22 Nov 2015 14:33:32
Fear of the red planet, to carry on our discussion yesterday, as it went off the board, before I had a chance to reply.
You've essentially ruined your own point.
You said BR didn't favour players eg Firmino, yet you then admit he was lacking fitness in the first few games, and agreed he'd broken his back from september to october.
Can I then ask how you still came to the conclusion BR didn't favour him when he wasn't even available physically, you then said he played wing back, but then agreed with me he played in the forward 3 of a 4-3-3
I'm at a complete loss as to the point you were trying to make.
You made a post, about rodgers not favouring firmino, I disagreed, you kept arguing, and then went and found points backing up what I said. genuine question
Did you get lost along the way of making your point? Because as far as I can see you ended up agreeing with me at the end?
22 Nov 2015 16:34:30
We are creatures of habit. So when a good player isn't being played during BR reign, it was most likely because he just didn't 'fancy' him. So maybe he just added firmino to that list but for the wrong reasons. Although firmino was fit last couple of games under BR and wasn't used.
22 Nov 2015 16:04:40
LOL.
I didn't "admit" that Firmino lacked fitness. In fact, my argument is that this was a BS excuse; a thinly veiled excuse for the fact that he was clueless about Firmino and preferred to play others over him.
Which was my original point. Sorry, Boba.
Firmino was a transfer committee signing. Rodgers had no idea about him, didn't rate him, benched him early, and then continued to sub him and then he got injured.
Now, under a manager with an eye for talent, Firmino is turning into a force.
Also, you've seemed to conveniently miss the part of my post that demolished your false information about Firmino's injury in the Carlisle match. You claimed, in several posts, that Firmino had an "on and off" injury for a month. Firmino fell awkwardly in the Carlisle match and was later reported to have had a broken back.
22 Nov 2015 18:29:31
Rodgers was in the committee so why would Rodgers have no idea about him?
22 Nov 2015 18:37:55
So he came in unfit, which you didn't admit to originally, then agreed with ed002 he was unfit.
You expect unfit players to play 90 minutes? and you acknowledge he's subbed on at 77 and 69 minutes, the usual when getting players to full fitness.
You say he was a transfer committee purchase, neglecting that BR was part of that committee, and even say in your own little world, that BR agreed to buy him as long as it didn't impact CB coming in.
He then starts vs Arsenal WH and MU, Doesn't play midweek as BR switches a lot of the team around for the European fixture, eg 5 at the back with toure playing rossitter getting a game, Chriviella in for toure, Ibe playing and Brannigan getting a game (Clear squad rotating going on)
Then vs Nowrich, he finally! has both our 1st team strikers ready in Benteke and Studge, who people were clamouring to play together when fit. NONE of this is even slightly indicative that BR refused to play firmino, once again, he played 5 at the back, which left only 3 midfield spots for Milner, Pipco, lallana, can, and lucas, if ANYTHING it's indicative of BR's naivety in tactics.
None of this matters, as like I said he had an injury, which you actually neglected to mention in your original post. I was the one that brought the back injury to your attention. I mentioend on off, because of the times he was expected back but wasn't read to return to full training from the pressers. Once again I i will say this, you COMPLETELY neglected the injury in your original assessment.
So tell me how any of this points to BR ostracising him and ''not liking'' firmino. You haven't taken into account any of the match circumstances or injury/fitness problems, Which you then later on admit occurred and agree with me they would have kept him out the team.
22 Nov 2015 18:40:16
precisely re twist.
22 Nov 2015 18:46:24
It's been reported that Rodgers had to be "convinced" by others on the committee to recruit Firmino. He wanted assurances that acquiring Firmino would not impact our acquiring Benteke.
Of course, he would have learned of Firmino in the committee. Rodgers doesn't scout. But he would have seen Benteke, obviously, in EPL games. But he wouldn't have seen anything of Firmino.
It seems to me almost trite to say, at this point, that Rodgers favored players that he targeted. Watching Lovren start over and over again over Sakho seems to make this point self-evident.
He had no interest in Firmino. It showed. That has always been my point, at least on that count. Not the only point I made in my original post (which was to defend Firmino from lazy media stories) .
22 Nov 2015 19:28:40
Boba, you raised Firmino's injury first? It was a part of my original post defending Firmino. that he was under-utilized and played out of position in a bad formation by Rodgers and then he was injured. My final argument was that we should judge Firmino on his post-injury work under Klopp.
I think BR gave us a wonderful year of football in 2013/14, but in recent times, we saw his tactical and personnel flaws. I think his treatment of Firmino was simply another example of his flawed approach to player decisions. You disagree, and believe BR's excuses about match fitness. I don't. Let's agree to disagree.
22 Nov 2015 19:46:33
PPS: pretty much everything you've covered in this post, I covered in my original post. Not sure why you waited until now, once my OP is offline, to respond. What is more, nothing you write is actually responsive.
I won't cover ground I've already covered in my OP. Briefly: BR's excuse for sitting Firmino in his first two fixtures was BS, in IMHO.
