RaoulD

Agree with this but ultimately, Allen and Can often had no support themselves when they had the ball and were pressed in the same way. We improved when Lallana came on as he at least tried to link play and provide an outlet for the ball but overall we seemed to intent on holding position rather than playing the ball into space. I think Coutinho would have made a difference as acts as the playmaker and his close control is so good that he can often take the ball when closely marked and still make space for himself. Can can do this but he is far slower and I am not sure whether he saw his role as a defensive midfielder or as the link for a counter-attack. Coutinho's quick feet make a huge difference if we are going to be set up in this way.

It is not his first season in the Europa League - we played in 2012-13 and got knocked out at the same stage by Zenit. Tonight Bilic did his homework and realised that we do not support the man on the ball so every time the ball was played to Balotelli, Sturridge or Sterling, they surrounded them and snuffed out the problem. Even so we would have won had Sturridge played like a striker and hit the ball with his right foot when the opportunity arose. I understand why he is on the right most of the time (and Sterling on the left) as it makes a bigger target if you cut inside but if you go outside, you hit the ball with the outside leg (unless you are an insanely talented South American!). I don't get this need to balance between Europe and the domestic league. The players are professional athletes and asking them to play 2 games in a week should not be a problem, particularly if they are still in their 20s as recovery time is still relatively short.

Dalglish Rush Hansen Difficult to leave out Souness, Barnes or Gerrard but for me it is a combination of what they won and the length of time over which they did it that swings it for me.

Brendan has always been extremely confident of his own abilities as a manager and this is likely to cause problems if results don't go your way and you do not have a track record of winning trophies to fall back upon. I think the press speculation really got to him and it may have been a factor in explaining our poor form in the first half of the season. However, he has clearly turned things around so fair play to him. I still think he needs to win something this season to avoid a repeat of the speculation when results do not go our way but he is looking a lot more comfortable than he did before Christmas.

Most of the offences for which a foul can be given require the referee to form the view that the foul has been committed by the player in a manner which he considers to be careless, reckless or using excessive force. Accordingly, if the conditions are bad, he might be more likely to consider the action to be accidental and thus not give a foul. The only relevance of a player touching the ball is that it might persuade a referee to consider the tackle was not executed in a careless or reckless manner or that excessive force was not used and therefore, under the laws of the game, no foul is committed. At the end of the day it is the referee's interpretation of the manner in which the player attempted the tackle that determines whether it is a foul or not regardless of whether there was contact with the ball.

He showed potential in preseason but was still a little naive - he needed competitive games and with Sturridge, Sterling and Markovic ahead of him, he was unlikely to get much game time. He has come back with the experience that is now allowing him to realise the potential he showed in preseason. I doubt he would have got that experience if he stayed and had the pressure of having to lead the attack in the absence of Sturridge.

I know Alonso had not taken any pens before that night but Stevie had missed the last 2 he had taken so the instructions made sense. I also know Stevie was due to take the fifth penalty (which is why I said he was not called upon) but that was not the point I was making. Jordan may well have been the nominated penalty taker given that Stevie was not playing and Mario was on the bench (and may not have been used) but Rodgers was right not to get drawn on the issue afterwards as it was clear that the press were looking to reinforce Gerrard's comments. The point I was making is that ultimately Jordan let Mario take the penalty and as captain that was his call even if people think he should have stood up to Mario and taken the penalty himself. I would rather give Jordan the credit for making the right decision as captain rather than criticise him for not standing up to Mario

Stevie was captain in Istanbul and decided to let Alonso take the pen that ultimately made it 3-3 and did not get called upon in the shoot out. He made the right call but it was his to make. Jordan may have been on pens but he was captain and if he decided to let Mario take the pen why shouldn't we give him credit for doing so? I don't think he can distinguish between the two. He will have known who the designated pen taker was at the beginning of the game (it was usually him) and he is only expressing his opinion as to what he would have done as captain. The problem is that Jordan did not agree with him and made his own decision which ultimately paid off. The suggestion that stevie is not 100% LFC is laughable.

The problem is that that as Jordan has never taken a penalty for LFC in a competitive fixture (as far as I know) there is no guarantee he would have scored. He would have been completely undermined as captain if he had missed and Mario's record would have been a nail in his coffin. It is different with Stevie as he has a history of taking penalties for us and I would have expected Stevie to take the penalty if he was on the pitch. I think if you look at it objectively, absent Stevie, Mario would be the obvious choice as penalty taker for most people and part of being a good captain is recognising that (which I believe Jordan did albeit belatedly).

I not sure that Gerrard should have said anything in public even if he felt Mario was out of order. I think Jordan recognised that Mario was the best person to take the penalty even if he (and Sturridge) had a different view at the time. I think you are right that the matter will be sorted in the dressing room but I am concerned that Gerrard's reaction highlights a division there which may not be remedied.

