TOMKINS: GRITTY BEFORE PRETTY
Paul Tomkins 30 November 2009

It wasn't the prettiest of displays, but it was up there with the grittiest.
Credit to Everton, who played well, but the Reds created the better chances (if you exclude clearly offside situations, when goals were only scored because of that illegal advantage). Both Merseyside clubs have been experiencing a lot of injuries this term, and a difficult run of form as a result. And yet only one manager seemed to be under pressure. David Moyes is granted all kinds of pardons for his own terrible injury problems (pardons he merits, incidentally), but Benítez is told to get on with it, such is the blatant hostility dished out by certain quarters of the media. Just compare and contrast the sympathy. We have a situation where Charlie Nicholas says on TV that Liverpool have only had one injured player lately (Torres). I kid you not! If this is “opinion”, then I might as well say that Nicholas only has one finger, without bothering to check either of his hands for the remaining nine digits.
Nicholas is right, only if you ignore the scores of others Reds who've been crocked, and focus on the phoney notion that Liverpool only have two players anyway. It's not just been the quantity of injuries, but the constant switching of the team because of them. Nine different defenders had to be used in the first ten league games; Gerrard and Torres rarely paired together, and never fully fit; all of the wide midfielders out for a few games, at least; Aquilani injured for longer than had been expected (which also complicates putting him into the side). I can almost get into double figures with those who have been either injured or struggling for match fitness in the past fortnight alone. (I'm even looking into horse placenta treatment for myself, in the hope that it cures baldness.) Every fan wants to see Aquilani, and I'm no different. However, a boggy pitch in Hungary and a Mersey derby are not ideal introductions. And with the Reds winning those two games, what's the problem? Now Benítez is being criticised for keeping an unchanged team. Getting Aquilani match-fit is important, but victories right now are absolutely crucial. It's also fairer on the player to not be expected to produce the magic wand. Let's also examine the tactical slaughtering Benítez took before the match. There was this pearler from the ubiquitous Anon on the BBC, which was picked out for their score update page, but also sums up the kind of thing actual pundits were suggesting: “I don't know what is wrong with Benitez, his team selection is mad. Leaving Benayoun and Riera on the bench is crazy and we have two left backs on the field - and we have a striker/winger that can't cross or score.” This is the kind of lack of insight that shows how empty vessels make the most noise; and how the mass media are happy to facilitate them by adding a voluminous echo. For starters, both Riera and Benayoun were recovering from recent hamstring problems. How can a fan not understand that? That's basic knowledge. Next, Aurelio is no simple left-back shoved into midfield, but a cultured footballer with a great left foot. And Insua is an incredibly attack-minded full-back who came closest to adding a second for the Reds (from the the right-back's cross) before Kuyt duly obliged. Yes, the great Anon is also suggesting that Kuyt can't cross (go and watch last season's DVD and see what rubbish that is) or score; yet has now got 20 goals in one-and-a-third seasons, without penalties. He'd not been at his best in recent weeks, after a bright start to the campaign, but was back on song at Goodison. So much for a negative central midfield, too. Mascherano, with a shot out of the Frank Lampard playbook, scored (or “created”) the opening goal, and in the second half, Lucas was absolutely mowed down for a penalty as he got ahead of the strikers. (I'm losing count of the stone-wall penalties waved away this season.) I'm not going to pretend that the duo are in the side for their attacking flair, but they do allow the full-backs more licence to get forward, with each player possessing a tactical maturity beyond their years, if not the full gamut of skills. The team needs to be looked at as a whole, and that's the balance they provide. Both have been outstanding in the past month. And let's face it, for the most part, scoring goals hasn't been the Reds' problem this season (or last), especially in the league. But with two long-overdue clean sheets, maybe that particular corner was the crucial one to turn. And much of that improvement is down to the return of the Agger/Carragher partnership, with the former back to full fitness, and the latter back to his commanding best. I really didn't understand Alan Hansen's logic when he recently said that Rafa hadn't bought any great players in the sub-£10m bracket. For me, Reina – whose outstanding double save secured the draw – and Agger, each around £6m, are world-class, before even getting onto bargains like Benayoun, Insua, et al. Agger's return to the side has been crucial. He is the most underrated central defender around; but only underrated because injuries have curtailed his progress in the past couple of years. Yet he's still only 24, and not yet quite in a central defender's prime years (usually 25-32, given that they mature later, due to the value of experience when reading the game). When he's fit, he has it all. Indeed, with Johnson and Insua so strong going forward, the inclusion of Agger in the side means yet more progressive movement from the back; which again adds context to why Mascherano and Lucas have played. But often, the psychological side of a slump is the hardest thing to counter. Look at Manchester City, with their hugely expensive squad, including enough strikers for half the division. Their fear is that they will concede late goals and draw games they were winning. With it playing on their mind, they concede late goals and draw games they were winning. That's why a couple of victories on the spin, complete with clean sheets, is so important. The upside of all of Liverpool's injuries is that it should mean extra freshness in the remaining two-thirds of the season – providing that everyone is over their existing problems and only a ‘normal' amount of niggles occur from now on. It's also helped provide the emergence of David N'Gog as a rapidly improving understudy to Fernando Torres. It might not be the ideal way to blood the young Frenchman, but his progression has definitely been a bonus. It might need a fully fit and sharp Gerrard, Torres, Aquilani and Benayoun – or even just three of that quartet – for the Reds to be at their exciting best, but the important aspect of this week has been winning games and keeping it tight at the back. The corner isn't fully turned. But it's a start.

