When David lost to Goliath

The last time I wrote about David Moyes, I had extended skeptical and conditional support to him, on behalf of the rational and sane Manchester United fans through an open letter. Between then and now, not a lot of good happened and just as I was contemplating another open letter, the Glazers just made me rethink the content of this piece. Honestly, I don’t think I need to change much for my open letter would’ve exhorted him to gracefully walk away instead of inflicting additional humiliation on himself and agony on the fans.

Like I have said before, we did not have irrational expectations from Moyes in the first season. We didn’t expect trebles and unbeaten runs or undefeated home matches. What we surely expected was the team to fight for Europe. We gave him money, time and freedom to overhaul the system. Despite this, we saw no hint of positive change. Nowhere am I saying we expected to see the end result; but I am surely saying that I expected to see glimpses of what he promised and that was not to be. After breaking all the wrong records and hitting one rock bottom after the other, Moyes ran out of idea, excuses, reasons, support and player loyalty. There could be nothing more depressing for any sports enthusiast – let alone a Manchester United fan – to watch the Everton match. The team just did not turn up and this has happened on way too many occasions.

History will bear witness that dressing room discontent is unacceptable on the CV of any manager in any sport and Moyes has that glaringly put up on his Manchester United CV. Moyes’ biggest curse was the inadvertent comparison of his actions to that of his predecessors. How much ever I may try, it is rather difficult to not indulge in such comparisons; so please allow me some liberties. Ferguson’s teams also went through phases of unrest. Players revolted, sulked and spoke out of turn. But Ferguson nipped it in the bud. During Ferguson’s times, the rotten apple was left to rot outside the basket. During Moyes’ times, the rotten apple spread the rot to the orchard. No Roy Keane, Jaap Stam or Ruud Van Nistelrooij could arm-twist Ferguson! On the other hand, even Danny Welbeck threatens to quite Old Trafford and that speaks volumes.

Whether it be true or not, I am not to say – but there have been too many muffled voices about Moyes’ training methods, man management and tactics. When a team complains of all facets of a manager’s job, there isn’t much that can save him except a Godfather. In this case, even the Godfather turned his back on his own protégé. It may be premature to conclude that Moyes is a bad manaer for his record at Preston and Everton are certainly notable and praiseworthy. Nonetheless, he may have found his level there and should’ve realized. Another comparison may serve well here. Tony Pulis has miraculously pulled out Crystal Palace from the doldrums and has extended their lease in the premier league. And that is about it. You don’t pick up Tony Pulis and put him in charge of Tottenham. To remind Moyes, no Manchester United manager has ever spoken of making it difficult for Newcastle to travel to Old Trafford.

Personally, I am inclined to believe that Moyes was the man to turn this around and deserved time. Personally, I am still inclined to believe that the board acted in haste and also due to non-footballing considerations. Personally, I believe that he bit more than he could swallow.

If we were to even look at Moyes’ sacking purely from the footballing perspective, there is still a very strong case that justifies his sacking. As pointed out, team unrest, change of backroom staff, coaching methods and others have played their roles in bringing about this eventuality. Also, Moyes’ transfer market dealings have failed to inspire. Not many will hurriedly forget the manner in which we signed Marouane Fellaini for stratospheric wages by paying more than his release clause. How much ever the fickle United fans may have been exited with the signing of Juan Mata, there honestly is nothing much to cheer about. We’d rather have played Kagawa in a position he excels in instead of buy a costlier version. The only difference between Kagawa and Mata is that the latter was sold by Chelsea and cost Manchester United a bomb whereas the former was a steal from Dortmund. And this is not it. The preposterous contract given to Wayne Rooney tops it all. For a player past his prime and who sulks once every 3 years about leaving the club, paying 14 million pounds a year in wages is absurd!

To compound these gaffes, no player is willing to risk his career under Moyes. In a situation where the club plans to spend anywhere between 150 to 200 million pounds this year, the questions always was – can Moyes be trusted? Given that Moyes did himself continual disservice to this end by his naivety and immaturity in the transfer market the answer was clear “NO”. After creating a buzz about the transfer dealings, it is unacceptable that one is unable to sign not even one of those players.

