 |
Site Features |
|
Readers Letter: The Blame Game
|
Newcastle-Online.com reader Bob Yule writes in and tries to assess
or make sense of the mess we are currently in, delving deep in to
the Sir Bobby era, the relationship between Chairman Freddy Shepherd
and Alan Shearer, and raises a few interesting questions along the
way.
Want To Have Your
Say On NUFC? Then Use This Site For The Purpose It Was Created
For - Write In, Like Bob Yule Has Done! |
When it comes to the Souness in-or-out debate, a lot of the comments
that I hear focus on his past record, the quality of the players he
has brought in, his tactical abilities, his man-management skills
and various other aspects of the job where opinions differ and where
hard information is difficult to come by. Two so-called troublemakers,
Bellamy and Dyer, would probably each give you very different opinions
of his ability.
My feeling is that we need to look first at what has gone wrong for
the team and the club since the halcyon days of the Champions League
and 3rd place in the Premiership. We need to look at the part that
the major figures have played in the decline (the two managers, the
captain and the chairman), and then look at what Souness has to offer
us in the future. Basically, we can’t judge Souness unless we also
make a judgment about the situation that he inherited and continues
to struggle with.
We can all agree that Sir Bobby did an outstanding job in taking the
club out of the doldrums and into the top four in successive seasons.
However, the following season was a disappointment. We failed to qualify
for the Champions League and struggled to fifth place. It was a clear
turning point from which we haven’t yet recovered. What went wrong?
We’re led to believe that Bobby was overwhelmed by the disciplinary
problems amongst the younger players. Following on from this come
suggestions that he was too old, and wasn’t able to keep tabs on the
youngsters, or to maintain their respect. This inevitably leads to
speculation that, on the football side, he was losing his touch in
a similar way.
This has all been hotly denied by Robson himself. However, there’s
no question that some sort of disciplinary issue was there, given
the succession of incidents that came to light in the press. It had
been the club’s policy to recruit young players (Bernard, Bellamy,
Milner, Bramble, Viana, Ambrose et al) rather than pay large fees
for established names, so perhaps this problem was inevitable.
It could be that there was nothing essentially wrong in Robson’s paternal
approach, but that the sheer number of potentially wayward personalities
meant that the issue could never be entirely extinguished, whoever
was in charge. What’s more, the most fiery of the youngsters, Bellamy,
was actually our best and most influential player, and it would have
been difficult for any manager to issue a convincing ‘next time you’re
out’ - type warning without weakening the side.
Personally, I don’t believe that Robson had lost his touch, but he
had given himself a difficult problem to handle. This is not to say
that he couldn’t have eventually mastered the situation. After all,
he’d taken the club into the Champions League with the same supposedly
unruly bunch. There was no question that they often played with fire,
confidence and commitment under his leadership. My feeling is that
other factors around the team had begun to undermine his position,
and that this turned a broadly positive, albeit rocky situation, into
a negative one.
I feel pretty sure that it was around this time - the end of the 2002-03
season - that the relationship between Robson and Shearer cooled.
This would have been a huge problem, as their relationship was the
bedrock on which Robson had made his mark on the team. He has himself
stated that his first step when becoming manager was to gain the trust
and respect of Shearer, the main man and opinion former within the
squad, and to build team spirit and confidence from there. Shearer,
in turn, was subsequently full of praise for his manager and his achievements.
Then, quite suddenly, the publicly supportive comments dried up, amongst
rumours in the press that the two had fallen out. What happened?
I’ve heard it said that Shearer lost confidence in Robson’s ability
to handle the undisciplined element in the squad, but I very much
doubt that this was the complete picture. Shearer had appeared to
tolerate his manager’s easy-going approach up to that point, not least
because it seemed to be paying dividends in terms of league positions,
and Champions League progress. The ‘big finish’ to Shearer’s career,
which he and the supporters so desperately wanted, seemed to be a
distinct possibility under Sir Bob. Why should it all turn round?
