When we think of Liverpool and Newcastle United in the Premier League era, we are often drawn to the back-to-back seven-goal matches at Anfield in the mid-90s, of Collymore closing in, Bjorn Tore Kvarme poking the ball through David James' legs, and of Fowler towering above Philippe Albert. Plenty more remarkable has happened besides; Michael Owen's hatrick at St James' Park, David Thompson inspiring a second-half comeback in 1998, Jamie Redknapp scoring a header in 2000, and Xabi Alonso's 50-yarder in 2006.
However, just as those epic matches of crackers and chaos optimised the free-spirited side of the Roy Evans years, the most recent meetings of the teams in the north east serve as perhaps the most hard-hitting reminder of what has happened to the Reds over the past three seasons.
In December 2008, Liverpool visited Newcastle for the final match of a calendar year which would yield 78 points and just three defeats from 38 games. They travelled to St James' having lost just one league match in the first half of the season, a woodwork-ridden defeat to Spurs after arguably one of our best performances. There was no Fernando Torres, who'd only appeared sporadically since pulling a hamstring at Aston Villa at the end of August, and yet the Reds went into the game top of the league and confident of another three points, a mark contrast to the current mindset whereby the loss of any key player would leave most fans preparing for the worst.
Liverpool started the game well on top against a Toon who were battling relegation but found Shay Given in inspired form in the opening half an hour, as the Irishman kept out everything we could throw at him. Sounds familiar? Liverpool fans have bemoaned the man-of-the-match performances of goalkeepers, particularly at Anfield in recent seasons, and if there is no early goal, there is unlikely to be any goal. Even against West Bromwich Albion recently, when Liverpool dominated the match for 75 minutes, a failure to score in the first ten made it inevitable that the visitors would score with their first meaningful attack.
But this was a different Liverpool, the closest the club had come to re-manufacturing the well-oiled machines of the 70s, that would churn results out week after week, with performance levels of themselves or the opposition, the amount of luck forthcoming and the size of the injury list all completely irrelevant. Dirk Kuyt moved in from the right to replace Torres, while an ageing Hyypia, a young Insua, an erratic Babel, the reliable Benayoun and a raw Lucas Leiva filled other positions where others were injured or resting.
The 30 minutes of spectacular saves and last ditch defending didn't suck the wind out of the Reds' sails like it would today. It merely served to reinforce the confidence installed in them by Rafa Benitez that their game-plan was full-proof as long as the players, any players, did their jobs. Eventually, as it so often did during the 08-09 season, whether in the first or last minute, it transpired into goals. Javier Mascherano split the defence to allow Benayoun to set up Steven Gerrard, who crashed a shot past Given to open the scoring.
Gerrard had already been ten-years a star in Liverpool's midfield, a European Cup winning captain and scorer of one of the greatest cup final goals of all time, but this was as good a performance as he'd give in a season where he'd win his second Football Writers' Award. This was the culmination of five years' work under Benitez, turning him from the all-action, running, kicking and screaming box-to-box midfielder, into a ruthlessly efficient scorer and provider of goals - he'd gone from being the box office player with the big drive, to a true match-player capable of majors.
Sami Hyypia, in what was his last season for the club, headed the second six minutes later before Newcastle pinched a surprise goal from their own set-piece just before half-time. Again, if today's first half follows a similar pattern, we'll all be piling our pounds on a barcode scoring the next goal, and the next, and the next. Liverpool simply went out for the second half determined to cover-up the embarrassment of conceding a goal to Joe Kinnear's shower, and scored three more times, and passed Newcastle into submission. Babel pounced on 50 minutes to re-establish the gulf between the sides, before Gerrard raced onto Lucas' finest pass to date and chipped Given with arrogant ease. Xabi Alonso, currently one of the world's greats, was only good enough for a place on the bench that day, and the Spaniard struck a late penalty to complete the scoring.
The result put Liverpool three points clear of Chelsea after the Blues dropped points at Fulham, and a whopping ten points clear of Manchester United, who would somehow come back to win the league and ruin everything, though the disappointment in not winning a title that was in the bag at Christmas couldn't hide the progress being made under Benitez. Newcastle United were relegated.
The Toon bounced back quickly, winning the Championship at the first time of asking with the drive of Joey Barton and a useful lump up front in Andy Carroll. Liverpool, meanwhile, began a rampant collapse on and off the field, and when the teams met next on Tyneside in 2010, Roy Hodgson was Liverpool manager.
The midfield space once occupied by Mascherano and Alonso was now being over-run by Barton and Kevin Nolan, who both scored, with Carroll blasting a late third that his performance deserved, sending the media into hysteria over the English Drogba, and Liverpool towards a relegation battle. The following season, with Liverpool £35 million lighter for the acquisition of Carroll, Newcastle cruised to a routine 2-0 win, the Reds' eighth league defeat in three months, and a seventh in eight games, with goals from Cisse, Carroll's replacement at a third of the price. Newcastle moved 11 points clear of Liverpool in the Premier League table after 31 matches, with the Reds looking over their shoulders at the closing Sunderland, Fulham, Swansea and Norwich.
And so we move to today's fixture, one that fills me with dread since Newcastle need the points to move away from another relegation scrap, against a Liverpool team with precious more than pride to play for, something which seems to matter very little to the club these days. Without Luis Suarez, at least Liverpool can ensure that it is likely to be the football that dominates the headlines after the match - though that may not necessarily provide much solace, with Newcastle's powerful Francophone front-line likely to cause our mis-shapen defence plenty of problems. Liverpool's only hope is that the Daniel Sturridge who looked a phenomenon for 45 minutes on Sunday, leads an attack that proves our only form of defence, and temporarily buries the reality that memories of December 2008 bring back.
Saturday, 27 April 2013
Thursday, 25 April 2013
Suarez and Why Liverpool Need to Accept Two Rights Don't Make a Wrong
This past week's events have given me the perfect excuse to draw on one of my all-time favourite pieces of football commentary, delivered by Barry Davies in January 1997 when Liverpool were playing Aston Villa, in the match that Jamie Carragher would mark his full debut with his first goal for the club.
When Mark Wright met a corner with the full force of his forehead in the first half, his goal-bound effort was repelled by his namesake, Alan, the diminutive left-back. Davies was the BBC's finest ever verbaliser of sport because he obeyed cricket maestro Richie Benaud's golden rule, that you should only ever speak if you are adding something to the pictures. Rather than simply exclaim, Motson-style, he remain composed and with perfect timing, beautifully quipped;
"As far as Liverpool are concerned, two Wrights then made a wrong."
Tossing aside the hyperbole in the press and across social networks, in the cold light of day Luis Suarez was correctly cited and charged for biting Branislav Ivanovic on Sunday, and what followed was a ban of which almost any length would be hard to argue against. Suarez' 10-match sanction, one less than Paulo Di Canio's relatively harmless shove on Paul Alcock (and I will go that far back if plenty are referencing Defoe), could conceivably have been more given his unique disciplinary history, which includes just three matches less for a similar offence in Holland. Throw in the you-know-what with Patrice Evra and flipping the bird to Fulham fans, and its not hard to imagine a more severe punishment for his failure to learn from previous, grizzly errors. We're talking ten football matches, by the way, not ten days prison time, which is what you could face if you made a repeated habit of biting people in the real world.
