The Official Paul Tomkins Thread

The voice of reason has his say again:

TOMKINS: TIME FOR UNDERSTANDING
Paul Tomkins 02 November 2009 
  Well, I can't think of many more bizarre and depressing conclusions to a game than that. 
 


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

Link:  http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/NG166291091102-0919.htm

Well in Paul!  IRWT  YNWA
 
 

^^^^

Just read that article on the Official Website.

Typically interesting read, good to see him putting things in perspective without going over the top on the positives.

We've deservedly lost some matches recently, but there are other factors out of our control that haven't helped things.

I think every fan should read Paul's articles before posting rubbish on this forum.
May help them see that its not all "doom and gloom" and "Rafa out".

I think every fan should read Paul's articles before posting rubbish on this forum.
May help them see that its not all "doom and gloom" and "Rafa out".

To be fair I think the vast majority of fans don't need to read Paul's articles to appreciate what is happening at Liverpool and many fans remain level headed anyway.

It's just that following a defeat or poor performance the forum goes in to a meltdown of moaning and anger.  A fairly natural reaction.

There is no way I am going to judge Benitez at this point when the squad is suffering so heavily with injuries.

Villa, Sunderland and Fulham. Three defeats but I seriously doubt whether we actually deserved to pick up 0 points from them.  I've seen enough Liverpool games this season to know that we haven't had any luck at all so far.

Various home demolition jobs and the performance against United (again under-strength) tells me that this team is more than capable of playing to a high standard.  Consistency is a major problem, and over the past three weeks or so injuries have been too.

To be fair I think the vast majority of fans don't need to read Paul's articles to appreciate what is happening at Liverpool and many fans remain level headed anyway.

Sorry, I didn't mean every fan, just the ones who post crap on here and don't see the bigger picture.

Its more than win, lose or draw and Paul points out things some people miss.

The voice of reason has his say again:

TOMKINS: TIME FOR UNDERSTANDING
Paul Tomkins 02 November 2009 
  Well, I can't think of many more bizarre and depressing conclusions to a game than that. 
 


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

Link:  http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/NG166291091102-0919.htm

Well in Paul!  IRWT  YNWA
 
 

Where is the like button?

This is spot on. This is what we come to expect from Paul, simply the truth.

I wonder if Michael Calvin of the Sunday Mirror enjoyed it?

TOMKINS: CLASS IS PERMANENT

Paul Tomkins 04 November 2009
    Lest some ex-stars forget, one of the oldest Liverpool FC adages is that 'form is temporary, class is permanent'.
While average players can have good games, and top players have awful games, only the truly gifted achieve the greatest exploits; the things that are won, or awarded, after consistent excellence.
 
It's possible for the best to struggle. It happens all the time. However, it's virtually impossible for the worst to prosper, beyond a brief blazing.
 
Ask Ali Dai, the beyond-hopeless (at Premier League level) non-league player Graeme Souness gave a league outing to at Southampton, in probably the worst case of scouting known to the sport; all it took to sign and play him was the lie of him being a relative of George Weah.
 
(At this time I was also in non-league football. By the time I rang to say that I was Diego Maradona's second cousin once removed, the manager wasn't answering his calls.)
 
 

Average players and managers might have a run of moderate success, but it doesn't last, and it doesn't add up to much.
 
However, my take is that you do not win two La Liga titles, reach two European Cup finals (winning one), and land both the UEFA and FA Cup in an eight-year time-frame – and do so at non-dominant clubs (at the point you arrive) – if you are not special.
 
You also don't come agonisingly close to the league title with a points haul that puts many champions to shame, and do so with a wage bill that detailed economic research (in the book Soccernomics: Why England Lose, and in the Times' Fink Tank section) suggests such feats are all-but impossible, if you are not one of the very best in the business.
 
People with a true understanding of the game only pay attention to long-term trends; in the short-term, anything can happen. (And lately, just about everything has happened.)
 
Do managers pass their sell-by date? Of course.
 
