The Liverpool FC Thread XI

Original post by matchdayG

Flawed logic. Gerrard was kept in because Gerrard is ****ing outstanding, not because Lucas isn't good enough. And it's hardly as if Rodgers is averse to taking risks - front foot manager, and we're damn lucky that he is. Lucas came on and changed the game against West Ham, lest you forget. If he needs to be replaced next year then why are you talking about him now? He's not ideal at CM but he's the only player we have aside from Stevie at DM. Not a chance he's leaving.

Not flawed at all. He may be outstanding but he wont be outstanding sitting on the bench.
Fair enough he's needed against City but is Lucas not good enough to play his role while playing West Ham? Surely if Lucas is good enough then we wouldn't need to risk Gerrard at all in that game, if Lucas was good enough then he had nothing to gain and everything to lose- that's dumb risk not being front footed. Only reason Lucas came on in that game was to throw more bodies to defend and retain the ball so we don't concede, not that it means much- Rodgers brings on Moses who's widely considered useless.
If he's not good enough to start against West Ham when when one of our best player is at risk of missing the next 3 then he's not good enough period.

Yeah he came on and like I said, for the first period of games Lucas is fine, he peters off. Whether that be legs, concentration or a combination.
Just because I don't think him being replaced is urgent doesn't mean he wont be, nor does that mean I can't bring it up as an overall motion to what needs to be improved upon if we win the league.
Nobody considered bringing in Salah was urgent, still nearly happened.
The idea with him leaving is they buy someone else comes in, thus the word replaced, so Gerrard won't be the only DM.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 183

ddaappoo

13

Original post by Zerforax

I'm not too fussed about losing Toure if Rodgers thinks Ilori or Wisdom can step up.

it's like everybody's forgotten we have martin kelly also...

Reply 184

OP

Original post by matchdayG

If that's a 4-3-3 (V) then what is a 4-3-3 without the V?

And it's reduced to 4-3-3 for sake of brevity.

You could pretty much call our formation a 2-3-1-1-2-1 if you wanted to

ST ST ST
CM CM CM
LB CB CB RB
GK

Obviously you very rarely see that and the 4-3-3 (V) looks very similar to a 4-5-1 in some respects.

Well we definitely push towards a 3-4-3 when we attack

Reply 185

OP

Original post by ddaappoo

it's like everybody's forgotten we have martin kelly also...

Too many injuries. Send him on loan this year and if he comes back strongly, we can bring him back into the fold otherwise it's time to give up on him imo.

15 appearances in the last 2 years and most of which were sub appearances (only 450 minutes in the league in 2 years).

He turns 24 in a couple of days so no longer a promising kid. I'm all for giving players until they are 24-26 to peak but sometimes you have to move on.

Reply 186

ddaappoo

13

Original post by Zerforax

Too many injuries. Send him on loan this year and if he comes back strongly, we can bring him back into the fold otherwise it's time to give up on him imo.

15 appearances in the last 2 years and most of which were sub appearances (only 450 minutes in the league in 2 years).

He turns 24 in a couple of days so no longer a promising kid. I'm all for giving players until they are 24-26 to peak but sometimes you have to move on.

i agree and i feel that this is the same for seb coates. honestly i had high hopes for him when he got him but whenever i've seen him play, he's had little or no composure on the ball and can be clumsy. doesn't always use his build and height to best use also.

Reply 187

Original post by So Instinct

Not flawed at all. He may be outstanding but he wont be outstanding sitting on the bench.
Fair enough he's needed against City but is Lucas not good enough to play his role while playing West Ham? Surely if Lucas is good enough then we wouldn't need to risk Gerrard at all in that game, if Lucas was good enough then he had nothing to gain and everything to lose- that's dumb risk not being front footed. Only reason Lucas came on in that game was to throw more bodies to defend and retain the ball so we don't concede, not that it means much- Rodgers brings on Moses who's widely considered useless.
If he's not good enough to start against West Ham when when one of our best player is at risk of missing the next 3 then he's not good enough period.

