The Committee
- Thread starter DirtyFrank
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Agree DF - some of Rodgers's picks were questionable but did the committee argue hard enough against it? Not sure.
What I find concerning is from the extracts the other day, Rodgers would accept a committee signing (Firmino) just as long as it didn't impact signing his own man (Benteke). What a ridiculous way to go about signings - absolutely no cohesion.
EDIT: - we had some domestic scouts not too long ago who were sacked. Mel Johnson was one of them. Perhaps he was the one who was siding with Rodgers re. PL targets?
What I find concerning is from the extracts the other day, Rodgers would accept a committee signing (Firmino) just as long as it didn't impact signing his own man (Benteke). What a ridiculous way to go about signings - absolutely no cohesion.
EDIT: - we had some domestic scouts not too long ago who were sacked. Mel Johnson was one of them. Perhaps he was the one who was siding with Rodgers re. PL targets?
But all in all, it's telling that a high profile manager is willing to come to Liverpool and work with the existing set up after the English media would have you believe that this is a flawed concept and isn't used anywhere in the world.
This is quite astonishing if true. Would explain why the vast majority of our buys have been total write-offs.
Rodgers LED the committee. They were supposed to be there to discuss potential buys but the committee (the majority ) surely would be stupid to buy a player not endorsed by Rodgers.
I can see such a committee only helping if the manager has the most say and that the statistics man (Michael Edwards) takes a back seat. Apparently the numbers guy was dictating recruitment, no wonder we were ****ed
Accountants should be invisible and keep their opinions to themselves, don't you agree , Astro ?
Last edited:
I think one reason why this went badly for us is the complete opposite players each person signed.
The committee signed young, skilful players while Rodgers seemed to have signed British or average players.
Lallana, Lovren, Allen have been duds and the first two players were meant to be the wholes who would hit the ground running, now there just gonna rot in the club because no one else will buy them.
Communication will need to used when we have our new manager, discuss how you want approach a football game and the players who will suit that and then find the players with that information. Don't say say 'it's either e'eto or Baloteli, have fun mate' and think that'll work.
The committee signed young, skilful players while Rodgers seemed to have signed British or average players.
Lallana, Lovren, Allen have been duds and the first two players were meant to be the wholes who would hit the ground running, now there just gonna rot in the club because no one else will buy them.
Communication will need to used when we have our new manager, discuss how you want approach a football game and the players who will suit that and then find the players with that information. Don't say say 'it's either e'eto or Baloteli, have fun mate' and think that'll work.
Pretty much this - not all of Rodgers signings are rubbishy. Gomez, Clyne and Ings are promising.
No cohesion in the strategy really - everyone at odds with each other.
I feel committee are good and that Klopp will work better with them. However, if there is no improvement over next 2-3 Windows, then replace them with new scouts.
S
Super G Ted'inho
Guest
If all this is true then our club is an shambles. Agreeing to compromises that were damaging the club FFS 
If the manager and committee members couldn't agree on targets then something should have changed. And I don't see why Brod should take most of the flack here, the club appointed him and let it happen.
People are siding with the committee rather than Brod because of the names being associated to each party. That to me is irrelevant, the lack of cohesion in working towards a joint target is the true ****ing disgrace.
If the manager and committee members couldn't agree on targets then something should have changed. And I don't see why Brod should take most of the flack here, the club appointed him and let it happen.
People are siding with the committee rather than Brod because of the names being associated to each party. That to me is irrelevant, the lack of cohesion in working towards a joint target is the true ****ing disgrace.
If all this is true then our club is an shambles. Agreeing to compromises that were damaging the club FFS
If the manager and committee members couldn't agree on targets then something should have changed. And I don't see why Brod should take most of the flack here, the club appointed him and let it happen.
People are siding with the committee rather than Brod because of the names being associated to each party. That to me is irrelevant, the lack of cohesion in working towards a joint target is the true ****ing disgrace.
Fair point - ultimately it's FSG's fault for allowing to compromise on their original plan and allowing this to continue.
Read this today:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...s-laptop-guru-did-number-Brendan-Rodgers.html
Now it's the Daily Mail to begin with and I don't know much about Neil Ashton and his background.
If true, when does reporting back to FSG on a daily basis rather than the manager become managerial oversight rather than support. A manager could easily feel that this person is not there to help them but report on them.
Also cements my worry that main players in the transfers are dominated by people who are experts at anything but football, in this case IT and stats. Shouldn't thus guy just be presenting his stuff to either the manager or a DOF?
