TOMKINS: END TO FRUSTRATION?
Paul Tomkins 15 September 2009

I have to say that, for a number of reasons, I found the start to this season to be one of the most frustrating periods I can recall as a Liverpool fan.
That doesn't mean it was the worst spell in terms of performances or points – far from it. But so much pressure and expectation was building that, like a faulty pressure-relief valve, something had to give. Now expectations can be rebuilt in manageable increments. It seems that there is no longer any option but to win every game, or it's a disaster. A slow start, a few points dropped – you're finished. It becomes a way of thinking that's hard to resist. Never mind that United started last season slowly. Never mind that after a couple of weeks of this campaign, Arsenal were once again held up as the paragons of the sport; now they've lost back-to-back games (admittedly both in Manchester) and suddenly it's not so sunny for them. Last season Liverpool were criticised for not beating the smaller teams often enough, particularly at Anfield, and drawing too many games. This season, which is still in its infancy, both problems have thus far been remedied 100 per cent. On that score, so far so good. But it's rarely that simple; this time there was that aberration against Aston Villa – the kind any team suffers in any season, but the kind that cannot become habitual; and when it's only the third game, there are naturally fewer victories in the bag to assuage fears that this is the new norm. Now we have pundits – with memories that an amnesiac goldfish (who has just died) put to shame – saying that it doesn't matter about beating the smaller clubs, Liverpool have to beat the big boys. Eh? No wonder I sometimes sense that Rafa Benítez cannot win, and that these experts cannot lose. It seems that whatever Rafa does, he should have done the opposite – an opinion always handed down after the event by men who've never been in the same position. Another commentator said that Liverpool were still playing "two holding midfielders" against Burnley. Incredible. No matter that the captain got forward like a man possessed – the fact that it was a Benítez team led to that crass statement. I think these people often speak first and think later, prattling away in autopilot; making slips of the tongue that reveal their prejudices. Rafa could deploy Torres in central midfield and he too would be labelled a 'holder'. Ignore the reality, reiterate the stereotype. Take another example of this supposed negativity: certain pundits criticise Liverpool for bringing back everyone for a corner. Typical cautious Benítez, they imply. And yet look at how many goals the Reds score from opposition set-pieces, such as with Dirk Kuyt's goal on Saturday. Bringing everyone back tempts more opposition players forward. But it also then leaves acres of space to break into. And it can therefore be the best way to break down a negative opponent; the one time they are drawn out. If Torres stayed up front for a corner, he would be marked when possession is won, and have his back to goal. But breaking from a corner en masse makes it far harder to be picked up. And if you get a head-start, no-one can catch you; and it helps that you're running in the right direction, with acres to attack. Kuyt's goal came about with a five-v-five by the time the ball got to the Burnley area from their own corner; hardly negative! Most of the time I go to great lengths to disprove other people's certainties, rather than offer my own; not because I have no opinion to give, but because nothing is ever that clear cut. Who can be certain of anything in football? I can say this: it's not how you do against the big teams, or the little teams, or at home, or away – at least in isolation. Get points any which way you can, and if, by mid-May, you have more than everyone else, you win the league. The points you drop won't matter. As well as starting slowly, United did poorly against the big teams but still won the league last season. Two things champions supposedly can't do, they did. There were others, too, like losing more games than other teams and scoring fewer goals. They also rotated the most, another thing that supposedly only leads to failure. That doesn't mean that starting slowly, having a poor record in the big games, scoring fewer goals and losing more matches than rivals is the route to glory. It doesn't mean that making 140 team-sheet changes in a season guarantees success. It just means that anyone who says that avoiding these things is critical for success is misleading you. Some seasons the champions will have excellent away records, other seasons not so. Sometimes the top scorers win the title, other years the best defences do; then there are those occasions when it's neither the most prolific scorers nor the best defenders, but instead those who have a very steady record in both areas who prevail: not the most exciting, nor the most stingy, but the best balanced. There's no magic formula, no foolproof plan. You can address your weaknesses, as Benítez has done by bringing in Glen Johnson, but a football team is not limitless in its capacity to improve without taking a hit somewhere else. Perhaps at times it's like trying to squeeze some added flavour into a glass full to the brim (in that you can only have 11 players). You can pour some new liquid in, but another ingredient will always be forced out. Put a top-class player in, and at least something else will be lost somewhere. It's not like you can add a 12th player to the team-sheet, so that you add without any subsequent subtraction. A manager can but hope that, on balance, whatever he plumps for proves the better decision, but it doesn't prevent some drawbacks. For me, it always comes back to balance. Last season it was more-or-less spot-on for the most part, particularly in the run-in, but changes this season, along with injuries, were always going to alter that, in the short term at least. But it's getting there again now. So all in all I'm feeling happier this week, and more relaxed, but this really could be a season of an unusually high amount swings of fortune amongst the big teams. I'm now a little more prepared for that. Chelsea are currently riding the high of a new manager (and fewer injuries than in recent years) and Manchester City are riding the high of a whole new team. Sometimes change provides a spark, other times it causes a stutter. I don't know how you can tell in advance. But these teams will surely have their wobbles. There are no rules, but no team has yet had a perfect season. Arsenal went unbeaten in 2004, but they dropped more points than Chelsea did a year later. I said a couple of weeks ago that I felt Liverpool losing two games early on added pressure, and afforded less breathing space. It clearly made it harder. However, I also noted that a run of wins, and suddenly the complexion can alter radically. Sometimes defeats can crumple confidence, other times they can inspire resistance. Liverpool have shown the latter, and if that continues then a real momentum could build up. Familiar Feeling Take away the opening day defeat at Spurs, when rustiness can always be an issue (and the Reds were denied a penalty to get out of jail), and you have a run of four games that, whisper it quietly, have a lot of the hallmarks of what worked so well towards the end of last season, with some added bonuses. The three-or-more goal run the Reds went on has been matched against Stoke, Bolton and Burnley – not the most talented sides, granted, but some of the tough, in-your-face outfits that can cause problems. The famous comeback courage was in evidence at the Reebok, while Liverpool ran in eight without reply in those other two games, to show greater ruthlessness in these types of fixtures. The Villa result was the real spanner in the works, but the free-flowing, attacking football is now in evidence again. Against battered Burnley, there was a first-half moment when Emiliano Insua squared to Glen Johnson in the penalty area – but incredibly not their own! – as Liverpool's two most advanced players, up front alongside Fernando Torres. Cautious Liverpool, eh? Fluid, more like. Gerrard, Torres and Kuyt continue to score at impressive rates, with goals also now shared around with the wonderfully impressive Johnson, who has two strikes, plus four assists, already to his name. We've not seen him yet, but Aquilani can be another goal threat and creative force; his fitness could provide a timely boost, and, of course, there's no less chance of him being overtired for the run-in. Meanwhile, Andriy Voronin keeps coming off the bench to create chances and take up intelligent positions. He's not a glamour player, but he knows how to play quick one-touch football. Perhaps most encouragingly, Yossi Benayoun – the joker in the pack with his impact last season – has bagged his first league hat-trick (he just needs one in the League Cup to complete a remarkable quartet), and was unlucky not to have six against Burnley. What a display. In this form he is one of the league's best talents, and his goals can make a huge difference to the fortunes of this side. That makes five players with two or more league goals to their names already, to once again show that the goals are not limited to the pair who make the biggest headlines. So yes, perhaps Liverpool won't get as many points in the big head-to-heads as last season (repeating that trick will take some doing), but it's the overall record that determines how well a team does. And that means that the Reds could feasibly lose more games and still end up with more points. And if more than last season's 86 points still isn't enough to win the title, then you can't have too many complaints.

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.

TOMKINS: REMEMBER ME?
Paul Tomkins 28 July 2009

One of the most interesting aspects of this year's pre-season has been the chance to see some players who weren't really featuring last year, including some who many didn't expect to still be at the club.
Some forgotten men now have a chance to stake a claim, their slates wiped clean. And Liverpool have quite a few of these men who are like the proverbial 'new signings'. The first name discussed has to be Andriy Voronin. Not many senior players go out on loan and come back to stake a claim. Voronin could yet be an important addition to the squad. I was extremely impressed with him during his first few months at the club in 2007-08, before injury struck and he lost his form. He was the star of that pre-season, and shone in the opening month once the campaign proper got underway. Since then he's had an excellent season back in Germany, on loan at Hertha Berlin, and rediscovered some confidence and belief. He may never be ultra-prolific, but he does a bit of everything, and has good game intelligence. I was encouraged to hear Rafa Benítez saying that the Ukrainian wanted to fight for his place. Voronin is a good technical player, who can create as well as score, but he has to fit in with the Liverpool work ethic, and keep motivated even though the first choice pairing will be Steven Gerrard and Fernando Torres. So far he seems determined to be as good as his word. The same applies to Ryan Babel, who has looked very determined ahead of the new season. He's a player whose game hasn't quite clicked together yet, but who has so many of the assets that can do real damage to the opposition. I still think there's a very special player in there, but it's a question of how to bring that out of him, and whether he has the natural confidence to reach his full potential. He was limited mostly to cameo roles last season, and even in most of his starts he's flitted in and out of games. His next challenge has to be to assert himself on proceedings, and not disappear for periods of matches. But with a lot of the football going through Gerrard and Torres, and the right side likely to be very strong with Kuyt or Benayoun and Glen Johnson getting forward, it's unlikely he'll regularly find himself in a position to dominate games. He has to make an impression in the early minutes, and then will find the ball coming his way a lot more often. Hopefully the other left winger, Albert Riera, will now be used to the rigours of a 'full English' (season, that is, although maybe the breakfast too), and he's more experienced and tactically aware than Babel. I'm a big fan of Riera's quick and clever passing, and his close control, but Babel has that explosive pace that can get in behind defences, and, you suspect, potential to score the greater amount of goals. It'll be interesting to see who prevails. Another attacker, Krisztian Nemeth, missed most of last season through injury, just when it looked like he would force his way into the squad. He has good feet and a quick brain, but maybe lacks the pace to make an impact at a young age; it tends to be the real speedsters who break through quickest, while the thinkers come of age later on. Nemeth looks to be more of a natural finisher than David Ngog, but the young Frenchmen has an excellent all-round game: pace, technique, a centre-forward's height and improving strength. I had doubts that he was ready in his early games last season, but by the end of the campaign he had come on leaps and bounds. He still has a lot to learn about English football, and, at just 20, the game in general, but I think he's a very special player in the making. Philipp Degen has yet to even get started, and the arrival of Glen Johnson won't help his chances of being a regular. But if he can stay fit, he can only be a positive addition to the ranks; another option, to bolster the squad and provide both cover and competition. Certainly not a forgotton man by any stretch of the imagination, Fernando Torres missed half of last season's league campaign, while Daniel Agger missed even more football. These two will surely add to the points haul at Anfield if they stay fit this time around. Everyone knows how good those two are. But I don't think footballers should ever be put into strict categories when they've yet to prove themselves: 'rubbish', 'flop', 'not good enough for Liverpool', etc. When someone has left the club I'm more prepared to use those terms, because a final conclusion can be reached and a line drawn under their time at Anfield. But while they are still at the club, there is always scope to improve. You have to keep an open mind. I spent a lot of time between the summer of 2007 (dating back to before he even arrived) and last winter defending Yossi Benayoun to some critics. Not every signing can have the wow factor upon arrival, and not every player will get the regular opportunities in the team to find his groove. It depends on what you expect from a player. Not everyone is destined to be a first-team regular. So everyone has to be judged in the correct context. If you compare everyone with Gerrard or Torres, then of course 99 per cent of players will fall short. But all successful sides have their less glamourous individuals, particularly so in the squad age. In the case of Benayoun, I saw a perfect squad player. Clever, mobile, skilful, and with an eye for goal. For the money, it was a deal that made perfect sense. Was he special enough to be a shoo-in back in 2007? I didn't think so. But then in the latter half of 2008-09 it just clicked. He scored against Wigan, then produced a storming cameo against Chelsea; suddenly he was flying. For the last three months of the season he was one of the stars of the Premiership. So players can come good. Does that mean that the likes of Bruno Cheyrou or Sean Dundee should have been kept in case they eventually looked the part? Of course not. Managers have to be trusted to make those calls. He has to decide if someone is not good enough, or that he is, but just hasn't shown it yet. That's where seeing them in training every day helps, although eventually ability at Melwood has to be translated to the first team. Benítez's judgement was questioned over Benayoun. People said he was wrong to sign him, and wrong to select him at the start of this year. And that's the crazy thing about being a football manager: you have to believe that you're right, before it's proven, and knowing full well that there are no guarantees, even if the player in question does possess the necessary quality. But there are two reasons why I trust Benítez's judgement. The first is that no matter how many players he has bought (and people point to those who didn't work out), he has consistently improved the first team. The other reason is the speed with which he has acted when someone hasn't been what he was looking for. There was a decisiveness over the way he shipped out Robbie Keane after just six months, while players like Jan Kromkamp and Mark Gonzalez, who appeared to have pretty good pedigrees, were not kept for much longer. So there's a good chance Liverpool can improve on last season with the players already in the ranks. Of course, it's a rare campaign when every major player stays fit for 10 months. But a bit more luck in this sense than last season would be welcome. I don't see many players coming back at Manchester United, the Reds' obvious rivals for the title, although Owen Hargreaves being back in action is a clear benefit. Rio Ferdinand missed a few games last season, but otherwise they weren't too hamstrung. Chelsea, however, had a few major long-term absentees, such as Essien and Drogba, so they could automatically be stronger in 2009-10. Much depends on how their new manager fares, but Chelsea seem naturally well-organised. Manchester City will be a completely unknown quantity at this stage, with so many new players – players we know well, just not how they'll knit together – and Arsenal have a way of playing that means they can never be written off for a place in the top three, even if the title looks beyond them. Of course, there are also the players in all of the major squads who are as yet unheard of outside their own fanbase, who will make a name for themselves. At Liverpool, Martin Kelly (as a full-back, in his formative years) and Daniel Pacheco seem two good bets to me, as technically good, pacy players, while Mikel San Jose and Jay Spearing also look more than capable of doing a job at this early stage of their careers, albeit in positions of greater responsibility. Last year it was Yossi Benayoun who provided the biggest surprise, with Emiliano Insua the youngster who progressed the most. It'll be interesting to see who fills those roles this season.

TOMKINS ON JOHNSON AND TRANSFERS
Paul Tomkins 29 June 2009

While there are a number of journalists I like and respect, I find it's best for my peace of mind to not focus too much on transfer speculation in the newspapers.
I'm sure if you combined just a few different reports, you'd conclude that Liverpool are losing the entire first team to various other clubs, and buying 179 players in their place. While there are good journalists, there are those who appear to have been sampling the kind of mushrooms that aren't really advisable to consume. Obviously there will be truth in some stories; but I think I once saw a stat that only about 10 per cent of transfer gossip tallies with subsequent transfers. Other stories may be true but for one reason or another don't come to fruition, but you do suspect some journos have an 'invent and submit' button on their keyboards that automatically throws a few random names and prices together in time for the print deadline. For my sanity, I find it's best to just wait and see who arrives and who leaves. I don't want any player the manager wants to keep to be sold, and I want him to get his first choice targets, but it's rarely that simple. Stirring the pot is what the media has to do, to hit its own targets. Agents also benefit from creating unrest. Whatever happens will happen. If anyone genuinely wants to leave Liverpool, then I won't lose any sleep; the club needs those who want to stay and fight for that 19th league title. And I'm sure most do. Likewise, if anyone Liverpool are trying to sign wants to earn more money elsewhere rather than compete in the Champions League and contest the title, then however gifted they are, they are no loss. I want players like Fernando Torres, who eschew silly money to be part of a top-class team and play for fans who adore him. I understand the desires of those targets who want regular first-team football, which is rarely guaranteed at a top four club. This summer is vital for a number of internationals, with the World Cup on the horizon – where achievement is the ambition, not money. But Liverpool need those determined to prove themselves in the year beforehand, even if it means fighting for a place in the team. Then there's the issue of transfer fees, and what a player is 'worth'. As each individual is different, there is no set value. It's about how much the selling club need to hold out for, and how much the buying club are prepared to pay. If supposedly overpriced signings lead to success, then they are worth the money. Does Alex Ferguson care that people said Michael Carrick "wasn't an £18m player"? Of course, a transfer merry-go-round appears to have been started in motion by events in Spain. Real Madrid, humiliated by Liverpool last season and envious of Barcelona's historic and über-stylish success, have gone into overdrive, spending more than the entire cost of the current Liverpool squad on just two players, and their largesse won't stop there. The era of the galactico has returned to the Bernabeu, and the repercussions are being felt across Europe. Chelsea are threatening a return to big spending, having slipped to the third best team in the land; Manchester United have £80m for Ronaldo and AC Milan are flush with £60m for Kaka; and Manchester City are determined to be taken seriously, with more money than anyone else, but hampered by a fairly mediocre recent history and no Champions League football to offer. As a result, at a time of widespread economic belt-tightening, several clubs appear to be abandoning anything that holds up their metaphorical trousers. The knock-on effect seems to be general price rises, and an even more frenzied summer of speculation than usual. The hidden factor, as ever, is that of wages. Liverpool pay very good wages, but have only the fourth highest wage bill. Manchester United and Chelsea pay between £30m and £60m more on wages per season (based on the most recently published financial figures). If you want a £30m player, you also have to set aside £30m for the wages of his full contract. The way they are going, Man City, with their apparently bottomless pit of money, will also overtake Liverpool in this area, if they haven't already. The trump cards that the Reds have are: a sixth-successive season in the Champions League; a manager voted the best around by the readers of newspapers in several major European countries; a side capable of challenging for the Premier League title; and a cachet that, with all due respect to City and even Chelsea, puts the club up there with the likes of Barcelona, AC Milan, Bayern Munich and Juventus, thanks to serious European success and a massive global fan-base. You can add Anfield and the Kop, too. Who, then? Predictably, I am often asked who I think Liverpool should sign. Like most fans I have my favourites: those who look like good players to me. But this is always the problem with any fan's wishes – it's almost the dreaded 'Director of Football' approach: enforcing your tastes on the manager, telling him (in your mind, or on a forum) what's best for his team. It is the man in charge of the side who knows best what he wants to add to the system, and so my wish is always that the Liverpool manager gets the players he wants, whether they are ones I happen to appreciate or not. Because let's face it, not all star names will fit the system, and sometimes the manager and his scouts will have spotted something in a more unsung player. Look at Dirk Kuyt: I can think of far more vaunted wide-men, and yet he was the sixth top scorer in the entire Premier League last season, and the league's sixth top assist-maker, with not one single winger ahead of him. Given that he doesn't take the corners and free-kicks that help players rack up assists, that's a great contribution, even before considering his work-rate and general team-ethic. He's not flash, but he delivers. The manager and his scouts will check a player's background, his attitude, his lifestyle. They will be the ones looking into the player's eyes in a negotiation, to find out what motivates him. Bill Shankly always preferred players with less skill if they had more character. A lot has changed in the game, but core attributes, like commitment and temperament, remain crucial. Not tricks on YouTube. 
