Trending Topics

      Next match: Betis v LFC [Friendly] Sat 27th Jul @ 12:30 am
      Acrisure Stadium

      Today is the 16th of June and on this date LFC's match record is P0 W0 D0 L0

      The Official Paul Tomkins Thread

      Read 68040 times
      0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
      The Invisible Man
      • Forum Kevin Keegan
      • ***

      • 352 posts | 18 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #69: Sep 19, 2008 05:08:53 pm
      T-Unit-LFC
      • Forum Ronnie Moran
      • ***

      • 403 posts | 11 
      • We Won It 5 Times!
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #70: Sep 19, 2008 05:27:15 pm
      JD
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 39,687 posts | 6981 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #71: Sep 20, 2008 12:38:57 am



      TOMKINS: FREED BY A KNOWLEDGE OF HISTORY
      Paul Tomkins 19 September 2008

      One of the problems with Liverpool's glorious past is that some younger fans (and older ones with short memories), seem to think it was all achieved at a canter, with brilliance at every turn. Time turns fact into myth.
       
      However, as great as much of the halcyon days undeniably were, those players and managers were also fallible. Not every game was won 5-0 with imperious style.
       
      I read one fan complaining about the 0-0 draw at Villa Park, saying that the great Liverpool sides would never have settled for such results. Really?
       
      The fact is that Rafa Benítez has won a greater percentage of league games than Bill Shankly and Joe Fagan, two of the club's legendary managers. Only Kenny Dalglish and Bob Paisley have won a higher percentage of league games in the last 50 years.
       
      If critics then say, 'well, it's easier to win games now', that may be valid –– although it's impossible to prove. However, you can't pick and choose from the past and present in contradictory fashion to suit your argument. If you acknowledge that wins were harder to attain in the old days, then don't turn around and say that in the old days Liverpool never settled for an away draw. They did.
       
      In 1984, Liverpool won the league with a staggering 14 draws, as well as six defeats. That was a phenomenal team, one that achieved an historic treble, but let's not airbrush out its shortcomings. It failed to win almost as many of its 42 league games as it won. Its captain, Graeme Souness, brilliantly summed up why they were still justifiable champions: "By our standards we didn't deserve to win the league this year. But by everyone else's standards, we did."
       
      Given how the talk of finances totally dictates modern football discussion, one of my aims in writing Dynasty was to find a way to compare the transfers made by both Liverpool and the club's main rivals over the last 50 years, to get a sense of expenditure.
       
      Using pounds sterling just didn't make sense. Bill Shankly spending £13,000 in 1960 to break the club record on Kevin Lewis just seems utterly meaningless as a financial figure now, in a day and age when the current English transfer record is 2,461 times higher. If standard inflation worked this way, a loaf of bread would cost around £100.
       
      While admitting that working from transfer records is not a 100% perfect way of judging the financial landscape (given that many transfer fees seem to lack logic), I felt it was about as close as I could get. So while Lewis was Liverpool's new record signing, his cost was 20% of the overall English transfer record of the day. Suddenly it made sense. In today's terms, that 20% would make him a £6m player.
       
      Having then worked out the average cost of all the major teams over the last 50 years using this method, I found an interesting phenomenon. Until the start of the Premiership, there was a mix between expensively-assembled league champions and those put together on a shoestring budget.
       
      For instance, Bill Shankly won the title in 1964 and 1966 with a team that averaged around just 10% of the British transfer record. Everton's team of the mid-'80s was similarly inexpensive.
       
      What's interesting, however, is that since Leeds in 1992 –– i.e. the very year before the Premiership began –– every “new” team to win the league ("new" meaning after a break of at least five years, so that it was essentially a very different collection of players and/or manager) cost on average more than 40% of the British transfer record.
       
      That applies to Manchester United in '93, Blackburn in '95 and Chelsea in '05, but most surprisingly, to Arsenal in '98 too, after their seven-year itch.
       
      I was shocked by this last finding. I always thought Wenger achieved the double on a tight budget. To a degree he did, with regards to his own spending, although players like Vieira and Overmars were far from free transfers. But that Arsenal title was actually built on some heavy spending by the Frenchman's predecessors, Bruce Rioch and George Graham. They signed some very good and very expensive players.
       
      The fact is that in 1990 David Seaman was a very expensive goalkeeper. The figure of £1.3m seems fairly cheap if you look at it by 1998's standards, but by working out Seaman's cost as a percentage of the transfer record –– 48% –– at the time the transfer took place, a truer picture is revealed.
       
