This was not a case of Hodgson’s masterplan finally bearing fruit. There was a totally different tactical approach in evidence today. Now if Hodgson has experienced his road to Damascus moment then fine, let’s see where it can take us. Personally, even if he has suddenly (35 years after everyone else) grasped the advantages of a high tempo and pressing in the opponents’ half, I doubt he’ll suddenly become a master exponent of fine attacking football and an expert in the use of tactical substitutions and as such I think any progress we’ll achieve under him has a glass ceiling that would make a claustrophobic midget feel anxious.
However, a win is a win. The new owners can’t sack him after a win – not that win anyway – and after we have pleaded for a single glimmer of light, we would be in the wrong to demand his head after he has finally belatedly provided one (and it is only a glimmer).
Revert to type and fail to win at Bolton and he can go with my blessing and my boot up his arse.
For context, I watched the game with a Blackburn fan who told me their supporters are really unhappy with Allardyce and they’ve been terrible so far this season. When Nzonzi went off he conceded the game as with Samba and Nelson also missing they’d “lost their only hope of scoring”. Blackburn were as poor as any side I’ve seen at Anfield and their own supporters apparently think they’re in danger of relegation. On this evidence I can see why.
Therefore, I’m relieved at getting 3 points but won’t get carried away.
Sunday, 24 October 2010
Wednesday, 20 October 2010
Sacking Hodgson is not a rash decision
To anyone with the view that we can't sack Roy yet because it isn't the Liverpool way or because sacking a manager in October is normally a sign of a fickle board making panicked and irrational decisions, I say the following:
Yes, conventional wisdom dictates that it is risky to change managers mid-season and that it is folly to sack a manager after just 8 games (or 15 if we include those games that apparently no longer matter but which were equally dire to watch). However, we find ourselves in exceptional circumstances. Hodgson isn’t underperforming in any small way. It is not a case of minor niggles or harsh criticisms causing disgruntlement amongst a pocket of supporters. Hodgson has literally been a disaster in every possible sense and the dissatisfaction amongst supporters is unprecedented for our club. Meanwhile, Hodgson is telling us his aims for the club including, crucially, the style of play, are vastly different to ours – i.e. he wants to deliver something that we don’t want. Why give him time to achieve that?
One of the arguments for appointing an Englishman was that he would understand the unique history and culture of our club. If Hodgson had any inkling at all he would understand that the position of Liverpool manager exists to make the supporters happy. Hodgson has made us more miserable than ever and you have to go back to Graeme Souness to find a Liverpool manager who has alienated the supporters more.
The only risk attached to replacing him now is that we replace him with an equally disastrous replacement – in which case what have we lost? Chelsea didn’t fare too badly when replacing Scholari (who wasn’t a complete disaster) with Hiddink and City look a lot better for having replaced Hughes with Mancini last season – certainly they were no worse off.
The sooner this regrettable chapter in our history is closed, the better.
Yes, conventional wisdom dictates that it is risky to change managers mid-season and that it is folly to sack a manager after just 8 games (or 15 if we include those games that apparently no longer matter but which were equally dire to watch). However, we find ourselves in exceptional circumstances. Hodgson isn’t underperforming in any small way. It is not a case of minor niggles or harsh criticisms causing disgruntlement amongst a pocket of supporters. Hodgson has literally been a disaster in every possible sense and the dissatisfaction amongst supporters is unprecedented for our club. Meanwhile, Hodgson is telling us his aims for the club including, crucially, the style of play, are vastly different to ours – i.e. he wants to deliver something that we don’t want. Why give him time to achieve that?
One of the arguments for appointing an Englishman was that he would understand the unique history and culture of our club. If Hodgson had any inkling at all he would understand that the position of Liverpool manager exists to make the supporters happy. Hodgson has made us more miserable than ever and you have to go back to Graeme Souness to find a Liverpool manager who has alienated the supporters more.
The only risk attached to replacing him now is that we replace him with an equally disastrous replacement – in which case what have we lost? Chelsea didn’t fare too badly when replacing Scholari (who wasn’t a complete disaster) with Hiddink and City look a lot better for having replaced Hughes with Mancini last season – certainly they were no worse off.
