Anatoly Karlin, who writes one of the most interesting and thought provoking blogs about Russia, has just launched a new forum for people wishing to indulge in 'Russia related discussions'.
It's called The Russia Debate and I'm sure it'll soon be a first stop for anyone interested in debating Russian politics and current affairs regularly. The house rules are 'earnest and mutually civil'. Pop over and have a look.
Three Thousand Versts of Loneliness
Reflections and rants on politics, current affairs, football, culture, Northern Ireland, Russia, Eastern Europe and life.
Wednesday, 8 May 2013
Wednesday, 17 April 2013
Smashed in the USSR - a brief review
I picked up a book over the weekend called Smashed in the USSR and felt obliged to
write a short review, simply because it is very good but appears to have been largely
ignored, if the lack of mentions on Google and its non-inclusion on Goodreads
is a fair gauge. Subtitled ‘Fear, Loathing
and Vodka on the Steppes’ it tells the story of Ivan Petrov, a Russian tramp,
as told to co-author, Caroline Walton.
Some research reveals that the book was previously published
as Russia Through a Shot Glass and perhaps
that title was better. Smashed in the USSR is a little trite
and it suggests a booze-fuelled, gonzo-style romp, whereas Petrov’s tale is actually
a sad and thoughtful account of alcoholism, personal and national, against a broad sweep of the USSR’s history and an even broader sweep of Soviet
geography.
His voice is captured particularly elegantly by Walton and
it reveals a great deal of humour and a surprising lack of self-pity. Petrov describes the crushing poverty of a
wartime childhood in the industrial, Volga city of Chabaevsk, life as a vagrant –
hopping trains across the Soviet empire – and the grim existence of a prisoner
in a succession of lock-ups and work camps.
His life is varied and remarkable enough to read like a
novel, but the memoir is also a considerable account of a seamy underbelly of
the USSR. There are failed collective
farms, where everyone is too drunk to bother to take in the harvest, mental
institutions filled with alcoholics undergoing courses of brutal drugs and a
cast of drifters, conmen and criminals, living on the edge of society.
Petrov argues that, in the USSR, there are few differences
between ‘those behind the wire and those looking in’. Although he is an alcoholic he says he is no ‘white
raven’. The disease disfigures Soviet
society, but while a majority pretends to work and have a family life in grim
tenements, the ‘alkashi’ travel across the Union, eking out a few roubles to
buy ‘a hair of the dog’. Their
lives are certainly bleak, violent and often brief, but the author also portrays
glimpses of generosity, comradeship and even dignity.
Ultimately Petrov seeks asylum in the United Kingdom, after
coming to these shores with a Georgian theatre company. He is not impressed by the ‘freedom’ offered
in ‘the West’, where he thinks people have become trapped by an endless pursuit
of possessions. In an epilogue written
in her own voice Walton wonders doubtfully whether he could have pursued a
similar existence in post-Soviet Russia, without coming to a premature end.
Smashed in the USSR
is a fascinating story, gracefully told.
I’m at a loss as to why it is has not captured more attention. The memoir is an impressive personal account of alcoholism, as well as an important historical description of life in the Soviet
Union.
Hopefully many more people will read this republished
version.
Friday, 8 February 2013
A sad day as Northern Ireland plays Alex Bruce
Wednesday was another dark day for international football in
Northern Ireland. Michael O’Neill’s side
drew 0-0 with lowly Malta, a team made up of part-time players, meaning that the
manager has yet to achieve a win, after 18 months in charge.
That’s not the reason, though, that it was a dark day for
Northern Ireland football. Managers come
and go, players are capped and retire, lose form or fall out of favour; matches
are played and sometimes the result is good while more often, particularly in
friendly matches, it is bad.
The only thing that should be constant is the honour of
playing for one’s country. The Irish
Football Association can change the international coach, revitalise the playing
panel, modify tactics, but the prestige attached to the award of an
international cap, if it is diminished, cannot be recovered.
