The Vanishing Point.

This week, one man who knows everything was sacked by a few men who know nothing.

I speak in the context of football of course. You remember football don’t you? It would be easy to forget. In parochial terms it was born in Anfield in 1892 and was crucified a century or so later in a succession of boardrooms from London to Texas. Albeit, there was a legendary resurrection in Istanbul.

Some of us retain an archaic notion that the importance of football goes beyond the tangible. That history, memories and community inform the support we have for our chosen clubs. We are normally considered weak and naïve. Of course the machinery of football has always been oiled by cash. But nowadays it is a means to an end.

Once, a simple transaction existed between supporters, players and their employers at the club. Now, the currency of this has lurched from pride to avarice. Over time, football's primary stakeholders have shifted from the terraces to the conference room, from the  pre-match pint to the post season sponsor’s meeting.

This has generated the illusion that the scope of a club's achievements can be summarised in the bottom line of a balance sheet. Hereby the importance of trophies are ranked in a hierarchy of fiscal reward. Winning one competition is deemed vastly inferior to simply qualifying for another.

When Kenny Dalglish returned to Anfield in January, it set in process an evocation of something sadly lost in the game. Some opposition fans attributed this to an outmoded sense of sentiment. But they misunderstood the faith such a figure inspires.

If 40 odd trophies as a player and manager does not adequately justify this credence, then Dalglish's leadership in the aftermath of Hillsborough surely does. It began immediately. Brian Clough was anonymous as people died on the terraces; Dalglish took to the PA system to implore calm with his familiar voice. In the weeks that followed he attended hospital bedsides, comforting parents whose children lay dying. He arranged for his players to visit grieving families, he attended memorial services from Anfield to Walton jail. He witnessed God knows how many funerals. He was visible, present, inspirational. He was a leader. In a city racked with grief, Dalglish took the burden on his own shoulders. It cost him his health and by proxy, his job. 

Liverpool's trauma in the aftermath of Hicks and Gillete may pale in comparison. But in football terms it was near catastrophic. Who else then to unite the club? There was only one. It had nothing to do with reverie or romanticism. It had everything to do with trust.

Dalglish has been accused by some of being rooted in the past. This is only true in the sense that he understands the emotional attachment that ties a club to its fans. He fought for something that is in terminal decline. For this, he paid the price.

Some imposters commented that Dalglish betrayed these principles in his defence of Luis Suarez this year. Certainly damage was caused but to whom? In his robust and aggressive stance, Kenny was engaging in the same arguments, batting away the same myths that the rest of us were at work or in the pub. He was also engaging in a form of self sacrifice, deflecting heat from his player and onto himself. Ian Ayre and the rest of the club's authority sat passively and left Kenny at the vicious, ignorant, narcissistic wrath of the media. If there is any betrayal, Kenny was the victim not the perpetrator. Suarez sadly played his part in this but senior figures at the club were the real protagonists. Ayre meanwhile maintained a hotline with the offices of Standard Chartered. It is to these pernicious jurisdictions that the club's loyalties lie now. Not us. Not Kenny.

 At no other club is the bond between manager and supporters so strong. Witness The Kop singing ‘Happy Birthday’ to Kenny, witness Rafa’s tears at the memorial service, witness Paisley’s unfailing kindness and time for young fans, witness Shankly building a footballing ideology out of his respect the people . Witness that then try to tell us that we do not know what is best for the club. Dalglish was the only man at the club to understand. Now he is gone.

Thank you Kenny Dalglish for reminding us what supporting this club means. If it is time, as is perpetually suggested to us, that we must move on to a new era in football- where we will have to learn to love our club in a different way- then thank you also for giving us the strength with which to do it. In my mind’s eye I see Kenny sailing away on the holiday he cancelled in order to return 16 months ago.  I cannot help feeling that something fundamentally special has sailed with him.

Hodgson and Dalglish. Rewriting history.

The appointment of Roy Hodgson as England manager has produced a fresh round of revisionism- particularly in relation to his time at Liverpool. The national press, preoccupied with such irrelevancies as Roy’s genial demeanour and ability to seemingly speak every language from Arabic to Zulu, are again attempting to rewrite history about the cause of Hodgson's failure. In fairness, most are underwhelmed by his appointment as England boss. The Sun, predictably, chose to mock Roy's speech impediment. Some outlets which expressed sympathy with Hodgson after he was dismissed by Liverpool now begrudgingly admit his failings. The implication is that he was good enough for Liverpool, but not for England. 
 
Foremost among the trite platitudes is the perception that Roy Hodgson’s spell at Liverpool failed because he was an unpopular choice among the Anfield fanbase. The BBC's Phil McNulty went as far as to say Hodgson failed because he was not Kenny Dalglish. Here of course, he is correct, although not in the way he intended. Discussion at the time of Hodgson’s departure inevitably referenced the possibility of a return for The King. However most intelligent debate also welcomed Manuel Pellegrini and Andre Villas-Boas. Erroneous appointments they may have proved to be, but that is not the point. It is thoroughly disingenuous to suggest that Dalglish was the only candidate in the minds of supporters and absurd to insist this was the reason Hodgson failed.   Many others in the press continue to spin similar lines of delusion by way of excusing someone they see as a reverential icon of the jumpers for goalposts era. Henry Winter claims Hodgson "faced the difficult background of so many supporters wanting Kenny Dalglish". Martin Samuel claims he was "rejected in the minds of many before the job had begun".

