Souness is regularly accused of 'destroying' Liverpool during his reign, but as the figures below show, Souness did *better* than Dalglish in his first full season in charge. Read it and weep:
Dalglish vs. Souness: First 30 Games Comparison (First Full Season)
* Despite having a ridiculously small net spend (compared to Dalglish) Souness achieved a higher win percentage, and lost far fewer games.
* Souness's home record was also superior: more wins, less draws, and more goals scored.
* At the same point in the season (30 games) under Souness, Liverpool were higher in the league, a mere 4 points off 4th, and 13 points off top spot. Under Dalglish, the club is 13 points behind Spurs in 4th, and 31 points behind Man United at the top of the table.
* Souness also achieved a higher points per league game average.
* Dalglish recently complained that his team was 'tired' as a result of extra games played in the Carling/FA Cups. Souness's team had the UEFA Cup to contend with on top of domestic cups, and still managed to do better.
* Away wins and overall goals scored are the only areas in which Dalglish has achieved better results than Souness.
Liverpool finished 6th in 1991-2 season with 64 points, and unless Liverpool win every league game until the end of this season, there is no way Dalglish is going to match Souness's points total.
The club won the FA Cup that year, but despite that, the season was still deemed to be a failure due to Liverpool's overall league position. I vividly remember the palpable sense of disappointment amongst fans over that 6th place finish.
Basically, Dalglish has spent £117m on building a team that has actually done worse than Souness's team (!) That's the brutal truth: Liverpool are no better off in the league now they were in 1992. If that isn't a sign of regression then I don't know what is.
Believe me, I take absolutely no pleasure in highlighting this stuff, but critical realism is the founding principle of this site, and I can't shy away from the truth just because I'm a fan of Dalglish.
Like today, back in 1992, there was a large group of fans who insisted that Souness should be given more time. It was only his first full season; his signings needed time to 'settle in'; it was a 'transitional period' and things would get better.
Things did not get better; Liverpool got progressively worse in the league, culminating in an 8th place finish in 1994.
Souness was sacked, but by then it was too late: Liverpool had fallen too far behind; Man United won the league for the second year in a row, and the club has been struggling to regain lost ground ever since.
If Liverpool had replaced Souness in 1992, things might have been different. Instead, the Scot's legendary status kept him in the job, and the club suffered.
Do we really want history to repeat itself?
REMINDER: Anyone hurling insults at Dalglish or any of the players will be banned. Please follow the comment policy.