Who did more long-term damage to LFC ?

I think Rodgers is starting to edge it. At least the Owl had a phislosophy and a style of football....after 4 years, I still don't know what that BR dude's footballing identity is...

You should look at your squad though. Bang average except for Coutinho. 5-6 th is what any one can expect with that squad.

Andy Carrol for 42 million made more damage than anything imo. If that money was used properly by Kenny you wouldve had  a better squad right now. Remember that kind of money at that time could get you world class players.

Add Lallana for 30 mill, Markovic for 25 mill,..you get the picture, your transfers ruined your team. What a team like seville do with their limited money and Liverpool do with their money, it is day and night.

Hogdson and its not even comparable, Rodgers might have ruined a potential title winning squad but Hodgson is what we call the dark era in modern day history of this club.

Adit wrote:You should look at your squad though. Bang average except for Coutinho. 5-6 th is what any one can expect with that squad.

Andy Carrol for 42 million made more damage than anything imo. If that money was used properly by Kenny you wouldve had  a better squad right now. Remember that kind of money at that time could get you world class players.

Add Lallana for 30 mill, Markovic for 25 mill,..you get the picture, your transfers ruined your team. What a team like seville do with their limited money and Liverpool do with their money, it is day and night.

IT'S HIS F******* SQUAD FFS

HE'S BEEN HERE FOR FOUR YEARS

IN THE LAST THREE YEARS HE'S ASSEMBLED A TEAM THAT COSTS THE SEVENTH MOST IN EUROPE. YES, EUROPE. What exactly do we have to show for it?

How anyone can continue to back this man............. it just proves their ignorance. He's not getting it right on OR off the pitch.

Also what does Andy Carroll have to do with any of this?

He cost 35m BEFORE Rodgers came. Carroll's signing killed Dalglish's career; not Rodgers'. Rodgers straight off sacked him saying he doesn't fit his style.
Lallana and Markovic WERE this fools signings. They're HIS signings that "ruined" our team. So how can you say HE'S not to blame for not having a "good enough" squad?

Nishankly wrote:Hogdson and its not even comparable, Rodgers might have ruined a potential title winning squad but Hodgson is what we call the dark era in modern day history of this club.

Which is in all honestly, bullshit.

I said it over a year ago. They're as bad as each other. Funny part was I was called a Manc in doing so.

Different methods/ambitions; same quality. Both mid-table managers at best. Both arrogant dumb****s that have ruined Liverpool's image. Both stubborn fools that continue to ruin the club internally and externally. Both have no clue in the market. Both talk the most absolute shit in the press. Both are incompetent.

Hodgson is only seen "worse" because he's somewhat mirrored into the whole G+H era where we almost went into administration. Rodgers is seen as some sort of angel because Suarez carried his and FSG ass to a title challenge in, let's admit was arguably one of the worst premiership sides in recent years. It's all paradise with FSG.

Looking into it deeper you can argue Rodgers is worse. The quality of the league was shit. It still IS shit. But the "top 4" now are slowly getting away from us as we continue to back this man. So Hodgson WAS bad. There won't be any Liverpool fan to say otherwise. He was after all, not good enough. But everybody knew it was the end of an era for us. FSG agreed. They sacked him. It was ALWAYS going to get better right? Wrong. They hired a club legend only to sack him without giving him a second season. To get "there" man. Who ironically IS killing Liverpool IN THE LONG TERM. Which is funny because that's all FSG talk about. The "future" and "future profits".

TL;DR whatever: The whole management at the club can get *bleep*.

The title is forged in the flames of bias.

Should be 'Fraudgson vs. Fraudgers' to be more comparable.

Nishankly wrote:Hogdson and its not even comparable, Rodgers might have ruined a potential title winning squad but Hodgson is what we call the dark era in modern day history of this club.

It makes me curious, there is some other thing over the  bad results  imputed to him ?
I had Hodgson as manager ( solidarity . ) so I 've idea how much he is bad manager but it is over the results. Basically these weren't even so bad ( 3rd place, Uefa Cup final but I 'm convinced just Hodgson could make the Schalke 04 as an European winner. ) but it was awful the management of team, I mean we talk about a manager who sells Roberto Carlos because he believes Pistone  ( a sort of Italian PFK  ) can defend better than him. Or when you realize J.Zanetti was close to fight against him ... there is a problem.
Typical manager good just for average realities ( Fulham ) but inappropriate for big clubs , where you must have a better broadmindedness or you must keep the pressure ( he got resigned because he couldn't tolerate to be booed by fans ) .
about Rodgers , I can't still rate him about it.

Hodgson became our manager for the final 6 months of H&G's disastrous tenure that almost put the club in administration. He had almost no cash to spend in his one transfer window in charge. Meireles was the only player that came in that summer that was actually useful, the rest were desperate buys on the cheap, like Joe Cole and Poulsen. Rodgers has now had seven transfer windows and loads of cash.