TOMKINS: RESPECT A EUROPEAN MASTER
Paul Tomkins 25 November 2009 Rafael Benitez's record in Europe was often used as a stick with which to beat his Premiership performance. Now it's being used to say that his job should be on the line. Of course, Liverpool have progressed massively as a European club under Benítez, after decades more-or-less in the wilderness. And last season, the club posted a Premiership record that would win the title on many occasions; however, sometimes someone is that little bit better, or luckier.

If you happened to play tennis when Pete Sampras was around, or golf when Tiger Woods was at his peak, you could be an eternal runner-up.
This is the bizarre life Benítez leads. Even his achievements (Istanbul 2005, or 86 points last season) are used to form criticism.

After 2005, people said that massive league improvement was the key to judging him a success: "It's easy to win a few cup games". Last season, we saw that improvement taken to a 20-year high, in terms of points. Then it was "Ah, but no trophy".

Few praised him for enabling his team to lose the lowest ever number of games by a team that failed to win the league; at a time when also managing the league's top scorers; so this was no defensive team.

As soon as the two game losing mark was reached this season, last season was suddenly ammunition to attack him with; which all contributed towards a negativity around the campaign. Liverpool were decreed failures for losing two games, and the attacks started, even though last season's achievements were unique. None of that helped.

He is not praised for buying Torres and helping him improve to stellar standards; he is told, quite laughably, that Torres will leave if things don't improve.

He was not praised for buying Alonso, getting some great performances from him (especially, it has to be noted, after the Barry saga), and bringing in £30m; he is told that he never understood or appreciated the midfielder.

Now Benítez is being criticised for ‘failure' in Europe. Which, to me, is a bit like suggesting selling prime-years Ian Rush for going a few games without a goal.

Please note: only four men have more victories in the European Cup/Champions League than Rafa Benítez.

It just so happens that three of the four are at rival Big Four Premiership clubs. That makes his domestic job harder.

Carlo Ancelotti is in 4th place, Ottmar Hitzfeld 3rd, Arsene Wenger 2nd and Alex Ferguson 1st.

Of course, the top two have played far more games in the competition than Benítez, having been at qualifying clubs for a greater number of years, as befits men that much older than the Spaniard.

In terms of percentage of games won (minimum 20 wins), the top manager in European Cup/Champions League history – at the start of this season – was Josef Heynckes, former Bayern Munich and Real Madrid boss, with 66.7%. (Heynckes is currently managing Sami Hyypia at Bayer Leverkusen, and topping the Bundesliga in the process.)

But the clear star from the stats is one Bob Paisley, in second place, with 65.9%, just ahead of Luis van Gaal and Matt Busby. It's probably fair to say that the old European Cup was tougher to win in several ways, although you still needed to win only 50% of your games each year to reach the final: win the home leg 2-0, lose the away leg 1-0, and job done.

However, there is another familiar name in the top 10: Rafael Benítez Maudes. The Liverpool manager has a 57% win rate. (Incidentally, a figure that exactly matches his Premiership record.)

Quite a way back are Ferguson in 17th place (52%) and Wenger in 27th (46%).

(This season, the figures have altered to 56% Benítez, 53% Ferguson and 48% Wenger, but I don't have the full rankings to hand, hence using figures up to June 2009. Stats courtesy of Graeme Riley, author of the annual "Football in Europe" Soccerdata books, and member of The Tomkins Times)

As a season, this has been a bit of a nightmare. But two cups are still up for grabs, and history shows that a place in the top four is usually secured by either Arsenal or Liverpool, no matter how far off the pace at the halfway stage. Teams not used to being there are more likely to 'choke', and Liverpool's luck can surely only improve.

So there's no need to panic, even if the injury crisis needs to abate for a realistic chance of getting back on track.

We've also a lot to see from Aquilani, but I'm not sure the pitch last night was suitable, and the need was to win the game, that was all.

At a time when people with no understanding or experience of management put the boot into Benítez, Arsene Wenger continues to point out that Liverpool haven't got the results they've deserved at times this season. He knows the score; he's been there before. He's showing some real class.

He knows how an injury crisis can affect a team – the loss of Van Persie saw them draw their first blank of the season – and how going to places like Sunderland is not a doddle, even without alien objects scoring goals. He knows the difficulties in taking on the über-rich clubs.

But it all comes back to expectation. Rafa raised them for us in Europe; now he is being hounded because of it. And last year, he raised them for us in the league, to the point where people don't even see a crippling injury crisis as an extenuating factor for being off the pace.

Perhaps people expect Liverpool to be the equivalent of Tiger Woods, as the Reds were in the halcyon days.

But right now, we're more like ‘prime years' Colin Montgomerie: currently in the rough during this tournament, but always there or thereabouts, without quite landing the major prize.

However, if Woods had picked up a serious injury, Montgomerie, with no change in his ability, would probably now be hailed as an all-time master.

Maybe last season Benítez was just a penalty decision in the Man United vs Spurs match away from seeing the Reds' main rivals from collapse.

We'll never know, but all Liverpool could do was get United wobbling on the ropes, as the 4-1 victory at Old Trafford had proved so successfully; a few games later, with United looking dazed and confused, the referee intervened, and the rest is history.

Liverpool fans didn't ask for a replay (or after Sunderland), but that goal did the damage France inflicted on Ireland. Alas, that's sport; it happens. But that decision did not make Benítez a worse manager, did it? United changed from iffy to in control from that moment on.

When all is said and done, I'd still rather be the equivalent of a ‘Monty' – ups and downs, but generally challenging at most events – than some average golfer that never featured on the big occasions.