However, it doesn't happen within months of leading a club to its best league season in almost two decades. And in normally needs something dramatic to precipitate it, usually a personal crisis.
 
In 2006, several leading 'experts' on Manchester United felt that after three fallow years, Ferguson had 'lost it'. Alas for us, their board didn't agree. Damn them, too, for not sacking him after a pretty horrendous first four years in charge.
 
One rather eager emailer (oh how they appear to relish the Reds struggles) pointed out to me that this is Liverpool's worst run of results in 22 years. I felt obliged to reply that 22 years ago, Liverpool were rightly regarded as the best team in the land. So it was clear: bad things even happened to them.
 
In other words, he was actually proving my argument for me.
 
It could be argued that as Graeme Souness didn't have a run of games as bad as this, things were better; but overall, out of every 10Liverpool games he managed, Liverpool won approximately four, compared with Benítez's six (and the six of Dalglish and Paisley).
 
So short term trends and stats are one thing; the bigger picture is what counts.
 
Liverpool having an incredibly successful season (by modern standards), is far more revealing than a short-term regression. The problem is in not acknowledging last season for what it was, because of what happened decades ago; it's easy to say that second isn't good enough, but between 1991 and 2004, second would have been lovely.
 
(Also, it's funny how every criticism seems to centre on the number of games Liverpool have lost last season compared with this, when at the time, few people were praising that fact; instead they were saying that the Reds were drawing too many games. As I write, there's not been one single draw this season. Two or three draws, and there'd be no 'crisis')
 
What really disappoints me is ex-players making the kind of unhelpful comments in the media that they themselves detested when they were playing. I've read numerous comments from years ago when the very same players, now making a living being critical, spoke of their strong dislike for such types. Hypocrisy is lovely when it pays well.
 
Another point: league tables do in fact lie. Until game 38, when you've played everyone home and away, they are distorted by the quirks of the fixture list.
 
It is only the long-term picture – the whole season, or collections of seasons – that give a true picture. That's why, come April, the cream has usually risen to the top four.
 
Every season at this time this year there is a panic about one team or other. In the past, it's been Liverpool; last season it was Arsenal.
 
Arsenal are back on track now, but last year there were calls for Arsene Wenger's departure from numerous fans. (Less so the media, many of its members admitting a fondness for him that skews their fairness.)
 
Arsenal lost at home to some really average sides (something Liverpool have yet to do), and had a run where, out of 22 games, they won only eight.
 
Should Wenger, without a trophy dating back to a season before Liverpool's last, and with less league points on average than Benítez over the past four seasons, have been sacked? At the time I said No, that would be ludicrous. Because top managers can have temporary struggles. And they have to be viewed in context.
 
Is Wenger no longer matching his early feats because he's 'lost it', or because the landscape has changed? After all, managers usually get better with experience. So maybe it's the landscape?
 
(By the way, as I write, Manchester City's form over the last seven league games is worse than Liverpool's; yet I've not heard much talk of crisis there, despite £100m+ spent this summer, a £250m squad and a massive wage bill.)
 
What interests me is just how bad the form of very best Liverpool players and managers could sink. We all know how good they could be, but did we also forget how bad they could (temporarily) be?
 
With this in mind, I asked members of my site, The Tomkins Times, to suggest some of the spells their heroes had that, unfortunately, the men in question would rather were forgotten.
 
For instance, Kenny Dalglish, the undisputed King of Liverpool FC: a goalscorer and goal creator whose vision and finishing were a joy to behold. A bona fide genius.
 
Yet, in his absolute pomp, he went a mind-boggling 25 league games without a goal! (From 22 November 1980 until 17 October 1981; courtesy of Graeme Riley, author of the 'Soccerdata' statistics annuals.)
 
Was he therefore not good enough?
 
Then there's Fernando Torres' failure to score at Anfield last season until February, which was partly down to injury, but even so, a real quirk given that he has something like 34 goals in 35 appearances on the ground.
 