He was then played out of position as a wide player (not his position) against United and WHU. It was a 4-3-3 which, as I've already posted, was so negative and pointless, it was a 4-5-1, with Ings and Firmino had to play almost as wingbacks, tracking back. To repeat myself again, go re-watch the match and check heatmaps.
After being played out of position for two games as a wide player tracking back like a wingback, he is then on the bench for Norwich and subbed in late.
You can say that it's because we had Sturridge and Benteke fit, but they were just both fit for City and Firmino played. See the difference with Klopp?
He's then started against Carlisle with our second team, and he is injured. See, again, the difference between BR and Klopp?
Firmino starts against City under Klopp. Under BR, he plays in the Carling Cup against lower squads.
Again, I covered all of this in my original post. I'm not going to go back over it for a third time after this post.
Let's agree to disagree on reality.
22 Nov 2015 20:15:32
Not everything I have covered was in that original post, you've made up basically that we bought Firmino based on the TC wanting him, and BR only agreeing to it as a long as we got CB i have no idea where you got that from.
I mentioned the back injury which kept him out for a month. If rodgers favoured players he bought aspas wouldn't have gone, Allen would have started a lot more games. It's naive to think a manager only ever starts players he buys. He might have favourites yes, but not simply because he bought them. There was once again nothing to suggest Firmino was outcast.
Im not denying BR needed to go or he wasn't good enough, just that a lot of your assertions about BR not picking him due to favouritism, and a dislike of him are quite frankly unfounded. and have shown you reasons why he wasn't picked.
You can call B. S on those first 2 fixtures all you want, but it was widely reported coming into the team he needed to up his fitness.
He plays any where across the front 4 so he isn't''out of position'' wide left right, am or cf.
So I don't get your point. I don't see what BR did wrong with him. With regard to the team vs carlisle, he once again rotated the team. you don't usually rotate the whole team just part of it, youth and experience. Firmino being in that team isn't mismanagement, and you can't account for an injury like that.
22 Nov 2015 23:54:17
The "wide reporting" on Firmino's fitness at the beginning of the season was the media essentially repeating Rodgers' lame explanation.
Firmino was one of our biggest signings over the summer. Rodgers then sits him for our first two fixtures. Naturally, media ask why. Rodgers' explanation is that Firmino isn't match fit because he had played in Copa, and arrived late to Melwood. This was reported over and over.
I say it was a BS excuse. First, because Coutinho had played in Copa, likewise arrived late to Melwood (and didn't play in the asian pre-season), and yet, he started both matches.
Second, it was also BS because Benteke likewise arrived at Melwood late, as another summer transfer acquisition who had international duty in June for Belgium. And there were questions about his fitness. And yet, Benteke started his first four matches for Liverpool.
Mysteriously, Firmino sits for both of his first two fixtures, and is featured quite late in both.
You can believe BR's explanation. That is fair and fine. I don't, just as I came to disbelief a lot of the schlock he spoke in interviews near the end of his time. I believe it was a pretext to favor other players, including Benteke, without having to answer to it.
As for Firmino, he's a central attacking midfielder. For Hoffenheim he played primarily as no. 10. He's played for Brazil as both a no.10 and as a false 9.
You can play him out wide, but that's not his best position. If you play him out wide, with defensive responsibilities like a wingback, as Rodgers did, even worse.
Klopp has played Firmino in the no 10 and as False 9. Why? Because he knows those are Firmino's best positions.
See the difference, again?
We're talking past each other at this stage. So let's leave it. I'm sure we'll find plenty else to argue about on here.
23 Nov 2015 09:39:15
Gonna wade in on a slightly overblown debate. Fear, you've made a few errors in your analysis:
1. Fitness -Comparing Firmino's fitness to Benteke or Couts is erroneous. Not only are players different but Benteke didn't play a summer tournament and Coutinho was Liverpool and PL experienced. Firmino was eased into the team.
2. His position - yes he played most often centrally for Hoffenheim but he played wide regularly as well. Also he was probably the best no 10 at Hoffenheim, he's not the best No. 10 at Liverpool. Both he and Couts need to be accommodated and if you're only playing one guy central Couts gets the role.
3. Wing back stuff - That is simply nonsense. He never played wing back and had no greater defensive duties than could have been expected of a midfielder.
4. Most damningly of all - You've made Bob defend Rodgers. That alone should be enough to make you back down.
{Ed001's Note - number 4 is reason enough to carry on! It is great reading boba defend Rodgers....}
23 Nov 2015 08:11:08
Bob: re Rodgers acceding to Firmino signing. it was reported in several outlets, Paul Joyce, for example, wrote about it, that Rodgers accepted the Firmino signing so long as Benteke was signed.
Google:
"Rodgers had the final say, but he also felt under pressure to horse trade at times.
