Trending Topics

      Next match: Fulham v LFC [Premier League] Sun 21st Apr @ 4:30 pm
      Craven Cottage

      Today is the 20th of April and on this date LFC's match record is P31 W17 D7 L7

      The Official Paul Tomkins Thread

      Read 67127 times
      0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
      Venison 86
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 5,157 posts | 205 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #253: Mar 11, 2009 04:46:13 pm
      TOMKINS ON MADRID MAULING
      When Real Madrid scored six goals in the first half of the league game a few days before the first leg, on the back of a nine-game winning run, the signs were ominous. 
       
      In last night's second leg, with a deserved 1-0 lead to protect (achieved against the odds in the Bernabeu), Liverpool could have scored six goals in the first six minutes. The Reds were simply sensational. The eventual 4-0 margin flattered Madrid. And then some.
       
      This was the kind of night that a decade ago I thought I would never see again. Hell, even five years ago it seemed a million miles away. Thrash an in-form Real Madrid in the Champions League? Are you joking?
       
      The kind of tempo and intensity on show against the most glamorous club side in the world is hard to replicate on a weekly basis, as, alas, is the fervour of the crowd. The Reds harried the life out of Real, and out-passed them too. The crowd rocked in a way that has become famous on European nights, but which is rarely replicated domestically.
       
      The noise leading up to the kick-off clearly inspired the players, and if only it could be the same every week, with the noise there before the players get the game started.
       
      But the visit of teams like Sunderland, as seen last week, don't get the pulses racing. If the Kop could make itself famous once again for its league atmosphere, it would surely be a big help, but against smaller teams there will always be a natural air of “it's up to you” aimed at the players (who themselves need to try and get a fast tempo going from the first whistle).
       
      While Rafa Benítez has given us some amazing European nights, none has come close to the emphatic nature of this result. It doesn't get close to Istanbul for overall jaw-dropping drama and the joyous rewards at the final whistle, or the euphoria of edging out Chelsea in the semi-final second-leg a few weeks earlier, but it is arguably the most incredible score-line Liverpool have ever had in Europe.
       
      Already the “Madrid aren't really that good” excuses are being trotted out, despite being the reigning double Spanish champions and on a domestic run that they've barely bettered in their history.
       
      For me, the game goes to show that Liverpool are not negative or cautious, but a great attacking team – when everyone is fit and the confidence is flowing. (Most teams obviously look a lot poorer when the confidence is low, and that certainly applies to the Reds.)
       
      A couple of months ago Liverpool showed how devastating they can be when it all clicks into gear at St James' Park, but it was written off as ‘just Newcastle', even though it was at one of the harder places to go in football.
       
      That day, Shay Given knew he'd had enough after being beaten five times and making about ten top-class saves. Iker Casillas, a similar style of sublime shot-stopping goalkeeper, might be thinking the same. On both these occasions, Liverpool broke through early on, when on top.
       
      Getting the first goal is vitally important to the confidence and belief of these players, particularly at Anfield.
       
      Confidence tends to drain away after the 30-minute mark if the breakthrough hasn't come, and thankfully the tie was as good as won at that stage last night. Results like this can't help but build an overall belief.
       
      The truism goes that ‘the first league title is the hardest to win', but in the Champions League Benítez started by lifting the trophy.
       
      That had two effects. It made people more inclined to say “but why not do that in the Premiership?”, and it gave the Reds that all-encompassing belief in Europe.
       
      Had Benítez, by some utter freak of nature (given the team he inherited) instead won the 2004/05 Premiership title, that belief would be there to keep, no matter what the current form might be. A monkey would have been off Liverpool's back, and his players will have known that a repeat was possible.
       
      Instead, in the more realistic scenario, the Champions League was won; not that it felt in any way realistic at the time, or that it was easy.
       
      Contrast this to Rafa at Valencia. He won the league at his first attempt, and the club's first for 31 years, as he organised a fine squad. But his European record wasn't that remarkable: quarter-finals at best in the Champions League, and a very good but not outstanding (given the strength of the competition) UEFA Cup win.
       
      So to pigeon-hole him purely as this European specialist is a little wayward. Yes, as a continental coach he understands the different styles of football. But for me, the key point (and I said this three years ago) is that “we can do it” belief – which cannot simply be talked into players – came in Europe.
       
      You cannot give that to the Reds in the league until they've been right there and done it, making it almost catch-22. But in the Champions League, they've had it since 2005. Benítez's Valencia didn't have that belief in the Champions League, but instead in La Liga; in his third season, he won the title again, by a bigger margin.
       
      But of course, results like last night's only lead to a highlighting of the supposed contrast between the league and Europe.
       
      But the fact is that over the course of his tenure Rafa has won more-or-less as many games in the league as in Europe, and that this season, his team have won a greater percentage of games in both the Premiership and the Champions League than the average across his previous four years. (And lost fewer than ever before, too).
       
      To win the Premiership these days you need an über-squad, and the Reds don't quite have the depth of Chelsea a few years ago and United at the moment, or that ‘been there, done it' experience.
       
      These are squads that cost between £200m-£300m, unlike Liverpool's, which, as I pointed out last week, cost around £130m.
       
      (Of course, it might be helpful if I didn't, as happened last week, mix up Rafa Benítez's net spend with the money raised from player sales: rather than a net outlay of £108m (from a gross of £188m), his net spend is only approximately £80m. Or £20m a season. I double-checked my own figures in calculating the cost of the five most expensive squads, but misquoted the numbers supplied to me by www.LFCHistory.net. Still, I'm not afraid to admit, and correct, my mistakes!)
       
      If you don't quite have as much depth, you need players like Torres and Gerrard to be able to play 90% of the matches; not only are they two of the best players in the world, but their understanding transcends the sum of two remarkable parts. Together they are lethal.
       
      I think this season they've only been fit to start a handful of league games together, and almost all of those saw them hampered by injuries or rustiness. While United can now cope better without Wayne Rooney, their results without Ronaldo are not impressive at all; and if they can miss one player with their über-squad, Liverpool will clearly miss two such outstanding attacking talents.
       
      Liverpool have proved this season against Chelsea, Manchester United and Real Madrid that, on occasion, they can cope without Gerrard and Torres – but the more games those two have missed, the greater the effort required by the others, and the greater the chance that the extra spark G&T can provide will not be compensated for.
       
      You can't have players that good in reserve; it's very hard to even keep players as good as Crouch and Keane (neither of whom are in Torres' class) happy on the bench.
       
      So no-one can convince me that if Gerrard and Torres been fit and in the form shown last night, Liverpool wouldn't have more Premiership points.
       
      All the same, they are not the only top-class performers. The likes of Carragher, Skrtel, Reina, Alonso and Mascherano, along with Gerrard and Torres, get their fair share of praise, so I see it as my job to give credit to the more unsung heroes.
       
      Some of the form players of recent weeks – Benayoun, Ngog and Insua – missed playing a part in this famous night, but they do show that there is depth to the squad, even if it's not replete with £20m-30m players.
       
      Benayoun has emerged from the shadows to show what a shrewd buy he was, while Ngog and Insua can only improve from the experience of this season.
       
      Indeed, Insua has already built on his steady-but-unspectacular tasters from the previous two seasons to now look very assured, while Ngog really showed what he can do in his last outing. As they mature, along with players like Jay Spearing and others who will emerge from the reserves, the squad will take on a stronger appearance.
       
      Despite his difficulties this season, Lucas is an important part of the fast-pressing game Liverpool try to play every week, when it's his turn to give another midfielder a rest. He's been a little clumsy at times, but it's that in-your-face closing down that the Reds do so well when on song. It's an unappreciated job at times, but such players can help set the tempo.
       
      Dirk Kuyt is another player I'll defend to the hilt. Give me Kuyt over the more gifted Arjen Robben any day.
       
      There's no doubt that Robben is a match-winner (when he turns up), but Kuyt is always involved in the best things Liverpool do, even if he isn't the man making the most silky touches. His effort is infectious, and his movement off the ball vastly underrated.
       