Every single season, Benítez has had the club contesting a trophy into May - quite incredible, considering what we were used to in the 15 years beforehand. (Okay, in 2008 it was almost midnight on the very last day of April, after extra-time at Stamford Bridge, but please allow me this one tiny tweak of the calendar.)

If anyone hasn't yet read the incredibly insightful book “Soccernomics/Why England Lose”, they really should, for their own good. It backs up Christian Purslow's belief that clubs “should not make managerial and strategical decisions around results in the short-term”.

Add in an injury crisis that no manager could hope to work around, and it becomes even more apposite.

TOMKINS: WHAT CAN WE RIGHTFULLY EXPECT? Paul Tomkins 23 November 2009
	I don't want to sound like I'm just making excuses, but I'm finding it almost impossible to judge the performances this season.
What should we expect of the team when constantly missing players, with numerous enforced changes each and every week? Maybe I should expect more. Or maybe others expect too much. I'd know where I stand with the best XI, or even something approaching it, playing most weeks. But this has been a season of utter chaos, in terms of selection. The biggest hypocrisy with a lot of Benítez's critics is this: slating him for rotating, saying that you can't win trophies making lots of changes (even though other major managers have had success when making a greater number), yet failing to cut him slack when he's forced to make far too many due to injuries. And injuries are far more unsettling than rotation. At least with rotation the manager has full control of his selection. And at least with rotation the unused players are still fit, and usually on the bench (an example: Ferguson often brought on Rooney and Ronaldo to try and win the game if he rotated his side). Players like Torres, Gerrard and Johnson are currently in and out of the side, and these are all match-winners. So is Benayoun. Aquilani, another potential match-winner, is getting closer to playing, and may well start in Hungary, but his selection is not straightforward, after a longer-than-anticipated ankle problem. It didn't help against City that Gerrard visibly tired in the second half, after a very influential first 45. Maybe he was just frozen out of the game as City threw caution to the wind to equalise, but he's missed a lot of training lately. At least the 90 minutes will help him rediscover his sharpness, even if the second 45 more-or-less passed him by. There has to come a ‘critical mass'-type point with injuries, beyond which too much is missing to expect to compete at anything approaching your normal level. Can you cope without two players? Three players? Four? Five? Six? ... Twelve? ... Twenty-five?! Where is the cut-off point? The same applies to players looking to get fit with games; hence why starting both Gerrard and Aquilani may have presented a gamble too far. Carry too many under-par players in terms of fitness, and you'll suffer, especially in the tougher fixtures. We can all play this new game called Fantasy Physio, but how many fans have both the necessary medical insight and the all-important access to the players and their medical notes? None that I'm aware of. Aquilani needs match fitness, and can't get that without playing. However, if he's thrown in and the Reds lose, at a high-pressure time like this, that's not helpful either. Particularly when Gerrard isn't 100% sharp. If anyone think it's a simple decision, they're deluded. It was seriously complicated by the two early injuries, and the fact that much more than 60 minutes for Benayoun would be a massive risk. I admit that I was surprised when Aurelio came on, but from that point the Reds had full control of the game, and had chances to win it. By helping strengthen the left-hand side, the Reds got the upper hand. While neither team came into the game high on confidence, the 13 players City used cost £162m; the 14 Liverpool used cost £71m. That's well below half of the visitor's line up. A large part of this is down to the incredible spending at Eastlands. But also, three of Benítez's four biggest signings were either unavailable or only on the cusp of the required fitness. But I still feel that the Reds have sufficient quality and experience to finish above City, assuming the number of fit players increases. Are Liverpool's reserves better than City's first-team players? Of course not. I'd take Liverpool's strongest XI over City's any day of the week, but they clearly have more depth (particularly up front – Tevez, Robinho and Santa Cruz in reserve!), and in the 2-2 draw, Hughes had a full hand to choose from. Benítez didn't. Liverpool started perfectly, with a very positive first five mintues that almost brought a goal, but the momentum was killed by two early injuries, particularly the one to Agger. The game slowed down, the Kop lost its buzz (which is never as buzzy as in later kick-offs). City's job was to break up the game and quieten the crowd; the injuries did that for them. I have to say that I thought De Jong's tackle on Babel was terrible: off the ground, two-footed, studs showing. I think he tried to play the ball, and may well have won it – I'm not saying it was malicious – but it is without doubt a red card in the modern rules. Given that Degen was sent off for a far less dangerous challenge