Brian Viner: Stinging attack stirs up Houllier hornets' nest

'Maybe Houllier's deficiencies are inextricable from his achievements'

Alors, Gérard Houllier. Two weeks ago in this space I dared to criticise the Liverpool manager, unleashing an e-torrent of praise and abuse. I even received an e-mail informing me that I was in danger of becoming the Salman Rushdie of sports journalism, from which I assumed that I was about to fall victim to the Anfield version of a fatwa – a Kopwa, perhaps.

At any rate, my pledge to dye my hair red in the event of Liverpool winning the Championship this season has evidently been posted on the Koptalk website, so there will be no ducking out of it, and although yesterday's defeat by Manchester United confirmed what I was already pretty sure of, that Liverpool, over-reliant on Michael Owen, do not have the class to break free of United and Arsenal, plenty of readers disagreed. One Liverpool fan took the trouble to recommend Clairol Level 3, when the time comes for me to dye. Another, Gary Parr, generously offered to donate £50 to a charity of my choice if my promise is honoured, "as a gesture of camaraderie between Red and Blue".

Other Reds were less amiable, indeed it is incredible what vitriol is unbottled when one man questions the manager of another man's team. My protestations that there has never been, in my devotion to Everton, a commensurate dislike for Liverpool, that I was delighted when Emlyn Hughes, never my favourite Liverpool player, lifted the European Cup in 1977, were roundly rejected. "As for your support we neither want it nor need it. Stay on your side of the park and don't soil ours," wrote Chris Oli. His was one of the more polite messages.

Moreover, it was not just Liverpool fans who sneered at my admiration teetering on affection for their club, kindled in the 1970s in the Anfield Road End, when I could not get to Everton away games. Someone in the Toffeeweb chatroom reckoned that this admission thoroughly torpedoed my credibility as an Evertonian. Ah well. Better to provoke anger than to provoke nothing at all, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, or was it Geoff Nulty?

There was more support, however, than there was condemnation. My beef with Houllier, in a nutshell, if you can get beef into a nutshell, was that he has a regrettable tendency to create scapegoats, even – perhaps especially – when he is plainly the one who should shoulder the blame. The most notorious example of this was his demonising of David Ginola for the one misplaced pass that he said cost France qualification for the 1994 World Cup, but there have been many instances since. And, to my surprise, lots of Liverpool fans agreed.

Mahan Armanath wrote from Paris: "I have been a Liverpool supporter since the early 70s. I agree with the point you are making, that Houllier has done a lot of good for Liverpool: he has steadied the rocking boat, has taught them to win Cups, got rid of moaners and big-time Charlies, and has them challenging for honours again. But they are far from winning the Premiership, and the reason, at least from a French standpoint, is rather obvious. Houllier is scared stiff of buying classy, established, world-class players.

"In fact, the problem is that he doesn't know how to manage them: witness his management of Cantona, Ginola, Fowler, and Anelka, top internationals who do not owe anything to Houllier. And that's what Houllier yearns for – gratitude. He's like a papa-figure.

"The great, great Arsène Wenger is different – Wenger's greatest quality is player management. Just look at his team – bursting full of huge egos yet we see very little laundry being washed in public."

Another assertion I made a fortnight ago was that Wenger, unlike Houllier, has nothing still to prove in management. This too upset several readers. "Where did you get this idea from?" demanded Andrew Ross. "When was the last time Arsenal won the European Cup/Champions' League?" Which is true enough, but then when did Bill Shankly ever win the European Cup? Wenger, like Shankly, is palpably a great manager. Houllier, for all that he has achieved at Anfield (and yes, of course, Evertonians would give their eye-teeth for just one trophy in a year, let alone five), seems to me some way yet from greatness.

"You are right that Monsieur Houllier's achievements are commendable," wrote Howard Nurtman, an Arsenal fan, "but he has indeed sneaked into the glow of Monsieur Wenger's halo."

There was further support from Shane Glynn: "Staggering as you may find this, myself and two other committed reds fans in the office were in total agreement with your piece about Gérard Houllier. He took the plaudits in the treble-winning season – but he never takes the brickbats or holds his hands up when his tactics haven't worked.

"The current Liverpool do not play attacking, attractive or even structured football. They are negative and boring. While it's great to have such a solid spine (the back five and Hamann) the other bits aren't working, and there are too many squad players (Carragher, Murphy, Smicer, Heskey) playing regularly who are just not good enough, especially at European level."

Clearly, the debate hardly needs an Evertonian to stick his oar in, there is disagreement enough among Liverpool fans. But in fairness to the pro-Houllier tendency, I should conclude by quoting a Leeds fan, Tony Cook.

"Houllier has moved Liverpool on, much as O'Leary did at Leeds and even more so as Moyes is doing at your beloved Everton," he writes. "Evertonians are no longer romanticising about Sharpey and Inchy, or cheering when that big oaf Ferguson takes to the field."

His point is well-made. Maybe, in the end, Houllier's deficiencies are inextricable from his achievements: he has steered Liverpool to a point at which the fans are contemplating the present and future, not the past. But at least there was perfect unity when they looked at the past. They all liked what they saw.

b.viner@independent.co.uk