I do like how he is actively coaching.
But Jurgen had just a better pedigree when he stepped into the job.
He had Bundesliga titles under his belt despite having to compete against Giants like Bayern.
I’m not saying I’m against Iraola at all. Just I feel uncertain if he’s the best candidate at the moment. Anyone want to SELL me on Iraola as Liverpool’s next Boss?
2 Likes
Thiago: midfield coach
Matip: defence coach
Firmino: striker coach
1 Like
Give me the PL experience if we’re picking one or the other. That’s our bread and butter and we need to be good enough to qualify for the CL again the season after next as a minimum. That’s key to our finances and appeal to prospective new players.
We’re a not ready to compete for the CL title right now but that new league system means you don’t have to be elite for each of the 8-10 games to progress. There’s a little bit of wiggle room to learn your way that there wasn’t with the old system.
People worry about Iraola’s lack of experience managing two games a week but he’s never had access to the quality of players we have in our squad or the resources he’ll have available to him. A lot of his coaching staff are who he inherited at Bournemouth rather than being able to build his own group.
Someone mentioned Bournemouth’s poor set piece record as a negative but here, if he needs a dedicated set piece coach then he’ll get one. If he wants a strength and conditioning coach to get the players fit for his way then he’ll get one. He’s walking into world class facilities here whereas he’s only had access to Premier League level facilities for a little over a year.
Focus on PL as a priority next season, compete in Europe but with realistic expectations.
11 Likes
I think it is easier to get through UCL group stage these days with the new format.
In any case, he can talk—and give instructions—incredibly fast. Everyone really has to be on their toes. I find it exhausting just listening. 
2 Likes
Lots of sprinting and running you say?
2 Likes
Also a spanish speaker
1 Like
With the news that we turned down Alonso because he sought greater control over football operations than we were prepared to give him, I have some deep concerns of whether our sporting structure is actually conducive to success.
There has been a few reports which have indicated that Michael Edwards, Julian Ward, and others left the club during Klopp’s tenure essentially because they thought Klopp exerted too much influence and impeded their authority. When Edwards came back and brought back Ward and hired Hughes, they chose to hire Arne Slot - a person satisfied to be the “head coach” and nothing more. And now you’re hearing that they turned down Alonso because he didn’t just want to be the “head coach.”
I don’t like that mentality. I think this club has enjoyed great success when it employs a talismanic figure at the forefront. Shanks, Paisley, Benitez, Klopp. These were not middle managers or head coaches. They were the undisputed leaders and set the direction.
That isn’t to say that they shouldn’t work well with the sporting department. We don’t want a Brendan situation where there’s a so-called “transfer committee” and Brendan fighting over signings. Ideally, everyone would work together and resolve differences together - like Klopp agreeing to Salah over Brandt because he was convinced of it by Edwards et al.
This is not a statement against Iraola. Since we sacked Slot, I’ve been absorbing a lot of content about Iraola. I like him quite a bit - but the best way I’d describe him is a Spanish Arne Slot with a far more gregarious personality. Maybe that’s why he fits what Edwards/Hughes want. Maybe that’s exactly what we need.
But I am also concerned he is still a bit of a middle manager. Does he have the force of personality needed to push his players? It’s one thing to drive players at Bournemouth, where you’re often dealing with younger players hoping for a big move.
But players who arrive at Liverpool are coming here to compete for titles. They are not the “finished article” but they come here with greater expectations. Is he prepared for that? I’m not sure.
2 Likes
Thank fuck Carragher can’t speak Spanish… but Torres does!
4 Likes
Flip side is, would you give full control over transfers and everything to a guy who has never done it? Klopp didn’t even have the control given to Alonso.
Before we big up the decision, lets see how it plays out, I’d say for a club like Chelsea who change every 2-3 years regardless who it is it’s a recipe for a disaster.
3 Likes
Klopp in 2017 is a very different proposition than at the end of his tenure - by the end, there probably wasn’t much space for a sporting director in the sense that Edwards/Ward envisioned, but that was because Klopp had built up enormous organizational clout. No new manager is going to come in the door with that.
If that was indeed the determinant in why Alonso was ruled out, I can understand why. He simply doesn’t have much experience with that. He didn’t have that authority at Leverkusen, and he clearly didn’t have it in Madrid.
2 Likes
Houllier was also on that trajectory until he suffered the heart attack and then was never the same.
4 Likes
I don’t wish any ill will toward Xabi, so I am not going to enjoy what I see as almost inevitable at Chelsea. I expect his first season will probably go reasonably well, fundamentally I think he is a good coach and Chelsea has a fairly young squad that are likely to respond well. However, I don’t think the structure there is going to support him through a period of adversity, he is just too easy of a scapegoat.
8 Likes
3 Likes
4 Likes
3 Likes
Yes, but Klopp arrived as a manager. He didn’t come as a head coach. It was expected that he would have some influence with signings. The issue with Klopp is that he was so successful that his influence grew exponentially. That’s a problem I’d be glad to have. I’d be happy to sacrifice the egos of Michael Edwards and Richard Hughes for the right manager.
4 Likes
Do we know if he wanted full control or whether he just wanted to be more than a head coach - i.e. a manager with an important voice in transfers? I understood it to be the latter rather than the former, but that hasn’t been made clear, to be fair.
I suspect this may be up there with ‘he plays 3 at the back’ in terms of excuses why we didn’t go for him. An article on Alonso’s appointment at Chelsea said that he didn’t ask for anything more than his predecessors and was only interested in scoping out how the various people at Chelsea would be supporting him.
The article also went on to say that Alonso was their first choice because of his style of possession based football was felt to be a match for their previous coaches. It also suggested that this was the reason we not looking to bring him in.
While it’s quite possible that the story was being whitewashed by Chelsea Comms team, given the statement we put out about wanting to be more front footed in our approach and the linked managers fitting that mould I’m willing to believe that may be true. Also, you can sort of see it as a common thread since they let Roy go, as being our preference.
1 Like