TV Mythbusting - What The Pundits Have Said About Liverpool

 Lazy pundits are responsible for generating false urban myths about LFC.  As Lance Armstrong used to believe, the more you pedal a lie, the more you regurgitate a line, the more you repeat an opinion, the more readily it is believed.  In fact, keep on going and over time that opinion turns into a universally accepted fact.  There’s a few LFC urban myths that have done the rounds in recent years and are still being pedalled as facts from the damn right irritating (which I’m going to talk about here) to the more serious ones regarding the Suarez race incident and worse still the events of Hillsborough (which are obviously no less important but have been discussed in detail elsewhere).  So what of these myths:

 1)  LFC revert to 4-4-2

 Jamie Redknapp was delighted.  He’d  spent half time during our recent defeat at Castle Greyskull berating Rodgers’ lack of a Plan B.  He wanted to see Sturridge come on to play alongside Suarez, and he got his way.  Everyone in the studio breathed a sigh of relief that Rodgers was showing some flexibility, and the commentary team echoed their feelings, praising the manager for not sticking to his one and only formula by getting us to play 4-4-2 (yes, the formation which every modern manager seems to have now accepted is outdated).  Except he didn’t.  Not one of the so-called experts noticed that in fact it was the same Rodgers formation, but with a change of personnel.  Suarez was the man dropped into the tip of the midfield triangle; we still had two wide forwards (not midfielders).  Actually, one pundit did notice –Robbie Savage in a very interesting (and accurate) write-up of the match on the BBC website.

 2) The Kop got Hodgson the sack

 No, actually Hodgson got Hodgson the sack. The myth goes like this: LFC fans never gave him a chance because they wanted Dalglish appointed. The fans were against him from the start. Sky resurrected this old chestnut this week when comparing Brendan’s first 19 games to Roy’s. Redknapp, of course, was chief culprit number 1 nodding like a Churchill dog and pedalling the lie. The truth is that Hodgson did get a fair crack of the whip, he just blew it. There may have been apathy at his appointment, but there was no pre-season rebellion, no calls for King Kenny. Instead there were two fundamental faults which meant that Roy was never going to last. One: he didn’t have a clue how to handle the press. Talking about Fergie as his friend and talking about draws against mid-table teams as successes chipped away at the foundations. His long-ball tactics brought the house crashing down. The man brought a brand of football to Anfield which was even worse than Souness’ team of Clough and Stewart (at least they were encouraged to try to play). But the pundits never mention that because, er, probably because they did all their research at the time from the back pages instead of actually watching games.

 3) Shipping out Andy Carroll was a mistake

 The cheap shot fired at Rodgers for the first half of this season. It wasn’t an ideal situation, but it wasn’t a mistake. Andy Carroll was never going to fit in to a Rodgers team, simple as that. His touch is too clumsy, the players weren’t going to be playing long balls and high crosses, and he wasn’t mobile enough to make the three-pronged attack work. Ah, say the lazy pundits, but what about when you are a goal down at Stoke and you need a plan B? Nonsense. This season isn’t about plan Bs. This season is about setting the wheels of a Plan A in motion. That means playing the Rodgers way as much as possible. Ideally, every second of every game – but a learning curve takes time. We don’t need to be complicating things by working on a second way of playing at the same time. Also, it’s east for pundits and fans to focus only on Saturday afternoons. What about the rest of the week? Anyone who’s ever played Sunday league football can guess the types of drills Rodgers uses in training. He likes the ball involves as much as possible. Imagine that game, you know the one: two small teams in a confined space, keeping possession from the other team being the object of the game. Would you be happy to have Andy Carroll on your team in that game? The point I’m trying to make is: if his touch is deficient in games, it would be deficient in training too – he would lower the quality on the training pitch and make it harder to bring in the change in style that the manager wants. Also, think of the finances. We must have had a loan fee for Carroll. Let’s say, for argument’s sake that it was £1m. Then they must be paying his wages. Again, let’s be cautious and say that’s £50k per week, mid August to January 1st. So let’s say we’ve saved at least £2m already by farming him out, closer to £5mill by the end of the season. I would rather have £5mill extra in the bank ready for the summer transfer window than have the “option” of Carroll on the bench. Even if he got a game from time to time, would his impact be enough to get us £5million pounds’ worth higher in the league table? Doubt it.

