Liverpool FC Thread
- Thread starter taytehni
- Start date
henryvelge
New member
full credit to chelsea.
liverpool... sigh.
now, beat man utd for us!
liverpool... sigh.
now, beat man utd for us!
loldude333
New member
Yea man........that was a beauty. It was hit from what, 35 yards? But actually i think Cech also dun really care..........progress is more impt. Oh well........i think that Liverpool played well only in certain parts like 2nd half. The rest they kept losing the ball. And Hyypia's maybe a bit too old for all this action already. Skrtel was owning Drogba until he had to go off. But Chelsea played well consistently, almost every player ( with the exceptions of J.Cole, Kalou and Malouda ) was in excellent form. And i think Reina's a superman now........how many saves he had to make. Oh well it was an extremely entertaining match and all i can say is that the better team won.
The first half was totally crap from Liverpool. Chelsea was threatening to breach the defence again and again and again. I actually thought Kalou played quite well.
The second half was when Mascherano decided to set the tempo instead of the inefficient Alonso, And that was when things turned for the better.
When extra-time came, I felt Hyypia was too old for this. The defence was very bad and it could not be helped that Aurelio and Skrtel were not playing. Oh well, I find the disallowed Essien goal very bizarre. The penalty was a little unlucky too.
And after that, Essien challenged Babel in the penalty box too. I felt it should have been a penalty too cos it was just as bad as Hyypia's challenge. But the referee probably didn't see it or he was too intimidated to make such a bold move.
In the end, Chelsea won. We were on par and it was a great game. Pity Liverpool had to lose this game.
I hope Chelsea goes on to win the CL.
The second half was when Mascherano decided to set the tempo instead of the inefficient Alonso, And that was when things turned for the better.
When extra-time came, I felt Hyypia was too old for this. The defence was very bad and it could not be helped that Aurelio and Skrtel were not playing. Oh well, I find the disallowed Essien goal very bizarre. The penalty was a little unlucky too.
And after that, Essien challenged Babel in the penalty box too. I felt it should have been a penalty too cos it was just as bad as Hyypia's challenge. But the referee probably didn't see it or he was too intimidated to make such a bold move.
In the end, Chelsea won. We were on par and it was a great game. Pity Liverpool had to lose this game.
I hope Chelsea goes on to win the CL.
Plastic
New member
Yep, quite unlucky skrtel had to come off. Where did the Alonso that sprayed countless passes.. Liverpool gave the ball away too many times, sometimes can't help but pull some of your hair out everytime you see them do that.
I never understood why Crouch never came on, and pennant did, I mean yes, they equalised, but I'm missing the point, weren't they going for the win?
I never understood why Crouch never came on, and pennant did, I mean yes, they equalised, but I'm missing the point, weren't they going for the win?
henryvelge
New member
yea man. kuyt and mascherano kept giving away posession. gerrard's final ball was always lacking quality. i guess the home side also gave the ref pressure not to give the penalty for drogba's challenge on hyppia.
anyways, i hope chelsea go on to win it, they truly deserve the CL title after how they played last night.
anyways, i hope chelsea go on to win it, they truly deserve the CL title after how they played last night.
loldude333
New member
Lolz....i think liverpool weren't on par with chelsea, as i said they were extremely consistent throughout the game. I think Benitez made 4 mistakes:
1. Not introducing Crouch
2. Not removing Alonso
3. Removing Benayoun
4. Removing Torres ( tho not so bad......his replacement, Babel scored )
Aurelio and Skrtel's injuries cldn't helped but the introduction of Crouch wld most likey have kept chelsea more on the backfoot, not give them chance to break forward. Alonso and Kuyt weren't exactly terrible, as least not as bad as J.Cole but Kuyt wasn't any impact on the right. I think Pennant or Babel shld have come on for Kuyt and not Benayoun, he was jus starting to find his tempo. Alonso wasn't helping Mascherano at all........in fact he was making him work harder bcos he kept losing the ball. Crouch woulda been a more effective sub, especially considering his performance against Birmingham. Yea but chelsea are thru..........hope they play the kinda football that won them the game ( more passing ) instead of their 1st half style ( long ball frm the fullbacks to drogba ). And bro empihsrow, i find ur comment on the essien 'goal' quite intriguing, wat exactly did u mean by 'bizarre'? Quite obviously offside, lampard, drogba and kalou. As for the essien challenge, it looked barel legal to me, he did get the ball first. The hyypia one was obvious, his foot was nowhere near the ball when he caught ballack. The drogba challenge was a penalty tho, dunno why the ref didn't give it although i think that was his first instinct. Yea but luck wasn't on our side, nvm there's always nxt season as they always say.............
