It's our turn on the Guardian blog again

[Gilps]

here

 

On second thoughts ... Roy Evans

 

Remembered as a weak man who let his Spice Boys run riot, the former Liverpool boss was closer to winning the Premiership than his successors.

 

Rob Smyth, February 15, 2007 01:59 PM

 

Long before Stan Collymore appeared on the reality TV show The Verdict, he had served as judge and jury on the managerial career of Roy Evans.

 

"One morning we were all wandering out to training when Roy [Evans] made some quip to Robbie Fowler and they started joking about. Robbie got the gaffer's head in an armlock and started rubbing his other hand across his head, frizzing up his hair. I caught myself imagining what would have happened if Gary Neville ever tried that with Alex Ferguson. Somehow, I couldn't see it."

 

This withering appraisal in Collymore's autobiography seemed to capture the essence of the Evans years: of the nice boy who couldn't control his Spice Boys, the shandy-weak boss who wasted an abundantly talented squad that should have dominated English football but instead are remembered for peroxide-blond mops, cream Armani suits and green-eyed envy at the tangible achievement of the other Red Army across the M62.

 

It might be time for a bit of revisionism. It was under Evans that Liverpool had their strongest title challenge of the last 15 years, in 1996-97 (they eventually finished fourth but had they beaten Manchester United at Anfield in mid-April they would've gone top with three games to go); it was under Evans that they played their best football of the last 15 years; and it was under Evans that the likes of Robbie Fowler, Jamie Redknapp and, arguably, Steve McManaman reached the high watermark of their careers.

 

Evans was certainly not without flaws - he bought some poor players, he had no idea how to handle or utilise a one-off like Collymore, and he cut his players too much slack on occasion - but he is hardly alone in that. He may not have been a born winner, but nor was he the hapless loser that some have made out.

 

It is revealing that, under Evans, Liverpool's average Premiership position* (3.5) was higher than under Gérard Houllier (3.6) or Rafa Benítez (4.0), yet Evans is ranked well below the two. The suspicion remains that, for all Liverpool fans' moralistic carping about the Holy Grail of a 19th league title, they are as susceptible to the cheap thrill of a Cup triumph as anyone else.

 

Evans won only a League Cup in 1995, with his side frequently going out in the early rounds in Europe and the FA Cup, often in humiliating circumstances. By contrast, Houllier and Benítez wowed their public with a Treble and a Champions League victory which, while glorious, were entirely meaningless in terms of restoring Liverpool to the top of the pile. They are further away from that now than they were at any time under Evans: Liverpool are currently 16 points behind United, whereas the most they trailed under Evans was by 15 in 1994-95.

 

And at least they were good to watch back then. The quality and purity of the football played by Evans's teams was beyond reproach: he was the last of the Boot Room boys, and appropriately his side were the last to play in the pass-and-move tradition developed in the Boot Room. In 1996, their FA Cup final song was even called 'Pass & Move (The Liverpool Groove)'.

 

In the mid-nineties, particularly that 1995-96 season, Liverpool's Spice Boys were the best side in England to look at in every sense (Fowler the "Growler" notwithstanding). They played catwalk football. Kevin Keegan's Newcastle were thrillingly gung-ho, and United's forward play could be devastatingly decisive, but nobody was as striking, as aesthetic, as Liverpool.

 

They took part in the greatest game in Premiership history - the 4-3 against Newcastle in April 1996 (it rather sums up Evans's career that that match is remembered more for the losing manager, Keegan, than him). There were other memorable performances that season in particular, most notably when they blew away Blackburn and Aston Villa, defending champions and surprise packages respectively, at Anfield with devastating three-goal bursts in the first quarter of the game. And they outclassed eventual champions United home and away.