That’s why by far the most significant event on Wednesday
evening was the selection of Alex Bruce and his participation in 70 minutes of
a grim, lacklustre international challenge match. Bruce was first asked to play for Northern
Ireland a number of years ago, but declined, saying that his ‘lifelong’
ambition was to play for the Republic.
He achieved this goal twice, representing the FAI’s senior
side in two international challenge matches.
If a player has not competed in at least one full competitive
match he can change his international allegiance once, if he is eligible to
represent another association. So, as it
became clear that Alex Bruce would not establish himself permanently with the Republic,
Nigel Worthington asked him to reconsider playing for Northern Ireland. Which is how we arrive at the extraordinary situation of the player debuting for a second
international team.
Although this was within the rules it sets a deplorable
precedent.
Likewise, back in 2010 Adam Barton was selected for the international team and awarded a ‘trial’ cap in a challenge match, after
refusing to commit himself to Northern Ireland.
He subsequently defected to the southern, breakaway association. That example meant a player could represent
Northern Ireland in a friendly game without any expectation that they were
committing themselves to play for the IFA in the future.
Now, thanks to a combination of the Association, Nigel
Worthington and Michael O’Neill, Alex Bruce has established the precedent that,
if a player is eligible for both Irish teams, he is free to turn Northern
Ireland down, pursue his ambitions with the Republic and assume that, if he
still satisfies the criteria, the IFA will select him when his southern adventure is a failure.
Can the IFA drag the prestige of a Northern Ireland cap any
lower? It will be a challenge, but I
suspect they will find a way. Selecting
Alex Bruce was a disgraceful decision, which showed no pride and very little principle.
Labels:
football,
GAWA,
Irish Football Association
Friday, 1 February 2013
Lamenting USSR's break-up isn't 'rewriting history'
As an occasional newspaper columnist I understand the
pressures of coming up with an instant opinion on something .... anything. Still, an article in The Times today by Ben
Macintyre is a particularly lame affair.
The premise is that Mussolini, Stalin and Hitler were very bad men and
that Italy and Russia aren’t contrite enough about it, while Germany is.
In the round that’s a fairly un-startling observation,
although it’s less clear what purpose this national self-flagellation that
Macintyre wants to see would serve. He hangs his argument on some fairly flimsy facts.
Take this piece of evidence that ‘the rehabilitation of
Stalin is also gathering pace’.
“Under Vladimir Putin’s government, a revised school
curriculum describes him as a ‘competent manager’ whose actions were ‘entirely
rational’”.
Some of the best historians of Russia in the English
language have already gone to quite some length to emphasise that Stalin’s
purges were not the actions of a paranoid lunatic. It’s perfectly reasonable to describe his
actions as ‘rational’, without excusing their purpose or brutality. The aim being to assert personal power,
rapidly industrialise the USSR and catch up with the development of ‘western’
countries, most of Stalin’s crimes were perfectly logical, albeit ruthless,
bloodthirsty and sociopathic.
And although Macintyre’s contention that ‘anyone who
[regrets the passing of the USSR] has no memory’ might seem fair in Latvia or
Lithuania, it’s hardly the case in Kyrgyzstan, Pridnestrovie or Nagorno
Karabakh. Lamenting the destruction of
the USSR as a multi-national state is not the same as condoning communism or
any of the atrocities committed in its name.
The Soviet Union’s break-up resulted in much greater violence, ethnic strife and poverty in many of its former republics. To accuse the people who live there, or Vladimir Putin, of ‘rewriting history’ by regretting that fact is unjustified and arrogant.
Thursday, 17 January 2013
Standing up for big spending football clubs isn't egalitarian
There is a perverse article in The Times today by Stefan
Syzmanski, which argues that UEFA’s Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules are
elitist. I’m afraid I can’t link the
article, because the newspaper expects people to pay for journalism.
