Hodgson- Stay or go?

Sunday’s showing was painful, humiliating and frustratingly typical of the season so far. It was embarrassing, depressing and pathetically poor.

The match wasn’t much better either.

Roy Hodgson’s post-match interview was almost as bad as his team’s performance during the 214th Merseyside derby.

Following yet another dreadful and depressing display from his side, Hodgson illogically claimed that it was the best he had seen them play during his reign as manager.

He said: "Of course the result is very bad but frankly I refuse to accept it was a bad team performance. I cannot have any real qualms in terms of that because that’s as good as we have performed under my management. I thought the shape, the passing and moving was good. I refuse to sit here and accept we were in any way outplayed and in any way inferior."

And I thought Tom Hicks was the most deluded person associated with our great club!

Hodgson's blind defence of what was a shocking performance can be easily explained as just another manager sticking up for his players amidst the glare of the media spotlight that is currently concentrated on his under-performing stars.

However, to come out with such rubbish after a defeat in the derby was insulting to the supporters who expect more honesty from a manager deemed to be a media darling upon his arrival.

Yes, he can defend individual players from specific criticism (although he didn't when Torres was criticised by Alex Ferguson) but he cannot so brazenly brush aside the legitimate criticisms of his team's performance without expecting to receive a backlash from angry fans.

One of the main attributes of Hodgson that was championed when he took the managerial hot seat was the respect that he received from the media. Through his general polite posture and his overt "Englishness" in both his personal character and football-thinking, Hodgson has gained many journalistic friends.

This relieved the almost incessant battering of Liverpool in the media, and allowed Hodgson time to implement his ideas within the Liverpool squad. However, the worst start from a Liverpool manager ever cannot, and will not be ignored by either the media-men or, more importantly, the supporters.

Hodgson has failed to live up to the picture that the media painted of him when he replaced former boss Rafa Benitez.

Firstly, Hodgson has not proven to be the attacking manager that many people irrationally believed he would be. The common view was that Rafael Benitez had restricted the side with defensive tactics that failed to utilise the full attacking abilities available to him.

Hodgson was seen as a more positive manager who would remove the supposed shackles imposed by Benitez and revive our fortunes through a change from Rafa's 4-2-3-1 to a more offensive and more English 4-4-2 formation.

This unreasonable view was seemingly solely based upon the fact that his Fulham side adopted a 4-4-2 formation throughout last season, when the Cottagers reached a European final for the first time in their history.

However, it ignored several key facts that suggested quite the opposite would occur. Roy's preferred formation may have been 4-4-2 (or 4-4-1-1 depending on the opposition) but his style of play remains conservative.

Whereas Benitez encouraged players to press further up the field, placing the opposition under pressure and helping us to gain possession closer to the goal, Hodgson prefers his players to regimentally remain in their positions, creating two solid rows of four and a defensive barrier to protect the keeper.

While Benitez's policy was risky as it allowed opponents space to counter-attack if we had failed to win the ball back, it also meant that if we did re-gain possession then we could quickly hurt opponents, as the ball would be close to their goal.

All that was needed was a quick pass to Gerrard or Torres and a goalscoring chance could be created.

The problem with the sitting and creating a defensive barrier approach adopted by Hodgson, is that it means the opposition can keep possession for large periods of time.

This eventually leads to opponents dominating and controlling the play whilst we soak up pressure and try to counter-attack.

Moreover, remaining so deep means that the ball has to travel a long distance to reach the opposition's goal, and Hodgson simply does not have the players available yet to be able to pass through teams starting from the back.

This style of play is particularly employed in away matches. It may be acceptable for a mid-table team like Fulham to play in this way, however it is not suitable for Liverpool, a team expected to control proceedings both at Anfield and away from home.

It certainly is not the release from the "shackles" of Benitez's team. In fact, if anything Liverpool have become more negative under Hodgson.

Rafa Benitez's Liverpool, when they were at their stunning best during the 2008/2009 season, found the perfect balance between attack and defence.

During that epic season Liverpool usually started with a total of six attack minded players. Dirk Kuyt and Albert Riera provided the balance needed on the wings whilst Fernando Torres received support from the superb Steven Gerrard.

Meanwhile, Xabi Alonso sprayed passes across the pitch from his role alongside Javier Mascherano, who acted as the destroyer in the team, breaking up attacks before giving the ball to his Spanish team-mate.

Danish defender Daniel Agger would also confidently stride out of defence when the opportunity arose, adding an extra player who could begin attacking movements from deep.

This superbly balanced side took Liverpool as close as we have ever been to claiming our 19th Championship title. Liverpool managed to bag second place, with 86 points and a total of 77 League goals scored, the best record in the League.

