Re: Liverpool Thread
http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/NG159641080421-1128.htm
There seems to be a general perception amid football fans at large that Benítez is a defensive coach, and that the Reds are boring to watch.
The trouble in football is that perceptions are quickly established, and are slow to be overturned. At first, like any manager, Benítez sorted the defence. You can't play good football and win games if your defence is a mess. Does that mean he's a defensive coach, just because he started the task that way? It was the same at Valencia –– they won their first league title under him with very few goals scored, but two seasons later they were far more prolific.
I always argue that you need to watch a team every game (whether there in person or on TV) or as close as possible to know it properly; catching highlights or the odd game here or there is not enough, especially when too many journalists and commentators reinforce their own stereotypical views from such fractured exposures. Most of my views about other clubs are similarly formed –– on glimpses –– but when it comes to Liverpool, I choose to specialise, and try to keep a sharp focus.
Misconceptions are rife. Even now, Benítez is portrayed as the only manager to make lots of changes, and yet while he's made a fraction more than his rivals, there is little to choose between Liverpool, Man United and Chelsea in terms of rotation –– with the three managers averaging between 3 and 3.3 changes per league game. (And that includes injuries, something Liverpool have suffered more this season than United.) Also, a higher percentage of Liverpool's changes have understandably come in recent weeks, too, for obvious reasons.
The odd one out is Wenger, who has made less than two league changes on average. And yet three teams have ended the season strong, and are still in contention for the major prizes, while one team tired dramatically and, yet again, saw its season over by late March/early April. Any guesses which? It may be partly coincidental, but then again, you can't help but think there might be something in it.
When Benítez sends out a changed team, he wants what he got at Arsenal and Fulham: good players, and mostly internationals, fighting for more regular football. It is not in any way, shape or form disrespecting the opposition or the competition; it's respecting players who are good enough to do a job. If they're not good enough, why are they in the Liverpool first team squad? And how many of these players would Sheffield United or Fulham want? Quite a few, I'd imagine.
Whatever the decisions a manager makes, things can always go either way. Playing a strong team in a game that is not crucial, with an infinitely more important game a few days later, can lead to players trying to conserve their energy and half-hearted in big tackles. You can end up with them tired, or injured.
Sometimes you can get more out of a 'weaker' team with a lot to prove and far fresher legs. Of course, that side may lack world-class match-winners, and be more disjointed. But it's a trade-off. Either way you're not likely to get a sublime performance, on the eve of such a big game, but you might be as likely to get a result. And at Fulham, Liverpool were surprisingly cohesive, and deserved winners.
The fact is that Liverpool got the best away result away against Arsenal in Benítez's time with a side that, as at Fulham last year, contained eight changes and included a very promising youngster (Plessis this year, Insua last).
And while players like Paletta, Gonzalez, Sissoko, Bellamy and Fowler have moved on since the Fulham game last year, they were hardly unknown players; and if some of them were unknown to other managers, then that's their fault for being ignorant. Paletta is now doing well at Argentine giants Boca Juniors, and Gonzalez is once again excelling in La Liga. And of course, had Robbie Fowler not missed the easiest chance of his career, Liverpool would have surely not lost.
Benítez's methods are questioned more than those of any manager in the history of English football. Of course, visionaries in life –– be it in sport, art, music or politics –– tend to be more appreciated retrospectively, when their ideas have proven inspired and their influence can be traced. Vincent Van Gogh, Charles Darwin, Plato and Neil Warnock were all seen as crackpots. (Okay, so some don't exactly elevate themselves.)
If it's not Rafa's methods, it's his team's football. To me, this Liverpool side has style and substance.
Liverpool, despite still not putting away as many chances as they should have, particularly mid-season, have already scored 111 goals; Manchester United and Arsenal have only just passed the 100-mark, while Chelsea are yet to do so.
It's a case of Liverpool deploying winning football, and for the fourth season running the Reds face Chelsea in a semi-final (no-one seems to be mentioning the FA Cup victory, too). Will it be the fourth success, and the fifth final under Benítez, making three in the Champions League? If so, it will be a remarkable achievement.
Then there's the 'lucky' tag, that sprung up in 2001 and 2005 –– i.e. whenever the Reds had a great season. It's springing up again now. There's no denying that particularly bad luck can scupper any cup run, and that all successful teams need things to break their way at the right moment. For example, Inter Milan's red cards helped the Reds in both games. But no-one asked Marco Materazzi to go crashing into Torres from behind when already on a yellow.
It's precisely the kind of needless, thoughtless, self-destructive challenge Benítez has tried to stamp out from his players. He encourages players to tackle properly, because suspensions or playing with ten men only hinders you.
The reason Liverpool have so few red cards is because of discipline and composure, and if the opposition lose theirs, that's their problem and Liverpool's gain. Again, it's about having players with character and the right temperament.
Unlike the latter years under his predecessor, I've never had a problem with the football the Reds have played under Benítez. Yes, it's been scrappy at times when the team hasn't been in form, but that's true of pretty much all teams; the best ones win when not playing well, and the Reds have done that on a few occasions. There's still room to do it more often. But now Torres is fully settled, both he and Gerrard are capable of winning games when the team is below par. And there's nothing wrong with that.
I've always felt that Benítez has tried to get in technical players wherever possible, and play a passing game, albeit one that is not built around pretty triangles or messing around at the back. Indeed, in going for technical players he's ended up lacking a bit of pace at times, so last summer was about allying pace with skill, and, of course, a good mentality. Unlike some managers, he sees no shame in the long ball, when it's on. Again, why shouldn't he?
With players like Gerrard, Alonso, Aurelio and Agger –– and even Pepe Reina, who passes better than most defenders –– why shouldn't this side pass long? Players like Johnny Haynes, Glenn Hoddle and Jan Molby were feted for their ability to ping a ball long distances to feet, and it's a great ability to have. Even Arsenal now hit long to Adebayor too, and it was a tactic, after years of only passing through teams, that served them well until they recently lost their way.
The beauty of a Benítez team has always been in its balance, not in pure aesthetic charms. It's about having no discernible weaknesses, while being versatile enough to exploit the opposition's. For instance, Arsenal don't cope with tall strikers very well, so Peter Crouch always proves a great option against them –– so much so that Benítez changed a winning formula to exploit it.
Try and outrun Toure and Gallas and you'll often have a tough time; but a long clearance, and Crouch has them panicking. It's not always pleasing to the purists, but then again, Crouch can control a ball on any part of his body, as well as flicking it on, so it's not like he's some giant totem there just to ruffle feathers; he's a gifted footballer. Also, it's not as if the team spend 90 minutes lumping balls into the ‘mixer' for him –– although, of course, when others are low on confidence it's a more tempting option than when they feel able to run with the ball or pick a more astute pass to feet.
There should be no shame in winning ugly; all teams need to now and again. And at the business end of the season, when there is no margin for error, that's all you need. It's all I want against Chelsea; anything else is a bonus.
But boring and lacking style on the whole? You must be joking. There is style and there is substance, and in each year we're seeing an improvement in both.
Something which I think we've all touched upon in here at some point or another. Once again the media will be turning out the 'lucky manager' phrase from tomorrow onwards...