As I write this, The Daily Mail has carried an article about how Moyes was openly and brazenly defied and insubordinated by the United players. Whether there is any truth to those histrionics is a matter of belief but what is surely disturbing is that every player in the team has had an uncomfortable altercation with Moyes. Whether this is down to his abrasive style or the fact that he had a less illustrious CV is of no relevance, since it is the manager’s job to either get his team to buy into his philosophy or adapt his to what the team believes in. There cannot be an obstinate impasse that hurts the club as a whole.

In addition to all of this, there are also the commercial losses that have been staring into the face of the Glazers. All said and done, Manchester United is a club that has lot of commercial deals riding on it and these make the club huge money only when the club performs. Despite being a hardcore United fan, it’ll be foolish for me to deny that we are driven much more by commercial considerations as compared to Arsenal or Liverpool. In a situation where we have millions of pounds of revenue in con deals (read GM and Nike), not playing in the Champions League is unacceptable. How else will the Glazers service their debt? Though none of this may be directly the sole responsibility, his inability to perform on the field had collateral repercussions elsewhere.

In my previous blog, I had alluded to my apprehensions that Moyes was a case study of Peter’s principle. In this piece, I will admit that he has proven himself to be one.

To be fair to Moyes, I will concede that the owners and the CEO will have to take their share of the blame. Further, this fiasco may also make Ed Woodward’s position as CEO increasingly untenable. Maybe the Glazers could have persuaded David Gill to stay on for couple of seasons more for the dealings in the transfer market would’ve been less shambolic than they were under Woodward.

In hindsight, maybe the club could’ve and should’ve done many things different. Nonetheless, they’ve decided to do things different with some foresight.

In defense of the Prime Minister

“I hope history will be kinder to be than the contemporary media” said an apparently resigned, graceful and statesman-like Manmohan Singh, during a rare interaction with the media in January. Given that the personal credibility of the PM is under siege and the relevance of the PMO has faded into oblivion, this seemingly harmless yearn of the PM has drawn pungent reactions from the widest cross-section of ill-informed observers, commentators and the proletariat at large. Largely perceived to be a lame-duck and titular head of government, Manmohan Singh’s earnestness to justify his authority has been shrouded with bitter cynicism.

Yes, we cannot ignore, refute and disprove that fact that the current government appears to be the most corrupt government in independent India – a perception that has been carefully crafted by scams, media trials, some ambitious institutions, a hyperactive judiciary and growth of pseudo-activists. And as head of this very government, it is only obvious that he takes the flak. The major criticism leveled against the Prime Minister is his ineffectiveness and his inability to reign in his cabinet and instill confidence in the higher bureaucracy. If we were to take the criticism further, an impassioned section of critics and detractors reasonably argue that Manmohan Singh’s elevation as Prime Minister is the most befitting case study that reinforces the argument posited by Peter’s Principle. Peter’s Principle argues that "in a hierarchically structured administration, people tend to be promoted up to their level of incompetence”. As a more eloquent metaphor - "The cream rises until it sours." To put this view in perspective, Manmohan Singh is, perhaps, the best cabinet secretary we never had and the worst Prime Minister we have ever had. There is absolutely no doubt regarding the problem solving caliber of the person. Having said this, I run the risk of sharp retorts and impulsive comparisons being drawn with his stint as the Finance Minister. What a lot of us do not see is – as the Finance Minister; Manmohan Singh was mandated with specific tasks and was protected by the then legendary Prime Minister, P V Narasimha Rao. If we strain our memories a little, Rao took a lot of the flak aimed at Manmohan Singh. What follows from this is that our Prime Minister is someone who can do things but probably not get them done. Therefore, as a bureaucrat or a technocrat, there will perhaps be a parallel to his dexterity. However, as the fountainhead of the system, aspersions have been cast. This is the popular view about Manmohan Singh.

