Borini's Broken Foot

Liverpool FC's Fabio Borini suffers broken foot
by James Pearce, Liverpool Echo

LIVERPOOL FC striker Fabio Borini is facing an extended spell on the sidelines after breaking a bone in his right foot.

A scan confirmed the fracture after Borini was hurt during training ahead of Italy Under-21s' Euro 2013 play-off clash with Sweden tomorrow night.

The news will be a major blow to Liverpool boss Brendan Rodgers, who now only has one recognised senior striker in Luis Suarez.

It's not yet clear how long Borini will be out for but he will return to Merseyside for treatment.

The 21-year-old has endured a difficult start to his Liverpool career with just one goal in 11 appearances since his £10.5million switch from Roma this

Our lack of strikers has now become even more of a problem.

Discuss...

Suarez is also 2 yellow cards away from a suspension, correct? And given that referees have basically given PL defenders free reign to kick/stamp/trip Suarez as much as they like without real fear of punishment it's probably only a matter of time before he picks up an injury as well...

Gerrard for false 9?

NOOOO F*cking international games. It's not on the official website, so maybe Echo is misinformed. I don't want to accept the worst until it's official. I guess we can give Yesil more game time, but this injury probably means that our starting three upfront are Sterling-Suares-Suso now.

It's legit. Confirmed by Italian FA.

hes such an amazing talent and i really thought he was going to explode over the next few games, and tbh he was the only reason i watched Liverpool this season

i guess it would mean more game time for Sterling?

Sterling has already played more games than anyone else on the squad. Suso, Yesil and Assaidi will benefit from this. He was finally settling down as well

Well, Rodgers is probably quite happy to try to pull off a Spain and play 4-6-0, so this shouldn't disrupt his plans too much.

Drop the hatchet, mate. The diatribes and hyperbole are getting a wee bit old.

This was my my first satirical comment on Rodgers's short-sightedness to force Carroll out while failing to sign another striker, so excuse me while I will keep my hatchet up and swinging.

The grammar of Liverpool fans

OT: That's too bad. Borini is one of my favorite young strikers out there. Hoping for a quick recovery

CBarca wrote:The grammar of Liverpool fans

OT: That's too bad. Borini is one of my favorite young strikers out there. Hoping for a quick recovery

datz Y i p0st heAr, i ceep fings in eQualidriumz


i guess we should all hope that for Liverpools sake that this doesnt open up a place in the XI for Joe Cole

Oh lord we would be fighting relegation if Joe Cole gets into the starting lineup.

Art Morte wrote:This was my my first satirical comment on Rodgers's short-sightedness to force Carroll out while failing to sign another striker, so excuse me while I will keep my hatchet up and swinging.

It's the deluge of non-satirical ones that I think have been ticking Red off enough to comment.

To me Suarez has contributed to his own mess. They don't give him special treatment in the slightest sense but at the same time I understand a referee's reluctance to award him free kicks or penalties.

A colonel of doubt will always be in the back of their mind with the frequency and manner in which he goes down.

Borini is out until christmas

Art Morte wrote:Well, Rodgers is probably quite happy to try to pull off a Spain and play 4-6-0, so this shouldn't disrupt his plans too much.

While I respect your opinion and I am usually quite impressed by your ability to analyze the situation and provide a unique and valuable insight into these matters, I simply cannot agree with you on this.

Sometimes when attempting to implement fundamental changes to a stylistic approach or group-dynamic, one needs to be more rigid than one would normally be. This means that Rodgers style right now may, in fact, be more rigid and unwavering than we will see in the long run. In implementing these sorts of changes, one has to establish a “new normal”.

Carroll, Adam, and Downing too (if I’m honest) represented the previous approach and culture. If we are to move forward, we need to avoid relying on what I’ve heard referred to here as a “Plan B”. When you rely too heavily on a “Plan B”, it no longer becomes the second option, and quickly supersedes the “Plan A”. If you follow this concept through, it most likely results in LFC playing “small club” tactics. This means not dominating games, not controlling our own fate, and simply trying to exploit the odd chance gifted to us by the opposition. In the long-run, this translates into hoping to beat clubs below us and nick points from clubs like ManU, Chelsea, Man City, Arsenal, Tottenham, New Castle, Everton, Stoke, Sunderland etc. If you like that idea, by all means, please continue to crucify Rodgers for loaning out Carroll (with a view to a permanent move).

