Paul Tomkins' Blog

An Open Letter to George Gillett and Tom Hicks, 26.11.07

Dear George and Tom,

I'd just like to express how depressed and upset I am at the continuing uncertainty surrounding the club, and say that I'd love to hear some reassurances that the differences will be settled ASAP - and that Rafa Benítez has your full support and backing.

While I do think there are two sides to any story, and I appreciate the difficulties of running any club (balancing the books, keeping fans happy, and dealing with opinionated, strong-minded individuals), what I've heard these past few days leads me increasingly to believe you might be missing the point regarding football transfers, and in so doing, undermining the manager, whether you meant to or not.

You may not have realised, perhaps through cultural differences, that telling a manager of an English football team to 'just coach the side' is a kind of insult.

I am not about to make accusations, or go on some personal tirade against you both. Particularly with a welter of hearsay and little actual hard evidence (as yet) fuelling the media frenzy. Clearly all is not well, but at the same time, is it all 'lost'?

I just want to know that the club I love is in safe hands; I feel that is the case on the pitch, but that's something relatively easy to assess; assessing how a club is being run behind the scenes from our side of the fence is much more difficult, because we don't get to see what happens, and only hear snippets of information which is often wrapped up in rumour and hearsay.

I felt Rafa's tone after the Newcastle game was fairly conciliatory, in saying you had the best interests of the club at heart, and that as you were new you needed time to settle into the roles, like he'd expect with a new player. You are no strangers to running sports teams, but you cannot match Rafa's knowledge when it comes to football. Few men can. In this sense, you are the rookies, and you would surely acknowledge that.

And if it is indeed true that you don't (yet) fully understand how the transfer system in Europe works, then it seems to me that this needs to be remedied as soon as possible. This is a fundamental basic of the game. I would like to think it's a misunderstanding, and that there's been some transatlantic miscommunication. I hope I'm not being naive in holding out some hope that this is the case.

Also, I understood that Foster Gillett was going to be acting as your eyes, ears and the in-house go-between in Liverpool, but reports suggest that he is not in place?

For the record, I can't think of one successful English club who has chopped and changed its managers, and which hasn't given the man in charge of the team full control. A club like Newcastle has become a laughing stock because of this short-sighted approach. Continuity and stability are paramount to football success.

There have been some woeful attempts at Director of Football-type affairs, and the only time I know that this type of arrangement has worked was when David Dein bought players at Arsenal, but ­ crucially - at Arsene Wenger's behest.

Across North London, Spurs ­ whose net spend this summer was greater than Liverpool's (as was Manchester United and Manchester City's) - were spectacularly undone by the appointment of a Technical Director whose views differed from the manager's. Too many cooks...

I understand a natural fear you might have - that of sensing the head of the team possesses too much power - but English football works this way. You need one man with one vision to hold the wheel and steer the ship; not rule by committee. And he needs to be so much more than just a coach.

And any manager worth his salt a) will be wary of working for a club that does not give him full power in all football matters, and b) will likely be as difficult a character as Benítez, if not more so.

Top managers are not easy men to work with. Ferguson, Mourinho, Shankly, Clough - none made life easy for the board, and none took kindly to being told what to do, but each delivered the goods in the end. Arsene Wenger is the same, although he was able to build his Arsenal empire with the full backing of David Dein. Had he been told otherwise, he would not have hung around.

Please note what Arsene Wenger said this week: "Maybe there is an analysis to do about politics in the modern [managerial] game. Benítez has done remarkably well and certainly what's happening at Liverpool is not down to the sport or to results, it's down to other, internal differences. Apparently, there are differences. I have always had the support of my board and I think [Sir Alex] Ferguson had that [at Manchester United] as well, and we are the longest-serving managers in the league. There's no secret in it.

"They [the Arsenal board] understand that there is no success without that but, of course, you need a bit of experience to understand that and I'm not sure that everybody just coming and buying [clubs] understands that. The only thing I can say is that I have had the freedom to work since I arrived at Arsenal. I can't remember my board saying 'No' to me."

Stability is key for any successful club. Rafa Benítez is doing far, far, far better at this stage of his tenure than Alex Ferguson was at United. You cannot imagine how much better he is doing. Ferguson failed to win a trophy until the end of his 4th season, and his average league position after five seasons was a woeful 9th. His finishes were 11th, 13th, 2nd, 13th and 6th. Compare this with 5th, 3rd, 3rd, plus an FA Cup and two Champions League Finals, one of which was so famously won, and you can see the chasm.

Replacing Rafa now, when he has assembled his best squad and had his best league start, really would make no sense to me - win the game in hand and the Reds would be 2nd, and still unbeaten. The team is set up to work in his methods. The players fit his mould. And from what I can tell, they have the utmost respect for him. This is crucial.

And while I do think there are perhaps a handful of managers in football who are in the same league as Rafa, I do not think their methods are necessarily suited to Liverpool FC, while I definitely don't think they could make as much of this particular squad as Rafa can. They would want to bring in their own new players, which will be costly, and introduce new systems, which will put things back.

In terms of money spent, Benítez's overall transfer record is outstanding. All managers make mistakes, but most of his have been cheap ones who were quickly traded. What he has got for his money has been top-rate. The squads of United and Chelsea cost at least twice as much as Liverpool's, and are full of £15m-£30m players, yet is there really much of a gap in class? Meanwhile, Arsenal are making use of young players they procured many years ago.

Fan opinion is almost exclusively siding with Rafa. While there has also been some unhelpful, xenophobic anti-American rhetoric, which just clouds the issue, you need to understand how unpopular this situation is making you amongst the Anfield faithful, and how high spirits are running.

When you took over the club there was a surprising amount of goodwill. I don't mean surprising in that I felt at the time that you deserved anything less, but surprising in that any new owners could perhaps have expected a rougher ride. As fans it seems our patience had been worn down with almost three years without a solution to the investment issue, and a series of desperately unsuitable suitors chancing their arms. Compared with Thaksin Shinawatra, you seemed a good bet.

Maybe there are very valid reasons, and I will try to keep as open a mind as possible, but I am struggling to know why the matter cannot be discussed and an attempt at resolving it made before the 16th December.

I have to admit that such a delay worries me. The issues at hand - be it laying the foundations for transfers well ahead of the window (as all teams do), or repairing the relationship with Rafa - seem rather too pressing for that. I don't see how it can wait.

If failure to get through the league stage of the Champions League is crucial to the financial planning for the transfer window, I can understand that part of your thinking. On the other hand, if it is crucial as to whether or not Benítez is fired, I cannot understand that for one minute. Before Rafa was here, we weren't even qualifying for the competition, let alone reaching two finals.