at Fulham, this could only have been a red. But that's the kind of luck Liverpool are having this season. Even the N'Gog penalty against Birmingham was wrongly analysed as fortunate, with Carsley's desperate lunge missing the ball; contact with the player isn't necessary if you cut right across his path and don't actually get the ball. If N'Gog stayed on his feet, he might have a broken ankle now. (And yes, I'd say the same if it was at the other end. If you dive in and don't win the ball, you only have yourself to blame.) I also thought Kuyt was bundled over by Bellamy in the box – a blatant penalty – and that their 2nd goal looked offside, although that was a close call. But I don't think you can argue with a draw being the fair result. The Reds looked nervy after taking the lead; as if they didn't know whether to twist or stick. From Liverpool's point of view, it was a fairly good first half display, a very good start to the second half, a poor 25 minutes after taking the lead (either sitting back or being forced back), and a storming ending that deserved a winner. I'm not saying that the season's problems are all down to bad luck and injuries, but it becomes much more of a lottery if you have a depleted squad. Part of the problem Liverpool had against City was that without Johnson, who reported unfit to play the morning of the game, and with Kyrgiakos (who I felt did well) having to replace Agger after just five minutes, the Reds were shorn of a lot of defensive pace, against possibly the quickest front line around: Bellamy, Adebayor and Wright-Phillips, who were later supplemented by Tevez; and with Ireland arriving from deep. As a result, it was hard to push up as a back-line. It must also be harder defending as a unit when you've never played together before; the last couple of weeks have seen some previously untried and untested combinations, as has the season as a whole. I've said it a lot recently, but the constant changes to the back four have been a nightmare. I'm sorry, but any manager would struggle to get sufficient results in the circumstances. Every week the defence has had to change, and often during the match, too. It's been injury after injury. I'd be a lot more worried if it was the four/five regulars who were starting every week, and still conceding a higher than usual number of goals. It'll be harder to win games on a regular basis again until there's a bit more stability there. When a team is not keeping clean sheets, defenders get nervy; when they are keeping clean sheets, they can look unbeatable. Liverpool defended poorly for City's opening goal, but then the visitor's were twice “beaten” by set-pieces; Lucas knows he should have headed that late chance in and become the hero, following on from Skrtel's strike. All around the country, goals are flying in from corners and free-kicks. So Liverpool aren't alone in struggling with them; but clearly also need to cut out the mistakes, too. On the plus side, in adversity, some young players continue to shine. A big positive is the hold-up and link play of N'Gog, who yet again had a hand in the goals: first by winning the free-kick, and then with some brilliant skill to work an opening, before his shot deflected to Benayoun to equalise. He's showing a great appreciation of what's going on around him, and is progressing very nicely indeed. However, he's still getting used to the gruelling demands of 90 minutes of Premiership action, and seems to be tiring after the hour mark. It's all part of his development. Lucas also continues to get better and better; evidence of what you can get from players by not dropping them. (I'm not saying that dropping players is wrong, just that there are alternative approaches, too.) I believe that Lucas will score more goals in time, but it's the one part of his game where a lack of confidence still shows. I think the Brazilian's form has improved massively these past six weeks, as has Mascherano's. The Argentine was sensational against City – he was everywhere, passing with vision and dribbling forward like a man possessed. At the start of the season they looked a little unbalanced as a duo, but when they are passing well, they are far from the negative pairing some people paint them as. So all in all, I still sense that this is a team very much on the right lines, but a little derailed of late. You can argue over fine details, but there's not a lot wrong with the side, and the majority of the squad, when fit and in form. But confidence and fitness are two of the most important factors in the sport, yet the hardest for the manager to control. Injuries can happen no matter how careful or well prepared you are – anyone can have a muscle injury (name a player who hasn't?), and anyone can clash heads or get studs in their ankle; while confidence comes and goes in mysterious ways, which often revolve around turning points (good and bad) for both individuals and the collective. You can boost a player all you want, but what happens on the other side of that white line affects his performance; start with a bad touch, and it can go downhill fast. End a barren spell with a lucky goal, and you can get a hat-trick. A lucky deflection can change a team's season, not just the player who claims the goal off his backside. Another big week awaits, and I'd gladly see a few deflected Liverpool winners in the coming fixtures.

