Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Joe Cole, Gerrard, Hodgson & Being English

http://tomkinstimes.com/2010/07/joe-cole-gerrard-hodgson-being-english/
Posted on July 20th, 2010 Written by Paul Tomkins


It’s been a weird few days. First, the hard-to-fathom sale of promising, albeit rough diamond, Emiliano Insua – all the more strange as he was the third and final left-back out of the club in six months – followed shortly after by the signing of a player who wanted wages Liverpool could not match, Champions League football the club couldn’t offer and a locale that was not in, or near, London.
Other than that, it was business as usual.
This led me to write two articles, although so inter-linked were they, I’ve merged them into one; albeit split into two distinct sections.
Part II: Going English
‘Going English’ has been the theme of this summer. In some ways I still fear it is the usual 180º-turn/backlash against the (incorrectly) perceived problems that clubs like Newcastle and, of course, the English national side, end up making.
Signing Joe Cole is an excellent move; however, it seems part of a move to a more English set-up throughout the club. There’s nothing wrong with that, so long as it’s not simply to be different from what went before.
Apparently senior players at Liverpool wanted an English manager. If true, it’s not hard to guess who they were; it’s not as if Torres, Reina, Mascherano, Agger and Kuyt would be making such demands. They’d surely just want the best man for the job, irrespective of where he hailed from.
It’s also the usual line trotted out by the older ex-Reds, who predate the mid-‘90s continental enlightenment of the game. ‘Old-fashioned’ seems to be the byword at Liverpool right now; the brilliant Jonathan Wilson described Roy Hodgson as such in this informative piece.
It doesn’t have to be only negative in connotation; Wilson’s piece was fairly complimentary, and he prefaced ‘old-fashioned’ with ‘endearingly’. Hodgson, as shown by his success at Fulham, is not out of touch; but he is in many ways old school. And it remains to be seen if that will work at a club, beyond the short-term, where more is expected.
(Of course, the appointment can be viewed as getting back to basics: perhaps there’s the notion that if Hodgson won’t be as inspired as Benítez at his best, he won’t be as ‘over-complicating’ as Benítez at his worst. “Good old-fashioned ideas”, and so on.)
Part of the problem I’ve had getting my head around things this summer has been that I prefer managers who are one step ahead of the game; as outdated as some of his ideas now seem, Bill Shankly was certainly that (at least as far as football in England was concerned; he learned from the Europeans while his peers remained insular, introducing ball-playing centre-backs in the early ‘70s).
I made it clear a few weeks back that I was no longer sure if Kenny Dalglish would be forward-thinking as a manager; but he was 25 years ago. I felt Benítez was, too. Mourinho, Wenger and Ancelloti are similarly inventive.
And Alex Ferguson has remained at the cutting edge for so long because he surrounds himself with people who don’t hark back to the methods of his first successes at United, almost 20 years ago: he moves with the game, replacing coaches on a regular basis; using more rotation than anyone else; experimenting with modern formations (the ‘false-9’ as Wilson describes it, when two years ago United had no ‘real’ centre-forward); and not buying Brits for the sake of it.
I remain to be convinced that Hodgson is the best man for the Liverpool job before a season of steadying, but he is certainly not a bad manager, and is definitely one of this country’s finest.
Of course, that’s partly the problem; it’s not an especially big pool. Lest we forget, many pundits felt that Alan Curbishley should have got the job in 2004, rather than Benítez.
And although England tanked at the World Cup with an Italian manager, at least they got there, as they had with the Swede in 2006; with the Englishman in between, they failed to even qualify for the major tournament. (Although again, Steve McLaren – like Hodgson, with a Uefa Cup final and a foreign league title to his name – is one of the better English managers.)
While I’m definitely a fan of forward-thinking and innovation, some long-held (ergo old-fashioned) values in football remain constant: the need to care about the team before the self; the importance of not being a total arsehole off the pitch as it can come back to bite you on it; keeping the ego in check at all times; giving 100% on as many occasions as is physically possible in a season; and so on.
If you can guarantee most of those – and that’s something that Hodgson seems to have the maturity and wisdom to command (at least until he ‘loses the dressing room’) – then, allied to good organisation on the pitch, Liverpool shouldn’t do too badly at all next season. Often, any new approach can be positive, for a while at least.
