Rodgers: Should He Stay, or Should He Go?

I can't make up my mind about Brendan Rodgers.
I think there's little doubt that he's been a positive influence on the younger players in the Liverpool squad, and I loved watching the team towards the end of the 2013/14 season putting the ball in the back of the net with almost boring regularity.
But the magic seems to have worn off pretty quickly. OK, so Luis Suárez has moved on, and Rodgers wasn't helped by the prolonged injuries suffered by Daniel Sturridge, but the poor performance this year is surely more than just the lack of a potent striker.
Here, I try to analyse the Pro's and Con's of Rodgers' reign, and whether it's time for someone new to lead the team.

The Case For Rodgers

When it comes to development of youth team players, Rodgers seems to be doing a better job than many. This is definitely an encouraging sign, particularly when you consider that a long line of Liverpool greats came through this system: Steven Gerrard, Jamie Carragher, Danny Murphy (although Dario Gradi at Crewe should be credited primarily for his development), Michael Owen, Robbie Fowler, Steve McManaman, Phil Thompson, Tommy Smith (of whom Bill Shankly once said: "Tommy Smith wasn't born, he was quarried!"), Ian Callaghan, etc., etc. (However, note that they all come from Liverpool, or close by. Have there been any significant youth team players who weren't Scousers? Should we continue to buy young potential players who are not from the Liverpool area? Are there any lessons to be learned here?) Anyhow, Rodgers is certainly doing a better job in this regard than Rafa Benítez did.

Rodgers has also, in many ways, gone back to Liverpool's core "pass & move" style of play, albeit with his own take on things. That has to be applauded, particularly after all the negative play we endured under Gérard Houllier's regime.

He has schooled the team tactically in a whole range of skills, from playing various formations - both defensive and offensive - through to defensive positioning, zonal marking and offensive pressing skills. I can't recall a Liverpool team that was capable of playing so many different formations at will than under Rodgers.

The Case Against Rodgers

Many of the young players that Rodgers is credited with developing were actually given their first chance to shine under his predecessor, the legendary Kenny Dalglish. These include current squad members such as the problematic Raheem Sterling, and the dyed-in-the-wool Scouse defender, John Flanagan. Aside from Jordon Ibe, who Rodgers initially loaned out, I'm pressed to think of any other young player who has made the grade under Rodgers' watch. I guess the jury is still out on that one...
For all his lauded tactical knowledge, Liverpool have been defensively vulnerable throughout Rodgers' reign. He clearly knows how to attack, but he doesn't have a clue how to defend. We'd probably have won the league last season had it not been for the 50 goals we conceded (only Spurs, Stoke City and Newcastle - of all the teams in the top 10 - conceded more goals than we did). We conceded 43 the season prior to that and 42 so far this season - not exactly the form of Champions.
It seems, this season, that teams have learned what to expect from Rodgers, nullifying a lot of our positives. Meanwhile, we can't score or stop other teams scoring. Is Rodgers the tactical genius he claims to be?

For me, the acid test of any manager is: "does he punch above his weight?" In other words, given the resources available to him, does he over-achieve or under-achieve? I think it's clear that during the 2013/14 season, Rodgers probably over-achieved. However, in his two other seasons, and in particular in the season just gone, I think he should be classified as an under-achiever. Nothing makes this point more starkly than the recent home defeat to Crystal Palace. Take Alan Pardew: a very passionate manager with a good deal of experience behind him, but, it's probably fair to say, not exactly at the top of Real Madrid's list of potential managers to replace Carlo Ancelotti (can there be any doubt Ancelotti will be replaced?). Now look at the Palace squad: with the exception of the exceptional Yannick Bolasie, how many Palace players would even be considered by Liverpool's bizarre transfer committee as targets? Certainly not Martin Kelly - a player that King Kenny rated above Glen Johnson for much of his last season in charge, but who was subsequently sold to Palace by Rodgers. My point is, if Pardew can bring a team of journeymen/perceived mediocre footballers to Anfield and turn over the best Liverpool has to offer, then who is the better manager? Pardew or Rodgers? OK, so it's just one game, but there were many games this season of which you could make the same point.

I think this highlights Rodger's big weakness: whereas Pardew can fire a team up, Rodgers can't. Rodgers places tactics above passion, formations above fight, short passes above a crunching tackle. One of my favorite Liverpool players of the 80's was Craig Johnston - inventor of the Predator boot, composer of the Anfield Rap and one of the hardest-working, most passionate players I ever saw, but not a footballer who was ever going to win plaudits for his style of play or for his technical sophistication. He just steamrollered his way through games and opponents, and you can't deny that he was very effective. Johnston was, above all, a winner. Sometimes you have to scrap your way to the top.

When Rodgers came in, he made the usual backside-covering excuses that he needed time to rebuild the squad and that expectations needed to be realistic, etc. (Just as an aside: what total bollocks!) He decided that he wasn't going to adapt his tactics to the players on hand, and so shipped out Andy Carroll (which I initially thought was a big mistake only ameliorated by his subsequent persistent injuries), Stewart Downing (can't fault him for that), and a host of others. Before we knew it, we had a team of small stature, fast players who could ping the ball around like a video of a pinball machine on fast-forward. The only problem is that when they're off form or out-muscled by stronger, more determined teams, there's no plan B.

Rodgers reshaped the entire squad in his image. But when it doesn't work, we just have a team of small players that no-one else values.

When the infamous Liverpool transfer committee signed Ricky Lambert, a player who knows where the net is, but who doesn't exactly have great pace, I was puzzled. How would he fit into Rodgers plans? Turns out, he didn't. So why did we buy him? Once we'd bought him, why didn't Rodgers adapt his style of play to Ricky's strengths?

Similarly with Mario Balotelli. I like Balotelli a lot as an individual, but - let's face it - he's not going to run through a brick wall for you, is he? If Lambert was too slow for Rodger's style, Balotelli is too lazy. Neither of them come close to being the striker that fits Rodger's system. Did he not realize that? Did someone else make the decision to buy them (which I think is more than likely the case)? But, even if it was the transfer committee's decision to sign these players, why hasn't Rodgers been able to make use of them? Both Lambert and Balotelli were regular goalscorers for their previous clubs, but neither of them could hit a barn door with a banjo under Rodgers.

I still grimace when I think of all the squad rotation crap that took place during our Champion's League campaign. We need to put our best team on the field every game - I hate the concept of squad rotation and always will. I feel that Rodgers completely squandered our opportunities in this year's competition, and now we're out of it for another year at least.

Conclusion

I guess I can make my mind up about Rodgers after all. To say that he's lucky to still be in charge of the team after three years would be an understatement. I'd say he's now on borrowed time, and if we don't sign at least two top, proven Premier League-capable centre-forwards this transfer window (plus a number of other players), and win more than our fair share of 50-50 games this coming season, then Rodgers is history.