|
|
Post by lyonsee on Jun 5, 2006 15:43:00 GMT
There's a few Liverpool fans on the forum so I thought I'd start this thread to discuss anything and everything to do with Liverpool Football Club.
First things first I was very optimistic about season 06/07 before Chelsea went and signed Shevchenko. With a class act like him I would suggest that they'll win the league at a canter. It's disappointing because both Liverpool and United were catching up on them but with their bottomless money pit how can either, or indeed anyone else compete? They'll now be a major force in the CL too, I reckon. The best Liverpool can hope for is 2nd place.
In pursuit of this I think Steed Malbranque would be a very good signing. I've liked him as a player ever since he cam to the Premiership. Very tidy, skillful and has an eye for goal. Solves our right-sided midfielder problem. Also, I think his ability to tuck in gives us options in terms of formation. We could play somewhat similar to what England played against Hungary. Something like this:
---------------------Reina--------------------
Finnan----Hyypia-----Carragher-------Riise
-------------------Sissoko---------------------
-------Malbranque---Alonso----Gerrard-----
-------------------AN Other----------------------
--------------------Crouch------------------------
Finnan and Riise are well able to work the touchlines so we'd have both width and the ability to play thorugh teams, while still maintaining a tight defence. None of that midfield three shirk a tackle either.
The AN Other is very important - it can be Fowler sometimes, particularly against weaker teams in the EPL but I think even the most staunch 'God' supporters will agree we need someone else too. We need a pacy striker - don't think Bent is up to it. Would have slightly more faith in Defoe but wouldn't be too happy to sign him. Delighted we didn't get AJ. I'll be very interested to watch Dirk Kuyt in the WC. I actually don't know anything about him - is he pacy? The other option (and I hate the little cunt) is Bellamy. Despite my hatred I rate him quite highly although he's not a great finisher imo he does scare the shit out of defenders and cause problems because he's not an out-and-out striker. Another striker I've touted (somewhat unpopularly) to be a good prospective signing is Viduka. We don't need Viduka when Crouch has confidence but there were patches in the season when Eamo, sorry Crouchie was goddam awful.
When required Kewell can play on the left too (of a 4 or 5) or even as the link-up player.
I have to wonder why Rafa wants to sign Daniel Alves seeing as we have the best RB in the Premiership (bar Chimbonda - yeah right). Anybody any thoughts on this?
|
|
|
|
Post by therock67 on Jun 6, 2006 8:30:28 GMT
It's probably the same every summer but it seems like a lot of clubs are looking for a striker this season. United need one, Liverpool need one, Chelsea needed one but got theirs. Abroad both Milan and Barcelona definitely need one and plenty of others do too I'm sure. Even lowly Celtic will need one  . Not sure how many there are out there - Kuyt has been on the EPL radar for a couple of years but I don't think he is the type to play in the hole you've earmarked for him: he's a big lad. Bellamy would be excellent with Liverpool I think. He suffered a little bit at Celtic from being the main striker and he's not a natural goalscorer. His pace is a huge factor and he would be particularly useful in Europe away from home. |
|
|
|
Post by bandage on Jun 6, 2006 8:53:16 GMT
As a neutral this may appear like bull to Pool supporters but I think you should be looking at a couple of full backs too. I've never really been one that eulogised Finnan - I don't think he's a particularly good defender, he's a neat passer and decent on the overlap but by no means a world beater. Riise's more of an attack minded player and can get away playing left back at home but I could see him getting destroyed by a quality winger away from home. Hyppia's been a great servant but another centre back must on the agenda or is that young Danish guy up to the task? Midfield is strong and that's how you stifle and strangle teams but ideally you'd like to see those in there play with more flair for all the talent they possess. Agree also on the need for a striker and as therock says so do many other teams - a lot of eyes will be on a lot of strikers at the WC. I like the formation also.
|
|
eamo
Ger Loughnane
Posts: 331
|
Post by eamo on Jun 6, 2006 11:07:18 GMT
I think that there is a shortage of top quality strikers around. Liverpool badly need two. Crouch is not good enough to be a main striker. That is why I would take Van Nistlerooy if we could get him. He is a guaranteed goalscorer in both England and Europe and, despite what Man Utd said recently, would be available at around the 12 million mark. If you buy Darren Bent or Bellamy at around 9 or 10 million, then it is a risk. For me there is no risk with Van Nistlerooy.
