Brendan Rodgers

[honeybradger]

35 minutes ago, DerbyshireFox said:

“I did think about it (making more substitutions). Looking at the game, and looking at how it was, and when they scored, it was really a case that our back-line was in control for most of the game. With them putting the extra bodies up front, we stay on that and keep the numbers there.

“Wilf is very important for us defensively, he could have been crisper and clearer with the ball today but defensively he is important for us. Youri and James are experienced now and you are hoping they can manage the game while having that threat up front. I did think about it, but I left it as it was.”

"The players were tired" (not an exact quote)

"You are hoping they [youri and maddison] can manage the game"

 

Well which one is it? Surely if he recognised that the players were tired and struggling with the heat then he should not have the expectation that our players can keep a hold of the game against fresh legs? 

 

Yet again he opts to slyly take a dig against his own players to cover himself.

[kingfox]

I said numerous times last season that a Crystal Palace type refresh was needed at this football club. Last summer they had nine first team players out of contract, we’ll find ourselves in a similar situation next summer. The luxury they had though was Roy Hodgson was also out of contract, we have a manager with three years left on his deal, giving him a new contract is a decision we could live to regret.

 

Big changes are coming at this football club, losing Kasper is just the start. Of the nine players out of contract next summer, you thoroughly expect seven of them to leave. You then add Vestergaard, Praet & Soumare who could also head for pastures new. Then you have the likes of Ndidi, Maddison & Fofana, two of which are out of contract in 2024, while there’s no way Fofana is staying here until 2027. Along with losing numerous fringe players, we could also end up losing four key players next summer, that’s if Ndidi & Maddison don’t sign new deals, you fully expect more bids to come in for Fofana and of course Tielemans will inevitably be off, hopefully that happens this month and not next summer when he’ll leave for free. 
 

We’re in store for a massive transition which in all fairness should include the manager too. 
 

The reset button is inevitably going to get pushed when it comes to the squad, it also needs to get pushed regarding Brendan Rodgers, things were turning stale last season, his managerial methods won’t change, he is one of the most egotistical & stubborn managers going. There comes a time when a new voice & new ideas are needed, I think we are extremely close to that time.

[Cadno'r Cymoedd]

5 minutes ago, BigMicky said:

Because Brentford changed formation, he tried to counter that with his sub. It didn't work. Bringing on a like for like replacement wouldn't have worked either as the original problem would have persisted. Simple really. 

So simple, it failed. 

[BigMicky]

1 minute ago, smudgerfox said:

I can buy that. And we certainly can’t afford to lose KDH. I think the issue is replacing him with Daka as part of some bizarre effort to counteract Brentford’s change in formation. Why are we bothered what they’re doing? We’re completely dominating them - bring on a like for like replacement (or as close as we have) and keep playing the same way. The trouble with BR is he tries to turn every game into a whiteboard tactical masterclass instead of doing the simple things to rack up the points. 
 

And by the way we had most of  our defensive players available yesterday (cant blame injuries) and we still concede twice, still gave up a winning position, and still conceded late. 

A like for like replacement would have had zero impact. I don't get why you can't see that? Brentford changed formation, we had to counter that. He tried and it didn't work. We were being overrun in midfield, swapping KDH for a like for like wouldn't have stopped that. 

[Claudio Fannieri]

56 minutes ago, filbertway said:

It's actually much more impactful when you just say it how it is. There are so few pro's left for Rodgers and most of them involve casting your mind back at least over a year ago.

 

When the defence becomes "who do you actually want?" there's not much left to use after that. There are tonnes of managers out there that'd bring fresh ideas and excitement to the club right now, who would be delighted to work in the setting that Rodgers has been afforded. We don't want someone who's been there and done it, we want someone young, fresh and coming up in the world of management. 

 

A younger manager will be more willing to work within the clubs framework and will look to get the very best out of what they have available. I don't think Rodgers has had us looking greater than the sum of our parts for a loooong time.

