TOMKINS: PATIENCE PAYS Paul Tomkins 31 August 2009
	Normal service is resumed. Well, kind of.
The win at Bolton had the hallmarks of last season all over it: twice coming from a goal down to win late on, albeit after hitting the woodwork and with the aid of a red card to an opposition player. (Then again, if you commit a trip to stop Liverpool with a chance of scoring on the break, having persistently fouled, then you run that risk. Bolton weren't nasty, but they made numerous late or clumsy tackles. By all means be physical, but don't moan when it oversteps the mark.) And, of course, more debate on zonal marking. Whether zonal or man marking, Liverpool are inevitably going to be edgy at set-pieces at the moment. Do anything wrong a couple of times at the back, and it plays on the nerves. It becomes a vicious cycle (remember Chelsea's man-marking disasters last season?). What I've noticed in the past is that the run of zonal marking mistakes usually coincides with a new defender being introduced into the team; it takes time to get everyone up to speed, but once there, it usually works for the most part, with the majority of goals conceded in these clusters. Liverpool's defensive changes due to injuries, allied to new players bedding in, can't be helping. And the Reds have faced teams descended from Land of the Giants in these opening four fixtures. For the most part new boy Kyrgiakos excelled in the air against Bolton, so that bodes well, but as I've said plenty of times, Liverpool are not a particularly tall team at the moment. At the very least, the Greek adds depth to the squad, and, er, height. Perhaps because they were not from headers, people may fail to notice that Liverpool themselves scored from two corners at the Reebok (and three so far this season). Torres was man-marked but still managed to head to an unmarked Gerrard to smash home the winner. And where was Stoke's marking against Kuyt for the goal Johnson volleyed in? Maybe it's the lighter balls that move more in the air, making judgement for keepers and defenders harder. But so many set-pieces look dangerous these days, with plenty of own goals, too. Patience I can be critical of impatient Liverpool fans during difficult times, but I want to be clear that it is not a problem specific to this club. Far from it! It's just impatience and kneejerkism (hereby a new noun) in general. It's bugged me for years. I've been amazed at the criticism Martin O'Neill has received from Villa fans since last March. “He's taking us nowhere” was a common refrain a week ago; and yet they had become a top-six club again in recent years. Criticism of O'Neill really started when Villa lost in Russia in the Uefa Cup last spring. While I understand the frustration of fans who'd travelled that far only to see a heavily rotated side, the fierceness of their attack on the manager showed a lack of understanding of what he was trying to do. If anything, Villa were paying the price for rotating too little up to that point. Having studied the rotation of all the big sides' managers for ‘Red Race', I could see that Villa had by far the least altered team on a week-to-week basis. Consistent selection might have helped them stay in the top four until after Christmas, but then they paid the price and ran out of steam. However, in the end, they finished up roughly where they should have been when having a very good season; it would have been a remarkable one to finish in the top four. Part of ‘Red Race' involves an in-depth look at where teams ‘should' be finishing, based on a number of realistic current-day factors, not on history or expectation, which cloud judgement. I was also amazed at the criticism Arsene Wenger was receiving last season from Arsenal supporters. While some of it will have been valid – no manager can get every aspect of his team, his squad, his tactics, his substitutions right – it ignored a lot of the context. Injuries to big players certainly weren't helping, nor were some stars who had, or were, agitating for moves elsewhere. Chelsea had also experienced a lot of injuries in the previous two seasons, but now they have more-or-less everyone fit, they're stronger again. While deep squads win titles, no team can compensate for the loss of key players for extended periods. Despite all this, I feel that Wenger gets a much easier ride from the media than does Benítez, and have often pointed out how Wenger, this acknowledged master of the English league, has a worse record than Benítez since the Spaniard arrived here. But for me, the relative failure of Wenger in recent years when compared with 1998-2004 shows how difficult it has got at the top. He knew what he was doing in English football, yet he couldn't get close. It's easy to suggest “he's lost it” (that overused, thoughtless phrase of the disenchanted), but do world-class managers really just forget how things work, or lose the ability to adapt to gradual change? It makes little sense. Then there was the tirade directed at Hull's Phil Brown; suddenly their fanbase knew better than him, as their team went on a poor run – but it came so soon after he had got them into the top flight for the first time ever, followed by the best first half of a season imaginable. Maybe it's the short memories that I object to. So the fans of all clubs hand out over-the-top criticism to their manager when things aren't going well. But what I like about Liverpool is this core of supporters who defend its honour, who preach patience and who never chant for