Dalglish Out!

I honestly don't know this club anymore. I'd better get used to that fact.

Look, we're all aware this season's results were horrendous. The denizens of the Andromeda Galaxy are aware of that. The fact remains it was one season, the season after Hicks and Gillett nearly destroyed the club and Hodgson helped dig the hole deeper.

Liverpool is not – well, was not – a club that changes managers by the minute. Especially not when the manager is the best player in club history and the last manager to deliver the league title. Hodgson was and remains a special case, for the dire football, brainless remarks, and complete lack of understanding of the club. Dalglish committed none of those sins. But this is increasingly a results-oriented business, with emphasis on the word business. Welcome to 21st-century sport.

Right now, I don't really care about how much Dalglish got to spend, whether gross or net. I don't care who was a Comolli signing and who was a Dalglish signing. FSG gave the club's greatest servant one year to rebuild from ground zero and then sacked him when the team failed to achieve the desired results immediately. I truly despair for the future.

This renders my mostly-written season review moot, but I guess I'll touch upon some of the "highlights" here. For all the bad we saw – and there was an incredible amount of bad – there were positives and are excuses. A trophy, any trophy. The emergence of a top shelf first-choice back four. Much better football, if not results, than we've seen for the majority of the previous two seasons. Liverpool's failure to win close games mostly thanks to an incredulous inability to score goals, finding it easier to hit the woodwork. Liverpool's most important player tearing his ACL in November, Liverpool's best player suspended for nine matches during the heart of the season, Liverpool's aging talisman struggling with injuries for the duration of the campaign.

Admittedly, by the end of the season, I was eminently frustrated by many things about the team and manager, most notably a lack of a cohesive tactical or transfer strategy to go along with questionable personnel decisions throughout the campaign. There were some positive signs and good matches, but Liverpool rarely looked like they knew what they were doing on and off the pitch. That is a very bad thing. I'm still not sure if it's a sackable offense given the above excuses, what (little) Liverpool had accomplished in the two previous seasons, and who said manager is was.

Now, a new manager will start all over, wanting to spend a similar amount to that spent last summer to forge "his team." Liverpool will again (still) need to settle on a preferred plan, preferred formation, and preferred tactics – things which eluded the side for nearly an entire season. There is currently no Director of Football, no Head of Communications, no new stadium, and now, no manager.

Despite the horrific results, there was a foundation in place and good football played on occasion. Now, Liverpool are back to ground zero. And that ground zero is further and further behind the league's front-runners. City will be undoubtedly bolstered by their title victory; the first is always the hardest, and it's always easier to attract players to a winning project, especially with gobs of money. Manchester United is still Manchester United. Odds are that Chelsea again fails to secure Roman's much-desired Champions League (please!), which will give them further impetus to throw unlimited rubles at rebuilding an aging squad. Arsenal and probably Tottenham will have Champions League football and Champions League money to entice players.

This was always the danger of appointing Dalglish. He was not FSG's first choice, and only Hodgson's complete inability to do anything right forced their hand. It was always going to be harder to sack Dalglish if something went wrong, and yes, things went wrong. Still, most managers deserve better, deserve more time, and this man deserves much, much better.

I thought he merited another season if not for the few positives signs than because of who he is and what he's done for the club over the last four decades.

It goes without saying that FSG had better have a plan. And that plan had better work, and soon. This sets a very unwanted precedent. If Dalglish is sacked after one bad season, the next man will get even less time and far less patience.

Why Can't Everything Be Like Last April?

There has been lots of talk around the internet and in the comments of yesterday's match review about this side regressing from last season's run-in. And Dalglish (and Comolli) is obviously at fault and I'm an idiot for holding fire on the manager. Instead of replying under the fold, I figured I'd ramble here on the front page. The short version is that Liverpool weren't as good as you remember last season and aren't are bad as you think now. There. I saved you 1500 words.

But if you're still here...

A five-match stretch from April through early May is used as definitive proof of regression. 3-0 v City, 1-1 at Arsenal, 5-0 v Brum, 3-0 v Newcastle, and 5-2 at Fulham. All very good results. But those results also blind some to the memory of Liverpool losing 1-3 at West Ham, 1-2 at West Brom, 0-2 v Spurs, 0-1 at Aston Villa and insipidly going out of the Europa League, both before and after than five-match stretch.

