I hope they keep Rodgers.
RAWK Goes into Meltdown 2014/2015 - The "We go again" Edition
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
...
Nah, Flemish is much nicer on the ear.
About himself surely?
Gary Neville has got a West Lancashire accent.
They are turning on each other. Lots of abuses being hurled at each other in the match thread.
It's starting to sink in on some they are a bit shit after all
It's starting to sink in on some they are a bit shit after all
They will be dumb not to.
the fans expectations there is crazy....the owners are not going to throw crazy money....that is only way they are going to compete with us, Chelsea or City....or even Arsenal.
After every setback, there's always a couple who go on to basically tell everyone else to shut the feck up and go support someone else.They are turning on each other. Lots of abuses being hurled at each other in the match thread.
It's starting to sink in on some they are a bit shit after all
Lemony barbeque chicken bits I think.
Not just trophies. Cakes
This is the most offensive thing I've ever seen.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Back to where they belong, celebrating Golden Glove awards. They had a few memorable years with Reina.
How would they know what that feels like?
Rodgers is doing too bad for our good. He might get sacked.
A guy on the Norwegian Liverpool supporter page is annoyed at Rodgers post match interview:
I like how they state it as if it's an indisputable fact
(my translation)
I like how they state it as if it's an indisputable fact
Good point !A lot has been made of Rodgers comments about 5th being about par for us this season. I haven't seen the comments yet, but what I have seen is a number of RAWKites gnashing and wailing about "lack of ambition" and "Hodgsonification" etc. On the flip side, we have other posters who point out that there is a strong correlation between wages and league position, and that 5th - if we finish there - is about all we should be expecting and anything else is a bonus. However, there is a degree of subjectivity there in both arguments. Is there an objective way to look at our output to determine our table position, or is Rodgers talking a lot of poppycock? I would say that if we look at one true measure of performance, then we could say that he was not wrong in his assessment (however inadvisable it might have been to say it out loud).
There is one cast iron, no-money-back guarantee way of showing metrics over the course of a league programme. For better or worse, goals for and goals against tell a story that needs more depth, for sure, but which - on the surface - can say a lot about a team's performance in the league. There is a correlation between goals scored and points gained at the end of the season. Have a look at the tables for the last 10 years (or maybe even longer). You can see that the more goals you score, the more points you get (sounds obvious). What's more interesting is that often there is a near 1:1 correlation. It's not a strong correlation, by any means, but it does demonstrate that the best teams score the most goals, and the weakest teams score the least. There are occasional outliers to this, but mostly, it stands up to (minor) scrutiny. Similarly, 80% of the time, the league winners are also the top scorers, while the best defenders are sometimes as low as 4th. So goals make the game, generally, and the more you score, the more you win and the higher you place.
On top of that, scoring highly as a team usually means you have one good goalscorer who at least gets into double figures. Generally, a good standard for a goalscorer, over a 38-game league season, would be 15+ goals (a goal ever 2.5 games). So any time you have a player scoring 15+ goals, you should do well. If your defence is terrible though (and I mean relegation terrible, not how some people perceive Liverpool's defence under Rodgers), it won't matter. If your defence is in any way average or better, though, you should be at least mid-table or higher. But to finish higher, not only do you need a decent defensive record, but also a good scoring record. The more goals, the higher the finish, for all intents and purposes.
So it stands to reason that for a single team, the better their main goalscorer, the better the league performance (all other elements being accounted for as being reasonably efficient to very efficient). If a team has a goalscorer who has scored 15+ goals, they should finish relatively well, right? In Liverpool's case, that appears to be true for the most part.