Rafa spoke out after Athens, but you seemed to understand his frustrations. You went on to help the club secure some fantastic players over the summer, although the net spend - while healthy - was not remarkable. One further £7m target - Gabriel Heinze - was missed very late in the day, so it's clear from the summer that such a defender was needed, while any manager will always be assessing his squad as to how he can strengthen it.

Having spent the past three years studiously observing Rafa's methods, I've come to realise just how good he is. I believe he is a football visionary, and what he is building at Liverpool will be something really special.

For instance, it's now seven months since we conceded a goal from a corner or free-kick delivered into the box (excluding the 'reserve' team fielded in the Carling Cup). Zonal marking was widely mocked in 2004, and now we see other teams conceding lame goals with man-to-man marking every week. It's just one area where Rafa made a controversial change, stuck with it, and now is reaping the rewards.

My instincts tell me that you are too smart to dispense with a man like Rafa, and that for all the tension you do really respect him. My instincts tell me you have too much to lose, both in terms of talent, squad morale, financial resources and fan backing, by making such a drastic move - if, indeed, that is what you are considering.

If one good thing has come of this, it's that it's made the fans unite behind the manager and his team. The fear of losing Rafa, which may be just paper talk but all the same seems very real, has made many realise just what it is we have to be grateful for.

So, please reassure me, and all other nervous Reds, that it's all one big (unfortunate) misunderstanding, and that yourselves, Rick Parry and Rafa can get together for a group hug sooner rather than later. I'll even buy the coffee and donuts.

Yours faithfully,

PAUL TOMKINS

Blog #5--- 23.11.2007

Handbags at Teatime, or Something More Sinister?

International breaks are clearly never the best of times for Rafa Benítez.

On this occasion his players all appear to have returned fit and well (physically, if not psychologically), but something potentially more injurious appears to have taken place behind the scenes.

I think we know from previous events that Rafa is prepared to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. The fallout with Pako Ayestaran started like this ­­ general disbelief amongst fans, followed by a realisation that Rafa really could be ruthless. An 11-year partnership apparently severed just like that ­­ although of course it was in truth a fairly long time coming, and even now we don't know all the facts behind it.

If the time for those two to split was right, it needed to happen. The same thing came about with Rafa's parting of the ways with Valencia. And now we have Rafa apparently falling out with Gillett and Hicks.

But it would be wrong to equate all these situations as being the same.

The same unease was felt after the Champions League Final, but it was quickly blown over and a successful summer's transfer dealing secured.

Of course, the more these kinds of supposed spats take place, the greater the chances of it becoming a permanent divide, but both parties clearly have the same aim: success for the team. Perhaps the dividing Atlantic Ocean isn't helping matters, but it was always maintained that Foster Gillett would act as the pair's envoy on Merseyside, while, as we've seen, telecommunications can still be had between all concerned.

I tend not to believe rumours within football, as there are always so many lies that pop up, but at the same time you can never be too quick to dismiss them. Some people with good connections within the club trust that something is awry (Tony Barrett's piece in the Echo today, Friday 23rd, was excellent), but equally, just because something is awry it doesn't mean a relationship has irrevocably broken down. Tensions are often part of business; they just can't be allowed to become divisive.

It's important at this stage not to take sides. While I naturally have more affection for Rafa than the two men who are less well-known to me, and see an established world-class manager in his fourth season as more crucial to our success than investors with no previous football experience, it's also true that the investment provided by Gillett and Hicks was needed.

Rafa himself wanted more money to spend, so someone had to find it from somewhere. Now he needs more money to spend, but again, that's understandable. He can't stop rebuilding now.

He's spent a reasonable amount, but compared with Chelsea and United he still has a relatively inexpensive squad, while Arsene Wenger is now benefiting from the kind of top-rate kids he snaffled while Gérard Houllier was still our manager; maybe in five years' time we'll be delighting over Bruna, Pacheco, Poure and co., but Rafa is under pressure to deliver now.

I'm not sure I agree with Rafa speaking out in the manner in which he has, but at the same time it's easy to understand the frustrations of any utterly manic-obsessive winner when trying to forge the circumstances he feels he needs to succeed.

In the nicest possible way, I think he's slightly insane. Geniuses tend to mentally torture themselves, and I get the impression Benítez will stop at nothing to get success on the pitch, and stop at nothing once he's got success on the pitch. His focus is 100%, and when it comes to being driven he is akin to a Ferrari.

It seems there was indeed a lot of tension following a conversation between Benítez and the Americans yesterday, but as the press conference followed straight from that reported phone call it seems emotions were always going to be running high ­­ just as they were post-Athens, which G&H were quick to point out in May. Perhaps that played a part.

(I know when I used to have arguments with my ex-wife over the bills, the last thing I would have been advised to do with my state of mind was talk to the press.)

I have been generally supportive of the Americans, whilst at the same time refusing to give them my full seal of approval ­ simply because it takes time, and actions over words, to earn it.

I do think they've done most of what they promised fans, but the degrees to which they've done so can be argued over. And what they promised the manager in private, amongst other unknown conversations, is another matter.

They have not been 'free-spending', nor backed Rafa to the levels some might have expected, but they never had mega-riches like Abramovich, and always maintained they'd never spend 'like drunken sailors'. However, they have changed the situation from the point where David Moores was paying Dirk Kuyt's transfer fee out of his own pocket.

Half of the money spent this summer was recouped from sales, so it worked out at about £25m net spend; not a massive fortune, but more in net terms than Liverpool would spend most summers, and more than would have been spent without new owners.

But there were also new contracts to six key players, as well as Torres arriving on higher wages than probably everyone bar Gerrard ­­ so the wage bill rose significantly as a result. Annual wages per player runs into millions these days.

Money within football is rising because of the new TV deal, but if reports are to be believed, the cost of the stadium is rising even faster. While the stadium finance may stand separate from the transfer budget in some respects, the overall financial health of the club affects both. The new stadium is needed to compete long-term, but that leaves issues in the interim.

My greatest fear from any investor was interference in team matters. It is the great no-no in football, particularly in England. But at the same time, you cannot expect anyone who owns the club to agree to everything the manager wants. The owners have a right to control the budget, just not to start picking the team, and they've certainly not overstepped that particular mark.

The stakes are high. Rafa has his reputation on the line. The Americans have their money on the line, while also wanting to maintain their own reputations, within the world of sport, and more crucially, to the fans of Liverpool FC, who they need to win over.

Fans always turn on the moneymen first. While I don't agree with worshipping any investor or venerating them as saviours, they also don't deserve to be castigated; certainly not without any clear facts.

In some eyes the Americans are taking too much of a backseat by being so far away, yet in others they are interfering too much. It does seem very odd to leave discussing the winter transfer plans so close to the opening of the window, but at the same time, progress in the Champions League is an important issue. But a plan either way wouldn't hurt.

