Reina, Reina Go Away, Come Again Another Day

http://tomkinstimes.com/2013/07/reina-reina-go-away-come-again-another-day/

By Paul Tomkins

At first glance, loaning out Pepe Reina for a year seems odd. And although it doesn’t make full sense, particularly if only half of his wages are being met by Napoli, there are, all the same, some understandable reasons why it ended up this way.

Rumours have been circling since January about a list of players Liverpool would listen to offers for; indeed, talk was of the club actually actively touting those players around. They were all slightly older and on higher wages; players whose performances weren’t seen to be matching what they were being paid. Reina was one name that was mentioned.

His form picked up markedly in the second half of the season, but he hasn’t been at his very best for several years now; the five years between 2005 and 2010 were up there with the finest of any Reds’ custodian. At 30 he’s still only halfway through his keeping career – on paper he has ten good years ahead of him, as most finish at around 40; contrary to a younger outfield player, at say 28, and who may only have five years left at a peak level.

Simon Mignolet has been in better form than Reina, in terms of stopping stops, for a couple of seasons now. He’s good with his feet, as an outfield player in youth football, and has a solid mentality. A £9m investment, Mignolet is five years younger than Reina, and if the stats are to be believed, a better keeper at this juncture. He’ll also be on half Reina’s wages.

Reina was seen as a someone  on a ‘bad contract’ (see Dan Kennett’s piece from 2011, which is also in the new Best of TTT book, for an explantation of bad contracts, and how almost all of the players Dan saw as vulnerable have now left the club in just two years). Reina also seemed set for a move to Barcelona, so even if Pepe’s improvement in the second half of last season caused a rethink amongst the Reds’ hierarchy, there was a very real chance he’d be off anyway, to replace Victor Valdes.

Then Valdes, having said that he was off, stated that he was going to see out the final year of his contract. Liverpool had moved for Mignolet, and now had two top keepers. Brendan Rodgers spoke about competition for places, but I feel he was just trying to make the best of an unplanned situation; a bit like how Gérard Houllier tried to buy either Jerzy Dudek or Chris Kirkland, and as push came to shove, accidentally ended up with both.

You don’t need two top keepers, and certainly not when the one on the bench is one of the club’s top three highest earners. Liverpool don’t have the ability to maintain a wage bill like Chelsea, United or City. Is it therefore a good use of a wage of £100k+ a week, given that substitute keepers might barely catch a ball all season?

I’m not sure keepers need competition to improve. They need motivation, but competition is awkward with keepers. When Souness juggled three “first choice” keepers they all became nervous wrecks. When Kirkland and Dudek were competing, neither felt relaxed enough to actually do his job. Chopping and changing them often leads to unease. Ideally the second keeper is the one with the lower profile, on lower wages, and who is happy to sit on the bench every week. He obviously must be competent, but the odds of him playing more than five league games in a season must be less than 10%. But Mignolet wasn’t bought to do that.

Reina wouldn’t be happy on the bench, and this way he gets to play every week under his favourite manager and goalkeeping coach, compete in the Champions League and, as a result, almost certainly go to the World Cup in Brazil. His value may even increase, if he has a sensational season, whereas being on the Liverpool bench would only harm it.

This is similar to the Andy Carroll situation last season: while I felt it was wrong to loan him, particularly as no replacement had been bought – therefore the opposite of this case – his value would have waned had he just sat on the bench every week. He went to West Ham, got injured, and that very depreciation looked like happening. And then he got fit, grabbed some goals and suddenly Liverpool got their full asking price; had he spent the season on the Reds’ fringes they’d have struggled to get £10m, as opposed to the eventual £17.5m. Last summer, Liverpool let their asset go before the new man arrived; a mistake. This time that mistake was avoided, but of course, the existing asset’s situation changed, and both ended up on the books; a mistake! That’s how things can transpire.

There are concerns with Mignolet, in that this is a higher level of pressure and scrutiny than he’s previously experienced, and he might wilt in the glare of the spotlight. That’s the worst case scenario. Of course, if he ultimately flops, Reina will still be on the books in 2014, contracted to 2016; maybe next year he’ll return a revived keeper? But a case could be made for it being easier for Mignolet to settle and relax without a popular figure waiting in the wings.

For me, tense keepers are the biggest liabilities. It’s a confidence position, in that keepers have to be able to play their natural game and ignore their mistakes; if they focus on them, for fear of being dropped, they can stop coming for crosses, and the whole defence becomes anxious.

The fact that Liverpool would still be paying Reina half his wages puts a bit of a dent in my argument, but it’s still circa £60k a week being saved, and there can be benefits, as outlined, as to his transfer value in a year’s time.

All the same, I’m still very sad to see such a good, likeable character depart, and his personality will be missed around the squad. With Carragher retired and some other big personalities leaving last summer, Liverpool cannot afford to become a team of tomorrow’s men, who are unready for today (because tomorrow never seems to come; the best players keep leaving because the team isn’t quite there yet).

However, the arrival of Kolo Toure shows that the club are not ignoring older players with tons of experience if the price is right. Equally, Steven Gerrard has just signed a new contract, and most of the first-choice defenders, aside from Toure, are in their late 20s. And Mignolet is no novice. He’s three years older than Reina when he arrived in 2005, and if being used to English football can be overplayed, it can be important for keepers, given the style of football over here, particularly from teams like Stoke and Bolton over the years.

I don’t see this event as asset-stripping, as so many fans seemed to suggest to me last night on Twitter. It’s about managing the resources better; freeing up wages to give to players who merit them, rather than those who merited them in the past. Obviously if Liverpool don’t reinvest on two or three more top players this summer I’ll be angry, but the big wages need to be for the first XI, not to sit on the bench (and keepers don’t even get to play 20 minutes to make an impact.)

The Red Sox were similarly overhauled this year, and they’re having a great season. Football may not work in quite the same way, but if you can get better performers on lower wages (by being smart), then what’s not to like? People moaned when FSG blew millions on Carroll, Downing and Henderson, and yet now they’re accusing them of asset-stripping, even though the actual situation leaves them with two keepers, not one.

Personally speaking, I wouldn’t have replaced Reina with Mignolet, not least because I rarely watched Sunderland play more than the twice against Liverpool; maybe the odd game I caught here and there. I’m not a scout, and don’t watch the rest of the division, and the rest of Europe, in the way that a scout would.

I’d have stuck with Reina, due to my emotional connection to him. But as much as emotions are a key part of the experience of the sport – it’s about feelingthings, as fans and spectators – then decision-making needs to be bereft of sentiment. And too much of the reaction by fans away from the games themselves remains in the emotional zone.

Bill Shankly is seen as the toughest ever Liverpool manager, perhaps because he did things like ignore injured players and had a stare that could turn people to stone, but he admitted to struggling to replace his stars once they stopped performing as well. He admits to sticking with them too long. But Bob Paisley, by contrast, was the absolute master of the cold, calculating decision. Players were sold before people thought it was time to sell them, and yet the team always got better, and never got old.

