FOOTBALL dredges up extreme views from some fans, and Liverpool supporters are no exception, writes PAUL McCABE. We are guilty of overreacting to events, underestimating the abilities of some talents at the club and generally being irrational. Maybe it is the age of social media or the 24 hours sports news cycle, but there does feel like there is a collective impatience — a search for blame and “I told you so!” gloating when things don’t go so well.
With age, I am starting to see people, events and life in general in a more balanced way. This involves taking as considered a view as possible, trying to see things from a range of perspectives (both extremes and settling somewhere in between), questioning my assumptions and using empathy rather than blame. With football, though, it is still difficult. I am still rationally irrational — still caught up in the emotion, the hysteria, the highs and the lows.
It is a form of mental torture (and perhaps mild insanity) to let the fortunes of a group of multi-millionaires and the people overseeing them dictate your mood, yet many of us do just that. Irrational thought is synonymous with being a fan (short for “fanatic”, let us not forget) devotee or political activist. We choose this, and most of us know that it is not always beneficial to our mental well-being. Depending on the performance of something over which you have no direct control, and where there are so many volatile elements — whether it is a football team, the economy or a company’s share price — still drives many people to the point of distraction.
Keeping that in mind, I thought it would be worthwhile to explore the different thinking styles fans employ. This is not to judge or accuse, but more to acknowledge that we engage in fallacious thinking and blinkered arguments a lot. It is more of a survival guide. I do all of these myself, and sometimes will run through this emotional gamut within a 90-minute match, let alone a 38-game league campaign.
1: Confirmation Bias
Confirmation bias is when you are already convinced of someone’s ability, intention or character, and then see everything that happens through that filter. Any evidence to the contrary will be discounted.
An example would be those who see Brendan Rodgers as a “fraud”. So a season where the club finished second in the league with a record number of goals scored was explained away as “just lucky” and a season when the club generally fared poorly and finished sixth is meant to support the hypothesis. Those who cling to this belief see everything Rodgers does in that context:
- He speaks a lot, so he is a “fraud”
- He has not said anything for a while, so he is clearly a “fraud”
- He has kept Colin Pascoe, but ditched Mike Marsh: he is a “fraud”
- Oh wait, now Pascoe has gone too: erm, “fraud”.
The characteristic of “fraud” (“a person who makes deceitful pretenses”) has not been adequately explained in the context of a manager who has been involved in and studied the game for many years and managed Liverpool for three.
Similarly, those who see Brendan Rodgers as a gifted manager will couch disappointing decisions or results as not being the fault of the manager, but other forces — be it bad luck, an unrealistic mandate or being undermined by political forces.
Bias also happens with players. If a player is not rated by the critic, good performances will be described as a “purple patch” and bad performances will be filed in the “see? Told you so!” folder. People have already formed their opinion and, instead of trying to question their assumption, they generally see everything with that opinion as being the only possible explanation.
The owners do not escape this either. In some quarters, there is a sense that FSG “don’t care enough” and those in their employ lack ambition or that the club is “clueless” in the transfer market. Maybe they do not “care” in the way some fans might prefer, but they are, by their own admission, businessmen, not fans of football.
In this broad view, people who have worked in business, football and sports ownership are collectively “clueless.” This is brought up when a coveted player does not sign or the club spends too much on a player that is not as well-regarded by many in the fanbase. It is strange that, when things are not going well, the default position is that those in charge are considered “clueless”, “idiots”, “frauds” and it is as though no other possibility exists.
So, if the view is that the club is “clueless in the market”, any evidence (recouped sales or acquisitions that are generally well-received) that might hint at the contrary is dismissed. It simply slips by that you do not sign a slew of £20m+ talents, develop the stadium, dramatically bolster the club’s commercial presence and still…“lack ambition.”
2: False Equivalance/Analogy
These fallacies occur when we describe a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. It happens so casually that it usually just skips past us. For example, it happened quite a lot when FSG (then NESV) took over the club, as they were unfairly compared to Hicks and Gillett — merely by virtue of also being American businessmen.
We do this a lot during the transfer window. Example: player X scored 30 goals for Team Y, and they were rubbish, so imagine how good he will be and how many he will score in a team like ours. It is often more in hope, but it rarely pans out like that, and players who did well in a comparatively weak team are just as likely to shrink or grow when transferred to a team with better depth or talent levels.
We can cling to stats, prophesise about fantasy formations and (to varying degrees) apply false equivalence. It is pretty much unavoidable, as none of us can see the future and we can use stats to equally damn a player, owner or manager as we could to praise them. It is a numbers-centric world and you can spin the digits and cook the books to support your bias.
I have seen it with reference to Firmino too, with Brendan Rodgers saying how he enjoys working with South American players. There have already been allusions to Suarez. No pressure, then! There have been some highly-talented South American players who did not exactly take the Premier League by storm (Robinho, Crespo, Veron in previous times and Cuadrado, Falcao and Di Maria last season).
No two transfers or set of circumstances are the same. Being a success at a club in tangible terms (e.g. goals, assists, silverware, earning the respect of peers) comes down to the individual and, to some degree, the manager bringing out the best in him.
The game is full of lazy stereotypes and snapshot generalisations. Whether or not a signing works out has less to do with where he was born, and more to do with talent, how willing he is to improve and how he fits into the structure. There are so many variables, some intangible, involved in making a transfer successful. These include neglected aspects like the mindset of the player, how he is embraced by the fanbase (and what that means to him) and how he and his family settles into the city. These are the human aspects of a transfer and will not feature on the Opta stats.
This bias towards “foreign buying” conveniently overlooks the numerous signings from overseas which have simply not worked out (sometimes for similar reasons to their British counterparts) over the years. These are deleted from memory and will occasionally be excused as the “manager never had faith in them” with no regard for the question of why that might be.
Liverpool’s policy of spending a lot on English talent has attracted criticism — and that probably seems fair if you use Stewart Downing and Andy Carroll as the poster boys for this “failed policy” — but I think success stories like Daniel Sturridge and Jordan Henderson suggest it is never as simple as “just buy foreign.” Historically, Liverpool have signed some brilliant talents from within the English leagues — Gary McAllister, John Barnes, Peter Beardsley, Ian Rush, take your pick. Even at that, citing past counter-examples is false equivalence, as no two talents or situations are exactly the same.
Too many Liverpool fans cling to past regimes, using previous events to justify or condemn what is happening now. It is conducive to mental torture, and it is also a fallacy. We do this optimistically (“Shankly had a couple of lean years too”) to sheer pessimism (“If Rodgers continues on his path, we’ll be mid-table in no time!”). Digging up old, out-of-context quotes from legendary figures does not justify anything. Sometimes it is done to inspire hope, but other times it lazily suggests that another individual would have dealt with a current situation differently.
Just to create a bit of balance here, we do tend to use false equivalence when we argue for a manager to be retained or fired. Those who favour giving Brendan Rodgers more time will point to Arsenal and United being rewarded by keeping Arsene Wenger and Alex Ferguson. They point to longevity bringing stability and success. Equally, though, those who believe that managers should be axed the minute things start to fall below expectation point to the fear of stagnation and of not winning anything again. It is not an exact science.
3: “Catastrophising”
We turn a lot of negative situations, results and events into outright catastrophes. In actual fact, they are just events. An example of this would be when Liverpool were on that terrible run at the start of last season. A lot of fans were writing and parroting words along the lines of “that’s it! We’re going backwards! Rodgers OUT!” It crops up after every defeat.
It presupposes that things simply cannot get better, that players will not improve and that the manager is incapable of putting things right. Some people do believe this, of course. This also leads to the straw man argument: when someone rationally states that things might be better than the commenter or critic described, they might be met with “So, you’re happy that we’re basically turning into Norwich?!”
You see this at the match or in the pub as well — if someone is not kicking over a table, or frothing at the mouth at a bad decision, they “don’t care.” They must not care, after all, as “caring” in football has become tied to outbursts, rage and mild aggression. In reality, there are different types of showing you care and different ways of thinking about and responding to events.