For me strikers are the most important thing for Liverpool at the moment. I actually would not mind if we did not buy anyone else as long as we bought two top class strikers. We need someone like Van Nistlerooy or Torres and then someone like Defoe or Aimar (recently linked), to go along with Crouch and Fowler. For me Gerrard should remain wide right (much better balance when he is there, with Gonzales wide left and Alonso and Sissoko is the centre.
Finnan is a smashing full back. He is solid defensively and gets forward sufficiently to support Gerrard. I think everyone knows my opinion on Riise. We have bought an centre half from Argentina but I take the point that we may need cover there. I am surprised how little Agger played last season which suggest that he may not be up to it.
So for me two strikers are the priority, followed by a left back (reportedly have some Brazilian player from Valencia on a Bosman) and then look at midfield and central defence
|
|
|
|
Post by lyonsee on Jun 6, 2006 11:30:38 GMT
Crouchie produced a bravura on Saturday. He's up to the task imo but needs to be supported by someone with pace to burn as he has sweet FA. Also he's a confidence player so he will blow hot and cold over the course of a season.
Liverpool are highly unlikely to get two top class strikers - I'll settle for one. Not sure we can afford Torres and Utd would not sell Van Nistelrooy to Liverpool (nor would I want him).
Gerrard does give us balance on the right but he's not able to influence the game as much out there. I'd rather he played centrally where he's more likely to score goals and play through balls to the lightning quick striker described above (Mickey Owen?). Also with the current squad there's little point in whipping balls in from the byline as we've no-one up front who can head the ball.
Think you're jumping the gun a bit on Gonzalez Eamo. Clips I've seen of him look good but I suggest he may be a temperamental premadonna type. I've little basis for this (maybe his Dublin hotel room incident and the fact that he's South American) except a hunch. Time will tell.
So your preferred team is this Eamo?
------------------Reina---------------------
Finnan----Carragher-----Hyypia---Riise
Gerrard-----Alonso-----Sissoko-----Gonzalez
----------AN Other---------AN Other--------
It's ok imo, if we got the strikers (which as I've outlined I don't think we will) but it's not very flexible/dynamic.
As regards Bandage's point on Hyypia I don't think he has ever relied on pace. He reads the game superbly and is an unsung hero. He deserves the same plaudits that Carragher gets. Two heroes - that's why Agger didn't play last season (plus he was injured towards the end).
Finnan is world class imo and I think he's smashing defensively, can't think of anyone who has made a fool out of him in the past. What's your basis Bandage? I'll grant you that he's not as good going forward as a Cafu, Thuram, Salgado etc. but he retains the ball wonderfully well and seems to always pick the right option.
|
|
|
|
Post by therock67 on Jun 6, 2006 12:30:24 GMT
Also with the current squad there's little point in whipping balls in from the byline as we've no-one up front who can head the ball. Eh think you might be forgetting a certain freak of nature who plays up top. Lyonsee who would you like Liverpool to sign as a striker? I think Torres would have his pick of clubs so I agree that I'm not sure he'd be interested in going to Liverpool, nor whether ye could afford him. Doesn't seem to be linked with Barca but that would surely make sense for him, he has always hated Real. Is Owen a non-runner? |
|
eamo
Ger Loughnane
Posts: 331
|
Post by eamo on Jun 6, 2006 12:33:06 GMT
Also with the current squad there's little point in whipping balls in from the byline as we've no-one up front who can head the ball. Eh think you might be forgetting a certain freak of nature who plays up top. He can't head the ball |
|
|
|
Post by therock67 on Jun 6, 2006 12:35:48 GMT
Eh think you might be forgetting a certain freak of nature who plays up top. He can't head the ball That's pure nonsense: he's a very good header of the ball. He probably needs to work a bit on attacking crosses because most of his aerial wins come from long balls from the back and looped crosses - if he had the power to attack balls whipped in from the flanks he'd score plenty. |
|
|
|
Post by lyonsee on Jun 6, 2006 12:38:52 GMT
Eh think you might be forgetting a certain freak of nature who plays up top. He can't head the ball Straight from the horse's mouth. As regards a striker I'm really not sure. We need proven quality but I'm not sure we can lure/afford one given all the big clubs looking. Might have to take a gamble. I've heard Huntelaar at Ajax is a cracking striker but know little about him except that he scored 33 in 30 this season. Impressive return - maybe we need to take a punt on someone like him. |
|
|
|
Post by bandage on Jun 6, 2006 12:52:57 GMT
What about Jan 'Salt and Vinegar' of Hesselink? He's a big lad who can score headers.
