John W Henry last week began a search for reasonableness in an unreasonable world. The history of English football is the story of success being achieved by the iron will and insanity of a domineering figure.
Even Arsene Wenger, a great reformer, knows only one way. It may be erudite and civilised and touched with genius, but it is his way.
No club can rely on genius. Chelsea might have found another method, but that won't be New England Sports Ventures' way. Roman Abramovich's bankrolling of the club in the early years allowed Chelsea to become a force. Jose Mourinho may have been the manager the club needed when they needed to assert their personality -- or assume his personality.
In Carlo Ancelotti, they have found a man who might allow them to be successful and even court popularity. Chelsea are a world away from Liverpool now. In 2009, Liverpool finished above them, an astonishing achievement given the wealth Abramovich pumped in while Tom Hicks and George Gillett were pumping it out.
Liverpool have a future now at least. NESV have made a dynamic start and they have demonstrated they are prepared to take risks in order to be successful. The appointment of Damien Comolli is a gamble. All major appointments are, but NESV are trying to do something that hasn't been done or, at least, has been done quietly in the past. Even the most powerful managers rely on other people's judgement. Alex Ferguson signed Bebe without seeing him, but ultimately footballers must know that the man they are working for wants them at the club.
Comolli's arrival, Henry says, will lead to a situation where "you build consensus". Ultimately, however, one man will be sacrificed if there is failure and it will usually be the manager. It is fashionable to say that a sporting director is the "continental model" but even in cultures where coaches are used to having sporting directors or players forced upon them by presidents, it is almost always the coach who pays for failure. That won't change.
NESV will work from the idea that if you recruit the best players and pay good wages to players who deserve it, the coach can be less important. There is statistical evidence to support this idea and that may be enough for them.
Liverpool's boot room was a place of consensus during the Bob Paisley era and may be the greatest example of what NESV hope to achieve. Football's reality is that managers are always taking recommendations from agents, scouts and others. The key elements are trust and perception.
But football has not changed in the sense that there must be an overarching figure. Roy Hodgson is not that man at Liverpool. Once it is perceived that he is not signing players, it will be interesting to see how long he survives. All the talk of continental models won't save a manager when the sense is that he has been weakened.
But Liverpool and Hodgson have had a good couple of weeks and not just because they have learned to win again. Three victories appeared to ease the pressure on Hodgson, even as it was becoming clear that his authority was being diminished by the energy and new ideas of NESV.
He had no option last week but to act like all was well. His powerbase, such as it was, has been all but eroded at Liverpool. He now has the support of Jamie Carragher and Steven Gerrard and the public backing of NESV, but that may no longer be enough.
Gerrard scored a hat-trick against Napoli on Thursday night which led Carragher to describe him as Liverpool's greatest ever player. There's a case to be made that Carragher, not Gerrard, has been Liverpool's most influential player over the past five years.
The Gerrard myth needs little encouragement to re-emerge so his hat-trick last Thursday obscured the reality that his season has been dreadful. There is growing evidence that his legs have gone and if Liverpool had been run as a normal club last summer, not one on life support, then it would have made sense to sell him.
A club like Wenger's Arsenal might have decided that last summer, if £30m was on offer, was the right time to get rid of Gerrard. He is 30 now and there is no indication that he will be able to replace his explosive force with the wit and intelligence needed to control a match.
All he ever had were reactions. World-class reactions, but reactions indicative of his restless personality. Occasionally he still reacts brilliantly as he showed on Thursday night, but the myth that Liverpool was built by Gerrard persists. Liverpool must hope this inelasticity in his reputation continues until the summer when they can sell him. But this afternoon, not 45 minutes against Napoli, will demonstrate the point Gerrard has reached in his career.
Liverpool, as a team, will be tested and even if they lose, which seems likely, Hodgson must ensure they show some fight. He has made much of the players he inherited. Henry, too, seemed to absolve him of blame for the ageing squad and when they point to players like Maxi Rodriguez and Soto Kyrgiakos, they have a case.
But Hodgson did nothing to change it. The signings of Paul Konchesky, 29, Joe Cole, 28, Raul Meireles, 27, and Christian Poulsen, 30, have done little to lower the age profile and even less to improve the quality.
There was also the curious decision to allow Jamie Carragher to sign a contract extension in the final hours of the old Hicks and Gillett regime. Carragher is needed at Liverpool, at least to remind players of their responsibilities. But he is fading fast as a player. His personality may be reason enough to keep him at Liverpool and he was close to the departed managing director Christian Purslow as well as being a supporter of Hodgson's.
But if he had any say in recommending Hodgson, then foresight is not one of Carragher's attributes.
