That's his recent signings, save a few past ones. But who can argue with Hyypia, Henchoz, Hamman, Litmanen, Heskey (well maybe there, but he did score 23 goals in his first full season), Riise, Baros, Dudek, etc, etc. It's seems like most of the stinkers have been the high dollar ones, and those are mainly kids are will probably only get better. Just remember, there was a time when Ferguson was a laughing stock, was fighting for his job, and was having supporters wanting him sacked.
Yep. But I don't agree with the "half decent first season" quote about Camara. He kept us in matches we had no business being in, and scored some spectacular goals. And he meant it every second he was on the pitch. Funny, his dismissal was under the same controversy as Litmanens'.
So buying a donkey like Diouf is OK because he'll probably get better? Please, if he's crap just say he's crap and be done with it.
Trust me, I have. I've been one of the more vocal ones. But I do recognise that he's improved ALOT as the season has progressed. Still, ten million pounds for someone who was signed as a striker and only has six goals is pretty hard to argue for.
It is way too early to write off Diouf. And probably too early to write of Diao and Cheyrou, although I just cannot see where they are going to fit into the side unless Diao is able to replace or subplant Didi. Cheyrou is never going to be good enough to move Gerrard or Murphy and I am not sure he is quick enough to play well on the left full time. But to slam Houllier on the basis of Heskey, Diouf and Diao is wrong, premature and overreacting, respectively. I will give you Igor Biscan and Bernard Diomede and Smicer was not worth £4.5million, but he isn't exactly chopped liver, either. Liverpool should sell him if they could get half of his cost, but I figure he is probably worth £2million, as is. Didi was expensive, granted, but he has been an excellent addition. He was the spine that allowed Gerrard and MacAllister to run the show during the treble year. As for some of the signings <£3million - Kippe, Sjolund, Camara, Song, etc. He didn't lose much when he sent them packing. Ziege was a waste, but he recovered a lot of the cost there, as well. Better to slam beloved Bobby Robson (Marcelinho, Acuna, Cort, Solano and others), many of whose signings have been far worse values relative to Houllier's signings. How much did Sylvain Wiltord cost - wasn't it 15million. And what about Robert Pires. Both of them were very mediocre after their first two seasons in the EPL. Diouf is only 21 for crying out loud. He has plenty of time to grow into his role - whether it be on the right or as a frontrunner. Houllier should not be criticized so much for the players he has brought in - with very few exceptions, they have done what most folks would expect. And he helps good players (Danny Murphy, Hamann, Henchoz, Hyppia, etc) play on a near-world class level. If he should be criticized - it should be for not helping his truly world class, "elite" players - Jari Litmanen, Michael Owen, Steven Gerrard raise their games to the heights they are capable of. Mind you I am not knocking these players, I am suggesting that Houllier does not seem to be the best at shaping the tactics or finessing the team to wring the most out of these players, in the manner that Wenger does with Henry, Viera and Pires and more and more Wiltord.
About time... ...someone realized that Houllier was very overrated in NOT only rating talent, but his constant OBSESSION with changing line ups! In the last 2 yrs, I have seen Liverpool say they are going to be aggressive and keep picking up attacking players, but play the most defensive minded and often quite boring football. I thought Liverpool had a rich tradition of winning, well, why aren't Scousers losing their mind that they haven't won the League in weeee bit. Just a thought....so ends the lesson.
Re: About time... Hmm...well first of all, Houllier can rate talent. I just listed a bunch of players that any team in the Premiership would be happy to put into the first team. Second of all, why did you do all caps on "not"?? (but that's a grammatical discussion that we probably shouldn't have). Liverpool fans are upset about the league form, trust me. Bottom line, we can't truly rate Houllier's new team until, I would think, Boxing day of next season. If we haven't shown real improvement by then, and/or a real threat of winning the league, then I would suppose he should be worried about his job. Thanks for your, uh, "lesson".
Crikey ... it's enough to make you listen to Wildman with something other than amusement. Any more lessons like that and we're going to have to call the Education Secretary and have stiff words about where this world is heading ...
This is the same Patrick that's been "looking" for a team to support - can't decide between Arsenal and Manchester United, anyone want to bet he picks one after tonight? (of course) And he's giving us - "a lesson"?
Let's put it down to youthful over-exuberance. Perhaps that sign-off wasn't quite the intended effect. Mind you, he took the original article, glaring tabloid errors et al, seriously ...