1. Not introducing Crouch
2. Not removing Alonso
3. Removing Benayoun
4. Removing Torres ( tho not so bad......his replacement, Babel scored )
Aurelio and Skrtel's injuries cldn't helped but the introduction of Crouch wld most likey have kept chelsea more on the backfoot, not give them chance to break forward. Alonso and Kuyt weren't exactly terrible, as least not as bad as J.Cole but Kuyt wasn't any impact on the right. I think Pennant or Babel shld have come on for Kuyt and not Benayoun, he was jus starting to find his tempo. Alonso wasn't helping Mascherano at all........in fact he was making him work harder bcos he kept losing the ball. Crouch woulda been a more effective sub, especially considering his performance against Birmingham. Yea but chelsea are thru..........hope they play the kinda football that won them the game ( more passing ) instead of their 1st half style ( long ball frm the fullbacks to drogba ). And bro empihsrow, i find ur comment on the essien 'goal' quite intriguing, wat exactly did u mean by 'bizarre'? Quite obviously offside, lampard, drogba and kalou. As for the essien challenge, it looked barel legal to me, he did get the ball first. The hyypia one was obvious, his foot was nowhere near the ball when he caught ballack. The drogba challenge was a penalty tho, dunno why the ref didn't give it although i think that was his first instinct. Yea but luck wasn't on our side, nvm there's always nxt season as they always say.............
loldude333
New member
Oh yea...........Aston Villa have received an official bid for Gareth Barry. But i seriously feel that too mant CMs in Liverpool already......need wingers, fullbacks. But wat got me worried was that Crouch was to be in the swap deal. I feel that Crouch shld stay, his goalscoring record is extremely gd.
Plastic
New member
I feel the goal should have been allowed, the players that were off side didn't play a part in the goal, or when the shot was taken, I believe that was the decision that affected the resulting penalty. Ref didn't want shit thrown onto him, so had to redeem himself, Hyypia didn't really hit the legs, he got the ball, it's kind of a 50-50 tussle for the ref, and probably went in favour because of the disallowed goal.
loldude333
New member
Oh well........maybe i didn't see properly.......looked like Hyypia didn't get the ball at all. Oh well what's done is done........can't be reversed. Although i did think that Drogba got in Reina's face when Essien took the shot. It doesn't matter...........we gotta look ahead to finishing the season strongly, starting with Man City at home. Who's up for a 3-1 win to Liverpool?
Plastic
New member
I thought this was a good read to share 
Just how good Liverpool should be doing in the league is a very complex issue, and clearly an emotive one, too.
Perhaps it's confusing as there are two separate issues that converge. First, there is the improvement of Liverpool. Secondly, there is the state of rival clubs. And any Liverpool manager can only affect the former.
In researching and writing my next book, Dynasty, I've been going back over the past 50 years of Liverpool FC, to find out how each manager achieved what he did.
The key thing for me is not counting trophies (although that's relevant), but discovering the context of each man's achievement or, in some cases, failure. What situation did he inherit? How strong was the opposition? Did he improve upon what he inherited? How much did he spend compared with his rivals? How successful were his signings, in terms of quality and value for money? And so on, analysing umpteen different criteria to make the assessments as detailed and accurate as possible.
But as much as anything, it's about learning how a great club is built up in order to challenge for titles, as well as the mistakes that meant by 1992, just two years after landing an 18th league title, Liverpool had fallen such a long way from the summit.
In particular, it's been fascinating going over many different accounts of how Shankly got the ball rolling to start with: the birth of modern Liverpool. Without comparing the two men, as there are numerous differences, there are however a lot of parallels between what Shanks did and what Benítez is now attempting.
Shankly started from a lower position, so in that sense it was harder for him. But Benítez is working in an age where more is demanded, particularly because of expectations initially raised by Shankly himself. So in that sense it's harder for him.
Both men missed out on early targets deemed too expensive, but both eventually had far stronger squads four years into their reign, concentrating particularly on the spine of the team.