Sometimes managers are categorised based on how they react to events. If they are a bit more detached and reflective like Rafa Benitez, the media will write them off as aloof or “not caring enough”. What a catastrophe it is not to throw your gilet on the pitch, headbutt the ref or get sent to the stands for a foul-mouthed tirade. In truth, while the air is invariably blue when I am watching Liverpool play live (due to sheer nervous energy), there is a real value in being more restrained and allowing yourself to think things through — in everyday life, as well as football.
“Catastrophising” is rarely presented in any real context. By its very nature, it is borne of irrational thinking. Doom is clearly the only outcome — “we’re becoming another West Brom, lads!” This is usually followed up with something mildly apocalyptic like “might as well get Big Sam in!” And if the manager is not swearing at the media, he must “lack passion”.
When we engage in this limited style of thinking, we rarely stop to put the result or event in its proper context. Every team will lose, and every club will miss out on a signing they pursued or, indeed, not even pursue a signing that some deem essential.
“Catastophising” also overlooks the difficulties of running a huge enterprise like Liverpool Football Club. Complex problems are often met with simple requests: sack the manager and “sign Reus!”. Failure to do so is seen as a catastrophe. Yet firing a manager involves blueprints being ripped up, money being paid out, staff being laid off and new plans being drawn up. Signing a player is not like going to the supermarket. Players are not just sitting on shelves waiting to be bought, and sometimes they are unaffordable, unattainable or simply want to stay put.
Disappointment shows up for every team and club, of course, but some Liverpool fans seem to see certain events in the context of a downward spiral. This is where the confirmation bias kicks in: if you already believe it, you will find evidence for it everywhere. This is particularly true when Liverpool sign a player from a smaller club (“why are our rivals not after him?!”) and ignores the fact that not every signing can be world-class. Indeed, not every successful team has been full of world-class players: there has to be a balance of skill, personality, desire and affordability.
4: (Blind) optimism
4: (Blind) optimismAgain, by its very nature, blind optimism is borne of irrational thought. How could you look at a situation fairly if you are “blind”? Nobody really knows anything for sure, but for 25 years and counting I have remained blindly optimistic that “THIS is the year!”. Nevertheless, in my experience, it is infinitely more fun to be around someone who is optimistic than someone who is full of doom and gloom.
A situation just IS. Whether you bring enthusiasm or pessimism to an event, the event itself is unlikely to change. Only your experience of the event will be different. Those who tend towards optimism will get excited when things are going well, enjoy the moment, and savour the occasion, while more pessimistic thinkers are likely to enjoy the moment to a lesser extent and temper it with “well, wait until it all goes wrong again!” Things will go wrong, but you cannot fully enjoy life or football if you are always worrying about darker days ahead. It is equivalent to saying: “I can’t enjoy today, because I know tomorrow is going to be shit.” You can and, really, you do not.
Blind optimism is probably what I feel about the signing of Christian Benteke. I do not see how he fits in, but I am optimistic, merely because it is not exactly a catastrophe. If your club is signing a proven goal scorer for a relatively high price, there are generally more things over which to be optimistic about than pessimistic.
Brendan Rodgers clearly sees something in Benteke. It clearly is not a panic buy. Conversely, it may not work out, but rather than ready the “I told you so!” rebuke, I will accept that these things happen. We all have theories and ideas and, whether you are doing cartwheels (metaphorically or literally) over a signing or fuming with disdain, it does not change what is or what might be. In other words: it is happening anyway and it is simply not healthy to become enraged about something that could prove beneficial to the team’s fortunes.
5: Moving the goalposts
This ties into the “wait until it all goes wrong” style of thinking. It is actually quite entrenched in our culture, and is a big part of the political sphere. If your argument falls down or prediction does not come to fruition, you can shift it on to something else. It happens when people have already made their mind up and, regrettably in my opinion, a lot of fans seem to have written certain people at the club off before a ball is kicked on the new season.
An example of this was Liverpool in 2013-2014. Those who rated Rodgers saw the campaign as evidence that he was a very strong coach, while others moved the goalposts. Those who wanted to damn Brendan Rodgers with faint praise claimed the season was down to Suarez. Yes, it was ALL Suarez, of course. A more balanced view suggests it was down to there being no European football and, while both arguments have merit, plenty of teams have world-class talent and no European football and still fail to hit the heights Liverpool hit that season. Look no further than Manchester United last season and, yes, that IS some false equivalence for you.
We all do this to an extent. What-ifs and if-onlys. If Jurgen Klopp was hired and was not deemed an instant success, his supporters would claim he was hampered by the massive rebuilding job Rodgers left for him. Those who supported Rodgers would claim that Klopp undid all the good work, and the club had been on the verge of “turning it around.” Managers, pundits and fans “move the goalposts” frequently. You like what you like, defend what you like and you see what your biases condition you to see.
We do it with players too. As open-minded as I am with regards to Benteke, I have read some comments that, even if he scored 20 goals next season, he would be a bad signing as he might affect the way the team plays. Ifs and buts, for sure, but seems like conclusions have already been reached. The “goalpost” has been moved before he has even kicked a ball for the club. I can see a scenario where, if Liverpool did finish in the top four with Benteke scoring over 20 goals and some assists, a proportion of fans would insist he stopped the club winning the league or minimised the effectiveness of another player.
How to get over the biases
How to get over the biasesKnowing you are being biased can generally lead to a place where you are willing to challenge your unbalanced thinking. I do think it is important to set criteria (e.g. in tangible terms and other than title glory, what can be considered a “success” for Liverpool next season?) and be prepared to start afresh and see things anew. Give everyone at the club a chance and see how things unfold. Also, if you go into any venture with positive intent and looking at situations with a balanced perspective, neither cynical nor wide-eyed with optimism, you will tend to have a better appreciation of things.
I say this as much as a reminder to myself as an attempt to offer perspective, but scapegoating when things go wrong does not help anyone. Curiously enough, neither does “hindsightism”, as both reactions lead to a blame culture and undermine the reality that so many variables are involved in making a club and a team function effectively. Analyse and critique, rather than blame and finger-point. The past can be instructive, but dwelling in it is not helpful.
Undoubtedly, it is harder to be rational here. We live in 24-hour news cycle and every move is scrutinised, every flaw amplified and there always seems to be “where did it go wrong?” (never “right” incidentally) chin-stroke every day. You could debate the whys and wherefores of signings (too many, too few, the wrong ones), team selections, formations but too often a bad result can boil down to the scientific principle of “shit happens”.
There will be tough days ahead, no doubt, and the players, managers and owners will make mistakes. So too will those who succeed them. That is an inevitability in football and in life. The way to diminish hysterical and irrational thoughts is in the neglected act of starting afresh, seeing things as they really are and not constantly harking back to previous mistakes. The past is done and Liverpool can only move forward with respect for the present and hope for the future.
If you start to see things in this way, you might just enjoy the journey more.
[rpfc_recent_posts_from_category meta=”true”]
Pics: Getty/David Rawcliffe-Propaganda Photo
An interesting thesis. No argument from me, even if I disagree with some of your points.
For me, Liverpool past and Liverpool present can be summarised as Benitez and post-Benitez. I am not one of those who thought he was flawless, but he had the saving grace of quickly becoming one of us. We no longer seem to see anybody as ‘one of us’ . We thought Torres was; boasting about having Scouse kids, et al. But he wasn’t. We showed Suarez what being ‘one of us’ meant but he farted in our faces. Agger was one of us but we shunted him off. Lucas is one of us but we’ve tried to send him away, too
many times. Sterling was not one pf us, never pretended to be, and I think we basically didn’t care that he wanted out, just the way he did it.
And in my jaundiced view, Brendan Rodgers is not ‘one of us’, likely never will be. So what we and other clubs are is an assemblage of mercenaries who cone and go, taking nothing with them and leaving no mark. Winning the EPL would be nice, but nothing like the triumph we used to feel when ‘we’ were winning the league. The last ‘Liverpool’ team was managed by Rafa Benitez.