But I’d like to think that the club are not pandering to the views of those hoary old pundits and rent-a-quotes who see the world through a sepia lens. Roy is now the manager, and although he has to earn his right to be revered, even his doubters will be give him time to win them over. So far he has spoken a good game, signed one very good player, and managed to keep a world-class one.
However, filling the squad with Premier League journeymen – if he (or Purslow) is planning such a move – is not going to help his cause. One thing Joe Cole’s arrival has done is ease some of those fears, but with several further exits lined up, and no left-back on the books, more than one ticks-all-the-boxes signing is required.
It just seems a little odd – if it is indeed the path Liverpool are taking – to dilute the Spanish and South American influence, given the healthy state of these regions with regard to developing technically gifted players who are winners. Maybe it’s just coincidental.
In truth, Joe Cole will add little new to the squad, simply replace what had just departed; albeit two years younger and, perhaps, with greater untapped potential, than Yossi Benayoun. While arguably no better than the Chelsea-bound Benayoun (worse goalscoring ratio, better assist rate), he is at least of the required quality to appease the fans.
Some other names being linked – Paul Scharner, Paul Konchesky, and, heaven forbid, James Beattie – are not. (In fairness, these are currently just names in the press.)
But Cole was a free transfer; otherwise, English players in particular are usually horribly overpriced. (Cole’s wages aren’t cheap – almost £5m a season – but in this case, they’re probably worth it.)
Brits also often come with cultural flaws, such as the desire to chase every ball like it’s playground football; an immature attitude to getting drunk; a fear of keeping possession when the going gets tough; and a distrust of ‘thinkers’. (Get a GCSE and you’ll probably be nicknamed ‘the Professor’.)
Despite the impending rule changes relating to the amount of home-grown players needed for Premier League games, it’s vital to get the best players irrespective of nationality. We were here before in 1991 when Souness offloaded Houghton and Staunton and bought inferior Englishmen, on one of the prior occasions when the rules for European competition were changed (before being changed back). You need your quota, but not at the expense of common sense.
If there’s this tired notion that Liverpool need more ‘English steel’ because it’s best (and not merely to fit the 6+5 ruling) then you only need look at the World Cup for a total lack of heart and technique and overabundance of egos. John Terry, Mr Lionheart personified, will throw himself in the way of a flying ball or take six studs in the head out on the pitch, but it’s not much good if he’s diddling someone else’s wife and trying to undermine the manager away from it.
For me, bottle is about never hiding when the going gets tough; Insua showed bottle. Lucas has more bottle than almost any Liverpool player I’ve ever seen; he’s more ‘English’ in that sense than plenty of my fellow countrymen. (Bottle isn’t going around kicking people off the ball, ala Vinnie Jones, or diving into tackles without thinking, like the gutsy but tactically suspect Stephen Warnock.)
It doesn’t stop there. Reina is the best captain Liverpool have never had. Torres is a fighter (who admittedly needs to sulk a bit less). Foreigners don’t have to be scared of wet Wednesday nights in Wigan.
As for the ‘they don’t understand the club’ rot, I’d rather have overseas professionals (Reina, Alonso, Torres, Kuyt, Hyypia, and so on) who give their all every game than some Brit with major character flaws who, all the same, ‘understands the club’.
After all, it doesn’t take long to play for (or manage) Liverpool to get what it ‘means’. Or were Hyypia, Hamann, Dudek, Alonso, Riise and Garcia all passengers in Istanbul? Did Torres, from Spain, understand what Liverpool FC is about as much as fan-as-a-boy Robbie Keane? Did it matter one jot?
Maybe xenophobes also forget the antics of the ‘Spice Boys’ under Roy Evans, and how English players like Neil Ruddock devised drinking games while out on the pitch, and Stan Collymore only did his best when it came to staying away from training. I don’t miss that.
It took some pesky foreigners to change that crass approach. Yes, English players are generally much more professional these days; but they’re not without their faults. If you can find those who fit the bill, great; but I object to the notion of English-for-English-sake.
Right now, Liverpool have four first XI players who are English, plus three or four youngsters who, as things currently stand, won’t let anyone down if included in the squad. There are also overseas kids who now qualify as ‘home grown’. There’s no need to panic. And there’s no need to abandon the continental approach – making wholesale changes (which lead to longer bedding-in times) – just because of dinosaurs like Ian St John don’t think Johnny Foreigner likes it up ‘im. And to suggest that Rafa Benítez didn’t understand Liverpool or the club itself is equally disingenuous; he and his wife did far more in the community than some home-grown players. He was from Spain; not outer space.