      The percentage is set for the duration a player stays at the club. As another example, when United bought Roy Keane for a British record £3.75m in 1993, they took him off the open market. They paid what was then a fortune to make him theirs, so that even when the transfer record went up and up over the next decade, he was already where they wanted him. But it all depended on digging deep and breaking the transfer record to give themselves that luxury.
       
      Once Graham spent big on David Seaman, no other club could get their hands on him. David Platt, Ian Wright and Martin Keown were three other players who played regularly in the 1998 side who cost over 50% of the British transfer record.
       
      The same was also true of Dennis Bergkamp – whose move to Highbury set a new British record in 1995, at £7.5m: a ‘100%' transfer. A year later, when Alan Shearer cost Newcastle £15m, was Bergkamp suddenly only a ‘50%' signing? Was he suddenly a cheap player? Of course not. He still cost a ‘100%' fee, because that was the most expensive at the time.
       
      In other words, a player's expense can only be rated by working from the time of his purchase; his value may rise or fall in the coming years, and other deals may dwarf his, but the payment relates to the market of that particular year.
       
      All in all, with players like Seaman, Keown and Bergkamp key to their success, that Arsenal side rated at 43% of the transfer record. Once the bargain find of Nicolas Anelka took over from Ian Wright in the second half of the season, the average dropped, but it was still a success that was very much bankrolled; if not exclusively by Wenger, then by Arsenal as a club.
       
      Of course, assembling a team costing over 40% of the transfer record does not guarantee success. Newcastle's 1996/97 side cost a whopping 49.7%, but won nothing.
       
      Perhaps most depressingly, the Liverpool teams of Graeme Souness and Roy Evans both averaged between 40-50% of the transfer record, but even with the best crop of youth graduates the club has produced, the ‘90s was a barren decade. In that time, other clubs moved ahead.
       
      Coming forward, the 2007 Champions League semi-final first-leg at Stamford Bridge shows the spending power of Chelsea in recent years. As an average, Liverpool's starting XI - Reina, Riise, Agger, Carragher, Arbeloa, Zenden, Alonso, Mascherano, Gerrard, Bellamy and Kuyt - cost just 14.5% of the English transfer record. By contrast, the Chelsea team that started the match - Cech, Cole, Carvalho, Terry, Ferreira, Cole, Lampard, Makelele, Mikel, Drogba and Schevchenko - came in at a whopping 51%. So in ‘real' terms, Chelsea's team was more than three times as expensive as Liverpool's.
       
      (51% was the highest percentage I found in all my calculations, although still lower than I was expecting; however Chelsea's spending went into the squad as a whole, with so many costly substitutes.)
       
      Since that game there have been a handful of expensive signings at Anfield. Javier Mascherano (who was only on loan in 2006/07), Ryan Babel, Fernando Torres and Robbie Keane have been procured for fairly hefty fees. The gap is closing, but there is still a gap.
       
      What is arguably Liverpool's current strongest XI (with the addition of Dossena, Riera and Keane) averages out at 30%. Replace Riera with Kuyt, Arbeloa with Degen and Skrtel with Agger, and it remains virtually identical. Even before signing Berbatov, and with Tevez's valued only at his reported loan fee (£10m, as opposed to the £30m+ he will eventually cost), Manchester United's side averaged out at almost 40%.
       
      What I found was that once a club had won its elusive first title, the average cost often decreased during the coming campaigns. The team had achieved that magical aim, and that vital experience (which is priceless) was in the bag. Then, gradually, the manager could introduce a few youth team players, as United did with Beckham, Neville and Scholes in the mid-'90s. Ferguson knew he had earned himself some time and leeway. Wenger later did the same, although it took three barren seasons before that success was repeated.
       
      Prior to the Premiership there was another interesting phenomenon. Clubs like Everton in the ‘70s and Manchester United in the ‘70s and ‘80s spent massively –– far more comparatively than the Reds in recent years –– but success was not achieved at the peak of that spending.
       
      In United's case they won the league when their side dipped from a peak of almost 50% –– although, as noted, it was still above 40% in 1993 when they finally ended a 26-year wait for the title. In Everton's case, the spending proved totally disastrous, but it kept the club ticking over until a collection of brilliant young talents like Neville Southall and Kevin Ratcliffe came into the side.
       
      But this sort of success hasn't happened in the last 16 years; or in what we now call the ‘modern' game. And the extraordinary changes at Manchester City since Dynasty went to print shows the febrile financial climate of English football.
       