      For a right-midfielder, he has a great knack of popping up in the right place at the right time, partly due to a striker's instinct and partly due to his incredible stamina and work ethic.
       
      He set up the opening goal last night with his proactive run, but while it's easy to look at his pass to Torres as simple because he didn't beat five men and do a triple salco, he has a habit of getting in behind defenders. Look at how he ran off Heinze in the first place to leave him for dead – not with skill, but with intelligent running, to get a five-yard advantage.
       
      Babel also showed something of a return to form and better use of his left foot. I think he can be something very special, but he needs confidence.
       
      So let's be clear: Liverpool are deservedly the #1 ranked team in Europe based on the results of the last five years. That is a massive achievement in relation to the riches other clubs possess.
       
      Any single season can fall away due to a bad run of results, but consistency over half a decade in Europe's premier competition is the hallmark of a quality side that knows what it's doing and believes in itself in that arena.
       
      We all crave the Premiership crown, but we should be grateful for what we have.
       
      There's a long way to go, but with six wins and two draws from the eight ‘proper' games so far, you wouldn't bet against the Reds making it to another final.
       
      And what better place than Rome?
       
       
      JD
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 39,595 posts | 6928 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #254: Mar 11, 2009 05:27:49 pm
      I feel like Paul is inside my mind and writing down my every thoughts.
      The Invisible Man
      • Forum Kevin Keegan
      • ***

      • 352 posts | 18 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #255: Mar 11, 2009 07:00:24 pm
      I feel like Paul is inside my mind and writing down my every thoughts.


      Isn't that copyright infringement?  :P
      brilad
      • Forum Legend - Benitez
      • *****

      • 1,967 posts | 99 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #256: Mar 11, 2009 11:11:51 pm
       Love the article about rafas spending in the transfer market.I am sick of the press and knobheads on the goggle box spouting on and on about "he,s spent a fortune blah,blah" he hasnt ,rafas has had his hands tied season after season and his wheeling and dealing has been good.
      NICE ONE MR TOMKINS.
      Venison 86
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 5,157 posts | 205 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #257: Mar 16, 2009 11:35:55 am
      FOUR DAYS IN HEAVEN
      Paul Tomkins 16 March 2009 
      For once I'm almost lost for words. Where do you start after back-to-back results like those? Excluding cup finals and league deciders, I do not think there can have been two better results so close together in the history of the club. 
      In the grand scheme of things they are only small landmarks – two games – and United remain favourites to land the league title. But as markers of intent and ability, they could prove immense.
         
      If Liverpool do go on to win either of the main competitions, these will be seen as the defining moments. If not, they are still boosts to the self-belief and proof of what this team can do against the very best, and help attain future success.
       
      Liverpool didn't just beat Real Madrid and Manchester United, they outplayed them and thrashed them. Unlike victories at Old Trafford in the past decade, this was no smash and grab; it was smash, smash and smash again.
       
      To do the double over Manchester United and Chelsea and still be outsiders to win the league seems incredible.
       
      But it's credit to United for such an unbelievable run going into this game; when Liverpool did stumble in the new year they took full advantage. All the same, United's remarkable clean sheet record was dragged through the Old Trafford mud on Saturday lunchtime.
       
      Beyond anything else, this week has gone to show that a fit Gerrard and Torres combination is as good, if not better, than anything in world football.
       
      Zinedine Zidane, no less, said Gerrard is the world's best player, and no-one will argue against Torres being the world's best centre-forward.
       
      Put them together, and they will tear defences apart. If fit.
       
      And whatever you say about the rights and wrongs of Liverpool's season, and the manager's decisions, you cannot dispute the quality that the pair bring, and how the Reds have sorely missed it. Results have been dug out in their absence, because of other top players and a canny manager, but these two are as sharp as any cutting edge gets.
       
      Torres still has an ankle problem, but unlike a hamstring, it doesn't affect his pace, and is less psychologically damaging. But even with a strapping holding the joint in place, he tortured the league's best defender this season. Vidic on toast, anyone?
       
      A key factor regarding Torres' fitness has been how in both games it took just a long punt to open the scoring.
       
      Liverpool can, and do, play pretty intricate football to work openings, but if you have genuine pace up front, allied to skill and strength, you can terrify defenders as renowned as Cannavaro, Ferdinand and Vidic with any kind of pass.
       
      Gerrard, like Torres, is also a quick thinker, and when the no.9 wasn't running in behind United's knot-tied defenders, the captain was.
       
      Despite this, and despite the pair helping put four past Madrid, Andy Gray was still talking about Benítez being negative in the absence of Alonso (whose injury was another major blow – he and Benayoun have been two of the form players) by not dropping Gerrard back into midfield. Gray made some fair observations, but this wasn't one of them.
       
      When will people get – or maybe just accept – just how good Gerrard is right up alongside Torres?
       
      When will people see the Liverpool captain as a quicksilver version of Kenny Dalglish? – not quite as brilliant as the great Scot in some respects (who could be?), but arguably just as devastating playing off the main striker. Gerrard now has more goals than any United striker this term, by playing this role.
       
      Yes, he's great in central midfield, too. But please, let's not accuse the manager of negativity when this formation has helped thump the double Spanish, English and European champions in the space of four days, with eight goals to just one in reply!
       
      It's true that Alonso and Mascherano aren't prolific, but it's not like United are getting 25 goals a season from this position. United's pair of Anderson and Carrick have two league goals between them, the same as Liverpool's.
       
      Giggs and Scholes, who also play there a lot, are undeniably ageing well, but are no longer goalscorers; they have one league goal each this season. It's like judging them on their abilities of five years ago.
       
      Ditto Gerrard, who was averaging six goals a season in midfield in 2004, before Benítez turned him into a 20-a-season man playing in the hole.
       
      Until last season, Gerrard didn't look totally convincing in the role, particularly against the best sides. Now he's excelled there against Chelsea, Madrid and United in the past month or so.
       
      Part of this is due to his own improvement due to gaining experience in the position, and part of it is down to the introduction of Torres and Mascherano in front and behind him, and the much improved form of Alonso. In other words, the team is getting better, to provide him with a stronger platform.
       
      United also tend to play Park or Fletcher on one side and Ronaldo on the other; the same wide-midfielder/winger combination as the Reds.
       
      While Liverpool have no-one to match Ronaldo's remarkable record of goals from the flank, Kuyt has easily outscored Park and Fletcher put together, while Riera, Babel or Benayoun can also notch goals.
       
      (And any Kuyt doubters, look at his run to help Gerrard win the penalty. Top class movement.)
       
      I won't deny that Liverpool still lack a little of the all-encompassing depth of United's squad, and that's a reason why, over the long haul, it's proved hard to win the league.
       
      But even some of the less-heralded squad members have shown their qualities this week, not least Andrea Dossena, who has picked a great time to show the attacking instincts he was bought for (even if the non-stop, lung-busting gruel of getting up-and-back in the Premiership from left-back has been a big culture shock), and Lucas, who showed great heart on Saturday, and despite the odd mistake was generally excellent.
       

      Resources

       
      So why not play like this every week?
       
      As I've been saying for a few weeks, Benítez has had to sell his own signings in order to buy better, more expensive ones; trading his way up with a lot of transfer activity (making for a big, distorting gross spend), but rather than shelling out almost £200m, the reality is that he's been recycling funds, leaving a low net spend. United's current squad is roughly £80m more expensive than the Reds'.
       
      The gap in squad funding is immense, in no small part due to United's success on the pitch at the precise point the English game became a cash cow (while Liverpool's own great success was in a far less profitable era), and from being able to develop their stadium while Anfield remained largely land-locked.
       
      Look at it like this: even if you include every single player Benítez has bought, the total still doesn't add up to what United's current squad cost to assemble.
       
      Now, if in times of injury and fatigue, Liverpool had been able to also call upon Peter Crouch, Craig Bellamy, Luis Garcia, Momo Sissoko and various other players bought and sold by the boss, then would the squad be a lot stronger? Undoubtedly.
       