Without oligarch owners, and without the Champions League, and without a massive stadium full of corporate boxes, Liverpool need to be smarter with their money. If Reina, who was worth £20m+ in his prime but whose value has slipped quite dramatically, goes for £9m next summer (hopefully to Barca, maybe to Napoli), the Reds will have a neutral net spend on goalkeepers, but will be paying a lot less each week to their first choice.

That first choice will still be in his mid-20s, and the thinking of the scouts, manager and transfer committee is obviously that he is capable of performing at a higher level than Reina has since 2010. Statistically, Mignolet, who is two inches taller than Reina, has been miles ahead of the Spaniard in recent seasons, in terms of percentage of shots saved; and although it’s a different challenge if you only have one save to make each match as opposed to 20, obviously people at the club rate the Belgian’s ability to do the job properly. While the stats may be flawed, few Liverpool fans will seen enough of Mignolet (unless they watched Sunderland as much as Liverpool) to make a fair comparison, and even then they’d have probably been biased towards the Reds’ man. So the stats offer some objective measure.

It could all go horribly wrong, of course, but that’s football. Everything is a risk of sorts. People went berserk when Torres was sold, but in retrospect gaining £50m looks like a masterstroke (even if the reinvestment wasn’t). As I noted some weeks ago, players are just passing through. Love them while they’re here, but we never fully “own” them. There’s very little true loyalty from clubs or players: they all move on, or are moved on, when it suits.

I Hate Rodgers (Clearly)

By Paul Tomkins - http://tomkinstimes.com/2013/05/i-hate-rodgers-clearly/

Of late a few people have accused me of being anti-Rodgers; even going so far as to say that I hate him. Even remarking on Twitter a few weeks ago about Jupp Heynckes being a free agent this summer despite possibly leading Bayern to a remarkable treble was translated as “advocating that he replaces Rodgers”.

No, it was pointing out that a brilliant manager, who, if he decides against retiring, will be free after a quite remarkable season.

The Heynckes debate got me thinking. In truth, how can I tell the difference between Rodgers and Heynckes? They are different managers at different stages of their careers in different countries who have faced different situations, and most of their weekly work is done behind closed doors. Even if they had identical talents and approaches, they are using different sets of players (and in Bayern’s case, a far better set).

Like all other managers they have their own philosophies, and tactics, but it’s what each does with them that counts. Managers are judged on results because everything else seems rather abstract. “He’s a good man-manager”. Well, does it show in the results? “He’s a good tactician.” Well, does it show in the results? “He’s had 35 years experience.” Well, does it show in the results?

You have to put those results into context, but that’s the hard bit; that when it starts getting subjective.

People seem to mistake my ambivalence over Rodgers for negativity. I still haven’t formed a solid opinion on the current Liverpool manager. Some things he does I am genuinely impressed with. Others leave me nonplussed. Of course, I don’t think we should have to understand a manager’s ideas. I don’t understand medical science, after all; I just expect my doctor to know his stuff, and to get results.

So far, Rodgers’ overall results are worse than last season’s. He’s won 23 from 52 games (44%), when last season Liverpool won 24 from 51 (47%). Liverpool’s cup games, bar this season’s tie against Udinese, were clearly more difficult on the whole last year: City (twice), United, Chelsea (twice) and Everton. Equally, Liverpool have marginally improved in the league, and are scoring more goals overall. If you label this a transitional season, then it it’s hard to call it a failure. But then it depends what the targets are during a transition.

Hand on heart, if you told me that Rodgers would definitely be Liverpool boss next season, I’d be fine with that. And if you told me that he was to be replaced by someone of Heynckes’ calibre (if not necessarily Heynckes, who is 67 and speaks no English), I’d be fine with that. I am neither convinced that Rodgers is the right man nor that he’s the wrong man.

It probably took me six months to fully click with Rafa Benítez (at which point I became convinced he had something special) and about three games with Roy Hodgson (at which point I would rather poke my own eyes out than watch his football again). With Rodgers I vacillate, and in many ways that’s my problem, not his.

I get plenty of tweets telling me Rodgers is “shit”, or worse. But I don’t understand the antipathy. People have decided that because he brought a certain level of success to Swansea, that means that mid-table is his level. To me, his achievements in Wales proves he did a fine job, and indicate that he’s a goodmanager.

I don’t think Rodgers is mediocre,  or worse, as so many like to tell me. But he is still, in many ways, unproven.

As things stand, proof of Rodgers’ qualities only stretches so far. He has no trophies, and he’s never tasted the top six of the Premier League. My problem is that, almost a season into his Liverpool tenure, I’m no clearer as to his true level. I’m pretty sure that he’s better than his critics suggest, but equally, I don’t know how brilliant he is.

Liverpool have been breathtaking at times this season, but also have a dreadful record in the ‘bigger’ games. The XI is far better now than a year ago, especially with injuries meaning that Spearing and Adam were the two most frequent central midfield starters in 2011/12, and Suarez scored one goal in five months from the day of the Evra incident, only returning to form once his ban was out of the way. With worse players, and greater distractions, the team of Dalglish and Clarke got better results.

Since January Coutinho and Sturridge have added new dimensions, and a true cutting edge – both have a good amount of goals and assists – although Liverpool have also started drawing blanks (and drawing games) in recent weeks.

While I’m all for focusing on getting back into the top four at the expense of cups (in that my belief is that the Champions League is a virtuous cycle, attracting and paying for better players so that you can compete in all competitions), so far Liverpool have swapped cup success for one place in the league table.

Liverpool are now much better at home – a major problem last season – but only marginally better off in the league table. And yet you could quite legitimately, argue that Rodgers is starting a project; in which case you say that instant success is not to be expected.

Success

Most successful managers at the top end of the ‘modern era’ Premier League have certain traits, certain achievements under their belts.

Two things that stick out are, a) previous notable success, and b) doing something remarkable in terms of impact in their first year. Most can boast one or the other, and some can boast both. There’s also a third factor, which I will come to later.

First, prior success. Before arriving in England:

• Ferguson had Aberdeen, where he broke up the Rangers/Celtic duopoly with two league titles and four domestic cups, and won a European trophy.

• Wenger had Monaco, where he won the league, the cup and took the French team to the latter stages of the Champions League.
• Ancelotti had two Champions Leagues, a Serie A title and an Italian cup.

• Benítez broke up the Barcelona/Real Madrid duopoly with two league titles in three seasons, and won the Uefa Cup.

• Roberto Mancini had three Italian league titles with Inter and had won the Italian cup with three different clubs.

• Jose Mourinho had two league titles, the Portuguese Cup, the Uefa Cup and the Champions League.