If we look only at that run – up to his 9th home game – we can say that he is not good in front of the home crowd, that the packed defences stifle him; look at his entire time at Liverpool, and the exact opposite is undeniably true. That's why the bigger picture is always the most important.
 
In the season before Liverpool won the league for the first time under Bill Shankly, the Reds had a spell of one win in nine league games. Bob Paisley had two runs of no win in seven games, and Joe Fagan had one such streak. Obviously none of these men were sacked. It would have been unthinkable.
 
Indeed, Shankly, having won two championships and the FA Cup in three seasons, then went seven years without winning a single trophy. Do we wish he was sacked in that time? Of course not. Times have changed, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's easier, particularly since the arrival of Abramovich in 2003.
 
Another post on my site, by Neil Dunkin, author of the excellent Anfield of Dreams, mentioned the 1985-86 campaign:
 
"The League seemed a lost cause, especially when Manchester United were 10 points ahead of the pack. But Everton overtook United to top the table, inflicting a 2-0 defeat on our lads at Anfield in March 1986.
 
"That night Hansen went to dinner with Dalglish and told him it was the worst Reds' team he'd played in. Eight weeks later, the worst Reds' team had taken maximum points from 11 of their last 12 League games and done the League and Cup double."
 
However, just as an individual player can struggle if not 100 per cent, then it stands to reason that a side missing six or seven first team players, as well as some of their understudies, will be no different from a player carrying a knock. That's not an excuse, that's a fact of football life.
 
Ferguson had that problem a few years ago when Paul Scholes, in his prime, missed the season; he cited it as a reason for their failure. Chelsea have struggled when missing John Terry, or last season, when lacking Didier Drogba and Michael Essien. A squad can never be limitless in its depth and quality; even the uber-squads we're now seeing.
 
So, class is permanent.
 
Alas, so is the criticism from people whose own achievements in the field are not even comparable. Or maybe I missed Tony Cascarino and Stan Collymore's coruscating careers in coaching and management?

Very good read.

Liked this bit:

maybe I missed Tony Cascarino and Stan Collymore's coruscating careers in coaching and management?

 

I wonder if Michael Calvin of the Sunday Mirror enjoyed it?

Who the hell is he?

Engrossing stuff!! It makes a mockery of the Rafa witchhunt and therefore questions the motives of it, an excellent piece by Mr Tomkins.

Who the hell is he?

Columnist for the Sunday Mirror, had a little crack at Rafa in one of the advice to Premier League Managers with one day this week supposedly being National Stress Awareness week with I quote: "Stop giving four-hour interviews to star-struck bloggers."

Probably gutted because Rafa won't give four minute interviews to gobs***e hacks.

Another excellent spot on article.  Great read that.

A very similar point was made in JD's thread yesterday "A Liverpool History Lesson".

Shame the tabloid hacks are blind to points like these.

Another excellent spot on article.  Great read that.

Couldn't agree more.

Cheers, Huyton. What a c**t he sounds.

Tomkins takes a look at the reasons for our poor start to the season.

http://tomkinstimes.com/2009/11/what%E2%80%99s-gone-wrong-this-season/

What’s Gone Wrong This Season?

It’s hard to condense a season of problems into a few issues, but I will try to do so. (At least that will be a few more issues than some observers of the game will bother with, with their ignorant, pithy statements that condemn in less than 50 words.)

Lack of depth

Investment in the squad in 2009 has not been good enough; the manager clearly wasn’t allowed to buy quality and quantity. I accept the limitations of the clubs finances, but some figures don’t make sense. By my calculations, in 2009 Benítez has spent £37m but recouped £60m.

But that’s not all. Add that almost half of the Johnson fee was paid out of last summer’s Crouch debt, and that means a profit of £30m at a time when investment in the squad was paramount. Benítez wanted Upson, he wanted Turner. He was given £1.5m, and went for what he could afford. You can’t keep cutting corners and expect a manager to pull a rabbit out of the hat every year.