FFP requires football clubs to stay solvent and dictates
that their spending must be covered by income generated through football
activities. The aim is to ensure
competition and prevent wealthy owners from bankrolling star-studded teams
without any regard for sustainability. The Premier League is still having a
discussion about whether to adopt UEFA’s code, but four clubs, Liverpool, Manchester
United, Tottenham Hotspur and Arsenal, are lobbying to ensure that it comes
into force.
Syzmanski’s piece says that ‘big clubs’ are attempting to
prevent smaller teams from challenging their ascendency. It’s a truly depressing thought that the only
way to challenge football’s elite is to spend astronomical sums of money.
The tendency for clubs to become the playthings of rich
owners is severely damaging the sport. Older
elements of ‘football mobility’, like building a strong youth system,
attracting more fans, developing a stadium and appointing an astute manager, are
being replaced by cheque-book chairmen, who pay astronomical sums to recruit
journeymen players.
It is actually very refreshing that Pep Guardiola, the
former Barcelona manager, has decided to take charge of Bayern Munich, a proper
football club, rather than Chelsea or Manchester City. English sides could learn a great deal from
their German counterparts, whose spending is restricted, who charge fans a
sensible price for admission to games and create a steady stream of home-grown
talent for their national team.
Smaller clubs, like Greuther Furth or FC Augsburg, have
certainly not been prevented from reaching the top tier of football in Germany. If the Premier League adopts the FFP it will
ensure that teams which reach the top in England concentrate on player
development, rather than spending money they don’t have on overpaid
professionals from overseas.
Before a club’s bank balance became the main criterion for
its success the likes of Nottingham Forest and Aston Villa were able to win
league titles and European Cups, while Man Utd and Arsenal often struggled to
challenge. It’s simply nonsense to
suggest that more money has created more mobility in English football.
It is right for UEFA to ask clubs in its member associations
to operate as going concerns. It is
right that it acts to restrict outrageous salaries which have put some teams
out of business. If the owner of Dogsnot
Athletic is prevented from propelling his toy to the top of the Premier League
by spending ill-gotten billions on pampered mercenaries from Bolivia, then all
the better.
Tuesday, 6 November 2012
A Dabble on the Turner Prize
Over at The Dabbler I share some thoughts on the contenders for this year's Turner Prize. Not to give too much away, but I wasn't particularly impressed.
Tuesday, 11 September 2012
Can O'Neill's men change gear for Luxembourg
Just a very quick pre-match comment on the progress of Michael
O’Neill’s Northern Ireland.
The trip to Russia ended in disappointment, but not
disgrace. There were tentative signs
that O’Neill is beginning to drill some organisation into his side defensively.
The team kept its shape quite effectively while the Russians
played their fluid passing game and the best chances were created because of
individual errors. That said, Northern
Ireland gave the ball away much too easily, and there were few signs of the
clever, mobile offensive tactics which O’Neill wants to introduce.
2-0 was as good a result as the fans had a right to
expect, especially since Russia’s
second goal was a contentious penalty (although Cathcart’s challenge on Kokorin
was clumsy). They will demand more
against Luxembourg tonight.
Under Nigel Worthington Northern Ireland failed to change their defensive game when they played weaker opponents, or to dominate possession. O’Neill’s task this evening is to show that his side knows how to play against minnows, as well as sides like Russia.
On a tangent, the trip to Moscow, via Kazan and Nizhny Novgorod was amazing. But that's for another day.
Thursday, 16 August 2012
Michael O'Neill's tactical quandary ahead of trip to Russia
Northern Ireland’s home friendly matches are notoriously
boring. Therefore last night’s 3-3 draw
against Finland, which not only saw plenty of goalmouth action but was also played
at a reasonable tempo, is attracting descriptions like ‘thriller’ and ‘classic’.
Hardly - but in new manager Michael O’Neill’s 3rd
game, it was nice to see his players finally score some goals. Their previous two outings were 3-0 and 6-0
defeats against Norway and Holland.
Michael’s positive approach to the game, his openness with
the press and his easy manner with players, are a refreshing change from his negative
predecessor, Nigel Worthington. Although O’Neill
must already be acutely aware that he faces a difficult task to produce
respectable results. The Northern
Ireland team he has inherited is rather short on quality, morale or ideas.
