Delph signs new deal

[Can Gana Be Bettered!?!?]

Stan was decent, but I find it hard to imagine that a player like Delph couldn't get near him.

I'm not sure we seen the best of him, truth be told. At Celtic, he was a box to box all action midfielder (admittedly in a shit league) With us, he was neat and tidy.  That was him probably taking one for the team, as some of his passing at times was exceptional, and in his final season he did go through a phase of shooting from distance and working the keeper more.

So he could do it. But for most of MON's stint, he seemed happier to always take the risk free option.

Delph did look stand-out in that debut game against Fiorentina.  Think their coach spoke very highly of him afterwards.

MON changed the way he played, I remember an early game against either WHU or Sheff United when he was brilliant n an attacking midfield role, I don't think he then played well afterward for about six months but then was reinvented as a holding player.

It was Petrov who held us back from really pushing to the next level (top 4). Let's not forget there's a Heroes & Villains where here's the subject of the scapegoat article. For good reason too.

However, I would also say that it was Petrov who played a hugely significant part in keeping us up for a few seasons after MON left.

[Monty]

Stan was a fantastic holding player. He was always in the way (he ranked extremely highly in the league for interceptions), he rarely lost the ball, and had a brilliant knack of getting fouled in tight situations - or dribbling his way out of it. I know these aren't particularly glamorous qualities, but they're essential at the top level. Stan was one of the few players we had who'd really be at home in a very good team.

[saunders_heroes]

Stan was a fantastic holding player. He was always in the way (he ranked extremely highly in the league for interceptions), he rarely lost the ball, and had a brilliant knack of getting fouled in tight situations - or dribbling his way out of it. I know these aren't particularly glamorous qualities, but they're essential at the top level. Stan was one of the few players we had who'd really be at home in a very good team.

Spot on.

[Can Gana Be Bettered!?!?]

Stan was a fantastic holding player. He was always in the way (he ranked extremely highly in the league for interceptions), he rarely lost the ball, and had a brilliant knack of getting fouled in tight situations - or dribbling his way out of it. I know these aren't particularly glamorous qualities, but they're essential at the top level. Stan was one of the few players we had who'd really be at home in a very good team.

I disagree. Go back to when we actually looked like we might be a good time under MON, and you will see he came in for a lot of criticism, and rightly so. He didn't turn out to be the player we had hoped.

Juan Pablo Angel. Now he was a player who could've easily played for a better team than us. Petrov? We were as good a team as he could ever wish to play for.

[Monty]

When did he come in for this criticism, and what were the criticisms? I remember they were mostly of the 'he only passes sideways' variety, which is one of the most frequent and annoying things people say about holding midfielders.

The main thing holding us back from being a top team under MON was MON. His qualities got us so far, but were only ever going to get us so far. Petrov-Barry and Petrov-Milner were terrific midfield duos, but it never occurred to him once that Petrov-Barry-Milner might get us into the top four because he was so stupidly addicted to meat-and-veg 4-4-2. Petrov was not at fault for any of that.

[SoccerHQ]

Stan was a fantastic holding player. He was always in the way (he ranked extremely highly in the league for interceptions), he rarely lost the ball, and had a brilliant knack of getting fouled in tight situations - or dribbling his way out of it. I know these aren't particularly glamorous qualities, but they're essential at the top level. Stan was one of the few players we had who'd really be at home in a very good team.

I disagree. Go back to when we actually looked like we might be a good time under MON, and you will see he came in for a lot of criticism, and rightly so. He didn't turn out to be the player we had hoped.

Juan Pablo Angel. Now he was a player who could've easily played for a better team than us. Petrov? We were as good a team as he could ever wish to play for.

You're right, 07/08 he was pretty poor but had a strong end to the season.

Pretty sure 08/09 he won player of the year and even though a few thought he'd be found out after Barry left, I thought he was even better the following season although Milner's energy helped big time.

[Toronto Villa]

When did he come in for this criticism, and what were the criticisms? I remember they were mostly of the 'he only passes sideways' variety, which is one of the most frequent and annoying things people say about holding midfielders.

The main thing holding us back from being a top team under MON was MON. His qualities got us so far, but were only ever going to get us so far. Petrov-Barry and Petrov-Milner were terrific midfield duos, but it never occurred to him once that Petrov-Barry-Milner might get us into the top four because he was so stupidly addicted to meat-and-veg 4-4-2. Petrov was not at fault for any of that.

the early criticism was for a period after the West Ham game where we didn't see the player we all saw on YouTube for Celtic scoring bags of goals. The player who could score from outside the box or attacked the penalty area and scored in a variety of ways. MON clearly saw a different role for him long term and credit to him for finding him the position to which he excelled. There are very few holding midfielders that did the job as well as Stan did. He was a calming influence when we needed it and a player that is sadly missed.