As a small aside, may I just state that I do not dislike Carroll. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. I actually really enjoy watching him play. However, for reasons mentioned above, I simply believe he’s not a good solution for Liverpool’s future.

I honestly believe that Rodgers is doing Carroll and the club a favor by not keeping him at Anfield this season. If Carroll stayed and rode the pine, not only would he not help the club move forward, he would not helping himself grow and develop as a player. I don’t think anyone would say that Carroll looked like fitting into Rodgers’s system. He would be used almost exclusively in “Plan B”/”Last-Ditch” situations. The only other option is a strange amalgamation of tiki-taka in the first two-thirds of the pitch and lofted-ball tactics in the final third, in the unfortunate situation that we have no other first-team striker. I fail to see how that is truly beneficial to anyone in the short or long-term plans of the club.

My second point is that I’m not sure how it has suddenly become Rodgers’s fault that we did not sign a replacement for Carroll. He has all but come out and said that he was promised a replacement before allowing Carroll out on loan. He obviously wanted Dempsey on a permanent deal, likely pusued Sturridge on loan, or possibly tried to line-up a late move for another European target. When the people responsible for negotiating and approving the deals fail him, it’s now somehow his fault that promises made to him were broken? You can say that a manager is responsible for ensuring the well-being of the squad, but he tried to do just that . He was promised replacements that never materialized for one reason or another. By all means, let’s crucify him for other’s failings. To his credit, he hasn’t gone to war with management/Ayre over this collective breakdown. He’s trying to manage the current squad and lobby for improvements at the soonest opportunity.

I have made attempt to hide my support of Rodgers and genuine affection for his methods, vision and style of play. In addition, I make no apology for my support of the man. That said, I am willing to listen to well thought out opinions and non-knee-jerk reactions to the contrary. I merely ask that we not be too short-sighted in our criticism of the man. We need to establish an identity and a genuine consistency in approach before even thinking of becoming a top-tier team again. The reality is that we are at least one rung down the ladder from a top-four team right now. (It can be argued that we are two… Top Four -> Challengers -> Upper Mid-table) Infighting, upheaval and more turnover would only serve to further lower our current place within the hierarchy of Premier League teams. I’m more than willing to endure a rocky start to avoid such a depressing future.

donttreadonred wrote:

Art Morte wrote:Well, Rodgers is probably quite happy to try to pull off a Spain and play 4-6-0, so this shouldn't disrupt his plans too much.

Carroll, Adam, and Downing too (if I’m honest) represented the previous approach and culture. If we are to move forward, we need to avoid relying on what I’ve heard referred to here as a “Plan B”. When you rely too heavily on a “Plan B”, it no longer becomes the second option, and quickly supersedes the “Plan A”. If you follow this concept through, it most likely results in LFC playing “small club” tactics. This means not dominating games, not controlling our own fate, and simply trying to exploit the odd chance gifted to us by the opposition. In the long-run, this translates into hoping to beat clubs below us and nick points from clubs like ManU, Chelsea, Man City, Arsenal, Tottenham, New Castle, Everton, Stoke, Sunderland etc. If you like that idea, by all means, please continue to crucify Rodgers for loaning out Carroll (with a view to a permanent move).

Small club tactics. Small. Club. Tactics. Football has been played in England for over a hundred years. Brendan Rodgers and his - what apparently should be called "big club" - tactic has been around for a few years. At what point exactly did playing ultimate possession-based football become a "big club" tactic and other approaches were left for teams that could only dream of what has apparently now been revealed as the Holy 4-Trinity-Trinity tactic with carefully picked short-passes throughout the 90 minutes? Major trophies have been won throughout the history of the sport by different tactics, be them possession, counter-attack, defence-first or others, so I really, really cannot embrace any one of these tactics as being the ultimate small, medium or big club one. Perhaps it's my personal a shortcoming, but I can much easier embrace the reality, which is us having 6 points from 7 league games and lieing 14th in the table.

donttreadonred wrote:
My second point is that I’m not sure how it has suddenly become Rodgers’s fault that we did not sign a replacement for Carroll. He has all but come out and said that he was promised a replacement before allowing Carroll out on loan. He obviously wanted Dempsey on a permanent deal, likely pusued Sturridge on loan, or possibly tried to line-up a late move for another European target. When the people responsible for negotiating and approving the deals fail him, it’s now somehow his fault that promises made to him were broken? You can say that a manager is responsible for ensuring the well-being of the squad, but he tried to do just that . He was promised replacements that never materialized for one reason or another. By all means, let’s crucify him for other’s failings. To his credit, he hasn’t gone to war with management/Ayre over this collective breakdown. He’s trying to manage the current squad and lobby for improvements at the soonest opportunity.

