Liverpool FC

[sovietsong]

Looks like Johnson picked up an injury on Monday as well amongst the others.  Sigh.

what a waste of money ... lol

[boldie]

Nothing against Liverpool but its a real shame the top 4 give you champions league spots, it means teams can be happy to come 2nd 3rd or 4th and it's all wrong. How can a team as big as Liverpool accept coming runners up as good?

It's not accepted by Reds fans - but to say finishing as runners up, considering our resources, is a bad thing is a bit ott.

This "considering our resources" thing is baffling me a bit.

Rafa spent £200mill on players since he came in.

http://www.liverweb.org.uk/benitez.asp

 Chelsea, by comparison, spent £225 mill between 2005 and 2007. (according to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2321598/Jose-Mourinhos-transfer-spending-at-Chelsea.html )

Arsenal obv ridic low

http://arsenal-mania.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31663

I couldn't find ManU transfer spending for the past few years but only had a quick look TBF.

All above figures might have some faults in them but as indicators of what's been spent it's close enough to show that Rafa had plenty of resources available. He's just not spent it very well.

NET is the key.  Chelsea haven't had to sell players to fund new ones.

Look at the net spend.

OK.

I still woudln't trust him with my life savings.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article6888955.ece

Good manager, shit buyer of players.

[Josedinho]

Nothing against Liverpool but its a real shame the top 4 give you champions league spots, it means teams can be happy to come 2nd 3rd or 4th and it's all wrong. How can a team as big as Liverpool accept coming runners up as good?

It's not accepted by Reds fans - but to say finishing as runners up, considering our resources, is a bad thing is a bit ott.

This "considering our resources" thing is baffling me a bit.

Rafa spent £200mill on players since he came in.

http://www.liverweb.org.uk/benitez.asp

 Chelsea, by comparison, spent £225 mill between 2005 and 2007. (according to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2321598/Jose-Mourinhos-transfer-spending-at-Chelsea.html )

Arsenal obv ridic low

http://arsenal-mania.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31663

I couldn't find ManU transfer spending for the past few years but only had a quick look TBF.

All above figures might have some faults in them but as indicators of what's been spent it's close enough to show that Rafa had plenty of resources available. He's just not spent it very well.

NET is the key.  Chelsea haven't had to sell players to fund new ones.

Look at the net spend.

Does this make things better? In terms of striking options Rafa sells Bellamy and Crouchand funds a deal for Keane who he sells for a loss 6 months later. Probably little net effect but he had 3 players that would improve the current squad and has sold all of them. I think that makes him look like he hasn't done well in the transfer market.
When he came in i think it is a valid arguement the high turnover of players in and out to generate profit but he is now buying players to win a title not to make profit (Glen Johnson for example) and he isn't doing well enough in some areas.

[cia260895]

Rafa Benitez goes into church and says"Bless me father,for i have sinned",the priest replies"come forth my son".....so Rafa says"come forth?We'll be lucky to finish top ten!!"

[The Baron]

Nothing against Liverpool but its a real shame the top 4 give you champions league spots, it means teams can be happy to come 2nd 3rd or 4th and it's all wrong. How can a team as big as Liverpool accept coming runners up as good?

It's not accepted by Reds fans - but to say finishing as runners up, considering our resources, is a bad thing is a bit ott.

This "considering our resources" thing is baffling me a bit.

Rafa spent £200mill on players since he came in.

http://www.liverweb.org.uk/benitez.asp

 Chelsea, by comparison, spent £225 mill between 2005 and 2007. (according to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2321598/Jose-Mourinhos-transfer-spending-at-Chelsea.html )

Arsenal obv ridic low

http://arsenal-mania.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31663

I couldn't find ManU transfer spending for the past few years but only had a quick look TBF.

All above figures might have some faults in them but as indicators of what's been spent it's close enough to show that Rafa had plenty of resources available. He's just not spent it very well.

NET is the key.  Chelsea haven't had to sell players to fund new ones.

Look at the net spend.

