Liverpool FC: Brendan Rodgers Is Moving Liverpool Forward by Embracing Its Past
New Liverpool manager Brendan Rodgers has been at the helm of Liverpool Football Club now for about six weeks and is starting to find his feet.
In fact, it feels like he has been there for many seasons already—such has been his smooth and seamless transition into the Anfield "hot-seat."
Rodgers, not afraid to be his own man, has embraced the Liverpool ethic and code and has made it his own, if it was not already.
It would not be far off the mark to suggest that the values at the core of this footballing man are not so far removed from the ones that Liverpool Football Club have been built upon.
Despite being the new man in the corridors of Anfield, the Northern Irishman has not looked out of place in the slightest.
There is no doubt that Rodgers is moving Liverpool forward in its entirety and not just in some elements of it.
There is a whole new footballing philosophy that he envisages will run through the club. A way of approaching and playing the game that is a breath of fresh air around Anfield.
In doing so, Rodgers is using the "Liverpool way" of doing things and taking care of business.
The 39 year-old is moving the club ahead by looking into its glorious and prestigious past and taking from that what he needs to pull it forward.
His actions so far feel just like the Liverpool of old—a close-knit club that goes about its business within its own corridors.
It is beginning to feel like Liverpool Football Club again.
So far, what gives off this feeling is the mannerism of Rodgers and the way in which he is going about his work.
His handling of the media cannot be compared to the days of Bill Shankly, Bob Paisley and Joe Fagan, as obviously Sky and the 24-hour news networks did not exist at that time.
Rodgers is completely aware that the media can hail you one minute and hang you the next. And his attitude toward them during interactions with them demonstrate he has the skills of a veteran.
Never is too much information given away, but at the same time, enough is spread for a story. After all, that is what they are there to get.
It also has the Liverpool of old feel about it when it comes to the club’s handling of its transfer dealings.
Fans would always want to know what was happening, but they were assured that whatever news finally emanated from the club, it would always be for the best of the club and never anything less.
Former manager Kenny Dalglish attempted to do his business in this manner, but he failed. His thorny and often elusive demeanor in his press conferences led to confrontations with the media, leaving the "Liverpool way" to be something that became deplored rather than heralded.
Rodgers, on the other hand, seems to be able to work in the "Liverpool way" yet still be able to keep the media on his side. The eloquence and dexterity with which he chooses not to give away too much information is a stark contrast to the stonewall approach of his predecessor and a breath of fresh air for all concerned
Rodgers has also dug deep into the past with his wonderful gesture of bringing the club’s glittering past right back into the present and future by re-installing the original "This is Anfield" sign back to its rightful place.
He has taken the original sign that Shankly hung over the tunnel from its resting place in the Liverpool Football Club museum, back to where it was first placed by the Liverpool manager who began the "Liverpool way."
This could prove to be an inspired move.
Wise beyond his relatively young age, Rodgers has taken to the "Liverpool way" like a duck to water and gives the sense of having known what that way always was.
Whether Rodgers can translate this into results on the pitch, only time will tell. But he has certainly gone about giving himself a decent grace period from the fans by his overall approach and re-introduction to the old and real "Liverpool way," something that will stand him in good stead as he moves Liverpool football club forward.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?