Sure, the football was pretty dire under Hodgson, but given the circumstances and lack of funds to bring new quality in, I can much better understand why Hodgson failed. Rodgers has no excuses.

I hate Hodgson oh so much. It takes everything I have to say something good about him. But since his tenure was only 6 months it can be written off quite easily. Rodgers has definitely done much more damage. He's wasted almost half a decade for the club and has nothing to show for it.

The squad Hodgson inherited was already on the way down. His signigns were awful and the club was in a horrible position that even Rafa struggled and I can bet house any manager would have had a bad time managing us during that 2010-11 season.

If anything Kenny daglish messed up the transition years and Rodgers had to start from scratch. Lets not forget that most managers gets their team shaped up in their 2nd/3rd years and lets be fair to Rodgers he really did perform in those season and finished 2nd and fought hard for the title.

What happens after 3rd year is another transition starts due to  requirement for fresh players..which is what is happening in Liverpool,second trasition period. A coaches period is maximum of 3 seasons imo, after that players get tired of the manager or simply gets lazy...look at  Ancelotti,Guardiola,Conte,Mourinho examples..after 3 years their teams simply underperforms and a new transition period started, they had to resign.

Rodgers messed up a lot to deal with the loss of Suarez, TRUE !

But it is equally stupid, naive and BS to say that Rodgers could challenge the title because Suarez and Sturridge had this divine power, the did not need any manager, they would have challenged for the title even under Pulis, they were the ones who carried Liverpool to the (almost) title and they carried the whole team. Rodgers had two striker whom he could use very effectively and got the best out of the available team to the limits that we could challenge for the title.

Hodgson, I just hate him. No other words !

Adit wrote:If anything Kenny daglish messed up the transition years and Rodgers had to start from scratch. Lets not forget that most managers gets their team shaped up in their 2nd/3rd years and lets be fair to Rodgers he really did perform in those season and finished 2nd and fought hard for the title.

You're about as ignorant as El Cujo, no offence...

Helmer wrote:Rodgers messed up a lot to deal with the loss of Suarez, TRUE !

But it is equally stupid, naive and BS to say that Rodgers could challenge the title because Suarez and Sturridge had this divine power, the did not need any manager, they would have challenged for the title even under Pulis, they were the ones who carried Liverpool to the (almost) title and they carried the whole team. Rodgers had two striker whom he could use very effectively and got the best out of the available team to the limits that we could challenge for the title.

Hodgson, I just hate him. No other words !

It is though. Gerrard said it in a press conference himself.

We had 9 players in our half; "SAS" up top. "SAS" carried Rodgers. It's not even a debate.
Also, with NINE players in our half we still conceded 50+ goals that season.

Roy Hodgson had just six months and a shoe-string budget. But would he have done much better if had three full seasons and over £200m to spend? I seriously doubt that. Never during his Liverpool spell or before and thereafter, he showed any tactical or man-management acumen to suggest he is any better than what he is taken for. True, he had an average (that putting it generously) squad, but he even failed to get the most out of that. Remember how constantly he shoved Raul Meireles on the wings when he was so obviously better in the middle.

I think Brendan Rodgers is better, only if marginally. I think three full seasons and over £200m deserve more than 7th-2nd-6th and two Cup semi-finals. There are some points aired in his defence:

Losing the Bite: Yes of-course, the loss of Suarez was huge. But did Dortmund or Atletico wilted like us when they lost Gotze or Costa respectively??? I’m sure Valencia and Sevilla too aren’t going to sink after the loss of Otamendi and Bacca respectively.

Lost in Transition: Transition? What transition!!! The squad transformation has always been gradual. There were plenty of players on and off the field to help integrate the new-comers. I also don’t see how players like Agger, Sakho, Lucas aren’t compatible for his style (and thus hindering transition) while players like Toure, Lovren and Allen are. Does a transitional squad challenge for title, Leverkusen didn’t. And do that squad then perform miserably after losing a key player? Atletico didn’t.

Not HIS Purchases: SO WHAT, seriously??? People make Rodgers look like a spoiled girl throwing a tantrum because mummy got a blue dress instead of pink. He didn’t get freaking Konchesky, Poulsen, Jovanovic or Cole. Instead, he got some real talents (albeit with generous sprinkles of eccentricity) in Sakho, Markovic and Balotelli. Balotelli is useful playing off another striker. Now, Rodgers himself have used the 442-diamond often enough; but he did he ever tried pairing Balotelli with Lambert, Borini or Sterling??? Nope, he kept him playing as the main/only striker. Markovic wasn’t HIS signing as well, and what happens? He became a wingback.

I used to think it was his inexperience that’s resulting in all the mistakes Rodgers is making. But I think it’s his arrogance and stubbornness that’s causing the blunders and preventing him from taking corrective measures. I believe he has talent, but he has mere months to prove that.

At least RA is on the FSG gravy train with me.