OK.

I still woudln't trust him with my life savings.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article6888955.ece

Good manager, shit buyer of players.

That is exactly my point from two pages ago. The two pieces of information go hand in hand.

'Rafa only spends £16m net per season' and 'Rafa buys shittier players than other top coaches'... surely it stands to reason that these facts are directly related? Saying "he's spends a lot" then realising his net spend is lower and saying "well his buys are still worse" is only aiding my argument imo.

As I said before very few top managers are great in the cheaper player range except Wenger. We cannot throw £15-£30m at the wall for most of our team and see what sticks a la Nani Anderson Hargreaves Carrick Rooney Valencia and Ferdinand.

I would put Rafa's record in the price range he shops in above most other managers and I think he's gotten all of the big buys right except Keane.

[Acidmouse]

Sorry if this has been asked or outlined before but did he buy Keane or was he bought without his full recommendation?

[The Baron]

Nothing against Liverpool but its a real shame the top 4 give you champions league spots, it means teams can be happy to come 2nd 3rd or 4th and it's all wrong. How can a team as big as Liverpool accept coming runners up as good?

It's not accepted by Reds fans - but to say finishing as runners up, considering our resources, is a bad thing is a bit ott.

This "considering our resources" thing is baffling me a bit.

Rafa spent £200mill on players since he came in.

http://www.liverweb.org.uk/benitez.asp

 Chelsea, by comparison, spent £225 mill between 2005 and 2007. (according to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/2321598/Jose-Mourinhos-transfer-spending-at-Chelsea.html )

Arsenal obv ridic low

http://arsenal-mania.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31663

I couldn't find ManU transfer spending for the past few years but only had a quick look TBF.

All above figures might have some faults in them but as indicators of what's been spent it's close enough to show that Rafa had plenty of resources available. He's just not spent it very well.

NET is the key.  Chelsea haven't had to sell players to fund new ones.

Look at the net spend.

Does this make things better? In terms of striking options Rafa sells Bellamy and Crouchand funds a deal for Keane who he sells for a loss 6 months later. Probably little net effect but he had 3 players that would improve the current squad and has sold all of them. I think that makes him look like he hasn't done well in the transfer market.
When he came in i think it is a valid arguement the high turnover of players in and out to generate profit but he is now buying players to win a title not to make profit (Glen Johnson for example) and he isn't doing well enough in some areas.

Ok this post is so full of holes it's a sieve.

Firstly he sells Bellamy and Crouch for a profit. Secondly Crouch wanted to go and he didn't want to sell him.

Thirdly Keane wasn't happy on the bench. Of all our big buys (Mascherano Torres Johnson) Keane had the lowest risk as someone very established here in the EPL with a good record but he didn't play well at all. The effect of the media circus around him when starting on the bench every second week was ridiculous and it affected the team. (On a side note it's amazing how this isn't highlighted at Spurs when one of them doesn't play - fascinating!) Upon selling Keane for a loss, that couldn't really be helped due to his performances, we went on the best half season run since we won the league and making us top scorers along the way - the team totally gelled once again. Not exactly a bad choice. N'gog has also come on in spades. So he got a big one wrong once - I'd love to compare to another top manager who's gotten a few big ones wrong - oh wait I did in the post above.

Yes, so now as you mention at the end he's buying players to improve the first XI and challenge for the league. How is Johnson not an improvement? He's possibly the best attacking right back around right now and last year we had problems breaking down sides at home so it's a good purchase surely? If Alonso/Hyypia hadn't left we'd have brought another first team player as well of this I am sure.

[The Baron]

Sorry if this has been asked or outlined before but did he buy Keane or was he bought without his full recommendation?

Kinboshi and I have differing views on this.

I was told by someone who I trust 100% that Rafa DID want Keane but only AFTER Barry. When the board refused to saction £18m for Barry (who they believed they could get for £10m the next season and would certainly come plus Alonso wouldn't even fetch £16m at the time) they got Keane anyway. Rafa was seething etc etc - Barry had to come first in his eyes and a striker was not his priority.