It seems to me that it was around this time that Robson noticed a
decline in Shearer’s pace and work-rate, and recognised the need to
begin the inevitable process of blooding a new strike force. In his
autobiography, Robson is at pains to stress that he did not initiate
or encourage the projected move to Liverpool, but it’s very apparent
that he was prepared to consider the offer once he became aware of
it, and to bring in a younger, more mobile player in the form of Belgian
striker Mpenza.
It has also been said that Robson was disappointed in Shearer’s lack
of support in his task of disciplining the youngsters, but this is
something that Robson has firmly denied. Assuming the Mpenza story
to be true however, and assuming that Shearer would inevitably have
become aware of it, there is no question that Shearer would have become
very uneasy with his manager.
This tension between player and manager first spilled out publicly
half way through the season, when Robson made the apparently sound
decision to rest Shearer for the midweek game against Valerenga. Shearer’s
hostile reaction took me, and I think most other supporters, completely
by surprise.
For the situation, Shearer’s comments seemed well over the top, and
a bad example from the captain to the younger players in how to deal
with being dropped. I feel that this was a warning shot across the
bows from Shearer, putting no doubt in Robson’s mind that if this
was the first stage in his being eased out, he wasn’t going to go
quietly.
The problem re-surfaced at the end of the season, when Shearer was
quoted in the local press as saying that the only thing that would
tempt him to leave the club would be if he was not given a regular
first team place. Subsequently, Shearer denied that he had threatened
to leave, but I don’t believe that the journalist in question made
the story up out of thin air. Robson’s autobiography also makes it
clear that there was tension between himself and Shearer over the
question of him being dropped, even for the purposes of ‘rest’.
Robson makes it clear that he does not believe that Shearer actively
tried to undermine him, either with the Chairman or the other players.
Personally, I believe this, but one has to speculate that the rift
had an effect nonetheless. Shearer is a powerful figure within the
dressing room, and any tension between the two men, even if it didn’t
rise openly to the surface, would have affected the team and Robson’s
position.
The signs are that a split, hitherto buried, between the younger players
and the senior players, became more apparent. If Robson was struggling
with the youngsters before, his position in dealing with them would
inevitably have become more difficult. A divided dressing room and
a weakened manager are serious issues, and the team’s performances
were duly affected.
The Chairman’s role in this appears to be at best neutral, at worst,
rather unsupportive to his manager. Robson has indicated that his
relationship with Shepherd was never close, and that his Chairman
was not prepared to consider the possibility of transferring Shearer,
ostensibly out of concern at the fans’ reaction.
Subsequently, Shepherd has come out strongly and repeatedly in support
of the idea of Shearer eventually becoming manager. Some of his comments
- such as his indignation at Bellamy texting Shearer in an abusive
way - seem unprofessional and tantamount to hero-worship.
There are rumours about the influence that Shearer has behind closed
doors that are impossible to assess, as this supposed influence would
be informal and private in nature, rather than explicit. Whatever
the exact picture, it does seem probable that the two men have some
sort of tacit alliance. Robson has said that he pleaded with Shepherd
that he, a senior figure in the game at the end of his career, would
be able to deal with the question of Shearer’s succession in a much
stronger way than a younger, more vulnerable manager.
This makes sense, but it appears to have fallen on deaf ears. I suspect
that Shepherd was trying to keep the peace, valuing Robson’s role
as a stop-gap leading up to Shearer’s transition from player to manager.
Robson, who loved his job, may have been reluctant to push too far,
for fear of losing his role altogether.
All this begs the question of who was right in strictly footballing
terms. Was Robson premature in trying to phase Shearer out, or should
he have been allowed to continue as a first-team regular, right up
to the point of retirement? There is a line of argument that this
question is irrelevant. Robson was the manager, and he had to be backed
or sacked. This is true, but the footballing problem is worth looking
at, because it continues to affect the team.