Both bought a few duds –– like Wenger and Ferguson, and pretty much every other manager. For me, a manager who gets 50% of his signings spot-on has a special gift, and I feel Benítez and Shankly fall into this category.
For Shankly, things really kicked off with the signing two 23-year-olds, one attacking, one defensive. Ian St John and Ron Yeats were the exact same age as Torres and Mascherano were at the start of this season.
Each manager worked with strong philosophies and each innovated, both tactically and regarding fitness; the latter achieved with the ball involved more in training than it previously had been.
Character was important to both men. Shankly used to let apprentices go if they didn't scrub the floors with gusto; often, less talented kids who put their all into it were given contracts at the expense of more talented individuals. Both men bought skilful players, but not 'fancy Dans' who played for themselves; they had to also have a good attitude and work for the team.
Uphill Task
However, for Liverpool to achieve what we all now dream of, and overtake Manchester United, we need to look at how United managed to overtake Liverpool, back in 1992. And the sad fact is, Liverpool fell away themselves rather than United overtaking them. United slowly started to improve season on season, but only from the fifth year of Ferguson's reign onwards.
Look at it like a 4 x 400m relay race. Barring accident or injury, you can only close so much of the gap on each leg if you're racing top athletes. And what if those top athletes have a massive head start?
If Ferguson was trailing Dalglish by some distance from 1986 to 1990, and unable to find impetus to even remotely close the gap, then the awful tragedy of Hillsborough was what tripped King Kenny. Dalglish was still ahead when he handed over the baton to Souness in 1991, but vital ground and momentum had been lost.
Had Kenny Dalglish not understandably lost his way following the horrific events of April 1989, things might well have been different. Dalglish had been a sublime manager until that point, buying countless supreme footballers, such as Barnes, Beardsley, Aldridge, McMahon and Rush. Afterwards, it was a case of Carter, Speedie and Rosenthal. Maybe he didn't have the heart to move on ageing stars who had been his team-mates and friends half a decade earlier, or maybe he lost the heart to do so after they became even closer as a 'family' following the nightmare of Sheffield.
An ageing side was rightly dismantled by Souness, but unfortunately not in the right manner; he sold many of the better players who were still in good shape –– Beardsley and Houghton, plus a young Staunton –– and replaced them with some terribly substandard players. And so the empire came crashing down.
Had Souness been half as good a manager as he was player, Liverpool would have most likely kept Ferguson at bay, perhaps to the point where United's board lost patience. Equally, had Ferguson been facing a team like Paisley-era Liverpool in the early '90s, I doubt he'd have got close to overtaking them.
From 1994 onwards, every Liverpool manager took charge from a position of weakness; the opposite of Paisley, Fagan and Dalglish, who took control from a position of strength and, at times, outright domination. Returning to the earlier analogy, smooth baton changes with 70-metre advantages were a thing of the past; Souness, with the pack gaining on him, dropped the baton, and now it was United who had the momentum.
In a strange symmetry, Liverpool's dynasty, built by Shankly in the early '60s, was precipitated by another footballing tragedy. Sir Matt Busby's United side was clearly set back a number of years by the Munich air crash, which killed eight players. Had United still possessed players like Duncan Edwards in 1964, Liverpool might never have won that absolutely vital title. Shankly's side would still have been great, but there was a chance it might not have landed that crucial first honour, which is always the hardest.
Ferguson was an experienced manager when he arrived at Old Trafford, with a decade as a boss –– the same as Benítez, who was also 44 when he took over at Anfield. Both clubs –– the country's two biggest –– had gone at least a decade-and-a-half without the league title, so the pressure was incredibly intense. Both clubs were averaging around 4th spot in the five years before each man pitched up. So the challenges were virtually identical.
Just how good Liverpool should be doing in the league is a very complex issue, and clearly an emotive one, too.
Perhaps it's confusing as there are two separate issues that converge. First, there is the improvement of Liverpool. Secondly, there is the state of rival clubs. And any Liverpool manager can only affect the former.
In researching and writing my next book, Dynasty, I've been going back over the past 50 years of Liverpool FC, to find out how each manager achieved what he did.
The key thing for me is not counting trophies (although that's relevant), but discovering the context of each man's achievement or, in some cases, failure. What situation did he inherit? How strong was the opposition? Did he improve upon what he inherited? How much did he spend compared with his rivals? How successful were his signings, in terms of quality and value for money? And so on, analysing umpteen different criteria to make the assessments as detailed and accurate as possible.