Thanks, Kevin.
I do agree with your sentiments in general. However, as much as I personally admired and “got” him, Rafa was a polarising figure. I think Rodgers does generally speak the language that Liverpool fans want to hear, even if it is sometimes construed as disingenuous, contrived or self-promoting.
People see different things in him. I could be wrong, but I see a manager who desperately wants to get it right (like others before him, of course), who has real talent as a coach but sometimes falls into the trap of believing his own hype when things are going well.
We all have our flaws; I think he is very studious and would be willing to work on anything that is preventing him from achieving the goals the majority of fans want. He’s made some blunders. Nevertheless, the best managers learn from their mistakes and they all (even the less successful ones) suffer from hubris from time to time.
I would be delighted if he won some silverware this season and led the team to the title. That goes without saying. Truth be told, if Liverpool are struggling badly by the halfway stage of the season (out of some competitions) and adrift in the league, he probably will and should be released from his contract. No arguments here on that front.
First thing Rodgers did was restore the original This is Anfield sign and the red nets he remembered vividly from the watching the Reds in the 70s-80s with his father and grandfather, both of whom were Liverpool supporters.
“Both my mum and dad both passed away in a short period of time and I can’t help but feel that as Liverpool manager I am representing them as well,” he said (when he first arrived).
“My dad was a Liverpool supporter. And so was my grandfather. That was where it all started for me.
“I was born in 1973 and in the late ‘70s I remember sitting down with them both and just talking about football.
“My dad was my biggest influence. He was my hero. That’s the difficulty of it all…”
And then Rodgers went on to have us playing the most spectacular brand of football the club has seen since the heyday of the 80s. He helped make us dream. Let’s hope he does again, now that he’s got some proper attacking options.
I really do think this is his chance now, Walter. All the cards are on the table. I really believe in him, and hope it works out. If he’s gone by Christmas, it’ll be a shame. I think he’s a great coach and hope he achieves big things at the club. If not, he’s left us some very good memories and I’m sure he’d achieve good things elsewhere.
Well written article mate.
Thanks very much, mate. Really appreciate that.
A genuine attempt at balance. Good piece on the whole, I think, but a really disappointing start.
Under confirmation bias, there are many straw man arguments and a completely disingenuous line of argument to make the targets seem illogical morons.
There are reasons many say Rodgers is a fraud; talking too much and talking too little are not among them. It wouldn’t even make sense, which is what the author wants to get across. The problem is relatively speaking no one has said it.
I’ve also never seen Rodgers being labelled a fraud because Marsh and Pascoe lost their jobs – again, another straw man. For a start, we don’t know whether Rodgers told FSG he wanted them out, or FSG told Brendan he had to change his backroom team. Keeping the manager/head coach and having a cull of coaches is an american sport concept and is rarely done in British sport.
The author’s argument also loses credibility when you consider Rodgers appointed both men (poor decisions) and replaced his friend Pascoe with his friend O’Driscoll, to widespread bewilderment even among Rodgers supporters.
Paul also writes that calling Rodgers a “……fraud has not been adequately explained.” But it has, and many times too. The people who have stated it have explained it. Adequately. To pretend otherwise is poor.
Paul has given the definition of fraud as “a person who makes deceitful pretenses.” In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
Whenever I’ve seen it stated that Brendan is a fraud, the reasons tend to be that when he had to build a team on his own (Watford and Reading) he failed. But he was successful at Swansea, because it was the players and style left behind by Roberto Martinez, and in one good year out of three at Liverpool it was down to a set freak of circumstances.These include:
-No European football due to his failure the previous season, and exits in the early stages of the cups (itself a failure), meaning complete concentration of league games
-Incredibly lucky with a lack of injuries
-Luis Suarez becoming the third best player in the world and performing to a standard better than any player in the history of LFC
-The teams who finished 1st, 2nd and 3rd the previous season all went into transition simultaneously, with new managers in Moyes, Mourinho and Pelligrini (never happened in history before)
-Moyes was a disaster for United, Chelsea had no striker all year and put out a reserve team when in title contention in late April because they chose to put all their efforts into winning the champions league, and City (who won the league) had 4 defeats by November which would stop them becoming champions in a normal year
-The overall standard of the EPL declining at a rate of knots – long gone are the days with 3 English teams in champions league semi finals
Some people have seen these things, but still would not call him a fraud were it not for his manner and the things he says. “My biggest mentor is myself.” The three envelopes. The quotes on Tottenham spending £100m and on Southampton. We have seen his many other “Brentisms” – and Brent was a fraud too.
Paul, answer me this please: When after a dire 0-0 home draw to Hull Brendan calls us “outstanding” and after a 2-2 draw away to a team with a tiny fraction of our budget he says we showed “great character,” what is that if not deception? What is that if not fraudulent?
Brendan is quick to take great credit for things when he may not have been down to whatever success. We all know the quotes. In previous seasons he’s told us all how he improved Henderson (who he wanted rid of). He makes sure he gets the acclaim. Why then does he not get the criticism when other players regress under him? Like Mignolet? We need to agree if its down to the manager or down to the player if a footballer gets better or worse. Its not on to say if a player gets better its down to Brendan but if a player gets worse its down to the player.
Even last season, when he had the not-so-revolutionary idea to put an extra man at the back when going to a 3-5-2, he had his “must be the new defensive coach” remark. He couldn’t admit that we were playing poor teams and his decision meant we scored even less. And we still ended up conceding what Brendan Rodgers teams concede – circa 50 goals per season.
He just had to sell himself on the small run we had when conceding less. He couldn’t help himself. This is the behaviour of someone incredibly insecure, which is a trait associated with being a fraud. Surely if you are confident in your abilities you don’t need to constantly sell yourself? The results would do the talking for you. Insecurity appears to be the major reason behind his decisions. It is apparent he appoints people unqualified and undeserving to ensure their immediate loyalty and obedience. He also continually picks his signings (Lovren) over vastly superior players (Sakho) because he feels the need to validate his buys over the clubs.
He also said “setting up to defend is easy.” Not for us it seems. People know league winners don’t concede 50 goals and to pretend otherwise is fraudulent.
The manager is also quick to avoid responsibility and throw other players under the bus, especially when he knows the papers will lap it up to sell more copies. Take his criticisms of Balotelli last season as an example. He chose him specifically because he knew he could fool a lot of fans who already had a low opinion of the Italian. This is the behaviour of a fraud, i.e. deceiving fans into thinking the failures are all someone else’s fault, not his, but the successes are down to him and him alone.
Then their are the people who allow Rodgers to set the narrative and give him an unbelievably easy ride they would never give to a foreign manager – the media. We all know Brendan has very good mates who are (pretend to be real) journalists. The apologist act for him and his results from the likes of James Pearce are bordering on legendary at this stage. This is another thing fans who call him a fraud regularly point to. They point to other, more successful managers to show a distinction. Rafa didn’t need to be pally pally with the media, he didn’t grant them great access like Brendan, and didn’t mind being argumentative with them, because he trusted himself to get results. Brendan, with good reason, doesn’t trust himself to get results. So just in case things aren’t going well, he butters up the journalists who will then rather write about FSG, Balotelli, the transfer committee, the banal article on Sakho’s ungainliness….anything but how the boss is performing.
When taking the job in 2012, Rodgers said “judge me after three years.” And I think the biggest reason people judge him a fraud after three years is not actually any of the above; it’s that he does not have a settled system or style of play. There is no plan, which is ten times worse than having a plan many disagree with. (Hence FSG rightfully don’t get as much criticism – like it or not they have a clearly defined plan)
When a manager is chopping and changing so much, often multiple times in the same match, it leaves him open to the accusation that he doesn’t know what he’s doing. The players look confused. He’s just hoping against hope a player will come up with a bit of magic and that something will click so that he can take credit. Which other manager does this?