Strachan, who has had an eye for a player in the past, *waits for abuse* picked his five to watch in the WC in The Guardian yday. I'll look for the link but he mentioned a huge Serbian striker Celtic inquired about who's in the mould of Jan Koller and also the Ukranian attacking midfielder who plays in the hole behind Sheva. Might be worth keeping an eye on these two.
|
|
eamo
Ger Loughnane
Posts: 331
|
Post by eamo on Jun 6, 2006 13:00:12 GMT
That's pure nonsense: he's a very good header of the ball. He probably needs to work a bit on attacking crosses because most of his aerial wins come from long balls from the back and looped crosses - if he had the power to attack balls whipped in from the flanks he'd score plenty. That's not true. 'If he had the power to attack the balls whipped in from the flanks' means that he is not a good header of the ball and not the 'he's a very good header of the ball'. You have contradicted yourself. How a striker could be chrisctened a very good header of the ball and not be able to attack the ball in the area is beyond me |
|
|
|
Post by therock67 on Jun 6, 2006 13:02:58 GMT
That's pure nonsense: he's a very good header of the ball. He probably needs to work a bit on attacking crosses because most of his aerial wins come from long balls from the back and looped crosses - if he had the power to attack balls whipped in from the flanks he'd score plenty. That's not true. 'If he had the power to attack the balls whipped in from the flanks' means that he is not a good header of the ball and not the 'he's a very good header of the ball'. You have contradicted yourself. How a striker could be chrisctened a very good header of the ball and not be able to attack the ball in the area is beyond me No he is excellent at winning long balls pumped up and when a slow cross loops into the box he is a very good header of the ball. What he lacks is power in his game - nothing to do with heading the ball. He is not assertive enough and doesn't bust a gut getting on the end of crosses. In terms of technique he is excellent in the air. |
|
eamo
Ger Loughnane
Posts: 331
|
Post by eamo on Jun 6, 2006 13:16:39 GMT
That's not true. 'If he had the power to attack the balls whipped in from the flanks' means that he is not a good header of the ball and not the 'he's a very good header of the ball'. You have contradicted yourself. How a striker could be chrisctened a very good header of the ball and not be able to attack the ball in the area is beyond me No he is excellent at winning long balls pumped up and when a slow cross loops into the box he is a very good header of the ball. What he lacks is power in his game - nothing to do with heading the ball. He is not assertive enough and doesn't bust a gut getting on the end of crosses. In terms of technique he is excellent in the air. Nonsense again. Part of the technique of heading the ball is having the power to go and head it.... |
|
|
|
Post by therock67 on Jun 6, 2006 13:19:24 GMT
No he is excellent at winning long balls pumped up and when a slow cross loops into the box he is a very good header of the ball. What he lacks is power in his game - nothing to do with heading the ball. He is not assertive enough and doesn't bust a gut getting on the end of crosses. In terms of technique he is excellent in the air. Nonsense again. Part of the technique of heading the ball is having the power to go and head it.... More nonsense. You said "he can't head the ball." That's clearly a load of horseshit. What he's lacking is athletic power to make him a proper striker. About the only thing he can do is head the ball. |
|
|
|
Post by lyonsee on Jun 6, 2006 13:19:35 GMT
That's not true. 'If he had the power to attack the balls whipped in from the flanks' means that he is not a good header of the ball and not the 'he's a very good header of the ball'. You have contradicted yourself. How a striker could be chrisctened a very good header of the ball and not be able to attack the ball in the area is beyond me No he is excellent at winning long balls pumped up and when a slow cross loops into the box he is a very good header of the ball. What he lacks is power in his game - nothing to do with heading the ball. He is not assertive enough and doesn't bust a gut getting on the end of crosses. In terms of technique he is excellent in the air. Don't agree. He's shite in the air. He can't do anything with free headers. I don't know how you think he's good at slow crosses but not at whipped-in crosses, sure isn't it much harder to do anything with the former? A whipped-in cross merely requires re-direction. |
|
|
|
Post by therock67 on Jun 6, 2006 13:23:18 GMT
