Bittersweet for Benfica – How 10 months of glory collapsed in a few weeks



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2331573/Benficas-Oscar-Cardozo-shoves-manager-Jorge-Jesus-cup-final-collapse.html

For all the religious anecdotes (inappropriate or otherwise) one could make about Jorge Jesus, Benfica’s coach, one thing is certain. He would be the first person wishing he could work a miracle or two given the last few weeks for his club.

In the space of 5 days, Benfica, fresh off an incredible unbeaten streak domestically (their last defeat coming over a year ago on the 9 April 2012 to local rivals Sporting) suddenly saw the incredible foundations of a promising season crushed with back to back defeats to Porto and Chelsea in domestic and European competition. Any Benfiquistas seeing trebles in their eyes came straight back to Earth with a devastating halt.

It wasn’t just the fact that Benfica lost those matches too. Consider the significance of the league run – Benfica had been in pole position in the league for the last 8 rounds, with just 2 to play. And even after the match against Estoril didn’t go according to the script (drawn at home), it was still Benfica’s title to lose going into the visit at the Dragão, with the Eagles 2 points ahead. Jesus could hardly have masterminded a better title challenge than this… or could he?

Regardless, Porto effectively dug a knife and twisted it deeply as the winner, scored in the 92nd minute, left Benfica with no chance to recover the match, and the title with it. Suddenly all the efforts of staying just a step ahead of Porto for most of the season collapsed. Months of outstanding results – now fruitless. To respond from such a demoralizing defeat with such a spirited performance against Chelsea in their first European final for 23 years seemed unlikely – but that’s what Benfica delivered. Yet fate dealt a cruel blow again, waiting till the 92nd minute to deal its hand through Ivanovic’s header.

The defeat to Guimarães in the final of the Taça added insult to injury. According to Jesus, the team set out to defend their slender 1-0 lead, which was concerning for two reasons. Benfica clearly don’t know how to defend slender leads in pressure matches; and this strategy was an unusually timid choice given the Eagles’ superior squad. Benfica should have gone to the final planning on putting in a solid shift. Instead, as the 2nd half wore on, the Eagles looked lethargic and complacent, and this ultimately was deservedly punished.

Performances vs. Results

Last season, Champions League winners Bayern Munich’s season looked a far cry from their current campaign. In 2011-12, Bayern were runners-up in all respects – the Bundesliga, the DFB-Pokal (German Cup) and the Champions League. A season that held promise for 3 trophies unraveled. This wasn’t a terrible Bayern side at all – after all, no-one gets to a Champions League final in particular by accident – but somehow, even in front of their own fans in the final, the ball didn’t want to go in often enough. A trophyless season that was deemed by some as a failure, yet Bayern got to the last hurdle of all their races, and were possibly unlucky to lose the latter two in particular.

http://www.footballtop.com/news/europa-league-results-benfica-3-1-fenerbahce

Benfica’s season looks remarkably similar in a sense – their league performance has been even better. It took penalties for Braga to eliminate the Eagles in the semi-finals of the Taça da Liga. They reached the final of the Taça da Portugal. They reached the final of the Europa League. They finished 2nd by a mere point in the Liga, winning 24 of 30 games. They’ve did this despite various setbacks and challenges. A bizarre incident in a pre-season friendly which left captain Luisão suspended until November. The deadline day transfers of (then) crucial midfielders Javi Garcia and Axel Witsel. And a squad (arguably) light on depth in key areas, especially in midfield and fullback positions.

It suggests some debate – has it really been a poor season for Benfica? Is it worse to lose at the final hurdle instead of being tripped up halfway during the race? Does Jesus get judged on the trophies and nothing else? And what, if anything, lacks in the Benfica setup that could have been fixed to avoid a possible treble of missed opportunities rather than trophies?

Big Match Tempers

http://www.abola.pt/nnh/ver.aspx?id=404871

“@_AraujoB: These last 2 seasons hasn't been about who's better, Benfica or Porto. It's been about how Benfica can't wrap up the title.”

The notion behind the tweet above by Bruno Araujo is not uncommon. There’s a fair suspicion held by many that in the “big” games, Benfica flatters to deceive, relying too much on Porto’s mistakes to prosper domestically, or on superior talent to prevail on the field. Similar sentiments are held when Benfica play top sides in the Champions League. It’s a fair statement given the current season. The Europa League final is a perfect example of this, where Chelsea’s experience from 3 major European finals in 5 years clearly counted in their favour in winning the game despite playing up to Benfica’s dominance. Even though domestically, Benfica were quite unlucky to lose to Porto recently, the fact is that Jesus’ record against them in the league generally makes for poor reading. Under Jesus, Benfica have beaten Porto once in league competitions, in his very first encounter against them in 2009. The last couple of matches against Porto seem to always become crucial in swinging the league title. Last season, 2 defeats in 3 games (including a crucial one to Porto) effectively lost the momentum needed to catch the eventual winners, despite winning 8 league matches in a row prior to that.

Big match temperament remains an issue. The team does certainly possess some capable characters who haven’t gone missing in some of the big matches (Matic, Pérez come to my mind at least). Composure isn’t consistent, but this team did play better this season than the last. If anything, Benfica’s over-reliance on certain players to always perform is perhaps what cost them most. If they seem to run out of steam towards the end of the season, questions should be asked of how “fresh” the alternatives are. For example, were Matic and Pérez over-utilised? Are we really surprised that alternative players were ineffective if they were not used? An example is Carlos Martins, who got himself sent off in Benfica’s crucial draw against Estoril. That result is the one which Jesus himself admitted probably lost Benfica the title.

However, even when looking at the Porto and Chelsea matches as examples – ironically, one could argue Benfica didn’t lack a mental aptitude to execute the tactics presented to them. What could be argued as a lack of big match temperament could easily be called bad luck. Benfica defended Porto fairly well for 70-odd minutes, forcing Porto to open up the game more to press the advantage. Had Kelvin not managed to get a yard on Maxi Pereira to score the winner for Porto, it would have ended a draw at the Dragão, and Benfica would have had their resolve celebrated, not condemned. Similar arguments can be made for some of the play in the Europa League final. Benfica created chances that were there to be taken – Chelsea set out to defend, and they did so quite well. In both these matches, the margins for error were desperately thin.

The best example where the big match tempers clearly failed miserably was the Taça final against Guimarães, where Benfica seemed far too relaxed with matters – and were rightly and duly punished.

Benfica’s squad and tactical adjustments this season

http://bigstory.ap.org/photo/portugal-soccer-578

Small margins for error and bad luck in some cases doesn’t mean Benfica didn’t contribute to their failings. It begins with Benfica’s squad, and the way the team’s tactical set up has worked. Typically, Jesus’ strategy has relied substantially on utilizing players with greater technical skills, able to execute the possession style quick passing movement, layered with some ability to beat opposing defenders off the dribble to create space for teammates.

Tim Palmer’s excellent scouting report highlights this in how Benfica play their football.  Jesus has tried to build a side versatile enough to play as the aggressor, often enjoying far more possession and being invited to take the attacking initiative against most sides in the Liga that sit deeper than become adventurous against the strong Benfica attack. It’s not often that Benfica play sides with the stronger lineups of Chelsea, but when they do, Benfica are capable of playing deeper and relying on direct counter-attacks (as they displayed against Porto) but this happens far less often as the Eagles become more confident of their attacking brand of football.

