Great debunking of recent press atitudes to us and a few points for the negative posters on here to chew over:
pretty much somes up my views on rafa sniping in the media, even for those fans pissed off with the changes every week, im sure it can still grind your gears hearing some of these ****s itching to dig the knife into the bearded one;
For me, and a number of fans, it's important how the Reds are treated within the media. I don't expect glowing praise, but I do want to see some balance. Just a little credit where it's due, as opposed to undeserved criticism and petty snipes.
The Daily Telegraph match report on Monday was a case in point. It was basically written from the point of view that Liverpool, had they not scored two late goals, would have drawn another game. (Wow, really?) And the piece suggested that drawing another game was not good enough, and certainly not championship form.
Of course, let's not forget the awkward fact that it wasn't a draw, and that matches last at least 90 minutes. The last 10 minutes are where the best teams often make it count. Anyone who has watched football for more than a month knows that.
Somehow it's okay for Manchester United to unconvincingly beat Spurs, Sunderland and Everton 1-0 with late or very late goals –– that's "the sign of a great team". But Liverpool deservedly winning 2-0 with late goals is somehow just not good enough and the equivalent of a draw.
To put things into context, Alex Ferguson believes that his current crop is the best squad he's ever had. Yet the Reds, on their coattails (only three points behind when level on games on Saturday evening), are widely portrayed in the media as some second-rate outfit with no chance of the title in a million years.
Something is wrong with this picture. If United are ever-improving (and to my mind they are), and Chelsea have the most expensive squad in the history of the English game, and Arsenal are playing "the best football ever seen" (slightly facetious, but you know what I mean), then how come the Reds aren't getting at least some credit for still being unbeaten and within touching distance, while experiencing far more medium- and long-term injury problems?
(All of a sudden Chelsea have a few players injured, and "injury crisis" has started appearing in the press.)
This Liverpool side is improving. The top four in England has been close to being the top four in Europe since Benítez arrived in England. Five years ago that was nowhere near the case.
Even when Liverpool hammer someone, as they did against Besiktas, it's down to poor opposition; no-one said the same when Arsenal thrashed Slavia Prague.
The Telegraph piece, which said Fulham failed to get the point they deserved, ignored that the Cottagers are the best team in the league when looking at half-time scorelines, so it was likely to be a case of wearing them down –– tiring them out as they chase the ball –– and striking late on.
Indeed, that's precisely what the great Liverpool sides of the past had to do on plenty of occasions. Or are we forgetting that? (And if late goals suddenly don't count, can we please have our league title from 1989 back, Mr?) Earlier this season Fulham were actually winning at Arsenal until the 84th minute, and then drew 0-0 at Chelsea. So their obduracy when visiting the big clubs is obvious. That's their style.
I also fail to see precisely what Fulham did to deserve a draw on Saturday. They defended very well, as they set out their stall for a goalless encounter.
However, they offered nothing going forward, and did not stop Liverpool, on top of the two goals, creating several undeniably clear-cut chances: two for Voronin, one of which was well saved, the other fractionally wide; Torres' shot that was saved; Crouch's header off the bar; Benayoun's wonderful dinked chip that was just tipped round, and his miss from a yard as two Liverpool players dived in at the loose ball. Only one keeper was actually involved in the game (unless it was creating assists).
While I'll never lose sleep over what's said in the papers on the telly, views expressed in the media do still irritate me; they can become the mantra of many fans –– particularly those who don't pay close attention to the facts but are quick to pick up their mobile and dial a phone-in –– and add to the pressure on a manager and the team.
One of the drawbacks of not being able to get to many games these days is that it leaves me, and my sanity, in the hands of the commentators.
I frequently switch off the sound during live games, only to quickly need it back on to either hear the crowd (as it's unreal without them) or for an explanation of what's happening when the pictures aren't clear (such as when the director focuses on a vaguely attractive woman in the crowd; wow, a woman! –– at a football match! –– and she doesn't look like a man! Unbelievable!)
These days, rather than write straight match reports, I concentrate on the bigger picture, and what surrounds each game: the form overall of the team and players; the tactics and systems; the short- or long-term patterns that can picked out with statistics, or from watching games over and over on the video; and so on.
And I guess I also look to provide what could be called a 'mediawatch' service, where I look to redress the balance from some of the more outlandish things said about the team.