I think Kinboshi says it was his buy but I cant remember.

[Colchester Kev]

Truth of the matter is, you wont know just how good rafa is or isnt until you sack him and get someone else in charge.

imo, he has held you back domestically. but exceeded expectations in Europe.

[The Baron]

Truth of the matter is, you wont know just how good rafa is or isnt until you sack him and get someone else in charge.

imo, he has held you back domestically. but exceeded expectations in Europe.

Serious question Kev.... Held us back from what?

Do you honestly think another manager who isn't already at a huge club would have won us the league with the same scenario and £16m net spend per season? Do you think any manager alive could have in today's game? (Since the EPL landscape changed in 2003 even Wenger hasn't done terrificly well) He last season got us 86 points (league winning total) with a squad assembled on a much smaller budget!

People say Liverpool fans are deluded but I think it's us who understand the difficulties in winning the EPL the most!

(Dont get me wrong I never ever believed Houllier would do it and wanted him out!)

I'll try to rephrase....

In the eyes of the press and some fans, the best managers are maybe (in no order) :

Ferguson
Wenger
Ancelotti
O'Neill
Redknapp
Pulis
Moyes
Hughes (?)
Allardyce

And the biggest wallets are now probably (roughly in order):

Man City
Chelsea
Man Utd
Spurs
Villa
Sunderland
Arsenal (?? do they have money and not spend or dont they have it?)

So we have maybe the tenth best manager by reputation (exaggeration imo obv) and the eight biggest wallet but came second in the league last year with 86 points? Something is slightly amiss there methinks! Doesn't that mean we're over achieving? lol (Asked tongue firmly in cheek!)

[Longy]

I don't really read the gutter press but I would have Rafa in the top 10 managers worldwide.

[The Baron]

I think I'm eplaining myself quite badly reading my above posts but this'll be my last say on it for now....

Hypothetically..... Let's say Sunderland, who have just finished 4th (and have a big stadium, big support, ok money wise but terrible squad bar 3 players) get a new manager from say...... Spain in, he's a nice guy, looks like a Spanish waiter, big reputation but generally unknown in this country - his name is Raymondo Bonsuarez.

He gets on average £15-20m to spend per season and 5 years later has won the FA Cup, Champions League and has them competing for honours into April every season, but only managed a close second in the league with 86 points would he be a failure?

My opnion on it is no - Rafa is judged by LFC's distant history - that is the problem. He should be judged by our EPL history only which makes him very good at his job.

[Colchester Kev]

I think he has held you back by being tactically naive in the domestic league ... he sets you playing the european way against teams like Blackburn, Stoke and others .. and those teams dont play football the european way ... they hassle you, they bite your ankles and they get right at you, in close and physical ... he does not adapt his tactics well enough week in week out in the league.

And that has cost you plenty of points.

You should have had a league title under Rafa ... at least 1 !!

[Ironside]

I think I'm eplaining myself quite badly reading my above posts but this'll be my last say on it for now....

Hypothetically..... Let's say Sunderland, who have just finished 4th (and have a big stadium, big support, ok money wise but terrible squad bar 3 players) get a new manager from say...... Spain in, he's a nice guy, looks like a Spanish waiter, big reputation but generally unknown in this country - his name is Raymondo Bonsuarez.

He gets on average £15-20m to spend per season and 5 years later has won the FA Cup, Champions League and has them competing for honours into April every season, but only managed a close second in the league with 86 points would he be a failure?

My opnion on it is no - Rafa is judged by LFC's distant history - that is the problem. He should be judged by our EPL history only which makes him very good at his job.

bring back kenny

[The Baron]

I don't really read the gutter press but I would have Rafa in the top 10 managers worldwide.

Probably fair:

Ferguson
Wenger
Lippi
Trappatoni
Capello
Hitzfeld
Ancelotti (?)
Del Bosque (?)
Mourinho
Hiddink (?)
Van Gaal


Cant think of loads of others.