Pass-the-buck Rodgers. SA Thoughts? Gabriele Marcotti writes, Liverpool host Arsenal today in a game between two clubs that have not lived up to expectations so far and whose woes can be distilled down to simple, easy-to-understand narratives. Arsenals problems stem from an inability to defend, a general wussiness (possibly French-inflected) and Arsene Wengers stubborness in not signing the mythical all-conquering enforcer in the middle of the park, opting instead for a succession of little guys who make pretty passes. Liverpool? They also cant defend, though in their case its mainly because they sign bad defenders and keepers (whether its Brendan Rodgers or the transfer committee). And, with Daniel Sturridge injured and Luis Suarez gone, they lack pace up front and have nobody running in behind. Easy, right? Youd hope the game was a bit more nuanced than that. Youd hope that, while some in the media and some supporters do truly view things in primary colors, managers - at least the ones on multi-million, multi-year deals - can see the shades of grey. Maybe thats where Wenger and Rodgers differ. The former ignores the public narrative and sticks to his guns. When things go wrong at the back, its never because he went into the campaign with just two natural centre-backs. When they dont win the ball back in midfield, its never because theres no top-drawer defensive specialist. Rodgers, on the other hand embraces the narrative. Players arrive, they dont do well straight away, the media says theyre rubbish and then they disappear. Sturridge gets hurt and he becomes the universal alibi. Someone plants the seed that Alexis Sanchez would have been a perfect replacement for Suarez and it becomes a mantra. I think if you look at how I ask the teams to play, it is critical to have a forward of Sanchezs type, Rodgers said Friday. Not just with the ball, but the intensity with the pressing. When [Sturridge] was injured in August, everyone could see that, as a result, our game has become much deeper because of the personnel. Sanchez was identified for us as someone who would have been a key signing and really just a roll on to what we had with [Suarez], he added. So not to get him was obviously bitterly disappointing. Short-term, you can see how a statement like that makes sense. It gives him another alibi, shoves responsibility for failing to get Sanchez on to the transfer committee, reminds everyone what a massive loss Sturridge is and, again, passes the buck. The problem with this logic is that anyone who takes a minute to think can see right through this and place the finger of blame right back at Rodgers. OK, so you didnt get Sanchez. Once you failed to sign him, did you then go for another Sanchez-type? Or did you take the Sanchez money and go and pick up Mario Balotelli and Lazar Markovic, who have entirely different skill sets? And, by saying you cant play the way you want unless you have multiple Sanchez/Suarez/Sturridge types up front, are you sending a broader message about your ability to manage different guys with different attributes? Because, frankly, dozens of guys who make a fraction of what Rodgers earns could make a strike force of Sturridge- Sanchez-Suarez work. The trick is doing it with people who arent named Luis Suarez or Daniel Sturridge or Alexis Sanchez. Indeed, cast your mind back to how Rodgers got the Liverpool job in the first place. He guided newly-promoted Swansea to 11th place. And he did it by playing a 4-3-3 system that did have pacey wingers but also Danny Graham (a player he signed after promotion) at centre-forward. Before injuries slowed him down, Graham was a fine centre-forward, but hardly a speedster. Thats where Rodgers could take a leaf out of the Wenger book right now; dont let outsiders dictate the agenda. Because while the simplistic, dumbed-down narrative might seem to serve your needs in the short-term, in the medium-term it makes you look silly.
Posted on: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 08:59:32 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015