By LFC Vancouver member Keith Perkins, 20 September 06.

It’s never easy to see us lose, especially to one of our greatest rivals. That already happened last week with a loss to Everton, and now, only a week later, we have to take another hit after a trip to Stamford Bridge to meet the dreaded Chel$ki. Five brave members of LFC Vancouver met at the Frog and Firkin to watch the re-broadcast of the match, among twice as many cocky cockneys. We haven’t looked terrible in any of our games so far, but we’ve had serious trouble scoring goals. Our defensive record is nowhere near where it was last season, with a goal difference well into negative numbers with only a few games played. We had to turn this around, and the best way to do that was a return home to Fortress Anfield for a midweek match with struggling Newcastle. Mixed feelings to begin with, but is this now the start of better things to come?

The big news at the beginning of this match was the sight of Moronio waiting at the top of the players’ tunnel and offering to shake Rafa’s hand. Rafa accepted, and so all is well? I think not. There was obviously a lot of feeling in this match, as usual, with a lot of crunching tackles from the start. Momo was charging all over the place in his inimitable style, taking care of Chel$ki attacks and turning the direction of play. We looked pretty good and could have taken the lead with an incisive pass from Alonso into space on the edge of the box for Kuyt, who blasted a shot against the bar. More attacks followed with Pennant running amok and crossing balls into the centre for Bellamy to chase. Chel$ki hardly looked like creating a serious chance, including a free kick from Lampard that went through the wall and straight into the arms or Reina. Then came the decisive moment, just a few minutes before half-time. Let’s be honest, it was a stunning strike from Drogba. If you missed it, don’t worry; it will be replayed over and over until at least the end of the season.

As the second half started, we should have been building up with our attacks and we should have been able to get the equaliser without too much trouble. Ballack completely lost his cool and stomped on Momo, earning himself a red card. That should have been the turning point for us, with a man advantage for the remaining 38 or so minutes. But, it was the same old story in that we just couldn’t score. Chel$ki put all ten men behind the ball and waited out the clock. Several chances went begging with Gerrard, Bellamy, Kuyt and Crouch all shooting on target but straight at Cech, or sending it high and wide. A dismal day in the end with the Reds just going through the motions for the last ten minutes, not looking like they were at all interested in continuing their exercise in futility.

Does this mean that the title race is over for us? Not a chance! We’ve only played four games of a thirty eight game season, even though we’ve already lost twice. Over the last two or three seasons, the bar has been raised with first Arsenal going undefeated for an entire season and then Chel$ki wrapping up the title with only two losses. That could mean that anything more than two losses is an automatic failure to contend for the rest of the season. Liverpool, Chel$ki, Arse-nil and Man Ure are all considered the contenders for the usual top four spots by the end of this season, but it’s interesting to note that all four of them have lost at least once already; and have done so this early. It looks like this year will be different in quite a few ways.

Four points from four games is nowhere near the pace to even get a UEFA Cup spot, never mind Champions League or even League Champions. But, let’s say it again: it’s still early in the season so let’s not panic just yet. We have to look at the positives and if we do then we can remain optimistic that we can improve. The first plus has to be the Charity Shield win over Chel$ki a month ago. This rematch could easily have been a replay as we had more chances, more possession, more corners and more shots on goal. Unfortunately there are no points for being close; only a win or a draw will give you that. The loss to Everton was mainly due to defensive errors, combined with that same problem of failing to take the chances and put the game away. Somehow, we could only chase Sheffield United to come away with a not totally deserved draw, but we did beat West Ham without too much difficulty. So what’s positive in all that? Well we have to be pleased with the play of Kuyt, Pennant, Bellamy, Aurelio, and Gonzalez. It’s true that they haven’t set the league ablaze but they have shown signs of being quality players. It’s always difficult for a new player to come into a squad and perform brilliantly from the start. Just think of Peter Crouch last season and how long it took him to score his first one, but then how many he was able to score after that (for England as well as for Liverpool).

We also have to realise that we have only played at home once in those first four League matches. It doesn’t help to have to make trips to Kiev and Eindhoven in between, while Chel$ki and Man Ure have each played their one Champions League match at home. Add to that the fact that two of the three away games so far are two of the four toughest matches of the season (at Goodison and Stamford Bridge, with the other two being trips to Arse-nil’s Emirates Stadium and Old Ratford). Surely things will improve, and will do so sooner rather than later.