Losing Rafa now (and I'm not suggesting that it will happen, or is even remotely close to happening) would be terrible news, because he's only just getting the kind of team together he wanted. No person is bigger than the club, but this is his team. While a new man would inherit a very fine side, he'd want to make his own changes, that would lead to more expense.

While there's understandable cause for some discomfort amongst fans, as any disagreements played out in public are never enjoyable, as yet I've not seen anything to panic about.

Tension can exist, arguments can be had, without it leading to divorce. So long as the air gets cleared sooner rather than later, the club can continue to move forward.

© Paul Tomkins 2007

Blog #4--- 4.11.2007

Dose of reality (well, my reality, at least)

I think there's something very deluded about Liverpool fans if they think the team can go to places like Blackburn, in their best form for a decade (built on being hard to beat), and simply turn them over. It just doesn't happen.

Already this season, Arsenal and Chelsea have failed to beat Rovers in the league. Like visiting Portsmouth, where United have failed to win in the last two seasons, some fixtures are deceptively tough.

Maybe if the Reds were in full flow you could expect a win. But for me, it's not a fixture where you can have must-win expectations. Blackburn at Anfield, even with Rovers in their best form for 100 years, would be a game where Liverpool must always win, but not at Ewood Park.

Going back to the halcyon days, away draws were part and parcel of successful campaigns. The Reds had to grind out results, and that included drawing at places other than Old Trafford and Highbury. When winning the title in 1984, Joe Fagan's men racked up a staggering 14 draws from 42 games. Liverpool drew nine away games, and won only eight, losing a further four. The Reds also failed to win seven home games, but still won the league.

Even though it was three points for a win in 1984, it seems the draw nowadays is treated the same as a defeat.

Let's be honest: this season, Liverpool, despite being unbeaten, have clearly had some bad results in the league. The home draws with Spurs and Birmingham are games where nothing short of a win is to be expected, particularly with both struggling.

These were dropped points: four in total. No excuses.

The draws against Chelsea and Arsenal, however, are more confusing. Both were unbeaten upon arrival, but Chelsea should have lost their status that day. Just as Liverpool did at Everton, they got lucky.

The Arsenal game was strange, in that they played some lovely stuff without really troubling the Reds too often until towards the end, while Liverpool had many of the best chances. While you should never lose these big home games, they can easily end in draws if the other team is on form. So they're 'okay' results.

However, while the Reds' unbeaten tag therefore doesn't tell the full story, in masking at least two failures, it's still a psychological boost. That's undeniable. But draws need to start becoming wins sooner rather than later.

(As a side note, in the Champions League, where it doesn't look like being our year, I see the draw away at Porto as a very good result, while the two defeats were clearly bad results. And I said at the time, the Marseilles game was atrocious. I just don't see a correlation between that level of showing and the weekend's game.)

No matter how I look at it, the draws at Portsmouth and Blackburn were good results. Not great results, not 'roll out the bunting' results, but to me, undeniably decent ones –– more than acceptable. Few top teams will go to the Parks of Ewood and Fratton and win, even when playing their best football and the home teams play their worst.

The problem for Liverpool has been the home form, but we've seen enough in the last three years at Anfield to know it can be particularly strong under Benítez. Getting back to that, while maintaining something like this away form, will mean a very good season. But the home games are mostly must-win ones from now on, as well as two-thirds of the remaining away games.

The Reds weren't great in the first half at Ewood Park, but it's also true that both teams had just one good chance: Bentley's, when he broke free, and Babel's, when he cut inside. It seemed like a European away performance, designed to quiet the crowd and hope to make the quality tell as the game opened up later on.

But for poor finishing, a brilliant goal-line clearance from Crouch's header, and good goalkeeping from Freidel, that should have been the case. Reina had little to do at the other end.

Other than Bentley's effort in the first half, Dunn had a great pop at goal, but it wasn't so much a chance as a punt from long range, and like Bentley's it was off target (yes, in many ways it's unlucky to hit the post, and you applaud the effort, but ultimately it's not going in unless the goalposts up and move themselves.)

As the game wore on, Liverpool improved, and missed some great opportunities. Gerrard's shooting wasn't quite sharp enough when forcing Freidel into good saves, and Kuyt's shooting ranged from poor to downright terrible. There were also a couple of breaks where the extra men should have led to goals, with Kuyt again guilty.

Everyone can see that there are problems with the Reds' play at the moment. Many of them will solve themselves in natural ways, while a few need to be addressed.

The biggest problem is injuries, and these will solve themselves in time. Torres, Agger and Alonso are not average players you can do without.

Agger is the quickest runner and the move-starter from the back. Alonso is the move-starter and tempo-setter from the middle. And Torres is the move-finisher and, with his searing pace, the opposition-stretcher.

These are three of Rafa's best players; it's natural the team will not be as good without them. How can it be? How could United possibly be as good without Rooney, Ferdinand and Ronaldo? Indeed, United's defeat at Man City came with the latter suspended, while they were hopeless against Spurs without him, but contrived a lucky win.

I don't expect there to be much sympathy from outside of Liverpool Football Club for the injuries, but I do expect the club's own fans to understand the situation.

There is cover for a player like Jermaine Pennant, but not for the very best players who comprise the spine.

You cannot judge a Benítez team without these players. You cannot judge his total spending, either, if those on whom he's spent the most money are absent. It's not an excuse, it's a fact of football life. And while the team is struggling without its best players, at least some points are being racked up in games that are not 'bankers'.

And there's also Harry Kewell who, after 73 years out injured, including one particularly nasty incident with a ruptured ponytail, is back on the scene –– but, alas, not yet fully match fit. Thankfully, he looks surprisingly sharp, but is clearly not yet capable of 90 minutes. But it won't be long.

Two and three years ago I was arguing about how he's one of our best passers, and how the football is definitely better when he's in the team, even if he isn't tearing past defenders. But if he can do the latter as well, he'll be a massive plus, as there are few wingers of his quality in the country.

Another problem is new players settling in. Only this week Arsene Wenger said (not for the first time) that you should never judge an import in his first year. He should know. He's had some of the worst starters (Pires, Henry) who, after a year or so, turned into the country's best players. Some do settle quickly, like Torres, but you can never write off anyone who doesn't. Everyone is different.

Ryan Babel is a real talent, but he's just 20, and struggling like Pires and Henry. He must –– and I mean must –– be cut some slack. Again, it's not an excuse, but a fact of Premiership life.

A further problem is confidence, both individually and as a team. Momo Sissoko was woeful a few weeks back, but after encouragement from Rafa he played far, far better at Blackburn. The team's passing in midfield was much neater on the whole, but it lacked killer passes until the second half.