Regardless, there was some very good football played over that stretch. Some very good football and even better results, which seemingly raised expectations for this season more than a little bit too high. There are also, unsurprisingly, some vast differences between the end of last season and Liverpool's current state.

Goals, goals, goals
Conversion of chances. Pretty much the alpha and omega of Liverpool's problems, as has been written since September. A handful of draws this season (and at least one of the losses) were just about as impressive as last season's large wins in everything but the goals. Liverpool pummeled Sunderland, United, Blackburn, and Stoke, among others, but drew, drew, drew, and lost. Aside from Maxi, who I mentioned in yesterday's review, it's the same players who were scoring at the end of last season who aren't scoring now: Kuyt, Suarez, even Carroll (against City). And not playing Maxi is not the reason Liverpool are tallying fewer than 10% of their chances. At the same time, Liverpool usually played 4-4-2/4-2-2-2 through that run-in, but 4-4-2/4-2-2-2 this season is the devil and should be killed with fire, whether it's Kuyt-Suarez or Carroll-Suarez up front.

As for chances created, the focus of last summer's spending. During that Brum-Newcastle-Fulham stretch, with 13 goals scored, Liverpool created 35 chances – 13 against Birmingham and Fulham, nine against Newcastle. Compare that to three of the eminently-frustrating results mentioned in the previous paragraph. Liverpool created 12 chances against Sunderland, 18 at Stoke, and 19 against Blackburn. And these aren't cherry-picked numbers. Chances created in other disappointing results: 12 at Wigan, 17 at Fulham, 15 against Swansea, 20 against Norwich, etc. All via FourFourTwo's StatsZone.

Two of Liverpool's summer signings, Adam and Downing, have created the most Liverpool chances by some distance. The reason each was purchased. The obvious logic is that more chances created leads to more goals created. This season's done much to kill that notion. Liverpool's attack at the end of last season was ruthless in front of goal. The same front players, on the whole, are the opposite of ruthless this season, and it's not because of fewer opportunities or where they're getting said opportunities.

And it's a problem that grows as the monkey on strikers' back grows. Each miss makes the player think longer and harder about the next. Confidence drains with every post hit and penalty spurned. At the same time, it's far easier to score after scoring. Hot and cold streaks happen in every sport, even when they're sustained over the course of a season. After all we've seen, I still believe one or two ruthless demolitions like we saw 11 months ago changes an awful lot. Much like a fortunate hat-trick against United pushed Kuyt on for the rest of the campaign or, further back, Crouch's first Liverpool goal after a long barren stretch led to him scoring seven in the same month. And Liverpool's current players have ruthless demolitions in them, whether for Liverpool in the past or at their previous clubs. As unfulfilling as it as to credit intangibles like confidence and luck, both go a long way in determining form. Single spark, prairie fire. Yes, still.

Short-term v long-term
Last season's attack during the run-in was consistent; Carroll played against City and Arsenal, but otherwise it was Suarez, Kuyt, Maxi, and Meireles in Liverpool's big wins. That consistent front four was also getting on in years. Kuyt, Suarez, Meireles, and Maxi's average age at the time was 28.5; Kuyt and Maxi were 30, Meireles 28. Keeping the latter and using Kuyt and Maxi more might have led to a few more points this season (although, given Kuyt and Maxi's form when they have played, that's in doubt), but it would also put Liverpool in a worse position long-term, even if Liverpool's most recent signings don't pan out. It's also probably churlish to mention that Meireles has had a stinker of a season for Chelsea.

The damage which Hicks and Gillett inflicted required a massive overhaul, no matter a five-match hot streak with Champions League qualification a lost cause. Liverpool made six summer signings not counting Doni, four of whom usually start if available. The average age of Adam, Bellamy, Coates, Downing, Enrique, and Henderson is 25, which drops to 23.6 without free-transfer Bellamy. Because of Hicks and Gillett (and because of Hodgson's signings), Liverpool had to get younger. And fast. With four to six changes to the first-team, growing pains were inevitable. At least now Liverpool have a foundation for the future. Downing and Adam may have disappointed more than they've impressed, Henderson remains more potential than potent, but those three players still put Liverpool in a better position for the future than Maxi and Meireles did. The squad is now deeper, younger, and more valuable.

