Brown's style perhaps out of tune with board

SOCCER ANGLES:Maybe Phil Brown felt his achievements at Hull City offered him comprehensive protection from the sack

IF A manager takes over a second-tier football club who have just lost 4-2 at home to sit second-bottom of that second-tier and look certainties for relegation, then gets them to safety by the season’s end, then gets this club that has never been in the top flight in its 104-year history into the richest league in the world, and then keeps them there in that historic first season, you would think he would be bullet-proof.

Maybe that was Phil Brown’s downfall. Maybe Brown felt as if his achievements since temporarily, then permanently replacing Phil Parkinson in December 2006 offered him comprehensive protection.

You could understand if this was Brown’s thought process. Based solely on his achievements on Humberside, Brown should not only remain Hull City’s manager, he should be there next season regardless of what happens to the relegation-threatened club in May.

Any manager who brings an unfashionable club into the Premier League – especially without spending a fortune – surely deserves the privilege of taking them down and having another go at promotion.

Reading gave Steve Coppell that opportunity, Iain Dowie, notably, was given another go after Crystal Palace’s relegation from the Premier League. Dowie, after all, had taken them up.

In that respect Brown should definitely have been allowed more time.

And yet. There is clearly something about Phil Brown that has affected appreciation of his record at Hull. Last October’s change in the boardroom, when the supportive Paul Duffen was shown the door, was part of this, but the incoming chairman, Adam Pearson, knew Brown of old. Pearson was at Hull when Brown replaced Parkinson. That should have led to continuity.

But no, the rumours of Brown’s demise began almost immediately on Pearson’s return and though they were denied, Monday’s dismissal “on gardening leave” confirmed there was something in them.

Then we started to hear about the full meaning of Jimmy Bullard’s fight with Nicky Barmby in a Hull park 10 days ago, then we started to hear of the financial implications staring at Hull. Then we started hear about Brown’s general demeanour.

On the latter, mainly there were whispers. Brown was just too pleased with himself, that was the tone. Forget the embarrassing singing on the pitch last May, or the orange glow – the joke was that his position had become untannable – these could be swallowed if Brown was different day-to-day.

But it was being said he wasn’t and that subsequently begs a question about style and substance.

Did dislike of Brown’s style distort the view of the substance of his achievement? It would appear Hull’s hierarchy became disenchanted with Brown the person despite what Brown the manager was overseeing on the park. Bearing in mind his last game was a late and narrow defeat to Arsenal while playing the second half with 10 men, claims that Brown had lost his dressingroom look spurious. They may not love him in there, but they were still doing an effective job.

And from a distance, that is what it’s all about: effectiveness. The trouble with assessing the whole based on the result, however, is that it lacks human context. This may be why personnel departments were changed to human resources.

Because what we don’t see when the videprinter clicks into life on a Saturday afternoon is the rest of the week, the options, the arguments, the problems, the relationships – just about everything else. It is only the result.

In this regard Brown may have felt a kinship with Jose Mourinho as he returned to Stamford Bridge on Wednesday.

Mourinho’s talent and his record at Chelsea are difficult to dispute, yet he was sacked by Roman Abramovich.

Think back to that appalling FA Cup final in 2007, the first back at Wembley, when Chelsea defeated Manchester United 1-0 in extra-time. Mourinho was cocksure after that, in spite of the game being an exhibition in anti-football. What mattered to Mourinho was the substance of the trophy, not the style of victory. Abramovich thought otherwise.

It turns out that after a period of time in a job, it isn’t simply all about the result. The broader remit counts.

The Russian had had enough.

Dowie knows this from Palace. This afternoon at Portsmouth, and in every one of Hull’s games thereafter, it will be all about the result, but if Dowie is successful and is given a long-term contract, then the rhythm of his relationship with the board will change. It won’t just be about the videprinter.

Having started so well at Selhurst Park, dragging them Brown-like from the relegation zone to the play-offs and promotion to the Premier League, Dowie saw attitudes towards him alter on relegation.

But not that much. He was still allowed a crack at promotion and only left when it failed. It’s not Dowie’s fault that Brown deserved the same.

‘Integrity’ losing meaning

IT FEELS like we hear the word “integrity” much more than we once did, as in the “integrity of the competition”. Yet as was predictable, Portsmouth manager Avram Grant, who backtracked somewhat yesterday, has said he cares not one jot about the integrity of the relegation zone now that Portsmouth have been docked their points and will be relegated regardless of how strong a team Grant selects. Those teams who have played Pompey twice already are entitled to a grievance. Those to come – Hull today – should make the most of it. But it is unsatisfactory.

Then again, it is not an isolated example. Nottingham Forest might have completed a remarkable and victorious comeback last Saturday at Preston but for the fact the home side had a certain Matthew James in their line-up.

James plays for Manchester United and is on loan at Preston, who are of course managed by Darren Ferguson, son of United manager Alex. James scored, Forest lost 3-2.

The loan system is an insult to integrity.

Paddle ’Pool

THE EASY line to peddle after Liverpool’s none too charming win over Lille on Thursday night was that the club is not the “sinking ship” Albert Riera claimed, but a sturdy Mersey ferry once again.

If only it were that simple. Before Liverpool’s late third goal there was a scramble in their own area that a Lille forward almost profited from. A French goal then and Lille would surely have moved through on an away goal. Liverpool would have been “holed” or “listing”.

The truth is somewhere in between but it is an uncomfortable situation for Reds fans to be going to Old Trafford tomorrow knowing they can be close enough to Riera’s verdict for it to have a ring of recognition.