Coming back to Anfield after two disappointing losses was just what the doctor ordered. There’s no such thing as an easy game, but a home fixture against Newcastle is one that we should always feel confident about. Not so many changes were made to the line-up from Sunday, with Bellamy and Kuyt up front as before, Aurelio starting in place of Warnock and Garcia in place of Pennant. Just as with the Chel$ki match, we were controlling the play with plenty of possession, and several chances. Kuyt scored his first of what we believe will be many this season after Finnan’s cross put him in with a chance after 29 minutes. The second half looked like a worry with a few disputed calls for penalties at both ends. Then came what may well be the goal of the season from Alonso. With the ball at his feet and nobody pressing in on him in his own half, he calmly stabs it forward into more space on the edge of the centre circle, looks up to see Harper well off his line and loops it into the Kop end from 60 yards or more. It was even better than the long range strike against Luton in last January’s FA Cup third round, even though it was not quite as far.

After that performance, and especially with Kuyt showing his goal scoring prowess, we have to feel even more confident ahead of Saturday’s early kick-off against Spurs. Finally a few home games in a row after several away so early in the season. This is a good chance to turn things around and start the inevitable climb up the table. We’ll be meeting at LSPH at 11 AM to watch a tape of that one, so please join us there and if you haven’t already done so then get signed up as a member of the World’s best Supporters Club.

What do you think? Give Keith your comments at Keith [at] lfcvancouver.com.

By LFC Vancouver member Paul Gill, 21 September 06.

When the World Cup was on TV over the summer, I found it embarrassing to be a football fan. This big event is on, it's all at stake...so all these players start diving and play acting just to win games. The quality was sub-par, and I got stick from all my friends who are into the toothless barbarism that is hockey. They called it a "wuss sport" and all that, and I told them that international football is rubbish compared to the Premier League. The only diving and cheating you consistently see there is with Chel$ki, but otherwise it's usually fast-paced entertaining stuff.

Now that the season is underway, the referees seem to be under attack a bit, but to me the worst part of it all is the idiotic commentary! David Pleat, Ian Darke, Tommy Smyth...those two muppets who were on the Newcastle game...it's getting worse and worse. On Sunday for the Chel$ki match I dialed up some dodgy internet connection with the Chinese commentary. And you know what? It was a much better viewing experience!

This season I've seen us batter some teams at times, particularly offensively. And all I hear is the likes of David Pleat and whatnot moaning about stupid things. On at least three occasions he'll go on about the Spainiard Aurelio (who's Brazillian) not being a left-back, though Rafa bought him from Valencia where he was...yes, a left-back. Daniel Agger has been arguably our player of the season but nobody commentating has noticed it, they're on about "Steven Gerrard -- the Engine of Liverpool". Rubbish, we have loads of talent and have gotten results from games (Juve away comes to mind) without Stevie G.

Ian Darke is a boxing guy who knows his boxing stuff, but he just agrees with his co-commentator during the football. And do I need to say anything about that twunt Andy Gray? Astonishingly, he actually said we were the better team against Chel$ki on Sunday. Still can't believe my ears there.

Tommy Smyth is a whining, moaning git who invents things out of thin air. He came to a decision that Dirk Kuyt wasn't gonna cut it at Liverpool before he went there, and gave no reason why he thinks that! I can't stand it when TS calls our Champions League games, he knows so little tactically and can't see anything going on...when he does see something, he literally moans about it...and moans...

The guys at the Score seem nice and unbiased (despite a couple of them being Reds), but on Fox Sports World there's no luck of that. The report has the most biased Man Yoo supporter (Jeremy St Louis) you could imagine, he basically lets his feelings about the result completely known when talking about his team (unprofessional).

All that aside, I think commentary must have hit a new low during the Newcastle game. We batter them from start to finish except for a 10 minute spell in the second half when it looked more or less level...suddenly "Newcastle are all over Liverpool"...we had a clear penalty waved away when Babayaro shoved/punched Kuyt in the face and had another questionable handball from Scott Parker in the first half. We're 1-0 up and could have been 3-0 up by then, the Geordies barely got out of their half.

Second half, and there's two questionable penalty appeals from Newcastle and of course the announcers are on about "lucky Liverpool" and they were raging about these penalty decisions. And going on and on about them...what about Babayaro on Kuyt in the first half? Nothing about it! We then take a grip of the game again, playing some lovely stuff. Garcia looks inspired and we're cutting them open. Don't know if that's bragging rights when up against Newcastle's defence but anyway...we're all over them. Kuyt puts a cross in and Babayaro CATCHES THE BALL and drops it down to clear it. No penalty! What do the announcers do? They chuckle it away..."Oh, that silly Babayaro, ha ha ha..." which is completely pathetic!

