Absolutely, the Andy Carroll transfer made no sense to me then and it makes no sense to me now. I'm just making the point that to say he doesn't bring in top level players is unfair considering Liverpool aren't in Europe, and now I think of it, weren't in Europe 20 years ago because of the ban.
Kenny Dalglish & his signings for Liverpool
- Thread starter golden_blunder
- Start date
Absolutely, the Andy Carroll transfer made no sense to me then and it makes no sense to me now. I'm just making the point that to say he doesn't bring in top level players is unfair considering Liverpool aren't in Europe, and now I think of it, weren't in Europe 20 years ago because of the ban.
I was impressed with his results towrds the end of last season. rafa seemd a lot more predictable...and dour.
Dalglish is not afraid to take a few risks.
How does taking risks make him tactically superior?
so what do you understand by taking risks?
Can anyone of an age tell me what Dalglish's tactics were in his first spell at Liverpool, and how, if he has at all, changed them since his return?
Jose Mourinho is quite possibly the greatest tactician on earth yet is known for not taking many risks...
I don't think the phrase "taking risks" is ambiguous, nor do I see how it could possibly mean that Dalglish is demonstrably better at tactics than Benitez, who has proven himself to be more tactically astute than almost any other manager in Europe (albeit woefully inept in other aspects of management)
I'd say Dalglish and Benitez are chalk and cheese.
The former is an old school manager who is primarily a disciplinarian, man manager and motivator.
The latter is primarily a master tactician.
The former is an old school manager who is primarily a disciplinarian, man manager and motivator.
The latter is primarily a master tactician.
If anything, the better the tactitian the less need to take risks.
Agreed. If Dalglish is similar to any manager, it would be to SAF rather than Benitez.
Not as good, mind you.
Exactly, Rafa is actually a very good tactician, it's the other sides of his management that make him a laughing stock.
I don't know, it seemed to work for Gerrard.
i seem to recall him playing literally 7 defenders in a match during his last spell in charge.
He was fine initally, he inherited a decent side and really added to it with the purchases of Barnes, Beardsley and Aldridge. They tore sides to shreds.
Sadly Hillsborough happened and he lost focus. His mind wasn't on the job so its probably unfair to judge but, he did buy some dross in that last year, Speedie and Carter to name just 2.
His first spell at Liverpool was so long ago it's probably not the best way to judge him as a tactician.
Since then he did well at Blackburn, with enormous financial backing and not so well at Newcastle.
He inherited a cracking squad of players mid-way through a season took them from 4th to eventually finish 2nd. Then finished 13th the following season and got sacked the following spring. Didn't tear up any trees at Celtic either.
Since then he did well at Blackburn, with enormous financial backing and not so well at Newcastle.
He inherited a cracking squad of players mid-way through a season took them from 4th to eventually finish 2nd. Then finished 13th the following season and got sacked the following spring. Didn't tear up any trees at Celtic either.
Right, cheers for that. Strange how the 7 defenders thing seemed to replicate itself during the final embers of Benitez' reign.
rafa. my thoughts of his tactics were he was defensive, long balls and afraid to take risks.
agree on his lack of man mangement abilities.
Dalglish had his team commited to going forward. He got the results, even if he falterd in his last couple of matches.
will confess I cannot remember his sides 20 years ago...except i was glad when he left Liverpool for whatever reason.
probably a sign that they dont want to get beaten rather than playing for a win
Fergie reckons they can challenge for the title or is it mind games?
Sir Alex: Liverpool are Premier League challengers again | Ladbrokes.com
Sir Alex: Liverpool are Premier League challengers again | Ladbrokes.com
Yeah, I suppose it is a bit of mind games to probably put some pressure/expectation on Liverpool and take the media gloss and attention off us for a bit.
I'd also probably reckon that there is a hint of truth to what SAF is saying, but it mostly about shifting the media attention and expectation to Liverpool.
I'd also probably reckon that there is a hint of truth to what SAF is saying, but it mostly about shifting the media attention and expectation to Liverpool.