Whilst it would be unfair to compare Benitez's best season against Hodgson's mere eight League matches in charge, the general styles of play for both managers can still be judged on the basis of what we have seen so far and the players available to them.

Hodgson's Liverpool have normally set up in a 4-4-1-1 formation, with the occasional foray into 4-4-2 proving unsuccessful (think Manchester City away).

Hodgson has paired Lucas and Poulsen in the centre of midfield, leading to a lack of imagination and creativity from the middle of the park.

Lucas and Poulsen are very similar. Both of them like to sit deep and keep the game ticking over in the middle with short passes. A single player of this type is acceptable, however two "water carriers" leave the midfield stagnant and slow.

£11.5 million central midfielder Raul Meireles and under-performing Argentine Maxi Rodriguez have rotated roles on the right side of midfield, with Joe Cole the preferred choice on the other side.

Why Hodgson would spend such a large chunk of his inconsiderable transfer budget on a central midfielder and then play him on the right wing is beyond me. Meireles is undoubtedly a good player, and he showed that with his performances at the World Cup. However, he is nowhere near his best on the right wing.

Joe Cole can do a job on the left wing, however he is another player who likes to cut inside and join the action in the middle of the pitch. Moreover, the main reason he left Chelsea was because he didn't enjoy being played out of position.

He wanted to play in his favourite position, just behind the main striker, however he has been moved out to the left, where he is less effective and less productive.

Employing two central players on the wings in Meireles and Cole severely restricts the width of the side, and denies Torres the service he desperately needs from the wide positions.

Moreover, both players want to cut inside, which narrows our attacking play into a small section of the pitch. This makes it easier for opposition defences to cope, as they concentrate bodies into that area as well, leaving Liverpool little room to manoeuvre.

In this formation Torres is also left isolated for large periods because not only is he feeding on scraps from the wings, he is also failing to receive support from the centre of midfield, as Lucas and Poulsen prefer short passes designed to retain possession, rather than to split defences in half.

With the side struggling to score goals, defensive solidity is a necessity if we are to pick up points. As a result, Hodgson has paired two no nonsense defenders together in the form of Jamie Carragher and Martin Skrtel. He has also relegated Daniel Agger from first choice centre back to second choice left back.

The below par Glen Johnson and simply average Paul Konchesky have featured in the wing back positions. Johnson has always struggled defensively, however Konchesky was brought in to be the steadying presence to compensate for Johnson's ventures forward.

He was the ying to Johnson's yang.

However, that hasn't proven to be the case, with the rigid structure of a 4-4-1-1 failing to fully utilise the attacking potential of Glen Johnson. Moreover, Konchesky has shown little defensive stability on the left.

Spending £5 million on a left back who was hardly sensational at mid-table Fulham is another Hodgson transfer I cannot understand. At his best, I do not doubt that Konchesky is an adequate left back. However, this adequacy will only last so long as the 29-year old nears the end of his career.

In contrast, 21 year-old Emiliano Insua has been shafted out on loan, with little hope of re-claiming his spot in the side. He had a bit of a shocker last season, but the difference in potential between him and Konchesky should have led to the Argentine remaining at the club for at least a season more.

Admittedly, due to both asset stripping from the previous owners and the dead wood left behind by Benitez, Hodgson has not adopted a squad capable of realistically challenging for even the Champions League, let alone the title.

What he has adopted is a top seven or eight side that should, with the right management and a bit of good fortune, be on the fringes of the top four. He has certainly not inherited a team worthy of the relegation places.

Yes, the players definitely must accept a portion of the blame for the recent sub-standard displays, but their motivation and desire must arrive from a tactically aware manager who understands the intricacies of top-level football management.

I had my doubts about Hodgson from the start. As regular readers will know I was, and still remain a big Rafa fan and would love to see him back in the Anfield dugout.

However, it would be unfair to sack Hodgson at this stage.

He has by no means impressed me, but he must be given both time to develop his ideas, and, if he can prove his ability, money to invest in strengthening a weak and thin squad.

I believe he should be given until Christmas to lead us back into the top seven or eight. Otherwise, he must be shown the door and a new manager must arrive with experience of managing several prestigious club sides.

This new manager will then have the ability to immediately invest in the squad in the January transfer window.

In the mean time, we must support both Hodgson and the players.

While this doesn't mean we must refuse to criticise or blame them all together, it does mean that we back them to improve the situation, and encourage them with support.

I am certain that this support will be given by the ever-faithful Anfield crowd. It must be, otherwise Liverpool will suffer even further heartache for the rest of the season.

YNWA