TOMKINS: TORRES HAS IMPROVED
Paul Tomkins 29 April 2009

Recently I've noted the importance of goals by Dirk Kuyt and Yossi Benayoun; observing that, this season, both had only struck goals that affected games, rather than grabbing consolation or luxury strikes.
It led me to examine this phenomenon further, and analyse the importance of goals scored by the whole squad. “A goal is a goal”, some might say. But the value of each varies radically, depending on the stage of the game or the quality of the opposition. We often rank goals by their beauty, but rarely by their importance. No-one can deny the aesthetics of Fernando Torres' opener against Blackburn: a sublime turn and volley out of nothing. Genius. But what made it more special was the context: it helped win a must-win game. It kept Liverpool in a title race. It was beauty with meaning and substance. It was Carla Bruni rather than Paris Hilton. To me, if you win 3-2, the first and second goals are as important as the winner. But if you win 5-2, the fourth goal is marginally less important (although it provides a valuable cushion), and the fifth has slightly less importance still, as it effectively kills the game, but you may have been able to hold out for the win without it. However, a sixth, seventh or eighth goal would be pretty meaningless if it's a knockout cup competition, and only really relative to goal difference in the league. The same applies to consolation goals in league games already lost. (And while goal difference can be important, it's once in a blue moon that it makes a major impact on league standings; until Howard Webb's intervention at Old Trafford, it looked like this could have been one such year, at which point every goal Liverpool scored would have seen its meaning magnified tenfold). It's important to point out that even a so-called luxury goal can have consequences that reach beyond the result; for instance, it's highly unlikely that Andrea Dossena scores the 4th goal at Old Trafford so effortlessly had he not smashed in what was, in terms of Liverpool beating Real Madrid, an ‘unnecessary' goal a few days earlier. And then there's the psychological fillip of beating Madrid by four goals, not three; that extra boost it gives can actually be quite significant. So Dossena's goals in both games not only provided a gloss, they also added to the belief of the entire team. With this in mind, I want to make it clear that I don't wish to demean any goal; as the cliché goes, in many ways they all count equal, whether scored in the first minute or last, or via a backheel or a backside. However, there's no escaping the fact that some are crucial, while others ice the cake or provide only consolation. So for the book I'm currently working on, as part of a detailed look into how the Reds have improved to the point of making an impressive title challenge, I decided to go through and rank each of the goals over the past two seasons on a descending scale, working only with Premiership and Champions League games (with domestic cups being more about squad players these days, and not the main priority of any major club). I have tried to judge the importance of goals in two different ways, awarding a sliding scale of points, out of 5, for each category. First, there is the impact the goal has on a result, from 5 points for being vital, down to 1 point for a mere Goal Difference or Consolation goal. Then there is the quality of opposition, with 5 points for a goal against Top Four and big European sides (plus Everton, on account of the derby bite, particularly now that they are a good side again), and less points for goals against weaker teams. These ratings are somewhat subjective, although they are based on the league position of opposing teams, and the relevance to the overall result in terms of importance, both of which are hard to argue with from a factual point of view. Now, as ever when I devise stats, they are not designed to be 100% scientific or totally conclusive. It is merely a tool – a form of quantifying and qualifying contributions – to enable me to see who pops up with vital goals in big games, and who, though he may score a good amount of goals, gets lots at the end of handsome thrashings or against substandard teams. There's obviously not room here to disclose the full findings, which will be laid out in full in ‘Red Race'. And, of course, this season isn't complete yet, so it's an ongoing calculation. Caveats aside, the results are still very interesting. The first thing that strikes me on the data so far is that Fernando Torres has actually improved this season. Radically. Despite playing numerous games handicapped by a lack of match fitness, with at least five/six matches coming whilst returning from significant injuries, his goals have actually influenced games more than last season, when the overall goal tally was far higher, but the average value less. His 13 league goals have almost all been vital (an average of 4.8 out of a possible 5), whereas last year his 24 included a few more goals that did not influence the result, just glossed the scoreline (thus a lower average of 4.3, which is still impressive). And the value of his Champions League goals also went up this season, even though the quantity was again lower, again due to missing lots of games though injury. More tellingly, there has been a massive increase in the quality of league opposition scored against, with an average rising from 2.9 last season (with 3 being the figure of a middling Premiership team and 2 relegation