But Rodgers style is new and shiny, like a new i-phone! , and as such it must be better on that basis alone. A new direction means taking a huge, ****ing risk on an unknown quantity who has never managed a club with big expectations, and expecting him to do it on a shoestring, against established clubs who can attract better players and pay massive wages! Kenny was a 'dinosaur' who had us playing some of the best stuff in years and galvanised the whole club.
With all respect due, the players ran around like headless chickens under Kenny. And the money, no matter how we got it, or what the net spend was, was WASTED. He had to go.
With all due respect those 'headless chickens' dominated most of the opposition, including some of the top sides for a large part of the season, until belief ran out(which sadly seems to be continuing). As for the signings well yes some were a success and others were not so much. Most posters here last season were judging the players has mostly a success Hendo, Enrique, Carrol(at the end), yet now a new manager has come in with new ideas history seems to have been re-written to some extent!
We dominated but we didn't win. Ie we dominated until the final third; clueless, unimaginative, frustrating. Belief comes from a manager who can get his players prepared properly - to win. The successful signings were Suarez and Bellamy. The mixed signings Enrique, Doni, Henderson. The failures - Downing (although I'd love to be proven wrong) and Carroll. At the end of the day, no matter how much we like or admire these players because they play for the club we love, there is no getting around the fact that the money could and should have been spent better. Kenny and Comolli spurned our golden ticket, accept it.
So the ones running around like headless chickens were the strikers? You cannot have it both ways, we dominated most of the games in both possession and chances, unfortunately we failed to put our chances away which became a crux around our necks. Sadly as the season wore on and the luck never changed the belief of the players drained completely away. Suarez and Bellamy were 2 of our better players but the ability to dominate teams was coming from all areas, hardly the attributes of 'headless chicken'. Failure to put the ball away was the only thing wrong last season, when you consider we played with a bunch of new players this is actually a good achievement. Not sure what else Kenny could have done to keep belief going, surely if it was that easy Rodgers would have been able to turn that aspect around by now?
Pretty much everyone in the final third. We dominated by keeping the ball in our own half and the middle of the pitch. Teams sat back and we had no idea how to crack them open. This is the difference between us and the top sides, like it or not. Luck doesn't exist - chance however does, and in fairness we didn't get much of either, regardless of what they're called. But bad luck could easily be called bad finishing and bad play to set up bad opportunities to score. No one is saying it's going to be easy, but Rodgers already looks a lot more savvy in the transfer market - We may as well have burned last year's funds for the good it would have done.
Perhaps you are being a little naive in your thinking here. Last seasons side did manage to dominate in the box - 33 woodwork strikes stand testimony to that. This season's team have to up their game to match or better that. It is yet to be seen if Rodgers can do what you expect or his side achieve the wins that last season's side failed to do.
I can see the argument, I'm just sick of the excuses. If you want to call it something, call it poor finishing. I'm as sick of it as any of us.
So I am still trying to figure out who exactly was running around like 'headless chickens'?????? We cracked plenty of teams open, so much so that we created more chances than we probably ever have in a season!!! I do agree that bad luck is an element of bad choices, bad finishing, BUT we still had some terrible luck last season and anyone dismissing that is buying into the idea that you make your own luck which whilst is partly true, occassionaly you get anomalies that fall outside the mean range. I suppose if there is no luck then Chelsea deserved to win the Champs League on merit? As for BR's signings, well its incredibly premature to judge any of them, we saw last season the fluctuation in opinions on Kenny's signings. Also the Assaidi and Yesil signings can be described as savvy, however another way of describing it is low risk or safe, perhaps enforced by the budget but never the less are hardly going to be criticised if they fail. Sahin is on loan so unless he joins permanently then not sure he should be judged at all, which leaves Borinin and Allen and most would at this stage say 50% success rate!
Okay, fair enough. Downing - had no idea when to beat a man, when to cross, when to pass. Made good crosses to no one quite often. Henderson - looked frightened when he got higher than the centre circle. Always turned and went backwards. Carroll - for all the talk of him being 'plan B' he was very rarely in the box. Suarez - dangerous at all times but was clearly not an out and out striker. Those four were our main wingers and strikers last season. I don't think luck exists, personally. It's a human concept used to explain situations that have come from a combination of other factors that at first seem unexplainable. Chelsea could be said to have won through 'chance' - probability. They are frequent semi finalists, they have spent a lot of money - eventually it will pay off. Agreed it is very early. At least BR is drawing on a wide base to sign players from.