Attack has never really been the problem though. Benfica have managed to win marginally more games this season (39 out of 56 thus far vs. 34 out of 52 last season). The acquisitions of striker Lima has offered a few things - additional mobility and speed for variations to creating space in the box, an alternative style of attack, or if nothing else the chance to give Cardozo a rest. Signing Ola John has also offered cover for Gaitán, or the option to play both of them in a 4-2-3-1 formation with Gaitán in a shadow striker role.

Benfica’s improved attacking prowess (123 goals in 56 matches this season vs. 105 goals in 52 matches last season) is impressive considering limited use of a CAM (central attacking midfielder) this season to add depth and space to the attacking effort. Previous seasons saw the genius of veteran Pablo Aimar or the talented Axel Witsel orchestrating the space in the middle to complement the threat on the flanks, sitting in the middle of the 3 in a 4-1-3-2 formation. This season, the shape has changed sometimes to a loose 4-2-2-2 or 4-2-3-1, where Matic sits deepest, with Pérez slightly ahead of him playing a more box to box role (It’s not dissimilar to the diamond formation Benfica used in Jesus’ first season in charge, except with the central midfielder playing a less advanced role). It’s a change which has adapted the team’s attacking shape, forcing Gaitán (or Ola John) and Salvio to cut inside towards the middle, making the fullbacks Melgarejo and Pereira push further forward to offer width.

But using that system comes with risks – the attacking shape of Benfica demands that even Matic (as the cover in front of the centre backs) often sits further forward than one would expect, making the team vulnerable to counter attacks, especially if Maxi and Melgarejo have pushed further forward, and the only protection is an average paced Garay and an aging Luisão.

Tactical risks in Benfica’s chosen approach

http://www.3news.co.nz/VIDEO-All-goals-2-1-Chelsea-Vs-Benfica-Lisbon-Europa-League-final-2013/tabid/415/articleID/297988/Default.aspx

Jesus has always favoured playing a high defensive line. But using one requires the right personnel to manage its risks. Last season’s disappointments were almost at time blamed exclusively on former left back Emerson, whose lack of pace was an easy weakness to exploit in a system that is sensitive to the quality of the fullbacks pushing up to support the attack. Benfica still haven’t successfully replaced Fabio Ceontrão, who was the only player who arguably possessed the right blend of attacking and defensive qualities required in such a system. When teams are able to pressure the Benfica full backs into their own area, it effectively nullifies the possession football Benfica play. Matic, Garay and Luisão are used as “safety-nets” to pass back to in order to prevent loss of the ball and keep the pressure going, while the fullbacks offer width. When the width disappears, the other 3 players are forced to retreat backwards to cover the spaces in the centre, meaning they’re defending deep instead of playing in the middle of the field, supporting the attack and ball retention.

This is exactly what Porto achieved to great effect in the Clássico recently, creating a massive gap between Lima and the rest of the Benfica midfield, which is why the Benfica attack were so ineffective at retaining the ball. Ironically, the tactical adjustments made by Vitor Pereira in the second half played to Benfica’s advantage – the substitutions spread Porto far wider into a 4-4-2 formation, which created far more space for Benfica to use through the middle, and perhaps led to that crucial moment when Maxi Pereira decided to push a little too far forward than he should have. How ironic that a season after lamenting the weaknesses down Benfica’s left flank, Porto found their winner down the opposite one.

The Europa League final exposed similar weaknesses but in different parts of the pitch. Chelsea resorted to their now infamous “sit deep and counter quickly” strategy, even deciding early on that the key flank to attack was down Benfica’s left, where Melgarejo was identified as the weak link. To his credit, the young Paraguayan did a good job to contain the counters by former Benfica player Ramires. With young Portuguese fullback Almeida impressing again on the opposite flank against a much slower threat in Oscar, Chelsea decided the weakness to exploit was right down the middle. Garay missed the flick-on to Torres, and while Luisão did well to match Torres’ speed, his decision to try and make the tackle was (harshly) the wrong one as it gave the Spaniard the chance to get in behind his marker and create the one-on-one situation. In that particular passage of play, ironically, it’s not even a “classic” counter attack. Cech started the move, and Benfica were very slow to adjust from their positioning in midfield.

It stands to reason that if Benfica are going to continue to play with a higher line, one of two things needs to change – their ability to break down teams that sit deep and defend well (which they don’t lack, mostly), or their ability to recover against counter-attacks. Against Chelsea, Benfica’s attacking prowess was wasted if it wasn’t going to produce the goals it warranted – weaker teams in the Liga will inevitably buckle, but Chelsea won a Champions League title because they can defend rather well for long periods. Benfica may have looked impressive – but it wasn’t going to work unless the countless half-chances turned into goals. Ironically, Benfica may have been better served to switch the tactics slightly they employed in the Porto and Chelsea matches; sitting on the counter against Chelsea would have forced the Blues out, exposing their lack of speed at the back, while being more aggressive with Porto once they’d made the switch to 4-4-2 could have been worth the risk given how many players they were committing forward. But all this easier said in hindsight, right?

Who takes the blame?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2331573/Benficas-Oscar-Cardozo-shoves-manager-Jorge-Jesus-cup-final-collapse.html

It then raises the question, once again, of tactical choices. Few could blame Benfica for playing for a draw against Porto. Yes, it wasn’t necessarily positive, nor did it illustrate the “courage” many Benfiquistas would desire of the team – but it did illustrate a bit more thought in game management from the manager and his team. No need to risk it, after all – and the team was set up to defend and counter even on the team-sheet (although the presence of Cardozo to hold up the ball wouldn’t have gone amiss). And again, Benfica executed this largely well, limiting the opportunities for Porto to score very well. If Kelvin hadn’t found the pace in behind Maxi Pereira, Jesus’ chosen approach would have won him plaudits. Instead, football is a dramatic game of margins, and few – even Porto fans – will give Vitor Pereira any credit for masterminding back to back Porto campaigns with just 1 defeat.

But that is exactly how small the margin for error is, and Benfica may well focus more on other dropped points (Estoril earlier in the week, or any other draw earlier in the season – the draw at the Luz to Porto was also quite important) as the key points when the season’s campaign was lost. Benfica shouldn’t have been going into this game relying on its result. Especially when there appears to be a latent inability within the team of knowing how to win matches against Porto. If Benfica are going to be champions again, it’s coming to the point that they need to figure out how to win the other 28 matches to minimize the impact of maximum points dropped against Porto, since they clearly do not yet know how to dominate their rivals.

Against Chelsea, the chosen tactics were again well executed, the surprise name on the team sheet (Rodrigo) started well, and even for the weaknesses in the high defensive line, Benfica coped well for a time against Ramires and Torres, and even managed to limit the dangerous through-ball vision of Mata, Oscar and Lampard. Their ruthlessness was the issue – and an experienced side like Chelsea was always going to find “that” chance to score at the worst possible moment. Were the tactics correct? It’s difficult to say, because Chelsea are the kind of side that didn’t need to be the best team on the pitch to win the game, but Benfiquistas don’t exactly get enamoured with confidence when games are approached passively by their side either.

In the Taca, Benfica started brightly, and even got a slice of luck for the opening goal – but they played in the second half like a frightened team, anxious to avoid mistakes, instead of being more assertive and confident. Guimaraes’ persistence paid off. They didn’t win by being more skilled or tactically astute – they won because Benfica lost the mental battle in their own dressing room.