We pummelled Newcastle and looked excellent doing it but the commentary says otherwise. This isn't the first time it's happened either, these jokers can't see the genius of Rafa Benitez, how he has the midfielders making attacking runs that tear the opposition apart, how the fullbacks overlap excellently, the tactical versatility we display. I work in the media and I know how you're supposed to find something to talk about and that's what these twerps are trying to do with us as well, they're trying to stir the pot. By "these twerps" I don't only mean the commentary but the print media and so-called pundits. Don't be shy to hit that mute button and watch the match from time to time if these guys are getting on your nerves as well, you might wind up seeing a different game than they say you're watching.

Now if there was only a way to have the crowd noise on and the commentary off...

What do you think? Fire us a reply and we'll get it to Paul.

By LFC Vancouver member Steven Speed, 19 September 06.

The game against Chelsea on Sunday was the ninetieth consecutive game that Rafa has changed the side from the previous game. So far this season he has made twenty four changes to the starting line-up giving an average of four per game. The question I have been asking myself this week is – Does Rafa know his best eleven?

There are certain individuals in the media criticizing the squad rotation and pointing to Liverpool’s current Premiership position. I have to admit I have found myself questioning some of the recent starting line-ups lately. The team picked against PSV Eindhoven was particularly strange with the exclusion of Gerrard and Alonso and playing Zenden out of position in central midfield. There was a few of us in the Library Square Pub watching that game and we were all in shock and swearing at the screen when the team was announced.

One answer to criticisms of Rafa’s squad rotation is, if he has done it for ninety games in a row that means he did it for the whole of last season. A season in which we won the FA Cup and finished just one point away from second place in the Premiership. Hardly a disaster of a season plus we’ve had far worse starts before and still won the league. We once lost our first three home games in a Championship winning season.

The days of using just twelve players all season are long gone due to the physical demands of the game being greater now than they were twenty five years ago. Last season we played 66 games in all competitions (including pre-season) and to play that amount of games you need a big squad to deal with tiredness, injuries and suspensions. Plus with the way fixtures get crammed together (especially towards the end of the season) it’s not always possible to use the same eleven every game.

That being said, there is still a lot to be said for maintaining consistency in the side. While rotating the team is often necessary based on who is available, I still feel that changing the team too dramatically from game to game can be harmful. Can a player be truly motivated to put on his best performance when he may be dropped for the next game anyway, regardless of form? Peter Crouch is a recent example of this. Crouchy has been flying since the World Cup with goals flowing for Liverpool and at international level with England. Yet he hasn’t started since he scored four goals in three consecutive games, one against West Ham and three for England. Crouch is a player who thrives on confidence and when he is in form he scores goals, so it was a really big surprise to me to see him left out against Everton.

I am also wondering why Gerrard is being played in different positions all the time. As we all know Stevie is world class and can play anywhere (he could probably put the green jersey on too if required) but he should be used effectively playing off the strikers instead of covering in positions we already have players for. For example against Chelsea he was playing left midfield for part of the game and yet Mark Gonzales wasn’t even on the bench. I’m sure Rafa has his reasons for this decision and I would never suggest he is wrong but it still seemed like a strange decision.

I also think that Gerrard should stop taking corners. We have others who can take them just as well, Alonso or Pennant for example. The reason I think he should be taken of corner taking duty is that it will leave him free to hang on the edge of the box to be on the end of any loose balls, we all know how good he is at shooting from distance.

Every Kopite has his or her opinion on what is the best first eleven but the only person whose opinion matters is Rafa’s and he hasn’t steered us wrong so far.

What do you think? Give Ste your comments at stespeed [at] lfcvancouver.com.

By LFC Vancouver member Keith Perkins, 21 September 06.

Two losses in a row to two of our fiercest rivals brings up the question of player rotation once again. It seems that this was not really a problem last season when we were winning, and especially when we were showing so much improvement over the previous League season. It didn’t seem to matter that at the end of a sixty-plus game season that we still had a sizable number of players to choose from for each match; some “experts” will always criticise the idea of not finding the “best eleven” and then sticking with it for the remainder of the season. Rafa made it clear from the beginning that he favoured the idea of selecting players for each match according to their fitness and their suitability for the opposition of the day; so why are we discussing it now? A better question may be: “how did the idea of rotation come about in the first place?”

