sangria

I asked the question because I was genuinely curious about the stat, and I wasn't confident about my reading of why it was (and I'm still not). PhaseofPlay's answer was that Agger is the most vocal of our CBs, while others who have posted knowledgably on defence in the past noted that he was doing what Carragher used to do. That still doesn't answer why Agger was so far above the others even when Carragher was still playing, but it offers a reasonable answer for why the stat is now as it is. However, what can't be denied is the stat that places Agger far ahead of the others, over a period of several years and several managers. In addition to that widespread stat, there are also incidental runs that may or may not be due to Agger. One of them is this season, and the correlation between Agger and clean sheets (7 in 12 with him starting, 2 in 17 without him starting). Another was a run of games under Dalglish in 10-11. IIRC we won 5 in a row where Agger played, conceding none (if you take out the first couple of games where you can expect the new manager to be finding his feet). After that run, the first game where we conceded where Agger also started was against Tottenham, and we conceded our first goal after Agger went off injured. Something that I've wondered about, although I've not applied it to the defence as I don't know much about that area, is what I call the Alonso effect. That's when a team psychologically relies on a player to the point where they think themselves lost when he's not there. It extends beyond what the player actually does, and becomes an unconscious excuse for players to underperform. I felt it happened again with Lucas, most tangibly in his return against Southampton where he didn't actually play all that well, but the whole team seemed to play better because he was there. I thought it was a negative thing and something to be avoided, if necessary by transferring the psychological crutch to the manager instead (since he's never unavailable through injury). I'm wondering if it can be a positive thing as well, in that certain players can make those around them more confident. Other than the Star Player phenomenon which all playground footballers are familiar with, I'm not sure how it would work. But it's one possible explanation for the stat that Agger has.

The data showing us conceding fewer goals when Agger plays goes back at least 5 years and 3 managers (not including Hodgson). There is a sizeable gap between our defensive stats with Agger in the team and without for data drawn from the Benitez, Dalglish and Rodgers reigns. For a sample that size, you stop calling the sample too small, and start looking for explanations. The best explanation I've seen, from a qualified coach, is that Agger is the most vocal of our defenders. He does what Carragher used to do.

Agger has maintained that kind of gap over our other CBs through the reigns of Benitez, Dalglish and Rodgers (I've not seen stats under Hodgson). Context is important when there is only a small amount of data to work with. Agger's data spans 8 years and 3 managers.

Another stat someone noted. 7 clean sheets from 12 games with Agger. 2 clean sheets from 17 games without Agger.

For this season. Player / Minutes / Goals Conceded / Minutes per GC Sakho..............1,027..............15..............68.4 Skrtel..............2,411..............35..............68.8 Toure..............1,437..............20..............71.8 Agger..............1,051..............11..............95.5

He's a more energetic, less slick version of Lucas. Follows the manager's instructions to the letter to the best of his ability. The kind of player that Shankly called a piano carrier, as opposed to the 2 or 3 who play the thing. Allen's another in the same mould with another slightly different emphasis. All pretty much interchangeable though, so you can mix and match or just chuck 2 in and the team still plays the same way.

One of the constants has been the link between Agger and clean sheets and lower number of goals conceded, which goes back to the Benitez days, continued under Dalglish, and is till the case under Rodgers. I don't have the slightest clue why that is, other than my fanboy explanation that Agger is just brilliant, but the stats are there under successive managers. Note I've not included a certain manager in that study, since Agger was part of the group that won't be playing on Saturday after the Northampton debacle.

He looked considerably better than the other similarly aged talent that we had though. If the other, homegrown talent was so much better than Pacheco so that it was a waste of time bringing him over, they didn't show it. Right up until the final step into senior football, Pacheco looked the goods. If Pacheco turned out to be not good enough, the other youngsters we had were even less so. Personally, I think it was a lack of senior game time at the right time that stunted his development, and the decision that caused this was bringing in Cole. I didn't see Cole as more than a marginal player given his recent record, and as such the time given to him should have been used on Pacheco instead. Gnurgian at RAWK is banging a asimilar drum, by going on about a senior squad of 11+7 that was reasonably balanced and whose members all had to perform or be culled, with any non youth players outside that list needing to go so as to properly develop our youngsters.

Watch the ones for his previous 2 games as well. Almeria's attacking tactic is basically to give it to Suso.

Picasso moved onto his famous modernist style after an apprenticeship in traditional craftsmanship. I can't remember if it was he who said it, but one of the modernist artists said that you needed a thorough grounding in traditional skills and knowledge to be able to properly do abstract art. FSG have skipped the traditional knowledge bit and are looking for the edge straight away. I'm not confident that they can recognise an edge if they see it.