And yet, the club are still insisting on manufacturing a wrong, once again dragging a gaggle of willing followers with them, showing precious few lessons were learned from the shambolic handling of Suarez' last high-profile mistake. While 'football fans' as a collective have taken an online hammering over the past eighteen months over tribal allegiances in relation to allegations that require more serious consideration, its easier to understand why so many flock blindly to the defence of a player when the club itself is doing just that.
Rather than waiting to receive the FA's written reasoning before privately querying the length of the ban, LFC decided to announce they were "shocked" by the amount of matches dished out. This was embarrassing enough, before Brendan Rodgers decided that Suarez' South American heritage - the same cultural differences that apparently caused him to make needless references to Evra's race - were a reason behind biting Ivanovic, as if motive should really be considered for such a daft act.
LFC and its fans' main complaints seem to be based on the FA's overall disciplinary process, and that particularly on this occasion, they have punished Suarez, rather than the offence.
It is clear the FA's process needs reform and has done for some time, as shown by recent incidents involving Callum McManaman and Sergio Aguero which both warranted 3-match bans at the very least, as well as Jermaine Defoe's nibble on Mascherano in 2006 and a whole range in between - but the bizarre rule on retrospective punishments for incidents 'seen' by referees prevents that. However, this wasn't the case with Suarez, with the referee missing the incident. Secondly, lack of clarity over the FA's calculation of punishment leaves it open to suggestions that they are picking and choosing their punishments, and thus could be doing so unevenly. This could be the case on occasion, but again it seems this hasn't particularly effected Suarez, given he has already served seven and eight match bans in recent years, ten seems fairly reasonable, and was less than I expected.
As for punishing the man and not the offence - of course the FA have done that, and why shouldn't they? Its perfectly reasonable that a repeat offender should be given a more severe punishment than a one-timer, and that remains a consistent rule-of-thumb across jurisdictions all round the world, sporting or otherwise. Why so many have a problem with this is hard to fathom. Suarez has at times received some unfair negative coverage for his on-field behaviour, given he's hardly a trend-setter in diving and feigning injuries, but when it comes to biting opponents, he is sadly in a league of his own.
It is time for Liverpool to give up this fight, at least in public. Careful discussions could take place behind the scenes, for the benefit of all concerned parties, but dragging it out in front of the cameras only serves to further rob us supporters of even more dignity, in what has been an embarrassing three years of off-field issues, making the on-field mediocrity even more tedious.
Barry Davies isn't on Twitter, and its a shame, as the great man would be able to sum this entire situation up in 140 characters, with room to spare and style to boot, and we'd all have to bow down and accept that on this occasion, that for all the wrong they can do, the FA have got this right.
When Mark Wright met a corner with the full force of his forehead in the first half, his goal-bound effort was repelled by his namesake, Alan, the diminutive left-back. Davies was the BBC's finest ever verbaliser of sport because he obeyed cricket maestro Richie Benaud's golden rule, that you should only ever speak if you are adding something to the pictures. Rather than simply exclaim, Motson-style, he remain composed and with perfect timing, beautifully quipped;
"As far as Liverpool are concerned, two Wrights then made a wrong."
Tossing aside the hyperbole in the press and across social networks, in the cold light of day Luis Suarez was correctly cited and charged for biting Branislav Ivanovic on Sunday, and what followed was a ban of which almost any length would be hard to argue against. Suarez' 10-match sanction, one less than Paulo Di Canio's relatively harmless shove on Paul Alcock (and I will go that far back if plenty are referencing Defoe), could conceivably have been more given his unique disciplinary history, which includes just three matches less for a similar offence in Holland. Throw in the you-know-what with Patrice Evra and flipping the bird to Fulham fans, and its not hard to imagine a more severe punishment for his failure to learn from previous, grizzly errors. We're talking ten football matches, by the way, not ten days prison time, which is what you could face if you made a repeated habit of biting people in the real world.
And yet, the club are still insisting on manufacturing a wrong, once again dragging a gaggle of willing followers with them, showing precious few lessons were learned from the shambolic handling of Suarez' last high-profile mistake. While 'football fans' as a collective have taken an online hammering over the past eighteen months over tribal allegiances in relation to allegations that require more serious consideration, its easier to understand why so many flock blindly to the defence of a player when the club itself is doing just that.
Rather than waiting to receive the FA's written reasoning before privately querying the length of the ban, LFC decided to announce they were "shocked" by the amount of matches dished out. This was embarrassing enough, before Brendan Rodgers decided that Suarez' South American heritage - the same cultural differences that apparently caused him to make needless references to Evra's race - were a reason behind biting Ivanovic, as if motive should really be considered for such a daft act.
LFC and its fans' main complaints seem to be based on the FA's overall disciplinary process, and that particularly on this occasion, they have punished Suarez, rather than the offence.
It is clear the FA's process needs reform and has done for some time, as shown by recent incidents involving Callum McManaman and Sergio Aguero which both warranted 3-match bans at the very least, as well as Jermaine Defoe's nibble on Mascherano in 2006 and a whole range in between - but the bizarre rule on retrospective punishments for incidents 'seen' by referees prevents that. However, this wasn't the case with Suarez, with the referee missing the incident. Secondly, lack of clarity over the FA's calculation of punishment leaves it open to suggestions that they are picking and choosing their punishments, and thus could be doing so unevenly. This could be the case on occasion, but again it seems this hasn't particularly effected Suarez, given he has already served seven and eight match bans in recent years, ten seems fairly reasonable, and was less than I expected.
As for punishing the man and not the offence - of course the FA have done that, and why shouldn't they? Its perfectly reasonable that a repeat offender should be given a more severe punishment than a one-timer, and that remains a consistent rule-of-thumb across jurisdictions all round the world, sporting or otherwise. Why so many have a problem with this is hard to fathom. Suarez has at times received some unfair negative coverage for his on-field behaviour, given he's hardly a trend-setter in diving and feigning injuries, but when it comes to biting opponents, he is sadly in a league of his own.
It is time for Liverpool to give up this fight, at least in public. Careful discussions could take place behind the scenes, for the benefit of all concerned parties, but dragging it out in front of the cameras only serves to further rob us supporters of even more dignity, in what has been an embarrassing three years of off-field issues, making the on-field mediocrity even more tedious.
Barry Davies isn't on Twitter, and its a shame, as the great man would be able to sum this entire situation up in 140 characters, with room to spare and style to boot, and we'd all have to bow down and accept that on this occasion, that for all the wrong they can do, the FA have got this right.
Tuesday, 19 February 2013
Prospect of Famous European Night is No Last Resort
Liverpool's Europa League second-leg tie against Zenit St Petersburg will be widely identified as Brendan Rodgers' final attempt to cling to the wreckage that is his first season at the club, and his starting selection, which will include Steven Gerrard and Luis Suarez, will be seen as evidence of this. According to most outside the club, Europe's secondary club competition was supposed to be the opportunity to rest the stars, upon which our thin squad over-rely upon, so that they can lead the race for the be-all and end-all fourth place finish in the league. When Rodgers selects those stars for Thursday's match, it will be seen as one last desperate attempt for him to avoid speculation over his future when Liverpool finish outside that top-four in May.
