Tweet
TOMKINS: WHAT DO I KNOW?
Paul Tomkins 20 August 2009
I honestly don't think I can remember a greater overreaction to a result than the weekend's defeat at Spurs. So bouncing back was doubly vital. 
Perhaps Burnley in 2005 was the last time things went this OTT, but that was an FA Cup exit. Liverpool still had the Champions League to contest (what happened there, I forget?), but it was the end to that competition. So it was conclusive in that sense, even if its significance was massively overplayed.
By comparison, in terms of the title, losing to Spurs was like going a goal behind in the third minute of a match: not ideal, but why would you panic with so much time left?
Games are never over that early, just as seasons are never over that early. Liverpool went a goal down in the third minute at home to Manchester United around this time last year, and that didn't work out so bad, did it? They also went behind to an early goal at Old Trafford, and that was even better. It's the same principle.
It just needed victory over Stoke to make it feel like 1-1 in the fifth minute: game on. Except now you have momentum on your side. Especially if you get a good win.
(Of course, with perfect timing for this piece, Burnley and Man United met each other last night as well.)
Things change quickly in football. That was always going to be apparent this week. But part of the reason they change so dramatically is that the starting point is an extreme, and the fluctuation is like a pendulum. We all have those crazy emotions, it's just a case of taking a deep breath and thinking clearly.
Yesterday, Liverpool's 'season was finished' yada yada yada, and United were not missing Ronaldo and in tip-top shape.
A few hours later, Liverpool, despite more injuries and tougher fixtures than their rivals, were suddenly above United in the table, with five different players opening their scoring account, including almost all of the main goal hopes getting off the mark. Suddenly it was United failing to score against a newly-promoted side.
Liverpool had ended their Stoke hoodoo, and Glen Johnson had helped do what he was bought to do: beat such teams at Anfield. Two games, three outstanding contributions to goals from the lad: one to win a penalty, one a great finish, and the other a cross after some great stepovers.
I read some nonsense this summer about how he's 'only a full-back', but that misses the point. He's not some bog-standard defender, but a quasi-right winger, who can make use of the space Dirk Kuyt creates.
Even today I read a newspaper article that said 'full-backs don't win you titles'. Well, not on their own they don't, but read Jonathan Wilson's excellent tactical disseminations on how the attacking full-back has become a key tactical weapon for the best teams, and gain some insight. But then he studies the game, rather than just blurting out nonsense.
However, even I didn't expect Johnson to make such a massive impact so immediately. He has added a spark of creativity that many wingers can't even supply.
Of course, it's still very, very early days, for Johnson and for the season.
But this result gave me more satisfaction than many I can remember for a long time. Extreme reactions lead to an intensification of pressure, when there really should be more equilibrium.
I didn't think failure to beat Stoke would signal the end of Liverpool's season, but I did expect to face a barrage of such proclamations had it come to pass.
I know a lot of older Reds, and while not all of them are free of jerking knees (and creaking ones for that matter), many can't believe the change in reactions to results. At 38, I'm old enough to remember the pre-digital era, and when newspapers had no mention of pre-season friendlies, let alone there being the chance of seeing a sniff of them on TV. Nowadays it's at saturation point. Every little thing is made to mean more.
In many ways it's great: a greater amount of football is accessible (although it's often not free), and information is everywhere. Interest in football, and Liverpool, has never been greater.
The game has also improved in many ways, despite a few negatives on the pitch (such as diving and play acting). But with progress of any kind there will always be drawbacks.
The internet is a great resource for football, but it gives voices to some who might be better off biting their tongue, figuratively speaking. Blogs and news sites encourage outlandish opinion, and the pot gets stirred in ever more fervent circles.
So this is not a case of nostalgically pining for the way things were. I don't miss pitches like bogs and games played five yards either side of the halfway line. I don't miss the back-pass, or the proliferation of cloggers. But I do miss the days when a defeat was a disappointment, a setback, but not the end of the world.
After the Spurs game I spoke with Chris Rowland, a veteran of all 10 of Liverpool's European finals, and who has a book on his experiences at Heysel coming out later in the year. He said solemnly, 'It never used to be like this.'
And I spoke with Vic Gill, son-in-law of Bill Shankly, and former LFC trainee under the great man. He couldn't believe the impatience either, and thanked me for my efforts in trying to reintroduce some knee-stability to the debate.
(I have seen a few other articles along these lines to: kudos to Hesbighesred on RAWK, and Rory Smith in The Telegraph.)
Both Chris and Vic are internet users, so it's not the medium. And it's given me a platform, so I can't complain too much.
But just as players need apprenticeships, young fans do too. There are some very astute young folk out there, but there are those who, as is par for the course at that age, think they know it all.
I had some pretty daft views myself some 20 years ago, but the internet wasn't there for people to gather in packs of negativity and doom, and I had no outlet to make a fool of myself, bar a couple of mates to moan to. Younger fans are not helped by a media that has gone berserk, and in many ways they know no different. To them this is the norm.
