Liverpool FC Forum

by **Homebooby** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 1:54 pm

I don't think that there is an awful lot of money available to him for new buys to be honest. He's more than likely been told that he needs to cull before he can bring anyone else in, which from a financial point of view makes sense.

I admire the fact that he is evaluating what he has before running into the market and throwing money around. It all seems to be a much more considered approach, which again is what I want to see in my manager. I think that he'll be emulating (perhaps been told to emulate) what Wenger has done with Arsenal and as has been said, he has a great framework to begin with.

So long as he doesn't start running round having affairs with secretaries or TV presenters, I am sure we will be fine

by **cheesecakery** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 1:57 pm

Thor Viking wrote:A new manager statistically boosts a teams spirit, self confidence and motivation !Is mr. Benitez the man with these skills ?
I want L`pool to be up there with Gunners, Chelski and Manure. Will he make it happen ?

no

by **JBG** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 3:34 pm

The Premiership is a different ball game to La Liga, it will be interesting to see how Benitez copes.

by **stmichael** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 3:41 pm

So the new dawn has broken, and the Benitez era is underway: one game, one win. The result was reasonably meaningless, of course (even in these days of pre-season friendlies being advertised like FA Cup finals), but it was a good start to preparations. No new faces bar Cisse, but it's interesting to see who will turn into new players under new stewardship, and with a different playing style.

First to stake a claim was Anthony Le Tallec, with two goals, playing in the hole - his favoured position, and the role he excelled in towards the end of last season for the reserves, but where he's yet to feature for the first team. His best mate, FSP, was even better - but had already been touted by Rafa as a player to feature next season. Finally, Igor Biscan may have earned the chance to prove that his pace and strong running with the ball - something knocked out of him at centre back by Phil Thompson - can be put to use in central midfield, his favoured position. After his first consistent run in English football last season behind him, he may prove he has adjusted to the pace of the Premiership, even if his education was at times rocky.

The weirdest thing about Rafa's tenure so far is that we appear even weaker in the two areas which needed strengthening: centre half, and right midfield. With Benitez preferring Igor in midfield, he has discounted the one quick centre half on the books (not that I'm arguing: Igor was excellent there at times, but made too many errors). And with El Hadji Diouf rightly excluded from the squad for repeated abuses of the privilege of being a professional footballer at Liverpool Football Club, and which nets him £40k a week (it matters not that his misdemeanours were under a different manager), we are one man short in the problem right sided berth (not that Diouf was doing enough to keep his place in the side, but he was an option).

So what else will be different? One thing that needs to change under Rafael Benitez is a swift ditching of the 'Underdog Football' that I believed Liverpool played too much under Gerard Houllier. Bill Shankly urged the Kop to suck the ball in as Liverpool attacked it; Gerard Houllier, you sensed, would rather implore they blew it out as we defended it.

While it made sense - with the team GH had assembled - to go to Old Trafford with ten men behind the ball (it always got results, providing United didn't score first), it has to be our aspiration to go there capable (even if it doesn't happen) of playing United off the park; only then will it mean we are complete enough as a side to compete with United and Arsenal. Yes, "on our day" (the most annoying phrase in football - on their day teams like Southampton beat us) we could beat the top three; but we couldn't do so by matching them at an open, expansive game. After six years in charge, it was GH's job to get us closer to Arsenal and Man U in terms of footballing ability. In that respect, he failed miserably.

If we conceded first against United - or many other teams - there appeared to be no way back; the tactical approach no longer worked, and the team didn't function well enough as a cohesive attacking unit to go on the offensive.

Whenever we did attack in numbers under GH (mainly when we were chasing games), we were often left horribly exposed at the back. Strikers excluded, there was just too much pace lacking from the side: the defence couldn't defend a high line, as not one single first-team defender (ignoring Biscan, who was never outright first choice) had speed in his armoury (contrast Campbell, Toure and Cole for Arsenal). In midfield, Gerrard aside, we also lacked that driving pace - so players couldn't get ahead of the strikers into the box, and then make it back to deal with their defensive duties. When Arsenal attack in numbers, Viera can take a chance to get forward and then, if it breaks down, get back to defend; the same can be said of Freddie Ljungberg, Robert Pires (who may not be great defensively, but still gets back) and Ashley Cole.