We can all drool over superstars, but it can do more harm than good to bring in a top player who'll disrupt the great team spirit; earning big wages – or rather, failing to 'earn' them. Again, you can't quantify such things, but that's why good managers try to buy strong characters who won't upset the apple cart. Of course, a manager can also try and find the solution from within the squad. We might think a certain position needs addressing, but he might know who's ready to step up. Emiliano Insua developed brilliantly last season, and let's not forget Yossi Benayoun's transformation from squad player to one of the league's brightest lights from February onwards. In the coming season, Ryan Babel might yet be considered for more time in his favoured position behind the main striker – that's something only the staff will know. Then there's David Ngog and Krisztian Nemeth, both of whom could be ready sooner rather than later, and also Lauri Dalla Valle and Daniel Pacheco, who also have bright futures ahead of them. My point always comes back to the manager knowing best. Not only does he have a better footballing brain than any of us (and if he didn't, we'd be in the role instead), he also has an infinitely greater amount of information relating to his current team, his budding youth prodigies and his potential targets. By contrast, we're looking through a fog. It doesn't mean that every signing he makes will work out, or that every promising kid he rates will make the grade. But it does mean he is in a far better position to make what are always going to be judgment calls: who to buy, who to promote to the first team, and when. Also, Liverpool are getting to the stage now where there's less scope for improvement. Certainly the spine is hard to better; I wouldn't swap these players for anyone. It's hard to find top players prepared to play second fiddle, so maybe an impact sub is better to find than a bigger name. Above all else, anyone who can improve the Reds' First XI could be worth his weight in gold. You pay whatever it takes to make your team better, within your budget. Glen Johnson fits the bill of what I've been talking about: someone who can add pace, skill and crossing ability from right-back; doubling up as a winger, which a) allows Kuyt to drift into the box and b) takes advantage of the massive space the Dutchman's movement can open up. Johnson's also big enough, and quick enough, to do a job at both ends. His defending is certainly underrated, perhaps because he was in a high-profile team when still very inexperienced (and reputations stick), and because, as an overlapping full-back, he will naturally be caught out of position at times; after all, you can't be in two places at once. All the same, defenders tend to improve under Rafa Benítez, and at 24, Johnson has plenty of scope to get even better. I'm still a big fan of Alvaro Arbeloa (who has also done very well on the left, particularly when man-marking), but Johnson is the perfect overlapping full-back – and if there's one thing Liverpool have lacked in comparison with the other top four teams, it's the ability to get in behind the opposition with very quick marauding defenders who become wingers when in possession. Players like Evra, Boswinga (early last season), Sagna and Cole have been as crucial to the good results of those teams as some of their more illustrious names. Arbeloa, by contrast, is more of a defender who gets forward, rather than one who naturally excels in the final third. Again, there are no guarantees that players who improve the team in theory will do so in practice. They could get injured, or homesick, or wilt under the pressure of a massive club; you just hope that good judgement comes with good luck. In the case of Johnson, he's matured, having been too young when moving to Chelsea, and crucially, is improving rapidly. But his talent has been there for all to see since his West Ham days. He has plenty of big-game experience, and unlike some players, hasn't wilted when playing for England, all of which suggests he can handle the pressure. The fact that Chelsea wanted to buy him again for four times what they sold him for, and that other top clubs were interested, shows his worth. Whatever people think he was worth, others were prepared to meet the asking price. And adding a new dimension to the Reds' play could yet prove priceless.

TOMKINS: THE PLAYERS LIVERPOOL LACKED
Paul Tomkins 08 June 2009

A lot of people have talked about what Liverpool lacked this season, and it's true that almost any team (and squad) can be improved in some way or another.
While more depth in quality can only help (providing it doesn't cause unrest/sulking), what Liverpool lacked most this past year was almost certainly in the squad all along. I've spent the last few months researching and writing 'Red Race: A New Bastion', and just one aspect has been to try and assess, amongst many other things, the true impact of each and every player in 2008-09. As well as assessing the players using eyes and gut instinct –– it doesn't need stats to tell us that the likes of Steven Gerrard and Xabi Alonso were particularly impressive –– I've tried to look into the context of those performances. And the information I've compiled (with the wonderful assistance of a few willing Reds) continues to throw up some revealing insights. How did the team do when each individual player started? How did the team perform in their absence? What was the quality of opposition they faced if, unlike Reina and Carragher, they didn't feature in every league game? What form was the opposition experiencing at the time of each match they played in? Four names in particular have leapt out from the analysis, not least because they are four key 'spine' players who missed a reasonable amount of football this past year. I think we've seen this season that Liverpool don't 'rely' on any one player anymore. Enough games were won in the absence of Gerrard and/or Torres to know that they can be missed for a game here or there, even against the toughest sides. But take the best players out of any side for an extended period of time, or from games in which their presence is especially vital to what the manager wants to achieve, and that team will inevitably suffer. First of all, a word of praise for Martin Skrtel, before noting the skills of his main rival for a place in the team. On average the Slovakian played against higher quality opposition (based on final league positions) than Daniel Agger. However, the latter tended to play against teams who were more in-form at the time (based on their previous five results). Skrtel's more robust, no-prisoners style was certainly helpful at places like Old Trafford and Goodison Park. But whichever way I looked at the figures, Agger came out as one of the season's most influential figures; all the more amazing considering that he had his own injury struggles, both at the start of the campaign (after missing virtually all of the previous season) and in the New Year. I still don't think he reached his best levels, mostly due to those injuries, but he adds something special to the side. When Agger played, Liverpool won 78 per cent of league games, as opposed to the 66 per cent average of the full 38-game season. Perhaps it was just a coincidence that he was fit at the times when the team was on form, and that has to be considered with any of these findings. But if the team does well when containing certain players, even if they don't have their best games as individuals, it suggests something is working. The average points-per-game when the Dane featured was 2.4, which was more than United's 2.3 to reach 90 points. Agger started against Arsenal twice, and away at Chelsea, so it's not like he only faced the cannon fodder. However, the reason I've also assessed the quality of the opposition, and their form at the time, is to try and put such averages into some kind of context. When excluding those who made only a couple of appearances, the star in terms of these Premiership averages was Emiliano Insua, with a 90 per cent win rate (nine wins, one draw), and an average of 2.78 points every time he played (or 105 points extrapolated over 38 games!). But the context is that the quality and form of the opposition were both below average; not massively, but enough to suggest he played in more 'winnable' games than some other players. Even so, he deserves great credit for how he performed. On average, Agger played against fractionally better opposition than Insua, but in far more games against sides in good form. Liverpool lost as many games with Agger as they did without (one), but perhaps crucially, only 11 of the 20 games he missed were won, with 8 draws. So the stats suggest what