For some – me included – Jorge Jesus still doesn’t truly convince as the tactical mastermind. Granted, his team hasn’t performed poorly this season overall. The results at the end, though, will not show it, and there is significant mixed opinion about him. In one camp, the argument is based on the appreciation of his determination to raise this club to its previous heights, combined with some solid attacking principles, some great development of players and excellent scouting. Mistakes have been punished very harshly – but again, it’s 2nd place by 1 point. Two finals out of three. The team made it to the final hurdles but didn’t win the race. Margins defined by bad luck and silly mistakes. Therefore, keep Jesus – if he’s made the mistakes, they are few.

The other camp still considers the notion that a weakened Porto has yet again managed to undo the Benfica team – largely due to the latter’s inability to capitalize on the misfortunes of their northern neighbours. The margins for error weren’t forgiving, but Benfica haven’t managed their options well either. Following their dramatic win away at Maritimo, causing scenes of highly premature celebration by the Eagles, there can be arguments for some poor management of the fixture at home to Estoril. Take nothing away from the visitors, but fate seemed to play with Benfica when Pérez had to leave the field early with injury. Benfica’s over-reliance on Matic and Pérez perhaps has cost them this season. It’s easy to speculate after the fact, but I’m not so convinced Benfica would have suffered in matches like this had Jesus actively kept other players involved.

Existing squad weaknesses also weren’t understood and addressed, especially at fullback. Melgarejo hasn’t consistently inspired confidence, and it’s proven by the fact that the experienced heads at Chelsea decided his flank would be the epicenter of the majority of their attacks in the majority of the Europa League final. Benfica also didn’t manage the weakness in pace with the centre backs (a key issue that was exploited successfully by opponents in the last few matches of the season).

Reflections of the season… and the future of Jorge Jesus

Park the debate about Jorge Jesus for a second. Whether he stays or goes, or should stay or should go, despite the great performances in 2012-13 being undone in a few weeks, Benfica should reflect on the potential. The club’s consistency in Europe over the last few years has seen them rise in the UEFA rankings to 9th place. After dropping to Europe’s second tier competition, they reached the final, and were a worthy contender to win the whole thing, losing only to a team who undid Barcelona and Bayern Munich a mere 12 months prior. They lost one game the entire domestic season to a side who haven’t tasted league defeat for over 50 games. They reached the semi-finals of one cup competition and the final of the other. All this while missing their captain for nearly 3 months, and conceding to the sale of 2 of their most influential players, and still lacking a proper left back! Many of their players stepped up and matured in various respects, especially Artur, Matic, Pérez, Gaitan, Ola John, Salvio, Cardozo, Lima and Garay. Youngsters showed promise, especially Andre Gomes and Almeida.

Mere seconds separated Benfica from glory against Porto, and more time to claim it against Chelsea. They aren’t the first team to concede crucial goals in the 92nd minute – they won’t be the last. They messed up against Guimarães – but they learnt a valuable lesson in being reminded to never underestimate whatever opponent is in front of you, regardless of perceived advantages.

So perhaps not a bad season. Certainly a season that for a time, many Benfiquistas could be proud of – and one that, regardless of its results, add hope of future glory. 

http://catedraticosfutebol.blogspot.com/

The debate then – would a manager other than Jesus have avoided the above? Would a manager other than Jesus also have experienced the same bad luck? Or would they have won something? Or maybe even a historic treble? Citing the comparison earlier, Bayern kept Jupp Heynckes after last season’s treble of disappointments… but Jupp has history. He’s got the results before. He’s done it. He doesn’t need to talk it up.

Those of us who remain unconvinced by Jorge Jesus, especially should he remain at the club… will demand much of him next season. The bittersweet end to this season, for many, including me, turned him from destined messiah to unconvincing preacher, because after all, in the end, performances are not the currency of football – results are.

Therefore Jorge Jesus - the lessons should have been learnt loud and clear by now. If you stay – you’re on borrowed time.

Make it count.


This article also appeared on Outside of the Boot in May 2013.

Handballs and Hypocrites

Exclusively featured on Football in Deep Thought

 

 

It’s more fun to play the villain.

Hollywood knows the power of a well written, complex, compelling villain.  Every now and then, along comes a Hannibal Lector, a Joker, a Darth Vader who effectively steals the show.  They sometimes upstage the heroes, and often redefine the reason those particular movies are watched.  And villains are more fun, more interesting, and make for better conversation.

Heroes and Villains

Football is no different – simplistically, it’s also a piece of entertainment with actors, directors, producers, compelling drama, twists and turns, heroes and villains.  Sometimes those heroes feel like indomitable figures of valour – and sometimes the villains feel even more twisted than the fictional characters we watch on TV.

We were treated to a slice of this football heroism recently, where Lionel Messi won a record 4th Ballon D’Or, while his loyal horde of fans spat in the face of Cristiano Ronaldo’s contorted facial expressions as his great rival took the honours.

Except, superficially, Lionel Messi is somewhat defined as a hero purely by perceptions.  Be it media, fans and the growing popularity of Barcelona and their football, Messi’s positive PR is immune to any villainous stunts. 

Not true?  Well, Messi may be an exceptional football player who has achieved incredible things, but he is not faultless to the darker side of football.  It’s just hidden very well.  Is it sportmanslike of him to attempt to influence referees and ask for opponents to be booked?  What about his small headbutt incident against Shaktar a couple of European Super Cup finals ago?  Do most of his fans choose to ignore these transgressions, let alone a certain handball goal scored against Getafe?

If you see the video of the handball, a few things are clear.  The action is deliberate – there is no room for ambiguity (unlike a certain handball goal scored in the 3rd round of the FA Cup recently).  Messi also appears to react with no remorse whatsoever – he celebrates the goal in total joy. 
 

Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying that Messi isn’t deserving of his accolades.  There is no doubt he is a gifted footballer, possibly the best ever – but it is curious that football culture, whether it is with media, fans or players themselves, seems to choose carefully who becomes a hero, and who plays the villain, regardless of the total sum of the player’s actions.

There are many examples of football heroes, whose “villainous” acts are put down to moments of insanity.  Maradona’s hand of God wasn’t cheating, it was part of his genius. Read the same for Messi’s handball goal against Getafe then.  Zidane’s headbutt (in a World Cup final, no less) was a momentary lapse of thought, he’s no villain.  Eric Cantona is a football legend – so we’ll excuse him attacking a Crystal Palace fan.  Former Gunner Thierry Henry handled the ball (twice) to prevent Ireland from qualifying for a World Cup… a World Cup!! Yet many Arsenal fans protect him and prosecute “villains” like Suarez.

In fact, where you read Suarez, read Ronaldo too.  Because those are just two pantomime villains.  Two players, two examples, who much of the footballing world has decided are arrogant, conceited, unlikeable individuals, who abuse our poor sport.  Yet we have players like Didier Drogba, celebrated as a hero, but whose diving in the past has been so extensive that one wonders if he hasn't had a sniper following him his entire career.  Roy Keane went as far as admitting he wanted to hurt Alf Inge Haaland when he practically took his leg off in THAT horrid tackle – but he is remembered as a tough hard man who was respected and successful.  Man Utd's captain Nemanja Vidic is regarded and respected as a great professional - so let's overlook his handball defending against Arsenal. Phil Neville committed a handball on the goal-line to prevent a goal in the last minute 3 years before Suarez did the same in the 2010 World Cup.  Neville was even caught hitting the floor in the recent Merseyside derby amidst a storm on the topic of diving, but the Uruguayan is the one marketed as a cheat.