If we look at the image below, we can see for the past 15 seasons (plus this season to date) how our league position and our top goalscorers total have some correlation:
If we apply the "Par" analogy, we can see that most of the seasons where we've had a 15+ goals per season striker, we have finished in the top four, save for three seasons, where we didn't (02-03, 09-10, 12-13). That's 3 out of 16 seasons. So in those seasons, we can say we finished under-par for our goalscorers output. That's 18.75% of the time, where we have underperformed against our goalscorers output. Similarly, we can also see that 4 seasons out of 16 (to date), we have finished outside of the top four when we have not had a 15+ goals per season league scorer. On the other hand, there are 6 seasons where we had a 15+ league goalscorer, and finished in the top four. So it can be said that for those 10 seasons in total, we "played to par" according to the number of goals our top goalscorer. So that means that we play to par 62.5% of the time - our top scorer scores 15+ goals, we finish in the top four. If our top scorer scores less than 15 goals, we don't finish in the top four. 62.5% of the time, this is the case.
For the times that we have had a league top scorer who has scored LESS than 15 goals, and we've STILL finished in the top four, we can see that this has only happened 18.75% of the time. That's a low number of times for that to occur. And yet it is the standard to which Rodgers is being held this season. He is expected to do better than we have done in the last 16 years, with a 20 year old goalscorer who is only on 7 goals with 6 games to go. To expect more from this team, with those numbers, is to say you expect Rodgers and the players to better than we have done in only 18-19% of the time in the last 16 seasons. That's a heavy burden to carry. If we look at the ages of the top goalscorers, with the exception of the naturally gifted and outstanding talent that was a young Michael Owen, the average age of our top goalscorer is 26 years old. We know, for sure, that Sterling is not a natural finisher. If he was, he would have a good few more goals by now (and we might very well be higher in the table for them). So we can't hold him to the goalscoring standard of Owen. So the question is - why are we expecting a young, 20-year old non-natural goalscorer, supplied by a 21-22 year old creator who is also not a natural scorer, to prop up our attack and score the number of goals needed to push us into the top four? And we do have to rely on him to spearhead the attack, because our marquee forward signing of the summer just isn't efficient, and the other alternatives are either old and slow or fast and hard working but also not a natural scorer (or a good one in open play, in any case). So why are we applying a tough standard to a manager, a player, and an attack that is actually playing to par, if not above par? We don't have (most likely) a 15+ goalscorer this season. So are we really expecting Rodgers to buck a 16 year trend and finish in the top four with a 20 year old attacker who will probably finish on about 10-12 goals (unless he hits a really hot streak), supplied by a 22 year old playmaker? If we look at where we are, goalscoring-wise, I think it's quite clear to see exactly why Rodgers said we are "about where we expect to be", given the lack of firepower up front. It is also reason enough to give him at least one more season, with proper goalscorers to see if he follows the trend and does what has happened nearly 70% of the time in the last 16 seasons - finish fourth or higher, with goalscorers capable of putting 15 goals or more into the back of the net. Until we have that, it's really not a simple thing to judge where we should be in the table, and it is to Rodgers and the team's credit that we are even in with a shout of top four this late-on, under the circumstances.
There is one cast iron, no-money-back guarantee way of showing metrics over the course of a league programme. For better or worse, goals for and goals against tell a story that needs more depth, for sure, but which - on the surface - can say a lot about a team's performance in the league. There is a correlation between goals scored and points gained at the end of the season. Have a look at the tables for the last 10 years (or maybe even longer). You can see that the more goals you score, the more points you get (sounds obvious). What's more interesting is that often there is a near 1:1 correlation. It's not a strong correlation, by any means, but it does demonstrate that the best teams score the most goals, and the weakest teams score the least. There are occasional outliers to this, but mostly, it stands up to (minor) scrutiny. Similarly, 80% of the time, the league winners are also the top scorers, while the best defenders are sometimes as low as 4th. So goals make the game, generally, and the more you score, the more you win and the higher you place.
