Over the past few weeks I have read countless articles from journalists aghast at the rejection of Roy Hodgson by the supporters of Liverpool Football Club. They cite the storied loyalty and patience of the Liverpool fanbase and wonder at this apparently anomalous behaviour. They write it off as a sorry reflection of the modern game, devoid of all the values that made it great. They take the chance to debunk the myth of the Kop Faithful. Look, see! They aren't so faithful after all.
But maybe they are confused as to what the Kop are faithful to. Is their animosity toward Roy really a break of tradition or is it in fact an attempt to protect it? Where has the optimism, the belief that at the end of the storm there lies a golden sky, disappeared to?
The question remains however; Why have Liverpool supporters chosen to voice their dissatisfaction and speak out against their manager?
While at first glance it may seem logical to ask the question, if the journalists had taken the effort to examine the situation more closely they may have been inclined to ask a different one; What is it about this particular manager that has driven the Kop to voice their displeasure so publicly?
In order to begin to find the answer to that question it is first necessary to try to understand the psychology of the club.
In the past Liverpool supporters have stuck with their managers through good times and bad, displaying a sense of togetherness and support that was envied by managers and boards throughout the league. They refrained from criticising their own players and manager no matter how bad things got. Any rumblings of disquiet were quickly drowned out by the vocal majority. When the team was going through a bad patch the Anfield faithful would continue to blast out that anthem of solidarity and positivity that has become synonomous with the club; You'll Never Walk Alone. In fact it would seem that the history of the club and the city is in some ways embodied in that song.
When the Kop sing that song they are not just voicing their support for their team, they are collectively declaring their values and putting their beliefs out there for the world to see with both passion and emotion. This is who we are. We support each other through the hard times, we look after our own and when everybody else has written us off we will still believe in our collective capacity to overcome any adversity.
In the summer of 2010 Liverpool had experienced a time of serious turmoil where all those values had come under threat. At the hands of leveraged buy-out merchants Tom Hicks and George Gillet the club had been dealt blow after blow. A victim of the worst kind of capitalist opportunism Liverpool's finances had been decimated and it's hitherto aura of dignity had been chipped at and stained by the machinations of it's owners and a war of attrition at board level.
Into this backdrop came Roy Hodgson; appointed by the board to succeed the iconic Rafael Benitez. Roy had come off a relatively successful season as manager of Fulham securing a 12th place finish in the Premier League and a place in the final of the Europa League where his team lost 2-1 in extra time. This feat had earned Roy the honour of being named the LMA Manager of the Year. Roy's star was in the ascendancy despite his advancing years. Into the significant void left by the departure of Benitez stepped Hodgson and with him he brought a very different type of energy.
Hodgson's appointment was met with enthusiasm from some and apathy from others but for the most part the media touted him as the steady hand that Liverpool needed to lead it to calmer waters. While his capacity to bring much needed stability to the footballing side of the club was espoused by some others questioned his ability to make the leap from a mid table team like Fulham to a powerhouse of European football. Writers such as Paul Tomkins of http://tomkinstimes.com/ questioned his suitability asking if Roy's 'old school' approach was what Liverpool needed to take them to the next level.
As time went on and results were less than stellar the image of Hodgson as the White Knight soon lost it's sheen. Ordinarily I think, in keeping with the tradition of old, Liverpool fans would have maintained their support for the manager through this slew of bad results were it not for the nature of the defeats. The Liverpool team seemed devoid of any passion or direction. Capitulation seemed the the order of the day and humiliating losses to Northampton Town and Blackpool at Anfield added to the sense that the club was waving goodbye to the halcyon days of regular forays into the final stages of the Champions League and membership of that elite group of the 'Top Four'.
The team seemed disjointed and the atmosphere fractious, rumours of player unrest abounded and Hodgson did nothing to quash these rumours, famously remarking that if Manchester United came in for the talismanic Fernando Torres that there was little he could do but to wait to see how it would pan out.
Through his interviews, often the only way a fan can get a sense of a manager's mindset outside of how he sets his team up, Hodgson communicated a sense of defeatism and negativity which was anathema to Liverpool's core support. He openly criticised players commitment and desire, chided the fan's union Spirit Of Shankly for having the audacity to express their opinions on the despised owners. He lauded his own achievements in the face of criticism and baulked at the suggestion that he may need to change his approach at a club of the stature of Liverpool FC. The players he brought in failed to make the impact that he hoped and in a way communicated his negative and insular philosophy.
Under the pressure that comes with managing such a massive club Roy was wilting and rather than maintaining the kind of selfless attitude and stately demeanour which had typified Liverpool's past leaders he was becoming increasingly agitated and defensive.
In the way that any group can recognise when one of it's members is becoming a liability the supporters began to realise that Roy Hodgson had the capacity to do untold damage were he allowed to continue unchecked with this course of action. Calls for the return of King Kenny Dalglish began to echo from the stands at Anfield, the first outward expression of dissatisfaction with Hodgson's leadership.
It was at this stage that articles began to appear questioning the voices of dissent resounding around Anfield. Patrick Barclay called Liverpool supporters 'stupid' for having the temerity to question Hodgson's ability to lead them to the promised land though on what he based his own conviction that Hodgson was indeed capable of this feat is beyond my ability to understand so maybe in my case he is correct.
Had these writers taken the time to look more closely though they may have seen the anguish on the faces of those calling for Hodgson's head. This is an act of desperation, like a wolf chewing it's own paw off to escape the poachers trap. It is out of a sense of survival that these supporters sacrifice their traditions and shout out for this foreign body to be removed. Roy Hodgson doesn't fit at Liverpool FC. His negative philosophy has affected the team's performances, attitude and psyche, draining the confidence and creativity out of world class footballers and promising young stars.
Even in todays defeat at Spurs, where the team put in a performance worthy of their jerseys, they lacked the self belief they needed to follow through and turn that performance into a win. In football as in any group the values and characteristics of a leader come to pervade his team. It is a necessary element of leadership as it focuses and aligns the group. In the case of Fulham Hodgson's 'old school' underdog mentality of playing tight made his teams difficult to beat and served them well. Players were drilled in their defensive responsibilities, assigned roles and expected to follow them to the letter.
At Liverpool though he is dealing with a different calibre of player and a different set of expectations. Grinding out an away result is not good enough at Liverpool. In attempting to instill these workmanlike values in the Liverpool players he has limited them, by taking away their spontaneity and creativity in the name of organisation and conformity he has taken away the exact thing which made them great.
Liverpool fans recognise this and see that the application of Roy Hodgson's philosophy is creating a dissonance in the system that is their club. His negative state of mind is seen as a contagion spreading through the team and the club and the fans are acting as the clubs immune system attacking the source of the dis-ease. The alternative to actively rejecting Roy is to passively accept him and sit quiet while expectations are lowered and a dynasty which so many gave so much to build is slowly eroded.
I don't believe for a second that the fabled loyalty of Liverpool fans has been worn down and rubbed out because it was never a blind loyalty. It is a loyalty given to those who demonstrate that they understand what Liverpool Football Club is about; Togetherness, Solidarity, Creativity, Passion and Achievement. And when they get a manager who understands that then he will get that loyalty, he will be afforded the time and space to build, to make mistakes along the way and to work to bring the club back to the top where it belongs.