Way back in May of 1965, Liverpool were playing out a long and tiring FA Cup final against Leeds United, with victory finally coming after two hours of play, including extra time. Players were seen to be limping with cramp at the end and barely able to stand, let alone run. That was the least of Gerry Byrne’s problems, after breaking his collar bone in a crunching tackle after only three minutes of play. The pain of a broken collar bone is no laughing matter and an injury like that should be attended to as soon as possible. In those days though, there was no such thing as a substitute and so it was that Gerry Byrne soldiered on for the next couple of hours in severe pain, rather than come off and leave the team a man short.

A few days after the big final, Gerry Byrne and Gordon Milne paraded the FA Cup around Anfield before the kick-off in the European Cup semi-final against Inter Milan. Byrne with his arm strapped to his chest and Milne with his bandaged and braced knee were literally two walking wounded members of a very physically tough Liverpool squad. That European cup semi-final was won 3-1 by the Reds, showing that the loss of two key players was not a total disaster. Bill Shankly had built up a squad of players that could be used to select a strong team of eleven for any match, regardless of injuries to individual players or the nature of the opposition. It didn’t need much tinkering once the best eleven had effectively chosen themselves; Shankly is famous for his sparing use of players with only a total of fourteen being selected over two complete seasons. The famous answer to the question of “What’s the line-up for this Saturday?” was answered with “Same as last year!” Those were magical years for Liverpool FC, following a longer than necessary period of time in division two. Shankly took the club up to the First Division in 1963, won the League the following season, the FA Cup the season after that, and just to show how good they were, he followed it up with another League Championship in 1966. All of that with a minimal number of players, and without the benefit of substitutions.

A few years later, it was decided that one substitution per game would be allowed to replace an injured player. If that had been the norm in 1965, then Gerry Byrne would have been able to come off the field and be replaced by another player. Of course, the definition of “injury” became increasingly flexible, with some players acting as if in pain so as to allow a change of player to be made. The only way to react to that was to allow one substitution per game for any reason.

Teams would now line up with twelve men, eleven of whom would start the match and one who would sit on the bench until called upon if needed. Obviously, the choice of player to be sitting on the bench had to be made very carefully. Should it be an attacking player or a defensive player? How can a manager, no matter how clever, predict what his side will need during a game? One way that this dilemma was resolved was with the introduction of the “utility” player, who was simply a player who could come on to fill a wide variety of positions. Another, and most would say better, solution was to build a squad of players where each individual would be capable of playing in more than one position according to the needs of the manager. For example, a player may be an attacking right-sided midfielder this week, and a left sided full-back next week. The great advantage of this system was that players could effectively be substituted into different positions throughout a game. This is the way that Bill Shankly began to build his second successful team in the early 1970’s and was continued by Bob Paisley towards the end of the decade. We only have to think of “Supersub” David Fairclough and his late winner against St. Etienne to see how effective just one player change can be. What you don’t always see are all of the other changes of player positions that take place during the match before and after that key substitution is made.

Another example of clever team selection is the use of a previously unknown player. That seems to have been part of the thinking behind Sven-Goran Eriksson’s selection of Theo Walcott for this summer’s World Cup, except that he never even played one minute of a game. Bob Paisley used the unknown player more effectively against Bayern Munich in 1981 by putting an unknown squad player named Howard Gayle into the line-up. The plan worked effectively with Liverpool winning on away goals in the second leg and going on to lift European Cup number three.

Joe Fagan was no stranger to Bob Paisley’s methods, and used the squad system to pick up three trophies in 1984 in his first year as manager. Early games in the League Cup and the FA Cup were played with more of the “reserve” squad, and then later rounds were played with more senior players as necessary. The results from that method speak for themselves.

After the one substitution per game was becoming commonplace, it gradually became two and eventually three players per game could be switched. Now, it’s not just three players, but three players selected from a bench of five. That allows for a variety of players to be made available, and any combination of three from five can be used in any game. The next logical step from that is to size up the opposition and select a team of sixteen, from a total squad of twenty or more, with eleven players to start and the remaining five on the bench. For those who haven’t yet seen the future of this, look at the International games where a full squad of players is available for any game, with as many on the bench as there are on the field, but (for now at least) still only three substitutions allowed per game. This has inevitably led to larger and larger squads, and less and less consistency in the starting line-up from one game to another. The starting eleven are chosen according to individual fitness as well as being selected according to the nature of the opposition. This philosophy was used to great effect by Kenny Dalglish during the late 1980’s when Liverpool continued to dominate the First Division. Would we have been as successful without these methods? Again, we’ll never know for certain; but it seems to me that it was an inevitable change and one that had to be adapted to in order for us to remain at the top.

