Well, I want to reiterate some of the points made yesterday, but to frame my post I want to re-post something from Il Capitaino that got lost in the lock of the Match day thread. It's long, but very important I feel. It starts below, I'm italicizing it;
"A modest net spend? We have never before spent the kind of money we spent last year. Never. Not one single manager in our history has ever had access to that kind of money.
It really is irrelevant about the turmoil the club was in, approaching two years ago now. That's gone, it's in the past. It's got nothing to do with the players on the pitch now: it looks to me like a complete excuse for failure, for not putting in the required performances in EVERY match (no matter how 'irrelevant'). The club and the fans have to stop scraping around for excuses, and face up to the actual problems we have:
- Our football is a malaise of different styles. There's no clear idea from the players. We don't press the ball, we actively back off opponents and allow them space to operate in: no successful team in history has ever defended like that. The players seem to have the mandate of either playing the ball wide to cross (unsuccessfully, every single time) into Carroll, or giving the ball to either Suarez or Gerrard and expecting something to happen. There is apparently creative 'freedom' on the pitch, yet the players seem lost and unsure of themselves. We've scored four or five goals from corners all season, out of hundreds and hundreds of attempts: do we even practice them? What do the players practice in training? Do they pass and move around the pitch, working openings? Do they understand the concept of movement, within a system of play? Why do they hit the ball long in matches, when it is painfully clear that this way of playing has not worked for us at all for the entirety of the season?
- We don't play players on form. All season, our most successful lineup of Maxi and Bellamy wide has been the management's second choice, despite these two working in tandem with Suarez brilliantly on the pitch together. Why is that exactly? Why persist with Downing, who has done practically nothing all season, or persist with playing Henderson out of position, when it is even more painfully clear that he is awful there? Is it to bed these players in? Why would persisting with the same system produce different results? Is it a question of confidence - and why would their confidence improve, if the onus is on them to produce in a failing system? Why is Carragher still in the team frequently over Coates, when he has single-handedly cost the club points in nigh on every league match he has played this season?
- The club's transfer dealings are awful. Why are we pursuing a policy of buying mentally, technically and physically flawed British players at extortionate rates? Is this to put together the crux of a squad - and why concentrate on the British nationality, when other foreign players have shown an equal level of commitment to the club over the years (Hamann, Reina, Hyypia, Alonso, etc.) and willingness to play for the shirt and invest in the values of the club? Why are our scouts not doing their jobs properly and finding affordable, undervalued talent? Why do we persist with purchasing players that don't fit with the brand of football we try to play? Is it even considered? Why are we placing a bigger emphasis on subjective, meaningless player statistics like chances converted when making decisions, when these clearly do not take into account the value of those chances in a match, and the compatibility with other players?"
I want to use this (lengthy) post as a starting point as I feel it gets to the nub of the criticisms that were expressed in heated debate last night. The game itself was awful, a team of youngsters, demoralised seniors (realising their cup dream was probably not going to happen) and peripherals were thrown together and put out on the pitch. The message was all wrong, 'this game doesn't matter, this team is makeshift'. So, a difficult starting point, but on the flipside an opportunity for the younger players to show what they could do (Sterling did) and the questionables to make a case for a cup start (Carroll did, Shelvey in bursts). What we ended up with was a slow, pedestrian side being over run in the middle of the park, giving up frequent chances and only occasionally (through accident rather than design) making something like a half chance, before the awful final minutes and clear capitulation. If one moment neatly encapsulated the entire performance it was Shelvey, demanding he take a freekick, confidently beating his chest before launching the ball into the stratosphere...
So, 1-0 and in the aftermath an angry reaction on the in game thread, which in response generated a counter-reaction. These two opposing camps held two differing views of the game; on the one hand were those who dismissed this as a singular event, something that could be readily dismissed in the context of the impending FA cup final. In opposition to that were those who saw it as part of a long running continuity, yet another game that demonstrated the club and the team were on the wrong track, not the right one and this game, rather than something easily dismissed, was an example of all that is wrong and is going wrong with the club. Both camps then engaged in a series of arguments that could never be resolved simply because both sides see the season in totally different ways. Those who play up the Cup Finals as proof of progress appear result orientated and believe that winning silverware is evidence that the club is going in the right direction. Those who are more performance orientated emphasise failings on and off the pitch and point to key games as proof of this.
This is why I posted Il Capitaino's post above, because I feel it captures the concerns of the latter group (of which I, myself, am to an extent a part of). The game yesterday was deeply worrying, not just because the team lost, not just because some players didn't give their all, but because the standards on display were substandard and the style in which the team approached the game was too direct and surrendered possession too easily. Returning to the quoted post above, I feel Il Capitaino nails it, quite brilliantly, in this piece;
"Our football is a malaise of different styles. There's no clear idea from the players. We don't press the ball, we actively back off opponents and allow them space to operate in: no successful team in history has ever defended like that. The players seem to have the mandate of either playing the ball wide to cross (unsuccessfully, every single time) into Carroll, or giving the ball to either Suarez or Gerrard and expecting something to happen"
That is how the team have played for a lot of the season and how they played again last night. In the absence of Gerrard and Suarez we defaulted to indifferent crosses and used Carroll as a battering ram, expecting him to win against 4 players up front, single handedly. Its not a simple case of getting bodies in the box, our approach, our style, our long-ball, attacking from deep is just not good enough.
Importantly too we once again saw key players on whom a lot of money was spent, who were brought in to be the cornerstone of the new project, woefully under-performing. Henderson started, did little and was replaced by Downing. He picked up the ball immediately, ran at a static defender and rather than try and beat him, tried to chip it over him... BAM, hit the non-moving player square in the head, the ball bounces back to him, he tries again... BAM hits another (non-moving) player in the head, move breaks down. It was astonishingly poor and summed up his performance on the night. Eventually he was eclipsed by a 17 year old Sterling who beat men and crossed accurately. In fact, only one player to date can be seen as an unqualified success and that is Suarez. To a lesser extent Enrique has also done well, though his form has hit a trough lately. A lot of expensively purchased players have not made the required either a season or a season and a half in and very little evidence has been offered to date to suggest they will make the step up.
Personally I am worried, cup final or no cup final, the style, the performances, the direction the transfers, the new players mentalities... all seem suspect to me. But of course, opposed to this is the success in the cups, which is held up as a reason the season is not a total write off. I agree, silverware and the chance at more is important. But I believe these cup runs need to be qualified. I believe there is a marked difference between a team consistently on the up, improving season on season, going on good cup runs and winning silverware, and a team that has his the doldrums in the league and Europe, appears to be going backwards in fact, going on a cup run. The former heralds the arrival of a new force on the footballing landscape... the latter is far less impressive and could be argued only serves to paper over cracks. I was interested in VWMs comment that silverware defines seasons. That is true, but that is individual seasons, in the longer term you have to look beyond such solitary measures.
