NOT MY TITLE !
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2080811/Patrick-Collins-Kenny-Dalglish-needs-home-truths-flattery.html
By PATRICK COLLINS
Last updated at 9:54 AM on 1st January 2012
The match was over, the points were secure and Kenny Dalglish was screwing his face into a smile. The inquisitor from Sky TV assessed the manager’s mood and served him up a slow full toss.
‘Did Andy Carroll do everything but score tonight?’ he inquired. Dalglish grunted a few unrevealing platitudes, and the deferential tone was set.
Now, Dalglish is not the only Premier League manager who prefers to deal with docile flattery. In truth, most of them favour the kind of questions which are accompanied by a tug of the forelock.
But during a year which has seen Liverpool make qualified progress while spending money on an unprecedented scale, Dalglish has behaved with a prickly defensiveness which smacks of paranoia.
The Carroll issue is an obvious case in point. The world and his brother know that £35million was an outrageous amount to invest in a player whose ability was unproven and whose attitude was questionable.
They know that it was spent because the deal had to be done before the transfer deadline and Liverpool’s pockets were bulging with the £50m they received for the sale of Fernando Torres.
Above all, they know that Carroll has done little or nothing to justify that fee in the course of an unproductive year: £35m for a striker who does everything but score?
Naturally, we should expect the manager to defend his man but Dalglish has done so with thin-skinned surliness.
Carroll had been at Anfield for a matter of weeks when Dalglish complained about ‘negative’ questions. From there on, almost every reference to the player has been greeted with the same defensive hostility. It was as if Dalglish suspected that his own judgment was being questioned.
And that would never do. And yet there are questions to be asked about his decision to spend a total of some £50m on Jordan Henderson, Charlie Adam and Stewart Downing. Do they really represent value for money, are they really men capable of lifting the side to a new level?
It would help if Dalglish did not treat simple discussion as rank impertinence, if he did not regard mild dissent as personal affront.
Which brings us, of course, to Luis Suarez. The Liverpool striker was charged with making racially offensive comments. The case was heard at length by an independent commission, chaired by a QC.
The player was found guilty and received an eight-match ban and £40,000 fine. An initial reading of the commission’s findings, published on Saturday night, suggests a scrupulously thorough and balanced process with an apparently appropriate sanction.
Yet through all this, Liverpool FC’s stance has been that of the affronted victim. Long before they saw the detailed findings, they called the decision ‘extraordinary’ and ‘incredible’.
They impugned the character of Patrice Evra. They allowed players and manager to parade in ‘supportive’ T-shirts, a piece of imbecilic posturing.
Dalglish himself plumbed the deepest depths when he tweeted: ‘Let’s not let him walk alone.’ It was a cheap and demeaning attempt to evoke the tradition of a great football club in the service of one who had been found guilty by the FA of a serious offence.
For Liverpool are certainly a great club; indeed, they are an institution created by remarkable men and sustained by extraordinary supporters.
In the past, and most particularly in the wake of the Hillsborough tragedy, Dalglish has shown an impeccable awareness of the dignity and stature of the institution.
All of which makes his current conduct more difficult to explain. His close friends — golfing partners, for the most part — speak of his warmth and ready wit. Yet publicly, the ready wit too often congeals into feeble wisecrack.
Thus, when asked about a poor tackle by a Newcastle player on Friday evening, he responded with: ‘I didn’t see it. If it was a bad one, I’m sure the FA will take appropriate action.’
Again, the snide smear when a little humility would have been in order. And it is all a great pity because the man has so much to offer. He was a wondrous player, one of the best our game has seen, and his managerial record is resoundingly impressive.
He could yet offer his game a singular example by studying the contents of the commission’s findings and accepting them without recourse to smart jibes or self-serving objections.