      But those players were sold as part of a process of improvement; without selling Bellamy and Garcia, Torres probably does not arrive; without selling Sissoko, Mascherano probably does not arrive. And the wages are a problem, too; it's not cheap to keep a big squad together.
       
      Just look at the two teams at Old Trafford.
       
      United's starting XI cost £45m more than Liverpool's, and their 18-man squad cost £176m to the Reds' £105m. That's a chasm.
       
      United have every right to spend more money on their squad, if they generate such amounts; but let's not enter into this mythological world created by United fans and myopic media mouthpieces to make out Benítez has had equal spending power. He hasn't.
       
      I also keep hearing that when teams like Everton fail to finish above Liverpool, or even get close, it's because of their lesser resources; "The Chosen One" is still lauded as a genius, though.
       
      Meanwhile, Rafa Benítez is often lambasted even though he has worked miracles in Europe, and, domestically, has Liverpool currently punching at the same weight as a £200m+ über-squad (that of Chelsea, with a similar squad cost to United), despite a collection of players that only cost around 60% as much.
       
      Isn't this hypocritical? Can't people see this?
       
      Moyes has taken seven years to make Everton a very good side; Benítez has taken five to turn what was a decidedly average Liverpool team into a very, very good side indeed, bordering on excellent (if still not perfect), with only the 5th-most expensive squad currently in the Premiership.
       
      Hypocrisy abounds. Rafa is seen as someone who doesn't understand or prioritise English football, even though he's racked up his first 100 league wins in 50 fewer games than Alex Ferguson. Again, I'm not arguing that Liverpool are now better than United, merely that Benítez be judged fairly, based on facts.
       
      As another example of misconceptions, a lot of people appear to be criticising Benítez's substitutions this season, simply because he doesn't go for broke at half-time with bravado switches. And yet Liverpool have scored more second-half goals than any other Premiership team, and a whopping 24 in the last 15 minutes of games!
       
      Look at vital goals against both Madrid sides in the last ten minutes of Champions League games, or Kuyt's winner in the last minute of extra-time against Liege. Look at all the last-gasp winners in the league.
       
      Does this not suggest that, more often than not, the manager has been proved right? Does this not suggest positive changes were made, either with personnel or tactics, or that in some instances, no changes were right, too?
       
      The fact is, Liverpool have never been this well placed at this stage of a season since the league was re-branded in 1992; when I saw the figures a couple of games ago the Reds were five points better off than at any point in the past 18 years (going back to 1991, when the Reds trailed off in the spring following Dalglish's shock departure), and since then it's been six points from six.
       
      To go from a reasonably distant 4th to winning the title in one season is a big ask, particularly when the holders are also European champions. Even if the dream of the title ultimately proves a step too far, the Reds can go to Old Trafford and Stamford Bridge with extra confidence from now on.
       
      There is still work to be done, improvements to be made. But that's why I've always trusted Benítez; I've never felt that anyone could guarantee Liverpool the league title (given the odds stacked against the Reds these days), but I have felt that at least he has the unerring perfectionism that will drive him, and the team, on.
       
      Yes, he persists with some players out of form, but simply because he knows what they are capable of (as seen this week), and trusts that his belief in them can help them succeed; but anyone who doesn't do what he needs them to is quickly sold, as better replacements are sought.
       
      Without the ability to spend £30m a time on a number of players, it becomes a slower process – sorting the wheat from the chaff; keeping the good signings and moving on those who don't cut it. Unfortunately, every time he does this, a club like United, who were already more advanced in their evolution, can go and spend £32m on a single player, while the league as a whole strengthens (see Aston Villa as an example).
       
      So if Liverpool are not yet at that level we so crave, anyone who cannot see a marked improvement this season is missing the overall picture and choosing to just fixate on the negatives.
       
      The progress may not be in giant steps, but it's not in baby steps either. And that's good enough for me.
       


      Another great article
      jindaldhruv
      • Forum Legend - Fagan
      • *****

      • 3,805 posts | 24 
      • Football is my religion. Steven Gerrard is my God.
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #258: Mar 16, 2009 11:53:34 am
      you know what? even if somebody has 0.1% doubt about rafa or rafa's credential, that doubt should just get squashed reading this article. this sums up all that has been said in favour of rafa in a number of topics.
      hats off mr. paul tomkins!
      ayrton77
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 13,775 posts | 627 
      • © Established Quality Since 1977
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #259: Mar 16, 2009 12:08:46 pm
      Wicked stuff, as ever!

      When we ask the question "who could replace Rafa", the answer is always a mish-mash of half-decent managers, almost a muttered response.

      After reading that, I challenge anyone to name a single manager capable of achieving what Benitez has under the same circumstances of the last five years.
      Dadorious
      • Forum Legend - Dalglish
      • *****

      • 9,882 posts | 1545 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #260: Mar 16, 2009 01:05:33 pm
      Bloody excellent read that!

      I second that Ayrton not one manager out there could have done any better given all the facts presented in Pauls article.
      Brian78
      • Forum Legend - Paisley
      • *****

      • 19,112 posts | 2766 
      • A Liverbird upon my chest
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #261: Mar 16, 2009 01:10:41 pm
      FOUR DAYS IN HEAVEN

       
      Look at it like this: even if you include every single player Benítez has bought, the total still doesn't add up to what United's current squad cost to assemble.
       
      Now, if in times of injury and fatigue, Liverpool had been able to also call upon Peter Crouch, Craig Bellamy, Luis Garcia, Momo Sissoko and various other players bought and sold by the boss, then would the squad be a lot stronger? Undoubtedly.
       
      But those players were sold as part of a process of improvement; without selling Bellamy and Garcia, Torres probably does not arrive; without selling Sissoko, Mascherano probably does not arrive. And the wages are a problem, too; it's not cheap to keep a big squad together.
       
      Just look at the two teams at Old Trafford.
       
      United's starting XI cost £45m more than Liverpool's, and their 18-man squad cost £176m to the Reds' £105m. That's a chasm.
       

      Paul could you hit the nail on the head any harder lad?
      redkenny
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 24,912 posts | 1058 
      • 97 - Always Remembered
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #262: Mar 21, 2009 08:24:50 pm
      The link has been posted in another thread but I thought I would paste this up in here for people to have a good read.

      Because it's a very good read.

      Ferguson is wrong
      Thankfully, most media outlets seem to have seen the massive inaccuracy in Alex Ferguson’s figures relating to Liverpool’s spending.


      That he should even choose to come out with such figures in the first place is interesting, given his rather undignified reaction to Rafa’s ‘fact’ press conference a couple of months back.

      I’m also still smiling over his ‘we were the better side’ comments following their total humiliation last week, which every neutral I’ve spoken to found hilarious. That United played so well was obviously the reason Old Trafford was so empty in the last 10 minutes. He’s also had a pop by excluding Rafa’s name from the best managers in the league, which seems a bit childish for a pensioner.

      You can’t argue with Ferguson’s success as a manager, but you can with some of the things he says.

      This season may be a learning curve for Liverpool, with the league United’s to lose even before their two main rivals were drawn against each other in the Champions League (which yet means the  teams aspiring to catch United play each other in titanic, exhausting battles, as seen with Chelsea and Arsenal facing Liverpool last season while United get the easy draw.)

      But the United manager is clearly worried, particularly as stability has been put in place at Anfield regarding the manager’s future.

      That the United manager should already be talking about Liverpool’s future spending is fascinating. Why do so, unless he’s worried?

      Ferguson talks about the young players United have signed, and bizarrely says that Rafa, a man who started out in youth development, does things differently.

      Perhaps Torres, Reina, Alonso, Mascherano, Agger, Lucas, Babel and Skrtel weren’t all young players – aged 20-23 – when Rafa signed them after all, and all the teenage talent brought to the club, including Insua, Nemeth, Pacheco, Plessis and Ngog, is just a mirage?

      How many players in their 30s has Rafa brought to the club? I can’t think of one before or after Pellegrino, at 33, in 2005. Nor one as old as Henrik Larsson or Edwin van der Sar.