fodder), to a whopping 4.1 so far this season, with 4 being a team in the Uefa Cup spots and 5 being a team in the top four. In other words, the majority of his league goals last season were against mid-table or poor opposition (such as Derby, Middlesbrough and West Ham), whereas this season they've mostly been against the top four sides and Everton. When combining both the importance of the goals and the quality of the opposition, Torres' figures this season are almost perfect. If 5 is scoring only vital goals against the best opposition, and 1 is luxury goals against poor sides, then you can see for yourself what 4.7 means. So not only has his strike rate remained very impressive, his goals are a big reason why Liverpool have gone up a level this season. It's just a shame he wasn't able to play more games, particularly in a lot of the 0-0 draws. As mentioned earlier, it was the goals of Benayoun and Kuyt that got me thinking about the subject in the first place. Both of these players have had their critics in the past two seasons, although hopefully everyone will now appreciate the quality that they bring. Their form deserves credit, and as with most players, neither's game is purely about goalscoring, as they continue to contribute in key ways. What's interesting is that last season, each of Benayoun's four league goals was absolutely vital, while Kuyt's three were equally important. Of course, the latter had a disappointing league campaign in front of goal, but at least those three counted for something, not least in winning at Goodison Park. For the Dutchman, it was the Champions League where he did his best work last time around, whereas this time he's into double figures for the Premiership, a great achievement for a non-penalty taking (this season at least) wide man. This season, out of the players who have scored five league goals or more, that pair lead the way, just edging ahead of Torres, with their average of 5. Benayoun's six have all been 100% vital, and only Kuyt's 10th league goal of the season, last weekend at Hull, was anything less than critical; and even that was of great value in easing the nerves, at 3-1. Liverpool may have seen out the game at 2-1, which is why I'd rate it as 4/5 in terms of importance; not 100% vital, but a telling contribution all the same. (For the record, I've counted Kuyt's goal at Spurs as vital, even though Liverpool lost; ultimately it was a very important goal at the time that it was scored, and that's a key distinction. All goals that put the team into the lead or draw the side level are rated as essential, in spite of the final result.) However, neither Kuyt nor Benayoun have come close to Torres for the quality of league opposition scored against, with Gerrard 2nd in that particular table (again including only those who've scored five or more). Of course, Gerrard is famous for his vital goals. It's hard to think of a player who has popped up with more crucial strikes over the years; even Ian Rush struggles to match the drama of Gerrard's goals. Having said that, the captain's 13 league goals this season have included quite a few relatively meaningless strikes, when games were already well won. Percentage-wise, he's actually well down the list. Despite a lower average, he has still struck a lot of important goals in that total of 21, not least the opening-day winner against Middlesbrough. In the Champions League, it's a different story, with Gerrard scoring seven goals, all of which were highly relevant, and six of which were vital. And overall, for his all-round performances, Gerrard has been the country's player of the year; he is a player who creates countless openings in every game. When adding together the contributions this year and last, in terms of goal relevance and opposition scored against, Premiership and Champions League, to form one single all-inclusive singing-and-dancing average mark out of 5, two players lead the way. I've already spoken at length about Torres' contibution, but level with him, on an average of 4.25 out of 5, is Dirk Kuyt, whose 24 goals in that period (roughly half of Torres' total) have been of real significance. In the big games, against the big teams, or simply in the big moments of other matches, he has delivered the goods. But the most illuminating evidence, for me, remains the improvement of Fernando Torres. Rather than suffer Second Season Syndrome, as some suggested when the injury curse took away some of that sharpness, he's delivered much, much more in terms of the value of his goals, and the quality of opposition he has put to the sword. And that makes it even clearer how well Liverpool have done in the face of his prolonged absences this season – and how we have a valid ‘if only...' shout when it comes to all those games he's missed. Last season, Chelsea (twice), Arsenal and Inter Milan were victims of his goals, but only one of those goals, against Chelsea, came in the Premiership. This time, Chelsea (three times), Arsenal (twice), Manchester United and Real Madrid have suffered, despite having missed entire league games against each, and limped off in Madrid. In just three league games against Arsenal, Chelsea and Manchester United, he has scored five goals. He also doubled his tally against Everton from one last year to two this time. All we can do now is hope that this improvement is carried into next season, and that he has an injury-free campaign. Or, should we really dare to dream, that he can still influence this year's title race, should United drop enough points.

TOMKINS: ON THE DEFENSIVE
Paul Tomkins 24 April 2009

There's been a lot written and said about Liverpool's defence this week, but as ever too much is being read into too little.
Now that it seems Liverpool may have faltered at the final fence, the knives are out again. It's this kind of black-or-white analysis that bugs me; I've stuck pretty closely to my view that the Reds are a very, very good team all season long. I never felt that Liverpool had to win the title this season, or indeed should be expected to. Before the season started there was talk of the need for Liverpool to be in the mix come the spring, and that has been achieved, and then some. At times it looked like the Reds might just win the title, and that shows how far they've come. But now, after a couple of freakish results, the defence is, as it were, under attack. Liverpool lost the quarter-final first-leg against Chelsea largely due to bad marking at set-pieces. On the whole, zonal marking has been very good; but when it doesn't work, we now all know the overreaction it leads to. Every team concedes set-piece goals. Earlier in the season, using man-marking, Chelsea conceded five within a few games. They switched to zonal for one game, and conceded again; but as with any system, it takes time to perfect. You can't get it right in a week. They abandoned it straightaway, but generally they've been very good at man-marking over the years, just as Liverpool have been very good at zonal marking. That awful run didn't make man-marking a totally flawed system, and it's about what suits the team. Every system has its weak points, but it usually takes a perfect cross and a perfect run to undermine them if well implemented. Liverpool are not an especially big side anymore, with Hyypia a squad player in the twilight of his career, Sissoko replaced by Mascherano, and Crouch moved on. So it does make the Reds a little more vulnerable; that's football. With Crouch and Sissoko replaced by Torres and Mascherano, the team has improved. But it is not without small drawbacks, such as less height. Zonal marking can help because you will always have players in the key areas. But that doesn't mean it can never be breached. Chelsea's win at Anfield meant the second game, when the Reds shipped four goals, was all or nothing. Liverpool played their normal game and swept to a 2-0 lead. A positioning error by Pepe Reina got Chelsea back into that match, although it was a redirected flick by Drogba that wrong-footed the keeper; any touch that close can cause big problems. The second goal was just one of those things – a shot that would have taken Reina's head off had he got in the way of it. That turned the tie totally in Chelsea's favour, and their third and fourth goals came as Liverpool obviously resorted to a very unnatural game – all-out attack, with little mind to defence. Then came the Arsenal league game, in which, bizarrely for a team who scored four goals, the away side rarely threatened. While there were bad errors on the first three Arsenal goals, each of the mistakes was punished to the full. Arshavin will probably never score four goals in a game again, and certainly not from four shots; the crazy thing is, each was unstoppable. The first and third were smashed in from fairly close range, while the second and fourth curled away from Reina, right into the corner. Three of the goals were inch-perfect (one off the bar, two out of Reina's reach), and one was hit hard and low through a crowd of players. Liverpool clearly overcommitted for the final goal, but it was a gamble that had to be taken. The mistakes leading to the goals were uncharacteristic, as I noted earlier in the week. Errors happens sometimes, even though I don't expect the coaching staff to be happy about it. But it's not like the game was littered with them from Liverpool players. In almost any other week, Liverpool would have been punished for perhaps one of the mistakes. At a push, two. But for three mistakes to all be punished, from dangerous – but not ‘open goal' – positions, was cruel. And no individual is having a torrid time in the way Nemanja Vidic did for a few games recently. And he's likely to win the Players' Player of the Year. These two recent games involved exceptional circumstances: it was cup football, even in the league. Indeed, it was almost ‘golden goal' football. Chelsea and Arsenal had also both been in excellent goalscoring form, so it's not like Liverpool have been humbled by average teams or average players. Arshavin, Drogba and Lampard can score against any defence, just as Torres has scored a total of six goals against Manchester United, Real Madrid, Arsenal and Chelsea this season, despite missing games against the three English sides, and limping off in Madrid. So all this guff about Liverpool's problem being to do with becoming too attack-minded