macandally Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 probably told them to pass the ball backwards, then hoof it up and not to go too far forwards. hes negative isnt he? and hes not a motivator and cant do anything right. bull. Yes he is, no hes not and your not far wrong. Not bull. If Macandally is right (and I highly doubt it) then clearly the players don't listen to him because they did more short controlled passing, went forward with numbers and effect, weren't negative, and did appeared to be clearly more motivated. So, if Macandally is right (and I highly doubt it) then I hope at half time at arsenal he tells them to hoof it and pack it in with negative tactics in a very un-motivational manner, because it clearly works wonderfully. IMO there's bull in both posts, only one of them was intentional and sarcastic. Lets put things in perspective shall we, after getting battered for the majority of the first half, it was difficult for us to play worse in the second. Did that team look motivated to you first half? In fact, it has looked half interested for most of the season bar the odd obvious half time rollocking! You and a few others keep trying to reinforce some idealist view that we came out and played a decisive passing game in the second half against Wolves because we won. Actually, if you were more analytical in your approach rather than arguing for the sake of it, you might actually agree that we won due to two wonder strikes, a facial injury to the player who was bossing the midfield and a sending off. As I said in the match review, this win does nothing other than paper over obvious cracks and I find it balmy and slightly naive to think otherwise (but of course, according to you I am probably wrong!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 A promising young manager would give the kids someone they identify with and who can continue their development. "Keep it on the floor" is hardly a set of tactical instructions is it? It's a very different set of instructions to 'hoof and hope' which many are convinced are his actual instructions. Nobody said that this was his only set of tactical instructions...it was just something he reiterated to his players according to Keane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrDuck Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Sorry guys but Houllier was the way forward. Ok his PR ws'nt great and I think he tried to change the team a little to quick, but it was always gonna take time to rid the trouble makers and train his own team. I believe we could be playing some quality football now if he was still with us. This Houllier was not the **** way forward. Regardless of whether you think he was a misunderstood football genius or a senile old ****, he was not fit enough for full time management. He was not fit enough to work every day, was not fit enough to be on the touchline... everything else is entirely irrelevant. And the only place we were heading before he was taken ill again was the Championship. If that's the way forward, then I've clearly been misunderstanding the words "way forward" my whole life. And as others have said, if Houllier was the man to bring us quality football, why the **** were his Liverpool teams so bloody awful to watch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozvillafan Posted January 23, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted January 23, 2012 The talk surrounding Houllier is immaterial - he's simply not our manager any more. What we have now is a manager that is trying to do what he can with what he has. Credit where it is due, he put out a side that scored 3 in a derby away from home and got all the points. That said, I still don't think he is good enough to take us forward. In my opinion, maintaining the status-quo is the extreme limit of his abilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 His core group of players were bought/raised to play a long ball 'counter attacking' style. You want myths, there's one for starters. Come on was it long ball or counter attacking, I'll give you the latter but the former is a complete myth, no one plays long ball football with two out and out wingers. I was just using VT terminology. 'Long ball' is quoted as 'counter attacking' in the polite form, or 'hoof ball' in the impolite form. I always try to be polite :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houlston Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 You and a few others keep trying to reinforce some idealist view that we came out and played a decisive passing game in the second half against Wolves because we won. Actually, if you were more analytical in your approach If we got hammered in the first half, then sat back and played the long ball as you have said then how come we played less long balls than them, played more short passes than them and also passed the ball more times too. Uploaded with ImageShack.us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 only 1 through ball ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macandally Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 You and a few others keep trying to reinforce some idealist view that we came out and played a decisive passing game in the second half against Wolves because we won. Actually, if you were more analytical in your approach If we got hammered in the first half, then sat back and played the long ball as you have said then how come we played less long balls than them, played more short passes than them and also passed the ball more times too. Uploaded with ImageShack.us and I said we played the long ball where? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houlston Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 and I said we played the long ball where? By asking Dunne and Collins to drop onto our 18 yard box and pump the ball forward for players to chase?. Probably not up on tactics and terminology as much as you but is this not the same thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stanthemanisgod Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 To be fair to McLeish we do seem to be attempting more passes than earlier in the season, I say attempting because we sill dont have anyone that truely controls a midfield and makes it all click. If anything I personally think we're playing a few too many passes around the back 4 waiting for that decisive pass forward, something that was a factor of our play under Houllier also. On the plus side both Collins and Dunne seem to be at least looking for a pass out of defence before the trademade semi-hoof into the channels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_eristic Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 only 1 through ball ?? Not surprising, honestly. We haven't had anybody in the side with both the vision and the willingness to attempt them with any regularity in some time, haven't had strikers with the movement to find them, haven't faced many teams brave enough to play a higher line against the likes of Gabby, and haven't had managers setting the side up to employ them. I think we've only averaged two a game over the last three or four seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brommy Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 only 1 through ball ?? I'm not sure what their exact definition of a 'through ball' is, but it appears we played infinity times more of them than Wolves! Not at CI but in general, I really don't know why some are so hung up on statistics in an attempt to prove we were fortunate to win. :? Why is it to some that if we win, we were lucky; yet if we lose, we weren't unlucky, we were sh!te? :? Every time we win I read: "Yes but if the opposition weren't crap we'd have lost" or "If we hadn't scored the wonder strikes we'd have lost". FFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Sorry guys but Houllier was the way forward. Ok his PR ws'nt great and I think he tried to change the team a little to quick, but it was always gonna take time to rid the trouble makers and train his own team. I believe we could be playing some quality football now if he was still with us. This Houllier was not the **** way forward. Regardless of whether you think he was a misunderstood football genius or a senile old ****, he was not fit enough for full time management. He was not fit enough to work every day, was not fit enough to be on the touchline... everything else is entirely irrelevant. And the only place we were heading before he was taken ill again was the Championship. If that's the way forward, then I've clearly been misunderstanding the words "way forward" my whole life. And as others have said, if Houllier was the man to bring us quality football, why the **** were his Liverpool teams so bloody awful to watch?Things we looking up just before he was taken ill. We'd just won two games in a row and were virtually safe. You do have a point about his health though. It is a shame that he did get taken ill as there were signs of improvement towards the end of last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacketspuds Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 The bizarre thing for me is that when GH was here we were making bids for Bent, Makoun, Adam & Samba all in the Jan window plus Cabaye in the summer. Yes, our position was precarious and we had to stengthen but what I don't get is where has this money gone? I guess some of it would've come from the impending sales of Downing & Young at the time, but still for us to go from RL backing GH to giving AMC bugger all in comparison is very odd. This for me is why I think RL is looking to sell up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 unless he wants us to limp to the summer and spends there and try and get more for our money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodytom Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 The bizarre thing for me is that when GH was here we were making bids for Bent, Makoun, Adam & Samba all in the Jan window plus Cabaye in the summer. Yes, our position was precarious and we had to stengthen but what I don't get is where has this money gone? I guess some of it would've come from the impending sales of Downing & Young at the time, but still for us to go from RL backing GH to giving AMC bugger all in comparison is very odd. This for me is why I think RL is looking to sell up. Would Samba, Adam and Cabaye cost more than Nzog, Hutton and Given? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacketspuds Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 The bizarre thing for me is that when GH was here we were making bids for Bent, Makoun, Adam & Samba all in the Jan window plus Cabaye in the summer. Yes, our position was precarious and we had to stengthen but what I don't get is where has this money gone? I guess some of it would've come from the impending sales of Downing & Young at the time, but still for us to go from RL backing GH to giving AMC bugger all in comparison is very odd. This for me is why I think RL is looking to sell up. Would Samba, Adam and Cabaye cost more than Nzog, Hutton and Given? Probably a bit more but I suppose the issue would have been that we still needed N'Zog, Hutton & Given in the summer because we lost Young x2, Downing and Fridel. Unless Cabaye can also play in goal, or Samba on the wing I would imagine that we would've got these players in as well as the 3 we did actually sign. Even MM (or another ITK) referred to last Jan as loading the cart or something equally as teasing. Just a genuine question, why was RL prepared to back GH but AMC has to scrimp and save? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Just a genuine question, why was RL prepared to back GH but AMC has to scrimp and save? Because of all that money we spent on paying off MON, GH and SHA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacketspuds Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Just a genuine question, why was RL prepared to back GH but AMC has to scrimp and save? Because of all that money we spent on paying off MON, GH and SHA Good point. How depressing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VillaGoMarching Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Genuinely just stick with big eck till the summer and then look at it again then, there's no point sacking him during the season as the best we'd get is someone like Steve Bruce etc. Footballs shit but it might just see us safe and he can just about manage the seniors into some semblance of footballers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts