TOMKINS: PARALLEL UNIVERSE, SAME OUTCOME Paul Tomkins 23 February 2009
	I want to pose what I hope is an interesting philosophical question.
It involves something bordering on a parallel universe, but only in the loose sense; I'm obviously no astrophysicist (although I did once nearly disappear up my own black hole). It is the summer of 2004. Alex Ferguson has just taken over as Liverpool boss. Down the M62, Alex Ferguson is also still in charge of Manchester United. It is not one man managing both clubs (the chance for sabotage that would be huge!), but two different versions of the same man. An identical clone, if you will, albeit one of whom we'll call Scouse Alec. My question would be, would Scouse Alec have overtaken Actual Alex at United? Or even got close? This question arose in my mind after I heard a Liverpool fan asking if someone like Alex Ferguson would have succeeded by now in bringing the title to Liverpool; in other words, could he have done better than Rafa Benítez? But, of course, whoever took over Liverpool in 2004 had to deal with the reality of Ferguson still being at United, where, just a year earlier, his team had yet again won the Premiership. Hence the two Fergusons for this hypothetical. Actual Alex was already almost two decades into the job at United, and already knighted. He cut a powerful figure. And he has spent roughly £30m more than Benítez since that summer, when the Reds finished 15 points behind United, who were 3rd. For the sake of this debate we'll say that Scouse Alec is given the same resources as Benítez (even though Rafa earned Liverpool a lot of that money in annual Champions League qualifications and progress, which another manager may not have done). So with Houllier gone, Scouse Alec instantly has major problems. Liverpool's squad is pretty average, as its league showing for the previous two years confirms. There are a handful of top-class talents, like Gerrard, Carragher, Hamann and Hyypia, but plenty of players already in their 30s. Henchoz, Hamann and Smicer are not long-term options, and Hyypia, for all his talent, cannot remain a regular forever. Michael Owen, around whom the tactics have been based for years, has already decided to try his luck abroad, and Harry Kewell's fitness record effectively writes him out of regular plans. Back up the East Lancs Road, Actual Alex has instantly moved for Wayne Rooney; but even at his most persuasive, his doppelgänger could not have enticed the player to Liverpool, or forced Everton to sell across Stanley Park. To this day the fee remains more than Liverpool have paid for any single player, but only the 4th-most expensive Ferguson has purchased. United's ethos hasn't changed in years, in the way it has to at Liverpool in 2004; there have been tweaks and evolutions at Old Trafford, but not the total sea-change that any new manager brings, particularly when things aren't going well. So Scouse Alec is instantly behind the 8-ball. His counterpart has already spent £30m on Ferdinand, £13m on Ronaldo, £13m on Saha (who was very effective up until last season), and is still utilising Giggs, Scholes and Neville (not to mention Brown, O'Shea and Fletcher, all of whom, despite their doubters, go on to be effective players). Ruud Van Nistelrooy is still banging in the goals up front, to keep United ticking over, until the next wave matures. Of course, Actual Alex spent badly or had flops on a number of occasions in the years leading up to 2004/05: Veron, Forlan, Kleberson, Djemba Djemba, Bellion, Dong Fangzhuo, Alan Smith, Liam Miller, Laurent Blanc (plus that awful bald French guy who played just four games), and at least five keepers who could make even a blind octogenarian look like Peter Schmiechel. But by 2004, despite a number of wayward purchases, Actual Alex is at least generally on the right lines. It will still take a further two years for Ronaldo to blossom from fancy show-pony to devastating match-winner, Rooney to look the full part, and for Ferdinand to cast off his inconsistency, but the key components are in place. And once they win the league in 2006/07, they are awash with a self-belief that is only increased by last season's success. How can you match that psychological boost? Of the squad that won the league in 2007 and 2008, and are favourites in 2009, a total of 14 were already in place in 2004. With Saha, Heinze, Richardson, Solskjaer and Silvestre (who all played parts in that vital 2007 title) moved on, nine remain in the squad now. Could you find nine players from 2004 who you'd still want at Liverpool, excluding Owen (who wanted away), and who would be key squad members in a title charge in 2009? Could you name 14 who'd have helped Liverpool win the league in 2007? (And remember, someone like Sinama-Pongolle, for example, only did well after leaving as an every-game regular at Recreativo, something he wouldn't really get to do at Anfield; at Atletico he's again struggling to impose himself.) Still missing for Actual Alex in 2004 was one vital ingredient: a top-class keeper. Finally, Van der Sar solves the problem. In 2005/06, Vidic and Evra arrive, and neither even slightly impresses. But by the following season, they are settled, and lauded. So what can Scouse Alec do? He has lost his main striker, and has to have a tactical overhaul. At United, Actual Alex has around 70% of a successful squad already in place; at Liverpool, Scouse Alec has around 30% who are of sufficient standard. So he clearly needs to buy a greater number of players. That means more transfers, and a greater number of failures, too, given that no manager gets close to making a great signing every time. (Look at a ‘genius' like Mourinho's signings: Malouda, Kalou, Kezman, Shevchenko, Wright-Phillips, Del Horno, Ben-Haim, et al. But having inherited a great squad, and with players like Cech and Robben already on their way, it was the three he got spot-on – Drogba, Essien and Carvalho – who made all the difference.) Liverpool did not have as much money as United between 2004 and 2009, so expensive fees on single players present more of a risk. What if Scouse Alec spends £28m on another Veron, and loses £14m on him in two years? To start with, Liverpool need a top-class keeper. Get it wrong, and Liverpool are in big trouble. Would Scouse Alec have signed a better keeper than Pepe Reina? I don't see how it's possible. What if his keeper turned out to be another Bosnich, Howard, Tiabi or Carroll? There's less room for manoeuvre; Liverpool are right on the edge of Champions League qualification, and any failure could see them fall like Newcastle did once excluded from the top four, just as teams fall like stones once relegated. Chairman David Moores is struggling to get anywhere close to matching the Glazers in terms of financial clout, and with Old Trafford a 70,000+ seater stadium, the chasm is widening. When Liverpool do finally have secure a few big-money signings, United go out and buy even more expensive ones. All the same, could Scouse Alec have signed a better passer and schemer than Xabi Alonso? Michael Carrick is having an excellent season, but at almost twice the price he is still not, to my mind, in Alonso's class; and at the time, in 2004, Alonso is on Actual Alex's radar, having spoken of considering a £20m bid to Real Sociedad a year earlier. Could Scouse Alec have bought Liverpool a better midfield shielder than Mascherano? I don't see how. A better striker than Torres? No chance. Because currently there is none. Better centre-backs than Agger and Skrtel? Well, Vidic, a hot tip for Player of the Year, was a Liverpool target too, but he chose United. Indeed, Ferguson coveted or was linked to almost all of these stellar Reds, and Benítez was interested in some of those stars who ended up at United; so even at his best, Scouse Alec could only really have matched Rafa in terms of key signings. To have bettered Benítez, Scouse Alec would have needed to do what Actual Alex never could: make no mistakes, and shop exclusively in the mid-price range (where his record is very patchy). You could argue that Scouse Alec would have adopted different tactics to Rafa. Obviously they have different approaches. But he would not have been able to call upon wingers like Ronaldo and Giggs, because they were already at United. The wingers Actual Alex has signed since 2004, like Nani and Park, haven't impressed on a regular basis, and with wide flops over the decades, like Karel Poborsky, you could argue that Ferguson has only signed two successful wingers in 23 years: Kanchelskis and Ronaldo. Of course, those two were spot-on, and Giggs' presence lessened the need to buy more. But it's not like Scouse Alex would have pitched up at Anfield and bought thrilling wide-men; what if he'd purchased a Nani rather than a Ronaldo? He'd also have had the same Kewell Conundrum: at the time, up there with the best wingers in the English game, but just never fit. Too good to ditch, too unfit to play regularly. In the real world, Liverpool appeared to have caught United in 2005/06. But United, at the time eclipsed by an even bigger-spending rival, were a young team awaiting its moment to explode into maturity. The same could be said of Liverpool now. The core remains fairly young, and has massive potential. Actual Alex is rightly held up as the benchmark, because his record is there for all to see, and his team is top of the table; hence why I have again chosen to use him for comparison (if Everton were top, then I'd be discussing Moyes; they are not). But even Ferguson at his very best, if at Liverpool between 2004 and today, would not, to my mind, have done a better job than Benítez. After all, the ‘Professor', Arsene Wenger – an expert in English football – has gone from regular title challenges and successes to now battling for 5th spot since 2004. The only man to eclipse Ferguson since 2004 was the only man who spent more money. Coincidence? The fact is, Ferguson, having inherited his own similar situation at United in 1986 (a team used to finishing in the top four but without a title for two decades and in need of a serious overhaul), could not make even the remotest impression during his first five league seasons. So when people say it doesn't matter that Ferguson took seven years to win the title, and that it's not relevant now, I ask why? Surely it's even harder now, with United the best team in Europe? However, my key point in this comparison has always been less the fact that Ferguson couldn't win the league, and more that he didn't even get close until 1992. Ferguson's league ‘win %' in his first five seasons was a little over 40%; roughly the same as Graeme Souness' during his ill-fated stint at Liverpool. Yes, that bad! By contrast, Rafa Benítez has won 55% of his league games in his first five seasons so far. Times have changed, but it's 3% higher than Shankly's and only 1% lower than Paisley's. And yet he's still portrayed in the media as someone who doesn't understand the English game and who prioritises Europe, while Ferguson, who arrived with no language issues and who, as a Scot, will have had a natural knowledge of English football, is excused his fairly awful first five seasons. So, with United riding high ever since Benítez got to grips with the league (in 2005/06), all Rafa has had to do is far outperform the man most neutrals hold up to be the best there is, and who has also had more money to spend and more time to construct his squad. A doddle, surely?

TOMKINS: LEVELLING THE PLAYING FIELD Paul Tomkins 13 February 2009
	Following my piece earlier in the week, I want to expand on a couple of the themes and clarify one small mistake on my part.
I was accused by one Liverpool fan of being obsessed with Manchester United. In truth, I was just responding to people in the media saying that Liverpool can't cope without key players when, quite clearly, they can, and that United can cope wonderfully without key players when, quite clearly, that's not totally true. Manchester United are the current barometer. Their success dictates comparison. They are where we want to be. In the bigger picture, the Reds are catching them up, and at a far greater rate than Ferguson originally caught Liverpool. But it's still not enough to spare Benítez some appallingly wayward criticism, much of it relating to his rival down the East Lancs Road. Even as Liverpool fans, we cannot argue with Alex Ferguson's record or his status as a legend of the game. However, at times he will do something that Rafa also does and be labelled a genius for getting the result, whereas the Liverpool manager will be castigated even after a win. Stuff like that needs redressing. With the purchase of Berbatov, United now have three £30m(ish) strikers. This season they've coped much better without one of those: Wayne Rooney. You can't argue with their depth up front, which is better than last year, when Rooney's absence left them light. But in the four league games Ronaldo has so far failed to start this season, United won just one, drew two and lost one. Two were tough games, but then so too were two of the four Gerrard has missed, and Liverpool's results were better. I made one error in my piece discussing United without Rooney and Ronaldo last season: they also won at Fulham. It doesn't greatly alter the overall picture: that they were much diminished without these two key men. For me, this is perfectly natural anyway. Any team would miss a pair of the quality of Ronaldo and Rooney. But it's glossed over with United that, actually, they did really rely on them, and that this season they still look iffy without Ronaldo. The fact that this season Liverpool have coped exceptionally well without Gerrard and/or Torres is my main point. And I must emphasise greatly –– I wouldn't draw the United comparison if it wasn't for the media ramming that myth down our throats to start with. At the weekend I lost count of how many times different pundits said United can make do without players like Ronaldo. The evidence is suggestive of the contrary. What's interesting is that Ferguson, with a Champions League game looming after the Fulham fixture last season, did exactly what Benítez did at the weekend, and left out his star names. At the time, United were trailing Arsenal at the top of the table. Was it a crazy gamble? Was he cracking up? United won 3-0. Again, this might suggest that his squad was far stronger than Liverpool's now, but I've already shown that United were far inferior without Rooney in 2007/08 to their overall form, and almost impotent without Ronaldo. Also, United hadn't just had a 120-minute midweek derby and lost players to injury. Liverpool's win against Portsmouth may have been less convincing than United's at Fulham last year, but it was a win all the same; just as United, with a full-strength team, needed a Stoke player sent off late-on to eventually aid a breakthrough. That's football. Good teams wear down less-good teams. Whatever side you select, you cannot always win the game in the first 80 minutes. And it can't be 'luck' that Liverpool have won so many games late on under Benítez, including coming back from what appeared impossible situations. Dirk Kuyt has scored and set-up a lot of last-gasp goals this season, and part of that is down to the manager finding such characters, who will never give up. Similarly, look at the determination of Javier Mascherano, a defensive midfielder, in the dying seconds, to try and win the game. Look at his joy at Torres' goal. This is no accident, no fluke. Ferguson deserves great credit for buying Ronaldo amongst others, but then so too does Benítez for purchasing Torres and turning Gerrard from a six-goals-a-season midfielder into a twenty-goals-a-season midfielder-cum-striker. Prior to Torres arriving, Liverpool were accused of lacking a world-class striker; now he's here, the manager is wrongly accused of an over-reliance on him. With all this, I'm not trying to belittle Manchester United or Ferguson. What he has done has worked. Some years he may have had luck at vital times, but their enduring success speaks of doing things right time and time again. But by having a massive head-start on Benítez, he has had the kind of advantage that he himself could not overcome when Kenny Dalglish was Liverpool manager over a similar time span. Neutrals may now say Ferguson is a better manager than was Dalglish; and yet Ferguson was miles adrift of Dalglish season after season before King Kenny resigned in 1991. And Ferguson had arrived from the similar Scottish football, not a different culture like Spain. People say that the seven years it took Ferguson to win the title cannot be compared with now; football has changed too much. But if anything, it's now harder to come from lower in the league (indeed, below 2nd-place) to win the title. Gone are the days when people like Brian Clough could take a promoted side to the league title; imagine West Brom or Stoke doing that now! And in 1992, Leeds won the title in their second season back in the top flight; I don't see Sunderland doing that in 2009, do you? Casting the net further afield, Arsene Wenger is used as an example of how it's possible for someone to win the league very quickly. But he was a pioneer as the English game changed to a more continental style; his timing was perfect in order to offer new enlightenment. By the time Benítez arrived, you could not get such an advantage. Everyone was enlightened. Even Bolton used sports scientists, dieticians and psychologists. And if you look at Wenger's record since Rafa arrived, you can say that the great Frenchman has been decidedly second-best to the Spaniard on the whole. More experienced than in 1998, Wenger, already an expert in English football, has found it tougher because the top end of the table now has a number of great sides to compete with. Of course, there was Jose Mourinho's impact at Chelsea. But he had exceptional resources, to add to a team that were already a 2nd-placed 80-point Premiership outfit and Champions League semi-finalists. But even then, what he built appears to have been a little short-term in its vision, given the ageing side and subsequent strife at Stamford Bridge. Going back to United, Alex Ferguson made a series of astute signings in 1988 and 1989. But it took 4/5 years for Bruce, Irwin, Pallister, Ince, Hughes and co. to win the title. The fees for these players may seem cheap to us now, but in relation to the transfer record of the day, these (and some of the expensive 'flops' he bought at the same time, like Danny Wallace and Neil Webb) were big-money deals. One of the main points of writing Dynasty was to make comparisons across the eras on as even a playing field as possible. The United team that won the 1990 FA Cup had an average cost (at time of purchase) of half of the transfer record; or the equivalent of an average of £16m per player in today's market. By contrast, Kenny Dalglish had a far cheaper team at the time. Part of that was the decreased need to spend big, as over the years Liverpool, similar to United now, had become a well-oiled machine that needed tweaks rather than overhauls. However, to show that it's not just about money, and also that Liverpool can't claim to have been paupers when Ferguson finally ended United's 26-year wait, Graeme Souness, in rebuilding the ageing side he inherited, formed a team that also cost on average close to 50 per cent of the transfer record. His own purchases, which did include some cheap players like Rob and Lee Jones, worked out at 45 per cent of the record: an average of £13m per player in today's market. Had a world-class manager spent that money at Liverpool, Manchester United 'might not' have made that vital title breakthrough. But they did, just as Liverpool won against Portsmouth at the weekend, despite all the 'if Liverpool hadn't won' speculations. Even so, Ferguson spent big to lift the burden on United's shoulders. At the time Dynasty went to print, Rafa's average spend on all players was just 16 per cent of the English transfer record. (This figure does not include the many youngsters and reserves yet to play a part in the first team, so it's not skewed by such cheap investments.) United's strongest XI based on last season is listed in Dynasty as having an average cost of 43.5 per cent of the record, compared with the 18 per cent of Liverpool's. That 43.5 per cent was based on United making the Tevez deal permanent at £32m; so it still stands because Berbatov cost precisely that, and Tevez, rather than a regular pick, is now a rather luxurious reserve (to add to expensive signings like Anderson, Nani and Hargreaves. The first two have just nine league starts between them this time, despite their cost.) Liverpool's (perceived) strongest XI did become a little more expensive with the signing of Robbie Keane, but he's no longer part of the equation, while a signing like Riera, who has replaced Babel as first choice on the left, was actually £3m cheaper. So for Benítez to have the financial advantage that Ferguson could call upon between 1986 and 1993 – i.e. the ability to outspend a great rival in order to overtake them – he would need a team stuffed full of £15-30m players, as opposed to just a couple. (Again, I'm not saying that if you spend the money you’ll definitely have success, but equally, Ferguson did not overtake Liverpool with thriftiness.) But there's an even more crucial point. Not only did Ferguson have a financial advantage that Benítez now doesn't, he also had disruption at Liverpool from 1989 onwards, when Hillsborough derailed the Reds and left Dalglish suffering from understandable stress. The worst imaginable luck in all senses for Liverpool was, in sporting terms, good luck for United. It's also important to note, by way of balance, that United were similarly damaged by Munich in 1958, without which Bill Shankly might have found Matt Busby's men impossible to overhaul six years later. No matter how good Shankly was, and how great the team he assembled, if United had not been rebuilding when he arrived 50 years ago, but instead going from strength to strength with a great young side, it might have been too great a gap to bridge. At the very least, it may have taken Shankly beyond 1964 to win the championship if Duncan Edwards and co. were still alive. You almost always need some disruption with preeminent rivals to sneak a march on them. Because whatever you do, they already have momentum. Since his arrival, Benítez has elevated the Reds above Arsenal, although it could be argued that they are in transition. This season he has got the Reds above Chelsea, but their constant changing of managers in search of 'sexy' football appears to be part of their undoing. All the same, you have to be in a position to take advantage, and so far Liverpool have with their own improvement. In other years, this might be enough: two strong rivals (and recent European Cup finalists) overtaken. But the one constant remains United, who were miles ahead of Liverpool in 2004, and who, even though the gap has been closed dramatically, still have undeniable advantages that stretch back well into the 1990s in terms of personnel, finances and one manager's vision. So I repeat, the point of this is not to demean Ferguson's achievements. They are set in stone. But what irritates me is how he is seen as almost able to do no wrong, and Benítez no right. I reiterate: in the last two seasons, United's results without Ronaldo have been the equivalent to mid-table form. Liverpool's results this season without either Torres or Gerrard have been far, far better. And yet Liverpool are portrayed as the one- or two-man team, and Benítez the clueless, lucky manager with a weak squad. And how utterly wrong that is.

TOMKINS: END THIS TORRES/GERRARD MYTH
Paul Tomkins 10 February 2009

There are lies, damned lies and statistics. And there is the absolute guff spouted by pundits who wouldn't know a fact if it bit them in the part of their body they speak out of.
Of late, I've been wondering if Rafa Benítez is damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Now I'm just starting to believe that's too mild a way to put it. I have never known a manager so unable to win even when he wins. One defeat in 33 ‘main competition' games, and still the flak flies. And as I will prove, some of the criticism could not be more wayward. If ever there was an almost perfect example of how he can't win, it came at Portsmouth, following the midweek Mersey marathon. To put it in perspective, if Rafa had played a weakened team at Everton in the FA Cup, he'd have been lambasted for not taking the competition seriously (yawn), and for not understanding the local derby. He went with a strong team, to try and win the game and keep the momentum going, not least because Mersey derbies have a habit of being blown out of proportion: lose, and it feels like the end of the world; win, and you can get a massive fillip. But Lucas was sent off for two yellows, when only one was a foul. Steven Gerrard had already limped off injured at the start, and Liverpool were left to play extra-time with ten men and a clearly leggy Fernando Torres. So much then for fielding your best players to win the game early and then be able to rest them: the advice every man and his dog was giving Benítez in the past. Already physically shattered, a deflected goal in the 119th minute was similarly tough on the psyche. It was a body blow to the, er, mind. So the received wisdom was no use whatsoever on Wednesday. What it did do was leave a tired, dejected team shorn of its captain and with its best striker seeing the recent run of games take its toll, having returned from a long injury problem to be thrown into a busy schedule. So what does a manager do in this situation? Play his best players, who were clearly tired (and two of whom – Torres and Alonso – weren't 100% fit), or use the squad and hope that a little less quality and/or experience is compensated for by far greater freshness, plus the hunger to impress? After all, Gerrard had just succumbed to an injury from playing too much football; what if Torres followed suit? With Spain unlikely to rest him on Wednesday, there was a chance that the Reds wouldn't even get to the upcoming vital weekend break (the one big bonus of going out of the FA Cup) with the striker's hamstrings intact. So Rafa wasn't resting him to keep him fresh for Spain; he was trying to avoid another lay-off. Ultimately, extreme situations demand extreme measures. I don't think the result made Rafa a genius, just as having drawn or lost would not have made him a chump. Had everyone been 100% fit and sharp, then it's a risky judgement call you can perhaps question. But they weren't. Clearly. However, there was one very logical reason why, in the circumstances, it was a gamble worth taking. The Liverpool subs looked so sharp precisely because they were entering into a game with the opposition starting to tire, and in which those three Reds wouldn't need to rely on stamina – just a short burst of effort that didn't need to be sustained. What Rafa did in the face of fatigue was pair Torres, Kuyt and Alonso up against an equally tired second-half Portsmouth side, when their quality could tell. Ideally the game would have been won by then, but if it wasn't, they were there to win it late on. After all, Alex Ferguson has done that countless times in the past, keeping his stars in reserve in case he needed them to come on and win the game. Had that trio started the game, it could quite easily have been a case of them tiring before the south coast side. Who knows? It's certainly not unlikely after the midweek exertions, and a whopping 210 minutes of football since Pompey played last Saturday. Either way, it's an almost impossible situation for the team to play to the best of its ability. Mixing metaphors somewhat, I just wish the baying hounds would cut Benítez at least a little slack. I honestly can't recall a top manager being criticised even half as much as the Spaniard – and this with trophies, constant Champions League qualification (and annual progress to at least the semi-finals, bar 2006), along with radical improvements in the league. After Torres scored the winner on Saturday, one commentator said that Liverpool need to keep him fit and 'nurse him'; yet there was widespread condemnation before the game for not starting him. So you need to nurse players like Torres and Gerrard, just never rest (i.e. 'nurse') them. Oh, okay. Then later that evening, it was said Liverpool would not have won fielding that side against better opposition. Which was ludicrously bereft of logic because Liverpool were playing Portsmouth, and that's the only team the manager could pick a side to beat. Did Rafa select that same XI against Chelsea last week? No. Did Rafa have to pick a side on Saturday to beat Manchester United or Arsenal? Of course not. It was Portsmouth. In the post-match TV analysis it was all about how Liverpool will get 'nowhere near' the title with this squad; having just gone top of the table with 13 games remaining (even if United were still favourites with two games in hand). And there's me thinking the Reds had been challenging all season long, sometimes without Gerrard, often without Torres. The same was said on TV on Sunday morning: journalists declaring Liverpool's squad as too weak to mount a title challenge –– whilst that very squad is clearly making a challenge. It's like three blind mice leading equally vision-impaired followers. (Please, fellas, if you're reading, stick with it, but I've a lot to vent. The facts are on their way. Read them, and consider their implications.) The result is the only justification of team selection, whether you get the winner in the first minute or the last. I said last week, when Man United score late, it's the sign of a great side; when Liverpool do, it's luck. And yet even before Torres came on, Kuyt had put the Reds 2-1 up with a goal that was wrongly chalked off for offside, while Pompey's opener looked offside. And Liverpool are 'lucky'?! Had that Kuyt goal stood, there's a fairly good chance Liverpool would have won without their two stellar names even featuring, and yet the Setanta pundits and Sky journos were adamant about how Liverpool are too reliant on Gerrard and Torres. Again, I ask people to go check Manchester United's results without Ronaldo and Rooney. And again, I ask people to see how many games Liverpool have won without Torres and Gerrard this season. If you can't check, let me do it for you: United lost five league games last season. Rooney missed four of them, Ronaldo missed three, and they did not play together in any of those defeats. Of these opponents, only Chelsea were a team in the top eight, so it's not skewed by difficult games. In the 12 league matches Rooney did not start, United's accrued a 69-point average when extrapolated over 38 games, as opposed to the 87 they actually racked up. In the seven games Ronaldo did not start, the average would have made an even worse total: 65 points. Or the tally that saw Everton finish 5th. Shockingly, in the four games in which neither started –– against Manchester City, Bolton, Sunderland and Spurs (again, no giants, but admittedly one derby) –– they dropped half of the available points: meaning an average of 57 if extrapolated over 38 games. Or equivalent to finishing 8th, like Portsmouth. (Also, of the three league games Ronaldo missed at the start of this season, United dropped five points, which is the form of a mid-table side.) Yes, United have other good players all over the pitch, but do these facts not suggest that they are overly reliant on their best two attacking players? While United have coped well in the last few games without Rooney, without either him and/or Ronaldo on a regular basis, the form book suggests that they are not a title-winning side. Indeed, far from it. (Of course, if United did not have these players on a very regular basis, or indeed at all, they'd try to buy similar replacements; just as Liverpool obviously would in the case of Torres and Gerrard.) Now look at Liverpool without Torres and Gerrard this season. Gerrard has failed to start four league games –– Villa, United, Fulham and Portsmouth. Two of those are clearly very tough fixtures, against top-three sides. Two were at home, two away. And yet Liverpool's record is won two, drawn two. Over 38 league games, that is worth an impressive 76 points. Due to injury, Torres has failed to start no fewer than 15 league games. These resulted in ten wins, four draws and just one defeat. Over a 38 game season, that ratio would earn an incredible 86 points. That is a title-winning tally; last year United got 87, but needed only 86. Perhaps due to Torres playing at least half a dozen games when lacking sharpness, Liverpool have actually fared better without him; with him starting, the Reds have won five and drawn five, which is 76 points in terms of form over 38 games. (Though he did win the weekend's game from the bench.) It gets even more amazing. In each of the two league games Liverpool started without both Torres and Gerrard, the Reds won: against United and Pompey. It's only two games, of course, but it's a 100% record. Or 114 points over the course of a season! (Silly, I know, when based on such a small sample, but a 100% record is a 100% record.) Yes, these are statistics – but then league tables are formed from similar statistics relating to win, lose or draw, which are the most important kind. And yes, United's figures are based on last season (when they won the title) and Liverpool's this season (as they challenge for it). Even so, it's valid. But even I was shocked at how remarkably disparate the win/lose/draw statistics were. I'm no genius; I just sat down and bothered to check some team sheets and calculate some figures, rather than just make ignorant assumptions like the McPundits. So why are Liverpool the team perceived to rely on just two players? Why does someone like Tim Sherwood say that United don't rely on their key men and Liverpool do? Why isn't the truth –– that United cannot seem to cope very well without Ronaldo, and certainly not well at all without both him and Rooney –– more well known? Why isn't Rafa praised for getting so many great results without his key men this season, rather than just constantly criticised? Why isn't Ferguson accused of being lucky or relying on Rooney and Ronaldo to get him out of trouble? I'll leave you (and anyone in the media who reads this) to draw your own conclusions. But based on these figures, if I were Alex Ferguson and United lost Rooney and Ronaldo to serious injury, I'd be very worried.

TOMKINS: COMETH THE HOUR, COMETH THE KID Paul Tomkins 02 February 2009
	Despair is fine, it's the hope I can't stand. That saying sums up Liverpool's season.