• And while he’s not quite up to the same standard, Gérard Houllier won the title with PSG.
• The same applies to Claudio Ranieri, who is below the standard of the other managers in terms of trophies (he’s never won a league title), but he had won cups with Fiorentina and Valencia.

I believe that these are all of the managers to finish in the top two (having managed the whole season) since Wenger’s first full season in 1997/98. That’s fifteen years of top two spots limited to eight managers.

All of these successes were achieved with different circumstances and different resources. Therefore they are not easily compared with one another. Perhaps weaker managers could have matched some of their achievements, given the budgets some had to work with. Still, they in the record books all the same.

Some subsequent “failures” arrived with good CVs, too. Andre Villas-Boas at Chelsea, and at the same club, Phil Scolari. Previous success is clearly no guarantee, although neither of those were given full seasons. But does it helpwith future success? With all of the best jobs going to men with impressive records, it’s hard to know how the likes of Rodgers would do across a larger sample size. It’s a bit chicken and egg: do they not get the jobs because they are not good enough, or do we never get to know if they are good enough because they never get the jobs?

What’s also true is that some of those managers achieved their first home-country success “out of nowhere”. Benítez, Mourinho and Villas-Boas were given jobs at Valencia and Porto based on potential. Their previous records, and their ages, when racking up those home-league successes were not so different to Rodgers’ in the summer of 2012. They were appointed because someone saw something in them. All three won the title in their first season, although in the case of Porto, they often win the league.

Di Matteo, who joins the list of eight by virtue of his Champions League success, had no great credentials (he was similar to Rodgers in getting a smaller club promoted) but did something incredible in his first season, even if he took over when some of the hard work had already been done (it was March, after all).

Mourinho also did something incredible in his first season at Chelsea: winning the title with a record 95 points (plus the League Cup). Ancelotti did something incredible: winning the double, with his team scoring a phenomenal 103 Premier League goals. Benítez did something incredible: winning the Champions League against all odds with a side containing players like Djimi Traore and Milan Baros (and he also took a young team to a second final). In Wenger’s first full season (1997/98), he led them to the double, playing some of the best football England had ever seen. Admittedly Alex Ferguson didn’t do something incredible in his first full season (1987/88), although he did take them to their best finish for almost a decade (2nd, with their last appearance in the top two in 1979/80) before falling away for a couple of seasons. And it may be a stretch to include Mancini’s FA Cup in his first full season (2010/11), but it was their first trophy in decades, and that can be a mental hurdle to overcome. Clearly the investment in players was behind much of their improvement, as it had been with Chelsea, but Mancini instantly put a trophy on the table on top of Champions League qualification.

So seven of the nine made significant first season impacts in England, either in the league, the Champions League (or both), and with one landing the FA Cup. Of the two exceptions, Gérard Houllier, did partially improve Liverpool in his first season in sole charge, but not to any remarkable level, and Ranieri, who didn’t make much of an impact until his final season. Houllier second full season, 2000/01, was his most memorable, with a fairly remarkable treble.

(Note: Ferguson, Wenger, Houllier, Mancini, Ranieri and Di Matteo all took charge midway through a season. Only Di Matteo made a significant impact in this initial part-season, and perhaps starting your first full season after a few months getting to the know the club and the players is helpful. Of course, Rodgers’ replacement at Swansea – Michael Laudrup – also did something remarkable, based on their resources and history, in landing the club its first-ever trophy. For context, he was building on the good work of Rodgers, who got them promoted, but then Rodgers was also building on the good work of others.)

The third factor is ‘player cachet’. This is perhaps the least important, but having played at a massive club, and having represented a major international nation on many occasions, can surely help a young manager acclimatise to the pressures and expectations of clubs where success is expected (with theexpected success often out of keeping with reality). Of the eight managers discussed, only three had that level of cachet: Ancelotti, Mancini and Di Matteo (all Italian internationals, incidentally, but none world-class, averaging about 30 appearances apiece).

In recent times we’ve become accustomed to “non players” like Mourinho, Villas-Boas and Benítez landing top jobs. Like Rodgers, these are men who spent their 20s studying the sport in great detail, at a stage when a lot of players were just thinking of their own game. With Wenger and Ferguson also far from great players, but having played in their country’s top division, clearly we now accept that having been a big name player is not essential in the modern age.

However, a lot of big-name ex-players are amongst the most successful young coaches this season: Antonio Conte has just led Juve to another title, having played 419 league games for the Old Lady. (In his first year in charge he won theSerie A title, having been appointed on the back of Siena finishing runners-up inSerie B). In each of his three seasons as Ajax boss to date (his first managerial job), Frank de Boer won the league title. No-one needs reminding of Pep Guardiola’s credentials, and of course, at the other end of the spectrum, Jupp Heynckes, now 67, played many times for West Germany. On top of these, Ancelotti is cleaning up in France, albeit with riches. In Italy, Vincenzo Montella is making waves with Fiorentina.

Of course, most of these are big clubs, used to success, or laden with new money. Perhaps Jurgen Klopp is the standout, as someone who wasn’t an international footballer. He did play hundreds of league games, but at lower levels. He is the obvious model for Rodgers, with Dortmund the obvious model for Liverpool.

Even Klopp did something remarkable in his first year at Dortmund: virtually doubling their points tally in lifting them from 13th to 6th. So that seems clear.

But then they only moved up to 5th the next season, and perhaps what we’re seeing with Rodgers is that stage of Klopp’s team development. But as with all of these examples, the situations are different, so nothing can ever be certain.

A worry with Rodgers would be that the first season is a good chance to excite and inspire your players, and your fan-base. I don’t think Rodgers has succeeded in that sense, although unlike Hodgson, for example, he hasn’t terrified those who watch the Reds.

Clearly being an ex-player isn’t essential (Mourinho, Villas-Boas, Benítez). Clearly you don’t have to make a significant impact in your first season, although of the nine singled out as top-two finishers and/or Champions League winners, only two (Houllier and Ranieri) failed to pull up any trees in his inaugural fullcampaign, and both of those managers are good rather than great. You don’t have to have had previous top-level success, as Di Matteo showed.

But out of the three categories (which you might find random, but I think have some validity), seven of the nine have ticks in two of the three columns, and Mancini and Ancelotti tick all three.

Rodgers, alas, has none. He has no notable prior success at the sharp end of a top league as a manager; he has not made a significant impact in his first season (fractionally better in the league, worse in the cups); and he was never a player.

This is not to say that he has no skill, no talent, no potential. What he achieved at Swansea was very commendable, although if we laud managers who gain promotion as greats, we need to talk about Steve Bruce, Neil Warnock, Phil Brown, John Gorman, George Burley and assorted other mediocre managers.

