Muppeteer. I don't think thats the only thing NESV have over the Glazers.You call them FSG,However,that brings me to the point I was initially going to make. FSG(or Fenway Sports Group) is the marketing wing of the NESV empire.Marketing being the key word.FSG revamped the Boston Redsox brand ie they milked a very big cash cow.In other words,The Redsox had untapped marketing potential.John Henry speaks about parallells between Liverpool and the Redsox. Is there any way and this is just a hunch that this is one of the things he may be refering to.In my opinion it is.John Henry revamped with the help of FSG the Boston Redsox brand.Some of the reports I've read are incredibly fascinating.The stadium itself although its reported to be pricey is customer driven. Even though I still believe that Hicks and Gillett were a bunch of crooks and chancers.I believe they accidently due to their greed pointed Liverpool in the right direction in terms of commercialism.Man United fans should know about aggressive marketing in English football as it was they that invented it.They produced the blue-print that at the moment only Real Madrid have copied.I'm a business graduate and even though I despise Manchester United with a passion.I have to admire(from a business prospective) this approach.Its the right idea,if you have a global brand....sell it. All the global brands do it,Nike,Coca Cola,Sony.There is nothing wrong whatsoever in doing so in my opinion and thats why I'm a fan of aggressive marketing. Hicks and Gillett attempted to follow that approach,they however didn't have the capital to finish the job.They however laid the foundations for a person/persons who have got the means and the capital to finish the job off.And thats where FSG come in.Its their area of expertise.If they can do what they did with the Redsox with Liverpool.In the long term,Liverpool won't cost them a lot of money......They will make a fortune out of Liverpool. Thats why I believe short term,they are going to back the manager with a decent level of investment before the club is successful...as soon as the club is successful their investment will dry up.However,the club by then will be self sufficient.....and it won't matter an inch that the owners aren't putting money in. Have Liverpool got the resources to outstrip Man United commercially.Well its going to take one thing and this will cost some money,and I reckon JWH has identified this....and thats the stadium. However when thats completed and due to Liverpools untapped brand....I can see them taking a big slice of the pie that Man United and Real Madrid have had to themselves for a long long time. Will City and Chelsea be able to compete with this.........not a chance in hell.Arsenal have an outside chance due to their decent financial management.
@KPR For once I actually agree with everything you've said! The only thing I think you've got wrong is that Real were the first ones to truly exploit commercialism in football, through their "Galacticos" branding. That's why they were able to overtake United so decisively at the top of the 'Money League' in 2004/05. That's also, imo, one of the reasons the Glazers bought United, and used so much debt to do it. They saw the untapped commercial potential in the United brand, and have successfully exploited it - commercial and broadcasting revenue has almost doubled and operating profits have more than doubled in the five years since they took over. Like you said, H&G tried to do the same thing at Liverpool, but their persistent failure to get the stadium expanded / new one built and to secure good sponsorship deals meant they couldn't invest or support their debts. If NESV / FSG can get Liverpool's capacity up to the level of Arsenal's, and exploit the brand like Real and United have done, then you'll easily get back into the top 4, and probably the top two or three. That said, I still expect Liverpool's recovery to be over the long term rather than the short term, and still expect the focus on NESV in the short term to be on building revenue and the Liverpool brand and getting back into the CL, rather than spending vast amounts trying to win the title in the next couple of years. But I guess we'll see what happens this summer.
bluddy hell swarbs its been over 20 years since we won the league.that is long term.long enough for me anyway.
Swarbs. I agree with everything you've said.......except one thing. The length of time that it will take. Good management can speed up the process. Before you say the last time Kenny won the title he won it by spending Jack Walkers millions.Isn't that how most managers win titles? Alex Ferguson didn't exactly spend ã2.50 to win his titles. Although I can't see Kenny spending ã230 million in 18 months like Man City under Hughes and Mancini,who are experts at making pointless signings. You may say everything Ferguson spent was generated by the club,that is correct.I'm not disputing that. My point is that he did spend...but it takes more than spending.....It also takes good management. This may seem like I'm repeating myself,but I believe Andy Carroll will turn out to be an asset.You can't judge him on one game,thats unfair.Berbatov was rubbish for two whole seasons,so was Nani,Anderson has yet to impress consistently.I'm mentioning these as they were big signings.Thats the only reason.