But as much as anything, it's about learning how a great club is built up in order to challenge for titles, as well as the mistakes that meant by 1992, just two years after landing an 18th league title, Liverpool had fallen such a long way from the summit.
In particular, it's been fascinating going over many different accounts of how Shankly got the ball rolling to start with: the birth of modern Liverpool. Without comparing the two men, as there are numerous differences, there are however a lot of parallels between what Shanks did and what Benítez is now attempting.
Shankly started from a lower position, so in that sense it was harder for him. But Benítez is working in an age where more is demanded, particularly because of expectations initially raised by Shankly himself. So in that sense it's harder for him.
Both men missed out on early targets deemed too expensive, but both eventually had far stronger squads four years into their reign, concentrating particularly on the spine of the team.
Both bought a few duds –– like Wenger and Ferguson, and pretty much every other manager. For me, a manager who gets 50% of his signings spot-on has a special gift, and I feel Benítez and Shankly fall into this category.
For Shankly, things really kicked off with the signing two 23-year-olds, one attacking, one defensive. Ian St John and Ron Yeats were the exact same age as Torres and Mascherano were at the start of this season.
Each manager worked with strong philosophies and each innovated, both tactically and regarding fitness; the latter achieved with the ball involved more in training than it previously had been.
Character was important to both men. Shankly used to let apprentices go if they didn't scrub the floors with gusto; often, less talented kids who put their all into it were given contracts at the expense of more talented individuals. Both men bought skilful players, but not 'fancy Dans' who played for themselves; they had to also have a good attitude and work for the team.
Uphill Task
However, for Liverpool to achieve what we all now dream of, and overtake Manchester United, we need to look at how United managed to overtake Liverpool, back in 1992. And the sad fact is, Liverpool fell away themselves rather than United overtaking them. United slowly started to improve season on season, but only from the fifth year of Ferguson's reign onwards.
Look at it like a 4 x 400m relay race. Barring accident or injury, you can only close so much of the gap on each leg if you're racing top athletes. And what if those top athletes have a massive head start?
If Ferguson was trailing Dalglish by some distance from 1986 to 1990, and unable to find impetus to even remotely close the gap, then the awful tragedy of Hillsborough was what tripped King Kenny. Dalglish was still ahead when he handed over the baton to Souness in 1991, but vital ground and momentum had been lost.
Had Kenny Dalglish not understandably lost his way following the horrific events of April 1989, things might well have been different. Dalglish had been a sublime manager until that point, buying countless supreme footballers, such as Barnes, Beardsley, Aldridge, McMahon and Rush. Afterwards, it was a case of Carter, Speedie and Rosenthal. Maybe he didn't have the heart to move on ageing stars who had been his team-mates and friends half a decade earlier, or maybe he lost the heart to do so after they became even closer as a 'family' following the nightmare of Sheffield.
An ageing side was rightly dismantled by Souness, but unfortunately not in the right manner; he sold many of the better players who were still in good shape –– Beardsley and Houghton, plus a young Staunton –– and replaced them with some terribly substandard players. And so the empire came crashing down.
Had Souness been half as good a manager as he was player, Liverpool would have most likely kept Ferguson at bay, perhaps to the point where United's board lost patience. Equally, had Ferguson been facing a team like Paisley-era Liverpool in the early '90s, I doubt he'd have got close to overtaking them.
From 1994 onwards, every Liverpool manager took charge from a position of weakness; the opposite of Paisley, Fagan and Dalglish, who took control from a position of strength and, at times, outright domination. Returning to the earlier analogy, smooth baton changes with 70-metre advantages were a thing of the past; Souness, with the pack gaining on him, dropped the baton, and now it was United who had the momentum.
In a strange symmetry, Liverpool's dynasty, built by Shankly in the early '60s, was precipitated by another footballing tragedy. Sir Matt Busby's United side was clearly set back a number of years by the Munich air crash, which killed eight players. Had United still possessed players like Duncan Edwards in 1964, Liverpool might never have won that absolutely vital title. Shankly's side would still have been great, but there was a chance it might not have landed that crucial first honour, which is always the hardest.
