View Mobile Version
Home

Damian Comoli sacked by Liverpool

I'm a Liverpool supporter and I, my brothers and my firends have always implied it down through the years although not literally word for word. The meaning is the same though. When things start looking bad during the season we always think it wont happen the following season and that Liverpool, given the chance, should win it.


We need a calm, collected and progressive approach. I feel Fenway will provide it. I think they put too much faith in those that were operating Liverpool when they took over. They are learning their lessons and becoming more assertive. Soccer and the English Premier is new to them. They did great things with the Red Sox.


I reckon they will overhaul the squad etc and give Daglish till xmass to prove himself or maybe Daglish may abdicate before the start of next season. They want the supporters to be united and build a solid relationship with them. I couldnt see them sacking Daglish outright.

Paddy_Ob said:

It goes both ways though. Arsenal have money and Wenger refuses to spend it on what's needed. He made an absolute balls of last summer and reaped the rewards this season, despite a good late run when the trophies are out of reach. A victim of his own success, really.


Also - what that table doesn't tell you is that Arsenal have one of the highest wage bills in the league, so rather than spend his budget on players, Wenger gives bumper new contracts to shitboxes like Dibay, Djourou, Denilson, Bentdner, Almunia and Vela (all of whom are on 50k or more)


Despite being the most stubborn man in football I'd expect him to change his ways this summer, and spend relatively big, and early, to keep RvP happy.

the major flaw with wenger's transfer policy is that he offers youngsters 40/50 grand a week to join the club and then their ceiling for the highest wages is not much above that. there's not much financial incentive for them improve as youngsters and then when they start peaking they move on to another club because they're offered so much more money than they'll ever get at arsenal.


i'd much rather support a team like arsenal who haven't won anything for years than a team like city. i'd be genuinley happy to see arsenal win the league again under wenger..

Pob said:

There's a few reasons.


Firstly, it goes back to the point I made earlier in the thread; Liverpool have been a club in turmoil for the last five years, They have been completely mismanaged by absentee owners from the other side of the Atlantic who have shown no leadership from the top. That as you well know, was perfectly evident during the Suarez affair. Part of the problem is that despite all the turmoil we've had, the expectation levels have remained the same. Liverpool fans expect to be challenging for the title every season despite the fact we have only come close a handful of times in the last 22 years. It's against that backdrop that he's being labelled a failure and I think he deserves another season to put it right.


Secondly, he has delivered a trophy in his first full season. It may only be the Carling Cup but it's a trophy all the same. If you win one or possibly two of the three competitions you enter than that can't be that bad. It's still more than Moyes has won in ten years at Everton and he's a managerial genius!


Thirdly, I fucking hate the way modern football fans want instant success. It's fucking idiotic. There seems to be this retarded mentality that Hiddink or Villas Boas or Jurgen fucking Klopp will come in and wave a magic wand and the league trophy will just land back at Anfield. What if they lose their first couple of games? Sack them too and try someone else! It's madness.


You're right that he's being judged differently to Hodgson and rightly so. I'm not one for getting sentimenal about footballers, but Dalglish has won 27 trophies since he signed for Liverpool, not to mention the title with Blackburn, so that in my mind gives him a bit more leeway than Hodgson and his permanent aspiration for mid table mediocrity.

I don't want instant success. I'd have been happy to finish 5th or 6th this year and next if the team looked like there was actually a common goal and they were at least starting to look like a cohesive unit.


I had my doubts about Kenny from the start and everything I feared about his appointment has come true. He looks out of his depth both on the pitch and off.


The signings, whoever was responsible, have been a disaster and the team is as bad as, if not worse than it was under Hodgson.


All I want is a manager who can get the team playing decent football and at least looking up the table towards Europe. At the moment we're just wallowing in mid-table mediocrity and I don't think Kenny will get us out of that any time soon.

Eoin said:

I don't want instant success. I'd have been happy to finish 5th or 6th this year and next if the team looked like there was actually a common goal and they were at least starting to look like a cohesive unit.


I had my doubts about Kenny from the start and everything I feared about his appointment has come true. He looks out of his depth both on the pitch and off.


The signings, whoever was responsible, have been a disaster and the team is as bad as, if not worse than it was under Hodgson.


All I want is a manager who can get the team playing decent football and at least looking up the table towards Europe. At the moment we're just wallowing in mid-table mediocrity and I don't think Kenny will get us out of that any time soon.

