The Official Paul Tomkins Thread

It would be interesting to have the views of the dedicated Rafa bashers after reading his (Paul Tomkins) latest piece of inspired thoroughly researched article.

What Can We Rightfully Expect?

I don't want to sound like I'm just making excuses, but I'm finding it almost impossible to judge the performances this season.

What should we expect of the team when constantly missing players, with numerous enforced changes each and every week?
 
Maybe I should expect more. Or maybe others expect too much.
 
I'd know where I stand with the best XI, or even something approaching it, playing most weeks. But this has been a season of utter chaos, in terms of selection.
 
The biggest hypocrisy with a lot of Benítez's critics is this: slating him for rotating, saying that you can't win trophies making lots of changes (even though other major managers have had success when making a greater number), yet failing to cut him slack when he's forced to make far too many due to injuries.
 
And injuries are far more unsettling than rotation. At least with rotation the manager has full control of his selection. And at least with rotation the unused players are still fit, and usually on the bench (an example: Ferguson often brought on Rooney and Ronaldo to try and win the game if he rotated his side).
 
Players like Torres, Gerrard and Johnson are currently in and out of the side, and these are all match-winners. So is Benayoun. Aquilani, another potential match-winner, is getting closer to playing, and may well start in Hungary, but his selection is not straightforward, after a longer-than-anticipated ankle problem.
 
It didn't help against City that Gerrard visibly tired in the second half, after a very influential first 45. Maybe he was just frozen out of the game as City threw caution to the wind to equalise, but he's missed a lot of training lately. At least the 90 minutes will help him rediscover his sharpness, even if the second 45 more-or-less passed him by.
 
There has to come a ‘critical mass'-type point with injuries, beyond which too much is missing to expect to compete at anything approaching your normal level. Can you cope without two players?
 
Three players? Four? Five? Six? ... Twelve? ... Twenty-five?!
 
Where is the cut-off point?
 
The same applies to players looking to get fit with games; hence why starting both Gerrard and Aquilani may have presented a gamble too far. Carry too many under-par players in terms of fitness, and you'll suffer, especially in the tougher fixtures.

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

Link To Article.

Don't think Tomkins is best pleased with Jamie Redknapp:

http://tomkinstimes.com/2009/11/jamie-redknapp-an-unfunny-joke/

^ Well said Tomkins.

Another good read by Paul Tomkins:

TOMKINS: RESPECT A EUROPEAN MASTER
Paul Tomkins 25 November 2009 
  Rafael Benitez's record in Europe was often used as a stick with which to beat his Premiership performance. Now it's being used to say that his job should be on the line. 
Of course, Liverpool have progressed massively as a European club under Benítez, after decades more-or-less in the wilderness. And last season, the club posted a Premiership record that would win the title on many occasions; however, sometimes someone is that little bit better, or luckier.
 
If you happened to play tennis when Pete Sampras was around, or golf when Tiger Woods was at his peak, you could be an eternal runner-up.
This is the bizarre life Benítez leads. Even his achievements (Istanbul 2005, or 86 points last season) are used to form criticism.
 
After 2005, people said that massive league improvement was the key to judging him a success: "It's easy to win a few cup games". Last season, we saw that improvement taken to a 20-year high, in terms of points. Then it was "Ah, but no trophy".
 
Few praised him for enabling his team to lose the lowest ever number of games by a team that failed to win the league; at a time when also managing the league's top scorers; so this was no defensive team.
 
As soon as the two game losing mark was reached this season, last season was suddenly ammunition to attack him with; which all contributed towards a negativity around the campaign. Liverpool were decreed failures for losing two games, and the attacks started, even though last season's achievements were unique. None of that helped.
 
He is not praised for buying Torres and helping him improve to stellar standards; he is told, quite laughably, that Torres will leave if things don't improve.
 
He was not praised for buying Alonso, getting some great performances from him (especially, it has to be noted, after the Barry saga), and bringing in £30m; he is told that he never understood or appreciated the midfielder.
 
Now Benítez is being criticised for ‘failure' in Europe. Which, to me, is a bit like suggesting selling prime-years Ian Rush for going a few games without a goal.
 
Please note: only four men have more victories in the European Cup/Champions League than Rafa Benítez.
 
It just so happens that three of the four are at rival Big Four Premiership clubs. That makes his domestic job harder.
 
Carlo Ancelotti is in 4th place, Ottmar Hitzfeld 3rd, Arsene Wenger 2nd and Alex Ferguson 1st.
 
Of course, the top two have played far more games in the competition than Benítez, having been at qualifying clubs for a greater number of years, as befits men that much older than the Spaniard.
 
In terms of percentage of games won (minimum 20 wins), the top manager in European Cup/Champions League history – at the start of this season – was Josef Heynckes, former Bayern Munich and Real Madrid boss, with 66.7%. (Heynckes is currently managing Sami Hyypia at Bayer Leverkusen, and topping the Bundesliga in the process.)
 
But the clear star from the stats is one Bob Paisley, in second place, with 65.9%, just ahead of Luis van Gaal and Matt Busby. It's probably fair to say that the old European Cup was tougher to win in several ways, although you still needed to win only 50% of your games each year to reach the final: win the home leg 2-0, lose the away leg 1-0, and job done.
 
However, there is another familiar name in the top 10: Rafael Benítez Maudes. The Liverpool manager has a 57% win rate. (Incidentally, a figure that exactly matches his Premiership record.)
 