TOMKINS: EVOLUTION OF A TEAM Paul Tomkins 18 November 2009
	Despite all the problems this season, the biggest ray of hope remains the chance to see a fully fit strongest XI take to the field.
For years, the criticism was that Benítez bought too many squad players, and didn't spend his budget on the high-end, proven quality stars who cost a pretty packet. But adding a £25m player to the squad he inherited was almost pointless. Too many new players were needed across the board to succeed in the long-term; and if the new £25m man broke his leg, or turned out to be a Veron or a Shevchenko, Benítez would have been back to square one, sending out players who were patently not good enough. If you look at how Benítez spent his first £20m, you'll see why his was the correct way. Xabi Alonso and Luis Garcia cost around £16m combined; Nunez was part of the Owen deal, but valued at around £2m I believe, and Josemi was also about £2m. Critics took great pleasure in pointing out the two flops, but they were inexpensive; the two successes contributed to winning trophies and the pair left for £33m, over twice what they cost. (And even the Josemi and Nunez fees were recouped when they departed.) Similarly, over the next few years, players like Reina, Agger and Benayoun have come in for £5m-£6m, and been worth their weight in gold. The evolution of Liverpool's squad has continued thus. Every year we've seen some excellent players arrive, but also some who've failed to make the grade. That's natural. But it can take time to integrate new players, and get the balance right; especially when the natural counterweights are unavailable to the manager. One thing I discovered when researching my book ‘Dynasty' was just how many flops Bill Shankly signed; in some cases, players I'd never even heard of, and not all of them signed for negligible fees. Fifty years on, and in a different era, no-one focuses on these errors of judgement; and rightly so, because of Clemence (read Reina), Keegan (read Torres), Yeats (read Mascherano), Hughes (read Alonso), et al – the top-class purchases that more than compensated. It also backs up my theory that it's hard to make more than one outstanding purchase a season. Few managers ever manage to do better; the talent is in short supply, and competition fierce. By my reckoning, Shankly signed 16 outright successes – in fifteen years; about nine or ten were bona fide greats. Also by my reckoning, Benítez has signed Alonso, Reina, Torres, Agger and Mascherano, who are all up there with the best in their position. Alonso has now gone, but the others remain, and Johnson looks set to be added to that list, while Aquilani has the chance to. These days, you need a bigger squad. And another problem is that some of your signings cannot be as successful as they would if they got regular football; but despite needing to buy more players, you can still only start with eleven. Part of the problem in 2004 was that age was not on Benítez's side – or should I say, in Houllier's side. Of those Rafa inherited, most of the best half a dozen were 30 or over. Houllier had created an excellent, experienced squad by 2001, but three years later the squad was suddenly full of inferior imports; the young replacements, like Diao, Diouf and Cheyrou, were just not good enough, and his better signings were knocking on in years. So by the time additions were made by Benítez to replace the deadwood in all areas of the team – two or three years down the line – the likes of Hyypia, Finnan and Hamann themselves would be tailing off (while the excellent Markus Babbel had seen his career wrecked by illness). So Houllier's best signings were never going to serve Benítez for very long, and his worst were on long contracts, with their values dwindling rapidly. Perhaps this is why the Reds peaked at 3rd in the league in 2006 with a very healthy 82 points, then dipped for a couple of seasons; already another mini-transition was necessary. By the time the Reds finished 2nd, with 86 points, Hamann and Finnan were gone, and the ageing Hyypia was scarcely needed. Liverpool's worthy title challenge came with only that one Houllier signing, and the Finn played just a handful of games. And of course, going back to 2004, Michael Owen had kept his options (or rather his contract) open in order to be able to leave to Real Madrid (which was his right), while Harry Kewell, one of the few other top-class players, was just never fit. Had injuries not blighted his career at Liverpool, more might have been achieved. But Kewell became yet one more player who needed replacing around the three/four-year mark, when it was clear that he would never offer enough. In the case of both Owen and Kewell, the Reds were unable to recoup the money their natural ability and previous reputations merited. Contract situations, and injuries, meant that the club gained just £8m for the pair. That meant less to reinvest. Now, as 2010 approaches, we're seeing something very different from the critics. Liverpool, it's decreed, don't have a good enough squad. For four years the criticism was “the first XI needs improving”; now it's about squad depth. And yet the first XI, to my mind, is now as good as anyone else's in the Premiership; a real achievement in team building. The problem is, we've not got even close to seeing it in 2009/10. The positive is that it remains something to look forward to; in particular, the attacking triumvirate of Torres, Gerrard and Aquilani, which, in theory, is mouth-watering. And the squad is far better than the critics suggest; however, it