Monday, August 29, 2011

Kenny Has LFC Back At Rafa’s Level


Kenny Dalglish – the man who, along with Damien Comolli, ‘wasted millions of pounds’ this summer – has put the smile back on our faces.
Aside from those of us who thought it, who’d have thought it?
As one pundit on Sky’s Sunday Supplement put it just a couple of weeks ago, the Reds ‘collapsed’ under Dalglish at the end of last season (losing two games; the world’s smallest ever collapse?), and the club overpaid on a load of average players this summer. And remember, preseason results were sure to have us doomed.
So to have seven points in August – when it took until the end of October last season to reach that mark – is a sign of the club being back on track. And to my mind, that means being back at the level that Rafa Benítez had the club for the majority of his time at the helm.
As ever, some vindictive things were said in the media in relation to Liverpool’s recent history. A fine win against Bolton was used by the ESPN commentator John Champion to criticise Benítez; in reference to a woman in the crowd who was caught yawning near the end of the game, he said “under Rafa, she’d have been asleep 60 minutes ago”.
Benítez was also criticised for failing to get the best out of Lucas, never mind that he bought him as a 20-year-old for just £6m and persisted with him when those too blind to see his quality (i.e. not most of this site’s members) had it in for the lad; not to mention that – funnily enough – young players get better with time and experience (and with the exit of players with bigger reputations, out of whose shadow they can emerge).
Had a player Arsene Wenger bought evolved in the same way, then even had the manager left the club, Wenger would be labelled a genius for finding and helping to develop that talent. Lucas is now some player, and Rafa deserves a large chunk of credit.
By contrast, to the mass media, when it comes to Liverpool’s recent history, Roy Hodgson simply never existed; at least as far as criticism is concerned. He worked miracles at West Brom last season in a short space of time, and fully deserved all the plaudits he got for a remarkable turnaround; but he managed Liverpool for a longer period of time, and yet that gets brushed under the carpet as ‘too little time to make a difference’. Except he did make a difference, for all the wrong reasons.
A more obvious comparison for John Champion to make would have been thelast home game against Bolton, less than nine months ago, to show the dramatic change. On New Year’s Day, at the same late stage in the game, Liverpool were only drawing 1-1 against the Trotters, in front of 10,000 empty seats on one of the traditionally best-attended days in the football calendar. Joe Cole nudged the ball an inch over the line at the death, but it was only papering over the cracks. People weren’t yawning; they simply weren’t attending.
Interestingly, it’s like Hodgson never existed at Liverpool, either. Not one of his six summer 2010 signings has made the starting XI in the Premier League, with most either up for sale, or already sold. Only Raul Meireles – now a squad player – remains part of Kenny’s plans, although he was his only relatively expensive signing. (That said, he did try to get Joe Cole, Paul Konchesky and Christian Poulsen into his first XI.)
This season’s side – and indeed, the match-day 18 – has been comprised of roughly a 50-50 mix of Benítez and Dalglish purchases. Bought by the former were Reina, Agger, Kuyt, Lucas, Skrtel, Maxi, Shelvey, with Spearing and Kelly given debuts by the Spaniard a few years ago. When fit, Glen Johnson will slot back into the XI.
That said, this is clearly becoming Kenny’s team. In have come Suarez, Carroll, Adam, Downing, Enrique, Doni and Henderson.
All the good results since January, and we’ve yet to see Steven Gerrard beyond a handful of the manager’s games. If he can find his old form, then how he links with the incredible Suarez will be fascinating to watch.
Jamie ‘Literally, Top Top Top Literally’ Redknapp is another whose first post-match words of analysis about Liverpool almost always refer back to Benítez; he “overcomplicated” the game, said a man who gives the impression that a lot of things (including finding trousers that fit) are too complicated for him. (Note: it may be that, as a bald 40-year-old, I’m just jealous of his looks. This is true. Of his intelligence, not so much.)
I fully agree that we need to constantly refer back to the recent past to make comparisons. But surely it’s only right to do so with accuracy and fairness? – after all, we’ll never know how far we’ve come if we cannot work out our starting point.
This notion that Liverpool fans were bored by Benítez continues to irritate me. At times, yes, the team could be below par, just as any team can be, and clearly not every fan bought into his approach. (Those who believed the mass media, mostly.)
However, the idea of negativity at home – as espoused by Champion and Redknapp – is belied by the fact that the Reds hold the record winning margin in the Champions League (8-0), and also put four past Real Madrid and Arsenal at Anfield in the same competition. Do dull, methodical teams really do that?
Of course, this was in the Champions League; Benítez ‘wasn’t very good at the domestic stuff’. (Never mind that he averaged 72 points a season, an improvement of seven points a season on his predecessor.)
At times Rafa’s teams took their foot off the gas in league games when winning, but with tough midweek European games coming thick and fast, the need was to balance resources that were not as deep as those of the richer big clubs. That was never going to be a concern against Bolton this weekend, although, of course, Luis Suarez needed removing for his own good (as part of not overdoing it post-Copa America).
Having researched Liverpool’s home goalscoring record since 1998, it’s interesting to see patterns that totally correlate with my preconceived ideas, and, surprise surprise, seem to go against those of the mass media: that Benítez and Dalglish had/have the team scoring lots of goals at home, and that Houllier and Hodgson (whose approaches were similar to one another) performed far worse in this regard.
The samples are still quite low for Hodgson (10 home league games) and Dalglish (11). But as 10 games is more than half a season’s worth of home matches, it’s not insignificant.
It’s fascinating to see that Hodgson and Houllier have identical records: an average of just 1.7 goals per game at home. (Houllier’s record starts from 1999/00, his first full season in charge.)
