Snak

AC Milan er bare ren PR for Berlusconi, og al virakken om Balotelli har jo været en stor PR-øvelse udi at skulle spinne salget af et stort navn i retning af noget positivt. Folk i Man. City havde ikke travlt med at fortælle omverdenen, hvor stor en lettelse det var at slippe af med Balotelli, og det hænger nok sammen med, at Man. City ikke på det tidspunkt havde problemer med at tiltrække store navne og spille med i toppen i PL. AC Milan har derimod lige leveret den ringeste sæson i lang tid på et tidspunkt, hvor Serie A ikke er den mest imponerende liga, og klubben kæmper tydeligvis med at holde på de gode spillere og tiltrække store navne. På det sportslige plan kan det give fin mening at slippe for Balotellis løn og få det meste af det, man i sin tid gav, tilbage for at sprede risikoen mere ud - for der er da en risiko for at Balotelli aldrig bliver en klassespiller - men et lån af Torres er imø. et udtryk for, at Balotelli-salget netop rykker lidt ved AC Milans selvforståelse, og at der har været et akut behov for at hente et stort navn som erstatning. Og så er Balotelli stadig en syndebuk i Italien ovenpå det elendige VM, så at fremstille Torres som fremgang i stedet for et tilbageskridt på angrebspositionen kan nok godt finde opbakning i det italienske.

Og nu vi er ved alt det her pressehalløj, så må det snart være tydeligt for enhver, at Hodgson har et horn i siden på LFC. Jeg nægter simpelthen at tro på, at Hodgson ikke har en eller anden form for dialog omkring brugen af landsholdsspillere med klubberne, men når det kommer til LFC, er det som om, at klubben taler for døve ører. Først de stupide kommentarer om at teste Sturridges engagement, da han blev sendt i kamp småskadet og vendte tilbage helskadet (Sturridge er i de seneste blev skadet ved hele fire landsholdssamlinger), så de stupide kommentarer om Rooneys (og Gerrards) liverpooldialekt og talegaver, og nu Hodgsons lyst til at gøre det til en diskussion i pressen, om træthed er en lovlig undskyldning, som så har udviklet sig til, at Hodgson ikke mener, at den måde, LFC restituerer spillerne på, er den rigtige metode, selvom han vel og mærke tidligere netop har givet bestemte spillere ekstra hvile.

Jeg kan snart ikke vente længere på, at den rigtige fodbold begynder igen.

Tony Barretts artikel om Hodgson.

Roy Hodgson’s broken relationship with Liverpool is damaging for all

Raheem Sterling’s omission from the England team for a Euro 2016 qualifying match and the furore it created both have the same symptom – Roy Hodgson’s chronic failure to communicate effectively.

The predictable mistake is to view it solely as club versus country, that the will of an employer is being forced upon a resentful, bridling national team which, in turn, is determined not to be dictated to. The reality is more prosaic. This is not the battle of wills that it seems to be.

That the breakdown in the England manager’s communications with Liverpool, his former club, is now absolute cannot be in any question. For the past six weeks, barbs have been traded, mutual suspicion has grown and relationships have deteriorated to the point where it would not be an exaggeration to question whether or not they are already beyond repair. That Hodgson failed to contact Brendan Rodgers for a full month after Daniel Sturridge was injured in training is indicative of an impasse that is damaging all involved.

At the root of the problem is Liverpool’s growing suspicion that Hodgson does not act with the kind of duty of care they expect of an international manager. Why do they view things this way? Because of comments Hodgson has made even more so than his methods. A year ago, Sturridge suffered another thigh strain while in training with the England squad. Despite struggling with the injury, the forward was pressed into action by Hodgson who used him for the full 90 minutes of a friendly against Germany. That, of course, was the England manager’s right.

Liverpool were disappointed, particularly as Sturridge was not fit enough to start their subsequent Premier League game, which just happened to be the Merseyside derby. But like any other club which has players of international quality any complaints they might have had were undermined by the reality that Hodgson had merely done what he felt was right for himself and the England team. What followed, however, skewed things. Instead of recognising the need for diplomacy to deal with what was a delicate situation, Hodgson gave Liverpool cause for concern and annoyance.

“I wanted to test his resolve a little bit,” Hodgson explained in typically ham-fisted fashion and with that Rodgers’s goodwill to one of his predecessors at Liverpool was put to significant test. Going a stage further, Hodgson then insisted that he wouldn’t “apologise for it” and maintained that players “are better getting injured now (than closer to the World Cup).” The message, to Liverpool at least, was clear – Hodgson was showing scant consideration for the state in which he returned players to their clubs. Gerard Houllier’s analogy about international managers being like joyriders who take cars without permission before abandoning it in a fuel without any petrol needed no greater example.

Had Hodgson kept his counsel and said nothing, Liverpool might only have been dismayed by the state that Sturridge was returned to them . By opening his mouth, Hodgson not only gave them added reason for resentment, he also lost the moral argument. Despite this, Liverpool have continued to provide several players for the national team with six being drawn from Anfield for the World Cup finals in Brazil (more than from any other club) and four for England’s recent double-header against San Marino and Norway. If this is a club v country battle then Liverpool aren’t putting up much of a fight.

Of course, Sturridge’s absence from England’s two most recent fixtures is a major bone of contention. As soon as Rodgers insisted Sturridge would not join up with Hodgson’s squad, further acrimony became inevitable. The Liverpool manager was lambasted in some quarters but Hodgson, wisely and perhaps diplomatically, accepted his verdict and planned without Sturridge who is only now returning to fitness. But the damage had already been done by then.
Hodgson, not particularly wisely and certainly not diplomatically, had made comments that would colour the thinking of any manager and it does not take a major leap of the imagination to presume that they were at the root of Sterling’s withdrawal.

