NEARLY four months after Kenny Dalglish was sacked, Liverpool fans continue to ask themselves two valid questions.
The first is: Did he really deserve the sack?
While the second is: Did Brendan Rodgers deserve to get his job?
My feeling is this: No, Kenny did not deserve the sack...he should have been given one more season to prove himself. He did, after all, bring a trophy back to Anfield (the League Cup) and also took the fans to a second final last year, with the FA Cup.
Those two trips in themselves were surely enough to warrant a stay of execution after a period directly before Kenny's arrival of no glory and no joy?
Regarding Rodgers, I am not sure that he did deserve to get Kenny's job.
He had a good season at Swansea and got them playing football, but what has he won - and what else has he done?
If he gets Liverpool playing good football a la Swans, but with the same lack of glory, is that enough?
Of course it isn't.
My worry for Liverpool is that Brendan Rodgers has been promoted out of his depth - although I hope he proves me wrong for the sake of my many friends who follow the club through thick and thin.
Rodgers is the product of Liverpool's American owners - in essence he is a mirror reflection of them.
He got the job (after Wigan's Roberto Martinez turned it down) via an excellent interview that included a thorough documented presentation of how he would fit in with the owners' vision.
He sounds more like one of the gin and tonic brigade of bean counters than a football manager. I can visualise him impresssing John W Henry with his flip charts and his expense calculations.
Can you imagine Ferguson, Mourinho or Guardiola operating that way?
Alan Pardew, of Newcastle, yes, certainly - but the REAL big-time bosses, no way, Jose!
Rodgers has clearly bought into the bullshit that you can build a Premier League and Champions League team by buying wisely (ie cheaply) and operating on a budget.
I have news for him: you can't!
Look at Man City, Barca and Real Madrid - and even old Purple Nose at United has realised he is having to harangue the Glazers for some cash at last, because he has also realised he is on the last year or two of his time at Man United and will never win anything again unless he does.
The best Liverpool can be under the Rodgers/Henry vision is the new Newcastle - operating within sensible budgets and making it to the lower end of the top six, maybe fourth if everything falls into place at once.
Is that good enough for Liverpool FC?
Rodgers also reminds me of Andre Villas Boas when he arrived at Chelsea and tried to prove himself.
He ditched the likes of Lampard and brought in the likes of Sturridge, who is not good enough.
His aim was to show he was the boss and that he was going to pursue his 'project' whatever the strife it caused.
Similarly, Rodgers has ditched Andy Carroll to show that he will only accept a more fluid, attacking style of football.
Yet Carroll is unusual for a big striker in that he can play the ball on the ground as well as in the air! And he is clearly a better all-round player than Fabio Borini, the Italian nobody Rodgers has splashed £10million on!
Rodgers has also messed up the heads of his centre-backs (Agger and Skrtel), asking them to play it out from the back like Barca, rather than continuing the excellent defending that made them the best centre-half pairing in the league last season.
Rodgers is going for revolution rather than evolution with tactics, buys and decisions that are eminently questionable.
Those were exactly the same accusations levelled at Andre Villas Boas before he was sacked after less than six months in the Chelsea hotseat.
The really bad news for Liverpool is that if Rodgers does prove not up to it, they can't get rid of him as easily as Chelsea did AVB.
If the Northern Irishman is indeed out of his depth, how can the owners sack him without it reflecting terribly on themselves?
Especially as they so ruthlessly turfed out a king to land such a novice.
FRANK WORRALL
No comments:
Post a Comment