Liverpool are in transition. We'd hoped the transition would go more smoothly. We arguably had a right to expect it. It hasn't. Nonetheless, again, aside from that five-match stretch, Liverpool weren't radically better during last season's run-in, simply more ruthless in front of goal. Performances this season, while massively inconsistent, remain better than under Hodgson and 'nearly' as good as during last season's run-in, even if results don't measure up. Because of goal-scoring. Because Suarez and Kuyt and even Carroll aren't scoring as they did at times last season. It's not Adam, Henderson, and Downing's fault those players, in position to score, aren't scoring more.

I love you, Lucas Leiva
Also, this. Goal-scoring may be the alpha and omega, but missing the Brazilian midfielder has been almost as much of an issue. Admittedly, Comolli and Dalglish deserve criticism for not replacing him; Spearing is a useful squad player, but nowhere near Lucas' level, and has played his best football for the club when partnered with Lucas. Spearing's not as effective holding in front of the back four, setting the tempo, starting the attacks, etc. In retrospect, no other absence could have hurt Liverpool's more: not Suarez, not Gerrard, not Agger. Maybe not even Reina.

Also, a lack of Lucas has assuredly hurt Charlie Adam. I maintain what I've said all season: Adam has his faults and his benefits, and the former frequently obscure the latter. Without Lucas, those faults are magnified. That partnership was increasingly potent as they formed an understanding, a near-archetypal blend of creator and destroyer. And without Lucas, Adam (or Gerrard, for that matter) necessarily has more defensive work to do. Which isn't his strong suit in the slightest. Still, it's hard to blame Adam's frequent inability to tackle for Liverpool's problems when conceding goals isn't Liverpool's problem. Liverpool miss Lucas as metronome much more than Lucas as wrecking ball. Which is the one facet that Adam, Gerrard, and Spearing can't replicate.

Liverpool could and should have planned better, but there's only so many fingers to stick in the dike's numerous holes. And Liverpool couldn't have predicted that Lucas would have missed 2/3rds of the season thanks to a freak injury.


There are other, less important excuses. Suarez's stupidly-incurred suspension(s). Gerrard's continued injury problems. Reina conceding a handful more goals because of arguable mistakes. And, yes, a handful of mistakes from the manager: tactical, selection, or substitution. Still, I'm content laying most of the blame with goal-scorers, transition, and a lack of Lucas. One facet at the foot of aforementioned players, two thanks to the cruel hand of fate.

The easiest recommendation is adding an out-and-out scorer, either replacing or in addition to Carroll. As much as I hate writing it, that purchase looks Liverpool's worst business by some distance, record fee or no record fee. I really want to like the player: young, multi-talented (even if he doesn't show it enough), and with a physicality that most defenders can't handle when he's on his game. But goals are the problem and Liverpool's most-expensive striker rarely looks like scoring. When he can even get in the side.

But then again, Andy Carroll is just 23. It could also mean, much to our chagrin, that Liverpool still needs more time to adjust to the past year's overhaul, made with an eye on the future despite short-term hopes for an immediate return to the Champions League.

I'm not exonerating Liverpool's player recruitment or certain team selections. Despite the above excuses, there's still a chance Downing, Adam, Henderson, and/or Carroll don't work out. It was a calculated gamble, one we still can't fully judge. Liverpool's pre-FSG state, Chelsea and City's oil money, United's insane commercial revenue, Financial Fair Play regulations, and no Champions League football means Liverpool have to gamble. But Liverpool also gambled when paying £10m for Alonso, taking West Ham-outcast Mascherano on an expensive loan, and breaking the club transfer record on an unproven-outside-of-Spain Torres. And gambled on Pennant, Gonzalez, Riera, etc solving the non-stop problem on the flanks. Sometimes gambles work and sometimes gambles don't.