To be honest, I think we were playing decent football for a big chunk of the season but because nobody could stick the ball in the net we weren't getting the wins that the performances deserved. Arsenal at home seemed to be the killer blow because we battered them for 90 minutes and lost, and the confidence has looked shot to pieces ever since. Losing Lucas has also been a huge blow and our midfield has been all at sea ever since. Obviously Dalglish has to take a lot of the blame for that, but as I've said loads of times, this was always going to be a transitional year and I think that he's earned the right to a second season to try show that he's learned from the mistakes made this term.

Lucas is sorely missed. Very interesting piece about the pool and the theory that Gerrard is bad for the team. Statistically speaking, Liverpool play worse when Gerrard plays. Seeing that Fenway sports advocate the "moneyball" system, surely they will seek a permanent replacement for Stevie G?


The Question: is Steven Gerrard good for Liverpool?

When Steven Gerrard came off the bench against Newcastle United on 30 December and transformed a 1-1 draw into a 3-1 win, the assumption was that, with their talisman back after an ankle injury, would kick on. That win took them to fifth and with Chelsea and Arsenal faltering, Newcastle seemingly beginning to feel the effects of their comparatively slender squad and Tottenham being Tottenham, a challenge for Champions League qualification, perhaps even third place, seemed probable.

Liverpool have won only two of their 13 league games since then. Going into Tuesday's game against Blackburn Rovers they lie eighth, level on points with Fulham and Norwich City, the two sides below them, and risk finishing outside the top eight for the first time since they returned to the top flight in 1962. They need 15 points from the [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/apr/10/the-question-steven-gerrard-liverpool]six games that remain to avoid their worst points tally in a 20-team Premier League (in 2005, a failure that was mitigated by their European Cup win that year).

A Carling Cup and FA Cup, of course, provide some mitigation – and it is actually slightly depressing that league position apparently means so much more than trophies – but it is still reasonable to ask what on earth has gone wrong since the turn of the year. Take a cohesive team, add Gerrard, and the result has been a shambles.

It seems almost heretical to say it, but could it be that Gerrard is not the solution but the problem; that, fine player though he is, he has destroyed the balance of the side? When Gerrard has not started this season, Liverpool have won 48% of games played; when he has started, that drops to 9%.

In the 11 games Gerrard has started, Liverpool have scored an average of 1.00 goal per game while conceding 1.36; without him it is goals for 1.24, goals against 0.90. They have taken 1.67 points per game without him, just 0.73 with. Project that over a season: without Gerrard, Liverpool would get 63 points, which last season would have seen them finish fifth; with Gerrard, they would get 28, certain relegation [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/apr/10/the-question-steven-gerrard-liverpool]form.

Those figures include six games in which Gerrard has come off the bench. In two of those, against Everton away in October and against Newcastle, he helped turn draws into wins. In the other four, the result has remained unchanged, although Manchester City did increase a 2-0 lead to 3-0.

It was apparent even under Rafael Benítez that Gerrard was at his best when he could be let off the leash, when the situation was so desperate that he could be released from responsibility and told simply to swash buckles and storm barns all over the pitch – as he did against Olympiakos in December 2004, against Milan in the 2005 European Cup final and against West Ham in the FA Cup final the following year. In that regard, he fitted perfectly the Roy of the Rovers template and, as Scott Murray argued in The Blizzard (a piecereproduced here), there has been no figure so pernicious in English football history as Roy Race.

"While little schemers from Italy dreamt of becoming fantasistas[/i], conducting their team-mates to victory from the centre of the park, while South American youths honed their skills and picked up a few street-smarts in the dusty favelas[/i], hoping to put it all together in a gambeta[/i]," he wrote, "thanks to Roy Race, English children spent their formative years sat on their arses being taught a very strange lesson: it doesn't really matter what you do for 89 minutes because a superhero will turn up eventually, welt the ball into the net, and you can all go home with your cups and medals.

"Such was the sermon preached from the Melchester pulpit. In the big games, Rovers were perfectly happy to wing it, knowing Racey would amble along to the rescue at some point. As a result, nobody would bother preparing for anything. More often than not, Melchester would yawn on to the pitch, and end up a goal or two down not long after kick-off. A Race-inspired comeback was nearly always on the cards."

Nobody ever mentions it but in terms of control, Liverpool's best performance in their 2004-05 run in the Champions League was the 0-0 draw at Juventus, where Gerrard was absent and Liverpool's midfield comprised Xabi Alonso, Igor Biscan and Antonio Núñez.