The new young manager wants to implement a fashionable,
flexible tactical system nonetheless. To
dip into technical jargon, it is best described as 4-3-3, although, when the
team is being forced to defend, it can look more like a 4-5-1.
The key aspects are that it doesn’t include conventional
wingers or a traditional pairing of centre-forwards up front. It does require the players to remain in a
compact formation rather than being strung out loosely across the pitch, and it
depends upon swift, accurate passing and quick, instinctive movement to break
down opposition defences.
It would be wonderful to think that O’Neill can coach Northern
Ireland to play this way, and it may even be fun watching him try (as it was
for the first 20 minutes last night when his players gave it a darned good
attempt). I wonder, though, whether
there are not already signs that he’ll eventually be forced to abandon his
favoured tactics.
For a start, the shape the team is currently adopting is
anything but compact. Three crooked,
incoherent lines of defenders, midfielders and attackers are ungracefully splayed
out, with yawning gaps in between them.
Secondly, if a team is to maintain any width at all playing
this system it needs its full-backs to be willing to push on up past the
midfield on occasion. Last night Lee
Hodson looked desperately reluctant to adopt this style, even though one foray saw
him create a good opportunity for Kyle Lafferty to score, and Ryan McGivern was
simply not prepared to give it a try at all.
Despite a good opening period for Northern Ireland, the
football was not particularly pretty.
Any possession which was retained went sideways across the
three unlovely lines (particularly the defence) and tended to break down when
an attempt was made to advance, or interplay the ball between them. The team didn’t look like a tight unit. Yet there was also very little width, because
the midfield and forward players were unwilling to go too far out unto the
wings and Hodson and McGivern were reluctant to overlap and provide their
midfielders with an extra option.
The outcome?
Possession was often lost with some very hopeful and unrealistic
straight balls over Kyle Lafferty’s head, which he was supposed to chase, but
had no realistic chance of retrieving.
Perhaps the most alarming aspect of this lack of shape for
Northern Ireland was that the defence was desperately exposed. Hence Finland, an average side, managed to
add three goals to Holland’s 6 and Norway’s 3.
That defensive record is extremely worrying as Northern
Ireland prepares to face Russia in Moscow in the first World Cup
qualifier. Although we eventually
claimed a draw last night, after a doubtful penalty, if Finland had won 6-2 it
would not have been an unfair reflection of the balance of play.
The team simply has
to be set up in a more compact fashion, if it is to avoid an embarrassing scoreline at Lokomotiv stadium.
Then, of course, an away tie looms with Portugal. Terrifying.
Michael O’Neill did perform miracles at Shamrock Rovers,
getting a limited set of players playing a tricky technical system and
achieving excellent results. Who’s to
say he can’t do the same at international level?
Unfortunately he won’t have the luxury of working daily with
Northern Ireland, or even selecting the same personnel for each squad, so his
opportunities to coach players in the intricacies of his strategy will be more
limited.
Whoever was appointed Northern Ireland’s manager quickly had
to come to terms with the limited available resources. Many of the players who contributed to
memorable results during the Lawrie Sanchez era have retired, struggled with
injuries or simply didn’t reach their full potential.
The international team is moving into one of those natural
slumps which all countries as small as Northern Ireland are forced to suffer
from time to time. Michael O’Neill’s job
is either to manage that decline or deliver creditable results in spite of
it.
He’ll need to be hard headed and pragmatic to do
either. I wonder whether the first compromise
may be to change his team’s tactics.
Monday, 13 August 2012
The Rodgers reign will require patience.
Am awful lot has changed since my last post about developments at
Anfield.
Kenny Dalglish joined Daniel Comolli and others in being
given the sack by Liverpool’s owners. It
was an unpopular decision with supporters, who were loyal to ‘King Kenny’ to
the end. A tortuous period of rumour and
speculation followed, before Brendan Rodgers was prised away from Swansea City,
becoming the 2nd youngest manager in Liverpool’s history.
