benno2

This is a good point. The rationale behind this is that the market overall gets a player's value right in the form of how much he is paid over time. There are exceptions to this, of course there are. It's rumoured for instance that City pay Yaya Toure an absurd amount way above his actual value. They may well have the highest wage bill this season but probably won't win the league because of them rorting the market in this way, but research shows that this is actually true. Last year's highest wage bills were in order, Chelsea, Utd, Arsenal and they finished in those positions. Paying over the odds for a player won't help. No amount of money given to Konchesky will make hm into a top player, to give the example posted above some credence. The research has been taken over a number of years and bears very, very close resemblance to the finishing positions of the sides in order of size of wage bill, not just in England either. For instance, we should have finished 5th last season by this indicator. With City overpaying, we probably should have finished 4th. We under-performed (how many would argue with that?), Spurs over-performed (ditto?). On this front, it gives amunition to those that say Rafa had to go. But his average finishing position over his time here, is commensurate with the wage bill and three times we finished above Arsenal with their higher payrolll. Grist to the mill therefore for those that say he'd earned another year. Money spent on transfers is a very bad indicator of this, thus do you get your Newcastles and your Souness's here for that matter. Food for thought for the net spend arguments Our wage bill is a pretty accurate indication of the importance and therefore value of each player to the team. In order, I'm pretty sure it reads Gerrard, Torres, Carragher, Reina ... Carra is probably out of kilter there with his current value to the set-up, but then many have argued that giving him his new contract on the money he's on isn't right and it was the last action of the old regime. There are eother xceptions (Rodriguez and Babel are out of kilter, I think) and therefore inefficiences. John Henry has been quoted over the weekend of alluding to this as one of the problems they face here. This is a rationalist economist way of explaining things. Much of it is in the book How England Lose which is dry, but pretty persuasive and backs all its arguments up with data, as you'd expect with economists. But it's not to say that everyone's wage bill is as it should be. But in what is a pretty huge market if you take the top 5 European leagues overall and over time, the argument bears scrutiny.

One of the issues I had with Rafa, was that you would never see him at a ground watching a player he'd targeted in the flesh. I'm sure we'd all agree that you get a different perspective on a player at the ground than you do on tv. I'm sure his rationale for this was that he didn't have the time and wanted to be with the team in training and planning from his office at Melwood. It would be the travelling that we would have viewed as the time waster, not the 90 minutes. He's the only manager I've noticed this is the case with. On it's own this is an admission that the job of manager as we traditionally perceive it is too big. Many of his buys from within the Premiership were players that had done well against us, i.e. when he had the chance to see them for himself. Crouch is a good example of this. So him seeing them was important. There have also been players that he took a different view of when he got to see them for himself in training. Keane and Aquilani stand out in that regard. At least half of the problems with those two were character flaws. Aquilani wasn't brave enough, Keane not sufficiently intelligent to change his game to Rafa's plans. Having a DoF obviates these problems. As for the cult of the manager, I don't think that would actually change that much. Mourinho's not in charge of recruitment at Real. But you would still say it's his team. I'm sure he has quite a big say in who is brought in, without being ultimately responsible. He has banged on about not being bought a typical no. 9 for instance. If there's sufficient respect between coach and DoF, then I'm sure this can work. Another thing. There has been a lot of talk about Purslow's involvment over the past year on the football side and people saying that he has no place in deciding things. But he was in charge of a business whose overriding business is football. If I was an investor, I wouldn't want my money riding on the views of one man and would want some sort of control over things. If it's right that the size of the wage bill is the key component in the footballing success of a club and all the research points to this being the case, then I'd build a team to see to it that the business side of the club was able to build up this capability as much as possible. Ayre and his team, presumably along with the new directors form this side of the club. They explore new ways to do it and ensure that money spent on clu b operations is used efficiently. But I wouldn't want the whole of the footballing side, i.e. how the wage bill is spent in the hands solely of a non board member employee. I'm sure this isn't how the Americans do this with their baseball team in the States and whilst they will want to watch and learn about the differences with football, they will also want to gain an element of control over how their money is spent. Their experience of how they do things in baseball, might actually add knowledge from outside to how things could be done in football. We should be open-minded to this, as much as they have to be about moving into a new sport. Having the responsibilities split and having Kenny as a board member (I hope and assume this is what they have in mind) gives an element of control to the board on this, the most crucial side of things. Of our last three good managers, Kenny, Houllier and Rafa arguably and in different ways, all three have caved in in one way or another over the size of the responibility they have and the energy it requires. All three started well from the positions they were given on taking over, but all three hit a wall after five years or so of their tenure. This isn't an absolute here. Few, if any people on earth could have withstood the managerial responsibilities on top of Hillsborough and all that Kenny had to go through and contend with there. But both Houllier and Benitez seemed to falter at the same stage of their regimes. Is fatigue a factor? Does it affect their decision making capacities? This is very difficult for us to answer. Furthermore, I would bet against Paisley lasting as long under these conditions, if he'd ever have taken the job at all. I'd also argue, that Roy Evans would have been better off with a DoF supplying him with better players than he was able to supply himself. He'd still have had the problems of indiscipline that undermined his regime. Maybe I'm going to far here and some of this is fanciful. But I don't think the DoF system does actually denude the cult of the manager too much. He's still the face and focal point of the club.

