Liverpool FC Forum

[Sabre]

Can anyone sum me up some questions about Anelka's loan spell in Anfield? I have only "snapshots" as in "images" about his game here, and I had the idea he was unimpressive again,and with not a great performance.

But Saint says he was a good player, and Stu defends him a lot, so was it a good loan spell after all? Also, I don't remember how he left, was up to LFC signing him up at the end of season and didn't despite the good job? I hadn't an insight about fan's crowd back then.

[Stu.Murph]

For instance, I'm with you when you rate Gerrard a lot, but then you should also admit how many times Crouch touched a ball that later on Gerrad converted in a goal. Second chances that Crouch has provided to the team have been countless, and for that only he can be useful through out a season. Not to mention he has scored a decent amount of goals too. He doesn't deserve to be dropped under any circunstances. Maybe not playing that much I agree, but never be dropped.

Instead, you keep Bellamy, when there are lots of players like him or better. He's not a great finisher, he is not a good header, he's pacy but there are other with more pace, and he has a decent abillity but there are others more skilled. The positional strenght that Crouch provides and the strenght, power and workrate Kuyt provides though are not easily found in other top league players.

So bring Tevez and Anelka if you think one of them is going to be the prolific striker many are wishing, but don't drop the two players that are less easily replaceable in their roles.

I think you have a good eye for footballers Stu, but I also think that once you decide a player is not of your liking, you exagerate the campaing against them.

I'm only disagreeing in the 25% of your squad, because when it comes to goal, defence and midfield, I think you're spot on. I like Woodgate too, and I liked him in Spain. He's quality as Cannavaro aswell, although he was unlucky with injuries

I agree Crouch creates alot of second chances and touches for Gerrard. Thats why I want the signing of Ashton, because he creates the same chances and does similar things, but also does better things and is a better goalscorer who can attack the ball. He can do more against the better sides than Crouch can. Its not that I don't like what Crouch does, its that he doesn't offer enough. He's to limited. Ashton can offer you what Crouch does and a whole lot more.

Bellamy's a good player. Far better than we've seen and far better than Kuyt will ever be. He can link up with players and play a one two, he can hold up the ball better than Kuyt, he can play at pace and he's direct. A good option to have off the bench and the sort of striker who can play against lesser sides away from home and cause serious problems for them. A very good player without being a top player. I'd definately rather him stay than Kuyt as I think he offers more in just about every department. Bellamy's also better at holding the ball up than Kuyt.

Tevez plays more in Rooney's role than in an out an out strikers role. We need options... with the forwards I listed, we have the same options, but just with far better players. Similar style of players, with more quality who are less limited. It improves the team.

The fact is Sabre, to build a league winning team you MUST replace the weakest area's with better players.  Houllier had a superb team, then went out an signed not only the wrong players, but absoloute . Rafa went out an done EXACTLY the same last season only the players he bought were average instead of and we ended up finishing the season as we did.

We need better players, its as simple as that.

[Stu.Murph]

Ashton if you like might join,

Dean Ashton will not be joining Liverpool in the near future cause he's not good enough.

If Rafa played our forwards as forwards and not having them playing in midfield most of the time, we probably wouldnt need any new forwards.

I worry that if we do buy a world class striker say Eto (in my dreams) even he would struggle to get 15 goals a season.

Someone said the other day if Cisse goes to Bolton he will score more than any of our forwards will next season.

You have to ask yourself why it wouldnt be a suprise if this did happen, and if we can see the problem why cant Rafa, we can have all the possesion in the world passing it around the back 4 but if they arnt doing anything with it whats the point?

I think we where dire last season, we where boring to watch and very predictable.

I hope to god next season wont be the same the shackles need to come off ecspecially away from home otherwise we can kiss the league good bye.

What the would you know?

[Stu.Murph]

Can anyone sum me up some questions about Anelka's loan spell in Anfield? I have only "snapshots" as in "images" about his game here, and I had the idea he was unimpressive again,and with not a great performance.