Hodgson, it is said, would never have got the job if Liverpool were not in such crisis. After the divisive final year of Rafa Benitez, some felt that Liverpool needed a unifying figure. Instead they got Roy Hodgson.
It is unprecedented in modern times for the appointment of a Liverpool manager to be met with such a lack of enthusiasm. Some blame this entirely on the unwavering loyalty of a large section of Liverpool supporters to Benitez.
This phenomenon in itself is never explored. Football fans are usually castigated for their fickleness. Yet here is a group being condemned for their steadfastness, primarily because it doesn't fit in with the agenda that all that went wrong at Liverpool was Benitez's fault.
The problem now is not Benitez but Hodgson, despite the recent victories. If Purslow wanted somebody to help the supporters forget about Benitez, he could not have picked a worse man. His appointment was met with no enthusiasm and a repeated mantra from most that he needed time. Liverpool supporters, apathetic at best, seemed to be willing patience on themselves.
But there is no need to give a manager who has been in football 30 years time. If Howard Wilkinson had been appointed, few would have said give him time. Hodgson has a body of work which allows people to judge his appointment immediately: he is a Fulham manager managing Liverpool, as demonstrated by his reaction to any criticism.
Last weekend's victory was Hodgson's first away victory in the Premier League in 442 days. These were mainly good days for Hodgson; 442 days when he was feted and became manager of the year. Nobody noticed or cared that Fulham went most of last season without an away league victory. At Liverpool, they notice.
Since Liverpool's defeat to Everton, things have improved. At home to Blackburn, Liverpool attacked and hustled with purpose for the first time this season. Against Bolton, they got a break in a dull game and Gerrard won it for them on Thursday. But they are Hodgson victories and he will take them any way he can.
He has welcomed the arrival of NESV and the appointment of Comolli. He has welcomed everything and even apologised to Benitez. But Hodgson is isolated now. The men who appointed him have gone. He is working beyond his abilities and has problems above his pay grade.
John W Henry arrived, making sense and bringing reason. It may require one act of ruthlessness if Liverpool are truly to begin making progress.
Worship... Yeah, just like that. =D
Arrival of superstars XD
SandBay Community
Me =)
He and him"We are defending 10-20 yards further back. This means that the defence is sitting too far from the midfield and for the first time i can remember, teams (even Northampton & Blackpool) are able to play football against us getting men in between the midfield and defence.
The midfield is all over the place. With no natural width the wide players are cutting into the centre and when we have posession there is nowhere to go with the ball – movement is shocking from the players and we haven’t stretched the play once this season. It seems as though we are playing with 10 men all the time."
That's saying something.My new book ranks managers in a unique way: amongst other things, working out how much it cost them to win each point, in relation to the expense of team they sent out in every single one of their games.
In reference only to Premier League games, it shows that Graeme Souness did a great job at Blackburn. (He even won the League Cup, but we looked only at the league.)
It shows that, in the end, Roy Hodgson did a terrible job at Blackburn (the worst relegation ever, for which he was largely responsible, as the man who guided the team to just one win in their first 14 games).
It shows that Souness did a terrible job at Newcastle (and Liverpool, but you knew that already).
It shows that Hodgson did a great job at Fulham. (But not better than Chris Coleman, incidentally.)
Above all else, we highlight, time and time again, examples of good managers faltering when asked to manage bigger clubs.
In his last 21 league games at a club expected to finish in the top six (Blackburn and Liverpool), Hodgson has won a measly two. Two wins. He left Blackburn when they were rooted to the bottom; he currently has Liverpool in the relegation zone.
But Roy seems oblivious.
“It is insulting to suggest that because you move to a new club, your methods suddenly don’t work when they’ve held you in good stead for 35 years and made you one of the most respected coaches in Europe. It’s unbelievable.”
Joe Kinnear did a great job at Wimbledon in the ‘90s; no big club in their right mind would want him anywhere near them these days. (And that’s right, at the time Newcastle weren’t a club in their right mind, either.)
Different methods are needed at different clubs because a different kind of result and performance is expected. The pressure if very different, on you and your players. You cannot set up to sit off teams when you’re a big club.
And every last error is magnified. But that’s the reason why those who succeed are made of different stuff.
Now, I write this not from the perspective of someone who expected Liverpool to be in the top four, now or in May. Or even the top eight at this point, after the fixtures we’ve had.
I write it from a refusal to accept that even with the financial problems, this is a bottom-half-of-the-table side, let alone one that should be in the relegation zone, even at what remains an early stage of the season. Teething problems are to be expected; but this feels like a dentist going at us with a pair of rusty pliers, turning a modest smile into a bloody grimace.
