Squad not happy about the detail?

[growler]

I was listening to the podcast (football extra, guardian), and one of the guys was saying having spoken to some of our squad, they were feeling a little frustrated about the level of detail that Rafa went into. essentially saying that Rafa wanted to control every situation on the pitch and not allow the players to express themselves.

 

Is there any truth in this?

 

He also mentioned the body language of Torres after he scored, but that was a little silly I know because we were still chasing the game when he scored, but interesting about the first, especially given the hand gesture thing and the reason for it.

[JonShar]

I doubt anyone in our squad complains to a reporter about Rafa.

[Stevie H]

that's a ferguson planted story.

[cymrococh]

They can do what they want when they're on the pitch, what's Rafa going to do about it?

 

I bet he's talking about Robbie Keane.

Edited April 24, 2009 by Paul Caruso

[John am Rhein]

Good management is to turn the players into automata - they can 'express themselves' when they retire or join other clubs.

 

There's no such thing as too much attention to detail.

[Red]

The way Rafa' reacted at Blackburn seemed to suggest he's fine with players making their own decisions.. especially when they lead to a goal.

[John am Rhein]

The way Rafa' reacted at Blackburn seemed to suggest he's fine with players making their own decisions.. especially when they lead to a goal.

 

Nah, that was just to annoy the walrus Allardyce

[floyd]

just listened to it, and Rafa as normal gets a kicking, as normal, regardless of last weeks amnesty over the rant by the Tramp and Senistive Sam.

How would a London based reporter, Scott, who never gets out of London, know whats going on at the training ground? Our kids mate , Andy Hunter, covers Liverpool

Do we train at Cobham on Tuesdays and Fridays?

 

Just seen he's posted a follow up article

 

 

* Sport

* Football

* Rafael Benítez

 

Series: Digger

Previous | Index

Liverpool may end up paying dearly for Benítez's power

 

* Digg it

 

* Matt Scott

* The Guardian, Friday 24 April 2009

* Article history

 

Rafa Benitez

 

Liverpool manager Rafa Benítez. Photograph: Peter Byrne/PA

 

Rafael Benítez's control over the transfer policy at Liverpool this summer will extend even to negotiating the minutiae of players' wage demands.

 

Benítez, whose stifling of players' independence includes ordering from the touchline how they must take free-kicks, has been handed the sweeping new powers under the terms of the five-year contract he signed last month.

 

Although Tom Hicks said the overall budget will be dictated to Benítez by the owners, insiders say transfer talks will be entirely the manager's preserve.

 

It is a big win for Benítez, who has in the past been frustrated at the pace of negotiations. But while he has the blessing of Hicks and his co-owner, George Gillett, there are concerns within Anfield that his freedom goes too far.

 

With a pre-season tour to Hong Kong, Singapore and Thailand in July, Benítez will have little time in which to haggle fees with other clubs and thrash out terms with the players, and it is likely to lead to more expensive transactions.

 

After Rick Parry, who has previously conducted transfer business for Liverpool, leaves the club in May, there will be no one at Anfield with the experience to act as Benítez's proxy once he departs on the pre-season tour.

 

And there is a suspicion that this could lead to one of Benítez's entourage, rather than any club official, talking the transfer turkey.

Edited April 24, 2009 by floyd

[cymrococh]

'entourage' what a moron

 

I presume he means a member of the club's staff.

[muleskinner]

'entourage' what a moron

 

I presume he means a member of the club's staff.

 

He means one of the big gang of Rafa's Spanish mates who sit around all day drinking San Miguel and eating tapas in the Spanish themed bar he's had built at Melwood awaiting details of their next mission to undermine English football.

[Cunny]

listened to that coming into work this morning. I like that podcast and have no problem with a bit of reasoned criticism of Liverpool but that was laughable.

 

Proof that the players are annoyed with Rafa is that Torres didn't celebrate his goals against Arsenal. WTF!!!

Not mentioning the fact they were equalisers and we needed to win, so wanted to get play started as quickly as possible.

[McBain]

Hire Kevin Keegan

 

"who do i mark at corners boss?"

 

"I dunno just GET INTO EM!!!"

[Marvin]

Good management is to turn the players into automata - they can 'express themselves' when they retire or join other clubs.

 

There's no such thing as too much attention to detail.

 

 

That would make a great banner

[Chili Palmer]

so the guesture against Blackburn wasn't showing disrespect to Fat Sam, it was showing disrespect to our own players? Ferguson was right. Rafas beyond the pale.

[MarkD]

Feeling that the world is back in it's place. A journalist is again advertising their 'reading of body language expertise'. Or more accuratelt, their ability to read negative vibes from the players and staff at Anfield via the power of their television.