[paul_e]

When did he come in for this criticism, and what were the criticisms? I remember they were mostly of the 'he only passes sideways' variety, which is one of the most frequent and annoying things people say about holding midfielders.

The main thing holding us back from being a top team under MON was MON. His qualities got us so far, but were only ever going to get us so far. Petrov-Barry and Petrov-Milner were terrific midfield duos, but it never occurred to him once that Petrov-Barry-Milner might get us into the top four because he was so stupidly addicted to meat-and-veg 4-4-2. Petrov was not at fault for any of that.

For me the 'problem' with Petrov is that he summed up that team so perfectly.  He was great for about 70minutes and then he hit a wall. On top of that he was always the worst for being fucked by March.  I never minded him passing sideways, the 'get it forward' cries really frustrate me when the team tries to control the game a little but I will always think that the proper use for Petrov would've been to give him an hour to run himself into the ground and then take him off, someone like NRC on would've worked really well.

[Monty]

Perhaps if we weren't set up to chase the opposition for 50 minutes a match the players might have had more energy towards the end of matches. It also might have helped Petrov and Barry especially if they weren't outnumbered 3-to-2 in every single match, with the manager hopping about on the touchline without seeing anything he can do about the situation.

[paul_e]

Perhaps if we weren't set up to chase the opposition for 50 minutes a match the players might have had more energy towards the end of matches. It also might have helped Petrov and Barry especially if they weren't outnumbered 3-to-2 in every single match, with the manager hopping about on the touchline without seeing anything he can do about the situation.

I don't disagree, I'm just pointing out what I always saw a reasonable criticism of him.

[KevinGage]

It shows his intelligence and adaptability, that he was able to switch roles like that and play within himself.

I don't have issues with the way he played the defensive midfield role for us - and I often took issue with those who didn't see the good work he was doing, just because he didn't fly in with last ditch bone-crunching tackles that made the highlights reel. He read the game well enough, so he didn't need to make last ditch tackles. Drawing the foul and keeping possession ticking over was all part of that.

He played defensive midfield for Bulgaria too, long before he did for us.  So at a higher level, there is logic to saying that was the role he was most suited to.

My issue was that he had more to his game than opting for the simple pass. With the shackles off, some of his passing could be Cowans-esque.  But we didn't see enough of it.

[adrenachrome]

Interesting debate.

One thing which is always overlooked is that in GB's final season, he decided that he was not enamoured with defensive duties much anymore, and fancied himself in a more forward role. I believe MoN conceded that this was the price of keeping him for another season, so went along with it.

[kippaxvilla2]

If I've read a worse blog/article than this I'm struggling to remember it.

http://thisisfutbol.com/2015/01/blogs/why-liverpool-have-to-sign-this-4m-bargain-premier-league-star

[pauliewalnuts]

When did he come in for this criticism, and what were the criticisms? I remember they were mostly of the 'he only passes sideways' variety, which is one of the most frequent and annoying things people say about holding midfielders.

The main thing holding us back from being a top team under MON was MON. His qualities got us so far, but were only ever going to get us so far. Petrov-Barry and Petrov-Milner were terrific midfield duos, but it never occurred to him once that Petrov-Barry-Milner might get us into the top four because he was so stupidly addicted to meat-and-veg 4-4-2. Petrov was not at fault for any of that.

the early criticism was for a period after the West Ham game where we didn't see the player we all saw on YouTube for Celtic scoring bags of goals. The player who could score from outside the box or attacked the penalty area and scored in a variety of ways. MON clearly saw a different role for him long term and credit to him for finding him the position to which he excelled. There are very few holding midfielders that did the job as well as Stan did. He was a calming influence when we needed it and a player that is sadly missed.

To be honest, I thought Stan was really poor in his first season, and at best mediocre in his second. He always seemed to need a second longer on the ball than he was going to get. it didn't look just like early stuff to me, I thought he struggled for the best part of two seasons.

However, after that he became one of those players who didn't necessarily get noticed by default, but in every match would do one thing which made you think "how did he do that?"

Looking back now, mind, a lot of the players from that period were so much better than what we have now, it's depressing.

[PeterWithe]

When we were discussing what needed to change for us to push on into the CL positions, the replacement of Petrov came up regularly.