Quite a way back are Ferguson in 17th place (52%) and Wenger in 27th (46%).
 
(This season, the figures have altered to 56% Benítez, 53% Ferguson and 48% Wenger, but I don't have the full rankings to hand, hence using figures up to June 2009. Stats courtesy of Graeme Riley, author of the annual "Football in Europe" Soccerdata books, and member of The Tomkins Times)
 
As a season, this has been a bit of a nightmare. But two cups are still up for grabs, and history shows that a place in the top four is usually secured by either Arsenal or Liverpool, no matter how far off the pace at the halfway stage. Teams not used to being there are more likely to 'choke', and Liverpool's luck can surely only improve.
 
So there's no need to panic, even if the injury crisis needs to abate for a realistic chance of getting back on track.
 
We've also a lot to see from Aquilani, but I'm not sure the pitch last night was suitable, and the need was to win the game, that was all.
 
At a time when people with no understanding or experience of management put the boot into Benítez, Arsene Wenger continues to point out that Liverpool haven't got the results they've deserved at times this season. He knows the score; he's been there before. He's showing some real class.
 
He knows how an injury crisis can affect a team – the loss of Van Persie saw them draw their first blank of the season – and how going to places like Sunderland is not a doddle, even without alien objects scoring goals. He knows the difficulties in taking on the über-rich clubs.
 
But it all comes back to expectation. Rafa raised them for us in Europe; now he is being hounded because of it. And last year, he raised them for us in the league, to the point where people don't even see a crippling injury crisis as an extenuating factor for being off the pace.
 
Perhaps people expect Liverpool to be the equivalent of Tiger Woods, as the Reds were in the halcyon days.
 
But right now, we're more like ‘prime years' Colin Montgomerie: currently in the rough during this tournament, but always there or thereabouts, without quite landing the major prize.
 
However, if Woods had picked up a serious injury, Montgomerie, with no change in his ability, would probably now be hailed as an all-time master.
 
Maybe last season Benítez was just a penalty decision in the Man United vs Spurs match away from seeing the Reds' main rivals from collapse.
 
We'll never know, but all Liverpool could do was get United wobbling on the ropes, as the 4-1 victory at Old Trafford had proved so successfully; a few games later, with United looking dazed and confused, the referee intervened, and the rest is history.
 
Liverpool fans didn't ask for a replay (or after Sunderland), but that goal did the damage France inflicted on Ireland. Alas, that's sport; it happens. But that decision did not make Benítez a worse manager, did it? United changed from iffy to in control from that moment on.
 
When all is said and done, I'd still rather be the equivalent of a ‘Monty' – ups and downs, but generally challenging at most events – than some average golfer that never featured on the big occasions.
 
Every single season, Benítez has had the club contesting a trophy into May - quite incredible, considering what we were used to in the 15 years beforehand. (Okay, in 2008 it was almost midnight on the very last day of April, after extra-time at Stamford Bridge, but please allow me this one tiny tweak of the calendar.)
 
If anyone hasn't yet read the incredibly insightful book “Soccernomics/Why England Lose”, they really should, for their own good. It backs up Christian Purslow's belief that clubs “should not make managerial and strategical decisions around results in the short-term”.
 
Add in an injury crisis that no manager could hope to work around, and it becomes even more apposite.
 
http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/NG166597091125-1427.htm

Tomkins: A new beginning
11th Dec 2009

I loathe the kind of 'punditry' that says, just six months on from a 2nd-placed finish, that Liverpool have never looked further away from landing the title.

It's so bereft of logic, it's laughable. It's pure nonsense.

I'm sure you've seen the kind of comments I'm referring to. They come thick and fast at times like this, so it doesn't hurt to take stock and look at the true picture.

For me, it's far easier for a good side to have a relatively poor season than for the opposite to occur.

Can an average 100m runner accidentally finish 2nd in the Olympics? Of course not. Could the world-record holder conceivably finish 5th? Yes; especially if he's not at his fittest, or slips on his way out of the blocks.

Teams underachieve and overachieve all the time, but never by large amounts. However, overachieving is more difficult, because you can't play better than you actually are, so it relies on others being well below par; but you can quite easily underachieve if you're missing too many players, or lacking confidence.

And the bigger the sample you look at, the less chance there is for anomalies to crop up.

So - was last season, with 86 points, and the title still a possibility going into May, an accident?

Or is this season the accident?

Well, what is the bigger sample? Last season we can judge on 38 league games; this season, in terms of the league, is only 15 games old.

(Ditto Europe: five very good-to-excellent campaigns surely tell us more than one substandard one? Man United went out at the group stages in 2006, and won the title a year later, and the Champions League a further 12 months down the line; doesn't mean such changes in fortune automatically follow, but it does show that demises are over-hyped.)

At the mid-point of last season, Liverpool were written off after a number of draws; "nowhere near good enough" came the cry from many in the media. In the end, they were very nearly good enough.

"Not enough goals", said the experts last January. Then Robbie Keane was sold, and despite being a striker down, the scoring rate more-or-less doubled; the Reds finished as the league's top scorers and put four past Chelsea and Madrid in Europe.

Last season, the Reds were as close as they've been to the title in 19 years. In terms of points accrued, Liverpool won 75% of those available, the second-best ever in the club's history.

So, that was an accident, was it? It may have involved a little overachievement, but certainly not much.

Of course, that was last season, this is a new season. Fair enough.

But what has changed? Have ten players departed, and ten new ones arrived? No.

