Thursday, September 6, 2012

FSG's learning process at Liverpool


By Norman Hubbard
(Archive)
Think of the power and the prestige. Imagine the chance to put your plans into action. For the vast majority who are neither qualified nor talented enough to manage or play for a football club, owning one is the next best thing. For many a predatory businessman, it is also a money-making opportunity.
John Henry
PA PhotosJohn Henry has said Brendan Rodgers will not be sacked if Liverpool fail to finish in the top four
But sometimes it is hard to be an owner. And for Fenway Sports Group, this is one of those times. Liverpool's American directors have been criticised for what they didn't manage to achieve - signing a striker on transfer deadline day - and then for their reaction, releasing an open letter to supporters, restating their ambition and reiterating their philosophy.
It also kept Liverpool in the news, offered hints of a disagreement with manager Brendan Rodgers and did not address every concern fans raised. Honesty and humility brought some censure and condemnation. And, at times like these, it feels that FSG are damned for whatever they do and whatever they don't.
Clearly Friday was a disaster. Quite how costly a failure it proves to be will become apparent over the next four months. It looks a false economy not to sign the 29-year-old Clint Dempsey for around £6 million and an additional error not to have a secondary striking option.
Yet anyone expecting an in-depth explanation of who said what to whom on Friday, when and why is deluding themselves - partly because some things ought to remain confidential, not least because they could expose greater divisions, and partly because it wouldn't happen anywhere else. Liverpool's owners are more open than many of their counterparts; compared to some others, they do not deserve to have their motives questioned. They are not the Glazers. They are not Venky's. Most importantly, they are not Tom Hicks and George Gillett.
After their 2010 takeover, FSG inherited a far greater mess than they expected and, while there should be a statute of limitations about attributing problems to Messrs Hicks and Gillett, John W Henry and Tom Werner are nowhere near it yet. In many ways, including communicating with the fanbase, they are the opposite of their secretive predecessors, not to mention Manchester United's reclusive directors, who have lumped debt on the club and taken money out of it.
It is not enough to satisfy some of the Liverpool support, but it is a level of transparency that would make Sir Alex Ferguson turn puce with rage. FSG have been truthful enough to admit to mistakes, and diplomatic not to name them, which might have reflected rather poorly on Southport's most prominent golfer and his most expensive signings.
Kenny Dalglish is a reason FSG have long been in a no-win situation. The awkward decision to dismiss the Anfield icon came at a cost to Henry's popularity with a section of fans, yet the alternative was to risk another league season like last and, perhaps worse, another summer signing spree like the last.
During the Scot's reign, Dalglish's loyalists criticised FSG for not offering the Scot enough support. Yet it was not advice that he needed - he needed to be overruled. When apologies were dictated from Boston during the Luis Suarez affair, it was a belated reaction to a situation that had escalated out of control.
Fulham's Clint Dempsey celebrates scoring against West Brom
PA PhotosClint Dempsey has not featured for Fulham this season having refused to play
The problem was not that Dalglish had too little power, but too much. Yet had FSG parachuted someone in from America to run the club, the interpretation would be that they were interfering. Now the call from the pressure group Spirit of Shankly is for them to appoint a Merseyside-based chief executive. They are sentiments many share but, were FSG to accede, it may lead to a militant faction making demand after demand.
As it is, apart from vetoing a deal for Dempsey, FSG have given their appointments licence to act as they will and room for manoeuvre. At Rodgers' wish, their plans to install a director of football this summer were shelved. He, too, is largely able to run the club his way. But if Henry takes advice from others on players' valuations, is it any wonder given the way Dalglish and Damien Comolli paid over the odds for average talents?
Yet while Rodgers has not been granted the spending power afforded to his predecessor, the demands are also lower. A top-four finish was the principal objective last season but Henry has said that failure to secure Champions League football will not be grounds for dismissal for Rodgers. This is entirely reasonable.
Their broader principles, of assembling a young group of players, with an intelligent recruitment policy focused on identifying talent and a manager with the skill to turn them into a competitive, attractive team, make sense. In the case of Dempsey, FSG should have been more flexible.
But, as Henry said in his letter, it is a learning process for them. In particular, they are learning that they can't please all of the people all of the time. Or even a majority of the people most of the time.