      Should Benítez win a ‘first' title with a side that averages out at 30% of the transfer record it would clearly be some achievement, particularly with such expensively-assembled rivals. It shows how difficult the task is.
       
      Ultimately, however, there are no hard and fast rules regarding what creates success or leads to failure. There are only examples, case studies, cautionary tales. Trends can be bucked, after all. But maybe they are just the exceptions that prove the rule? I honestly don't know.
       
      And all this was part of the aim of Dynasty. As well as the anecdotal history of the last 50 years of Liverpool FC, with stories of the triumphs and a look at all the players and managers (good and bad), it is a book in which I have striven to highlight not just the achievements or failures themselves, but the context in which they came about, to better understand them. For me, that was the key.
       
      As Professor Lynn White Jr. so succinctly put it, "Knowledge of history frees us to be contemporary."
      JD
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 39,687 posts | 6981 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #72: Sep 20, 2008 12:43:39 am
      Interestingly article.

      We're often told about how Benitez has spent £200 million but I would have thought he has made more money from player sales than any Liverpool manager ever.

      I'd be interested to see how our stats work out later in the season, because while not having a 'hugely' expensive side - there is some costly figures in that team now.  Kuyt and Babel - bang £20 million.  A £50 million strike pairing.  And what would Carra and Gerrard have cost us? £40/50 million for the pair?

      On paper we don't have as expensive a squad as summer but I bet it's rising.
      dunlop liddell shankly
      • 2009 LFC quiz champion (now to be known as "Kate")
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 21,218 posts | 3393 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #73: Sep 20, 2008 01:01:13 am
      As most know, I don't buy into the money arguement because at the end of the day it's still 11 players against 11 players. These aren't robots, they're human beings that we're playing, which is why you get the shocks. But like I say money can buy you that extra quality which is why the big spenders usually win the trophies at the end of the season...however it's all about the indivual player and how he's treated. I still don't think money is an excuse for us coming up short though.
      gareth g
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 15,469 posts | 366 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #74: Sep 20, 2008 01:07:24 am
      I know its different Dunlop mate , but money dose not buy success's, I am a big fan  of the cardiff blues (rugby union) they buy top players ,but they don't seem to gel as a team? same in football?
      « Last Edit: Sep 20, 2008 01:10:45 am by gareth g »
      dunlop liddell shankly
      • 2009 LFC quiz champion (now to be known as "Kate")
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 21,218 posts | 3393 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #75: Sep 20, 2008 01:19:11 am
      I know its different Dunlop mate , but money dose not buy success's, I am a big fan  of the cardiff blues (rugby union) they buy top players ,but they don't seem to gel as a team? same in football?

      exact same mate. Money does NOT buy success. Only need to look at Andriy Shevchenko for that. Money buys quality, there's a massive different between quality and success. If the quality is managed properly then they'll succeed and people just blame money. A price tag isn't a fair assesment of a player's ability, Gareth Barry prime example.

      As I've already said, it's still humans against humans. These big money signings are not robots, providing you play the player and not the name you'll give a good account of yourself. I'd like to ask those who believe we can't possibly win the league because of money but then say Benitez regained so much of the 200m he's spent...will Peter Crouch be a bigger success at Fratton Park than he was at Anfield because Pompey have spent five million more than we did, so surely he'll be better because they spent more money on him. Is that the logic we use?
      The Invisible Man
      • Forum Kevin Keegan
      • ***

      • 352 posts | 18 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #76: Sep 20, 2008 08:40:54 am
      Interestingly article.

      We're often told about how Benitez has spent £200 million but I would have thought he has made more money from player sales than any Liverpool manager ever.

      I'd be interested to see how our stats work out later in the season, because while not having a 'hugely' expensive side - there is some costly figures in that team now.  Kuyt and Babel - bang £20 million.  A £50 million strike pairing.  And what would Carra and Gerrard have cost us? £40/50 million for the pair?

      On paper we don't have as expensive a squad as summer but I bet it's rising.



      The difference with Benitez is that he's had to sell his own players - and often good ones - in order to buy better ones.

      Sissoko, Bellamy and Crouch all left for more than they cost. They were all good players, and amongst the best available to Rafa AT THE TIME with the budget he had. He tried to buy £15m players but was knocked back, so he had to look at players around the £6m mark.