Xabi Alonso has gone. However, let's remember, it's not been the loss of Maradona, Pele or Puskas. Or all three.

Alonso was an excellent player, but he wasn't a great goalscorer, or even a direct creator of chances. He was someone who kept the team ticking over, and that's important. But would he have done as well had he still been here and so many others been injured, as has been the case? Unlikely.

In terms of directly creating openings, it wasn't as if Alonso would ever do what Lucas did at Blackburn, and get to the byline in open to create a clear chance. So I don't see Alonso, who never scored more than a handful himself, as this 'ultra-positive' player, and Lucas as this 'negative' understudy.

Of course, even though his style has its differences, Alonso's natural replacement is Aquilani, whose injury lasted longer than expected. That meant he was even more behind in terms of fitness, making it catch-22 as to when to introduce him; further complicating matters.

However, Alonso's departure and Aquilani's absence are lesser factors in the dip in the Reds' overall form.

The same applies to the lack of a recognised back-up striker to Torres.

While the Spaniard has the club's best goals-per-minute ratio this term, at a stunning 111 minutes for every strike, David N'Gog is only fractionally behind. The Frenchman has also notched in some vital games.

So, while Liverpool have missed their no.9, I don't think you can expect much more from any understudy. (All the hysteria over Michael Owen this week, and it's easy to overlook that even after that hat-trick, N'Gog has a better goals-per-game record this season, and even more so in Premiership matches.)

What we would expect, however, is more goals from Steven Gerrard; but aside from missing games, he's spent a lot of time playing either with an injury or recovering from one. Again, that's difficult for any manager to work around.

So therefore, for me, it all comes down to two main things.

First, the form of key players earlier in the season.

And second, the injuries to key players throughout the season. (And often, both have gone hand-in-hand.)

Add to this the momentum factor, where a poor start takes the wind from your sails, ramps up pressure and causes mass hysteria (so that every game becomes gets the dreaded "must win" tag), and you have something approaching the 'perfect storm'. A negativity builds up in the press, and it takes its toll.

Of late, on top of celebrating the return to fitness of Gerrard, Torres and Aquilani, people are commenting on how it's great to see Carragher and Mascherano back to their best. So it's clear that neither began the season on form.

The Argentine had a lot of unsettling speculation over the summer, and more pertinently, the massive burden of a faltering World Cup campaign for his country, for which, as captain, he shouldered much of the responsibility (whether it was his fault or not). As soon as they qualified, he almost instantly 'returned' as his old self in Liverpool colours.

Coincidence? I doubt it. A key player, off colour, but now back on track.

Carragher also had a poor start to the season by his standards, but after almost 600 games, perhaps he was due such a spell. We can hardly criticise his consistency, can we? The club has had few more constantly reliable performers in its history.

Most crucial, perhaps, has been the lack of any defensive stability, due to what can only be called an injury crisis. This almost certainly added to Carragher's struggles; and even he ended up crocked at one point.

Add that the regular left-back is in his first full season in the side, and that the right-back is new to the club, along with injuries to Agger and Skrtel, and you can see the challenge the manager has faced, and the added pressure on Carragher.

It's fair to say that other teams are now experiencing injury crises. But with a bit of momentum already in their season, it's possibly easier to absorb. Then there's the lack of players to punish them; just when Man United ran out of fit defenders, ahead of travelling to West Ham, they found that their opponents had run out of fit strikers.

(To show that teams struggle without their best defenders, you only have to look at United conceding three at home to CSKA Moscow. And look at Arsenal's scoring record since losing Van Persie; from not drawing a blank up to November, they've now registered four in the six games since he got injured.)

Liverpool have used 13 different defensive line-ups this season, in just 23 games. Most of those changes have been enforced.

If you take Johnson, Carragher, Agger and Insua as the strongest defence (although Aurelio may well take over from the youngster), in four games, it has yet to concede a goal. I think that tells its own story.

But when you consider that 12 defenders have been used this season, five of whom had never started for the first team prior to August, four are 21 or under, and seven have played with, or are recovering from, injury, and you can see that the platform teams need to build upon has been far from ideal. (Thanks to Tomkins Times' subscriber Andrew Fanko for help with the research.)

You can get results despite this, but rarely a winning momentum. Injure Torres and Gerrard as well, and that only makes it harder. Experience many of these problems from the opening week, and it's an uphill struggle; a vicious circle.

Scoring goals this season has been less of a problem than conceding, which is why the three clean sheets in a row with the same back four (and Reina) was something to feel positive about.

It's a case of ifs and buts, and perhaps Liverpool would still be struggling if Torres, Gerrard, Carragher, Mascherano, Agger, Aurelio, et al, had been fit and/or firing on cylinders all season long, and Aquilani was only out until September, as expected. But I doubt it (even if a couple of them still had the same problems).

Add them all together, however, and yes, it's been below what we've come to expect from Liverpool in recent years. It might make the title a distant dream this season, but it doesn't define the strength of the team right now, or where it's heading in the future.

If anyone thinks that a line-up of Reina, Johnson, Agger, Carragher, Aurelio, Benayoun, Kuyt, Mascherano, Aquilani, Gerrard and Torres is behind where we were in 2004, then (with all due respect withdrawn) they need their head examined.

The rest of the season is a chance to build understanding and confidence, and get an idea of just how good the side can be, if everyone is fit and in form.

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/features/tomkins-a-new-beginning

 Tomkins: End to 'Perfect Storm?'

