Are Liverpool the most disappointing team in the country?

Following Liverpool's woeful FA Cup exit in midweek against a struggling Reading side, i found myself dismayed once again over the fortunes of one of the grandest clubs in the game. It led me to ask the question, are Liverpool the most disappointing team in the Premier League?

I am consistently underwhelmed by the performances they put in on the pitch, while off it the club seems to be in complete turmoil as a name that has been synonymous with all that is great about English football becomes just another headline in the soap opera world of Premier League ownership. For a club that sets such high standards for itself, and with such an outstanding and dedicated fan base, i feel that Liverpool and its supporters deserve more.

Liverpool's lack of strength in depth has been well documented, and without Gerrard and Torres they are without a doubt significantly worse off. This in itself is not too much to worry about, as any team would miss their influence. However, on Wednesday against Reading, the total inability of any of their players to make an incisive move, to break down the Reading defences, was a huge disappointment.

The likes of Benayoun and Kuyt are good players, but seem incapable of leading a team to success alone, while the likes of Babel and Ngog continue to show nothing to suggest that they deserve to wear the Liver Bird crest on their chest. I'm actually a little embarassed every time i see Ngog lead the line for Liverpool - it's not his fault, but he's just woefully inadequate for the role and responsibility bestowed upon him.

Of course it is easy to jump on the bandwagon and criticise Liverpool during this season when they are clearly below par. However, even last season when they were in contention for the league for so much of the year, they contrived to throw away so many chances that were gifted to them, drawing games that on paper appeared to be 3-points in the bank. The occasional stirring victory or talismanic performance for Gerrard or Torres fails to outweigh the weight of disappointment for me.

This week will inevitably raise more questions about the leadership of the club, both in terms of its owners and its manager. Tom Hicks has promised that the club will have money to spend in the summer, but will it be too late by then? Without Champions League football (which they are in danger of losing), will players such as Torres be looking for another club? Will they be able to attract the calibre of players they undoubtedly need? Is Rafa Benitez still the right man for the job? Surely he can't have many supporters left after he failed to offer any relevant explanation for his sides inexplicable performance on Wednesday. The question is though, would a replacement fair any better under the current conditions at the club, and if so who is that man?

Some may argue that the likes of constant under-achievers such as Spurs or, up until now, Manchester City, must be more disappointing than Liverpool, but at least both clubs provide value for money in the drama stakes, and their supporters would arguably suggest they are amongst the best clubs to follow for these reasons. Teams like Bolton, Stoke or Wolves might play unattractive football, but it has seen them overachieve in recent years and for that their supporters must be grateful.

What do Liverpool supporters feel? Is their club a constant disappointment to them? Given the remarkably high standards the club sets itself and the oustanding dedication of its supporters, my feeling is that the team all to often fails to produce what the club and its supporters deserve. I hope to see a day when Liverpool stand triumphant and united at the very top of the game again, but unfortunately i fail to see it happening any time soon.

Join the debate by leaving a comment below!

Ownership soap operas threaten to overshadow on-pitch action

Misdemeanours and financial uncertainties of club owners are threatening to overshadow the football being played on the pitch at several Premier League clubs, leading to questions resurfacing over what makes a "fit and proper" owner of a football club.

Is it just me, or has football's focus shifted significantly towards the boardroom in recent years? As clubs become the playthings of ultra-rich sugar-daddies and sports tycoons from across the pond start to see the Premier League as an attractive prospect, the wranglings of the boardroom have become regular back-page material.

Perhaps it is the overarching and ever-extending influence of money in the game that has switched our focus away from the day-to-day business of the results on the pitch, and on to the results of business off it. Today, the importance of finely balancing success and financial security (something Portsmouth appear to have failed in) is so evident in the game that issues of ownership have been thrust into the public domain.

Club owners are under the scrutiny of the fans and the media alike, and so perhaps, they should be when there is so much at stake. However, surely less scrutiny would be required if the criteria for passing the Premier League's "fit and proper persons test" actually did what it said on the tin.

Portsmouth's recent ownership travails must draw the credibility of the test into serious doubt, as they have proved unable to meet even the most basic of financial commitments since assuming control. Granted, they took over a club already flirting with disaster and financial ruin, but the optimism of the fans when cream-suited Sulaiman al-Fahim bought the club in August has long since evaporated, along with the Dubai businessman's stake in the club (he sold a 90% stake to Ali Al Faraj on October). Portsmouth have made headlines again today as the Premier League gave tghem a 5pm deadline to pay back creditors or lose their latest slice of TV money.

The owners of Manchester United and Liverpool have also made the headlines in the last few days. For United, the story relates to a £500m bond issue in a bid to safeguard the financial security of the club, while Liverpool's co-owner Tom Hicks has today announced that the club will be "spending big" in the summer break, clearly a move to appease fans over the clanger dropped by his son Tom Hicks Jr in sending abusive emails to a fan.

Surely questions must be asked whether these parties are suitable to be in control of two of the biggest and best footballing insitutions the world has ever seen? These clowns of the boardroom are doing their best to overshadow what should really matter - success on the pitch. Liverpool have clearly struggled for lack of adequate investment inthe right areas in the last two seasons, while Manchester United look to be going the same way. Of course, success on the pitch must be underpinned by financial security, but it seems that both parties are failing on that front as well. I'm not sure what either have going for them, but it's not a lot from where i'm sitting.

There are of course stories of takeovers and ownership issues in recent years that have impacted positively on the game, and those should not be ignored. Randy Lerner continues to do a sterling job at Aston Villa with very little public intrusion. He has let Martin o'Neill's side do their talking on the pitch, and for that he should be praised. Carson Yeung has made a promising start to his time as owner of Birmingham City, perhaps galvinising his teams progress which has seen them go 12 games unbeaten in the Premier League. Even Roman Abramovich has enriched the Premier League by bringing us such characters as Jose Mourinho, Guus Hiddink and Carlo Ancelotti in the managerial hotseat, whilst building a formidable team along the way.

It remains to be seen of course, whether Stan Kroenke manages to assume control at Arsenal, and what kind of legacy he'll bring to the club. Many suggest he will be a positive force for change at the club and will lead them to the silverware that has eluded them in recent years. Whatever happens in his story, he would do well to take heed of the mistakes made by those who have gone before him.