Believe me pal, it grates on me every time I see him pull on an Arsenal shirt. Go onto the Arsenal forum and you'll do well do find half a dozen posts from me where I'm not slagging him off. You did however list ten signings where you seem to think people cpould make a case for saying Houllier hasn't done well in the transfer market. And I've never even heard of one of them (Sjolund??). So are you trying to defend or criticise him? Wenger has made some absolutely shocking buys, but then the title of this thread isn't "Wenger's Million$" is it? Trying to defend Houllier by saying that Wenger has made some bad buys is not answering the charge, just changing the point.
6 or 7 of those names are people that Houllier a) either recovered his investment on or b) did not spend much money on. Let's be honest, if you have a transfer policy oriented around signing emerging talent - not proven talent - you are going to make some mistakes. Many of these players are not being signed based on their current level of play. He believes that with work and development, some of them will be worthy to wear a red shirt on a regular basis. Many will not. But the fact that he pays comparatively little for so many of the players means that he can eat some of those costs. Most of Houllier's mistakes have not been financially back-breaking. Many of the names that I mentioned were less than a million pounds. Some of those guys are obviously not going to break into the first team at Liverpool. If Houllier was signing a lot of 27-year old guys who were expected to be premiership quality right away, I think that this criticism would be more valid. As it is, there are really only 2 or 3 bona fide, abject failures. But this article is pretty weak. How can you castigate Houllier for signing Jerzy Dudek, for instance? Or Chris Kirkland? One of these players is eight years younger than the other and both have been vital this season. Another thing that is refreshing about Houllier is his willingness to cut his losses. When he realized that the team had lost confidence in Westerveld, he didn't worry about how he would look for selling him on. He did it. He also got his money back for Camara and Song. He got decent money back for Ziege (who no one will suggest is a bad player, just a chronically injured, bad fit). He has started the process of getting rid of Diomede and Vignal (if necessary). True, he still thinks that Igor Biscan and Vladimir Smicer have a role at the club, but both are acceptable squad players. He just overpaid for non-starters. I think that every premiership manager has done that at one time or another. For instance, Kanu and Jeffers are decent players, but are they worth their cost considering the fact that they are basically #4 and #5 strikers at Arsenal (Henry, Bergkamp, Wiltord)? And does Igor Biscan play that much less than Igor Stepenovs or Oleg Luzhny? Has Smicer been any more disappointing than Giovanni Van Bronckhurst? I know they don't play identical positions, but Van Bronckhurst basically hasn't settled into a position and claimed it for his own sinc he came over at a cost almost twice as much as Smicer. You could even make a case that Edu and Gilberto were not worth what they were paid for. At least as strong a case as can be made for Salif Diao at this point in the season. I don't mean to say that Wenger is bad - he is generally regarded as an astute judge of talent. I only wish to demonstrate that Houllier's eye has not been categorically worse than Wenger's. Especially considering Houllier goes in for younger, riskier prospects. You could do a similar comparison with just about every G-14 side.
How many trophies have Van Nistelrooy (£19million), Veron (£28million), et al won since they have come over? Granted you are probably going to win the league this season, but considering Liverpool's entire starting XI cost less (in transfers fees) than those two signings by themselves, it is pretty hard to say that Houllier hasn't gotten his money's worth in terms of results (6 trophies in less than 3 seasons). And don't try to tell me that Francis Jeffers is the reason that Arsenal won their second title. Do you think that he will have a career that surpasses Emile Heskey's? Say what you want about Heskey - he has scored a lot of goals and won a lot of caps relative to his young years (24). Lets see which @£10,000,000 signing has the best career over the long term. That is if Jeffers can ever play a full season without breaking down. Houllier's side was very good last year. The number of points that Liverpool won would have made them champions in just about any other Premiership season. You have to agree that the difference between a champion and a number two or number three placed team can be a single goal. It is short-sighted to suggest that one manager is 10x better than another simply on the basis that his team got 3 more points than their closest rivals. Besides, if you consider how young Liverpool's team is, they are following the pattern of early 90's ManU sides and late 90's Arsenal sides in terms of developing younger elite players and gradually building up the quality of the entire squad. Gerrard and Owen, Heskey and Murphy, Riise and Diouf, Kirkland, Le Tallec, et al are all years away from their peaks. I am confident that the team has a championship in their future. But neither Liverpool and Houllier want to cheapen the inevitable by importing rent-a-players like Rivaldo, Ronaldinho or Veron. I for one appreciate that and am willing to wait and see the team come together in the manner that ManU did in the mid-90's.