Our football in recent seasons most often flourished when we weren't favourites to win a game. When we were expected to win, a combination of pressure and tactical failings hindered our chances. I won't say it's easy to organise a team to defend in numbers and still have the ability to hit on the break; it's not - it requires patience on the training ground and discipline from the players. But it's easier than forming a team that can play that way and also control a game with it's passing and movement - with possession.

by **Homebooby** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 3:58 pm

Extremely lucid and well put together post there St. Michael. Have to agree with most of what you were saying there and add what I was already thinking which is now gonna pale into insignificance in comparison to your post

1. Saints fan (colleague) has maintained for 2 years solid that Liverpool are no longer feared by most of the teams in the Premiership. Saints would go into a game with the pool and expect nothing out of it...now they think that they have a chance of 3 points. This has also seeped into the way that we play ourselves. I don't believe that we think that we can win nowadays when we go out there and the crowd reflects that too...it's a downward spiral that hopefully Benitez will be able to turn around.

The growth under Houllier that St. Mike was referring to was fundamentally with the same backbone as we have now and at that time, confidence and belief I think was a lot higher. We can get it back again quite easily I think.

The growth and demise of Houllier has his heart problems at its' pinnacle....I have no idea what happened behind the scenes there, but it clearly knocked the wind out of their sails and they never regained the momentum that they had. I have often wondered if Houllier became even more reluctant to let rip when necessary for fear of his health.....or maybe he just didn't see the point anymore.

Management in any field requires different tactics and techniques for different players and I have the feeling he let Thommo fill the role of strong arm for him. 2 captains never works...as he proved with Roy Evans himself. I think this is what happened here too.

by **stmichael** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 4:03 pm

Gerard Houllier was always looking to take the pressure off his players by playing down our chances and talking up the opposition; making us the underdogs. Initially, that made sense - in his early days, we were underdogs: we'd fallen a long way from the heights of the halcion days. But once we got our name back - at home, and in Europe - after his excellent rebuilding, we suddenly seemed tame once more; our up-curve peaked in the quarter finals of the Champions League in early 2002, and the following season - in an easier qualifying group than those faced the previous year - we lost out to Benitez's awesome Valencia (fair enough) but also Basle: who were underdogs compared to the fancied Reds. The underdogs other main weapon - the element of surprise - was lost once teams cottoned on to Liverpool's style of play, and lack of variety.

Once we put ourselves up on that pedestal in that period from 2001 to 2002, we could no longer claim the advantages of the underdog. Teams suddenly began setting out to stop us play, as they did in the old days - GH became a victim of his own success, not just in terms of raising expectations on the Kop, but in changing the way teams played against us. When GH took over, Liverpool's defence of Babb and an overweight Ruddock were seen as 'easy pickings'. Games were open; teams came at us, knowing they could get something. Once professionalism and organisation were re-established under Houllier, we were firmly back among the Big Boys, a name to be reckoned with once more. Only, we couldn't maintain it; we weren't as close to greatness as imagined. The foundations in terms of preparation, diet, attitude, commitment, etc, were lain in thick concrete, but the footballing base - the style of play - was never as sturdy.

The difference in trying to overcome the very problems faced by our vintage teams was that we lacked the extra levels of quality and guile - and direction - to overcome teams packing their defence at Anfield; we didn't have a Plan B: one of expansive football that dragged teams this way and that, running them ragged and tired, until we could make that rapier thrust. There was plenty of talent; but not quite enough. And there didn't appear to be any bold directives coming from the Bunker.

My theory is backed up by evidence of our home record, where the 'onus' is always 'on us': the last two season have been two of the worst at Anfield in the past fifty years (even allowing for the greatness of many of those years, there were still plenty of poor ones). The underdog doesn't have to take the initiative; he merely needs to sit back and hope for the breaks.

Arsenal, Man U and Newcastle all play a very open, attacking game at home. Newcastle's home record last season was fantastic - they were bold and aggressive in their desire for three points; Liverpool under Houllier, meanwhile, appeared to be more concerned with avoiding defeat at Anfield. Of course, Newcastle away from St James' last year were a shambles - lacking the quality and the nous to keep things tight which becomes more important without the backing of your home fans. My main gripe under Houllier was that we never controlled games in which we took the lead; we dropped back and conceded possession with too many long hopeful punts. If you don't feel able to score more goals, and want to keep things tight at the back, by all means do so: but the best way is to keep possession. No one can score against you if they don't have the ball. Also, don't retreat so deep that you can't clear your own lines with constructive play.