Now we have Dirk Kuyt in the same boat as Momo a few weeks back; he'll never be a world-class talent, but he's much better than he showed at Ewood Park. Yes, he's a workhorse, but you often need those to complement the more gifted players.

Admittedly I expected a lot more from Kuyt this season, but at the same time he's not as bad as some make out. I was impressed with him last season, at times very much so, although he could have scored a few more goals. (Had he taken our penalties last season in the way he has this, he could have had 20 goals.)

This year it's just not happening for him ... yet. His confidence is rock bottom, and anyone can look bad in those circumstances. Michael Owen was a prime example.

But without Torres, the pace is missing from the attack and Kuyt is left exposed; the same can be said of Crouch. Torres was designed to be our cutting edge; but he's injured. I'd like to see Chelsea get by anywhere near as well without Drogba (if memory serves from earlier this season, they didn't). Oh, and to be without John Terry and Michael Essien at the same time.

I'm a big fan of Peter Crouch, which is obvious from the way I was defending him when everyone else was calling him hopeless two years ago. And while some may feel he's being harshly treated, he had not played well in his limited appearances until last week, when he came on against Arsenal and really looked at it.

Now he's coming into a bit of form, despite a fairly uneventful Carling Cup showing, it could be the time to play him from the start.

But I also understand the problem of the rest of the team, when lacking confidence, looking long to him and bypassing the midfield. I'm guessing Rafa wants us to play through the middle a bit more, to find the flow again. Providing the team look to Crouch's feet, where he's at his best, it's hard to see him not featuring heavily before Torres' return.

Elsewhere, Steve Finnan is getting better at last, but he had a horrible, lethargic start to the season. Jamie Carragher just doesn't seem fully on his game at the moment; maybe the rib injury knocked him back a bit. He's still defending brilliantly at times, just not all the time. He's making uncharacteristic mistakes, and at least one a game, although getting away with most of them. When on form, these two are top Premiership players, up there with the very best.

Alongside Carra, Sami Hyypia is struggling to cope with so many games as the years wear on. He's not losing pace, as he had none, but he himself admits the bones are creaking and the muscles aching. It's more about the cumulative effect of so many matches, physically and, in turn, mentally.

And with Agger absent, both he and Carragher are weak links when it comes to distribution from the back. Jack Hobbs, a talented player on the ball, is still a year or two away from being ready to be a regular at this level, but he has all the attributes necessary to succeed. For a teenage centre-back, where it takes time to mature, he's an outstanding prospect, and a lad with real character.

But the failure to land Heinze has left Benítez short of options at the back for this season (or until January) at least.

Another defender, John Arne Riise, has become a target of criticism, but again, I don't feel he presents a massive problem; he's not playing well, but there are worse left-backs around, while I just don't see it as a key position.

Again, at just 18 it seems Insua, a far more naturally gifted footballer, is still a year or two away from taking the spot regularly. These are the kinds of players Arsene Wenger has had time to bring through, but which Rafa hasn't.

Insua, who is great going forward as well as defending on the deck, is alarmingly small, so that would give us a weak area teams could look to exploit; for all his limitations, Riise is surprisingly good in the air defensively. Fabio Aurelio is a more talented passer and classier footballer, but he's been out for six months and needs time to find his feet.

Can we improve on Riise? Yes. But is he a major weakness? No.

However, like any player who is struggling, his form isn't helping the team play better football. And his ludicrous, left-footed clearance in the second-half on Saturday evening was woeful –– at times you cannot, under any circumstances, use your favoured foot if the ball is completely on the other side of your body. But despite his flaws, he can weigh in with goals, and some fairly important ones at that.

Elsewhere, Steven Gerrard is getting back to his best, but his control with his back to goal let him down a lot at Ewood Park. He is better when striding forward from deeper areas, but at the same time he's had some top games, and scored a lot of goals, when playing behind the main striker. With his ability, he should not struggle in the role, particularly in holding onto the ball.

There's also the issue of him, come Tuesday, playing eight games in three weeks. With this in mind, I can see why Benítez might have wanted to try and use his attacking skills by keeping him in the final third, rather than having him charging from box to box.

Of course players can play that many games in such a short space of time and not die of exhaustion or see their limbs fall off, but equally, they can't be expected to be as fresh by the eighth game. Do marathon runners run eight competitive marathons in that time?

I don't want to imply that, by defending Benítez against some of the harsher criticisms and in trying to understand why I feel he's been making certain decisions, I believe everything is rosy.

Let's be clear: playing like this, Liverpool won't win anything of note this season. That much is obvious. But it all depends on whether or not this is us at our worst.

If it is, then, paradoxically, it leaves me very optimistic: because we're not being beaten or outclassed, Reina is having little to do, and key men are due to return.

The fact is, we don't know if this is us at our worst, and probably won't for some months. Hopefully, by then, we'll say it was, as an improvement in form turns draws into wins; at home, it simply has to happen.

But I am certain that Liverpool at their best can still be a force to be reckoned with in the league this season. It will, however, need the presence of the majority of the squad's best players to stand a chance, and we should not be favourites.

Of course, that was always going to be the case. While Liverpool have a big squad, and some very able deputies, there are some key players who are absolutely crucial to the team's ambitions. The 'one-offs'. And it will need those players to find their form as quickly as possible (which won't be easy for those returning from injury), and retain it consistently.

And finally, from what I can see, it will need fans to accept that a point away from home to an in-form and hard-to-beat team (who have set up at home to make it difficult and to hit us on the break) is not the end of the world, but rather, something to build on.

Blog #3--- 26.10.2007

The Rotation Rope Tightens

Give a man enough rope, the saying goes, and he will hang himself.

Or in other words, give him the opportunity and he will be the victim of his own folly.

But it's not Rafa who's hanging himself with rotation –– it's the short-sighted media doing it for him. Like a man wrongly identified as a paedophile by people who forgot to check their facts, an angry mob is gathering, their ire based on misinformation.

I can't stress enough how utterly out of control the anti-rotation rhetoric has become. It's frightening. Anytime anything –– any single thing –– goes wrong at Liverpool, it's the fault of rotation. It thwarts all proper debate.

Rafa's rotation is the root of all evil. I'm just waiting to hear that Rafa's rotation was riding a moped down the Pont d'Alma road tunnel in Paris in August 1997, or was stood with a rifle on a grassy knoll in Dealey Plaza, Texas, in 1963.

Only a few weeks ago Mark Lawrenson was laying all the blame of a bad result at the feet of rotation. On Football Focus in early October he said "I'm afraid it's the rotation system again".

Then, when Rafa keeps faith in the same two strikers who played at the weekend for the Besiktas game (and he only had three to choose from), Lawrenson says on Five Live: "Rafael Benitez got his selection policy completely wrong. You saw what Crouch did. Within a minute of coming on he made the goal for Gerrard."

