It's the mark of an untrained mind to blame circumstances for one's
own failings while attributing successes to individual quality. Things
are usually much more convoluted. Furthermore, the inability to admit
one's faults, to generally blame friends, colleagues and in this case,
players, for unfortunate situations without introspection is usually the
characteristics of a narcissist. Few managers exemplify these vices as
much as Brendan Rodgers.He's a legend in his own mind. And while there's nothing wrong with a person in power having a large ego --it's almost required-- Rodgers sets a precedent that his compatriots and any sensible leader would shun: he has a fetish for criticizing his players in public. He almost delights in throwing his own subordinates under the bus in times of tension. When his seat gets hot, he deflects blame rather than taking ownership of the situation. He's completely flipped the sage advice of praising in public and criticizing in private.
In the aftermath of Liverpool's defeats to Arsenal and Manchester United this season, he responded in such. Banking on the belief that his precious 3-4-3 formation which helped propel Liverpool to 10 wins in 13 games before the subsequent defeats, was almost infallible, he blamed his players for the losses which essentially erased their Champions League ambitions.
He squarely blamed the players for not doing enough for the team to win, ignoring the fact that he essentially gave away the match before the clock even started. He revealed what he believed was the problem post-match:
"Our possession just hasn't been good enough; that has been the key to it," he said. "We have to build the game quickly and there is no excuse for not doing so at the Emirates because the pitch is so wonderful. It was the same against Manchester United and in the first half at Swansea - the speed of our game hasn't been there and nor has the speed of our passing.
"Against Arsenal, we didn't start well, got back into it, and then defended poorly. I don't think it was anything to do with the system; we just didn't pass the ball quickly enough."
In the English Premier League, it's no secret that Arsenal are one of the possession kings. Regardless of the results of having the ball, Arsenal are usually the best at it along with Manchester City. It's not something a sensible manager would challenge them on. Unless your team is built identically or has the midfielders to challenge them head on, the intelligent thing is to hit them on the break. Exploit their weakness.
Rodgers knows this, he's used the tactic to expose Arsenal before. Last season's Liverpool decimated and shell-shocked Arsenal on the counter in one of the best performances that year. Yet, this time, he instead chose to try to play to Arsenal and United's strengths in an effort to preserve the sanctity of his desired formation and when it failed --as most predicted that it would-- he absolved himself of blame. The personnel for that type of battle is not something Liverpool possesses, and while they no longer have Luis Suarez and have lost Daniel Sturridge to injury, feasting on teams on the break is still very much their biggest strength. Playing the possession game was suicidal.
Furthermore, it should not be quickly forgotten that the players that Rodgers spends time admonishing in the public venue were all sanctioned buys by him. When he gets in front of the camera and tells the world that he never wanted Mario Balotelli, or that Dejan Lovren is not good enough or even when he snidely comments that Liverpool will need to look for a striker beyond Daniel Sturridge, it comes off as completely tone-deaf considering his enthusiasm before their relative disappointments.
Rodgers and his team either didn't scout or do their research on the style of play that Balotelli flourishes in before the transfer. And they also seemed to not watch Lovren's performances at Southampton either. Nor did they take in consideration that Sturridge's has had problems with injuries for a while now. A truth that's hardly a secret to anyone who has paid attention to English football the last few years.
The way to subserve your team in this instance is neither to spend actual, physical money on Rickie Lambert nor to play Raheem Sterling, your best player, in an ineffective wing-back position in an effort to punish him for disagreeable contract negotiating tactics. One is close to idiocy, the second is purposely putting the team in a losing position by taking your own best weapon out of the game over pride and ego. He did the opposition's work for them. It's almost masochistic.
It's not surprising to hear Rodgers go on about how the team needs to find a solution after a loss. It's even less eye-brow raising when he puts the burden of the resurgence on the players themselves. Players have bad games, runs of form and collective seasons, it's human and a manager should never be in fear of asking them to give their best. The issue is when that same manager doesn't question his own decisions and whether he is putting these players in the best position to win.
It's a disease that used to and still to a degree lingers with Arsene Wenger, Jose Mourinho and Manuel Pellegrini. The biggest difference is that when the team fails, these managers include themselves in that team and usually take the brunt of the blame. Rodgers individualizes himself and assures the world that there's no way that he could have contributed to the failure. No, it was everyone else who was at fault. An thoroughly outstanding view of how the world and football works.
Liverpool for many reasons, are regressing to the mean this season. The performances haven't been up to par with the explosion of last year. Players have been injured, Luis Suarez is gone and off-field issues have all contributed to their current predicament. But in the center of it all is a manager who only believes in his players when they're useful to him and treats self-examination and the admittance of fault as a sin. And that can be just as destructive as any absence of goals.