No he is excellent at winning long balls pumped up and when a slow cross loops into the box he is a very good header of the ball. What he lacks is power in his game - nothing to do with heading the ball. He is not assertive enough and doesn't bust a gut getting on the end of crosses. In terms of technique he is excellent in the air. Don't agree. He's shite in the air. He can't do anything with free headers. I don't know how you think he's good at slow crosses but not at whipped-in crosses, sure isn't it much harder to do anything with the former? A whipped-in cross merely requires re-direction. My point is that if you throw the ball up to him he'll head it accurately. When the ball is hoofed long he wins it a lot and usually flicks it with decent accuracy. He lacks a natural striker's instinct to go and attack crosses. Whether it's confidence in his build or what I don't know but that's his big failing. The idea that what Liverpool lack up front is a decent header of the ball is patently nonsense. Morientes and Crouch have earned their millions on the back of being able to head the ball. Buying another big lad isn't going to change anything IMO. |
|
eamo
Ger Loughnane
Posts: 331
|
Post by eamo on Jun 6, 2006 13:27:13 GMT
Nonsense again. Part of the technique of heading the ball is having the power to go and head it.... More nonsense. You said "he can't head the ball." That's clearly a load of horseshit. What he's lacking is athletic power to make him a proper striker. About the only thing he can do is head the ball. You said that he is a 'very good header' of the ball. You then, unbelieveably, decided to split the whole 'technique' and 'power' side to heading. It is the same thing. I have never heard you talk such rubbish as this line 'What he lacks is power in his game - nothing to do with heading the ball' |
|
|
|
Post by therock67 on Jun 6, 2006 13:35:41 GMT
More nonsense. You said "he can't head the ball." That's clearly a load of horseshit. What he's lacking is athletic power to make him a proper striker. About the only thing he can do is head the ball. You said that he is a 'very good header' of the ball. You then, unbelieveably, decided to split the whole 'technique' and 'power' side to heading. It is the same thing. I have never heard you talk such rubbish as this line 'What he lacks is power in his game - nothing to do with heading the ball' It's nowt to do with the power he heads the ball at - it's to do with having the power to attack balls in a crowded penalty area. If you think a stiker who is good in the air is the answer to Liverpool's problems then you're miles off track. They need someone with pace to get in behind the opposing back 4 - not another Crouch/Morientes. |
|
eamo
Ger Loughnane
Posts: 331
|
Post by eamo on Jun 6, 2006 13:45:17 GMT
You said that he is a 'very good header' of the ball. You then, unbelieveably, decided to split the whole 'technique' and 'power' side to heading. It is the same thing. I have never heard you talk such rubbish as this line 'What he lacks is power in his game - nothing to do with heading the ball' It's nowt to do with the power he heads the ball at - it's to do with having the power to attack balls in a crowded penalty area. If you think a stiker who is good in the air is the answer to Liverpool's problems then you're miles off track. They need someone with pace to get in behind the opposing back 4 - not another Crouch/Morientes. I never mentioned that I wanted someone that is good in the air as a matter of fact. I wouldn't buy a striker specifically for that reason. I think that I said that I would buy a guaranteed goalscorer. Anyway my point is that Crouch is not good in the air. He has missed many sitters in the box. He often opts out of heading and decided to take it down on his chest so low is his confidence at it. What you are saying is that he is able to head the ball when it is put up in the air for him and this makes him a good header of the ball. Bullshit. Not only is it not true but it is inherrently a wrong deduction to make. What I am saying is that, for a striker, heading is all about being able to attack in the area and because Crouch is not good at this then he is a poor header of the ball. And he has a lot more to his game than heading (that's not 'all he's good at') - if that is all he had then he may as well quit. |
|
|
|
Post by lyonsee on Jun 6, 2006 14:16:46 GMT
You said that he is a 'very good header' of the ball. You then, unbelieveably, decided to split the whole 'technique' and 'power' side to heading. It is the same thing. I have never heard you talk such rubbish as this line 'What he lacks is power in his game - nothing to do with heading the ball' It's nowt to do with the power he heads the ball at - it's to do with having the power to attack balls in a crowded penalty area. If you think a stiker who is good in the air is the answer to Liverpool's problems then you're miles off track. They need someone with pace to get in behind the opposing back 4 - not another Crouch/Morientes. You usually speak a fair bit of sense but this is a load of old cobblers. Firstly, I mentioned current squad - Morientes is gone. Secondly, I never said that Liverpool needed a striker who was good in the air. I said that playing Gerrard wide right and whipping balls in from the byline was a pointless tactic. |