      The three of them cost around the price of one Michael Carrick. But they left for the price of Fernando Torres.
      The Invisible Man
      • Forum Kevin Keegan
      • ***

      • 352 posts | 18 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #77: Sep 20, 2008 08:46:20 am
      I'd like to ask those who believe we can't possibly win the league because of money but then say Benitez regained so much of the 200m he's spent...will Peter Crouch be a bigger success at Fratton Park than he was at Anfield because Pompey have spent five million more than we did, so surely he'll be better because they spent more money on him. Is that the logic we use?



      Your lack of logic never ceases to amaze me.

      Players are valued at what the manager thinks they will add to his team. Crouch has yet to score for Pompey, but Defoe can't stop scoring because he now has the right partner. In that sense, Crouch is a success - but you can't compare what he will do at a UEFA Cup side to one that's challenging for the major honours.

      Crouch will be a success at Pompey in relative terms, but he won't have the same success in team terms. The reason he cost Redknapp £11m is because he improved tremendously at Liverpool. But by 2007 Benitez could afford a world-class striker with pace, and so Crouch was surplus to requirements - beyond being a squad player.
      The Invisible Man
      • Forum Kevin Keegan
      • ***

      • 352 posts | 18 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #78: Sep 20, 2008 08:50:11 am
      - there is some costly figures in that team now.  Kuyt and Babel - bang £20 million.  A £50 million strike pairing. 


      True.

      But look at United.

      Two centre-backs - bang, £40m!

      Two wingers (Nani and Ronaldo) - bang, £30m!

      Three central midfielders (Anderson, Hargreaves, Carrick) - bang, £50m!

      Three strikers (Berbatov, Rooney and Tevez, valued at £32m) - bang, £90m!

      Some of these were bought before Rafa arrived or when Rafa wasn't being given above £10m to spend.
      Chico Banderas
      • Forum Legend - Benitez
      • *****

      • 2,072 posts | 150 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #79: Sep 20, 2008 12:24:12 pm

      True.

      But look at United.

      Two centre-backs - bang, £40m!

      Two wingers (Nani and Ronaldo) - bang, £30m!

      Three central midfielders (Anderson, Hargreaves, Carrick) - bang, £50m!

      Three strikers (Berbatov, Rooney and Tevez, valued at £32m) - bang, £90m!

      Some of these were bought before Rafa arrived or when Rafa wasn't being given above £10m to spend.


      Well pointed out m8... Looking at it that way puts a few things in perspective.. Thats a lot of corn spent!!..
      The Invisible Man
      • Forum Kevin Keegan
      • ***

      • 352 posts | 18 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #80: Sep 21, 2008 01:09:05 pm
      Looking at it that way puts a few things in perspective.. Thats a lot of corn spent!!..


      And that's before even getting onto Chelsea!
      Paul Tomkins
      • Forum Alf Arrowsmith
      • *

      • 60 posts | 11 
      • Mr Brightside
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #81: Sep 24, 2008 11:45:43 am
      Having dipped in and out of this forum for a few months, thought I'd best say hello, and thank the people who've shared my work in this thread.

      I have no interest in being a regular poster on any forum, given the time it takes up, but I'll try and post occasionally if I have something to say.

      JD
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 39,687 posts | 6981 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #82: Sep 24, 2008 12:28:21 pm
      Wise words.  Steer clear of forums.  Entirely counter-productive in terms of 'getting your job done'.

      I personally would like to thank you for your donations towards our charity night earlier this year which was at an expense to yourself.

      Hopefully my future generations will be thrilled that the signed copies I picked up will be worth a fortune. ;)

      MsGerrard
      • Guest
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #83: Sep 24, 2008 12:40:36 pm
      Having dipped in and out of this forum for a few months, thought I'd best say hello, and thank the people who've shared my work in this thread.

      I have no interest in being a regular poster on any forum, given the time it takes up, but I'll try and post occasionally if I have something to say.



      Welcome Paul Tomkins, you already know I'm a big fan of yours.  ;D

      Nice to have you on board

      Loving the new book by the way.......Excellent

      I would just like to reiterate what JD said about the books, it was extremely generous of you to send them to me, thankyou very much.

      Hope you enjoy the forum x
      Paul Tomkins
      • Forum Alf Arrowsmith
      • *

      • 60 posts | 11 
      • Mr Brightside
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #84: Sep 24, 2008 02:16:57 pm
      No worries about the donation, JD and MsG (isn't that an additive for Chinese food?).

      My apologies to those who would rather have won something better in the raffle  :P
      Venison 86
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 5,157 posts | 205 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #85: Sep 24, 2008 02:40:40 pm
      MsG (isn't that an additive for Chinese food?).