Gerrard's penchant for Hollywood passes and his tactical indiscipline are well-known, but the Opta statistics present a more nuanced picture. Shots on target and shots to goal are virtually unchanged with and without Gerrard while possession (55.22% to 56.50%) and pass completion (80.79% to 81.06%) improve marginally with him in the side.

Cross completion drops from 21.21% to 15.19% when Gerrard comes into the side, while the number of tackles won falls from 75.49% to 71.90%. That latter figure perhaps hints at what he does in terms of disrupting the shape of the midfield. That said, the injury to Lucas Leiva who, remarkably, has still made more tackles than anybody else in the Liverpool squad this season despite having been injured since November, partly accounts for that fall-off and has clearly been a significant factor in Liverpool's stumble.

But what is really telling is the impact Gerrard has on other players. All six of Charlie Adam's assists and both his goals have come when Gerrard has not started. Jordan Henderson's tackle success rate drops from 92.59% when Gerrard does not start to only 63.64% when he does. Jay Spearing wins 60.71% of duels when Gerrard does not start; only 54.76% when he does. When Gerrard is there, they have to adjust to different roles and, so far, that seems to have had a detrimental effect.

The phenomenon of a big player dwarfing those around him, particularly when, as in the case of Henderson and Adam, they are low on confidence, is well-known. The tendency, understandably, is to give the ball to the star, to try to feed him at every opportunity: Cesc Fábregas described it happening at Arsenal in Thierry Henry's last full season, while an overreliance on Samuel Eto'o has clearly hampered Cameroon. Gerrard offers an excuse, an easy way for his team-mates to dodge responsibility.

It is not that he is a bad player, far from it – and Lucas's absence is almost certainly a bigger reason for Liverpool's slide than Gerrard's return – but it could be that his impact is detrimental. That is the problem with building up individuals in football: no matter how gifted he is, it is never just about one man.

^ ^ ^ the rafa benitez signed player jonjo shelvey, he be stevies g replacement, he only 20 now.

dolf said:

I'm a Liverpool supporter and I, my brothers and my firends have always implied it down through the years although not literally word for word. The meaning is the same though. When things start looking bad during the season we always think it wont happen the following season and that Liverpool, given the chance, should win it.


We need a calm, collected and progressive approach. I feel Fenway will provide it. I think they put too much faith in those that were operating Liverpool when they took over. They are learning their lessons and becoming more assertive. Soccer and the English Premier is new to them. They did great things with the Red Sox.


I reckon they will overhaul the squad etc and give Daglish till xmass to prove himself or maybe Daglish may abdicate before the start of next season. They want the supporters to be united and build a solid relationship with them. I couldnt see them sacking Daglish outright.

id go along with all of that. I like these owners, not overly sure why, i just do. they're there a year, and the club is in a serious mess, it will take 3-5 years to sort. beyond the fact these guys are in a totally different ballgame , the club has fundamental serious problems at loads of levels to sort. the stadium probably the biggest, beyond the immediate problems on the pitch et al. we're a similar position to united in the 80's as somone noted.


i've never like Comolli as someone else said, aside from the fact he looks a shady fuck, his track record is almost like one of a shady doctor to a cycling team, things never really added up.


where things will go forward from here, hard to say. deffo daghlish stays unless they bring a wunder mamager in [ i still have belief Mourinho would relish the anfield challenege, i've had this theory/wish for years tbh ]


but yeah, this is gonna take alot of time and patience. if KK got out of this season with 2 cups, it'd still have to be deemed a success . it does annoy me alot how much 3/4th these days is deemed much better than winning trophies, but thats the way its gone innit...

Random_Sausage said:

the major flaw with wenger's transfer policy is that he offers youngsters 40/50 grand a week to join the club and then their ceiling for the highest wages is not much above that. there's not much financial incentive for them improve as youngsters and then when they start peaking they move on to another club because they're offered so much more money than they'll ever get at arsenal.


i'd much rather support a team like arsenal who haven't won anything for years than a team like city. i'd be genuinley happy to see arsenal win the league again under wenger..

I'd fully agree with that, and it kinda touches on a broader subject, i.e are UEFA actually serious about these new financial fair play rules? Or will fucking Norwich be bought by a Sheikh and be challenging for the title next year, while Delia's culinary delights are replaced with chicken shawarmas and hummus?