The sooner this regrettable chapter in our history is closed, the better.
Sunday, 17 October 2010
No More Mr Nice Guy
Can we stop repeating that Roy is a “nice guy”? It seems to be a meaningless media soundbite that is at odds with what I am witnessing.
Taking the joy of watching attractive winning football from millions of people and instead giving them lousy football, misery and a fear of relegation does not strike me as particularly nice. Arrogantly dismissing suggestions that your approach might not be working and talking about compensation being owed in the event of your being dismissed essentially for gross negligence in leading a team with stellar expectations into the relegation zone isn’t “nice”.
There’s no shame in taking on a job in which you believe you can be successful but turns out to requires greater capability than you possess. There’s no shame in thinking you can meet the expectations of the supporters only to discover you are not capable of doing so. There’s no shame in doing your best in that job but failing. However, blaming your failure on others and criticising the expectations you have failed significantly to meet is shameful.
Here’s a quote from a genuine nice guy who also happened to be called Roy:
“I have felt over the past three or four weeks that things have not been working out. That was always uppermost in my mind. I dispute my record is one of failure. At any other club it would be a success but not at Liverpool. Our biggest regret is that we could not achieve success for the people who work at the club. I would like to pay tribute to the players at the club. I know they are capable of winning something."
That was Roy Evans when announcing his decision to resign as manager of Liverpool FC. If Hodgson really wants to be considered a nice guy, it’s time we heard something similar from him.
Taking the joy of watching attractive winning football from millions of people and instead giving them lousy football, misery and a fear of relegation does not strike me as particularly nice. Arrogantly dismissing suggestions that your approach might not be working and talking about compensation being owed in the event of your being dismissed essentially for gross negligence in leading a team with stellar expectations into the relegation zone isn’t “nice”.
There’s no shame in taking on a job in which you believe you can be successful but turns out to requires greater capability than you possess. There’s no shame in thinking you can meet the expectations of the supporters only to discover you are not capable of doing so. There’s no shame in doing your best in that job but failing. However, blaming your failure on others and criticising the expectations you have failed significantly to meet is shameful.
Here’s a quote from a genuine nice guy who also happened to be called Roy:
“I have felt over the past three or four weeks that things have not been working out. That was always uppermost in my mind. I dispute my record is one of failure. At any other club it would be a success but not at Liverpool. Our biggest regret is that we could not achieve success for the people who work at the club. I would like to pay tribute to the players at the club. I know they are capable of winning something."
That was Roy Evans when announcing his decision to resign as manager of Liverpool FC. If Hodgson really wants to be considered a nice guy, it’s time we heard something similar from him.
Saturday, 16 October 2010
Stop talking shit, Roy
If Hodgson really wants to convince people he can prove to be the right man to manage Liverpool Football Club despite all evidence to the contrary, I would suggest he needs to keep his mouth shut. In his latest press conference, he said the following:
“It’s a sad day for everything if after a bad start of six or seven games people think the solution is to find someone else with a magic wand. We all know a magic wand solution doesn’t exist."
I’ll give the man the benefit of any doubt that he doesn’t actually know how many league games we’ve played (it’s definitely seven, not six) but I don’t accept the suggestion that people are judging him solely on seven league games. League results have been disappointing but the performances in all fourteen games that Hodgson has presided over in all competitions have been dreadful and that is principally down to Hodgson’s tactics and, to a certain extent, team selections.
No one is looking to find “someone else with a magic wand”. We just want someone who recognises the difference between Liverpool Football Club and Fulham Football Club. Liverpool are expected to win pretty much every single game – especially at home. Fulham are happy to take points wherever they can get them and never does defeat result in a public outcry. Liverpool are expected to dominate possession and attack opposition. Fulham are expected to be difficult to break down but are ultimately there to be beaten. Why is Hodgson apparently the only man who can’t see his tactical approach to games is completely inappropriate, ineffective and the key cause of our “bad start”.
“I would be very disappointed if after such a short time – and having been given such a short time – to do the job people decided they wanted to get someone else in."
I would be very disappointed if Hodgson was allowed longer to entrench our team’s position in the relegation zone. I was disappointed when he was given the job, to be honest.