Wednesday, September 5, 2012

Do Liverpool Have Enough Goals In Them?

http://tomkinstimes.com/2012/08/do-liverpool-have-enough-goals-in-them/


Posted on August 31st, 2012
Posted by by Paul Tomkins
By Paul Tomkins.
It’s been a fairly fascinating transfer window all round, with surprising action across the top clubs, but for Reds it ends on a bum note: no new striker. Thankfully, it also ends with Daniel Agger still at the club, so it’s not been all bad. Indeed, in terms of the players actually brought in, Liverpool appear to have spent well.
But have they sold well? And have they made a mistake in terms of selling before buying, and failing to bring in a new striker? No one wants deficit spending, but when the manager says he needs a striker and then one doesn’t arrive, questions will be asked.
First of all, it’s worth pointing out that with Brendan Rodgers’ philosophy differing slightly from previous Liverpool managers, some players have been sold or loaned out not because they aren’t good footballers, but because they’re not the right type of footballer.
For instance, Andy Carroll is not the most mobile, and likes a certain kind of service; Rodgers wants a more patient approach. Carroll will almost certainly flourish under the far more direct approach of Sam Allardyce, who also spends a lot of time on set-pieces, when Rodgers’ training methods revolve more about honing passing movements.
Then there’s Charlie Adam, who does indeed possess a sweet left foot, is deceptively fit, deceptively good at dribbling, and also deceptively tall (6’2”). But he is prone to showing off, with silly passes, and though the stats show that he covers a lot of ground, is fairly slow, and just bundles into opposition players. (Also, how many times did he make a forward central run with the ball, with runners left and right, and just blast a shot into the opposition defenders?)
He probably needs to feel like the midfield alpha male, whereas at Liverpool he was merely gamma. His famed set-pieces only work when he’s confident enough to beat the first man, and at Liverpool it’s easy to lose your mojo due to expectations. Also, at Stoke, Tony Pulis will obviously spend a lot more time organising the taking of corners, given their dead-ball mindset.
Both Carroll and Adam will now be at clubs that value their strengths, and where their weaknesses will not be as obvious. In purchasing them, Liverpool had sought to utilise their strengths, but a) the players had found it harder to replicate them under the harsher spotlight, and b) the approach has since changed.
Jay Spearing has also left, on a season-long loan to Bolton. He’s a decent, hard-working player, but not really Liverpool FC first-team standard; particularly as the Reds are once again tapping the market for top-rate players in central midfield. Spearing got overhyped a few years back because it was seen that the “rubbish” foreigner (Lucas) was holding him back. Thankfully common sense soon prevailed.
In many ways, FSG have fallen into many of the traps they consciously set out to avoid. They knew at the outset that sacking managers was a costly business, and that’s why the wanted to hold on to Roy Hodgson until the summer of 2011, and replace him at a more convenient time. (Alas, results, and attendances, started getting catastrophic.)
Dalglish, seen only as a temporary measure 18 months ago, initially did so well with the players he inherited (plus Luis Suarez) that it would have been impossible to not give him the full-time job; and yet, with a couple of minor exceptions, the players he and Comolli bought last summer proved to be poor value for money, and the league form slipped back to just a fraction better than it was under Hodgson (pro rata 48 points; last season 52 points).
This is the clean slate FSG dreamed of, but it’s come by falling foul to the “new managers waste money” section of Soccernomics. Every time you change the boss, new ideas mean new players. No manager sets out to waste money, but it’s a byproduct of the process.
This is Liverpool’s fourth new direction in four years (one of which, under Hodgson, was hard reverse), although the shape and tactics – central midfield three, attacking full-backs, high pressing – are now closer to where we were when Benítez was in charge. It’s been four years getting back to where the team was, albeit a lot still needs to be proven in terms quality and returning to the top four.
On the surface, Rodgers hasn’t wasted any money as yet; the players bought, and the fees paid this summer, seem pretty sensible. But a side effect is that his ideas have arguably wiped value off players who do not fit his system. His style of play is so well known, and so inflexible (not in and of itself, but in his adherence to it), that people were talking about a “Rodgers type of player” and, of course, those who weren’t.
The one big benefit from loaning Andy Carroll is that he’s in the shop window, playing regular football in a team that suits his style. Instead of his value diminishing on the Liverpool bench, he has the chance to score 20 goals and be valued at £20m in 2013. If that happens, that’s money to reinvest. In the meantime, it saves about £4m in wages and brings in a £1m loan fee.