Ferguson was an experienced manager when he arrived at Old Trafford, with a decade as a boss –– the same as Benítez, who was also 44 when he took over at Anfield. Both clubs –– the country's two biggest –– had gone at least a decade-and-a-half without the league title, so the pressure was incredibly intense. Both clubs were averaging around 4th spot in the five years before each man pitched up. So the challenges were virtually identical.
Plastic
New member
In relative terms, Ferguson spent bigger than Benítez in his first four years. And yet for three of those first four years United were marooned in the bottom half of the table. Ferguson made a lot of astute but expensive signings in 1988 and 1989 (Bruce, Pallister, Ince), but those players only delivered a league title in 1993. Irrespective of era, teams take time to gel; Shankly's was the same.
You need the first title to instil confidence and create a mythology. While Liverpool haven't won the Champions League since Benítez's first season, the Reds have actually played far better on the whole, and progressed to the latter stages on two further occasions –– therefore challenging for that title –– partly because of the mythology that inhibits the opposition and partly the belief that bolsters the Reds.
Would Ferguson have been able to create his league mythology and rid the 26-year, 26-ton millstone had a team like Chelsea been on the scene then, with the ability to buy the marquee players of the day like Diego Maradona, Michael Laudrup and Marco van Basten (while, say, unsettling United's Bryan Robson in the process), and whose new owner had installed a canny manager like Fabio Capello? Who knows, as it's pure supposition. But equally, as a guess, I doubt it.
And would Ferguson have been able to overtake an über-rich new rival in the early '90s as well as Liverpool, had the Anfield empire (the equivalent of United now) not self-destructed? Again, as a guess, I doubt it.
Ferguson's path to the title was far clearer in the early '90s than Benítez's is now. Arsenal had been doing well under George Graham, but his days were numbered with the bung scandal. And the Gunners were already falling away to mid-table mediocrity by the end of 1993.
Fortunately for Arsenal, they got Arsene Wenger in 1996, within two years of Graham's dismissal, and although Wenger won a double almost immediately, he went four years until his next trophy. And by the time Wenger had arrived, United had ended their wait. That crucial first title had been followed by more.
In 1992, Leeds won the league with United 2nd. But then, almost unthinkably, Leeds sold their star player (Eric Cantona) to their hated Pennines rivals for pittance. Even now, it is one of the craziest deals ever; fair play to Ferguson for pulling it off, though. It would be like United handing Liverpool Ronaldo for £10m.
Even Wenger's path to a first league title was relatively easy. The managers of the day were Gianluca Vialli, Ruud Gullit, David O'Leary, and at Liverpool, Roy Evans, a great servant for the club, but a rookie manager who was perhaps better suited to a support role. Indeed, they were all complete rookies. None of these managers went on to have successful careers. Meanwhile, two powerful, expensive teams of the mid-'90s, Newcastle and Blackburn, lost their managers and swiftly imploded.
So for Arsenal, it was 'relatively' easy, and they won the league with just 78 points. But then you had Chelsea's emergence as a force in 2003, when Roman Abramovich arrived. Since 2005, Arsenal, who were always 1st or 2nd under Wenger, have not finished above 3rd.
Mourinho arrived in 2004 and took Chelsea, who'd spent £110m (net!) in 2003/04, to the next level, but he skipped the normal process of gradually building a team –– he could afford to buy big, big, big, in terms of quality and quantity. Even then, Mourinho inherited an expensive, improving team that finished 2nd with 79 points and were beaten Champions League semi-finalists.
Mourinho's spent £239m gross, £162m net. Even now, with an extra year in charge, Benítez has spent less than £80m net. For someone as respected as Ronnie Whelan to say "Mourinho spent the same amount of money as Rafa" is ill-researched, dangerously misleading in the extreme and hugely disappointing.
Avram Grant, who is doing a fine job, hasn't had to change anything. He hasn't altered the tactics or the personnel. He received his baton in a great position.
But how did Benítez receive his baton?
In 2004, Liverpool had just been fairly embarrassed in the UEFA Cup, having finished 5th the season before, and scraped 4th, with 60 points, in time for his arrival. Michael Owen, the team's only guarantee of goals and a player worth many points in a season, opted to leave, and for a very small fee, having let his contract run down (for which you could either blame him, or blame Houllier for not building a team to which Owen wanted to commit his future). Another top player was Harry Kewell, but he just couldn't stay fit.