Now, Lawrenson may be correct on either one of these assumptions. But he cannot be correct on both.

To me it is yet another example of punditry by hindsight –– of always being right and a manager wrong, by suggesting, after the event, the opposite of what the manager actually did, preferably with a condescending tone of superiority. It's inconsistent, hypocritical punditry that involves paying no attention to what you've said before. Any muppet can do that.

If Benítez had played Crouch in Turkey, he'd have been rotating. Had Liverpool still lost, or Crouch had a poor game, Lawrenson would no doubt have blamed the lack of continuity up front. "I'm afraid it's the rotation system again". But Rafa went with the two strikers who share nine goals this season, not the one who has just one (admittedly from limited chances). I mean, fancy doing something crazy like that?

A post by NeverWalkALone on 606 appeared on the main BBC football site: "I think Rafa needs to scrap his rotation policy once and for all ... or we need to scrap him. Anyone agree?" It's typical of the mood amongst many so-called fans. It's mob mentality, with the lowest possible IQ.

This came during a game where Benítez made just two changes following the derby, dropping Momo Sissoko, whom everyone said needed removing, to bring in Pennant, and replacing Benayoun with Babel, which, given both are flair players, is pretty much like-for-like. So, a more attacking team on balance, and one in which Babel, who was introduced to the side, did particularly well.

At first it was zonal marking that was Benítez's crazy continental folly, but most Liverpool fans have come to see that the team actually concede very few goals from set pieces delivered into the box. In fact, barely any.

But even now, to highlight the ignorance of pundits who only catch Liverpool games here and there, Andy Gray only ever says negative things like "there's the problem with zonal marking...".

He did this against Besiktas when a Turkish centre-back found himself with an incredibly difficult shooting chance towards the angle of the 18-yard box. "It could so easily have gone in the top corner," Gray said, as the ball sailed into space. Yeah, Andy, if it was Marco Van Basten shooting.

The only goal Pepe Reina has conceded from a corner of free-kick into the box this season was against Everton. The original corner was dealt with (to a degree), but the ball was put back in from the other side of the area. And even then, the problem wasn't an unmarked Evertonian because of zonal marking –– it was Sami Hyypia thinking he was Marco Van Basten. Hyypia was perfectly placed, but he scored an own goal when attempting to clear. Shit happens.

While the media hasn't been able to get a bandwagon going over zonal marking for a year or two now, the more complex and 'unprovable' issue of rotation rumbles on.

And yet the more I delve into rotation –– looking into the issue in infinitely more detail than I've seen anyone else in the media bother to –– the more proof I find that it works. Or, at the very least, that it's far from the folly so many would have us believe. I'm never going to say it's perfect, but then no team selection can ever be said to be perfect before any game; you can only make judgements afterwards, and that's a luxury a manager doesn't have.

Oliver Anderson, the statistician with whom I have been working for a couple of years, is now producing stats on all Premiership teams, and trends within the entire division. For a compay called The Football Review, he has produced a book and a website that looks at a variety of statistics, most of which I think are very meaningful. In particular, the stuff on rotation.

From my own research, I was aware that, in the league last season, Liverpool won their most points, on average, when Rafa made three changes. And I'd also pointed out that Liverpool made the same amount of Premiership changes as Manchester United last season (118, at just over three per game), which was also the exact same amount made by Chelsea the year before.

And unlike all the media hacks, I had also previously pointed out that, when it comes to Alex Ferguson supposedly never rotating his main men while Rafa always tinkers with his, the fact was that Gerrard, Reina and Carragher all started more league games than any Man United player.

But it's interesting to look at the trend across the entire Premiership. Changes may also be due to injury or suspension, but it all goes to show the need for the "same XI this week lads" that so many old-timers suggest is essential is an utter myth when it comes to the modern game.

Last season there were 380 Premiership matches, which means 760 team line-ups. Only 83 of them were unchanged from the previous league game; 677 involved altered team-sheets.

Across the league as a whole, when managers kept an unchanged team they on average won 37% of matches. Managers who made none, one or two changes to their line-ups also won 37%.

But managers who made between three and seven changes won 41% –– a fairly significant improvement. Indeed, mirroring the amount of unchanged line-ups, there were also 83 times when managers made four changes, and the win-rate then was over 42%. Compare that with the 83 times no changes were made, and tell me this stat is irrelevant?

There could be a million reasons why all these results occurred, ranging from luck to inspired judgement, but it clearly shows that changing a team does not automatically lead to failure. Last season, a team was actually far more likely to win with four changes than with none. And Manchester United won the league with an average of more than three changes per game.

Now, perhaps Rafa has rotated too much this season. And on occasion he has got his line-up wrong, inasmuch as you can say we'd have done better had he made other selections (which, of course, you can't for certain).

But he's also had disruptive injuries to Gerrard, Carragher, Kewell (okay, he's always injured, but all the same he's a player Rafa wants to use), and more recently, Agger, Alonso and Torres. Now for me, they are six of the eight most talented footballers on the books. Gerrard and Carragher both lost their form with their injuries. Not because of rotation.

I'm sure Rafa would want to stick to a more settled core, or spine, to his side, as he did in recent seasons, but five of the six players I've just listed represent that spine. So how can he possibly find the consistency he wants if players are out injured, or struggling after injury? If the team is deprived of some of those key men who would play 80-90% of games, then perhaps it figures that 'mere squad players' will be switched between in their absence?

Rafa also lost his right-hand man, and while I feel that the club can recover from Pako Ayestaran's departure, and weren't exactly relying on him for every important decision, it was a shock to the system that, at the time, could not have helped. It coincided with the international break that disrupted the great form the Reds were showing, and also coincided with the loss of Agger and Alonso.
More recently, Torres had actually just played three games in a row before he went to Spain with his national team, and without Rafa's careful training regime which staves off a lot of muscle injuries, promptly got injured.

So how can you just blame rotation when there are clearly far more disruptive factors? How do you strip away these crucial factors, any of which on their own could cause problems, to leave you with the all-too-simple conclusion that "I'm afraid it's that rotation system again"?

It's becoming a cliché, but it needs saying: no-one blamed rotation when the Champions League was won and a final reached last season, or when the Reds were winning 10-12 games on the trot when reaching 82 league points. But of course, had Liverpool lost just one of those games, despite Rafa making changes each and every week, the lazy hindsight pundits would say "you never change a winning team".

How the fuck can Rafa win, then? Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't, by men who always know better after the event.

Does winning the league mean you are the best manager ever, but not winning it, when there are three other very strong rivals –– two of whom have spent more on their squads, and two of whose managers have been in their jobs for a combined 33 years –– make you a total idiot? And all this, while Liverpool are having the best league start for years, where they remain unbeaten. Points have been dropped, but the situation is hardly bleak, nor will it be even if the Reds lose against Arsenal. (Although it won't help, clearly). There's three-quarters of the season to go.