does not have the almost unending depth of the biggest spenders. Saturday's opponents, Manchester City, have a quite incredible cluster of strikers, but keeping them happy long-term will be a challenge (the large wage packets help). Maybe they could attract them all to City with the promise of being in the first team, with the position yet to be nailed down by anyone. But at Liverpool, everyone knows who the centre-forward will be if everyone is fit; making it both a blessing and a curse. You can ask potential signings to challenge Torres for the role, but they will have realistic ideas of their chances. Peter Crouch was already at the club, and a great player to have in the squad, but turned down the offer of a new deal because he knew he couldn't play every week. Even then, a player Benítez was mocked for signing left for a profit, despite only a year being left on his deal. And with brilliant ignorance, some pundits continue to slate the manager for not wanting him! Crouch is now at Spurs, challenging for a starting place, but as good as they are, Keane is no Gerrard and Defoe is no Torres. Benítez has also received untold criticism in the past 18 months for persisting with David N'Gog, who was a teenager when he arrived last year. Now people are finally seeing the young Frenchman's worth. In many senses, N'Gog is the perfect back-up for Torres, because he's talented, but very much a willing apprentice. When you have a real, one-in-a-million star, the understudy has to accept his position, but also keep working to close the gap. In an ideal world it'd be great to have two ‘finished-article' world-class forwards warming the bench, but it's simply unrealistic. In an ideal world, N'Gog would be 23/24 now, but what would he have cost? Not £1.5m. And this is where another bonus from this most testing of seasons comes in. While the team has struggled at times when massively under-strength, the same is not true of every player. At the start of the campaign, Insua was a mere squad man, N'Gog was (ludicrously) mocked for being a ‘no-one', and Lucas was given dog's abuse by people unable to see his true worth. Now, each has significantly enhanced his reputation. If all three were on the bench – as might well be the case if the best XI was available – then suddenly that bench would seem stronger. Still so young, none is anywhere close to finishing his development, but each has improved. In these trying times, to differing degrees, they've come of age. People are now admitting that Lucas is far better than they gave him credit for. And the more aware will realise that N'Gog actually has the best goals-per-minute ratio at the club; it was good last season, but now it's better than Torres'. That doesn't mean N'Gog could keep up that incredible rate when starting games week after week, but it does mean that he can be an excellent impact player and a fine understudy, as seen in the way he finished off Manchester United and tortured Birmingham's defence. But of course Liverpool's best hope of success lies with getting its best players onto the field as much as possible. Shocking luck with injuries can undermine any side. I make it that the following defenders have started major games: Carragher, Agger, Johnson, Skrtel, Insua, Kelly, Kyrgiakos, Degen, Ayala and Aurelio. That's ten defenders starting in the Premiership or Champions League by November! (Therefore not even including the League Cup, while in the Champions League there have been no dead-rubbers.) Even with rotation, you might expect five or six at the most by this stage; seven at a push. Two of those ten defenders were teenagers making their full debuts, while of course Johnson and Kyrgiakos are new additions to the team. It's no wonder the Reds have been shipping more goals than you'd expect. The same has been true of Manchester United when they've had key absentees this season; shipping three at home to CSKA Moscow, for example. The same has been true of Chelsea when they've been without John Terry. As mentioned earlier, Liverpool have a first team as strong as any Premiership rival – providing Aquilani is as good as he was for Roma. Indeed, while there's always a chance a player can fail to adapt, let's not forget the chance that Aquilani could actually be better than he was in Italy. As seen with Torres leaving his boyhood Atléti , it can be emancipating to leave your hometown club, where you've carried a burden. Sometimes you need to escape to reinvent yourself, and be taken more seriously. So the Italian is not limited to reproducing only what he achieved in Rome – in what is, when every Liverpool player is fit, a better side; if he really shines, the team can, too. And I'd still take this current collection of players over any I've seen since 1988. For me, it's stronger than the last title-winning side in 1990. But even that glorious 1988 vintage would have struggled without Barnes, Beardsley, Aldridge and Hansen. If they'd all been injured, we would not still be talking about that side being better than the Brazilians. And this current collection has age on its side; the same group of players can mature together over the next four or five years. Carragher aside, all are in their 20s, and most in their mid-20s. There's a lot to look forward to, if enough players get fit and stay fit. Of course this season is already undermined by some poor results (some deserved, some definitely not). But as we saw with Arsenal last season, a bad few months at the start of a campaign does not mean the team or its manager is on the slide. Far from it.