      Robbie Keane was the oldest major signing Benítez has made, and perhaps the fact that he turns 29 this summer was why he was shipped out so quickly; at that age, if it doesn’t look like it’s working, you can’t bide your time, particularly if a good offer comes in before the age-related depreciation takes place. Berbatov is roughly the same age as Keane.

      But the major flaw in Ferguson’s argument is the fact that he already had half of his squad in place in 2004 when Rafa arrived.

      He hasn’t needed to rebuild an entire squad from scratch, merely add the £15m-£30m adornments. Rafa has clearly had to deal in quantity to cover all positions, but Ferguson has had the luxury of looking solely at quality.

      After all, in 2003 United were champions, and Liverpool 5th! When Rafa arrived, United had dropped to 3rd, but still a whopping 15 points ahead of a very average Liverpool side.

      So the two situations are poles apart. Ferguson had already spent big on players like Rio Ferdinand before Rafa pitched up.

      He already had the players who emerged because of his youth system, which took almost seven years to bear fruit beyond one player (Giggs emerged in year five). Benítez would only be at that stage in 2011.

      Indeed, if you add together every single player Rafa has bought (and there have been around 60, many of whom were mere kids), it still does not reach the total cost of United’s current squad.

      Even if you also add the cost of those players Rafa inherited who are still at the club (and there are just three), it still does not reach the total cost of United’s current squad.

      Including players out on loan (but not the full Tevez fee due this summer), United’s squad costs over £215m, compared with Liverpool’s £134m.

      Let me remind you of what I said a few weeks back:

      “Unless Ferguson is banned from fielding players like Ferdinand and Ronaldo (which would be illogical), or forced to start from scratch in 2004 (again illogical), it is not a fair comparison, is it? – I mean, come on, use your brain for a second here.”

      Benítez is trying to overturn an established superpower, one that still has a dozen-or-so players who predate his arrival in England. Rafa has just three who were good enough and young enough to endure (not that Hyypia was young, but like Giggs he is evergreen).

      As well as buy players, Rafa has had to change the culture of the club to fit in with his ideas, as all managers do; Ferguson did that 20 years ago. It’s why it took him so long to win the title, as you cannot change things overnight.

      Unless Benítez was going to try and compete for honours with the likes of Diao, Cheyrou, and Diouf, or players like Smicer, Dudek, Hamann and Henchoz, who are now all in their mid-30s (and therefore had a very short shelf-life), or injury-prone stars like Harry Kewell, Liverpool needed a fairly complete overhaul.

      Particularly as Owen and Heskey had left, and Djibril Cissé was about to arrive, all of which had been pretty much decided before Rafa took the job. (Also, including Cissé as a Benítez signing only further skews the figures.)

      So the inaccuracies are clear for all to see. But let’s switch things a little.

      How did Ferguson overtake Liverpool? The situation was very similar to that now, even if it was a long time ago now.

      Remember, both Ferguson and Benítez arrived aged 44, and inherited squads that had averaged 4th over the previous four seasons, and finished 4th the season before they arrived. All the fours, then!

      Each had a massive burden of expectation, brought about by a desperately long wait for the title.

      Alex Ferguson’s average league position in his first five seasons at United was 8.6 (11th, 2nd, 11th, 13th, and 6th). Benítez’s, if Liverpool finish only 3rd this season, will be 3.6.

      But Ferguson faced in Liverpool in the ‘80s an established team with a top-class manager. He couldn’t get close to Dalglish during their time in the respective dugouts.

      Ferguson spent more money between 1986 and February 1991 (£12.8m gross, £9.87m net) than Dalglish managed in his six seasons (£12.5m gross, but only £5.77m net), but got nowhere near to toppling the Reds in that time.

      So United’s net spend was virtually twice that of Liverpool, and yet Ferguson still didn’t trouble Dalglish. The money Ferguson spent wisely in the late ‘80s on players like Ince, Pallister, Hughes and Bruce took four years to have any effect on the league title. This is only Torres and Mascherano’s second season.

      So why did Ferguson spend so much more than Dalglish? 

      Well, Dalglish (like Ferguson in 2004) had a lot of his squad already in place.

      Grobbelaar, Hansen, McMahon, Whelan and Nicol all spanned the entire period when Dalglish and Ferguson managed the two English superpowers.

      (Liverpool raised £3.2m from selling Ian Rush in 1987, but the Reds also spend almost as much to bring him back a year later.)

      Those men formed the heart of Dalglish’s Liverpool.

      They were five players who didn’t need to be signed between 1986 and 1991; the kind of quality that could cost a king’s ransom if they hadn’t already been snapped up before at the top of their powers.

      Ian Rush, the sixth name, also had a Liverpool connection which meant that although he needed to be re-signed, it was a relatively easy deal because of his time at Anfield.

      Of course, Rush’s initial departure led to the greatest influx of talent seen under Dalglish: the wonderful quartet of Aldridge, Beardsley, Barnes and Houghton. So Dalglish was partly ‘blessed’ in that Rush, whom he inherited, at least raised enough money to rebuild the attack upon his transfer.

      Ferguson has enjoyed similar bonuses more recently: selling his best players for big fees as they approached their 30s (such as Stam, Beckham and Van Nistelrooy). Such sales now help keep Ferguson’s net spend down, but in his first five years he couldn’t get such impressive sums for Ron Atkinson’s flops. So his net spend was very high for the times.

      Again, make the comparison with Benítez and the likes of Diao and Cheyrou, who raised nothing.

      Benítez never had such a luxury. Owen’s value wasn’t great due to his contract situation, leaving £10m less coming in. The only seriously saleable asset was Steven Gerrard, but thankfully a move to Chelsea never came to pass.

      The biggest profits Rafa has made have been on players he himself bought: Crouch, Bellamy, Sissoko. Of course, he hasn’t been in the job long enough to sell his real gems, in the way Ferguson and Wenger (with Henry and Vieira) have picked the perfect time to cash in on world-class players aged 29/30/31.

      If Rafa wanted to sell Torres he could make a massive profit, but thankfully the striker still has five years before he even reaches 30. So it’s not relevant. Ideally, Torres would score loads of goals, win Liverpool titles, and return to his beloved Atletico no earlier than 2014 for a big fee.

      Therefore you cannot ignore the way Ferguson overcame Liverpool – not by spending more, but by spending twice the amount. And even then, it took the aftermath of Hillsborough, and the effect on Kenny Dalglish’s health, to open the door.

      (Of course, when Liverpool spent big under Graeme Souness, to try and get Liverpool back to the summit, it went pear-shaped. But that’s because Souness, aside from Rob Jones, didn’t buy players of the quality Ferguson took to Old Trafford, or of the quality of players like Reina, Torres, Mascherano, Alonso, Skrtel, Agger, et al.)

      So there you have it. It took the resignation of Dalglish to open the way for Ferguson, who had spent twice as much money but only averaged 9th place between 1986 and 1991. No wonder United fans wanted him out in 1990. But it just goes to show how difficult it is to overtake a side that already has the momentum, but that the best managers get there in the end.

      If Ferguson is thinking back to how he did so, then no wonder he’s feeling worried.

      Paul Tomkins' LFC Blog
      clint_call01
      • King Live Match Starter
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 11,678 posts | 3699 
      • Ynwa... lfc till I die !
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #263: Apr 09, 2009 05:10:18 pm
      TOMKINS: SERENITY NOW
      Paul Tomkins 09 April 2009
         A lot of what I write is based on the premise that there are always at least two ways to look at pretty much everything in football.
      paul tomkins

      Very few things in the game are clear-cut. Pros and cons exist with almost everything, be it a system, formation, selection ideas and even players themselves.
       
      During the mid-season slump I never lost faith in this team or its manager. Equally, during the good times, and after some sensational results, I've said that this is a team capable of winning the big trophies, but never got carried away, even after beating Aston Villa 5-0. Equanimity is crucial.
       
      You can be positive or negative, but I just try to be balanced. I don't go around like Frank Constanza in Seinfeld screaming 'serenity now!' when I feel my blood pressure rising, but I do try and keep things in perspective, even if it can take a few minutes after a match to calm down, and a few more hours to perk up.
       