Make no mistake: Rafa is being hung out to dry by the media. The man has made mistakes, but then so too has every manager.
It's become a game of hangman, and I fear he won't win; more than anything, I fear the self-fulfilling prophecy of fans baying for blood. It doesn't help that this bloodlust is being served by men in the media who want to make money by criticising the club we love, for institutions that want to make money by by criticising the club we love.

The pressure is building, and much of it is down to the ludicrous criticism of a system too many people either don't understand, or who close their eyes to the facts. It sure ain't perfect, but what the hell is?

© Paul Tomkins 2007

Blog #2--- 11.10.2007

What would I do differently to Rafa?

I was recently challenged to suggest what I disagreed with about Rafa Benítez's management.

This happened to come a couple of weeks after a .tv piece where I tried to explain how difficult it is to pinpoint a manager's mistakes with any certainty.

Perhaps that message didn't get through. If a goalkeeper drops the ball, it's a mistake. It's easy to spot. The same with a striker missing an open goal. But managerial mistakes are a much more complex issue.

At times there can be plenty I wish Rafa did differently, but that doesn't mean that he was wrong and my ideas would have worked out better. I always have the advantage of hindsight, as well as my ideas ending (in my head at least) in perfection; as if that would be the reality.

Based on his showing against Charlton, I was certain Kewell should have started in the Champions League final last year, but when he did come on it showed that he still lacked match sharpness. This is something only a manager can know for sure. I'd also have brought on Crouch earlier, but at 1-0 it was delicately balanced, and maybe Rafa didn't want the players being tempted to hit long balls. Had that happened, he'd have been slated.

These are two quick examples of why I think it's nigh-on impossible to judge what constitutes a managerial error.

On any given day, did the team lose because the strikers didn't take their chances? The defenders marked badly, or other examples of human error? Because of bad tactics? An outrageously good piece of 'unstoppable' play from the opposition, or an inspired display as they raise their game? Bad refereeing decisions? Poor motivation from the manager and his staff? A lack of preparation time? The players just weren't good enough on the day, or some are not good enough, full stop? The opposition had a midweek off while your team schlepped across Europe?

Or could it be an impossibly complex mix of some or all of these reasons and many more, with a precise single reason impossible to pinpoint? With this in mind, I tend to try and judge a manager over a period of time, because then patterns emerge.

The manager takes the overall responsibility. But he can't control everything.

Cause and effect makes it virtually impossible to judge things like substitutions; you never get to compare the alternative situations, where the change is not made, or another player is introduced instead. And of course, a manager is one step removed from the action. He sends on a player, but he doesn't play for him.

If a manager makes a substitution, he is relying on that human being to not make mistakes on his behalf. Arguably a good manager will choose the right players more often than not: those least likely to make a mistake, and most likely to do something positive.

But in any given player can err at any unexpected moment. I'm sure when Martin O'Neill sent on Marlon Harewood in a like-for-like swap with his team 4-1 up at Spurs (a decision that made sense to me at the time) he didn't expect his striker to give away a totally needless penalty that swung the game in Spurs' favour.

Benítez's most lauded substitution mirrors his predecessor's most criticised, in that both involved Didi Hamann in a crucial Champions League match, with the club as close to winning the trophy as it had been since its days as the European Cup. Houllier took off Hamann; Benítez put him on.

Houllier took off Hamann when the team were losing 3-2 but winning on the away goals rule, and in desperate need of keep Bayer Leverkussen out, while Benítez put him on when the team was 3-0 down and needed to score at least three goals.

Neither substitution therefore makes a lot of sense in terms of the personnel involved. It was the opposite action in terms of logic –– you want Hamann on to protect a lead, but he wouldn't be the first choice to overturn a massive deficit.

In fairness to Houllier, Hamann wasn't having much of an effect against Leverkusen before being taken off. Had he stayed on, the way the game was going, and given how he was being overrun, then it's still likely Liverpool would have lost. As strange as the decision still seems to this day, it's not as if the Reds were in control and no gamble was needed.

And where Benítez got lucky was Milan's failure to score from one of their early second-half chances (which Hamann did nothing to prevent) which stopped the Italians from completely killing off his team's hopes.

Where the switch deserves praise was was in the move from a back four to a three, and in how Hamann's presence freed up Gerrard to attack. Benítez's luck doubled when Smicer, only on the field as the manager's gamble with Kewell had failed, scored with the kind of moment of supreme inspiration sadly lacking during most of the Czech's appearances.

Benítez then earned his corn by switching Gerrard to right-back, to cope with Serginho's surges. But it still required Djimi Traoré –– who was due to be removed at half-time –– to produce a goal-line clearance to keep the Reds' hopes alive. So while part of Benítez's success that night was in making masterful tactical changes, it also required good luck and bad finishing from the opposition (Shevchenko in particular) to have them pay off.

It's fair to say that I often disagree with Rafa's team selections/rotations on a match-by-match basis, but the overall pattern is one I cannot argue too much with. And after all, that is the point of rotation. I trust that he has much more information to hand, on both the opposition and his own players, not to mention a far greater knowledge of the game.

Aside from Harry Kewell, whose injury problems pre-date Benítez's arrival, few of his players have suffered from serious muscle injuries. The manager has had less fortune with the unavoidable loss of players to broken bones. The Reds have ended each season well; that may not all be down to rotation, but at the same time, it doesn't mean early defeats are, too.

Patterns are what I tend to look at when assessing a manager, because they show a long-term picture, not merely what is happening in the moment, be it a bad defeat or healthy win. Managers who make too many mistakes do not have good records. But even the best managers have bad months, even bad seasons. But look at their five-season records, and the best stand out as a class above.

While not all the patterns in Rafa's reign make good viewing (autumnal slumps, overall away form, league goals scored), the overall picture remains pretty impressive.

Countering the autumnal slumps are the runs of wins his teams always put together, although of course the eradication of the former would go a long way towards a league title. The home form is a slight concern this season, although Rafa's overall record at Anfield is very impressive; the away form, meanwhile, has actually been excellent in alternate years, just dire every second season. Overall it averages out at merely average, but the chance is there this season to improve that.

Regarding league goalscoring, this is the first season when Rafa's had a strikeforce he's close to being entirely happy with, and it has 15 goals to its name already, with seven in the league. While the latter figure is not amazing, it is currently better than the league goals from the strikers at United (five) or Chelsea (two), who have played one more game.

Of course, it would help if Steven Gerrard was weighing in with his share, as he's capable of doing, and in the way Cesc Fabregas currently is at Arsenal.