managers to be sacked or chorus “you don't know what you're doing”. It's still a great club in that sense. But there's this new breed of supporter who doesn't yet understand this. (There's nothing inherently wrong with new people, young and old, becoming fans – we all start out as novices.) If Liverpool fans are getting their information only from certain media outlets, then of course they will be influenced. Some will see through the clichéd responses, but not all will, and you can't really blame them. It's easy to spread ignorance if that's all people are exposed to. All big clubs suffer overreaction and criticism in the media, but a lot of neutrals have said to me how they feel Benítez gets more than his fair share. Why is this important? Surely we should just ignore it? Well, it feeds the frenzy. Other managers, good and bad, ‘get away' with the same methodology, the same tactics. They aren't scrutinised as assiduously. No matter that Alex Ferguson rotated far more than Benítez last season, or on average over the past three seasons; only one man gets stereotyped for it. Harry Redknapp can leave expensive strikers on the bench, and nothing is said. Yet as soon as Benítez does so, there's outrage; criticism which was never more illogical than when Robbie Keane, admittedly finally in form, was rested during the busy Christmas programme last year and in his absence the Reds won 5-1 at Newcastle. So even success does not exempt Rafa from criticism. Benítez was often criticised for leaving out Crouch and Keane (even though the Irishman started most of the first 30-or-so games), and yet now one of that pair will warm the bench at Spurs. Will there be an outcry? Benítez was slated for playing Robbie Keane on the left-wing, yet it amounted to 20 minutes out of the 28 games he played. God help him if he'd had the chance to play someone like Wayne Rooney on the wing. Let's note that few managers would have persevered and shown faith in Crouch and Keane as long as Rafa did when both started their Liverpool careers with serious goal droughts. Does he get credit for that man-management? No. Keane never really came good, but Crouch did, before Torres was bought to be first choice ‘spearhead' striker, and Crouch was where he is now, on the bench. There was little praise for Crouch further blossoming at Anfield under Benítez's tutelage, or for the manager making a profit on a player many felt wasn't good enough to even be at the club in the first place. Surreally, I'm now hearing retrospective criticism of Benítez for letting Crouch go, but the striker wanted to leave for first-team football, and had only one year left on his deal, which gave him the balance of power. That made getting £11m for a player who had cost £7m all the more impressive, given how values drop in the final year. And if he had kept Crouch, it would have been in the knowledge that Torres and Gerrard – both better players – were his first choice. On the evidence of last season, that was the easiest decision in the world. Instead, despite injuries to five of his first team players, he gets told how good the Spurs bench was on the opening day. If Crouch had been on the bench Liverpool, Rafa would have been criticised, yet if he ever rotated his strikers or rested either Torres or Gerrard – you guessed it – Rafa would have been criticised. While all managers get criticism, with Benítez you sense he can never win, even when he wins. You can see why he thought that Michael Owen wouldn't be happy on the bench at Liverpool, not least because the media seems to make a bigger deal of Benítez omitting a player (because of the automatic ‘rotation' hysteria) than other managers doing the same. Benítez is castigated when he spends money on the squad, and yet when he strengthens the first team, that too is considered the wrong way forward. The stick he got from some quarters for buying Glen Johnson was laughable, even before, with the exception of Markus Babbel, he became Liverpool's top-scoring right-back in almost 20 years ... in just four games! (I can't think of any of Rob Jones, Jamie Carragher, Steve Finnan or Alvaro Arbeloa scoring more from that position in that time.) Johnson has also had a big hand in three other goals. There are other examples. Andy Gray will point out how Benítez rarely makes substitutions before the 60-minute mark, as if the manager isn't flexible enough to make bold half-time alterations. And yet I like that Benítez gives players the chance of 10-15 minutes to get their act together, after some harsh words, encouragement or tactical advice at half-time. Let's not forget that Liverpool scored more late goals than anyone else last season, which suggests good fitness, great mental strength, but also that the players on the pitch at the end of those games, whether subbed on or kept on, were the right ones. Watch a game on TV, and every time the opposition win corner, zonal marking is mentioned. Really, it is almost literally every single time. Therefore it's at the forefront of everyone's thoughts when a goal is conceded. It becomes “I told you so”, as if the same wouldn't apply had it been brought to mind with foreboding every time a team defended man-to-man. (I still recall the Boro vs Norwich game from 2004/05, when no fewer than seven goals were conceded due to bad man marking.) Being a football fan is all about second-guessing the manager. But be careful which experts you listen to, otherwise you could end up parroting what are already lazy clichés and stereotypes.