The real point of that article is that despite all that investment in players Liverpool are no closer to winning the league. Surely that is what they were bought for?
No closer? How in the world can that be quantified? Since most of these players have been purchased - including Biscan and Smicer - Liverpool has moved from a 6th place finish to a 4th place finish to a 2nd place finish. That constitutes closer to winning the league. The difference between champion and 2nd place can be the bounce of a ball, a bad call, an injury, weather conditions . . . the fact that Liverpool has consistantly improved their league placement over the past three seasons would seem to indicate that Houllier has (on the balance) been successful in strengthening the squad. And as far as "all that investment" goes. The fact is that Manchester United's starting XI (Barthez, O'Shea, Silvestre, Wes Brown, Rio Ferdinand, Veron, Keane, Scholes, Giggs, Beckham, Van Nistelrooy) cost twice as much as Liverpool's starting XI (Dudek, Riise, Hyppia, Henchoz, Carragher, Murphy, Hammann, Gerrard, Diouf, Heskey, Owen). And that despite the fact that over half of Manchester United's starting XI were developed from their youth program. There is simply no comparison between the amount of money spent by Manchester United and Liverpool in developing their squad. Just as Alex Ferguson did in the early 90s, buy wisely (Keane, Hughes and Cantona) and develop youth (Giggs, Scholes, Butt, Beckham, Nevilles) to start your run, then add quality (Yorke, Cole, Sheringham, Stam) to fill in gaps and sustain momentum. Houllier has so far not made a "talismanic purchase" as Ferguson did, but by the same token, he has spent less money and has attempted to strengthen the squad and plan for the future. This Summer he very well may choose to purchase a more established player (Steed Malbranque?) who finally closes the gaps they have on the field. In any event, to say that Houllier has failed to improve Liverpool's ability to compete for the championship is patently ludicrous. To suggest that because the team's results have not been as good this term as last, that Cheyrou, Diouf and Diao were necessarily bad signings - is also foolish. I only have to point to Robert Pires and Sylvain Wiltord to point this out. Pires has been an excellent signing (on the balance) for Wenger. Wiltord provided a fabulous burst for Arsenal earlier in the season, when Henry and Viera were still trying to recover their energy from the World Cup. If it was not for those signings (and the 20 some-odd goals they have scored between themselves), Arsenal would not likely have won the league last year, or have a chance to repeat this year. But based on the first or even second years the players were at Arsenal, the short-sighted nay-sayers would say that they were terrible signings. Some players (especially those from French football) simply take time to develop, as the wise Gerard Houllier mentioned when he signed the 21 year old Diouf, Diao (who was to have spent most of the year at Seden) and Cheyrou.
Quite easily as a matter of fact. Here are Liverpool's final standings for the last few years, since that spending spree started. 96/97 4th 68 Points (Level with 2nd & 3rd Place on points) 97/98 3rd 65 Points 98/99 7th 54 Points 99/00 4th 67 Points 00/01 3rd 69 Points 01/02 2nd 80 Points 02/03......4th at best, probably 5th. Aside from last season when Man U were their poorest for a number of years Liverpool simply don't have a squad that can challenge the top two. No it isn't. Winning the league requires confidence and mental strength throughout the squad. Every team has a decision go against them, a injury pile-up yet they still manage to get results when the odds are stacked against them. Man U are better off financially I'll agree but they actually spend a lot lower percentage of their turnover on transfers than many other clubs in the EPL. Arsenal aren't though and still managed 2 league titles. Can you really see Liverpool challenging for the title next year?