This is all based on one of the most common misconceptions emanating from Liverpool supporters and reinforced in the wider media, that Kenny Dalglish was sacked by FSG at the end of last season purely for a failure to secure fourth place in the Premier League. The narrative was clear from the outset, that FSG viewed cup success - in Liverpool's case, one trophy and another narrow final defeat - as irrelevant, and that the criteria for any manager is reaching the Champions League, and immediately.
Consider this: FSG may not be experienced football men, but they are heavily experienced in sport, and for all their attention to statistical detail that comes with their 'Moneyball' reputation, they will be more than aware that football, like any sport, is often utter, uncontrollable chaos. They would not have based their decision on who should take this team forward for the next decade on a particular finishing position in one season, on a single point, a disallowed goal, a huge deflection or a missed penalty. Certainly not eighteen months after the club sat just above the relegation zone. Likewise the cups were not disregarded because of a perceived worth - football, like baseball or any other sport, is about the glory - but because the next ten years of progress could not be based on the result of a penalty shootout against a Championship club. Moreover, FSG aren't interested in emulating the likes of Spurs in scraping a fourth place and securing one memorable tie, take the cash and the thrashing and disappear back into the Thursday league. The aim is to be competing consistently for the major titles over the long-term, something no one has achieved at Lfc for 23 years.
The reality is had Liverpool been good enough last season to get closer to fourth, then Kenny may still be in a job, though that is far from certain, while its not a forgone conclusion that a finish outside the top-four meant an automatic sacking, regardless of what happened in the cups. Kenny was drafted in as an emergency, short-term option, with the brief to steady the ship that Hodgson seemed intent on sinking without a trace, and he fulfilled that brief without ever signing a long-term contract. FSG then took the decision, based on an 18-month assessment rather than the knee-jerk reactions most owners are derided for, that Kenny was not the right man to take the club forward. Whether or not we agree, and however much it hurts to lose a club hero, it was still a brave decision that not many owners would dare take. Even Roman Abramovich didn't have the stones to ignore Roberto Di Matteo's claim after Chelsea's remarkable European Cup run, knowing full well he'd sack him at the first opportunity the following season.
Its for similar reasons that Brendan Rodgers is not required to get fourth place this year in order to keep his job, and nor is he necessarily obliged to deliver a compensatory trophy now that the always-unlikely Champions League qualification is all but impossible. What the owners want to see is progress on the field and evidence off it that a foundation is being built for the future, so that the money they invest is not only spent on the right players, but that they arrive into the right environment to ensure everyone benefits to the tune of better results. The chaotic on and off-field events of 2011-2012 were far from convincing in that regard.
This is why, as I've previously alluded to, they didn't throw large amounts of money at Rodgers during his first summer transfer window. If the level of investment was always the key (net spends are the new yardstick for most fans), then what's the point in changing the coach at all? They wanted to see proof in the pudding, that Rodgers could take a largely inherited squad, and show that he could begin rebuilding it, developing and adding value to players who were grossly under-performing for Kenny, while establishing his methods. FSG made a commendable decision to allow a young, talented British manager without a proven track-record to take the reigns at one of the biggest clubs in the world, and rightly requested that they see him deliver a form of progression, evidence that he could walk the walk, before they reinvest the sort of sums that were thrown at Comoli and Dalglish. They responded in January with a significant backing of their manager in the transfer market.
It is also why the visit of Zenit is as big as any match Liverpool have played this season, and this would be the case whether we are five or 25 points behind fourth place. While the squad has understandably been rotated in order to give youngsters experience and fringe players a chance to impress, the likes of Gerrard and Suarez have played in all three cup competitions this season and a near full strength team was selected for the first-leg in Russia last week, three days either side of league matches. That Liverpool had all their eggs in the Champions League basket was a myth, and progress is not being judged purely on the results of league matches.
Rodgers will pick his strongest available side against Zenit again on Thursday as Lfc look to keep their European campaign running, but this won't be a desperate abandoning of a selection policy in order to keep a season alive. The gradual developments of Jose Enrique, Stewart Downing and Jordan Henderson, for which the manager should take huge credit, the return to fitness of Lucas and the signings of cup-tied Coutinho and Sturridge, have given flexibility to Rodgers' selections. The previously over-played Sterling, Shelvey, Allen and Suso have been able to rest and work on their evolving games, and as the Europa League reaches its more rewarding stages, both financially and in a footballing sense, the manager is able to pick a more ideal eleven for every game, regardless of how they are prioritised by those looking on.
Ultimately, the Zenit match is the most important of the season because it is the biggest test of character yet for a squad which has shown a bewildering inconsistency between the ears this season, as well as Rodgers' first big European night at Anfield, his first chance to truly etch his name into our history books. It has nothing to do with the context of the race for fourth place or the security of Rodgers' job, or whether or not the Europa League is important or not in the eyes of the owners. It is about this team showing they are ready to move forward, with an opportunity placed in front of them that should be regarded with relish rather than fear. As such, the coach will be keen to remind his players that this isn't about rescuing a season in one night, but about showing that the sharp pain of losses in between promising performances will be worth it in the long run.
This is all based on one of the most common misconceptions emanating from Liverpool supporters and reinforced in the wider media, that Kenny Dalglish was sacked by FSG at the end of last season purely for a failure to secure fourth place in the Premier League. The narrative was clear from the outset, that FSG viewed cup success - in Liverpool's case, one trophy and another narrow final defeat - as irrelevant, and that the criteria for any manager is reaching the Champions League, and immediately.
Consider this: FSG may not be experienced football men, but they are heavily experienced in sport, and for all their attention to statistical detail that comes with their 'Moneyball' reputation, they will be more than aware that football, like any sport, is often utter, uncontrollable chaos. They would not have based their decision on who should take this team forward for the next decade on a particular finishing position in one season, on a single point, a disallowed goal, a huge deflection or a missed penalty. Certainly not eighteen months after the club sat just above the relegation zone. Likewise the cups were not disregarded because of a perceived worth - football, like baseball or any other sport, is about the glory - but because the next ten years of progress could not be based on the result of a penalty shootout against a Championship club. Moreover, FSG aren't interested in emulating the likes of Spurs in scraping a fourth place and securing one memorable tie, take the cash and the thrashing and disappear back into the Thursday league. The aim is to be competing consistently for the major titles over the long-term, something no one has achieved at Lfc for 23 years.
The reality is had Liverpool been good enough last season to get closer to fourth, then Kenny may still be in a job, though that is far from certain, while its not a forgone conclusion that a finish outside the top-four meant an automatic sacking, regardless of what happened in the cups. Kenny was drafted in as an emergency, short-term option, with the brief to steady the ship that Hodgson seemed intent on sinking without a trace, and he fulfilled that brief without ever signing a long-term contract. FSG then took the decision, based on an 18-month assessment rather than the knee-jerk reactions most owners are derided for, that Kenny was not the right man to take the club forward. Whether or not we agree, and however much it hurts to lose a club hero, it was still a brave decision that not many owners would dare take. Even Roman Abramovich didn't have the stones to ignore Roberto Di Matteo's claim after Chelsea's remarkable European Cup run, knowing full well he'd sack him at the first opportunity the following season.