What formation does he want Liverpool to play? Is it 4-3-3? Is it 4-2-3-1? Is it 4-4-2 diamond? Is it 3-5-2? How does he want Liverpool to play? Is it “death by football?” Is it with lightening counter attack? Is it a high press? We don’t know. After three years and almost £300m spent, we are still unsure.
Not many doubt Brendan Rodgers has ability. Of course he does. But so do many frauds. They know just enough and have just enough ability to get by.
These are just some of the reasons people say he is a fraud, and because he doesn’t talk enough isn’t one of them……
Having said all that, I am glad you included blind optimism. It is downright embarrassing and leads to accusations of stupidity. We don’t get slagged off by other fans for being critical, negative or grounded in reality. We get slagged off for always thinking we are going to win the league.
The attitude of fans come down to facts and your outlook on life. The first one is tricky because fans can be selective of the facts, or spin them. But many can simply see them for what they are.
Here’s a fact – the majority of our supporters believe we have had a good transfer window, yet the majority of our supporters believe we won’t finish top 4. Is that because they know Rodgers won’t get the best out of the squad and/or will not be able to stop us conceding 40+ goals, regardless of the amount we score? Some would say definitely. Some, like me, would say that’s only a part of it. Others would say it has nothing to do with Rodgers at all and more to do with the success of Aresnal, Utd, Chelsea and City.
Here’s my outlook – I’d sooner be cautious and slightly pessimistic so that when we fail I am not surprised and don’t feel as down, and when I am wrong or surprised by an upturn in form its a much bigger thrill. I’d rather that than constantly thinking and saying/writing we are going to win this or achieve that then being let down again and again.
SMACKDOWN!
Padraig,
best thing ever written on this site.
PS: Hope we win the league
slightly pessimistic!!! thank fuck for that, imagine what that post would have been like if you where a full blown pessimist.
Thanks for your post, Padraig.
I appreciate where you’re coming from but, in all honesty, I HAVE read those arguments (on social media, replies to articles and on forums) in reference to BR being a “fraud.” I’ve seen others – the weight loss, the tan, the quotes, reported issues in his personal life, what players have said about him etc. I could have written a short book on the numerous examples of how Brendan Rodgers is a “fraud” and “not good enough for Liverpool FC.”
Does everyone do this? Absolutely not. I have no issue with constructive criticism, but some criticism is overtly personal, spiteful and irrational.
I appreciate what you mean with reference to O’Driscoll etc, but surely firing people you hired could mean several things: they weren’t doing what needed to be done, a change was needed, they’re being made the “fall guys”, Rodgers is disloyal, Rodgers is pragmatic. It’s the same event (two people from the backroom being fired), replaced with others….and there is more than one interpretation. That’s why I try (and there is emphasis on that word) not to be too “black and white”, so I try to steer clear of assessments such as “bad decisions” (few were overly bothered about the backroom team when the club finished 2nd)….
Top marks for replying Paul. Says an awful lot. More writers on here and elsewhere need to do the same.
Couldn’t care less about Rodgers’ weight loss. Couldn’t care less about him leaving his wife for a better looking younger woman. Couldn’t care less about him whitening his teeth. I do agree these things have been brought up to criticise him but my point was they weren’t used to call him a fraud – they were used to show him as vein or someone who was morally questionable.
All I, and all LFC fans, should care about are results. Even style of play comes a long second to me. A managers personal life is irrelevant as long as it doesn’t affect his ability to perform. (If he had a coke problem for instance)
On his backroom staff – as I said, we don’t know if Rodgers sacked Pascoe and Marsh. I think you are assuming he did, and not FSG, without really knowing. It is a common enough occurrence in MLB for a General Manager (Director of Football in soccer terms) of a franchise to keep the manager and sack the bench coach, the hitting coach, the assistant hitting coach and the first base coach. It very rarely happens over here or in football at all.
There were always people unsure about Pascoe, though I never heard anything about Marsh. Coaches change more regularly than assistant managers though. I know I didn’t like it when Pascoe came with Rodgers. I know I questioned his worth (and I wasn’t alone) throughout his three years here.
Even as we were coming second, I heard happy fans singing about Pascoe in his shorts and how he skillfully put out the cones, i.e. we knew, even though results were good, he was a joke figure who offered little in the way of football knowledge and was there because he was Brendan’s mate. Anyone who has been a postman within the last decade has no business being at a top club in any capacity Im afraid.
From 2012 to 2015, Pascoe failed. We know he failed because he was sacked and incredibly few thought he shouldn’t have been. That means appointing him in the first instance was a bad decision. Many thought Brendan should have followed him out the door but that is irrelevant when judging Colin.
I would agree there are too many things painted as black and white when there are shades of grey, but in this instance it is black and white.
Thanks very much, Padraig.
I did do a much longer reply, but kept getting an error, so I had to abbreviate quite s lot.
I don’t know if hiring Pascoe was a bad decision, because that’s a guy with whom he wanted to work, and there was synergy between them. He said letting them go was his decision. Assuming it was down to FSG, I don’t think we could reasonably call Pascoe a failure. We don’t know enough about the thought processes behind his hiring and firing – maybe it was just seen as a chance to freshen things up.
Even now, I’d say that more people would have been happier with Meulensteen or Pako (much better CVs etc.) coming in, but the manager has to have a staff with whom he can work. He will sink or swim based on that. He was simultaneously praised and criticised for nixing the idea of working with LVG, but they all need to work (as much as possible) in their preferred structure.
Excellent response, Padraig.
Well done.
BR: …….. “You can judge me after three years …….”
Me: …….. “OK. You’re a fraud”.
Padriagh & eAyeAddio
From your (Padraighs) post …
“Paul has given the definition of fraud as “a person who makes deceitful pretenses.” In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain.”
In both of your posts you have put forward arguments for BR being a fraud but, as far as I can see, none of them match your definition.
As you state, “fraud” requires some level of deliberate deception. What is it that makes you so sure that BR has deliberately deceived us? Could it not be that BR believes he is the best man for the job but (maybe) isn’t?
We are so quick to become personal towards managers & players. If you think he’s not up to the job, why can’t you just say that – why the need to question the guys ethics?
Paddy, I and others have given arguments that meet that definition.
Is calling us “outstanding” when we were abysmal on multiple occasions not deliberately deceptive?
Is saying we showed “great character” when conceding a late equaliser against pub team Ludogorets not deliberately deceptive?
Is taking credit for a defensive improvement when we were simply playing poor teams not deliberately deceptive? I thought it was even more deceptive when I see that once again a Brendan Rodgers managed team conceded in and around 50 league goals.
Is criticising Balotelli after the 3-1 defeat to Crystal Palace, when Balotelli wasn’t even in the squad due to injury, not deliberately deceptive?
Is thought taking credit for a players upturn in form but the blame for another players downturn in form not deliberately deceptive?
Is thought him saying his biggest mentor is himself was deliberately deceptive?
There are other examples but Ive given many already. I have no issue with a manager thinking he’s the best man for the job. I even like a bit of arrogance. But it must be earned and the actions of the individual must be congruent with what he says. That is simply not the case with Rodgers.
If he says he’s the best man for the job, which demonstrates confidence, why then does he punish players who challenge his methods when it is something Mourinho and Benitez and Klopp and Guardiola encourage? If he was confident and sure his plan would work, wouldn’t he explain exactly how it will be a success to the player? Why did his bollocks drop off when he had to tell Gerrard he was done? Why does he lose the plot under pressure? Why is his body language so poor after a defeat, whereas other bosses are controlled as they are confident its only a blip? If he is the best man for the job, why does he change not only his formation so often, but the style of play? Why after three years and spending close to £300m, are players regularly confused, looking to him and pointing and asking what he wants during matches?
The top managers all make mistakes, but they learn from them. Why does Brendan never learn from his? Now this is where it becomes separate from the “fraud” debate.
I think there is a really good manager in Brendan. He’s still young. But he’ll never develop into the manager he should become or improve at all if he repeats mistakes over and over. Especially when he’s repeating them because he wants to prove a point. Lovren over Sakho is absolutely indefensible and puts on display the wrong type of arrogance and stubbornness because it hurts results.
