Little things make a big difference.
For instance if you were to put the word modern in front of both
football and art, it conjures up very specific imagery. Flocks of
people gathered into overbearing, soulless hives; all looking to fill
a void. Not all galleries are bad though.
Really honing a craft takes many hours
of painstaking effort. Whether it be on the canvass or on the
training ground, attention to detail is key. Everything that works
well is there for a reason, so retroactively speaking it makes sense
to assume that what's not there is just as important. Because the
line between success and failure in sport is so incredibly small it
can appear as though what would be needed to sway the balance is
blindingly obvious.
From the outside looking in, even those
of us that are well versed in footballing theory are only capable of
reading any given scenario in a limited number of ways. Those with
hands on experience and the physical ability to effect change get the
full picture and there is no need for interpretation. Then again,
the idea that someone watching from
the stands can see something the manager can't isn't exactly a new
one.
With
more eyes on more of the game than ever before, with that comes more
critics. Simply knowing – about any given subject – isn't enough
for some people. Their insight has to be commended or opinions have
to be validated. It's not enough to be right any more, it has to be
illustrated and reiterated on a regular basis. Nothing happens on
the football field with a hundred percent certainty.
There is very little that goes
untracked these days. Mention a player and immediately there is a
digital compendium available regarding every conceivable aspect.
Judgements are made by both those on and off the pitch, after which
only one group makes decisions. This process is too much for some,
who will try and prove all sorts of things before the ink is dry on
his contract. The reasons why we like or dislike a player don't have
to be rational but when it comes to Liverpool, the very least they
should be given is courtesy and respect. No-one ever knows for
certain prior to a ball being kicked and regardless of any labels
they may have, there won't be a consensus on anyone that isn't either
lazy or too obvious.
The difference between players at the
highest level are so small that when true quality shines through,
that gap is large enough so that it doesn't need pointing out. Also,
because of the minutiae involved in a single game, let alone a whole
season; failure does not instantly validate any pre conceived
notions. Look at the difference in Luis Suarez playing alongside
Andy Carroll
as opposed to Daniel Sturridge. In both scenarios the
ability of everyone involved doesn't alter but they are regularly
used to substantiate all sorts of claims. In the case of the former, it was
once argued that Suarez would never be a prolific goalscorer at the
top level.
Only over an elongated period of time –
when a negative has been shown to be truly consistent – does the
point have any real weight behind it. The problem now is that these
valid arguments are being taken and manipulated into something else.
Driven home to the point where conformation bias comes into play and
all objectivity is lost. Glen Johnson is the easiest current example
to use. For the purposes of this, it's only worth taking into
account the time since Brendan Rodgers took over.
The statsheet reads like a horror
story. One league goal and six assists in sixty five out of seventy
two possible games. It would be cynical and easy to suggest that if
he were playing for another club, under no circumstances would he be
wanted here. That's understandable but Rodgers clearly does; for now
at least.
Is it
because of the sheer weight of information that someone will make the
right choices or does it matter what is then done with that data?
Coaches can know the game of football like the back of their hand but
if they don't know how to effectively communicate these ideas then
they are effectively sterile.
While
in Johnson's case there may be enough evidence to suggest immediate
exile from Anfield, whatever can be seen Rodgers is unlikely blind to
it. Because of his history with the player and a lack of viable
alternatives both in house and elsewhere, in the immediate future he
will be a part of this team. Spending the following twelve months –
after which he is likely to leave anyway – pointing out his flaws
would be as valuable as alerting everyone to the colour of his
shorts.
This
also applies in reverse. Making a stand against popular opinion
because it's widely regarded is very peculiar but not uncommon. A
handful of good games and there will be calls of a “return to form”
as well as other people reaching out, cherry picking numbers and
passages of play that make it appear as though Liverpool suddenly
have Phillip Lahm, Javier Zanetti and Lillian Thuram all rolled into
one. Warts and all, he will always be Glen Johnson. If the manager
doesn't know what he does or doesn't bring by now, this is a
completely different conversation.
With
the new season rapidly approaching, lines already being drawn. Dots
being connected. Lovren, Sakho and Skrtel will each be both hero and
villain every week. Every moment Rickie Lambert makes – from the
dressing room onward – will be charted. It's not that these things
are being said blindly but the idea that they're the only one
noticing is. So many of us standing in front of a picture that
Brendan Rodgers had made look so good last year, all arguing about
subtext and conjecture. If we stop arguing, we may be able to
appreciate the art of it all once again.
No comments:
Post a Comment