The Culture of Sportsmanship in Football

Of course, the non-Liverpool fans reading this will already have pointed out the hypocrisy in some of my statements above – after all, Suarez’s worst offences are his racial abuse of Patrice Evra and the ear biting incident during his time in Ajax.  I don’t dispute nor condone the violent act, it was unacceptable.  The incident with Manchester United, however, was exacerbated by Liverpool’s ineptitude as a club to culturally prepare its foreign players for the English game, as well as a series of marketing communication own goals as to how the incident was handled.  Suarez would have been far better perceived if it had been handled differently.

But this shouldn’t justify the personification of Suarez as the ultimate villain of football.  Surely if Cantona and Keane are guilty of violent acts, or Terry guilty of racial abuse, they should have faced similar repeated condemnation?  But sadly, football is fickle.

When the handball occurred against Mansfield, I confess my initial reaction to be the naïve sentiment that he should have come clean to the referee.  But hindsight is a fantastic thing, and so is Twitter when you leverage the thoughts of some clever people with a bit more patience and perspective.  Let’s not dwell on the incident itself,though I agree with Oliver Holt’s assessment that Suarez’s initial reaction was not delight, but frustration (probably because he thought the referee would disallow the goal). 

The crux of the matter is this - does footballing culture really possess true sportsmanship? Or is the game so competitive now that the desire to win has started to drive behaviours where the boundaries of fairness are exploited?

For example, there’s a principle in football – play to the whistle, simply because of the fact that while the players try to observe the rules, they’re governed by the referee.  Players carry on what they’re doing until stopped - it’s the job of the officials to run the game and ensure the rules are observed and managed.  So did Suarez do anything wrong by continuing to play in the absence of referee intervention?  And it’s not like Andre Marriner had a terrible view of the incident.

Mansfield manager Paul Cox himself admitted he would have accepted a goal in the same fashion had roles been reversed.  Has he been condemned for that statement? And if such a goal had been scored, more likely the papers would have celebrated a giant-killing, than reprimand an alleged cheat in Mansfield’s ranks.  And of Suarez – he is paid to score goals, and help Liverpool win.  Why would he choose a gold star in public relations instead of the winning goal?  The moralists may not like it, but that’s exactly what football is nowadays.

If Suarez can be condemned for a handball goal where there is arguably minimal deliberate movement of his hand, what about Messi’s goal against Getafe?  If Paul Scholes had gotten away with this attempted volleyball equaliser against Zenit St Petersburg in 2008’s  European Super Cup final, does anyone really believe he would have confessed it?

Suarez himself was on the receiving end of a stamp by Stoke’s Robert Huth, and suffered a very obvious foul in the box against Norwich, which wasn’t given as a penalty.  If we expect Suarez to confess a handball goal, then should both defenders have admitted these transgressions?  Would they have? 

Thierry Henry’s act of blatant basketball in the box eliminated the nation of Ireland from the opportunity of attending the 2010 World Cup – a seriously big deal.  His initial reaction to the goal was sheer delight.  His explanation afterwards (aired on Sky Sports News) was to suggest that he would have not volunteered a confession to the referee in that immediate moment.  Sound familiar?

Let’s all face it – it’s the culture underlying the competitiveness of football today.  Perhaps it’s an occupational hazard of being a defender or a forward, but you’re likely to bump into situations in those positions where you could handle the ball.  The issue is that if we’re all expecting peaches and cream in the way those players react to their own moments, we’re all very naïve.  If in Sunday’s derby between Manchester United and Liverpool, the scenario described by the Fifth Official in his article coincidentally comes true where a Man Utd defender brings down Suarez in the box, do we really expect that defender to admit that to the referee (especially in that game?  At Old Trafford?)?  The reality is, unless the referee calls it, it won’t happen any other way.

We can compare Suarez to Miroslav Klose, but the German’s actions to confess his handball goal against Napoli only occur on the prompting of the referee.  Klose didn’t volunteer the information -  he had to be asked.  Ironically, if we go back as far as 1997, when Robbie Fowler tried to suggest to the referee that there was no contact between him and David Seaman, the referee overruled Robbie’s honesty and still gave a penalty.  Maybe Robbie felt aggrieved enough to strike it half-heartedly, but clearly Jason McAteer’s reaction was as most footballers would be – get the goal, get the win.    

Even one of the most celebrated acts of sportsmanship comes with irony.  Di Canio took matters into his own hands – literally – when he caught the ball to stop play, while an Everton player was injured.  Who is to say that the referee would have stopped play for the injury had Di Canio not intervened in a manner that prevented play to continue? 

Go back to Phil Neville’s stunt against Liverpool – if the resulting penalty had been missed, would Neville have been cited as a cheat?  Or still as a “heroic” defender, “taking one for the team?”  What was fundamentally different between his actions and those of Suarez?  Did Suarez miss Ghana’s penalty for them? Or did his actions ensure that within the boundaries of the current rules, Uruguay still had one last chance, however small, to progress to the semi-finals?

The Real Problem
 

It is pointless, however, to keep score of all the transgressions.  Yes, there are players who don’t put a single foot wrong; others who seldom get caught; others who get caught, but are forgiven; and others who, regardless of their talent, will polarise opinion as the villains of football who are used by lazy journalists to sell newspapers.  We can engage in meaningless exchanges about who got away with what, who should have owned up, and who is such a villain that they apparently deserve to have their chests stamped on and their penalty appeals denied.  These double standards exist in football, in all their entities – media, players, fans, managers alike.  David Moyes can condemn Suarez for diving, (and in turn his own captain J).  But I hardly think Moyes would have called Phil Neville a cheat for his handball save against Liverpool in 2007.

If we’re going to look for sportsmanship culture to surface in football, think again.  This is something that cannot change overnight, and it won’t even start unless players have more and more evidence that they cannot get away with such acts.  And that is where the true problem and solution lies.

Football remains substantially archaic.  Other sports have allowed themselves to change and grow as technology has empowered them to improve.  Living in South Africa, I’m often challenged every day about the integrity of football as a sport, when sports like rugby and cricket have allowed improvements of rules and adoption of technology to reduce the ambiguity in how those games are officiated.  Football is too open-ended in comparison.

Consider this as an example.  In rugby, there exists a concept of something called a penalty try.  From Wikipedia: “If the referee believes that a try has been prevented by the defending team's misconduct, he may award the attacking team a penalty try.  In rugby union, the standard applied by the referee is that a try "probably" would have been scored. In rugby league, the referee "may award a penalty try if, in his opinion, a try would have been scored but for the unfair play of the defending team."

Now reading that, if one considers the trajectory and pace of the shot that Suarez palmed off the line against Ghana, it is fair to say that, but for Suarez, that ball could only end up crossing the line into the net.  It couldn’t go over, under, around – nor was Muslera, the Uruguayan keeper anywhere near the ball to prevent it crossing legally. 

It’s an injustice in the rules of football that the response to Suarez’s “illegal defence” is to offer the Ghanaians a penalty – which unlike the goal that was illegally prevented – can still be saved by the keeper, or missed entirely (as ended up the case).  If football was a sport that had allowed itself to review its rules and grow for the good of itself, the concept of a penalty goal would exist, where in this example, Ghana would be awarded the goal for the original shot that was illegally stopped… and Suarez would still receive a red card for illegal defence.

But instead, some of us as football fans blame a player who instinctively operates within the rules available to find a way to keep his team in the game.  We may not like the morality in football – but the rules, and their governing define the morality on the field.