In reality, Hodgson failed for far more tangible reasons than his perception on Merseyside  but it  is only to fair to allude to some mitigation at this point. He was operating during the decaying months of the most pernicious administration in the club’s history. Saddled with interest repayments which were unsupportable by the club’s structure, the cancer of Hicks and Gilette had spread beyond the influence of coach and playing staff. It was terminal. Had it not been for the phenomenal application of fan power, Liverpool FC would have faced catastrophe that no messiah from Glasgow to Bethlehem could reverse.

But this can not excuse the reality of what transpired on the pitch. Liverpool fans were castigated by the likes of Paddy Barclay and Martin Samuel for their angry response to the failings of the team. Many argued that Liverpool fans had no inherent right to success, that Roy was a capable manger brought in at a difficult time to steady a ship. Yet perceived success is relative and must be contextualised. Liverpool's successes were not ringfenced to Shankly, Paisley, Fagan and Dalglish. Rafa Benitez won the Champions League with a squad worse than the one Hodgson inherited. He also achieved Liverpool’s highest ever league points total . After one poor season, he was sacked. If they acknowledge that football fans have short memories, then surely the press did not have to look far into the past to understand the nature of this discontent. From a high pressing, high tempo passing game there came stifled full backs launching aimless passes. From destroying Madrid and Man Utd, there were defeats at home to Northampton and Blackpool. From legendary stories of Sean Dundee and Bernard Diomede, Hodgson trumped them all with Paul Konchesky and Christian Poulsen. From Champions League finals there was the relegation zone.

Even that most hackneyed, most extraneous cliché of all- Roy’s nice guy status- came under scrutiny at Liverpool. He patronisingly dismissed a question from a Scandinavian journalist at a post game press conference before declaring he would never work in Norway or Denmark again. A self fulfilling prophecy, if ever there was one.

There have been silly comparisons in recent weeks which seek to equate the progress of  Dalglish’s side with Hodgson’s. Daniel Taylor in the Guardian suggested that "Dalglish's record has strayed dangerously close to being just as undistinguished" as Hodgson's. Despite the usual references to the delusion of Liverpool fans, there is not a single Liverpool fan who believes the league position is acceptable. It is a sad reality that top 4 finishes have to be aimed for. It is a commercial target rather than a barometer of achievement. But sadly, one befits the other. This should not detract from the progress that is being made. Dalglish may have been ridiculed for pointing out the progress off the field as well as the 2 cup finals his side have reached- but both points carry weight. As this weeks club finances have shown, the long term prognosis depends on the club's ability to fund a new stadium. In the meantime, 2 cup finals and some gross misfortune in the league, does not indicate a club in decline. To use another Hodgson cliche, the club is in safe hands.

Nevertheless the media continue to portray Dalglish as an irascible, defensive Scot. He has, in this regard, perhaps not helped himself this season with some confrontational post match interviews. But here the fans see what others cannot. He is a fan. One of them. His stoic defence of Luis Suarez was furiously criticised by the media- many of whom had not bothered to read the F.A. report and thereby attempt to understand Dalglish’s position. But in this defiance, the fans saw something of themselves, just as they have with all the great managers of the past. To be a Liverpool manager is to be a fan. And to be a fan, you need to know what inspires them. Anything less than that is transparent and should be treated with the contempt it deserves. Benitez may not have been cut from the same cloth as Shankly or Dalglish. But his profound understanding of Liverpool’s culture and history and his stubborn reluctance to depart from his principles, he came closer to the Liverpool way than many thought possible. His acceptance, at least among the hard core of Liverpool fans as one of the greats also poured scorn on the notion that an outsider could not fit in. Hodgson on the other hand was not blessed with such an inherent gift. Inside the club, he broke the confidence of talented players and alienated cultured individuals with retrograde training methods. Outwardly, he came across as a man who you might find lurking in a Dickensian alley, selling wincles outside a debtors gaol. Do not blame Liverpool fans for knowing what is best for their club.  

It remains true that Dalglish enjoys near immortal status with Liverpool fans. To the observer, he may also seem to benefit from a period of grace that no other manager could. Make no mistake, Dalglish earned this the hard way. He brought swashbuckling success as a player and took the team to unparallelled levels as manager. 42 trophies to those who keep count. During the aftermath of Hillsborough where he attended countless funerals, he was dignified, courageous and inspirational. More than that, he was a figurehead who carried the grief of a city with the poise and purpose of a leader. These are the qualities that rightly convince Liverpool fans he will take them forward. Patience is a virtue born of respect. It is not romantic or reverential. It is a matter of trust.

Roy may well prove to be the most successful England manager in this wasted generation. The F.A.’s experiment with technically gifted foreign coaches has backfired spectacularly. And who can be surprised? With a squad of technically destitute players, there is no sense in installing a technical coach. You would not ask Ross Braun to teach your children to drive. Roy’s Swahili skills may be similarly wasted on Rio et al, but he may be able to refine the prosaic brand of football which will have dominated their schooling.

Ultimately, both Hodgson and Dalglish will be judged by history. But let the facts, not abstraction adjudicate in the final summary.