A difficult week is over. However, it ended with the Reds getting the best result out of the four teams contesting a place in the top four.

A few weeks back, Liverpool were eight points off 4th place. Now the gap is down to four. Lost in all the drama of an FA cup shock (which, let's face it, happened to Shankly, Paisley and Dalglish, and to Alex Ferguson as recently as this month) was that the Reds are closing in on the top four.

No team enjoys going to Stoke. They break up the game and play to their strength (and height). They make it scrappy, and a battle, and are well within their rights to do so. (Even if the player to get the most touches on Saturday was the little-known A Towel.)

If only games lasted 89 minutes instead of 90; so many late goals conceded by Liverpool. Then again, if they did, the Reds would have had a much worse season last year. Fine margins, and all that.

There aren't too many good things to say about this season, beyond the development of some of the younger players, the blooding of several teenagers, and a handful of standout results. It's been a struggle. But it happens.

If this season was indicative of Rafa Benítez's entire reign, then I'd understand the calls to replace him.

But clearly it isn't.

The Daily Mail recently ran a piece stating comparing the exact same point of the season in the final campaigns of Graeme Souness and Gérard Houllier.

Unfortunately, they omitted the vital point that in each case, the previous season had also been one of underachievement. By contrast, last season was the club's best in 19 years.

Is what Rafa Benítez is experiencing now akin to Arsene Wenger last season at Arsenal, or to the situations of Souness and Houllier?

I have my beliefs, but I don't know for certain; and I don't see how anyone, bar the truly clairvoyant, can. The fortunes of all teams ebb and flow. Managers turn things around all the time.

Of course, some don't. But equally, some managers don't even get the chance; Ferguson was perilously close to the sack after four years at United, before he'd won a single trophy. Had he been sacked in 1989/90, no-one would have said "but his guy can win ten league titles in the next two decades!". We'd now just laugh at his record.

Souness did not lose his job because of his poor final season. In 1992/93, his second full campaign, Liverpool were a staggering 16th in the table after no fewer than 30 games, and out of all cups by 13th January. That really is struggling.

That season the Reds recovered somewhat, and ended up finishing 6th, but it was 6th for the 2nd consecutive season. The next season was no better, and therefore Souness walked as, in the end, the team struggled to an 8th-placed finish. So to compare this season with the Souness era is highly egregious.

By contrast to Souness, the final two years under Houllier were not quite so bad. (Although, to me, they still felt pretty grim at the time.)

In the summer of 2003, before the never-before-seen investment at Chelsea and Manchester City, Liverpool, by finishing 5th, hadn't even qualified for the following season's Champions League.

It's only been a mainstay of Liverpool life under Benítez; not that his critics would dare admit it.

So, even though there's been increased competition, Benítez has apparently "not taken the club forward", despite having seen the Reds ranked #1 in Europe based on his first five years in charge, and last season winning 75% of all available points: the 2nd highest in the club's history.

That's not a stat about how many corners were won; it's a stat about winning a lot of football matches.

In three of Rafa's five full seasons his side have finished above Arsene Wenger's Arsenal in the league, and he's reached twice as many Champions League finals.

It's five years since Arsenal finished in the top two; Liverpool did so last year.

And yet Wenger clearly remains a great manager, even though his main achievements at Arsenal were prior to the new investment in English football at other clubs.

He turned around their poor season last time out, and they again look very good. I've been contacted by Arsenal fans pointing out that Benítez can do the same. (Last season I told them to stick with Wenger.)

How many times during the last 20 years have Liverpool still been in with the chance of the title in May? Excluding the last time the club were champions (1989/90), just twice. One of those times was last season, and the end of those particular hopes came a full ten days later than the other May finale, which was in 1997.

To reiterate a point I've made before, the earliest a season has been over under Benítez (and by 'over' I mean no chance of silverware, and only including a realistic hope of winning the title) is the very last day of April; the other four times, it was the 13th of May or later. Whether or not trophies were won, we've had full value in those campaigns.

By contrast, Souness' second and third seasons were over by January.

Roy Evans took two of his seasons to May (one lost FA Cup final, one good title challenge), one to late April and one to March.

Gérard Houllier took one to May (the excellent 2000/01, with two cup finals that month), one to late April (2001/02, when Arsenal won the league on the 29th), but of the other four, one was over by March 2nd (though that was when the League Cup was won), one was over in February and two were over in January.

In each of Houllier's final four seasons, the campaign 'ended' a month earlier than the previous year: May, then April, then March, then February.

So when I see this revisionist nonsense that things have been worse under Rafa, I despair. Managers should be judged on their overall record, not a one-season blip. (Only two poor seasons in a row is cause for really serious concern; I've said this for many, many years.)

This season the wheels have come off. But the engine hasn't blown, and a car than once ran well can do so again. (If the 'wheels coming off' is the absence of injured players, they can be reattached.)

Everyone has their opinion on what's gone wrong. For me, it's too many factors to pinpoint even in 1,500 words; instead, it's a collision of all sorts of things: the perfect storm.

Injuries have plagued all of the major sides to varying degrees this season, but the Reds suffered theirs earliest. That contributed to a bad start, and, just like going 2-0 down in the first ten minutes of a game, it becomes a little more desperate, as it did at Arsenal last season. Situations can snowball. And Liverpool's injuries have recurred, time and again.

There's been some nervous defending late in games, to lead to goals being conceded, and some chances missed by players who have been very reliable in previous seasons. Some players have fallen below their usual standards; that can happen, and does happen, to the best of them, but in Liverpool's case, these problems have coincided.