Rafa's record in the Premiership since he arrived gives him a 54% win-rate. This despite two end of seasons where, for acceptable reasons, he fielded weakened teams in the league to save the players for the more crucial Champions League games. While his win-rate has been slipping since 2006, it's too soon to read too much into this season; at the same point in the last two seasons it was also poor at this stage, only to recover considerably.

To put it into a kind of context, the Reds won three league titles with identical or lower win-rates, plus another five with only marginally better win-rates. And his total of 54% is considerably weakened by his first season, which was a steep learning curve for all concerned (as was Bill Shankly's). Rafa's Premiership win record excluding that first season is nearing 60%.

The trouble since his arrival, and which would make the job more difficult for anybody, is that teams have needed to win more than 70% of matches to land the title, something Liverpool have only done once in their illustrious history (71% in 1979). Rafa's best is the 66% from 2005/06, which is the still the second-highest ever.

Rafa's overall record in all competitions is even more impressive, at 59%, with 111 wins from 188 games. This contains a disproportionate amount of cup games against Chelsea, plus opposition that includes AC Milan, Juventus, Manchester United and Barcelona.

It's worth mentioning that even now, into his fourth season, he has yet to face a side in the any domestic cup who were below mid-table in the Championship at the time, while the 2006 FA Cup success was based on beating Premiership opposition; only Luton were in a lower division.

The Champions League qualifiers have grown increasingly more difficult (on paper at least) each season. That said, games like TNS were a 'gimme'.

Rafa's record in Europe is second to none since 2004. Not only has he qualified for the competition every season –– something that wasn't happening prior to his arrival, and not at all during the '90s –– the Reds have also emerged from the group stage in three successive seasons. That impressive record is in danger of falling this season, but there's still plenty of time to turn it around.

The pattern regarding clean sheets is superb: every season Pepe Reina seems to break another record or pass a milestone, and for two seasons running he has racked up the most shut-outs.

The pattern of defending set-pieces is also excellent; however, the pattern of scoring them is less impressive. It's been better than a lot of Reds realise, as fans are always acutely aware of how many corners fail to lead to goals (something not noticed with the other teams, when you often just see the goals they score in highlights), but it still falls a long way short of Chelsea's set-piece success.

On balance, Rafa's record in the transfer market is also impressive. All managers end up getting a fair few wrong (I can name 20-30 flops of Arsene Wenger), but Rafa's generally got his money back (or even made a profit) on his flops, none of whom have been expensive. Unlike some managers, he's also been quick to offload those who don't meet his standards.

It's too early to judge this year's crop, but Torres looks as if he should prove a bargain even at £20m, while Voronin has thus far been excellent value as a free transfer. There have been good signs from the others, but the jury is understandably still out.

And the only reason people might now suggest that signings like Kuyt or Crouch are failures –– when in the past they've looked like successes –– is because their chances are being limited by the arrival of an even better player. Similarly, the talented but inconsistent Sissoko will struggle to get regular games because of better players Benítez has bought in his position; even so, the Malian remains an important squad member.

Few managers have bought 'spine' players who are better than Reina, Agger, Alonso, Mascherano and Torres.

Even now, the oldest, Alonso, is only 25. These are players yet to enter their prime. (On his good days, Sissoko also looks like he belongs in this company, but he needs to cut out those very bad days.) You can add Scott Carson to the list, but his value may be in the transfer fee it brings, which should be at least seven ten times the £750,000 Benítez paid. Aston Villa have already paid £2m just to take him on loan for a year.

Rafa's had less success on the flanks, although Arbeloa looks a real find, and Ryan Babel has the potential to be a world-class attacking player in any position. But at 20 he's still raw, and needs to toughen up a bit, like a lot of newcomers to English football.

Jermaine Pennant is still only halfway to being a great player –– a lot of his game is there, but the lack of goals is a concern. Leto has talent, but is still very raw. Gonzalez flattered to deceive, while Nunez was an inexpensive gamble that didn't pay off. Yossi Benayoun has the ability to buck the trend, and unlike Pennant, can score as well as create.

Meanwhile, in what I believe is much of his best work (but which is still in its infancy), Benítez has totally overhauled the youth and reserve teams, and done so with superb vision.

Like a man planting acorns, it takes a while to see mighty oaks grow. Only a few can manifest –– there's not room for them all, after all –– but Hobbs and Insua look very much like future stars who are growing ever closer to the first team picture. And of course, the Brazilian Lucas has a massive future in the game.

Do I like the tactics Rafa deploys and the football the Reds play? Generally, yes.

When the team is playing to the level of which it's capable, I have no real complaints about anything, even if the football, while attractive and based around pass and move, doesn't reach the aesthetic excellence of Arsenal's best. When Liverpool are on form, the ball is passed very well, and the movement is top-class. The 2007 Champions League Final was an example of this; all that was lacking was the pace of a top-class striker like Torres.

But of course, when the team is playing badly and its confidence is low, a number of faults appear. This is the same with any team, though. Not enough players show for the ball; the play can get narrow; the defenders look long; individual mistakes creep in. But these are often failings of the team's psychology at that moment in time, not of any tactical instruction.

If you look at Benítez's purchases, they are almost all technically excellent. In particular, it's a shame for Peter Crouch that his sublime control is under-appreciated by many observers, and his aerial game obsessed over. Even Sissoko often shows great control and twinkle toes when in possession, but his concentration when passing lets him down massively.

I get the impression that Benítez wants his team to always play attractive passing football, and be clever and creative in the final third, but that it's not always possible. He also wants the team to be compact, and to play 'as one'. Earlier in the season this was happening, and the Reds looked a real force. Beyond confidence, there's nothing to stop it happening again.

So as for what I'd do differently, there's plenty. But it's almost certain that Liverpool would be a worse team because of it.

© Paul Tomkins 2007

Blog #1 --- 4.10.2007

Another superb performance by Liverpool in Europe, this time against Marseilles.

Unfortunately, it was only from the 91st minute onwards.

It really was one of the strangest displays I've seen from the Reds in a long time. From the first whistle the players went around on the wet surface like they were wearing brogues. Aside from slipping and sliding, there was no desire, no tempo, no cohesion. Even the team's leaders were subdued. Marseilles deservedly won.

It was nice to see Rafa come out and say: "That could be the worst performance since I came here, especially at home. We didn't create much from the beginning."

As ever, the curse of the sacked opposition manager came back to haunt Liverpool; a new man in charge, and the players perform like men possessed. Even so, it really was an anaemic display from Liverpool. All teams have days like this, but the best ones don't make a habit of it.

It wasn't the strongest side Benítez could have fielded, but there seemed to be enough quality out there to get a result.

At least this time he's kept some players back for the upcoming league game, which seemed to be the desire of a lot of fans angry at a 'stronger' XI fielded at Porto than at Portsmouth.