Its for similar reasons that Brendan Rodgers is not required to get fourth place this year in order to keep his job, and nor is he necessarily obliged to deliver a compensatory trophy now that the always-unlikely Champions League qualification is all but impossible. What the owners want to see is progress on the field and evidence off it that a foundation is being built for the future, so that the money they invest is not only spent on the right players, but that they arrive into the right environment to ensure everyone benefits to the tune of better results. The chaotic on and off-field events of 2011-2012 were far from convincing in that regard.
This is why, as I've previously alluded to, they didn't throw large amounts of money at Rodgers during his first summer transfer window. If the level of investment was always the key (net spends are the new yardstick for most fans), then what's the point in changing the coach at all? They wanted to see proof in the pudding, that Rodgers could take a largely inherited squad, and show that he could begin rebuilding it, developing and adding value to players who were grossly under-performing for Kenny, while establishing his methods. FSG made a commendable decision to allow a young, talented British manager without a proven track-record to take the reigns at one of the biggest clubs in the world, and rightly requested that they see him deliver a form of progression, evidence that he could walk the walk, before they reinvest the sort of sums that were thrown at Comoli and Dalglish. They responded in January with a significant backing of their manager in the transfer market.
It is also why the visit of Zenit is as big as any match Liverpool have played this season, and this would be the case whether we are five or 25 points behind fourth place. While the squad has understandably been rotated in order to give youngsters experience and fringe players a chance to impress, the likes of Gerrard and Suarez have played in all three cup competitions this season and a near full strength team was selected for the first-leg in Russia last week, three days either side of league matches. That Liverpool had all their eggs in the Champions League basket was a myth, and progress is not being judged purely on the results of league matches.
Rodgers will pick his strongest available side against Zenit again on Thursday as Lfc look to keep their European campaign running, but this won't be a desperate abandoning of a selection policy in order to keep a season alive. The gradual developments of Jose Enrique, Stewart Downing and Jordan Henderson, for which the manager should take huge credit, the return to fitness of Lucas and the signings of cup-tied Coutinho and Sturridge, have given flexibility to Rodgers' selections. The previously over-played Sterling, Shelvey, Allen and Suso have been able to rest and work on their evolving games, and as the Europa League reaches its more rewarding stages, both financially and in a footballing sense, the manager is able to pick a more ideal eleven for every game, regardless of how they are prioritised by those looking on.
Ultimately, the Zenit match is the most important of the season because it is the biggest test of character yet for a squad which has shown a bewildering inconsistency between the ears this season, as well as Rodgers' first big European night at Anfield, his first chance to truly etch his name into our history books. It has nothing to do with the context of the race for fourth place or the security of Rodgers' job, or whether or not the Europa League is important or not in the eyes of the owners. It is about this team showing they are ready to move forward, with an opportunity placed in front of them that should be regarded with relish rather than fear. As such, the coach will be keen to remind his players that this isn't about rescuing a season in one night, but about showing that the sharp pain of losses in between promising performances will be worth it in the long run.
Saturday, 12 January 2013
Sahin as a Non-Starter was a Non-Starter
In the days following Liverpool's 0-3 thrashing at the Hawthorns on the opening day of the Premier League season, I suffered something of a psychological crisis.
"Philosophy. Philosophy? Fil....oss...offy... ... ... philosophy?" Is it a real word? It didn't sound real anymore. Not even in a pensive Northern Irish accent. I began to panic. Was I ill? I was trying to make sense of it all, so I googled 'Rodgers' philosophy' and it returned with 5.1 million results. Crisis temporarily averted.
After 11 weeks of being battered to within an inch of my sanity by the 'p' word, Brendan Rodgers completed a signing that seemed a perfect match for his much trumpeted ph...way of playing. If Joe Allen had followed his Swansea manager to Anfield in order to help us 'rest with the ball' then the month-long scrap with Arsenal for the temporary signing of Nuri Sahin was designed to ensure Liverpool's opponents would never sleep.
There were few concerns over the Turkish midfielder's inability to hold down a regular place at Real Madrid, as if you're going to be second in the quarterback pecking order, you may as well be behind the world's best in that position, Xabi Alonso, at the peak of his powers. And it was with the Spaniard in mind that Liverpool fans reacted so positively to Sahin's arrival, finally filling the void left by a player who could provide the ideal balance between function and finesse, and that final 'pass before the pass' that Gerrard and Torres fed off so frighteningly in 08-09.
Such is Sahin's talent, and with Alonso's contractual situation in Madrid uncertain, Jose Mourinho was never willing to entertain a permanent deal, and yet five months and 12 games later, he's had his loan spell cut short by a club who've yet to beat a team in the top half of of the weakest Premier League division in a decade.
And Liverpool, for once, got it absolutely spot on.
For Sahin to be a Liverpool player on a permanent basis, the team would need such a stunning season that it would make us the preferred destination to working with Mourinho and Ronaldo at the La Liga champions, while Sahin's own impressive performances would only drive the fee up and attract more Champions League suitors in any case. It was hard to imagine this would be anything other than a fleeting visit, to be enjoyed while we could. Sahin's impact had to be instant and sustained over the season, for him to be worth the temporary outlay on considerable wages, on top of the initial loan fee. If all things went well and Sahin could help elevate the club to match his own expectations, to the point where he'd demand a long-term move, then that'd be a terrific, if unlikely bonus.
This wasn't a player Rodgers had brought in to develop, in the way he yesterday suggested to the media that made him the standout candidate for the Liverpool job in June. He claims to have given "added value" to players such as Henderson, Downing and Enrique, though it wasn't completely clear whether he meant that as a footballing or financial one. Sahin's value over the course of his loan deal would be judged in Liverpool's final position in May, and nothing more. But by January. Liverpool had no choice but to cut short the deal, to the disappointment of many who see him as a rare spark of genuine class within our thin squad.
For all the emphasis on an aesthetically pleasing style of play there is no room for luxury in a Rodgers setup. Sahin may have been earmarked as a creator supreme, but he would still have to adapt to a scientific approach in the three-man midfield, requiring the flexibility to help the team keep the ball higher up the pitch. He should be a cog in the machine rather than its focal point from deep, a role which Rodgers preferred Allen to fill in the absence of Lucas, providing defensive protection and simple, slick, high-percentage distribution.
Its obscenely simple to suggest Sahin failed to adapt to English football, as will doubtlessly be the narrative in the English press. Rather, and more surprisingly, he failed to adapt to Rodgers' style with the immediacy he had expected and as such, was worthless to the club by January. With Lucas, a more studious, suitable holding player, regaining full fitness gradually, and with the experienced Gerrard showing class is permanent, Sahin had not been able to find his niche as Liverpool's roving, reliable talent, to the extent that Rodgers has compromised the fitness of his favourite, Allen, over the past three months. Jonjo Shelvey has had more games than expected too, while when Liverpool needed additional industry in midfield at West Ham, Raheem Sterling proved more than capable coming in-field from the wing, dovetailing with the makeshift striker when carving out Joe Cole's equaliser.