      I admit to being surprised that the Reds have got themselves so fully back in the title hunt, but I also never swung to despair when the mid-winter wobbles hit.
       
      So I'll take the same attitude into this latest setback. Thankfully, I think virtually all Liverpool fans have seen how good this Liverpool side has become of late, and this defeat can be viewed in that context.
       
      It's fair to say that Chelsea fully deserved their 3-1 victory at Anfield last night. For the most part, Liverpool played well, and the first half was a truly titanic battle between two form sides trading body blows, but once Chelsea got their second goal the stuffing was somewhat knocked out of the Reds.
       
      I've always defended zonal marking, because for the most part it works. It's unhelpful that when it doesn't, certain ex-pros offer all its faults, but never its strengths. Even when Liverpool go many months defending set-pieces to perfection, there's never that other side of the argument.
       
      The fact is, Liverpool defended two corners badly against Chelsea. Man-marking is often at fault for goals, but no-one picks up on it, because it's the 'normal' system.
       
      Ultimately, if you don't do your job, whatever the system, it breaks down. And Chelsea are a very good team at attacking corners, while Liverpool aren't the biggest side these days.
       
      The game reminded me a bit of a role reversal from 2005. Back then Liverpool were not in the title race, or even close, but Chelsea, with a far more expensive side and bigger squad, had to juggle the two main competitions.
       
      This time, Liverpool need top energy and intensity for every single game; there's no time to take the foot off the gas, as United's closest challengers. Chelsea, meanwhile, are more adrift in the league; this time, they can focus on Europe. Liverpool reversed Chelsea's league double over them from 2005, only to lose when it came to the Champions League.
       
      It's the first defeat against a 'big four' club this season, but it came against a side rejuvenated by the inevitable boost of a new manager. Perhaps, given recent maulings handed out, the early goal made it seem a bit too easy for Liverpool; a false sense of security from pummelling other top sides. This time the opponents bounced back well.
       
      Chelsea are a weird team this season; they almost had a mid-season break, drifting through winter, with some of their players apparently having given up, only to now get a big boost for the final stretch with another top manager and the return to fitness (and desire) of some key players. It seems a long time ago when Chelsea started the season in such stunning form.
       
      But so well have Liverpool done this season, it's easy to overlook that Chelsea's 18-man squad last night cost £70m more than the Reds', and that their starting XI cost £45m more. That's the kind of gap in finances Benítez has closed has in the league; I don't see any teams assembled for far less money than Liverpool even close to the Reds.
       
      There's no doubt that the draw favoured Chelsea, with the second leg at home (especially with last season fresh in both teams' minds), but it also favoured Manchester United in terms of the league title; for some reason, Liverpool always seem to draw English opposition, which means not only an extra edge, but the extra intensity of Premiership-paced games, while United avoid them.
       
      How this result affects Liverpool's season is not easy to predict; it may be a cliché to say it can go either way, but it's true. The tie is not over, and you can expect every effort to try and win the second leg, with Chelsea's defence shorn of John Terry one advantage, but if Liverpool can't at least match the 3-1 scoreline, it's that old 'concentrate on the league' time.
       
      The main thing is to bounce back on Saturday against Blackburn. When Liverpool won 4-1 at Old Trafford, it turned a record-breaking defence into one that has now shipped ten in four matches, with the slump spread across both domestic and European competitions. Liverpool cannot let this defeat affect them in a similar manner.
       
      If Liverpool go out of Europe as a result of last night, it will provide more chance to focus on the Premiership. But it could also throw Benítez's team off their stride. Conversely, if Liverpool go to Stamford Bridge and pull off a miraculous win, it'll do incredible wonders to the confidence, but sap the energy and lead to a fixture pile-up.
       
      Which outcome would be better can never really be foretold. I felt United's late winner at the weekend would have seen them turn the corner and suddenly find their old form, but they were poor against Porto, and again failed to win.
       
      A lot was made of Liverpool's supposedly settled side going into this match, and how that's been behind the team's success of late. This may be true; certainly having his best players fit is vital to any manager, and Benítez is no different.
       
      But again, there's a flip-side. You may have more understanding, but you are also more predictable; good players can always produce something unexpected, but the system can be countered to a greater degree. Chelsea set out to stop Liverpool, with the pressure on the home side, and it worked. Keeping a settled side can also lead to increased tiredness.
       
      Pros and cons, always pros and cons. So it's often a balancing act, not a case of 'always play your best side' or always change your side.
       
      But what the figures tell me is that the two teams who have 'rotated' most this season are Manchester United and Liverpool.
       
      Or the top two sides in the league.
       
      Both have had quite a few injury problems (and United a few suspensions), but in the league it's 94 changes by Ferguson to 95 changes by Benítez.
       
      Given that they've played one less game, that means United have made a greater number of changes on average. And that average is virtually identical to the figure from last season's title success.
       
      While Benítez has made slightly fewer changes this season than last, there's not an awful lot in it; particularly as many of those changes last season came when 4th place was the best and worst the Reds could do. United's title success of 2006/07 saw both Ferguson and Benítez make 118 changes over the 38 games.
       
      But still we get the black-and-white notions about rotation; how only Benítez does it, and how it doesn't work.
       
      And this is what I try to cut through. Zonal marking versus man marking, rotation versus 'same again this week lads', 4-2-3-1 versus 4-4-2: they all have their pros and cons.
       
      Sometimes they will work, other times they will fail. And sometimes you will lose or win based not on any of these things, but on a slice of fortune, a refereeing mistake, a good finish or a bad piece of goalkeeping.
       
      That's why the big picture is the one that always counts: because it samples from a greater amount of data, and smooths out the blips. In the main competitions, Liverpool have won 26 games and lost just three – and that gives me a good sense of serenity now.
      http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/NG163958090409-1324.htm

      As always honest comments from real lfc fan.
      JD
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 39,595 posts | 6928 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #264: Apr 09, 2009 05:28:18 pm
      Just like to pick up on Paul's comments that Liverpool and United have 'rotated' the most this season.

      Not sure exactly what he means, but I'm almost sure only last week reading that Liverpool had used the least number of players in Premiership games out of all 20 clubs.

      Maybe he means changes per game - although I've got no idea how that particular stat is calculated. 
      dunlop liddell shankly
      • 2009 LFC quiz champion (now to be known as "Kate")
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 21,004 posts | 3351 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #265: Apr 09, 2009 05:52:13 pm
      But so well have Liverpool done this season, it's easy to overlook that Chelsea's 18-man squad last night cost £70m more than the Reds', and that their starting XI cost £45m more. That's the kind of gap in finances Benítez has closed has in the league; I don't see any teams assembled for far less money than Liverpool even close to the Reds.

      As usual when we lose to Chelsea the good ole boring money arguement comes up. Unfortunately it's still a load of nonesense. Our squad probably cost 75 million more than Stoke's but they managed to hold us to two goalless draws.

      Chelsea won yesterday because they were better than us. Not because they spent more than us. If football worked on that basis then we wouldn't draw with Fulham, Stoke, Everton, Arsenal, Hull, West Ham, Wigan or get beat to Middlesborough. But we did because football is played on a football pitch and not in a cheque book.
      danny8t4
      • Forum Legend - Fagan
      • *****

      • 2,819 posts | 51 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #266: Apr 14, 2009 03:45:54 pm
      Just read this on the Liverpool website and think it's a very good read.

      It points out the 'what if's' and the 'if only' that we think about watching Liverpool.

      If Only..
      In our minds at least, every result in history can be turned on its head by going back to one defined point in the match and altering what occurred.
       
      Over the years there have been some pretty big moments like that. Even last week, I ended up lamenting that Jose Boswinga wasn't fit for Chelsea, because his stand-in scored two goals. Of course, at the start of the game, that seemed like a stroke of good fortune for Liverpool.
       
      There's the 'if only' a player did something different, although I do hate it when commentators say 'if he'd done this, he'd definitely have scored'.
       
      Going back to Fulham, Andrea Dossena 'only had to keep his header down' to 'definitely' put Liverpool 1-0 ahead as he powered Gerrard's cross against the bar.
       