many fans sense: that Agger's extra quality on the ball helps Liverpool win more games, whereas the other defenders excel at stopping the opposition. Given that Agger featured in just under half of the league games, it's tempting to think how much more he could offer next season, if fit –– particularly in those home games against negative opposition, when draws need to become wins. By stepping into midfield at the right times, he opens up teams. But Agger wasn't the player whose absence was most keenly felt; surprisingly, neither was it Torres. While they only missed five and seven games respectively, Alonso and Gerrard's absences reduced Liverpool's win-ratio to just over 40 per cent. None of these games were lost, but the majority were drawn. When Torres was missing, which was a lot more often, Liverpool's win-rate also dropped below its 38-game average, but not massively. But there is an interesting anomaly with Torres, and the same applies to Alonso. Of all the most vital players, Torres and Alonso, on average, faced the toughest opposition. It puts their own performances into context: I recently wrote about how Torres scored mostly against top opposition this season, but having now gone through his appearance record in fine detail, that's because injuries tended to rule him out of the games against weaker opponents. Ditto Alonso. Games like Wigan and Stoke away were draws that his scheming could have helped win; not least because at the time he was in imperious form, before sustaining an ankle injury against Preston in the FA Cup. It's also fair to point out at this stage that on average Albert Riera faced the toughest opposition of any Liverpool player, and of the season's star performers, Yossi Benayoun featured against the weakest. Riera also faced teams who were in good form, whereas Benayoun tended to play against teams lower in confidence. However, in the second half of the season, when he found his own confidence, Benayoun was an undoubted trump card. Riera's contribution was to add a new tactical element (genuine width) that saw the Reds' do so well against the rest of the top five: eight games, and he started them all, as his clever positioning opened up space for others. Perhaps he tired towards the end of the season because not only was it his first full Premiership campaign, but he'd played in the toughest games, too. Winning matches has become more important than ever before. In his five seasons, Benítez has twice posted a win percentage (66 per cent) better than in 17 of the club's 18 title triumphs. But Liverpool came 3rd and 2nd in these recent campaigns. And to win lots of games, you need to be able to rotate. Originally Benítez was told by pundits, 'Play your best XI every week.' No-one said anything about having a strong squad, other than the back-ups, while good, should only really play in emergencies. One major newspaper even ran a piece a couple of months back saying that Rafa's rotating went against the wisdom of Bob Paisley, ignoring how something that was right 30 years ago was not necessarily so in the modern age. It was a bizarre article. Did Paisley use ancient tactics? Of course not. This season, despite a number of recurrent injuries to key players (meaning they were constantly in and out of the team), Rafa made his usual amount of changes: on average, three per game. And Alex Ferguson? Almost four per game, easily the most by any manager in the past five years (the time covered by my records, and therefore almost certainly the most ever, given its relative newness). On no fewer than 15 occasions Ferguson made five or more changes from one league game to the next. But it worked. And that's always been my argument: there's no set amount of rotation necessary to succeed, and it also depends on the strength of your squad. All the same, rotation is an essential part of the modern game. Anyone who still denies that is living in the past. Who rotated least out of the top six? Aston Villa. By a long chalk. In a throwback to the old days, Martin O'Neill barely changed his side. The result? A great team for two-thirds of the season, before ultimately finishing with obvious tiredness, to drop out of the top four, and eventually finish below Everton. This seriously suggests that keeping your strongest side is no longer the answer, and that whatever the depth to your squad, you need to keep players fresh for 10 months, not six, in the high intensity age. While Fulham also largely eschewed rotation, they didn't have Europe to contend with, which meant far more recovery time, and far less travelling. Of course, Villa only had the Uefa Cup –– they weren't playing Europe's elite. So rotation becomes even more necessary when you play a tough Premiership game on a Saturday, a top European team midweek, and face another tough league fixture a few days later. Add all this together, and you can see the delicate balance necessary in order to keep the best players at their peak physical condition from August to May –– but also how the key players, while in need of tactical resting to keep them in top shape, have to be available to the manager for the vast majority of the campaign to succeed. Perhaps the most telling stat of the season is that the 14 times Gerrard and Torres started together, Liverpool won points at a rate that would have broken the English league record when extrapolated over 38 games. Without them starting, the total was a surprisingly impressive –– but not quite title-challenging –– 79. By contrast, the seven games Cristiano Ronaldo failed to start for United resulted in a pro-rata points haul of 76 points, a serious drop from the 90 they actually posted, which indicates just how important he is to them. But the major difference this season was that Alex Ferguson could name his best side three times as often as Benítez. ('Best' meaning the inclusion of those key men who play in all major games, if fit.) Only four times this season were Reina, Carragher, Gerrard, Alonso, Torres and Mascherano in the same starting XI. Ferguson could start his six 'key core' players together on 12 occasions. That the games in which Torres and Gerrard did start were also against better-than-average opposition in better-than-average form tells us this: what might have been. Oh, and what might yet soon be...

TOMKINS: THERE WILL BE NO REPEAT OF 2002
Paul Tomkins 26 May 2009

Enough points to win the league on numerous occasions, the best goal difference, the top scorers, unbeaten at home and the fewest-ever defeats for a team who weren’t crowned champions.
If you can't see the positives about 2009-10 (and more are listed in the excellent 28 reasons why Reds should be proud piece on the official site), I can't imagine where you're looking.
But of course, it still reads 'runners-up' and even that high-water mark is registered for only the second time in 17 years. However, despite some people drawing the obvious conclusions, I see absolutely no reason to expect a repeat of what happened the last time Liverpool finished 2nd in the league. While the summer of 2002 should serve as a reminder to any team that annual progression isn't automatic, that doesn't mean there are any parallels between then and now. The problem wasn't so much the players signed in 2002 –– although they proved pretty disastrous –– as those who left the club. Liverpool lost Robbie Fowler, Gary McAllister, Nick Barmy, Jamie Redknapp, Christian Ziege, Jari Litmanen and Nicolas Anelka over the course, or at the end of that season, while Markus Babbel's unfortunate illness meant he'd played his last game for the Reds, having settled brilliantly in the Treble season. While some of those players were past their best, injury prone or had simply failed to shine, there still appears an impressive cachet to those names. Certain departures were inevitable, most notably that of Gary McAllister, whose time, at 37, was undeniably up. But maybe two or three of those names could have been kept on –– particularly Anelka, who, seven years on, has just finished as the league's top scorer, while the loss of Babbel was simply unfortunate. Experience was traded for youth, as Gerard Houllier swapped some of his own big-name signings for supposedly up-and-coming talent, and in the end, the younger players brought in failed to take the club to the next level. Indeed, the squad on the whole was weakened in terms of depth, from the very point when the Frenchman had appeared to be on the verge of a serious title challenge. I find it hard to fault his first four years, but nothing was the same after that summer. Put simply, too many good players left the club, and that just won't happen in 2009. Meanwhile, two of the three main signings –– Diouf and Diao –– went into the spine of the