Glenn Hysen a miss ? £650.000 for a player who was a regular for 3 seasons ? I dont think so
Strikes me as odd that a few United fans here are dismissing Dalglish for only signing 'potential' - what's United's transfer policy been for a good while then, if not exactly that?
I also think Suarez was more than just potential when they got him - was already a class player and his next move was always going to be to go to a big club. I think they did well to get him.
They're paying through the nose at the moment, but when you look at what Dalglish inherited - a very weak, ill-balanced and flawed squad - he was always going to have to do this to put them back in with a chance of contending. It's obvious he wants to buy British players who can go straight into the 1st team and stay there, providing the back bone of a team that can contend for years - that kind of agenda is always going to cost stupid money. I guess if it ensures them 5-10 years in the Champion's League it will have paid off...
I also think Suarez was more than just potential when they got him - was already a class player and his next move was always going to be to go to a big club. I think they did well to get him.
They're paying through the nose at the moment, but when you look at what Dalglish inherited - a very weak, ill-balanced and flawed squad - he was always going to have to do this to put them back in with a chance of contending. It's obvious he wants to buy British players who can go straight into the 1st team and stay there, providing the back bone of a team that can contend for years - that kind of agenda is always going to cost stupid money. I guess if it ensures them 5-10 years in the Champion's League it will have paid off...
That struck me as odd as well - also Dave Burrows, cost 550,000 and made 146 appearances over 5 seasons.
They might not have been top class players but I'd say they show his ability in the transfer market in a good light, rather than a bad one.
He's signed decent/above average players for insane fees. They've got a better team/squad but using money which could bring in top players. It's like the Keane £20m type signings rather than the Torres/Mascherano type signings.
Its phase one isn't it. Build a team to get them into the top four, which they have a reasonable chance of doing if Suarez and Carroll gel.
You'd have to think that United, Chelsea and City are likely to get there, so its a shootout between Arsenal, Spurs and Pool.
You'd have to think that United, Chelsea and City are likely to get there, so its a shootout between Arsenal, Spurs and Pool.
One thing Kenny has for him is he has a pretty good assistant in Steve Clark who is
Problem is he is paying top money for players who are not top players. They say Carlos Tevez is gonna leave City for around £40mill and they paid £35mill for Andy Caroll a player who has proven nothing at the top level and then Tevez who is a world class player going for £5mill more. £20mill for Stuart Downing is fecking madness, nothing more than an average Premier League player in comparison to Suarez who they paid £22mill for and is worth every penny imo.
Rio was superb for Leeds, at West Ham he looked naive but for Leeds had looked top drawer which is why Fergie spent like £27mill on him. Van Der Saar had been a very good consistant keeper for Fulham, kind of like how Brad Friedal and Given are, playing for average teams but being solid between the sticks. As for Barthez a keeper who had just won a World Cup and European championship and been in good form on the national and domestic front I think can be considered a top player
Problem is he is paying top money for players who are not top players. They say Carlos Tevez is gonna leave City for around £40mill and they paid £35mill for Andy Caroll a player who has proven nothing at the top level and then Tevez who is a world class player going for £5mill more. £20mill for Stuart Downing is fecking madness, nothing more than an average Premier League player in comparison to Suarez who they paid £22mill for and is worth every penny imo.
Rio was superb for Leeds, at West Ham he looked naive but for Leeds had looked top drawer which is why Fergie spent like £27mill on him. Van Der Saar had been a very good consistant keeper for Fulham, kind of like how Brad Friedal and Given are, playing for average teams but being solid between the sticks. As for Barthez a keeper who had just won a World Cup and European championship and been in good form on the national and domestic front I think can be considered a top player
That's hardly an iconic image of his first spell.
He created one of the best attacking sides the league has ever seen. Wenger style of attacking a decade before he even arrive on these shores.
Unlike Wenger, Dalglish does appreciate the value of a good defender and a good defensive performance though.
David Burrows came to Liverpool when they were the top team. He wasn't good enough for that. His number of appearances is indicative of Liverpool's decline.
It's going to depend what you call a top player, then. It could become very subjective. But those with medals in the top flight and with a high market value should be amongst them.
Van der Sar was excellent for Fulham. The question marks were maybe whether we've seen his best days and if he's just a stop gap (amazingly, we got 6 great years out of him).