Of the managers to finish in the top four this millennium, but not get any higher than third, there’s been David Moyes, Bobby Robson, David O’Leary and a cluster of Chelsea managers. A fairly mixed bunch, although none of those, bar the Chelsea ones, have come since 2005. Clearly it’s getting tighter at the top, with Spurs now a better side (based on selling well and reinvesting smartly), and Manchester City’s wealth making them shoo-ins for the top four. Perhaps it is this group of managers against whom Rodgers should be judged. However, without oligarchs and sheiks as owners, Liverpool need to rely on their manager’s wits.

Some of the Reds’ attacking play this season has been excellent, with the goals scored and the number of clean sheets kept both impressive. The problem has been that a lot of the goals have proved fairly meaningless (some big wins that served only to boost goal difference), and when the Reds haven’t kept a clean sheet they’ve tended to concede two or more.

Of course, there almost certainly wasn’t scope to storm the top four anyway this season; it was an outside chance at best. And not being an ex-great hasn’t hampered other managers.

I guess my uncertainty – and uncertain is what I am about Rodgers, rather than decided either way – stems from the fact that the cachet he lacked from not being an ex-player and not being a title-winning coach in a major league has not been redressed by anything remarkable this season.

No remarkable improvement in the points tally.

No remarkable cup exploits.

No remarkable victories against the odds or biggest sides, with a home win against Spurs the most celebrated result. (One win in fourteen games against the other seven teams in the top eight.)

Some excellent performances, particularly in a spell of home games against poorer sides, but nothing out of the ordinary when the heat was on. Nothing to scream that Rodgers is the future, just as there’s nothing to scream Rodgers is the past.

Rodgers has had to deal with far fewer injuries (for which he and his medical team deserve credit); he’s spent c£40m net but lost Maxi, Bellamy and Kuyt; and he did not (until bitegate when the season was all but done) have a massive Suarez sideshow; nor did he have two runs to cup finals to detract from league form. However, unlike Dalglish, who had 14 years, plus 18 league games at the end of 2010/11, he has had to get used to Liverpool FC. I also don’t think Being: Liverpool helped his bedding-in period or his credibility.

So comparing with last season is fraught with pitfalls due to radically different scenarios, albeit many of which arguably favour Rodgers.

We all think that building a great side takes time, and it does.  And perhaps what Rodgers is doing is building a great side (although until the future, who knows?). But there’s also that crucial initial impact, when fresh ideas fire the players with enthusiasm. That hasn’t quite happened, at least in terms of results.

On the plus side, Rodgers seems to have a certain level of respect from his players. He’s a good man-manager, so they like him. He has bright ideas, such as enlisting the help of Dr Steve Peters. But do the players believe he can lead them to glory? Hopefully they do, but they are having to take a leap of faith, just like a lot of the fans.

Future

I don’t believe in chopping and changing managers. Equally, I don’t think you stick with a manager for the sake of it. If there’s someone better out there, you have to consider it. It doesn’t mean you have to make that move. It’s the same with players: if someone better is available, wants to come and you can afford him, you make the move. Changing manager is obviously more disruptive than replacing a full-back, but if you have a consistent vision at the club, and don’t chop and change between incompatible football philosophies, then it needn’t be disastrous. And it’s not like Rodgers is the only manager in Europe whose team can pass a football.

Can Liverpool attract the best players? Obviously the very top tier are hard to procure, but it’s still a special club in the eyes of the world. Both Suarez and Coutinho agreed to join, as did Sahin, although he left distinctly unimpressed with Rodgers (although he didn’t appear too eager to do all he could to impress).

You could argue, however, that a big-name manager would help matters. It’s not necessarily Rodgers’ fault that he’s not yet a star manager, but are players eager to come and play for him? Or is the club’s fame on its own still enough of a draw? I don’t think Liverpool should stick with Rodgers simply because no-one better would say yes. (There are good arguments that can be made for keeping Rodgers, but I’m not sure this is one of them.)

The way I look at it, if you’re a top manager, would you be put off joining Real Madrid, Barcelona, Juventus, AC Milan, Ajax or Bayern Munich if they were 7th in the table?  Do you still think it would be great to manage Brazil, even though these days they’re ranked 19th in the world right now?

Liverpool still has the magic of a great name and still has those five European Cups, dozens of other trophies, 18 league titles and the most famous stand in the world. Clubs that have been in European finals over many different decades have an aura about them. Liverpool remains such a club. It’s had a difficult few years, and miracles should not be expected. But mediocrity (if that’s what this season has been) should not be easily accepted, either.

Part of me feels that if Rodgers goes out and replaces Carragher, Downing and Enrique with three better players for the XI, this team could really click into gear. And another part of me remains unsure about his killer instinct. Is he awinner? I think he has a pleasing edge to him, in that he can seem a bit steely. But I need more proof.

Whatever happens, next season needs to be better. If you want to write this off as a transitional season, then who am I to argue? But next season needs a proper challenge for the top four, even if the Reds fall narrowly short. The good news is that summer always brings fresh optimism, and unless FSG bring back Roy Hodgson, I'm already looking forward to next season, whoever is in charge.

The Pros and Cons of Selling Suarez

Posted on May 31st, 2013

Posted by by Paul Tomkins

By Paul Tomkins.

Before going any further, if Luis Suarez wants to leave Liverpool FC, then the only issue is one of acquiring the best possible transfer fee. Various quotes are appearing in the media, with the player’s words being analysed and different meanings construed. As I write, the latest is that he’s quoted as saying that he definitely wants to leave.

Above all else, I don’t think he’s the kind of player, both in terms of ability and personality, to keep hanging about if he’s unhappy. He’s someone that needs to be smiling. He’s been at Liverpool for two and a half seasons, and although the club and its fans have stood by him through difficult times, he hasn’t got to play Champions League football. He joined without it being on the table, but presumably the plan was to be in it by now. He turns 27 next season, and by conventional standards that will mean he’ll be at his peak.

I’ve no doubt that Suarez has been his own worst enemy. However, I do agree with him that he’s been badly treated by the media and the FA. His bans have been longer than English players, for example. For alleged racism and biting, John Terry and Jermain Defoe received a four game ban and a yellow card. Suarez got 18 games. And the whole Evra affair remains based on anecdotal evidence rather than hard facts. He may have been guilty, but the case against him would have been thrown out by a court of law, as word of mouth is not true evidence.

Sensational

Suarez, as an individual, is sensational. And he works hard for the team. But perhaps the team has to work too hard to accommodate him. I’ve been saying for months, ever since the infamous bite on Branislav Ivanovic, that Liverpool fans should not fear the departure of the mercurial talent. If football was a game of one vs one, he’d be up there with Lionel Messi as my pick. But it’s not.

At that time of the bite I made the point that Arsenal, without Robin van Persie, were doing just as well as they did with him the year before (when he scored at an incredible rate), even though the received wisdom was that they were totally reliant on him. Take away his goals, people said, and Arsenal would be mid-table. Well, yes, but so would any team who omitted their best player and took the field with ten men every week.