team. Seven summers later, the spine is very much in place. Not only that, the seven first-choice players have a very good average age (27.6), with only Jamie Carragher in his 30s. Everyone else is either in, or approaching, his peak. While everyone goes on about how young United's side is, their spine averages at 28.2 years of age (for the record, that's not including Giggs or Scholes). Chelsea's spine, meanwhile, averages at over 29, which in itself is not a problem right now, but suggests an overhaul will be necessary at some stage. While losing Hyypia could be compared with the exit of McAllister, the difference is that there are three brilliant centre-backs already at the club; the Finn's replacements are already bedded in. I do agree with Rafa in that it's important he has success in the transfer market this summer, simply because the task is to overtake a team at the peak of its powers; and that means perfection has to be sought in every area, to provide the best chance of doing so. Of course, if you go back over the history of transfers, even the best managers only tend to have an outright success rate of about 50 per cent; but those they do get right, they get really right. And at best, these normally work out at one top-rate player per-season. So far, Benitez has certainly done that with Torres, Alonso, Reina, Mascherano, Skrtel and Agger, with others like Kuyt, Aurelio and Benayoun adding to their reputations. If Benitez makes three signings and just one proves a roaring success, that can lift the team to new levels; another signing who succeeds, even to a lesser degree, and the squad will look a lot stronger. Some signings from last summer didn't work out as well as hoped, but at the very least they played some part in a number of victories (bar Degen, on account of injury), while Albert Riera has definitely added an important new dimension in terms of his style of play, and the width he provides. It's also important to remember that just four months ago people were writing off Yossi Benayoun, halfway through his second season; and yet since February he's played as well as anyone at Liverpool, and therefore, based on the club's imperious form in that time, as well as anyone in the country. Suddenly a squad player looks like a shoo-in, scoring goals no matter where he plays. Therefore, the improvement of a number of Reds this season shows that 'flops', 'so-so'; talents and supposed squad men can turn things around. On top of that, first-class players like Xabi Alonso and Steven Gerrard are still improving; another year on, and we could see five or six major players continuing to get better. In particular, I expect Daniel Agger, still only 25, to play a much bigger role, now that his injury problems appear to be behind him, and for Javier Mascherano to have a more consistent season; we've seen the best of him of late, but not before Christmas. As an aside regarding Mascherano, I was amazed to see one journalist on TV this weekend say, and I quote, "fantastic in that role [of holding midfielder], and basically he gets left out all the time." What next? Why doesn't Rafa play Pepe Reina more? It's worth pointing out, in reply to this baffling assertion, that Michael Carrick, vaunted by all and sundry this season, has started just one more game than Mascherano, despite United's 10 extra matches. Darren Fletcher, the United player who performs a similar role to the Argentine, also started just one more match than Masch, despite the Argentine being away for the Olympics, having some injury niggles and obviously excluded after extremely arduous trips to South America for World Cup qualifiers. Any major matches, and Mascherano is on the team sheet, providing he's not just back from from a round-the-world trip. Of course, Alex Ferguson, who has rotated more than his Liverpool counterpart this season, is a 'genius' for keeping his midfield fresh, but heaven forbid if Rafa tries the exact same approach! It's as if there must always be a stick with which to beat Rafa, to the point of inventing fictions. Anyway, with all my previous points in mind, I think there are many valid reasons to expect an even better season next time out. And while I will list further reasons, I feel it must be prefixed with the caveat that unexpected things can go wrong (particularly serious injuries), while other teams won't be standing still, either. For starters, Fernando Torres will surely play more games. Spain have a fairly busy summer, but it's nothing like last year's, which came at the end of a tough and tiring first season in English football for the striker. It wasn't just the time missed this season with injuries, but the stop-start nature, as he continually gained and then lost match sharpness. If Gerrard and Torres play more league games together, it can only bode well. It's fairly remarkable that Liverpool finished as the Barclays Premier League's top scorers given their injuries and a perceived lack of depth up front, particularly after the sale of Robbie Keane, and with potential fill-in Krisztian Nemeth injured. Next, as well as no European Championships, there's no Olympic games. I don't think it's a coincidence that the three Liverpool players (the most from any English club) who went –– Mascherano, Babel and Lucas –– struggled in the aftermath. It wasn't so much the games that they missed as not experiencing the proper preparations for an English season. Another positive is that certain players have now 'proved' themselves; earned their liverbird wings, if you will. It doesn't mean their form cannot subsequently dip, but I feel that players like Benayoun, Kuyt, Aurelio and Arbeloa won over their doubters, and perhaps more importantly, proved to themselves that they can do more than simply hold down a place in the side; they have all shone. Also, Lucas Leiva will surely benefit from a difficult first half of the season; the way he performed in the second half of the campaign, particularly from Old Trafford onwards, shows that he's a better player than many gave him credit for. It's almost a rite of passage for a youngster play himself through a really sticky patch in form; once he's done that, it adds psychological strength and builds character. A little more physical strength (which he's working on) and he can become an ever-more valuable member of the squad. Next, there's a lot of young talent on the fringes. Of course, this is true of most top clubs, but at least Liverpool have their own crop. This season saw the emergence of Emiliano Insua, who now looks very much at home in the first team. It was a shame that injuries kept Nemeth out of the picture; it's too soon to say how far he'll go in the game, but he appears to have that little something extra that marks out top talents. And as I've mentioned a few times of late, after an understandably inauspicious start David Ngog is coming along very nicely, and looking stronger in every sense. Jay Spearing will also be pushing for a place in the squad. I'm also curious to see if Daniel Pacheco makes the step-up in 2009-10. He's not the biggest, but he has bags of skill and an impressive turn of pace. If he matures in time, he could be a handy weapon in breaking down packed defences at Anfield. None of these players are anything like certainties for even a place on the bench next season, but at least the potential is there. Another important difference is that for the first time under Benítez there is no need to play a Champions League qualifier. That means two fewer games, and not being a match behind in the league from the second week onwards. Crucially, Sami Hyypia aside, I don't see any other key squad players departing. If Liverpool can add proven quality players without losing any of their own, the squad has to get stronger. That can make keeping everyone happy even tougher, but it's what Alex Ferguson has had to do, and a reason he has rotated so much. Finally, Liverpool won't have to go to Middlesbrough next season; nothing against them, but it has never been a happy hunting ground! The flip-side to that is that Newcastle tended to be an almost guaranteed six points a season, as were West Brom. So, plenty to feel genuinely optimistic about, as Liverpool look to build from a position of strength. I don't think I've ever been so disappointed at a season ending. I wish it was August already

TOMKINS: FINNISH FINALE
Paul Tomkins 20 May 2009

For years I've been saying that Sami Hyypia will play until his late 30s, maybe even beyond. Secretly I hoped that it would be with Liverpool, but few players go beyond 35 at the very best clubs.
And those who do are almost certainly no longer regulars. So it's no surprise to see him transfer his undoubted quality to another top European league.