      You cant beat a bit of MsG  ;)
      redkenny
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 24,912 posts | 1058 
      • 97 - Always Remembered
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #86: Sep 24, 2008 02:56:54 pm
      My apologies to those who would rather have won something better in the raffle  :P

      I won a Kwik Fit toddler sized overall. Still trying to get it to fit me now and I have noticed a rise in the tone of my voice, since....

      So one of your books would have saved me my comfort plus a deeper tone in my voice.  ;)

      Seriously though, I'd like to echo JD and MsG's sentiments and say thanks for the great donation amongst all the other great prizes for the charity we had. Very kind of you mate.
      graham135uk
      • Forum Emlyn Hughes
      • ****

      • 797 posts | 27 
      • “Liverpool are magic. Everton are tragic.”
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #87: Sep 24, 2008 03:36:06 pm
      I would also like to say welcome, and as the others have said, a big thank you for the donations for the charity night.
      WELL DONE.
      ayrton77
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 13,775 posts | 627 
      • © Established Quality Since 1977
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #88: Sep 24, 2008 04:51:00 pm
      A big welcome!  :welcome:

      Whether people agree with your opinions or not, it has to be said that your articles get people talking on the forum! :D You give us plenty of food for thought, and it's through this discussion and sharing of ideas that we can find the best way forward, or perspective on our losses!

      Hope to read more of your posts in the future.
      JD
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 39,687 posts | 6981 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #89: Sep 29, 2008 05:18:57 pm
      Post Derby Day celebrations!

      TOMKINS: FEELING FAR FROM BLUE
      Paul Tomkins 29 September 2008

      Okay, so I lied. Despite what I said last week, apparently I do feel quite motivated to write about a great result rather than just bask in the memory.
       
      Writing an article after a good win is about 10 times easier than after a defeat or disappointing draw. Some articles I write out of a sense of duty, and agonise over for a long time, but this one is purely a self-indulgent release of joy. As William Wordsworth said in 1798, get in there!
       
      Liverpool, as the team looking to pass the ball quickly, weren’t helped by the fussiest referee around, but that just made the performance all the more impressive; it’s just a shame Torres’ hat-trick goal was chalked off for, I presume, a wonky Y on the back of KUYT’s shirt (only visible to a trained typographer such as myself, and certain referees).
       
      Liverpool faced the trickiest fixture of the big four, and clearly achieved the best result. Stoke’s point at Anfield was put into contrast by Hull’s victory at Arsenal, who’ve already lost their second league game of the season. That said, the Gunners are still only one win off the pace, so I’d never say losing at home to a team like Hull means they can’t win the title. But I’d be worried about their consistency; brilliant in some games, awful against Fulham and Hull.
       
      I usually expect the Reds to play better away at teams like Stoke, when the onus is on the home side to revert from a 11-0-0 formation. Of course, that’s why Hull’s victory at the Emirates was so refreshing; they actually made a game of it (and I’d rather see teams do that at Anfield, minus the away win, of course).
       
      Having said that, two English UEFA Cup sides have already shown scant ambition to attack Benítez’s men on their own ground, and that says a lot about how far his team has come in the last four years.
       
      First Villa played for a draw and only had one chance of note, and then Everton offered no attacking threat whatsoever, choosing to not even throw men forward for set-pieces at one point in the second half and not managing a single shot on goal. People criticise the top four for becoming an exclusive quadropoly, but if Villa and Everton’s ambition in home games against the big boys is anything to go by, the gulf is justified.
       
      The weird thing about the derby in the last decade is that Liverpool have only had total domination over Everton since the Reds went continental in management terms; under a Liverpudlian manager in Roy Evans, the Toffees had the clear edge. But Houllier and Benítez have overseen countless wonderful wins. That’s the irony of this fixture.
       
      This was exemplified last season by Benítez’s decision to take off a passionate Scouser and replace him with a young Brazilian; not your typical derby decision. A year on and Benítez is still being mocked on Sky Sports for this decision, yet it won Liverpool the game. As such, it demands total respect.
       
      That is not to say that Gerrard’s passion and drive did not get the Reds back into the game last year; clearly it did, before his adrenaline took over. But by contrast, Saturday’s performance was possibly the most mature I’ve seen from him in terms of holding his position and using the ball with incredible effectiveness. In the coming years, as he heads towards and then into his 30s, that kind of display will keep him in the team even when his legs can’t carry him around at breakneck speed anymore.
       