The Carnlough man has impressed with his forthright press
statements, and now that the season has officially started, he will get an
opportunity to make improvements on the pitch.
It could be a slow process, but Liverpool fans (and the club's owners) must be
patient. Rodgers needs to be given a
number of years to implement his system, barring all but the most unforeseeable
disasters.
The manager has made
two signings over the close season.
First to arrive was the young Italian striker, Fabio Borini. He marked his competitive debut at Anfield by
scoring with an adept volley, after clever play from Luis Suarez.
Last week he was joined by Joe Allen, captured from Swansea,
after a £15 million release clause in his contract was triggered. At that price his signing is a gamble. I suspect that the fee was inflated by the
fact that Allen is a British player.
Still, Rodgers has a high regard for the midfielder’s
ability and the system which he intends to implement does require mobile
players who are comfortable on the ball in the centre of the pitch.
The manager’s preferred tactics have been described variously
as 4-3-3, 4-5-1 and ‘tikka takka’. As I
noted previously, it is a strategy which is likely to suit Luis Suarez in
particular.
So it’s an exciting time for Liverpool supporters, but a
note of caution. The manager can make
some improvements straight away, but the current squad is still in need of
renovation. Allen and Borini have
arrived, but the likes of Charlie Adam, Jay Spearing and Stuart Downing
remain. They have also, rather worryingly, played a notable
role in pre-season matches.
The hunt for a wide player continues. The Uruguayan, Gaston Ramirez, has been
mentioned, while Portugal’s Ricardo Queresma is viewed as a possible
alternative. Though Liverpool has a
notoriously patchy record in the transfer market, where it comes to wingers.
As ever, the manager’s season will be considered a success
if the club is in next season’s champions’ league. Cup success is regarded as an optional extra
these days.
A top 4 finish is achievable, but if it is not attained, it will be time
for the owners to demonstrate some patience.
Friday, 10 August 2012
Put Pussy Riot in context
The British press, as a rule, covers Russia badly and the
Pussy Riot trial is no exception. In
many of the articles which I’ve read, there is precious little distinction
between reporting and comment.
Now, I would not for a minute suggest that the three young
defendants should receive the three year prison sentence which prosecution
lawyers are seeking, but the notions that the proceedings constitute a ‘show
trial’, represent a return to Stalinism or are purely politically motivated don’t
stand up to scrutiny.
Read Mercouris’s carefully researched post which looks at
the legal issues and some of the lazy assumptions which have been reported
persistently by newspapers in the UK.
The law in a particular country reflects quite properly the
values of the society in which it operates.
If a protest were to desecrate a mosque in a devout Muslim country the
punishment would most likely be severe. International
opinion would not be appalled. If an anarchist
collective performed a profane song at the altar of St Peter’s, and if its
members had a history of other provocative and criminal actions in the Vatican,
it would not be surprising if they were tried, convicted or even imprisoned. Any outcry would be muted.
The difficulty with much coverage of Russia in British
newspapers is that every story is used to build a case against Vladimir Putin
and is not, therefore, treated on its own merits. There is very little attempt to provide
context, balance or even full disclosure of the facts. Reporting is often bent into a shape which
suits comment writers and the newspaper or broadcaster’s editorial line.
It would be wrong to pre-empt the outcome of the Pussy Riot case. The defendants may well be acquitted or dealt a less than draconian punishment. However the fact that the case has come to trial is certainly not as absurd as it has frequently been portrayed.
Friday, 8 June 2012
A Return to sense and sanity: a guest post by Dr Phil Larkin
Dr Phil Larkin returns to provide a thoughtful post on the rise of Sinn Fein in the Republic.