It's fair to say that this season Sami has been fourth choice centre-back, but some fourth choice! It always amazes me in lists of the best imports to English football that the name of Sami Hyypia isn't right near the top. Indeed, some lists don't even include him. Of course, a defender is less likely to make the big headlines. But he's been a bit above the norm: a mixture of old-style British physical centre-back stature (in the mould of Ron Yeats or Larry Lloyd) with a cool, calm and collected style more in keeping with Alan Hansen. While less of a playmaker from the back than Hansen, and not a long-distance passer like Daniel Agger, Hyypia's ability on the ball marked him out as something special. Perhaps due his time in midfield in Holland, he never panicked no matter where he received the ball; one of my favourite things about his play was how he could find a pass in tight spaces, even in the opposing half. And of all the goals he's scored - and 35 is a great total for a defender who didn't also take penalties - plenty have been cool finishes placed into the corners. Lots of headers, yes, but plenty of technical finishes most centre-backs couldn't dream about, not least the one that proved the decisive goal against Juventus in the Champions League quarter-final: a sweet left-foot volley. Only a handful of imports to the British game have a right to be rated above him, based on quality and the time spent at the top of the game. It's hard to argue with the impact of Zola, Bergkamp, Henry, Cantona, Ronaldo and one or two others, while Fernando Torres has already earned his place in the pantheon, in double-quick time, but unlike Hyypia, he's not yet been around long enough to prove his longevity, which is always a factor to consider. While Liverpool have not won the league during Sami's time at Anfield, there have been numerous trophies; far more in his decade at the club than in the previous one. And Hyypia clearly played a key role in winning those trophies. While Liverpool have improved to become a much better all-round team in the last two or three years, the flurry of trophies between 2001 and 2006 owed a large debt to the defence. There was more pressure soaked up by the back four than these days, when Liverpool have much more of the ball. Winning the 2001 UEFA Cup relied on impressive rearguard actions in Rome and Barcelona, while the FA Cup final of that season saw the Reds outplayed by a rampant Arsenal; only one goal was conceded in these three games, and that tells an important story. The 2006 FA Cup success was also built on the fact that only one goal was conceded in two ties against Manchester United and Chelsea en route to the final. Of course, nothing was more impressive than the 2005 European campaign. In the Champions League that season, Sami was immense. Not just in the final, as Milan threw everything at Liverpool once the scores were back to 3-3, but in all the hard-fought knockout games. It wasn't a particularly great side, and it needed the twin peaks of Hyypia and Carragher to keep top Italian and Spanish teams at bay. Liverpool lacked the quality that the club now possesses, with the success built on tactical nous and great character. And Hyypia was faultless in both respects. Never blessed with much pace, his game was always built on intelligence, positioning, reading the play, and perfect anticipation. And he was also as brave as a lion in almost 500 games for the club. Tough as old nails, he was also fair: not one booking during 87 matches in a row from January 2000 to October 2001, which is almost unheard of for a man in his position. Throughout the 1990s I used to enjoy 'collecting' debuts: I was at Craven Cottage when Robbie Fowler made his bow, Selhurst Park when Michael Owen came off the bench to score in his first taste of senior action, and at Anfield for Steven Gerrard's inaugural appearance as a late sub against Blackburn. I was also fortunate enough to see Sami Hyypia's full debut at Sheffield Wednesday, and his home debut against Watford. The rumblings about Fowler, Owen and Gerrard had been around for a while before each broke into the first team, but Sami Hyypia was a totally unknown quantity to most Reds. Few signings have left fans as puzzled: Sami who? My first impression in those home and away debuts was of someone totally commanding, rising and heading the ball about 50 yards up the pitch. For much of the '90s, Liverpool's defending had bordered on the comical. That was wiped away almost instantly upon the arrival of Hyppia and his initial partner, Stephane Henchoz. That partnership was good, but the one between the Finn and Jamie Carragher was better still. So just where does Sami rank in the all-time greats? In this age where the word 'legend' gets horribly over-used, does he truly deserve such an accolade? For my most recent book, 'Dynasty', I asked several leading LFC writers, journalists and high-profile long-standing fans – knowledgeable and in many case old enough to have seen the great teams of the 1960s to rate every player to represent the club since the day Bill Shankly walked through the door in 1959. Based on the averages, Sami Hyypia came 10th out of all signings, and 14th when including home-grown players. As well as rating the quality of each individual, I wanted to get an idea of the value for money each player represented in terms of transfer fee. At just £2.6m in 1999 (approximately £5m in today's market), he was again ranked 10th, when taking into account fee, number of games played and also the 'quality' rating. In these terms he clearly ranks as Liverpool's best overseas player. Of course, these ratings were collected last summer. While the majority of those top 14 players have retired or left the club, Hyypia has seen out another year; what we now know to be his last. While Sami has taught us nothing new this season, and has only featured in 18 games, his continued excellence has, if anything, only added to his legend. It's been another year of near-faultless consistency, in a fairly impressive 15 league appearances, with 12 starts; enough to win a league medal, but alas, it was a case of close but no cigar. The highlight for me in his swan-song year was how he came into the side at Old Trafford at the very last minute, when his experience helped towards an amazing 4-1 victory. It's not that he's slowing down, more that at 25, both Agger and Skrtel represent the long-term future of the club. After all, they are the same age as Hyypia when he arrived. There's still little to choose between the three, but of course, Hyypia himself has admitted that he finds it physically harder to play back-to-back games. At 35, Sami is not going to get any better, but the other two are still fairly young in a position where, injuries withstanding, the late 20s and early 30s are definitely the peak years. A manager doesn't pick his team to keep players happy, but the time had come to tie Agger to a long-term deal, and the big Finn had to look elsewhere for regular football and a two-year deal. I don't think even he'd begrudge that, and passes on the baton to two top up-and-coming players, to whom his valuable experience has also been handed. Sami leaving will hopefully be the only weakening of the entire squad this summer. In footballing terms, with his appearances diminishing, the blow is not as hard as it would once have been. But in terms of his presence around the club, a massive gap will now exist.

TOMKINS ENTERS THE TWILIGHT ZONE
Paul Tomkins 12 May 2009

The weirdness continues. It happened again at Upton Park: inexplicably, Liverpool once again entered the twilight zone, and the opposition disappeared into the Bermuda Triangle.
For some reason, teams in great form wilt and crumble when facing Liverpool. No matter how well they're playing in previous weeks, they roll over and give up the points. Clearly it has nothing to do with the Reds being a top side who quash the life out of a side before (or whilst) imposing their own attacking will; it's just yet another collective off-day for the team they're playing. It dates back to the Real Madrid game. Madrid were in superb form – and then Liverpool won at the Bernabeu, before thrashing them at Anfield. Suddenly the double Spanish champions were hailed as the worst Madrid side in eons, and were labelled rubbish in both games. Then came Sunderland, who in fairness were on a bit of a roll coming to Anfield. But they were seen off with little concern, as the visitors' good run came to an end. Limp Sunderland, etc... Next, Manchester United were experiencing their best run of home form for donkey's years, with 12 straight wins at Old Trafford and 11 straight league victories, yet were beaten 4-1. Funnily enough, it was they who, for no good reason, just didn't play well, in the one game where no motivation was necessary and where confidence wasn't an issue. Of course, it had nothing to do with them not being allowed to play well. Admittedly Aston Villa, still flying high in the league, were on a bit of a decline when coming to Anfield, although, naturally, they were only beaten 5-0 because of their own deficiencies. Next, Fulham were in the best form of their Premiership lives, and had just put United to the sword at Craven Cottage, but for some reason they just didn't play as well as they could when Rafa Benítez's side visited. Weird. In fairness, Chelsea were brilliant when visiting Anfield in the Champions League. They got due credit, too. It's fair to say that Liverpool didn't have a great