Anyway more suggestion that a lot of our policy I'd driven by guys that have a completely different view to players than a manager would.
Everything I've read about Klopp including interviews suggests while tactics and analysis play a part in his approach this stuff will be a turn off to him.
Expect Edwards to have a black eye in the first two weeks lol...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...s-laptop-guru-did-number-Brendan-Rodgers.html
Now it's the Daily Mail to begin with and I don't know much about Neil Ashton and his background.
If true, when does reporting back to FSG on a daily basis rather than the manager become managerial oversight rather than support. A manager could easily feel that this person is not there to help them but report on them.
Also cements my worry that main players in the transfers are dominated by people who are experts at anything but football, in this case IT and stats. Shouldn't thus guy just be presenting his stuff to either the manager or a DOF?
Anyway more suggestion that a lot of our policy I'd driven by guys that have a completely different view to players than a manager would.
Everything I've read about Klopp including interviews suggests while tactics and analysis play a part in his approach this stuff will be a turn off to him.
Expect Edwards to have a black eye in the first two weeks lol...
Edwards, Gordon and Ayre should have no say in which players are targeted, Edwards is a stats freak(moneyball/gambling), Gordon is an expert on baseball not football and Ayre is a supporter working for the club(and we all know how much supporters opinions vary on players. 
)
)
Complete hatchet job really - every club has analysts, Man City have around 10 on the books.
This article demeans analysts and the importance of using stats when recruiting.
A successful system will use stats as an aid.
This article demeans analysts and the importance of using stats when recruiting.
A successful system will use stats as an aid.
As PMK says, Ayre Gordon and Edwards should not have much power really - Ayre and Gordon should make sure finances are in place, and Edwards should use his stats and analysis to provide back up or evidence for players identified by the scouts.
Using stats as an aid is one thing but using the stats gatherer to vote on possible transfer targets shouldn't happen, he should have an opinion on a chosen target but not be part of the choosing. Process.
Given the history of FSG . Who are they going to tend to go to. The stats guys or the football guys in the event of a disagreement? They've always placed heavy emphasis on that stuff.
It's part of all sport in global games and necessary to build a system for scouting over such a large area but what framework do our scouts have when they go out to watch players?
Is it, football man watches player, comes back and says the stats don't lie or if he comes back and says "nah" do the analysts accept this (being a blow to their system)
All rings of Manager asking for a player and Edwards saying "computer says no" lol
Edwards works with Fallows and Hunter, and they're football men. And Edwards has worked in professional football for 10 years as well.
As with anything - problem isn't the concept but the implementation. I highly doubt that we would allow a stats man and a computer to dictate signings. Fallows and Hunter were brought in by FSG and are highly regarded.
For me, the biggest obstacle we had was the manager becUse he simply didn't fit the desired structure that was implemented, nor want to work in it . Now that obstacle is removed, we can now really judge the effectiveness of the committee.
And the recruitment process is getting a lot of stick for failed transfers. Again, the buying and selling of players is one way of improving a squad.
Developing and coaching players is a massive part. The players that were labelled flops previously may benefit from having a quality manager coaching them - and can then turn from flops into good players. Then you would have to revisit the committee again and evaluate if they did a good him in the first place.
And again - I don't think Rodgers is that good of a coach. I believe there is more from current resources.
In summary - two issues. A manager reluctant to work with the committee, and a manager who was limited in terms of improving and developing players.
Developing and coaching players is a massive part. The players that were labelled flops previously may benefit from having a quality manager coaching them - and can then turn from flops into good players. Then you would have to revisit the committee again and evaluate if they did a good him in the first place.
And again - I don't think Rodgers is that good of a coach. I believe there is more from current resources.
In summary - two issues. A manager reluctant to work with the committee, and a manager who was limited in terms of improving and developing players.
Could be J. Could be.
Well if we get a guy known as a top class coach we'll soon see regarding existing players and future transfers. Nowhere to hide if someone isn't good at their job.
Hopefully they all are.
Well if we get a guy known as a top class coach we'll soon see regarding existing players and future transfers. Nowhere to hide if someone isn't good at their job.
Hopefully they all are.
Not sure about your summary. Rodgers got the job based on working with a committee and Hendo and Sterling, just 2 examples, both developed well under Rodgers.
He agreed to work with the committee but there was clearly friction which prevented it from flourishing.
More players have regressed under Rodgers than improved, and the defence is still awful. Combined with the fact that we chop and change formation and players lose shape so easily. They don't know their roles. Boils down to poor coaching for me.