In reality, Arsenal ended the season with three more points than in 2011/12. Had they kept van Persie, and still added the players that replaced him, then they might have been better still. But the wage bill would not have stood that strain. And the player would have left for free this summer.

The “mistake” – although Arsenal didn’t have a lot of choice due to van Persie’s contract expiring in 2013 – was to sell to a rival. Arsenal were no worse without him, once they reinvested the money and those players settled. United, of course, were stronger with him.

Another problem Arsenal had was that the player, at 29 and with one year left on his contract, was only worth £24m. They lost a £50m player, based on his performances, for half that due to circumstances. Liverpool don’t have to sell Suarez, and they don’t have to sell him on the cheap – although his disciplinary issues might take a toll. To me, he’s another £50m player, but his disciplinary record could take that down to £40m. He is, after all, a risk.

Sell To Improve

Liverpool want to be in the Champions League. But who has broken into that elite group in recent seasons? Since Liverpool won the trophy in 2005, it’s been just two teams: Spurs and Manchester City.

City did it by spending outrageous sums of money courtesy of Arabian riches and a manager who had won three Serie A titles. But Spurs? They broke into the top four with a journeyman manager (more relegations than trophies), who while not as hapless as his harshest critics make out, is also far from as talented as his many allies in the press would have you believe. I mean, Harry Redknapp’s no genius, is he?

So how did Spurs do it? Well, to this outsider, it seems that it was by selling their best players. The key was that they held out for the best possible fees (Daniel Levy is a master), and they reinvested wisely in younger players who would go on to prove even better. This may be easier said than done, but that’s why clubs need to get their transfer dealings right.

By my detailed calculations (based on analysing over 3,000 transfers, which I’ve just done again with new data), just a third of all transfers are undeniably successful. This is when factoring in the purchase price, the amount of games started and the transfer fee recouped. About 10% are very successful, and just 1% are überdeals.

One such überdeal was Kolo Toure’s move to Arsenal. He cost a few hundred thousand pounds, played over 200 league games and was sold for about 80 times what was paid. Liverpool may be picking him up at the (wide) arse-end of his career, but he’s a sensible free transfer. Arsenal getting him over a decade ago was a masterstroke. It’s not easy to be that clever, but Liverpool have to try.

Spurs picked up Dimitar Berbatov for about £10m, and sold him for three times that amount. They made the same kind of mark-up on Robbie Keane. They sold Michael Carrick for about ten times what they paid. And Luka Modric generated a £15m profit.

Selling such players signals a lack of ambition to some. But it led to Spurs reaching the top four, and seasons in excess of 70 points. Modric was a bargain when purchased, but Moussa Dembele is a great replacement. Gareth Bale was also a bargain, and if he is sold this summer for up to six times what was paid, then Andre Villas-Boas could buy three excellent players with the money. Spurs would suddenly be less reliant on their best player, and may end up with a more even spread of talent throughout the XI.

Borussia Dortmund reached the Champions League Final after selling Nuri Sahin in 2011 and Kagawa in 2012, two of their best players.

The worry for them is that Bayern Munich have just stolen away their current two best players, and, having little option but to sell to their strongest rivals (Mario Götze’s buy-out clause was met), Dortmund are compromised. But three years ago Robert Lewandowski was a little-known 21-year-old picked up for £4.5m. Sahin’s replacement, Ilkay Gündogan, was picked up for the same fee a year later, aged 20.

We seem incapable of sensing that players who are just as good, or even better, are out there, their potential as yet undiscovered. Many Liverpool fans think Suarez is the third-best player in the world. But no-one put him in the top 10 when he left Ajax. Similarly, when Fernando Torres joined in 2007 many questioned his ability.

Everyone would have rated Torres more highly in late 2010, and yet while the Spaniard has gone on to win trophies with Chelsea, and regain a modicum of form, he’s been far inferior to Suarez since the start of 2011. Liverpool came out of the potential disaster of losing their best striker to a rival by procuring an even better player for half the fee they received.

Of course, the problem was that £35m went on Andy Carroll. Liverpool sold Torres and Babel (original combined cost £34m) for £57m in January 2011, and spent £57m on Suarez and Carroll; and now, two and a half years on, they could sell Suarez and Carroll for … roughly £57m. In a sense, it would be a chance to try and reinvest it more wisely this time. Liverpool placed two huge bets in 2011, and can now walk out of the casino with the same amount of money as they entered with. It just depends if, as fans, you see it as two years enjoying what that £57m bought, or as time wasted.

The new transfer committee, which came into being after last summer’s mixed business, has had two sure-fire hits (based on performances so far, without access to a crystal ball), aged 20 and 23. Combined cost? £20m. With this in mind, it might be wise to trust them; certainly more so than Rodgers, whose own picks have been patchy. The club clearly see the manager as more of a coach than a trader.

To me, it’s clear that if you sell your best players overseas, as Liverpool did with Kevin Keegan in 1977 and Ian Rush a decade later, the team as a whole can be improved without its position in the English league compromised. Improvement happened on both occasions.

Liverpool lost Michael Owen to Real Madrid in 2004 and won the Champions League 12 months later, as they became a less one-dimensional. The Reds also won the European Cup the year after Keegan left, and the year after Rush moved to Italy was a record-breaker in terms of virtually wrapping the league up by March, as Barnes, Beardsley, Houghton and Aldridge made every Red forget about Ian Rush for 12 months. Liverpool never reached a cup final with Torres (although the Reds were an excellent side in his first three years), but reached two and won a trophy with Andy Carroll.

With Or Without You

Stats that compare the results of games players miss with those they play are always potentially misleading. All manner of factors are at play, and you may mistake  coincidences for facts.

However, a 39% win rate when Suarez plays in the Premier League, compared with 62% when absent, suggests that Liverpool are the opposite of “reliant” on him. To put it into context, 39% is roughly Everton’s level, 62% is Manchester City’s.

Even allowing for the fact that Suarez may have missed easier games than he’s played, and he’s played a lot more than he’s missed, you’d expect to see some positive reinforcement of his importance in the stats; not the exact opposite.

On top of this, Opta Joe just Tweeted: “Without Luis Suarez’s goals this season, Liverpool would still have finished seventh in the Premier League table. Depth.”

There’s also the fact that he’ll have served 19 games of suspension in 18 months. In the eyes of many he has also damaged the reputation of the club, although Eric Cantona was a similar character at United, and their supporters still revere him.

The difference is that Cantona elevated United to new heights; by contrast, Suarez hasn’t improved Liverpool’s results. Maybe in a better Liverpool side Suarez could have proved the difference, but his style is so unique, so off the cuff, that an argument can be made for him being too unpredictable to be in synch with.