 4) Liverpool have always played like this

 Pass and move, it’s the Liverpool groove. Yes I know – so good they wrote a song about it, but there’s a lazy punditry alert here too. We have (Hodgson apart) always tried to play pass and move with varying degrees of focus (Houllier favouring a more direct approach for instance), but the brand of football, the tica-taca that Rodgers is trying to instill is different to anything we played in the past. I want to say “a step up”, but until we’re winning championships and playing like Barcelona I can’t really say that. But what I know is that from the very first friendly of the season it was obvious that there was a brand of passing from the back coming in that was not a return to the past, but something new. I’ve only heard one pundit all season point out our setup at goal kicks, for example, which really emphasises this way of playing (for the record it was Ratboy last week). The centre backs peel off to the sides of the penalty area, the holding midfielder, be it Lucas or Allen, drops in to the area where most teams would have their centre back, and the full backs are nowhere to be seen. Actually, they are pushed up almost as far as wingers. I’ve read some excellent blogs about this style of play, but haven’t heard any informed debate on TV about it. This takes us nicely to the next myth, which is:

 5) Reina shouldn’t be playing about with it there

 I remember telling my friends before the season began: we must be ready for a catalogue of defensive errors in the beginning. Keeper, centre backs, they will be under more pressure because more will be expected from them. And it’s proved true, but the lazy pundits insist on blaming them every time they come close to making a mistake. How many times this season have we heard one of the co-commentator say something along the lines of “I know the manager wants them to play from the back but in that situation you just hit it into row Z”? I rarely watch foreign football. But over the last couple of years I’ve been transfixed when watching Barcelona matches. And not just when Messi is on the ball, or there’s another attacking wave in progress. I also love watching the incisive passing between the goalkeeper and centre backs. It is fantastic to watch these players out-pass the opposition in their own penalty area. It’s not easy, granted, but we’re sure as hell not going to get any better at doing it by booting the ball into row Z at the first sniff of danger. We need to take risks to improve. Practise makes perfect and all that. It’s one thing doing these things in training, but the players will only be truly comfortable when doing it in the Premier League has become the norm. And if they’re still not comfortable, then they will be surplus to requirements.

 So who are these critics? 

 King of this breed of pundit is, sadly, everyone’s favourite LFC cockney Jamie Redknapp. And the mould is set such that it’s actually easier to pick out those who actually do have an opinion. I’m sure not everyone will agree, but for me the best ones out there right now are:

 Souness: who has matured into the role like a fine wine (and seems to love winding up Redknapp which is a bonus).

 Carragher: at the World Cup it didn’t take him long to show that he would speak his mind. Said it like it was, and didn’t mind upsetting people or arguing with the other studio guests.

 Neville: yes I know, blasphemy! As a pundit at least he tries to analyse instead of just describing what is going on. I think he does it quite well. It’s just a shame it’s him. Although I do question how much of it is fed to him by off-camera studio analysts. He is an awful co-commentator though – why don’t sky tell him he doesn’t need to put on a high pitch voice every time he enters the commentary box?

 Niall Quinn: speaking of co-commentators, here’s a man who comes into his own whilst watching a game. Intelligent, insightful, quick to judge decisions (where many of his peers watch numerous replays and still sit on the fence, or worse get the decision wrong).

 Colin Murray: neither a pundit nor a co-commentator but a presenter. For the time being. Is it just me that thinks the Beeb are shooting themselves in the foot by relieving him of his duties? His “crime” it seems, is to be too critical of players. The former-pros don’t like this. I do. It’s like having a fan on the show – asking the probing question that the likes of Lineker shy away from because their relationship with the players is too cosy.

Written by 3s