Also highly likely we would save 4,5 or even 6m a year in wages against what we are currently paying out to Brendan 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

Still so fvcked off with this. Yesterday was going great, decent feel about the place and the team were flying. We took the piss for the first 60 minutes let's be honest, we should have been out of sight. Then the manager and the manager alone let things slide and didn't act, left players who were blowing out their arse on the pitch whilst taking off our fittest player with 2 central midfielders on the bench. Then we all watch the inevitable happen and it's meltdown yet again and we're at each others throats for the next fortnight at least. 

[BigMicky]

Just now, Cadno'r Cymoedd said:

So simple, it failed. 

It did, but it was a positive change. If we had swapped KDH for a like for like and they had equalised, you would all be moaning it wasn't a positive change and we should have changed formation. The bloke can't win. 

[smudgerfox]

Just now, BigMicky said:

A like for like replacement would have had zero impact. I don't get why you can't see that? Brentford changed formation, we had to counter that. He tried and it didn't work. We were being overrun in midfield, swapping KDH for a like for like wouldn't have stopped that. 

We were being overrun in midfield and the solution is to take off or most effective defensive midfielder and replace him with a striker? Is that what you’re saying? Thank goodnesss I’m not in your Sunday League side…

[Cadno'r Cymoedd]

1 minute ago, BigMicky said:

It did, but it was a positive change. If we had swapped KDH for a like for like and they had equalised, you would all be moaning it wasn't a positive change and we should have changed formation. The bloke can't win. 

Well, it wasn't positive in that it failed miserably. Too right, he can't win. It was a draw from a winning position because of his tinkering. 

[BigMicky]

Just now, smudgerfox said:

We were being overrun in midfield and the solution is to take off or most effective defensive midfielder and replace him with a striker? Is that what you’re saying? Thank goodnesss I’m not in your Sunday League side…

He tried to change the dynamic, he wanted us to stretch Brentford and let them concern themselves with 2 strikers, get Daka to hold the ball up and work off him. Relieve the pressure. It's a pretty common tactic employed throughout the ages. I'm more of a Saturday football player then Sundays.... 

[Claudio Fannieri]

Just now, BigMicky said:

It did, but it was a positive change. If we had swapped KDH for a like for like and they had equalised, you would all be moaning it wasn't a positive change and we should have changed formation. The bloke can't win. 

Not taking off KDH would have been a start, why take off the one player who brings such energy and intensity to our game, he is the last player that needs protecting from fatigue on the 1st game of the season, surely Tielemans and or Ndidi who were both returning after reduced pre season because of international duty and injury would have benefitted from coming off and if replaced like for like by say Praet and Mendy would have probably given us fresh impetus and energy to see the game out 

[Beechey]

14 minutes ago, Ian S said:

I have said time and again, put him on gardening leave, it’s not that unusual.His ego will have him taking the first half decent job that comes along then we stop paying him. I am sure we may have to give him a little sweetener to encourage him to take a new job, will all be part of negotiations but it won’t cost us anywhere near what many quote on here.

Not sure of the alternatives?

Then you'd need to be paying his £200k/week salary as well as a new manager's salary at the same time. Our issue is that our wage bill is too big, that would make that situation much worse.

Edited 8 August 2022 by Beechey

[5waller5]

2 minutes ago, BigMicky said:

A like for like replacement would have had zero impact. I don't get why you can't see that? Brentford changed formation, we had to counter that. He tried and it didn't work. We were being overrun in midfield, swapping KDH for a like for like wouldn't have stopped that. 

This is Brentford at 2-0 down, away, making a tactical switch. Not Man City at the Etihad at 1-1.
 

We didn’t “have to respond” with a formation change. 
 

We should have recognised that half a team with fresh legs in 30degree heat would cause a problem and made some like-for-like fresh leg changes though. 

[Deeg67]

1 minute ago, smudgerfox said:

We were being overrun in midfield and the solution is to take off or most effective defensive midfielder and replace him with a striker? Is that what you’re saying? Thank goodnesss I’m not in your Sunday League side…

Yes it's a ridiculous argument, but it's not even predicated on what was actually happening.  We were hardly being overrun in midfield.