 

Yet when it came to the real crunch - the FA Cup final - they were locked in a full nelson by Roy Keane and deservedly beaten by Eric Cantona's fairytale late winner. It summed up Evans's Liverpool: they were consistent only in their inconsistency. That rout of Blackburn followed defeat away to 10-man Wimbledon. The 4-3 over Newcastle, which breathed new life into their title challenge, was followed by a miserable 1-0 defeat at Coventry. In the winter months they smashed Manchester City 6-0 before going seven matches without a win, and then snapping back into life to stuff United and Arsenal.

 

The problem for Evans was that the highs were so high that they left observers bemused as to how the lows could possibly be so low. So attention turned to off-field matters. The perception was thus fostered of a group of players who had the keys to the kingdom but decided they'd prefer a VIP suite at Chinawhites. Yet if team spirit is an illusion glimpsed in the aftermath of victory, as Steve Archibald famously said, then Evans might legitimately feel that Spice Boy excess is a delusion perceived in the aftermath of defeat. Like Cool Britannia, Britpop, TFI Friday and everything else that defined that period, those who criticise with hindsight are quick to forget just how enjoyable it was at the time.

 

Nor does it hold that Evans's romantic beliefs led to a damaging sacrifice of defensive principles: in three of his four seasons, Liverpool conceded fewer goals than the champions. Maybe the reality is that, as players, they just weren't that good; that Evans overachieved with the squad at his disposal. Whereas United, the dominant force, had Ryan Giggs and Keane in their prime, as well as a nascent David Beckham, Paul Scholes and Gary Neville and a renascent Cantona, Liverpool had only Fowler approaching the mythical world-class status.

 

Most of the other main attacking forces played better under Evans than before or since. Fowler was truly magnificent. Redknapp has never passed as aggressively or purposefully. McManaman, one of nature's uncomplaining lieutenants, was turned into the side's general. Collymore, though not as he good as he was at Nottingham Forest, never reached the heights of 95-96 again. It might be coincidence (certainly the cruciate injury that Fowler suffered in 1998, towards the end of Evans' reign, had a damaging effect on his career). Or it might be that Evans' gregarious methods - for richer or poorer - empowered some free spirits to play with a verve and joie de vivre that other managers could not locate.

 

Either way, his reign certainly wasn't all bad. Where his reputation is concerned, it might be time for the football cognoscenti to order a retrial.

 

*NB: this refers only to full seasons in sole charge, and so excludes 1993-94, 1998-99 and 2006-07

[johngibo YPC]

here

 

arguably, Steve McManaman reached the high watermark of their careers.

 

 

i would love to here how that argument goes

[Gilps]

i would love to here how that argument goes

 

Those European Cup winner's medals are mere trifles, you know.

[kop205]

i would love to here how that argument goes

 

That bit jumped out at me as well.

 

Though he did say 'arguably'. Some f***ing argument that would be.

 

In fairness, some decent points in the article (amidst lots of dross, it has to be said) but ultimately it descends into farce by going on about how we played the best football in the country and had the best defence for 3 of 4 seasons, and how we frequently battered the top sides - but then saying that those players weren't actually that good and we actually overachieved.

 

Evans' reputation was damaged precisely because he had such a talented bunch who ultimately underachieved, whereas Rafa coaxed a Champions League win out of what was in many respects an inferior side. Evans inherited a number of very talented individuals and failed to supplement them with many good buys (how many of his SOLO purchases make it into anyone's list of top 10 Liverpool buys of the last 20 years?) GH and Rafa also inherited a couple of gems in Stevie and Carra of course (Owen too for GH), but also made some excellent buys - Sami, Henchoz, Didi, Babbel, Gary Mac, Finnan, Pepe, Xabi, Luis and more).

 

That bit about average league placings is b******s too. If you don't win it, then finishing 3.6th (whatever the f*** that is) is no better than finishing 4th, which means inevitably judgement comes down to other trophies won - in which case both Rafa and GH come off looking much better (did he really use the word 'meaningless' to describe our Champions League win?!)