It can be sped up, and you may well get back to the top quicker than I expect, but remember that it took SAF over six years to win his first PL, and Dalglish took three years at Blackburn, despite having the best financial resources in the division. Arsene Wenger managed to do it in two years, but he relied heavily on the solid back line that he inherited and the genius of Bergkamp, and Mourinho did it in his first year but he inherited a squad full of talent, had unlimited financial resources, and faced no real challenge from United and Arsenal who were both rebuilding. And right now the PL is more competitive than it was back then, in terms of the number of clubs with the financial resources to compete for the top players and the amount you have to bid if you want the best. Man City are an excellent example - they have spent loads and bought some very good players in Kompany, Tevez, Silva and Toure, but are still falling short of the top two. As for Andy Carroll, we'll just have to wait and see. He has everything he needs to be a success, but then so did Kleberson and Veron at United, Shevchenko at Chelsea and Robbie Keane at Liverpool. A lot depends on whether Dalglish thinks he can adapt Carroll to the team, or whether he is willing to adapt the team to Carroll's strengths. If you look at a lot of the big money flops, particularly for the top clubs, they are almost wholly dependent on how they adapt, as managers are generally unwilling to adapt the team to them. It's taken Berbatov and Nani two seasons to adapt to playing for United, and Anderson is still learning, and not helped by three serious injuries in three seasons. Either way, you can't really judge Carroll until next season, when he's had a full pre season to train with the squad and work on tactics, rather than just preparing for the next match and staying sharp.
Swarbs. I agree with your points to a large degree but again you seem to be tripping over your feet. No teams build themselves around their target man,they build it around the other striker.Liverpools team will be built around Luis Suarez. I do agree with your point that it will take until next season before Liverpool fans see the Suarez/Carroll combination at full effect.How do you build a system to get the best out of Andy Carroll.....thats simple....anf it'll be rectified in the summer.Its signing wingers.As for Robbie Keane,The reason he failed was because Liverpool expected him to play the ''Rooney role'' dropping off to feed Torres.However the problem was Robbie Keane(although a decent striker)He's Irish and I don't have a bad word really to say about him...is that he doesn't have Rooneys energy levels. Carroll and Suarez....now thats a different kettle of fish.....Not only does Suarez have bags of skill.....he's a bundle of energy.I can see him thriving on Andy Carrolls flick ons and vice versa.
we seem to hold our own agains man u,chelsea and arsenal,but when we play teams that we should be beating it tends to go tits up,so if we went into each game with the same mental attitude as we do against the 3 i mentioned above well we should not have a problem. if it takes kenny to win the prem in 3 years as he did when he took over blackburn well yes i could put up with that as long as next seaon we finish 3rd then 2nd and then the big one ha ha
Crazyhorse. I would be happy with that.He has repeated what he did in 1993,He has signed the 2011 version of Alan Shearer.This may sound foolish to some people,but I do see some similaritys between Andy Carroll and a young Alan Shearer.
i no what you are saying regarding shearer but if that was true i think every team will be ****ting in there shorts. there is no doubt the guy has talent(why do you think the wums on here are slagging us off for paying ã35 million) with carroll and suarez next season being fit,well it is or could be frightning for other teams. kenny will sort it out dont worry about that,people say he has been out the game to long,kenny has a football brain and it is one thing that never leaves you. the only problem i see is we won,t be in europe next season so buying top class players might be a problem.but if we had a choice being in the europa league and not at all i would myself go with not at all. liverpool is a big name in the world of football and i think we would not have a problem signing players. with hopefully kenny at the helm that should not be a problem(if the funds are available). if torres had stayed for another lets say 2 years and gelled with suarez well who knows. for torres to say he wanted champs league football for one off the reasons why he left that numbs me.how often did athletico madrid get into the champs league after there domestic season?
