You sure do have a very limited view of management and motivation. If "organisation, clarity, and discipline" were paramount then we would not need to spend millions on players with unique skill sets. Now I'm not going to give you a concentrated introduction to organisational management and team development, let alone strategic management but I can assure you that your limited scope is far more likely to bring disaster than it is to bring success. It would also appear from your 2nd paragraph that your arrogant dismissal of other approaches speaks more about your limitations than it does about others supposed shortcomings.
'Paramount' as in necessary, not sufficient. Get it? 'Whatever floats your boat' as in tolerant, not arrogant. Get it? I sure as hell won't ask you for an introduction to management or astronomy, Dave, although listening to you, it appears that you do think you are the second coming of Leonardo Da Vinci don't you... . On a second thought, I might ask you for an introduction to boil-lancing as it seems you should have legit experience in that. Now, stay out of egging my personality and get on discussing the team's performances.
Here's your starter for 10. From the little that you have tried to describe then I can be assured that I do have far more knowledge, qualifications and experience than you do when it comes to management. When you actually know anything about what you are attempting to spout then maybe you can talk with some authority. Until then you will continue to just make a fool of yourself. BTW, PARAMOUNT does not mean necessary!!
The point I was making was that teams don't always win leagues with "rock solid defences". United are where they are for many reasons but however Rodgers goes about motivating the team the simple fact is we are only 4 points off the top with 11 to play....so even with our "inability to win crapshoots" we must be doing more right than wrong wouldn't you say? I wasn't saying it's an ideal situation was I? Just that it's not impossible or even unheard of. I'm not sure what's to argue against really (although I do sense you could start an argument in an empty padded cell) but surely the fact that we've only won 1 game from a losing position is because out of 27 games we've only been in a losing position 6 times....and 2 of our 5 losses could quite easily have been at least draws given the very dodgy refereeing decisions we suffer from so frequently so the "crapshoot" analogy can be pretty quickly pulled apart.
Listen, Dave, it's not of much use for me to debate with you, as you are not talking substance, i.e. ambitions, performances, competition, tactics, choices, positions, partnerships, passing, pressing, defence, midfield and the f*cking lot. That's what's interesting to me. You can fluff it up with other same-minded posters if you like that sh*t.
I just wondered because you joined here not long after bbc606 closed down as lots of posters on here did, but didn't start posting until more recently! Most of us kept our bbc usernames, was interested as to what your's was - but you've cleared it up now PMK -
If you feel comfortable with LFC winning games like our last 2, by all means gloat about them and good for you. If you feel that that type of performance is good enough to mount a challenge for the title, God bless you as well.
I'm sure we can agree that in order to win titles, we need a BALANCE between attack and defence. Personally, I don't think we will win the league purely because our defence will continue to make costly mistakes. Therefore, we do need a good defence. On the flip side, we wouldn't be in a title challenging position without having this world class attack. So in conclusion - (shock) we need to have a solid defence and a good attack to win the league
Thanks for providing that moment of clarity, Jimmy. The corollary of your statement being: if we want LFC to harbour real title ambitions, let us wish for better defensive tactics, a tighter midfield, and better defenders.
I'd say stability in the defense has been one of our main issues. All goalkeepers will tell you that it's unsettling when the back four are constantly changing / rotated. What's the longest we've gone (game-wise) with the same back four? I honestly couldn't say.
Livtor you have made a fair amount of valid points. But you've gone about expressing them in a diabolical way. As has been said before, this board is pretty laid back and in general the poster here are very amicable in debate. You may need to tone down the attitude a little bit. No matter how strongly you feel are right, and how much of a swell guy you may be in reality, on the internet it is very easy to accidentally come across as a turd and at the moment that is how you are coming across. Let's all let bygones be bygones and just agree that our defence is superb, Allen is the key to our hopes of world domination, and that maybe Joe Cole was a phenomenal signing in hindsight.