While each and every player needs to be judged as an individual case (you will get good and bad buys from both home and abroad), Liverpool’s British signings have too often underwhelmed in the past couple of decades: Collymore, Heskey, Bellamy, Pennant, Barmby, Ince, Stewart, Saunders, Babb, Ruddock, Walters and Keane, to name just a few who arrived with full English top division experience (and in most cases, a hefty fee), but were average at best, terrible at worst.
Harry Kewell, Oyvind Leonhardsen, Bolo Zenden and Christian Ziege can be added to that list, if including overseas players who were used to English football, but a fat lot of good it did them.
When signing from the Premier League since its inception, only Steve Finnan, Yossi Benayoun, Didi Hamann, Gary McAllister and Peter Crouch stand out as definite successes, and two of those were truly outstanding. Glen Johnson is busy adding himself to that list.
So I don’t see English league experience, or British nationality, as a simple solution; there’s no evidence to suggest you’ll have greater success. If you had to pick a team of Liverpool’s best British signings since 1992 to play their overseas counterparts, there’d only be one winner. And that applies to value for money, too.
Equally, it’s daft to suggest that Cole will go the same way as Robbie Keane simply because they both moved from an English club and wear the number seven shirt (if Cole is confirmed as such).
Cole looks to be an excellent signing, but in many ways a simple one: a free agent, and proven quality. He required no scouting; no great vision or imagination. He will have needed persuading – and well done to those responsible in that sense. But he was on the open market and destined for a good club.
And that’s where some of my doubts remain; it doesn’t really answer the questions I have about Hodgson in terms of spotting untapped talent. (Or indeed, about just who is behind the buying and selling policy at Liverpool right now, and if that policy is far-sighted enough.)
So far, so good; but if going English is to be more widespread, it’s hard to see who the club could find of sufficient quality on the current budget. Hopefully Hodgson will realise that he has the bones of an excellent team, and that whatever their nationality, the quality – so long as injuries don’t force him too deep into the squad – is there.
Ultimately, if Cole’s arrival helps keep players like Gerrard (and as I write, Gerrard has confirmed he will stay) and Torres at Liverpool – with their hearts fully in it – then that’d be ideal. It’s certainly got to be more persuasive than James Beattie trundling into Melwood.
But if it doesn’t, the departures – especially if it’s Torres late in the summer window with no real time to adjust – could throw us all back into darkness.

Houllier Vs Benítez: Who “Won”?


Whilst I lost faith with Gérard Houllier before he was sacked in 2004, I do think he did a fine job up until 2002. However, his incredible attack on Benítez cannot mask the fact that Houllier left a pretty dire squad low on value and morale, and that in almost every way you look at it, the Spaniard did better than the Frenchman.
Houllier told Mihir Bose of the Evening Standard:
“After Rafa Benitez left this summer, one of the players sent me a message. He said, ‘Boss, he hasn’t beaten you.’”
I’m not quite sure what Houllier, or the player, means by this. Were they playing against each other?
Houllier won more ‘proper’ trophies than Benítez; but the Spaniard won the one that mattered most, and came close a further two times. Like Houllier, he also won an FA Cup; Rafa faced inferior opposition in the final, but far superior opposition on the way to it. He also took a title challenge into May, later than Houllier.
Benítez won 56% of games, to Houllier’s 50%.
Benítez averaged 72 points a season, the 4th-highest in Premier League history out of those who have managed for more than two seasons; Houllier averaged 65, ranking 9th, behind Roy Evans, his predecessor. Benítez easily has the highest Liverpool average since Kenny Dalglish, and unlike Houllier, improved on his predecessor’s tally.
Houllier’s best season was 2nd, with 80 points; Benítez’s 2nd, with 86 points. (Houllier’s best season also happened to be the one of which he missed almost half, due to a serious heart complaint; results picked up as soon as he fell ill, perhaps due to a “do it for the boss” reaction, which gradually wore off. In fairness, it was his team, but Phil Thompson was doing the legwork.)
Benítez made it to three Champions League semi-finals and two finals, to Houllier’s none. But Houllier did win more League Cups.
Is that what he meant?
“When I came into the changing room in Istanbul some of the players said: ‘Boss it’s your team.’“ …
First of all, what the hell were you doing there, as ex-manager? What kind of egotist walks in like that, even if at the game in an official capacity? Did Roy Evans start wandering into the changing rooms in Cardiff and Dortmund?