      While I love Gerrard’s all-action game, at Goodison he resembled Roy Keane at his best: breaking play up, giving sensible short passes and dictating the game. Of course, Roy Keane could never pass or score like Gerrard, so if the Liverpool captain can continue to mix his game to suit the occasion and the situation, he could be even more effective.
       
      It’s hard to explain why, as a non-native of Liverpool, the derby still means so much to me. Collectively, us ‘outsiders’ get carried along by the fervour. We also have a sense of defending our Red brothers for their local bragging rights. I’ve been to plenty of Mersey derbies down the years, and the atmosphere, which can be unpleasant at times, filters through. As far as I’m concerned, if the fans in the city feel good, the club as a whole feels good.
       
      Local Liverpool fans can feel ‘diluted’ by out-of-towners, and I understand that; we’re all protective of what we see as ours, even if we don’t possess exclusive rights to it. I expect I’d feel the same if I was a Scouser, and that they’d feel the same as people like me if they fell in love with the club from afar, at an age when local identity was not a conscious issue.
       
      But it’s Evertonians who seem to most resent our presence in the Red ranks. In the past two decades, unable to boast of trophies (bar one, in ‘95), better league seasons (bar one, in ‘05) and increasingly fewer wins in the head-to-heads, Evertonians cling to the notion that their support is truest in its origins.
       
      I have to admit I’ve been on the receiving end of Bluenose abuse. My friends and I, having parked up after the journey north several years back, were the victims of a terrifying drive-by incident. Standing at the junction of Breck and Belmont Road, looking to cross and walk up the hill towards Anfield, we found ourselves sandwiched.
       
      In events that now recur to me in slow motion, the inhabitants of a black Ford took aim and I was hit in the thigh.
       
      I looked down to find a blotch of peanut butter on my jeans, and a piece of bread at my feet. So high were the passions riding, they were prepared to hurl their lunch as well some choice insults. (Luckily I lived to tell the tale.)
       
      Bragging rights don’t mean a lot to me in the midlands, but the nerves are always greatest for this game. Thankfully they were put to rest within the hour.
       
      Torres ending his drought was a major psychological breakthrough for the season as a whole; a watershed moment.
       
      Suddenly, along with Keane, the part of the side that wasn’t clicking – for fitness, confidence and ‘newness’ reasons, rather than tactical – is now finding its feet. Keane, who is looking increasingly like the player I admired at Spurs, did incredibly well in setting up the opening goal with a delightful left-footed cross, while the link-up between Keane, Torres and Kuyt for the second goal was also top-class. New boy Riera also played an important part in winning the ball on both occasions.
       
      With Alonso back to his best, and Arbeloa having overcome an inconsistent second season to once again look like an incredibly shrewd signing, the team as a whole looks in fine fettle. Dossena is improving gradually, and his crossing ability will be a crucial weapon throughout the season.
       
      Skrtel is deservedly keeping Agger (a quite wonderful footballer) out of the side, as the clean sheets continue to be racked up. Equally, Babel, like the Danish centre-back, will be hard to keep out of the starting XI, but such competition for places is most welcome and results suggest that, for the time being, things are working.
       
      It just needs Keane to break his duck and experience what Torres did in the second half at Goodison, when a player struggling for his goal touch suddenly looks like the best striker in the world again.
       
      It’s important to not get carried away, but the evidence of the season as a whole, rather than one result against Stoke, suggests the team is heading in the right direction. So much can change in the next eight months, but at least Liverpool are looking the part: winning ugly initially, and in the two most intense clashes of the season, winning with style.
       
      The balance of the team looks excellent, so with a bit of luck (like United had with the referee at the weekend, and Liverpool lacked at home to Stoke), the good run will continue well into 2009.
       
      It’s clear some incredibly strong sides stand in the way of such an achievement, but a nineteen year wait for a 19th title has a rather poetic ring to it.

      MsGerrard
      • Guest
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #90: Sep 29, 2008 05:56:03 pm
      Great piece of writing  ;D

      I wish I could write like that  :)

      It’s clear some incredibly strong sides stand in the way of such an achievement, but a nineteen year wait for a 19th title has a rather poetic ring to it.

       Doesn't it just !!!!  Loved this line  ;D


      RedWilly
      • Forum Legend - Dalglish
      • *****

      • 9,224 posts | 1646 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #91: Sep 29, 2008 06:11:41 pm
      Fantastic article yet again! Love reading them and then saying bits of the articles to my mates acting as if I researched all the facts! Works a treat!! And welcome to the forum Paul mate, even if you won't be spending much time on here, it's great to see you on board!

      Quick Reply