But there are/were others. Never rotating. Two years running watching his players knackered in April and May and still not rotating. Playing Gerrard relentlessly when it was clear he was finished. Not having the balls to do what was right by the team. Balotelli up front on his own. Sticking to 4-2-3-1 when it simply wasn’t working. Glen Johnson. Lovren over Sakho. Playing Lovren at all. Not being honest with his players.
What is worrying is lots of fans know all this. Im not privy to any more information than they are. But they choose to ignore it all, point to him coming 2nd once (pretending the circumstances don’t count) and hoping everything will simply work out.
Calling a teams performance “outstanding” or played with “great character” is just the typical BS that all managers come out with after a game to get through the press conference so the journalist doesn’t have anything negative to write about. You aren’t meant to take it seriously and even still it doesn’t make him a fraud.
You can mention all the negative moments in the last three years in one post, dismiss any improvements made to the team or a stupid thing he said once, and claim that he isn’t a good manager if you like, illustrating the point Paul was making perfectly, but it still doesn’t make him a fraud.
The only way he could be a fraud is if there was someone else at the club who was actually doing all the managing, or if football clubs can just manage themselves, in which case all managers are frauds.
Hi Padraigh
As Tom above says – almost all managers say things to protect the team after poor performances/results. Unless you think that SAF, Rafa, Wenger & Mourniho are all fraudulent too, then I don’t see how you can level that at BR.
As for some of your other examples – I find them odd. Briefly …
Balotelli – not necessarily – Mario might have stunk out the place in training
Has he taken credit for one players upturn but declined to take any of the blame for a downturn – I can’t remember that?
Why is him saying that he’s his biggest mentor deceptive? Why do you think he is lying?
etc.
I’m not convinced that BR is the right guy to take the club forward (wasn’t when he was appointed either) but I don’t see how he’s anymore or less fraudulent than other (far more successful) managers.
Just my opinion.
LFC record during Suarez ban (the Ivanovic one): 7-2-1
Goals: 19 Allowed: 6
Reason? He had Sturridge fit. He has always done well when he has at least one first-team-quality striker available.
No one could say that Suarez, Sturridge, and Coutinho were global elites when Rodgers got them. They are now. Sterling? Henderson?
Suarez: “Liverpool are in very good hands with Brendan Rodgers. The way he coached us during my time there was impressive and I am sure that the methods I enjoyed and found so effective will continue to be employed. Everything Brendan does is built towards perfecting the mechanics of football”
Gerrard: “I wish I’d met Brendan when I was 24 because I think I’d be sitting here talking about a lot of titles that we’d won together.”
He must be some powerful fraud to fool players like Suarez and Gerrard into thinking he was decent at his job. They continue to praise him highly to this day.
Clearly, Rodgers is not infallible. You can’t get much more fallible than the end of last season. But he also had a record of outstanding success that stretched for over 18 months (basically from the time Sturridge arrived to the time he was injured training for the national side).
I think it is reasonable to let him show what he can do in the new Benteke-taka era.
Once again it is pointed out players have improved under him but, as usual, what is not pointed out is the players that got worse under him.
Typical. If a player improves its down to Brendan but if a player gets worse its down to the player. Brendan can’t lose with such nonsensical thinking.
You can’t take the Gerrard quotes seriously either Im afraid. Does he really believe Rodgers is a superior manager to Rafa, who he did meet when he was 24? He doesn’t. And neither do you. Its the bog standard PR football bullshit we see all the time.
I’ll give you the Suarez quotes. But Suarez was wrong, wasn’t he? We didnt continue to be a success and really, if Suarez felt so strongly, he’d not have wanted out two years running, would he?
I see what you mean, Padraig.
The argument works both ways. If a player improves in a dramatic way under Rodgers, those who don’t rate the manager will claim it’s mostly down to the player. If a player fails to perform, Rodgers gets the blame for signing them, marginalising them or not using them properly. I can see an argument on both fronts. I have made them in equal measure.
Personally speaking, I do think it’s about balance. It sounds like I’m sitting on the fence, but I really don’t feel it’s ever “black or white.” There are so many factors that go into making a team win (even the much-maligned “good fortune”) that it becomes too simplistic to rest on an “either/or” argument. But the best managers do stand the test of time.
Attribution does become a bit muddied in football, in fairness. When things are going well, there are a queue of people willing to take the credit. And when things are going poorly, blame is apportioned and excuses are made. What I am confident about is that, should Liverpool be “underperforming” by Christmas, Rodgers won’t be at the club.
Other than the new signings from last year, who were always likely to be patchy in their first season, how many first team players have regressed under Rodgers? Skrtel maybe, although he was fantastic in the back three. But I’d say he’s overwhelmingly helped more players raise their game. We’ll see what happens this season when he has some attackers he trusts to play out his Spanish-hybrid philosophy.
As for the Gerrard quotes, it would be less believable if he didn’t emphatically back Rodgers when he was most vulnerable – not to mention that it was in the immediate aftermath of a humiliating defeat on his last game. It would have been much easier to give a tepid response, but he was very vocal in his support.
Rafa did win the CL, and I’ll never take that away from him. But he also didn’t win a title, which is what Gerrard was speaking about.
As for Suarez, few begrudge him a dream move to Barcelona, where his wife’s family live, and he has the opportunity to play with Messi, Neymar, and Iniesta. Especially when he was set to be crucified indefinitely by the English media.
Why do the new signings from last year not count?
Mignolet, Agger, Kelly, Coates, Skrtel, Lovren, Moreno, Can, Markovic, Johnson, Gerrard, Allen, Sahin, Downing, Aspas, Luis Alberto, Carroll
Let me be clear. I am not saying all 17 players got worse because of Brendan.
What Im pointing out is that many more players got worse and absolutely none of it was blamed on the manager, yet as soon as one player improves, some people are quick to give the manager all the credit.
Some of those players did get worse directly because of Rodgers. His handling of Mignolet, Sahin and Markovic in particular has been atrocious. Inexcusable in fact. He could have got more out of Carroll if he didn’t mess him around too, before selling him. We’d have got a bigger price.
Gerrard’s decline could have been slowed down by playing him less for 2 years. There are even players on that list who got better as soon as they left Rodgers’ coaching, like Downing. There are more players still, it could be argued, that Rodgers hindered their progress, like Suso. There are players on the improved list he didnt even want at the club.
So for every Henderson, Coutinho, Flanagan and Sturridge, lets just remember there are more Sahin’s and Markovic’s who he’s damaged.
Now the quotes you posted.
On the Gerrard quote, I don’t really understand your point. The bottom line here is do you think Gerrard really would have preferred to have worked with Rodgers at 24 or Rafa?
Would Gerrard, at his peak, have preferred to play in a team that won the champions league, got to another final, got to a semi final and a quarter final under a proven winner, giving Gerrard the best nights of his career……or do you think Gerrard, at his peak, would have continued to play for Liverpool under someone who has won nothing and looked hopeless in Europe? No trophy, no runners up medal, no semi or quarter finals. At home, Rafa finished 2nd just as Rodgers did and was more consistent in achieving a higher league position. All with less money.
Its simple – do you think Gerrard knows who is the better manager out of the two? Because, lets face it, its a no contest.
The quote was bullshit. A barefaced lie. You know it. I know it. Gerrard knows it. It was from a Liverpool captain doing the corporate PR thing. Just as they made him do at Anfield, forcing words into his mouth with pathetic questioning, on his last appearance at home as a disastrous season was coming to its appalling climax. And i like FSG!
On to the Suarez quote. Two things:
One, he was wrong and unless Rodgers performs a turnaround never before seen at Anfield, he’ll always be wrong because we won’t have been in good hands.
Two, you only mention Barcelona. But if Suarez was so sure Rodgers was the golden ticket, why did he ask to leave to go to Arsenal the year before? When did he decide Rodgers was so good? Im guessing in April 2014 when he thought he’d win the title and knew he’d be off to Catalonia in a few months. Because it sure as fuck wasnt anytime prior to summer 2013.
