Luke Young Going to Liverpool

[Concrete John]

Our defence improved last season at the expense of our attack, we looked woeful as an attacking force at times and put too much emphasis on not getting beaten rather than trying to win- negative .

We only scored 2 less goals in 09/10 than we did in 08/09, which is a reasonable trade off for the defence being so tight.  And when you consider we didn't have Laursen's ability as set pieces, maybe the extra defending didn't actually cost us anything?

At the end of the day though, it didn't do anything to improve our league position.  We've been crying out for a new striker for ages, and this simply has not been addressed by O'Neill.

Wouldn't argue with that.

[WALTERS WARRIORS]

Hope Luke Young gets his bonding back with the players in Portugal and MON has a chat and re-considers his formation and keeps him at the club ........

[pauliewalnuts]

The season before Martin took over we let in 55n, which was the 6 worst record in the league.  His first season we let in 41, which was the 6th best.  And we didn't sign any defenders that season.

We did get Martin Laursen for almost half a season, though.

Played in 14 league games, in which we only conceded 11 goals.

OK, that means we conceded 30 in the other 26 games, which is 1.15 a game.  The 55 in 05/06 equates to 1.45, so 0.3 a game improvement, which is 11 or 12 goals over a 38 game season.

So, was it 2008 when Hodgson took over Fulham?  If we're going to say Martin couldn't do what he did then we need to compare the two records.

I've no idea what you're talking about with regard to Woy, John.

I'm just pointing out that whilst you're right, we didn't sign any defenders that season, we did get one of the best defenders we've had in ages back in the team, and the goals conceded improved as a result.

Although it is 30 in the other 24 games, not 26.

[Eigentor]

Hodgson took the Fulham job in the middle of the 2007-08 season. That season Fulham conceded 60 (and finished 17th). The following season they conceded 34 (and finished 7th).

Fair enough, looks like he did better job on the defence then.

Not trying to get out of the argument, but was there an immediate impact defensively or did it wait until the following year?  As in was the improvement he managed a matter of organization solely, or did he also need to bring his own players into the mix?

In the 2007-08 season, Fulham conceded 35 goals in 20 matches (avg 1.75) before Hodgson took the job, and 25 goals in the remaining 18 games (avg 1.39). So there seems to have been an immediate impact. However, it is also possible to argue that it takes time to teach a team defensive organization!


By the way, my opinion that Hodgson is more knowledgeable about defensive organization than O'Neill is to larger extent based on how the teams (ie Fulham and Villa) have played the last couple of seasons than on their defensive records. For example, Fulham seemed to concede a lot of goals at the end of last season because they were focused on the Europa League.

[Villa'Zawg]

Hodgson took a team from certain relegation to the UEFA cup final with little spend.

O'Neill took  over a team certain for relegation to a series of top 6 finishes and two trips to Wembley in the last 4 seasons.

Can we please stop using "two trips to Wembley" as though it's some major achievement? One of them should have been at Old Trafford.

Perhaps we should simply state that we reached the FA Cup Semi-Final and League Cup Final.

[Concrete John]

By the way, my opinion that Hodgson is more knowledgeable about defensive organization than O'Neill is to larger extent based on how the teams (ie Fulham and Villa) have played the last couple of seasons than on their defensive records. For example, Fulham seemed to concede a lot of goals at the end of last season because they were focused on the Europa League.

You might well be right, but I'd also say that Fulham's defensive record is a lot to do with how the whole team is set up and there's an imbalance towards this in detriment to their attack.  I can't see him being able to get away with that an Anfield!

[not3bad]

You might well be right, but I'd also say that Fulham's defensive record is a lot to do with how the whole team is set up and there's an imbalance towards this in detriment to their attack.  I can't see him being able to get away with that an Anfield!

I don't know about that.  Rafa Benitez was often critisised for his overly cautious approach.  Hodgson would merely be continuuing where he left off.

[Rudy Can't Fail]

Hodgson took a team from certain relegation to the UEFA cup final with little spend.

O'Neill took  over a team certain for relegation to a series of top 6 finishes and two trips to Wembley in the last 4 seasons.

Can we please stop using "two trips to Wembley" as though it's some major achievement? One of them should have been at Old Trafford.

Sadly those two trips have allowed large cracks to be papered over.

[sfx412]

I agree mainly but it is fact though.  For a team with such a poor recent FA Cup record, getting to the semi final was an achievement and they happen to be at Wembley now.  It was only our 4th semi final (I think) since we won it in 1957.

An achievement yes, on the back of several summers of consistently high spend.

Compared to winning the League, League Cup and of course European Cup with little comparative spend its shite as any sort of achievement.

[Ads]

Who compared it to winning a cup?

[Eigentor]

By the way, my opinion that Hodgson is more knowledgeable about defensive organization than O'Neill is to larger extent based on how the teams (ie Fulham and Villa) have played the last couple of seasons than on their defensive records. For example, Fulham seemed to concede a lot of goals at the end of last season because they were focused on the Europa League.

You might well be right, but I'd also say that Fulham's defensive record is a lot to do with how the whole team is set up and there's an imbalance towards this in detriment to their attack.  I can't see him being able to get away with that an Anfield!

Maybe. I just want to point out that all I said was that I don't think the difference between Hodgson and O'Neill is big, but that the former seems to have more technical expertise/tactical knowledge. If given (approximately) the same amount of resources I would expect Hodgson's teams (on average) to perform slightly better.

Also, rather than trying to "prove" that Hodgson's teams are better defensively, I really wanted to say that I think we probably overvalue Hodgson and underestimate MON. Roy was manager of the year last season and everybody's cup of tea, and maybe we are fearing that he (at least to some degree) will transform a Liverpool side that appeared to be on the slide.

MON, on the other hand, is old news. Sixth seems to be some sort of glass ceiling, making us suspect that he doesn't have the ability to take us further.

[olaftab]

Sorry  but is this the "Luke Young to Liverpool" thread?

[E I Adio]

Maybe it should be renamed "Luke Young going to Fulham" anyway.

[TimTheVillain]

Maybe it should be renamed "Luke Young going to Fulham" anyway.

Is that the latest ?

It is looking like he's offski.

Do hope MON has a shopping basket ready to checkout with - and I hope it's not an Aldi one.

[TheSandman]

Nah.

Martin shops at the farmers market. Overpriced and locally grown.