However, in other ways, letting Andy Carroll go out on loan is an incredibly strange one, especially without a replacement. It leaves a bloody big hole in the striking roster. Loaning out an expensive international striker without first having secured – even if only in principle – a replacement seems somewhat reckless from the outside; especially as goalscoring proficiency was the major flaw last season. Liverpool have also lost a plan B in the process.
While Carroll is flawed, and clearly not everyone’s cup of tea, he is, at least, aPremier League-class forward. He can do some type of job. Beyond that, there’s Adam Morgan and Samed Yesil – two 18-year-olds who, to date, have proved nothing beyond getting one start in professional football.
Kuyt’s default role was as a striker, and so too was Bellamy’s. Both have left. Now Carroll has, too. That’s three international strikers offloaded in a short space of time. Kuyt, at 32, and Bellamy, at 33, would only have represented short-term cover, but with Kuyt free to leave for £1m (and unlikely to get the kind of three-year contract at Liverpool that he received from Fenerbahce), and Bellamy desperate to be at home with his family, it wasn’t as if the Reds had complete control of these situations. But could more have been done to replace them?
Losing Maxi under similar circumstances meant three players capable of 10+ goals a season were lost. While it’s almost certain that not all three would have been retained, one or two might have been kept on. Liverpool will now be without the scorers of more than half of their goals over the past two seasons.
The signing of young striker Samed Yesil is a promising one, making him the second Turkish-descended German to sign this summer, after Nuri Sahin. (In a minor coup, Yesil’s deal was highlighted on TTT the day before it broke in the media.) He has an excellent youth pedigree; the 18-year-old, who played for the Bayer Leverkusen first team aged 17, is a wiry, mobile front-man with an eye for goal. But it could be a good 12 months before he’s pushing for a place in the side.
By contrast, Sahin is a shoo-in. TTT’s Andrew Beasley makes several good points on the young midfielder:
We’ve already seen that Joe Allen is in the Maschareno mould of the busy, diminutive, harrying midfielder – with perhaps a bit less bite, but a better passing accuracy. Under Benítez it was the strongest area of the team (and squad), and now it’s fair to say that with Allen, Lucas, Gerrard and Sahin, Liverpool have four top-class performers, plus Jordan Henderson in reserve. But the weakest area under Rafa was often strength in depth up front, and that looks the case now.
Raheem Sterling’s rapid ascent means that that’s one less attacking position to worry about, but as a youngster he’ll most likely blow hot and cold; right now, despite his great talent, he’s running on adrenaline. He has a good goalscoring record for a winger at youth level, but it often takes players a good couple of years to replicate their youth form, given the big step-up involved.
The pursuit of Clint Dempsey made sense, providing the fee was in keeping with his age. (Our TPI rule of thumb is that the transfer value of a player aged 29 is roughly half of someone aged 27 or 28. Value diminishes sharply at that point.) Having said that, once Liverpool had arguably offloaded too many strikers, then the individual fee for a single player is not the issue; it becomes the cost of what he might otherwise have brought. The day seemed set up to be all about Dempsey, but in the end it was a damp squib.
The excellent Fulham writer Richard Allen discusses the rise of the American here. The attacking midfielder-cum-striker has scored 50 goals for Fulham: “10 with his left; 25 with his right, 12 with his head and, entirely summing the man up, three with ‘other’.”
According to some, Dempsey is a bit arrogant, but depending on how that’s channelled (is it simply supreme confidence or an ego out of control?), it can be good at a big club, where being shy and retiring can suggest an ability to be overwhelmed. Self belief is needed, but within reason.
The most interesting thing is how his Premier League goals’ tally has moved from 7 to 12 to 17 in the space of three seasons (and from 9 to 12 to 23 in all competitions), each time having played between 42 and 46 games. That suggests a player on the rise, and also, one who has barely missed a game since arriving in 2007. His international scoring record has also improved, with nine goals in his last 18 games, having taken 35 games to net his first nine, and with the 32 games in the middle resulting in 10 goals.
According to Allen on The Craven Cottage Newsround, Dempsey has simply become more efficient, wasting fewer shots in the hunt for goals. (Maybe there’s hope for Suarez yet? – mind you, he’d get 60 a season if he could shoot straight.) Dempsey has also stopped shooting from miles outside the box, although, as Allen notes, 58% of his long shots were on target.