The new owners were likely to do things how they're used to them being done in baseball. Personally, I've fallen into the pack of people that see the job of manager as necessarily having to be all powerful. As a Liverpool fan we've always had the cult of the manager, look at the banners on the Kop displaying the great faces of our managerial past, it's rare to see banners portraying players faces or names. It's how we're used to things being done. The director of football model has had scorn poured on it, but I'm beginning to see its merits and the baseball model of general manager in charge of recruitment with coaches employed to put together the day-to-day gameplans in place, looks like being our future. There are a couple of rationales as to why this is now necessary. Firstly, the role that Rafa had taken on was to big for one man. This is dangerous when it fails, because when that man leaves, too big a gap is left behind and any attempt at continuity is instantly and at a stroke lost. Lyon won 8 consecutive titles in France under 4 different coaches. How is this possible if stability is key? Throughout the whole of this time they had one man running player recruitment providing a constant stream of fresh new faces in the 22-24 age range of sufficient quality to keep them ahead of the chasing pack. Imagine Kenny in charge of this. There is also a lot of research to suggest that the role of the coach is relatively unimportant in the success of a team. This might sound odd in an era where top managers are feted to the heavens and the likes of Ferguson, Wenger, Mourinho etc. are seen as all-knowing. But look at Chelsea's season under Avram Grant. The great Mourinho had left having lost Chelsea's grip on the title the previous season. So was there a large dip under a coach whose record saw him as being unworthy of such an exalted position in the game? Actually no, he if anything did better than Mourinho had done the season before, coming within a whisker of winning the Premiership and the Champions League. The reason? The players that the so-called special one had left behind were good enough. Research shows that it is the size of the wage bill that is the best indicator of success in football, not the name on the door of the manager's office. There's been a lot of talk about Frank Rijkaard in the last couple of weeks. Anyone that saw the documentary of his first couple of years at Barca, will know that this is how they did things. There was a scene where he was having dinner with a lot of the then board and he was being told about the players that they were lining up for him for the next season. He looked pleased and didn't give a fig about his lack of involvement in the process. None of this is to say that he has to remain totally uninvolved in recruitment. But the final say and responsibility lies with someone else. Again, imagine Kenny being that man and think back to the signings he made. John Henry was quoted as saying recently that when we spend a dollar there has to be good reason behind it. Hodgson has already failed in this area. Signing two twenty-nine year olds on wages of around £40k a week is not good value. We're in a position where we have to scour all markets for the quality of player commensurate with getting us back to the top of the tree. We have seen in the last couple of seasons that no matter how well we do in getting players from abroad to move here, fit in and enjoy their football, outside influences out of our control can compel them to want to move on. We're always going to face this situation unless we fluke upon a whole cadre of world-class scousers in the coming years. The chances of this are slim. With this in mind, it's imperative that we buy the players at the right age. That age is the 22-24 range. They retain their value at this age and if we've chosen well, invariably their price will have risen when they get homesick or when the missus fancies a change of scene and sunnier climes. If you go below that age range, you're chancing to luck too much. Stories of great 18 year olds failing to make it in the man's game are legion, but by 22 the chances are you can see whether or not they'll make it. Rafa was doing this but the reasons behind his departure might well have as much to do with him having a string of questionable buys at the end as it was him seeing results slip or losing the faith of a couple of players. If we split the responsibilities here, the risk of having the wrong manager in place is less. The trick is of course to get the right Director of Football in place. Who on here would bet against Kenny doing a good job of that though? It would be a job of huge importance for him one where he can get rid of the guilt he feels about leaving the club. It is also one that wouldn't be over burdensome having to deal with millionaire players' whims day-to-day as well as the baying media. If Hodgson doesn't like it, well we can all see that there are better coaches out there. In fact a Pellegrini - Kenny partnership has much to recommend it combining Premier League knowledge with a view from outside and intimacy with other markets. This is the way to go.