      I remarked at the time that there was the small matter of the keeper, and this weekend Kuyt kept his header down, from an almost identical situation, and Paul Robinson stretched out a hand to save it. Aim for the corners, and you increase your chances of scoring if you connect right, but also your chances of putting it wide. So nothing is ever that simple.
       
      It doesn't hurt to think about different things might have been, but nothing is ever certain. For example, if Steven Gerrard had been wearing Peter Crouch's boots away at Stoke, his late, full-stretch prodded effort may have gone in instead of hitting the post. Then there'd have been none of this overblown talk of mind-games affecting Liverpool.
       
      But had the Reds beaten Stoke, and avoided the subsequent poor run in form, that blip may be striking now, at a point where Liverpool are instead looking sublime in the league.
       
      Sometimes you go on a great run and it breeds confidence, but then it might lead to overconfidence; also, the end of a good run can sometimes hit harder. Any time a sense of invincibility is breached, it can have exaggerated consequences.
       
      Of course, with the Butterfly Effect, changing one thing in a match instantly changes everything else, just as changing one results alters subsequent performances, for better or worse.
       
      Unless it's the very last kick of a game, or the last game of a season, there's always time for something to yet again alter the outcome.
       
      At half-time in Istanbul, there wouldn't have been a Liverpool fan in the world who wouldn't have wiped the scoreboard clean if given the chance.
       
      Indeed, most would have settled for two Milan goals being chalked off and a full-time 1-0 defeat were it offered. I know my fear as I sat dazed at the Ataturk was one of total humiliation in the impending 45 minutes; winning the game was not a realistic option.
       
      And yet, had it been 0-0 at half-time, there's a very good chance Milan would have gone on to win. The chances of them losing from 3-0 were negligible. But to be the best moment in many Liverpool fans' footballing lives, it needed to be mission (virtually) impossible. And maybe it needed Milan to think that they had already won, too.
       
      Then there's the ability to freeze a match - with an omnipotent remote control - at any given point, and, without knowing what will happen next, have your player do something else.
       
      When I saw Vladimir Smicer lining up to shoot with the Reds back in the match at 3-1, I'd have paused the action, and had him do something far more sensible. Calm down, Vladi! You'll never score from there...
       
      I think I'd have said the same to Xabi Alonso on a few occasions, too, when shooting from his own half. I mean, what was he thinking?
       
      I can also run through a range of great 'nearly' goals, that were almost scored over the decades. What if Bernard Diomede's spectacular overhead kick on his debut against Sunderland, which crossed the line, had not been incorrectly ruled out? Would he then not have disappeared without trace?
       
      Or what if Ian Rush had stormed out of the club when, as a kid in Bob Paisley's office, he threatened to do so when the canny manager tried to stoke him up?
       
      What if Graeme Souness had said 'Yes' when approached about Eric Cantona in 1992? What if Bill Shankly's resignation hadn't been accepted in 1974? What if Bob Paisley's resignation, soon after, had been accepted?
       
      Perhaps we wouldn't now be talking about a 19-year wait for the league title now had Everton's Tony Cottee been marked tighter on February 1991, in an FA Cup tie that ended 4-4. Maybe a change that the Liverpool manager wanted to make late on in that game would have seen the Reds progress, and momentum grow.
       
      Kenny Dalglish was already questioning himself over losing his ability to make crucial decisions; a hesitancy that was crystallised for him when, with the Reds leading 4-3, he wanted to shift Jan Molby back to sweeper, but instead deferred to his assistant, Ronnie Moran, and kept things as they were. Cottee equalised again, and the next day Dalglish quit.
       
      There's no way to say for sure that the Reds would have gone on to win the league, but they were in pole position at the time of that morale-sapping draw - a game in which the Reds had led no fewer than four times. And Dalglish certainly needed a break for the good of his health, that much was clear. But perhaps it could have been staved off until the summer.
       
      All of these, and a million and one other moments in time, would have altered the destiny of games, of seasons, and of careers.
       
      But if I could change one thing, it would be an FA Cup encounter away at lowly Carlisle United - at the time languishing in the old Fourth Division. Liverpool won 3-0, but if I turn back time, I would make Liverpool have a terrible game, and crash out.
       
      'Disaster', the headlines would have read. Instead, the club appeared to be marching towards another double under Kenny Dalglish.
       
      No-one could have imagined that the victory would be the first link in a chain stretching to the 15th of April later that year. That game, and subsequent wins against Millwall, Hull City and Brentford, were setting the Reds on a collision course with Hillsborough.
       
      We now know where that January victory led, but at the time it was just another result. If only any of these games had ended in defeat...
       
      In the players doing their jobs so well, a massive event was created - an FA Cup semi-final - to be held at a stadium known for its dangerous bottleneck leading to the Leppings Lane turnstiles, and where problems had occurred in the past.
       
      In terms of subsequent safety at football matches, a lot of good came from Hillsborough; almost certainly saving other lives in the future. It's just so sickening that it took 96 lives to act as a wake-up call, and little solace to those who lost loved ones.
       
      Maybe it's fanciful, but I'd like to think that if Liverpool never even made it to that fateful semi-final, not only would that distressing occasion never have existed, but football safety would have been addressed regardless.
       
      Instead, Liverpool overcame Carlisle, and before too long we were left with the heartbreak of a real disaster.

      http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/NG163995090414-1453.htm
      « Last Edit: Apr 14, 2009 04:00:20 pm by Bpatel »
      The Invisible Man
      • Forum Kevin Keegan
      • ***

      • 352 posts | 18 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #267: Apr 14, 2009 05:41:23 pm
      As usual when we lose to Chelsea the good ole boring money arguement comes up. Unfortunately it's still a load of nonesense. Our squad probably cost 75 million more than Stoke's but they managed to hold us to two goalless draws.

      Chelsea won yesterday because they were better than us. Not because they spent more than us. If football worked on that basis then we wouldn't draw with Fulham, Stoke, Everton, Arsenal, Hull, West Ham, Wigan or get beat to Middlesborough. But we did because football is played on a football pitch and not in a cheque book.



      Fair enough on one-off games, but success relates to the cheque book, clearly.

      Otherwise all those teams who'd spent less than us would be above us.
      Venison 86
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 5,157 posts | 205 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #268: Apr 22, 2009 02:28:04 pm
      Pauls latest article from the offal site

      Liverpool proved against Arsenal last night that they can win the title.
       



      Unfortunately, it may now have to wait until next year, but that was a performance of guts, tempo and quality that had the hallmark of champions.
       
      This is a very special team under construction, one that has put four past Real Madrid, Manchester United, Chelsea and Arsenal in a matter of weeks, and five past Aston Villa.
       
      The defensive errors that marred this latest 4-4 draw certainly weren't in keeping with the rest of the display, and thankfully not in keeping with Liverpool under Rafa Benítez. All defenders make mistakes at some point in the season; unfortunately for Liverpool, most came in this one game. Perhaps that was to do with pressure, or simply human error.
       
      And yet, despite being behind three times – each goal wildly against the run of play (with the sloppy nature of the goals compounding the disappointment) – the Reds battled to the 96th minute. When Arsenal scored in the 90th minute, it had to be all over. But it wasn't.
       
      It was incredible stuff, reminiscent of the great 4-3 Newcastle games of the mid-'90s, only with extra pace and intensity, and one extra goal.
       
      For the first three goals it was very different from last week at Stamford Bridge, when Liverpool's need to score two or three more goals led to obvious gaps at the back; you can't necessarily escape being stretched like that when you have to lose your shape in search of a miracle as the clock ticks down.
       
      And Arsenal's 4th last night was similar; at that stage, a team has to send everyone forward. You take the kind of risks you would be mad too at an earlier point. Liverpool took advantage of Arsenal in the same way last season, when winning 4-2 in the Champions League.
       
      But the first three goals last night were all totally avoidable, with simple errors punished by a player who only had four decent touches of the ball. That grates, but you can't argue with Arshavin's finishing, which was sublime. (I've never seen a player do so little right for the majority of a match, and get so many goals. It was surreal.)
       