Liverpool's set-piece defending was poor in the first few months, and cost points, but this also coincided to injuries to several of the back line.

It's been far better in the last few months, and anyone who thinks it was poor at Stoke just because one goal was conceded needs their head examining. (The defending was excellent, especially from Kyrgiakos, as time and again the home side launched long throws, corners and free-kicks into the box; it just took one slight lapse, late on, to cost two points.)

It always sounds like whinging to point it out, but referees haven't helped. Despite one or two fortunate decisions, the vast majority seem to have been against Liverpool. Not all have cost points, but several came at the end of games, where the result could have been altered. Last year it seemed fairly even; this year, I feel that the Reds have been hard done by.

By my calculations (aided by subscribers to The Tomkins Times), Liverpool have been awarded just two penalties, but denied a further eleven clear-cut calls (therefore not including ball-to-hand penalty claims). The Reds have also conceded not one but two goals that actually contravene the laws of the game. I can't recall a season like it, and nor can most fans I speak to.

(What interests me is that all of these occurred in domestic matches; so this doesn't excuse the uncharacteristic European struggles, which was down to one very poor display in Italy and a couple of sloppy late goals against Lyon, but does make me wonder why English referees are making so many glaring errors; in two cases - at Sunderland and West Ham - not even knowing the rules to the game. That's shocking.)

Had Liverpool been awarded some of these clear penalties - dating back to the foul on Voronin in the opening game at Spurs - it would have helped relieve pressure and could have led to better performances.

But they weren't awarded, the pressure mounted, the injuries increased and the football just hasn't been good enough.

No manager in the world can wave a magic wand. The very least Benítez deserves is some respect for his achievements, and some patience and understanding for what has been a season beset with bad fortune.

If some of his decisions haven't been good enough, fair enough. No-one can get it right all the time. But clearly he's been working to rectify things: selling two players and bringing in Maxi is just one example.

And yet - to end on a note relating to the Reds' midweek opponents -many in the media seem to treat Benítez as another Christian Gross, rather than a man who has won two La Liga titles, a Uefa Cup, an FA Cup and taken the Reds to two Champions League Finals, winning one; not to mention masterminding the Reds best title challenge for almost 20 years, as recently as 2009.

Aside from that, and the fact that he's yet to have a non-event season, he's obviously fair game.

Link

Another great read, with some very excellent points.

Top man Paul and a fantastic read that.

amazing article here

Great article Paul!!

This should be emailed to all those wankers in the press that write sh*t, to Sky Sports especially Messrs Gray, Keys, Redknapp and Souness.

Get in the ring mother f**ker, weighing in at 1000 pounds Liverpool FC......

Great article by Paul Tomkins yet again.

Tomkins: Derby day delight
8th Feb 2010

One thing really bothered me earlier in the season: accusations from some quarters that Liverpool lacked character.

This didn't tally with what I believed to be the case. Last season, time and time again, the Reds showed incredible character to rescue lost causes, and lose so few games.

But a confidence crisis can mask effort; it's not that the players weren't trying, but it's harder to want to the ball, and do something special with it, when your touch is awry.

The fact that Liverpool have dug their way out of a slump with a mixture of gutsy performances and tactical know-how, in the face of some of the most incredibly hyperbolic football reporting I've ever seen, goes some way to reassure me that I hadn't got it wrong after all.

Flair is certainly present in the squad, but 2010 has been about battling for the points, often against long-ball or overtly physical teams, with 6ft 4"+ midfielders and strikers.

When Torres, Benayoun and Johnson return, and when Aquilani and Maxi are more acclimatised (the last few games will have been like nothing they'd experienced in Italy and Spain!), the play can become more expansive - but the new year to date has been about character, first and foremost. Dig in, grind out.

The fact that Steven Gerrard appears to be getting back to his best is another major factor that will help in the improvement of the aesthetic side of the game, and an increase in confidence - and a lessening of the hysteria (and the insane pressure it brings, not to mention Anfield edginess) - should help free the players to express themselves.

I hate to say it, but yet again we've just seen another shocking refereeing display, with the number of inexplicable decisions against the Reds rising and rising. Thankfully, Liverpool are now playing well enough to override this misfortune. But it shouldn't have to be this way.

Even in victory, and even if Kyrgiakos' sending off was technically correct, the incidents involving Pienaar on Mascherano (straight red card, no debate), Fellaini kicking a prone Kuyt in the face (straight red card, no debate) and Fellaini going for Kyrgiakos' shin instead of the ball (straight red card, no debate) need to be highlighted as yet further examples of more going against the Reds than for them - this season at least.

A couple of years back, Kuyt could easily have seen red at Goodison, and that's the way it goes; the Reds were very lucky that day, especially as he stayed on and scored the winner, and an Everton penalty was denied soon after.

But this season, time and time again, it's been letter-of-the-law stuff that hasn't been applied correctly, from beach balls to double-touch penalties to studs just below a player's knee so that his shinpad ends up around his ankle.

Even so, the Reds are starting to rise above the worst season for injuries and refereeing decisions I can remember. So the guts, the character, is there.

This campaign has been a testing time for everyone with an interest in Liverpool FC, from fans to players to management, but the media's intoning of the team's last rites has (yet again) proved premature. The ailing patient is up and fighting.

Fourth place is still far from a formality - lots can happen yet - but suddenly even third isn't beyond contemplation.