Liverpool have a squad that costs £158m – four teams have squads between £200m-£270m. That gap should have closed this summer, but it didn’t. I’m pretty certain that Benítez does not have the squad he thought he would be able to assemble, having to sell players like Crouch, Arbeloa and Bellamy, but not always having the profits to reinvest in the team.

Like all managers, Benítez has bought some duds. But whereas other clubs can afford to write them off, Liverpool cannot.

Also, the inability to pay really big wages beyond the main players means that quality cannot easily be kept in reserve. Hence youngsters only making their way in the game holding key positions in the squad. Voronin showed at Hertha Berlin that he’s a decent player, but he was up for sale this summer. With no money to spend, and Hertha pulling out of the deal, I’m guessing the manager decided to keep him and plan for the season with what he had. Long-term, players like Nemeth will supersede him, but like N’Gog, he lacks experience (which he’s now getting in Greece).

The loss of Sami Hyypia has also been a massive blow. He was offered a new contract and a coaching role, but at 36 he could only be 4th choice. However, what a brilliant 4th choice.

As for his replacement, Kyrgiakos, he’s not looked particularly convincing, although he’s getting unfairly slaughtered for a bad ten minutes in Lyon. Patience, and settling in, just isn’t allowed. He has the physical power and presence that was needed, and some vital top-level experience, but has a worrying lack of pace that, unlike Hyypia, he might not be good enough to get by without.

(The ultra-irritating Henry Winter, on a real anti-Rafa trip, Tweeted that “Kyrgiakos is no Alan Hansen” – which is pathetic, seeing as Hansen wasn’t a ‘cheap as chips’ 4th choice defender; Kyrgiakos is supposed to be Alex Watson, not Hansen. It’s like saying that Tomas Kuszack is no Peter Schmeichel.)

Liverpool now have some very promising 16-18 years olds, and a couple of very good 18-20-year-olds. But too much time was lost with Rick Parry and Steve Heighway protecting a failing Academy system, and then with Parry’s own appointments failing to help rectify the situation. Only in 2009 has Benítez got his men in charge, and it could be years before that bears fruit.

A manager has to either have overall control of his Academy, or at least trust the men in charge; if they are working at cross purposes, it’s not going to help the man upon whose shoulders success rests. When all other clubs were flouting the rules on catchment areas, Heighway refused to; perhaps admirably, but counter-productively.

Local scouting was hellishly amateurish (octogenarians working for beer money), and a problem is that it could take years for the recent changes to bear fruit, at least as far as local talent is concerned. Of those scouted who have emerged recently, only Martin Kelly looks to have a real chance of succeeding long-term, with the rest outside bets.

The young reserve team is showing a lot of promise once again, and there are some exciting talents therein, so hopefully some of the recently scouted Europeans will make the grade before too long.

Players like Mavinga, Palsson, Poloskei and Gulacsi all look to have something special about them, with the apparent necessary physicality to go with their ability. Ayala has already done well in the first team, and there are some talented, tricky little players such as Pacheco, who are unproven in handling the extra physical pressures of first-team football.

Loss of Alonso

I applaud Benítez’s belief in Alberto Aquilani. I respect that he went for a player for the long-term, and that the club were advised he’d be fit sooner than transpired. In the meantime, not only was Alonso no longer present, but Aquilani wasn’t, either. And then nor was Gerrard.

I think it was a valid gamble to try and last till September (when the Italian was supposed to be fit, according to a world-renowned ankle expert) with Gerrard partnering Mascherano or Lucas. But the gamble backfired.

However, a manager has to get in the right player, and if Aquilani is the class act Rafa feels him to be, then we just have to get on with it. And ultimately, any player, be it a different signing or even Xabi Alonso, could end up missing three months of the season.

As a result of Alonso’s departure and the issues with Aquilani and then Gerrard, the balance of the side hasn’t been quite right, especially with the exciting addition of Johnson changing the emphasis of attack – but teams don’t just come together like clockwork. I’ve noted for many years that changing one component can throw out another; then you have to make tweaks.