Yeah he came on and like I said, for the first period of games Lucas is fine, he peters off. Whether that be legs, concentration or a combination.
Just because I don't think him being replaced is urgent doesn't mean he wont be, nor does that mean I can't bring it up as an overall motion to what needs to be improved upon if we win the league.
Nobody considered bringing in Salah was urgent, still nearly happened.
The idea with him leaving is they buy someone else comes in, thus the word replaced, so Gerrard won't be the only DM.

We're in a title race - if we lose against West Ham then the City game is rendered irrelevant. If we happen to beat West Ham and Stevie picks up a booking whilst we're doing it, so be it, we'll cross that bridge when the time comes. Lucas was outstanding in our 5-0 over Spurs earlier this season.

Lucas is 'good enough'. But is he as good as Stevie? Hell no. Stevie wouldn't allow himself to be dropped and a front foot manager wouldn't have screened him from that possible suspension either. Just because we're all ****houses on here (I was advocating taking a deliberate booking against Sunderland) doesn't mean our manager is. If we were genuinely very concerned about him picking up a booking and/or getting suspended, then they'd have made him pick it up in the Sunderland game. Either they gambled/believed that he wouldn't pick one up, or they felt Lucas would have been good enough.

And lol don't downplay Lucas' effect at West Ham. He came on at half time, we switched to a diamond, he kept the ball brilliantly, brought an air of assuredness and calm to our game, and in fact played the through ball from which Flanagan won the penalty.

You're also forgetting the past now, pretty much everyone felt that a winger was urgent going into the January window. Sterling had a good few games but wasn't on fire, and we definitely needed another attacking player because Coutinho was a bit off form as well.

Reply 188

Original post by Zerforax

ST ST ST
CM CM CM
LB CB CB RB
GK

Obviously you very rarely see that and the 4-3-3 (V) looks very similar to a 4-5-1 in some respects.

Well we definitely push towards a 3-4-3 when we attack

That formation doesn't exist in the real world, it's just a football manager formation.

The commonly used 4-3-3 describes a back four, with three midfielders, two wide players (can be wingers or wide forwards) and a main striker.

Reply 189

Original post by matchdayG

We're in a title race - if we lose against West Ham then the City game is rendered irrelevant. If we happen to beat West Ham and Stevie picks up a booking whilst we're doing it, so be it, we'll cross that bridge when the time comes. Lucas was outstanding in our 5-0 over Spurs earlier this season.

Now that is flawed logic. If Lucas is good enough then we wouldn't have lost to West Ham though? So no risk is it, Gerrard has less chance of being suspended and the title race is unaffected, sounds like win win. Not to mention playing a team like West Ham will be physical and I would almost expect our DM to get carded. It makes more sense to risk Lucas against a team like West Ham then it does against Man City.

Lol you think Rodgers got to this point by crossing bridges when it came to it?
It would be silly of Gerrard to be willing to risk compromising the whole title run by refusing to be subbed for that one game.
Also nobody thought a winger was "urgent" in January. Go back a thread and read everyone question why we're looking for wingers when DM was a matter of urgency at the time.

Only place Lucas has in this team is as a sub but I doubt he's on the paycheck of a sub. So he'll be shifted at some point.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 190

RedArrow

3

I hate to see any of the players leave Liverpool.

Except mosses he can leave anytime.

Reply 191

Original post by So Instinct

Now that is flawed logic. If Lucas is good enough then we wouldn't have lost to West Ham though? So no risk is it, Gerrard has less chance of being suspended and the title race is unaffected. Not to mention playing a team like West Ham will be physical and I would almost expect our DM to get carded. It makes more sense to risk Lucas against a team like West Ham then it does against Man City.

Lol you think Rodgers got to this point by crossing bridges when it came to it?
It would be silly of Gerrard to be willing to risk compromising the whole title run by refusing to be subbed for that one game.
Also nobody thought a winger was "urgent" in January. Go back a thread and read everyone question why we're looking for wingers when DM was a matter of urgency at the time.