So a warning – get a hard hat. Why? Because the hope is back, and with hope comes the increased risk of disappointment. So whatever happens from now on, let's keep that in mind. And perhaps, if possible, adjust our reactions accordingly. Of course, Liverpool are now playing catch-up, and rightly second-favourites, so the hope won't increase quite as much as it did over the festive period. But at least the Reds are now close enough to put some pressure on the leaders, whilst getting a little breathing space from the chasing pack. You clearly need luck to win trophies. You make a lot of your own, but you also need to ride it at the right moments. And you need your best players available more often than not. A fit and in-form Torres has been absent too often this season. Not only have three injuries seen him miss around half the season and start just ten league games, but his rehabilitation has meant he's often played in search of fitness rather than goals. Given the problems he had, it was sensible of Benítez to take him off at Wigan rather than risk him missing the Chelsea game, and that decision paid double dividends: no injury, and two goals in the more crucial 'six-pointer'. Fifteen minutes on the bench is better than 15 weeks on the sidelines. That's the lot of a manager: unwelcome gambles, 'Sophie's choices', and trying to get it right (or be lucky) more often than not. If Torres had stayed on with Liverpool still leading 1-0 on Wednesday, then got a late recurrence of the hamstring problem, where would we be now? Torres' confidence had understandably been a little dented as a result of the constant injuries and the fight for sharpness in an unforgiving league, but cometh the hour, cometh the kid. Or rather, cometh the 88th minute, cometh the kid. To me, when Liverpool were winning games late on earlier in the season, it was a sign of quality. Good teams do that. But when Manchester United do it, it's treated like they are from another planet, whereas the Reds get accused of being lucky. Neither is true. Similarly, so much is made of the importance of Gerrard and Torres, but I don't recall United doing too well without Ronaldo earlier this season, or at times in the past. I do think United have a bit more strength in depth, due to Ferguson having been building his current squad with often-expensive signings (as well as some bargains) dating back to 2001, and with four home-grown stalwarts (Giggs, Scholes, Neville and Brown) dating back to between 1991 and 1998. And they have recent success behind them that clearly makes it easier. But they would surely not be as well-placed had Ronaldo missed as much football (and naturally suffered rustiness as a result) as Torres. You can win games without your most reliable match-winners, but rarely trophies. Against Chelsea, Liverpool had both luck and their main men looking sharp. The Lampard sending off clearly helped, but it was a great performance even with 11 versus 11, with only one team looking like winners. I'm still smarting from Mike Riley not giving the Reds a penalty and Tiago a red card after he punched off the line in January 2005. That helped Chelsea do the double over the Reds, their first since 1955, which was the previous time they'd won the league; Liverpool will be hoping the omen works in reverse, as the previous time the Reds did the double over them was 1989-90. So I felt this was redemption in the form of a favourable decision. There was also the broken ankle Xabi Alonso suffered in a bad tackle by Lampard in the same game, so it was perhaps four years overdue. But how Boswinga got away with his assault on Benayoun's back still baffles. Credit to Phil Scolari for a fabulously honest assessment of the game afterwards: Lampard shouldn't have gone, Boswinga should have, and Liverpool were the better team for the entire game. Chelsea offered no threat whatsoever despite their manager being appointed for his teams' attacking qualities, while at the other end Alex's blocks were outstanding, otherwise Torres could have had five. The Reds hit the bar, and two further shots were cleared off the line, not to mention rebounds from spilled Petr Cech saves and several more promising positions and near-miss efforts, including a couple from Yossi Benayoun (who continues to add important cameo moments to his campaign). Before the season began, most observers and fans said that Liverpool need to start better and at least be in contention come the second half of the season, and that the Reds had to do much better against the other 'big four' clubs. All these were being done before the Chelsea game, with only one defeat in 23 games, but despair and resignation were everywhere. I understood some of the frustration, but you cannot escape iffy spells in a season. And you have to accept that Liverpool are the team learning, growing, and moving up to a new challenge (by post-1990 standards), whereas Manchester United and Chelsea have been in a position of strength for a number of years now. Let's also not forget that Chelsea and United have broken fairly significant records this season: longest run of away wins and most consecutive clean sheets. Neither of them has had a perfect season, either, but that's the story of these past six months. Liverpool now need to prove that the iffy spell is over, and that, as I said last week, the draws were the dodgy games that other teams (and this team at other times) would have lost. In terms of a boost to confidence and momentum, this game was perfect. Hopefully, rather than be a hindrance, the Everton replay can act as a double-springboard after this overdue victory. What Liverpool desperately needed was a win, and a home win at that. Next on the list would have been a goal or two for Torres, particularly at Anfield. After a few untidy goals conceded of late, a clean sheet would be high on the agenda too. Whether or not Robbie Keane played was obviously important to him and to the media, but as at Newcastle when he was rested following three goals in two starts (at a busy time of the season), the story has to be about who plays, and the results the team gets. I feel for any player who is omitted, but plenty have to miss out each and every week, and sympathy isn't extended to them all. Support has to be given to those selected, and what they can offer. Liverpool may have only broken through once Gerrard was back in central midfield, but I do not see a lot wrong with his partnership with Torres, which has to be up there with the best in the world. Indeed, in the first 15 minutes of the second half, Gerrard was outstanding, easily his best minutes against Chelsea in recent memory, while the Spaniard showed that, when fit and in the groove, he's almost unstoppable. So the good mood is back, the smiles are once again broad on our faces. But whatever happens from now on, let's try and enjoy the challenge, and not see every setback as the end of the world. This victory does not mean the title is Anfield-bound, just as any failure to win in future does not end the season on the spot.