My greatest worry is that hysteria makes it even harder for Liverpool to win the title. It's not about points scoring between pundits, but trying to have fans keep their heads. The pressure on Liverpool is immense because of the historical situation and the long wait for the title, and that has to be managed, not stoked.
And I often admit that I do not have all the answers. Far from it. A lot of the time I'm proving heavily-critical arguments wrong, because they are too definitive, or they are factually wayward. Theories are fine, it's the certainty of these people that irritates me. And that goes for pundits, too.
Why did Liverpool lose at Spurs? I can only guess, but I didn't conclude that 'the personnel aren't good enough' or 'the formation is all wrong' or 'there aren't enough goals in the side'.
Common sense told me that these players can score enough goals: they did so last season. Common sense told me the front two didn't look sharp, but not to panic. Class is permanent. Lo and behold, much better four days later.
Why Liverpool didn't pass well at White Hart Lane was never clear-cut; the same players, plus Benayoun, passed brilliantly against a dogged and defensive Stoke. So it was never going to be down to the absence of one player, or the inclusion of another.
Benítez was mocked in one article (cum-character-assassination) for talking about certain oft-criticised players being good in training. I remember about eight years ago, doing the same to someone who said, 'Igor Biscan is apparently excellent in training'. 'What good's that?' I answered, in my naïveté, as if it had no relevance to the debate.
Admittedly, it doesn't mean that a player who excels in training will translate that into the first team. But we have to respect that a manager, through training with these players several hours each and every day, knows what his charges are capable of, and what they have the potential to achieve.
It's moronic to ignore the fact that very, very few players enter the first team as the finished article. This is of course even more apposite with youngsters and imports. It's a manager's job to get them to translate that into the first team, but it can take time.
Impressing in training is often the first step in development, because it's far harder with the pressure of a proper game. Some players may never overcome their anxiety, but it can take time to adapt to the expectations. If he doesn't get the chances, he'll never blossom, but it has to be the manager's decision if he's worth that chance in the first place. Allow him the benefit of the doubt before spouting off.
At times I forget that I'm not 25 anymore. But then I see some teenager walking with his trousers halfway down to his knees, his boxers on display, and like some retired army major I tut at his scruffiness. So maybe I'm just getting old.
However, I just wish more fans and journalists, if they don't have the facts to hand, would stop and think, 'Well, what do I know?'
Paul Tomkins 20 August 2009
I honestly don't think I can remember a greater overreaction to a result than the weekend's defeat at Spurs. So bouncing back was doubly vital. Perhaps Burnley in 2005 was the last time things went this OTT, but that was an FA Cup exit. Liverpool still had the Champions League to contest (what happened there, I forget?), but it was the end to that competition. So it was conclusive in that sense, even if its significance was massively overplayed.
By comparison, in terms of the title, losing to Spurs was like going a goal behind in the third minute of a match: not ideal, but why would you panic with so much time left?
Games are never over that early, just as seasons are never over that early. Liverpool went a goal down in the third minute at home to Manchester United around this time last year, and that didn't work out so bad, did it? They also went behind to an early goal at Old Trafford, and that was even better. It's the same principle.
It just needed victory over Stoke to make it feel like 1-1 in the fifth minute: game on. Except now you have momentum on your side. Especially if you get a good win.
(Of course, with perfect timing for this piece, Burnley and Man United met each other last night as well.)
Things change quickly in football. That was always going to be apparent this week. But part of the reason they change so dramatically is that the starting point is an extreme, and the fluctuation is like a pendulum. We all have those crazy emotions, it's just a case of taking a deep breath and thinking clearly.
Yesterday, Liverpool's 'season was finished' yada yada yada, and United were not missing Ronaldo and in tip-top shape.
A few hours later, Liverpool, despite more injuries and tougher fixtures than their rivals, were suddenly above United in the table, with five different players opening their scoring account, including almost all of the main goal hopes getting off the mark. Suddenly it was United failing to score against a newly-promoted side.
Liverpool had ended their Stoke hoodoo, and Glen Johnson had helped do what he was bought to do: beat such teams at Anfield. Two games, three outstanding contributions to goals from the lad: one to win a penalty, one a great finish, and the other a cross after some great stepovers.
I read some nonsense this summer about how he's 'only a full-back', but that misses the point. He's not some bog-standard defender, but a quasi-right winger, who can make use of the space Dirk Kuyt creates.
Even today I read a newspaper article that said 'full-backs don't win you titles'. Well, not on their own they don't, but read Jonathan Wilson's excellent tactical disseminations on how the attacking full-back has become a key tactical weapon for the best teams, and gain some insight. But then he studies the game, rather than just blurting out nonsense.
However, even I didn't expect Johnson to make such a massive impact so immediately. He has added a spark of creativity that many wingers can't even supply.