Rugby and cricket make use of technology to manage other aspects of their rules as well.  I’ve often felt the idea of a TV referee would be invaluable to the sport of football.  Ireland claim Henry scored an illegal goal using his hands to gain advantage?  No problem.  What is 60 seconds of reviewing a TV replay that is highly unlikely to deceive you, vs. risking widespread condemnation of a missed handball that possibly prevented a deserving country from qualifying for the World Cup?  If such options existed today, and Mansfield Town could ask a referee to review the handball goal – would that not offer consistent detection and application of the rules?

It would also drive the right behaviour.  Players wouldn’t “get away with it” as much.  Managers wouldn’t have to controversially defend such actions and blame referees.  There would be no controversy for retrospective punishments, because decisions would be more likely correct the first time round.  Fans would focus more on the football and less on its hypocrisy.  And some journalists would have to do some real journalism instead of resorting to their latest submission to the “Blame Suarez” campaign when they run out of ideas.

The purists out there would say that rule changes and technology shouldn’t be introduced – something about upsetting the tempo of the game and the unpredictability of football.  Well, we may agree to disagree, but if you are going to oppose technology, stop complaining that players get away with certain things – because officials are hardly empowered to avoid mistakes. I don’t see how you can upset the tempo of a game when a controversial goal is scored, because the play is dead until kickoff resumes the match.  As for unpredictability – I hardly think more technology would have prevented the unpredictable, but spirited and thrilling performance of Mansfield Town against Liverpool.  And these types of surprise performances happen often in competitive leagues.

Football’s arrogance and inability to learn from other sports and technological progression doesn’t necessarily only come from the two monuments responsible for its governance (I’m referring sarcastically of course, to FIFA and to some extent UEFA), but also all of its stakeholders.  For as long as fans and media blame the integrity of players instead of the disempowerment of officials in dealing with handballs, and sneaky tackles, we give FIFA less reason to do something.  Goal-line technology gathered significant momentum when England rightly raised a massive uproar about Lampard’s disallowed goal at the 2010 World Cup.  Yet we have some managers who allegedly encourage their players to take advantage of the ambiguity in football officiating by going to ground even if the contact wasn’t heavy enough to get to you to hit the floor (at least, that’s what Jaap Stam claims was instructed by Alex Ferguson to his Man Utd players).

Are we surprised that Wenger that suggested Cazorla “lost his balance” in his recent dive against West Brom?  Are we shocked that Pulis condemned Fellaini’s headbutt against Shawcross but didn’t reprimand Huth for stamping on Suarez?  Are we shocked that Barcelona do nothing to reprimand Sergio Busquets’ attempts to feign injury?



No – the priorities of all the above are to protect their own interests.  That’s why football needs to get its own house in order.  Because it can’t rely on sportsmanship to develop itself within the sport.  And we can’t surely expect players to govern themselves on a pitch independent of referees – or do we really think defenders are going to start owning up to handballs in the box and sending themselves off?

Do we phone up our local police and ask them to give us a speeding ticket when we’ve been racing over the limit without getting caught?  No?  Didn’t think so.

In the meantime, some of us will keep defending the “villains”. Because even “villains” like Suarez become heroes to somebody…

Being Liverpool... means being patient

The last time Liverpool faced both Manchester clubs and Arsenal in their opening 5 fixtures, it was the baptism of fire that immediately showed up Roy Hodgson.  Roy’s Reds took 1 point from these fixtures, earned in the opening day home draw against Arsenal.

Brendan’s Reds have walked away from their first 5 fixtures with a similar result – 1 point earned against Man City.  But the similarities stop there. Regardless of the fact that these matches were played at home, facts do not lie.  Liverpool, with a new manager, adjusting to a new system, played against established sides that finished 1^st - 2^nd - 3^rd the season before.  Kenny’s Liverpool from last season managed 2 points in the exact same fixtures – and he had the fortune of not having these games in such close proximity to one another, at the start of the season. And anyone sensible who watched the matches under Rodgers would have seen that stupid defensive mistakes (and a “complicated” referee, in one case) undermined positive performances in all 3 fixtures.

But of course, many Liverpool fans were, and still are, even with the recent 7 points from 9 available, insistent on judging the team too early, and losing total faith with the system and Rodgers himself. 

Rodgers' tactics differ in important aspects to those of Dalglish

 

Rodgers vs. Dalglish

That’s not to suggest the results are acceptable.  Of course they are not.  Liverpool are hardly the type of club to be satisfied with even the recent 7 point recovery (against Norwich, Stoke and Reading)  that has culminated in a current 12^th place slot in the league table.  I’ve seen these sentiments echoed on social media, informed blogs and pub conversations, and the concerns seem to be the same.  Would results be different under Dalglish?  Is Rodgers really the man to take the team forward?

We can’t know what the results would have been under Kenny, but of course, so many things would have been substantially different, and all we could do is speculate about the transfers, the tactical decisions and, ultimately, the results.  Can we really know if Kenny would have offloaded Charlie Adam?  Would he have even considered someone like Joe Allen?

There are clear signs to read in the Rodgers regime, and one just needs to pay attention to them. Some fans suggest that Kenny’s Liverpool also prioritised passing and held possession well.  The statistics do correspond to this.  But there is a marked difference in the approach under Rodgers. Liverpool now play far more patiently, dominating possession to far greater levels, with less emphasis on a more direct attacking style.  It’s not to say that a patient approach hinders the effectiveness of the attack – in fact, I’d argue Liverpool’s ability to penetrate defences is better now than it was under Kenny.  At times, it sometimes felt like Kenny’s Liverpool relied a little too much on that flash of individual brilliance from someone to make the difference in a game.  Under Rodgers, that reliance is decreased to an extent, because the team’s tactical approach is far more conducive to being more creative in the final third.  We’ve seen goals this season from various players, and what’s been encouraging is the fact that many of them have come from midfield already – Gerrard, Sahin, Shelvey.  Suarez may have missed a ton of chances under Rodgers – but I’m struggling to remember him getting so many clear, obvious chances under Kenny.  We can bemoan Andy or Luis’ conversion rate under Kenny, but good chances were at a premium.  Now, the team is better configured to creating the right quality of chance, as opposed to a huge quantity of them.

Under Rodgers, Liverpool are also, quite significantly, playing 4-3-3 and similar variants (4-2-3-1, 4-3-2-1, etc). Kenny often used a 4-4-2 system.  Kenny also focused on very different types of players, and prioritised different technical qualities - for example, if he was still manager, would Suso have played as much?  Or would we still see Stewart Downing bombing crosses expectantly, hoping for bodies in the box?  Would we have been hoping for one of Carroll’s rare standout performances as opposed to the intelligent off the ball movement of Borini?  Again, it isn’t fair to speculate, but it isn’t clear that Kenny would have applied Suso and Sterling (in particular) as consistently as Rodgers.  And both those players are two standout performers thus far this season.

You can’t win anything with kids… or can you?

Alan Hansen’s infamous quote above has run miles in my head since the season’s start.  Rodgers has been true to his word about playing those who illustrate that they are good enough.  If the likes of Sterling and Suso can keep someone like Downing on the bench or out of the squad, it says a lot about the tactical and technical priorities of the Liverpool manager.

The young boys delivered well against Young Boys of Switzerland

 

I, for one, cannot help but feel a significant debt of gratitude to Rafael Benitez.  The legacy he has left in the academy with bringing players like Sterling, Suso and Shelvey to Liverpool may well be his most significant long term contribution.