is misleading. Liverpool weren't undone against Fulham or Blackburn in recent games, despite attacking in the same way for the majority of those matches. But if Fulham had broken away at 0-0 in the 89th minute and scored, you could have forgiven Liverpool for throwing caution to the wind at that stage of a must-win game. That same over-commitment of players into attacking areas ultimately won the Reds the match, but that's the gamble; at that stage, it's win or bust. You have to take a greater number of risks, because there's less leeway with the clock. You cannot keep your perfect balance in such situations. However, Liverpool's excellent balance between defence and attack has won a lot of matches. If the breakthrough hasn't happened, though, then of course the balance has to be tilted. And no defence can be perfect when its protection is sacrificed in the frantic search for a goal. Let's not forget, Liverpool also beat Real Madrid, Manchester United and Aston Villa by scoring 13 goals to just one in reply. There was no problem with the balance then, or the defence, although goals were scored early enough in those games to put the Reds in control (each time the Reds were leading at half-time), and the opposition did not take their chances at key moments, particularly Villa's John Carew. Against Arsenal, the problem was that the Reds' total dominance in the first 36 minutes did not lead to the opening goal, and perhaps even a second to give a cushion. Somehow, Arsenal ended up in the lead. Also, confidence doesn't just apply to the team as a whole. Separate units have their own confidence ‘ups' and ‘downs', as do individual players, obviously. No matter what defensive system you deploy, if you concede from a couple of set-pieces in quick succession, you will naturally be more nervous on the next ones; if even more go in, it can quickly breed a crisis of confidence. If you start conceding goals or making mistakes, you can get shaky at the back. Look at United, with their record-breaking defence, and how it almost fell to pieces after Liverpool put four past them at Old Trafford. Shell-shock can result. They didn't change the way they approached games, they simply suffered a psychological blow. Like Benítez, I also think Liverpool aren't playing any differently; I've been saying for each successive season that I can see improvements in the Reds' attacking play. But obviously, the understanding between players brought in in 2007 and 2008 should be stronger by 2009. And as all are at a good age, it can get stronger still. So, what's different from earlier this season? Well, Torres is not only fit but now super-sharp. Anyone who's played the game to a decent level will tell you how much difference this makes. His strike rate for games started is superb. Gerrard regained his form after a bit of a dip in the new year, although in his recent absences, Yossi Benayoun has done a pretty good impression of the captain. I think the Israeli has surprised a few people at just how good he can be. Dirk Kuyt is scoring more goals from the right than he did up front last season, and is also creating lots, too. Albert Riera has been a very important addition; even when he hasn't been at his best, he gives the side width. And even not at his best, he can find clever passes like his cross to Torres against Arsenal for the wonderful third goal. At his best, he gets to the byline and delivers dangerous crosses, as well as scoring a decent amount of goals, too. It's been a little tough at times in terms of stamina in his first full season in England, but unlike a lot of wingers, he is also a clever passer who can keep the ball moving quickly. And Xabi Alonso has been quite sublime. It's clear that he hadn't been at his old self for a couple of years, partly due to injuries. Also, his mistake on Tuesday aside, Javier Mascherano has also rediscovered his best form after looking off-colour in the first half of the season. Add improvements from Arbeloa and Aurelio at both ends of the pitch (again, Tuesday excepted), and there's a lot to feel optimistic about. All in all, it was going to be incredibly difficult for Liverpool to play a perfect final third of the season. As it happened, at times they have got pretty close; indeed, the attacking play has been better than we had any right to expect. When Robbie Keane was sold in January, it was seen as Benítez being too headstrong; and yet I can't remember the last time Liverpool played such potent attacking football. He hasn't been missed. But it was always the case that one slip would probably put paid to the title challenge. And that's a lot of pressure. Whatever happens from now until the end of May, we should celebrate how special the last two months have been, and look forward to what has been learnt – individually and collectively – being implemented next season.