Another identical record is that of Benítez from 2006 to 2010 (his last four seasons) and Dalglish since his return: 2.18 goals per game.
Both men took over teams that were averaging 1.7 goals a game and improved the scoring rate by a massive 30%.
If most managers improved their team’s home scoring record by 30%, you’d expect them to be lauded. Dalglish is receiving a lot of praise, and quite rightly so.
Of course, this is just 2006-2010 for Benítez; add his first two seasons (in which the Champions League and FA Cups were won) and the home league goals tally drops; his full six-year average is 2.01 goals per game. (Still a 20% improvement on Houllier’s record.)
(As a quick aside, Benítez lost key goalscorer Michael Owen before his first league game, and inherited Djibril Cissé and Milan Baros, two unpredictable strikers. His first expensive striker signing was Torres in 2007, three years into the job. Houllier made his first expensive striker signing in 2000 – Heskey – and Dalglish made two in his first transfer window. In his defence, Hodgson did not get to buy an expensive striker, but did inherit Fernando Torres, who up until then had a terrific scoring record. In today’s money (TPI©), Heskey, Cissé and Torres cost in between the £22.8m paid for Suarez and the £35m paid for Carroll.)
What’s also interesting is that the home league goalscoring record in all six of Benítez’s seasons is identical to Arsenal’s in their five most recent seasons.
Arsenal are seen by all and sundry as the paragons of attacking football, and although they were not at their pre-2004 best in that time, they continued to gain plaudits for their style.
As both Liverpool and Arsenal had squads of similar value – well below those of Chelsea and Manchester United – then the comparison seems valid. (Of course, when Benítez pitched up, Arsenal were miles ahead of the Reds. Liverpool scored just 31 home games in Houllier’s final season, at 1.63 per game, and just 32 the season before that.)
Right now, Liverpool are back in the goalscoring groove at home. My overriding sense that the Reds were in fact far more tedious under Houllier and Hodgson is borne out by the stats. They were the managers whose style was too cautious.
Apparently it’s easy to forget how good Liverpool’s attacking play was with Torres, Gerrard, Alonso, Benayoun and Kuyt tearing holes in defences. Thankfully, while there are some differences in the style, it’s a joy to once again see footballers at the top of their game dragging centre-backs out of position and passes cutting right into the heart of the opposition back line.
It’s not just the scoring of goals. If Liverpool fans were yawning under Benítez, how did he improve the club’s home points haul so significantly? Unsurprisingly, the ability to score goals correlates quite nicely with the ability to win games, even though in theory you could need just 19 goals to win all 19 home games.
In fairness to Hodgson, he wasn’t that much of a disaster at Anfield; it was away where most of the horrors occurred, with just a single win (again, against Bolton).
But even so, Hodgson’s average of 2.oo was worse than Benítez’s poorest season (2.11), and nowhere near the Spaniard’s best (2.53). It was better than Houllier’s worst (1.79 in his final season), but yet again, the two H-men are virtually identical with their overall average: 2.00 of Hodgson to 1.97 of Houllier. Is this all coincidence?
At the moment, Dalglish is averaging 2.40 points per home game, which is not quite up with Rafa’s best of 2.53, but slightly better than his six-year average of 2.29.
The problem under Benítez was the away form, which was inconsistent. A couple of the seasons were poor, although another couple (2005/06 and 2008/09) were amongst the very best in the club’s history (2008/09 equalled the club record for number of wins, 13 games).
Resurgence
As has been documented, Dalglish has spent quite a lot of money to provide this resurgence, but it’s not been without losing good players, too, to help rebuild. If he’d spent £100m but been able to keep Torres as well (and had him scoring goals at the three-in-five rate the Spaniard briefly delivered under him), then you’d have more right to expect a title challenge.
As it is, Chelsea, Man United and Man City have been spending lots of moneywithout recouping much from sales. They’ve been strengthening without losing anything, although United did prune the squad of some older stars and lose their goalkeeper. I stagger to think what City’s wage bill is right now, but it’s something Liverpool cannot get remotely close to. In time, with the club now being better run, and the FFP rules due to arrive, things might level out a bit.
All Liverpool can do is look to improve, and that’s what the Reds are doing. The new signings are playing their part.
Despite apparently ‘overpaying for his services’, Stewart Downing has looked excellent in every game he’s played. Liverpool ‘needed the winger they lacked under Benítez’, but it’s been his ability to move infield that has caught the eye, rather than anything near the touchline. (Lee Dixon, one of the few pundits I tend to agree with, praised Downing for constantly drifting into areas the full-back hated to travel into. So, rather than supply width, he’s been an out-to-in winger.)
Downing has popped up in central or inside-left and right goalscoring positions on numerous occasions, and forced great saves against Arsenal and Bolton, and hit the bar against Sunderland. But in tandem with the equally impressive Enrique, it seems that one area where the Reds are now better than in recent memory is on the left flank.
(A major journalist, who just happens to have been one of Rafa’s biggest critics, labelled Enrique as slow when Dalglish purchased him. This is also someone who said that Hodgson would turn Liverpool into a great attacking team to banish the boredom seen under Benítez. For the record, Enrique chose football over becoming an Olympic sprinter.)
The good news is that, just as they were for almost all of Rafa’s tenure, the Reds are back in the top four, and look capable of putting up a good fight to stay there.
Liverpool had their faults under Benítez, just as they did under all of their managers (even Shankly). But being boring at home was surely not one of them.
In Rafa’s final three seasons the Reds averaged 2.23 goals a game at Anfield, scoring more than 40 in each campaign and never winning fewer than 42 points, and we’d all settle for that this season.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