TOMKINS: CRITICISM IS EASY Paul Tomkins 09 November 2009
	My main problem as an observer of football and its media coverage is just how easy criticism is.
In light of this, it's hard to get facts across. I don't defend Benítez for the sake of it; there are ex-Liverpool managers (okay, probably only one) about whose time in charge I can find precious little positive to say. I had that problem when writing Dynasty, which covers the last 50 years of Liverpool FC. I did point out some positive aspects of every manager's reign, and I listed extenuating circumstances for the travails each might have faced, where applicable. However, no matter how I looked at things, I saw five excellent managers – Shankly, Paisley, Fagan, Dalglish and Benítez – plus two very good ones, in Evans and Houllier, and one well adrift of the rest: Graeme Souness. It's not always been possible for Liverpool to win trophies, or finish in the top two. But the good managers averaged a 50% win rate, and the top managers were up around the 60% mark. Souness, who spent the most money (relatively speaking – I converted all fees over the 50 years to a common system to deal with football-based inflation), fared the worst, at around 40%. (Incidentally, Shankly averaged only 52%. But he took over at the weakest point in the club's post-war history, meaning he would clearly make a slower start. He also acknowledged that he let his first great team stay together too long, as part of seven fallow seasons; something he atoned for by building a second great team, just before his departure.) Since writing Dynasty, Benítez has actually increased his win percentage, due to last season's fantastic efforts, and Liverpool rose to be the #1 ranked team in Europe based on five years' worth of results. So it is with this kind of context that I make my judgements. Six bad games, or even sixteen, don't define a manager; at least, they shouldn't. Maybe it is the amount of research and analysis I put into projects such as Dynasty that help me see things more clearly than the vast majority of the media, who are so obviously not putting in that kind of effort. And it's why I find so much criticism of the game's best managers (especially the foreign ones) so unjust. Because baseless criticism is just so easy. Some examples: Against Manchester United, Torres was removed at 1-0 and his replacement, N'Gog, scored the game-killer in injury time. Away at Lyon, with the same situation (1-0 margin, star striker nursing an injury), the same change was made, albeit about seven minutes later in the game. This time the opposition scored a last-minute equaliser that should have been defended better by the men in position. Some said that the Lyon centre-back, who played a part in the goal, only went forward at the end because Torres was not there. Which is some statement, given that all losing teams send extra numbers forward in the final minute of a game in which they are one goal behind. What have they got to lose? United did the same at Anfield; Liverpool broke and sealed the victory as a result. But if you have it in for a manager, you can criticise anything he does; you shape your agenda around any result, irrespective of the performance or the realities of his decision making. For example, Torres stays on in Lyon and exacerbates the injury. Then Benítez is a fool for risking him. Some have said that a defender should have been brought on instead of N'Gog. If that happens, and a 1-0 is secured: no comment on the substitution. Yet concede a goal with such a move, and you've been too negative. Who can say for sure that an extra defender will have the desired effect and provide greater insurance? It can mean retreating and conceding ground; it's a risk with pros and cons. Who's to say that bringing on a striker will lead to more goals, or instead cause you to concede because everyone wasn't behind the ball? There's no right and wrong way; at least not without hindsight to judge. What I find remarkable in all the criticism of Benítez is that his previous record supposedly counts for nothing. Stats, such as having won 1.93 league points per game as Liverpool manager – the exact same figure as Alex Ferguson in his 23 years at United – count for nothing because of a handful of defeats this season. Because of a few recent struggles, some geniuses out there think he should be sacked; no excuses. Of course, by that token, Ferguson should have been sacked by United in the ‘80s; no excuses. Where would that have left them? Wenger, after just eight wins in the first 22 league games of last season, should also have been sacked; no excuses. And yet look at Arsenal now. What good would that have done them? Seriously, can someone tell me? (And Wenger's league record is worse than Benítez's in the past few seasons.) In 2003, Everton finished 7th under David Moyes. A year later, they finished 17th. Therefore, by the logic of Rafa's critics, he should have been sacked; no excuses. How can you drop ten places and expect to survive? This season, critics said that Liverpool can lose more, but mustn't draw too many. But as soon as two defeats were reached, last season's incredibly low defeats tally was now being used as a tool to criticise. Up until last season, Liverpool, we were told, must beat the big teams. It's okay beating little teams, but until the Reds can beat the likes of United and Chelsea regularly in the league, they will always be considered unworthy. Last season Liverpool did that; then it was the little teams they had to concentrate on beating. (And let's face it, if you beat all the big teams, and all the little teams, and all the teams in between, you'd have the best team in history. No-one has ever done that.) Be more attacking; Benítez's teams are too cautious, we were told. Then last season the Reds were the league's top scorers, and were until recently. But as soon as there's a few low-scoring games, the accusation returns; even though numerous attacking talents were injured. Any other manager (who hasn't won the league since 2004) would be praised for getting to 86 points and finishing 2nd; in 2007/08, Arsene Wenger was praised to the hilt for the progress of his Arsenal side, which finished 3rd, with 83 points. Until last season, Benítez was told he'd spent too much time buying squad players (even though the squad needed a complete overhaul), and should have spent more money on the first XI. Now, with Liverpool having a strongest XI that I believe is as good as any team in England, the squad is too weak. Yet I don't see how he can do it all. The group would be stronger if some excellent squad players wished to stay; but players like Crouch and Keane felt themselves to be too good for the bench. That's their call. So, Rafa ‘shouldn't have sold Robbie Keane'. Yet as soon as Keane left in January, Liverpool's goals-per-game ratio virtually doubled. The Reds were top scorers again this season until a few weeks ago, but of course, with so many players out, something will always be missing. It's easy to say that Crouch and Keane should be there now; less easy to explain how to keep them happy if Torres and Gerrard were fit every game. Rafa ‘should never have sold Alonso', yet David Moyes was told he had to get rid of ‘want away' Lescott; he had no option. If players want to move on, you can't force them to have a change of heart. Both managers made huge profits on players who had also served their Merseyside clubs so brilliantly, yet Moyes was ‘doing what was necessary', and Benítez was ‘an idiot'. Moyes has also got a lot of sympathy of late for his injury crisis; Benítez has had pretty much zero compassion or understanding directed his way. Liverpool, we hear, are a ‘two man' team. They were also a ‘two man team' last season, and that didn't include Alonso. Yet four of the current squad (Torres, Gerrard, Mascherano and Reina) are in the current top 60 players in the world, as voted by an expert panel for FourFourTwo magazine. (And I still don't know how you can rack up 86 points when you're a two man team, and one of those men is only fit to start half the matches.) Apparently Benítez does not buy good players. Yet of those current top 60 players in the world, four were signed for Liverpool by Benítez, and each has had their best years as a player under him. (Alonso is included – his reputation was obviously created at Anfield.) Pepe Reina is listed as the world's 3rd-best keeper, and Javier Mascherano is the world's best holding midfielder. The average cost of those four ‘top 60' signings (Torres, Mascherano, Reina and Alonso) is £14m; not cheap, but still well below half of the British transfer record. Now, Alex Ferguson has six signings in the top 60. However, two of those (Ferdinand and Ronaldo) were signed before 2004, and a third, Rooney, was signed that summer, before Benítez had barely warmed his seat or assessed his squad. (Ronaldo, like Alonso, left England this summer, but as with Alonso, his reputation was gained here.) More crucially, those six players cost United an average of £19m, and as it dates back further, cost even more in a ‘real' sense. Apparently Benítez doesn't buy well under £10m, but Reina, Agger, Benayoun, Kuyt, Skrtel, Riera, Insua, Crouch, Garcia, Sissoko, Lucas, Aurelio and Arbeloa all cost less than that amount. A year ago everyone was criticising Benítez for wasting money on Yossi Benayoun. Now those ‘experts' fail to acknowledge the canniness in paying just £5m for such a clever player. Incredibly, signing Fernando Torres is now being redefined as a ‘no brainer', whereas at the time many doubts were voiced and eyebrows raised about a player who was not believed to be a prolific goalscorer, moving to a new country. So even that masterstroke gets downgraded to a decision a monkey could have made. Well, no wonder you can criticise a manager, if you're making it up as you go along. These are the things that irritate me, and so many people I've spoken to, who have told me that they will stop buying newspapers as a result.

