Konchesky

[goatboy59]

Konchesky is the victim of Anfield's burning desire to erase the memory of Hodgson - News & Comment, Football - The Independent

 

Journalist getting hammered in comments section.

 

Can't think why......

 

Konchesky is the victim of Anfield's burning desire to erase the memory of Hodgson

 

The performance at Wolves suggested that in the short term Liverpool simply need a release from Hodgson's defensive strictures, not a £25m splurge of cash, says Ian Herbert

 

Monday, 24 January 2011

 

As Liverpool ride the wave of Dalglish euphoria, what will the journey into training be like for Paul Konchesky today?

 

 

That is an opening sentence destined to lose most Liverpool fans before we've even begun but it's a reasonable one, given that Konchesky, a decent Premier League defender and a decent human being, for what that's worth, has suffered more indignity than any sportsman ought in the course of the past six months.

 

When Roy Hodgson brought him to Anfield from Fulham last August, Konchesky was a player of commendable Premier League standing. Not the best Fulham player to feature in the club's Europa League run last season; not even almost the best. His call-up to the England side which played Australia in February 2003 was probably as much of a surprise to himself as to anyone and was overshadowed, in any case, by the senior international debut of one W Rooney. But at £3.5m Konchesky was a perfectly suitable buy for Liverpool, a club who in their wisdom had loaned their only serviceable left-back (Emiliano Insua) to Galatasaray, released a semi-serviceable one (Fabio Aurelio) on the basis that he has all the unbreakability of a pane of glass and had no other left-back with whom to head into the new season.

 

But someone decided Konchesky wasn't "a Liverpool player". He struggled to perform. (Ask Nemanja Vidic or Patrice Evra how that can happen to a defender for all of six months at a new club.) His manager became persona non grata at Anfield and Konchesky, with his east London accent, became a totem of an alien, unhappy era.

 

That was before his own mother said some very unflattering things about Liverpool people. Konchesky was aghast about that; sorry, embarrassed, humiliated. He considered issuing a statement to say as much but nobody really wanted to know his side of the story.

 

A perfect storm was blowing against Konchesky when Kenny Dalglish walked in as manager – there were cheers when Konchesky was substituted in Hodgson's penultimate home match – and it is Liverpool's desire to assuage the fans, more than Konchesky's ability, which seems to have contributed to his ostracism since. He felt his first conversation with Dalglish had gone well but was aghast to find the new manager would rather play Glen Johnson on the "wrong" side of defence than pick him there, in his natural left-back domain. He was not even in the squad against Everton, nor at Wolves on Saturday.

 

He might reasonably argue that he is some distance behind Martin Skrtel (whose selection at Molineux maintained his status as Liverpool's only ever-present outfield player in the league this season) on the list of most undependable defenders. So now he is trapped. Uefa rules prevent a player turning out for three clubs in one season so unless Konchesky gets dispensation – that's possible, as he appeared only once for Fulham before heading north for this nightmare – life will get worse before it gets better. He is the victim of a grand design beyond his own control: to erase the memory of Roy Hodgson. It is a design which will dispense with rationale if Liverpool move this week for Aston Villa's left-back Stephen Warnock, as they almost certainly will.

 

Warnock is certainly no better than Konchesky and was so poor for Aston Villa against Manchester City that Gérard Houllier left him out of his next squad. He is not the only player being pursued by a club whom we were told when their new owners arrived would seek value in the transfer market – using the science known as sabermetrics.

 

"Murder" was the word Birmingham manager Alex McLeish chose on Saturday to describe shopping for strikers in January. "Madness" was Sir Alex Ferguson's description of the value attached to Villa spending £24m on Darren Bent. Yet Liverpool looked at Bent too, according to the new director of football strategy, Damien Comolli, and they also seem ready to pay £15m for Ajax's Luis Suarez, whose record against good Dutch defences is incomparably poorer than against bad ones and whose prime proof of quality came at the last World Cup.

 

Overpaying for players who have just shone at a tournament is what Moneyball, the bible of sabermetrics, describes as "a tendency to be over influenced by a guy's most recent performance: what he did last was not necessarily what he would do next". And then there is Charlie Adam of Blackpool – a good midfielder with pace who has been attracting Aston Villa, Blackburn and Sunderland; the kind of clubs Liverpool have no ambition to emulate. A Liverpool player? No.

 

It is unclear whether these three names have been scribbled in Dalglish's book or Comolli's but, either way, the pursuit of them is typical of that age-old trend in football of a new manager putting his mark on his new team and satisfying fans by buying in new players and clearing out the old. Saturday's performance at Wolves, with that sublime 30-pass move for the third goal, suggested that, in the short term, this club simply needs a release from Hodgson's defensive strictures, not a £25m splurge of cash. Raul Meireles' display told us that Hodgson knew a good midfielder when he saw one, after all.