In games against Chelsea, Man United and away at Lyon, Mascherano and Lucas have been excellent. But of course they lack a little creative edge when the onus is on them to pick teams apart. People talk as if they are the manager’s ideal partnership.

The aim was never to rely solely on them, but Gerrard’s injury on top of Aquilani’s has limited the manager’s options. So it’s not an ideal combination, and one that has seen mixed results.

However, Lucas’ form in the past few games has been excellent, and the lad must have massive cojones to deal with the abuse and come through the other side. However, his greatest failings seem to be that he is neither a stereotypical Brazilian, nor Xabi Alonso. (Of course, if Alonsos were ten-a-penny, Madrid wouldn’t have made sure they got their man.)

Form of major players

With the exception of a few games here and there. Carragher, Gerrard and Mascherano have all been well below their best this season. Blame the manager all you want, but these players have fallen below their usual high standards. And that’s the heartbeat of the team.

Mascherano had Barcelona and Argentina on his mind; massively so. Anyone could see that. Is that Rafa’s fault? – taking a struggling player from West Ham’s reserves and helping him establish a stellar reputation, only for that reputation to lead to the lure of Spain, and his head being turned? Or the crazy qualifying campaign Argentina experienced under El Loco himself, Diego Maradona?

Carragher has made too many mistakes, and perhaps lost some confidence as a result, leading to uncertainty in his play; he’s generally been better in the past four or five games, but has been caught out on a few occasions that led to red card situations. People are getting in behind him too often, but as he showed against United, he has a leadership quality that cannot be overlooked.

Gerrard now has a civil court case hanging over his head, and has displayed some concerning body language this season. He has also made mistakes, like the crazy tackle for the penalty against Villa; the game that came on the day the civil action was announced.

All of these players “deserve” some iffy spells. However, they all came at once, along with numerous other problems. Perhaps they all fed into one another; one plays bad, the team struggles a bit, so another player is under more pressure; he then plays bad, and so on.

Injuries

All teams have injuries, but there comes a time when you say “that’s really bad luck”. I mean, that’s really F***ing bad luck.

Injuries to Reds on international duty is a massive concern; Spain have sent Torres back in strapping on four or five occasions now. Liverpool paid £20m for him, pay his wages, and they send back a wreck. But Benítez will be blamed for these injuries, as he is for almost everything.
Defensive changes

Too many injuries to the back line, some self-inflicted, others pure bad luck. The defence has been changing week on week, and it’s hard to get some consistency.

Carra’s header on Skrtel’s jaw on the opening day put the Slovakian out of the team for a while and he hasn’t looked the same since; that set the tone for the season. Last season, Skrtel was a rock; this season he’s been a jelly. (A bit like Vidic after Torres mauled him last season.)

Agger’s back has to be managed, and he came back very rusty (understandably) after surgery. The promising Kelly came in for a great debut, only to be badly injured towards the end of it. Degen came in, but got sent off for a yellow-card tackle, but was excluded from the Champions League due to quota rules, with Kelly his replacement.

Glenn Johnson’s missed a few games of late, notably after a consistent, unbroken run of games for both Liverpool and England that appear to have taken their toll.

Aurelio got a freak injury in the summer playing with his kids. And of late, Insua has looked a little jaded at times, after non-stop football for the first time in his life (something I foretold would see him struggle at some juncture), plus a call-up by Argentina. He has been excellent more often than not, but was struggling at times before the Lyon match.

You can say that part of the blame lies with Benítez in that the back-ups haven’t been good enough, but Andrea Dossena aside (who’s also been injured), he’s been stuck with kids or bargain-basement back-ups, and even some of the better reserves have been crocked.

It’s worth noting that United have shipped goals without their best defenders this season, too. But I’m not sure they had their best midfielders and strikers absent, too.

