Brendan Rodgers

[Fox92]

2 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

We had at least two bad runs in those two seasons, one lasting half a season, so its been far from consistent, and he voluntarily shaken up the back line during games, injuries was not the reasons for him changing defensive personel, the reason was brendan rodgers wanting to change the defensive shape of the team because he felt it was tactically right.  Who got injured forcing the 90th minute change of defensive personel vs west ham as you said he is been forced bu injuries?

 

If we were sacking managers every time they hit a bad patch Rodgers would have been fired in spring 2021.  When managers under perform, they get fired, its part of the game.  They get fired as its cheaper than replacing a squad.

 

Now you are prepared to give him an entire extra year from this date, that is incredibly generous, so you are open to tolerating two years of bad form before a manager is relieved of duties, in todays game thats extremely generous. (we have already had a year).

I'm on about consistency in terms of finishing top 6 twice. 

 

He has shaken up the back line because whichever partneship he's played this season hasn't been good enough. Obviously that is on him for keeping Amartey, and buying Vestergaard, but these players are our 4th/5th choice centre backs for crying out loud. Our main centre backs have been injured all/for most of the season and any side would struggle with that. You only have to look at Liverpool last season and their inconsistent results with Van Dijk out.

 

I am prepared to give him another season, yeah. Why is it generous? We haven't been bad for two seasons. If we were sacking managers after a run of poor form then we wouldn't be in this position because Pearson would have gone in 12/13. Thankfully the owners stuck with him and he turned it around the next season. I like stability.

[Chrysalis]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

For all Rodgers faults, he always gets his teams scoring goals. I know what you're saying about Puel only having 2 games of Tielemans but Puel has never and will never be a manager who's teams play attacking football and score a lot of goals. 

We all have selective memories when we want I guess, Puel had things ticking over nicely attacking wise with Gray and Mahrez both playing before Man City unsettled Mahrez and he went on strike including 4 goals against saints.

 

I do wonder how many people here would give Puel the 2 years of bad form that are been offered to Rodgers, same with Claudio.

Edited 15 February 2022 by Chrysalis

[Chrysalis]

1 minute ago, Fox92 said:

I'm on about consistency in terms of finishing top 6 twice. 

 

He has shaken up the back line because whichever partneship he's played this season hasn't been good enough. Obviously that is on him for keeping Amartey, and buying Vestergaard, but these players are our 4th/5th choice centre backs for crying out loud. Our main centre backs have been injured all/for most of the season and any side would struggle with that. You only have to look at Liverpool last season and their inconsistent results with Van Dijk out.

 

I am prepared to give him another season, yeah. Why is it generous? We haven't been bad for two seasons. If we were sacking managers after a run of poor form then we wouldn't be in this position because Pearson would have gone in 12/13. Thankfully the owners stuck with him and he turned it around the next season. I like stability.

I think its generous as now days 2 years of bad form is a very long time to give a manager.  More often 10 bad games is enough for someone to lose their job.

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, Chrysalis said:

We all have selective memories when we want I guess, Puel had things ticking with Gray and Mahrez both playing before Man City unsettled Mahrez and he went off strike including 4 goals against saints.

 

I do wonder how many people here would give Puel the 2 years of bad form that are been offered to Rodgers, same with Claudio.

Not many thats for sure, but the situations are not even remotely comparable (pandemic, injuries, etc)

[Chrysalis]

2 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Not many thats for sure, but the situations are not even remotely comparable (pandemic, injuries, etc)

I accept that they different scenarios, but I also have the opinion Rodgers has had far better backing, including the luxury of a new 100m training complex and bringing in his own team of staff.

Edited 15 February 2022 by Chrysalis

[Mickyblueeyes]

1 minute ago, Chrysalis said:

We all have selective memories when we want I guess, Puel had things ticking over nicely attacking wise with Gray and Mahrez both playing before Man City unsettled Mahrez and he went on strike including 4 goals against saints.

 

I do wonder how many people here would give Puel the 2 years of bad form that are been offered to Rodgers, same with Claudio.

I agree with this. While there were times we were dire under Puel. There were also some excellent periods. We want from a team which was scared of the ball to one who became quite composed with it. 

 

He may have issues with fans, players whatever which effected his time here but to pretend he was always a bad thing is not right. 

[Chrysalis]

Regardless of difference of opinions here, Rodgers is going to at the very least get until the summer, so he has more than enough time to prove he has it in him to turn this around.

[Dahnsouff]

2 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

I accept that they different scenarios, but I also have the opinion Rodgers has had far better backing, including the luxury of a new 100m training complex and bringing in his own team of staff.