… “Twelve out of 14 in Istanbul were players I had signed or developed. I left Liverpool with a team in the Champions League. But when you finish seventh with Torres [er - wasn’t he injured for a lot of 2009/10?] and Gerrard [ditto]. . .” His voice tails off. Houllier does not need to spell out the very different legacy Benitez has left Hodgson.
What, one with 12 players at the World Cup, and four – all signed by Benítez – in the squads for the final? Rafa leaves an excellent team, but one which cannot cope with many injuries and dips in form; as seen last season. It’s not the deepest of squads, as the Spaniard himself acknowledged last season.
Also, Liverpool finished with more points (63 to 60) in Benítez’s final season, and made a semi-final. The team Houllier left won just 16 of their 38 games, compared with the 18 won last season. Neither season was great; but come on, let’s not pretend that was a good Liverpool side six years ago, just as it wasn’t seven years ago.
Liverpool finished 23 points behind the Champions last season; but 30 points behind in 2004. Incredibly, Liverpool lost five league games at Anfield in 2003/04, and did poorly in all three cup competitions.
The problem of one bad season last year – but not as bad as 2003/04 in many respects – was exacerbated by better teams now existing to take advantage. (And while it was one bad season, I’ve said since before 2004 that two poor ones in the row is the true mark of a manager having lost his way.)
Liverpool were also a stable, fairly well-run club back then; no American owners pillaging and plundering. Yes, there was a lack of visionaries at the club, but that’s better than what we’ve had to put up with since 2007.
There was also no Chelsea as we’d know it from 2004 onwards, nor Man City; both clubs have spent millions more than Liverpool. Indeed, in the last three years, Aston Villa, Birmingham, Spurs and even Sunderland have spent more (net) than the Reds. (Maybe Houllier could ask himself why his good friend Arsene Wenger has failed to even finish 2nd since 2004, when up until then his sides finished either as Champions or runners-up.)
Houllier is happily taking credit for Istanbul; but none of the blame for a lame squad that Benítez struggled to get 58 league points with in his first season (more-or-less what Houllier ended with).
He takes credit for Gerrard and Carragher, and yet while he played a big part in their careers, both were at the club when he arrived in 1998, and also further developed by Benítez in his first season; Carragher as a centre-back, Gerrard in a more attacking role (his average goal ratio was 6 a season in Houllier’s time, with a maximum of 10; he averaged around 20 a season under Benítez, with a maximum of 24 and a Footballer of the Year award).
Houllier left Harry Kewell, who was never fully fit after halfway through his debut season (a bit like leaving a written-off Ferrari in pieces in the garage). He left Vladimir Smicer, who was talented but also rarely fit. And Chris Kirkland, who made Kewell and Smicer look indestructible.
He left Djibril Cissé, who, like Emile Heskey, cost in excess of £25m in today’s money (source: TPI), but who lacked guile to go with his pace. He left Jerzy Dudek, whose excellent debut season and sublime performance in Istanbul were great bookends for the three nervy, error-strewn years in between. And as much as I loved Igor Biscan, he was, like Smicer, a hugely inconsistent and relatively expensive player entering the final year of his contract when Benítez took over.
He also left Djimi Traore, a player whose attributes (height, pace) were outweighed by his headless chicken act. Milan Baros was another headless chicken, although at least one with some talent.
He did leave Hyypia and Hamann – two fantastic players – but both were entering the final stages of their careers. Steve Finnan also had a limited time left, but it was only after Benítez arrived that he showed his true worth. And John Arne Riise was a good all-rounder.
But then there’s Salif Diao, El Hadji Diouf, Bruno Cheyrou, Anthony Le Tallec and Carl Medjani. What a waste of time they were.
Getting any kind of money for Houllier’s flops was a challenge. Indeed, making a profit on any of his successes was rare; only Hyypia, if sold at his peak, would have added greatly to his value and brought in enough money to reinvest. (The costly Hamann would have surely got his money back.)
Of course, Traore left for £2m, four times what he cost. Milan Baros was sold for roughly twice what he cost. Alou Diarra, who spent three years at Liverpool out on loan, also raised £2m, having been a free transfer. And the lively, likeable but often ineffective Sinama-Pongolle left for more-or-less what he cost. All told, about £12m raised on £6m of spending.