I got hugely frustrated a few weeks ago when people were going on about Birmingham, at that point above the Reds, being better than Liverpool; teams like this almost always fall away sooner or later. But some people cannot see beyond the league table at such points in a season. I guess that they panic. I had people talking to me as if it was May already.

Some teams don't have the quality and consistency to stay up there; or the stamina; or, when the going gets tough, the bottle. Time and time again under Benítez, Liverpool have proved that they have all three.

In little over a month, an eight-point deficit for fourth place has become a one-point comfort zone. And while Manchester City have games in hand, their defeat at Hull puts a different complexion on their challenge.

Long-term, you have to worry about what their spending policy will mean to rivals, but even with a squad that costs over £100m more than the Reds', they still haven't really taken advantage of the absence of Torres and others.

The good news for Liverpool is that, bar any dramatic changes, these key men can be slowly introduced back into a side in form, rather than thrown into the fray in desperation.

I could talk all day about the qualities of players like Torres, Gerrard, Carragher, Agger, Reina, Johnson, Mascherano, Benayoun, et al, but I often gain more pleasure from highlighting the successes of the unsung and the overly criticised.

No player is perfect. And obviously, in any team, some players are better than others. But everyone contributes something. And if the less-heralded players are doing a great job, then someone needs to redress that balance.

Half of Liverpool's team of late - Kyrgiakos, Lucas, Kuyt, Insua and N'Gog - have been rubbished at some point this season, if not for most of it. Not good enough for the Premiership? Not good enough for Liverpool? On recent evidence, they are. It's not about everyone being 'world-class', it's about the team as a whole.

A microcosm of Kuyt's worth could be seen in a couple of second-half derby minutes. Aside from that moment at Goodison, I don't think I've ever seen him lose his head (even if he could have literally lost it yesterday, when it was treated like a football).

You could see how fired up he was after scoring the goal, his face flushed with anger and visibly scarred by Fellaini's stud marks. And anyone who knows football is aware that scoring goals can lead to 'switching off', when the excitement takes over and the brain goes into hiding.

And yet there was the Dutchman, so shortly after that big adrenaline burst, in the right-back position, to make a goal-saving interception. It'll never make a YouTube compilation, but it was a spell of football that won Liverpool the game. That's why he kept being selected even when not at his best; he has the heart of a lion, and he will always turn things around.

Ditto Lucas. The Brazilian doesn't score goals, and suffers the daft fate of being compared to the stereotype of his fellow countrymen (as if every single Brazilian international was a showboat king).

Yet I'd take the heart and guts of this young player over a work-shy trickster like Robinho, who has failed to contribute at Manchester City to the point where the £32m man has been loaned back to Santos. Some players are great when their team is playing well and having a stroll. Lucas rolls his sleeves up and puts in every last ounce of energy, whatever the situation.

To me, Lucas has looked the more worthy of a place in the Brazil team based on his form this season. He can't do the really exciting things like Robinho (although he has shown some nifty footwork in tight situations), but it only takes one big-name player to not look bothered to drag the rest down to walking pace.

Indeed, that's why Fernando Torres has been such a success: he matches ability with effort. In the latest edition of FourFourTwo, he talks about his incessant desire to get better, and places his massive improvement since arriving at Liverpool at the door of Benitez, whose perfectionism and advice helps him find that little extra in the penalty box. (Not that the manager gets such credit when others talk about Torres.)

But such players need those like Kuyt and Lucas doing the legwork behind them - but also showing the tactical nous that goes unnoticed by a lot of people.

Just as Kuyt had earlier got back to deny an almost certain goal, when Anichebe finally got past Insua, Lucas was the one back making a last-ditch intervention that, by denying the Everton striker a clear last-minute shot, could well have been worth two points.

Insua and Ngog are two others - both 20 when the season started - who get some quite baffling criticism as they learn the game. Ngog hasn't scored for a few weeks, but his hold-up play is superb for one so young (and when he's filled out a bit, he'll be able to use strength as well as scontrol), and Insua has come through the blip all youngsters experience to once again show his ability.

Many fans (of all clubs) are quick to call for youngsters to be thrown in, then get instantly dismayed when they're not the finished article, and angry over every mistake they make. As Opta recently noted, Liverpool's average age this season is the second-lowest in the Premier League, behind Arsenal. So the side is young enough already.

It's been tough at times, but the adversity will have helped Ngog and Insua - not mention the five others to feature in major games when aged 20 or under.

On another note, I thought it was brilliant to see Rafa standing up to Sky's questioning of zonal marking before the derby, retorting with the example of how Tim Cahill scores most of his goals against teams deploying man-marking.

And how did Liverpool end up winning the game? From a corner in which Phil Neville was so intent on grappling with Dirk Kuyt (as was Tim Howard), he totally forgot to bother about the ball.

Last week I Tweeted about Chelsea conceding another set-piece goal, and I had a reply saying that they only sometimes concede them, but 'we concede MOST goals this way'. The fan also accused me of misrepresenting facts in general.

So I checked with Opta; Liverpool have conceded 13 of their 26 league goals from set-pieces: 50 per cent.

Chelsea (a physically imposing side who man-mark) had conceded 15 of their 20 league goals from set-pieces: 75 per cent.

Yet someone felt assured enough, even though he was quite, quite wrong, to tell me I was talking rubbish. But that's football for you.

Another top article by Mr Tomkins! The main bit I agree with is the amount of stick our unheralded players have to take. Particularly Lucas (who I think has been our best player this season) , Kuyt, Ngog and Insua.

