True but Rodgers had to do a lot more 'rebuilding' whereas Roy already had an experienced and settled team at his disposal.
RHC - any updates from your mate re. Coates? I'm hearing that Rodgers is quite to shift him but unsure if he means on loan or permanantly? ...
You're right Jimmy. And we could argue money all day - it's a red herring. Hodgson has worse stats than Rodgers. Doesn't matter how much either of them spent, who inherited what team ........ Hodgson had worse stats.
So money spent is a 'red herring' when it comes to comparing their respective performances? If you employed them, would you expect the same results irrespective of the capital outlay you sanctioned? Interesting theory. But yes he did have worse stats - a whole 3 points worse from 20 League games.
But I thought when Rafa got the sack it wasn't his fault, as the Yanks didn't have the cash to splash - ergo, the side was pretty average due to lack of investment?
Roy's side contained players like a younger Gerrard, Torres, Maxi, Kuyt etc. There were a lot more experienced and older players than our current side.
Look what Kenny got out of them in that first few months as well, that is the output Roy should have got the whole season. Kenny mistake was trying to change that winning formula too much. Meireles was another buy that was good for that time.
True & he did buy some garbage as well I suppose, so he could & should have done a better job. But I would argue the same about Rodgers, I think he's 'sold' a low bar for himself under the premise of 'change'. Every manager has to change their side, as invariably the jobs only became vacant because of prior poor performance, so therefore 'change' is constant within football & every manager has to deal with it & produce results in spite of it.
Hang on, how is the upcoming signing of Coutinho supposed to have helped Rodgers earn more points last year?
Signing Sturridge can also be disregarded for his start in the Premier League. So Sturridge and Coutinho cut ~£22m from his net spend. He also sent Carroll out on loan, with a possible signing at the end of it. Let's say we get at least £13m for him, now Rodgers' £40m net spend is down to £5m at most as far as his start to the league is concerned.
Is this really true? Going to the final at Wembley last year, winning all the different stages, is worth less than going out at the first round with no hope of winning the trophy? If you were in it, you surely still could have won it.
Indeed, that is what I meant. Point is that it could well be fifth is the only place with guarenteed Europa football. We won't get fifth.
Er, someone may correct me, but I don't think it works like that in the Europa. Sure I read somewhere that, unlike the CL, an extra place is created if the winners finish outside their league's qualifying places. Could be wrong though, or maybe that was just the old Uefa.
Why does this Hodgson comparison keep getting dredged up? Roy told us we should be content with being a mid-table side, something no LFC fan will ever agree with. Rodgers wants to get us back competing at the top. Whether he can do it remains to be seen, but ambition is the difference between the two, and is the crucial one. Any other comparison is meaningless.
Correct. Max teams from one country in a single European competition is four. We have the full quota in CL but only three EL spots so holders go back in without effecting three qualifiers