Still, there are clearly times when he links brilliantly with others, with his assist for Daniel Sturridge’s goal against Chelsea one of the passes of the season. But it is his wastefulness, when shooting from every possible angle, which is hard to quantify. He will score the occasional world-class goal with an impudent effort, but how many more might have been scored had he not so often tried to do the impossible? It’s like trying to score direct from a corner. You may do it once in 100 attempts, but you might have scored five by looking for a near-post flick-on.

In the excellent Mixed kNuts blog (its author is not a Liverpool fan but subscribes to TTT), Ted Knutson takes a detailed look at Suarez’s stats in order to assess his strengths and weaknesses. It seems that Suarez is a mix of the best and worst attributes in the Premier League, which, one could argue, cancel each other out.

“Let’s start with the good. 2nd in the Premier League in goals. 1st in Shots per Game. 3rd in Key Passes per game. 1st in successful dribbles per game. Suarez was a handful and then some.”

So far, the stats back up what Liverpool fans think. He’s exciting, great to watch.

“Now for the bad. 1st in the league for being dispossessed. 2nd for turning the ball over. 3rd in Offsides per game. Great key pass numbers, but only 5 assists on the season. A 76.6% pass rate. (For comparison, Mata and Hazard were both over 85%, RVP was 80.2%.) A 12.2% conversion rate on total shots.”

Therefore, the stats also back up what a lot of fans say: that Suarez can be incredibly wasteful and frustrating.

Based on those stats, Suarez hits the target far more rarely than Europe’s other elite strikers. As an example, Dortmund’s Lewandowski turns twice as many of his shots into goals.

Look at it like this. Player A takes 500 shots in a season and scores 50 goals. We marvel at the incredible tally – 50 goals! – but by taking 500 shots he’s denying team-mates chances. If, without Player A, the team has 400 shots, but scores a greater number of goals by sharing them around, then that’s clearly better. The key is to make sure that you can share them around; something Liverpool were not capable of doing in the first half of last season, but were after the January window.

Cristiano Ronaldo is a fine example. He averages almost seven shots a game. The reason Messi is a far better player is because he doesn’t spend the entire game shooting in order to break records. On the one hand you want players who take the responsibility to shoot when the chance is there. On the other, you can’t have egotists who think they are bigger than the team, having a pop from all over the pitch.

I don’t think Suarez is as egotistical as Ronaldo – he doesn’t strut about, correcting that one hair that’s out of place – but he does inadvertently make each game about himself. Perhaps the team suffers as a result.

Popular

A problem with selling Suarez is that he’s popular with the players and the fans. He’s the kind of player others want to play with, rather than against. He’s an attractive selling point, when it comes to signing other players. Come and play alongside one of the world’s best.

Without a manager with a worldwide repute, and also lacking the bait of Champions League football, it could be argued that the club needs all the selling points it can get right now.

The club’s name is still a gold standard, but aside from Gerrard, Suarez is the one big name. With Carragher retiring and Reina possibly moving back to Barcelona, Liverpool will have few household names. However, the club is full of potentially great young players, and a young manager whose best days should be ahead of him. This is indeed like the Dortmund way of doing things, with Rodgers fairly similar to Klopp when he took over at the Westfalenstadion; but of course this doesn’t mean he’ll go on to match the great German’s success. After all, after three games, Nigel Clough looked like the new Kenny Dalglish.

The Kop doesn’t rock to many songs these days, but Suarez can get the place buzzing. Of course, he also lifts the opposition fans wherever he goes, causing them to unite against him. He also winds up opposition players, and more than anything, he winds up himself.

If Suarez stays – as seems increasingly unlikely – I’d be happy. But I won’t be sad if he leaves, providing that it’s to an overseas side, for a good fee, and that the money is reinvested in the team. I just can’t attach myself to players anymore. They are all passing through, just at different speeds. I enjoy what they give us, and then we all move on.

Not Needed

For all Suarez’s brilliant dribbling, one Coutinho through-ball can just as easily get Liverpool in behind teams. As direct as Suarez is, Sturridge’s pace arguably makes him an even greater threat through the centre; based on goals per game, Sturridge wins out, albeit from a shorter period of time.

The pair of them seem to elevate Liverpool more than Suarez. If three other players can come in for the money recouped from a Suarez sale, then the XI can be a lot better than it has been. Some very exciting young talents have been heavily linked with the club, and as a replacement for Carragher, Kolo Toure brings some much-needed experience.

The biggest problem, however, is that what should have been a season spent moving forward could quickly become yet another transitional campaign. Carragher has gone. Reina might go (though I hope not). Downing and Skrtel will probably go. There’s talk that Johnson might be sold (though I’d also oppose that). And at least two or three others will be pruned from the squad. On top of that, Liverpool will need to beat the odds in terms of two-thirds of all transfers making very little mark; although the more each player costs, the greater the chances of him succeeding.

Swapping a £45m player for three £15m players should mean a better Liverpool squad. If done right, it can also improve the XI, but with this in mind I’d be wary of selling the rest of the club’s better players unless absolutely necessary.

Too many changes and Liverpool will become a team of strangers. But that’s probably better than having players who don’t even want to be there.

Suarez Cheated By Incompetent FA

http://tomkinstimes.com/2013/04/suarez-cheated-by-incompetent-fa/

Posted on April 24th, 2013

Posted by by Paul Tomkins

It’s easy to laugh at Liverpool fans getting indignant about Luis Suarez’s 10-game ban, and listing all manor of lesser punishments for more serious crimes (Ben Thatcher and Paul Davis to name but two) but it shows definite signs of bias in the FA’s thinking. Suarez has been singled out for who he is, rather than the crime he committed.

What Suarez did was wrong, but it was barely dangerous. It is childish and almost feral, and he needs anger management more than Charlie Sheen, but anyone in their right mind would rather have a soft bite that doesn’t even break the skin than all manner of premeditated assaults we see on a football pitch. True, we don’t want to see our children biting each other in the playground. But unless they are losing earlobes or noses, it’s preferable to them elbowing each other in the face or stamping on their stomachs. A ban had to handed down, but ten games is ludicrous.

John Terry’s four-game ban for racism looks increasingly lenient. Unlike Terry, Suarez has never been red-carded in England. Also unlike Terry, Suarez is not English. If you play for or captain the FA’s team it seems that you’ll get away with a hell of a lot more. Ask Neil Lennon, who was stamped on by Alan Shearer. The FA fudged the entire issue.

And what about when Robert Huth stamped on Suarez? That was pretty clear, too. It all just seems such a random mess, what your punishment will be. If you’re not liked by the FA, they will make up the rules as they go along. I’d imagine that Suarez feels cheated right now, given the ludicrous nature of his punishment.

If it insists on cracking down on this with disproportionate punishment, the time has clearly come for the FA to act on serious assaults that the referee thinks he has seen (but obviously hasn’t if he only issues a stern warning or yellow card). Seven years ago Jermain Defoe was merely booked for clearly biting future Liverpool star Javier Mascherano. The ref saw it. But it makes you wonder how he considered it no more than a yellow card offence and how the FA now consider biting to be a treble red-carder.