But if you were to ask me, I see it a little differently. In my view, he is best Prime Minister we could have had but was not to be. As Ayn Ran says about Gail Wynand – “the man who could have been”. To be fair to his legacy as the Prime Minister, we need to look at the ten year period as the first 7 years and the last 3 years. There cannot be a doubt that the Congress won the 2009 general election with a thumping 206 seats, largely because of the personal goodwill of the Prime Minister, which till date stands intact. The statistics of growth and other economic indicators are out in the open for public consumption and I shall not consume valuable print space to elaborate the known. Be it his hard-talking with the Left during the nuclear deal or his strong dealing with Pakistan in the wake of the 26/11 attacks, Prime Minister Singh seemed to be a man in control. A man who staked his government to secure the long term future of the country cannot be lame duck. Then what went wrong? In my opinion, the watershed moment was the Sharm-El-Sheikh disaster, which cost him the backing of his populist party. And history bears witness that the support of the party is quintessential for the Prime Minister to wield any influence. There were the signs that the head of state wilted under intense pressure from the United States. The moment his detractors (inside the party, inside the government and all others) smelt blood, there was no looking back. What did not further help the Prime Minister was the fact that most of his ministers worked at cross purposes. The Prime Ministerial ambitions of some powerful ministers were no secret and in his quest to de-stabilise the PMO, a lot of information, generally well-guarded by all governments, was available with the mainstream media. In the cross fight between his two most senior lieutenants; Manmohan Singh seemed to be losing control. Also, that most bureaucratic and ministerial appointments happened with the blessings of the party matriarchy didn’t help matters either. The moment there was a chink the armor of the Singh loyalists – they were shown the door.  In the face of such an atmosphere, the Prime Minister seemed to lose interest in the government and therefore governance. Every human who is persistently maligned and degraded is bound to lose the motivation to turn up at work. This seemingly basic truth applies here too. As the vicious cycle grew bigger, the governmental setup became more of a joke by the passing day.

Having said all this, I still believe that he could have been a much more assertive in trying to negate the aimless populism of the Gandhi family which has caused irreparable structural damage to the country’s economy. If we read in between the lines, Manmohan Singh was Sonia Gandhi’s most trusted choice of Prime Minister. It doesn’t take expertise in political science to understand that once Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam refused to swear her in, Mrs. Gandhi needed Manmohan Singh more than he needed her. He was well on his course to recede into the dusk, with the legacy of a technocrat who brought about radical changes to the Indian economy. But for some inexplicable reason, he chose not to assert himself. Pranab Mukherjee could not be trusted, Chidambaram was too arrogant, A K Anthony was way too laid back and Shivraj Patil was way too incompetent. The only choice – if at all, I could call it a choice – was to appoint Manmohan Singh as the head of government.

The moment he was handed the poisoned chalice, the Prime Minster knew that his legacy would no longer be his own doing. Politically, he was perhaps checkmated even before his pawns made a move. Yes, he did well by booting out the Left, which was used by Sonia Gandhi to propagate her profligacy – but the inadequacy of that smart political maneuver is self-evident. I also concede that he could have handled foreign policy much better – something the Gandhi family wasn’t interested in. After having made peace with the Republican Bush, it is rather surprising that the bonhomie with the Democrat Obama is missing. Our dealings with China are shambolic and we seem to have lost our sphere of influence in the sub-continent. And for these misgivings, the buck cannot be passed on.

The shoot and scoot politics of the confused Gandhi family scion further dented the image of the PM and the PMO. After the ordinance photo-op and the Jan Lokpal fiasco, it became increasingly clear that Rahul Gandhi suddenly grew up from his rather long youth years and decided to walk into this rightful place! And that meant displacing the incumbent. Though the Gandhi family has tried very hard to blame all ills of the country to the Prime Minister, the Prime Minster has valiantly dug in his heels. In Manmohan Singh’s defense, we need to understand that he was not endowed with the deviousness of the politicians. Given that he did not enjoy mass appeal as Atal Bihari Vajpayee or Indira Gandhi, his bargaining power hinged largely on his untarnished image – which eventually picked up a few stains. Despite his political naivety, the Prime Minister has held his head high.

If for once we can grant our Prime Minister his wish; let history judge him. In the intervening short term, the electorate will. And till that judgment is spelled out, the legacy of the Prime Minster will stand untarnished