For instance, on Sky's The Sunday Supplement, Paul Hayward of the Daily Mail accused Rafa of rotating because of his ego –– "it's all about him and his rotation"; rotation that is undertaken, he said, to prove how clever he is.
Presumably Benítez's two titles and Uefa Cup with Valencia, and his European and FA Cups with Liverpool –– while using these methods –– were merely to prove how clever he is? (Well, actually, it does suggest he might be fairly clever when it comes to this management lark.)
Quite what gives a journalist, whose cleverness is confined to the keyboard and who has never picked a team in his life, the right to make such an accusation is baffling.
I've never known of a manager who'd rather prove his cleverness in any other way than in winning games and, subsequently, trophies. Managers are obsessive winners. They'd feign a heart attack if their granny was going to beat them at tiddlywinks.
In three years, Benítez has reached four finals and achieved the Reds' highest points tally since 1988 with rotation. With just five unchanged teams in his 200 games, Rafa's win-rate of 56 per cent bears comparison with the club's greats. It is fractionally behind Bob Paisley's, at 57 per cent, but quite a way ahead of Bill Shankly's, at 51 per cent. Only Kenny Dalglish's, at 60 per cent, is significantly higher since John McKenna's 61 per cent way back in the 1890s.
As for Benítez's ego, we're not talking about another Jose Mourinho, for whom the limelight was the only place to be, but a far lower-key man, who preaches the power of the collective, not the culture of the individual. But because he has 'ideas' –– ideas that he has the temerity to stick to in the face of press criticism –– he's an egotist? It's laughable.
"The fans are fed up with his rotation" said Hayward. Well, some fans may well be. But that doesn't mean we all are; or that those who are fed up are right and the rest of us wrong. The trouble is if you listen to phone-ins for the opinion of 'real fans', you are likely to get the most controversial opinions, as that's what the producers want. The views of the fans of any one club vary quite wildly; as such I've never tried to represent "the fans" as a whole, just present my own views.
Another theory espoused by Hayward –– which the Daily Mirror's Oliver Holt did well to debunk –– was that the European Cup now means nothing to Liverpool fans, who want the Premiership title.
Holt was spot-on when he argued that the European Cup has a special place in Liverpool's history and in the hearts of its fans. It's almost being treated as if it counts for nothing now, in order to find a reason to slate Benítez as a failure in his three years.
I'm sorry, but the European Cup meant plenty to Liverpool fans while the Reds were winning it, and arguably even more between 1985 and 2005, when repeating the feat had become the most spindly of pipe dreams as we looked on in envy. Yes, the Premier League is desired after such a long wait, but the Champions League cannot be devalued as a result.
It may sound paranoid, but if Manchester United had been doing as well in Europe while they weren't winning the league there would be no such criticisms of the competition meaning so little.
I mean, Ferguson has only made one final in the 15 years United have been consistently qualifying for it. This from a man whose first five seasons in the English league ended with United 11th, 2nd, 11th, 13th, and 7th!
And while the league title has yet to return to Anfield, before Rafa arrived the Reds' league form meant the club weren't even qualifying for the Champions League every season –– something he has a 100 per cent record with.
I do think as fans we can be oversensitive to some criticism of the club we hold dear, as it can be like hearing someone criticise your wife or your mother –– but while some of it will be fair (no manager, player or club gets everything right), so much of it can be ludicrous.
When it comes to televised games I don't tend to watch the pre-match discussion as it just winds me up ahead of the game, and adds to the nervous energy which I need to control.
Last week I was invited to be interviewed by Setanta, for use in the pre-match build up to the Fulham game, which was an honour, but too much for me to manage.
I also get asked to do a lot of radio and podcasts, but unless my health is 100 per cent I can struggle to think and speak as quickly as I'd like, as at times I can be affected by 'brain fog'. (Brain fog is described as "the sensation of a physical obstruction to clear thinking in the brain, often extended to apply in general to neurocognitive symptoms experienced by many people who suffer from neuroimmune diseases such as ME/CFS, fibromyalgia, Lyme disease and multiple sclerosis, amongst others.")
I have visions of coming across like Forest Gump's dim-witted brother, without my sibling's supposedly witty aphorisms about life and boxes of chocolates.