Yet I’ve been inundated with suggestions that it’s all Rafa’s fault. They keep coming, on and on and on. On Sky Sports, Jamie Redknapp, aided and abetted by Richard Keys and the guilt-free Souness, blamed Rafa. He’d spent loads of money and the squad wasn’t good enough.
Well, not good enough for what? Only a year ago most of those players were supposed to be good enough to challenge for the title, and it was apparently only Benítez holding them back. As many as 15 of them were at the World Cup (not always as superstars, but there all the same).
Alan Hansen is now blaming players left by Rafa, such as Ngog (our top goalscorer this season), Kyrgiakos (gives 100%) and has said Kuyt never steps up to the plate. He says it’s too early to judge Roy’s summer signings, but did criticise Jovanovic, Rafa’s summer signing.
The Squad This Summer
Hansen also mentions that Roy inherited a one-man team. I thought Alan could count a bit better than that.
Reina, Gerrard, Torres: three of the best players in their position in the country, if not the world. Any club would want them, and Rafa bought two of the three. (Same applied to Mascherano.)
Agger: a thoroughbred centre-back. Wanted by AC Milan in the fairly recent past. Skrtel: another very fine centre-back. Roughly £6m each. Kyrgiakos: about as decent as you’ll get for 4th choice at £1.5m. Then there’s Carragher; well past his best, but not exactly finished. (Trouble is, he’s undroppable.)
Johnson: one of the best attacking right-backs in the world; in the right system, likely to create loads of chances in a game (defending not the best, but faults exaggerated this season from being too exposed).
Aquilani: over his injury problems, and such a clever player who’s … now in the Juventus team. Not that Liverpool are short of passing invention (sigh). Effectively given away for the season.
Lucas, Maxi: not spectacular, but good enough to play for Brazil and Argentina. Maxi, in particular, became a key player towards the end of last season. Lucas seemed to be really progressing last season too, but has struggled this year. Then again, he looks like Pele next to Poulsen, who has usurped him.
Jovanovic – another experienced international. Not sure about him yet, but pedigree is there. Insua is another player who came in for criticism, but had the potential to improve; at 21, full-backs are just starting out.
Kuyt: not everyone’s cup of tea, but almost every manager in the game sings his praises. Integral to Holland reaching World Cup final. Guarantees 10-15 goals from the wing almost every season, and as many assists. Does the work of two players. (Hansen thinks he never steps up to the plate, but look at all the goals he’s scored and created in big games.)
Kelly and Pacheco: two youngsters with a lot of quality. Not really been trusted in the league this season, even though they are now one year older and, people expected, sure to be knocking on the door. Pacheco not even making the bench. Jonjo Shelvey – one for the future, and possibly the near future at the rate Poulsen is going. N’Gog – just 21, and just £1.5m, but seven goals already this season. Kelly was home-grown, Pacheco part of Rafa’s Spanish connection.
Ryan Babel – frustrating? Hell yes. Likely to leave, whatever happens? Yes, too. But also, good from the bench? Yes, clearly. Not trusted before the Northampton game and now totally bombed out as a result. Roy said he’d been unfairly treated in the past, but now fails to even include him in the entire squad (and this is without inappropriate Twittering). Always a handy option with his pace on the wing, but Roy sees him as a striker (who doesn’t play), and Roy doesn’t use wingers.
Benayoun and Mascharano were also part of the squad Rafa left. Of course, they’ve moved on, through no fault of Roy’s. But Roy did get £26m from those two to buy replacements. Riera and a couple of others went, too, which at least allowed Roy to bring in a number of his own players, four of whom have been regular starters when fit.
But of course, Roy didn’t get all of the transfer money to reinvest; it’s wrong to expect the squad to be quite as strong as it was. Yet by the logic used to frequently slate Rafa, Roy “has spent a lot of money”; the Reds were behind only Manchester City and Chelsea in terms of money ‘spent’. However, the Reds ranked 1st in terms of money recouped. Rafa’s net spend was never that high; Roy’s isn’t either.
All in all, however, there’s enough there to be expecting a whole lot better than the relegation zone at this stage (for the first time in over 50 years) and out of a domestic cup to the lowest-ranked team to beat the Reds in 50 years. Rafa was sacked because he could only finish 7th with players that the media said should be doing better. The summer was supposed to be all about the feelgood factor: Gerrard, Torres, Cole; new manager, hip hip hooray.
There’s been no great injury crisis, and if anything, the Reds have had a bit of the luck (contrast Sunderland goal with beach ball one, and bizarre free-kick award against Blackpool) that they lacked last season. But worse than the results, performances have been universally poor; every single first-half in 14 games has been dire. Last year was pretty bad, but there were good displays too.