TOMKINS: REDS SIGNAL GREATNESS AHEAD
Paul Tomkins 22 April 2009

Liverpool proved against Arsenal last night that they can win the title.
Unfortunately, it may now have to wait until next year, but that was a performance of guts, tempo and quality that had the hallmark of champions. This is a very special team under construction, one that has put four past Real Madrid, Manchester United, Chelsea and Arsenal in a matter of weeks, and five past Aston Villa. The defensive errors that marred this latest 4-4 draw certainly weren't in keeping with the rest of the display, and thankfully not in keeping with Liverpool under Rafa Benítez. All defenders make mistakes at some point in the season; unfortunately for Liverpool, most came in this one game. Perhaps that was to do with pressure, or simply human error. And yet, despite being behind three times – each goal wildly against the run of play (with the sloppy nature of the goals compounding the disappointment) – the Reds battled to the 96th minute. When Arsenal scored in the 90th minute, it had to be all over. But it wasn't. It was incredible stuff, reminiscent of the great 4-3 Newcastle games of the mid-'90s, only with extra pace and intensity, and one extra goal. For the first three goals it was very different from last week at Stamford Bridge, when Liverpool's need to score two or three more goals led to obvious gaps at the back; you can't necessarily escape being stretched like that when you have to lose your shape in search of a miracle as the clock ticks down. And Arsenal's 4th last night was similar; at that stage, a team has to send everyone forward. You take the kind of risks you would be mad too at an earlier point. Liverpool took advantage of Arsenal in the same way last season, when winning 4-2 in the Champions League. But the first three goals last night were all totally avoidable, with simple errors punished by a player who only had four decent touches of the ball. That grates, but you can't argue with Arshavin's finishing, which was sublime. (I've never seen a player do so little right for the majority of a match, and get so many goals. It was surreal.) Most of Liverpool's defending was fine; there was none of the panic seen at the other end, when by hook, crook or nook, the Gunner's scraped the ball clear, or off the line, in total desperation. It was just three small lapses by individuals by Liverpool that were heavily punished. Arsenal played with freedom, with no pressure on them to win, just an incentive to win places in the team ahead of their Champions League semi-final; and, in having to make changes, freshness from players like Arshavin and Nasri, plus the bulldozing Bendtner and strong Song. When they did attack, they poured forward with real verve and skill. But for large periods of the game they were absolutely battered. A score of 8-4 to Liverpool would have not been unfair. That's football, alas. Some days it just doesn't happen, and it looked like it would be one of those nights when the Arsenal keeper had a blinder in the first half. So this all-time classic will not necessarily help Liverpool win the title this season (unless United slip up tonight), but it shows a growing quality in so many areas of the team's play, and in its desire to win games. At times in the second half I think it was the most possessed I've ever seen a Liverpool side; utterly committed. Every man closed down space, chased lost causes that were well beyond the call of duty, stretched every last sinew. It was an Herculean effort. I've long-since said that a serious title challenge that falters is vital in eventually winning the Premiership, as a precursor; it's almost essential to get that experience of the pressure –– all the time accepting that, as newcomers to the really, really sharp end, mistakes will be made. Every Premiership title won for the first time came after a narrow miss the year earlier: United, Blackburn, Arsenal and Chelsea. It's all part of the learning process. Liverpool have improved by a good 20% this season; but maybe it needed to be 25%. These figures are fairly random (perhaps the improvement has been 30%, but needed to be 33%), but all the same, they illustrate my point about expecting too much improvement in a short space of time. You can only get so much better from one season to the next. That doesn't mean Liverpool are out of it this year, or that I think the Reds will definitely succeed next year. On their day, any of the top four can be a force to be reckoned with. And that's before the inevitable changes in the summer. But Liverpool are clearly on the up. I do think that Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea have had a lot more injuries to key players than Manchester United this season, and maybe that will shade it for them. Rio Ferdinand aside, and Ronaldo for the first couple of games and Rooney for a handful, there's been little disruption to their main men, bar self-inflicted suspensions. All teams have injuries, and big squads are a necessity, but they've not been without their match-winners as much as Liverpool have. As I've pointed out before, Liverpool also had far more disruption from international football, both in the summer and at the Olympics. United will point to the World Club Championship, and that certainly was a long trip. However, unlike international football, which scatters players far and wide, it was time together for the squad to bond, and was partly (and sensibly) used as a mid-season break, as evinced by the fact that they came back and immediately went on a long winning run. But the downside could be the fixture congestion towards the end of the season, which might make those crucial games in hand a little trickier. Time will tell. Some see this year as Liverpool's best hope, with United failing to fire on all cylinders as an attacking force. But I don't subscribe to that view; had Torres been fit all season, I might have agreed. With Torres fit to start only half of the 32 league games, and Gerrard missing more matches than he has for many years (six league games already), Liverpool have not been at their strongest on too many occasions for it not to be some kind of handicap. For Torres to start just 16 league matches, and have 13 goals (without the aid of penalties), shows just what has been missed; especially as in five or six of those starts he was nowhere near match fit, and playing to find sharpness. He will always be rested now and again, like any other player, but you cannot get by without such quality for long periods of time. No-one can say for certain, but I also have very little doubt that he would have made the difference in a few of those games that were drawn earlier in the year; enough to suggest that even more points at this stage would have been realistic, which would have given the Arsenal game a very different complexion, and perhaps less desperation. But I accept that ‘what ifs' work either way, and that all teams will have their own lists. Despite the absence of key attacking talent, there have been some players coming to the fore. Liverpool are the Premiership's top scorers, and to have had their two biggest goal threats missing for so many of them shows what improvements have been made elsewhere. Dirk Kuyt's crosses for the first two goals were superb in terms of technique (to add to his usual lung-busting work and clever movement), while Yossi Benayoun, who impressed me during his time at West Ham, has emerged as a really special player now that he's settled into life at Liverpool; the player I was hoping he could be for the Reds. I remarked a few weeks ago that both have only scored important goals, and that was again the case last week for Kuyt and this week for Benayoun. The hope now is that Arsenal take this goalscoring form into two titanic encounters with Manchester United, and dent their confidence in the process; enough to make a third meeting, in the penultimate league game, far from a formality in terms of the title. Arshavin, who misses the European games, should be fresh for that one. It remains United's to lose, but all the time Liverpool are making gains. And if all the Reds are left with is ‘close but no cigar', it can still serve as a serious warning ahead of next season. Even the greatest buildings were constructed brick by brick.