Assessment of a player’s ability is inevitably subjective, and there’s
no point in trying to be objective or scientific about this. I feel
that Robson was right. The time to make a change is when the team
is doing well, but the first sign of a crack is appearing. The way
in which Ferguson has dealt with the likes of Cantona, Ince, Hughes
and recently untouchable Roy Keane - apparently indispensable players
- shows the value of the maxim that no player is bigger than the team,
and that the issue of a player’s decline needs to be tackled at an
early stage, before the team as a whole has been significantly affected.
It can be argued that Shearer’s lack of pace and work rate need not
be a handicap to the side, given his outstanding reading of the game
and his finishing skills. The ‘service’ that he receives is often
blamed for his apparent decline, but in the modern game, strikers
can not generally just hang around the penalty area, banging in chances
that are created elsewhere by others. They are expected to work hard,
interchanging positions and creating space and chances for their colleagues.
This issue becomes even more significant now that we have a specialist
finisher in Owen, who really needs a workhorse in the mould of a Rooney,
Beardsley or Bellamy behind him, rather than a fellow centre forward
alongside. The longer Shearer remains in the side, the more we appear
static, unimaginative and predictable in our play, despite the talented
players that have been brought in since Robson departed.
The argument about Shearer’s finishing skills was far more persuasive
two or three years ago. At that time, Shearer was that bit sharper
in getting on the end of chances, still able to get to the right place
that vital split second ahead of defenders. Shearer’s lack of pace
now means that he finds it difficult to get there in time, even though
his reading of the game is as astute as ever.
Returning to Robson’s final days, there was no question about who
the majority of us chose to blame for the decline in performances
- the manager. The Board evidently shared this view, and in what had
become a highly charged atmosphere of discontent, sacked Robson only
a few games into the season.
According to a mixture of speculation and direct quotation, we were
turned down by Allardyce, Bruce and other possible successors. Information
about the situation that had engulfed Robson was probably well known
within the game, and so, if true, these rejections would not be surprising.
It was perhaps inevitable that the man who eventually took over would
need to be someone eager for a way out of their present post, even
if it meant accepting a short-term contract at a club in turmoil.
Given that Souness inherited a problematic situation, how does one
assess his contribution? The answer surely is - with difficulty. His
past record is patchy, but he has had his share of successes and there
are plenty within the game who admire him. He has brought in some
good players, and whilst his public falling out with Bellamy has been
very detrimental, he did appear to do all he could to keep the peace
with a player who perhaps had, indeed, become too big for his boots.
Many have said that his man management skills are poor and that he
is tactically naïve, but insider opinions point in different directions.
Many players, such as Emre and Dyer, have been publicly supportive
and personally I haven’t seen any evidence that pure tactics are to
blame for the current performances.
The fact remains that a lot of money has been spent, but the team
appears to be no further forward. Perhaps he hasn’t handled the situation
as well as others might have done, but he has also had to deal with
the figures who seem to have played a part in undermining his predecessor.
There is no question that Souness’s attitude to Shearer has been different
from Robson’s. He still rates him highly, and far from wanting to
ease his way into retirement, he has battled against it. This public
attitude does not seem to be out of fear of Shearer’s possible influence
at the club, or out of a need to maintain an alliance with the most
powerful figure in the dressing room. The admiration seems genuine,
and on this crucial judgement I believe that Souness has been just
plain wrong.
It is possible that Souness was hoping to use Shearer more as a squad
player than as a first team regular, but if this was the case, why
did we bring in only one new striker in the close season, given that
Kluivert and Bellamy had both left? Souness’s comments at the time
indicated that he wanted two new strikers, and wanted them early.
Instead, we had one, and at the last possible moment. On this particular
point, I would question the role of the Chairman.
In his autobiography, Robson complained bitterly about Shepherd’s
secretive attitude to transfers and players’ contracts. In the weeks
before his final demise, it often seemed that Robson was only partially
aware of what was going on behind the scenes with possible transfers.
A similar picture seems to have been repeated with Souness. It appears
that the Manager and the Chairman get together to agree on a list
of transfer targets, but who eventually arrives is down to the Chairman.