 

And none of that even factors in that he left four - four! - subs unused and then had the temerity to claim we blew the match because of fatigue.

 

[BigMicky]

1 minute ago, Cadno'r Cymoedd said:

Well, it wasn't positive in that it failed miserably. Too right, he can't win. It was a draw from a winning position because of his tinkering. 

It really wasn't, it was two defensive mistakes that cost us. 

[BigMicky]

1 minute ago, 5waller5 said:

This is Brentford at 2-0 down, away, making a tactical switch. Not Man City at the Etihad at 1-1.
 

We didn’t “have to respond” with a formation change. 
 

We should have recognised that half a team with fresh legs in 30degree heat would cause a problem and made some like-for-like fresh leg changes though. 

How would that have counteracted Brentfords formation change? 

[smudgerfox]

Just now, BigMicky said:

He tried to change the dynamic, he wanted us to stretch Brentford and let them concern themselves with 2 strikers, get Daka to hold the ball up and work off him. Relieve the pressure. It's a pretty common tactic employed throughout the ages. I'm more of a Saturday football player then Sundays.... 

At the time KDH was subbed there was no problem. We were overrun after the substitution not before it. The game was literally in the palm of our hands. But once again Brendan can’t get us over the line. 

[Ian Nacho]

Still so angry about this. His comments about fatigue make it even worse. 

[FosseSpark]

the biggest issue was that we made 1 change to their 5 on a day of 25 degree or more heat when the players aren't yet at peak match fitness. 

it wasn't rocket surgery to understand why Brentford showed more urgency and intent in the last 30mins. We could have changed Soyuncu for Amartey, Thomas for Justin, daka for Vardy etc etc and i think we would have done much better for it.

[5waller5]

3 minutes ago, BigMicky said:

How would that have counteracted Brentfords formation change? 

I would have introduced fresh legs for the tiring ones in the same formation (although I wouldn’t have played that formation in the first place). BR is fixated on what the opposition does and not confident enough in our own identity.

 

It gives the opposition confidence and saps ours to constantly be so reactive. 

[norwichfox]

This reminds me of City v Middles borough when Peter Taylor was our manager when we were well on top and he made a substitution that completely upset our rhythm and we lost - I think it was to a Paul Ince goal. I want him gone now the one sub was a p155 take.

[4everfox]

5 minutes ago, Fox92 said:

I don't think we do.

 

Sousa was awful for us, as was Sven and Shakespeare. Puel was solid enough but boring. Pearson was a great appointment but it's not like he wasn't known to the club. Ranieri was great for a season and Rodgers has been good.

Harsh on Shakespeare. We would have gotten relegated if it wasn't for him, and he signed Iheanacho and Maguire who were/have been good signings for us. Not to forget that game against Sevilla.

[Cadno'r Cymoedd]

7 minutes ago, BigMicky said:

It really wasn't, it was two defensive mistakes that cost us. 

So why did he change it then if was only "two defensive mistakes that cost us" the win?

[Beechey]

8 minutes ago, smudgerfox said:

At the time KDH was subbed there was no problem. We were overrun after the substitution not before it. The game was literally in the palm of our hands. But once again Brendan can’t get us over the line. 

Uh yes there was? We had already conceded one goal and looked on the ropes even with KDH on the pitch. The issue is that the sub Rodgers made didn't change that. I think we needed more midfield steel, not more of an attacking threat. But to say there was no issue after Brentford had been bossing the game already for 20 minutes isn't right. KDH came off at ~75'.

Edited 8 August 2022 by Beechey

[Cadno'r Cymoedd]

10 minutes ago, BigMicky said:

He tried to change the dynamic, he wanted us to stretch Brentford and let them concern themselves with 2 strikers, get Daka to hold the ball up and work off him. Relieve the pressure. It's a pretty common tactic employed throughout the ages. I'm more of a Saturday football player then Sundays.... 

Perhaps he can put you on the bench and you can help him out from there as the Sunday players know naff all?