All this, and definite interest from Liverpool, but not enough to push them over the edge to pay a fee that it seems Aston Villa and Spurs were prepared to meet. Liverpool were burned 18 months ago by paying too much on deadline day, but this time they arguably paid too little. Having lost out to Spurs with a goalscoring midfield in Gylfi Sigurðsson, this time Liverpool appear to have handed them Dempsey on a plate over an apparent quibble of £1m, and been left empty handed in terms of striking reinforcements. (Quite whose fault this is, I have no idea. FSG? Ian Ayre? Brendan Rodgers?).
Goals
So, with the failure to land Dempsey, have Liverpool got enough goals in them? It’s possible, but it looks far from certain. The good news is that I’d be shocked if Suarez doesn’t get 20 goals this season; for all his missed chances, he’s scored in each of his last two games, and he creates so much for himself that the law of averages suggests a better return.
Fabio Borini should be capable of reaching 15, given his movement and the positions he takes up, and also the ruthlessness of his finishing at Swansea and Roma. But right now, despite timing his runs really well, he can hover a bit too far from the box at times, and is grappling with the kind of uncertainty new strikers can suffer in front of goal. He didn’t score for Roma until October, then had to wait until January, from which point he scored eight goals in ten games.
A great unknown is just how many goals Steven Gerrard has left in him. At his peak, between 2007 and 2009, he was scoring a goal virtually every two games, and was around the same ratio in 2005/06. However, in his last three seasons, plus adding the start of this, it’s down to a goal every 3.8 games. He’ll probably take the penalties, and that will guarantee at least five or six goals, but will he add 15 more from open play, in the way he used to? It seems highly unlikely. At this stage, 10-15 in a whole season, including penalties, seems realistic.
If he plays enough minutes, Sterling should be able to add five as he feels he way around first team football (although he seems to have the potential of someone who’ll average 15-20 in a few years’ time). Sahin averaged around five a season in his last two years at Dortmund, which is decent enough for a deep-lying playmaker.
Given that he has even more licence to get forward, Glen Johnson should also be capable of five. Wherever he plays, Stewart Downing should be registering three-to-five; at least he already has one. Between them Skrtel and Agger (with maybe a nod from Coates) should be able to notch six in all competitions. (With it being around 200 games since Jamie Carragher’s last goal, it’s fair to say that he won’t be relied upon.)
Like Lucas, Joe Allen might be on for one or two if the wind is right. Elsewhere in the squad, Joe Cole (if he’s ever fit), Jordan Henderson and Jonjo Shelvey are capable of weighing in with at least five or six between them, with the two youngsters likely to translate their lower-level scoring feats to a higher level as they mature.
(Henderson scored four in 21 England U21 games; Shelvey managed nine goals in 26 Championship games spread across Charlton and Blackpool as a teenager, and notched eight in 17 games for England youth teams. They can score goals, but as yet, not enough to bank on. And of course, they may barely play.)
All in all I make it, at best, around 70-80 goals from the first XI in all competitions, and possibly only 50 in the league. That’s not a massive amount, and is perhaps being very generous (although players can always surprise us, and improve upon previous tallies). But beyond that XI, there’s probably not a lot to rely on. The rest might add 10-15 goals, but in all likelihood, one of the first XI will under-deliver in the box.
Oussama Assaidi could be key; he is the unknown quantity in terms of scoring goals in England. He might be a revelation; but frankly, unless others start hitting their targets, he may need to be.
While there doesn’t appear to be enough goals, it needn’t be too big a problem if the team keeps clean sheets and the Reds score just enough to win games. Right now, however, the playing style is leading to numerous errors at the back, although hopefully that’s merely symptomatic of teething problems, and no more.
It’s important to remember that this is a long-term project. Brendan Rodgers does not look the type to panic, and he will try to bring in hungry players. He knows how to get the best out of young players, although the pressure at Liverpool may make it harder than it was at Swansea, especially if results don’t go his way.
But if the Reds fail to score enough goals, questions will rightly be asked (even if we’ve no way of knowing whether or not the players who weren’t brought inwould have done better). Transitions can be made all the harder if certain components of the team aren’t functioning correctly, and if the team remains too distant from the top four, then attracting players down the line can become harder. It becomes catch-22.
However, if all goes well – with Liverpool controlling games with style from the centre of the park and turning possession into points – then everyone at the club will believe that they got most decisions right this summer. As ever, no-one knows in advance exactly how it will play out….