The training ground was happening regardless of Rodgers, so he benefitted from it rather be attributed to him in any way, but yes, he does seem to have been treated with kid gloves to a degre not seen by other recent managers

[messerschmitt]

15 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

He cant see past the league position and recent cup victory, the rest doesnt matter to him.  I respect his opinion, its just how certain fans think. 

 

The problem for me is I just dont see Rodgers recovering to anything near his previous level, he might never get to the point he will take us down, but I dont think our ambition is to scrape bottom half (current form) with half our squad routinely injured.  I think he is busted, not the same manager we employed, initially it was what damage would do to other teams, he wanted us to be ruthless, now its about not conceding, and that has rubbed of onto the players.

 

Most managers will eventually hit an expiry date with a club though, so this is nothing personal against Rodgers, I just think his time is done here.  Never get attached to a manager because then you end up with clouded judgement.

That's the most puzzling thing for me. We used to attack teams with no fear the 0.9 Southampton came a few weeks after a 5.0 Newcastle game. What has caused us to change so dramatically?

I get the impression that in that Southampton game after we went 1.0 up and they had a man sent off we would now take off a forward and try to unsuccessfully defend the lead for the rest of the game only to lose 4.1

[daddylonglegs]

4 minutes ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

I agree with this. While there were times we were dire under Puel. There were also some excellent periods. We want from a team which was scared of the ball to one who became quite composed with it. 

 

He may have issues with fans, players whatever which effected his time here but to pretend he was always a bad thing is not right. 

He did plenty of things fine. His biggest accomplishment was binning off the idea Danny simpson could just hoof balls into the channels and Vardy would do the rest. 
 

His team was boring though. Not even sure he’d deny that. 

[hackneyfox]

8 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

The training ground was happening regardless of Rodgers, so he benefitted from it rather be attributed to him in any way, but yes, he does seem to have been treated with kid gloves to a degre not seen by other recent managers

Two fifth place finishes and an FA Cup win tend to give you a bit of leeway.

[Ric Flair]

13 minutes ago, Chrysalis said:

We all have selective memories when we want I guess, Puel had things ticking over nicely attacking wise with Gray and Mahrez both playing before Man City unsettled Mahrez and he went on strike including 4 goals against saints.

 

I do wonder how many people here would give Puel the 2 years of bad form that are been offered to Rodgers, same with Claudio.

It's not selective memories though when you see the goals scored under Rodgers for the ENTIRE time he's been here, also the goals scored the ENTIRE time he was at Liverpool.

 

Even in a diabolical season we are on track to score 60+ league goals for a 3rd season on the spin under Rodgers with pretty much the same set of forwards and wingers as Puel had. 

 

I'm happy to slag Rodgers for many things, bit scoring goals he's got a base level which is very good.

[SixtiesFox]

Unless we are dragged into a relegation scrap another five games in, and that's highly unlikely given the dross languishing towards the bottom end of the PL, Top and co have the luxury of taking their time to decide which way to go next. They can afford Rodgers more time to turn things around while developing a contingency plan re the appointment of a new coach before the summer if he falls to do so. Rodgers has every chance of turning things around as a top half finish and a European final is still well within our grasp given the talent he has at his disposal. However, in order to achieve these ambitions he will need to park his own ego and focus on what is best for the club and focus a little less on what is best for promoting brand Rodgers. I feel this is his achilles heel, and is the main reason why he has divided our fan base.

[Vindaloo FOX]

24 minutes ago, Gamble92 said:

One thing I would say to the people wanting Rodgers out is what that would mean for the players too. I think that would signal the end for a number of players including Kasper, Maddison, Soyuncu etc. 

 

I don't think a mass exodus does us any good. I'd rather see us keep Rodgers with a point to prove. 

Why would it mean the end ? Get in a manager who's football philosophy will get theses players motivated, confident and excited again.

 

They would not want to leave then.

[Chrysalis]

Just now, Ric Flair said:

It's not selective memories though when you see the goals scored under Rodgers for the ENTIRE time he's been here, also the goals scored the ENTIRE time he was at Liverpool.

 

Even in a diabolical season we are on track to score 60+ league goals for a 3rd season on the spin under Rodgers with pretty much the same set of forwards and wingers as Puel had. 

 

I'm happy to slag Rodgers for many things, bit scoring goals he's got a base level which is very good.

I never said we had a poor scoring record.under him. 

[Ric Flair]

15 minutes ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

I agree with this. While there were times we were dire under Puel. There were also some excellent periods. We want from a team which was scared of the ball to one who became quite composed with it. 

 

He may have issues with fans, players whatever which effected his time here but to pretend he was always a bad thing is not right. 

Rodgers same Leicester team more or less has scored 4 or more league goals and countless others in cups about 15 times in 3 years. Puel I think it happened only 3 times in 1.5 seasons.