There’s been no apparent method, and rather than tighten up at the back, it’s as if Phil Babb has returned with his mate Tubby Ruddock. The centre of the midfield was so invisible at times against Blackpool it was as stupefying. Gerrard was AWOL and Poulsen was lost at sea, considered dead.
The stats are damning. Liverpool have had just 65 attempts at goal this season, and the opposition have had 77 against us. Stoke have had more goal attempts.
What the Rafa-haters didn’t foresee was that while a change of manager might help some players, it could also hinder others.
“My methods have translated from Halmstads to Malmo to Orebro to Neuchatel Xamax to the Swiss national team and many other jobs as well.” Roy Hodgson.
But not to Blackburn, and only moderately so to Inter Milan (15 years ago; good first season, less good second season).
And with all due respect, none of those clubs Roy mentioned is in a major league, or is a major nation; these are not household names. Roy had the Swiss national team playing well in 1994; but then Roy Evans had Liverpool playing well around the same time. George Graham took Arsenal to a European final that year. Football has evolved dramatically in that time.
Liverpool still have a core of excellent players. And the club has its talent on the fringes. It may not be a top four squad anymore, due to too many sales in relation to purchases since 2008, but is should not even be a bottom-half of the table squad, let alone end the weekend in the relegation zone for the first time since 1964 (after a minimum of three games played).
Conceding six goals at home to Northampton, Sunderland and Blackpool, and winning none of those games, all in the space of 10 days, is unacceptable. The performances have offered nothing to cling on to. In the three most recent Anfield games the Reds have been outclassed. Blackpool were a credit to the game of football.
I’m not especially angry at Roy. I feel some sympathy for him; I don’t enjoy watching a man apparently out of his depth, flailing and drowning.
But he should not have been appointed in the first place. I won’t bring myself to say he must be sacked – he has the job, so now he needs to prove he deserves it – but as I said in the summer, his appointment was always more of a risk than the ‘safe hands’ tag suggested. And if his team loses the Merseyside derby, the calls for his resignation will be deafening.
‘Going English’ with the manager and transfers might have worked as a policy, but it needed money; therefore, drastic change was not a wise move. James Milner is a good English player, for example. He cost £26m. But without the budget, the Reds tried a sea-change, a U-turn.
This is all the folly of Christian Purslow, and that of his media cronies who badgered Benítez at every turn. (Yes, you know who you are.)
The history of warning was there with Hodgson at Blackburn, and the history there was in Spain, too.
As soon as Rafa left Valencia they crumbled. Spectacularly. The players who had wanted him gone realised the error of their ways. Valencia overachieved massively during his three seasons. After, they didn’t so much find their true level as sink right through it.
If you replace a world-class manager, you need to get it right.
Roy’s Mistakes?
• Calling the players who lost in the Carling Cup the ‘B team’, and blaming it all on them.
• Picking a full-strength team away in the Europa League, and expecting Torres’ muscles to be 100% three days later. I thought he was going to use the ‘B’ team in the early stages, as he did at Fulham?
• Not buying a striker; I know Rafa struggled to find one at the right price, but it was the clear priority of the summer. Aquilani was bought to replace Alonso, and was now fit; and so, instead of going for Meireles and then not using him properly, why not keep Aquilani and buy a striker?
• Leaving it to the 80-minute mark in several games to make the first change, when a result was needed.
• And do we really want to see Kyrgiakos as a centre-forward late in games against Northampton and Blackpool? Admittedly it nearly worked, but if we have to resort to desperate long-balls rather than try and play through lesser teams at Anfield, it’s a sign of grave concern.
• Alienating Agger. Potentially a world-class centre-back. But doesn’t fit Roy’s style, which involves not taking chances with footballers in defence. One of the best players at the club, but not utilised.
• Loaning out Insua and Aquilani, without sufficient replacements. (Might not all be Roy’s fault, this one, with Insua apparently offered to clubs by the Reds’ hierarchy.)
• Paying £5m for mediocre players who are near the end of their careers (Konchesky, and the frankly risible Poulsen). Paying £11m for Meireles – a very good player – and using him as a wide midfielder (albeit one forced to play horribly narrow). Saying Rafael Van Der Vaart doesn’t fit the profile of the kind of player he was interested in.
Biggest Error
And the biggest one of all: taking a team with players suited to pressing and rather than working with what he had, trying to reverse it. If anything was broken under Benítez, it was his relationship with Carragher and Gerrard, and one or two less-influential players.
The tactics were not the issue (look at how they were often successfully deployed at the World Cup) and maybe now people are seeing that.