Refereeing decisions

This isn’t sour grapes. The Reds had the luck in this sense against Manchester United, and it played a big part in securing victory; but it went against them in so many other games, dating back to Spurs on the first day, through Aston Villa, Fulham (Degen’s was never a red), Senderos’ Gordon Banks-style save to deny Aquilani and debut equaliser, and so on.

Liverpool have conceded as many penalties than they’ve won, which is ludicrous for a team that has on average been attacking twice as much as their opponents; the law of averages suggests that the better attacking teams win more than others. Torres has been hacked over numerous times, a Hull striker punched a corner clear, but nothing has been given.

Sometimes Liverpool got the bad luck they deserved; other times it wasn’t merited. Even alien objects were breaking the rules and scoring at one point. Whether or not Liverpool would have got anything at Sunderland, a goal by a beach ball in the 4th minute is a confidence killer in front of a baying home crowd, against a team on a high. It was credit to Benítez that he didn’t use it as a smokescreen, as would many managers who spend their week on the golf course.

And the fact of decisions like Voronin’s at Spurs, when he was barged over with far more force than when Carragher conceded a penalty at West Ham, is that all teams need the referee to make the correct decision when points are in the balance. And all teams need a Get Out Of Jail card on their off days. (Such as an infinite amount of injury time.)

Luck

Man United have “scored” courtesy of four own goals this season. At least three of those efforts (the ones I’ve seen) were poor, and two off target. Those two off-target shots rescued a point against both Sunderland and CSKA Moscow at Old Trafford. Now some of that luck is made by pressure put on the opposition, but even so, if that luck had been reversed when Liverpool had opponents on the rack, there could be a massive swing in fortunes. Maybe Liverpool should aim for the corner flag more often? (No Ryan, that was a joke.)

Last season, Liverpool got some breaks at the right time; this season, they’ve mostly gone against the Reds. I’m not knocking United for their luck; that’s their business – just using it as an example of how a team not playing well (and United didn’t play well against Sunderland and CSKA) can get lucky at the denouement. I’m sure Liverpool had some favourable breaks at the end of matches last season that helped get a bit of a run going.

The media’s assault on Benítez

One quick example. Last season, Rafa was castigated for playing Robbie Keane on the wing at Aston Villa for 20 minutes. This season, Harry Redknapp has done the same, for a whole match, to no outcry.Men like Redknapp can drop players who score hat-tricks (Crouch) and feel no reproach. They can bench big money players, and not have people like Jamie Redknapp (oh…) going “you don’t do that to a £19m player”.

Add to that the shocking lack of facts about Benítez’s spending, zonal marking, rotation, and you have some very stupid ex-footballers putting the boot in because they think their opinion is valid. This breeds a negativity around a manager.

Well, I think Paul Merson is really a woman; I’ve not researched the fact, I’m just giving my opinion. Of course, I may be wrong (though if I were an ex footballer, I would never suggest that). I think he used to play for Millwall Ladies and enjoy lesbian romps with big butch goalkeepers. Again, it’s only my opinion. I think he used to get very drunk during his career and snort cocaine. Oh…

The constant stream of nonsense and bile has undermined Benítez, creating (to quote Jon Stewart, who also deconstructs the hypocritical media) little more than a ‘clusterfuck’. The pressure is immense, when domestically, Spurs and Man City, with their far more expensive squads and masses more money spent of late, have gained fewer points from the past seven games.

All managers get some kind of stupid abuse in the media when they are struggling; but some, like Ferguson, they run scared of, and others, like Wenger and Redknapp, they like, either because of their pretty football or their blokiness.

Henry Winter admitted that the press don’t Benítez, that he’s cold and hard to like; from my personal experience, and those of every back-stage person I spoke to at the club, I can say that this is utterly misguided. I find Henry Winter increasingly hard to like, but that doesn’t mean those who know him and work with him don’t believe he’s a top bloke. It just makes me laugh that the same people who laud Fabio Capello for being detached with his players say Benítez is wrong to do the same.