 

Ulitmately, GH got the boot for not winning the League, same as Evans did. If Evans had won a few more trophies and got us as close as 2nd, then he'd have probably lasted a bit longer. If Rafa doesn't win the League in the next couple of years then frankly I can't see him being here much beyond that really. So it is hardly as if Evans has been treated massively differently.

 

I think it is more the football world at large, rather than Liverpool fans, that needs to revise its view of Evans, given the lack of job offers he's had. He did okay for us, and would have done ok elsewhere, but as we all (Roy better than anyone) know 'ok' isn't enough here.

[Gilps]

I think it is more the football world at large, rather than Liverpool fans, that needs to revise its view of Evans, given the lack of job offers he's had. He did okay for us, and would have done ok elsewhere, but as we all (Roy better than anyone) know 'ok' isn't enough here.

 

Now that I do agree with.

[Gomez]

"cheap thrill of a Cup triumph"

 

I can't remember, was that the actual name of the Istanbul DVD?

 

It also forgets the fact that there wasn't the four CL places under Evans and the investment in other teams. To finish just outside the CL places then (3rd / 4th) was as easy as finishing just outside the CL places now, or 5th.

 

Also, I would still say GH's 2nd place was our best challange of recent years, rather than Evans' 4th. During neither of them did we ever actually look like winning it though.

 

It is also a myth that we played good football under him, we played a lot of dross that we have got nowhere near under Rafa and some of the passing football we have played when we've hit top form in the last couple of years beats anything Evans served up. Good football under Evans usually relied on a McManaman or Fowler moment of individual brilliance. And to use the 4-3 as an example of good football!?! Those matches contained some of the most shambolic defending ever seen from a Liverpool team. Yes that might make it exciting to watch for a neutral, but it is not good football by any definition.

Edited February 15, 2007 by Gomez

[Nerik]

Very revisionist. Talking down the cups has suddenly become fashionable when funnily enough losing the FA Cup to the Scum in 96 sticks in the throat as much as losing the league to them in 97.

 

Yes in 97 we were the closest to winning no.19 but we also had a good shot at it in 02 and were in the running until we lost at Spurs. Last year we achieved our best ever EPL points tally but now the bar has been upped since 97 in terms of points needed to win the EPL.

[Big E]

not looking at medals, I'd say we saw McManamans best football at Anfield. Mabye that's his point.

[Gomez]

not looking at medals, I'd say we saw McManamans best football at Anfield. Mabye that's his point.

 

If that is his point it doesn't really make sense. McManaman wasn't there under GH or Rafa, so how does saying McManaman played better football for Liverpool than he did in Real Madrids stiffs prove anything in the least bit relevant to GH or Rafa?

[mally]

stop calling it the f***ing EPL for f***s sake

 

 

/mini rant over

[smithdown]

By contrast, Houllier and Benítez wowed their public with a Treble and a Champions League victory which, while glorious, were entirely meaningless in terms of restoring Liverpool to the top of the pile.

 

 

 

 

What a nob.

[Florist Cinema Pond Goal]

It is revealing that, under Evans, Liverpool's average Premiership position* (3.5) was higher than under Gérard Houllier (3.6) or Rafa Benítez (4.0), yet Evans is ranked well below the two. The suspicion remains that, for all Liverpool fans' moralistic carping about the Holy Grail of a 19th league title, they are as susceptible to the cheap thrill of a Cup triumph as anyone else.

*NB: this refers only to full seasons in sole charge, and so excludes 1993-94, 1998-99 and 2006-07

 

It's also revealing that Evans never won a European trophy or accumulated 82 league points in a season, feats acheived by Rafa in his first 2 years. Average league positions? Give me a f***ing break.

Edited February 15, 2007 by Florist Cinema Pond Goal

[Guest Anders Honoré]

I do think hindsight has been more harsh than is fair on Evans. I don't think he wasquite the weakling made out to be and we did play some very good football under him. And he did a very good job of turning us around and keeping us towards the top after the souness years which is a task not to be underestimated.