Liverpool pressed high and hard – and fast from the start – and it suited Torres, Kuyt and Gerrard. It made it easier to create chances, because errors were forced. It gave the game some energy.
It now suits Samuel Eto’o at Inter: “With Mourinho we played on the counter-attack, with Benítez we press more and that’s better for us forwards because we win back the ball higher up the pitch and create more chances.”
Eto’o has 11 goals already this season, after just 16 last time. Torres has … one.
Last season I noted that Rafa was the only manager to get more than an average amount of goals from Torres. At the time, I wasn’t sure if it was just coincidence, or maybe due to the very detailed and specific advice Rafa gave him (which Torres said was incredible). Now, I’m starting to think it was mostly tactical.
Torres’ goal record in Spain was not the best; consistent, yes, but never above 13 from open play in a season (in one year he scored six additional goals from the spot). For Spain, it’s a decent international record, but not outstanding. (Spain also press, but they often delay the final pass; Torres needs the ball earlier.)
For Torres under Hodgson, it’s … one goal in nine games.
Now, he hasn’t been 100% fit. And it’s early days. But he wasn’t fully fit for large parts of the previous two seasons. And he still got 14 in 24, and 18 in 22, in those two Premier League campaigns. Often he was coming back from injury, but rarely did he look this out of sorts. Rarely was he so starved of service, so isolated; an island within Anfield.
Perhaps the new style of play doesn’t suit him? He’ll always be a great striker – pace, power, eye for all types of goal – but the tactics were always tailored to his strengths. Now it seems tailored to the strengths of Bobby Zamora.
Now, if Roy wants to change the team’s entire style, that’s down to him. But it can be argued that it makes more sense to work with what he has (or for the club to employ someone to do so), in a way that suits the players, than force his ideas onto them; especially as he doesn’t have the money to buy those who’d fit better into his system. (Not being funny, but right now, Emile Heskey would probably be better at what Torres is being asked to do.)
The style – which Hodgson has made clear he’s carried with him for 35 years – is being forced onto the players. If it works, great. If it doesn’t? Buck. Stops. There.
The next few weeks are vital in the future of the club, and so any decision can wait until that is resolved, and until after the Everton game. Win that game, and Roy might have a chance of taking his ideas into a new regime (if one finally arrives).
Fickle
I don’t want to appear fickle, but can I really be that if I never wanted him in the first place? I said as much in the summer. I didn’t say that Roy would definitely fail, but I did feel that his experience at Blackburn should not be brushed under the carpet, and that his achievements at Fulham, while admirable, do not necessarily transfer to a bigger club. I looked at his low-scoring teams that eked out a lot of draws, and that included his previous jobs at Blackburn and Inter Milan too.
Yes, I continue to remain annoyed at how the world-class manager we had was treated. But that’s a separate issue to this. (Although the media keep merging the two.)
If you have to sack a manager, you find a suitable replacement; not just one who speaks perfect English and makes life as easy as possible for you. And you don’t try to reverse a successful culture (Spanish) for one that has more faults. After all, how many great English players has the club purchased in the last 20 years? And how many great Spanish ones in the last six years alone?
If Roy stays, and turns things around, I’ll happily hold up my hands. If he wins, I win too. But if he fails, and fails as thoroughly as he currently is, it needs pointing out.
It needs pointing out that the owners are a cancer, and that those running the club know next to nothing about football. It needs to be pointed out that some players wanted an English manager, who would comfort them. We needed rid of rotation, zonal marking, Gerrard in centre-midfield, 4-4-2, and a manager who didn’t celebrate goals with backflips. How’s that working out?
It needs to be pointed out that on the basis of his team’s incoherent performances and his own bizarre press conferences, Roy Hodgson looks like the right man in the wrong job.
“I’ve had two-and-a-half wonderful years (at Fulham) where nothing ever negative was said about me and my team. Now maybe people are saying negative things. It doesn’t change anything. I work the same way as I did last year.” Roy Hodgson
The worst league start for 18 years*, and an undeserved (but very welcome) equaliser away from it being the worst for 56 years. Add to that the most humbling cup exit since 1959. So, whose fault is it?
Some already have their prime candidate.
Yes, the manager.
…Of Inter Milan.
Rafa Benítez has been in the news more this past week than when he was actually working here. First, Alex Ferguson blamed him solely for Liverpool’s decline. Next, Sam Allardyce said he missed having him here to wind up (something that must be keeping Rafa awake at night as he looks down on the rest of Serie A, nervous of Big Sam following him to Italy, or even taking his job.)