Who actually cares what fans of other clubs say to slag us off? They can go do one.
Personally, I have never got the “fraud” tag. Sure he has said some naff things sometimes but that doesn’t make him a fraud. He got the job because of the good job he did at Swansea. Giving Martinez the credit for how Swansea played when they came up (and they haven’t played better than that season since) because of his management of the team in League 1 two seasons previous is quite possibly the most ridiculous case of confirmation bias I have heard. If you think that a former Swansea-level manager isn’t good enough for Liverpool and we could have done better, fine, but it certainly wasn’t fraud.
To me he clearly has talent, but as this article alludes to there are so many different factors that affect the success of a football club it is difficult to tell just how far he will get us. However, this season, with decent striking options and free from worrying how to fit Gerrard into the team we will get a pretty good idea I think.
Contrary to what was written in the article, I do think our levels of optimism/pessimism are important though, as I believe the mood around the club can have a big impact on results. They key for me is not to expect too much but remain optimistic that we can win anything on our day/year. If we all remain pessimistic just to avoid too much of a let down afterwards it will become a self fulfilling prophecy (never known someone to actually do this though, as what is the point? Most people I have met are pessimistic so they can say “I told you so” afterwards).
Fundamentally, I don’t have any problems with Benitez and Keynny’s attitudes towards the media because with a couple of notable exceptions they are all a bunch of knobs, but I do think it made life difficult for themselves in the end. Therefore, as painful as it can be to watch sometimes I think Rodgers is being pretty savvy to try to get them onside.
Definitely. It’s a feeding frenzy and we know that Kenny and Rafa would have gone through an absolutely torrid time with the media if they’d had a season like that. They already did and that was with a history of silverware on their CVs. I’ve actually seen some fans act like that with Rodgers: “why should the media go easy on him?”
The fact is, he’s accommodating with the media and that’s savvy, as some of the more venomous journos can really ruin a manager. I don’t have an issue with him avoiding the sort of agenda that really did a number on Rafa.
Wow, Padraig, what a response!! It’ll be interesting to see if the OP responds in kind.
I find the article a little patronising to be honest. As a lifelong LFC fan (and it’s been a long time) I think the last thing I need is to be told to “calm your thoughts and it will all be OK”.
It’s all about results at the end of the day. We win….all is good. We lose…and we moan. Hasn’t it always been thus?
I listen to TAW after a game and it mirrors the above, and rightly so. It’s good to get others opinions and temper our own accordingly. But we are all allowed an opinion, aren’t we?
Thank you, James.
The article was not intended to be patronising, so I’m sorry if that was inferred. It was more of a look at different views/biases – the sort I use myself.
I’m all for being happy when you win and disappointed when you lose. I’d say that’s normal, rational behaviour in terms of following a sport. Instead, losing often equates to “the manager has no idea what he’s doing. He’s a fraud! The owners are crooks, the players are crap and the board is full of idiots!.” And if you win, some people are saying that “we’re on for the top 4! He’s really building something here” (“best Liverpool manager since Shankly.” – Paddy Barclay) or “he got lucky. He’s still a fraud!”
100% on everyone having an opinion. That’s what makes it a great sport to follow, but some of the opinions are a bit OTT (on both fronts) and I personally think we all benefit by being a bit more balanced
I 100% agree with you regarding credit. He takes the credit a lot when things are going well, and tends to shift the blame when things aren’t firing. This does seem to be a part of his public persona. I think that’s him going into “survival mode” and I don’t personally like that attitude (even if I can understand it, in the context of him having ben fired before). His detractors do this too, in fairness: when things are going well, Rodgers will rarely get due credit from them. It’s feint praise, at best…
That’s so funny, because when he describes the side as “outstanding” when clearly they were not, I see that as an obvious – and successful – attempt at deflecting the pressure away from the players.
Perhaps that is one of the reasons he is much more popular with the squad than he is with a lot of the fanbase.
Did he look that popular with the squad in the last few months of last season? It looked to me like they were trying to ensure he would be jobless come the summer.
He does get raked over the coals for saying too much, or saying the wrong things. He does contradict himself sometimes, but I do feel he’s coming from a good place and he bigs up the squad. It’s part PR, part what he believes and part bluff. Just like all managers these days essentially. It is what it is.
Sherwood makes a big deal about how honest he is. In nearly every interview, you’ll hear or read about him referencing his “honesty.” No manager can ever be truly honest, as there are so many factors to consider and people/situations to manage. If every manager came out and said what they honestly thought, some would surely be out of a job, others would have an awkward time with their squad and others would be up on disrepute charges.
That does not make them frauds.
It may be another debate, but I personally don’t care about the minutiae of what Rodgers says – the “outstanding” and “great character” soundbites. It’s PR and there’s a reason behind what he says and, like most of us, he’ll say the wrong thing or something a bit daft.
There is a difference though.
When Ferguson or Mourinho come out and say something ridiculous after a defeat or poor performance, its designed to heap the attention on their comments and not the players. When Rodgers does it, its designed to make people think we were unlucky not to get a better result.
You don’t get the pundits and the papers dissecting Rodgers calling us “outstanding” when we aren’t – they ignore it and talk about our players. (You think Lawro spent more time on Rodgers comments or on Balotelli?) But when Mourinho goes on a rant saying the FA and referees had an objective for Chelsea not to win the league, Shearer and Redknapp and the papers talk about that and all the decisions that went for or against Chelsea throughout the season. You won’t read or hear about how poor John Terry and Matic were on that day.
How do we know the intent? Simple. Rodgers does the “outstanding” and “great character” thing a lot, even when we perform well and win. Ferguson and Mourinho only acted up very rarely and only after certain players performed poorly.
if you actually think Rodgers always says the things he does to bring him the focus and not the players, then he is failing miserably. Because its only Liverpool fans that talk about it. Not the pundits and the papers, who decide where the pressure goes on.
I know of couple of contributors on a certain message board who spend an unhealthy amount of time picking holes in the present and comparing the side with the Rafa Benitez era. One of these was pretty appalled at the 2013-14 season, had Rodgers actually won the league he’d have been crushed. For these people its almost as if the rise of City and the confirmation of Chelseas earlier prominence was being conveniently ignored.
I do my best to steer a steady path between the prickly verges of high emotion. There is simply no point constantly comparing now with then (whenever then was) as so many variables are in play as the years pass. I judge a player on what he does within the constraints imposed by the managers tactics not where he came from or how much he cost. I judge the manager on his tactical wit, deployment of players, style of play and results, so yes I was wavering quite strongly at times last season. I judge the owners on whether they back the manager and invest in the club not on whether they visit Anfield “X” number of times a season.
I do not have SKY sports so am blessedly shielded from their constant ejaculations.
Thank you, mate.
I agree with what you’ve written. It’s alarming that so many factions have formed and that some people would rather the manager didn’t do well, so that they could be proven “right.” And then if he does do well by any fair measure, every possible excuse (other than it being down to anything he’s done) under the sun is cited.
It’s hard to understand.
Very good!
One of those articles that as I read it I was nodding in agreement at every line because I knew all of those types but had never formulated them in my mind to produce a full picture like you have here.