PAUL TOMKINS: IF ONLY...
Paul Tomkins 14 April 2009

As football fans, we always think 'if only' this, or that, had happened.
In our minds at least, every result in history can be turned on its head by going back to one defined point in the match and altering what occurred. Over the years there have been some pretty big moments like that. Even last week, I ended up lamenting that Jose Boswinga wasn't fit for Chelsea, because his stand-in scored two goals. Of course, at the start of the game, that seemed like a stroke of good fortune for Liverpool. There's the 'if only' a player did something different, although I do hate it when commentators say 'if he'd done this, he'd definitely have scored'. Going back to Fulham, Andrea Dossena 'only had to keep his header down' to 'definitely' put Liverpool 1-0 ahead as he powered Gerrard's cross against the bar. I remarked at the time that there was the small matter of the keeper, and this weekend Kuyt kept his header down, from an almost identical situation, and Paul Robinson stretched out a hand to save it. Aim for the corners, and you increase your chances of scoring if you connect right, but also your chances of putting it wide. So nothing is ever that simple. It doesn't hurt to think about different things might have been, but nothing is ever certain. For example, if Steven Gerrard had been wearing Peter Crouch's boots away at Stoke, his late, full-stretch prodded effort may have gone in instead of hitting the post. Then there'd have been none of this overblown talk of mind-games affecting Liverpool. But had the Reds beaten Stoke, and avoided the subsequent poor run in form, that blip may be striking now, at a point where Liverpool are instead looking sublime in the league. Sometimes you go on a great run and it breeds confidence, but then it might lead to overconfidence; also, the end of a good run can sometimes hit harder. Any time a sense of invincibility is breached, it can have exaggerated consequences. Of course, with the Butterfly Effect, changing one thing in a match instantly changes everything else, just as changing one results alters subsequent performances, for better or worse. Unless it's the very last kick of a game, or the last game of a season, there's always time for something to yet again alter the outcome. At half-time in Istanbul, there wouldn't have been a Liverpool fan in the world who wouldn't have wiped the scoreboard clean if given the chance. Indeed, most would have settled for two Milan goals being chalked off and a full-time 1-0 defeat were it offered. I know my fear as I sat dazed at the Ataturk was one of total humiliation in the impending 45 minutes; winning the game was not a realistic option. And yet, had it been 0-0 at half-time, there's a very good chance Milan would have gone on to win. The chances of them losing from 3-0 were negligible. But to be the best moment in many Liverpool fans' footballing lives, it needed to be mission (virtually) impossible. And maybe it needed Milan to think that they had already won, too. Then there's the ability to freeze a match - with an omnipotent remote control - at any given point, and, without knowing what will happen next, have your player do something else. When I saw Vladimir Smicer lining up to shoot with the Reds back in the match at 3-1, I'd have paused the action, and had him do something far more sensible. Calm down, Vladi! You'll never score from there... I think I'd have said the same to Xabi Alonso on a few occasions, too, when shooting from his own half. I mean, what was he thinking? I can also run through a range of great 'nearly' goals, that were almost scored over the decades. What if Bernard Diomede's spectacular overhead kick on his debut against Sunderland, which crossed the line, had not been incorrectly ruled out? Would he then not have disappeared without trace? Or what if Ian Rush had stormed out of the club when, as a kid in Bob Paisley's office, he threatened to do so when the canny manager tried to stoke him up? What if Graeme Souness had said 'Yes' when approached about Eric Cantona in 1992? What if Bill Shankly's resignation hadn't been accepted in 1974? What if Bob Paisley's resignation, soon after, had been accepted? Perhaps we wouldn't now be talking about a 19-year wait for the league title now had Everton's Tony Cottee been marked tighter on February 1991, in an FA Cup tie that ended 4-4. Maybe a change that the Liverpool manager wanted to make late on in that game would have seen the Reds progress, and momentum grow. Kenny Dalglish was already questioning himself over losing his ability to make crucial decisions; a hesitancy that was crystallised for him when, with the Reds leading 4-3, he wanted to shift Jan Molby back to sweeper, but instead deferred to his assistant, Ronnie Moran, and kept things as they were. Cottee equalised again, and the next day Dalglish quit. There's no way to say for sure that the Reds would have gone on to win the league, but they were in pole position at the time of that morale-sapping draw - a game in which the Reds had led no fewer than four times. And Dalglish certainly needed a break for the good of his health, that much was clear. But perhaps it could have been staved off until the summer. All of these, and a million and one other moments in time, would have altered the destiny of games, of seasons, and of careers. But if I could change one thing, it would be an FA Cup encounter away at lowly Carlisle United - at the time languishing in the old Fourth Division. Liverpool won 3-0, but if I turn back time, I would make Liverpool have a terrible game, and crash out. 'Disaster', the headlines would have read. Instead, the club appeared to be marching towards another double under Kenny Dalglish. No-one could have imagined that the victory would be the first link in a chain stretching to the 15th of April later that year. That game, and subsequent wins against Millwall, Hull City and Brentford, were setting the Reds on a collision course with Hillsborough. We now know where that January victory led, but at the time it was just another result. If only any of these games had ended in defeat... In the players doing their jobs so well, a massive event was created - an FA Cup semi-final - to be held at a stadium known for its dangerous bottleneck leading to the Leppings Lane turnstiles, and where problems had occurred in the past. In terms of subsequent safety at football matches, a lot of good came from Hillsborough; almost certainly saving other lives in the future. It's just so sickening that it took 96 lives to act as a wake-up call, and little solace to those who lost loved ones. Maybe it's fanciful, but I'd like to think that if Liverpool never even made it to that fateful semi-final, not only would that distressing occasion never have existed, but football safety would have been addressed regardless. Instead, Liverpool overcame Carlisle, and before too long we were left with the heartbreak of a real disaster.