So many violent assaults this season have gone unpunished because the refs merely thought they saw the incidents, but clearly hadn’t. It seems totally arbitrary to face a subsequent punishment depending on the incompetence of the referee that day. If he is competent he sees it for what it is. But if he’s not too competent, he will read the situation wrong and you get away with it. Equally, if he’s not incompetent and merely unsighted, you are in trouble.

Mistakenly perceived acts of violence that lead to red cards can be overturned if it transpires that it wasn’t as bad as first thought, but serious violence that’s yellow-carded cannot be interfered with. I’m all for protecting the authority of referees but if they make a dreadful mistake it should be reviewable. All in all, the FA’s disciplinary sanctions are a farce. The sooner it dispenses with key personnel from major Premier League clubs the better.

Ten games is what you’d expect if Suarez bit off Ivanovic’s ear and spat it in the ref’s face. It would be the work of a monster, not a daft and inexplicable bite that didn’t even break the skin. The trouble is, the FA see Suarez as a monster. He’s been cast in that role by the media.

Suarez is by all accounts a lovely family man, but he’s also one who totally loses the plot when he crosses the white line. The FA and the media have turned him into a caricature.

Now the player has to decide whether to stay in England or move to Spain, where he’d be more understood. If Liverpool stand by him, as they appear to be doing, then he will feel a further sense of loyalty, but he must weigh that up against a country that seems violently opposed to him, with the FA clearly trying to drive him away. Even though Liverpool fans feel let down by his actions, I’m sure this punishment will only make fellow Reds love him even more.

Where Are Liverpool Going?

http://tomkinstimes.com/2013/02/where-are-liverpool-going/

By Paul Tomkins.

Right now, your guess is as good as mine as to where this Liverpool side is headed. And judging by the people I hear from, Brendan Rodgers is either a dreadful charlatan or a future great. Take your pick.

Last week I wrote a piece detailing the pros and cons of Rodgers thus far, and someone told me to get off the fence and say what I really thought; completely missing the point that I don’t know what to think. Right now there seems to be such an equal mix of good and bad, in terms of performances, purchases and results, that they cancel each other out; the net result being confusion and ambivalence (at least in my case).

Rodgers rightly points to the players who are now playing well under him: Suarez, Henderson (lately), Downing (lately), Enrique (before his injury), Johnson and Gerrard. Meanwhile, Daniel Sturridge has been his one clear success in the transfer market. It’s perhaps no coincidence that these are all attacking players; even the full-backs are quasi-wingers.

Some might argue that Jamie Carragher is playing well of late, but only because the form of Martin Skrtel and Sebastian Coates has nosedived to the point where they are almost persona non grata, and while Daniel Agger remains great on the ball, off the ball his form has dipped markedly. Carragher has started the last three games, and defended with aggression and his trademark clever reading of the game, but the Reds have still conceded two goals each time. He reminds me of Stephane Henchoz between 2002 and 2004: brilliant defending the box, but too eager to retreat there. Henchoz was great at throwing himself in the way of shots, but Benítez instantly despatched him for the (then) pacier Carragher, who, by defending higher up, reduced the need to block shots.

Also, Pepe Reina – another ‘defensive’ player – is having his worst season at the club, although his form had been dipping for a while. However, Skrtel and Agger were by most neutral accounts the best centre-back pairing in the league last season.

Is it a coincidence that three centre-backs have been poor under Rodgers? And the one defensive-midfielder, Lucas Leiva, hasn’t looked his best other than in two or three games (although after almost 18 months out, the manager is right to say that it’ll be next season before the Brazilian is firing on all cylinders).

By all accounts Rodgers works mostly on possession and attacking in training, and it might explain why on 14 of the 17 occasions when a goal has been conceded a second or third has followed. There was something of a similar trend at Swansea last season, so is it fair to say that the manager brought this with him? If he’s largely rectified the Reds’ inability to score in home games – at least until last night – then the flip side is this defensive shortcoming which is undoing all the good work.

On the one hand it seems churlish to moan about attacking football when that’s what we all want to see; but on the other, it needs some form of balance to prove effective. Balance can be beautiful, too.

Spookily, this is probably the least-balanced Man United side ever, and yet they are walking the league; but most of the time, teams that can’t defend (or don’t protect their defence, which is another matter entirely) will not end up as champions. (You can have the best centre-backs around, but if you have the other eight outfield players upfield, they’ll look ropey when four or five opponents break at them.)

And Liverpool will probably never be able to afford a forward line-up like Van Persie, Rooney, Hernandez and Wellbeck, plus the litany of wingers and attacking midfielders they possess. (And crucially, United have that winning mentality ingrained after decades of success; so long as the entire team doesn’t change overnight – or the manager – new players can slip into this groove, even if bought from Wigan or Everton, where they never got near a trophy.)

Rodgers is picking up the disparate threads of several years of managerial turnovers, and perfection cannot be expected. But equally, he had enough quality leftover from Benítez and Dalglish (with Hodgson’s mistakes finally eradicated when Joe Cole was sold), and has had enough money to spend, to fashion a team that should be better than 9th right now. I think that is undeniable.

The XIs Rodgers fields look better on paper than the league position suggests. His team play a brand of football that looks better than the league position suggests. The side and the squad cost more than the league position suggests. And yet the Reds still haven’t beaten a team in the current top 10, and currently sit below West Brom and Swansea, in mid-table. It’s not all Rodgers’ fault; but surely some of the buck stops with him?

So far, Rodgers has spent £53m on players, when taking into account Nuri Sahin’s loan fee. Of that money, only £12m (Sturridge) is adding anything to the team lately; £41m (roughly 80%) sits on the bench. Of course, Philippe Coutinhoonly arrived last week, so it’s too early to say whether or not he’s a first XI player or another squad option

A net spend of £40m isn’t too high (although it is fairly sizeable for one season, unless you are one of the top three). Of course, it’s not Rodgers’ fault that Kuyt, Maxi and Bellamyonly brought peanuts into the club’s coffers last summer; three very good players left, with the savings in wages helpful, but a lack of transfer fees damages Rodgers’ net spend figures. However, net spend is not an issue here; the problem is arguably the positions of players Rodgers has bought, and more pertinently, the fact that they’re not in the team. Long-term, that may change. But for this season, they’ve not added enough.

While the age profile has been sensible, an issue seems to be that of the seven players signed, not one is in any way defensive.

And of the seven signed, how many were actually needed?

