I've decided to ignore the rest of the post and focus on this bit that looks rather patronising and, well, arrogant.

I know plenty of the ideas of Shankly, thanks, as a life-long Liverpool fan should. I don't know what relevance that has or why the question was directed to me.

Football is different from Shankly's time. Money is more important than ever in football, and Liverpool really aren't much different to the rest of them when it comes to transfers, except for the fact that we don't spend as much on individuals, but I doubt that's through choice or because Shankly didn't spend £50m on a player. If we could spend £50m on a player then we would if Klopp felt it would've benefitted the team. He's not really a big spender but other Liverpool managers definitely would be if they could be.

I listed the big money buys like Benteke and Mane because they show we are willing to spend big. We haven't spent Pogba-big but, again, we would if we could. The signings of Benteke and Mane show that.

Sturridge, Sakho and Karius are simply examples of players we have with big egos. They aren't Zlatan-level of arrogance, but he's a bit of a special case and a lot of it is just for show. Sturridge, Sakho and Karius are three players with egos, and we signed them all at a good time in their career where it's not as big as it could be. It's down to the manager to handle the big egos, and if you want to compete with the best you want players with big egos. We don't want too many nice guys with low ambition who thinks it's the taking part that counts.

We're a modern football club that understands that football is a business. FSG has got us well organised now to be able to compete with the rest of them. When it comes to spending money, we aren't special. We're just like the rest of them, just not as wealthy. The signings of Benteke and Mane shows that. If we had £50m to spend on a Torres there's a good chance we would've done. Andy Carroll proves that. We've had enough expensive flops to show we aren't afraid to spend, even unwisely.

I wasn't looking for an argument, just asking what you meant by 'LFC type player'. If you'd have replied along the lines of 'someone who will fit into the current playing style, and knows a bit about the club', then I've have said 'fair enough'.

However, it would appear that isn't what you meant. The rest of your post was, in my opinion, delusional.

Anyway, it's your thread, so I'll leave it there. Clearly no point in trying to have a sensible discussion.

Non Liverpool fan responding I'm afraid... Terrible signing, not good enough, too much money! That was not a good year with Carroll and Downing also being totally over paid for.
That period when King Kenny came back held the club up by a season or two imho.

We've signed Jonathan Woodgate as a scout. Didn't see that one coming!

lol..

Howard Gayle turns down MBE.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...yside-37047318

Charlie Adam was a good idea in theory as our set pieces at the time were poor and he was putting in quality week in and week out for Blackpool. With Downing and Carroll as well, the planned style was clear. In reality, Adam sadly lacked the stamina to do the job he was asked to do and if I recall was often played in more defensive mode to compensate for injuries to Lucas and others. He just didn't have the legs for that.

As for the assertion that Carroll is better than Benteke - both players' primary purpose is to score goals and Benteke's ratio in the PL is very creditable at nearly one in two whilst Carroll is very close to one in four - which isn't good enough. Their relative records at Liverpool clearly show despite his faults Benteke is still potent and will do well for a team that better suits his attributes.

I prefer the pass and move style and the late 80s team was my favourite - only the recent runners-up team gave me the same buzzing in terms of sheer exciting football which blew good teams away. Some of our great teams had a bit of everything but fundamentally pass and move has been central along with some steel and energy. We've lacking a bit in the steel department right now but I like the energy and quick passing.

Very much looking forward to the new season.

Klopp's VERY thorough I see - even getting someone in to put the Christmas decorations up...

But to be serious we can't judge the guy based on his erratic playing career - he's scouting for us in Spain and Portugal so let's judge him when he finds someone.

Good on him. Not the first black guy to turn one down.

Interesting. Had never heard of him

He was our first ever black player, though didn't play much for us.

Having a look, it seems that potentially Howard Gayle was the first black player to play for Liverpool, Newcastle and Fulham. Good on him for taking a stand now even though it's a shame he didn't feel like he could accept the honour. He will have been through a lot in those days.

Doesn't look like it's been mentioned on here yet.