The Economist: Malaysia’s Penang state Getting back its mojo

http://www.economist.com/node/21525968

After a slump, an early engine of globalisation is thriving again
IF YOU are going to have a heart attack, have it in Penang. So one might think, to the see the hospitals in George Town, the capital of this north-western Malaysian state. Patients are flocking in. Ted Mohr, the head of the venerable Penang Adventist Hospital says that he will admit 70,000 medical tourists this year. The hospital specialises in heart procedures and it will perform roughly 23,000 of them this year, including 550 open-heart operations. Such is the demand that the hospital is doubling its number of beds.
Mr Mohr gives two main reasons for Penang’s success with the coronary crowd. First, it is relatively cheap. Open-heart surgery that would set you back $100,000 in America costs only about $10,000 in Penang. Second, Penang’s hospitals are as well-equipped as many in the West.
The combination of low cost and high technology is the main reason why industries across the state of Penang, made up of the original island and a larger bit of the mainland, are prospering again after more than a decade of decline. Their revival is important to Malaysia’s economy—Penang and the surrounding region account for 21% of the country’s GDP. But the renaissance could also have important political consequences for the country. Since 2008 Penang has been one of only four states (out of 13) run by an opposition party. If its politicians can claim the credit for the recent success, that should greatly help the opposition in the next general election, expected within the year.
Penang was founded as a free port by the British in 1786. Occupying a position between India and East Asia, the island drew merchants and middlemen keen to make their fortunes. Chinese, Indians, Armenians, Arabs and more all traded alongside each other. With its racial and religious mix, and dedication to the pursuit of free trade, Penang was in many ways the first custom-made city of globalisation.
The island’s fortunes sank as it lost business to its arch-rival, Singapore. In the post-colonial period Penang fell victim to the rise of nationalism. The region’s freshly minted republics chose to develop their own ports. Penang enjoyed a revival during the 1970s with the setting-up of Malaysia’s first free-trade zone (a “free port” by another name); this attracted big names in electronics, like Intel and Bosch, which built some of the first offshore assembly lines. But this boom was founded on cheap labour, and as Malaysia became richer other emerging economies, such as China and Vietnam, drew the assembly work away.
To recover its prosperity, Penang has sought to reinvent itself. With the rise of India and China, Penang’s location again looks very handy to foreign companies as a place to invest, as in the 18th century. It is relatively close to both big markets—yet offers advantages that trump Asia’s giants’.
Penang’s own “Silicon Valley” companies know that the rule of law in Malaysia gives them the sort of protection for patents and intellectual property they would not enjoy in China, and an ease of doing business that they could not find in India. Wages are higher than they were, but no more so nowadays than on the Chinese seaboard. The federal government has also spent liberally on bridges and the airport, making Penang better connected to the rest of Asia. And old George Town has been smartened up, which helps to bring in foreigners to live, work—and have surgery.
The result is another boom. Last year more investment poured into the state than any other in Malaysia. Scores of new electronics firms have swooped in to join the pioneers, along with an expanding cluster of 20 or so medical-device manufacturers. Crucially, most of the new jobs are in research and development rather than assembly. An American chip-designer, Altera, has a new facility with 1,100 workers in Penang, 800 of them engineers. Its head says that almost all the engineers are locals—which is good for Malaysia.
Whom to thank?
When the Democratic Action Party won the state’s legislative assembly three years ago, it became the first opposition party to triumph in Penang in more than 40 years. The victory presented a direct challenge to the Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition that has ruled the country continuously since independence in 1957. Penang’s new leader, Lim Guan Eng, says that the federal government has an “ambivalent” attitude towards him, cutting off some funding but not undermining his authority. “They don’t want us to get any credit, but they can’t afford to see us fail”.
The revival of Penang was already under way in 2008, but Mr Lim’s new policies have helped it along. He has become the first governor in Malaysia to open up all state tenders to competition. This has entailed dismantling the special preferences for ethnic Malays that have underpinned the BN’s rule since the early 1970s. That was when the Malay majority institutionalised affirmative action for themselves, to the disadvantage of ethnic Chinese (a majority in Penang), who were perceived to have got unduly rich. Mr Lim claims that by reforming the system he has ended the cronyism and corruption that wasted money under previous regimes.
Adapted to the national stage, such policies could transform the way that the Malaysian federal government conducts business. Mr Lim says that the savings he has made by ending the “old systems of patronage” allow him to spend money on new social programmes instead, such as modest handouts for the elderly. These policies are popular, and the assault on corruption pleases foreign investors. Little wonder, then, that Penang has become a political weathervane as much as a lesson in economic development.