Sturridge was definitely needed – and needed last summer, when he was available. Borini, as another striker, was needed, although perhaps a better alternative might have been sought. (I remain a fan of the Italian, but he’s got a lot to prove.) Yesil, as a youngster, wasn’t needed, but for £1m, made sense; no arguments there. Assaidi was supposedly a signing recommended by the technical committee, and therefore Rodgers is only partly accountable there. But were Joe Allen, Nuri Sahin and Philippe Countinho actually required?

Two central midfielders were brought in last summer, and yet they both performed below the standards Jordan Henderson has been setting of late; while I was never a big fan of Henderson on the right, whenever he played centrally last season he looked a quality act (and I’m on record as saying so). With Lucas returning from injury, Jonjo Shelvey featuring more than many might have expected, and Steven Gerrard only ever playing in central midfield, a large chunk of the budget went on that area. And while I’m excited by the arrival of Coutinho, was another tricky attacking player really a priority? I expect him to prove a sound buy, but for all the midfield signings, there’s no kind of enforcer, beyond Lucas.

The average height of Rodgers’ signings is exactly 5’10” – one inch shorter than Stewart Downing in his socks – with only one over six foot (Sturridge), while Raheem Sterling is another newcomer to the starting XI who ranks as a midget in footballing terms, and who brings the height down even further.

In ‘purist’ mode, I don’t want height to matter, but in the English game there are teams like Stoke (and Oldham!) who Liverpool simply haven’t been able to cope with; and plenty not quite as tall and physical, but still able to bully the Rodgers’ side. For as long as the Reds have such a clear achilles heel, moving higher up the table may prove difficult. The inclusion of the unfairly maligned Jonjo Shelvey has perhaps been to add a bit of size and muscle, but he’s a talented but raw player right now. Unless Liverpool really can pass teams to death, then it will remain an issue.

Costly

At present, the Liverpool ‘£XI’ – the cost of the side over 26 league games when adjusted for inflation (TPI) – ranks as 4th:

Rank		Average £XI
1	Chelsea	£ 213,487,423
2	Man Utd	£ 195,430,518
3	Man City	£ 173,020,663
4…..	Liverpool…	£ 105,951,352
5	Arsenal	£ 91,610,185
6	Spurs	£ 71,630,828

(Everton are 6th in the table, but rank 7th)

With our research for Pay As You Play we found that, on the whole, teams usually finish within two places of their rank. Right now, Chelsea are two below theirs; United are one above theirs; Man City are one below theirs; Arsenal are dead-on with theirs; Spurs are two places above theirs. So far, so good, in terms of the model.

But Liverpool are five places below their rank. Only Newcastle, QPR, Aston Villa and Wigan are performing worse when compared against their £XI rank. (Swansea and West Brom are performing the best: both are 10 places above where they “should” be.)

Of course, a win against Swansea next weekend, and the Reds will likely be up to 7th again. That would still be a poor position based on the resources – but for Rodgers, in his first season (where some slack must be cut) – not disastrous. And with the remaining games, 7th should easily be achievable, and 6th shouldn’t be beyond the realm of possibility.

The £XI is a good (if not flawless) way to rank expected performance, because unlike wage bill (which also has its merits as a means of determining success), it counts the resources that a manager can call upon for his side. Now, not every player costs what he goes on to deliver – some deliver above (Suarez), some deliver below (Downing), some deliver on the money (Johnson) – which means that it often averages out to something resembling accuracy.

(I’ve obviously not got room here to explain the entire list of pros and cons with using £XI – buy the book for that – but I think it generally works very well. One way to outperform the £XI is by filling the team with talented home-grown players or cheap kids, and to a degree, Rodgers has done that, too: Gerrard and Sterling frequently, and Carragher, Wisdom, Suso and Shelvey less frequently.)

In this instance, Rodgers has been picking the best remaining Benítez signings (Johnson, Reina, Agger, Lucas, Skrtel, Shelvey, Sterling, Suso) and the best Dalglish/Comolli signings (Suarez, Henderson, and at times, Enrique and Downing), as well as his own signings.

A manager’s own flops don’t impact the £XI unless he’s blindly picking them, and in Rodgers’ case, he had the “luxury” of bidding goodbye to recent signings like Carroll and Sahin, even though more could arguably have been gained from them. (Although you can’t get the most out of every player; some will unavoidably move towards the fringe, as more than half the squad doesn’t start each game.)

So while I accept that a new manager needs a period of adjustment, it’s fair to say that Rodgers inherited a talented and settled back-four who were in their peak (based on the form of several seasons); three or four world-class players in Suarez, Gerrard, Johnson and arguably Lucas; some decent squad players with scope to improve; and an array of promising youngsters.

(And when it comes to changing managers, both Spurs and Swansea have seen their new bosses settle in brilliantly; Laudrup has improved Rodgers’ Swansea, and Andre Villas-Boas is doing a very good job at Spurs. Both have altered the style slightly, and yet still got results. West Brom are also doing better under a new manager. Indeed, West Brom and Swansea have got through four managers in roughly as many years, and only ever really improved as a result, due to the strong core philosophies of those running the football side of things.)

Rodgers and his medical staff have done brilliantly to have Agger, Johnson and Gerrard play virtually every minute, and of course, Suarez hasn’t had the distractions and suspensions of last season. However, having had these players as virtual ever-presents, shouldn’t the manager be getting more out of the team than Dalglish and Clarke did last season, when, at best, these players were only around roughly (at a guess) half of the time? At present, 9th is one place worse than the poor 8th registered in 2011/12, which included the awful distraction of the Suarez/Evra affair, and the efforts in getting to two domestic cup finals.

And yet … quite often, the Reds don’t look too far away from being a top four side. There’s something there that suggests more might follow soon. Liverpool have looked very good at times this season, and occasionally brilliant; although of course we said the same last season. Liverpool have tons of efforts at goal, although again, with Suarez in the team, this stat will be slightly skewed, as he shoots from almost anywhere, and has an effort at goal more frequently than any other player in the league. Still, Liverpool do create a healthy amount of chances, beyond wild pot-shots.

Rodgers has eradicated the problem of not getting enough points at home – even after last night, the points-per-game is very good – but simply replaced it with an inability to beat anyone better than West Ham. After 14 games against teams in the top half of the table, it starts to look less like a statistical quirk and more a fact that decent teams can find and exploit Liverpool’s weaknesses.

I remain patient about Rodgers, but still undecided. As I said last week, even at worst I don’t think he’s going to ruin Liverpool with his buys and his playing style. So I see no need to panic; this is no Hodgson, driving fans and players away. But equally, he’s not the only manager around who can create a side that plays good football, and plenty of them have proven records of success, too.

Changing manager again would have its downside, and I’m not advocating it; but it’s wrong to think that Rodgers is the only possible solution. If results don’t pick up, then maybe change will be required again this summer.

Equally, Rodgers has the rest of the season to show that his style can be matched with substance, too. If he does that, then he’ll certainly have next season to try and take things further, and work on eradicating the shortcomings of his current side.