But Saint says he was a good player, and Stu defends him a lot, so was it a good loan spell after all? Also, I don't remember how he left, was up to LFC signing him up at the end of season and didn't despite the good job? I hadn't an insight about fan's crowd back then.

He was unfit when he arrived here, he was excellent in some games, not so good in others. Specifically Newcastle and Birmingham at home he absoloutely ran the show, we won both games 3-0 and everything good we done went through him. His hold up play, skill, vision and sheer quality was unbelievable at times and he was easily on par with Owen who at the time was one of the best players on the planet.

[account deleted by request]

Can anyone sum me up some questions about Anelka's loan spell in Anfield? I have only "snapshots" as in "images" about his game here, and I had the idea he was unimpressive again,and with not a great performance.

But Saint says he was a good player, and Stu defends him a lot, so was it a good loan spell after all? Also, I don't remember how he left, was up to LFC signing him up at the end of season and didn't despite the good job? I hadn't an insight about fan's crowd back then.

Anelka played very well but didn't get as many goals as expected.He had some outstanding games for us and we went on a great run. Everyone including the manager seemed very pleased with him. Houllier went for Diouf, with Cisse to follow, and didn't take up the agreed purchase of Anelka, supposedly because of some friction with Anelka's brother (thats what I heard anyway)

[Hebz]

arsenal want anelka to replace henry, didnt he play for them years ago?

[account deleted by request]

yes, before he went to R.madrid

[Ciggy]

What the would you know?

Who the fuck are you like?

And before anyone says great another topic ruined through spats he fuckin started it once again and not just with me either.

[Stu.Murph]

[66-1112520797]

Can anyone sum me up some questions about Anelka's loan spell in Anfield? I have only "snapshots" as in "images" about his game here, and I had the idea he was unimpressive again,and with not a great performance.

But Saint says he was a good player, and Stu defends him a lot, so was it a good loan spell after all? Also, I don't remember how he left, was up to LFC signing him up at the end of season and didn't despite the good job? I hadn't an insight about fan's crowd back then.

Anelka for me did enough to warrent a permanent signing. I remember watching him against Newcastle at Anfield and he was very direct. He ran at the defence, took players on did everyting you could ask for in a striker. I dont think he scored though    but he did look class on a few occasions for us, he looked as if he had the desire to play for us.

As for now, I'm not so sure. Like I said before I'd of taken him then but I'm not so sure now.

[Stu.Murph]

Can anyone sum me up some questions about Anelka's loan spell in Anfield? I have only "snapshots" as in "images" about his game here, and I had the idea he was unimpressive again,and with not a great performance.

But Saint says he was a good player, and Stu defends him a lot, so was it a good loan spell after all? Also, I don't remember how he left, was up to LFC signing him up at the end of season and didn't despite the good job? I hadn't an insight about fan's crowd back then.

Anelka for me did enough to warrent a permanent signing. I remember watching him against Newcastle at Anfield and he was very direct. He ran at the defence, took players on did everyting you could ask for in a striker. I dont think he scored though    but he did look class on a few occasions for us, he looked as if he had the desire to play for us.

As for now, I'm not so sure. Like I said before I'd of taken him then but I'm not so sure now.

See this is what annoys me. Players don't "get it" then "lose it".

You either have it, or you don't. Its as simple as that. Players only start to become past it when their legs start to go for whatever reason, players with vision will always have that vision, players with skill will always have that skill, players with bottle will always have that bottle. They'll never gain something they don't have and they don't lose the ability to do things they can do.

I've said a million times, circumstances don't dictate a players ability to do something. Players do the same things all the time. They don't read the game great in one match and then read it poorly in the next, then read it poorly in the one after.

If you watch Steven Gerrard, even when he's not playing particuarly well, he's still great in the tackle, he's still a very good passer and he's still very athletic. Players ability doesn't change overnight... yes players can have a bad game where they don't show their ability and do things they don't usually do, they're human, not robots.

I said it year ago about Fowler. Fowler never "lost it" the way people said he did what so ever. He was simply playing in a different environment, with different players who didn't suit his game and didn't get the best out of him.