 

Still, he signed just about one good defender in his time. And the fact is about the time Wenger came to the prem, the bar for what it took to be a top side was significantly raised and I am not sure Evans would have what it took to follow that development.

Edited February 15, 2007 by Anders Honoré

[Armin_Tamzarian]

I think Roy Evans got the top job too late. If the board had turned to him after Kenny left things might've been different. Maybe he could've overhauled that squad without throwing the baby out with the bathwater a la Souey.

 

As it was he'd been a number 2 for too long and I think that might've compromised his authority somewhat.

[jimmylibel]

Redknapp has never passed as aggressively or purposefully.

 

Em, did this actually happen?

 

Wouldn't

Redknapp has never passed as aggressively or purposefully

be more appropriate? Edited February 15, 2007 by jimmylibel

[Snookie]

An honest, decent man but one of life's 'number two's'. He was never cut out to be manager of the club. He wanted to be liked. While that's OK when you are 'the player's friend' in a management set-up, it doesn't work when ultimate responsibility lies with you.

[fred milne]

I do think hindsight has been more harsh than is fair on Evans. I don't think he wasquite the weakling made out to be and we did play some very good football under him. And he did a very good job of turning us around and keeping us towards the top after the souness years which is a task not to be underestimated.

 

Still, he signed just about one good defender in his time. And the fact is about the time Wenger came to the prem, the bar for what it took to be a top side was significantly raised and I am not sure Evans would have what it took to follow that development.

The Barnes - McManaman - Fowler axis was definitely good enough but too few of the other players were ultimately up to the job.

[Guest]

I refuse to read the Guardian blogs - most of it is pure drivel written by closet Mancs who assume they are God's gift to football journalism - arguments, for want of a better word, designed to fill space nothing more

[Stevie H]

I refuse to read the Guardian blogs - most of it is pure drivel written by closet Mancs who assume they are God's gift to football journalism - arguments, for want of a better word, designed to fill space nothing more

they've gone noticeably downhill in terms of quality since they started the blogging s****.

[johngibo YPC]

I refuse to read the Guardian blogs - most of it is pure drivel written by closet Mancs who assume they are God's gift to football journalism - arguments, for want of a better word, designed to fill space nothing more

 

Smyth is not a closet manc to be fair. He's quite an open manc.

I agree with your last sentence though. Which is why they don't bother me.

[Snookie]

they've gone noticeably downhill in terms of quality since they started the blogging s****.

 

They're really little more than work-experience projects. Most of the people who write them don't get near the main paper. Those who do only publish stuff that is unfit for the main paper. The 'contrarian' and revisionist approach taken by many of the writers is down to laziness, ineptitude and a belief that 'controversy' will generate discussion/page views.

[Stevie H]

They're really little more than work-experience projects. Most of the people who write them don't get near the main paper. Those who do only publish stuff that is unfit for the main paper. The 'contrarian' and revisionist approach taken by many of the writers is down to laziness, ineptitude and a belief that 'controversy' will generate discussion/page views.

trouble is it works though.

 

a blog is as good as its comments and links. ignore the thing and the writer won't get asked to do one again.

[Guest]

a blog is as good as its comments and links. ignore the thing and the writer won't get asked to do one again.

 

Exactly.

 

The policy line to be followed

[meredithmathieson]

Funny that David Lacey, the respected Guardian journalist, had a right 'go' at Ferguson after the 96 Final, accusing him of being so scared of McManaman after the two League games, that Ferguson basically ruined the Final by setting out to stop McManaman/Liverpool.

[Ste M]

With regards to the position thing (3.6 and all that crap) - Rafa Benitez has a Chelsea and an Arsenal to contend with, never mind United - We were the second best team in the country when Roy was in charge, yet still managed to finish outside of the top 2.