I trust that this platform gives me enough of a chance to get my views across to a wide audience of Liverpool fans, and that I can at least make some sense when it comes to answering the excessive criticisms of the club.
For me, and a number of fans, it's important how the Reds are treated within the media. I don't expect glowing praise, but I do want to see some balance. Just a little credit where it's due, as opposed to undeserved criticism and petty snipes.
The Daily Telegraph match report on Monday was a case in point. It was basically written from the point of view that Liverpool, had they not scored two late goals, would have drawn another game. (Wow, really?) And the piece suggested that drawing another game was not good enough, and certainly not championship form.
Of course, let's not forget the awkward fact that it wasn't a draw, and that matches last at least 90 minutes. The last 10 minutes are where the best teams often make it count. Anyone who has watched football for more than a month knows that.
Somehow it's okay for Manchester United to unconvincingly beat Spurs, Sunderland and Everton 1-0 with late or very late goals –– that's "the sign of a great team". But Liverpool deservedly winning 2-0 with late goals is somehow just not good enough and the equivalent of a draw.
To put things into context, Alex Ferguson believes that his current crop is the best squad he's ever had. Yet the Reds, on their coattails (only three points behind when level on games on Saturday evening), are widely portrayed in the media as some second-rate outfit with no chance of the title in a million years.
Something is wrong with this picture. If United are ever-improving (and to my mind they are), and Chelsea have the most expensive squad in the history of the English game, and Arsenal are playing "the best football ever seen" (slightly facetious, but you know what I mean), then how come the Reds aren't getting at least some credit for still being unbeaten and within touching distance, while experiencing far more medium- and long-term injury problems?
(All of a sudden Chelsea have a few players injured, and "injury crisis" has started appearing in the press.)
This Liverpool side is improving. The top four in England has been close to being the top four in Europe since Benítez arrived in England. Five years ago that was nowhere near the case.
Even when Liverpool hammer someone, as they did against Besiktas, it's down to poor opposition; no-one said the same when Arsenal thrashed Slavia Prague.
The Telegraph piece, which said Fulham failed to get the point they deserved, ignored that the Cottagers are the best team in the league when looking at half-time scorelines, so it was likely to be a case of wearing them down –– tiring them out as they chase the ball –– and striking late on.
Indeed, that's precisely what the great Liverpool sides of the past had to do on plenty of occasions. Or are we forgetting that? (And if late goals suddenly don't count, can we please have our league title from 1989 back, Mr?) Earlier this season Fulham were actually winning at Arsenal until the 84th minute, and then drew 0-0 at Chelsea. So their obduracy when visiting the big clubs is obvious. That's their style.
I also fail to see precisely what Fulham did to deserve a draw on Saturday. They defended very well, as they set out their stall for a goalless encounter.
However, they offered nothing going forward, and did not stop Liverpool, on top of the two goals, creating several undeniably clear-cut chances: two for Voronin, one of which was well saved, the other fractionally wide; Torres' shot that was saved; Crouch's header off the bar; Benayoun's wonderful dinked chip that was just tipped round, and his miss from a yard as two Liverpool players dived in at the loose ball. Only one keeper was actually involved in the game (unless it was creating assists).
While I'll never lose sleep over what's said in the papers on the telly, views expressed in the media do still irritate me; they can become the mantra of many fans –– particularly those who don't pay close attention to the facts but are quick to pick up their mobile and dial a phone-in –– and add to the pressure on a manager and the team.
One of the drawbacks of not being able to get to many games these days is that it leaves me, and my sanity, in the hands of the commentators.
I frequently switch off the sound during live games, only to quickly need it back on to either hear the crowd (as it's unreal without them) or for an explanation of what's happening when the pictures aren't clear (such as when the director focuses on a vaguely attractive woman in the crowd; wow, a woman! –– at a football match! –– and she doesn't look like a man! Unbelievable!)
These days, rather than write straight match reports, I concentrate on the bigger picture, and what surrounds each game: the form overall of the team and players; the tactics and systems; the short- or long-term patterns that can picked out with statistics, or from watching games over and over on the video; and so on.
And I guess I also look to provide what could be called a 'mediawatch' service, where I look to redress the balance from some of the more outlandish things said about the team.