Alot of people under estimate what McManaman done for Fowler's game aswell as McAteer, Jones, Evans (by the style of football played) and Bjornebye with the consistent cross, supply and quality flying into the box.

The point of the arguement is, I find it very silly and very tedious having to explain that players either have an ability to do something, or they don't. They don't "learn how to do such and such".

When players become professionals, they're pretty much set in their ways, they're already moulded into a certain type of player. Yes some attributes many improve ever ever so slightly as they gain experience but they don't improve by much at all and you're only talking about maybe 7 or 8 attributes increasing by very little amounts. When you say a player has potential, or is raw, it doesn't mean they are Sissoko and need to learn to do this... or needs to learn to do that... because he's good at everything else, Sissoko will never be a play maker, he'll never improve his passing game, when a player has potential, they can already do everything they are good at. They just need to learn how and when to use the attributes they have.

Frank Lampard and Jamie Carragher are two perfect examples of this. Nothing more than good players who fool the majority into thinking they are world class because they've got their own games down to a tee. They know exactly what they are good at and know exactly how to play to their strengths under the managers they are currently with.

If you watched Steven Gerrard as a child, he's always been "the same player", he's always been a fan of the "glory pass" he's always been able to strike a ball and he was always going to be a professional because of his attitude. His ability to strike a ball was something I seen in the reserves about a year before he came through, yet we didn't start to see that regularly untill his third season as a professional.

[Bad Bob]

Can anyone sum me up some questions about Anelka's loan spell in Anfield? I have only "snapshots" as in "images" about his game here, and I had the idea he was unimpressive again,and with not a great performance.

But Saint says he was a good player, and Stu defends him a lot, so was it a good loan spell after all? Also, I don't remember how he left, was up to LFC signing him up at the end of season and didn't despite the good job? I hadn't an insight about fan's crowd back then.

Anelka for me did enough to warrent a permanent signing. I remember watching him against Newcastle at Anfield and he was very direct. He ran at the defence, took players on did everyting you could ask for in a striker. I dont think he scored though    but he did look class on a few occasions for us, he looked as if he had the desire to play for us.

As for now, I'm not so sure. Like I said before I'd of taken him then but I'm not so sure now.

See this is what annoys me. Players don't "get it" then "lose it".

You either have it, or you don't. Its as simple as that. Players only start to become past it when their legs start to go for whatever reason, players with vision will always have that vision, players with skill will always have that skill, players with bottle will always have that bottle. They'll never gain something they don't have and they don't lose the ability to do things they can do.

I've said a million times, circumstances don't dictate a players ability to do something. Players do the same things all the time. They don't read the game great in one match and then read it poorly in the next, then read it poorly in the one after.

If you watch Steven Gerrard, even when he's not playing particuarly well, he's still great in the tackle, he's still a very good passer and he's still very athletic. Players ability doesn't change overnight... yes players can have a bad game where they don't show their ability and do things they don't usually do, they're human, not robots.

I said it year ago about Fowler. Fowler never "lost it" the way people said he did what so ever. He was simply playing in a different environment, with different players who didn't suit his game and didn't get the best out of him.

Alot of people under estimate what McManaman done for Fowler's game aswell as McAteer, Jones, Evans (by the style of football played) and Bjornebye with the consistent cross, supply and quality flying into the box.

The point of the arguement is, I find it very silly and very tedious having to explain that players either have an ability to do something, or they don't. They don't "learn how to do such and such".

When players become professionals, they're pretty much set in their ways, they're already moulded into a certain type of player. Yes some attributes many improve ever ever so slightly as they gain experience but they don't improve by much at all and you're only talking about maybe 7 or 8 attributes increasing by very little amounts. When you say a player has potential, or is raw, it doesn't mean they are Sissoko and need to learn to do this... or needs to learn to do that... because he's good at everything else, Sissoko will never be a play maker, he'll never improve his passing game, when a player has potential, they can already do everything they are good at. They just need to learn how and when to use the attributes they have.