Average the 2nd youngest side in the league this season. Amazing stat that

The only criticism I would have is that I think at times this season we did lack a bit of fight.  On more than a couple of occasions I thought we looked beaten before we went on that pitch.

Ironically though since Gerrard and Torres both got injured at Reading I've seen a new determination from the team.  In fact, even Gerrard has been carried along in recent weeks by the grit of the rest of the players.

Saturday was immense from all the players.

Average the 2nd youngest side in the league this season. Amazing stat that

What a stat. Arsenal and Liverpool are the two youngest. Bet Chelsea are the oldest and most expensive. Cant wait for that squad overhaul

For years now I’ve been pointing out the inaccuracies in Alan Hansen’s writing. While I respect what he did as a player – he was sublime – as a pundit he just doesn’t put the work in. He’s lazy, a cardinal sin.

For writers, research is our training, our preparation: the essential, unseen graft you put in behind the scenes that goes into the final work. Instead, Hansen chooses to coast. Indeed, does he even turn up? I love to hear him talk about defending, or handling the pressure of the big occasion, because he did his research on that – 20 years in the game. The rest, however, he phones in.



“The painful truth for Liverpool and their supporters is that the new manager at Anfield, whoever he turns out to be, will find a worse squad at his disposal than that which Benítez inherited from Gerard Houllier in 2004.”

Yes, how we long for Bruno Cheyrou, Salif Diao, El Hadji Diouf, Djimi Traore, Igor Biscan, Antony Le Tallec and ghostly Harry Kewell. In 2004, Owen was as good as gone, Heskey was sold, and thanks to Houllier, in came Djibril Cissé, the pacy but erratic striker.

How we want to swap Dudek or Kirkland with Reina; Baros or Cissé for Torres; and an aging Hamann with a young Mascherano.

How we want the never-present Harry Kewell over the ever-willing Dirk Kuyt. Give us our Cheyrou, take back your Benayoun. Swap Aquilani for Diao; or Lucas for Diao. Get rid of the exciting Johnson for the dependable Finnan.

Even Babel, for all his faults, knows where the goal is when compared to El Hadji Diouf. While Insua is young and raw, I’d still opt for him ahead of Traore, as at least he has the potential to improve. And I’d take Agger over Henchoz any day of the week; especially an Henchoz who was on the slide. Maxi, meanwhile, trumps almost any wide-man from the 2004 squad.

Baros would get the nod over Ngog as a back-up striker, but that is not to say that Ngog has qualities the Czech lacked, such as the ability to lift his eyes from the floor.

Riise and Aurelio is a close one, but of course, Aurelio is already leaving the club. And let’s not forget that in 2004, Stephen Warnock hadn’t played a single first team game at Liverpool; so to include him in the thinking would require hindsight, as we look back on, say, Ayala or Wisdom, as a great player who broke through only after the current manager left.

The point remains that Liverpool’s squad has got thinner for financial reasons. Houllier never had to sell to buy; since 2007/08, Benítez has.

“And you could even argue that Liverpool are in their worst state since Bill Shankly arrived at the club more than 50 years ago.”

What about when your mate Souness took a team full of champions and turned in 6th, 6th and 8th-placed finishes, at a time when the club was still so rich it could break the British transfer record? A 41% league win ratio, compared with Benítez’s 55%? One cup final, compared with four? A squad full of overweight losers?

But off the pitch, no arguments. It’s not even close. We’re in a parlous state. Liverpool now make Newcastle look like a well-run club.

“You could be looking at three to four years before Liverpool get back to where the club should be.”

Sounding a bit like Martin Broughton at a Chelsea player of the year function here, Alan.

It could be true. It could take far longer. Whose fault is that? Who put the club into incredible debt? Who pays the salaries of SEVEN world-class players each week (£750,000) – not to players, but to the banks in interest?

“But although Benítez will cite a variety of reasons – the owners, key players losing form, the financial problems – he is the man who has filled a squad that is littered with bad buys.”

Er, yes – in large part because of the owners and the financial problems. Christ on a bike, what came first, the financial undermining or the failure to qualify for the Champions League? Yup, it’s clear.

“Benítez made too many mistakes with too many players. In recent seasons, he hasn’t got any right beyond Fernando Torres, Javier Mascherano and, possibly, Glen Johnson. They were all big-money buys and players of proven quality.”

Torres was rated as unproven – doubts were expressed about the fee for a player never to top 13 goals from open play in a season. Mascherano was in West Ham’s reserves, struggling to adapt to English football. Johnson was rated as vastly overpriced and unable to defend, and had failed to shine at Chelsea, his previous big club.

In other words, give Rafa the kind of budget rivals operate on, and he can be successful?

In the same time period, Benayoun was also signed; he didn’t do too badly. Apparently Chelsea now want him. Maxi has just gone to the World Cup with those pesky minnows, Argentina. Also based on an apparent ability to finally adapt, and the fact that he’s just 25, Aquilani could yet be a successful signing. And even Lucas, at just £5m, has started to win over his critics.

And it’s one thing for managers of teams with low expectations and no Champions League football to spend their time taking chances on bargains, another to expect a club – with a failing youth system that Benítez only got a chance to start properly overhauling 11 months ago (and so far, so good, for those who want to investigate) – to challenge for the top four, and progress in the demanding Champions League, while failing to invest in the playing staff.

