Luis Suárez

[Aj34]

I think those are resonable conclusions to draw, but I'm not sure I buy the Dalglish analysis in its entirity.

He may have been insular, but I think it's unfair to single him out for being so. In that era, we had about 4 English players abroad - Rush, Lineker, Hughes and Hately. Wilkins and Francis just prior. Which foreign players played in England? Well there was Mirandinha at Newcastle. High profile because he was Brazilian, not because he regularly played for Brazil. The first top flight non British manager didn't arrived in 1990 - Dr Josef Wengloss. Prior to him, it was almost unthinkable that the continent's managers and players would come to England. We didn't need them. That was arrogant the prevailing view.

Engllish football was the dominant force in European club football, and LFC was practically untouchable. When Dalglish arived, the style of football became even more expansive than that implemented previously, and the bar was raised for the standard of domestic football in this country. Rivals were regularly obliterated. Up until the early 90s. Where was the incentive to change the status quo?

So to even partly attribute the clubs subsequent ills to Dalglish's insularity is unfair imo. What changed was the premier league era and the club's inability to move with the times. In fact, the opposite could be said to be true. Both the club and us fans were determined to stick to their values and not 'sell out' as those greedy Mancunians had done so exuberantly. They were vulgar, we were smug. Until we started falling really badly behind.

As for the second Dalglish era, you're right. He was ultimately the wrong man in the wrong era. Brian Clough and George Graham would have fared little better.

great post

[Lecter]

I'd also time the decline to around Heysel but my emphasis would be different.

I don't think the decline was primarily to do with a change in the club's outlook or, in other words, its internal culture. What happened as a result of Heysel is that our players weren't exposed to top level European football almost year after year as they previously had been. The club had made money out of it and our players got better as a result of it. Both of those things gave us an edge - the money over everyone but Man United, and the level of play over pretty much everyone, especially Man United, because we were increasingly often in the European Cup and almost always going a long way into the competition. So the club could afford the best players who would then improve (or be got rid of).

The Heysel ban changed that. We survived for a few years as the dominant team but the gap was being eroded until the last hurrah of 1990.

If the club did become insular then it's because it missed the way football was going. The Premier League was a major factor of course but we were already in relative decline by then. The date of Heysel is significant for another reason though, and that may be related. Dalglish took over as manager. He made some great buys and some bad ones. But when you read his autobiography, insularity oozes out of it. In it he said he didn't want to go abroad as a player because he'd already moved to a "foreign country" (a comment followed by an unnecessary exclamation mark - he thought it was a joke but it was actually an insight into the narrowness of his vision). When I read that I had deep misgivings about him coming back.

And we all know what happened when he came back - buy British lads to get the dressing room banter going, etc. Not a recipe for success in the Nineties really, let alone twenty years later.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that Dalglish sparked the decline, although it's arguable his attitude to the footballing side may have intensified the weaknesses on the business side of the club. And fundamentally those weaknesses stem from the change in financial circumstances following Heysel.

In short, the culture - whether of a country, an institution or a community - is usually based on and shaped by the economic realities.

This is pretty much what is written in "Passing Rhythms" however it charts the dip in business acumen levels as to slightly before Hysel



Worth a read

[Lecter]

I think those are reasonable conclusions to draw, but I'm not sure I buy the Dalglish analysis in its entirity.

He may have been insular, but I think it's unfair to single him out for being so. In that era, we had about 4 English players abroad - Rush, Lineker, Hughes and Hately. Wilkins and Francis just prior. Which foreign players played in England? Well there was Mirandinha at Newcastle. High profile because he was Brazilian, not because he regularly played for Brazil. The first top flight non British manager didn't arrived in 1990 - Dr Josef Wengloss. Prior to him, it was almost unthinkable that the continent's managers and players would come to England. We didn't need them. That was arrogant the prevailing view.

Engllish football was the dominant force in European club football, and LFC was practically untouchable. When Dalglish arived, the style of football became even more expansive than that implemented previously, and the bar was raised for the standard of domestic football in this country. Rivals were regularly obliterated. Up until the early 90s. Where was the incentive to change the status quo?

So to even partly attribute the clubs subsequent ills to Dalglish's insularity is unfair imo. What changed was the premier league era and the club's inability to move with the times. In fact, the opposite could be said to be true. Both the club and us fans were determined to stick to their values and not 'sell out' as those greedy Mancunians had done so exuberantly. They were vulgar, we were smug. Until we started falling really badly behind.

As for the second Dalglish era, you're right. He was ultimately the wrong man in the wrong era. Brian Clough and George Graham would have fared little better.

Great post

I tend to think that the board grew a bit comfortable in their own business model and this was before Heysel. They stopped innovating and being ahead of the pack and rested on their laurels backed up by being a dominant force in Europe

The decline started then

Look at the history of the club since Shankly joined. He was one of the first managers in the league who picked his team and bought his own players (most other teams had the board doing this!!). He completely altered Melwood and innovated the whole training methods (even though they were so simplistic). We were the first English club to alter our playing style to embrace a continental attitude, we were the first club with shirt sponsorship etc..