TOMKINS: WHAT DO I KNOW? Paul Tomkins 20 August 2009
	I honestly don't think I can remember a greater overreaction to a result than the weekend's defeat at Spurs. So bouncing back was doubly vital.
Perhaps Burnley in 2005 was the last time things went this OTT, but that was an FA Cup exit. Liverpool still had the Champions League to contest (what happened there, I forget?), but it was the end to that competition. So it was conclusive in that sense, even if its significance was massively overplayed. By comparison, in terms of the title, losing to Spurs was like going a goal behind in the third minute of a match: not ideal, but why would you panic with so much time left? Games are never over that early, just as seasons are never over that early. Liverpool went a goal down in the third minute at home to Manchester United around this time last year, and that didn't work out so bad, did it? They also went behind to an early goal at Old Trafford, and that was even better. It's the same principle. It just needed victory over Stoke to make it feel like 1-1 in the fifth minute: game on. Except now you have momentum on your side. Especially if you get a good win. (Of course, with perfect timing for this piece, Burnley and Man United met each other last night as well.) Things change quickly in football. That was always going to be apparent this week. But part of the reason they change so dramatically is that the starting point is an extreme, and the fluctuation is like a pendulum. We all have those crazy emotions, it's just a case of taking a deep breath and thinking clearly. Yesterday, Liverpool's 'season was finished' yada yada yada, and United were not missing Ronaldo and in tip-top shape. A few hours later, Liverpool, despite more injuries and tougher fixtures than their rivals, were suddenly above United in the table, with five different players opening their scoring account, including almost all of the main goal hopes getting off the mark. Suddenly it was United failing to score against a newly-promoted side. Liverpool had ended their Stoke hoodoo, and Glen Johnson had helped do what he was bought to do: beat such teams at Anfield. Two games, three outstanding contributions to goals from the lad: one to win a penalty, one a great finish, and the other a cross after some great stepovers. I read some nonsense this summer about how he's 'only a full-back', but that misses the point. He's not some bog-standard defender, but a quasi-right winger, who can make use of the space Dirk Kuyt creates. Even today I read a newspaper article that said 'full-backs don't win you titles'. Well, not on their own they don't, but read Jonathan Wilson's excellent tactical disseminations on how the attacking full-back has become a key tactical weapon for the best teams, and gain some insight. But then he studies the game, rather than just blurting out nonsense. However, even I didn't expect Johnson to make such a massive impact so immediately. He has added a spark of creativity that many wingers can't even supply. Of course, it's still very, very early days, for Johnson and for the season. But this result gave me more satisfaction than many I can remember for a long time. Extreme reactions lead to an intensification of pressure, when there really should be more equilibrium. I didn't think failure to beat Stoke would signal the end of Liverpool's season, but I did expect to face a barrage of such proclamations had it come to pass. I know a lot of older Reds, and while not all of them are free of jerking knees (and creaking ones for that matter), many can't believe the change in reactions to results. At 38, I'm old enough to remember the pre-digital era, and when newspapers had no mention of pre-season friendlies, let alone there being the chance of seeing a sniff of them on TV. Nowadays it's at saturation point. Every little thing is made to mean more. In many ways it's great: a greater amount of football is accessible (although it's often not free), and information is everywhere. Interest in football, and Liverpool, has never been greater. The game has also improved in many ways, despite a few negatives on the pitch (such as diving and play acting). But with progress of any kind there will always be drawbacks. The internet is a great resource for football, but it gives voices to some who might be better off biting their tongue, figuratively speaking. Blogs and news sites encourage outlandish opinion, and the pot gets stirred in ever more fervent circles. So this is not a case of nostalgically pining for the way things were. I don't miss pitches like bogs and games played