I hope that is his chosen course, and I hope that somebody of consequence at Liverpool advises him to take that course. For flattery is a dangerous diet; high time that Kenny Dalglish was told a home truth.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2080811/Patrick-Collins-Kenny-Dalglish-needs-home-truths-flattery.html
By PATRICK COLLINS
Last updated at 9:54 AM on 1st January 2012
The match was over, the points were secure and Kenny Dalglish was screwing his face into a smile. The inquisitor from Sky TV assessed the manager’s mood and served him up a slow full toss.
‘Did Andy Carroll do everything but score tonight?’ he inquired. Dalglish grunted a few unrevealing platitudes, and the deferential tone was set.
Now, Dalglish is not the only Premier League manager who prefers to deal with docile flattery. In truth, most of them favour the kind of questions which are accompanied by a tug of the forelock.
But during a year which has seen Liverpool make qualified progress while spending money on an unprecedented scale, Dalglish has behaved with a prickly defensiveness which smacks of paranoia.
The Carroll issue is an obvious case in point. The world and his brother know that £35million was an outrageous amount to invest in a player whose ability was unproven and whose attitude was questionable.
They know that it was spent because the deal had to be done before the transfer deadline and Liverpool’s pockets were bulging with the £50m they received for the sale of Fernando Torres.
Above all, they know that Carroll has done little or nothing to justify that fee in the course of an unproductive year: £35m for a striker who does everything but score?
Naturally, we should expect the manager to defend his man but Dalglish has done so with thin-skinned surliness.
Carroll had been at Anfield for a matter of weeks when Dalglish complained about ‘negative’ questions. From there on, almost every reference to the player has been greeted with the same defensive hostility. It was as if Dalglish suspected that his own judgment was being questioned.
And that would never do. And yet there are questions to be asked about his decision to spend a total of some £50m on Jordan Henderson, Charlie Adam and Stewart Downing. Do they really represent value for money, are they really men capable of lifting the side to a new level?
It would help if Dalglish did not treat simple discussion as rank impertinence, if he did not regard mild dissent as personal affront.
Which brings us, of course, to Luis Suarez. The Liverpool striker was charged with making racially offensive comments. The case was heard at length by an independent commission, chaired by a QC.
The player was found guilty and received an eight-match ban and £40,000 fine. An initial reading of the commission’s findings, published on Saturday night, suggests a scrupulously thorough and balanced process with an apparently appropriate sanction.
Yet through all this, Liverpool FC’s stance has been that of the affronted victim. Long before they saw the detailed findings, they called the decision ‘extraordinary’ and ‘incredible’.
They impugned the character of Patrice Evra. They allowed players and manager to parade in ‘supportive’ T-shirts, a piece of imbecilic posturing.
Dalglish himself plumbed the deepest depths when he tweeted: ‘Let’s not let him walk alone.’ It was a cheap and demeaning attempt to evoke the tradition of a great football club in the service of one who had been found guilty by the FA of a serious offence.
For Liverpool are certainly a great club; indeed, they are an institution created by remarkable men and sustained by extraordinary supporters.
In the past, and most particularly in the wake of the Hillsborough tragedy, Dalglish has shown an impeccable awareness of the dignity and stature of the institution.
All of which makes his current conduct more difficult to explain. His close friends — golfing partners, for the most part — speak of his warmth and ready wit. Yet publicly, the ready wit too often congeals into feeble wisecrack.
Thus, when asked about a poor tackle by a Newcastle player on Friday evening, he responded with: ‘I didn’t see it. If it was a bad one, I’m sure the FA will take appropriate action.’
Again, the snide smear when a little humility would have been in order. And it is all a great pity because the man has so much to offer. He was a wondrous player, one of the best our game has seen, and his managerial record is resoundingly impressive.
He could yet offer his game a singular example by studying the contents of the commission’s findings and accepting them without recourse to smart jibes or self-serving objections.
I hope that is his chosen course, and I hope that somebody of consequence at Liverpool advises him to take that course. For flattery is a dangerous diet; high time that Kenny Dalglish was told a home truth.