Shelvey is far from the finished product, and his long-term future at the club is not certain, with the next five months likely to tell Rodgers whether or not he will consider cashing in come the summer. But it is not worth compromising the development of a player who has a value under a permanent contract, with one that hasn't, if the latter isn't going to deliver consistently excellent performances in any position which he is selected. Sahin had not found a way to become indispensable, and while progress is undoubtedly being made in a less tangible way than points, Sahin would have to be last in, first out, despite being a potential match winner on any given day.
A broken nose at Udinese didn't help, but by that stage Rodgers would've been hoping to rest the Turk on Europa League Thursdays, from dominating Premier League midfields at weekends. A series of struggles in autumn did for Sahin, perhaps understandably in the unique Merseyside Derby environment, but tellingly amongst Roberto Di Matteo's buffet-style midfield at Stamford Bridge, where the Mata-Oscar-Hazard dream-team left gaps for Sahin to help himself. Visibly aching to receive the ball from a centre back, observe the spaces and experiment with his passing range, Sahin suffered with his back to goal over the half way line in particular, where there wasn't the opportunity to roll the ball out to his left hand side and play expansively, with strict demands on him to ensure the team were able to control the game in their opponent's half.
By the time he hinted that he wasn't willing to adapt to the subtle nuances of a midfield role under Rodgers, the decision had already been made - and it was likely that his lack of motivation had already translated in his day-to-day work earlier in the spell. But his complaints only further justified the club's decision to cut short what was a correct, calculated gamble, and an equally correct early dismissal.
The odds are heavily stacked in favour of Sahin having a great career at the top level, and he will almost certainly slot seamlessly back into the Bundesliga, and into Klopp's delightful Dortmund team. But any suggestions Liverpool wasted his talent, or would've regretted letting him go early, will be wide of the mark. Liverpool's recent track record in transfer windows may make them easy pickings, but by following the signing of Sturridge with this brave decision to send Sahin home early, Rodgers and FSG are going some way to showing they are learning from mistakes, and adding a ruthless streak to our dealings that was badly lacking in previous years.
Monday, 26 November 2012
"Where's Your Famous (Manufactured) Atmosphere?"
During the mid-2000s, when internet football forums were at the absolute height of their popularity, a campaign began on the reputable LFC website RAWK for song-sheets to be handed out at matches, to preserve some of the old favourites that were being gradually phased out by the Soccer Am-inspired atmosphere of modern football grounds.
The vast majority of fans in English stadiums are reading off the same script. After kick-off, the first mistake by a player has to be greeted with a "wheeeeeyyy, who are ya, who are ya?" Once the crowd has got bored after the initial footballing exchanges have died down, usually around 90 seconds in, that old classic "your support is fucking shit" will get a loud airing, and if we're really lucky, a bit of "sign on, sign on." And of course, if a goal is scored, so long as its not one of those grounds that chooses to play Groove Armada at every opportunity, you'll even get clap-accompanied chants of "easeh, easeh." All for just £50.
Although the song-sheet idea shows a few people on the internet have their heart in the right place, the suggested solution and its breeding ground are themselves part of the problem. The only thing worse than no atmosphere at the match, is a fake atmosphere at the match, perfectly encapsulated at Stamford Bridge yesterday as Chelsea fans finally cracked the code to one of life's most evasive philosophical posers, answering the question that the travelling Shed End has asked itself many times; "where's your famous atmosphere?"
Painfully, match-goers were converted from supporters to customers a long time ago, and there are very few opportunities for fans to reclaim their patch and pride. Sloppy, often hypocritical social network grumbles are plentiful - many of us baulk at ticket prices while Premier League stadiums continue to fill every week - but chances for fans to make their presence and views seen and heard, in order to have an impact on the running of their club, come very rarely.
Chelsea fans are understandably angry and embarrassed at recent events. Roberto Di Matteo, a crowd favourite as a player in the 90s, was sacked within six months of achieving legend status after overseeing the greatest night in the club's history and the ultimate objective of his chairman's reign. This is when football supporters, as the largest and most diverse collectives that regularly come together for a common cause, can come into their own. However, within 48 hours, it became apparent that we were about to witness the defining moment in this era of the manufactured football atmosphere.
Sunday was the opportunity for Chelsea fans to show that no matter what happened over 90 minutes against Manchester City, whether a title is won this season or not, they will not stand for one of their 107-year-old club's heroes being disposed of so disdainfully by a fleeting wealthy tourist, whether that man's questionably-sourced funds have bankrolled a few trophies or not. We often remind Chelsea fans about 'history,' and they hate it, yet they witnessed their own in Munich and they should be fighting like bloody hell to protect it. But rather than make a real point to Abramovich, they elected for the internet-warrior-generated 'protest' which turned out every bit as plastic as those infamous flags
They decided to vent all their displeasure at Benitez on the basis the Spaniard was manager of Liverpool during a period when the two clubs were frequently drawn against each other in domestic and international cup competitions. That, and the fact he and Mourinho wound each other up a few times in the build-up to high-stakes intense semi-final clashes. Nothing more. Its not quite El Clasico, the origins of which can be traced back to the execution of former FC Barcelona President Josep Sunyol at the hands of General Franco's troops, sowing the seeds of discontent between the Catalans and Real Madrid. Chelsea v Liverpool became a 'rivalry' in the short-term, tabloid sense, swept along by Sky Sports' montages, but there is no historical basis for it, which should trump the mere emotions stirred by a series of coincidental cup draws.
As a result, thousands of Chelsea fans were doing such innovative and penetrative things as booing, singing offensive songs about a fat waiter, and even the odd witless banner was hoisted in another hurried attempt to mimic our own formerly famous atmosphere. 'Rafa Out Fact' doesn't quite have the same ring to it as our 'Joey ate the frogs legs...' effort of 1977.
The dull and predictable, droning sounds of baseless boos sandwiched a minute's applause for Dave Sexton, the former Chelsea manager who sadly passed away last week. Unfortunately, too many were more interested in their faux anti-Benitez campaign and as such, the Stamford Bridge announcer had to beg for quiet and respect so that the club's tribute, which descended into a farcical inconvenience, could be breezed through.
To top it off, the barracking of Benitez means that the 16th minute tribute to Di Matteo (who wore 16 in his playing days) sadly went unnoticed by those not at the match, and will barely be remembered, even by many attending Chelsea fans, in the way that such a fine gesture should be. The memories won't be about Di Matteo, or Abramovich - it will be 'the match where we booed are own manager. Fact.'
It was one of those to slot into the 'when football dies' category. Naturally, we have to feel sorry for many of those Chelsea fans, particularly those who pre-date the Abramovich era, who are constantly conflicted as the man who is largely responsible for them fulfilling their dreams is the same that represents a lot of what is wrong with the game. Unfortunately for them, they are increasingly becoming the minority, and they weren't given their rightful platform for public voice on Sunday, while the majority read from their 'scouse bastard' script.