But Heskey, Cissé and Diouf left for less than half of their considerable original fees, at a time when high football inflation meant that they were sold for even less, in relative terms. Owen left for half of his actual value, too, with his contract in its final 12 months (having refused to sign a new deal under Houllier). Diao left for nothing, as did Cheyrou.
Stephen Warnock was also part of Benítez’s inheritance. But at 22, he’d never been given a single game by Houllier.
As far as I can tell, during his time in charge Houllier didn’t sell for a profit a single player he himself had signed; essential to rebuild without having to force the club to stump up cash it doesn’t possess. And in total, only three players signed between 1998 and 2004 ended up making the club a profit, none of them hugely significant.
Now let’s look at Benítez. Like Houllier, he signed some duds. Unlike Houllier, he regularly sold them for profit to make money to reinvest (making for a high gross spend, but a relatively low net one; essentially the money was recycled).
Following Benítez’s exit, the £1m paid for Insua seems to have turned into £5m. Yossi Benayoun, despite now being 30, left for what he cost; a great deal for a player at that age. San Jose, signed for a negligible fee, recently left for £2.6m; in other words, paying for Danny Wilson.
If the club wanted, it could get £30m for Javier Mascherano and up to £70m for Fernando Torres. Pepe Reina and Daniel Agger are both worth far more now than when purchased; easily £30m combined. These were all excellent investments, both in terms of playing ability and resale value. None is yet at his peak.
Liverpool received £30m for Xabi Alonso, after five seasons (two of them excellent) following a £10.5m (£20m TPI) transfer. Despite only having a year left on his deal, Alvaro Arbeloa also left for a profit, heading to the mighty Madrid.
Flops like Gonzalez, Voronin, Leto and Paletta (due to a sell-on clause) all left for profits (yes, they required wages while here, but then so did all Houllier’s flops.) Nunez, Josemi and Kromkamp all left for more-or-less what they cost. And players like Keane, Dossena and Morientes, though offloaded at a loss, still left for more than half what they cost; only Jermaine Pennant was a complete write-off.
And if sold now, El Zhar, Degen and various other ‘free’ fringe players would lead to a profit, while Maxi – who is in no way a flop – could easily bring in £4m (if Benayoun is worth £6m). Kyrgiakos, a desperate but essential signing when funds were too tight to go beyond £1.5m, would leave for at least what he cost.
Hit-and-miss players like Bellamy, Crouch, Carson (including £2m received by Aston Villa to take him on loan) and Sissoko all raised a lot of money through sales for profit; money that was usually spent on better players, and then disingenuously used against Benítez to make out he’d spent more than he had.
So far, eleven of Benítez’s signings have left for a healthy profit (over £42m in total), compared with Houllier’s three (worth around £6m).
And even if Torres, Reina, Agger and Mascherano weren’t sold until 2013, then unless injured they’d still conceivably raise a profit of over £50m that a future manager could benefit from.
The fact is, if you add every pound spent by Benítez to every pound players have either been sold for or are now worth, he’d be well in profit. Not bad for a manager whose Champions League runs raised much of the cash in the first place, at a time when David Moores was running out of dough, and Gillett and Hicks were looking to run away with the money.
For more on the spending comparison, there is this article I wrote a couple of months ago.
Back to Houllier’s interview:
By then the Frenchman was in sole charge and he still believes his pioneering tenure made it easy for Benitez to follow. “One, the pattern of getting a foreign coach was already accepted. Two, he had a Champions League-winning team.”…
Woah woah woah. Back up. Two of the most important players in 2005 were Xabi Alonso and Luis Garcia. And I don’t recall Liverpool winning the Champions League until a year after Houllier was sacked, following consecutive dire seasons. How can he claim such a thing?
He laid some of the foundations, clearly, but if Roy Hodgson wins the league in 2011 (however unlikely), will Houllier come out and say that it wasn’t down to his good friend, but rather Rafa Benítez? Of course not.
…“Three, the team were already in the Champions League. Four, we had built new facilities. And five, it was a different training routine, different attitude and mentality.”
Maybe these are true. But Liverpool were not Champions League regulars by any stretch of the imagination. And Benítez could not get the boost of introducing basic, continental techniques (fitness, anti-alcohol, etc) because Houllier already had. That one cuts both ways.
Above all else, it strikes me that the miracle of Istanbul was not due to the fact that the Reds came from 3-0 down at half-time against the mighty AC Milan, but how such a collection of players could even get near the final, let alone win it.
And for that reason, Benítez deserves far more respect than his bitter predecessor seems capable of affording him.