He's not really setting new standards (and nor did Shanks, either, to be fair - he just saw the sense in how he trained at Preston and took it to it's logical conclusion way before anyone else copped on to it). But he IS doing the right things, in the right way, and in a way that makes players WANT to train and play for him. That reputation will spread, and players will want to play for Liverpool under him, in much the same way that players want to play for Mourinho "just to see what he's like"
Then why the hell is he an exception, rather than the rule?
Is the football world really so nostalgically-driven that forward-thinking coaches and managers don't get jobs? I can understand that systemic change is slow in a system which promotes its own graduates (ex players => managers); surely, though, in something so competitive as football, people recognize what has worked and what hasn't. Everybody promotes an ex-player until an innovative manager comes along, then everyone sees this advantage and a new baseline is set, right?
Further, to my personal tastes, the Rodgers training method (and, certainly, the product thereof) is superior to the antediluvian Hodgson school of thought. And I'd guess that'd be the case for most anybody who ever competed in sport. So if the
right way actually corresponds closely with the
fun way, and ex-players make up much of the management pool, why are there not more coaches concentrating on small-sided games, variety, and time spent with the ball?
Or are there actually plenty of examples of rigid, fitness-based coaching regimes winning trophies, and nobody mentions those?