When Chelsea visit Anfield later in the season, and their own manager is given a standing ovation by the Kop, it'll be interesting to see if the travelling support will leave their song-sheet outside.
The vast majority of fans in English stadiums are reading off the same script. After kick-off, the first mistake by a player has to be greeted with a "wheeeeeyyy, who are ya, who are ya?" Once the crowd has got bored after the initial footballing exchanges have died down, usually around 90 seconds in, that old classic "your support is fucking shit" will get a loud airing, and if we're really lucky, a bit of "sign on, sign on." And of course, if a goal is scored, so long as its not one of those grounds that chooses to play Groove Armada at every opportunity, you'll even get clap-accompanied chants of "easeh, easeh." All for just £50.
Although the song-sheet idea shows a few people on the internet have their heart in the right place, the suggested solution and its breeding ground are themselves part of the problem. The only thing worse than no atmosphere at the match, is a fake atmosphere at the match, perfectly encapsulated at Stamford Bridge yesterday as Chelsea fans finally cracked the code to one of life's most evasive philosophical posers, answering the question that the travelling Shed End has asked itself many times; "where's your famous atmosphere?"
Painfully, match-goers were converted from supporters to customers a long time ago, and there are very few opportunities for fans to reclaim their patch and pride. Sloppy, often hypocritical social network grumbles are plentiful - many of us baulk at ticket prices while Premier League stadiums continue to fill every week - but chances for fans to make their presence and views seen and heard, in order to have an impact on the running of their club, come very rarely.
Chelsea fans are understandably angry and embarrassed at recent events. Roberto Di Matteo, a crowd favourite as a player in the 90s, was sacked within six months of achieving legend status after overseeing the greatest night in the club's history and the ultimate objective of his chairman's reign. This is when football supporters, as the largest and most diverse collectives that regularly come together for a common cause, can come into their own. However, within 48 hours, it became apparent that we were about to witness the defining moment in this era of the manufactured football atmosphere.
Sunday was the opportunity for Chelsea fans to show that no matter what happened over 90 minutes against Manchester City, whether a title is won this season or not, they will not stand for one of their 107-year-old club's heroes being disposed of so disdainfully by a fleeting wealthy tourist, whether that man's questionably-sourced funds have bankrolled a few trophies or not. We often remind Chelsea fans about 'history,' and they hate it, yet they witnessed their own in Munich and they should be fighting like bloody hell to protect it. But rather than make a real point to Abramovich, they elected for the internet-warrior-generated 'protest' which turned out every bit as plastic as those infamous flags
They decided to vent all their displeasure at Benitez on the basis the Spaniard was manager of Liverpool during a period when the two clubs were frequently drawn against each other in domestic and international cup competitions. That, and the fact he and Mourinho wound each other up a few times in the build-up to high-stakes intense semi-final clashes. Nothing more. Its not quite El Clasico, the origins of which can be traced back to the execution of former FC Barcelona President Josep Sunyol at the hands of General Franco's troops, sowing the seeds of discontent between the Catalans and Real Madrid. Chelsea v Liverpool became a 'rivalry' in the short-term, tabloid sense, swept along by Sky Sports' montages, but there is no historical basis for it, which should trump the mere emotions stirred by a series of coincidental cup draws.
As a result, thousands of Chelsea fans were doing such innovative and penetrative things as booing, singing offensive songs about a fat waiter, and even the odd witless banner was hoisted in another hurried attempt to mimic our own formerly famous atmosphere. 'Rafa Out Fact' doesn't quite have the same ring to it as our 'Joey ate the frogs legs...' effort of 1977.
The dull and predictable, droning sounds of baseless boos sandwiched a minute's applause for Dave Sexton, the former Chelsea manager who sadly passed away last week. Unfortunately, too many were more interested in their faux anti-Benitez campaign and as such, the Stamford Bridge announcer had to beg for quiet and respect so that the club's tribute, which descended into a farcical inconvenience, could be breezed through.
To top it off, the barracking of Benitez means that the 16th minute tribute to Di Matteo (who wore 16 in his playing days) sadly went unnoticed by those not at the match, and will barely be remembered, even by many attending Chelsea fans, in the way that such a fine gesture should be. The memories won't be about Di Matteo, or Abramovich - it will be 'the match where we booed are own manager. Fact.'
It was one of those to slot into the 'when football dies' category. Naturally, we have to feel sorry for many of those Chelsea fans, particularly those who pre-date the Abramovich era, who are constantly conflicted as the man who is largely responsible for them fulfilling their dreams is the same that represents a lot of what is wrong with the game. Unfortunately for them, they are increasingly becoming the minority, and they weren't given their rightful platform for public voice on Sunday, while the majority read from their 'scouse bastard' script.
When Chelsea visit Anfield later in the season, and their own manager is given a standing ovation by the Kop, it'll be interesting to see if the travelling support will leave their song-sheet outside.
Monday, 19 November 2012
It's Manchester United - where do I sign?
As the song goes, "We do what we want, we do what we want, we're Man United, we do what we want." The lyrics are normally dragged up by observers when Manchester United seemingly benefit from dodgy on-pitch officiating or double-standards in Football Association disciplinary hearings. However, it has taken on a new meaning recently, extending to the club's commercial activities, and best illustrated by today's announcement that Manchester United plc. (Cayman), of George Town in Grand Cayman, had signed its 879th partner in the Premier League era, in Turkish bank Denizbank.
I made up that last statistic, by the way. I don't expect it's use will pull in an extra 50 hits on this blog. The same can't be said of Richard Arnold, Manchester United's commercial director, who is on something of a roll currently, having to recruit the long-retired Peter Schmeichel to represent the club in Turkey this week, such are the off-field demands placed on current players by the recent surge of sponsorship deals. Denizbank are just one of eleven new secondary and tertiary partners at United this season, though the long-term shirt deal with Chevrolet, the most lucrative in Premier League history if we exclude Manchester City's more wide-ranging 'deal' with Etihad, has made the most headlines.
Within United's press release announcing the deal, Arnold claims Denizbank will help the club reach out to - wait for it - its "9.5 million followers in Turkey." This means Arnold is stating that there is United 'follower' (whatever that means) in almost 50 per cent of Turkish households. Bang goes that other theory, that the likes of Besiktas, Galatasaray and Fenerbahce are the clubs of choice in this passionate football country. I'm sure the figures will be reflected tomorrow night, when United are given a friendly welcome amongst a largely neutral atmosphere at the Turk Telekom Arena. Those fiery, at times frightful fans that confront you on the terraces in Istanbul are actually indifferent to their home team and will attend as tourists, hoping to catch a glimpse of Robin Van Persie or Wayne Rooney, with the result incidental. Whatever United says goes, right?
This almost entirely made-up figure is part of a commercial strategy based on a series of assumptions taken from a flimsy online survey which stated that the club had doubled its fan-base to 659 million followers over the past five years. That means more than one in ten people worldwide follow Manchester United, with half of those choosing to do so within the last half-decade of their 134-year history. Seriously.