Then Benítez pointed out that Massimo Moratti, who has run Inter for 15 years, knew more about football than his Liverpool counterparts: cue more back-page headlines. (A fair comment, however, given that Gillett and Hicks didn’t know the sport before 2007, and still don’t appear to; and that both the MD and Chairman, while claiming to have followed the game for years, had never been involved in the running of a club before 2009. Experience at the top is not exactly something Liverpool is blessed with right now.)
Next up, Jan Molby was on Radio Five Live saying Liverpool’s defeat to Northampton was “all Rafa’s fault” (echoed by Adrian Durham on Talksport), and a few days later, Steve Bruce – another of the Ferguson/Allardyce cartel – again stated that claim. The words “it’s all Rafa’s fault” could almost have been read from a prompt card. (Apparently Rafa had tried to sign one of Bruce’s players last season; I mean, just how dare he?)
Of course, any time I mention the Spaniard’s name I get told to “get over him/move on”. Well, clearly the media at large and the LMA clique aren’t doing so, are they? It’s been non-stop blame put at his door, to a quite extraordinary degree.
So let’s be clear: it’s not all Rafa’s fault. Equally, it’s not all Roy’s fault. To suggest as much is only shielding the blame from the true culprits.
Most of that blame has to lie with the despicable owners. That is a given. While Kenny Dalglish is right to say that once players cross the line they shouldn’t be thinking about who is running the club, Gillett and Hicks have affected the quality of player purchased. With the internationals on the field, the Reds still should be beating Northampton Town, though; that is down to the players and the current manager. It’s hard to excuse that, beyond noting that freakish results do happen from time to time.
To compound the mess created by the awful Americans, Rafa’s purchases in the last two years weren’t universally successful, and Roy’s methods, on the early evidence, don’t seem appear suited to the personnel, and possibly, to a big club (or one with big expectations). But it’s complex.
He neither has the personnel for his more simplistic 4-4-2, which can be relatively effective; nor does he seem to be able to get 4-2-3-1 (or variations thereof) to work. Equally, he hasn’t had the money to buy the ideal striker to dovetail with Torres in his version of 4-4-2, so right now we are getting neither the best of Roy’s Fulham approach (which in itself may not transfer to Liverpool), nor the best of Rafa’s more fluid, modern approach.
Reality
Thankfully, reality is setting in (in most quarters) about the financial situation. Liverpool’s squad, in current money (TPI), cost just £128m to assemble.
Contrast that with: Chelsea, £309m; Man City, £306m; Man United, £298m; and Spurs, £186m.
Now, all managers make bad purchases. But if they sell those players for what is still good money (as in the case of Robbie Keane, for example), they can usually expect to reinvest that money; otherwise the squad gets cheaper, and the money disappears into thin air.
This summer, Liverpool managed to sell a handful of Rafa’s signings – both good and bad – for a very nice sum of money: Mascherano, £20m; Benayoun, £6m; Albert Riera for up to £5m; San Jose, £2.6m; Cavalieri for around £1.5m; and youngsters Nemeth, Dalle Valle and Kacaniklic for around £3m in total. And back in January, when no money was spent, Voronin and Dossena went for about £6m combined.
Whose fault is that if much of that cash wasn’t available in full to reinvest in the team? Not Rafa’s, and not Roy’s.
In total, less than the combined fees received for Mascherano and Benayoun has been invested back into the squad in 2010. All the other money? And the Robbie Keane money? Nowhere to be seen.
So it’s not simply a case of Rafa leaving some dross, or Roy getting the tactics all wrong, or the players not performing. Perhaps all of these are true to varying degrees, but the main concern is that the squad depth is just withering away.
Perhaps harder to understand is why Aquilani was loaned out, when finally fit and, within reason, raring to go. Insua was loaned out, too.
These were two of the more technically gifted players in their respective roles, with the potential to improve (Insua as he’s still a kid, Aquilani as he adapts and recovers from injury). Unless Roy actually wants a small squad, then it’s hard to see why they were sent away; if saving a couple of players’ fairly moderate wages is that important, then that says a lot.
To compound matters, Daniel Agger, the best ball-playing centre-back since Alan Hansen, has been relegated to reserve left-back. Is it any wonder the Reds are struggling to build from the back? And did Roy really need to pay almost £5m for an aging defensive midfielder who, on the evidence so far, is making even the most ardent Lucas-basher a convert?
(Perhaps he did, and time will tell; but that’s part of the problem with employing a new manager who adopts very different tactics: the necessary turnover of players to fit his style. When you don’t have the funds, it can get messy.)
As for the accusations that Rafa left too little to work with, the overall collection of players he bequeathed his successor was still worth a lot more than what he paid for them.