A RETURN TO SENSE AND SANITY: THE “RISE” OF SINN FEIN IN THE IRISH REPUBLIC
Every so often certain sections of the media, Irish and British, seem to “lose the run of themselves” in relation to a particular issue. For a sector of the Irish media (north and south of the border), the current cause for hysteria is the seemingly unstoppable rise of Sinn Fein within the body politic of the Irish Republic, a frenzy fuelled by the recent referendum campaign on the EU Fiscal Reform Treaty. If one were to believe all that has been written over the last few weeks, we would see Gerry Adams as alternatively the next Taoiseach or Irish President, Sinn Fein forming a majority in the Dail at the next election, holding all the cards to Ireland’s political future in their hands. Every utterance that a party figure makes is hailed by some as a piece of profound political wisdom, and there appears to be no limits to their ability as political strategists. The young and educated are supposed to be rallying to the party banner in shoals and legions, sweeping all before them. None of this is entirely new: SF’s advances in the Irish General Election of last year were greeted with similar fanfare in the same quarters.
Happily, out of the general hysteria came a voice of reason, in the form of a Belfast Telegraph article by Henry McDonald, which appeared in the Belfast Telegraph on 30 May. McDonald brought a good dose of insipid common sense to commentary on SF’s position in the Irish Republic, and helps burst the balloon which has continually been inflated by other journalists over the past year or so. It is the aim of this article to take up and expand upon some of the themes alluded to in his newspaper piece, and make some parallels with an issue of concern on this side of the Irish Sea.
McDonald uses the EU referendum campaign in the Republic as a point of focus, and notes how Sinn Fein was undoubtedly the largest single player in the “No” campaign. Even if (as appears likely at the time of writing) the Irish electorate returns a narrow “yes” in the vote, he concedes that the party will have further made in-roads into parts of Middle Ireland they have never reached before. However, he proceeds to make the following important qualifying statement:
Much of Middle Ireland is turned off by the northern-based leadership, tainted as it still is by the Provisionals' blood-soaked paramilitary past. A new leadership of southern based politicians would undoubtedly make the party much more attractive to middle class, economically conservative Irish voters. That in turn would require Sinn Fein to dilute its leftist, autarkic policies on southern economic issues and at the same time risk alienating its older, poorer base.
This succinctly summarizes the upcoming trouble ahead for Sinn Fein in the Republic. It has long been acknowledged that the biggest single task facing any political party in mature Western democracies is to capture enough support of the “squeezed middle” of the electorate (which, after all, comprises the bulk of the population) to gain an overall majority, or form a coalition government, which is the usual situation in the Republic. Sinn Fein, however, is effectively trying to be all things to all men, and it is likely that Middle Ireland (highly literate, informed, and interested) will recognise the sheer hollowness of their economic policies before too long, if they ever bought it in the first place. This is evident from some of the comments made by Irish voters preceding the referendum: one retired accountant from Tipperary made the extremely pertinent observation on the BBC News website that while Gerry Adams said that funds would be available for Ireland even if it rejected the new fiscal compact, he did not state where such funds would come from. It is true that younger SF TDs such as Pearse Doherty and Mary Lou McDonald may have a greater superficial grasp of the language of political economy, and a southern SF leadership almost certainly will wish to modify somewhat the party’s left-wing and autarkic policies in order to appeal to Middle Ireland, but this is likely to alienate the niche areas of the Irish electorate where they have spent so much time and effort seeking to capture. In addition, if the party does go down the path of moving to the centre ground in terms of economic policy, how will it then be able to claim that it is so very different from Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, and Labour, the mainstream parties which SF professes to detest? The middle ground of Irish politics is already a crowded field, and SF are very much newcomers: yes, they come across at present as something new, flash, and exciting, but how long can the fireworks and fun last for? A diet of rhetorical candyfloss and quasi-Poujadism becomes very sickly after a while.
Perhaps this is a naïve view to adopt, but I simply did not buy the hullabaloo prevalent last year about the permanent demise of Fianna Fail as a force in Irish politics, and their eclipse by a rampant Sinn Fein. I simply do not believe that over 80 years of history can just be obliterated by the results of one (admittedly disastrous) election. The reality, as it appears to me, is that SF is currently riding high the wave of dissatisfaction with established political parties which is prevalent in the Republic: the draw of their outdated and threadbare economic policies are emphatically not the cause of this dissatisfaction. Many of the gains made by SF in the south are based on protest vote against the political establishment, hardly a solid basis on which to build a road to government.