Even the average A-level student would be sceptical about the conclusions one could draw from such a survey, and surely any attempts to take this data into a modest meeting room would generate nothing more than laughter, in a climate of global economic meltdown or otherwise? Yes - that is, unless you're faced with Manchester United.
Incredibly, this conjured number was referred to more than once in Manchester United's IPO prospectus, and played a key role in the record Chevrolet deal. Both moves will help ensure the Glazers don't suffer too much financially as a family before they bail out on Mufc, with the proceeds destined to help the Americans manage the club's whopping debts.
However, they didn't help Joel Ewanick, the former global marketing chief of Chevrolet's parent company, General Motors, who was promptly sacked after signing the half-a-billion-dolar deal with United. It quickly transpired that this magical 659 million number was a hugely influential factor in negotiations, according to Paul Edwards, GM's executive director of global marketing strategy. Within a matter of weeks, both United and GM had quietly conceded the number was baloney, and Ewanick was disposed of to save further embarrassment, with reneging on the deal simply not an option.
It has been ruthlessly and efficiently swept under the carpet in Manchester, just as so many things are where United are concerned. They continue to roll out random figures in public while announcing another partner, with no one calling them to account and sponsors all too happy to lap it up and share branding rights with dozens of other companies and competitors, for the sake of associating themselves with the self-proclaimed biggest club in the world, and reproduce the rubbish to its own consumers.
The Denizbank deal comes on a day when Mark Hughes is fighting for his job at QPR, another ex-Manchester United player who played under Ferguson, with a questionable managerial record, that finds himself consistently offered Premier League jobs. Chairmen seem incredibly eager to trust the United association, ignore the actual results, and toss the lucrative contract at the representatives of a Hughes, Bruce or Keane.
The only question being asked seems to be "where do I sign?" No wonder Manchester United can do what they want, and the rest will follow.
Even the average A-level student would be sceptical about the conclusions one could draw from such a survey, and surely any attempts to take this data into a modest meeting room would generate nothing more than laughter, in a climate of global economic meltdown or otherwise? Yes - that is, unless you're faced with Manchester United.
Incredibly, this conjured number was referred to more than once in Manchester United's IPO prospectus, and played a key role in the record Chevrolet deal. Both moves will help ensure the Glazers don't suffer too much financially as a family before they bail out on Mufc, with the proceeds destined to help the Americans manage the club's whopping debts.
However, they didn't help Joel Ewanick, the former global marketing chief of Chevrolet's parent company, General Motors, who was promptly sacked after signing the half-a-billion-dolar deal with United. It quickly transpired that this magical 659 million number was a hugely influential factor in negotiations, according to Paul Edwards, GM's executive director of global marketing strategy. Within a matter of weeks, both United and GM had quietly conceded the number was baloney, and Ewanick was disposed of to save further embarrassment, with reneging on the deal simply not an option.
It has been ruthlessly and efficiently swept under the carpet in Manchester, just as so many things are where United are concerned. They continue to roll out random figures in public while announcing another partner, with no one calling them to account and sponsors all too happy to lap it up and share branding rights with dozens of other companies and competitors, for the sake of associating themselves with the self-proclaimed biggest club in the world, and reproduce the rubbish to its own consumers.
The Denizbank deal comes on a day when Mark Hughes is fighting for his job at QPR, another ex-Manchester United player who played under Ferguson, with a questionable managerial record, that finds himself consistently offered Premier League jobs. Chairmen seem incredibly eager to trust the United association, ignore the actual results, and toss the lucrative contract at the representatives of a Hughes, Bruce or Keane.
The only question being asked seems to be "where do I sign?" No wonder Manchester United can do what they want, and the rest will follow.
Friday, 16 November 2012
English Football Snobs & Their Zlatan Apologies
In the 48 hours since Zlatan Ibrahimovic's remarkable performance against England, no one has summed up the mood of the English press more so than the Daily Mail's Dominic King, who published "An Apology for Zlatan." King, in what he probably considered as honourable honesty in a world of willy-waving, admitted that over the years and as recently as Euro 2012, he simply "didn't get" the Swedish striker, but after his four goals on Wednesday, he finally saw the light.
He's not the only one. Its easy to picture the press box at the Olympic Stadium in Kiev, with the clique of British tabloid reporters sat together, all 'not getting' Zlatan, having never seen him do anything of note in what they consider a big game. Then when Andy Carroll climbs to head England into the lead, an exchange of knowing looks and back-slaps - "he's unplayable, him."
It's worth pointing out firstly that Zlatan Ibrahimovic, having won nine domestic league titles in the last ten years with the likes of Ajax, Internazionale, Juventus, Milan and Barcelona, and who recently gave himself a ten out of ten for his international career, probably doesn't give much of a hoot what Dominic King or Andy Townsend think. Or Jamie Redknapp for that matter, who decided that Zlatan finally "announced himself to the world" this week.
But more importantly, what was it about this friendly between Sweden and the second-string of an entirely average England squad, arranged as a curtain-raiser for the new stadium in Stockholm, which makes it the match by which any player can be realised as a true great of the sport? How is this irrelevant practice match which contained as many substitutions per-team as the excellent goals we saw, being talked about on the same plane as the 1958 World Cup Final, when a 17-year old Pele first became a superstar?
Interspersed with exasperations at how teenagers like Raheem Sterling and Wilfred Zaha could even contemplate playing for their country of birth over the mighty England, ITV's Tyldesley and Townsend gave us continual reminders of Zlatan's mediocre scoring record against English teams. It was held up as a justification for their 'enigma' tag, as if scoring goals against English teams live on ITV is the standard to which all footballers around the world should aspire to.
As the son of a Bosnian father and Croatian mother, born and raised in Sweden, I don't quite envisage a young Zlatan Ibrahimovic dribbling a ball through the Rosengard streets with Brian Moore's voice in his head, thinking "one day, when I score, Ron Atkinson might refer to me as Zlatty."
Come the final whistle, the awkward backtracking had begun, yet the resigned speech from Townsend and King's gushing in the Mail the next day were not apologies, regardless of the article headlines, in the sense that they were admitting they'd got it wrong all along. They were knowing nods from football's head office towards this foreign enigma, as if to say "well done son, you've finally done what I've always thought you capable of."
Meanwhile, Zlatan's not arsed. After his second goal, a smartly taken volley, he was more concerned that he'd injured Gary Cahill with his follow-through than with his equaliser. The shirt came off after the fourth goal, and why not, given he'd just scored one of the most extraordinary goals seen on any football pitch? It became a memorable match because of his performance, but this was never meant to be a particularly special game for the striker, despite Townsend's insistence that because of his record on live British television in the past, it turned out to be the night of his reckoning. Zlatan had nothing to prove to anyone, just as when he was asked about being offered a trial by Arsene Wenger some years ago, he responded with "Zlatan doesn't do auditions."
