No doubt get shot down for this

[KeelansGlove 0]

Don''t take it personally Morty is a robot programmed to only spout crap, ironically unable to come up with any positive suggestions of how things could be improved because everything couldn''t be more wonderful.

Been drinking the Koolaid far too long.

He can be belligerent and abusive though.

[Indy 3,298]

I am impressed wih Brendan Rodgers, he has turned Liverpool into a great footballing team and he has the vision to tinker with the team and get results! I like the way he takes notes during the game and changes his side to combat each team he''s up against.

 

He appears to know all his players strength''s their weakness and how to play each plaer. He''s not scared to play the youth players and gives them a good run to gain experience.

 

Hughton is the oposite of Rodgers, he''s not go a clue which his best team is, how to set them up or who to play in certain games like Stoke & Southampton. I''m not manager but for the first 20 mintues against Stoke we humped the ball forward and played them at their own game with Wes and Hooper on the pitch, terrible. Then we go to Southampton and play 9 defenders allowing the likes of Lallana and co all the freedon of the pitch and time to pick passes, a game made for Wes in my book.

 

Hughton is what he is and has brought players in Hooper, RVW, etc.who don''t suite his system so the question is why? This season might just be one where we stay up by the skin of our teath but we need a vast improvement on the pitch and I want to go to games where I am excited to go again, where I look forward to going to FCR.

[GJP 79]

[quote user="Indy"]

I am impressed wih Brendan Rodgers, he has turned Liverpool into a great footballing team and he has the vision to tinker with the team and get results! I like the way he takes notes during the game and changes his side to combat each team he''s up against.

 

He appears to know all his players strength''s their weakness and how to play each plaer. He''s not scared to play the youth players and gives them a good run to gain experience.

 

[/quote]

In other words, he tells them to pass to Suarez.

[morty 0]

[quote user="KeelansGlove"]Don''t take it personally Morty is a robot programmed to only spout crap, ironically unable to come up with any positive suggestions of how things could be improved because everything couldn''t be more wonderful.

Been drinking the Koolaid far too long.

He can be belligerent and abusive though.[/quote]You''re a knob[Y]

[hogesar 9,667]

[quote user="morty"][quote user="hogesar"]I understand that Morty, but then if you''re going to use that route - i''d simply argue the games where we played two up front - Elmander and Hooper, for example - would instead have been more logical for Hoolahan to play just behind one of them.

We had CM''s out injured - and i don''t think Elmanders defensive qualities are particularly impressive over Hoolahans.[/quote]I think we proved that two up front doesn''t really work for us.Even the fact that we are discussing it shows how much accommodation is required to shoehorn Wes in.[/quote]

I genuinely don''t think that''s the case re Wes (4-4-2, however, i do agree).

I think he can play fine in a 4-4-1-1. He''s even done a job on the left / right which although is far from his best position our very unproductive left wing means he hardly does anything worse.

Then there''s the diamond. He can even replace Howson as a midfield 3, at home at least, in my opinion.

The reality is our squad isn''t good enough to have not played a game-changer like Hoolahan on so many occasions, particularly at home. People point at his goal and assist ratio but it''s still better than anyone else we''ve played in the hole this season.

I just think that for all his shortcomings, of which there are several, he has a uniqueness about his play and style which allows others to get forward, he has the ability to link our midfield and strike force like no one else - and how isolated has our strikers looked, for the majority of the season?

You''ve been one of the more vocal in claiming our squad is only just good enough to stay up. Well if that''s the case, someone like Hoolahan (where a team better than us in Villa wanted him - shows something) should be involved more often than not.

[morty 0]

[quote user="hogesar"][quote user="morty"][quote user="hogesar"]I understand that Morty, but then if you''re going to use that route - i''d simply argue the games where we played two up front - Elmander and Hooper, for example - would instead have been more logical for Hoolahan to play just behind one of them.

We had CM''s out injured - and i don''t think Elmanders defensive qualities are particularly impressive over Hoolahans.[/quote]I think we proved that two up front doesn''t really work for us.Even the fact that we are discussing it shows how much accommodation is required to shoehorn Wes in.[/quote]

I genuinely don''t think that''s the case re Wes (4-4-2, however, i do agree).

I think he can play fine in a 4-4-1-1. He''s even done a job on the left / right which although is far from his best position our very unproductive left wing means he hardly does anything worse.

Then there''s the diamond. He can even replace Howson as a midfield 3, at home at least, in my opinion.

The reality is our squad isn''t good enough to have not played a game-changer like Hoolahan on so many occasions, particularly at home. People point at his goal and assist ratio but it''s still better than anyone else we''ve played in the hole this season.

I just think that for all his shortcomings, of which there are several, he has a uniqueness about his play and style which allows others to get forward, he has the ability to link our midfield and strike force like no one else - and how isolated has our strikers looked, for the majority of the season?

You''ve been one of the more vocal in claiming our squad is only just good enough to stay up. Well if that''s the case, someone like Hoolahan (where a team better than us in Villa wanted him - shows something) should be involved more often than not.

[/quote]I don''t disagree with any of that, but his shortcomings still mean we struggle to accommodate him. And I don''t think we have looked massively better when we have played him, for me he still has one great game in three.And I still believe that Lambert only made a bid just to be a bit of a d1ck.

[Herman 9,760]

I get the feeling that it was purely done to unsettle the squad, and it may have worked. Clever manoeuvre by Lambert?

[Waveney Canary 0]

[quote user="Herman "]I get the feeling that it was purely done to unsettle the squad, and it may have worked. Clever manoeuvre by Lambert?[/quote]

He is a genius my irrititable plastic friend. I have been saying for years

[Clint 221]

Am I missing something Morty? Wes didn''t play on Saturday but yet Southampton played through our midfield like it wasn''t there.

Where is all this steel that a team without Wes provides? Your argument for not playing him would be valid if we looked a softer touch with him in the team but we don''t look any weaker defensively with or without him. We always look like a soft touch away from home.

But we do look more cohesive going forward with Wes in the team...

[morty 0]

[quote user="Clint"]Am I missing something Morty? Wes didn''t play on Saturday but yet Southampton played through our midfield like it wasn''t there.

Where is all this steel that a team without Wes provides? Your argument for not playing him would be valid if we looked a softer touch with him in the team but we don''t look any weaker defensively with or without him. We always look like a soft touch away from home.

But we do look more cohesive going forward with Wes in the team...[/quote]Thats not what I said, was it? There were clearly other reasons for our poor performance, the obvious first on on the list being that we are shart away from home.