|
|
|
Post by therock67 on Jun 6, 2006 14:29:02 GMT
I never mentioned that I wanted someone that is good in the air as a matter of fact. I wouldn't buy a striker specifically for that reason. I think that I said that I would buy a guaranteed goalscorer. Fair enough, it was Lyonsee's comment originally anyway about not having a striker who is good in the air. It was your formation though to have the two wingers - unless you disagree with Lyonsee's paraphrasing of your formation. Anyway my point is that Crouch is not good in the air. He has missed many sitters in the box. He often opts out of heading and decided to take it down on his chest so low is his confidence at it. What you are saying is that he is able to head the ball when it is put up in the air for him and this makes him a good header of the ball. Bullshit. Not only is it not true but it is inherrently a wrong deduction to make. What I am saying is that, for a striker, heading is all about being able to attack in the area and because Crouch is not good at this then he is a poor header of the ball. And he has a lot more to his game than heading (that's not 'all he's good at') - if that is all he had then he may as well quit. I'll concede I haven't seen as much of Crouch as you boys so it may be that he's brutal at heading the ball. I'm suggesting that his heading isn't weak and if you think his all-round game makes up for a weakness in the air then maybe he should just quit because the rest of his game is not good enough for Liverpool IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by therock67 on Jun 6, 2006 14:32:30 GMT
It's nowt to do with the power he heads the ball at - it's to do with having the power to attack balls in a crowded penalty area. If you think a stiker who is good in the air is the answer to Liverpool's problems then you're miles off track. They need someone with pace to get in behind the opposing back 4 - not another Crouch/Morientes. You usually speak a fair bit of sense but this is a load of old cobblers. Firstly, I mentioned current squad - Morientes is gone. Secondly, I never said that Liverpool needed a striker who was good in the air. I said that playing Gerrard wide right and whipping balls in from the byline was a pointless tactic. This started as a disagreement between yourself and eamo about Liverpool's tactics. You felt that Eamo's tactics weren't worthwhile because Liverpool didn't have a striker who was any good in the air. I'm not suggesting you go out and get one or anything, just that it's the least of Liverpool's problems. A quick goalscorer is far more important. I think we're all agreed on that. |
|
|
|
Post by timofte on Jun 7, 2006 11:19:34 GMT
Anyone see the Steven Gerrard, a year in the life documentary on sky one last night? I thought it was quite good, and gave a good insight into his private life outside football. Nice gaff too. Did you notice his mate always hanging around with him and going to the handover of the CL trophey Ceremony. That lads must do nothing but sponge off Steve!!
Thats a few decent enough football programs sky one have done in recent times. I thought the Tim Lovejoy interview with David Beckam was very good also and the Sport matters series where they reviewed liverpools CL win in 05 was very good.
I especially liked the documentary on the CL victory when they showed this fan after getting on to the pitch and celebrating with the team after the penalty shoot-out. Quality! There was even one scene where he tries to take the cup off Jamie Carragher. Brilliant!
Any thoughts?
|
|
eamo
Ger Loughnane
Posts: 331
|
Post by eamo on Jun 7, 2006 11:26:25 GMT
I actually thought that Gerrard came across as a complete prat in it. I always suspected that he was but as long as he does the stuff on the pitch (which he does) then I'm happy.
I think you must have some ego to allow a camera crew from Sky One to follow you around for a year. And it didn't say anything about him really - for instance it didn't compare with Louis Theroux's interviews with Jimmy Saville, Max Clifford and the likes. We don't see Gerrard in a different light - typical Sky One drivel for me
|
|
|
|
Post by therock67 on Jun 7, 2006 11:27:42 GMT
Might be snobbery on my part but I've never watched a football documentary on Sky One. I can see how a programme about the fans might be interesting but for the life of me I can't understand how I could be entertained by a Tim Lovejoy interview or revelations about Gerrard's private life.
Having said that I haven't seen these so I'm in no position to condemn them, other than by reputation (and other Sky programmes).
|
|
.