All I meant by yesterday's review was that things aren't as bad as some make out and Liverpool's tactics against Arsenal worked well everywhere but in front of goal. We all mock Chelsea for failing to give Villas-Boas time and leeway to make necessary changes, then demand Dalglish return to what worked for a month almost a year ago. No one likes suffering through the short-term in the hopes it'll eventually pay off, but patience remains a virtue. Yes, even when the sky is falling. Which it isn't at the moment. Even if/when Liverpool miss Champions League qualification for next season, there's still a very good chance that patience pays off in the future.

What's The Formation, Kenneth? (Again)

I've seen some hand-wringing and questions as to how Liverpool were lined up yesterday, especially in the second half.



I tried to explain the set-up and the reasons for it in yesterday's match review, but pictures always make things easier. Not a 1000 words easier, but easier nonetheless.

Liverpool's first substitution obviously wasn't planned, and Spearing's exit restrained the away side more than they would have liked in the first 45 minutes when on top. But there was a clear strategy with the next two substitutions. The second half followed a simple narrative. Mancini made a change, Dalglish would respond. Mancini made another change, Dalglish parried a different way.

Adam Johnson was key to both sides' tactics, City's most dangerous play-maker with Silva absent, even after Nasri came on. Glen Johnson began on the left in response, an inverted full-back used to mute an inverted winger, evoking fond memories of Arbeloa on Messi four years earlier. When the Manchester City winger stopped playing down that flank early in the second half, shifting into the hole with Milner on the right and Nasri on the left, Enrique came on. Glen Johnson went central, as a left-sided center-back, partly to still keep an eye on Adam Johnson and partly to continue doubling up on Micah Richards' dangerous overlaps. When Dzeko and Kolarov entered, Johnson went to right back, tasking with keeping Nasri and Kolarov from getting crosses in for the target-man, while Carragher came on as defensive midfielder. Or, to go all in on the nomenclature game, as a libero: Carra Baresi, just as he's always fancied himself. Really, he came on to add another body in defense, because Liverpool certainly weren't looking to add anything to attack. Just to seal any possible cracks in the armor.

The most debate will probably be about the "second sub" formation: was Johnson a third center-back or a defensive midfielder? This sort of detail borders on semantics, splitting the finest of hairs, but I'll argue he was a center-back. Johnson stepped forward the few times Liverpool were in possession, but as soon as City entered the final third, Johnson was on the same line as Skrtel and Agger, defending like a center-back, making tackles in the penalty area, most notably on Agüero in the 68th. If Liverpool had more possession and Johnson was able to spend more time stepping forward, there's more an argument for calling him a midfielder. But Liverpool were almost always on the back foot. Yes, partly by design. And partly because Manchester City is still Manchester City.

Was it risky? Sure. Any time you invite pressure, you invite risks. Liverpool's defensive 1-0 win at Stamford Bridge last season was risky too, but Liverpool's five-man defense held on for the win after getting the goal. Any time you play a team as strong as Manchester City, especially on their ground, you have to take risks, no matter the key players they (and Liverpool) had absent.

Was it overly defensive? Nope. Because Liverpool won. There was no guarantee of a second Liverpool goal had the away side kept up the pressure seen the first 15 minutes. But there certainly would have been a greater danger of conceding an equalizer. City's two goals against United on Sunday, despite being down to ten, clearly loomed large in Dalglish and Clarke's minds, a reminder of what the league leaders are capable of when you give them space to operate, even at a man disadvantage. Preventing that from happening, keeping Liverpool's narrow edge for the second leg, was the only goal. And understandably so.

Possession isn't nine-tenths of the law anymore

Yesterday, Liverpool managed to earn a draw despite dramatically losing the possession battle. Arsenal had 62% of the ball, the most any opposition have had since Dalglish took the reins. Liverpool were under pressure and pegged back for long stretches of the match, but only conceded thanks to a sloppy penalty eight minutes into injury time.

Normally, you'd think that a bad thing. Even after the season we've seen, most of us are still used to the Rafa Benitez method deployed over six seasons: keep possession first and foremost. Blunt the opposition, set the tempo, play keep-away. Spain and Barcelona have won everything under the sun in recent years with similar (if far more effective) tactics, so it must be the "right method." But that hasn't been the case for Liverpool this season. And more often than not, losing the possession battle has actually been a good thing.