[volpeazzurro]

1 hour ago, filbertway said:

100% agree, he was very much a safety first manager. I doubt he'd have got anything like the levels Rodgers got out of them in his first year. I know the footie was dire under Puel for the most part, but he did an excellent job of overseeing the rebuild and filling the squad with young talent capable of playing at that level. 

 

Puel's track record speaks for itself, I can't say that over the past 12-14 months that the football is vastly different to that which Puel was playing though. Especially all those times we played a back 3 (aside from Man Utd who for some reason we seem capable of ripping 

 

Edited 15 February 2022 by volpeazzurro

[volpeazzurro]

2 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

For all Rodgers faults, he always gets his teams scoring goals. I know what you're saying about Puel only having 2 games of Tielemans but Puel has never and will never be a manager who's teams play attacking football and score a lot of goals. 

I wouldn't that Rodgers has been the catalyst for his teams scoring goals, it's more the luck he's has in the players he inherited each time.

 

Suarez and Sturridge at Liverpool would score regardless of his intervention. Life wasn't quite that rosy when he hadn't got them anymore. 

 

Edouard at Celtic in a one team league until Rangers returned and he quickly jumped ship.

 

Vardy,  Iheanacho, Maddison and Barnes et al were already here so he didn't have any influence there. In fact last seasons top scorer would never have happened if the manager had any influence because he only played him because he absolutely had to. He has got his own back on Iheanacho this season though by not playing him. That'll teach him 🤣🤣

[Dahnsouff]

6 minutes ago, volpeazzurro said:

I wouldn't that Rodgers has been the catalyst for his teams scoring goals, it's more the luck he's has in the players he inherited each time.

 

Suarez and Sturridge at Liverpool would score regardless of his intervention. Life wasn't quite that rosy when he hadn't got them anymore. 

 

Edouard at Celtic in a one team league until Rangers returned and he quickly jumped ship.

 

Vardy,  Iheanacho, Maddison and Barnes et al were already here so he didn't have any influence there. In fact last seasons top scorer would never have happened if the manager had any influence because he only played him because he absolutely had to. He has got his own back on Iheanacho this season though by not playing him. That'll teach him 🤣🤣

Jesus, have a bit of balance fgs  

[Gamble92]

16 minutes ago, Vindaloo FOX said:

Why would it mean the end ? Get in a manager who's football philosophy will get theses players motivated, confident and excited again.

 

They would not want to leave then.

I cannot picture us getting anyone that would command more respect and get everyone playing again more than I do Rodgers turning it around.

 

Potter would be an obvious choice but I think the bigger names wouldn't want to play for him. 

 

Theyve shown as a dressing room that they need a big name in charge or the player power comes up again. I don't think that's the issue this time.

[volpeazzurro]

1 minute ago, pmcla26 said:

Oh yeah, because Swansea had loads of brilliant forwards and our attack was scoring in abundance before Rodgers came in...

It had been scoring plenty until Kante, Drinkwater left and Marhez virtually downed tools. Puel hadn't got an attacking midfielder to speak of as Maddison had just arrived and Tielemans hadn't got his feet under the table. Puel inherited problems, Rodgers inherited largely the answers with a talented squad that he's added to. I'm not standing up for Puel but if Rodgers had taken over from Ranieri or Shakespeare, I doubt things would have been any better and probably worse.

[alanf0x]

So were the phone calls and messages to the ITKs yesterday a leak from the club to see the response from the supporters?! 

[coolhandfox]

1 hour ago, filbertway said:

 

 

That finishing though 

 

Vardy missed a pen as well against spurs as well.

 

Looking a both those games and games under Rodgers there is something in this squads DNA that the real issue.

 

We are a bit soft and lack a ruthless streak 

Edited 15 February 2022 by coolhandfox

[foxfanazer]

52 minutes ago, Gamble92 said:

One thing I would say to the people wanting Rodgers out is what that would mean for the players too. I think that would signal the end for a number of players including Kasper, Maddison, Soyuncu etc. 

 

I don't think a mass exodus does us any good. I'd rather see us keep Rodgers with a point to prove. 

Would that be so horrific? We need a mentality shift at the club and that means some personnel moving on

[foxfanazer]

8 minutes ago, volpeazzurro said:

It had been scoring plenty until Kante, Drinkwater left and Marhez virtually downed tools. Puel hadn't got an attacking midfielder to speak of as Maddison had just arrived and Tielemans hadn't got his feet under the table. Puel inherited problems, Rodgers inherited largely the answers with a talented squad that he's added to. I'm not standing up for Puel but if Rodgers had taken over from Ranieri or Shakespeare, I doubt things would have been any better and probably worse.

I think Puel gets far too much disrespect for the work he put in here. He oversaw a difficult time for the club imo and left us on a solid footing