This "Rodgers deserves no blame" mentality has quite surprised me. Be it results on the pitch or transfers done, we are suddenly steering clear from the age-old truth that managers are ultimately judged by results delivered in their areas of responsibilities. Dalglish sure was. And transfers belong to those responsibilities.. Now, I'm willing to accept that Rodgers alone wasn't at fault for our failure to sign a striker, but damn sure I'm not letting him off the hook either. You're the manager, you're in charge of the squad, it is within your responsibilities to ensure you don't go into the season after releasing three strikers (Bellamy, Kuyt, Carroll) while being left with only two senior ones.

donttreadonred wrote:I have made attempt to hide my support of Rodgers and genuine affection for his methods, vision and style of play. In addition, I make no apology for my support of the man. That said, I am willing to listen to well thought out opinions and non-knee-jerk reactions to the contrary. I merely ask that we not be too short-sighted in our criticism of the man. We need to establish an identity and a genuine consistency in approach before even thinking of becoming a top-tier team again. The reality is that we are at least one rung down the ladder from a top-four team right now. (It can be argued that we are two… Top Four -> Challengers -> Upper Mid-table) Infighting, upheaval and more turnover would only serve to further lower our current place within the hierarchy of Premier League teams. I’m more than willing to endure a rocky start to avoid such a depressing future.

Lastly, I know I'm perhaps the most anti-Rodgers LFC fan in this forum. But I have not lost my faith in him completely. I do like some of the things he does. But not all of them and looking at our season so far I dare to say my criticism of him is quite justified. You will know when I've run out of patience with him completely if I'll make a "Rodgers out" thread. Until then I will still hope he will turn the results around and actually turn out to be the right managerial solution for us like the rest of you seem to believe.

Dominating possession and using it as a means to both defend and wear down teams is not a style invented by Rodgers. The greatest Liverpool sides were largely based on such an approach, in fact. It's incredibly ignorant or intentionally misleading to portray the type of approach that DTOR is talking about as something unique to Rodgers in Liverpool's history.

"Pass and move, it's the Liverpool groove."

RedOranje wrote:Dominating possession and using it as a means to both defend and wear down teams is not a style invented by Rodgers. The greatest Liverpool sides were largely based on such an approach, in fact. It's incredibly ignorant or intentionally misleading to portray the type of approach that DTOR is talking about as something unique to Rodgers in Liverpool's history.

"Pass and move, it's the Liverpool groove."

You are right, dominant possession is not a style invented by Rodgers - but it seems to be the only one he knows. Like I said, I cannot endorse it if someone claims that that's absolutely how we should play while slamming other approaches as "small club" tactics. Regardless whether we are 1st or 14th in the table.

Pass and move, it may have been the Liverpool groove, but greater cunning still, if you can adapt at will.

Art, I respect you as a poster and your opinion, but you seem to be very impatient with Rodgers. You may have had a rocky start, but it's very early in the season yet with a manager who is bringing a distinctly different style from what your players are used to, in recent times.

Is this not the time for patience? Managers should be judged by results, in the end, but Liverpool is not Chelsea, and surely a better time to judge whether or not Rodgers is or will be a success with Liverpool would be near the end of the season?

You seem very quick to board the anti-Rodgers train.

CBarca wrote:Art, I respect you as a poster and your opinion, but you seem to be very impatient with Rodgers. You may have had a rocky start, but it's very early in the season yet with a manager who is bringing a distinctly different style from what your players are used to, in recent times.

Is this not the time for patience? Managers should be judged by results, in the end, but Liverpool is not Chelsea, and surely a better time to judge whether or not Rodgers is or will be a success with Liverpool would be near the end of the season?

You seem very quick to board the anti-Rodgers train.

CBarca, I respect you as well; most of your posts are a pleasure to read for the mind of a football fan. But ask yourself this question: In 2010-11 Roy Hodgson was our manager. After his first 7 games in the league we had the exact same record as under Rodgers: 7 games, 1-3-3. Was he offered the treatment that Brendan Rodgers is granted here? Were people calling for patience? No. No they were not. Yet now it seems to be all different. Rodgers is playing a highly distinctive tactic and that seems to be like a time-stop spell in a video game; everyone is suddenly asking for patience; Rodgers is untouchable until the spell wears out. Well, I feel like the spell has missed me. Repeating myself: Rodgers is doing some good things and I haven't lost my faith completely, but I certainly am not signing from the same "Brendan will get it right" sheet at this point either.