five yards either side of the halfway line. I don't miss the back-pass, or the proliferation of cloggers. But I do miss the days when a defeat was a disappointment, a setback, but not the end of the world. After the Spurs game I spoke with Chris Rowland, a veteran of all 10 of Liverpool's European finals, and who has a book on his experiences at Heysel coming out later in the year. He said solemnly, 'It never used to be like this.' And I spoke with Vic Gill, son-in-law of Bill Shankly, and former LFC trainee under the great man. He couldn't believe the impatience either, and thanked me for my efforts in trying to reintroduce some knee-stability to the debate. (I have seen a few other articles along these lines to: kudos to Hesbighesred on RAWK, and Rory Smith in The Telegraph.) Both Chris and Vic are internet users, so it's not the medium. And it's given me a platform, so I can't complain too much. But just as players need apprenticeships, young fans do too. There are some very astute young folk out there, but there are those who, as is par for the course at that age, think they know it all. I had some pretty daft views myself some 20 years ago, but the internet wasn't there for people to gather in packs of negativity and doom, and I had no outlet to make a fool of myself, bar a couple of mates to moan to. Younger fans are not helped by a media that has gone berserk, and in many ways they know no different. To them this is the norm. My greatest worry is that hysteria makes it even harder for Liverpool to win the title. It's not about points scoring between pundits, but trying to have fans keep their heads. The pressure on Liverpool is immense because of the historical situation and the long wait for the title, and that has to be managed, not stoked. And I often admit that I do not have all the answers. Far from it. A lot of the time I'm proving heavily-critical arguments wrong, because they are too definitive, or they are factually wayward. Theories are fine, it's the certainty of these people that irritates me. And that goes for pundits, too. Why did Liverpool lose at Spurs? I can only guess, but I didn't conclude that 'the personnel aren't good enough' or 'the formation is all wrong' or 'there aren't enough goals in the side'. Common sense told me that these players can score enough goals: they did so last season. Common sense told me the front two didn't look sharp, but not to panic. Class is permanent. Lo and behold, much better four days later. Why Liverpool didn't pass well at White Hart Lane was never clear-cut; the same players, plus Benayoun, passed brilliantly against a dogged and defensive Stoke. So it was never going to be down to the absence of one player, or the inclusion of another. Benítez was mocked in one article (cum-character-assassination) for talking about certain oft-criticised players being good in training. I remember about eight years ago, doing the same to someone who said, 'Igor Biscan is apparently excellent in training'. 'What good's that?' I answered, in my naïveté, as if it had no relevance to the debate. Admittedly, it doesn't mean that a player who excels in training will translate that into the first team. But we have to respect that a manager, through training with these players several hours each and every day, knows what his charges are capable of, and what they have the potential to achieve. It's moronic to ignore the fact that very, very few players enter the first team as the finished article. This is of course even more apposite with youngsters and imports. It's a manager's job to get them to translate that into the first team, but it can take time. Impressing in training is often the first step in development, because it's far harder with the pressure of a proper game. Some players may never overcome their anxiety, but it can take time to adapt to the expectations. If he doesn't get the chances, he'll never blossom, but it has to be the manager's decision if he's worth that chance in the first place. Allow him the benefit of the doubt before spouting off. At times I forget that I'm not 25 anymore. But then I see some teenager walking with his trousers halfway down to his knees, his boxers on display, and like some retired army major I tut at his scruffiness. So maybe I'm just getting old. However, I just wish more fans and journalists, if they don't have the facts to hand, would stop and think, 'Well, what do I know?'

PAUL TOMKINS' SEASON PREVIEW
Paul Tomkins 12 August 2009

So, it's less than a week away. Hope and dread return in equal measure. I feel optimistic, but scared of those hopes being dashed.