There is no way we'll be favourites to win the league this coming season - and rightly so, at this stage of Rafa's tenure and with the money spent by our rivals to add to already expensively-assembled squads. But that doesn't mean we have to approach it as underdogs, as rank outsiders claiming to just be there for the ride. There is a lot of talent at Anfield, for which we must thank Gerard Houllier, even if he didn't now how best to utilise it. If Rafa can fill the few weak spots GH left in the first eleven, then we can yet be a force to be reckoned with. While I don't want to see our manager willfully bill us as underdogs, at least we won't have the pressure which Chelsea have bought themselves: if you spend £200m in just 13 months, you are failing abjectly if you fail to deliver. They have won nothing of great note for 50 years, and yet some bookies expect them to do better than a team undefeated when winning the title last year. That brings its own problems.

We have to be bold, and positive, and brave; not foolhardy (mention brave attacking football, and people throw Kevin Keegan's 'defenceless' Newcastle at you, whereas I like to think of Liverpool for twenty years, or Arsenal recently, or Man U in the late 90s). Of course, Valencia under Benitez is another fine example. That was a different team to ours: different players, different abilities, different league. But now we have their manager, we can start building towards the heights to which that side ascended.

by **Roger Red Hat** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 4:03 pm

is this the northern leg of the Write a long post competition?

Look guys Im only jealous cos Im iliterate and can't string 4 sentences togevver.

:;):

by **stmichael** » Mon Jul 26, 2004 4:04 pm

Lee J wrote:is this the northern leg of the Write a long post competition?

Look guys Im only jealous cos Im iliterate and can't string 4 sentences togevver.

by **barnesrush** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 1:41 am

i think benitez's team will mostly be picked on attitude and detailed analysis of performance in training with less regard to supposed reputation or price tag (ala houllier with heskey). we could be in for some surprises teamwise

by **Starbridge42** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:34 pm

Great post stmichael, some very good points there. I agree with you about GH being unable to properly utilize talent. My personal opinion is that he was one of the best when it came to spotting young talent and potential but then couldn't alow players to fulfil that potential. Even established stars like Owen rarely played their best under GH.

by **banana** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 3:24 pm

He has already made a big difference. I am much more positive and I am actually looking forward to the next game. With Houllier we played dead boring football. Players were stripped of their self confidence and the morale were low. Suddenly the pre match bonding were gone. We did not play like a team anymore. When we played Arsenal, we were afraid of losing. When we played Portsmouth we were afraid of not winning. We were always afraid of something. The manager and the team were under constant pressure and scrutiny. Now players seem much more determined and happy. If Houllier had stayed we would have lost Baros, Owen and Gerreard. Benitez convinced them to stay. We have all written off Biscan, now he is starting to impress. I had also written off Owen, Smicer, Murphy, Hyypia, Henchoz, Diao and others. If they also start to play like I know they can we suddenly have a strong team. This season Benitez will clear up Houllier's mess, and make us ready for a serious title fight next year. Benitez is all about winning. His Valencia team were full of strong, fit, determined players. No chicken breasted midgets like Cheyrou or Diomede were on his team sheet. A fitter, stronger more determined Liverpool side will kick some serious ****** over the next few years.

by **barnesrush** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 3:27 pm

wonder where st mike cut that from:D

by **stmichael** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 3:29 pm

barnesrush wrote:wonder where st mike cut that from:D

i'm insulted that you would suggest such a thing. just because i actually decided to write a serious long post for once.

by **barnesrush** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 3:32 pm

only kidding just saw another post that was cut from koptalk:p

by **stmichael** » Tue Jul 27, 2004 3:36 pm

just read a report from chris bascombe who works for the liverpool echo. he is in america at the moment and has been watching liverpool train. from watching benitez's methods he came to the conclusion that if liverpool aren't the best team next season they will certainly be the fittest and most organised. he also emphasised benitez's striving for one touch passing which is how football should be played. the guy has stamped his influence already.

Liverpool FC Forum

Will benitez make a difference ? - If so - in what way ?

Who is online