TOMKINS: SERENITY NOW
Paul Tomkins 09 April 2009

A lot of what I write is based on the premise that there are always at least two ways to look at pretty much everything in football.


Very few things in the game are clear-cut. Pros and cons exist with almost everything, be it a system, formation, selection ideas and even players themselves.

During the mid-season slump I never lost faith in this team or its manager. Equally, during the good times, and after some sensational results, I've said that this is a team capable of winning the big trophies, but never got carried away, even after beating Aston Villa 5-0. Equanimity is crucial.

You can be positive or negative, but I just try to be balanced. I don't go around like Frank Constanza in Seinfeld screaming 'serenity now!' when I feel my blood pressure rising, but I do try and keep things in perspective, even if it can take a few minutes after a match to calm down, and a few more hours to perk up.

I admit to being surprised that the Reds have got themselves so fully back in the title hunt, but I also never swung to despair when the mid-winter wobbles hit.

So I'll take the same attitude into this latest setback. Thankfully, I think virtually all Liverpool fans have seen how good this Liverpool side has become of late, and this defeat can be viewed in that context.

It's fair to say that Chelsea fully deserved their 3-1 victory at Anfield last night. For the most part, Liverpool played well, and the first half was a truly titanic battle between two form sides trading body blows, but once Chelsea got their second goal the stuffing was somewhat knocked out of the Reds.

I've always defended zonal marking, because for the most part it works. It's unhelpful that when it doesn't, certain ex-pros offer all its faults, but never its strengths. Even when Liverpool go many months defending set-pieces to perfection, there's never that other side of the argument.

The fact is, Liverpool defended two corners badly against Chelsea. Man-marking is often at fault for goals, but no-one picks up on it, because it's the 'normal' system.

Ultimately, if you don't do your job, whatever the system, it breaks down. And Chelsea are a very good team at attacking corners, while Liverpool aren't the biggest side these days.

The game reminded me a bit of a role reversal from 2005. Back then Liverpool were not in the title race, or even close, but Chelsea, with a far more expensive side and bigger squad, had to juggle the two main competitions.

This time, Liverpool need top energy and intensity for every single game; there's no time to take the foot off the gas, as United's closest challengers. Chelsea, meanwhile, are more adrift in the league; this time, they can focus on Europe. Liverpool reversed Chelsea's league double over them from 2005, only to lose when it came to the Champions League.

It's the first defeat against a 'big four' club this season, but it came against a side rejuvenated by the inevitable boost of a new manager. Perhaps, given recent maulings handed out, the early goal made it seem a bit too easy for Liverpool; a false sense of security from pummelling other top sides. This time the opponents bounced back well.

Chelsea are a weird team this season; they almost had a mid-season break, drifting through winter, with some of their players apparently having given up, only to now get a big boost for the final stretch with another top manager and the return to fitness (and desire) of some key players. It seems a long time ago when Chelsea started the season in such stunning form.

But so well have Liverpool done this season, it's easy to overlook that Chelsea's 18-man squad last night cost £70m more than the Reds', and that their starting XI cost £45m more. That's the kind of gap in finances Benítez has closed has in the league; I don't see any teams assembled for far less money than Liverpool even close to the Reds.

There's no doubt that the draw favoured Chelsea, with the second leg at home (especially with last season fresh in both teams' minds), but it also favoured Manchester United in terms of the league title; for some reason, Liverpool always seem to draw English opposition, which means not only an extra edge, but the extra intensity of Premiership-paced games, while United avoid them.

How this result affects Liverpool's season is not easy to predict; it may be a cliché to say it can go either way, but it's true. The tie is not over, and you can expect every effort to try and win the second leg, with Chelsea's defence shorn of John Terry one advantage, but if Liverpool can't at least match the 3-1 scoreline, it's that old 'concentrate on the league' time.

The main thing is to bounce back on Saturday against Blackburn. When Liverpool won 4-1 at Old Trafford, it turned a record-breaking defence into one that has now shipped ten in four matches, with the slump spread across both domestic and European competitions. Liverpool cannot let this defeat affect them in a similar manner.

If Liverpool go out of Europe as a result of last night, it will provide more chance to focus on the Premiership. But it could also throw Benítez's team off their stride. Conversely, if Liverpool go to Stamford Bridge and pull off a miraculous win, it'll do incredible wonders to the confidence, but sap the energy and lead to a fixture pile-up.

Which outcome would be better can never really be foretold. I felt United's late winner at the weekend would have seen them turn the corner and suddenly find their old form, but they were poor against Porto, and again failed to win.

A lot was made of Liverpool's supposedly settled side going into this match, and how that's been behind the team's success of late. This may be true; certainly having his best players fit is vital to any manager, and Benítez is no different.

But again, there's a flip-side. You may have more understanding, but you are also more predictable; good players can always produce something unexpected, but the system can be countered to a greater degree. Chelsea set out to stop Liverpool, with the pressure on the home side, and it worked. Keeping a settled side can also lead to increased tiredness.

Pros and cons, always pros and cons. So it's often a balancing act, not a case of 'always play your best side' or always change your side.

But what the figures tell me is that the two teams who have 'rotated' most this season are Manchester United and Liverpool.

Or the top two sides in the league.

Both have had quite a few injury problems (and United a few suspensions), but in the league it's 94 changes by Ferguson to 95 changes by Benítez.

Given that they've played one less game, that means United have made a greater number of changes on average. And that average is virtually identical to the figure from last season's title success.

While Benítez has made slightly fewer changes this season than last, there's not an awful lot in it; particularly as many of those changes last season came when 4th place was the best and worst the Reds could do. United's title success of 2006/07 saw both Ferguson and Benítez make 118 changes over the 38 games.

But still we get the black-and-white notions about rotation; how only Benítez does it, and how it doesn't work.

And this is what I try to cut through. Zonal marking versus man marking, rotation versus 'same again this week lads', 4-2-3-1 versus 4-4-2: they all have their pros and cons.

Sometimes they will work, other times they will fail. And sometimes you will lose or win based not on any of these things, but on a slice of fortune, a refereeing mistake, a good finish or a bad piece of goalkeeping.

That's why the big picture is the one that always counts: because it samples from a greater amount of data, and smooths out the blips. In the main competitions, Liverpool have won 26 games and lost just three – and that gives me a good sense of serenity now.

Risk Management - Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Essays Internet & Technolog web free