Liverpool, as a club, needs to gather itself: siege mentality time. But alas, with so many wounded its like the siege has already been breached by heavy artillery shelling.

Set-pieces

No, not a criticism of zonal marking, which has been largely excellent for four years (check the stats). But just bad individual mistakes that led to more pressure, coupled with a lack of height in general. Things have been much better of late, but this cost some early points that started the build-up of pressure.
Rafa’s substitutions

I don’t think any manager can be blamed for what happens after any individual changes they make; similarly, they also often get far too much praise when changes work, simply by happenstance. On the whole, Benítez’s substitutions seem to work out pretty well. But a game can always do strange things, good or bad, after any given change.

The removals of Torres have been understandable, particularly as its the stage of games where pre-existing injuries can be exacerbated. It worked in the final minutes against Man United, it didn’t against Lyon. So what?

But I felt the removal of Benayoun at home to Lyon in particular was one that he might have avoided simply to manage the crowd. It got the Kop on his back, and created a tension that was palpable. Whether or not the change was valid from a tactical or physical point of view, it never hurts to keep the crowd buoyant and behind the team; that doesn’t mean pandering to the masses, but on certain occasions, I sense it could help.

Fixture List

You can’t do anything about this, but sometimes they favour you and sometimes they don’t. Right now, with a run of five home games and eleven away, Liverpool are the middle of a run of fixtures that is IN NO WAY representative of a normal campaign.

In the way that playing five out of seven games at home gives you cause to expect more wins (and to view those wins in context as “easier games”), playing five out of seven away gives you more problems than is “fair”. Add that games have been against Chelsea, Arsenal, United, Fiorentina and two against the best team in France, and you can see that it was a horrid run. Even the two home games were against Lyon and Manchester United.

In form, you still expect Liverpool to take more points. But not maximum points. And at other times, a draw at Lyon would be seen as a good result, not least because the Reds played them off the park for 89.5 minutes.

Expectations

People still email me saying “but we are Liverpool!”, as if those four words have any relevance whatsoever. It ignores the realities of the current hierarchy, like England fans thinking they have a divine right to success because they won a trophy 45 years ago. Get real. By that thinking, France should never have won the World Cup in 1998.

How does saying “we are Liverpool” win you games? Is Carragher supposed to say that in the tunnel at Stamford Bridge, and John Terry say “Fair point, geezer. ‘Ere, ‘ave all three points,” rather than take us on with their far costlier squad, far greater wage bill, and manager with an equally impressive CV to Benítez’s?

Liverpool have a great name that attracts players. However, it cannot pay the biggest fees nor the biggest wages to land them. In the case of Torres, the something extra was Benítez, and the Spanish connection. But that won’t work for everyone; Torres is fairly unique in that sense.

That’s the reality of the situation. The stadium holds far fewer people and generates far less money than those of rivals’, and money hasn’t been pumped into the club, either to build a new stadium or fund transfers.

At least some profitably new sponsorship deals are in place to finally trade on the value of the Liverpool name.

Benítez’s job description appears to be ‘top four’. Christian Purslow, behind the new deals, stated as much recently, so it seems that people running the club (those in England at least) have a realistic grasp of the situation. But everyone else just sees “Liverpool” and thinks the club should be winning titles or qualifying for the last 16 of the Champions League, even though the club weren’t even qualifying for the competition for most of the decade before Benítez arrived, or finishing as high as 2nd in the Premiership.

In Summary

On about three or four occasions this season Liverpool have been poor. (The same can be said of United, City, Spurs and Villa; only Arsenal and Chelsea have looked consistently good to me, although each has had a couple of poor games.)

Otherwise Liverpool’s football has ranged from good to excellent.

Given the injury crisis and pressure, performances like those against United and Lyon show a quality and unity, rather than the guff written about the manager having “lost the dressing room”. Just read Pepe Reina’s views on the club to see that that’s untrue.