On top of that, scoring highly as a team usually means you have one good goalscorer who at least gets into double figures. Generally, a good standard for a goalscorer, over a 38-game league season, would be 15+ goals (a goal ever 2.5 games). So any time you have a player scoring 15+ goals, you should do well. If your defence is terrible though (and I mean relegation terrible, not how some people perceive Liverpool's defence under Rodgers), it won't matter. If your defence is in any way average or better, though, you should be at least mid-table or higher. But to finish higher, not only do you need a decent defensive record, but also a good scoring record. The more goals, the higher the finish, for all intents and purposes.
So it stands to reason that for a single team, the better their main goalscorer, the better the league performance (all other elements being accounted for as being reasonably efficient to very efficient). If a team has a goalscorer who has scored 15+ goals, they should finish relatively well, right? In Liverpool's case, that appears to be true for the most part.
If we look at the image below, we can see for the past 15 seasons (plus this season to date) how our league position and our top goalscorers total have some correlation:
If we apply the "Par" analogy, we can see that most of the seasons where we've had a 15+ goals per season striker, we have finished in the top four, save for three seasons, where we didn't (02-03, 09-10, 12-13). That's 3 out of 16 seasons. So in those seasons, we can say we finished under-par for our goalscorers output. That's 18.75% of the time, where we have underperformed against our goalscorers output. Similarly, we can also see that 4 seasons out of 16 (to date), we have finished outside of the top four when we have not had a 15+ goals per season league scorer. On the other hand, there are 6 seasons where we had a 15+ league goalscorer, and finished in the top four. So it can be said that for those 10 seasons in total, we "played to par" according to the number of goals our top goalscorer. So that means that we play to par 62.5% of the time - our top scorer scores 15+ goals, we finish in the top four. If our top scorer scores less than 15 goals, we don't finish in the top four. 62.5% of the time, this is the case.
For the times that we have had a league top scorer who has scored LESS than 15 goals, and we've STILL finished in the top four, we can see that this has only happened 18.75% of the time. That's a low number of times for that to occur. And yet it is the standard to which Rodgers is being held this season. He is expected to do better than we have done in the last 16 years, with a 20 year old goalscorer who is only on 7 goals with 6 games to go. To expect more from this team, with those numbers, is to say you expect Rodgers and the players to better than we have done in only 18-19% of the time in the last 16 seasons. That's a heavy burden to carry. If we look at the ages of the top goalscorers, with the exception of the naturally gifted and outstanding talent that was a young Michael Owen, the average age of our top goalscorer is 26 years old. We know, for sure, that Sterling is not a natural finisher. If he was, he would have a good few more goals by now (and we might very well be higher in the table for them). So we can't hold him to the goalscoring standard of Owen. So the question is - why are we expecting a young, 20-year old non-natural goalscorer, supplied by a 21-22 year old creator who is also not a natural scorer, to prop up our attack and score the number of goals needed to push us into the top four? And we do have to rely on him to spearhead the attack, because our marquee forward signing of the summer just isn't efficient, and the other alternatives are either old and slow or fast and hard working but also not a natural scorer (or a good one in open play, in any case). So why are we applying a tough standard to a manager, a player, and an attack that is actually playing to par, if not above par? We don't have (most likely) a 15+ goalscorer this season. So are we really expecting Rodgers to buck a 16 year trend and finish in the top four with a 20 year old attacker who will probably finish on about 10-12 goals (unless he hits a really hot streak), supplied by a 22 year old playmaker? If we look at where we are, goalscoring-wise, I think it's quite clear to see exactly why Rodgers said we are "about where we expect to be", given the lack of firepower up front. It is also reason enough to give him at least one more season, with proper goalscorers to see if he follows the trend and does what has happened nearly 70% of the time in the last 16 seasons - finish fourth or higher, with goalscorers capable of putting 15 goals or more into the back of the net. Until we have that, it's really not a simple thing to judge where we should be in the table, and it is to Rodgers and the team's credit that we are even in with a shout of top four this late-on, under the circumstances.