Last summer, during our managerless period, Reina and Skrtel said they wanted him back. I think they were the only players who stated a managerial preference at that time. You can dismiss them as no one of course, but as they were the only players who said anything, that's all the evidence there is. You admired a clean break with Benitez even when he was part of our present, not our past.

Milan finished 3rd last season, enough to qualify for the CL qualifying stage. The season before that, they finished 2nd (CL group stage), before that 1st, before that 3rd (CL group stage). A player signing for Milan has a good chance of playing in the CL. During that time, we've finished 7th, 6th, 8th and 7th, missing out on the CL each time. In two of these seasons we've missed out on EL too. Players want to play in the CL, and failing that, the EL. How do you convince them that we'll be playing in the CL during their time here? Suarez is already here, and he doesn't seem convinced.

Appointing a prestigious coach could have been one way to kickstart the chicken and egg conundrum, by borrowing the coach's name to get ambitious players in before we actually get to the promised land. Last summer, either Van Gaal or Benitez, both of whom were interested and available, would have sufficed for this purpose. Right now, we don't have much of a name to play on, so we'll have to rely on performance alone to get these players after the fact.

We're paying some of his wages while he's on loan.

We're subsidising Reina's wages, so I doubt the loan fee if any will amount to much if anything. With Napoli not being West Ham and Benitez not being an idiot, I can see Napoli minimising their expenditure knowing that we're desperate to get him off the books.

Djphal's posts on the subject. "I think he has played his last game for us" "If he goes it won't be him forcing the move" "Fsg are not alone on this one"

I've not yet seen his information to be wrong, although I've questioned the motives of his sources, whoever they were. He's the one who revealed that Lucas and Aquilani were in the management's bad books towards the end of the 2010 summer window, before news of Aquilani's loan to Italy and an attempt to offload Lucas. He's given various other information as well, but that's the one tat stuck in my mind as it came out of the blue.

Djphal reckons he's played his last game for Liverpool and the management are looking to move him out.

A goalkeeper who likes to dominate his area. If he can instill that in our younger keepers, I'll consider him a Liverpool man all day long.

I'd have him principally for coaching and as an emergency goalkeeping option. David Hodgson has talked about the style of our goalkeepers in the past. James fitted that style when we bought him, his problems were lack of concentration and professionalism. We don't have to rely on him so his concentration doesn't matter, while he's cleaned up his professionalism since he left us, as shown by his lengthy career in the top tier. I'd bring him in to work with our younger keepers, starting him off in a coaching career which he's interested in. He'd do it for the experience, so wages would be negligible (his current contract is apparently cheap even for the Icelandic league). We've talked about a lack of Liverpool men around the club to supply know how, with most of our former players going on to do punditry rather than coaching and management. Here's one who's interested in coaching, who fitted our Liverpool style if not in substance (at the time anyway), and plays in an area where we don't have many coaching models from the past (would you take Grobbelaar?). We should be looking to bring in Hamann as well, and any others with coaching experience.

I'll raise the name of David James as a playing/beginning coaching option. However much of a waste he's been for us in the past, since then he's been as professional and analytical a goalkeeper as you could ask for, with a definite taste for the style of goalkeeping that we've gone for in the past. He's currently playing/coaching for some Icelandic club for peanuts.

The only article where I've seen the suggestion that Carragher was on the type of money Antynwa talks about also contrasted him with Aquilani who was earning considerably more. Since it's anecdote on both sides, there may not be much to favour one estimate over another. Except that Aquilani was transferred to an Italian club, who are obliged to release the numbers involved on their side, which did not support the figure claimed by the previous article. So at the very least, the English newspaper article supporting Antynwa's claim was discredited by publicly available information. FWIW, the transfer fee reported for Aquilani supposedly went to pay off the rest of his Liverpool contract. Since we know the number of years left on said contract, and Fiorentina reported the transfer fee paid, we can thus work out the salary Aquilani was on here. Which was nowhere near the figure claimed by the English reporter (Bascombe?).

I don't think we've asset stripped in any way that could be argued as such. We've spent lots of money on making really bad decisions, both on and off the pitch. Spending 8m to replace Benitez with Hodgson epitomises it. In terms of downgrading at cost, it's comparable with Souness, but since the incompetence is at a higher level, so the costs are correspondingly higher, even relative to the times.

And it was 12 years between Grobbelaar and Reina. We know what level Reina can reach for us. While his form has dropped, it's also dropped almost directly at the same time as changing coaches. Reina is not at an age where a goalkeeper faces irreversible decline. It would be far lower risk and cost to stick with the player and switch coaches than to change the player.

He's discussing his Liverpool contract with Liverpool owner John Henry and Liverpool manager elect Roberto Martinez.