From football 365
So it has come to this for club and country.
Liverpool, the country's biggest club at the onset of the 1990s, has been reduced to hiring their new manager from London's fifth biggest club.
Meanwhile, the England job has become such an unattractive proposition that - even after their announcement that Fabio Capello's position is currently under review - the FA have been denied a hearing by a 62-year-old who spent half of the last decade managing those giants of the international game, Finland and the United Arab Emirates.
The mighty have truly crashed.
Denigrating Roy Hodgson is not a pleasant undertaking but sentiment ought not to distract from the realisation of what his appointment represents for Liverpool.
It is a safety-first, reduced-status, low-budget, low-expectation underwhelming appointment that speaks trenchantly of just how dramatic and drastic the club's decline has been under the disastrous ownership of Tom and Jerry.
Their last managerial appointment, made five years ago, installed a two-time victor of La Liga. His predecessor was France's national coach. In comparison, Hodgson's managerial record is merely patchy - or, in football-speak, mid-table. His only champion achievement was 20 years ago in Sweden. He worked a minor miracle last term in guiding Fulham to the UEFA Cup final but his career had been stuck in a decade of decline managing Scandinavian and international minnows in the long years before his arrival at Craven Cottage.
In 25 years of management, the only club managed by Hodgson that can be regarded as the equal of Liverpool's standing are Inter Milan, with whom he spent 18 months at the end of the 1990s. After subsequent stints with such powerhouses as Viking, Udinese and Copenhagen, it's no wonder he has apparently said yes to Liverpool without a moment's hesitation. Is it cruel to surmise that he probably cannot believe his luck?
Hodgson's appeal for Liverpool is equally obvious and equally self-depreciating. As nothing in his record indicates he should be considered the man to deliver the club's first title in 20 years, the conclusion has to be that he has been pursued for his ability to apply a steady hand through choppy waters. His remit probably does not go any further than to replicate his big-value-for-little-money achievements at Fulham.
The ambition of finishing first has been wiped out. They might even have given up on finishing fourth. In the appointment of a man who takes his summer holidays in Wales, Liverpool have settled for being average. As the club searches for new owners and new investment, stability and an upper mid-table finish will have to suffice. Without that investment and change of ownership, it's all that can suffice.
If that sounds overly negative then try to make the argument that Hodgson's appointment is any way progressive. Is he the man to persuade Fernando Torres and Steven Gerrard to remain at the club (if that is, the club can afford not to sell their prized assests)? Probably not. If Liverpool wanted that man, then they ought to have appointed Kenny Dalglish. Could Gerrard have turned his back on a true Liverpool legend during his hour of need? Could Torres? Rejecting Hodgson's quiet, steady-as-she-lists revolution will not be much of a wrench in comparison.
Yet, regardless of the outcome of his talks with Gerrard and Torres, Liverpool fans can expect Hodgson to bring a welcome sense of calm and order to the dressing-room and beyond. There will be no out-of-school press briefings, no mutterings of discontent, no hand-wringing about promises not met.
Hodgson's style is placating and persuasive. If he repeats his miracles of Fulham then maybe, just maybe, Liverpool could challenge for a top-four spot. Constrained by such a limited outlook and a limited budget, Hodgson's appointment does make sense. The best and worst of the matter is that he is the right man for the wrong time.
Great article.