Is that PhaseofPlay? Reeks of him.A lot has been made of Rodgers comments about 5th being about par for us this season. I haven't seen the comments yet, but what I have seen is a number of RAWKites gnashing and wailing about "lack of ambition" and "Hodgsonification" etc. On the flip side, we have other posters who point out that there is a strong correlation between wages and league position, and that 5th - if we finish there - is about all we should be expecting and anything else is a bonus. However, there is a degree of subjectivity there in both arguments. Is there an objective way to look at our output to determine our table position, or is Rodgers talking a lot of poppycock? I would say that if we look at one true measure of performance, then we could say that he was not wrong in his assessment (however inadvisable it might have been to say it out loud).
There is one cast iron, no-money-back guarantee way of showing metrics over the course of a league programme. For better or worse, goals for and goals against tell a story that needs more depth, for sure, but which - on the surface - can say a lot about a team's performance in the league. There is a correlation between goals scored and points gained at the end of the season. Have a look at the tables for the last 10 years (or maybe even longer). You can see that the more goals you score, the more points you get (sounds obvious). What's more interesting is that often there is a near 1:1 correlation. It's not a strong correlation, by any means, but it does demonstrate that the best teams score the most goals, and the weakest teams score the least. There are occasional outliers to this, but mostly, it stands up to (minor) scrutiny. Similarly, 80% of the time, the league winners are also the top scorers, while the best defenders are sometimes as low as 4th. So goals make the game, generally, and the more you score, the more you win and the higher you place.
On top of that, scoring highly as a team usually means you have one good goalscorer who at least gets into double figures. Generally, a good standard for a goalscorer, over a 38-game league season, would be 15+ goals (a goal ever 2.5 games). So any time you have a player scoring 15+ goals, you should do well. If your defence is terrible though (and I mean relegation terrible, not how some people perceive Liverpool's defence under Rodgers), it won't matter. If your defence is in any way average or better, though, you should be at least mid-table or higher. But to finish higher, not only do you need a decent defensive record, but also a good scoring record. The more goals, the higher the finish, for all intents and purposes.
So it stands to reason that for a single team, the better their main goalscorer, the better the league performance (all other elements being accounted for as being reasonably efficient to very efficient). If a team has a goalscorer who has scored 15+ goals, they should finish relatively well, right? In Liverpool's case, that appears to be true for the most part.
If we look at the image below, we can see for the past 15 seasons (plus this season to date) how our league position and our top goalscorers total have some correlation:
If we apply the "Par" analogy, we can see that most of the seasons where we've had a 15+ goals per season striker, we have finished in the top four, save for three seasons, where we didn't (02-03, 09-10, 12-13). That's 3 out of 16 seasons. So in those seasons, we can say we finished under-par for our goalscorers output. That's 18.75% of the time, where we have underperformed against our goalscorers output. Similarly, we can also see that 4 seasons out of 16 (to date), we have finished outside of the top four when we have not had a 15+ goals per season league scorer. On the other hand, there are 6 seasons where we had a 15+ league goalscorer, and finished in the top four. So it can be said that for those 10 seasons in total, we "played to par" according to the number of goals our top goalscorer. So that means that we play to par 62.5% of the time - our top scorer scores 15+ goals, we finish in the top four. If our top scorer scores less than 15 goals, we don't finish in the top four. 62.5% of the time, this is the case.