Rodgers’ application of the “kids” is significant.  The 3 mentioned above along with Wisdom, Allen, Borini and Coates have all had moments of sparkle – some more than others (Sterling and Allen have arguably been Liverpool’s best players thus far this season).  Rodgers has had no favours done to him by recent history - Liverpool’s last few transfer windows have had more bad memories than good.  Ex-Red Dietmar Hamann emphasised that point in his recent tweet about Liverpool’s spending last summer in particular, which set terrible precedents in what Liverpool pay for players, not to mention which players were chosen to be signed.  Imagine for a moment if instead of Downing, Liverpool had pursued Juan Mata, as was rumoured.  It could have been the Reds dialling 9-Juan-Juan on occasions where attacking impetus was required.

But as it is, Rodgers is getting some unique performances out of the youngsters.  The Capital One Cup match against West Brom was, for me, Liverpool’s most complete performance thus far, if nothing else because a significant number of Rodgers’ boxes were ticked. Patience, possession, passing, penetration.  Defending with the ball.  And a winning goal which was ultimately created by the system, not by one player’s unique individual brilliance.  Most of the team that produced that was 22 or younger, with only Downing, Carragher, Assaidi and Sahin as the “elders” in the team.

From a transfer point of view, Rodgers’ gem is by far Joe Allen, and I hardly think many Liverpool fans will disagree that a midfield 3 of Gerrard, Sahin and Allen looks far more intimidating than last season’s dysfunctional configuration of Downing, Gerrard, Adam and Henderson. When Lucas comes back, it’s going to be intriguing.  We haven’t had a midfield orchestrator of Allen’s quality, with fantastic awareness, ball control and passing touches since a certain Xabi Alonso marshalled the midfield.  If Allen and Lucas (in theory) are automatic first choice players, it could be an interesting competition between Sahin, Shelvey and Gerrard for the final attacking midfield spot (especially considering Gerrard’s form is mixed at present).

Improvement needed…

Naturally, the positives need to be taken account with a sense of perspective.  It’s clear that while Liverpool has made progress, there are still several things that they need to work on.

One thing that has been very common in Liverpool’s adoption of the system is the issue of holding the ball, especially when defending a lead.  The match against Reading was a blatant example of how not to do it – it became more “death by football for anxious Liverpool fans” rather than for the opponents.  Ironically, I think it was still an important result.  Liverpool produced a 6/10 performance with a clean sheet and 3 points, and most importantly, got away with it.  Notwithstanding the striking issue, and Suarez’s inability to score the “easier” chances, Liverpool have to be realistic that until they can recruit a quality #9, they need to get used to defending with the ball and stacking up the 1-0 wins.  That’s why, in a strange way, the disappointment of deadline day has a unique silver lining – the lack of the goalscoring punches means that the team will be forced to master certain aspects of the system which otherwise may have been treated with complacency.

Understandably, it won’t happen overnight.  After all, typically if Liverpool is 1-0 up, one doesn’t exactly expect the voices in the Kop to cheer for defending with the ball.  The last 10 minutes against Reading were completely characterised by long “Hollywood” passes down the field, anxiously being chased by Sterling and Suarez, but ultimately resulting in careless turnover of possession.  Liverpool eventually needs a mindshift, and the execution on the pitch will follow.  I would argue, ironically, that the 2^nd goal would have been far more likely to arrive if the ball had been retained better.  Reading, needing to chase the game would have tired themselves out and overcommitted in attack, leaving far more favourable spaces for Liverpool to exploit.  And besides, one thing that we can all guarantee is that it would be impossible for Reading to get back in the game without the ball; hence the importance of making them work for it!

Gerrard's form has been mixed in terms of adapting to Rodgers' philosophy

 

One of the biggest culprits here is Steven Gerrard.  This is dangerous territory for me to criticise – after all, Gerrard often plays that long ball because his vision allows him to get away with it and the result is often outstanding.  I hope that Gerrard, and many of the others who prefer those long passes will take their cue from Joe Allen.  He is a great example of the right attitude towards retaining the ball, playing the short passes that may not be spectacular, but keeping the ball.

Something else that has been inconsistent is the pressing and the defensive shape of the team.  For example, against Manchester United, Liverpool immediately defended far too deep following Gerrard’s opener – their defensive line was just about on the 6 yard box for Rafael’s strike.  Man Utd didn’t play their way into Liverpool’s box through superior skills or attacking movement – Liverpool practically invited them in.  There are many other examples where the pressing game dropped off, especially against Udinese, and the 2 goals conceded against Norwich.

Not that Liverpool should be pressing too much – you can’t press for the full 90 minutes - but that’s where defending with the ball comes in handy to help the players rest.  So the two concepts are always going to be linked.

Liverpool’s movement to create space and passing options is also in need of improvement, especially in the final 3^rd.  Sometimes the players look static and it takes a skilful move from an Allen (usually) to beat or attract defenders and open up a pass.  It was intriguing that instead of berating Skrtel’s poor pass to Reina against Man City, Rodgers instead suggested that he was concerned that Skrtel’s teammates hadn’t given the Slovakian enough passing options, forcing him into a dangerous pass.  I’m sure many Liverpool fans would disagree with the assessment, but it does illustrate just how the manager wants his team to implement the system.

Other intriguing issues have been highlighted – is Suarez really fit as the #9? Once a #9 is signed, will Suarez be more heavily leveraged as the creator?  His assists against Norwich and Reading certainly provide some evidence.  Does Gerrard warrant his automatic starting place anymore?  The form of Shelvey and Sahin, added to Gerrard’s costly turnovers of possession, do build a case, but there must be doubts if Rodgers really has the courage to drop the talismanic leader. 

There are also hints already of possible further transfer priorities in January.  The natural #9 is the obvious one, but Liverpool also need further cover for Lucas (Allen can deputise, but he can’t play every game either!), possibly Reina (although Brad Jones is certainly playing his way into consideration) and without doubt, a new first choice left back if Jose Enrique cannot meet the standards that Rodgers has set (I wonder if the Spaniard is not another name in those infamous envelopes).

Signs of progress

But while there are things that need improvement (and there always will be), there are definitely signs that Rodgers’ regime is beginning to show fruit.

For starters, Liverpool haven’t had a controlling midfielder the quality of Allen since Alonso, and that is possibly an understatement since the Welshman has already drawn comparisons with the Barcelona maestro Xavi.  Allen is just 22, and it’s scary to think the recently crowned Welsh player of the year could be even better in a couple of years.  Rodgers’ other signings have also had their moments.  Sahin already looks a dangerous prospect in that attacking midfield role, while Borini’s off-the-ball movement has already paid dividends – check out how he opened up space for Shelvey’s second goal against Young Boys as an example.

Sterling scored the first of many (hopefully) against Reading

 

The emergence of Sterling, Suso and Shelvey in particular into the system is fantastic.  All of them have made significant contributions.  Sterling’s impact has been incredible, and someone of his ability to keep his head up and be more aware of the options around him can only flourish in a system like this.  Suso is also well suited to the Rodgers style, and his second half substitute cameo appearance against Man Utd was quick to produce a meaningful attack that led to Gerrard’s goal.

What has been most impressive however, is how the team has taken to the passing style.  It’s not perfect, but pragmatically, I was expecting the team to struggle to adapt.  That adaption has been faster than expected.  Liverpool look a far stronger team tactically.  They play attractive football.  They are creating greater quality of chances and even though several players have been offloaded,  the system is threatening to bring out the best in many players, and suddenly even Steven Gerrard has potential competition for his 1^st team place.  Liverpool’s second string side has looked effective – granted, they lost to Udinese after the wheels came off in the second half, but the first half performance provided clear evidence of what they are capable of.  They were never going to get it right perfectly, but the system is coming together.  When, as examples, youngsters like Jack Robinson or Andre Wisdom can play under a system like this and look effective enough to compete for first choice fullback positions, that creates depth practically out of nowhere.