I sorry if that is all you can contribute to the discussion

If he was then I think it would be a mistake to play the majority of your career as a left sided centre back. I think he is capable of playing on both sides but as he tends to lead with his left foot, the left side is more natural for him and is probably why he and Sakho did not play together in the early part of the season

I think he might have been a good manager if he had taken over from Dalglish as he was clearly brought up in the Liverpool way but I suspect that by 1998 the culture of the club would have changed too much for his ways to work. Put simply Houllier was the right man for the job in 1998.

Ibe Balotelli Mignolet

Of course he did, but if you look at the available options, it was pretty much a team that most of us would have chosen. The difference is that we don't work with the players throughout the week or have the luxury of being able to convey instructions from the technical area to change tactics if plan A is not working. I would have liked to see more intervention from Rodgers during the game but there was nothing and that is why I feel that credit should be given to the players not the manager for the win tonight.

The penalty that won the game was due to an individual run by a player that started the game. The penalty was converted by a player who the captain has accused of being disrespectful for taking it. I fail to see why the manager should get any credit for it as opposed to Ibe and Mario's stubbornness.

I though Skrtel was quite poor tonight. He was often caught out of position and committed himself when he did not need to. Henderson was also far to static in central midfield which often meant that the player with the ball was unsupported. Lovren was should not have been on the right and got caught because he was trying to tackle on his left foot. The main problem was the lack of forward impetus from midfield which meant that there was often disconnect with Ibe and Sturridge. Allen added nothing and was rightfully subbed. I agree Ibe is going to be a star providing he is given the ball by his teammates.

Gerrard should apologise to Mario for his comments. It may have been the case that Jordan was the nominated penalty taker when Mario was not on the pitch but it really should have been a no brainer once Mario was on. As far as I am aware Jordan has never taken a penalty for Liverpool in a competitive game (which given the entire team took at least one against Middlesborough meant that he was probably the least qualified on the pitch to take one). Mario has a very good record and would be the one person I would want to take a penalty in the circumstances. I also think he should have taken the last free kick as Jordan is not great on striking a dead ball. The fact that the captain of the club openly criticises the player who most, if not all, fans would have wanted to take the penalty in the absence of himself reflects badly on him but more so on the manager. I think the dispute over who takes the penalty demonstrates how little Rodgers does in the course of games and that it is the players who are calling the shots. I know we won tonight but the lack of an cohesive link between midfield and attack was telling. What was particularly noticable was the lack of support that the player on the ball received from his team mates. There was often no attempt by team mates to make themselves available for a pass and as a result the ball either went backwards or was passed to a player who was closely marked and they either lost the ball or simply passed it back to the player who had passed it to them in the first place. If you watched Rodgers throughout the game he did nothing to direct the players from the touchline and quite frankly seemed to have no idea as to how to break down an organised defence.

Hit the post button before I finished the post. Should have finished it as: 1. Our Defence has been a problem for the last 2 years. The one decision that Rodgers made was to replace Reina with Mignolet. Whilst he might have been able to justify this on the basis of Reina's last season with us (and Rodger's first), it was clearly apparent from an early stage last season that Mignolet had major flaws particularly in his ability to kick with both feet and command the penalty box. Since the abolition of the back pass, a keeper needs to have the ability to act as a sweeper. If the problem was clear to a mere fan, it must have been apparent to a professional manager. Rodgers could have remedied the problem in the summer by either retaining Reina or by replacing Mignolet - he did neither. Whilst I accpet managers might make mistakes, I think the hallmark of a good manager is acknowledging it and having the sense to do what is best for the club rather than compound it by prolonging the mistake. Mignolet symbolises Rodgers arrogance more than anything else. 2. Dejan Lovren was the wrong signing if we intended to continue with four at the back. Sakho might have looked ungainly at times but at least he had pace and was forceful in the tackle. He also was clearly a left sided centre back. If Lovren was supposed to address the failings at the back from last season he should be used as a sweeper to cover for Mignolet's failings as a sweeper rather than replace the one defender we had who looked like he could be the commanding centre back we needed since Sami retired. 3. Real Madrid away. The team selection made my blood boil as a Liverpool fan and I hate to think what sort of message it sent to Sterling or Gerrard. Rodgers might have got away with it had the team beaten Chelsea (but in my eyes the selection was not one deserving of a Liverpool manager) but it did not work. There have been far too many apologists for Rodger's selection that evening but I cannot think of one previous occasion where a Liverpool manager has sent out a team in fear of the opposition. 4. Lack of tactical intervention. Rodgers tends to have one plan and sticks with it throughout the game. It means that unless we are 3-4 goals to the good in the first half hour, we struggle. Last season we got away with it due to the firepower of Suarez and Sturridge. This season we don't have their firepower and the lack of tactical invention is becoming clear. Rodgers stands on the touchline during games doing nothing. The Chelsea game last season also highlighted his inability to change things when his initial plan did not pan out. It was clear that Jose intended to park the bus at Anfield yet Rodgers still set us up to attack in the same way as previous games. He should have realised that a draw would have suited us more than Chelsea and, whilst it would have been a dire game to watch, played a much more patient game. Chelsea would either have had to come out and attacked us (leaving space for Suarez and Sterling to exploit) or the game would either have ended in stalemate or with Suarez netting a winner with a bit of magic. We nearly lost against City for the same reason but were fortunate that the ball fell to Coutinho at the right time. It is very easy to say that the play last season was attributable to Rodgers' management and to give him credit for the fact that we nearly won the title under him. I think we should have won the title last season and would have done so if Rodgers was not in charge. Our defensive record meant that our goal difference was vastly inferior to Man City and this made the Chelsea result so significant. In my view it was the players who nearly one the title not Rodgers. If it were otherwise, we would still be a force in the league this season since the players signed by Rodgers should, on paper, compensated for the loss of Suarez.