Of course, after this defeat, Rafa is being accused of not taking the Champions League seriously enough and making Liverpool the laughing stock of Europe. How short some fans' memories are. We could be utterly horrible in all six games this season, and no-one will have the right to laugh at Liverpool in Europe; Milan aside, no-one in the last three years has even come close to matching our record.

It's hard to name one player who performed well last night. That said, those who clearly had their 'best games' in a while were Mascherano, Babel, Pennant, Arbeloa, Alonso and Agger, as well as Riise, Kuyt and Voronin in the time they spent exempt from blame on the bench.

I'm usually happy to defend Momo Sissoko –– a player who often gets too much stick for my liking –– but when he has games like this he hands ammunition to his critics on a plate. His passing was about as bad as it's ever been, and his tackling and his energy –– his saving graces –– let him down. Frankly, he had a mare. When he's good, he's great, but when he's bad, his struggles are horribly conspicuous. He doesn't really have quiet, anonymous games, just good or bad ones.

I've seen it mooted that it could be down to Ramadan, but I'd be surprised if he's in a condition to play if he's fasting properly (which means getting up early for some food, then not eating during the day.) I don't think it can help his pre-match routine, or his energy levels, if that's the case.

He still offers a lot to the Liverpool cause, and has had some fine games this season, and some absolutely superb ones in the previous two seasons (FA Cup Final and Barcelona away, in particular), so he shouldn't be written off; but the composure of Mascherano and, particularly, Alonso (when fit again), certainly look better options when he's playing like this.

When the Reds aren't playing well as a team, and lack tempo, Sissoko isn't someone who can get things moving. He's perhaps better suited to quicker away games, where he can break things up and play the ball simply, in a team that's offering a lot of movement. While his passing was bad last night, there was often no-one to pass to.

I also remain a big fan of Sami Hyypia, as his defending remains a master-class in how to read the game. But with the team lacking confidence, the absence of Agger at the back is denying the Reds a more reliable distributor, as well as someone who can step into midfield with the ball and instantly cause the opposition problems. The passing from the back needs to improve.

It's hard to blame to forwards too much, as the quality into them was poor, although when it did arrive they didn't do the most with it. Aurelio looked long too often, and appeared far from match fit after six months out. Leto looked like he'd be asked to step up a level too far too soon, although he's young and still learning. And Benayoun, so full of confidence after two great goals in back-to-back games, seemed to leave that confidence in the dressing room. It was strange to watch.

"Steven Gerrard must play in central midfield" was the burning issue of last season. This year he's playing there. A broken toe and the car accident which broke a young boy's leg haven't helped him, but his form has been way short of what we expect.

Of course, perhaps we expect too much a lot of the time, given the high standards he's set over the years, but to me it just proves that Gerrard's form, be it good or bad, is usually the issue, not where he's playing. Whether through design or not, he seemed to be too deep against Marseilles.

It may just be a coincidence, but the Reds' best results came when he was absent; since returning from England duty he's struggled to find any sort of form. He's certainly doing little to prove that centre midfield is the only position for him.

The loss of Pako Ayestaran at the start of September is an obvious issue that cannot be overlooked. I don't think Ayestaran is irreplaceable, or that Rafa will be unable to succeed without him, but perhaps the shock of his departure, and the immediate absence of his influence, hasn't helped. As an effective conduit between players and management, it's hardly going to have no effect at all, is it?

Of course, no-one can say for sure what the effect is; it's totally unquantifiable. The timing of his departure –– so soon into the season, and swiftly followed by the international break when the Reds were flying –– left an awkward situation all round.

But if his relationship with Rafa had broken down, it was best that he moved on. Benítez is the main man, the one who's had to stand and fall by his decisions over the years. He's the one that players, and staff members, say they've learned so much from. And most of the ideas Ayestaran developed with Benítez in their decade together, the master will obviously know himself by now.

Even though Ayestaran clearly brought something to the mix, Rafa's unlikely to be doing anything too different from what he has in the past. So it's more likely to be the disturbance itself, and the change behind the scenes, that has possibly affected morale, rather than Benítez needing his former no.2's ideas.

This time, the upcoming international break, following Spurs, will be welcome: two more weeks to get Agger and Alonso fit, and a chance for Rafa to analyse what's been going wrong. At the start of September the last thing the Reds needed was to take a fortnight's break from winning ways, but right now, a chance to take stock is looking necessary.

Maybe this defeat will prove a timely kick up the arse. Results have been good this season, but performances have been growing increasingly scrappy. For this game, however, rotation is a total red herring; it seemed to be a game the Liverpool players lost in their heads in the first few minutes. Neither those retained, or those rotated in, played well.

The Reds just did not press the ball. The closing down was non-existent. Whatever tactics Rafa set out, I can't believe the players did as he asked, as his teams always look to harry the opposition. They looked like they were dosed up on Mogadon.

The upside is that certain players will be fresh for Spurs on Sunday, although the Londoners' miraculous draw at home to Villa will give them confidence. (Still, if we think we've got problems...). Maybe that's what Liverpool need right now –– something like an Olympiakos or Luton moment. Or even the kind of goal that won the game at Villa Park on the opening day of the season.

Something is not quite right, confidence is draining away, and a lift is needed. From someone, or somewhere. The Premiership table still makes for good reading, but the Reds can't afford to slide into a full slump. These periods happen to all teams at some stage in the season, but it needs arresting soon.

The fall-back factor of the season so far was being unbeaten, although that has now gone. At least the undefeated tag still applies in the league, as does the fact that no-one has beaten Reina apart from at the penalty spot.

I won't say that going out of the Champions League, should it ensue, will allow the Reds to focus on the Premiership. Because, for a start, there's plenty left to play for in the group, even if it is now an uphill battle. And also, with such a large squad, it's a chance to give dissatisfied players more games. (Of course, they need to take those opportunities when they come along, or they can have few complaints if benched again.) It's also another chance to win games and breed confidence.

But if Liverpool are to make a really serious fist of the league title, perhaps it could be that clichéd blessing in disguise. Two years ago, the Reds went out of the Champions League early and did indeed concentrate more successfully on the league, racking up 25 wins and 82 points. And perhaps it's very unrealistic to expect to make what will be a difficult challenge for the title –– i.e. the first –– with the 'distraction' of Europe.

As with all the mysteries of this season, we won't know until well into the New Year.

© Paul Tomkins 2007

Contact

I've finally got a Myspace page on which I will be looking to post updates from time to time. I'm also about to join Facebook using the address tomkins_lfcbook@btinternet.com.

Email me at: gprf@btinternet.com

I read all emails, and respond to most. However, I can't guarantee a reply, depending on my health and workload.