I would expect the Manager to be made aware of a transfer budget,
and to be allowed to effectively divvy this up according to his judgement
of the competing priorities within the team. Our current policy leaves
the possibility that the Chairman could underbid for the players that
he does not fancy, and over-bid for the players who he does. What’s
more, there have been suggestions that the Chairman is as much inclined
to listen to an informal group of advisers as to his manager, which
does prompt the question - who’s in charge?
Some good players have arrived, but there does not appear to have
been any overall vision as to how they would play together, and the
end product bears the hallmarks of the work of a disparate committee.
What’s more, we appear to have put a lot of our financial eggs in
the basket of one big-name player, with the attendant hazard (now
perhaps fulfilled) that he might suffer serious injury.
The over-reliance on a single, big name player bears all the hallmarks
of a Chairman’s buy rather than that of a cool-headed professional.
I don’t doubt that Souness wanted Owen - but perhaps not at the expense
of other team-building considerations.
So here we are, in a bit of a mess both on and off the field. If one
cares to play the blame game, where should it lie?
Although it might appear that I’m pointing the finger at Shearer,
this is not my intention. It is not the fault of the player that he
has the drive and desire to continue in the first team right up until
the point of his retirement. The single-mindedness and strength of
character that became a difficulty for both Gullit and Robson was
also the driving force behind the on-pitch feats of the greatest British
centre forward of his generation. Furthermore, if Shearer is exercising
more influence than a player should, can he really be held to blame,
if others have presented him with the opportunity?
As must be apparent, I’m an admirer of Sir Bob’s and what he did for
us. Perhaps, after his third place finish, he was in a stronger position
than he realised, and he could have been firmer in insisting on the
changes he felt were necessary. Perhaps he could have handled the
youngsters more firmly, but in the light of his overall record in
the job compared to Souness’s, it looks increasingly like he was making
the best of a bad job, rather than creating it.
On Souness’s role, I feel neutral in the face of competing considerations.
Clearly he hasn’t turned the situation round. On the other hand, the
situation he inherited had become very difficult and he has always
been in a weak position, with a short-term contract, and a Chairman
who appeared to be taking an increasingly involved role in the area
of transfers.
So finally there is Freddy Shepherd. I’ve heard it said that he’s
a businessman, only out to maximise his own profits from the club,
but I don’t believe this to be the case. I think he’s a genuine fan,
eager for success on the football field in the same manner as the
rest of us. But therein, perhaps, lies the problem.
In his lack of support for Robson, and in his support for Shearer,
he has perhaps allowed the emotion of a fan to overshadow the judgement
of a professional. We all had the dream of Shearer finishing his career
in style and taking over the helm, and it was difficult to acknowledge
that it wasn’t going to happen.
However, the Chairman has to act as a sheet anchor against the headstrong
emotions of the fan, not give voice or power to them. He needs to
maintain a sense of realism and support the manager, not cling to
a dream. This didn’t happen at the crucial time, and we’ve paid the
price ever since.
In a rather depressing interview, Kluivert recently said that Shearer
exercised a dominating influence over the thinking of the club, and
that there wasn’t anything that anyone could do about it. Not quite
true - there is one man, and that is the Chairman.
So where do we go from here? It seems to me that we need a manager
who is truly in charge, able to exercise his own judgements about
team selections regardless of the reactions of the fans or the Board.
He must also feel confident that his priorities and opinions in the
transfer market are fully reflected in the players who eventually
come in or out.
If Souness is to be that man, he must rise from his present, beleaguered
position - a feat that may now be beyond him, despite his stubborn
determination. It may be Shearer, but he lacks experience and I’m
not sure if, at this point, he wants to take on the demands of the
role.
And if it’s a third man, one can only wish him luck to go with his
bravery.
Bob Yule
 Write
In... Did you enjoy this article? Did you disagree/agree
with this article? Write in to Newcastle-Online.com and we will publish
your views.
Notes: We read all e-mails but cannot promise
that we will respond, however all e-mails sent in regarding NUFC related
issues, get published on our pages. |
|
|
Toon
Shirts |
|
Sponsors |
|