The tactical approach is extremely sound.  Only in one game so far this season has Liverpool been tactically outsmarted – against Arsenal (and even that may be of debate).  The rest of the poor results come down to poor execution of great tactics, a far cry from some of last season’s matches where Liverpool’s tactics weren’t always designed to get them to naturally come out on top.  For example, contrast the home fixture against Man City last season, where the game was relatively even, vs. this season – Liverpool were by far the dominant side this time around – points were dropped due to stupid mistakes, as they were against West Brom.  Even with 10 men, Liverpool dominated Man Utd and still deserved the 3 points against the old enemy. That comes down to the value and strength of the system that Rodgers has introduced. 

There may still yet be speedbumps – Liverpool enter a difficult patch of fixtures with Everton, Swansea, Newcastle and Chelsea coming up.  But even if the results aren’t ideal in those matches, the signs are there for Liverpool fans to see the improvements, if they choose to.  And if we can be patient and allow the team to continue working to master the system, allow the January transfer window to bring its reinforcements (hopefully!), and tolerate the results for a bit… it’s possible that Liverpool could surprise us all. 

Time will tell – we need to support in spite of the results… and be patient.

I Know What You Did Last Summer

12 months ago, if the recent piece (http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2012/09/01/blood-red-brendan-rodgers-rebuilding-plans-hampered-by-failures-of-previous-liverpool-fc-regime-100252-31739935/ ) in the Echo is to be believed, then Sunderland boss Steve Bruce contemplated asking for £4 million to sell Jordan Henderson.

Liverpool offered £14 million, raising it to £16 million a bit later.

In the same transfer window, Liverpool spent £20 million on Stewart Downing, and £7 million for Charlie Adam.  6 months earlier, a rather poorly timed exit by Fernando Torres left Liverpool with mere hours to purchase a new #9.  They responded quickly – too quickly – with a move of £35 million for Andy Carroll. 

Believe the article, or not, but it’s clear that those numbers left a bitter taste in the mouths of Liverpool fans come the end of the 2011-12 season.  The team’s potential, galvanised by fantastic runs to both domestic cup finals were totally undermined by the side’s stale performance in the league. We were meant to believe the excuses, especially that of conspiring woodwork. 

There was very little criticism directed to FSG, though.  Many were grateful that they’d allowed so much money to be spent – yet behind the scenes, I would imagine the Americans were wondering where the return for those investments were.

Fast forward 12 months, and the anti-climax of deadline day in the summer transfer window.  And a 2-0 defeat to Arsenal. Pandemonium! Hate mail and negative sentiment directed at Ian Ayre, FSG, and even (in my opinion, pathetically) Brendan Rodgers, and all of a sudden, Liverpool have had a shocking transfer window and we’re doomed to fail. 

Some of us have short memories, don’t we?

FSG learn from their mistakes… again

Now don’t get me wrong, it’s poor planning that an obvious #9 is missing from the squad.  But I think we need perspective.  We need to look at the other transfers.  The players who came in, the players who left.  The money we did receive.  The context of Liverpool living for 3 years outside the Champions League with its estimated £20 million annual pot.  Liverpool’s inability to bring in revenue to the extent of clubs like Arsenal and Manchester United. And quite critically – the infamous transfers of the previous regime, which clearly affected not only FSG’s willingness to spend, but created the impression in some clubs that you can milk Liverpool for transfer money.

Ultimately, the blame rests with FSG.  But not entirely in the manner one may think.  Before Brendan was appointed, there were rumours aplenty that FSG were considering a structure inclusive of a Director of Football, or Sporting Director.  It was a template they appeared to feel would work – and it certainly posed sense in assisting with issues of scouting, transfer negotiations, and being an important conduit for interaction between manager and owners.

This template disappeared once Brendan was appointed.  I have a couple of ideas of the reasons why. One thought comes from Brendan’s possible request to have greater control over matters – something which possibly caused FSG to forgo their preferred model and give Brendan that responsibility.  The other idea is that FSG decided to split the roles and give Brendan the responsibility of identifying preferred targets, while Ian Ayre would take the lead in securing them.

Whatever the real reasons, I have every confidence in Rodgers’ ability to spot talent that is realistically obtainable.  If Liverpool aren’t able to recruit it, either they don’t have enough money, or the wrong person is trying to negotiate these deals.  And it is in that respect that I think FSG have just had another mistake which they will be learning much from.  I still think FSG are interested in getting this right.  They’re making dumb mistakes – but, as an example, just the bravery they showed in dismissing Dalglish and hiring Rodgers tells me there is more to them than many think.  Some Liverpool fans would prefer a rich Arab / Russian oil billionaire as our owners – fine, but consider that Chelsea and Man City had to spend £673 and £572 million respectively since 2003 to fast-track their teams into championship winners (Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19416223 ).  That kind of spending will never make sense, no matter how many trophies you win. And I’m one of those dumb fans that doesn’t want Liverpool to buy success anyway – it’s more satisfying to build it.

It sounds like, particularly as it relates to Dempsey, there was more to the debacle.  The erroneous stunt where Dempsey was listed as a player on the Liverpool website some weeks back did nothing to foster a positive atmosphere for a transfer of the American from Fulham to Anfield.  If the stories are true that Fulham accepted lower priced offers from Villa and Spurs and expected a higher fee from Liverpool, I hardly blame them for doing that.  Besides, Liverpool’s last summer transfer window didn’t set a particularly good precedent for a club intending on paying bargain prices.  If we think we should be happy about paying premium prices for players like Dempsey, we’re in big trouble.  Don’t chastise Liverpool and FSG for being fussy about Dempsey’s fee. I’d rather ask why it appeared Dempsey was our only option.

So FSG’s will learn from this – the hard way. Last season they trusted too much in their charges,but now they have made the mistake themselves.  Whether it is to free up more funds in the January transfer window, to improve the scouting process, or better yet, hire a proper Sporting Director / Director of Football to deal with these issues, they will have to respond well.  I blame FSG only because they’re responsible for setting up a structure of resources and people to bring in the right players.  Clearly the structure has some gaps.  But it is certainly not cause to lose all faith, they’re learning a valuable lesson.  I read a fantastic tweet that summed it up – it’s not about blind faith in FSG, and they are still learning.  But they are not idiots, nor are they Hicks and Gillett (credit to @ErinNYC75 for that one).  Besides, in context, our transfer window wasn’t all that poor.

Our 2011-12 summer transfer window – in context

While many want to judge the transfer window’s success purely on the failure to capture a #9, I think we need to be a bit wiser than that. 

Let’s get the negatives out the way.  In my opinion, Liverpool’s transfer window lowlights were in a few areas:

1.       Goalkeeping cover

We didn’t need Reina’s clanger against Hearts at Anfield the other night to remind us of the concerns that remain about our keeper.  It’s an expensive position to recruit when you’re looking for quality (upwards of at least £8 million, probably).  The fact remains, he lacks competition, and I’m not so keen on Jones as a deputy.  Nonetheless, Rodgers will need to keep an eye on his keeper, and if further clangers follow, expect this to be a priority position come the new year.