      Most of Liverpool's defending was fine; there was none of the panic seen at the other end, when by hook, crook or nook, the Gunner's scraped the ball clear, or off the line, in total desperation. It was just three small lapses by individuals by Liverpool that were heavily punished.
       
      Arsenal played with freedom, with no pressure on them to win, just an incentive to win places in the team ahead of their Champions League semi-final; and, in having to make changes, freshness from players like Arshavin and Nasri, plus the bulldozing Bendtner and strong Song.
       
      When they did attack, they poured forward with real verve and skill.
       
      But for large periods of the game they were absolutely battered. A score of 8-4 to Liverpool would have not been unfair. That's football, alas. Some days it just doesn't happen, and it looked like it would be one of those nights when the Arsenal keeper had a blinder in the first half.
       
      So this all-time classic will not necessarily help Liverpool win the title this season (unless United slip up tonight), but it shows a growing quality in so many areas of the team's play, and in its desire to win games.
       
      At times in the second half I think it was the most possessed I've ever seen a Liverpool side; utterly committed. Every man closed down space, chased lost causes that were well beyond the call of duty, stretched every last sinew. It was an Herculean effort.
       
      I've long-since said that a serious title challenge that falters is vital in eventually winning the Premiership, as a precursor; it's almost essential to get that experience of the pressure –– all the time accepting that, as newcomers to the really, really sharp end, mistakes will be made. Every Premiership title won for the first time came after a narrow miss the year earlier: United, Blackburn, Arsenal and Chelsea. It's all part of the learning process.
       
      Liverpool have improved by a good 20% this season; but maybe it needed to be 25%.
       
      These figures are fairly random (perhaps the improvement has been 30%, but needed to be 33%), but all the same, they illustrate my point about expecting too much improvement in a short space of time. You can only get so much better from one season to the next.
       
      That doesn't mean Liverpool are out of it this year, or that I think the Reds will definitely succeed next year. On their day, any of the top four can be a force to be reckoned with. And that's before the inevitable changes in the summer. But Liverpool are clearly on the up.
       
      I do think that Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea have had a lot more injuries to key players than Manchester United this season, and maybe that will shade it for them. Rio Ferdinand aside, and Ronaldo for the first couple of games and Rooney for a handful, there's been little disruption to their main men, bar self-inflicted suspensions.
       
      All teams have injuries, and big squads are a necessity, but they've not been without their match-winners as much as Liverpool have.
       
      As I've pointed out before, Liverpool also had far more disruption from international football, both in the summer and at the Olympics.
       
      United will point to the World Club Championship, and that certainly was a long trip. However, unlike international football, which scatters players far and wide, it was time together for the squad to bond, and was partly (and sensibly) used as a mid-season break, as evinced by the fact that they came back and immediately went on a long winning run.
       
      But the downside could be the fixture congestion towards the end of the season, which might make those crucial games in hand a little trickier. Time will tell.
       
      Some see this year as Liverpool's best hope, with United failing to fire on all cylinders as an attacking force. But I don't subscribe to that view; had Torres been fit all season, I might have agreed.
       
      With Torres fit to start only half of the 32 league games, and Gerrard missing more matches than he has for many years (six league games already), Liverpool have not been at their strongest on too many occasions for it not to be some kind of handicap.
       
      For Torres to start just 16 league matches, and have 13 goals (without the aid of penalties), shows just what has been missed; especially as in five or six of those starts he was nowhere near match fit, and playing to find sharpness.
       
      He will always be rested now and again, like any other player, but you cannot get by without such quality for long periods of time.
       
      No-one can say for certain, but I also have very little doubt that he would have made the difference in a few of those games that were drawn earlier in the year; enough to suggest that even more points at this stage would have been realistic, which would have given the Arsenal game a very different complexion, and perhaps less desperation.
       
      But I accept that ‘what ifs' work either way, and that all teams will have their own lists.
       
      Despite the absence of key attacking talent, there have been some players coming to the fore. Liverpool are the Premiership's top scorers, and to have had their two biggest goal threats missing for so many of them shows what improvements have been made elsewhere.
       
      Dirk Kuyt's crosses for the first two goals were superb in terms of technique (to add to his usual lung-busting work and clever movement), while Yossi Benayoun, who impressed me during his time at West Ham, has emerged as a really special player now that he's settled into life at Liverpool; the player I was hoping he could be for the Reds.
       
      I remarked a few weeks ago that both have only scored important goals, and that was again the case last week for Kuyt and this week for Benayoun.
       
      The hope now is that Arsenal take this goalscoring form into two titanic encounters with Manchester United, and dent their confidence in the process; enough to make a third meeting, in the penultimate league game, far from a formality in terms of the title. Arshavin, who misses the European games, should be fresh for that one.
       
      It remains United's to lose, but all the time Liverpool are making gains. And if all the Reds are left with is ‘close but no cigar', it can still serve as a serious warning ahead of next season. Even the greatest buildings were constructed brick by brick.
       

      For details of how to purchase 'Dynasty: Fifty Years of Shankly's Liverpool', click here to visit Paul Tomkins' official website
       
      The views expressed in this article are not necessarily those of Liverpoolfc.tv or Liverpool Football Club.
      redtiptoe
      • Forum Jamie Redknapp
      • ***

      • 317 posts |
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #269: Apr 22, 2009 03:21:23 pm
      Good read as usual been saying it to my mates for a while now, if we been good this season look how good we'll be next season.
      Venison 86
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 5,157 posts | 205 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #270: May 05, 2009 11:04:33 pm
      Pauls latest article from the offal site

      Sanguine' is a great word
      It can be a colour – blood-red – and it can also mean cheerfully optimistic.
      paul tomkins



      The Newcastle game marked the end of a difficult week that has led me to think of this particular word.
       
      Having had to drop out of attending a couple of recent games at fairly late notice, I was all set to take my place at Anfield for the visit of Newcastle.
       
      Then, just before the weekend, my dad was diagnosed with terminal cancer.
       
      I'd like to say that football paled into insignificance, and that I lost the heart to travel up to the game from the Midlands, but on this occasion I took a leaf out of his book: life goes on, and it's there to be lived. Perhaps it's an attitude that can be labelled ‘sanguine'.
       
      If he wasn't going to let it get him down, I wasn't going to miss the chance to see old friends and revisit old routines, and to meet some new faces, in the blood-red world that floods Anfield and its surrounding streets. On this occasion, football offered a chance to celebrate life.
       
      Because of all the things my dad has given me, football is perhaps his greatest gift.
       
      Borne of working-class parents, both of whom were from keen footballing families, my birthright was a game whose beauty I find ever more beguiling. Not for me some silly sport.
       
      It's a decade since I was last able to play (and still nothing gives me the escapist joy that that used to), but even just this weekend, with other things on my mind, the breathtaking beauty of Barcelona and (while not quite as awe-striking), the super-slick pass-and-move of Liverpool, brought home to me just how good for the soul a good spectacle can be.
       
      I'm no footballing snob, and often baulk at the notion of it being “played the right way”, because, providing it's within the laws, teams have to play the way that gets them results.
       
      At different stages of a side's development it has to play in different ways; it has to be improved in stages, with the resources at hand. And sometimes great drama alone makes for a great match, with ‘good' football out the window.
       
      But when it's technically good, and there is passion and commitment, it lifts the spirits. It elevates.
       
      Times change, bad habits creep into the sport, and it is not without its dire games, but at its best it is incomparably majestic. And it was given to me at a young age; I didn't have to go search it out. Football was in my blood.
       
      As supporters we can get caught up in the result-at-all-costs, the rivalries, the culture of being a fan – and all of these things are important parts of the sport's rich tapestry. But the game itself is beguiling.
       
      I fell in love with football at around the age of seven (the age of my own son now), and at the time, with no concept of glory-hunting, I was seduced by the best team of the day. Now, by proxy, my family are quasi-Liverpool fans, because of what it means to me. My mum is more nervous than I am during games.
       
