Liam Scales

It's not at all clear that it's an instruction. In fact that would seem pretty unlikely.

 

I don’t think McGregor is getting into good enough positions to take it off the centre halfs either. The Lazio home game I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. The amount of times Scales was on the ball and McGregor was standing directly behind a man was ridiculous

 

Oh, right. That’s me convinced.

I don’t know how anyone can watch us under Rodgers and under Ange and think that the players are told to play the exact same way tbh.

 

How would that seem unlikely? It seems pretty * likely if you’ve got eyes and a brain.

 

He is in hospital though so being kind is merited.

 

They've probably got sick of making good runs, and then Scales passing backwards anyway

 

The only thing I'm trying to convince you of is that it's not true that it's clear that it's an instruction. It's not clear. You have to show some evidence for that.

There are any number of reasons that we might be doing it differently now, such as Rodgers trying to get them to do something they aren't capable of or the fact that it is a completely different (and vastly inferior!) back 4. Now, yes, I do think these are more likely on the grounds of common sense; but I'm not trying to convince you of that. I'm only trying to convince you that there's enough doubt that you can't really say that it's clear that this awful football is an instruction from Rodgers.

 

Right, so if you've got eyes and a brain, it's pretty likely that Rodgers took his back line and central midfielders to one side and said: "Safety first, lads. That's what I want to see. I don't care if it proves ineffective over multiple games or if it's slow and ponderous... side to side, even backwards, that's all fine; but no risky forward passes. Capisce?"

Really?

I'm not being facetious here; that's what it would mean to say that "it's clear it's an instruction" from Rodgers.

A priori, it seems very unlikely he would do this as it's totally bleeping stupid, he also literally said the exact opposite in his interview and there are plenty of more plausible reasons why our back line is doing this.

 

This post bored me to tears tbh. Talk about being pedantic.

 

What's the alternative? Because the play has been side to side and ponderous all season and not once has scales looked like he was trying to change.

Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk

 

I corrected myself and said I meant less risks. Is there a reason you’re ignoring that and nit picking at the first comment and typing imaginary quotes? Have you had a hard day?

And if you can’t see that a Brendan Rodgers team is instructed to take less risks on the ball than an Ange Postecoglou one, then I would suggest you start watching another sport.

 

Rodgers is all about possession and he always has been. He hates his team not having the ball.

Forward, risky passes means a greater chance of losing the ball. Therefore we see them less and less. Even when CCV has played he’s looked safer on the ball.

He’s all about waiting for an opening and then hitting, rather than forcing the issue.

 

You were the one that turned a simple point that it wasn't clear into a multi-post extravaganza. Why didn't you just admit that it was your interpretation (which you know fine well it was) rather than something "clear" after my first reply and save us both the effort?

 

Several:

The current back 4 aren't good enough to build up the way Rodgers wants them too and he's too stubborn to go back to playing inverted FBs until he has better players.

The current back 4 are poor footballers (All 5 of Ralston, Scales, Welsh, Nawrocki and Bernabei are different from Ange's back 4.

Rodgers hasn't bothered to replace Ange's build up with any different patterns and the players don't know how he wants them to build up now.

Rodgers has tried to implement new build up patterns and hasn't managed to get them accross to the players successfully.

All of those would seem more likely.

 

It is clear, hence why two other people have since replied to you saying as much. I’m not claiming to know the finer details of Rodgers’ tactics but it doesn’t take a genius to work out that he likes the ball being shifted side to side and for his players to be more patient before finding an opening. I’m really struggling to see how you haven’t noticed this, but like I said maybe you should take up watching something else.

 

But we can all see that what we are doing right now is not safer and Rodgers himself pointed that out in his post-match interview and specifically mentioned the need for more forward passes.

 

It's not clear. There are so many much more plausible interpretations. It doesn't matter how many people have replied if not one of them provided a single counterargument to my point.

 

Agreed.

 

Is Rodgers' 'don't want it to turn into a game of basketball' comment he's made a couple of times, not absolute proof that he doesn't want us going up the park at the first opportunity?