I am sorry but I simply disagree. The last 18 months are clearly not attributable to Rodgers tenure as manager whereas what preceded it and what followed clearly are. There is no point in seeking to adopt a romantic view that Rodgers is suddenly going to transform into a different manager and transform the team much as I would like it to be the case. If we are going to change the manager now is the time to do it as it will allow a new manager the opportunity to use the January window to bring in players he feels are required. My difficulty with Rodgers is that I don't think he understands or subscribes to the fans expectation of a manager. Roy Hodgson certainly never understood this and I fear Brendan is in the same camp. Rafa and Gerard Houllier both understood this and whilst this does not make them better managers, it makes days like today more palatable as there is at least hope and faith that the manager is at one with the fans in wanting to turn things around. I cannot help but think that Rodgers is all mouth and no trousers. I felt this at the time of his appointment and his first season did nothing to force me to change this view. I accept that last season calls this assessment into question but I still think it is a justified for the following reasons: 1.

Not as difficult as Bucharest in 84

My assessment of the pre-season games so far: 1. Mignolet is not good enough as our no.1 keeper. He is ok as a shot stopper but he is almost rooted to the goalline and as a result we are vulnerable to any ball hit into the penalty box behind our centre backs. We could have the best centre backs in the world but they are still going to struggle to defend where the keeper does not fill the gap behind them. I think it is criminal that Mignolet does not even command his 6 yard box. Even Brad Jones made a better effort at cutting out crosses from the wings when he played. 2. Sakho has the potential to be the stand out centre back next season. His confidence from a good World Cup was evident and I think we will see this next season. If the goalkeeping issue was resolved, we should be able to cut out a lot of the silly goals we conceded last season with Sakho in the side. 3. Sterling is rapidly becoming developing a reputation as our danger man in place of Suarez.. His pace and control will probably mean that opposition defences will double up on him and leave space for others. 4. Johnson is not as good as he thinks he is. He is now a liability going forward as he almost invariably tries to beat his man by cutting inside but does not have the skill or variety to do so. His attitude on the pitch during the pre-season suggested that he could not be arsed. I suspect the fact that he has not been given a lucrative long term contract might be a factor. 5. I would keep Ibe this season as an impact player, particularly as Sterling seems to run out of steam by the last 10 minutes. 6. We have not seen much of any of the new signings so far apart from Can so most of the games were effectively the same squad that did so well last season absent Suarez.. There therefore remains a question mark as to whether the new signings will be ready for the first game against Southampton. 7. Man City are still the team to beat and ought to have been playing United yesterday (if they had not treated the games as a pre-season exercise). 8. Pepe Reina ought to have been given some playing time. Even if Rodgers does not want him, he is still a better option than Brad Jones and is costing us a fortune. Moreover, the less he plays the less likely other clubs will be to assume responsibiltiy for his salary. This raises the prospect that he could still be with us by September and it would be daft to keep him on the payroll and not use him. 9. Lambert reminds me of Michael Robinson, particularly when he is wearing yellow!

Probably because he did not sign a new contract in January and therefore under FIFA transfer regulations the compensation that would have to be paid is less if there is only 1-2 years left on his current contract rather than if he signed a new contract. It is also probably down to the fact that Barcelona are looking to offset the cost of having to find the full amount of Luis Suarez's release clause immediately rather than agree a payment schedule and might be willing to sell Sanchez for £30 million paid immediately than say £50million spread over 5 years. There is also the FFP rules to take into account and the need to balance the expenditure on players which means that Barcelona cannot simply buy Suarez outright without matching the cost by player sales/getting salaries off the book.

The money you get by way of salary is a benefit to you as is the asset you obtain from your old employer. You cannot ofset the purchase of an asset against your liability for income tax on the salary.

No because it is actually tax neutral. The money he obtains is paid to his former employer so it creates an equal input and output with a net value of nil.