I’m hoping I don’t fall into any of those brackets but truth is, I recognised a fair few. Henderson can do no wrong for me and I have backed myself into corners over it. Embarrassing though it is to admit, I think it stems from championing him early in his LFC career. Oddly though, I don’t think it’s a simple case of I was right. Me and my close mates all have a message forum on fb which goes off with a message every 5 mins. We all know how to push each others buttons and so when Liverpool lose and everyone’s head’s gone there’ll always be a comment ‘Henderson is fuckin shit, what does he do?’ Now, I know the person has wrote that (say, for example) because they’ve said FSG are bleeding us dry and I’ve said but they don’t take money out and inadvertently they’ve looked stupid in front of the group for having strong convictions based on nothing. So they want to get me back by saying Henderson was wank, haha. It’s all ridiculously childish and doesn’t exist among us outside of football but that’s how it is. One way of describing it would be to say there are some alpha males in the group but they can’t fight each other so in some ways knowledge has become power. There’s two states in the group. Either we’re euphoric together slapping each others backs or Liverpool have lost and we’re all feeling low and need to engage in some energy stealing. So, we have an argument where points can be scored for being right. I’m just trying to shed some light on how we become entrenched in these personalities. For me, I genuinely don’t care about being wrong. I’ve said some stupid things on our forum. In fact, I like some of the things I’ve said. I’ll make a good point on something and someone will say ‘don’t listen to him he said….. and we’ll all laugh. My nickname on the forum is ‘the wind’ because of how often I change my mind on something. But, and here’s the punchline, I’ve got a character trait that if I strongly believe I’m right (say, Henderson) and someone tells me I’m wrong, I implode. I go into meltdown and have to challenge them (actually, that happens outside of football too). So, I see any criticism of Henderson as a challenge to me and in the circumstances of our forum, a direct attack. Now I think about it I’ve probably got psychopathic tendencies.
I think I’ve referenced one of my traits because I strongly believe (so don’t disagree) that all these viewpoints we’re seeing can’t be changed. Most of them are down to the genetic make up of the person. These people who look for negativity above reason didn’t go home tonight and say ‘here ya go, love, I got you some flowers cos of all the things you do’. Did they fuck. They went home and said ‘why isn’t my dinner ready ya fuckin dog’. They didn’t walk into work this morning and say ‘hi everyone, how was your evening last night. No, it was ‘fuck sake, can’t wait for the weekend, they’re all dickheads here’. Of that I’m convinced now. I’ve met people behind the comments. We’ve all got a disposition. Great article and it’d be great if it helped some people but the truth is there’s no hope for them. They, and us, are stuck with it. I’ve just gotta look for ways to point score over them, haha.
Thanks, Robin.
Fantastic post. I see what you mean. We all have a disposition. I just don’t see the value in clinging too rigidly to a view, because every player, manager and team will change. So, you could “move the goalposts” on any player, manager and team. I’d give Rodgers a 5 for last season and a 10 for the season before. Like the rest of us, these people (extremely well-paid though they are) will have good days and bad days, and I’d say Rodgers made some blunders last season. Something seemed amiss.
The truth is, every single thing I posted is the sort of thing I’ve done for years and am just (over the last few years really) easing out of my character. I don’t have some big attachment to being right, or moving the goalposts when I’m wrong. I’m wrong loads and I’m cool with that. Even at that, I think the big thing that I’m taking on is moving away from “black and white” arguments.
It is so rife in our society now – Tories bad, Labour good (or vice versa, or pick anything else) – but I think categorising people and things leaves SO much out. It dumbs down the discussion.
With football, it is so subjective obviously, but I’m catching myself on when making snap judgements about a player or manager, or people in life. Even in this thread, words like “failure” and “fraud” have been used against the manager. We progress more if we properly describe things using criteria rather than just applying adjectives to people. E.g “Brendan Rodgers has failed to win silverware while at Liverpool” is accurate whereas “Rodgers IS a failure” is the sort of insult he will get in some quarters.
Thanks for the reply mate. Yeah, it’s a fair point. Everything has to be polarised these days. I fully support Rodgers but it’s a big season for him. Truth is, I’ve no idea how it’ll pan out. I’ll be intrigued to see.
This intriguing thread quickly reverted to the ‘Brendan Rodgers, is he it isn’t he?’ Debate that I inadvetently started. I put my hand up and admit that I am one if those who consider him a fraud and have not resiled from that view. At the same time I look forward to every season ‘with hope in my heart’. But not the least intriguing thing about Liverpool Football Club is that for the entire tenure of Rodgers managership we have not only embarked on each season not knowing what sort of team we are going to have but also what sort of manager Brendan Rodgers was going to try to be. Among all the other epithets thrown at him, I’d also say he’s a chameleon, but one that confidently fails to adopt the right colours.
I’d chalk it up to Rodgers adapting to the tools at his disposal. I don’t think he wanted Suarez and Sturridge on the pitch at the same time or Gerrard as the holding midfielder. I think he would have preferred a more balanced, more solid 4-3-3. Something along the lines of the Tottenham 5-0 version. But Gerrard and Sturridge came back, and so the diamond took shape in his mind.
Honestly, I have no idea what Benteke-taka will bring us, but I’m sure that Rodgers will look at what he has available and go from there. Clearly, he has something in mind, and I am hopeful that it will come off.
Except 13/14 where he got the team playing the most entertaining football we are likely to ever see and got to within a stud’s length of winning the league, no? Not sure what colour that would correspond to but I am thinking something with lots of sparkles.
I can get people not believing he is the right person to take us forward, but like you commented a while back on the article on the atmosphere at Anfield in the 60-70’s, don’t try to rewrite history and play down how good it actually was.
That’s right, Tom.
People who see Rodgers as a “fraud” literally can’t see anything beyond that. That’s not me criticising them or judging. It’s just the way our minds work by default – unless we challenge our minds. I personally don’t see the value in slagging off the manager for every little thing.
To my mind, Rodgers is doing the best he possibly can to make Liverpool a force again. Sure, a part of that is that he wants to be known as a good/great manager, but he is no orphan in that.
To call him a fraud is to assume that if he fails at Liverpool, he himself assumes that he can talk himself into another high profile job, but common sense tells you that just won’t happen.
He must surely be aware of the flak he is copping on-line; flak that achieves nothing but adding to the pressure he is already under simply because of the club he is at.
What irks me is that a certain section of so-called supporters are so eager to slag him without access to all of the facts – facts nobody outside the inner sanctum can really be sure of. There is also, of course, the seemingly irresistible force of the ‘me’ generation working on some people.
They hate that the fact that other clubs’ fans can lord it over them simply because the belief that they have the ‘right’ to expect everything while giving nothing in return has been inculcated in them from primary school onwards.
Put simply, they demand their right to bragging rights and turn on anybody who doesn’t deliver.
Rodgers is a good manager and he is doing his best for the club. To claim otherwise is to look in a mirror and see what you want to see rather than what is.
Thank you, Jase.
Great stuff. I really do hope (and this is clearly wishful thinking) that more fans will go into this season with a clean slate. Start afresh. He’s not Rafa, he’s not Kenny, he’s not Klopp. None of the comparisons help him, or those making the comparisons.
I think he’s doing a good job. Last season was a great disappointment, but there were mitigating circumstances, and I want him to be at Liverpool for years to come as that will mean he’s gotten it right (by any fair measure).
“They do what they wanna do,say what they wanna say,Live how they wanna live,play how they wanna play.Dance how they wanna dance,kick and the slap a friend.” (The Addams Family)
What an enjoyable,interesting and thought provoking article.
When I became old enough to discuss the match in the pub after the game it was about who played well (for each team),who was man of the match,we should have had a penalty,the Ref did or didn’t have a good game.Gradually over time the discussion has now become opinions on contracts,transfers,finance,owners and managers.Nothing wrong with that of course,although I doubt that much of the discussion is based on actual fact.
And that’s the way I read this piece; fans reaching conclusions from the flimsiest evidence on a wide range of issues.
But then I looked at the comments “Rodgers is a Fraud!” “No he isn’t!” “Yes he is!” I don’t think I’ve got enough factual evidence to join the vote on that.
By the way,I think Robin Crimes must have been the only one on the same page as me.
Thanks very much, Brian.
That’s what I was going for. Essentially, nothing is “black or white”, nobody has all the answers, yet so many people want to be “right.” Debates are great, but so often the debates are about personal attacks or slighting people.
I find it strange in this day and age, with so many sources at our disposal, that there IS so much “black or white” thinking. I don’t know if it’s media-driven or whether it’s just seeped into our culture, but I see it in a lot of places. Someone makes a mistake, therefore “she is an idiot!” Someone does not hit the ground running at a club becomes “he’s a failure!”