Frank Lampard and Jamie Carragher are two perfect examples of this. Nothing more than good players who fool the majority into thinking they are world class because they've got their own games down to a tee. They know exactly what they are good at and know exactly how to play to their strengths under the managers they are currently with.

If you watched Steven Gerrard as a child, he's always been "the same player", he's always been a fan of the "glory pass" he's always been able to strike a ball and he was always going to be a professional because of his attitude. His ability to strike a ball was something I seen in the reserves about a year before he came through, yet we didn't start to see that regularly untill his third season as a professional.

Okay but what about mentality, Stu?  Do players with natural talent go off the boil because they're psychology toward the game changes?  I personally haven't seen enough of Anelka to comment but I know quite a few who think he hasn't done much since his loan spell with us because he doesn't have the proper mentality anymore (ie. he's become merely a skilled journeyman who can't be ar.sed mentally turning up every week).  Where does that enter the equation?

[Stu.Murph]

Can anyone sum me up some questions about Anelka's loan spell in Anfield? I have only "snapshots" as in "images" about his game here, and I had the idea he was unimpressive again,and with not a great performance.

But Saint says he was a good player, and Stu defends him a lot, so was it a good loan spell after all? Also, I don't remember how he left, was up to LFC signing him up at the end of season and didn't despite the good job? I hadn't an insight about fan's crowd back then.

Anelka for me did enough to warrent a permanent signing. I remember watching him against Newcastle at Anfield and he was very direct. He ran at the defence, took players on did everyting you could ask for in a striker. I dont think he scored though    but he did look class on a few occasions for us, he looked as if he had the desire to play for us.

As for now, I'm not so sure. Like I said before I'd of taken him then but I'm not so sure now.

See this is what annoys me. Players don't "get it" then "lose it".

You either have it, or you don't. Its as simple as that. Players only start to become past it when their legs start to go for whatever reason, players with vision will always have that vision, players with skill will always have that skill, players with bottle will always have that bottle. They'll never gain something they don't have and they don't lose the ability to do things they can do.

I've said a million times, circumstances don't dictate a players ability to do something. Players do the same things all the time. They don't read the game great in one match and then read it poorly in the next, then read it poorly in the one after.

If you watch Steven Gerrard, even when he's not playing particuarly well, he's still great in the tackle, he's still a very good passer and he's still very athletic. Players ability doesn't change overnight... yes players can have a bad game where they don't show their ability and do things they don't usually do, they're human, not robots.

I said it year ago about Fowler. Fowler never "lost it" the way people said he did what so ever. He was simply playing in a different environment, with different players who didn't suit his game and didn't get the best out of him.

Alot of people under estimate what McManaman done for Fowler's game aswell as McAteer, Jones, Evans (by the style of football played) and Bjornebye with the consistent cross, supply and quality flying into the box.

The point of the arguement is, I find it very silly and very tedious having to explain that players either have an ability to do something, or they don't. They don't "learn how to do such and such".

When players become professionals, they're pretty much set in their ways, they're already moulded into a certain type of player. Yes some attributes many improve ever ever so slightly as they gain experience but they don't improve by much at all and you're only talking about maybe 7 or 8 attributes increasing by very little amounts. When you say a player has potential, or is raw, it doesn't mean they are Sissoko and need to learn to do this... or needs to learn to do that... because he's good at everything else, Sissoko will never be a play maker, he'll never improve his passing game, when a player has potential, they can already do everything they are good at. They just need to learn how and when to use the attributes they have.

Frank Lampard and Jamie Carragher are two perfect examples of this. Nothing more than good players who fool the majority into thinking they are world class because they've got their own games down to a tee. They know exactly what they are good at and know exactly how to play to their strengths under the managers they are currently with.

If you watched Steven Gerrard as a child, he's always been "the same player", he's always been a fan of the "glory pass" he's always been able to strike a ball and he was always going to be a professional because of his attitude. His ability to strike a ball was something I seen in the reserves about a year before he came through, yet we didn't start to see that regularly untill his third season as a professional.