Because even if Lucas is good enough, clearly Gerrard is better (one of the best in the world) and you'd want to have him in every game possible?

Playing against physical team =/= higher carded possibility, where did you get that logic from ffs

This argument can go on and on, but what I will not back down upon is that Gerrard was played against West Ham because Lucas isn't good enough. You want your best players playing every game possible. I'm no great fan of Lucas and I too believe that he needs to be replaced in due course, but he's not leaving this summer like previously stated, and as a back up DM he's perfectly good enough.

As for what people thought was urgent or not - it matters little to me, even if from memory I can remember everyone calling for a winger. All that matters is what Rodgers thought necessary, and if he thought a winger, then that's all we need to know.

Reply 192

kuks

1

I want Cissokho to stay after this:

http://vimeo.com/92846254

Reply 193

cBay

15

Original post by So Instinct

Now that is flawed logic. If Lucas is good enough then we wouldn't have lost to West Ham though? So no risk is it, Gerrard has less chance of being suspended and the title race is unaffected, sounds like win win. Not to mention playing a team like West Ham will be physical and I would almost expect our DM to get carded. It makes more sense to risk Lucas against a team like West Ham then it does against Man City.

Lol you think Rodgers got to this point by crossing bridges when it came to it?
It would be silly of Gerrard to be willing to risk compromising the whole title run by refusing to be subbed for that one game.
Also nobody thought a winger was "urgent" in January. Go back a thread and read everyone question why we're looking for wingers when DM was a matter of urgency at the time.

Only place Lucas has in this team is as a sub but I doubt he's on the paycheck of a sub. So he'll be shifted at some point.

People wanted a DM in january because Lucas was our only one, and was injured at the time. Since Gerrard has played there, it's been fine.

Replacing Lucas means getting rid of a squad player who is used to be playing for us and is good enough as back up, and buying a squad player who isn't used to being here and there is no guarantee he will settle. Gerrard will remain first-choice. I just don't see the point.

Ultimately, Gerrard only has a couple seasons left in him, so we need to get someone in who can take over from him, but I don't think it's a priority this summer. It's something we can maybe start to look at next summer, someone that already has the ability, but is fairly young and won't expect to be starting every game straight away. Regardless, we should keep Lucas for depth.

Also, you've made the assumption that Agger, Enrique, and Lucas are all on 100k+, I highly doubt any of them are on more than 60-70k.

Reply 194

Original post by matchdayG

Because even if Lucas is good enough, clearly Gerrard is better (one of the best in the world) and you'd want to have him in every game possible?

Yeah, you maximise the game he plays by reducing the risk of him getting carded.

Misses 1 games>Misses 3 games.

That's like risking an injury to your star player instead of playing the backup who is claimed to be perfectly adequate to do the job.

Ofc against a team like West Ham there is a high chance he would get carded. When you had Carrol going into to duels then going down from every slight touch yellow cards would get thrown around like skittles.

I didn't say he was leaving this summer? I put him in a list of players that need to be replaced if we win the league and want to continue to contend for it and CL in future, I clarified that quite a few times too.

Well you specifically said "pretty much everyone felt that a winger was urgent", so whether it matters to you or not is irrelevant.
Nor would it be the first time a transfer committee have bought a player the manager doesn't deem he needs or is urgent.

Reply 195

Original post by So Instinct

Yeah, you maximise the game he plays by reducing the risk of him getting carded.

Misses 1 games>Misses 3 games.

That's like risking an injury to your star player instead of playing the backup who is claimed to be perfectly adequate to do the job.

Ofc against a team like West Ham there is a high chance he would get carded. When you had Carrol going into to duels then going down from every slight touch yellow cards would get thrown around like skittles.

I didn't say he was leaving this summer? I put him in a list of players that need to be replaced if we win the league and want to continue to contend for it and CL in future, I clarified that quite a few times too.

Well you specifically said "pretty much everyone felt that a winger was urgent", so whether it matters to you or not is irrelevant.
Nor would it be the first time a transfer committee have bought a player the manager doesn't deem he needs or is urgent.