For the times that we have had a league top scorer who has scored LESS than 15 goals, and we've STILL finished in the top four, we can see that this has only happened 18.75% of the time. That's a low number of times for that to occur. And yet it is the standard to which Rodgers is being held this season. He is expected to do better than we have done in the last 16 years, with a 20 year old goalscorer who is only on 7 goals with 6 games to go. To expect more from this team, with those numbers, is to say you expect Rodgers and the players to better than we have done in only 18-19% of the time in the last 16 seasons. That's a heavy burden to carry. If we look at the ages of the top goalscorers, with the exception of the naturally gifted and outstanding talent that was a young Michael Owen, the average age of our top goalscorer is 26 years old. We know, for sure, that Sterling is not a natural finisher. If he was, he would have a good few more goals by now (and we might very well be higher in the table for them). So we can't hold him to the goalscoring standard of Owen. So the question is - why are we expecting a young, 20-year old non-natural goalscorer, supplied by a 21-22 year old creator who is also not a natural scorer, to prop up our attack and score the number of goals needed to push us into the top four? And we do have to rely on him to spearhead the attack, because our marquee forward signing of the summer just isn't efficient, and the other alternatives are either old and slow or fast and hard working but also not a natural scorer (or a good one in open play, in any case). So why are we applying a tough standard to a manager, a player, and an attack that is actually playing to par, if not above par? We don't have (most likely) a 15+ goalscorer this season. So are we really expecting Rodgers to buck a 16 year trend and finish in the top four with a 20 year old attacker who will probably finish on about 10-12 goals (unless he hits a really hot streak), supplied by a 22 year old playmaker? If we look at where we are, goalscoring-wise, I think it's quite clear to see exactly why Rodgers said we are "about where we expect to be", given the lack of firepower up front. It is also reason enough to give him at least one more season, with proper goalscorers to see if he follows the trend and does what has happened nearly 70% of the time in the last 16 seasons - finish fourth or higher, with goalscorers capable of putting 15 goals or more into the back of the net. Until we have that, it's really not a simple thing to judge where we should be in the table, and it is to Rodgers and the team's credit that we are even in with a shout of top four this late-on, under the circumstances.
Gotta be
Pretty sure it's that maniac PoP
yes, PoP, on fire as per.
I'm not reading that shit.
Has the latest scouse commentary been released? The last one was gold.
I like that he completely arsed the meaning of par.
That poster actually made some good points. Diego Costa's goals pretty much won us the title just as van Persie carried United in 12-13 season.
It took him hundreds of words and a graph to essentially say that having a prolific goalscorer will increase your league position on average (it might even win you a thing or two). Genius.
''metrics''
There are massive differences in accents in the UK. Nevermind 30 miles, they can be noticeably different as little as two or three miles.
The scouse accent to a native speaker is just horrid to listen to. I don't just say that as a United fan, but as a person with ears.
Not jut them, I assure you...
Took me 6 months of listening to interview to understand half of what SAF was saying, as a Yank who is inherently terrible with accents.
Scouse is easy though, as easy as unstanding that muppet accent, you know, the one all the muppets have.
Scouse is easy though, as easy as unstanding that muppet accent, you know, the one all the muppets have.
Exactly. It's basically saying 'we're on par finishing 5th because we haven't got a striker that can score 15+ goals'. And? That's what happens when you sell a player like Suarez and attempt to replace the goals he gives you with Borini, Balotelli and Ricky Lambert. They've been unlucky in that Sturridge has been injured but they made about £65 million from that sale and had all summer to sort it out. It's no excuse. And look at the responses to this 'genius' post:
Then a RAWK poster nails it:
Sure he'll be banned soon enough.
Who's the got hardest accent to understand on the pod?
SAF was always easily understandable to me. Everything he ever said always sounded like "success and trophies" to me.
Liverpool need to bring back the man who took a front 3 of Pennant-Kuyt-Zenden to a european final in 2007. Probably the worst attack ever in a euro final.
The worst thing that could have happened to that lot was the near perfect storm that almost won them the title last year. Its given a lot of them even more unrealistic expectations and made them even more insufferable.
Instead he went and bought a few pool cues and thought his was a genius.
And look at the responses to this 'genius' post:
Then a RAWK poster nails it:
Sure he'll be banned soon enough.
Been having a flick through their thread about today's match, there's a lot of "let's replace Rodgers with Klopp" posts.
They actually think he's waiting by the phone for Henry to call him
They actually think he's waiting by the phone for Henry to call him
Ha! Fair enough