The trouble was, it was mostly tied up in the first team. He only had a couple of ‘squad players’ (albeit originally intended as first-teamers) who cost more than £10m; most cost considerably less. Indeed, Maxi, Jovanovich, Ngog and Kyrgiakos cost just £3m in total. Add Lucas and Insua and you’re still only at £10m, and for that you can throw in Aurelio too.
And it’s a fact of football life that, at any point in time, there will be fringe players and ‘deadwood’ at any club; often players who then burst into life and change perceptions further down the line.
If someone had taken over Manchester United at the end of this summer, they’d be looking at Anderson, £18m and rarely seen, and Owen Hargreaves, £20m, and even more rarely seen. You could add Michael Owen, who these days seems fit purely for the Carling Cup and the bench, but must earn £50,000 a week, and the £7.4m youngster Bebé, who Ferguson hadn’t watched play even on video.
Meanwhile, record signing Dimitar Berbatov had yet to realise that he had a second gear (now duly discovered). And had someone replaced Ferguson in 2009, people would have said “Nani … why?”.
That doesn’t mean it’s a bad squad; most of it was in place when winning the league 16 months ago. It’s just that you can’t have 25 players all ‘in fashion’ at the same time. Suddenly Berbatov looks fantastic. But he had two years of shuffling about on the periphery to get used to things. Nani needed Ronaldo to disappear in order to emerge from his shadow.
Selection Issues
For me, Roy definitely did the right thing with his team selection for the Northampton debacle (with the possible exception of including Agger, who should surely be saved as a first-choice centre-back and not ‘wasted’ in games like this.)
But again, the hypocrisy in the apportion of blame for that result is not easy for me to stomach. I believed in Benítez, and therefore I am biased; but that doesn’t make me wrong when it comes to stuff like this:
When Liverpool lost away at Championship Burnley in 2005, it wasn’t blamed on the squad Rafa inherited. It was because “he didn’t respect the FA Cup”. When Liverpool finished 5th that season, with just 58 points (only a little less than in the previous two seasons), it was because “he didn’t understand English football”, not because he inherited Diao, Cheyrou, Diouf, Le Tallec, Traore, Biscan, Medjani, et al, or was given Cissé as a replacement to peak-years Owen.
When he won the European Cup, however, it became fashionable to say it was because of Gérard Houllier’s players. And of course, as Rafa could only get 58 points in the league that season, with a fairly threadbare squad for the money it cost Houllier to assemble, it was only really the league that mattered. Yet once Liverpool were winning 82-86 points in the league, it was “oh, they’ve not won any trophies, and winning trophies is all that counts”.
(What about Rafa’s impressive start in Milan? All down to Mourinho. Except any time they lose, it’s suddenly all down to the Spaniard.)
You get the narrative by now.
Of course, Rafa’s best Liverpool team was between 2007 (by then good enough to be the better team in the Champions League Final, but not as fortunate on the night) and 2009 (86 points, 2nd in the league). And that was very much his team; not Houllier’s. It won nothing, but it was clearly a very strong side indeed.
The wheels came off in part with the sale of Xabi Alonso (his own signing, lest we forget, but a player who has clearly been missed), but there was also the newly-found need to break-even; indeed, make a profit on deals.
Short-Term
My main problem with the appointment of Hodgson was connected to his age. There’s nothing wrong with older managers per se, but at 63 he’s not necessarily going to be in it for the long haul. He’s not a club builder, but a Steady Eddie type. How many times were we told he’d steady the ship? But right now, it’s sinking like a stone. It’s not all his fault, as I’ve made clear; but he has to take his share of responsibility.
Already he’s bought several players aged 27-30, with the two youngsters, Shelvey and Wilson, lined up during Rafa’s watch; meanwhile, out have gone a lot of younger players (admittedly, some were not good enough). On the whole, it’s a bit short-termist. Of Roy’s 1st-team signings, only Meireles looks capable of being around for more than two or three years.
There’s also the issue of his tactics, which seem a little archaic and more suited to racking up draws; perfect for nicking a point (or with a bit of luck, all three) while at Fulham – where, of course, he did that to very good effect.
Of course, drawing too many games was an accusation leveled at Rafa, too, but he actually won a large percentage of his fixtures, especially at Anfield.
Now, we have to remind ourselves that the squad isn’t as strong as it was in 2008/09. So we cannot keep comparing things with that peak. But even then, Rafa was criticised for not winning the league – even though it was a case of punching well above our financial weight.
“Drew too many games”, people said; yet with only two defeats, those draws were often the bonus points from the 4-8 defeats most top-four teams suffer. If you win 25 games out of 38, and lose very few, you’ve done a great job. Rafa did that in two different league seasons. Right now, one win out of six doesn’t read well at all.