“I don’t seriously believe that’s the problem at the moment. It’s more complicated. I know I can turn the situation around. But I will have to be given support and the patience to do it.”
I absolutely 100% believe that the main problem is Hodgson. “Complicated”? It’s as simple as the tactics he insists on employing. As for insisting he needs “support and the patience” to “turn the situation around”, sorry but you’ll get support if and when you demonstrate an understanding of the reasons the team is failing so badly and literally a single piece of evidence that it is within your capability to do this job. If someone says “I can walk on water but you have to believe I can do it before I can show you” your response would be something like “Fuck off, you weirdo”. Hodgson is not being asked to walk on water; just to press in the opposition’s half, drop Poulsen and restore Agger to central defence.
“It’s a sad day for everything if after a bad start of six or seven games people think the solution is to find someone else with a magic wand. We all know a magic wand solution doesn’t exist."
I’ll give the man the benefit of any doubt that he doesn’t actually know how many league games we’ve played (it’s definitely seven, not six) but I don’t accept the suggestion that people are judging him solely on seven league games. League results have been disappointing but the performances in all fourteen games that Hodgson has presided over in all competitions have been dreadful and that is principally down to Hodgson’s tactics and, to a certain extent, team selections.
No one is looking to find “someone else with a magic wand”. We just want someone who recognises the difference between Liverpool Football Club and Fulham Football Club. Liverpool are expected to win pretty much every single game – especially at home. Fulham are happy to take points wherever they can get them and never does defeat result in a public outcry. Liverpool are expected to dominate possession and attack opposition. Fulham are expected to be difficult to break down but are ultimately there to be beaten. Why is Hodgson apparently the only man who can’t see his tactical approach to games is completely inappropriate, ineffective and the key cause of our “bad start”.
“I would be very disappointed if after such a short time – and having been given such a short time – to do the job people decided they wanted to get someone else in."
I would be very disappointed if Hodgson was allowed longer to entrench our team’s position in the relegation zone. I was disappointed when he was given the job, to be honest.
“I don’t seriously believe that’s the problem at the moment. It’s more complicated. I know I can turn the situation around. But I will have to be given support and the patience to do it.”
I absolutely 100% believe that the main problem is Hodgson. “Complicated”? It’s as simple as the tactics he insists on employing. As for insisting he needs “support and the patience” to “turn the situation around”, sorry but you’ll get support if and when you demonstrate an understanding of the reasons the team is failing so badly and literally a single piece of evidence that it is within your capability to do this job. If someone says “I can walk on water but you have to believe I can do it before I can show you” your response would be something like “Fuck off, you weirdo”. Hodgson is not being asked to walk on water; just to press in the opposition’s half, drop Poulsen and restore Agger to central defence.
Friday, 15 October 2010
Everton v Liverpool: Not a preview
Has there ever been a Merseyside derby of so little interest to Liverpool fans? With everyone’s focus fixed so firmly on events in the courts of London and Dallas, the fact that our football club actually has a football match pending has been largely ignored.
Perhaps had we been at or near the top of the league and playing some scintillating football, interest might have been slightly greater but given that I fully anticipate another tastelessly bad performance courtesy of Hodgson’s archaic tactics accompanying Everton’s easiest derby win in over a decade, in some ways the courtroom drama has provided a welcome distraction.
I’m sure Hodgson must be grateful to have the spotlight firmly pointed elsewhere as he flounders in a job that should never have been offered him.
However, the truth is that all of Liverpool’s current woes on the field, including the presence of Hodgson himself, are symptoms caused by the tragically inept reign of Messrs Hicks and Gillett. Even in the face of Liverpool supporters to a man (and woman) telling him to ‘jog on’ and despite a British Judge ruling that the club was effectively sold legally on Wednesday, the bastard Hicks refuses to fuck off.
Now we find ourselves in day 3 of a saga that has converted average ‘working class’ football fans into students of international case law, business finances, leveraged buy outs and aggressive takeovers as well as scouring the Guardian newspaper’s live blogs and even reading and responding to articles in Forbes magazine.
Ultimately, Sunday’s football match is worth just 3 points. The conclusion of this ownership saga could be worth 9 given the threat of points deduction if RBS call in their loan at 4pm today. A 9 point deduction could be the catalyst for relegation. A 3 point credit will be irrelevant to our long-term future if Hicks somehow retains a stake in Anfield.