Of course, scoring four goals in a game is rare, but Wednesday was essentially a magnificent footballer having a great time surrounded by average ones, with only Steven Gerrard in his pomp worthy of the same category. Zlatan's fried bigger fish in the past, and contrary to popular belief, in far bigger one-off games too, such as Spain's El Clasico, the Milan derby, and league title deciders. As recently as November 6th, he delivered a Champions League masterclass with something equally as rare as four goals, when he provided four sumptuous assists for Paris St. Germain.
Along with a title collection that trumps many of the sport's undeniable all-time legends, he's closing in on 250 club goals and 100 assists, as well as 40 international goals for an average team, all struck at that 1:2 ratio that strikers are often judged on. He's also no stranger to Youtube moments, with his back-healed-volley in the last minute against Italy at Euro 2004 not far behind Wednesday's acrobatics, not to mention a stunning solo goal for Ajax and an absurd kung-fu pass to Dejan Stankovic when at Inter. He also scored a splendid back-healed winning goal against England in 2004, and two beauties at the Emirates in a Champions League knockout tie two years ago - the awkward anomalies that not many wanted you to hear about before Wednesday's match.
It should be a journalistic criminal offence to spout what the likes of King and Townsend have this week, but in the spirit of free speech and thought, everyone is entitled to an opinion on the qualities of a particular player, no matter how shit and wrong it is.
However, it is quite another issue when those delivering analysis and insight of the world's most popular game to the masses, place them on such a skewed version of the football landscape by constantly positioning England at the top-centre. We claim to have the best league in the world, the best fans and the longest, proudest history. We claim to have invented football and as such we have the final say on its every global movement; what's right and wrong with the game, who the great players are, who is hosting the next World Cup, dual-nationality, goal-line technology and financial fair play - its all based on this idea that English football is the pinnacle, for us and for everyone else looking in. Stan Collymore may not be as naturally-gifted and well-educated a journalist or commentator as those who came through the media ranks, but he absolute nails it when he talks about British football's snobbery.
And so as King and company continue to wriggle and squirm out of the hole they've dug themselves by writing off such a brilliant, unique and entertaining footballer over the years, we can come back to yet another quote from the man himself, when once asked what he'd buy his partner for her birthday:
"Nothing, she already has the Zlatan."
Yes. We do.
He's not the only one. Its easy to picture the press box at the Olympic Stadium in Kiev, with the clique of British tabloid reporters sat together, all 'not getting' Zlatan, having never seen him do anything of note in what they consider a big game. Then when Andy Carroll climbs to head England into the lead, an exchange of knowing looks and back-slaps - "he's unplayable, him."
It's worth pointing out firstly that Zlatan Ibrahimovic, having won nine domestic league titles in the last ten years with the likes of Ajax, Internazionale, Juventus, Milan and Barcelona, and who recently gave himself a ten out of ten for his international career, probably doesn't give much of a hoot what Dominic King or Andy Townsend think. Or Jamie Redknapp for that matter, who decided that Zlatan finally "announced himself to the world" this week.
But more importantly, what was it about this friendly between Sweden and the second-string of an entirely average England squad, arranged as a curtain-raiser for the new stadium in Stockholm, which makes it the match by which any player can be realised as a true great of the sport? How is this irrelevant practice match which contained as many substitutions per-team as the excellent goals we saw, being talked about on the same plane as the 1958 World Cup Final, when a 17-year old Pele first became a superstar?
Interspersed with exasperations at how teenagers like Raheem Sterling and Wilfred Zaha could even contemplate playing for their country of birth over the mighty England, ITV's Tyldesley and Townsend gave us continual reminders of Zlatan's mediocre scoring record against English teams. It was held up as a justification for their 'enigma' tag, as if scoring goals against English teams live on ITV is the standard to which all footballers around the world should aspire to.
As the son of a Bosnian father and Croatian mother, born and raised in Sweden, I don't quite envisage a young Zlatan Ibrahimovic dribbling a ball through the Rosengard streets with Brian Moore's voice in his head, thinking "one day, when I score, Ron Atkinson might refer to me as Zlatty."
Come the final whistle, the awkward backtracking had begun, yet the resigned speech from Townsend and King's gushing in the Mail the next day were not apologies, regardless of the article headlines, in the sense that they were admitting they'd got it wrong all along. They were knowing nods from football's head office towards this foreign enigma, as if to say "well done son, you've finally done what I've always thought you capable of."
Meanwhile, Zlatan's not arsed. After his second goal, a smartly taken volley, he was more concerned that he'd injured Gary Cahill with his follow-through than with his equaliser. The shirt came off after the fourth goal, and why not, given he'd just scored one of the most extraordinary goals seen on any football pitch? It became a memorable match because of his performance, but this was never meant to be a particularly special game for the striker, despite Townsend's insistence that because of his record on live British television in the past, it turned out to be the night of his reckoning. Zlatan had nothing to prove to anyone, just as when he was asked about being offered a trial by Arsene Wenger some years ago, he responded with "Zlatan doesn't do auditions."
Of course, scoring four goals in a game is rare, but Wednesday was essentially a magnificent footballer having a great time surrounded by average ones, with only Steven Gerrard in his pomp worthy of the same category. Zlatan's fried bigger fish in the past, and contrary to popular belief, in far bigger one-off games too, such as Spain's El Clasico, the Milan derby, and league title deciders. As recently as November 6th, he delivered a Champions League masterclass with something equally as rare as four goals, when he provided four sumptuous assists for Paris St. Germain.
Along with a title collection that trumps many of the sport's undeniable all-time legends, he's closing in on 250 club goals and 100 assists, as well as 40 international goals for an average team, all struck at that 1:2 ratio that strikers are often judged on. He's also no stranger to Youtube moments, with his back-healed-volley in the last minute against Italy at Euro 2004 not far behind Wednesday's acrobatics, not to mention a stunning solo goal for Ajax and an absurd kung-fu pass to Dejan Stankovic when at Inter. He also scored a splendid back-healed winning goal against England in 2004, and two beauties at the Emirates in a Champions League knockout tie two years ago - the awkward anomalies that not many wanted you to hear about before Wednesday's match.
It should be a journalistic criminal offence to spout what the likes of King and Townsend have this week, but in the spirit of free speech and thought, everyone is entitled to an opinion on the qualities of a particular player, no matter how shit and wrong it is.
However, it is quite another issue when those delivering analysis and insight of the world's most popular game to the masses, place them on such a skewed version of the football landscape by constantly positioning England at the top-centre. We claim to have the best league in the world, the best fans and the longest, proudest history. We claim to have invented football and as such we have the final say on its every global movement; what's right and wrong with the game, who the great players are, who is hosting the next World Cup, dual-nationality, goal-line technology and financial fair play - its all based on this idea that English football is the pinnacle, for us and for everyone else looking in. Stan Collymore may not be as naturally-gifted and well-educated a journalist or commentator as those who came through the media ranks, but he absolute nails it when he talks about British football's snobbery.
And so as King and company continue to wriggle and squirm out of the hole they've dug themselves by writing off such a brilliant, unique and entertaining footballer over the years, we can come back to yet another quote from the man himself, when once asked what he'd buy his partner for her birthday:
"Nothing, she already has the Zlatan."
Yes. We do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)