Surely you see my point about the strikers, given that you've just stated you'll need wingers to get the best out of Carroll, and flicked on through balls to get the best out of Suarez? It's very difficult for a team to play effectively both down the wings and through the centre - it's normal to focus on one avenue with the other more of a backup. For example Utd at the moment mainly play down the wings and Arsenal mainly play through the centre. You tend to need a lot of resources to build a team that can effectively do both, and even then it may not work. Scolari managed it at Chelsea with overlapping fullbacks and an attacking midfield, but it succeeded for about ten games and then everyone worked out how to counter it and the team imploded. I'm not saying it can't be done, and I'm sure Suarez and Carroll will make a great partnership, but ultimately you're probably going to have to play to one of their strengths, and the other one may struggle for goals and have to adapt their game as a result. Which could be a big test for Andy Carroll given his relative lack of experience so far.
I think to be a truly great team you need to play down the wings and through the centre. It's the only way to ensure the defence gets opened up. When we had the likes of Riera, Alonso, Mascherano, Torres etc.. in the centre we played mainly through the middle - but Riera offered the much needed width, whilst he wasn't prolific he certainly helped. We need someone like Ashley young to play on the wings, and that way our fullbacks can defend more and in turn we end up having a better defence and better attack - rather than having the fullbacks take up the slack from Maxi or Kuyt on the wings because they aren't natural widemen.
Ze Liverbird. Finally someone talking some sense.Swarbs has again tripped himself up. Liverpool have mastered playing through the middle.Thats the reason why they have a decent record against Man United,Chelsea and Arsenal and Spurs. However the tighter the game,the more width you need.Thats what is called variation.Some people call it a plan B. Its also something Liverpool haven't as of yet mastered,but I believe 100% Kenny will rectify in the summer.If Kenny and I firmly believe he will,signs players,he will sign wingers,a left back and a commanding centre back.If he signs a commanding centre back,there will not be a need to sign a defensive ball winning midfielder. He didn't the last time.Although Steve McMahon could win tackles,he was dangerous at the other end too.So was Souness.Both chipped in with their fair share of goals. It doesn't matter how good the midfield is,if it doens't allow itself breathing space......in other words an outlet,what provides an outlet.?Wingers. Swarbs mentioned Man Uniteds ability to play from wide and through the middle.Its just my opinion,but if you force United to play through the middle you have won 75% of the battle.They don't have the most mobile central midfielders.Their strength comes from the flanks. He is right in saying that it depends on the particular game on whether Andy Carroll should play in.But I'm still convinced that wingers and getting used to how Suarez operates and watching his overall movement will bring the best out of him.
It may be a valid concern, too early to tell, but it's not really a big issue at this moment in time is it? We're not gonna be in Europe, so we need to do well domestically, which Kenny seems to be doing all things considered. As for him picking Kuyt every game, that doesn't tell us anything about Kenny's management, it tells us that the squad is so **** there is no-one better than Dirk to come in. Even when Suarez and Carroll are both playing, Dirk will keep his place because his only competition is Cole and Maxi.
I agree that to be a truly great team you need to be able to do both, but there will always be a preference for one or the other. One will be plan A and the other will be plan B, if the first one doesn't work. That's one of the main problems Arsenal seem to have - when it doesn't work through the middle they can't switch it to the wings. Likewise with United at the moment - when the wingers aren't having joy we struggle to play coherently through the centre. How have I "tripped myself up"? As usual, you aren't making any sense. Which is exactly what I said - "it's normal to focus on one avenue with the other more of a backup". How can I be tripping myself up when you are copying my argument? When did I mention United's ability to play from wide and through the middle? If you actually read what I said, I said United play mainly down the wings and Arsenal play mainly through the middle. The failure of United to play well through the middle, and Arsenal to play well down the wings, is the main reason both teams have been so unconvincing this season. If Liverpool can master both routes, then they will be one of the top teams in the division. But it's harder than it looks, and is not just a case of buying wingers. If you put two wide men and two full backs in with two strikers, you leave yourself with only two central midfielders, and they have to be absolutely top class midfielders to play well through the centre. With Gerrard struggling this season, it begs the question of which two midfielders you would play? Even Chelsea and Arsenal, who have had an abundance of talent in midfield over the last few seasons, have usually played with three or four in the centre in order to play effectively through the middle.