Bragging rights? Look at the mess we’re in. What can we possibly brag about?
Sunday’s football match is little more than an unwelcome distraction to the real business taking place in boardrooms and courtrooms around the globe today. Doesn’t that just say it all.
Perhaps had we been at or near the top of the league and playing some scintillating football, interest might have been slightly greater but given that I fully anticipate another tastelessly bad performance courtesy of Hodgson’s archaic tactics accompanying Everton’s easiest derby win in over a decade, in some ways the courtroom drama has provided a welcome distraction.
I’m sure Hodgson must be grateful to have the spotlight firmly pointed elsewhere as he flounders in a job that should never have been offered him.
However, the truth is that all of Liverpool’s current woes on the field, including the presence of Hodgson himself, are symptoms caused by the tragically inept reign of Messrs Hicks and Gillett. Even in the face of Liverpool supporters to a man (and woman) telling him to ‘jog on’ and despite a British Judge ruling that the club was effectively sold legally on Wednesday, the bastard Hicks refuses to fuck off.
Now we find ourselves in day 3 of a saga that has converted average ‘working class’ football fans into students of international case law, business finances, leveraged buy outs and aggressive takeovers as well as scouring the Guardian newspaper’s live blogs and even reading and responding to articles in Forbes magazine.
Ultimately, Sunday’s football match is worth just 3 points. The conclusion of this ownership saga could be worth 9 given the threat of points deduction if RBS call in their loan at 4pm today. A 9 point deduction could be the catalyst for relegation. A 3 point credit will be irrelevant to our long-term future if Hicks somehow retains a stake in Anfield.
Bragging rights? Look at the mess we’re in. What can we possibly brag about?
Sunday’s football match is little more than an unwelcome distraction to the real business taking place in boardrooms and courtrooms around the globe today. Doesn’t that just say it all.
Tuesday, 5 October 2010
What is Sammy Lee's role in all this?
On a slightly different note, can anyone tell me what value Sammy Lee brings to the club?
Sammy has worked under Gerard Houllier, Sven Goran Eriksson, Sam Allardyce, Rafa Benitez and now Roy Hodgson – managers with very different ideas on how the game should be played and whose very different playing styles were imprinted on their teams apparently irrespective of Sammy’s presence. By contrast Alex Ferguson has been able to remain at or around the top of the English game by regularly changing his coaching assistants to import the latest ideas in the European game – clearly they played differently when Brian Kidd was number 2 than when Carlos Quieroz was there, for example. Shouldn’t a coach have some imput into the playing style? At the very least shouldn’t Sammy be telling Hodgson that the way we are currently playing is (a) crap to watch, (b) ineffective unless the aim is to lose, (c) completely unacceptable to Liverpool fans and (d) the principle reason we are in the relegation zone and out of the Carling Cup at the first attempt. He may be saying that for all we know but if the message isn’t getting through, he can’t be very assertive.
Sammy’s CV shows he was in the coaching set-ups in the awful final years of Houllier’s tenure, the much criticised tenure of Sven, the season that led to Sam Allardyce's departure from Bolton, the hugely disappointing final season of Benitez’s reign and now the disaster-in-progress that is Hodgson era. That’s without mentioning his ill-fated stint as Bolton’s manager. I fail to see how he is qualified for this job.
Don't get me wrong, I certainly don’t blame Sammy for the state we're in; I blame Hodgson for the rotten performances and the Americans for the wider mess. However, I would like to think that Sammy was at least pointing out the serious and obvious errors in Hodgson’s approach rather than idly watching this mess unfold. Otherwise, why is he there?
Sammy has worked under Gerard Houllier, Sven Goran Eriksson, Sam Allardyce, Rafa Benitez and now Roy Hodgson – managers with very different ideas on how the game should be played and whose very different playing styles were imprinted on their teams apparently irrespective of Sammy’s presence. By contrast Alex Ferguson has been able to remain at or around the top of the English game by regularly changing his coaching assistants to import the latest ideas in the European game – clearly they played differently when Brian Kidd was number 2 than when Carlos Quieroz was there, for example. Shouldn’t a coach have some imput into the playing style? At the very least shouldn’t Sammy be telling Hodgson that the way we are currently playing is (a) crap to watch, (b) ineffective unless the aim is to lose, (c) completely unacceptable to Liverpool fans and (d) the principle reason we are in the relegation zone and out of the Carling Cup at the first attempt. He may be saying that for all we know but if the message isn’t getting through, he can’t be very assertive.