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Liverpool FC: The Next Manager: The Return of Rafa Banitez?

He is always my first choice. Just hope Henry will appoint him to return to turn Liverpool FC into the power house like what he did during the first 5 years in charge and given sufficient power to control what supposed to be controlled, including Players............
Rafael Benitez, Unemployed
107109062_display_image
This is the man who had a successful, long career with the Reds that ended under controversial circumstances about two seasons earlier.
In his six-year spell with the Reds, this man led Liverpool to an unprecedented Champions League triumph over AC Milan in 2005 after having trailed the Italian side, 3-0, at halftime.
An FA Cup trophy came in the next season, and he followed it up by guiding the Reds to another Champions League final the following season.
This is the same man who led a strong chase of the Premier League title in 2009, fighting against the tide and Alex Ferguson’s mind games, only to fall short to Man United after having accumulated 86 points.
This is the man who got the sack from the Liverpool hot seat during the summer of 2010. Former owners Hicks and Gillett came under much criticism for their decision to remove this man as head coach of Liverpool.
A six-month spell at Inter Milan followed, and to this day, this man remains unemployed.
This is the man who still resides at Merseyside and is the firm fan favorite to replace the fallen king of Anfield.

Liverpool FC: Next Manager

Move on....

The next Manager...

My Choice? Need to say much?

Rafa Banitez, whoelse...


Dalglish sacked: My View

Dalglish was "sacked" or better way to say this, part with LFC....

This man, KOP call him the King, and he have my total respect, it is sad that he leave the club this way....

Just wish him all the best and well.

Dalglish sacked: Dalglish an appointment out of time


By Richard Jolly
(Archive)
"You want to move the club forward back to where it was before" - Kenny Dalglish, April 2012.
Dalglish's second coming could not replicate the glory of his previous regime
GettyImagesDalglish's second coming could not replicate the glory of his previous regime
The concept of the past being Liverpool's future was one of the contradictions of Kenny Dalglish's second coming. Once the finest of strikers, he assembled a side that struggled to score. The Kop's darling managed a team who sent their supporters home frustrated by their inability to win at home. His charges were, until an awful first hour in the FA Cup final, terrific in the knockout competitions but, by Anfield's high standards, terrible in the league. A man who can be funny, even charming, in private proved needlessly hostile and invariably awkward in public.
A unifying figure when he returned, initially as caretaker manager, 16 months ago, had become divisive. Among his adherents, Dalglish was the answer, a galvanising force who had been let down by Damien Comolli and underperforming players and suffered at the whims of the woodwork, opposing goalkeepers and the Football Association.
For others, especially outside Anfield, he was the problem, crying misfortune instead of accepting Liverpool's failings, a manager whose policy of buying British had been a costly catastrophe and whose results, once so encouraging, deteriorated to the level that only Aston Villa, Blackburn and Wolves took fewer points in 2012.
"Disappointing" was the word owner John W Henry diplomatically used. It was an understandable understatement. The last 19 league games have yielded only 18 points. That should be unacceptable for Liverpool, just as eighth place, 47 goals and 52 points are nowhere near good enough. Hence the dispassionate decision taken in Boston. If the sacked manager's name were not Kenny Dalglish, this may have been uncontroversial.
Instead, it is the bravest move Fenway Sports Group could have made. Dalglish, rightly, commands huge loyalty at Anfield; many have memories of the Scot delivering victory in the 1978 European Cup final; still more, and still more significantly, recall the humanity, humility and dignity he displayed after the Hillsborough disaster. His is a greatness that extends beyond 172 goals or 515 games in a red shirt.
Pity, then, the successor who has to compete with a legend. Unless the next manager gets immediate results, the Dalglish diehards will call for the return of their King. They will be disappointed: American owners have shown they are Republicans. A Boston Tea Party has led to their declaration of independence from the Merseyside royalists. New World sensibilities have been imposed on a traditional club.
And as director of football Damien Comolli, head of sports science Peter Brukner and director of communications Ian Cotton had already discovered, they are ruthless. The level of FSG's disappointment with Liverpool's season should be obvious, the feeling that they deem the last 12 months a wasted year very clear.
Dalglish has been guilty of a series of misjudgements, both major and minor, over a troubled year. The mishandling of the Luis Suarez affair damaged the club's reputation and the team's season. His prickly persona was more of an issue in an age of 24-hour rolling sports coverage than it was in the analogue days of the 1980s; a man who, as Henry said, "personifies everything that is good about Liverpool" contrived to alienate and annoy in front of a camera.
His transfer dealings made it hard for FSG to trust Dalglish with funds this summer. Given the chance to perform a high-budget overhaul, he compiled a squad lacking a reasonable alternative to Lucas as a defensive midfielder or a clinical finisher. It was a group where almost all the finest performers were already at Anfield, the majority of the weak links the recent arrivals. There were too few signs that enough were playing for the manager in a dispiriting end to the campaign.
Meanwhile, the excessive fees paid for Stewart Downing, Jordan Henderson and Charlie Adam reflect poorly on Comolli. But the actual assessment that they had the talent and temperament Liverpool demand was the manager's mistake; they formed part of the case for the prosecution of Dalglish. The question has to be posed if the 61-year-old has the knowledge of foreign football required to recruit abroad; until comparatively recently, during his extended break from the frontline, he was still confusing two Premier League strikers with similar names but of very different capabilities.
Liverpool's transfer business in the summer of 2011 was not nearly good enough
GettyImagesLiverpool's transfer business in the summer of 2011 was not nearly good enough
Some complained that Dalglish had too little power; arguably he had too much. The manager was reluctant to heed advice - wearing the Suarez T-shirt was a particularly imprudent move - and at times his instincts betrayed him. For him, his way and the Liverpool Way were one and the same.
And yet this was not the 'Liverpool Way'. That was an incomparable tradition of winning. This was their poorest league season in half a century and came in an era when, unless in exceptional circumstances, the Premier League and the Champions League are the true barometers of progress.
After initial improvement when Dalglish replaced Roy Hodgson, Liverpool regressed. After a year of expensive underachievement, they are further away from contention in May 2012 than they were in May 2011. And so Fenway Sports Group will take a very different approach, almost certainly targeting a younger, more progressive manager. The sense of sadness that a job Dalglish had wanted to regain for 20 years should be removed from him after one should not disguise the necessity of a change at the helm. This is no time for sentiment.
Dalglish, the perfect appointment in 1985, was an imperfect choice forced upon the owners, 26 years later. The game had changed, and he proved a man out of time. Liverpool have made a decision to part company with their glorious past. The nostalgia trip is over. Now they have to accelerate into the future.
• Follow Richard Jolly on Twitter @RichJolly