This has provoked the question in some quarters about why Fianna Fail is not carrying on a more vocal and active role in opposition. One leading commentator has described SF as the cock which rules the opposition roost at present in the Dail. He goes on state that like the cock, SF does plenty of crowing, but lays no economic eggs. Having grown up on a farm, however, I know that even the most virulent and aggressive rooster will exhaust himself after crowing for an excessive amount of time. Quite apart from needing some time for regrouping and healing the wounds of defeat, I suspect that Fianna Fail have been in the political game long enough to know that their rehabilitation will be a long term project, to be achieved over the next decade or so. Michael Martin has made a quiet, but significant beginning to this process by supporting the Fine Gael/Labour Government on the EU fiscal referendum, and by facing down Eamonn O’Cuiv within the party. The next general election does not have to take place until 2015, and it is possible that by that stage the Irish economy may be on the road to some form of recovery. In addition, by that date the SF roadshow of bluster and empty economic promises will be beginning to look tired out and shop soiled – and the mainstream parties will hopefully be ruthless about subjecting their policies to an unrelenting glare of hard light.
I also have a hunch that for much the same reasons the anti-Scottish Independence campaign has been quiet in comparison to the bluster which we have come to expect from the Nationalists. By 2014 the hope is that, the anniversary of Bannockburn aside, the pro-Independence campaign and rhetoric will have run out of steam, and then be vulnerable to attacks from the much greater intellectual and financial reserves of the unionist camp.
For those who are worried by the triumphalism of Sinn Fein in Ireland, and by the Independence campaign in Scotland, the above are just some things to bear in mind.
Monday, 23 April 2012
Dalglish has major rebuilding to do in the summer.
Another weekend, another home defeat for Liverpool Football
Club. This time Kenny Dalglish’s side
managed to lose to West Bromwich Albion at Anfield - for the first time in 45
years.
Just weeks ago I had the misfortune to witness a similar
capitulation to Wigan Athletic, but the WBA defeat stings a little more,
because former manager, Roy Hodgson, is now in charge of the Baggies.
Liverpool’s owners, FSG, showed their unhappiness at the
club’s progress over Easter week when a spate of sackings were announced. The highest profile departure was Damien
Comolli, the ‘director of football strategy’ who was charged with overseeing
transfer policy.
It’s true that the Frenchman did a terrible job by any
standards. When Liverpool cashed in to
the tune of £50 million, by selling Fernando Torres to Chelsea during last
season’s transfer window, Comolli set about spending the loot with all the
restraint and foresight of a drunken sailor.
Officials from Newcastle United were privately astonished
when Liverpool tabled a £30 million opening bid for Andy Carroll. In the end the Geordies were able to hold out
for a mammoth £35 million.
In recent weeks Carroll has begun to look like a worthwhile
option, scoring late winners against Blackburn and Everton. Had the big striker cost closer to Newcastle’s valuation of £12 million, he might yet have a chance of being
regarded a good buy. However with the
pressure of a hugely inflated price-tag, he has suffered a torrid opening
season and a half at Anfield.
For that misjudgement and others – Jordan Henderson, Stuart
Downing and the woeful Charlie Adam – all of which involved hefty fees, Comolli
got the sack. Kenny Dalglish, though,
was quick to emphasise that he had had the final say on all transfer deals. There is a suspicion that the next time FSG
show their impatience with Liverpool’s progress, the buck could stop with the
manager, who still enjoys enthusiastic backing from the club’s fans.
Dalglish’s dreadful league results have been redeemed somewhat
by a successful season in cup competitions.
Liverpool beat Everton at Wembley last weekend, to secure a second cup
final in 3 months.
In February the Carling Cup was added to the
club’s considerable trophy cabinet, albeit that penalty kicks were required
against second tier Cardiff City.