2.       Right wing / right wide forward

It’s clear that Rodgers likes to play a 4-3-3 / 4-2-3-1 variant, where the width is intended to arrive from the fullbacks and the movement of the front “wings” tends to be inside towards the box.  It’s the kind of system that gets the best out of Suarez’s exceptional movement and positioning.  Our problem is that we have ONE Suarez.  Now finding another one is difficult, and it’s not to say that Sterling or Assaidi aren’t capable of doing the job – they may well do so.  But I worry that that Liverpool’s greatest attacking threat comes predominantly from the left, and in time, that may become predictable.  I hope that Liverpool address this in January, but it’s more likely to be addressed next season. 

3.       The goalscorer

And so we approach the controversial issue.  I think having Carroll loaned out is still a win-win scenario.  The lad can build his confidence at a team where the playing style suits his strengths far better.  His wages are covered.  And Liverpool don’t spend time trying to force him into the team just for the sake of his transfer fee, and instead focus on testing things which are actually worth trying.  For example, I would rather try Gerrard as a “false 9”, or promote Morgan to the first team, than try and fit Andy into the system.  Ironically, we spent much of 2010-11 trying to accommodate Andy – even though we weren’t playing the Rodgers style.

With Carroll, we need to be prepared – he’ll do better at West Ham, and immediately, the accusations will come from media and opposing fans alike that he has been loaned out erroneously.  Let’s not kid ourselves.  We won’t play Allardyce football – and that brand of football will suit Andy perfectly.  It will hopefully suit Liverpool’s pockets too, in time. I’m not saying this because I don’t like Andy – I do – but I think he’s a square peg in a round hole while in a Liverpool shirt.

The issue here is not Carroll’s departure – we needed someone in REGARDLESS of Andy’s presence or not.  One can only hope the results aren’t too badly affected by the lack of a #9 – but if they are – FSG will at least see the fruit, or lack thereof, of their mistake, and hopefully address it swiftly.

The highlights of the summer transfer window

I still think it was a good transfer window – no, it wasn’t the best we could have had, and it is not exactly hard to improve on the transfers 12 months ago, but our objective was to improve the squad – and that was achieved in most respects.

1.       Outgoings

Over the last few years, Liverpool have accumulated some players who are not of the standard we need, are far too costly to keep, or don’t fit into Rodgers’ style of play.  This transfer window addressed most of all three.

I expected the departure of Aquilani.  Getting rid of the old campaigners Aurelio, Bellamy, Maxi and Kuyt dealt with the wage issue.  Spearing leaving on loan was a good move, but I think he needs to be shipped out eventually.  Even though he contributed many assists last season, Adam just didn’t illustrate the quality we needed overall.  As for Carroll – his loan is a great idea.  He’ll do well at West Ham.  It will increase his confidence, contribution, and most importantly – value. 

Joe Cole and Downing still remain. It will be hard to ship them out at reasonable prices, but Rodgers seems to have an idea of how to get some better performances out of Downing at least.

2.       The core remains

A big fear with this transfer window was not that Liverpool wouldn’t improve the squad, but rather than we’d end up short of one of our talismans.  Agger, Skrtel and Suarez were at significant risk of being sold.  The rumours flew aplenty about Suarez early on, especially with the notions that FSG were none too happy with the racial abuse allegations from last season, but a new contract put that issue to bed.  (I still fully expect a Spanish giant to change that in a couple of years though.)  Skrtel and Agger were both courted by Man City, but we kept them – and that is really encouraging.  Now regardless of the discomfort around Agger in particular, the fact remains, Liverpool did not sell – and that is a good sign.  How many Liverpool fans would have been happy with signing Dempsey and losing Agger, I wonder?

3.       Great players arrived – for present and future

It’s hard to remember a transfer window for Liverpool where we signed someone like Joe Allen.  Someone that young, with that much immediate raw talent, that he can come in from his first game and look like a future star.  Comparisons to Xavi seem almost insane – but the Welshman can play, and his read of the game is a perfect fit to Rodgers’ style.  I remember seeing so much disappointment from Liverpool fans about his signature, because he wasn’t a big spectacular name – yet he’s already illustrated at his tender age that he’s teaching his teammates something about how to play football.  The best part is that he is only 22.  He’s already looking better than any midfielder we’ve had for the last 3 years – including Gerrard.

The other signings are appear to be good value – the only concern is possibly Borini, who doesn’t resemble a 15-20 goal-a-season forward. However, he’s just 21 - that could well change.  He’s already shown flashes of good movement and energy (especially against Man City). 

I am impressed Liverpool’s capture of Sahin.  I don’t think there was any chance of buying him – but we have one year to make the guy fall in love with the place, so that IF the chance arises, we should be in a good position to make him sign permanently.  And even if we don’t, to get a player of his quality in a time when he quite rightly could choose more money and Champions League football should give you an idea of how well Liverpool have done.

As for Assaidi and Yesil, they are two obvious talents – bought at prices to rival that of the most outstanding negotiators.  Time will tell if these two emerge as the kind of players we need, but they look like very talented prospects.  If the latter in particular scores some goals – I’ll bet the reservations about Dempsey will disappear.

One of the other criticisms labelled at FSG is that they didn’t replace all the players we lost.  Yet Bellamy and Kuyt didn’t play every week, and Maxi even less so.  Aurelio played once (I think)!  We signed players to play to Rodgers’ new system.  We didn’t need to replace every single player like for like.   It’s a thin line of forwards, I agree, but take into account that Rodgers wants to see more goals from the midfield as well.  We’ll have to wait and see how the results evolve.

4.       The fountain of youth

The introduction of some academy graduates into our first team is very encouraging.  Sterling is as exciting, if not more, than Joe Allen.  Morgan looks a solid player as well.  And I for one really hope Suso and Ngoo get a chance to play.  

The introduction of these lads, combined with the existing youthful crop of Shelvey, Robinson, Flanagan, Kelly and Coates looks interesting.   Sterling, Shelvey and Coates joined Allen and Borini in a side that ran the English champions off their feet at Anfield.  Yaya Toure, arguably the best midfielder in England currently, professed that it was the hardest game he’s played since he joined Man City.  Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but that experience came from a team who were largely a bunch of kids.

The importance of patience

The situation isn’t ideal, but it’s hardly time to panic.  And if some of us were expecting outlandish money like the fee the Mancs resorted to for RVP, we had all the wrong expectations.  No, we don’t have an oil billionaire at the head of our club – be careful for what you wish for, I would say.  We need to be realistic, and patient.  FSG wouldn’t have introduced so many changes in the summer if they weren’t at least remotely interested in the future of the club.  Even if the cynical ones out there believe it’s purely about shortening the wage bill so that the club is sold, it could be far more disruptive to Liverpool to change ownership again in a short space of time, so I for one hope that is not the case.

Liverpool are also paying for last summer.  Not only in money, but in reputation and negotiation leverage. A precedent was set and it needs time to be forgotten. Or is someone going to try and convince me that Adam, Downing, Henderson and Carroll are in the same class as Allen?

The key, as always, is patience.  The fixture list hasn’t been kind to us in the opening matches, and Liverpool will have faced 3 of the top 5 from last season by the end of September – so if we have a poor start, the league table position will need a pinch of salt to digest.  Rodgers’ revolution will take time.  I’m willing to give Rodgers the benefit of the doubt because even though he’s likely disappointed about deadline day – he’s one of the few who won’t sit and give up on Liverpool.

Neither should we.

As for FSG, they continue to learn.  And hopefully, they learn quickly.

YNWA