The tendency to write people off or dismiss them with insults is, in my opinion, quite concerning.
Great article Paul! I especially enjoyed the “moving the goalposts” section. The bit about Benteke and the 20 goals (and how it affects the team) has been bugging me now for weeks. I’ve been hearing it over and over again! If he scores 20 and we finish 5th, some will say that is his fault we didn’t get CL, as he had a negative effect on the rest of the team. The answer to that is simply “how do you know that?” There are far too many “experts around’ who simply use the “I told you so” argument. Since Torres left I have very much been in the, “lets just see what happens camp”. Trying not to get worked up about Liverpool signings, or who other clubs are signing etc because the bottom line is, no one knows how it will pan out. Who could have predicted our recent title challenge (other than Neil on TAW in late August!) or even more recently, that Harry Kane would score more goals in a season, than Diego Costa. What will be, will be!
Thanks very much. Much appreciated.
That’s spot on. Very balanced. We never know which of the new signings catch on (in an ideal world, all of them will), and I find the potential “moving the goalposts” argument around Benteke to be concerning. That’s if he comes in and scores a lot of goals, mind you.
It’s staggering the amount of excuses the people who don’t rate Rodgers will use when he presides over a season like 13/14 – it was luck, he had top players clicking, there was no European football etc. Don’t some of those factors impact other managers who have won the league or enjoyed a good season? They all need a bit of luck and to have top players clicking.
I’m not sure what he can do to win some people over (the criteria is not clear), and he probably never will. In fairness, though, every Liverpool manager in the “modern era” has had that issue. Rafa “shackled” too much and wasn’t an “arm round the shoulder guy.” People make their minds up, and see everything with that bias…and then “negative traits” get exaggerated. I’m not saying the guy is perfect (he’s made mistakes – just like some of his players), but I believe he’s a good manager and deserves support.
Have to take issue with your comments on 13/14 Paul. Let me start by saying of course Brendan deserves credit for amassing as many points as he did. Poorer managers could have been faced with the same situation and not gone close to winning the title. BUT….
Which of the freak circumstances mentioned is untrue? And if they are true then by their very definition they mitigate the achievements of the team and the manager.
At no time in history have the clubs who finished 1st, 2nd and 3rd the previous season changed managers. Not once. Freakish. I’d say it’ll be another while before it happens again. So it was no coincidence they all struggled early. This surely helped us massively as no-one pulled away from us which is usually the case.
Chelsea and City eventually got their shit together in the league while United and Arsenal melted away. Yet while we had our feet up, this is what they were doing:
In Europe, City and Arsenal reached the 2nd round, Utd reached the quarter final (under Moyes, putting into perspective Brendan’s showing in Europe!) and Chelsea the semis. Chelsea’s quarters and semis were physically and mentally draining, just as the title race was reaching its climax.
City had already won the League Cup, Utd reached the semi final, Chelsea reached the quarter final and Arsenal the 4th round. We were put out by United in the 3rd round.
Arsenal won the FA Cup. United were put out one round before us after a replay, Chelsea were out at the same stage as us and City went one round further than us.
The no European football, combined with early cup exits, surely makes up a major percentage of why we achieved what we did. We played just 4 games outside the league, 42 games in total that season. Chelsea and Arsenal 56. City 57. You don’t need you to tell me the effects of 14 and 15 extra games, especially given those games were mostly at a higher standard.
We had no European football because Brendan failed the previous season. We were put on early in the cup competitions because Brendan failed. We only had the league to concentrate on, whereas Mourinho was worried about stopping Zlatan and breaking down Atleti, and Pelligrini was concentrating on Bayern and Barcelona.
*Tell me this – given what we know of our league results when we have to juggle them with European football under Rodgers and his immense inadequacy in rotating his players, are you honestly telling me that no European football made no difference? Or that so few games only made a tiny difference? Because quite simply the facts from the season before and the season after say it made an epic difference.*
You ask “don’t some of those factors effect other managers who won the league?”
The answer is no. First of all, we didn’t win the league. Secondly, Mourinho, Ferguson, Pelligrini, Wenger, or other managers in other leagues like Klopp, Simeone and Benitez, actually did win the league while playing many more matches than we did, and done it while playing in Europe. They also won the league without their major rivals all being in transition.
I could go on about Suarez and having no injuries etc but the top teams being in transition and the no European football are more than enough to prove my point.
Oh Padraig,you should have quit while you were ahead….like Rodgers?
Thanks, Padraig.
You make an eloquent, but inconsistent argument. I never wrote that Liverpool won the league. The point was that other managers who have won the league OR presided over a “good season” have needed a bit of luck, to have good players clicking etc.
Do I think having no European football helped that season? I do, but I don’t KNOW this and neither do you. After all, like you mentioned, there are examples of teams competing well on both fronts and teams who don’t perform too well even without European football (like Man Utd last season). I’m going down the false equivalence route there, and that’s what we tend to do when we compare apples and oranges.
Even without European football, Liverpool were NOT expected to perform like they did. It was not just points, but fluency, attacking skill and goals scored. Mourinho brought up the excuse when HE underperformed at Chelsea. He got away with a relatively poor first season back and, as ever, people overlooked it. He has so many people under his spell by using the very styles of argument I mentioned in the article (plus ad hominem attacks, of course). This was the same man who, in 2005, devalued Liverpool’s triumph in Istanbul because it was a “cup competition.” Yet it’s the one he most wants to win at Chelsea.
I don’t buy the “new manager” theories either. Don’t forget what Mourinho did in his first season at Chelsea. No excuses back then. Also, one of those new managers in 13/14 won the league in his first season. Moyes had a fair bit of money to spend too. None of these situations fully account for why Liverpool did SO well. Maybe, just maybe, Rodgers actually performed well in his role?
I mean, the four teams in Europe had very deep, experienced squads and I don’t buy the fatigue factor in their cases.
It’s just a theory and I feel we’re better dealing with what is, as opposed to what could have been. Otherwise we literally could go round the houses (what if Gerrard didn’t slip? What if Sturridge had not been injured last season? What if Suarez had not left?) It could go on forever.
So, that’s why I think your argument is a bit confused. You compare other managers and other situations, make excuses and rationalisations for other managers (not so much with Rodgers, mind) but don’t seem to see that last season’s disappointing season may also be “transition” or simply the manager making mistakes (or difficult situations and thresholds that were outside his control).
To put it another way, you *seem* to think that everything the likes of Mourinho do is down to his genius (not having a phenomenal squad on astronomical wages) whereas if Rodgers does something demonstrably well, it must have been freakish good fortune.
Exactly Paul! Especially about winning people over. He scored a smasher at the weekend and all I read was … it was against Swindon, PL defenders will never give him that time etc etc etc etc … Whereas I didn’t hear anyone utter a negative word in relation to Ibe’s goal against a Malaysia XI. If Firmino scored that goal against Swindon, people would be going mental!
Plus, unless someone has a time machine – where we can play out the season with Benteke (hindering Coutinho and Firmino of course)… then go back in time, undo the transfer, and replay the season without him (allowing Coutinho and Firmino to flourish of course) … just to see which way would get us more points. What is the point of using the argument of “even though he might score 25 – he will hinder the team”? Too many armchair analysts around these days.
Padraig,a good counter balance to the little cabal that think this site is their personal platform for ‘ everyone is entitled to my opinion’ syndrome
An excellent article and yes I can see myself, friends, family and fellow supports of both Liverpool and other clubs being just this way at varying points in a season. I start every season off hoping it will be a good one rather than believing it will be, but do not have very high expectations, so my disappointment is not as acute as those who genuinely believe we will do well and set their sights on winning the PL and trophies. All I want is to do better than we did the season and not get humiliated in cup comps, but then I lived through the great successes of the 70’s and 80’s so perhaps do not suffer as much as some from failure to win top flight comps. I try to challenge my negative thinking with every player we have, try to make positive comments and look for good things from those I and others may look badly upon but unfortunately there comes a time when I just have to give up and concede that so and so is he’s sh..’