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.
No comments:
Post a Comment