He accepted Roberto Firmino so long as it did not impact on the arrival of Christian Benteke. "
Or, google this text:
"According to various reports, Benteke was a Rodgers signing as a compromise for the infamous 'Transfer Committee' getting their way by signing Roberto Firmino. "
Or, in the further alternative, search for this text, from a story exploring Rodgers' targets vs transfer committee:
"Rodgers was the driving force behind signing the likes of Fabio Borini, Joe Allen, Adam Lallana, Dejan Lovren, Rickie Lambert, Danny Ings, James Milner and Christian Benteke, while the other members of the committee championed the suitability of players such as Daniel Sturridge, Philippe Coutinho, Sakho, Emre Can, Moreno, Luis Alberto, Iago Aspas, Lazar Markovic, Divock Origi and Roberto Firmino"
Elsewhere you'll find out that Ian Ayres and David Fallows were key in pursuing Firmino.
It's obvious there was friction on the transfer committee, and Rodgers had targets he preferred over those that were recruited by others.
23 Nov 2015 11:47:58
Fear,
There are two more points to make. The argument, as I've read it, is whether Rodgers marginalised Firmino because he was a player he didn't want? I think it's demonstrable that Rodgers did not marginalise him. There is only one occasion when Firmino was available and didn't play and that was a game where most first teamers were rested (suggesting that Firmino was very much considered a first teamer) .
The second is that you argue that Rodgers doesn't like playing committee bought players. You then list 10 players, including Firmino, 6 of which, again including Firmino, Rodgers played regularly. Your own evidence undermines your argument.
I think it would be best if you dropped this one fella.
23 Nov 2015 13:04:26
I am not used to defending BR at all. I just think what's being spouted is a load of baloney with out anything factual backing it up, just an opinion that he was fit, and that, he was played wingback. It's ludicrous. I can't be bothered carrying it on though.
23 Nov 2015 13:08:26
Quoting Paul Joyce is pretty embarrassing. We all know who his best friend was, same with the echo.
23 Nov 2015 20:40:38
This really will be my last post on this.
Bob: Sorry to see your retirement from the discussion. Admittedly it *was* getting a bit bored correcting you on facts and pointing you to sources. Seems to me your most noteworthy contribution was basically fabricating an excuse for Rodgers' decisions about Firmino by claiming Firmino had an "off and on" injury for a month, when it was widely reported, and known, that Firmino was injured in the Carlisle match. Despite all that, it still has been fun.
PS: You don't like Paul Joyce, and that's fine. Unfortunately, many other outlets and journos reported on Rodgers being convinced of Firmino being signed, and on friction between Rodgers and the committee.
Muscatred: Thanks for the post. Let me address each in turn.
1. I don't think it's "erroneous" at all to compare Firmino's fitness with Benteke and Coutinho. It's not like Firmino was arriving from the Italian fourth league. He was arriving from the Bundesliga, which is widely understood to be the most comparable to the EPL in terms of physical demands. Moreover, Firmino was arriving from the Brazilian national team and its matches in Copa-- not exactly a cake walk. Arguably, Copa meant he would arrive in better fitness and shape than Benteke.
2. Firmino has played out wide, but it's not debatable what his best positions are. He's a central attacker. So, no 10 and no 9. Klopp has used him in both, but not out wide. You may be right that Klopp goes with Coutinho as the no.10 when there is a question, but I actually think apposite: Coutinho has been excellent out wide so far, and Firmino was killer when he played no.10 (though against a weak side) . No problem being wrong about this.
3. My point was that he was played out wide, in a formation that was clearly coached negatively by Rodgers, which didn't get the best out of Firmino. A very simple point. I think Firmino's success centrally under Klopp shows this is the case.
4. I don't know Bobtron's history. He's defended Rodgers admirably, if slightly badly at times.
The two other subsequent points you noted.
A. I'm not sure it's demonstrable at all. As per my arguments in #1 above, I still think sitting Firmino in his first two matches, with only late subs, was bunk. Moreover, you made the point about Firmino being "eased" into the side, to ensure match fitness. A fair point, if it weren't for the fact Rodgers often did not do this by this stage, given his desire to win (knowing his job was likely on the line) . For example, as soon as Sturridge declared himself fit, he started immediately, for three games in a row. No easing in. Lallana injured after Bournemouth, returned and started Sept 17th. No ease in. I honestly think Firmino only started against Arsenal, United, and West Ham was because Lallana was injured.
B. The list wasn't meant to demonstrate what players Rodgers played over others. *Of course* Rodgers played committee signings, otherwise his time here would be short. But again, is there any doubt he favored players like Lovren, Lallana, Milner, and Allen over other superior options like Sakho or Lucas.
Look, I get it -- both Boba and your main arguments -- that while Rodgers *was* an idiot, there's a reasonable explanation for why Firmino was played the way he was, due to fitness concerns, etc, and that I'm taking things too far, by claiming he didn't favour Firmino and thus failed to play him appropriately.
One day, the definitive history of the Rodgers reign will be written, and we'll learn Rodgers true feelings on Firmino and other players, and I'm confident that history will show me right-- it wasn't match fitness, nor injury concerns, just Rodgers didn't know much of Firmino. And Firmino ultimately got to play under Rodgers, due to some luck-- Lallana's injury in mid August until late September. I'm done.
23 Nov 2015 20:44:14
In other words, I'm betting on Rodgers' ignorance/cluelessness, ultimately carrying the day, in history's judgment, in the end. :)