We've signed 19 year old left-back Juanma after taking him on trial from Barcelona. He's also capable of playing at centre-back.


http://www.thisisanfield.com/2016/08...ove-liverpool/

He's probably not going to compete against Moreno for a spot at LB this season.

It was cos you said that LFC would have no problem going after Zlastan or Pogba and from what I know about Shanks and the way he thought and the way he tried to instill the players and fans to think I do not think they would.

Are there any players who you think from a character/attitude point of view LFC would not go after or do those things not come into it at all?

If you want my opinion I think we would go after almost anyone but if they showed signs of thinking they were more important than the club then we would not be interested - that was the case under Shanks and I think is also true under Jurgen Klopp today. I love the fact that all his signings this summer seem really keen to be at LFC and to buy into the club mentality totally, that is really important.

PS I think the Balotelli experience (experiment!!) has shown us that we may think we can reform a player but the reality is that if a player is flaky before he comes to us it is unlikely we will be able to change him so we should steer clear of such people in the future

Oh, right, so because I said I think Liverpool would have no problem with going after Zlatan or Pogba if we could, and felt they would benefit us, that makes you assume I don't know Shankly's ideas? Where do you get that conclusion from?

I'm not talking about Shankly signing Zlatan or Pogba, am I? I'm talking about Liverpool, in the current world. Shankly wouldn't have spent £34m or whatever on Mané but here we are.

If Liverpool thinks they can benefit from a player, and they can afford them and get them then they get them. We've always done that. If we thought Zlatan or Pogba were obtainable and could fit into our system then we would have no problems going for them. That's Liverpool in 2016 I'm talking about, not Bill Shankly.

Klopp only wants players who want to be here, yes, so he wouldn't have gone for someone like Zlatan. But Klopp's different. Other Liverpool managers wouldn't be so reluctant.

I'm talking about the now. If we can sign a player and believe they will benefit us we will, we always have done. If we could afford a player like Pogba we probably would go for it if we felt he'd benefit us. The fact that we spent £34m on Mané and £32.5m on Benteke shows we would if we could.

Liverpool are just like everyone else now. We have to be if we want to compete with them. Do you think Man United would've signed Zlatan or Pogba for the fun of it? They signed them because they can and because they feel they can benefit them and what they want to do,

I don't know if there are any player types we'd definitely stay away from. Klopp himself would probably stay away from someone like Zlatan, and Balotelli, if he doesn't like their attitudes or thinks their attitude or playing style is compatible with him. Again, that applies to other managers, too, they wouldn't sign a player if they didn't like their attitude.

My point is we aren't any different from other clubs now, we have different types of players because we have a different system, and we don't have as much money to spend on transfers and wages, and wouldn't interest a player like Zlatan. But I'm under no illusion that we would sign him if we could.

I'm talking about the modern world here. Just because I acknowledge the club is a modern football club, being run as a business like any other club, does not in any way give any indication that I don't understand Shankly's ideas. To be honest I'm struggling to find words to describe how wrong you are for saying that. I'm not talking about Shankly or what Shankly would or would not do, Shankly's not here, he's not the manager, and he wasn't in charge of a football club at a time when money is such an important factor.

Shankly is in fact completely irrelevant to this whole discussion, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't use him to insult my credibility as a Liverpool fan just because my head isn't stuck in the 60s and 70s.

I'm happy to discuss things in an adult manner but if you can't do that without being insulting or arrogant or patronising then I'm not interested. Having a difference of an opinion doesn't make me less of a fan and it shouldn't give you the impression I don't know Shankly or his ideas.

Football and footballers have changed massively since Shankly's days (football for the better, footballers not in terms of attitude/application for the most part). So applying his ethics and principles would limit our ability to compete sadly. If a player becomes available that would improve our team and fit our current style (as Pogba would and Zlatan wouldn't) then we should be interested. But financial sensibility also applies so buying any players at Pogba's price or on Zlatan's salary is unlikely at present even if they were willing to join us.

Take it easy lads, it's hardly a matter of life and death.