Are you aware when Gerard Houllier took over the club? Though he had co-manager privileges in 1998, he gained control in 1999. It was in the Summer of 1999 that the "spending spree" started. I think you will see that the seasons following this activity, Liverpool's point totals increased dramatically. 80 points represents a substantial improvement over 54. Granted the team will have a poor total this season - anywhere from 60 - 65 points or so, but that does not suggest that Houllier has not prepared them to challenge for the championship. Have you noticed their record against ManUtd over the last three seasons? Just because they recently got shellacked by ManUtd does not mean that they have not been very competitive with them (they also beat them and tied them this year). They have also played fairly solidly against Arsenal over the past few seasons. Have you noticed that many of the points that they lose are against weaker teams - not stronger teams? This is a typical pattern for teams that depend on YOUNG players, as Liverpool does. They are still learning how to develop that game in, game out concentration. Steven Gerrard is a perfect example of this development. I think you need to go study Manchester United in the late eighties as Sir Alex was preparing the team to be a championship contender in the 90s. They did not win championships in the manner that a, say, Liverpool did. But unlike Liverpool (who failed to address the fact that many of their key players - Rush, Beardsley, Dalglish, Hansen, Nicol, Lawrencesen, Barnes, etc were aging and would not easily be replaced) Ferguson ensured that ManUtd laid a foundation for the future, even if it meant somewhat sacrificing results/league position in the short term. As far as turnover goes, you have to have players who are worth a high price in order to have a good turnover rate. Quite simply, Liverpool was bereft of talent (or at least valuable talent) during the mid-90s. They did not want to sell Michael Owen, for obvious reasons. They slipped up by not selling Steve MacManaman when they could, but they learned their lesson (as demonstrated by off-loading Robbie Fowler for a fee that they couldn't expect to get today). In any event, if ManUtd wants to maintain their comparative lack of a "trade deficit" in transfer fees - they are going to have to sell a Giggs or Beckham. Especially if they are serious about purchasing Ronaldinho, Damien Duff or players of their cost and quality. And it is evident that they are going to have to add another striker. As far as Arsenal goes, their starting line-up (Seaman, Cole, Campball, Keown, Lauren, Pires, Viera, Silva, Ljungberg, Henry, Bergkamp) is roughly the same as Liverpool's in terms of cost, but the five field players who make up their bench (Wiltord, Van Bronckhurst, Edu, Kanu and Cygan) cost as much as their starting lineup. Plus, they have a lot of older players who they have held onto for a significant amount of time (Seaman, Keown, Parlour, Bergkamp) who are not going to generate any income to them through transfers - but will need to be replaced in some form or fashion (even if the bench players graduate and they only have to add more bench players) in the next year or two at the latest. If you break down Newcastle and Chelsea, you will see that each of those teams also out-spent Liverpool in building the teams that they field. And what trophies have they won? And to some extent you overestimate the championship as the primary goal for Liverpool (in the past two seasons). Houllier intentionally embarked on a "five year plan". I believe we are now finishing year 3. The first goal Houllier had was to form a team that knew how to win big games. That is why Houllier emphasized cups and de-emphasized the premier league to some extent. Not that he didn't want to win it - but he knew that the team was not ready to challenge for the title. This is the first season that a title challenge has even been considered from the beginning of the season. And those expectations did prove to be premature. But I do believe that given 1 - 2 more high-quality signings, Liverpool might very well be ready to win the championship (even next year). They are in no worse shape than Chelsea or Newcastle and they have more talent/quality than Everton. I would be disappointed with anything less than 2nd next season. But I personally look to 04/05 as the year when Liverpool will put it all together and win the championship. Especially when you consider how weak (defensively) Arsenal's backline is when Sol Campball is not in the side.
Wow, you are a truly unique person. A Liverpool fan who isn't that bothered about winning the league because yoiu might win it in a year or two. For any other Liverpool fan I've ever met winning the championship is the be all and end all. Personally, I think that while you make all these arguments and back them up with examples of how other clubs have spent more, have older players etc., etc., you're missing the point. Liverpool's finishing position this season will be significantly worse than last. The team have for the most part played some pretty dire stuff. How you can't see this as a step backwards is amazing.
Can't say i've met any fans that didn't want to win the league first and foremost. Now-a-days though you never can tell i suppose, what with some people thinking it's okay to finish in the top 4 --read Chelsea--so long as you gain entry into a draw that will allow you to gain entry into yet another draw if you win the match. Things have been turned upside down back home in the last decade and priorties of clubs have taken a dramatic change. Teams are bulit today to compete in Europe-not the domestic league.Witness Arsenal last season.Had a wonderful season, won the double (said with bitter taste in mouth) and yet the talk during the off season was how to strenghten the club to compete in the CL. As for this rubbish of "xyz year plan", well thats what it is, just rubbish talk.Ranieri said the same thing about Chelsea...3 year plan and all that rot.Why not just come right out and say that " well, i don't think we're good enough to win the title for now, or for that matter, quite a few years to come, however, we may get lucky in a cup comp during that time and it will make it look like we are actually following said rubbish...er, i mean plan"