For instance, on Sky's The Sunday Supplement, Paul Hayward of the Daily Mail accused Rafa of rotating because of his ego –– "it's all about him and his rotation"; rotation that is undertaken, he said, to prove how clever he is.
Presumably Benítez's two titles and Uefa Cup with Valencia, and his European and FA Cups with Liverpool –– while using these methods –– were merely to prove how clever he is? (Well, actually, it does suggest he might be fairly clever when it comes to this management lark.)
Quite what gives a journalist, whose cleverness is confined to the keyboard and who has never picked a team in his life, the right to make such an accusation is baffling.
I've never known of a manager who'd rather prove his cleverness in any other way than in winning games and, subsequently, trophies. Managers are obsessive winners. They'd feign a heart attack if their granny was going to beat them at tiddlywinks.
In three years, Benítez has reached four finals and achieved the Reds' highest points tally since 1988 with rotation. With just five unchanged teams in his 200 games, Rafa's win-rate of 56 per cent bears comparison with the club's greats. It is fractionally behind Bob Paisley's, at 57 per cent, but quite a way ahead of Bill Shankly's, at 51 per cent. Only Kenny Dalglish's, at 60 per cent, is significantly higher since John McKenna's 61 per cent way back in the 1890s.
As for Benítez's ego, we're not talking about another Jose Mourinho, for whom the limelight was the only place to be, but a far lower-key man, who preaches the power of the collective, not the culture of the individual. But because he has 'ideas' –– ideas that he has the temerity to stick to in the face of press criticism –– he's an egotist? It's laughable.
"The fans are fed up with his rotation" said Hayward. Well, some fans may well be. But that doesn't mean we all are; or that those who are fed up are right and the rest of us wrong. The trouble is if you listen to phone-ins for the opinion of 'real fans', you are likely to get the most controversial opinions, as that's what the producers want. The views of the fans of any one club vary quite wildly; as such I've never tried to represent "the fans" as a whole, just present my own views.
Another theory espoused by Hayward –– which the Daily Mirror's Oliver Holt did well to debunk –– was that the European Cup now means nothing to Liverpool fans, who want the Premiership title.
Holt was spot-on when he argued that the European Cup has a special place in Liverpool's history and in the hearts of its fans. It's almost being treated as if it counts for nothing now, in order to find a reason to slate Benítez as a failure in his three years.
I'm sorry, but the European Cup meant plenty to Liverpool fans while the Reds were winning it, and arguably even more between 1985 and 2005, when repeating the feat had become the most spindly of pipe dreams as we looked on in envy. Yes, the Premier League is desired after such a long wait, but the Champions League cannot be devalued as a result.
It may sound paranoid, but if Manchester United had been doing as well in Europe while they weren't winning the league there would be no such criticisms of the competition meaning so little.
I mean, Ferguson has only made one final in the 15 years United have been consistently qualifying for it. This from a man whose first five seasons in the English league ended with United 11th, 2nd, 11th, 13th, and 7th!
And while the league title has yet to return to Anfield, before Rafa arrived the Reds' league form meant the club weren't even qualifying for the Champions League every season –– something he has a 100 per cent record with.
I do think as fans we can be oversensitive to some criticism of the club we hold dear, as it can be like hearing someone criticise your wife or your mother –– but while some of it will be fair (no manager, player or club gets everything right), so much of it can be ludicrous.
When it comes to televised games I don't tend to watch the pre-match discussion as it just winds me up ahead of the game, and adds to the nervous energy which I need to control.
Last week I was invited to be interviewed by Setanta, for use in the pre-match build up to the Fulham game, which was an honour, but too much for me to manage.
I also get asked to do a lot of radio and podcasts, but unless my health is 100 per cent I can struggle to think and speak as quickly as I'd like, as at times I can be affected by 'brain fog'. (Brain fog is described as "the sensation of a physical obstruction to clear thinking in the brain, often extended to apply in general to neurocognitive symptoms experienced by many people who suffer from neuroimmune diseases such as ME/CFS, fibromyalgia, Lyme disease and multiple sclerosis, amongst others.")
I have visions of coming across like Forest Gump's dim-witted brother, without my sibling's supposedly witty aphorisms about life and boxes of chocolates.
I trust that this platform gives me enough of a chance to get my views across to a wide audience of Liverpool fans, and that I can at least make some sense when it comes to answering the excessive criticisms of the club.
Comment