Munch I am not your enemy, we are fellow LFC fans with perhaps a slight difference on some matters, that is not a problem to me but at times it does seem to be to you. If I may say so you sometimes can come across as someone who reacts badly if someone does not fully agree with you. I have no problem if you disagree with me.provided we can do it respectfully and not toss around nasty words to each other. I hope I have not done that in your direction but if you feel I have then I apologise unreservedly.

Where am I coming from? - I am a LFC fan first taken to a match by my Dad in 1962 when we were in the old 2nd Division just after Shankly took over and took LFC on a journey to success so that in the 50+ years since 1964 we have not finished outside the top 8 in the highest division which is a record without parallel. His influence tho was far more than just about success on the field, it was about the values that the club stood for. That is why I revere the man - above any other figure connected to our club - altho Kenny comes close. If that makes me stuck in the 60s and 70s then I am not unhappy about it, but I do not think I am, I also engage with the modern game too, football is a drug to me and I will never be cured from it .

What special ideas did he have which he brought to LFC which made him so unique? - he embodied a living socialism borne from his background. This meant that he valued hard work and treating people (all people of all 'classes') well and he made special efforts to make sure he never distanced himself from his roots or the ordinary fans of the club. He tried to make sure his players thought in the same way as him. Humility was something he valued greatly - players who talked the talk without walking the walk did not go down well with him. Even in the mad world of football 2016 I believe those principles can still be applied in things like what the club expects of its players and how it treats its fans and even what players it signs.

The sentence which bothered me most in your long post was 'Liverpool are just like everyone else now' - I certainly hope not - altho sometimes i think you may have a point when I see some of the things which the club does.

On the positive side tho i do think Klopp has a lot of the same characteristics as Shanks in terms of attitudes to fans and what he values in players and so I look to the future both on and off the field with more real optimism than I have done for a while.

Here's to a good 2016/17 and beyond.

I think you're being unfair to Munch. They haven't 'reacted badly,' they've merely responded to your post.

I'm not sure your life history is actually at all relevant to the point you were trying to make either.

Of course we are like any other club, we've certainly spent a lot in recent years..and not always spent the money well!

Even though I saw the Shankly years, this comment I 100% agree with from Munch, we are now, not then, and it's the now that matters. Those of us who were around in that time really have to stop living on our history, it's exactly that, history.

Right now, Klopp is our future, and no matter how well he does, one day we may/may not look back on him with massive respect - that's yet to be discovered. I would never disrespect Shankly for what he achieved, he was the best at the time - and spit if you like, but the same as SAF will be the best of his era.

We are a work in progress all the time, the then is good to look back on, but should never be used as a measuring stick of what's right now.

PS: I do still think that Pele was the best footballer ever though!

The likes of Zlatan Ibrahimovic and Paul Pogba who you were attacking earlier have done quite a lot of walking of the walk in their careers, more so than many many players who have played for Liverpool, and I mean no disrespect when I say that.

Ibrahimovic in particular has won titles in many different countries and whilst he is known for his statements and quotes I would suggest that it doesn't detract from his dedication as a footballer. He has been one of my favourite players for quite some time now and I think most of his press persona is just that - a persona for the media. He is already being lauded for the work he is doing with the younger players at Man Utd. You don't get to be 34 and in the condition he is in without having tremendous dedication to your chosen profession.

Let us not forget that Mr Shankly was no stranger to the odd media quote himself as well, including the completely inaccurate Life and Death statement. Id venture there are more t-shirts available now with his sound bites on the front that you would see from Zlatan Ibrahimovic.

Principles that could readily have been applied to the likes of Jock Stein and Matt Busby. Nothing unique.

I don't react badly at all. I've been respectful towards you throughout this, I'm fine with people disagreeing or having a different opinion, all I do is share mine. If I have something to say I'll say it. What I take issue with is when people react badly to me or get personal, or questions by support for Liverpool or my credibility as a fan, or asks if I understand Shankly's ideas when talking about the modern world. I should note only the Shankly thing applies to you in that little list, but I understand you didn't mean any offence so let's move on. You're not my enemy, either.