second-half, but Andy Gray, no less, remarked that both sides had been excellent in the first half. So it's not that Liverpool were rubbish, as seems to be the case with the opposition every time the Reds get a good result. It was Guus Hiddink's brilliance, ably backed by his side. In the return, much was made of how awful Chelsea were, particularly in the first half. Liverpool did receive a little credit, but yet again, the main emphasis was on Chelsea letting themselves down rather than the Reds' attacking verve. Liverpool got some kudos for guts, but not their fair dues for quality. In the league, Arsenal had been in sensational form upon making the trip to Merseyside. But for some reason, Liverpool's sublime attacking football was given little credit following a thrilling (if galling) 4-4 draw, the least-just result of the season. Talk about floodlight robbery. It's fair to say that neither Blackburn nor Newcastle were in great shape when coming to Anfield, and but for the crossbar Liverpool could have racked up double figures in these two fixtures. Of course, as Liverpool confirmed themselves as the league's top scorers, the poor play of the opposition was the main story. (Oh, and some nonsense about semaphore.) If Sam Allardyce's sides are anything, they are dogged. Detractors find his football rudimentary, but his sides rarely crumble. Except that's what they did. Ah, because they had no fit strikers? Maybe, although Benni Mcarthy, left on the bench, is by far and away their top scorer this season. No-one asked them to play a centre-back up front, after all. It's like Rafa leaving out Jamie Carragher and playing Torres at centre-back due to an injury crisis. And then most recently, West Ham. There had been nothing but praise for Gianfranco Zola's side of late, who have a very good recent home record, beyond hard-fought 1-0 defeats to Manchester United and Chelsea. Coincidentally for Benítez and his side, once again, the opposition just didn't get into their stride. (And despite being no relation, it was weird for me watching Tomkins trying to stop Torres.) I feel compelled to point out that if certain other teams were the top league scorers, we'd never hear the last about their attacking talents. Part of me actually likes it when Liverpool go under the radar; it can be advantageous having the world against you, or ignoring your strengths. But another part of me finds the inequality irritating, and feels that credit should go only where it's due. Liverpool's only two top-class attacking players (according to sundry short-sighted pundits) have started just one-third of all 2008-09 league games in the same side, and yet the Reds have scored the most goals. And apparently Liverpool are 'cautious', with two 'holding' midfielders. Something's not right with this picture, is it? No change of formation has occurred in recent months, but as I argued earlier in the season, this is an excellent attacking side, and far from negative in its approach. If the stats didn't back me up at the time (often due to lax finishing), the figures now do. Similarly, at the time Robbie Keane was sold, I argued that it was the right decision. Plenty disagreed, but it seems to have proved the case. His place on the bench was becoming distracting (quite literally at times: the TV director for the Newcastle away game spent more time showing him than the action), and it was a chance to get in a good fee (and save on wages) in order to reinvest this summer. This was my gut instinct. When Liverpool's goals dried up later in the winter, I admit to wobbling a little. But yet again, my first instincts were right. And I also never lost sight of the fact that Keane hadn't been pulling up trees before he was sold; it's not like he'd banged in 15 or so. And he's also only scored three since returning to Spurs, and with time not on his side (he's 30 this summer), I felt it was a good time to cut the losses, for a very good player who wasn't fitting in (as happens now and again). However, my fear was less about selling Keane, and more that no replacement was sought. I never doubted the potential of David Ngog, who had been excelling at international youth level for a top nation, but feared that it would be next season before he found his feet in the fast-paced Premiership. Thankfully, despite only playing a few minutes here and there, he appeared to find that vital strength needed to survive as a striker in England almost as soon as I'd claimed this season looked too soon for him. And his record of minutes-per-goal (187) is now far better than Keane's was (at 255), and only marginally behind those of Torres (165) and Gerrard (145). In my defence, in the same blog, written at the end of January, I also touted Yossi Benayoun as someone who could do as well as Keane in the role behind the main striker; in truth, he's done even better, albeit often from a wide starting point, but with licence to roam into similar areas. So despite a little uneasiness on my part (there was of course some risk involved in selling Keane), I feel that my optimism in January was not misplaced. The goals scored recently, even in the absence of Torres and/or Gerrard, show that the ability was in the squad all along. If anything, I feel pleasantly surprised at seeing the Reds as the Premiership's top scorers, not to mention having thumped four past Madrid, Chelsea, Arsenal and Manchester United in the main competitions. I didn't see that coming. And this all came after Keane left. Then there's Krisztian Nemeth, whose quality I've never doubted since I first saw him play for the reserves, but for whom injuries have ruined this season; he's another option that didn't pan out this spring in Keane's absence – particularly after a brief loan spell at Blackpool, designed to get him match-sharp, ended with a broken cheekbone sustained within a minute of his debut. That's just plain bad luck. But players like Ngog and Nemeth can only improve, as can Daniel Pacheco, so it's not like Liverpool are peaking this season; indeed, it's still a very young first-team squad, with an average age about to be further lowered with the exit of the evergreen Sami Hyypia (more on the great Finn next week). Otherwise I'd expect all of the main players to still be around, and benefiting from one more year spent together. Take into account the handicap of injuries to Torres, Gerrard and, when it came to winning more games at Anfield, Daniel Agger, and there's every reason to think that a fit squad next season (fingers crossed) will be significantly superior to this. And that's before any additions. Despite lower resources, Liverpool need to try and match that little extra depth that United possess; after all, that's what will see them crowned champions, if they get four points from their next three games. They've certainly not played better football than Liverpool this season (and it's been well over a decade since I've been able to say that), but eeked out the extra point here and there, often with 1-0 wins.
May finaleRemarkably, under Rafa Benítez, a Liverpool season has never 'finished' before May (with the narrowest of exceptions last year). I don't mean the desperate charge to finish in the Champions League positions, but genuinely contesting trophies until the final month of the campaign. May 2005 saw the Reds win the Champions League. May 2006 saw Liverpool win the FA Cup. May 2007 saw a better performance in the Champions League Final in a rematch with Milan, but a worse result (c’est la vie). And last year the Reds were still in the Champions League until just a few minutes before the start of May, when getting the game back to 3-2 at Stamford Bridge in extra-time left them one away goal from yet another final. (And to shamelessly sneak it in, technically it was May 1st in some parts of the world.) The cup success of the previous four seasons has diminished, only to be replaced with a serious title challenge: one that is still just about alive and kicking as we head towards mid-May. However, to my mind, Liverpool were always unlikely to win their first league title in almost two decades while simultaneously excelling in Europe; if the 'first' title is universally regarded as the hardest to win, additional tough games in the run-in could hinder that, even if progress is naturally sought in all competitions. With the title theirs to wrap up this week, United fans will rightly take heart if they win the league without playing their best football. It's a nice luxury. But Liverpool will have pushed them down to the wire without the manager being able to field anything like his best side for two-thirds of all league games (and that's ignoring other key absences in the 12 games that Torres and Gerrard were fit to start together). Maybe that's an even better sign. It also seems that there are some itchy feet at United, with Ronaldo and Tevez linked with exits. It would be dangerous to assume that losing top attacking talent will see them falter; when Liverpool lost Kevin Keegan and Ian Rush, the team actually improved with reinforcements. But there's always a risk of it not quite working out, or taking time to gel. By contrast, at Liverpool there seems to be a hunger to stick together and keep improving. With Arsenal at times brilliant but brittle as balsa, and ageing Chelsea on the verge of serious transition (new manager and culling of some 30-somethings seem inevitable), this could be just the start of Liverpool's quest to knock United off their perch. The race to #19 could be the big one.