Please do forgive me for not wanting to wallow in the pity and disappointment that much of the English-speaking football press has been heaping upon us. I prefer to look at the positive things that have come since Rodgers got the job, and I believe there are many. Therein lies the difference between Hodgson and Rodgers. Roy never seemed to be developing anything, or really have any ambition to do better than mid-table with the occasional upset. I’m sure he harbored ambition for LFC somewhere deep down, but it never came through in his attitude or the performances on the pitch. In every match we seemed to be barely hanging on, especially in the matches we won. That’s not the type of football I enjoy, especially when it’s my club exemplifying it.

As for your point on tactics, you’re quite right. Across the history of the sport, a variety of tactics have been used to a high degree of success. I tend to enjoy the one Rodgers is attempting to bring (back) to Liverpool. However, I appreciate, and even enjoy, the aerial game and the quick-countering game. It wasn’t actually my intention to “slam” those tactics. It was my intention to “slam” the approach of wasting time throughout an entire match hoping to nick a point in the closing moments. Is that not the tactic of a “small” club when facing what is considered a superior squad? Does it work at times: certainly. Is it something I would be proud to watch week-in-week-out, and espouse it as Liverpool’s style: certainly not. I admit, it was my mistake for using the term, which you obviously took great offense to. However, if you had read the remainder of the paragraph, you might’ve been able to infer my actual meaning when I said:
“If you follow this concept through, it most likely results in LFC playing “small club” tactics. This means not dominating games, not controlling our own fate, and simply trying to exploit the odd chance gifted to us by the opposition. In the long-run, this translates into hoping to beat clubs below us and nick points from clubs like ManU, Chelsea, Man City, Arsenal, Tottenham, New Castle, Everton, Stoke, Sunderland etc.”

Okay, so it’s Rodgers fault we don’t have a strike. Maybe he should’ve been wandering the English countryside at 9 p.m. on August 31st with a box of chocolates and a blank contract. Yes, he’s the most public face of the management, and of course he bears some responsibility. That doesn’t change the fact that he held up the majority of his end. (You can always claim that it should have been dealt with sooner. You could also claim that a new manager needs to have a chance to assess the squad before making “big” changes.) No one is completely innocent in that blunder. There were failings on multiple levels. Rodgers is ultimately the one that has to deal with the squad once it is assembled. That doesn’t mean he’s ultimately responsible for assembling it. Unfortunately, that’s nowadays the responsibility of the lawyers and financiers. I’m okay with agreeing to disagree on who bears the brunt of the fault, but I’m so sick of hearing that Rodgers failed to sign another striker as if it were him that personally walked out of the negotiations. Let’s crucify him for the things he has done, not for those that were done to him.

Art, you may be the most anti-Rodgers supporter here, and I may be the most pro. However, in the end I do respect your viewpoint. I’m just sick of all the negativity (from all sources). Perhaps I’ve been paying too much attention to the English media and what seems like their constant crusade to expose any crack in the armor of LFC. Whatever it is, I assure you that I am not burying my head in the sand and blindly following the public dogma. I have eyes and think I am moderately intelligent. I can see that there are things not going particularly well. I merely wish to avoid clinical depression through an ardent accentuation of the positive, because I know that the opposite is not an option. Focusing too much on the short-term negatives only leads to unrest, and that in turn can lead to managerial turnover, something I simply don’t think we can endure. I think we have invested an AWFUL lot of the club’s future in one man. I think believing he “won’t get it right”, is far more dangerous than keeping faith for the time being.

donttreadonred wrote:Please do forgive me for not wanting to wallow in the pity and disappointment that much of the English-speaking football press has been heaping upon us. I prefer to look at the positive things that have come since Rodgers got the job, and I believe there are many. Therein lies the difference between Hodgson and Rodgers. Roy never seemed to be developing anything, or really have any ambition to do better than mid-table with the occasional upset. I’m sure he harbored ambition for LFC somewhere deep down, but it never came through in his attitude or the performances on the pitch. In every match we seemed to be barely hanging on, especially in the matches we won. That’s not the type of football I enjoy, especially when it’s my club exemplifying it.