Of course, it's still very, very early days, for Johnson and for the season.
But this result gave me more satisfaction than many I can remember for a long time. Extreme reactions lead to an intensification of pressure, when there really should be more equilibrium.
I didn't think failure to beat Stoke would signal the end of Liverpool's season, but I did expect to face a barrage of such proclamations had it come to pass.
I know a lot of older Reds, and while not all of them are free of jerking knees (and creaking ones for that matter), many can't believe the change in reactions to results. At 38, I'm old enough to remember the pre-digital era, and when newspapers had no mention of pre-season friendlies, let alone there being the chance of seeing a sniff of them on TV. Nowadays it's at saturation point. Every little thing is made to mean more.
In many ways it's great: a greater amount of football is accessible (although it's often not free), and information is everywhere. Interest in football, and Liverpool, has never been greater.
The game has also improved in many ways, despite a few negatives on the pitch (such as diving and play acting). But with progress of any kind there will always be drawbacks.
The internet is a great resource for football, but it gives voices to some who might be better off biting their tongue, figuratively speaking. Blogs and news sites encourage outlandish opinion, and the pot gets stirred in ever more fervent circles.
So this is not a case of nostalgically pining for the way things were. I don't miss pitches like bogs and games played five yards either side of the halfway line. I don't miss the back-pass, or the proliferation of cloggers. But I do miss the days when a defeat was a disappointment, a setback, but not the end of the world.
After the Spurs game I spoke with Chris Rowland, a veteran of all 10 of Liverpool's European finals, and who has a book on his experiences at Heysel coming out later in the year. He said solemnly, 'It never used to be like this.'
And I spoke with Vic Gill, son-in-law of Bill Shankly, and former LFC trainee under the great man. He couldn't believe the impatience either, and thanked me for my efforts in trying to reintroduce some knee-stability to the debate.
(I have seen a few other articles along these lines to: kudos to Hesbighesred on RAWK, and Rory Smith in The Telegraph.)
Both Chris and Vic are internet users, so it's not the medium. And it's given me a platform, so I can't complain too much.
But just as players need apprenticeships, young fans do too. There are some very astute young folk out there, but there are those who, as is par for the course at that age, think they know it all.
I had some pretty daft views myself some 20 years ago, but the internet wasn't there for people to gather in packs of negativity and doom, and I had no outlet to make a fool of myself, bar a couple of mates to moan to. Younger fans are not helped by a media that has gone berserk, and in many ways they know no different. To them this is the norm.
My greatest worry is that hysteria makes it even harder for Liverpool to win the title. It's not about points scoring between pundits, but trying to have fans keep their heads. The pressure on Liverpool is immense because of the historical situation and the long wait for the title, and that has to be managed, not stoked.
And I often admit that I do not have all the answers. Far from it. A lot of the time I'm proving heavily-critical arguments wrong, because they are too definitive, or they are factually wayward. Theories are fine, it's the certainty of these people that irritates me. And that goes for pundits, too.
Why did Liverpool lose at Spurs? I can only guess, but I didn't conclude that 'the personnel aren't good enough' or 'the formation is all wrong' or 'there aren't enough goals in the side'.
Common sense told me that these players can score enough goals: they did so last season. Common sense told me the front two didn't look sharp, but not to panic. Class is permanent. Lo and behold, much better four days later.
Why Liverpool didn't pass well at White Hart Lane was never clear-cut; the same players, plus Benayoun, passed brilliantly against a dogged and defensive Stoke. So it was never going to be down to the absence of one player, or the inclusion of another.
Benítez was mocked in one article (cum-character-assassination) for talking about certain oft-criticised players being good in training. I remember about eight years ago, doing the same to someone who said, 'Igor Biscan is apparently excellent in training'. 'What good's that?' I answered, in my naïveté, as if it had no relevance to the debate.
Admittedly, it doesn't mean that a player who excels in training will translate that into the first team. But we have to respect that a manager, through training with these players several hours each and every day, knows what his charges are capable of, and what they have the potential to achieve.
It's moronic to ignore the fact that very, very few players enter the first team as the finished article. This is of course even more apposite with youngsters and imports. It's a manager's job to get them to translate that into the first team, but it can take time.
Impressing in training is often the first step in development, because it's far harder with the pressure of a proper game. Some players may never overcome their anxiety, but it can take time to adapt to the expectations. If he doesn't get the chances, he'll never blossom, but it has to be the manager's decision if he's worth that chance in the first place. Allow him the benefit of the doubt before spouting off.
At times I forget that I'm not 25 anymore. But then I see some teenager walking with his trousers halfway down to his knees, his boxers on display, and like some retired army major I tut at his scruffiness. So maybe I'm just getting old.
However, I just wish more fans and journalists, if they don't have the facts to hand, would stop and think, 'Well, what do I know?'