But that's the issue right there... you focus only on his defensive contribution, and ignore his attacking stats... Liverpool conceded a few goals because he was caught out of position, or not tracking a runner... fair enough... but he scored 13 goals, and led the league in assists... I think it's fair to say that he probably contributed to more wins than losses... if Klopp takes Liverpool to the end of this season and they finish second, do you think the Dippers are going to be throwing rotten eggs at him for being too gung-ho, claiming "they could have won it, if they'd been tighter at the back", or will they be celebrating a great season that almost was?bman2 wrote:Well I was pointing out at the time that he was not doing a good job before the slip. Defensively that is. If they hadn't dropped points with shit defending on prior occasions, the slip wouldn't have cost them so much. It's not so much that I blame the slip for them losing the league, more that I think the slip was an almost comical demonstration of one of that team's fundamental problems, which was always there. I do think it mad that even after the slip, he went to the WC explicitly to do "the carrick role", but carrick wasn't even in the squad.
At the end of the day Rogers was a bluffer. They went hell for leather, but you just can't win the league shipping so many goals. Rogers didn't have a clue about how to go about tightening it up while still being an attacking force.
The counter example is Mourinho's Chelsea the season before last: he tightened it up at the back in the second half of the season, at the expense of the attack, with two DMs, and it got them across the line.
On the other hand, Liverpool supporters were probably pretty thoroughly entertained that season, there's a lot to be said for that.
Gerrard may not have been YOUR IDEA of a great defensive, holding mid... but he still had a fuck of season, and contributed a hell of a lot to their season, in that role...