So without Owen and a fit Kewell, Houllier's legacy was actually closer to a 45-point team. Crucially, it lacked any great teenage talents akin to Fabregas and Ronaldo in the pipeline. Meanwhile, out of only seven top-class players (in my view) from a squad of 30 in 2004, Hamann and Hyypia were already 31. Owen was gone, Kewell always injured, and Hamann and Hyypia were in the twilight of their careers. That left just Gerrard, Carragher and Finnan as long-term hopes.
Without doubt, in 2004 Liverpool were a long way behind Arsenal, United and Chelsea; almost to the point of those rivals being a lap ahead. Ferguson, rightly, now believes this is his strongest ever team, and yet it was already 60% complete by the time Benítez got started.
Without an unprecedented war-chest, you can no longer make massive jumps at the top level of football. If Chelsea spent £300m net in a short space of time to cut corners, it would take £500m, spent wisely, to overtake them as quickly. Without silly money, you can only try and close the gap with good management.
All a manager like Benítez can do is build steadily towards sensible aims, making improvements where possible, step by step. Has he done this? For me, he has. Unquestionably. But some of it takes time to bear fruit.
Strengthen the defence? Check. Improve the squad year-on-year? Check. Improve every department of the first XI, from keeper through to striker? Check. Overhaul the youth system? Check. Improve scouting? Check. Make the reserves more competitive? Check. Create a first team whose age means it can stay together for years and improve with experience? Check. Buy the best attacking players possible within the budget? Check. Improve in Europe? Check.
And improve in the league? Check.
In 2006, Liverpool won its second-highest ever percentage of league games on the way to 82 points, the best tally since 1988. This year, the Reds lost just four times –– again, the best figures since 1988. Clean sheet records have been broken, and the club finally has a 25-goal-a-season striker. What's missing is gold-dust of all these improvements occurring simultaneously, combined with enough weaknesses in the top rivals to leave a gap to move into.
Benítez cannot control the latter, but the aim is to be as hard to beat while turning draws into wins –– something that's happened since February, so it can be done. You can't dismiss slumps during any season, but this year's had some unusual and well-known mitigating circumstances, and also included the departure of Pako Ayestaran, that will at least have caused some disruption at the time.
Short of Ferguson being replaced by Neil Warnock, Arsene Wenger switching to manage Arsenal ladies and Roman Abramovich donating his wealth to a short-sighted squirrel sanctuary, all Benítez can do is continue to steadily improve this young team. After that, we can only wait and see.
You need the first title to instil confidence and create a mythology. While Liverpool haven't won the Champions League since Benítez's first season, the Reds have actually played far better on the whole, and progressed to the latter stages on two further occasions –– therefore challenging for that title –– partly because of the mythology that inhibits the opposition and partly the belief that bolsters the Reds.
Would Ferguson have been able to create his league mythology and rid the 26-year, 26-ton millstone had a team like Chelsea been on the scene then, with the ability to buy the marquee players of the day like Diego Maradona, Michael Laudrup and Marco van Basten (while, say, unsettling United's Bryan Robson in the process), and whose new owner had installed a canny manager like Fabio Capello? Who knows, as it's pure supposition. But equally, as a guess, I doubt it.
And would Ferguson have been able to overtake an über-rich new rival in the early '90s as well as Liverpool, had the Anfield empire (the equivalent of United now) not self-destructed? Again, as a guess, I doubt it.
Ferguson's path to the title was far clearer in the early '90s than Benítez's is now. Arsenal had been doing well under George Graham, but his days were numbered with the bung scandal. And the Gunners were already falling away to mid-table mediocrity by the end of 1993.
Fortunately for Arsenal, they got Arsene Wenger in 1996, within two years of Graham's dismissal, and although Wenger won a double almost immediately, he went four years until his next trophy. And by the time Wenger had arrived, United had ended their wait. That crucial first title had been followed by more.
In 1992, Leeds won the league with United 2nd. But then, almost unthinkably, Leeds sold their star player (Eric Cantona) to their hated Pennines rivals for pittance. Even now, it is one of the craziest deals ever; fair play to Ferguson for pulling it off, though. It would be like United handing Liverpool Ronaldo for £10m.
Even Wenger's path to a first league title was relatively easy. The managers of the day were Gianluca Vialli, Ruud Gullit, David O'Leary, and at Liverpool, Roy Evans, a great servant for the club, but a rookie manager who was perhaps better suited to a support role. Indeed, they were all complete rookies. None of these managers went on to have successful careers. Meanwhile, two powerful, expensive teams of the mid-'90s, Newcastle and Blackburn, lost their managers and swiftly imploded.