What's happened to Aurelio again? Does anybody know?

Definitely. Meireles shaving his bonce hasn't helped and with Shelvey likely to play more and more, we could soon be a commentators nightmare.

That was Skrtel, to be fair.

They've been here for 9 days and know very little about the sport. They're not as likely to come to a definitive opinion, never mind a decision, like they did when they bought the Red Sox.

Yep, all of that. On top of this, does he know how to coach these tactics? Can you teach an old dog new tricks? At times today, although it was a welcome return, it wasn't done as well as we were used to seeing it.

As a fan of Rafa overall, the Aquilani signing wasn't his finest hour and I don't think it helps discussion on here to gloss over it. To risk such a large proportion of his budget on a long-term injured and demonstrably injury prone player was a huge punt. This is irrespective of a) how good a player he might prove to be and b) whether or not he was lied to about available funds and the prospects of signing Jovetic to go with him. His latter work in the transfer market was questionable I'd say and he must have known the chances of this trick being pulled on him were real after the same happened the previous summer with the Keane & Barry fiasco. None of this excuses the reduction of our options this season though by loaning him out once 100% fit. Talk about adding insult to injury.

Meireles Kyrgiakos Lucas

Maxi's wages make him a lot less of a bargain than it seems from his transfer fee. He was excellent in the first half mind.

That's right. Skrtel's been much better the last two and a half games as well.

What sort of a change is that?

No sitting back now.

It's even more ridiculous when you realise how little pace Blackburn have in their side.

I don't believe that Johnson is anywhere near as bad defensively as is often made out and the comparison on that front with Bale, who is, is miles off. But he is horrendously out of form and it's hard to see a change of position alone remedying that. By his current standards, he'd stink the place out at right-midfield too.Are there any inklings of trouble in his private life? His form is so far below that at the start of last season that it's hard to believe all's well with him behind the scenes.

Sure. I was just pointing it out to anyone that read the quote without opening the link, so that people didn't think it was one of his recent litany of deluded meanderings.

That article's 8 1/2 years old. So he's always been deluded.

If Carra's almost permanently on the right, we wouldn't know if Skrtel could play there. He's right-footed though, so it shouldn't be a problem. I seem to remember him playing right when paired with Sami, notably at Old Trafford for the 4-1. In summary, I don't think this is an issue. As an aside, I don't think Carra's as finished as some do. But his hoofing is annoying and costs us and his lack of pace mean we can't keep a high line. The latter isn't such a problem for the current manager though. He's no intention of squeezing play forward.

The Macedonian Robbie Fowler?

It needs to be filed as a baseless rumour, but you don't know that there's nothing to it. That's a little bit weak. I guess it depends which rumours one's prepared, or wants to believe. But I know I'm not above this either. Of course it would be a slander if it's not true. I'd certainly like to see this question asked though, as I'm sure many others would. I have my doubts too, as I would have thought that Rafa ought to have made an example of him and left him out of subsequent games, as there can be only one boss. That said, he did substitute him that game for Yossi and it's rare that he ever took a centre-half off, but not unique. Apart from giving Kelly his debut in the last few minutes when 3-1 up away to Eindhoven, this was the only game that season where Carra was substituted. In light of the claims surrounding the Boro match, some might find this more than coincidental. A couple of things I do know though. No-one before or since has ever thought it a worthwhile idea to play Sktel at right-back, but Carra has played there a lot beforehand and a number of times since, which could be viewed as odd. But then I have a lot more doubts about the rumour that has it that Torres wanted to go, as I saw direct quotes from him in late April this year saying that Rafa was the ideal manager for him. These may have been old and re-hashed though, who knows? It depends what one wants to believe.

The sad thing is we could have been in position to do this had things gone very differently in the summer. We lack pace in the wide positions to make a 4-3-3 work but Milos Krasic was available for £12m, which is a ridiculously low price for how good he is, and he's instantly become Juve's best player. Without knowing, I feel sure Masch could have been persuaded to stay had Rafa still been here. There's your ball winner straight away. So Masch, Gerrard, Aquilani for the one 3, Krasic, Torres, Kuyt/Jovanovic/Pacheco/Maxi for the other. We could have got the money from selling Riera, Babel & Nemeth and been in a way better position. But what's the point?

... I thought you said Childwall. My bad.

Purslow hitherto thought he was English?

Skrtel Shelvey Spearing