      My earliest memory of football is of Kenny Dalglish leaping over the advertising hoardings at Wembley in 1978. I can still recall how I found his celebration more fascinating than the goal itself, and needing my dad to explain the preceding beauty of what looked, to me at least, like one man simply kicking a football past another.
       
      As the years passed, I came to appreciate the subtlety of Souness' reverse pass, and the skill – and calmness – required for Dalglish to dink the ball over the keeper, with total control: just the right amount of lift, just the right amount of pace on the ball to see it over the line.
       
      But it was the thought of “where's he going?” as this delirious man in a red shirt, with the broadest smile I'd ever seen, ran away from the pitch that made the impact at the time. Crazy!
       
      There may have been others, and the ticker-tape showers of Argentina 1978 sticks in my mind, but the next game I recall sitting down to watch with my dad was a year later, as Arsenal, leaving it close to the final whistle, came back from 2-1 down to beat Manchester United in an incredible FA Cup Final. Seductive stuff.
       
      But by then I had my club; I had the Panini sticker album, and pride of place was Liverpool's badge.
       
      As illustrated by the difference between the seven-year-old version of myself and the older, wiser (and balder) version regarding that 1978 European Cup Final goal, our perceptions, and appreciation of the game changes at different stages of our lives. We learn more about the sport, but also about the human elements that underpin it.
       
      We better understand success and failure, and the rewards of putting in the effort for what it gives in return. We better understand psychology, whether consciously or not, and how our attitude affects what we achieve. And unless our heads are full of cement, we will have learned from innumerable mistakes along the way.
       
      As a kid who started out playing on the wing, my dad was always telling me to stay out wide, find space. But all I wanted to do was follow the ball, be involved.
       
      I thought that I'd be isolating myself, withdrawing from the game; instead, I would have made myself a viable option for a pass. But I felt I knew better. (Of course, it might have been nice had my dad not tried to shoot me with an elephant tranquiliser every time I wandered infield, but that's another story.)
       
      I've said it before, but the years unravel the threads of everything I thought I knew, to leave me feeling more ‘philosophical', more humble.
       
      Every new thing we learn opens a number of pathways to our own ignorance; it's one new thing we understand, but which makes us aware of lots more things we don't – like entering a house, and familiarising ourselves with the hallway, only to then be confronted by five mysterious doors. Each door we then open leads to five more.
       
      And in this piece, which I guess above all else is about the circle of life, and the generational DNA transfer of football, I am led to think of the young, fresh-faced players starting out in the game at Liverpool now; those already making first-team appearances, and those ready to contest yet another FA Youth Cup Final.
       
      I think of myself at that age, and shudder at how horribly unprepared I would have been for what it would have thrown at me (had I been anywhere good enough, of course). I grimace at thoughts of my 19-year-old self; and yet now, at twice that age, I expect kids, with maturity beyond their years, to deliver me my weekly or bi-weekly football fix, as do millions of other fans.
       
      I think that it is only now, as I near 40, that I am somewhere close to being mentally prepared for the life of a professional footballer. Unfortunately, my body gave up on that dream many years ago.
       
      I finally feel mature enough to cope with it all; it's just a shame that it arrived several years after most players have retired. It's a bit like the mechanics finally getting the wheels on the Formula One car, but after the race has finished.
       
      And yet I ask a lot of this next generation of Liverpool players, who are ever more adrift from me in years. Not so long ago, every player was older than me; now, with some of them, I'm old enough to be their father. I'm a whole generation older than the last time Liverpool won the league. Eek.
       
      And as I edge closer to my 40s, different things have become important to me; I've grown beyond the superficialities of the game. Skill alone is not enough.
       
      The character of Liverpool players seems ever more important to me, and in this sense Rafa Benítez has assembled a near-faultless squad.
       
      It's often something a lot less visible than a great goal or clever trick that youngsters will view on Youtube – we don't see countless replays of a great covering run, or a player not getting involved in a silly scuffle 30 yards away. Character can often be something you feel, something you sense: the collective spirit of a team, rather than disparate parts out for themselves.
       
      With the Reds needing to win the remaining three games, I can rest assured that nobody will go flying two-footed into a needless challenge that curtails his season there and then, and risks the limbs of an opponent.
       
      Players may get sent off (although rarely under Rafa), but 99.9% of the time they keep their heads; we see personal responsibility mixed with a team ethic. It's no coincidence, no accident.
       
      Players who continually transgress are not indulged by this manager. It doesn't mean that they are all therefore inhuman or robotic, or that they won't err in some way, but there is a basic honesty to their football, for each other, and on behalf of the fans.
       
      So I can identify with this team, perhaps more so than any during my adult years. Yes, it's now playing some beautiful football, and has scored three or more goals for five consecutive games for the first time since I was first beguiled by Kenny Dalglish three decades ago, but even before this recent run, I could sense it was on the right track in its approach to games.
       
      The right attitude is at the heart of it all.
       
      We all have choices relating to how to view a challenge or a setback. We all decide how to face up to bad luck, or an unfortunate situation. We can bemoan our luck, but self-pity is no help; we have to move past that, and be constructive.
       
      Without having M.E., I'd never have met my girlfriend, a fellow sufferer. Had I not had the ‘bad luck' of losing my design job due to ill health, I doubt I'd have had the courage to follow my dream of becoming a writer; I needed to lose everything to have the opportunity to start afresh.
       
      Do I wish I was cured today? Of course, not least because I could make more use of what I've learned, and put more energy into being a father.
       
      But I also wouldn't change the past few years, because it has brought non-material rewards I wouldn't swap for the world. And I may still be learning from the experience. I'm not perfect, but I'm a better person for it.
       
      Do I wish my dad had been diagnosed with something treatable? Of course. But he feels he's had a good life, and seems intent on celebrating that fact for as long as it now lasts. I respect that. It's not about giving up, but accepting what cannot be changed, and making the most of what can.
       
      And whether it be sanguine, or philosophical, or any of the other words used in this piece, it's an attitude I hope I now have too. It may not have been mine at 19, or 27, but at 38 I'm shaped in a different way.
       
      And so, as I try, as ever, to apply this thinking to football, I reach the following conclusion:
       
      Win the league or not, I'm proud of the virtues of this team: fair play, collective spirit, hard work, refusal to capitulate, and a desire to play football to the best of their ability. Thank god I was lucky enough to be born into a situation that allowed me to appreciate it.

      For details of how to purchase 'Dynasty: Fifty Years of Shankly's Liverpool', click here to visit Paul Tomkins' official website
      MsGerrard
      • Guest
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #271: May 05, 2009 11:18:48 pm
      ^^^ Great article by Paul as ever.

      I had the privilege of attending the Newcastle game with Paul, a very ordinary bloke but with a very special talent.

      Good luck to you Paul and your Dad.

      Makes you appreciate life and what you have.
      stuey
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 36,001 posts | 3952 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #272: May 06, 2009 07:15:40 pm
       Some very emotional disclosures concerning his father nevertheless a truly inspirational piece of work,I'm sure everyone wishes Paul and his father all the very best and hope that they can find the strength to get through these trying times .
      redkenny
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 24,912 posts | 1058 
      • 97 - Always Remembered
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #273: May 06, 2009 07:48:44 pm
      YNWA Paul. Inspiring words.
      JD
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 39,595 posts | 6928 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #274: May 06, 2009 07:59:16 pm
      I'd echo people's sentiments about the article and his own personal circumstances and our thoughts are with him and the rest of his family at this difficult time.

      YNWA
      Venison 86
      • LFC Reds Subscriber
      • ******
      • 5,157 posts | 205 
      Re: The Official Paul Tomkins Thread
      Reply #275: Jun 08, 2009 09:23:05 am
      Pauls latest article from the offal site

      THE PLAYERS LIVERPOOL LACKED
      A lot of people have talked about what Liverpool lacked this season, and it's true that almost any team (and squad) can be improved in some way or another. 



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


      For details of how to purchase 'Dynasty: Fifty Years of Shankly's Liverpool', click here to visit Paul Tomkins' official website

      Quick Reply