The use of more substitutions has led to a faster pace in the game. A manager will expect his players to run further and faster than in previous eras, knowing that if a player is getting tired or if he’s injured, that he can be replaced with a fresh player. He also knows that players can be added to or taken from the starting eleven in order to change the tactics and take advantage of any weaknesses revealed in the opposing side. Players can then be rested for some games, while being available for others.

As the 1990’s began, several rule changes led to even more increases in the pace of the game. Some were simple improvements such as requiring players to leave the field if they were injured rather than wait for a trainer to come on and treat them. That meant less time for stoppages in play, and therefore less time for players to take a breather, grab a quick drink, and have a few words of advice from the manager. Other than that, FIFA directed referees to be more liberal with yellow cards for players wasting time by delaying throw-ins, goal-kicks, and so on. Other minor changes also had an effect, such as the gradual changes in the offside rule. At first, it had to be at least two defending players of the other team between the attacking player (not in his own half of the field) and the goal line, if the ball is behind him. This was modified to be “even with” the second last opposition player, to giving the benefit of the doubt to the attacking player, to not offside at all if “not interfering” with play.

One very important rule change probably did more than any other to increase the pace of the game. That was the elimination of the back-pass to the goalkeeper. If you happen to watch a pre-1990’s game, then you’ll see many instances where a player will pass the ball back to his goalkeeper to pick up and hold, and then put back into play. This tactic was frequently used to get a defensive player out of trouble if he was being chased by a speedy attacker, but could also be used as an effective method of wasting time. Any time a team had a lead of a goal or two, they could pass the ball back and forth, using the hands of the keeper as an option to safely keep possession while letting the clock tick away. The change in the back-pass rule now means that attacking players are more likely to chase defenders, knowing that they don’t have that “safe” option of passing to the safety of the ‘keeper’s hands. Defenders have to act more quickly to get themselves out of trouble and not lose possession.

The increasing pace of the game inevitably leads to a different emphasis in the type of players required for a complete squad. Along with that came a change in training methods. In the Shankly era, it was generally believed that there was nothing better than a good steak to build up a player for a tough match. That’s laughed at now with highly specialised and strictly controlled diets for players, which varies according to the demands of the day – either for training, relaxing, or playing. The result of these new methods is that good athletes become better athletes, and the tempo of the game is increased even more. It’s not humanly possible to maintain the level of play required in the modern game without running the risk of serious injuries. Precautions are thus taken to prevent problems before they begin by working on specific exercises to strengthen specific muscles, as well as regulating the amount of exertion required through the season. By doing this, the player can keep up the pace for a full ninety minutes while the opposition players are starting to tire. Games are often won or lost in the last quarter of an hour, which shows how important it is for a player to be able to last the entire match.

Ian St. John claimed in an interview a couple of years ago that his 1960’s team would “murder” the current squad, simply because of how physically tough they were compared to today’s players. That’s yet another one of those statements that can never be proven or refuted, and so it leads to all sorts of hypothetical arguments. What we do know is that the pace of the game is so much faster now than it was in the Saint’s day. Just look at the 2006 FA Cup Final compared to the 1965 version. Or, watch the early European Cup finals compared to recent ones. In both cases the earlier one often looks like it’s being played in slow motion compared to the more recent one. But why is that? Surely it’s not because the players back then were not athletic as well as tough. The truth is that the modern game has changed drastically over the past forty years to the extent that it is not the same game. Players are expected to be more athletic, often in preference to toughness.