The moment we stopped being innovative was the moment you can chart our decline. Heysel imo only compounded the issue

People talk about the Liverpool Way and that this is the secret to our success

Perhaps the Liverpool Way was that we were actually innovators

[kev776]

Signing Collymore didn't help.

[peekay]

Oh and for all Moores inactivity and ineptitude

He underwrote the share issue that enabled us to build the Centennary Stand (virtually paying it in full approx £17 million I think)

He sold 10% of the club to Granada and ploughed the proceeds (£30-odd million if I remember rightly) back into the playing squad

Some very good posts in this thread.

Also wanted to add that while Parry wasn't the sharpest tool in the box in terms of commercial development his record in terms of managerial appointment is spot on.

Irrespective of how their terms ended both Houllier and Rafa were absolutely inspired appointments.

I remember thinking in the summer of 2004 after the Rafa appointment - Wow! two times La Liga winner, courted by every major club in Europe and we managed to get him.

[Norbs]

Has he left yet?

[ronanm]

Signing Collymore didn't help.

26 goals in 53 games wasn't a bad return

[saj]

26 goals in 53 games wasn't a bad return

He has a fantastic partnership with Fowler and we should have won the league the season he arrived

[Yozza]

He has a fantastic partnership with Fowler and we should have won the league the season he arrived

Spice Boys

[kop-al-74]

Any Suarez news?

[baitman]

no noows is good noows

[Cormack74]

Spice Boys

I loved Ruddock but he doesn't do that picture any favours.

[Aj34]

Spice Boys

Blimey razor hasn't changed a bit lol

[Neil Young]

I think those are reasonable conclusions to draw, but I'm not sure I buy the Dalglish analysis in its entirity.

He may have been insular, but I think it's unfair to single him out for being so. In that era, we had about 4 English players abroad - Rush, Lineker, Hughes and Hately. Wilkins and Francis just prior. Which foreign players played in England? Well there was Mirandinha at Newcastle. High profile because he was Brazilian, not because he regularly played for Brazil. The first top flight non British manager didn't arrived in 1990 - Dr Josef Wengloss. Prior to him, it was almost unthinkable that the continent's managers and players would come to England. We didn't need them. That was arrogant the prevailing view.

Engllish football was the dominant force in European club football, and LFC was practically untouchable. When Dalglish arived, the style of football became even more expansive than that implemented previously, and the bar was raised for the standard of domestic football in this country. Rivals were regularly obliterated. Up until the early 90s. Where was the incentive to change the status quo?

So to even partly attribute the clubs subsequent ills to Dalglish's insularity is unfair imo. What changed was the premier league era and the club's inability to move with the times. In fact, the opposite could be said to be true. Both the club and us fans were determined to stick to their values and not 'sell out' as those greedy Mancunians had done so exuberantly. They were vulgar, we were smug. Until we started falling really badly behind.

As for the second Dalglish era, you're right. He was ultimately the wrong man in the wrong era. Brian Clough and George Graham would have fared little better.

I take your point but so often strengths become weaknesses over time.

I think Dalglish was the perfect appointment in 85. A man with an insular nature for a club and a city that had - understandably in large part - become insular.

I wasn't for a moment criticising Dalglish for not signing enough exotically foreign players and turning us into the Liverpool All Stars. And as I said I don't hold him responsible for the decline.

I was suggesting that maybe his insular nature meant that the one man who was in a position to counteract the board's passivity was always going to be unable to do it. It seems to me that when he's under pressure he has a tendency to turn inward. So having him as manager, for all his achievements, also exacerbated and intensified the weaknesses stemming from the primary failure, that is the board's lack of strategic vision.

What were strengths became weaknesses, there was a lack of new ideas and too much veneration of sacred cows. The rot really set in after Dalglish of course but by then it was too late.

The other factor which has been noted elsewhere before but I don't think has been mentioned in this thread is what was happening in Liverpool itself over this period. It's arguable that the city's woes in the late Seventies and, especially, early Eighties were the catalyst for the whole thing. It just took time to work its way through to the club, just as the club's passivity took the best part of a decade to feed into decline on the pitch.

[el matador]

we were basically run as a rich mans toy. david moores family were loaded and when he took the reins we became his personal toy.

he forgot to run us like a business as his focus was on the playing side and having a laugh with the players.

we fell way behind the others and are still playing catchup. But the foundations are strong - people say that we had 88,000 people watching us in indonesia. But we now need to build on that and move on.

I like fsg even though plenty dont. Theyve put money into the club and its not their fault it was pissed away. Rodgers said very recently that we have to make a proper go at the top 4 this season and i hope we will.