Sammy’s CV shows he was in the coaching set-ups in the awful final years of Houllier’s tenure, the much criticised tenure of Sven, the season that led to Sam Allardyce's departure from Bolton, the hugely disappointing final season of Benitez’s reign and now the disaster-in-progress that is Hodgson era. That’s without mentioning his ill-fated stint as Bolton’s manager. I fail to see how he is qualified for this job.
Don't get me wrong, I certainly don’t blame Sammy for the state we're in; I blame Hodgson for the rotten performances and the Americans for the wider mess. However, I would like to think that Sammy was at least pointing out the serious and obvious errors in Hodgson’s approach rather than idly watching this mess unfold. Otherwise, why is he there?
Sunday, 3 October 2010
How do you solve a problem like Roy Hodgson?
I would say to anyone calling for Hodgson to be sacked, forget it. The current owners and board are not going to sanction a dismissal this close to D-day given how much it is going to cost in compensation and doing so would be an admission of their own incompetence in making the appointment in the first place.
However, gardening leave is a viable option and we could slot Kenny in until we have new owners ready to pay that compensation and appoint a proper manager.
Of course if Hodgson had a scrap of dignity or self-awareness he would tender his own resignation at this point but if the man can't see that Poulsen is shit, Meireles is not a winger, his tactics are completely detrimental to success and aren't getting the best out of any of our players, it's a fair bet he won't be able to see the writing on the wall - in BIG FUCKING LETTERS.
This has to stop.
However, gardening leave is a viable option and we could slot Kenny in until we have new owners ready to pay that compensation and appoint a proper manager.
Of course if Hodgson had a scrap of dignity or self-awareness he would tender his own resignation at this point but if the man can't see that Poulsen is shit, Meireles is not a winger, his tactics are completely detrimental to success and aren't getting the best out of any of our players, it's a fair bet he won't be able to see the writing on the wall - in BIG FUCKING LETTERS.
This has to stop.
Friday, 1 October 2010
"Give the man time!"
I keep hearing suggestions that we should all give the new manager time to get the team playing the way he wants. I don’t think anyone is disputing that this process does take time and of course it would be unrealistic to expect the integration to be complete by now. I think the real issue is whether anyone wants to the team to be playing the way the manager wants.
Granted, we can only make assumptions at this time as to what that might be but there seems to be some pretty solid evidence on which to base those assumptions. All the feed back from people who watched Fulham under Roy, the performances so far this season and the post-match comments from the manager himself suggest the style Hodgson is aiming for is not radically different from what we’re seeing. Why else would we be seeing such performances which are so different from a tactical perspective to those which we saw even last season?
Are people saying we should give the manager time to get the team playing the way he wants or time to convince us that the way he wants the team to play is acceptable? Because if you don’t think that way of playing is acceptable, why would you give the man time to get the team playing that way?
I feel Hodgson has had long enough to give us an insight into what to expect from him and his team moving forward. Shit tactics. Awful performances. Insane team selections. Embarrassing press conferences. Time for Hodgson to go.
Granted, we can only make assumptions at this time as to what that might be but there seems to be some pretty solid evidence on which to base those assumptions. All the feed back from people who watched Fulham under Roy, the performances so far this season and the post-match comments from the manager himself suggest the style Hodgson is aiming for is not radically different from what we’re seeing. Why else would we be seeing such performances which are so different from a tactical perspective to those which we saw even last season?
Are people saying we should give the manager time to get the team playing the way he wants or time to convince us that the way he wants the team to play is acceptable? Because if you don’t think that way of playing is acceptable, why would you give the man time to get the team playing that way?
I feel Hodgson has had long enough to give us an insight into what to expect from him and his team moving forward. Shit tactics. Awful performances. Insane team selections. Embarrassing press conferences. Time for Hodgson to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