Simply put, whether under Hodgson or Dalglish, Liverpool have been better in matches where the opposition has more of the ball.

In the league, Liverpool have eight wins, four draws, and nine losses – an average of 1.33 points per game – when they out-possess their opponents. When the opposition has more possession, Liverpool have won six, drawn three, and lost three – an average of 1.75 points per game, and a difference of almost a half-point per game.

Liverpool have been held under 45% possession in six matches this season: v Arsenal, v Chelsea, at Wolves, at Chelsea, v United, and at Arsenal. Twice under Hodgson, four times under Dalglish. And Liverpool are unbeaten in all six, winning four while drawing twice against the Gunners.

The disparity grows when just considering Dalglish's 13 games: 3W-2D-2L with more possession than the opposition, 4W-1D-1L when the opposition out-possesses Liverpool. An average of 1.57 points per game versus 2.17 points per game. The games won with more possession have been against City, Stoke, and Fulham (all at Anfield); the games won with less possession were against Sunderland, United, Chelsea, and Wolves (all but United away from home). Getting results on the road has happened with defense and counter-attacking football. Finally.

It's been a trend all season, but the January changes were the turning point. Dalglish and Clarke have done a far better job organizing the team, especially the defense. Exchanging Torres for Suarez and Carroll improved Liverpool's ability to counter-attack, with both better at bringing in midfield runners such as Kuyt and Meireles. Liverpool are scoring more goals – having notched in every one of Dalglish's league matches – and conceding less.

But they're doing it with some similarities to Hodgson's team. As said above, players have changed, as have certain tactics (pressing higher up the pitch being the most noticeable). But Liverpool's still reliant on the counter-attack, back in a 4-4-2/4-2-2-2 formation since injuries to Gerrard and multiple defenders, and still getting better results when conceding more possession to the opposition.

Clearly, it's not so simple as just having less possession or the likes of Stoke, Bolton, and Blackburn (or whoever Hodgson's managing) would win the league every season. But it's strange to see such a variation in results contingent upon how much of the ball Liverpool has.

At the end of August, I lamented Liverpool's lack of possession, unhappy with early performances and results under the new manager and still expecting Benitez's metronomic tactics.

Sometimes, a tiger can change its stripes. But it needs the right manager to do so.

Buy a Brick for Every Goal Scored Against Man Utd

This is not my idea, but I'm incredibly happy to support it.

CSD over at Paisley Gates has suggested a novel way to acknowledge Kenny Dalglish's massive impact on Liverpool FC. I'll let him explain it:

Since Kenny Dalglish has been so generous to return to the club and bravely steer what appeared to be a doomed ship back into calmer waters, we should make a small gesture to repay him. The best way I could think of is supporting his wife’s charity, the Marina Dalglish Appeal.

What I am proposing is that for every goal that Liverpool score against Manchester United on March 6th, we buy a brick to support. The charity has already had great success with completing projects such as the development of a Radiotherapy Centre at Aintree University Hospital, the Marina Dalglish Chemotherapy Centre at Aintree & Fazakerley Hospital, and a Radiotherapy Centre at Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology. The “bricks” are only £5 a piece and you get a nifty online certificate when you buy one to show which virtual brick is yours. Currently, the charity is raising money for future efforts to benefit cancer patients in the Northwest with new plans to be announced soon.

At a minimum, I'll be donating £5 after the United match, but I truly hope it's more. I can't thank CSD and Paisley Gates enough for starting this. I encourage everyone to read his original post and please contribute.

Passing Makes Perfect?

Liverpool's capstone goal against Wolves, a flowing, fascinating 31-pass move hearkened the return of the one true style of football. Pass and move, it's the Liverpool groove. Dominate possession, keep it on the floor, and poke at the back line until you find an opening akin to the one which ended with Torres slamming home from six yards out.

'Move' is the key part of that mission statement. Because we saw an awful lot more passes, including successful passes, under the last manager.