Friday, April 27, 2012

净选盟Q&A

http://zeusleaveolympus.blogspot.com/2012/04/q.html

警告:这一篇会56看到你眼花花。。。

1.净选盟被在野党骑劫/利用?
首先,净选盟是一个要求选举干净、公平的非政府组织。
大马的不公平选举制度(单单是选区划分就很够力了),造成在野党的得票含金量远远比执政党的来的低
同样的得票率,却因为选区划分的不公平,造成在野党和国阵不同的议席获得率。
所以,在野党是大马选举不公平的受害者,在本身深受其害之下,所以会对净选盟的诉求给予大力支持。
净选盟曾经对执政党和在野党双方伸出邀
请,但国阵代表好像对此嗤之以鼻,唯有在野党员给予支持;
现在却反过来攻击净选盟为在野党的棋子,就有欠公平了。
就好比各国政府如果实施富人税,贫穷的老百姓一定无任欢迎,但富有的人就一定会跳出来反对;
原因很简单,既得利益者都会在维护自己的利益下,采取相当的立场。
看回净选盟的诉求,分析如果净选盟的诉求被全部真正落实,谁的损失大、谁获益多
就不难理解为什么执政党完全站在人民的对立面了。
(在野党“利用”选民的请看这一篇:请够够力的利用我吧!
2.净选盟是在野党捞取选票的舞台
我个人不否认可能有一部分的在野党议员,希望借助集会的声势,冲击国阵政府的信用,从而在来届大选换取更多选票。
但这并不能否决集会的诉求。
我不能因为在救华教大会里,可能有某些投机分子把它当作宣传自己个人形象或政纲的平台,从而否决华教的诉求。
再者,我也不能因为政府的某项改革,里面含有捞取选票之嫌,而完全否决了政府的努力。
如果有天首相愿意和华教界代表认真讨论独中问题,你能因为首相的动机里有捞取华裔选票之嫌(不要告诉我没有),
而否决、杯葛这次的见面会吗?
同理,只要净选盟和绿色盛会的要求是言之有物,我们都不能因为有一部分的在野党议员的投机心理而完全否决它。