So for Arsenal, it was 'relatively' easy, and they won the league with just 78 points. But then you had Chelsea's emergence as a force in 2003, when Roman Abramovich arrived. Since 2005, Arsenal, who were always 1st or 2nd under Wenger, have not finished above 3rd.
Mourinho arrived in 2004 and took Chelsea, who'd spent £110m (net!) in 2003/04, to the next level, but he skipped the normal process of gradually building a team –– he could afford to buy big, big, big, in terms of quality and quantity. Even then, Mourinho inherited an expensive, improving team that finished 2nd with 79 points and were beaten Champions League semi-finalists.
Mourinho's spent £239m gross, £162m net. Even now, with an extra year in charge, Benítez has spent less than £80m net. For someone as respected as Ronnie Whelan to say "Mourinho spent the same amount of money as Rafa" is ill-researched, dangerously misleading in the extreme and hugely disappointing.
Avram Grant, who is doing a fine job, hasn't had to change anything. He hasn't altered the tactics or the personnel. He received his baton in a great position.
But how did Benítez receive his baton?
In 2004, Liverpool had just been fairly embarrassed in the UEFA Cup, having finished 5th the season before, and scraped 4th, with 60 points, in time for his arrival. Michael Owen, the team's only guarantee of goals and a player worth many points in a season, opted to leave, and for a very small fee, having let his contract run down (for which you could either blame him, or blame Houllier for not building a team to which Owen wanted to commit his future). Another top player was Harry Kewell, but he just couldn't stay fit.
So without Owen and a fit Kewell, Houllier's legacy was actually closer to a 45-point team. Crucially, it lacked any great teenage talents akin to Fabregas and Ronaldo in the pipeline. Meanwhile, out of only seven top-class players (in my view) from a squad of 30 in 2004, Hamann and Hyypia were already 31. Owen was gone, Kewell always injured, and Hamann and Hyypia were in the twilight of their careers. That left just Gerrard, Carragher and Finnan as long-term hopes.
Without doubt, in 2004 Liverpool were a long way behind Arsenal, United and Chelsea; almost to the point of those rivals being a lap ahead. Ferguson, rightly, now believes this is his strongest ever team, and yet it was already 60% complete by the time Benítez got started.
Without an unprecedented war-chest, you can no longer make massive jumps at the top level of football. If Chelsea spent £300m net in a short space of time to cut corners, it would take £500m, spent wisely, to overtake them as quickly. Without silly money, you can only try and close the gap with good management.
All a manager like Benítez can do is build steadily towards sensible aims, making improvements where possible, step by step. Has he done this? For me, he has. Unquestionably. But some of it takes time to bear fruit.
Strengthen the defence? Check. Improve the squad year-on-year? Check. Improve every department of the first XI, from keeper through to striker? Check. Overhaul the youth system? Check. Improve scouting? Check. Make the reserves more competitive? Check. Create a first team whose age means it can stay together for years and improve with experience? Check. Buy the best attacking players possible within the budget? Check. Improve in Europe? Check.
And improve in the league? Check.
In 2006, Liverpool won its second-highest ever percentage of league games on the way to 82 points, the best tally since 1988. This year, the Reds lost just four times –– again, the best figures since 1988. Clean sheet records have been broken, and the club finally has a 25-goal-a-season striker. What's missing is gold-dust of all these improvements occurring simultaneously, combined with enough weaknesses in the top rivals to leave a gap to move into.
Benítez cannot control the latter, but the aim is to be as hard to beat while turning draws into wins –– something that's happened since February, so it can be done. You can't dismiss slumps during any season, but this year's had some unusual and well-known mitigating circumstances, and also included the departure of Pako Ayestaran, that will at least have caused some disruption at the time.
Short of Ferguson being replaced by Neil Warnock, Arsene Wenger switching to manage Arsenal ladies and Roman Abramovich donating his wealth to a short-sighted squirrel sanctuary, all Benítez can do is continue to steadily improve this young team. After that, we can only wait and see.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Post-Rock/Post-Metal Musicians Wanted: Guitarist, Bassist, Drummer
- Latest: firstsecondlast
-