Barthez was coming off the back of a World Cup and European Championship medals, so 'might give' is not at all generous of you.
Rio, whilst young and still needing improvement, was one of the best defenders at the 2002 World Cup and commanded his £29mil fee for good reason.
Berbatov cost the big money, had played in a CL final, won a trophy with Spurs and was highly sought after. That's someone playing at the top level.
Rooney is another. 18 years old or not, every club in the World would've had him, after the year - and tournament - he'd just had. Along with Veron, I'd add Cole, Stam, Yorke, van Nistelrooy, Kleberson, Hargreaves and Tevez.
Some may have improved playing for us, but all were top level players. There's probably more I've forgotten.
Rio was already far better than that when he signed for United.
Not sure if all of those can justifiably be regarded as playing at the top level when we signed them. Schmeichel was an established international when he joined and had been successful for Brondby but he'd never played in a top league. Vidic was largely unknown, relatively young and inexperienced at the top level when we signed him. Ruud was a big signing but no higher profile than Suarez, in fact probably less so given that he hadn't played in a major international tournament at that stage, and again hadn't played in a top league. Ditto for Poborsky and Kleberson, who had obviously risen to prominence very quickly on the back of impressive international tournaments but were virtual unknown quantities at club level.
there's two arguments going on here...
Re: the Liverpool signings and the hits and misses, there's a couple of Mega Hits in there, John Barnes for one (and I'm willing to argue that he might go down as the clubs Best ever purchase) not to mention Aldridge, even Beardsley... that 88/98 side that Kenny put together with those signings was top notch and would have been a top European side... had they not been banned for Hysel (which of course was their own fault)
Re United signing top players
VDS, Barthez, Veron, Kleberson, Hargreaves, Cole, Rio, re-signing Hughes, Webb, Keane, Yorke, Stam, Sherringham, Rooney, Evra, Berba, are all examples of successful top level, international footballers signed by Fergie... with differing degrees of success. Anyone else suggesting otherwise is silly.
Re: the Liverpool signings and the hits and misses, there's a couple of Mega Hits in there, John Barnes for one (and I'm willing to argue that he might go down as the clubs Best ever purchase) not to mention Aldridge, even Beardsley... that 88/98 side that Kenny put together with those signings was top notch and would have been a top European side... had they not been banned for Hysel (which of course was their own fault)
Re United signing top players
VDS, Barthez, Veron, Kleberson, Hargreaves, Cole, Rio, re-signing Hughes, Webb, Keane, Yorke, Stam, Sherringham, Rooney, Evra, Berba, are all examples of successful top level, international footballers signed by Fergie... with differing degrees of success. Anyone else suggesting otherwise is silly.
Burrows played 26 times for the Liverpool side that last won the title in 1990. He played 35 games the following season when we finished runners-up - Souness replacing him with Julian Dicks is indicative of our decline once Kenny left.
The money could and should have been spent better. It's the sort of spending that should have made them title contenders but it won't. At the same time it is spending on decent players that will improve the first team a little and the squad a lot. So although I don't see it as money well spent, I do see it as Liverpool improving. Sadly.
I'm struggling to understand why people think the amount of money we've spent should put us in a position to challenge for the title. The signings of Carroll, Suarez, Downing, Henderson, & Adam, have cost us just over £100 million. Then take off the £57 million we received for Torres & Babel. Then take into account we had a negative net spend for 3 consecutive transfer windows under our previous owners. So when you take all this into account, our spending in relation to someone like City has been peanuts really. At best, all we've done, is hopefully, got our squad depth/quality back on track.
Like I said before about Torres v Carroll, it's like selling a Ferrari for £100k and then buying a Golf for £80k to replace it.
It's more like selling a Ferrari that refused to start and replacing it with a Golf that at least does a job.
I'd also say that it should really be Suarez that's seen as Torres' replacement - something he's already looked capable of doing.
I'd rather keep a Ferrari and get it fixed than buy an £80k Golf.
Suarez is fine and wasn't that expensive, it's what they've done with the rest or money that is very questionable.
Shades of Keegan -> Dalglish in that.