3.如果选举不干净,民联怎么可能赢得5州政权
这个说法好像很有道理。
那我是否可以说:
如果你说大马治安不好,那为什么你今天晚上还能活着回家?
如果你讲大马经济不好,那为什么到了今天你还没有饿死”?
如果你说大马警方贪污滥权,那为什么到了今天你没有被警方K过?
或者来个更贴切的比喻,早在几年前周星驰的电影《少林足球》,我想大家都有看过吧?
在电影的决赛里,星爷领衔的少林足球队和谢贤带领的魔鬼队进行了一场激烈的比赛。
虽然在那一场比赛,少林足球队战胜了魔鬼队,但你会说那是一场公平的比赛吗?
你会说,“如果比赛不公平,那星爷怎么可能赢得比赛”吗?
不会,你依然会认为那场比赛不公平。
为什么?你可以举出裁判的不公平、对方球员可以移动球门、魔鬼队可以打人而不被处罚等理由。
同样的,我们认为选举不公,并非以民联或国阵胜负来定义。
我们认为选举不公,
是因为选区划分的不公平、幽灵选民、邮寄选票的幽魂、竞选期的不足、在野党在媒体宣传上的劣势等等原因,
才有此结论,才有此诉求、才有此游行的。
4.上街解决了问题吗?集会有效吗?政府会听你的吗?
老实说,如果你问我上街集会是否可以改变大马的所有问题?集会的有效性有几高?和政府是否会向人民低头?等问题,
我会老实地告诉你,其实我也不是很确定。
而且根据我对大马政府的认识,他们是不会轻易向人民低头的。
净选盟和绿色盛会的诉求只是各一个,但大马的问题却有许多,一场集会是不可能解决我国所有的问题。
净选盟只是要求一个公平的选举制度,绿色盛会只是要求Lynas公司撤离大马的稀土厂。
我国的其他问题,如要解决,需要每个人的再往后的日子里在自己的岗位里继续努力,直到事情办好的一刻。
每一件事情的办好,都需要一步一脚印地踏出去。
只是踏出第一步,当然不可能到达目的地,但如果连第一步都还没踏出,却在那里问
“走一步又怎样?走一步又不能到达目的地!”,那就真的永远原地踏步了。
另外虽然知道政府不会轻易向我们低头,但我们还是要上街。
你不站出来,就会被政府诠释为“以沉默抗议净选盟”或“以沉默默许政府行为”的选民。
套句网络里的话,
“在童话故事里,有着精灵打大怪兽的故事。但童话告诉我们,不是这个世界上有精灵,而是大怪兽是可以被打败的。”
同样的,我们站出来,是为了要告诉他们:
“虽然你们拥有了整个国家机关的力量,而我们除了一颗爱护这篇国土的热心以外几乎一无所有,
但如果你打算鱼肉我们,把我们的生命置之不顾,我们全部还是会站出来,和你干过的”。

在未来的日子里,你也不好意思告诉你的孩子,sad ending的童话故事吧?

5.集会?如果下次又有不满,又集会吗?要集到什么时候?
很多人会问,“出席了净选盟又怎样?如果以后又有问题,又要集会吗?要集会到什么时候?”
对,如果以后“又有问题”,我们还是会“再举行集会”。
为什么你会对一而又而再的集会感到反感,却不对造成这些集会不断出现的问题,感到愤怒呢?
国家没有严重的问题,又怎么会有这么多集会呢?
如果天下太平,国泰民安,试问有谁又这么得空、有那个闲情跑出来集会呢?
想一想,如果太平盛世,不管在野党再如何“煽动选民、骑劫集会”,也不可能有人肯跑出来集会吧?
连一贯以政治冷漠而闻名的大马人、城市人,都不惜舟车劳顿地跑出来参与集会,你就可以知道我们国家的“问题”之严重性了。
对于那些想知道“集会会有效吗?要集到什么时候?”的人,我以话剧《切·格瓦拉》的台词来回答吧:
不要问正义事业有没有明天,先问人间不平今天还在不在?