shitepipe
Well-Known Member
that all depends on what needs to be achieved. the major problem with getting a new manager in is they bring a new regime, and that can set you back flipping years, again. i want someone to come into the mess that's there, take the squad and the staff that's there, and fix it. make those tiny adjustments, pick the correct teams etc. mourinho proved he could do that by taking an existing chelsea squad, making minor tweaks, and winning the league in the first season. lets be realistic, that's what we want, right? to win the league. i just don't see how now, in third with 2 wins in wha...7-8? and 6 home draws, how liverpool are any better than they were in 2002, or 1997, or 1994.
mourinho, though, i don't see as being long term. but then again, who's made the tranisition from youth to first team under benitez, bearing in mind he's bough 1,245 children in the last 5 years. he talks up pacheco and nemeth, but we're never going to see them. he's far too conservative to win the league. i think the squad is good, and once the first league comes, the dynamic in the premiership will change. given that winning the league is all important, for so many reasons, i'd take mourinho for a couple of seasons. til he gets bored and fucks off.
let me just qualify that: mourinho would be perfect for a couple of seasons because a0 he's a fixer, and b) he'll be out of a job come summer.
other "big" names mentioned have been frank rightguard. no thanks. and no-one for who english isn't a language, we'd end up in a big phil scenario. Sven has been mentioned, and sven is alright with decent squads. the man city gig ddin't do his reputation any favours til hughes came along and proved just how hard it. other than that, who's out there? who? eh? someone dutch?
van gaal? 9 points clear in the eredivisie with AZ. proven winner, plays great football.
he'll never go to liverpool...