I'm a Liverpool fan, so I understand all about what Shankly brought to the club. We're still feeling the effects of him being at the club even now. Part of that is the effect he has had on the fans, which has been passed on to future generations, and I think it does have an effect on the club and the way it operates, within reason, since we saw with the Spirit of Shankly (apt. name, eh?) and recently with the ticket price increase, the fans still have power and we want the club to keep running in a way that would make Shankly proud.

I didn't live through the Shankly years so my experience of him is second-hand but I understand him.



But that's my whole point. We are. Don't get me wrong, I do think Liverpool are special in its own special way. It's just that we aren't run exactly the way Shankly had us run, we don't draft in 25 players from a local academy and build a title-winning squad because that just does not happen. We've spent a lot of money over the years, not all of it wisely. If we had spent it more wisely we'd have won things, and you'd probably have some jealous people saying we bought the league.

Football is different now to Shankly's day, it's not Liverpool itself, and for us to compete at the highest level you have to spend, and, as said, we've shown that we will if we can. I do think we would sign someone like Zlatan or Pogba if we could. The only reason we wouldn't sign Zlatan is because he wouldn't fit into the system, and there is his attitude that Klopp wouldn't like, but Balotelli has shown that another Liverpool manager would.

If a player of Pogba's quality become available and we refused to buy him because of some illusion that we're different to everybody else I'd have a crater in my head from face-palming. You'll have seen the criticism FSG and Ian Ayre get when we fail to sign players. Clint Dempsey, Mkhitaryan? Imagine the outrage if we could've had Pogba.

The reason I take issue with you asking me if I understand Shankly's ideas is because I'm talking about now, not then, and in the current market, if we want to compete at the top, Shankly's ideas might have to take a backseat sometimes.



Yes, Klopp's probably the closest we've had to Shankly, and a lot of what I've said is kind of excluding Klopp because he's different to other Liverpool managers. He wouldn't sign someone like Zlatan because their personalities wouldn't be compatible, and if we had the money I don't know if he would've gone for Pogba, but other managers would. Rafa certainly would have done. Klopp, however, does prefer to create the £80m player rather than buy them, but he's a special case.


TL;DR:

Football has changed from Shankly's day, and FSG has modernised how the club is run, they've made is into a successfully run business that is capable of competing at the top, but we're not quite rich enough to pay £80m for a player just yet. But we're a modern club now in modern times, whether Shankly would've signed certain players today is almost irrelevant because he didn't have to put up with the way the modern game is.

From my standpoint the Shankly debate is done - since my post this morning I feel it has run its course and we move on. Mostly people did not agree with me but i can live with that - it is not the first time and probably won't be the last!! I still largely stand by my opinion but some of you made me think about some aspects of it by your posts for which I thank you. I will not enlarge on that as to do so might prolong the debate and I think it is fairly clear what we all believe and further discussion may lead to ill feeling and i do not want to go there.

So to change the topic completely this Sunday what should our team be? we have so many choices that I bet we will all differ in what we think. Also there is some doubt over who is fit enough to play.

My team from what I know regarding availability would be

Mignolet

Clyne
Lovren
Klaven
Moreno

Can
Hendo

Lallana
Firmino
Mane

Origi

Subs
Manninger
Matip
Gruic
Stewart
Wijnaldum
Coutinho
Ings

I am assuming the following are not available
Karius, Gomez, Sakho, Ojo, Milner, Lucas, Sturridge,

Lallana not Coutinho is a bit controversial as is Origi for striker and Klaven in defense, also no Wijnaldum seeing as we paid such a lot for him but to me he is still settling in and I am not sure of only having one main defensive sub in Matip but I am not sure who realistically we could put in (Randall?) Markovic is fit I think but I have not included him and the same is true of Balotelli and Benteke. Have I forgotten any key people?

The choice this weekend is quite hard but with the squad size it will only get harder for Jurgen as more become available - but that is a good problem I think.

Sturridge is allegedly back in full training and available. Rumours are that Klopp isn't putting him in the squad though, just to be on the conversative side. Which I can see the sense behind, but I'd personally have him on the bench just incase things go tits up.