At face value, Hodgson disputing the version of events presented by Rodgers about how Sturridge came to be injured is just a case of a manager protecting his own interests. Whereas Rodgers claimed Sturridge had told England’s medical staff that he required a 48-hour recovery period after games, Hodgson insisted he “had no memory of Daniel telling me that he did not want to train.” Continuing to take Sturridge at his word, alarm bells rang out at Anfield and, although it remains unconfirmed, it appears that Rodgers made it clear to his England contingent that if they had any concerns about their fitness or wellbeing while on international duty they should express them to the manager and his staff.

By admitting that he felt fatigued, Sterling did just that. To his credit, Hodgson acted responsibly and acted in the best interests of player, club and country by naming the winger as one of his substitutes rather than in his starting eleven. His good work was undone once again by what he said rather than what he did, however, as Hodgson made a private conversation public and in doing so put Sterling at the centre of a damaging debate about his commitment to the cause. Like his previous comments about Sturridge, it was all totally avoidable and totally unnecessary.

Hodgson’s ability to say the wrong thing at the wrong time is now well established. Only last week he had to apologise for comments about the Liverpool accent which, though not delivered with any kind of malice, were foolish enough to put himself at the heart of an unnecessary and distracting controversy. At times, his foibles can be endearing like an ageing uncle with a knack of being unintentionally funny when trying to be deadly serious. But on other occasions it can impede his ability to manage England as well as possible because it undermines his admittedly delicate relationship with clubs. There may be a club versus country confrontation going on, but the biggest battle is for Hodgson to find ways of expressing himself in a way that creates friends rather than enemies.

“I think I should speak to Brendan,” Hodgson said after publicly questioning Liverpool’s training regime and there is no question that a managerial tête-à-tête would be in everyone’s best interests. Hodgson and Rodgers could do a lot worse than enlist Steven Gerrard, a future ambassador for club and country who knows better than most the rigours of representing both, to provide insight and guidance.

But more than anything else, Hodgson needs to find a way of reassuring Liverpool that he does have their interests at heart rather than just his own when it comes to looking after players because that is not the impression they have right now.

Det er et langt face-rub.

Jeg hader landsholdspauser.

Specielt når der er en engelsk landstræner som mener at han kender Sturridge godt nok til at dosere træningsmængden.

Læste lige at han havde været ude at sige at Raheem, er så ung at han ikke behøver 2 dages hvil. Hvordan kan man tillade Roy Hodgson at have ansvaret for en trup bestående af spillere som har det mest tight-packed kampprogram i Europa? Jeg forstår det ikke. Nu har jeg ikke fysologiske beviser for det. Men må da gå ud fra, at hvis man er vant til 2 dages restution. Så er det jo en forskel hvis man kun får en.

Jeg er træt. Jeg er virkelig fysisk træt af det fjols skal have tilgang af Liverpool spillere. Til vigtigte kampe imod Estland. Og andre svære nationer. Hvor han skal stille i den bedste opstillig. Hvor han skal bruge spillere som kun er på 70-80%

Michael Owen har givet sit besyv med i forhold til debatten om Sterling. Han har aldrig hørt om udbrændte spillere, og det var ikke mange minutter i en ung alder, der gjorde, at han senere har døjet meget med skader. Det ligger i stedet til familien - og så skyldes det selvfølgelig også, at LFC gav ham for mange kampe efter en alvorlig skade, hvis tidligere udtalelser fra Owen ellers kan bruges til noget.

Og så har Rodgers også taget bladet fra munden. Ikke at starte Sterling var ene og alene en trænerbeslutning. Meget af det, der har stået i medierne, er slet og ret ikke sandt, og Rodgers er godt træt af, at diskussionen har fyldt så meget og kommer til at fylde meget fremover.

Spændende hvordan FA tolker tvisten.

Jeg forstår ikke Owens udtalelse, rettede han netop ikke skarp kritik mod LFC gennem Ferguson, omkring hans tidlige kariere? Det er ikke meget perspektivering manden evner hvis han samtidigt aldrig har hørt om udbrændte spillere.

På den underholdende side er vi ifølge "transfer watch" på hjemmesiden, i kamp med Chelsea om Daniel Wass. Det er Caughtoffside og Daily Express. Så mon dog.

Det betyder dog ikke, at det ikke kunne være rart at få en god dansker på holdet igen snart. Agger efterlader et lille vacuum på den front. Vi har forstærket os grundigt på midtbanen, men at forsøge at få Højbjerg ville jeg være stor fan af. Wass er lidt sværere at få til at passe ind, som jeg ser det, og vi mangler ikke frisparksskytter.

EDIT: Fin overskrift ST, er det for meget at foreslå noget i stil med ´Facerub Woy´ ?

Glæder mig til på Søndag.


Bliver det en 4-4-2 Med en diamant. Bliver det med MBE på den off. Midtbane.

Er Can klar. Ligeledes med Sturrigde.

Hvordan kommmer vores midterforsvar til at se ud.

Glæder mig til se om vi sparer på stjerne, med henblik på Chl i midtugen.

Lort med lort på. Sturridge rev skaden op under dagens træning, hvilket koster 4 uger mere på sidelinjen.

Tidspunktet kan ikke være værre.... Forhelvede....!

Tror snart man derude hvor man skal få sendt Sturridge af sted for en pæn sum penge, og så finde en anden angriber. Det er nok bare svært at finde køber til spilleren med de mest skrøbelige glasben i PL.