Should Liverpool overcome Chelsea in the FA Cup final,
Dalglish will have won two major prizes in his first full season back in
management. It would be difficult to
portray that achievement as anything less than success, however persistent poor
form in the league suggests that there are still underlying problems with strategy
and personnel.
The most glaring weakness of the current Liverpool team is its
inability to turn possession into goals.
Although the midfield is incomparably weaker than the Mescherano /
Gerrard / Alonso combination which Rafa Benitez had the luxury of selecting,
the chief problem, as I see it, is that Carroll and Suarez are mismatched up
front.
It would be easy, and unfair, to blame this incompatibility on
the Englishman. The truth is that Luis
Suarez is not a conventional strike partner.
He does not like to play off Carroll and rarely drops a little deeper to
benefit from the big man’s knock downs.
He prefers to operate further forward, off the shoulder of defenders, or
drifting wide, before plunging back infield on another slaloming dribble.
It’s wonderful to watch, but it doesn’t exploit Carroll’s
aerial ability, nor does it provide ammunition for Suarez’s strike
partner.
For his country, the little Uruguayan spearheads a three
pronged attack. The system suits him,
because he is flanked by similarly mobile forwards. On the rare occasions that Dalglish has
started Suarez alongside Craig Bellamy, the pair look like they could establish
a similar dynamic.
Indeed the manager does have the option of changing his
preferred system to accommodate Liverpool’s star striker. He could line-up in a 4-3-3 formation, with
Suarez at the head of an attacking trio which includes Bellamy and Maxi. It is likely that the result would be an
improvement in the goals scored column.
Of course the difficulty there is that Comolli’s £35 million
would’ve been invested in the world’s most expensive bench warmer.
Dalglish might alternatively opt to play more to Andy
Carroll’s strengths. Liverpool currently
set-up quite narrowly, with even the supposed wide players preferring to cut
inside and play tricksy passes, rather than act as conventional wingers.
With Carroll in the team this strategy makes no sense,
particularly when the worst offender is Stuart Downing, the former Aston Villa
wide-man, who’s only discernible talent is the ability to deliver a cross with
his only operational foot. It is
infuriating to see Downing persistently deployed on the right flank, when he is
so debilitatingly one footed.
If he is to be included in the team, pin him to the left
flank and tell him to hit the by-line and hit Carroll’s head.
Better yet, Liverpool has a bright, young winger, Raheem
Sterling, whom Dalglish has chosen not to blood. The youngster had a few minutes at the end of
the Wigan defeat and provided the one bright spot of a depressing afternoon for
the reds.
There are other frailties in the team which
Dalglish must address urgently, if Liverpool is to mount a challenge for a
Champions League position next season.
Lucas Leiva should return from a lengthy break due to injury and his
comeback won’t be too soon for Liverpool fans.
Jay Spearing has unfortunately proven that he isn’t of the
standard expected at Anfield. He does
not command the midfield from deep positions or adequately protect his
defence. Indeed, other than Steven
Gerrard, who is now well in his thirties, Liverpool could do with completely
renovating its midfield over the summer.
The painfully slow, ploddingly average presence of Charlie
Adam should be chalked down to experience.
The Scot should be sold to any if any realistic bids are received. Downing’s sale wouldn’t occasion many
protests either and the likes of Dirk Kuyt have already been informed that
their contracts will not be renewed.
Worringly, Liverpool’s previously impermeable defence has
also been creaking since Christmas. Despite
his many years of heroic service, the team now looks sounder at the back when
Jamie Carragher is excluded. However
Martin Skrtel’s rugged skills are not matched by his positional sense and, in
Carragher’s absence, he sometimes looks a little lost.
Either Sebastien Coates will develop into the extra option
which Liverpool needs at the back, or the club will have to go shopping for
another centre-half.
In fact, Dalglish will need to do rather a lot of rebuilding in the summer, which is disappointing, given the investment which FSG have put in. Otherwise the new season which starts in August could see more underachievement at Anfield.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