In each comparison, Liverpool made more passes and had a higher success rate under Hodgson. Yet in two of the three matches, Liverpool bettered the result under Dalglish; both managers managed to lose 1-2 against Blackpool.

The least number of passes, fewest successful passes, and lowest success rate came in Liverpool's most recent match – a three-goal romp and the only victory. Each game under Dalglish has seen fewer and fewer passes attempted.

It's not news to anyone, but simply put, it's the type of passes attempted and where they were played that matters. Evidently, there's enough time to constantly hoof and play sideways passes in a 90-minute match.

In each of the earlier contests, the center of the pitch is almost wholly blue, with furious lines in front of Liverpool's 18-yard box. The derby at Goodison is by far the most formulaic: a stripe of passes in Liverpool's half, a chasm where midfielders watched the ball fly over their heads, and a stripe of passes outside the Everton box, where Liverpool aimlessly prodded before blasting an empty shot from distance. Coincidentally, that's the match where Liverpool attempted the most passes out of the six listed. Small wonder that 81% were successful. Also, small wonder that was the one match where Liverpool failed to score.

If you've seen Liverpool this season, this is all fairly obvious. I was surprised by the vast and increasing disparity in passes, and the amusing trend of fewer passes attempted in each successive match since Dalglish took the reins, but the difference in style of play (and its chances for success) are evident on first glance.

Aside from the interesting trends, it's just a reminder that there needs to be an end which justifies the means. Making lots of passes and having a high success rate are all well and good, but – and pun heavily regretted – there has to be a goal in the process.

Long Live the King

"Dalglish told me that we're the ones who make people's dreams come true. The fans can't play, so they live their dreams through us." - Fernando Torres

Dalglish in, Hodgson out. Finally. It's been a long, long wait.

It goes without saying, but from here on out, I'm done on the Hodgson vitriol. I apologize to those who thought it offensive and out-of-control over the last few months. I am irrational, petty, and quick to overreact. Thankfully, it's over now. He's a nice guy, it didn't work out. Time to move on as soon as possible.

But I can't help cite a few statistics as a requiem.

• Premier League win percentage:
Roy Hodgson: 35%
Rafa Benitez: 55%
Gerard Houllier: 49%
Roy Evans: 47%
Graeme Souness: 41%

• One league away win in 10 attempts, scoring only seven goals in the process.

• Goal difference of -3 after 20 games.

• 4 points above the relegation zone after 20 games.

• Liverpool hasn't been 12th place or lower after January since the team was relegated in 1953-54. That was the last season Liverpool had 9 or more losses after 20 games.

This is why Roy Hodgson's leaving by "mutual consent." Not because of FSG's itchy trigger finger. Not because of fan power. Not because of the 'shit squad left by the nasty Spaniard.' Cold hard stats, cold hard reality, and massively poor results. That's why he's leaving.

And yes, this is the outcome I'd hoped for.

The comparisons to Kevin Keegan and Newcastle are facile and wrong-headed. Yes, Dalglish hasn't managed in more than a decade, but his record at Liverpool, Blackburn, and even Newcastle was light years better than Keegan's with the Geordies, Fulham, England, and Manchester City. Dalglish has won the league title four times, with two separate clubs. Keegan finished runner-up twice, and won Division One (the current Championship) twice. Liverpool's current squad, despite the recent trouble, is far better than the relegated Newcastle team.

Many have written about the bind this puts FSG in. What happens if Dalglish isn't successful? What happens if he's "too successful?" First, even out of the hot-seat as long as he's been, I doubt he'll replicate the horrendous results we've seen so far this season. The respect from players he's rightfully earned and resulting morale boost should be enough to raise form. And that's not even considering tactics; it's hard to suggest what Liverpool's style will look like because of Kenny's extended sabbatical, but I doubt we'll see so many players out of positions; rigid, antiquated tactics; and a complete refusal to press higher up the pitch. If Dalglish does well this season, excellent, give him the job for as long as he wants. FSG are here for the long-term; they will get the chance to hire "their manager" in time.

This is a brilliant, brilliant day. I can't remember the last time football made me so happy. Which is how sport should be.

And just in time for a trip to Manchester. Adds a bit of luster back onto that match-up.