Excellent article on EPL "big teams"

[robbo]

ive cut id down as its MASSIVE and a touch dry but Paul Tomkins is probably the only objective journo ive read stuff from.

 

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/N...070603-0752.htm

 

WHAT WILL IT TAKE TO MAKE REDS CHAMPIONS?

Paul Tomkins 03 June 2007

 

Ah, a simple question? Clearly not. This is not a look at which players need to be signed, or which formation needs to be deployed. It is not a look at tactics or style of play

 

All may be relevant to varying degrees, but to my mind it concerns two bigger concepts.

 

It can all be boiled down to this: time and money, allied to managerial talent. Either of those first two elements, or the two combined, are what it now takes a top manager to win the league in England.

 

I've said it before, but contrary to the 'first is first, second is nowhere' mentality, simply making the final was in itself a significant achievement: proof of an ability to consistently vanquish the top sides in Europe, as the Reds have since Ben

[BobbyBiscuit]

i apologise for the huge amount of reading involved but i found it quite interesting. I know alot of that is pro-liverpool propaganda but at least it shows figuratively what the big teams are about.

 

Fairly interesting, but ultimately it means f*ck all to be honest.

 

It could be said that it's very admirable what Benitez has achieved given the expenditure in comparison to the others, but it doesn't win you trophies, and, if he was to go on to spend similar amounts as ManU and Chelsea, does it mean he'd win the league? I'm afraid not.

 

EDIT: I should have said "It hasn't won him the Premiership, which is the trophy Liverpool desire", as he has obviously won in cup competitions.

[robbo]

agreed completely. as i said, its pro liverpool propaganda and nothing more. my bird read the article to me sayin how great it was espec the part about coppell. she didnt seem to understand that while pool dont spend the same amounts chelsea do, reading cant spend the same as liverpool.

 

my argument fell on deaf ears...."but thats not the point, why does coppell get manager of the year if liverpool finish about them?" shes normally quite objective when it comes to football and has a good brain on her...but get her talkin about liverpool and logic takes the back seat...

 

i said to her how many from this current united side are from the academy? o'shea, fletcher and brown. none of whom play every week. scholes and giggs are the exception but have been integral for a decade. You can put a price tag on carragher and gerrard.

 

compare this to the united side that won it with the kids. i doubt that side cost more to assemble than the liverpool time at the same time...but again...deaf ears

[fatshaft]

Typical Liverpool "poor me" stuff.

 

Why didnt they compare Bolton or Everton's numbers rather than Newcastle or Spurs? That would have made very interesting reading.

[Guest TenementFunster]

Typical Liverpool "poor me" stuff.

 

Why didnt they compare Bolton or Everton's numbers rather than Newcastle or Spurs? That would have made very interesting reading.

 

Be nice to see where Reading come out using that kind of sh*tty logic too.

 

Scousers headline - Look, we DID win the league, no really, we did.

[robbo]

i said the same about bolton and reading. also want to see blackburns record.

 

the way it highlights those 6 alone makes me think they didnt come top and instead a "lesser team" would have topped the table.

 

they hark on about not being a big club when it suits them but discount other teams who may have pipped them