Beyond that, it’s not humanly possible to maintain the level of mental alertness required in the modern game without periods of rest. The more successful a team these days, the more games they play in various cup competitions, and for those fortunate enough to be involved in Europe that includes extensive travel between games. Mental fatigue is as equally problematic as physical fatigue, and can be just as easily responsible for poor results from a team. A team like Liverpool can expect to play roughly sixty competitive games in a season in all competitions, with several players also putting in additional travel and playing time with their national teams. We saw some of the effects of this two seasons ago when we just couldn’t win in the Premiership after a midweek Champions League match. But, on the positive side, we have often seen how teams that start the season off strongly start to fade away towards the end. The importance of player rotation shows itself toward the closing stages of the season where teams with fit players are able to maintain the pace. Liverpool have known of the importance of that since the Shankly era, and have always been known as slow to start but strong in the finish. Just looking back at last season’s FA Cup final, and comparing the number of games we played compared to West Ham, and then adding in the amount of travel, plus the World Cup qualifiers, shows why we were being outplayed for the first part of the match. But, the benefit of the modern methods was shown toward the end of that same match, with Liverpool finishing stronger and going on to win.

When Rafa first went to Valencia to take over the manager’s job, the supporters, the press, and the Valencia board were sceptical of this “rotation” system that the new manager insisted on using. The critics were quiet at the end of his first season when they picked up their first La Liga trophy in over 30 years in May of 2002. The system proved itself again with another La Liga title plus the UEFA Cup in 20004. The true significance and effectiveness of Rafa’s rotation system came during his second season in charge. Valencia were now defending champions in La Liga, as well as competing in the Champions League. Paco Ayesteran, Valencia’s fitness trainer (now at Liverpool with Rafa), agreed that the workload of games should be shared out if they were to be competing in the final third of the competition, where those teams who make it that far with reserves of energy have the best chance of winning. We all have painful memories of that season’s group stage, as we were drawn in the same group as Valencia, Basel, and Spartak Moscow. The end of the round saw us go to the UEFA cup while Valencia took the group easily with five wins and a draw. All of that success for Valencia was achieved effectively from the bench in each match as Rafa adapted his team performance and controlled the tempo of the game to suit each occasion. That was our first lesson in how much better they were than us, which was entirely due to the manager and his methods.

Since his arrival at Liverpool, Rafa has taken much of the same criticism as he did in his early days at Valencia. As far as I’m concerned, there’s nothing to prove and no arguments to be made. In just five years under Rafa, Valencia won two league championships and a UEFA Cup, followed by a Champions League trophy and the FA Cup with Liverpool. Can we seriously question the man’s methods with such a record of success? Or, should we go back to the “good old days” of the Liverpool sides of the 1970’s and 80’s? When Liverpool were looking for a new manager in 2004, they easily decided on Rafa Benitez because of his methods as much as for his success. Liverpool have always said that “no player is bigger than the club” which Rafa reiterated as “no player is indispensable, although some are more important than others.” From Bill Shankly to Rafa Benitez, the secret to Liverpool’s success has always been to build a “system” and then select the players to suit the system, not the other way around. As players leave, as they inevitably will, new players are brought in that will fit that system. In that sense, the system of rotation used by Rafa has come around by a natural evolution, not so much by a revolution. Let me close the circle of debate by leaving you with a quote from a section from “Rafa Benitez”, a biography by Paco Lloret:

Valencia showed enormous fortitude. They had a style of their own though comparisons were being sought in the spring of 2004. In an informal chat, Benitez admitted what some observers had already commented on publicly: his side’s great similarity to that crushing Liverpool team of the late 1970’s and early 1980’s – a side which dominated Europe with authority, through its power and its balance as a group rather than through the brilliance of individual players.

Kevin Keegan was to leave after Liverpool’s first European Cup win, to be replaced by Kenny Dalglish; two excellent players, but the team excelled because of its collective responsibility. It was a side which swallowed up its opponents, left nothing to chance and had no weak points. The apparent simplicity of their game unnerved their opponents, and they could withstand a physical battle without falling apart. Hostile venues didn’t affect them and with the support of their fans at Anfield they were capable of overcoming any side. When they put their foot on the gas, nobody could beat them. All the pieces were important; Phil Neal, the right full-back could score, as could the elegant central defender Alan Hansen. In midfield they worked enthusiastically, Souness, McDermott and company, and the men up front took part in every move as well as contributing goals, the lanky Ian Rush, and before him Steve Heighway, and so on.

Benitez’s multi-faceted Valencia were similar, with a solidarity which relied on no one individual … Getting to that threshold wasn’t a question of luck, nothing was left to chance. This was the fruit of systematic work, meticulous planning and the commitment of all the players, with the hunger for glory – the mentality of champions.

That’s good enough for me! No questions no arguments, no debate! I’m content to leave it all to Rafa and his staff to work their way toward what we all want – success.

What do you think? Give Keith your comments at Keith [at] lfcvancouver.com.