Well yes, I was never too keen on comparing Rodgers to Hodgson, you and me would choose the same man out of those two. But Dalglish. We played some good football last season even when results didn't quite reflect that. Were good enough to create enough chances to hit the goal frame more times than any of the teams in the Premier League. I would never have sacked Kenny.

donttreadonred wrote:As for your point on tactics, you’re quite right. Across the history of the sport, a variety of tactics have been used to a high degree of success. I tend to enjoy the one Rodgers is attempting to bring (back) to Liverpool. However, I appreciate, and even enjoy, the aerial game and the quick-countering game. It wasn’t actually my intention to “slam” those tactics. It was my intention to “slam” the approach of wasting time throughout an entire match hoping to nick a point in the closing moments. Is that not the tactic of a “small” club when facing what is considered a superior squad? Does it work at times: certainly. Is it something I would be proud to watch week-in-week-out, and espouse it as Liverpool’s style: certainly not. I admit, it was my mistake for using the term, which you obviously took great offense to. However, if you had read the remainder of the paragraph, you might’ve been able to infer my actual meaning when I said:
“If you follow this concept through, it most likely results in LFC playing “small club” tactics. This means not dominating games, not controlling our own fate, and simply trying to exploit the odd chance gifted to us by the opposition. In the long-run, this translates into hoping to beat clubs below us and nick points from clubs like ManU, Chelsea, Man City, Arsenal, Tottenham, New Castle, Everton, Stoke, Sunderland etc.”

Oh I did read your whole paragraph, I simply didn't agree with the rest of it either. Referring back to my comment on Dalglish, we did create chances last season. Dominated games. Hardly were looking to exploit the odd chance. But I am glad to read that you "admit it was your mistake for using the term 'small club' tactics", for I, too, consider you to be one of intelligence. And therefore hopefully acknowledging that categorizing tactics by size of the club isn't the best categorization to use in this matter. Personal preference I can accept quite well, though.

donttreadonred wrote:Okay, so it’s Rodgers fault we don’t have a strike. Maybe he should’ve been wandering the English countryside at 9 p.m. on August 31st with a box of chocolates and a blank contract. Yes, he’s the most public face of the management, and of course he bears some responsibility. That doesn’t change the fact that he held up the majority of his end. (You can always claim that it should have been dealt with sooner. You could also claim that a new manager needs to have a chance to assess the squad before making “big” changes.) No one is completely innocent in that blunder. There were failings on multiple levels. Rodgers is ultimately the one that has to deal with the squad once it is assembled. That doesn’t mean he’s ultimately responsible for assembling it. Unfortunately, that’s nowadays the responsibility of the lawyers and financiers. I’m okay with agreeing to disagree on who bears the brunt of the fault, but I’m so sick of hearing that Rodgers failed to sign another striker as if it were him that personally walked out of the negotiations. Let’s crucify him for the things he has done, not for those that were done to him.

This whole transfer trouble about us going into the season without adequate cover in the striker department is indeed in my opinion more Rodgers's fault than anyone else's. He's a very inexperienced manager in top flight football. I can't help thinking that someone with more experience, like Kenny Dalglish, would have spotted trouble before the last option would have been going about wandering the English countryside with a box of chocolates and a blank contract - which Rodgers did not do, thank goodness. *shrugs away nightmares of Owen rejoining us*

donttreadonred wrote:Art, you may be the most anti-Rodgers supporter here, and I may be the most pro. However, in the end I do respect your viewpoint. I’m just sick of all the negativity (from all sources). Perhaps I’ve been paying too much attention to the English media and what seems like their constant crusade to expose any crack in the armor of LFC. Whatever it is, I assure you that I am not burying my head in the sand and blindly following the public dogma. I have eyes and think I am moderately intelligent. I can see that there are things not going particularly well. I merely wish to avoid clinical depression through an ardent accentuation of the positive, because I know that the opposite is not an option. Focusing too much on the short-term negatives only leads to unrest, and that in turn can lead to managerial turnover, something I simply don’t think we can endure. I think we have invested an AWFUL lot of the club’s future in one man. I think believing he “won’t get it right”, is far more dangerous than keeping faith for the time being.

Like I've said, I haven't lost faith in Brendan Rodgers completely, so I cannot go on to say it's hopeless to continue supporting him. He has still got time to win me on his side, it just needs to start happening rather sooner than later.

Art Morte wrote:Well yes, I was never too keen on comparing Rodgers to Hodgson, you and me would choose the same man out of those two. But Dalglish. We played some good football last season even when results didn't quite reflect that. Were good enough to create enough chances to hit the goal frame more times than any of the teams in the Premier League. I would never have sacked Kenny.