Not going to carry on the original discussion because I've already said all that I can say, but will clarify a few errors in your post.

He was never missing 3 games anyway, a suspension would have been two games, so you're wrong there.

Equally I could say against a team like City with loads of tricky wingers and playmakers with the ability to beat a man and dive you could easily get yellow carded. It's just unvalidated nonsense to say that without stats.

You're the one that brought up the peoples' opinions with 'Nobody considered bringing in Salah was urgent, still nearly happened.'

Reply 196

Original post by matchdayG

Not going to carry on the original discussion because I've already said all that I can say, but will clarify a few errors in your post.

He was never missing 3 games anyway, a suspension would have been two games, so you're wrong there.

Equally I could say against a team like City with loads of tricky wingers and playmakers with the ability to beat a man and dive you could easily get yellow carded. It's just unvalidated nonsense to say that without stats.

You're the one that brought up the peoples' opinions with 'Nobody considered bringing in Salah was urgent, still nearly happened.'

Yeah and if you go back you'll see proof that people were questioning why we were bringing on Salah when we needed a DM. Though you claimed everyone thought it was urgent from memory which if you go back you will see isn't the case on here, on podcasts and other fan related material.

Missing 2 games and risking compromising a while title effort is still more than missing 1 game that we would win anyway because Lucas is good enough. So the simple logic still counts.

Yeah and we would have been forced to play someone like Gerrard against City which is fine and makes sense, however we're not forced to play him against West Ham unless our backup isn't good enough.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 197

Original post by So Instinct

Yeah and if you go back you'll see proof that people were questioning why we were bringing on Salah when we needed a DM. Though you claimed everyone thought it was urgent from memory which if you go back you will see isn't the case on here, on podcasts and other fan related material.

Missing 2 games and risking compromising a while title effort is still more than missing 1 game that we would win anyway because Lucas is good enough. So the simple logic still counts.

Yeah and we would have been forced to play someone like Gerrard against City which is fine and makes sense, however we're not forced to play him against West Ham unless our backup isn't good enough.

can't be bothered mate, honestly. We disagree here, let's leave it at that

Reply 198

OP

Original post by ddaappoo

i agree and i feel that this is the same for seb coates. honestly i had high hopes for him when he got him but whenever i've seen him play, he's had little or no composure on the ball and can be clumsy. doesn't always use his build and height to best use also.

Coates has only had one serious injury so I don't mind giving him another chance. Kelly has been a crock for a while now.

Coates could become a good CB but just not in Rodgers' system unfortunately.

Original post by matchdayG

That formation doesn't exist in the real world, it's just a football manager formation.

The commonly used 4-3-3 describes a back four, with three midfielders, two wide players (can be wingers or wide forwards) and a main striker.

Any formation exists if a manager wants to try it. Back in the olden days, teams used to play with 7 forwards.

Original post by kuks

I want Cissokho to stay after this:

http://vimeo.com/92846254

Harsh but hilarious :rofl:

Original post by So Instinct

Yeah and if you go back you'll see proof that people were questioning why we were bringing on Salah when we needed a DM. Though you claimed everyone thought it was urgent from memory which if you go back you will see isn't the case on here, on podcasts and other fan related material.

Missing 2 games and risking compromising a while title effort is still more than missing 1 game that we would win anyway because Lucas is good enough. So the simple logic still counts.

Yeah and we would have been forced to play someone like Gerrard against City which is fine and makes sense, however we're not forced to play him against West Ham unless our backup isn't good enough.

I actually don't think we need a DM anymore :teeth:

We need a back up/like for like player for Henderson and we need an AM who can score goals. We have Gerrard/Lucas which is good enough for the bottom of the diamond.

Gerrard/Rodgers thought he could avoid a yellow card in those 4 games and he did manage it. Nothing to do with who else was available but everything to do with selecting your best team for each game. We haven't needed to rotate for the sake of it. Has only been for injuries/suspensions and tactical reasons. No one has been rotated for match fitness or fatigue.

Reply 199

OP