TOMKINS: TIME FOR UNDERSTANDING Paul Tomkins 02 November 2009
	Well, I can't think of many more bizarre and depressing conclusions to a game than that.
The Fulham fixture was the penultimate match in a run of 11 games with no fewer than eight away, and only three at home. Only two of the past seven games have been at Anfield. So it was a horrible sequence, and far from indicative of the roughly 50-50 split you expect. It also included games against Chelsea, Man United and Arsenal, plus Fiorentina and Lyon in the Champions League. None was against a team lower than mid-table. So, despite poor results, it was not your average run of games. Of the defeats, only those against Fiorentina, Lyon (which could have been so different had the second goal come) and Sunderland were hard to argue with (even if the Sunderland goal was worth a full-blown argument). By December 5, the sequence will extend to 11 away games compared with a paltry five at home. So on paper it doesn't get any easier. Thankfully it then switches, with four out of the next six at Anfield. Add in a bit of an injury crisis, with almost an entire team absent at Craven Cottage, a thoroughly ludicrous red card (Degen) and goals conceded against the run of play, and it all got a bit surreal. Liverpool were not outstanding, but they were not awful either; for the first 60-or-so minutes it was the kind of fairly impressive 'by the book' possession-based away display you'd have seen 25 years ago, just lacking a bit of cutting edge, as might be expected with so many of those who can supply it absent. But by the end, with nine men, and an incredibly young set of players left out there, it was desperate stuff at times, as you'd expect. No red card at all last season, or this, until last week; now three in two league matches. Jamie Carragher found himself in three similar situations, and while none looked a clear sending off to me, there was probably a totting up process involved, even if that's not legal in terms of the decision process; in other words, the benefit of the doubt ran out, whether or not it was fair. In each instance he was putting pressure on the forward, but on no occasion did they have the ball under control. Going to a place where United were well beaten last season with so many players absent made it tougher; as did the need to not cause a recurrence of Torres' injury. At Anfield I'd have still expected a victory, but away from home it's naturally more tricky, especially when the pressure is on. At 1-1 Liverpool were in control, although the sight of Torres leaving the field will have lifted the home team, and the Reds were not creating enough clear cut chances. That would be my main criticism. The second Fulham goal was particularly frustrating, as Kuyt had bust a gut to keep the ball in, only to find his hard work rewarded Fulham. In hindsight, he'd have been better letting it go for a throw. But hindsight really is a wonderful thing. With that in mind, I would ask this: why does the average fan, or, given their ceaseless negativity, almost every football pundit (who have never managed, yet appear to know it all) have to 'understand' a manager's decision? It's fine to have your opinions. But they, like mine, mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. They are made without full knowledge, from the safety of... ( – wherever – ). These opinions do not affect anything, and they are not affected by the realities of what is taking place. We can say "keep Torres on!", but we do not know what could have happened had he stayed on; we wouldn't have had to carry the can for any aggravation of his injury, or get flak for losing while he was in the treatment room. If he'd stayed on and got injured, we could have said "You should have taken him off!" Commentators joke about it "being a lot easier up here", but still put the boot in all the same. Against United, Torres was sacrificed after 80 minutes, with the game delicately poised. It was barely mentioned. In the event, his replacement sealed the victory. Of course, had United equalised, or worse still, gone on to win, the Torres decision would have been ripped apart, even though it was a necessity. Because, as observers, we can always have it both ways. We can always damn for what happens and also condemn for what might have happened. If every decision a manager makes is understandable, then that would suggest that they are easy, and obvious. Therefore, it suggests a job that anyone could do. Clearly this is not the case. We ask our accountants, or computer technicians, or mechanics, to do work we don't understand. We trust that they know better; if we tried to tell them how to do their job better, without similar training, experience or knowledge, they'd tell us where to go. We trust that they understand the small details. Not so with football managers. With football, everyone knows better. As a bit of fun, a bit of banter, that's all right. But as a proper reasoned analysis, I'm not convinced. And what alarms me is the utter certainty of people who've probably never even been near a football pitch in their lives, either to watch or to play, and of those who know the game, but not the role of management. For instance, taking off Benayoun at Fulham to bring on a fresh, eager young goalscorer. Whether or not you agree with that is up to you; it’s a judgement call. It comes with no guarantees. But as a decision it is effectively rendered null and void by the immediate dismissal of Philipp Degen, for what was never a sending off in a million years. (David Bentley wasn't even booked for a far worse tackle earlier in the day.) Any chance Nathan Eccleston had of coming on and making a name for himself, with a bit of league debut energy, was curtailed not by Benitez but by the referee's bizarre decision. While Liverpool equalising looked far from a certainty, there will have been more of a chance than before Degen's dismissal. That put Liverpool under far greater pressure, and led to the Carragher sending off, with the Reds outnumbered. Taking off Torres is another decision that seems easy to attack, but the season lasts well beyond Fulham and Lyon; Torres has not been 100 per cent fit, therefore the last 30 minutes were a risk. Of course, taking him off is a risk too, and a boost to the opposition. That's the reality of management: a rock and a hard-place; damned if you do, and so easily damned if you don't. Whatever is said about Rafa's tactics, last week against United Liverpool could have been undone when Valencia hit the bar. However good Liverpool looked, they got the much-needed breaks at the right time. Against Arsenal and Fulham, they didn't. Against Arsenal, a player was allowed to block a goal-bound shot with both hands. I didn't write in the aftermath of last weekend's win that Rafa was a tactical genius in the way he set up and then made alterations, and I'm not saying the exact opposite now. Whatever you do, games turn on little moments, and often they are beyond the control of the man on the touchline. For me, the decision I've least understood from any manager - ever - was when Rafa took off Steven Gerrard in the Mersey derby at Goodison a couple of seasons back. In that moment, I thought it was insane. Surely the last player you take off in a pulsating Mersey derby is the local lad and captain who is playing with his heart on his sleeve? However, Gerrard, with an understandable desire, was trying to take on Everton all on his own, and as soon as Lucas replaced him, Liverpool became a team again, passing and breaking down their 10-man rivals by moving the ball. In the last minute, Lucas effectively 'scored' the goal to win the game (only denied by an outrageous 'goalkeeping' save from Phil Neville, who was sent off, and the spot-kick converted by Kuyt). Clearly Benítez saw something that I, and almost any other observer, didn't, because not only did it lead to the win, it led to a more coherent display. That taught me that left-field decisions are made for a reason; reasons often well beyond our comprehension. But they can always go for or against. They can always look inspired, or foolish. Whatever you do right in football, things can so easily go wrong. But that is what good managers do: they make decisions. And on balance, over the course of his Liverpool career, Benítez's judgement calls have been successful. However, it's obviously easy in a time of struggles to just focus on those you believe he got wrong, and, for instance, blame the lack of a title challenge in 2007-08 on omitting Torres against Birmingham, and so on. Some managers make equally bold decisions but in other ways: I've often seen all three substitutions made at half-time. That often gets credit from the media. But one injury, and you're in trouble. Spurs lost against Stoke at home last week when they ran out of subs and ended up with 10 men. Towards the end of his massively successful reign, and with his team still the best in England, Kenny Dalglish was torn apart for fielding three full-backs in midfield away at Arsenal. I even heard it mentioned by one commentator recently. What wasn't mentioned was that the Reds won. Which just goes to show that managers are questioned, even when they get it right; just as Benitez was when Lucas inspired Liverpool to a win in the derby. With that in mind, who'd be a manager on those days when you lose?