Okay but what about mentality, Stu?  Do players with natural talent go off the boil because they're psychology toward the game changes?  I personally haven't seen enough of Anelka to comment but I know quite a few who think he hasn't done much since his loan spell with us because he doesn't have the proper mentality anymore (ie. he's become merely a skilled journeyman who can't be ar.sed mentally turning up every week).  Where does that enter the equation?

If a player is happy, settled and in a good side then the psychology towards the game will be spot on will it not?

The fact is, at City, he scored bucket loads of goals but people forget that. Fowler has a go at him in his book saying he never passed the ball, but Robbie and Nico are completely different styles of player, at Liverpool, Steven Gerrard actually came out and said he's "one of the best players I've ever played with"... Bearing in mind Gerrard played with Fowler and Owen who was one of the world best.

The fact is Bob, no-one on here knows how he's done for Bolton this season do they. Who actually watches Bolton apart from their fans? Everytime I've seen him this season he's looked a threat who can beat a man, score a goal, pick a pass. This is playing in what is basically a long ball side. He still managed 11 goals in the league I believe after having a very slow start at the club.

At the end of the day, people bang on about the "risk". We signed Bellamy for crying out loud who lived upto his reputation by supposedly attacking one of our players with a golf club. I'm quite fed up of hearing all this "he's a risk business". At the end of the day, he City off because they weren't good enough for him, simple as that. Why should a player of that class stay with that pile of ? Barton's just done the same thing. Anelka never once kicked up a fuss here, at City or Fenerbache. The fact is, if he was anfield and managed correctly, I'm 100% confident the fans would take to him instantly and you'd see a very happy, goalscoring top class forward playing for Liverpool.

[ivor_the_injun]

I've watched Anelka a few times at Bolton this season, and to be honest he shocked the sh*t out of me - his work rate each time was frankly terrible. He used to buzz around the shoulder of the last man waiting to hare through, but now he pulls back 10 or 15 yards so he doesn't have to keep too close an eye on whether he's offside or not.

The hyperactive gazelle we saw at Arsenal and in his brief time at LFC just isn't there. He's still fast as f*ck, but he doesn't look like he gives a sh*t anymore. He literally just walks around until the ball comes near him - doesn't look to create anything with crafty movement at all.

I do think he's a really good player, but I genuinely thought he'd gone to Bolton to put himself in the shop window one last time. Not a bit of it from what I can see. It's like someone clocking in, doing the bare minimum and picking up a wage at the end of the week.

Stu's point about players "losing it" is a valid one, but I think Bob's hit it on the head completely. He just doesn't look like he's enjoying playing the game at the moment.

A Bolton fan at work hit it on the head for me - he's playing like Michael Ricketts did after he got an England cap. Thinks he's it, knows he's nailed onto the first 11, so just stopped working for the team.

[JC_81]

Personally I think we could do a lot worse than sign Anelka.  No question he's a quality player.  Still has the pace, should be at his peak at 28 and above all is proven in the premiership.

He was ok in his first spell with us.  Didn't set the world on fire, but had his moments - I think he scored about 6 goals in half a season.  I agree with Stu - I saw enough from him to warrant signing him permanently.  Gerrard spoke very highly of him in his book, Fowler less so.  He's obviously not everyone's cup of tea.

At Bolton I'll admit I haven't seen a lot of him.  But I watched the game where he tore Arsenal apart and he was very impressive.  He's still a great finisher and now back into the French national team.

The question over his mentality will always be there.  If he's properly managed it shouldn't be a problem, but realistically Benitez is probably not the greatest of man managers, won't be the type to take Anelka aside and put an arm around him when things aren't going well, and unfortunately that's what Anelka probably needs.  The one thing that might make him a success here is that it would be his last chance at a big club which should motivate him, although I said that last summer after we signed Pennant and Bellamy and I've been slightly disappointed with both.

All in all, with Bolton interested for Cisse, we could probably do a deal for Anelka without parting with too much cash.  I can't see it happening though.