Liverpool have earned the right to believe in their chances, and if confidence borne of last season's efforts can be taken into the early months, then anything is possible. Two players of undoubted quality (Johnson and Aquilani) have arrived to bolster the strongest XI, but one (Alonso) has left. Also gone are Hyypia and Arbeloa, both of whom would have only been back-up players going into the new campaign, but very good ones at that. Aquilani will offer something new, as will Glen Johnson; both of these players are better in the final third than the men they've replaced. That has to bode well. The return of Voronin adds a further option up front. The Ukrainian can chip in with a few goals and assists, as a very capable and game-intelligent back-up striker. He doesn't have to settle into English football, or the thought processes of his team-mates, and as such can add something to the mix. Some young players will be a year older and wiser (particularly Insua and N'Gog, but also Lucas), and no-one is in danger of disappearing off the other end of the age spectrum, now that Hyypia has moved on. The oldest player in the squad is only 31 (Carragher), and no-one else will be in his 30s when the season starts, bar Voronin, who has only just recently had his 30th birthday. The average age of the strongest XI is a near-perfect 27.3 (the average of the previous 17 Premiership champions is 27.5, as I discovered when researching my new book, ‘Red Race'), and the squad overall averages out at a very healthy 26, excluding those youngsters who may force their way into Rafa's plans. Pre-season form wasn't great on the whole, but the players do so much intensive training at this time of year under Rafa it's hard to know how much energy they have left come kick-off; often they'll have trained hard the day of a game, and fitness is the main concern. And a week at this stage of the season is long time. More confidence gained from impressive wins would have been nice, but pre-season can be so distorting – not least due to the range in fitness and determination of the various opposition sides – that successive strolls in pre-season can bring a rude awakening come the first league game. A difficult game at Spurs wouldn't surprise me, with Rafa starting a league campaign away for the 6th successive season and the opener always a bit of a lottery (no team is ever quite in its rhythm), but from then until October, and the trip to Chelsea, I expect pretty much maximum points. According to some, Liverpool missed a good chance of winning the title last season, but I don't buy that; to go from 4th place and 76 points to 1st place, and needing in excess of 90, is a massive ask. To do so without the experience of a previous title race only made it harder. Yes, United and Chelsea had some problems last season, but Liverpool could only pair Torres and Gerrard together on 14 occasions. If that can be doubled this time around, with no injuries to other key men, than this really could be the year. I have to admit to finding developments at Man City fascinating. Even Chelsea didn't operate quite like this when spending £100m in a summer. Chelsea spent big on top continental talents, like Cech, Robben, Drogba and Essien. But City have plundered only the Premiership this summer. Not only that, they've taken players from teams in the top four: two from Arsenal, one from Manchester United, and serious attempts were made to lure John Terry from Chelsea. If you can't beat ‘em, the saying goes, join ‘em. City's approach seems to be to gatecrash the all-important top four by taking elements from each of the teams already there. In that sense, it's a novel approach. Chelsea, the last of the really big spenders, were already there when the riches arrived. City's aim has surely been aided by weakening two of those sides who've occupied the positions for the past four seasons. And the teams who finished fifth and sixth have also been targeted: thus far Everton have held on to Lescott, but Gareth Barry has moved from Villa. What I find most interesting is how a stronger City will affect their neighbours in Salford, who are naturally Liverpool's main rivals going into the new season. An intensification of that particular rivalry may actually be beneficial to Benítez's men. A resurgent Reds put extra pressure on Manchester United last time out; had it been Chelsea or Arsenal, United wouldn't have felt quite as much pressure to see them off. As it was, perhaps the fact that it was Liverpool motivated United that little bit more to eek out results; but only after a serious wobble when they looked shakier than at any time in recent memory, and only after a pivotal refereeing decision at a time when they were seriously wobbling. United have lorded it over Liverpool for so long that it's only natural to fear the tables turning. But now City are on hand to throw another spanner into the works; so much so that Ferguson has been quoted as making quite a few stinging criticisms, which suggests that he sees them as something of a threat. After all, he never attacks lame ducks, does he? At the very least, City might take some points off United and give them two tougher games than last year. At best, they might even finish above their more famous neighbours; a very long shot, and one which comes with the risk of City finishing above Liverpool too, but if they are in the mix, Mark Hughes' side could cause some tension at Old Trafford. We know from recent experience how time spent below your city rivals in the league table causes additional nervousness. It's not nice. Of course, it seems virtually impossible for City to win the Premiership this season. As noted in this column many times since 2005, teams now need to build up to the title with a 2nd-place finish the year before. In time, City themselves may indeed challenge for the title; but for the time being, a bit of Mancunian rivalry might just favour Liverpool.