“Benítez has had money to spend, but when he has bought players in the mid-range market of £3-5 million, they just have not been good enough and that is why Liverpool’s bench has been so poor in recent months.”

a) Ask yourself, why did he have to buy so many cheap players? And for a top club, £3-5m is not mid-range; not when £16m is half of the current transfer record.

b) And those “£3-5m flops”? Rafa signed just THREE in this price range in SIX YEARS! – Cavalieri (sub keeper), Lucas and Benayoun. Lots at £1-2m though, which is peanuts – roughly 5% of the current transfer record. At that price range, it’s a lucky dip.

Go check yourself: all Rafa’s purchases.

“Regardless of the ownership issue, which clearly needs resolving as quickly as possible, Liverpool need rebuilding on the pitch…“

Woah woah woah woah. Back up there. Regardless?

This is the bit that always gets me. It’s almost as if the financial restraints and anarchy at the top of the club were neither here nor there when Benítez had to do his job.

Perhaps things had gone a little stale; clearly morale was low, but that was due to a variety of reasons (I’m sure the ambitious players were fed up at the manager’s inability to spend lots of money, and also due to their injury problems). Even if people think it was time for Rafa to go, he doesn’t deserve to have such rubbish written about what he did while he was at LFC.

But again, it harks back to the funding; the kind clubs like Manchester City, Spurs and Villa – coincidentally – are injecting while overhauling the Reds. A turnover of top talent is essential to keep a squad improving.

“…he has spent too much money on average players and we are now seeing the fruits of that because Liverpool are a long way short of competing to finish in the top four, never mind fighting to win the big boys’ trophies.”

Wow, so soon after three Champions League semi-finals, and even more recently – just a year ago – the ‘best’ 2nd-place finish in English league history? All on a budget far below that of Chelsea and United. It’s all very well to talk about “where Liverpool should be” – but with the 5th highest wage bill, and the 5th most expensive squad, where Liverpool should have been was … 5th.

(Of course, that’s if everything else at the club is running smoothly. I’m not sure there are studies on how you should perform if the rest of the club is dysfunctional, and you endure an injury crisis.)

So 7th, while below 5th, is not as far adrift from where Liverpool ‘should’ be, when based not on ancient history but current realities. And remind me, what big boys’ trophies did Liverpool contest between 2002 and 2004? Liverpool actually performed better this season than when Houllier’s side had when coming 4th in 2004, when they racked up fewer points. The problem is other clubs are on the up, mostly due to not being in terrible debt.

Indeed, the Times’ excellent Fink Tank recently ran a piece stating that, based on wage bill (with a hefty one playing a vital role in success: it almost always mean you have a large squad and lots of top players), Liverpool should have been well adrift of Chelsea and United. In truth, they were; and yet it was just a year earlier when Liverpool were genuine title challengers, even into the month of May.

This past season, Chelsea, with the highest wage bill, ’should’ have amassed 85 points. They finished with 86; pretty much bang-on. Then come the rest of the teams, with the difference between relative wage bills reflected pro rata in the difference between points.

According to the Times, last season the Reds finished one point below where they ’should’ have, based on the resources. Using the same rationale, the Reds finished 21 points better than we had a right to expect in 2008/09. Over the course of the past two seasons, only Alex Ferguson performed better.

From the table that appeared in the Times I created the one below, adding the previous season. The table the Fink Tank published only included teams that had one manager in 2009/10, so the information was slightly limited; therefore there’s no Manchester City, whose wage bill is believed to now match Chelsea’s.



Not that I’d expect Hansen to read it. Or any of our TPI work, that shows Liverpool’s downward financial slide compared with their rivals.

It seems research is something Hansen doesn’t bother with. By putting almost all of the blame on Benítez’s shoulders, and making light of the effect debt had this past season, he is as good as forgiving the chaotic reign of Gillett and Hicks.

http://tomkinstimes.com/2010/06/please-mr-hansen-check-your-facts/

Quality.

Tomkins, as always, knows how to research. Though he may also have a bias, as all journalists will (though you can't say you do, its human nature) he knows how to back up what he is saying. Guys like Hansen, with all due respect, are having their reputations sullied by being sh*te pundits.

Another excellent read from Tomkins.

I was astounded to read in the Daily Telegraph sports section yesterday how he thought the side was worse than the one under Houllier. Sure, they performed shockingly this season but we all know that on their days, the players in Rafa's squad were more than good enough.

But no offence - I read that article and I bemoan the quality of players Rafa let go. I would play Crouch, Cisse and Baros over N'Gog any day. The fact N'Gog was in effect the only reserve striker for last year was pathetic and really pissed me off. He hardly ever played Kuyt in his better position up front last season. And of course - letting go of Stephen Warnock - not good. Really not good. The fact is Rafa has brought in some magnificent world class players, but in return has allowed good players of a lower standard to leave and for mediocre reserve team players to take the place. You construct a squad of what could have been and history may have been different.

To be honest i agree with Hansen, if you actually go through the team (like he said) that final team Ged put out would beat the current side hands down in my opinion. Lots of spin in Tomkins article

To be honest i agree with Hansen, if you actually go through the team (like he said) that final team Ged put out would beat the current side hands down in my opinion. Lots of spin in Tomkins article

Are you taking the mickey? Name the full 11 of both teams and say that again.

To be honest I agree with Hansen, if you actually go through the team (like he said) that final team Ged put out would beat the current side hands down in my opinion. Lots of spin in Tomkins article

Ok then, type up a well thought out article that refutes what Tomkins said. Go on.