Swarbs. Again you are tripping yourself up. Playing with wingers is more effective in most cases is better than playing with a solid midfield trio.In an attacking and defensive situation. I'll tell you why and I'll use an example. What is a wingers primary job.? To attack the opposing full-back. When a team plays narrow its easy to exploit,and its easy to defend against.How? Its easy to defend against when the opposition put their entire defence almost on the halfway line. Thats what Scolaris biggest failure against the better teams,why? Their full-backs were caught out of position. I do agree that you can vary your line-up to suit the opposition.Man United and Chelsea do it,by playing a 4-3-3 that can switch into a 4-5-1 when defending. But why can they do it,because they use width. Man United did it with Nani and Valencia supporting Rooney in a 4-3-3.But when attacking Rooney was clever enough to go deep and follow the play and arrive late.The midfielders used the wingers as an outlet.Its far too easy to congest the midfield. When using 3 midielders you still have an outlet with wingers.But it may seem like you've got only one forward when in fact you've got 3.However it does depend on the forwards that you are using. In Man Uniteds case,Berbatov wouldn't be much use,as he's lazy as sin.In Liverpools case Andy Carroll wouldn't be the answer as he's more suited to a 4-4-2. If Liverpool are going to go with the midfield 3 option,it would have to be Suarez.He can also pop out on the wing and let the winger move centrally. Man United did it to perfection with Rooney,Ronaldo and Tevez. As for your last point about the midfielders have to be top class to play through the centre.Not necessarily if you have a player that can hold the ball up. Arsenal don't have one,Man United and chelsea do.The more players you have arriving in the box ensures you have more chances of scoring.No matter how many midfielders the opposition have.
Again, you say I'm tripping myself up, but give no explanation. You obviously have no idea how to debate properly. Particularly because you have just completely tripped yourself up. My point was that in order to get Carroll and Suarez both scoring goals in a partnership, and not just have one as a supporting striker to the other, you will need a top class midfield that can play both down the wings to suit Carroll and through the centre to suit Suarez. You have just admitted that playing with wingers is designed to focus the attacks on an opposition's fullbacks (and hence down the wings) and that if Liverpool buy wingers they would need to switch to a midfield three and drop Carroll in order to both go down the wings and through the centre effectively. Thus completely proving my point. Well done
Why would they drop Carroll and switch to a midfield 3 if they were playing with wingers.The use of 3 midfielders in most cases compensates for the lack of wingers thats unless the team is playing with a 4-3-3.If the side is playing with a 4-4-2.Then Andy Carroll wouldn't be dropped. However. There is something you seem to have forgotten.Not all wingers are like Nani that can't tackle to save their lives and just attack,there is two types of wingers,you have the speed merchant who will be up and down more often than Jordans knickers and then there is the solid tricky winger who may tuck in whilst defending.There is examples.Freddie Ljunberg,Ray Parlour,David Beckham.Ray Houghton,not necessarily specialised wingers as such,but do a job because of their ability to multi-task.They also allow the full-back to over-lap them whilst providing defensive cover. Another example of this and how it worked effectively was Ronnie Whelan,who although naturally right footed played on the left,and he wasn't what you would call a natural wideman.He however tucked inside to allow Alan Kennedy to over-lap him.Jimmy Case was another,He started his Liverpool career wide right,when in fact he was a central midfielder by trade.Ian Callaghan was another,he started out the right and finished inside centrally.Why could all these do so.They had the intelligence to hold their position.However they all had one other thing in common,and that was their ability to cross. However. Thats why there is also a variation between players and a variation between systems.And there is certainly nothing wrong with interchangeability within games themselves.
