direct and quite ugly, it's just my gut feeling that I think he's got a bit more about him than that. Will be interesting to see how he fares are Everton next season should they stay up. 

[Fox92]

1 hour ago, SemperEadem said:

I really feel the bloke will be still here at the start of next season. 

I honestly think he will be.

[Fox92]

1 hour ago, cityfanlee23 said:

It's pretty mental really that objectively you could argue that Puel is a better manager than Rodgers on his performances here. 
I mean, I've always been fond of Puel but I thought Rodgers was a step up, we really have been awful for 18+ months and he's still here, mind-blowing. 

I never understood the hatred towards Puel but his performances were awful towards the end of his time here, I could even argue they were worse towards the end of his first season here too. People wanted him out after lost 5-0 at Palace (Albrighton sent off at right back ) and that was his first season here.

[CosbehFox]

1 minute ago, cityfanlee23 said:

Yeah, and signed 4 players for that amount. + 2x Free Transfers. 6 signings with 40m.

Yep technical players such as Olise, Eze, Mitoma, Livramento, Ait-Nouri, Cash, Robinson, Hickey, Gnonto available in that price range and Burnley could pull them at the time.  

 

Especially when you consider Dyche signed players like Brownhill and Rodriguez for £10mil a piece 

[CosbehFox]

9 minutes ago, cityfanlee23 said:

Yeah I do agree and I completely understand your logic, my point really is that over the course of his time at Burnley, his spend was relatively low for a club looking to stay in the league over such a long period of time, the problem here is that when you're spending such small fees on players, you either need to be incredibly lucky, or you need to sign specific types of players who are largely not very dynamic and can't play multiple different styles very well, so yeah, he signed Weghorst because the player they just lost that was vital to their survival needed to be replaced, I'd assume the thought process would be that it's a huge gamble to suddenly try to get Ashley Barnes, Matty Lowton and Westwood to start playing a different style. Again i'm perfectly happy to admit i'm speculating though, the evidence is his football is largely direct and quite ugly, it's just my gut feeling that I think he's got a bit more about him than that. Will be interesting to see how he fares are Everton next season should they stay up. 

My point is that last season he was asked 'are you going to change tactically?' because Plan A isn't working. 

 

And he didn't. Very much like Brendog

 

He and Burnley had ample opportunity with the PL money rolling in to scout diversely and find players to slowly move their style on. Exactly like Brentford and Brighton have done. 

Edited 27 January 2023 by CosbehFox

[cityfanlee23]

41 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

My point is that last season he was asked 'are you going to change tactically?' because Plan A isn't working. 

 

And he didn't. Very much like Brendog

 

He and Burnley had ample opportunity with the PL money rolling in to scout diversely and find players to slowly move their style on. Exactly like Brentford and Brighton have done. 

Yeah can't disagree on that, as I said it's more of a gut instinct than anything tangible to prove it, will be very interesting to watch Everton now. 

[Chelmofox]

So the question is, now Brendan has some signings (and a Brazilian), is he going to stop moping around like a bored teenager, or is he going to act 'young and fresh' and spark some life into this?