Oh I did read your whole paragraph, I simply didn't agree with the rest of it either. Referring back to my comment on Dalglish, we did create chances last season. Dominated games. Hardly were looking to exploit the odd chance. But I am glad to read that you "admit it was your mistake for using the term 'small club' tactics", for I, too, consider you to be one of intelligence. And therefore hopefully acknowledging that categorizing tactics by size of the club isn't the best categorization to use in this matter. Personal preference I can accept quite well, though.

Okay. I get it now. From your responses, I gather that your issues with Rodgers are linked to a direct comparison to the man he replaced. To be perfectly honest, I didn’t want Daglish out any more than you did. I thought that with another transfer window, he could’ve corrected some of the mistakes made in the last two. However, the reality is that the owners were looking for someone to establish a new culture/style and lead the club into the foreseeable future. While it can be argued Daglish was capable of instilling culture and style, at 61, the longevity of his tenure would have been a concern.

On the point of tactics, once again, the revelation of your omnipresent comparison to Daglish sheds some light on your argument. I was never trying to compare Rodgers to Daglish. Neither do I believe that Daglish was trying to play overly negative football. In fact, it was quite the opposite. (Though, at times, it was a far more direct brand of football than Rodgers espouses. Whether that was preferential or pragmatic is a discussion for another time.) My only point here (where I erroneously employed a term often used to demean long-ball and counter-attacking tactics) was to support the possession-dominating tactic used by Rodgers as a symbol of a far more positive approach to individual games and a league campaign. When I said “small club tactics”, I meant the general approach to games and campaigns whereby a team goes out not to win, but to escape. Likewise, I never meant to imply that Daglish used such tactics. While, I would call into question some of Daglish’s tactical decisions, playing negatively wasn’t one of them. Moreover, I did not intend to imply that a team cannot dominate using other tactics. I’ve seen teams boss games using the long ball, and I’ve seen teams shred opponents using the counter. I tend to believe that the possession, quick-passing game is more dependable and repeatable when implemented well. However, that’s merely my personal preference. Size of the club matters only in the mindset they bring to a match or a campaign.

Art Morte wrote:This whole transfer trouble about us going into the season without adequate cover in the striker department is indeed in my opinion more Rodgers's fault than anyone else's. He's a very inexperienced manager in top flight football. I can't help thinking that someone with more experience, like Kenny Dalglish, would have spotted trouble before the last option would have been going about wandering the English countryside with a box of chocolates and a blank contract - which Rodgers did not do, thank goodness. *shrugs away nightmares of Owen rejoining us*

Here, I think you have a point. Rodgers’s inexperience (along with other factors such as the change in club, the Euros, injuries, etc.) delayed the majority of our transfer activity. However, I would contest that it was not the hammer blow that resulted in our dearth of strikers. I know you disagree, and that’s perfectly acceptable. Unlike last year, I think we will look to correct this error in January. That brings me to my point on transfers. You say that Daglish would’ve done better in this market. I think if there is one criticism of Daglish, it would have to be his transfer dealings. Even considering the outgoing deals, the expenditure was considerable. In addition, it’s very hard to say that we got a decent return for our money. Could he have improved in this past market… Maybe. However, under Daglish, we overspent on nearly every transfer. (Adam and Doni were really the only players we didn’t overspend on. I’m not counting Suarez as a Daglish signing, but he could be a third.) With a considerably smaller budget this past window, whether he could have improved the squad is a legitimate question. In the end, it’s a moot point, and so is the discussion about Rodgers in the last window. Much more constructive conversation would be to discuss targets for January, as I do think we will correct the mistake.

Art Morte wrote:Like I've said, I haven't lost faith in Brendan Rodgers completely, so I cannot go on to say it's hopeless to continue supporting him. He has still got time to win me on his side, it just needs to start happening rather sooner than later.

I’m glad you haven’t given up hope, as in the end this is only sport and is meant to be enjoyed. Losing hope defeats that purpose entirely. Part of me thinks we are set for am Everton-esque season. By that I mean that we may likely bob around mid-table for the first few months, getting some good results and some bad, only to really gel later on and make a run up the table. I would tell you the reasons, but you would likely categorize some of my examples as excusing the early results, and that’s okay. It comes back to the point that I want to see good things come from the changes occurring. That doesn’t mean I ignore the bad. It only means that I accentuate the positive. (Is anyone else singing the song in their head right now? It’s okay. You know who you are.)

He is out for 3 months