[drdooom]

I'm told Rafa is even controlling the players body language, telling them to send subtle physical hints back to himself that they don't like not being able to express themself. This blatant disrespect by Rafa of Rafa is beyond the pale.

[jimmylibel]

I was listening to the podcast (football extra, guardian), and one of the guys was saying having spoken to some of our squad, they were feeling a little frustrated about the level of detail that Rafa went into. essentially saying that Rafa wanted to control every situation on the pitch and not allow the players to express themselves.

 

Is there any truth in this?

 

He also mentioned the body language of Torres after he scored, but that was a little silly I know because we were still chasing the game when he scored, but interesting about the first, especially given the hand gesture thing and the reason for it.

 

What do you mean by that? I think the hand gesture thing must have passed me by.

[smithdown]

He'll be inclubung his brother or his son to negotiate on behalf of the players he signs (on a percentage) or have them pocketing millions of the club's cash as 'scouts' if he carries on down this road.

Edited April 24, 2009 by smithdown

[Sir Tokyo Sexwale]

body language

[JRC]

I don't subscribe to the usual prejudice that the Guardian and Mirror are by nature and history Manc papers (OK they ARE by History, but you know what I mean), but it struck me that of all the print media, they were the ones that least criticised SAF and SS over the hand gesture claims - The Fiver weighed in, true, but that is quite deliberately the satirical maverick in the Guardian stable; Mainstream writers such as Lawton at the Independant, Samuel at the Mail, staff at the Times and Telegraph all explicitly ridiculed and condemned the attack, whilst the Guardian and the Mirror were more ambivalent, dropping into 'reporting' mode without comment. Maybe I missed the editorial stuff - but did Reade even have a pop? Maybe he will this weekend.

[Spiblish]

I don't subscribe to the usual prejudice that the Guardian and Mirror are by nature and history Manc papers (OK they ARE by History, but you know what I mean), but it struck me that of all the print media, they were the ones that least criticised SAF and SS over the hand gesture claims - The Fiver weighed in, true, but that is quite deliberately the satirical maverick in the Guardian stable; Mainstream writers such as Lawton at the Independant, Samuel at the Mail, staff at the Times and Telegraph all explicitly ridiculed and condemned the attack, whilst the Guardian and the Mirror were more ambivalent, dropping into 'reporting' mode without comment. Maybe I missed the editorial stuff - but did Reade even have a pop? Maybe he will this weekend.

I disagree - last Staurdays guardian was very clear on what a joke and set up it was and had the true explanation for the "gesture".

[DanielS]

The Guardian is dreadful for football. They clearly don't have a budget for their writing staff that comes even close to approaching the same one that the tabloids or major broadsheets have and it shows. Even online they'e limited. If the GU site wasn't so popular for other things the football site wouldn't get a tenth of the current traffic it does because there is simply nothing constructive or enlightening on it.

They do okay with the foreign stuff mostly because of the individuals involved in those articles, but for the mainstream English football side of things they're strictly "conference" standard.

Matt Scott is a perfect example of their overall thinking. He has a go at everybody in the Premier League regardless and very often focuses on the negative side of stories just to generate controversy. He's not funny, very unimaginative and lacks a disinct writing style. He'd never get a job on a paper that relied on its football reporting for generating interest.

[Spiblish]

The Guardian is dreadful for football. They clearly don't have a budget for their writing staff that comes even close to approaching the same one that the tabloids or major broadsheets have and it shows. Even online they'e limited. If the GU site wasn't so popular for other things the football site wouldn't get a tenth of the current traffic it does because there is simply nothing constructive or enlightening on it.

They do okay with the foreign stuff mostly because of the individuals involved in those articles, but for the mainstream English football side of things they're strictly "conference" standard.

Matt Scott is a perfect example of their overall thinking. He has a go at everybody in the Premier League regardless and very often focuses on the negative side of stories just to generate controversy. He's not funny, very unimaginative and lacks a disinct writing style. He'd never get a job on a paper that relied on its football reporting for generating interest.

I don't agree - there are some very good writers on the Guardian and some very good articles - they get better interviews from players than most (Carra and Torres in recent months).

 

I do agree re Matt Scott though.

[DanielS]

I don't agree - there are some very good writers on the Guardian and some very good articles - they get better interviews from players than most (Carra and Torres in recent months).

 

I do agree re Matt Scott though.

 

Like who?

[Spiblish]

Like who?

Personally I like Paul Hayward, James Richardson(ok it is a podcast but it is good), Dominic Fifield, don't mind Paul Wilson(Observer but same thing), McCarra and Conn are ok and I still enjoy David Lacey's column.