Time
Now, as Roy is 63 and supposed to be ‘steadying the ship’, it makes me a little less happy to say ‘give him time’. He clearly needs a lot more than he’s had so far; I don’t like seeing calls for his head this early.
But equally, when Houllier and Benítez arrived, I could see their ideas for ‘club building’, even if they didn’t always succeed in certain areas.
My choice was always someone like Manuel Pellegrini, who was a bit younger than Hodgson, and a bit more modern. But what I will say is that had he been given the job, and the Reds made this kind of start, it would have all been blamed on the ‘foreigner’ not understanding what it takes to succeed here. He’d have been crucified, and we know it. “Another Juande Ramos”.
For me, Roy had to hit the ground running; or at the very least, walking rather than crawling. After all, that was part of the rationale for appointing an English elder-statesman used to the Premier League. Nothing about him – given his age and turnover of jobs in his CV – said ‘I’m here for a number of years’. He was here to cheer up some of the English players, and stop mucking around with those crazy ideas like rotation and zonal marking.
So while expecting instant dividends was not fair on Roy, he always had to get things right sooner rather than later. In the summer, Christian Purslow and Martin Broughton said that the club has to get straight back into the top four, “where it belongs”.
Well, it’s simply not financed to do so. And has it employed the right man to over-perform? (Or as Dion Fanning of the Irish Independent hinted at, paper over the cracks?) After all, it’s far different from doing so at a club where expectations are modest. Every last thing at a major club is scrutinised. It’s tough on a manager’s mental health. Even if Liverpool were bankrupt and in administration, and forced to play the U-11s, some would still say “should be challenging for the title”.
Liverpool currently have the 5th-most expensive squad, but as shown earlier, are a long way adrift of the four that are more costly. Plus there’s Arsenal, who are immaculately run and managed (and rather than pay big transfer fees opt for large wages). So 5th or 6th should be where we are aiming for, based on the resources.
The trouble is, when that was roughly the case last season, it was seen as a total disaster, and the manager was sacked. The trouble now is that even top six looks a tall order, as the Reds languish in 16th (although there’s plenty of time to alter that perception).
History doesn’t ease my fears either. Roy did okay in his first season at Blackburn. But in his second, he won only one of the first 14 games, and was sacked. That was with the 2nd-most expensive squad in the league at the time, and despite Rovers improving a little after he left, to rise from 20th to 19th, they were still relegated.
It is the ‘worst’ relegation in those terms in the 18 years of the Premier League. More money, relatively speaking, than he has at Liverpool, and less pressure; and still failure.
Right now, he’s only won one of six, although three were real toughies.
Can he handle the pressure? Well, maybe he can. But it’s not something we can rest assured on. He needs the chance to prove he has what it takes, of course, but equally, we can’t turn a blind eye to a failure to organise and inspire the team to even basic levels. The Reds continue to allow roughly twice as many attempts at their goal as in the corresponding fixtures last season; Sunderland hadn’t even scored at Anfield for a decade. I sincerely hope that this is just a case of teething problems, which could well be a possibility. But if it’s something else, it could be an ongoing problem.
Critical
I feel very uneasy being critical of a new manager, but I feel what could be fundamental problems with Roy’s approach have to be broached; he has to adapt to make it work if it doesn’t click soon. And even the relative chaos does not totally exempt him.
After all, he’s not yet had to do his job while his bosses offer it to someone else. Equally, he’s not yet had an injury crisis like the one that affected the start of last season. Right now, I dare not imagine a season with Torres missing half the games (and unfit in some of those he starts) and Gerrard carrying a muscle injury (and a long face) all campaign; or being down to relying on teenage centre-backs and full-backs.
So in some ways it’s not even been as tough as Benítez had it. But in others – overall squad cost, for example – it’s marginally worse than the Spaniard experienced last season.
(It’s harder to assess the ‘time in the job’ factor; what you lose by having less time to mould your team you often gain in initial matches with the injection of new purpose and ideas. Perhaps the toughest time can be a few months in, when the initial boost has worn off; but without having had that boost, maybe Liverpool can experience their crisis now, and then, later on, doing well in a few games will seem like winning the World Cup, and bring a sense of “we’re on the up”. Perhaps that’s clutching at straws, but that’s the best I’ve got. The worst thing would to be dragged into the mire at the bottom of the table; highly unlikely, but not impossible, if a negative spiral takes hold.)
Perhaps the mention of 1959 at the start of this article is very apt. If that was the birth of modern Liverpool, this could well be its death throes in terms of the club we loved. But perhaps, using science fiction terminology, this could provide the chance to regenerate; shed the parasites infecting the host body and start afresh.
It may not ever again be quite what it was, but it could be a hell of a lot better than what it currently is.