Liverpool do not have a deep enough squad to cope with an injury crisis. But the limited wage bill (high wages are the crucial factor in success) and money diverted from Benítez’s transfer funds have been behind that.

There are at least 17 players who are definitely good enough; but there is not the 20-24 some clubs can boast. Liverpool can only hope that the youngsters come through to fill those gaps, and better financially dealing helps the club compete again. They showed they could do it last season, but that was a superhuman effort.

Unless, of course, you believe the media: Benítez is not good enough, the squad isn’t good enough, and yet the same personnel, bar a couple of changes, ran up 86 league points last season, a 20-year high, despite Fernando Torres missing half the campaign.

That Xabi Alonso must have been better than Maradona and Pele combined if it was all down to him.

Thank god we have someone like Paul Tomkins to give us some insight, by saying it as it is his posts put it all in proportion, and having him there just to watch whats going on with our detractors, and at the same time at the club itself, keeps us all better informed about LFC.

Tomkins takes a look at the reasons for our poor start to the season.


Well, I think Paul Merson is really a woman; I’ve not researched the fact, I’m just giving my opinion. Of course, I may be wrong (though if I were an ex footballer, I would never suggest that). I think he used to play for Millwall Ladies and enjoy lesbian romps with big butch goalkeepers. Again, it’s only my opinion. I think he used to get very drunk during his career and snort cocaine. Oh…

FFS well in Tomkins thats just had me laughing my arse off, The whole article is quality, but jees that one bit, certainly struck a note with my humurous side.

Great read again when heads are flying,  calmness personified 

TOMKINS: CRITICISM IS EASY
Paul Tomkins 09 November 2009
http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/NG166394091109-1109.htm

My main problem as an observer of football and its media coverage is just how easy criticism is.
In light of this, it's hard to get facts across. I don't defend Benítez for the sake of it; there are ex-Liverpool managers (okay, probably only one) about whose time in charge I can find precious little positive to say.
 
I had that problem when writing Dynasty, which covers the last 50 years of Liverpool FC. I did point out some positive aspects of every manager's reign, and I listed extenuating circumstances for the travails each might have faced, where applicable.
 
However, no matter how I looked at things, I saw five excellent managers – Shankly, Paisley, Fagan, Dalglish and Benítez – plus two very good ones, in Evans and Houllier, and one well adrift of the rest: Graeme Souness.
 
It's not always been possible for Liverpool to win trophies, or finish in the top two. But the good managers averaged a 50% win rate, and the top managers were up around the 60% mark.
 
Souness, who spent the most money (relatively speaking – I converted all fees over the 50 years to a common system to deal with football-based inflation), fared the worst, at around 40%.
 
(Incidentally, Shankly averaged only 52%. But he took over at the weakest point in the club's post-war history, meaning he would clearly make a slower start. He also acknowledged that he let his first great team stay together too long, as part of seven fallow seasons; something he atoned for by building a second great team, just before his departure.)

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

Spot on again by Tomkins...Can see Rafa inviting him round for lunch soon. His next article "My dinner date with Rafa" I can just see it happening.

Some spot on points raised though and all in all a cracking article.

What Paul points out in the article we have assumed for years about the media negativity with LFC but as with all his pieces he then goes into clinical detail and subjects the theme to a rigorous examination. In doing so here he proves unequivocally that the press have an agenda and it is very little to do with honest reporting but serves their self seeking aspirations  regardless of the implications. A thoroughly absorbing read from Mr Tomkins.

Another outstanding article by Tomkins, highlighting the fact that we should not always believe what journalists or pundits have to say.

They are paid to do so, and the tendence is more and more to write an eye-catching article that will sell large numbers of newspapers or increase the numbers of the viewing audience.

There is more "entertainment" than "fact" in many of these comments or columns, and I've long-since learned to look at anything I read with a more critical eye.

Edit: Just noticed I wrote more or less the same thing as Stuey above! : Sorry, didn't mean to copy!