Monday, August 15, 2011

鄭丁賢‧真正的冠軍

http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/20500
2011-08-15 09:06
已經是凌晨4點了,我還在電視機前,為在倫敦舉行的世界羽球錦標賽而不眠。
場內是林丹對彼德蓋特,兩人打了兩局,各贏一局,相持不下。
林丹依然是超級丹,那麼的強勢凌厲,像是草原上的獅王,準確的抓住每一個機會,無情的獵殺對手。
此刻的丹麥人彼德蓋特,就像是一隻被追擊的羚羊,只能奮力的搏鬥。
35歲的彼德蓋特,以一般運動員的年齡衡量,已經是老人家,早就應該退休,改坐在教練席或觀眾席。
但是,他還在球場上堅持,對抗年輕強悍的對手,對抗侵蝕體能的歲月。
在激烈的球場上,他用盡了每一分氣力,搶救每一個險球,抓緊每一個進攻的機會,抗衡超級丹狂風暴雨式的衝擊。
電視上出現彼德的特寫,臉露青筋,但是依然堅毅。
超級丹面對不放棄的彼德,一時無措,不再得心應手。
到了第三局下半,超級丹加快速度,球路更加詭異,逐漸把彼德甩開,最終贏了比賽。
敗下陣的彼德,露出微笑,高舉雙手向觀眾致謝。
再一次,他戛然而止,未能攀上最高峰。以運動員生涯計算,他或許再也上不了最高峰,而是逐漸從山峰上滑落下來。
但是,每一次,他依然堅持的要攀上去。
這一夜,我不在乎林丹或李宗偉誰能稱霸,心目中,彼德已經是冠軍。
是甚麼力量,讓他和歲月抗衡?
是哪來的意志,讓他在一次又一次的失敗之後,繼續走下去?
這應該是一種真正的運動員精神。
在丹麥,羽毛球不再是強項;民間追捧足球,冷落了羽球,企業熱衷贊助足球,忽略了羽球。
彼德和其他羽球員,並沒有獲得特別的照顧;有時候要集訓或出國比賽,還得自行找贊助商才能成行。
然而,彼德和他的同僚們,基於對羽球運動的熱愛,以及對本身選擇的堅持,而沒有後悔放棄。
球壇,一如人生。
如果害怕失敗,就會選擇放棄和逃避。像是彼德,乃至眾多沒沒無聞的選手,如果沒有他們的參與,羽壇上就只有林丹和李宗偉,那就不叫體育,而是競技。
同樣的,生活上,有很多永遠不可能成為冠軍的人,因為他們熱愛工作和生活,享受參與,積極努力,才有社會整體的進步。
彼德是冠軍運動員,在於他熱愛羽球,享受比賽,在球壇發出光和熱,而不是抱怨對手太強,埋怨國家不支持他,遺憾自己年齡漸高。
人生的真正冠軍,不在於擊敗對手,而在於能夠接受挑戰,超越自己,為家庭和社會付出心和力。