 

A question for this final week of the transfer window is whether Liverpool can look beyond the popular revolt which played such a significant part in seeing Hodgson through the door and acknowledge that he has equipped them well enough for a season in which the only achievements which ever really counted – the removal of two dreadful owners and discovery of an enlightened new one – have already been accomplished.

 

Despite his contribution, Hodgson left Liverpool a more sad and broken man than many realise. Konchesky will probably pull away down the M62 a similar wreck, but it is not too late for salvation.

[Major Tom]

He makes some good points for me.

[Dan Vito Corleone]

He's a victim of ball-watching.

[lifetime fan]

The author of that obviously knows the square root of fuck all.

[TheDrowningMan]

That's exactly why Poulsen and Meireles have started under Dalglish. Because it's all a grand ploy to eradicate every last trace of Hodgson. Fuck, that's why Kenny has made sure to say the right things to the press - It's all a diabolical ploy.

[usernameunknown]

He doesnt play because he's been ripped apart in basically every single game by crap like Stephen Carr, Seamus Coleman and many others. He cost us the game at Spurs, he cost us the Derby at Goodison and plenty more games. He's shocking.

 

How come Poulsen is starting? What happened to erasing Hodgson's memory? Crap piece.

[redsoxs]

Was that written by Jamie Kanwar?

[goatboy59]

As for Konchesky not being able to broadcast his side of the story about his mother's Facebook bile.

 

If only there was some form of public communication that would enable Paul to give his side of things, some way of writing his words down and enabling the public to read them.

 

One day we will escape these dark ages and live in an age of Enlightenment.

[Strontium]

Skim-read the words "burning" and "Konchesky" and was inclined to agree. Article did not deliver.

[cochcaer]

He's the victim of The Curse of the Cockneys*.

 

 

 

*Coming to a cinema near you soon starring Danny Dyer.

[INTORRESTING]

I feel sorry for Konchesky, it was a dream move for him but it hasn't worked out.

[RobbieOR]

How can he compare Konchesky to Evra and Vidic who were both signed in their mid twenties and were foriegn to the English game when signed? Konchesky is the polar opposite to them two.

[Guest ian garro]

Reads like something he had in mind to write the moment he heard Hodgson was sacked, then couldn't be arsed changing, when faced with facts - Poulsen starting, Meirelles impressing etc. Very lazy. No mention of his abject 'performances' either.

 

One thing I object to, is the inference that Hodgson somehow helped get rid of the other 2 fucking herberts - G&H ? How exactly ?

[dave]

Yeah, its because he's from Landan. Not because he's shit. Oh no.

[Whelan]

Read the match day report, pretty similar narrative i.e. Hodgson was unfair pushed out and we left a lot of good.

 

Getting hammered for that shite as well.

[me1]

I f Hodgson was any good he would not have been sacked - it's that simple.

And Konchesky is not good enough for us - end of. Get over it.

Just more London based no mark journalism.

[Arl arse]

The one and only reason he is not playing for us is simple, he's not good enough!

[Unrighteous]

He's the victim of being shit.

[navbasi]

"Raul Meireles' display told us that Hodgson knew a good midfielder when he saw one, after all....."

 

“It is very early for me to make very strong judgments about where his best position is. He had two training sessions and played on Thursday night and he played again on Sunday so it is very early for me to make very strong judgments about where his best position is. The work we do on the training field will show me how best to use him. He actually went out wide right late in the United game and did okay there also. All I can say is he has a lot of qualities and I’m sure we’ll get a lot of use out of him..." - RH

[Section_31]

He's a victim of the fact he's got the positional sense of a U-Boat in the Thames.

[Joso]

While I feel a little bad for Konchesky, bottom line is he just isn't good enough.

[Duff Man]

That article's piss poor but I do feel a bit sorry for the lad.

[J-V]

He's the victim of being shit.

 

Is right.

[goatboy59]

Like Nigel in 94, he could easily have come out and said something but chose not to.

 

Yes, they're your parents but if they put your current job in jeopardy that means you have to stand up for yourself.

 

The idea no one was interested in what he had to say is absolute shite, apologist crap, and the whole article reeks of same.

[Guest San Don]

That's a fucking pathetic article.

 

This sentence "The performance at Wolves suggested that in the short term Liverpool simply need a release from Hodgson's defensive strictures, not a £25m splurge of cash," shows a complete lack of knowledge.

 

Has the King spent 25million quid? No. He's just given us belief that we're better than fucking wolves, fulham and those shitty teams. He's given us belief. He's given us back pass and move.

 

Yeah, 25 million quid spent there yer know nothing fucking gobshite.